It is quite probable that the doctrine of reincarnation was the accidental
invention of the early Buddhists. The first Hindu reference to the subject
appears in the Katha Upanishad which, though not precisely dated, appeared
at a time suspiciously close to the time of the Buddha. It is highly
probable that the description by the Buddha of stages of his life as
Gautama (Jataka Tales) was radically misunderstood by later generations
of Buddhists as referring to actual past lifetimes.
There were highly developed mystics and thinkers well before the advent of
the Buddha to whom such an idea was completely foreign.
To me, the concept that Gandhi brought independence to India is
dangerously wrong. Gandhi only brought partition for Hindus and Pakistan for Muslims. The British left India due to their own compulsions and not because of Gandhi or the Congress. The British had suo moto declared in February 1947 that they would leave India by June 1948. Mountbatten was sent to India in March that year to ensure implementation of this decision. He saw the things, prepared the Partition plan, persuaded or forced the Congress and the Muslim League to accept it. He preponed the British departure and unilaterally fixed 15th August 1947 as the date of transfer of power.
Agreeing to Jinnah's proposition, "First divide and then quit", Mountbatten created Pakistan on the 14th August, 1947. That is why Pakistan celebrates its Independence Day a day earlier than India. Gandhi had nothing to do with all these events. Mountbatten met
Gandhi only once in April 1947 and didn’t talk to him any more till the
Partition was completed, in spite of Gandhi's opposition.
By retaining the larger part of the Muslim population in
India, instead of letting them go to their cherished homeland Pakistan, for which they had voted overwhelmingly, Gandhi and Nehru retained the seeds of another partition or Islamisation of Hindu India also. Hindus who believe that they are free or independent are living in a
fool's paradise. They do not know the meaning of Independence. We daily
see a dog comfortably sitting in a car, being patted or kissed by a beautiful lady, eating sumptuous food. Will any of you wish to be a dog like that? Certainly not.
Economically, Hindus were equally rich during the Mughal
period. There were no banks. Hindu Mahajans of the time did all the
banking. Even the Muslim kings and Nawabs took loan from them. Then, why were they crying? Why do we say and our forefathers
said that Hindus suffered slavery for one thousand years? The answer is
that the sovereignty of the State lay in Mohammedan rule. They governed
us according to Shariat laws. The political and social position of Hindus vis-a-vis Hindu converts to Islam was of second class citizens. As compared to Muslims of foreign origin, like the Mughals, the Arabs, the Iranians, etc., their position was third. They had to pay jazia. Their object of worship, the cow, was butchered before their eyes. It was this inferior political and social position and religious persecution which caused revolt and Shivaji fought for Hindavi Swaraj. Guru Gobind Singh in Punjab, Chhatral in Bundelkhand and several others did the same.
So the test of freedom of a community or nation is, "Where does the
sovereignty lie? Surely, it does not lie with the Hindus, as it lies with the Muslims in Pakistan or the British in the U.K. The answer is in the Constitution. The Indian Constitution gives over-riding powers to the minority communities, which practically means the Muslims. So they have the veto power. They have chosen to be governed by their Shariat laws, (except in criminal matters). In an affidavit to the Supreme Court, the Union government has approved their Shariat courts. The result is that you could not have a uniform civil code; could not get rid of the temporary provision of Article 370 in relation to Jammu & Kashmir; could not get cow-slaughter banned; could not make Hindi the official language of the Indian Union as contemplated by the Constitution framers. The list can be endless.
Hence, Hindus are yet to fight for a real freedom. If they don't
understand this obvious truth, they are bound to suffer another 1,000
years of slavery under Talibani Muslims.
Please convey my appreciation and regards to Dr. Baldev Singh for his
article. In fact, an old book, Hum Hindu Naheen by late Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha should be translated into English and
distributed free of cost.
As pointed by Dr. Baldev Singh, there are several references in the
Guru Granth Sahib, such as
Bhagat Namdev jee (1270-1350) at page 875: Hindu Anha, Turkoo Kana...
