What's new

Questions about Hinduism

So which religion is correct, the old version or the one that superceded it as according to Guru Nanak? Or perhaps Sikhism was born for a limited time only and now is ready to be reabsorbed into Hinduism? I have heard that version of history from Hindutva sites.

Reforms happen for a reason. A reformed religion is always better than the old one.

Its like Microsoft releasing various versions of its software and the most of the times, the user experience gets better and better. :yk
 
Reforms happen for a reason. A reformed religion is always better than the old one.

Its like Microsoft releasing various versions of its software and the most of the times, the user experience gets better and better. :yk

No doubt, that is why Microsoft has to incorporate trademarks and patents to stop Apple or Samsung from nicking their ideas and claiming as their own. Do you see the parallel here?
 
You quoted earlier an example of Sati which was proved to you that it's not part of religious texts and that Raja Ram Mohan Roy campaigned for abolishing it, essentially something which was bad and not part of religion was kicked out....

Is there any other example that you can think of, where Hindus claimed something which was not theirs, I am sure you have many examples, considering you are continuously holding the onto the same argument...

Do you consider Manusmirti as valid Hindu texts? Or will that be brushed under the carpet like Sati?
 
Do you consider Manusmirti as valid Hindu texts? Or will that be brushed under the carpet like Sati?

Some hindus mainly the upper castes may consider it as a valid text, I'm sure 99% or 99.9% of them also don't have any idea about actual content of it.
 
That's not adapting and learning, it's plagiarism. Taking every new idea then calling it Hinduism is cheating slightly is it not? While I think adopting new ideas is an admirable trait, I'm not sure giving them the cloak of the old brand name is doing justice to where the ideas have originated.

If entire thousand of years of human (and millions of years of animal) history has taught us one single thing, it is this. Those who adapt and change and go with the times survive. Those who don't, die out

It doesn't matter how strong one's beliefs are, how many numbers one has or how strong one is. Those who are rigid, those who believe they have discovered the truth, those who believe they are all powerful, all FAIL in history. It might take a year or a decade or a century or a millennium. But all of them who claimed to know the one truth or believed they were ALWAYS right have ALWAYS failed. This has happened to the greatest of animals and the biggest of emipres. Dinosaurs ruled for millions of years, much more than any human beings did. They were the most dominant in numbers (I know here many claim blind numbers as proof of some sort of superiority). I personally believe we are seeing today the last dying throes of religious hard cores today. They are indeed the most in numbers they can ever be. However, they don't realize that they have stagnated and are in their dying throes.

That is the biggest lesson for humanity. Those who have changed with the times, those who have adopted all practices, those who have been flexible and been able to bend have survived

You believe that Hinduism's practice of adopting different cultures and practices is a weakness and a farce. You couldn't be more wrong. Someone brainwashed from childhood and grown on a culture of right and wrong cannot fathom the entire principle of adaptability and change which Hinduism is all about. But history and the universe has always demonstrated how this is the ONLY path to survival and greatness.
 
If entire thousand of years of human (and millions of years of animal) history has taught us one single thing, it is this. Those who adapt and change and go with the times survive. Those who don't, die out

It doesn't matter how strong one's beliefs are, how many numbers one has or how strong one is. Those who are rigid, those who believe they have discovered the truth, those who believe they are all powerful, all FAIL in history. It might take a year or a decade or a century or a millennium. But all of them who claimed to know the one truth or believed they were ALWAYS right have ALWAYS failed. This has happened to the greatest of animals and the biggest of emipres. Dinosaurs ruled for millions of years, much more than any human beings did. They were the most dominant in numbers (I know here many claim blind numbers as proof of some sort of superiority). I personally believe we are seeing today the last dying throes of religious hard cores today. They are indeed the most in numbers they can ever be. However, they don't realize that they have stagnated and are in their dying throes.

That is the biggest lesson for humanity. Those who have changed with the times, those who have adopted all practices, those who have been flexible and been able to bend have survived

You believe that Hinduism's practice of adopting different cultures and practices is a weakness and a farce. You couldn't be more wrong. Someone brainwashed from childhood and grown on a culture of right and wrong cannot fathom the entire principle of adaptability and change which Hinduism is all about. But history and the universe has always demonstrated how this is the ONLY path to survival and greatness.

You are missing the point. I didn't say that there is anything wrong with adopting change or new ideas, what I said was that it is wrong to adopt them then stamp them with your own label. Especially when your own label is basically covering everything under the sun from atheism to priest worship. It's a good game plan where you can't lose as all bases are covered, but you basically stand for everything and nothing.
 
Some hindus mainly the upper castes may consider it as a valid text, I'm sure 99% or 99.9% of them also don't have any idea about actual content of it.

Does it matter since the 99% and the 1% are all valid depending on where you stand? All Hinduism at the end of the day!
 
You are missing the point. I didn't say that there is anything wrong with adopting change or new ideas, what I said was that it is wrong to adopt them then stamp them with your own label. Especially when your own label is basically covering everything under the sun from atheism to priest worship. It's a good game plan where you can't lose as all bases are covered, but you basically stand for everything and nothing.


My thoughts exactly. What exactly is Hinduism then? If not a come one come all everything goes sort of club where one school of thought contradicts the others and so on.

My own take is that is not the case. Thse are just interpretations and the truth of it has been lost down the years due to vastness of its authentic scripture and age.
 
