If a Bengali is in the US and he feels homesick, he'll say he would like to be in India, he wont say he would like to be in Bengal. If someone asks him his identity, he would say Indian, not Bengali.
Take care
yeah but by india he would really mean the Bengal. why would he feel homesick of Banglore or Amritsar?
BK, it is relative anyways. In the village my identity is jatt.little bit farther I am Sikh. I go to Banglore they call me a Punjabi. Sure in US I have multiple ID depending for different people. Lot of them think I am from Middle east, others when I have turban on clearly recognise me as Sikh, I meet our IT guys from Chennai and I a Punjabi for them again. On a larger level, I am Asian or South asian.
For a highway cop in the middle of virginia, I am a person of color. no one has a single identity. But regardless of what others think about you everyone has a idenity of himslef in his mind and heart. I have one for myself too. At the core of my heart I am a Punjabi paindoo and proud of it. Where i live we have a sizable Punjabi population who has its own radio, newspaper and cultural events on a regular basis. in fact we are ceebrating Diwali by holding a Diwali mela....a pure Punjabi style whose main host is a Hindu Punjaban and along with others,Punjabi artists from Pakistan are going to perform in the mela. this identity of mine is pretty much alive and kicking. It is not in a vacuum and does not need thermo nuclear devices to safe guard it:)
Fact is all this talk about religion on internet is politically motivated. a lethal combination in my view. If it presses a few sensitive button so it be. I am sure most us are not fanatics or very religious in the practical sense in real lives.Thats the end of it for me.
It is already thursday, happy Diwali!
[This message has been edited by ChannMahi (edited October 26, 2000).]
Originally posted by ChannMahi:
yeah but by india he would really mean the Bengal. why would he feel homesick of Banglore or Amritsar?
There was an interesting story narrated by Swapan Dasgupta in his column in 'India Today'. He has lived in Delhi all his life. He went to his ancestral home in Calcutta. After a few days his 4 yr. old son got thoroughly bored and asked 'daddy, when are we going back to India?'
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by ChannMahi:
Your approach is demeamning and politically motivated. Why?
**
Because it does not suit you.
**
First you insist on Sikhs being a sub rligion of Hinduism. .B]
Where?
**
WHen you don't succeed in that you ultimately start challenging the whole existence on the basis of originality and blah blah.
I am not challenging anyone's exiatsne. I am fully aware that robots have not yet taken over internet and that you exist.
All my statement, and I believe I have been consistent in saying that, basic philosphy of Sikhism is Vedanta, whether it is god -soul unity or way of salvation or that god is beyond attributes. I also believe that anyone who talks of equidistance theory is talking crap.
The other talk of who is sub-sect of what or whatever has not been my concern. As far as political motives, it is you who is trying to derail the discussion from its focus by bringing 'clever brahmins' and stuff like in discussion as if being clever or brahmin is a disqualification and that you are neither is a big qualification.
I would have to agree with everything ChanMahi has said. Rani, you have twisted the quotes from the SGGS to your preference. Ram is just one of the may words the Guru's used to define God. The purpose of that was to show GOD IS ONE, and that people will refer to him with different names but he is the same person. Whether it be Allah, Ram, Shiva, Wahe-Guru. He is the same person. The Guru's have used Allah MANY times in the SGGS, as well as other names. You completely miss the point ChanMahi tried to make. You assume that in one section where Ram is used, that the Guru is referring to the Hindu Ram, or Hindu Shiva. It is like how we're using the term "GOD" itself. The word God is the word of Christians to define God, when you pray in Hinduism or in Islam, or Sikhism for that matter, you don't call him "GOD" do you? Yet, all over our discussion we will refer to him as God. Is he the Christian God? No, we don't say that, but we use the word God as a term to define God. I hope this is making sense to you, I'm sure I tried to point this contrast out several times.
This whole Sikhism being the younger child of Hinduism really bothers me alot. Because, it's very clear that the Guru's especially Nanak Dev, clearly set out to have a new path that is seperate of Hinduism and Islam. To say Sikhism is a part of Hinduism, is saying that Guru Nanak pretty much never achieved the purpose of what he was trying to accomplish. No, he didn't go out there one day and said "I think today, I'm gonna start a religion", but he defiably set out to create a path distinct from Islam and Hinduism.