Hindu Pujaiy Dehura Mussalman Maseet;
Bhagat Kabir jee (1441-1518) at page 1349: Hindu Murat Naam Nivasi...
Guru Nanak Sahib (1469-1539) at page 465: Hindu Salahi Salahin...;
at page 556: Hindu Mullay Bhulay Akhuti Janhi...
Guru Arjan Sahib (1563-1606) at page 1136: Na Hum Hindu Na Mussalman.....
Guru Nanak Sahib has also said (GGS Page 360) Khurasan Khasmana Keeya
Hindustan Daraiyaa....
R
ecently, Dr Jasbir Singh Mann, MD (USA) has also compiled: Sikhs are not Hindus. Unfortunately, the current corrupt regime of so-called Sikhs have started practicing Hindu rites and rituals. Such
hypocrisy needs to be exposed.
I am truly grateful to the SikhSpectrum for sharing this article. Sardar Jarnail Singh has effectively explained the concept of the Divine Order (Hukam), mentioned in the Jap Jee Sahib as well as under subsequent Shabds in the Guru Granth Sahib.
We should all follow Divine Order and try our best to lead the truthful
life (as a Sachiara / Khalsa / Noble /
Ideal Person) with devotion and humility by getting rid of our ego
(Haumay).
It is my humble request that such detailed narration of Japp Jee Sahib may continue, which will not only elevate our lives but also enable us to attain emancipation in this life.
Excuse me, but this American General, knows very little about Mahatma
Gandhi. Mohandas Gandhi, was born into a Hindu family, and believed and
practiced a universal form of religion. He was exposed to Jainism, Islam, and Buddhism along with Hinduism as a young man. He almost became a practicing Christian, until he decided that what we call God by name does not matter, it is what is in our hearts, and shown by our religiosity and actions.
Gandhi, learned the scholarly side of Hinduism, while in England
after the age of 18 and learned in English. Gandhi was far from a
traditional Hindu, rejecting all forms of exclusivity. He worked his
whole life against prejudgment of humans, and rejected the
misunderstandings that the caste system somehow implied in practice, and wanted the Untouchables castes/class removed. Does this Sikh general know that Indira Gandhi is of no relation to the Mahatma?
I express my thanks to Neil Garland for expressing his views here. I am somewhat more thrilled that he has referred me with a rank of general. I never attained that rank but I still thank him for a virtual promotion. With respect to Gandhi, I will urge him to read my two books on Gandhi.
Particularly his reference to the caste system and the untouchability, again, I will recommend my book GANDHI: BEHIND THE MASK OF DIVINITY to get the truth of what Gandhi was shooting for. There is no doubt that Gandhi’s modus operandi was racism.
It is interesting to read Yogesh Sexana's comments, some of which I agree. Often I hear these kinds of words coming from educated Hindus leaning into fundamentalism of the sorts, and often I ask them to re-assess their views in light of the contrary evidence. M.K. Gandhi was a fundamentalist Hindu. If you do not know this then please read my two books on him.
With regard to the Constitution of India, I have read this document many times. I differ with Mr. Sexana's views here. The Constitution of India is purely a Hindu document written in conformity with the dictates of Modern Hinduism and the principles of Diarchy.
The brief review of “The Gospel of God to the Sikhs” brings into sharp focus the stark contrast in the “Humanity” of a lay Sikh person versus that of Christian clergyman, James C. Gamaliel. The Sikh gentleman does not impose his belief on his Christian wife and three daughters whereas Pastor Gamaliel joins hand with one of his ignorant and morally insensitive daughter, Ramona Kaur Miller to convert her 96-year-old Sikh father who was in a failing health. It seems that the “moral compass” of Christian clergy/missionaries has not moved even a tiny bit in the direction of “universal morality”.
After the annexation of the kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1849 by the British colonists, a British agent named Henry Lawrence kidnapped the ten years old crown prince, Maharaja Dalip Singh, and imprisoned his mother. The young prince was handed over to a missionary couple, Dr. and Mrs. John Logan. He was completely cut off from his relatives and the Sikh community, brainwashed and converted to Christianity.
