Jump to content
Mr Sardar

Does The 9Th Guru Profess To Being A Hindu?

Recommended Posts

Sher

You talk a lot of gibberish.

It's like you are so insecure about your own identity that you need to try and attack others identity (which you are doing feebly by the way).

I don't see any intelligent point in what you are saying.

You seem to be implying that Sikhs are essentially Hindus as if this is a clearly definable category. Then when Sikhs tell you they are not, you go mental.

Your arguments are all over the place with no coherence. How is any intelligent person supposed to take you seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk a lot of gibberish.

I don't see any intelligent point in what you are saying.

Your arguments are all over the place with no coherence.

Dally, I am not surprised by your lack of grasp of Sher's points. He makes many valid points which have been obscured by all the khand-laced history you been feeding on. Good luck with that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have issues with hikeekat Bhagat. Your statement is ridiculous, I've posted and tried to translate a world of things most sugar coated merchants would be livid about.

I'd say people like yourself and Sher, because of torn loyalties between Sikhi and their pre-Sikh ancestral heritage, can't deal with the way Sikhi forged a new direction - most conspicuously in social order, even if it did heavily use traditional Indic metaphors and language.

So you do this weird thing of trying reconfigure Sikhi so that it fits in with both systems creating a self-contradictory mash up.

A Sikhi that seems confused about whether to uphold or discard the varna system in your case.

With Sher, anything Khalsa has him having a fit. Sikhi is essentially Hindu, which is ridiculous because Sikhi is infinitely more defined that the aforementioned octopus. Overlap between the two gets overblown and it's made out that Sikhi has nothing new to offer to traditional Indic beliefs.

At ground level, if you get 100 random Sikh guys and a hundred random Hindu guys, you'd clearly see a world of difference between them. I'm cool with most Hindus (apart from the anti-SIkh ones) but you can tell by the way some Sikhs got ready to defend their Gurdwara when the recent mass riots happened in England (when the pigs shot that black guy), in comparison to Hindu reactions visa vis their own Mandirs the difference in mindset between the two communities. The impulse behind the Sikh reaction was a legacy of GGS and his Khalsa. Don't even try that weak ksyattria bullshit, because I didn't see ANY Hindu ksyhattris soormay organising and getting ready to physically defend their places of worship. I saw sullay guarding their mosques though.

Essentially you're deluding yourself Bhagat and the problem is your wild imagination:

Now whilst this characteristic may be a serious asset in the creative field of art, when it comes to trying to analyse history you go overboard with the creativity and imagine all sorts of tenuous (I'm being kind here) connections. You're trying to sail with each foot in a different boat which is going to come to grief sooner or later for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was not clear then let me clarify, my loyalty is to the valuables founds in the poems of Guru Granth Sahib.

You talk a lot of gibberish.

I don't see any intelligent point in what you are saying.

Your arguments are all over the place with no coherence.

I know you like to take things off topic so let me bring you back to this. The fact that you are saying this to someone who has presented many valid points means you never understood what they said in the first place. And since you haven't understood those points, your arguments fail to address those points.

I am not going to discuss anything until you get this sorted out. Discussions can only take place between people who can understand each other, otherwise it is just throwing words at each other. I am up for snowball fights but not word fights. Words need to be understood not thrown around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was not clear then let me clarify, my loyalty is to the valuables founds in the poems of Guru Granth Sahib.

If this is true, why do you use BN to prop up your lame 'Khatri theory' then?

I know you like to take things off topic so let me bring you back to this. The fact that you are saying this to someone who has presented many valid points means you never understood what they said in the first place. And since you haven't understood those points, your arguments fail to address those points.

Sher tauntingly asked for something done outside of normal tradition by the Gurus, I pointed out the Khande Amrit ceremony which essentially broke all taboos about sharing food across caste. He didn't bother respond.

That's the thing with both of you; when your lame theories get challenged you simply ignore it. Or in your case start twisting things up even more to hold your theory together.

I am not going to discuss anything until you get this sorted out. Discussions can only take place between people who can understand each other, otherwise it is just throwing words at each other. I am up for snowball fights but not word fights. Words need to be understood not thrown around.

I'm not fussed about discussing with you because you chat a lot of shit anyway, but stubbornly persist even when you should flush your ideas down the toilet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Easy guys, take a deep breath. I know i m not good example to dictate - take it easy since i recently lost it too with sher..lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's cool Neo.

Me an Bhagat can have banter like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is true, why do you use BN to prop up your lame 'Khatri theory' then?

Here's the formula.

Step 1 read BN (or other related material)

Step 2 ask super duper awesome friend BhagatSingh, who is like totally an awesome doode. good looking too with his long hair and soft beard... A1... first class even... B)

Step 3 Listen attentively.

Step 4 Find a silent place

Step 5 Contemplate theory

Step 6 Generate counter-arguments

Step 7 Go to forums and present those arguments

Step 8 Remain Calm while waiting for response

Step 9 Go to step 3

Sher tauntingly asked for something done outside of normal tradition by the Gurus, I pointed out the Khande Amrit ceremony which essentially broke all taboos about sharing food across caste. He didn't bother respond.

There can be no response to made up stuff. Food was shared across castes before khanda amrit. There was charan amrit, there was langar (it was not called langar at this time), both of which were present before the 10 gurus.

The initiation of a sikh involved immersing the guru's feet in water, and giving this water to all the sikhs. Many of these sikhs would stay with the guru in an ashram (the guru's house) and they would eat/drink/bathe there. Brahmins started having mixed caste congregations way before Guru Ramanand.

It's only now we look back that and try to portray it as horribly as we can so we can call ourselves progressive. We attack the previous generation(s) and try to find as many faults as we can and show off our own intelligence. We brag.