Even a Sikh's physical charactiristics speak for themselves. There is not even one SIKH in the world who is Dravidian.
Now, before I go on and explain what I am getting to. When I use the term Dravidian, I am not saying all Sikhs are fair complexion, but Dravidians are the people of South India, and because of their geographic locale, they tend to be of darker complexion, and according to genetics, are also shorter.
You may ask, what does this have to do with anything? This will show you how different we really are, not by just religion and culture by even appearance and physical characteristics.
You will have to consider although by historical views, Hinduism came from the Aryans, it was dominated by the Dravidians (who knows what they practiced before), although I reject the theory of Aryans bringing Hinduism.
You will find that all Sikhs are of Aryan nature, and different from their Hindu brothers, the majority being Dravidian (south indian).
Where Sikhs originate from, is from a land that before Sikhism existed, and was conquered by variety of forces, the Persians (including Darius), Arabs (too many to name), Oriental Moghuls (Genghis Khan), Greek (Alexander the Great).
Of all this external nations, the people of the North were influenced and became almost different. And the majority of people of the North are Sikhs and Muslims. Not Hindu's.
To explain this simply. Not everyone who is Sikh was not necessarily HINDU before they had become SIKH. Alot of Hindu's will try to use that against Sikhs, claiming we were all Hindu's before. I will agree, we were all INDIANS and are still INDIANS, but HINDU. No.
I certainly believe from my origins that in no way I was Hindu before, and this not just a strong statement. This is true just from looking at my family history, my very own last name, and the irony that our village was dominated by muslims, and that my original village (before partition) was VERY close to Afghanistan. The chances of my ancestors being Hindu is really unlikely.
So, then you call me Hindu, or even having ancestors who are Hindu? When my ancestors were approximately less than 60 KM from Afghanistan? And with all that Islamic influence, my ancestors maintained Hinduism? Having said that, I believe when my ancestors became Sikh was during the reign of Maharaj Ranjit Singh, because during his reign, it is ironic to see of my grandparents names from being obvious Islamic names , suddenly turn more sikh and punjabi.
For all Sikhs who have read this, should actuallly inquire more on their ancestory, they will learn alot of remarkable things, especially us Sikhs who originally came from the Pakistan side.
Having said all this, I am not saying my ancestors were Muslim. But, what I am trying to prove is, they were neither Hindu.
We are neither Hindu or Muslim. - Guru Nanak Dev Ji.
Arai
Arai! Did Guru Nanak want that none of Sikhs should be dravidian? Did he have something against having dravidian as sikh? In fact, one could argue that it was failure of sikhs that sikhism remained confined to Punjab and did not spread beyond. In that sense, trying to equate sikhism with a kind of punjabi nationalism confines ot further though serves the politics well. (In some sense, it did spread. The only scriptures that most Sindhi Hindus read are Sikh scriptures. )
If u think that ur ancestors converted from Islam to Sikhism, it is not impossible. But there were indeed Hindus all the way to Afghanistan. Raj Kapoor's family comes from Peshavar. New Beauty queen Lara Dutta's father come from an Afghan Hindu family.
Chanmahi and Arai,
I have been very impressed by your straight talking defense of the religion of Sikhism. It seems like the true version of sikh religion which matches with the many sikh people I know who can be recognised as Sikhs.
Rani's version of Sikhism seems to match the writings from Hindutva websites which all promote Hindu absorption of Sikhism and hatred of Christianity and Islam. Rani also denounces Abrahamic religions whilst supporting unflinchingly Hinduism past and present.
rani is definately a hindu lady..she only ever speaks on hinduism and doesnt educate us on true beliefs of sikhism.