It seems the Christian missionary in the pursuit of saving the so-called “soul” of the “heathen” looses his own humanity reducing itself to a shell of bones and flesh.
The article “Migrant Child Laborers of Bihar in Aligarh” by Zoya Zaidi would bring tears even in the eyes of a stone-hearted person. The pictures of children as young as six years working as adults to support their families are haunting. How could people who will do anything legal or illegal for the well –being of their own children, exploit children of others? Homo sapiens are indeed the cruelest species in the animal kingdom, especially, the way they treat their own kind. The words of Jahangir, the six-year-old child challenges the conscience of Indian moral leaders, economic planners, and social scientists and activists.
Five centuries ago, Guru Nanak observed that ignorance, grinding poverty and the tyranny of the ruler/elite are the problems plaguing the masses (Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS), p. 1256), and he challenged the elite by openly declaring his solidarity with the masses:
Nanak will stand by the lowest of the lowest, not with the elite. Societies that take care of the downtrodden have the blessing of God.
AGGS, M 1, p. 15.
It seems that in five hundred years there is not any meaningful change in the Indian society as far as the vast majority of the Indian population that is destitute and downtrodden. So, Zoya Zaidi, please keep beating the drum of truth, maybe the sound will penetrate “deaf ears” and shock the “living dead”.
Finally, the “trickle down” economic model based on “free enterprise system” and the “market economy” that makes the rich super rich is ill-suited for a country like India where over 90% of the population cannot afford two nourishing meals a day. India should look for other economic models that can benefit poorest of the poor also, like the one pioneered by Nobel Laureate Prof. Muhammad Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank.
I just stumbled upon this article a day after 'our friend' left for
heavenly abode.
In a short life he has made every Sikh proud. May Waheguru bless his
soul and provide spiritual support to his family.
The date of death of Dr. C. H. Loehlin in the article “Sikh Studies and Ghostwriters” typed inadvertently as September 27, 1990 is wrong. He was born on May 14, 1897 in Brooklyn, New York and died on September 27, 1987 at the age of 90 in San Gabriel, California (Presbyterian Historical Society, 425 Lombard Street, Philadelphia, PA 19147).
S. Jarnail Singh has beautifully brought out the importance of following
Hukam and its inviolability, much as the mortals may try. The resultant
concept of Manmukh and Gurmukh has also been brought out.
However, one is unable to see from the article as to what is Hukam that
we all must obey. It appears that what we must do in life in the concept
of "Hukmay andar sabh ko" would have been made known to the soul before it
gave life to the body. After all we can obey only the commands given to us.
There are some things which are entirely beyond the control of mortals.
One such thing, probably the most important is the family and the faith
into which the birth takes place. Gurbani also says that what ever we
achieve in life is by Hukam otherwise "Aapan leeaa jay milai vichhur kiau
rovann" (SGGS p 134).
It therefore appears that accepting these situations and performing our
roles sincerely in them is the basic Hukam.
There are also requirements based on ethics and social responsiblity
(Seva) which Gurbani lays down and which translate into the Sikh concept of
Naam Japna, Dharam di Kirt and Vand Chhakna. These could probably be
considered.
Thank you! I enjoyed reading this. Although I belong to no cult,
religious affiliation, etc. nor, am I an avid follower/admirer of people
like Gandhi, or anyone else. I take my snippets of knowledge and wisdom
wherever I find them. In that light, you are just as wise and important,
in my eyes as Ghandhi was. I do appreciate being informed and
enlightened by those with the tools to do so. Thank you for the
information, I enjoyed reading it.
The last sentence of this article is so incredibly misinformed. Any
sincere person should take a moment to read the introduction to
"Bhagavad-gita as it is" by AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and see for
themselves what Krishna stands for. Krishna is a name for God meaning the
"all attractive person." God has no interest in selfish
motivations for material gains. I emplore readers to utilize their own
intelligence and come to their own conclusions about Krishna, who by the
way is not Hindu, Christian, Muslim or whatever. God is for everyone and
is always just.