If entire thousand of years of human (and millions of years of animal) history has taught us one single thing, it is this. Those who adapt and change and go with the times survive. Those who don't, die out

It doesn't matter how strong one's beliefs are, how many numbers one has or how strong one is. Those who are rigid, those who believe they have discovered the truth, those who believe they are all powerful, all FAIL in history. It might take a year or a decade or a century or a millennium. But all of them who claimed to know the one truth or believed they were ALWAYS right have ALWAYS failed. This has happened to the greatest of animals and the biggest of emipres. Dinosaurs ruled for millions of years, much more than any human beings did. They were the most dominant in numbers (I know here many claim blind numbers as proof of some sort of superiority). I personally believe we are seeing today the last dying throes of religious hard cores today. They are indeed the most in numbers they can ever be. However, they don't realize that they have stagnated and are in their dying throes.

That is the biggest lesson for humanity. Those who have changed with the times, those who have adopted all practices, those who have been flexible and been able to bend have survived

You believe that Hinduism's practice of adopting different cultures and practices is a weakness and a farce. You couldn't be more wrong. Someone brainwashed from childhood and grown on a culture of right and wrong cannot fathom the entire principle of adaptability and change which Hinduism is all about. But history and the universe has always demonstrated how this is the ONLY path to survival and greatness.

Exactly.

Kuch baat hai ki hasti mitati nahi hamari
Sadiyo raha hai dushman dore jahan hamara
 
A question to Hindus, no disrespect to your religion. But is it true that some hindus pray to Shiv's private part? Why do you guys pray to that particular part? What for and if someone can tell me a little history behind it will be wonderful.

It is known as Shivling or Shivalinga. The Linga symbol is an attempt to give form to the formless, referred as Supreme Being or Brahman in Hindu religion. When a Linga is installed on a Yoni, it represents the union of Shiva and Shakti – the beginning of creation.
 
You are missing the point. I didn't say that there is anything wrong with adopting change or new ideas, what I said was that it is wrong to adopt them then stamp them with your own label. Especially when your own label is basically covering everything under the sun from atheism to priest worship. It's a good game plan where you can't lose as all bases are covered, but you basically stand for everything and nothing.

How does it matter? There can be more than one path to God. Why has one religion got to be better than the other?
 
Hinduism was never an organized religion. It's a combination of different schools of thoughts. It doesn't really have a text book like Quran, where people need to blindly follow whatever is written in it. People have the freedom to question. People have evolved with time and civilization, instead of being stuck with medieval beliefs. Sati was a bad practice, people realized and stopped it. People 'accepted' that it was wrong, that 'mindset' is important.
 
sati was never in hinduism like that..and it started due to other reasons and stopped rightly.and yeah i rather like to believe in religion which gives me more freedom to question and allow to change with time...that's why budhism and sikhism born from hinduism because hinduism never stopped anyone ..it it was any other religion they would have called them like kaafirs and killed them due to going against so called word of god and the other beautiful religion would not have born and hinduism is the oldest religion in the world and gave the whole world many gifts like ayruveda.yoga and some beautiful religions etc and it also survived through the toughest times and without converting any region and people forcefully it still is world third largest religion and respected everywhere.....
 
No doubt, that is why Microsoft has to incorporate trademarks and patents to stop Apple or Samsung from nicking their ideas and claiming as their own. Do you see the parallel here?

You cannot copyright general ideas, especially when it comes to religion. No religion can claim to have invented them as they have existed in one form or another since time immemorial and are for the most part common sense laws created to control and keep the general populace in line.

Every new prophet or messenger just comes up with a mish mash version tailor made for the people of that time.
 
I think the fact that Hinduism has no strict rules, is quite open minded is the reason why they are successful in the west.

Compare the success of Hindus in the UK to Pakistani/Bangladeshi muslims and they are very far ahead.

It wasn't the case in 60's and 70's though, not as stark as it is now
 
I think the conversation has reached the point where mud slinging can begin at any point. I request all parties to maintain peace. :nehra
 
Yes probably because these Hindus realised it's not a good idea to have 6 kids, marry their daughters to someone in India (which further disrupts progress) and instilled hard work and discipline into their kids with a focus on education.

There's been a lot of talk about this in the media and apparently in the US this is attributed to "Tiger Moms". No mention of Tiger dads. Maybe they just got lost in the back office. In any case I don't really see how this has anything to do with the OP which is a religious topic.
 
There's been a lot of talk about this in the media and apparently in the US this is attributed to "Tiger Moms". No mention of Tiger dads. Maybe they just got lost in the back office. In any case I don't really see how this has anything to do with the OP which is a religious topic.

There are Cougar Moms too. They're nicer than the Tiger Moms.
 
Hinduism was never an organized religion. It's a combination of different schools of thoughts. It doesn't really have a text book like Quran, where people need to blindly follow whatever is written in it. People have the freedom to question. People have evolved with time and civilization, instead of being stuck with medieval beliefs. Sati was a bad practice, people realized and stopped it. People 'accepted' that it was wrong, that 'mindset' is important.

Why sati is still a burning issue

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...still-a-burning-issue/articleshow/4897797.cms
 
I got some questions about Hinduism for our Hindu members here, i'll list them below.

1.What is Hinduism?Is it a religion?

2.What's the actual name of Hinduism cause "Hinduism" is a foreign name?

3.Do Hindus believe in the concept of heaven & hell?Do Hindus have prophets.

4.How many dieties do Hindus believe in and which is the main one?

5.How many different sects of Hinduism are there and what's their geographic distribution?

6.Are all Hindus forbidden from drinking alochol,fornicating and eating beef?

7.What's the most important book in Hinduism and do ordinary Hindus read it?and do Hindus fast like Muslims, if they do, how different is it?

8.Do Hindus that follow different sects and worship different dieties believe they follow the same religion and believe in a body of "Hindu people", or do they see themselves independtly?

9.What are some of the biggest sins in Hinduism, what are the punishments for them?

10.What are non Hindus called?

11.What are the other major holidays in hinduism apart from diwali & holi?