Originally posted by arai:
**
I would have to agree with everything ChanMahi has said. Rani, you have twisted the quotes from the SGGS to your preference. Ram is just one of the may words the Guru's used to define God. The purpose of that was to show GOD IS ONE, and that people will refer to him with different names but he is the same person. Whether it be Allah, Ram, Shiva, Wahe-Guru. He is the same person. The Guru's have used Allah MANY times in the SGGS, as well as other names. You completely miss the point ChanMahi tried to make. You assume that in one section where Ram is used, that the Guru is referring to the Hindu Ram, or Hindu Shiva. It is like how we're using the term "GOD" itself. The word God is the word of Christians to define God, when you pray in Hinduism or in Islam, or Sikhism for that matter, you don't call him "GOD" do you? Yet, all over our discussion we will refer to him as God. Is he the Christian God? No, we don't say that, but we use the word God as a term to define God. I hope this is making sense to you, I'm sure I tried to point this contrast out several times.**
I know what you are trying to say but you forget the very basic difference between eastern religion and Abrahmical religions is that eastern religions do not believe in they need intermediatory to reach God and only he will tell God whether one should go heaven and hell. ZZ is right all eastern religions believe in common philosphy of direct relationship with God without any intermeditory and also in Karma and reincarnation there is a basic difference between eastern and middle eastern philosphy.
Gurus were preaching to people of India who were Hindu at time, at no time he asked them to reject hinduism, their emphasis was on reforming the religion and getting rid of meaningless rituals and getting rid of class system.
This whole Sikhism being the younger child of Hinduism really bothers me alot. Because, it's very clear that the Guru's especially Nanak Dev, clearly set out to have a new path that is seperate of Hinduism and Islam. To say Sikhism is a part of Hinduism, is saying that Guru Nanak pretty much never achieved the purpose of what he was trying to accomplish. No, he didn't go out there one day and said "I think today, I'm gonna start a religion", but he defiably set out to create a path distinct from Islam and Hinduism.
You can believe whatever you want but in my opinion Nanak set out to reform the religion majority of the Indian were following in India. I hope you are familiar with his visits to Benaras and his discussion with hindu sages
**Even a Sikh's physical charactiristics speak for themselves. There is not even one SIKH in the world who is Dravidian.
Now, before I go on and explain what I am getting to. When I use the term Dravidian, I am not saying all Sikhs are fair complexion, but Dravidians are the people of South India, and because of their geographic locale, they tend to be of darker complexion, and according to genetics, are also shorter.
You may ask, what does this have to do with anything? This will show you how different we really are, not by just religion and culture by even appearance and physical characteristics.
You will have to consider although by historical views, Hinduism came from the Aryans, it was dominated by the Dravidians (who knows what they practiced before), although I reject the theory of Aryans bringing Hinduism.
You will find that all Sikhs are of Aryan nature, and different from their Hindu brothers, the majority being Dravidian (south indian).
Where Sikhs originate from, is from a land that before Sikhism existed, and was conquered by variety of forces, the Persians (including Darius), Arabs (too many to name), Oriental Moghuls (Genghis Khan), Greek (Alexander the Great).
Of all this external nations, the people of the North were influenced and became almost different. And the majority of people of the North are Sikhs and Muslims. Not Hindu's.**
I have no idea what you are talking about. For your information all Sikhs are not Aryans, the Jatts are actually "Hans" but that is a different discussion nothing to do with the Sikhism. Are you trying to say that hindu punjabis and Sikh punjabis are of different ancestary. Half of the Khatri and Arora Punjabi community is Sikh and other half is Hindu.
**To explain this simply. Not everyone who is Sikh was not necessarily HINDU before they had become SIKH. Alot of Hindu's will try to use that against Sikhs, claiming we were all Hindu's before. I will agree, we were all INDIANS and are still INDIANS, but HINDU. No.
I certainly believe from my origins that in no way I was Hindu before, and this not just a strong statement. This is true just from looking at my family history, my very own last name, and the irony that our village was dominated by muslims, and that my original village (before partition) was VERY close to Afghanistan. The chances of my ancestors being Hindu is really unlikely.
So, then you call me Hindu, or even having ancestors who are Hindu? When my ancestors were approximately less than 60 KM from Afghanistan? And with all that Islamic influence, my ancestors maintained Hinduism? Having said that, I believe when my ancestors became Sikh was during the reign of Maharaj Ranjit Singh, because during his reign, it is ironic to see of my grandparents names from being obvious Islamic names , suddenly turn more sikh and punjabi.**
Nobody is suggesting that you were hindu...actually i don't care, we are discussing philosphy of Sikhism. Actually many muslims were hindus before they converted to Islam. For your information it was very common for Indians living in Punjab to take on persian names due to influence of persian language. Many Sikhs take on christian names like Harry, Peter etc when they come to west according to your theory they were christian at one time.