Arya Siddhanta would like us to believe that "Krishna" of the Bhagavad-gita is a universal god. I disagree with this assessment. I am very familiar with Bhagavad-gita as well as Prabhupada's "Bhagavad-gita as it is."
My reading of Bhagavad-gita is that it is a political book and Krishna comes out as an ideologue brainwashing Arjuna.
I object to the way in which the review seeks to trash and demean Gandhi. Either the reviewer or the author of the book (or both) seem to think that by not becoming vehemently vocal about the abuse he was subjected to in South Africa, means it did not happen, that Gandhi was covering something up. Gandhi did in fact become outspoken about his mistreatment. Also it is demeaning to Gandhi's memory to have that ugly, foolish picture of Hitlery on the image accompanying the review. (I am not certain if that is the book cover image, but if it is, you have sunk down to rock bottom.) Hitlery is a warmonger who votes for murder, illegal warfare and torture each time she gets a chance. To put a repulsive monster like Hitlery in the pose of 'questioning' a man of peace like Gandhi is disgusting to me. I also asked why, if you want to spew dirt on someone, you didn't choose Bush or Cheney.
I thank you for your input here. I happen to disagree with your views on Gandhi. The racial train incidents of 1893 did not take place. Gandhi lied. If you have evidence contrary to my research, I am always open to hear. Before you begin that I would urge you to read the book and see why I reached that conclusion.
As far as Hillary's image is concerned, your views of Hillary are yours. Perhaps you are not aware that she had been promoting Gandhi for a long time.
I have observed over the years that Sikhs who participate in inter-faith conferences/seminar invariably distort Nankian philosophy (Gurmat) to suite their purpose. Nanak Singh Nishter’s paper “Shri Guru Granth Sahib – Relevance for Muslims” he presented at the Fifth Global Conference on Shri Guru Granth Sahib (organized by Devi Ahilya University &Sri Guru Granth Sahib Vichar Manch, Indore, India, February 10-12, 2007) and recently published in the SikhSpectrum, July 2008, is a prime example of distortion of Gurmat . The author makes many statements that are inaccurate, meaningless, self-contradictory and outright distortion of Gurmat. Moreover, he provides no evidence to support such statements. For the sake of brevity let me point out three such statements from his article.
1. “Without having a Kirpan (a weapon) nobody is entitled to be called a Sikh, nor his prayer is complete. The Sikh and the Kirpan are a must for each other and can never be separated. Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji has specifically ordered, “Not to come before him without weapon.”
It is astonishing that the author made this ridiculous, outrageous and abominable statement at a “Global Conference” on Aad Guru Granth Sahib. The statement not only repudiates Gurmat and Sikh history, but is highly insulting to vast majority of Sikh who do not carry Kirpan. If “Without having a Kirpan (a weapon) no body is entitled to be called a Sikh, nor his prayer is complete” then what would Nishter call Sikh Gurus from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Rai and their followers before the creation of Khalsa Order on the occasion of Vaisakhi in 1699 , and what happened to their prayers? Further what is the source of this statement?
2. “Shri Guru Granth Sahib is an inter-religious and multi-lingual Universal Scripture of mankind preaching a Muslim to be a true Muslim and a Hindu to be a true Hindu.”
This statement is often repeated by Sikhs as well non-Sikhs in their writings and talks at conferences. However, people who make this claim never bother to check its veracity in Guru Nanak’s composition incorporated in the Aad Guru Granth Sahib. To my knowledge and understanding there is no verse in the Aad Guru Granth Sahib that is compatible with this statement. Recently Colonel GB Singh and I have commented on the absurdity of this claim in the Sikh Spectrum – my article “Was Guru Nanak a Hindu or Muslim” (SikhSpectrum, November 2007). Now let us examine Guru Nanak’s message to Hindus and Muslim.
First, Guru Nanak rejected earlier religious traditions along with their entire stream of dogmas and doctrines. For example the concept of God Who is accessible only through prophets or speaks only to chosen people, incarnation of God, the caste system, transmigration and karma, soul and salvation, hell and heaven, gods and goddesses, and idol worship were all swept into the dustbin. In sharp contrast, Guru Nanak talks about sarab saanjha (Universal) God That is accessible/understandable to all without regard to caste, creed, colour, gender and geographical consideration. So why would Guru Nanak advise Hindus and Muslim to follow their religions faithfully?