These are the questions I can think of right now, i'll add more later :anwar

Without looking at any comments, here are my answers

1. Hinduism is more than just a religion, it is a way of life

2. Sanatan Dharma

3. Yes, Heaven & Hell is dependent on karma

4. There are 33 types of gods, main are 3 - Brahma (creator), Vishnu (preserver) & Shiva (destroyer)

6. Nothing related to Alcohol is mentioned in Hinduism, however Hindus consider cow as sacred & beef eating is not allowed. Hindus should be vegetarian & even if they are not vegetarian, Hindus should not eat beef

7. Most important book is Bhagwad Gita

Hindus fast during Navratri. During navratri, Hindus can't eat any meat, even if they eat otherwise. Hindus have to eat only sattvik food in Navratri, which doesn't include even onion & garlic. There are weekly fasts too depending on who is ur main god

10. Everyone is a human being

11. It depends on the region, Navratris, Janamasthmi, Dussehra, Hanuman Jayanti, Ram Navami
 
A few disgusting replies and deleted

Suggest some of you learn how to take part in civil discourse or find another forum for yourselves.
 
There is a very interesting parallel between the Vedic - Puranic tradition and the Abrahamic tradition especially with regard to the ancient Patriarchs. I want to elaborate on this as this may indicate traces of shared heritage between the two traditions.

Everyone here is aware of Noah or Prophet Nuh so we do not need to go over his story.

However, I think that this Prophet Nuh is none other than Manu Vaivasvata of the Indian tradition.

Here are a few important events of his life :-

1. Manu Vaivasvata is known as the 7th Patriarch of humans in Indian tradition and the current age is his age or Manvantara where every human is descended from him. Before him there have been 6 ages or Manvantaras where in each age had its own patriarch from whom the people of that Manvantara descended.

2. Manu Vaivasvata is known to have been very devoted to meditation on the Supreme Creator. Once while meditating, he gets a revelation that all humanity was going to perish as the end of the age was coming near. He is told to built a boat for himself and also to bring the seeds of all kinds of life on board the boat.

3. The flood comes and destroys everything. Manu is saved by a large fish which is known in Indian tradition as the Matsya avatar of Lord Vishnu. Manu ties a knot on the fish's horn and the fish steers the boat across the vast stormy boundless ocean. It finally ties the boat to a mountain on the North. This mountain is called as the place of Navbandhana is the Mahabharata. Curiously enough, the Kashmiri Hindus have a tradition that this mountain known as Navbandhana is one adjacent to the Kausar Nag Lake.

4. In Indian Puranic tradition there is a long genealogical list of various dynasties and kings right upto the period of Mahabharata and even beyond upto the end of the Satavahana empire. All these genealogies trace their origin to Manu Vaivasvata. All of them accept that it is Manu Vaivasvata from whom everyone is descended.

Here is good link where people can see the parallels between the Sumerian and Indian flood myth https://www.academia.edu/9981910/Some_Observations_on_the_Indian_and_the_Mesopotamian_Flood_Myths

-------------------------

It should become clear from the above account that Manu Vaivasvata and Prophet Nuh are one and the same person.

---

One Indian Muslim scholar has even argued that Prophet Nuh was from India - http://khurshidimam.blogspot.in/2013/05/lost-prophets-of-hinduism-and-india.html

There is strong reason to believe that Prophet Nuh aka Manu Vaivasvata was Indian.

In the Abrahamic faiths while Prophet Nuh is a very important figure, none of the 3 religions trace their teachings to him. In contrast in the Vedas and elsewhere, Manu Vaivasvata is known as the person who taught the Vedic religion. Here is a list of quotes regarding him:-

From the Rigveda we learn,


i. 80, 16.

"Prayers and hymns were formerly congregated in that Indra, in the ceremony which Atharvan, father Manu, and Dadhyanch celebrated"

-------------------

i. 114, 2.

"Whatever prosperity or succour father Manu obtained by sacrifice, may we gain all that under thy guidance, Rudra."

----------------------

ii. 33, 13.

"Those pure remedies of yours, Maruts, those which are most auspicious, ye vigorous gods, those which are beneficent, those which our father Manu chose, those, and the blessing and succour of Rudra, I desire."

--------------------

viii 52, 1 (Sama-veda, i. 355).

"That ancient friend hath been equipped with the powers of the mighty (gods). Father Manu has prepared hymns to him, as portals of access to the gods."

------------------

x. 100, 5.

"Sacrifice is Manu, our protecting father."

-----------------

viii. 30. 3.

"Do ye (gods) deliver, protect, and intercede for us ; do not lead us far away from the paternal path of Manu."

--------------

i. 68, 4.

"He (Agni) who abides among the offspring of Manu as the invoker (of the gods), is even the lord of these riches."

--------------

iii. 3, 6.

"Agni, together with the gods, and the children of Manush, celebrating a multiform sacrifice with hymns," etc.

--------------

iv. 37, 1.

"Ye gods, Vajas, and Ribhukshans, come to our sacrifice by the path travelled by the gods, that ye, pleasing deities, may institute a sacrifice among these people of Manush on auspicious days."

------------

vi. 14, 2.

"The people of Manush praise in the sacrifices Agni the invoker."

-------------

viii. 23, 13.

"Whenever Agni, lord of the people, kindled, abides gratified among the people of Manush, he repels all Rakshasas."

--------------

x. 80, 6.

"Human people (or, people descended from Manush) praise Agni : (people) sprung from Manush, from Nahush, (praise) Agni."

-------------

i. 36, 19.

"Manu has placed (or ordained) thee, Agni, a light to all the people.''

------------

i. 76, 5.

"As thou, thyself a sage, didst, with the sages, worship the gods with the oblations of the wise Manush, so to-day, Agni, most true invoker, worship them with a cheerful flame."