That's the thing with both of you; when your lame theories get challenged you simply ignore it. Or in your case start twisting things up even more to hold your theory together.

Well if you think you challenged anything you did a poor job of it.

I'm not fussed about discussing with you because you chat a lot of shit anyway, but stubbornly persist even when you should flush your ideas down the toilet.

But you love hearing it man! On the inside you are like "Gimme more! tell me about 'brahmin theory' and 'vaishya theory' and even some of that 'shudra theory' as well." ;)

Edited by BhagatSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
never abandoned their forefathers' faith which is called Hindu dharam in Sikh scriptures. No such termas Sikh Dharam in Sikh scriptures.

Utter bullocks, any scholar or theological researcher will laugh at this argument.
What is hindu dharam ? Hind is place or demographics which has close to 120+ sects/school of thoughts scattered all over the place. You cannot even define it.
What is hindu dharam?
Define it? Is it vaishanvas? or is it shaiv? or is it advaita? or is it shakat? or is their sub orders? or is it 12 yogic school of thoughts? or is it matts of sidhas? or gorakhnath? or is it monis? or is it bhramin/khatri superamist cultural crap? or is it hindu bhramin nationalist crap rss goes on about want to go totaly against Muslims at the expense of miniorities?
What is it? Even vedas/snatan manuscripts don't even mention hindu term in their scriptures, ironically it mentions sikh(shish) which shows sikh is more ancient term than hindu and there is no organized thing as hindu dharam as it referred to people from hind demographics just like there is no organized thing as turkh dharam or turkistan its referred to people from turk demographics.
Have you paid close attention why guru maharaj has used key term -turk in same breath or same sentence as hindu or hindu? It's reffering to demographics rather than mat with theological organized framework.
Let me guess now what you going to say to recongnize vedas authority? If you want to play vedas card game, We acknowledge previous vedas but they are not our authority, as satguru nanak dev nirankar gave us ultimate complete vedas/vedant- 5th veda its called sri guru granth sahib ji- starting itself from essence of everything- japji sahib..japji sahib itself has everything including mahavaks (ant of four vedas) instead of starting of 68,000 shaloks of karam kaad- empty rituals in previous four vedas , and at the end yes esoteric knowledge of self 20,000 shaloks of gyan of atma-paratma
Our mahavak mangal - Ik0ngkar Satigurparsad which comes close roughly 1000+ times in sikh scriptures- satguru granth sahib ji is dedicated to only one akaal purkh - Ikongkar and its not dedicated towards avtars - leaving no place for confusion that ultimately we don't worship any avtars only one akaal purkh vahiguroo,,,so as far as we are concerned if you want to keep playing this silly game- tell your superiors to rise above from murti pooja and recognize ultimate authority of vedas which is sri guru granth sahib ji, sri dasam guru granth sahib and acknowledge socio-economic outer religious importance of five kakars symbolic and physical attributes to be complete in all aspects.
Everything has its place and time- your bhramin ancestory symbol jaineu couldn't save you from mughal oppression, it was only kirpan- shakti transcendent and fully personfied by sri guru gobind singh ji which saved your ancestory from mughal sunaitism.
And then we have ungrateful hindu bhramin bunch have audacity to lobby against sikh kirpan in jealously, let me guess sikh kirpan was conveinently ok when khalsa saved honor of their ancestor daughters in the past ? But somehow not ok now? what a bunch of ungrateful fud du panthis.
I know people are jealous and thats why made all attempts to destroy us in the past, we take a full piss on bhramin superamist idealogy and give full rights to everyone, treat all the same.
We are there to bankrupt supermaist fascist idealogy of any kind, awake sheeps of all kinds by invoking their real saroopa of lion/Khalsa.
Khalsa is third way-tessra complete dharam panth whether crying randis like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Vedas , Puraans , Smritis do not mention Hindu as their identity then it is just a waste of time to prove hindu identity . Hindu is a national identity . Yes the Gurus have given the reference to this word time and again because that was the word understood as a common identity for anything Indian.

The Khalsa cannot be the same because it was not meant to be the same. Yes we have deep ties and more common to Vedic vichaar than the buddhists or the jains however as the Uggardanti mentions Teesar Panth Pravesa. That it shall be .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hindu retains its original Arabic meaning of a non-Muslim indigenous to the area past the Sind (i.e. a simple geographical reference), then Sikhs are Hindus. References to Sikhs as Hindus in early sources by outsiders (i.e. Mogul emperors) and from internal sources can be understood in this way.

But, if we try to apply an understanding of the term; which appears to have been used as an umbrella term to cover a whole range of practices, then Sikhs are certainly not Hindus.

The Sikh deviation from Hindu norms were noticeably perceived by Banda Singh Bahadhur's contemporaries as mentioned in Persian manuscripts, Jang Namah explicitly records an outsider opinion that Sikhs are a different community to the Hindus. Later the British were also of the same opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the "internal sources" matter the most. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that Gurus left Hinduism and 'established' a new religion. If that was true, ALL of the Gurus and their progenies would not have followed each and every Hindu reet (e.g. marriage, cremation, dress, food...everything),

All information that can shed light on a subject is pertinent. Even if you took your own above argument, the use of internally generated rahit-namas point at a separate consciousness and lifestyle from others on part of the Sikhs.

I'm not saying that overlap between things considered Hindu and Sikh doesn't exist; it does. But then using your logic, by pointing out perceptibly Islamic or Persian terminology used in Sikhi someone could argue that Sikhi is a form of Islam (something a few people have tried to assert).

Where is the khande ceremony in Hinduism?

Is a dastaar a Hindu dress, did Muslims not wear them? What about the reverence to steel - where is that in Hinduism?

Are you suggesting the Gurus were against mixed caste-marriages by your assertion? Would they make it a point of religion to prevent these?