Neither the Vedas [four Hindu texts] nor the four Katebas [Semitic texts: the Torah, the Zabur (Psalms), the Injil (Gospel) and the Quran] know the “Reality” - Universal God.AGGS, M 1, p. 1021.
What can the poor Vedas and Katebas teach when their authors themselves did not understand the “One and Only” - Universal God.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1153.
The readings of the Vedas, Katebas, Simrtis and all the Shastras do not show the path to salvation (freedom from ignorance and falsehood). AGGS, M 5, p. 747.
The Merciful One is the only Emancipator (Maula), not holy men (pir and sheikh), or prophets. The Master of every heart, Who delivers justice, is beyond the descriptions of Quran and other Semitic texts. AGGS, M 5, p. 897.
It is the teachings of Vedas, which has created the concepts of sin and virtue, hell and heaven, and karma and transmigration: One reaps the reward in the next life for the deeds performed in this life and goes to hell or heaven according to one’s deeds. The Vedas have also created the fallacy of inequality of caste and gender for the world. AGGS, M 2, p. 1243.
Second, during Guru Nanak’s time a true Hindu followed the dictates of the caste system faithfully. The mere shadow of an untouchable on Dwijas (twice born – Brahman, Kashatriya, Vaisya) was considered as an act of pollution. Any Hindu who violated his caste boundaries was thrown out of the Hindu society -- he was a pariah – non- person -- the outcaste. Hindus called Muslims malesh (impure, defiled). On the other hand a true Muslim considered non-Muslims as kafirs (non-believers) and considered it his sacred duty to bring them in the fold if Din (Islam) by any means from persuasion to the threat of sword. Killing or conversion of kafirs was considered as an act of piety worthy of heavenly rewards sanctioned by Allah. So why would Guru Nanak advise Hindus and Muslims to be faithful to such convictions?
On the other hand Guru Nanak’s composition reveal that he urged both Hindus and Muslims to focus on universal humanism – liberty, equality, justice and respect for all, and to promote universal human values such as love, humility, forgiveness, compassion and truthful living. For example, let us examine of Guru Nanak’s view about five Muslim prayers.
The five prayers for five different times during the day have five different names. Make truth the first prayer, honest living the second one, practice of charity the third one, cleansing the mind of evil thoughts the fourth one and contemplation on God's excellences the fifth one. And let good deeds become your Kalma, the foundation of your faith. If one practices the above, only then one is a true Muslim (gurmukh). Otherwise O Nanak, by practicing hypocrisy, one becomes false through and through.
AGGS, M 1, p. 141.
Here Guru Nanak rejects conventional/ritualistic prayers; instead he suggests universal human values as a way of life for Muslims. These human values are universal and applicable to all – transforming ordinary person to a gurmukh (God-centred being, enlightened being)
Further he urged both Hindus and Muslims to make honest living, contemplate on God/Truth and practice charity.
3. “The Sikh is bowing his head since more than 400 years, before Shri Guru Granth Sahib in which the saints of Muslims, the untouchables and Hindus from different communities are also seated.”
The hymns of these sages were incorporated in Aad Guru Granth Sahib because they were humanists, not that they were representative of Hindu, Muslim and Untouchable communities. Guru Arjan honoured these humanists by incorporating their precious thoughts that were compatible with Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat). Wherever there are minor differences the Gurus added their comments alongside.
People who look at these humanists as Hindus, Muslims and untouchables are probably suffering from the fungus of Brahamnical thinking – Varna Ashrama Dharma/caste system, the most dehumanizing “trap” invented by man for the exploitation of man in human history.
Regards,
-Baldev Singh
GB Singh appears to be very....