For all Sikhs who have read this, should actuallly inquire more on their ancestory, they will learn alot of remarkable things, especially us Sikhs who originally came from the Pakistan side.
My family and everbody i know has root in what is now Pakistan and i know my most of my clans ancestory and mine upto seven generations. We have been Sikhs for generations.
**Having said all this, I am not saying my ancestors were Muslim. But, what I am trying to prove is, they were neither Hindu.
We are neither Hindu or Muslim. - Guru Nanak Dev Ji.
Arai**
Nobody is suggesting that you are Hindu we are discussing Sikh philosphy, anybody who believes in Guru Granth Sahib is a Sikh. Like you i am a Sikh but unlike you i don't feel threatened by tracing my ancestary to hinduism at one time. To me being a good human being is more important than being hindu or Sikh.
I think you should read more about eastern religion, your dravidian thing is hilarious and makes no sense.
Xtreme
You have no knowledge of eastern religion please study them before offering your comments.
Sufi.... butt out.. who i am is none of your ur business.
basic difference between eastern religion and Abrahmical religions is that eastern religions do not believe in they need intermediatory to reach God and only he will tell God whether one should go heaven and hell. ZZ is right all eastern religions believe in common philosphy of direct relationship with God without any intermeditory and also in Karma and reincarnation there is a basic difference between eastern and middle eastern philosphy.<<<<<
poor knowledge at display here. 1500 years ago middle east, east heck even africa all followed an amulgum of idol worshipping, athiesm, pervertedness, inequality etc. Infact they were the ones who used hand made gods of clay and stone as intermediators. It was Islam, that gave the concept of ONE god and preached direct link with God. And that is why it spread equally fast from a small town in middle east to africa, russia, indonesia, persia, turkey and all around the globe.
Gurus were preaching to people of India who were Hindu at time, at no time he asked them to reject hinduism, their emphasis was on reforming the religion and getting rid of meaningless rituals and getting rid of class system. <<<<
o common. this has to be the most idiotic thing i have heard in a long time. here is a man who wanted to change something in hinduism.... wanted to eliminate caste system of hinduism (i hope), wanted to eliminate worshipping of idols (i hope), wanted to preach to one God, yet he preached that everyone should keep doing what they are doing. it makes little sense.
say a person is kicking a dog.... and ur objective is to stop the person from kicking the dog. would u go and tell him/her to stop kicking the dog..... or would u just go tell him to "wear a turban" as a remedy so while he is still kicking the dog and here you are thinking you have done your job.
ZZ. Sikhism did not become as global as the other major religions of the world for the simple reason.
Sikhs are only followers. Never converted to, nor ever preached to. They are people who heard the teachings, and went in with themselves. They're is no conversion ritual or anything. It's simply following the way of life, makes you a Sikh.
Sikhs didn't travel anywhere in the intentions to convert and increase followers. The message was sent out, the display was there, people of the country could see what Sikhs have done for India, and how they tried and succeeded to stop oppression, and it's certainly not a surprise that those individuals would want to take up Sikhism.
This is why Sikhism primarily remained a northern religion. It's actually quite funny, some people in the South (India) don't even know what Sikhs are. And you can't blame them, considering Sikhs make up roughly 2% of the population, many people in the rural South are unlikely to even know what a Sikh is.
Arai
Rani.
I will admit that is a clever point , western indians having names such as Harry, Bob, etc. I will give you that.
But, you neglected to explain how my ancestors maintained Hinduism until Sikhism, when they lived very close to a country (Afghanistan), who's dominant religion is Islam, and Afghans being the people who have conquered Delhi and such.
It would make no sense that, Afghans can convert all the Indians in Delhi to Islam, but be unable to convert the Hindu's right next to Kabul?
Now, you brought up the point. "Even Muslims were Hindu's before they became Hindu" (paraphrased).
Now, when I mentioned that my family originated near Afghanistan. How do you know that they didn't come from Afghanistan instead of the India?
Now, if my ancestors being relatively close to Afghanistan were originally Hindu, and I stick to the premise that my family originated from Afghanistan. This would mean that Afghani's were once Hindu also. Now having said that.
Taking a hypothetical example.
We know Hinduism is older than Islam, no doubt about that.