Hindus and Sikhs would not have fought as one unit in each and every battle against common enemy;

Why are you whitewashing the fact that the Guru's early battles were with Hindus?

Guru Gobnd Singhji would not have gone to a Hindu to avenge his humiliations,

The humiliation was all of Indias', especially the so-called 'warrior caste' who stood by impotently as invader after invader came, saw, conquered, looted, raped and took away daughters and mothers as booty. GGS instigated the movement that most successfully countered this - Khalsa not Hindooism.

H&S would not have continued to intermarry, eat food from one bowl and drink water from one glass or cremate their dead together from one shamshan, or use the same names, same theology... i can go on or simply ask my detractors to point out the differences.

This is a gross over-simplification isn't it. Relationships are different across jaats in terms of HS relations.

that said, if Sikhs want to have a separate religion, good luck to them but stop dragging gurus and their bani to justify this neo-sikh socio-political garbage.

Why worry about what Sikhs are doing when you've got cows to worry about?

Nah, Sikhi has a very strong socio-political reform element to it based on a concept of egalitarianism that is largely missing from Hindooism, this will come into realisation in future.

Besides why you Hindoos so obsessed with that we do?? It's strange!!??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You are taking video out of context, you have to understand circumstances around when sant ji finally mentioned one of hindu meaning by arabi after sikhs being oppressed by hindu bhramin country and there are plenty anaylsis on word hindu- hindu is not religion it belongs to indic demographics. Read the article below:

What is the meaning of "Hindu"?

- Baldev Singh

Introduction

In his column “Who is a Hindu? Who is not?” published in the India Tribune (September 28, 2002), Mr. Niranjan Shah made the assertion that like Jains and Buddhists, Sikhs are also Hindus. In my response, I pointed out that Guru Nanak rejected all the essentials of Hinduism; therefore, it is absurd to regard Sikhs as Hindus and Sikhism as a sect or an offshoot of Hinduism. Besides, I made brief comments on the meaning of the word Hindu. But the India Tribune editor published only a small portion of my response and omitted the bulk of the article and the comments on the meaning of the word Hindu. Later, I published the article on SikhSpectrum.com, November 2003 under the heading “ Indian Media and Minorities.” Recently, I received feedback from readers suggesting that I should edit and revise my previous article to further clarify this subject.


It is regrettable that a vast majority of Indians fail to know that the word Hindu is not recorded in any of the so-called Hindu scriptures like Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana and Puranas etc. However, pseudo-historians as well as the Hindutva zealots claim that the word “Hindu” is a corrupted version of “Sindhu”, the ancient name for the river Sindh (Indus) that currently originates in India and flows through Pakistan. And mind boggling, absurd, and convoluted explanations are suggested to account for the phonetic disfiguration of “Sindhu” to “Hindu.”


Before I discuss this issue allow me to share with you some pertinent comments on this topic by other scholars:



1. Harjot Oberoi, The Construction of Religious Boundaries, Oxford University Press, 1994, p.16

That term was first used by the Achaemenid Persians to describe all those people who lived on or beyond the river Sindhu or Indus. Therefore, at one stage the word Hindu, as an ethno-geographic category, came to englobe all those who lived in India without any distinction.


2. V. Jayaram, “The Meaning, Definition and the Origin of the Word Hindu.” Taken from: www.hinduwebsite.com/hindu/h_meaning.asp

The word “Hindu” is not a Sanskrit word. It is not found in any of the thousands of native dialects and languages of India. Neither is it a religious word. It is a secular word whose origin is rooted in the language of ancient Persians, who supposedly said to have shared common ancestry with ancient Indians. It was practically unknown in India until the medieval period, although it was used in several countries outside the Indian subcontinent from earlier time. It is said that Persians who were familiar with the Indian subcontinent, used to refer to the Indus River as Shindu, a major river that still flows in the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent, partly in India and partly in Pakistan. However, due to language barrier, they could not pronounce the letter “S” correctly in their native tongue and mispronounced it as “H”. Thus for the ancient Persians the word “Shindu” became “Hindu”.


For a long time for the native Indians, the Indian subcontinent was Bharta, the land founded by the famous king Bharta, the progenitor of Bharta clan. Literally translated, the word “Bharta” meant lover of knowledge and the people inhabiting the land considered themselves as such. They believed the religion they followed was an eternal religion and called it as “sanatana dharma”, which meant the same.


It is interesting to know that the word “Hindu” is neither Sanskrit nor Dravidian and it did not originate in India.


3. Sita Ram Goel, “Appendix 3 – Meaning of the Word Hindu.” Taken from: www.voiceofdharma.com/books/htepmles2/app3.htm

A close study of literary and epigraphic sources shows that the word “Hindu” has appeared in our indigenous languages and popular parlance in a comparatively recent period, keeping in view the long span of our history. We do not find this word in any indigenous language prior to the establishment of Islamic rule in the thirteenth century. Even after that, the word was used rather sparsely in the local literature. Monier-Williams who compiled his famous dictionary from a large range of Sanskrit literature, could not find any indigenous root for this word. He says explicitly that the word is derived “from the Persian Hindu”. Dictionaries of all indigenous languages say the same. So also the dictionaries of European languages.


The word “Hinduism” has been added to our vocabulary at a still more recent stage. It has been contributed by the discipline of Indology in the modern West. And the word gained wide currency in this country simply because the leaders of our national reawakening in the second half of the nineteenth century espoused it as expressive of our national identity as well as our spiritual and cultural greatness. These leaders, down to Mahatma Gandhi, were not prepared to concede that Hinduism did not include Buddhism, or Jainism, or, for that matter, Sikhism.