-Arya Siddhanta, USA
Dear Editor,
GB Singh appears to be very interested in politics and worldly
affairs as he has completely overlooked the numerous varieties of
transcendental insights offered in the Bhagavad-gita. The second chapter explains primarily that we are not our bodies, but the soul inside. The first six chapters gradually elevate one from karma-yoga (working in detachment) to bhakti-yoga or buddhi-yoga(working in knowledge for the pleasure of the supreme). The middle six chapters elegantly describe the confidential subject matter of how devotional service to God (One God unlimited names, pastimes and forms) operates. The final Six chapters gradually elevate one from jnana-yoga (understanding the difference between spirit and matter) to bhakti-yoga. But please do not take my word for it or Mr. Singh’s. Look for yourself on-line ("Bhagavad gita as it is" is free on-line) and come to your own conclusions.
Sages and sincere spiritual seekers of the Vedic Culture have accepted this teaching for thousands of years or more and we can see modern day examples of people who gave up their sinful activities after being in some very unfavorable positions (myself included). I was under the impression that people of the glorious Sikh faith were accepting of Vedic Sastra. I can say that my brain is much cleaner thanks to the great wisdom in Bhagavad gita. What personal gain do I receive by saying such? I ask you to serve God with love and devotion and
in a non-sectarian way. Isn't this what the world needs in these dark
times?
The views expressed in this article represents one of the many
interpretations of the events of 1857. Great historians like A.C. Majumdar
have denied the claim of 1857 as 'the first war of
independence'. According to him this was neither first, nor a war, nor
meant for independence. In fact no serious student of history believes
that Sikhs betrayed the warriors of 1857 by remaining loyal to the
British. A great part of Indian society remained
aloof to the 1857 events. For example Bengal remained distant
from the movement of the sepoys. Even then one may look on these events
rather more sympathetically.
Shri Arya Siddhanta has raised the issue of how Gita is to be looked
at - as a story or one which gives some profound insights. When I read
it I have a feeling of both. I am particularly distracted by its approval
of the caste system. It deals in detail with the three Gunas of Tamas, Rajas
and Satva but does not say how to look at them. Does one have to rise
above them? I look for the concept of the Turia but am unable to find it.
There is also the big problem of the Gita being linked to a Deity that
was born on Janamashtami and was later killed. How do we link this with
the Maakhan Chor and one playing with the Gopis and his relations with
Satyabhama?
God does take birth or be killed by some one else.
I feel if these observations are clarified Krishna of the Gita could be
looked at as the only one God, which Shri Arya Siddhanta would like us to
see in the Gita.
Baldev Singh's remarks on Nanak Singh Nishter's article are mostly
unjustified. He has raised three issues of Kirpans part of Sikhi, Sri
Guru Granth Sahib advising to be good Hindus and Muslims, and the Sikhs
paying the same respect to the Baani of Hindu and Muslim saints as that of the gurus.
1. On the issue of the kirpan, Baldev Singh asks if the kirpan is so
necessary to be a Sikh what shall we call the gurus until the time Amrit was administered by the tenth Guru. This is a surprising comment because Kirpan was not part of Sikhi then.
Let us not raise questions where they are not warranted.
2. Gurbani indeed asks Hindus and Muslims to be good Hindus and Muslims.
For example the fourth Guru tells of the Brahmin:
The Brahmin is one who tries to know the Creator and lives as would please the guru; God abides in his mind and he sheds ego(M: 4, SGGS, p 850).
Similarly about the Muslim:
It is difficult to claim to be a Muslim, if he wants to be called a Muslim he should become one; the first thing necessary for this is that he should love his faith and share what he has, with others; he should be a Muslim who goes by the teachings of his faith and thus overcome death and rebirth; should give up ego and accept God's will; he should love all mankind; only then he can be called a Muslim (M: 1, SGGS, p 141)
This should leave no doubt that Gurbani advises both Hindus and Muslims to be good in their respective faiths.
He has also mentioned the scriptures of other religions. Contrary to what he has said Gurbani asks us to respect them. Bhagat Kabir says:
Do not find faults withe the Esatern or Semitic scriptures; the fault lies with one who does not contemplate on them (Kabir, SGGS, p 1350).