--------------

v. 45, 6.

"Come, friends, let us perform the prayer .... whereby Manu conquered Visisipra ...."

--------------

viii, 10. 2.

"Or if ye (Asvins) sprinkled the sacrifice for Manu, think in like manner of the descendant of Kanva."

-------------

ix. 96, 11.

"For through thee, pure Soma, our early fathers, who were wise, performed their rites . . . As thou didst flow clear for Manu, thou upholder of life, destroyer of foes, possessor of wealth, rich in oblations, so (now) flow clear."

--------------

x. 63, 7.

"O ye Adityas, to whom Manu, when he had kindled fire, presented along with seven hotri priests the first oblation with a prayer, bestow on us secure protection."

--------------

x. 69, 3.

"That lustre of thine which Manu, which Sumitra, kindled is this same which is now renewed."

---------------

i. 13, 4.

"Agni, lauded, bring the gods hither in a most pleasant chariot. Thou art the invoker (of the gods) placed by Manush."

----------------

i. 14, 11.

"Thou, Agni, the invoker placed by Manush, art present at the sacrifices : do thou present this our oblation."

---------------

vi. 16, 9.

"Thou art the invoker placed by Manush . . . ."

-----------------

viii. 19, 21.

"With a hymn I laud that adorable bearer of oblations placed by Manush, whom the gods have sent as a ministering messenger."

-----------------

viii. 34, 8.

"May the adorable invoker placed by Manu bring thee (Indra) hither among the gods"

-----------------

i. 44, 11.

"Divine Agni, we, like Manush, place thee, the accomplisher of the sacrifice, the invoker, the priest,"

---------------

v. 21, 1.

"Agni, we place thee like Manush, we kindle thee like Manush. Agni, Angiras, worship the gods like Manush, for him who adores them."

-----------------

vii. 2, 3.

"Let us, like Manush, continually invoke to the sacrifice Agni who was kindled by Manu."

-----------------

viii. 27, 7.

"We invoke thee, Varuna, having poured out soma, and having kindled fire, like Manush."

---------------

viii. 43, 13.

"Like Bhrigu, like Manush, like Angiras, we invoke thee, bright Agni, who hast been invoked 27. Agni, most like to Angiras, whom men kindle like Manush, attend to my words."

----------------

Satapatha Brahmana explains this "like Manush" phrase as follows,

SB i,5,1,7 - "Manu formerly sacrificed with a sacrifice. Imitating this, these creatures sacrifice. He therefore says, Manushvat, 'like Manu.' Or, they say 'like Manu,' because men speak of the sacrifice as being Manu's."

-----------------

Coming back to Rigveda,

i. 112, 16.

"Come, Aswins, with those succours, whereby, o heroes, ye effected deliverance for Sayu, for Atri, and formerly for Manu, whereby ye shot arrows for S'yumarasmi. 18 whereby ye preserved the hero Manu with food."

---------------

viii. 15, 5.

"Exulting in this (exhilaration), wherewith thou didst make known the luminaries to Ayu, and to Manu, thou art lord of the sacrificial grass."

-----------------

vii. 91, 1.

"Certainly those gods who were magnified by worship were of old faultless. They displayed the dawn with the sun to Vayu (Ayu ?), to Manu when distressed."

---------------

i. 31, 4.

"Thou, Agni, didst display the sky to Manu, to the beneficent Pururavas, (thyself) more beneficent."

---------------

vi. 49, 13.

"Vishnu who thrice measured the terrestrial regions for Manu when distressed."

-----------------

vi. 46, 7.

"Indra, whatever force or vigour exists in the tribes of Nahush, or whatever glory belongs to the five races, bring it (for us) j yea all manly energies together."

The above quotes should make it clear that Manu Vaivasvata in Indian tradition is also considered the first person who established and taught the Vedic religion to his descendents. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krsna tells Arjun that the exalted knowledge he is revealing to Arjun, monotheism in essence, was earlier revealed to the Sun God Vivasvaan who then passed on to his son Manu Vaivasvata who in turn passed it on to his descendents.

--------------

Besides this, the Abrahamic faiths have little knowledge of the patriarchs who passed away between Prophet Nuh & Prophet Ibrahim. The Bible only lists about 10 generations or so. And Abraham is said to have lived around 2000 BC. By constrast, in Indian tradition, the Mahabharata is said to have happened around 3100 BC and the Puranas trace as many as 95 generations between Manu Vaivasvata and his descendents during the age of Mahabharata.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last of all, there is also a similarity between Adam and Swayambhuva Manu.

As I said, Manu Vaivasvata is the 7th human patriarch in Indian tradition. The 1st human patriach is known as Swayambhuva Manu. He is said to have been the father of all humanity. He is said to have had no human parents. He is known as Swayambhuva Manu because he was created directly by Lord Swyambhu or the Self-Existent Lord without any human parentage. It is also said that Swayambhuva Manu and his wife were created by separation from a single body.

All these show strong parallels between the Indian tradition and the Abrahamic tradition. This is something to reflect upon before we try to put down each other's religion.
 
I think the fact that Hinduism has no strict rules, is quite open minded is the reason why they are successful in the west.

Compare the success of Hindus in the UK to Pakistani/Bangladeshi muslims and they are very far ahead.
Despite all the success of the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish religious minorities in the west it is the 'poorer' Muslims who are the most charitable.
 
Despite all the success of the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish religious minorities in the west it is the 'poorer' Muslims who are the most charitable.

Other interesting point is what classifies as a charity?
- Is giving money to an organisation catering to your religion (and helping the growth of the religion) charity?
- Then is giving money to your relatives in order for them to improve their lives, not charity?
 