Going back to the pre-Islamic period in our own country, we find that our ancestors shared in common a name for their homeland. That was Bhãratavar” which comprised at that time the present-day Seistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh. They also shared in common a name for the spiritual-cultural complex to which they subscribed. That was Sanãtana Dharma, which covered Brahmanism, Buddhism, Jainism, and also what is now known as Animism or tribal religion. But there is no evidence, literary or epigraphic, that they shared in common a name for themselves as a people. Some Purãnas say that “Bhãratavar” is the land of the bhãratî santatih. The expression, however, is found nowhere else in the vast literature which has come to us from those times. In any case, this much is quite certain that our ancestors in those times did not use the word “Hindu” for describing themselves collectively. Hiuen Tsang who visited this country between AD 630 and 645 says that while the word “Shin-tu” (Chine-se for “Hindu”) could be heard outside our borders, it was unknown within the country.


Of course, some scholars of Hindutva have tried to trace the word “Hindu” to Saptasindhu which is mentioned in the Rigveda on several occasions. They want this word to have an indigenous as well as an ancient ring. The intention is understandable. But the exercise has remained forced, if nor far-fetched. Firstly, it does not notice that the expression used in the Rigveda is not Saptasindhu but Saptasaindhvah. Secondly, it ignores the fact that the Rigveda is not quite clear whether the expression stands for a country, or for a people, or simply for seven rivers in the Punjab. The expression seems to mean different things in different contexts. Thirdly, it does not explain why the change from “Sindhu” to “Hindu” took such a long time to surface in our indigenous languages. Lastly, and more significantly, it has not taken into account the fact that our countrymen were never known as Hindus in Southeast Asia in the pre-Islamic period, although they had a large presence there since centuries before the birth of Christ. There is, therefore, no running away from the fact that the word “Hindu” occurs for the first time in the Avesta of the ancient Iranians who used this word for designating this country as well as its people. They did not have to coin this word out of thin air. It was simply their way of pronouncing the word “Sindhu”, the name of the mighty river which has always been a major landmark for travellers to this country from the north and the west. To start with, the word seems to have been used for provinces and the people in the vicinity of the Sindhu. But in due course, it was extended to cover all parts of this country and all its people. The word also spread to countries to the north and west of Iran. The ancient Greeks were quite familiar with the words “Indus” and “Indoi” - their way of pronouncing “Sindhu” and “Sindhîs”. The ancient Arabs, Turks (Sakas, KuSãNas, etc.), Mongolian (HûNas, Kirãtas, etc.) and the Chinese were also familiar with the word, sometimes in their own variations on it such as “Shin-tu”. It may thus be said that the word “Hindu” had acquired a national connotation, since the days of the Avesta, although in the eyes of only the foreigners. At the same time, it may be noted that the word was oblivious of the fact that “Hindus” were organized in numerous castes, and subscribed to many religious sects.


Discussion

Harjot Oberoi does not say why the Achaemenid Persians used the word Hindu to describe all people who lived on or beyond the river Sindhu or Indus. But both Jayaram and Goel assert that the Persians used the word Hindu because they mispronounced the word Shindu, as Hindu, due to phonetic difficulty. Further, they claim that the ancient name of the Indian-subcontinent was Bharta or Bhartavar and the religion of it people was eternal religion – “Snatana Dharma.” Notwithstanding the claims of these three authors, there is very little reliable information about the history of Indian subcontinent from ancient times to the Muslim conquest of Indian-subcontinent that started in the eighth century. Moreover, Indians did not write their history and whatever small information we have about ancient India comes from the writings of Greeks, Chinese, Muslims and Europeans.


First, there is no evidence that the Indian subcontinent was ever called Bharta or Bhartavar. Had it been so, its neighbors/foreigners would have called it Bharta or Bhartavar as these words are not difficult to pronounce. However, Bharatvarsha is the name of a mythical land described in an ancient text. Al-Biruni (973-1048/49 CE), the renowned Indologist came to India in the wake of the invading forces of Mahmud of Ghazni in the early eleventh century. He stayed many years in India studying Indian people, their religion, scriptures and culture. He used the word Bharta several times for the Epic Mahabharata and also writes about Bhartavarsha as:


In the book of the Rishi Bhuvnakosa we read that the inhabitable world stretches from Himavant towards the south, and is called Bharatvarsha, so called from a man Bharta, who ruled over them and provided them. The inhabitants of this oikumene [inhabited part of the earth] are those to whom alone reward and punishment in another life is destined. It is divided into nine parts, called Navakhanda-prathma, i. e. the primary nine parts. Between each two parts there is sea, which they traverse from one khanda to another. The breadth of the inhabitable world from north to south is 1000 yojana [Yojana is a Vedic measure of distance used in ancient India. The exact measurement is disputed amongst scholars with distances being given between 6 to 15 km (4 and 9 miles)].


By “Himavant” the author means the northern mountains, where the world, in consequence of the cold, ceases to be inhabitable. Therefore all civilization must of necessity be south of these mountains. His words, that the inhabitants are subject to reward and punishment, indicate that there are other people not subject to it. These beings he must either raise from the degree of man to that of angels, who, in consequence of the simplicity of the elements they are composed of and purity of their nature, never disobey a divine order, being always willing to worship; or must degrade them to the degree of irrational animals. According to him, therefore, there are no human beings outside the oikoumene (i.e. Bhatarvarsha).


Bharatvarsha is not India alone, as Hindus think, according to them their country is the world and their race the only race of mankind; for India is not traversed by an ocean separating one khanda from another. (Qeyamuddin Ahmad, Ed., India by Al-Biruni, National Book Trust , India, third reprint, 1995, pp. 134-35).