Gurbani certainly warns us against the concepts of rituals, paap, punn,
heaven and hell and so on in those scriptures but then advises that we
should see their essence:
Understand the essence of Bayd, Puraan and Smritis (M: 5, SGGS, p 274).
In response to my comments on Nanak Singh Nishter’s article (SikhSpectrum.com, July 2008, Feedback) Rawel Singh says, “Baldev Singh's remarks on Nanak Singh Nishter's article are mostly unjustified.” Here is my brief reply to Rawel Singh.
1. In my comments on N. S. Nishter’s article I asked, “Who said or where it is written that that a Sikh without a kirpan is not a Sikh”. Kirpan has been used as a weapon of defense as well offense long before the time of Sikh Gurus. Sikhs carried kirpan from the time of early Sikh Gurus. For example, Sikhs traders who travelled to Afghanistan to buy horses must be well-armed and expert in wielding arms. Guru Hargobind Sahib fought battles against Khatris and Mughals with forces made up of ordinary Sikhs who came from diverse backgrounds. Kirpan is used as a metaphor for knowledge, truth and humility in Aad Guru Granth sahib (AGGS). Further, many devotees who visit the Gurdwara do not wear a kirpan. Should we consider tham non-Sikhs. Moreover, Guru Gobind Singh initiated the Khalsa Order by Khande De Pahul. Calling it “amrit” is distortion of the meaning of “amrit”; one of its meaning in the AGGS is God.
2. During Guru Nanak’s time the Hindus (twice born, Dwijas) regarded Muslims as malesh (polluted/defiled) and treated them the same as they treated Antyajas (untouchables and outcastes) whereas Muslims regarded Hindus as kafirs (infidels) who were affront to Allah and considered it their sacred duty to bring them in the fold of Din (Islam) by any means from persuasion to the threat of sword. Killing or conversion of kafirs was considered as an act of piety worthy of heavenly rewards sanctioned by Allah. Rawel Singh should examine the hymns that he has quoted as evidence of Guru Nanak’s advice to Brahmans and Muslims to be faithful to their faiths. These hymns are examples of universal human values--sarab saanjha (Universal) God Who is understandable to all without regard to caste, creed, color, gender and geographical consideration. The advice to a Brahman is applicable to a Muslim or vice versa.
3. “Respecting” Eastern or Semitic scriptures does not mean “accepting” or “endorsing” their teachings. Neither Sikh Gurus nor Kabir accept or endorse their teachings. He has overlooked the five hymns of Sikh Gurus that I quoted in my response that unequivocally reject the teachings of Hindu and Semitic texts and he goes on to misinterpret bhagat Kabir to argue that Gurbani tells us to respect them.
Neither the Vedas [four Hindu texts] nor the four Katebas [Semitic texts: the Torah, the Zabur (Psalms), the Injil (Gospel) and the Quran] know the “Reality” - Universal God (AGGS, M 1, p. 1021).
What can the poor Vedas and Katebas teach when their authors themselves did not understand the “One and Only Reality” - Universal God (AGGS, M 1, p. 1153).
The readings of the Vedas, Katebas, Simrtis and all the Shastras do not show the path to salvation (freedom from ignorance and falsehood) (AGGS, M 5, p. 747).
The Merciful One is the only Emancipator (Maula), not holy men (pir and sheikh), or prophets. The Master of every heart, Who delivers justice, is beyond the descriptions of Quran and other Semitic texts (AGGS, M 5, p. 897).
It is the teachings of Vedas, which has created the concepts of sin and virtue, hell and heaven, and karma and transmigration: One reaps the reward in the next life for the deeds performed in this life and goes to hell or heaven according to one’s deeds. The Vedas have also created the fallacy of inequality of caste and gender for the world
(AGGS, M 2, p. 1243).
Kabir does not accept or endorse Esatern or Semitic scriptures when he says:
Do not find faults with the Esatern or Semitic scriptures; the fault lies with one who does not contemplate on them (Kabir, SGGS, p 1350).
Here Kabir is rebuking those who criticize/condemn scriptures of other religion without understanding them. There are several Kabir’s hymns that clearly reject Hindu and Semitic texts. For example:
“O my brothers: Simrtis are the daughter the Vedas. They have brought the ropes of the caste system and strings of liturgy to entrap you,” (AGGS, Kabir, p. 329).