So one of the strengths of Hinduism according to many of our Indian members is it's ability to adapt and change, which is great, but why then was there a need for Sikh religion to be born and establish itself separate from Hinduism? Islam and Christianity it can be argued were introduced by outside powers, but I still don't get what led to the rise of Buddhism and the Sikh religion in particular seeing as Hinduism with it's adaptability should have been able to encompass all needs of it's local inhabitants.
 
So one of the strengths of Hinduism according to many of our Indian members is it's ability to adapt and change, which is great, but why then was there a need for Sikh religion to be born and establish itself separate from Hinduism? Islam and Christianity it can be argued were introduced by outside powers, but I still don't get what led to the rise of Buddhism and the Sikh religion in particular seeing as Hinduism with it's adaptability should have been able to encompass all needs of it's local inhabitants.

Buddhism and Sikhism came into picture when hinduism was hit by superstitions for a very long time it was not until religious figure started bhakti movement and organisations like arya samaj and Brahma samaj changed the whole scenario. Another reason was to provide an alternative option to people, coz followers of Sikhism were both hindus and muslim, guru nanak dev 's two famous disciple bhai Bala (hindu ) and bhai mardana(muslim).
 
Buddhism and Sikhism came into picture when hinduism was hit by superstitions for a very long time it was not until religious figure started bhakti movement and organisations like arya samaj and Brahma samaj changed the whole scenario. Another reason was to provide an alternative option to people, coz followers of Sikhism were both hindus and muslim, guru nanak dev 's two famous disciple bhai Bala (hindu ) and bhai mardana(muslim).

So would it be fair to say that Buddhism and Sikhism were the natural successors of Hinduism and provided a more enlightened alternative for the subjects of India?
 
So would it be fair to say that Buddhism and Sikhism were the natural successors of Hinduism and provided a more enlightened alternative for the subjects of India?
Not really, coz the reforms in hinduisms and religious movement, provided a more valuable contribution to hinduism, also even in Sikhism, along with gurus, baani's of famous saints like ravidas, namdev etc is mentioned, also in hinduism you have option of following saakar bhakti (the one who worship physical form )and nirakar bhakti(the one who worship invisible form, also with so many scriptures along with books like satyarth prakash, puts valuable input in the way to move forward.
 
Not really, coz the reforms in hinduisms and religious movement, provided a more valuable contribution to hinduism, also even in Sikhism, along with gurus, baani's of famous saints like ravidas, namdev etc is mentioned, also in hinduism you have option of following saakar bhakti (the one who worship physical form )and nirakar bhakti(the one who worship invisible form, also with so many scriptures along with books like satyarth prakash, puts valuable input in the way to move forward.

So would you say there is now no longer a need for Sikhism or Buddhism as Hinduism itself has now evolved enough to make them irrelevant?
 
In case you don't know guru gobind singh wrote dasham granth based on life of incarnations like lord Rama.
 
So would you say there is now no longer a need for Sikhism or Buddhism as Hinduism itself has now evolved enough to make them irrelevant?
See the thing is both Sikhism and Buddhism are separate religion's and wonderful religions on top of that, being a Punjabi, I have both bhagvad geeta and guru granth sahib at my home ,sikhs and hindus are two different religious entities, who love visiting each other's temples and gurudwara's be it hindus visiting golden temple and sikhs visiting vaishno devi.
 
See the thing is both Sikhism and Buddhism are separate religion's and wonderful religions on top of that, being a Punjabi, I have both bhagvad geeta and guru granth sahib at my home ,sikhs and hindus are two different religious entities, who love visiting each other's temples and gurudwara's be it hindus visiting golden temple and sikhs visiting vaishno devi.

A Muslim would surely find it difficult to comprehend how different religions can coexist together
 
So would you say there is now no longer a need for Sikhism or Buddhism as Hinduism itself has now evolved enough to make them irrelevant?

The desire to declare another irrelevant ....aahh.. so much tempting!

By the way its the 10th Guru Gobind Singh, who declared a separate class of Khalsa... basically to counter Islamic Persecution of Indians. Sikhism arose as military needs to fight Islamic persecution by Aurangzeb.

Till the 9th Guru, they never claimed they were Sikhs!
 
A Muslim would surely find it difficult to comprehend how different religions can coexist together
May be, but two great krishna bhakts ras khan and Rahim aka abdul Rahim khanokhana (the son of bairam khan and step son of akbar ) were muslims.
 
Not to forget bhai mardana who was disciple of guru nanak dev ji.
 
The most interesting thing I find in Hinduism is that.... you have literally crazy amount of rites and rituals for every second of life of a person, and even damn afterlife.

But none of the Religious texts talk of How to convert to Hinduism?
 
The most interesting thing I find in Hinduism is that.... you have literally crazy amount of rites and rituals for every second of life of a person, and even damn afterlife.

But none of the Religious texts talk of How to convert to Hinduism?
Coz, it's not about converting rather than living it and believing in it .
May be, but two great krishna bhakts ras khan and Rahim aka abdul Rahim khanokhana (the son of bairam khan and step son of akbar ) were muslims.
 
My thoughts exactly. What exactly is Hinduism then? If not a come one come all everything goes sort of club where one school of thought contradicts the others and so on.

My own take is that is not the case. Thse are just interpretations and the truth of it has been lost down the years due to vastness of its authentic scripture and age.

That is because you are looking at it from an Islamic perspective. Hinduism was never a religion like Islam/Christianity in the first place.
 
That is because you are looking at it from an Islamic perspective. Hinduism was never a religion like Islam/Christianity in the first place.
[MENTION=17315]Stewie[/MENTION]:

Abrahmic religion arose with the basic concept of demonizing idol worship. And that was the need of the middle east during those times, with kings declaring themselves as Gods, Various tribes fighting over whose God is better. Abrahmic religions established the oneness of God. It was a need to have just one true God, to avoid conflicts in the names of various gods.