Second, it is preposterous for anyone to suggest that Persians could not pronounce the word “Sindhu.” In the Persian-Punjabi Dictionary there are about 58 pages of words that start with “S“ and “SH” in contrast to 33 of “H” words. In Punjabi language there are many Persian words of “S” and “SH” sounds. Moreover, the claim that the Persians pronounced “Sindhu” as “Hindu” or called the river and people who lived around it as “Hindu” does not explain why the river or the people who lived around it did not acquire the name “Hindu.” This river is still called Sindh and the people are called Punjabis and Sindhis. Nobody calls the state of Sindh as Hind or Sindhis as Hindis.


Similarly, the Greeks who explored river Sindh and its five tributaries had no problem pronouncing “H” and yet they chose to call the river and people as Indos or Indus: Indus or Indos (Sindh), Hydaspes (Jehlum), Akesines (Chenab), Hydroatis (Ravi), Hyphasis (Satluj) and Hesidros (Beas). It seems as if these are the names of the explorers. It is the word “Indus/Indos” that later on was used by the Europeans to coin the word “India” for the subcontinent.


Meaning

It is intriguing that the three authors cited above have not commented on the meaning of the word “Hindu” in spite of the fact that the titles of Jayaram’s and Goel’s articles imply discussion of “origin” as well as “meaning” of Hindu. Why didn’t they explain the meaning of the word “Hindu”? Is it because the word Hindu is a derogatory epithet/label? However, a few Hindu writers who have looked at the meaning of “Hindu” with a critical eye have no hesitation in saying that it is indeed a derogatory word. Two examples will suffice here:


1. R. N. Suryanarayan, in Universal Religion, pages 1-2, (published from Mysore in 1952) commented:


The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this [brahminland], a vast continent like country, and therefore, they have contended themselves by calling it by that meaningless term “Hindu.”


This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means “the black of the sky and Saturn.”


In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.


2. Lala Lajpat Rai, Ed., in his introduction of Maharishi Shri Dayanand Sarswati Aur Unka Kaam, Lahore, 1898, said:


Some people, according to the author, say that this word Hindu is a corrupt form of Sindhu but this is wrong because Sindhu was the name of the river and not the name of the community. Moreover, it is correct that this name has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves.


Further, in addition to “black” and “slave”, Persian and Urdu dictionaries describe other demeaning or contemptuous meaning of “Hindu”:


Persian Dictionary - Lughet-e-Kishwari, Lucknow, 1964: chore (thief), dakoo (dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave).


Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat, part 1, p. 615: Turkish: chore, raahzan and lutera (looter); Persian: ghulam (slave), barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black).


Persian-Punjabi Dictionary (Punjabi University Patiala): native of Indian subcontinent, dacoit, waylayer, thief, slave, black, idol, beloved.


Origin

The word “Hindu” is at least as old as Hindu Kush, the mountain range that separates Afghanistan from Pakistan (Indian subcontinent). Hindu Kush means killers of Hindus. Who were the people who named this mountain range as “killer of Hindu” and who were “Hindus”? To understand these questions we have to go back to the times of Indus Valley civilization. Before the conquest and destruction of Indus Valley civilization by the so-called Aryans (nomadic Caucasian tribes from central Asia) around 1500-2000 B.C., the Indian subcontinent was inhabited by various dark complexioned clans/ tribes (Advasis). It is not known what name they used for Indus Valley or the Indian subcontinent or for themselves. However, generally, they are known as Dravar (Dravidians) people. The Indus Valley was inhabited by Dravidians whereas nomadic fair-skinned Caucasians tribes/clans lived on the north side of Hindu Kush. The Caucasians used the word “Hindu” meaning “black” for the Indus Valley people. Northward expansion of Indus Valley people was prevented by Hindu Kush Mountains. Whenever the Indus Valley people (Hindus) attempted to cross these mountains, they met death due to the harsh terrain and heavy snow. This is how these mountains were given the name Hindu Kush by Caucasian tribes.


Now, why is the word “Hindu” missing in the religious texts of the conquerors and destroyers of Indus Valley? The reason is quite obvious: like all conquerors throughout the world, the so-called Aryans did not mention the word (Hindu) in their texts in order to wipe out the history (identity) of their victims. Even in modern India, for the Hindu intelligentsia, especially in north India, the history of the Indian subcontinent begins from the Vedic period after the destruction of Indus Valley civilization, one of the most advanced among ancient civilizations. On the other hand Persians continued to refer to the Indus valley as “Waihind”, habitat of Hindus or “Hind Baar”, land of Hindus. Moreover, during that time the word “Hindu” was a reference to the skin color of the Indus Valley people, not in any demeaning sense. The word “Hindu” acquired contemptuous meaning after the conquest of India by Muslims.


The so-called Aryans called their victims (Hindus) by contemptuous names like: daasa (slave), dasyu (thief, dacoit, robber, villain, tyrant), dushta (villain, wicked), chandala (outcaste, merciless, untouchable), asura (devil), naga (serpent), raksa (cannibal/monster) and choar (cor, thief). It is noteworthy that choar (chor) in Sanskrit has the same derogatory meaning as Hindu in Persian: thief, thug, robber, dacoit, and waylayer.


Further, to humiliate the native people (Hindus), the Caucasians ridiculed their culture, looks, and their black complexion. It is astonishing that these derogatory expressions have survived through thousands of years of Indian history and are found in modern Indian languages. “Blackness” (or kaala) is used in bad connotation in northern Indian languages. For example, in Punjabi, there are expressions like kaala munh (black mouth, ugly), kaali jeebh (who speaks ill) kaala dhandha (illegal profession), kaala dhan (black money), kaali bhaid (black sheep), kalai laikh (black deeds) and kaala chum (black skinned person). There are also expressions like bandar munhan (monkey face) and rish jeha (bear-like), which the Caucasians used to describe the features of native Indians (Hindus). In Ramayana, the two native devotees of Shri Ram Chandar are depicted as a monkey (Hanuman) and a bear (Jamawant).