Afghanistan now being Hindu (in your inadvertant claim, since muslims are Hindu's, and that my family who being next to Afghanistan were also hindu) would logically mean Afghanistan is Hindu. Since Hinduism is older than Islam. That would mean, before the creation of Islam, Afghanistan must have been an Hindu country? (Lets forget Zoorastrianism for now). Now, if Afghanistan before Islam was Hindu. That would mean, the neighbour Iran was Hindu and Iraq? But, then Saudi Arabia would also be Hindu? (Where does this chain reaction stop)
Lets see, historically. I don't know of any artifacts of Hindu idols being found in the middle east that are significantly old.
So your primal chain reaction wouldn't work. Your claim of Muslims being prior Hindu's is false.
The proof is. There is a definite stop in which Hinduism didn't exist. You've made Hinudism seem like it stretches as far out at infinity in all directions, without a defiable limit.
The limit I set is, that Hinduism never got farther than Afghanistan, therefore Sikhs who originated from that area are not necessarily Hindu, even if Sikhs over there were Muslim, that wouldn't mean prior to them being Muslim that they were Hindu.
By claiming ALL SIKHS are Hindu, or were Hindu is like saying all MUSLIMS are Arabs.
I will not get into the Dravidian/Aryan ethnic/genetic information. If you need sufficient proof of this, I can ask my Bio-Electrical prof, to forward me to his thesis work on Genetic studies in India, with comparision to faith and practices. It's a very interesting journal.
It has scientific proof, and statistical data of Sikhs, Hindu's, Muslims, Jains, Buddhist's, they're genetic comparisons. And the most interesting is, the genetic comparison with the ancient Greek, in addition comparisions to the RRomani people of Europe, and their ancient Indian ancestory with India.
You will see, by a LONG SHOT, how different Sikhs are to Hindu's. The differences are so contrasted, that it can simpy been seen in our blood.
Arai
arai, are u going to find a non-hindu, preferably islamic anceestry of sikh gurus and ranjit singh as well. the ethnic color that is given to a religion of universal love like sikhism was not enough, now likes of arai are giving it a racist color as well.
rani baby,
who you are is my business........if you are deceiving others then people have a right to know.
arai has raised some good points and it just shows that you dont know anything about sikhism.
i ask you once again...are you a hindu?
sufimaster is still asking if rani is hindu.
reminds me a story. someone is travelling by train in india from calcutta to bombay. two people get in the train and as soon as the person B gets in person A asks 'are u chinese?'.
B says 'No! c'mom. my name is biswojoy. i am toto bengali'.
Few stops pass by. Again A asks 'are u chinese?'
B is irritated but still says 'no!'
Few more stops and A asks again 'tell me truth. are u chinese?'
B says 'no! no! no!'
Few further stops and A comes again 'why dont u tell me what u are. are u chinese'
B shouts 'NOOOO'
Bombay comes. Both get out of train. A again asks B 'Are u chinese?'
B is very angry and irritated now. He shouts 'OK! I am chinese. What u want to do if I am chinese. OK I will say that I am chinese. damn it.'
A says 'Why you did not admit it before?'
[This message has been edited by ullu (edited October 27, 2000).]
and if Sikhs accept that they are basically Hindus and became Sikhs only to save Hinduism from Islam (hence they should always hate muslims)then Sikhism becomes a religion of universal love?
good point chanmahi. if sikh gurus really never rejected hinduism and their aim was only to reform hinduism then they should be known as “hindu reformists” and not sikhs. if their objective was only to reform hindus then why were sikhs so keen on making themselves look different from hindus by wearing turbans etc. and preaching to ONE god instead of many.
Gurus were preaching to people of India who were Hindu at time, at no time he asked them to reject hinduism, their emphasis was on reforming the religion and getting rid of meaningless rituals and getting rid of class system. <<<<
Gurus only preached to hindus? if thats true then sikhism isnt for all mankind. like u claim rani.
I dunno man alot of the South Indians I know tend to call their country South India than India…i mean u know when u talk to someone and they say Paul is frm ma country…and wat is ur country? South INdia.may b its just ma experiance…
BAD BOYS HAVE ALL DA FUN!!
Why drink N drive when U can smoke N FLY:)
http://ammars.4t.com
none stops anyone to preach hindu philosophy to mankind. isn’t it?