While in India, similar conflicts did happen, but over period of time... all the various Gods got clubbed together and accepted by a much larger populace. This is something quite different compared to what happened in Arabia and Egypt in ancient times. People slowly accepted and kept on adding to their own belief system rather than rejecting others. Hence, the vastness of myths and religious texts.
 
A Muslim would surely find it difficult to comprehend how different religions can coexist together

Why is that? There are over a million Indians working in the UAE, and they have their own vegetarian restaurants to cater for their needs so it seems that co-existing with other religions is not that unfamiliar to Muslims after all. An ignorant comment at best.
 
The desire to declare another irrelevant ....aahh.. so much tempting!

By the way its the 10th Guru Gobind Singh, who declared a separate class of Khalsa... basically to counter Islamic Persecution of Indians. Sikhism arose as military needs to fight Islamic persecution by Aurangzeb.

Till the 9th Guru, they never claimed they were Sikhs!

Why couldn't they do that as Hindus? Was it really necessary to declare a new religion in order to fight the Moghuls?
 
Why couldn't they do that as Hindus? Was it really necessary to declare a new religion in order to fight the Moghuls?

There is no pope or single Prophet in Hinduism.
A leader wished to branch out and his followers followed him.
Whats the big mystery for you?
 
There is no pope or single Prophet in Hinduism.
A leader wished to branch out and his followers followed him.
Whats the big mystery for you?

The thread is called Questions about Hinduism, so I am asking some questions. You didn't really answer it, but thanks for your input anyway.
 
The thread is called Questions about Hinduism, so I am asking some questions. You didn't really answer it, but thanks for your input anyway.

I answered you question to the best of my abilities and I still had doubts that you would understand.
Hence my counter query
 
I answered you question to the best of my abilities and I still had doubts that you would understand.
Hence my counter query

I asked why the need to start a new religion in order to fight the Moghuls, if you answered that I must have missed it.
 
I asked why the need to start a new religion in order to fight the Moghuls, if you answered that I must have missed it.

As I said, it was the choice of the leader, the 10th Guru Gobind Singh. Still Guru Gobind Singh, asks for Lord Shiva for strength to fight against injustice in his prayers,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Siva_Var_Mohe

As for Sikhism, to become separate, it evolved as a separate religion,

I don't get it why it is so hard for you to digest that, in a religion of hundred of millions followers, a few million formed a separate sect and later termed it as a separate religion altogether.
 
As I said, it was the choice of the leader, the 10th Guru Gobind Singh. Still Guru Gobind Singh, asks for Lord Shiva for strength to fight against injustice in his prayers,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Siva_Var_Mohe

As for Sikhism, to become separate, it evolved as a separate religion,

I don't get it why it is so hard for you to digest that, in a religion of hundred of millions followers, a few million formed a separate sect and later termed it as a separate religion altogether.

So Lord Shiva advised Guru Gobind Singh to create a new religion in order to fight Aurangzeb? Or are you suggesting that Guru Gobind Singh was still a Hindu and Sikhism developed at a later date?
 
So Lord Shiva advised Guru Gobind Singh to create a new religion in order to fight Aurangzeb? Or are you suggesting that Guru Gobind Singh was still a Hindu and Sikhism developed at a later date?

I know you are far smarter than this dude, your act of playing a dumb retard is awesome!!
 
Just trying to get an understanding of your own words "Sikhism arose as military needs to fight Islamic persecution by Aurangzeb."

You still haven't explained why it needed a new religion in order to fight the Moghuls.
 
Just trying to get an understanding of your own words "Sikhism arose as military needs to fight Islamic persecution by Aurangzeb."

You still haven't explained why it needed a new religion in order to fight the Moghuls.

As i said, the leader at that time felt it has to be so,
I wasn't an adviser to Guru Gobind Singh so that I can tell you his reason for forming a new religion!
 
Maaan u lost the argument...captain got you real good.

Was there an argument?

Until recently, the eldest son in a hindu punjabi family used to become a Sikh. Not sure why this trend stopped.

So, other than the little problem we had in the 80s and 90s with Khalistan and the heinous anti-Sikh riots, the Sikhs and the Hindus have fought together
 
So Lord Shiva advised Guru Gobind Singh to create a new religion in order to fight Aurangzeb? Or are you suggesting that Guru Gobind Singh was still a Hindu and Sikhism developed at a later date?
Actually it's from chandi da waar and here guru Gobind singh ji is asking boon from Goddess durga, lord shiv's wife ,she is called shiva, here guru gobind singh is asking boon to do good deeds and never be afraid to do so, never afraid to fight enemy and ensure his victory
"Dehu shiva var mohe ihe shubh karman se kabahu na daruu"
"Na daruu ari so jab jaayi laruu
Nischay kar apni jeet karu".

Guru gobind singh found khalsa panth to instill fighting spirits, among people, saying enough of this peace talks with tyrannts,we will be so valiant, that we will instill fear amongst enemies, I will make sparrow fight an eagle.
"Chidya naale baaz ladava, taabey gobind singh naam kahawan ".
In case you don't know in huzur sahib aarti is done every day.
 
Just trying to get an understanding of your own words "Sikhism arose as military needs to fight Islamic persecution by Aurangzeb."

You still haven't explained why it needed a new religion in order to fight the Moghuls.
Who said it needed a new religion of fighting moguls, Sikhism was basically established because at that time both elites of hindus and muslims were oppressing the poor of both religions, so oppressed found solace in Sikhism , it was after the execution of fifth guru arjan dev ji on the orders of jahangir,that sikhs decided to lift weapons.
 