Persians and Arabs called the Indian subcontinent “Hindustan” and its people Hindus. In his compositions recorded in the Aad Guru Granth Sahib, Guru Nanak also used the words “Hindustan” and “Hindu” for the Indian subcontinent and its people, respectively. It is only after their conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Muslims started using the word “Hindu” in a demeaning manner.


Conclusion

Persians and other Caucasian tribes called the Indus Valley people “Hindus” and their country “Waihind”, or “Hind Baar.” Muslims used the word “Hindu” in a demeaning manner after establishing their rule over Hindus. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, Hindu intellectuals, product of British education, invented neo-Hinduism and fabricated history to support the mythical glorious ancient Hindu civilization. The convoluted interpretation of the word “Hindu” by modern Hindus is nothing more than a “fabrication of history.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giddar reads this shabad:The One Lord, the Lord of the World, is my God Allah

He adminsters justice to both Hindus and Muslims

I do not make pilgrimages to Mecca, nor do I worship at Hindu sacred shrines.

I serve the One Lord, and not any other.

I do not perform Hindu worship services, nor do I offer the Muslim prayers.

I have taken the One Formless Lord into my heart; I humbly worship Him there.

I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim.

My body and breath of life belong to Allah - to Raam - the God of both.

Says Kabeer, this is what I say:

meeting with the Guru, my Spiritual Teacher, I realize God, my Lord and Master.

Giddar reaches this conclusion

My point is - Gurus (Including GTB) never abandoned their forefathers' faith which is called Hindu dharam in Sikh scriptures.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Tin te sun Siri Tegh Bahadur

Dharam nibaahan bikhe Bahadur Uttar bhaniyo, dharam hum Hindu
Atipriya ko kin karen nikandu Lok parlok ubhaya sukhani
Aan napahant yahi samani Mat mileen murakh mat loi
Ise tayage pramar soi Hindu dharam rakhe jag mahin
Tumre kare bin se it nahin

~ Guru Tegh Bahadur's reply to Aurangzeb's ordering him to embrace Islam.
(In response, Shri Tegh Bahadur says, My religion is Hindu and how can I abandon what is so dear to me? This religion helps you in this world and that, and only a fool would abandon it. God himself is the protector of this religion and no one can destroy it.)

Your hypocrisy is hilarious dude.When someone mentioned gurbilas patshahi 10 as the source GGSjis raj karega khalsa quote you snapped and were foaming at the mouth because it wasnt from GGSjis own works yet now you cite the suraj prakash for GTBji allegedly said.On one hand we got gurbilas patshahi 10 which written by someone who lived in almost the same time period as GGSji some who became a khalsa through Bhai Mani Singh Ji someone who would certainly know what Guru Gobind Singh said or didnt say and on the other hand you got a quote written in a volume almost 200 years after the time of GTBji which experts also say is a quote that has been edited into later versions of the volume.You are a joke.

Yes, this hate-mongering demagogue knew everything. what a pathetic video you have selected Neo. disgusting language by a disgusting man.

If you and the other scum who share your delusions were even half the men he was this world would be a much better place

IMO, the "internal sources" matter the most. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that Gurus left Hinduism and 'established' a new religion. If that was true, ALL of the Gurus and their progenies would not have followed each and every Hindu reet (e.g. marriage, cremation, dress, food...everything)

These are cultural things nothing more if guru nanak dev ji came to earth in the americas sikhi would have aspects of native american culture if they were born in the arab world it would have aspects of arab culture etc it is obvoius that sikhs would have some cultural simularities with hindus since they both are religions of the sub continent

what are you trying to prove here? whatever it is, you have failed as Hari appears 8344 times in Granth sahib and Ram 2533 times, Gopal (Sustainer of the Earth = Krishna) 491 times, Gobind (The One Who takes care of the Earth = Krishna) 475 times, Prabhu 1371 times.

Those are all different names used to refer to the one god here is the proof Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider.Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath (Sri Raam Chandar) and the Wondrous Lord. Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction.One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere (God), while the other is contained only in himself (Sri Raam Chandar). Ang 1374

even if you use ALL the information available , you would fail miserably to establish that Gurus engineered anything to separate Sikhs from their HIndu brethren. From Baba Nanak to the 10th Gurus, Sikh scriptures talk about only two faiths Hinduism and Islam. Na Hum Hindu na hum muslim...didn't mean automatically that we are Sikhs.

This is laughable I cant believe your using the na hum hindu na hum musalman quote to try prove your point that the gurus never said or did anything to seperate sikhs from hindus not that id expect anything else from a snake such as yourself

who fought for Sikhi and Khalsa eventually? a Hindu warrior Banda bahadur! Why Guru would go to a Hindu if he considered them separate from Sikhs/Khalsa?... when Guru had to goto banda bahadur and who formed a fauz from among today's haryanvi Hindus?... mata Sundari betraying Banda bahadur (leading to his and 700 sikhs killing) is another.

Would you stop with the Hindu fascist bs already because no one is buying it.Banda Singh Bahadur became a khalsa and Guru Gobind Singh ji ordered him to fight for Sikhi. I guess you know more about what Banda Singh though of himself as than Banda did considering how at his own execution he admitted to the mistake of not obeying Guru Gobind Singh Jis orders by creating the bandai khalsa and said that god has not been unjust to him in any way. Some on this forum may think of me as naive for having the khalistan avatar but the reason I have it is that so nobody has any palekhey about were I stand and how I see things but what about you? Why are you mincing your words Ive seen some of the disgusting things hindus with the exact same views as you have written about mata sundari ji why dont you tell us what your really thinking why dont you speak like you do outside this forum why dont you show us the hate you have in your heart for sikhs.

Good thing there are plenty of great hindu punjabis out there so I dont have a negative view of your entire community I know that the majority of hindus are not treacherous ungrateful cowards like you

Edited by ThunderousDominater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a whole chand in Jaap Sahib using Islamic terminology to describe God; Sikhs must be Muslim then....

There's another perspective, one that is very unorthodox (and probably going to be unpopular with some brothers) but should be expressed anyway:

Sher talks about Sikhs changing like it is some sort of aberration but then totally ignores the same thing amongst Hindus.

Look at Hindus today. When I go work they are there eating food cooked by whites in a canteen (when this would've traditionally meant a breaking of their beloved caste). They drink in pubs. You go to Guyana, Trinidad, Jamaica and they are there (originally taken there as indentured slaves by Europeans) and have intermixed with the descendants of the African slaves.

When we look at their caste roles, very few of them (if any) follow their 'dharam' in this respect.

My point is that the Hindoo today is a very different creature to the Hindoo of yesteryears. We do not live in a bubble; external and internal forces create dynamic situations which compel change and adaption. No individual or society is immune to it. If this is the case, why single out Sikhs for something that we can see in your own society?

Did Hindus not reinterpret and invent scriptures along the passage of time as suited their needs and understanding? Look at the differences between the Vedas and Upanishads. Look at how Manusmitri tried to calcify society at a moment in time when it would have been to his own and family's advantage to preserve the status quo. One of the key factors which led to a jumped up hereditary 'warrior caste' that couldn't quite fulfill its role. Do you know how many Mogul emperors had Rajput bitches given away by their fathers. What about the Hindu blood in Mr. Taliban himself - Aurengzaab? You talk as if Sikhs were made to protect Hindus. Are you serious? Are Hindus (a massive community) that pathetic that they are incapable of defending themselves?

That the Sikh way of life was an alternative to other paths around is obvious. Otherwise there would have been no need for its emergence; that time with its natural pushes and pulls (as alluded to above) has had effects on Sikhs - just like it has on Hindus, Muslims and Christians or Jews (and everyone else!) is nothing unusual; that many Sikhs have followed the impulse for self definition further than those before them is natural too. Scots have been British for a long while, they are now on the potential cusp of leaving that banner. You can use that analogy for Sikhs. Given our growing diaspora a large segment of Sikhs are rapidly losing their connection with the subcontinent for various reasons. I'm one of them. In time the link will be further weakened. The only link I can perceive in future is a tourist one, where descendants of todays diaspora may want to visit Harmandir Sahib, Anandpur etc. but given that Sikhi doesn't place any great importance on pilgrimages like other faiths do, even this is conjectural. Then we have the whole angle of conversions of nonIndic people to consider as well.

Sikhs are changing. Hindus are changing. Stop crapping yourself about it.

Get a life.

Try and focus on doing something about the half naked, starved children running around in India instead of obsessing about Sikhs. It would be a much better use of your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Khushwant singh once famously said, if you want to remove 'hindu influence' from the sikh granths, you would be left with just the jacket of the book.

Let's get this straight. You've turned a self-confessed agnostic/atheist into some authority on Sikhi...

One that is unabashedly sycophantic to the Gandhi dynasty at that. Try harder.

I would repeat what i said earlier and in very clear words, Sikhism is a separate religion today and sikhs have got every right to push for their separate identity.

That said, what i have been stressing is, the Gurus did not want it this way. They did not intend to have a totally separate faith where Hinduism and its deities icons are ridiculed everyday from every gurdwara in one way or the another. You start ardas with a form of Om (ik onkar) and then proceed to do simran of Bhagauti.. avatars of bhagauti are then ridiculed by katha vachaks/parcharks.

This does not mean I am a Bhagauti/kali/chandi/durga bhagat. I am totally indifferent to the spirituality behind Bhagauti simran or parroting a book from medieval days.I believe in humanity as preached by Baba Nanak and other bhagats and even modern day humanists. I am pointing out the idiocy of those who indulge in such iconoclasm.

Well let me rid of you a serious misapprehension you obviously have. All Gurdwaras aren't ridiculing Hinduism and its deities everyday like you contend. What this does highlight however, is your own brainwashing. Ironically you are spewing a Hindu version of what you are complaining about. Some Gurdwaras are Khalistani, some aren't. Even some of the Khalistani ones I've been to don't do what you are saying. You've obviously had your own head filled with rubbish.

Not all Hindus follow casteism. same with worshipping 'idols' (including books). I may be an atheist but Hinduism accepts me as I am. no excommunication for me :)

Not required to keep my eyebrows un-trimmed to be considered a Hindu by some semi-literate Takht qazi. How about you? who is more karam kandi, much more obsessed with useless external features. keeping long hair makes someone a better sikh (forget better human being)? how ridiculous is that.

So you're an atheist now? Yesterday you were a Nanakpanthi; today you don't believe in God. A Hindu telling anyone in the world about karamkands is a clown. Look closer to home and resolve your own issues in this department before you even think of pointing at others.

who is singling out Sikhs of modern day and for what? i am taking about what is the real history and what is written in the Sikh granths. sikhs have got every bloody right to say they are NOT Hindus but, my ONLY point is Gurus did not write the master plan of such sikhi.

What makes you an authority on Sikh history and scripture over me?

Not a correct analogy and not a 'honest' thing to do too. why you would like to change what Gurus said to suit your needs and understanding which take you further away from, say, Baba Nanak's Sikhi. Is it your need to exclude all sehajdhari from Sikhi? well, Sikhs have done exactly that. Do you agree with such exclusive and rigid definition of Sikhi?