All the dharmic religions ( Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism) can co-exist peacefully. They have this saffron color in common in between them..
 
Who said it needed a new religion of fighting moguls, Sikhism was basically established because at that time both elites of hindus and muslims were oppressing the poor of both religions, so oppressed found solace in Sikhism , it was after the execution of fifth guru arjan dev ji on the orders of jahangir,that sikhs decided to lift weapons.

So if a new religion was not needed to fight the Moghuls, why was Sikhism established as a new religion? Just trying to make sense of the words of one of our Indian members who said "Sikhism arose as military needs to fight Islamic persecution by Aurangzeb."
 
So if a new religion was not needed to fight the Moghuls, why was Sikhism established as a new religion? Just trying to make sense of the words of one of our Indian members who said "Sikhism arose as military needs to fight Islamic persecution by Aurangzeb."


I was under the impression guru Nanak went on Hajj and wore a cloak with the Kalimah emblazoned on it
 
So if a new religion was not needed to fight the Moghuls, why was Sikhism established as a new religion? Just trying to make sense of the words of one of our Indian members who said "Sikhism arose as military needs to fight Islamic persecution by Aurangzeb."

As I told you both elites of hindus and muslims were oppressing the poor of both religions, so guru nanak dev ji took the initiative for the welfare of the oppressed one 's, Sikhs were all peaceful until the execution of fifth guru arjan dev ji on the orders of jahangir, but the major turning point when on 30 March 1699, guru gobind singh formed khalsa panth and gave Sikhism it's present sets of rules, he changed his title from dev to singh and said that from now on every sikh will be called singh and sikh women will be called kaur ,sikhs five k's
Kesh :gobind singh ji said to sikhs to never cut their hair and always tie it.

Kangha :comb ur hair twice before tieing it
Kaccha :a symbol of true chastity, it will remind you of sticking to ur values.

Kada:it symbolises that what ever you do from your hands must be done keeping in minds the teachings of guru's.

Kirpaan :never leave ur weapon if u r true khalsa.
So if a new religion was not needed to fight the Moghuls, why was Sikhism established as a new religion? Just trying to make sense of the words of one of our Indian members who said "Sikhism arose as military needs to fight Islamic persecution by Aurangzeb."
 
As I told you both elites of hindus and muslims were oppressing the poor of both religions, so guru nanak dev ji took the initiative for the welfare of the oppressed one 's, Sikhs were all peaceful until the execution of fifth guru arjan dev ji on the orders of jahangir, but the major turning point when on 30 March 1699, guru gobind singh formed khalsa panth and gave Sikhism it's present sets of rules, he changed his title from dev to singh and said that from now on every sikh will be called singh and sikh women will be called kaur ,sikhs five k's
Kesh :gobind singh ji said to sikhs to never cut their hair and always tie it.

Kangha :comb ur hair twice before tieing it
Kaccha :a symbol of true chastity, it will remind you of sticking to ur values.

Kada:it symbolises that what ever you do from your hands must be done keeping in minds the teachings of guru's.

Kirpaan :never leave ur weapon if u r true khalsa.

So if I understand it correctly, Guru Nanak decided Hindu religion was not appropriate for dealing with the advent of Islam and thus started his own religion which we now know as Sikh religion. Thank you for your input, but at this stage I really feel it would be useful to get an actual Sikh PP member to give an inside view as we are just going in circles here dancing around the subject.
 
So if I understand it correctly, Guru Nanak decided Hindu religion was not appropriate for dealing with the advent of Islam and thus started his own religion which we now know as Sikh religion. Thank you for your input, but at this stage I really feel it would be useful to get an actual Sikh PP member to give an inside view as we are just going in circles here dancing around the subject.

You still don't get it do you, I said clearly, at that times both the religious figures of hindu's and muslims, I repeat and muslims, were hell bent on oppressing poor people of both communities, I repeat both communities.
 
Why couldn't they do that as Hindus? Was it really necessary to declare a new religion in order to fight the Moghuls?

I don't think he is right in saying that it was the necessity at those times if i'm correct Guru Nanak was not happy the way Casteism was followed and he had his own learnings and Guru Granth Sahib was established as their supreme book and they weren't Hindus but different sect who were helping Kashmiri Pandits from Mughal rulers but after their 9th leader was persecuted and they were given an ultimatum to convert the so Sikhs decided to take on the Mughals themselves over the years various Sikhs were burnt by the Muslim leader as seen in year old paintings in gurudwaras.But in no way a religion was formed to 'help' the hindus.
 
I was under the impression guru Nanak went on Hajj and wore a cloak with the Kalimah emblazoned on it

He did, he was meeting all the religious scholars and had already traveled from Burma to Ceylon which in those days was a big thing.
 
I don't think he is right in saying that it was the necessity at those times if i'm correct Guru Nanak was not happy the way Casteism was followed and he had his own learnings and Guru Granth Sahib was established as their supreme book and they weren't Hindus but different sect who were helping Kashmiri Pandits from Mughal rulers but after their 9th leader was persecuted and they were given an ultimatum to convert the so Sikhs decided to take on the Mughals themselves over the years various Sikhs were burnt by the Muslim leader as seen in year old paintings in gurudwaras.But in no way a religion was formed to 'help' the hindus.

Thats why is said the elites oppressing poor, not just pundits, but maulvi's as well, the armed struggle began after the persecution of the fifth guru arjan dev ji, but rose to its peak after the persecution of the ninth guru teg bahadur, it was kashmiri pundits plea to guru teg bahadur to save them from conversion, to which he said that somebody has to sacrifice himself to save these people to which young guru gobind singh ji said whom better than you, after which he conveyed this message through kashmiri pandits to aurangzeb that if navam paadshah agrees to change his religion, we all will convert obviously, he denied, resulting in brutal persecution of guru, along with his for disciples and guru ji persecuted at shishganj.
 