It is a perfect analogy that highlights the completely bullshit position of Hindus who complain about perceived Sikh 'changes' whilst failing to look at the drastic changes in their own scriptures and living. You can keep at your cheap strategy of trying to castigate Sikhs because of the actions of wannabe Brahmin Jat dogs in Sikh political institutions like the SGPC today, but that doesn't detract from the fact that Sikhs aren't tied to them like Hindoos are tied to Brahmins.

Plus who has manipulated Sikh politics in post independence India and help create the ugly beast you talk about. Hindu politicians in Delhi. But that doesn't excuse the shameless selling out of Hogis in Amritsar.

The same as Khalsa (forget Sikhs before them). the defeats they faced fighting as exclusive khalsa forces far outnumber the victories tasted by them. A non-khalsa (Banda Bahadur) had to restore some respect to Khalsa but he too was betrayed.

That's your obviously motivated interpretation. But even if we entertain it for arguments sake, it doesn't take away from the truth that Banda Singh subordinated himself to GGS on meeting him and undertook his instructions; even if he did deviate from them later on.

Needless insult and the fact is that even lowly Brit officials had Sikh wives. Sikhs were never ruling over Kingdoms in Mughals days (and did not exist before them) so no question of giving their "bitches" away. You would also be aware of jauhars of Rajputs where thousands of Hindu ladies were used to commit mass suicide instead of letting a muslim touch them.

That doesn't do anything to hide the shameful truth about mass Rajput collusion with Moghuls. It doesn't hide the fact that later oppressive Moghuls were Rajput/Muslim hybrids.

who said that? when Khalsa was being 'created' where was Aurangzeb? He was fighting Hindhi Shahi kingdom of Marathas. He tried for 20 years but failed. Why do you forget that Punjab (and Sikhs) have been under foreign rule for the longest of period. Have you ever looked at Maratha empire's map? such misinformed question!! Hindu Jats, Rajputs, South Indians, Assamese, Nepalese... had much larger kingdoms even while Khalsa was being chased by Abdalis and his minions. Khalsa could establish their little presence in Punjab only because Aurangzeb was busy with marathas. Imagine what he would done to khalsa had he decided to make Amriitsar his war capital instead of modern day Aurangabad.

What's your point. Panjab by dint of geography is situated in a location with some of the most fierce and capable fighters around: Pathans, Persians, Moghuls. Panjabis bore the brunt. That they took full advantage of a lull in aggression whilst Muslims targeted southerners for a change is a good thing. All of Hindustan benefited from the victories of the mixed caste Khalsa.

Khalsa is born of a baptism of the double edged sword. The path is acknowledged to be difficult and challenging. No one promised constant victories with no reverses.








I dont give rat's arse how who is changing, it's about shared scriptures and shared history. stop distorting those for your idiotic neo-sikhism and get out of your makhowal well there is a world outside which had a much more glorious history than yours.

I agree. But whilst you engage in petty regional politics the more progressive amongst my people are trying to highlight the achievements of others in the globe so that our own society can learn from this and maybe even adopt some good ideas to improve our society. Plus cow worshipers like yourself and other (mainly Jat) miscellaneous w**kers amongst the Sikh community have a strong aversion to the socio-economic-political reform aspects of Sikhi and can only attack our Gurus agenda for a fairer society as neo-Sikh.

It's a cheap shot but uncontrollable changes can't be prevented and Sikhs will get closer to their egalitarian heritage whether they like it or not. Hindus can watch on jealously and internal snakes can keep trying to clutch whilst ground shifts under them.

And Bhagat; yet another 'Khatrani' is about to get married into my family - if your own 'warrior caste' actually acted more manly instead of propping yourselves on some bygone glory days, you might not have the this issue to deal with.

In the end, men will be recognised as men; whatever background they come from. A nerd trying to big himself up from his great great great granddad's rep is still a nerd.

That's one of the great beauties of a truly Sikh social order; its emphasis on your own actions/conduct - not your ancestors, tribes or castes.

WJKK

WKJF

Ross_binding.jpg

Edited by dalsingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we will discuss kshatriya and whatever else you want.

There is nothing too discuss. Today, as 'warriors' they are a bunch of clowns. Their decline started in yesteryears when their failure led to India being overrun by Muslim hordes (and then later the British).

Today many of their descendants like to bask in the glory of their ancestors despite having no warrior credentials at all; the same can be said of many Sikhs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Alright it looks this thread has run its course, this thread will be locked in 2 days. Both parties can give their closing statements. Lets readers research and decide on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never disrespected my Gurus; you have by trying to pigeon-hole them into some out-of-date, unjust and ineffectual pathetic social system that was/is based on exclusion and oppression. The very model that inspired western ideas of Aryanism that gave rise to Nazism and white supremacy no less. Speaks for itself.

My Gurus' are 'ajaat': beyond caste.

My Gurus' showed us the way out of this archaic and destructive web, and laid the foundations for a fair, dynamic society where personal merit and actions counted first and foremost; not ones perceived 'inherited greatness'.

All the Sikh brothers/sisters out there should realise that one of the most significant differences between Sikhi and that constantly morphing thing called Hindooism, lays in the ideas of social order we have inherited. Sure, there are many overlaps between the two; especially in the areas of the methods of bhagti (i.e. simran) -but the vision of an ideal Sikh society is at serious odds with the inherently inegalitarian order that Hinduism is famous for - varna (even if some sane elements within the Hindu world have recognised this pollution). That's the BIG difference in our societies.

That truth should also serve to remind and motivate us all to strive for a fairer, progressive Sikh society based on equality and fairness. And yes, that means condemning the brothers and sisters who've compromised this with their casteism or tribalism, so that other people can (quite rightly) point at our hypocrisy, as Sher did earlier in this thread.

Getting lost in semantics about the meaning of the word 'Hindu' is a red herring that we can't waste too much time on.

Edited by dalsingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...