As I said, it was the choice of the leader, the 10th Guru Gobind Singh. Still Guru Gobind Singh, asks for Lord Shiva for strength to fight against injustice in his prayers,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Siva_Var_Mohe

As for Sikhism, to become separate, it evolved as a separate religion,

I don't get it why it is so hard for you to digest that, in a religion of hundred of millions followers, a few million formed a separate sect and later termed it as a separate religion altogether.

So Sikhism (even to its people) is not a divine religion? As in people know that there is no tradition like there is in Islam, Judaism or even Hinduism (right or wrong is not the point) that it was sent by God and is not a product of man.

On a related note. Is Sikhism a branch of Hinduism or a seperate religion. Some of the Sikhs Ive met in North America who complain about Indian treatment (and are pro Khalistan) say that India does not recognize them as a seperate religion and just says they are a sect like Shia, Sunni etc in Islam. Is this true and if yes why?
 
So Sikhism (even to its people) is not a divine religion? As in people know that there is no tradition like there is in Islam, Judaism or even Hinduism (right or wrong is not the point) that it was sent by God and is not a product of man.

On a related note. Is Sikhism a branch of Hinduism or a seperate religion. Some of the Sikhs Ive met in North America who complain about Indian treatment (and are pro Khalistan) say that India does not recognize them as a seperate religion and just says they are a sect like Shia, Sunni etc in Islam. Is this true and if yes why?

This is basically what I am trying to ascertain and why a Sikh PP member viewpoint would be more valuable. At this point all we are getting is Hindu contributors who seem to see Sikh religion as a sect or branch of Hinduism and not a separate religion in itself. Buddhism is also seen this way which is interesting as it is a general viewpoint which is espoused by the Hindutva movement which has been sweeping India over the last few decades. I am not saying it is wrong in any way, just would be interesting to get viewpoints of Sikhs and Buddhists whether they accept this interpretation of their "religions".
 
So Sikhism (even to its people) is not a divine religion? As in people know that there is no tradition like there is in Islam, Judaism or even Hinduism (right or wrong is not the point) that it was sent by God and is not a product of man.

On a related note. Is Sikhism a branch of Hinduism or a seperate religion. Some of the Sikhs Ive met in North America who complain about Indian treatment (and are pro Khalistan) say that India does not recognize them as a seperate religion and just says they are a sect like Shia, Sunni etc in Islam. Is this true and if yes why?

They are a separate religion but Hindus do visit Gurudwaras alteast in New Delhi.The problem was Hindu law which had Jain and Sikhs in it and i saw Sikhs complaining about that and rightly so.But the marriage law atleast has been changed and allowed them to marry according to Anand Marriage Act.
 
This is basically what I am trying to ascertain and why a Sikh PP member viewpoint would be more valuable. At this point all we are getting is Hindu contributors who seem to see Sikh religion as a sect or branch of Hinduism and not a separate religion in itself. Buddhism is also seen this way which is interesting as it is a general viewpoint which is espoused by the Hindutva movement which has been sweeping India over the last few decades. I am not saying it is wrong in any way, just would be interesting to get viewpoints of Sikhs and Buddhists whether they accept this interpretation of their "religions".

IMHO its wrong as we set up different laws according to religion and in that respect Sikhs have the right to complain.India should had gone with one country one law but we have missed that bus and are bound to suffer on the same.
 
So Sikhism (even to its people) is not a divine religion? As in people know that there is no tradition like there is in Islam, Judaism or even Hinduism (right or wrong is not the point) that it was sent by God and is not a product of man.
No, thats not true and plain ignorance by some posters in this thread.



Sikhism was started by Guru Nanak Dev Ji , when he got enlightened. sometime around the age of 30. After disappearing into a river and meditating in the water for three days. When he came out he recites verses of Jupji Sahib which became the foundation of this new religion.

On a related note. Is Sikhism a branch of Hinduism or a seperate religion.

Sikhism is a separate religion. And hinduism is to sikhism what christianity is to islam.

Some of the Sikhs Ive met in North America who complain about Indian treatment (and are pro Khalistan) say that India does not recognize them as a seperate religion and just says they are a sect like Shia, Sunni etc in Islam. Is this true and if yes why?

Those sikhs are stuck in 1980s or early 90s, thats when they left india. Some of them were participating in the movement themself. Indian sikhs have moved on and have no demand of khalistan. We demand justice of 1984 genocide and thats it.
Belive me there is no support of khalistan now at all. Some internet warriors and some NRI sikhs which u might have come across, but thats it.
 
No, thats not true and plain ignorance by some posters in this thread.



Sikhism was started by Guru Nanak Dev Ji , when he got enlightened. sometime around the age of 30. After disappearing into a river and meditating in the water for three days. When he came out he recites verses of Jupji Sahib which became the foundation of this new religion.



Sikhism is a separate religion. And hinduism is to sikhism what christianity is to islam.



Those sikhs are stuck in 1980s or early 90s, thats when they left india. Some of them were participating in the movement themself. Indian sikhs have moved on and have no demand of khalistan. We demand justice of 1984 genocide and thats it.
Belive me there is no support of khalistan now at all. Some internet warriors and some NRI sikhs which u might have come across, but thats it.
thanks for the answers

So does India now recognize Sikhism as a seperate religion?
 
This is basically what I am trying to ascertain and why a Sikh PP member viewpoint would be more valuable. At this point all we are getting is Hindu contributors who seem to see Sikh religion as a sect or branch of Hinduism and not a separate religion in itself.

here is sikh's viewpoint: sikhism is a separate religion and not a branch or sect of hinduism
hinduism is to sikhism what christianity is to islam
 
Back
Top