O kazi, which Semitic text are you quoting? Their readers
and scholars have died without realizing God/Truth. … O
ignorant one, forget these books, contemplate on God and
stop oppressing others (AGGS, Kabir, p. 477).
The Vedas and Semitic texts are exaggeration; their
teachings do not bring inner peace (AGGS, Kabir, p. 727).
Editor- Several articles that discuss the relationship between Sikh concepts and those of other Indian religious schools have been previously published on SikhSpectrum. Interested readers may like to read the following articles.
I am a frequent listener of 'shabads' that are direct telecast from Sree Swarn Mandir Sahib jee. It is a deep
spiritual experience for me. At the same time, one another purpose of my
listening is to know the facts, concepts and beliefs enshrined in Shree
Guru Granth Saahib jee. This is because of my deep urge to know the
umbilical relationship of Sikh panth with the larger Hindu tradition. From
my listening of the 'shabad' I have come to the conclusion that the great sikh
panth is an embodiment of the nirgun branch of the bhakti tradition of the
period in which Guru Nanak Dev jee maharaj appeared on this earth.
Bhakti
movement of the middle ages was certainly a strong expression of the
religious belief of the lower strata of the society and, it is pertinent
to accept that the primary tenets of the Hindu tradition was not just the
inventions of the Brahmanical class. The tenets like reincarnation,
transmigration and existence of 'atma' were derived from the popular
beliefs of the masses since the ancient times. Careful understanding of
the 'shabad' tells the fact itself. Yes, translation of it is not able to
convey the true spirit of the tradition in which they evolved or appeared.
Many sikhs living outside India, away from the true perspective of the
Sikh socio-cultural life, need to rely on the understanding of the
original text to derive their conclusions regarding the knowledge of
Sikhism.
Vanakkam. This is an excellent article written with clarity and truthfulness.
Regards,
-Valaguru Nehru
I am grateful to Arya Siddanta....
-GB Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
I am grateful to Arya Siddanta for expressing his positive views about Bhagavad Gita (BG). I am very much familiar with BG and its many translations to include the one by Prabhupada. Frankly, I find BG to be a political book in which religious doctrines have been used and perverted to ashtonishing extents: Killings become okay without any sense of remorse. I believe Arya would not agree with me here and that is fine with me. If he has benefitted from BG, I congratulate him. There are examples where BG turned men into killers. Charles Manson is for sure one. How about Mahatma Gandhi? And, how can we forget the unimaginable amount of killings mentioned in Mahabharata which followed Krishna's sermon to Arjuna?
In Zaffarnam, a letter of Victory, Guru Gobind Singh wrote from Dina
Kangar, and had it delivered to Aurangzeb by Bhai Daya Singh and Himmat
Singh in March 1705. Guruji says God who appointed you the Emperpr,He
sent me to establish righteousness and Dharma. He had no desire to
establish a Kingdom.
If the conclusive paragraph is supposed to be true about Gandhi then I
think it complements the other aspects of this person. Mahatma, father of
the nation, apostle of peace and nonviolence and numerous other adjectives
were lavished over him by others. Never did he claim anything like this
in his writing, speeches or elsewhere. Neither he denied ever of being a
politician who experimented with his own ways in the real world. I think,
Gandhi should be understood not by the writings and statements of others,
but by his own statements, in words and writings. He was a nice man, a
lovable man, a simple man. At the same time he was a political activist. Who says
he won independence for this country? However, it is that Indians won it
after a glorious struggle against injustice and immorality, and
certainly, Gandhi was one of us. It is for us to discover what he won for
this country and the humanity at large.
Regards,
-Namitanshu Vatsa
Baldev Singh has not....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Baldev Singh has not addressed the points raised by me. He has either
tried to evade them or just repeated his earlier views.
1. In response to his statement "If without having a Kirpan (a weapon) no
body is entitled to be called a Sikh, nor his prayer is complete, then
what would Nishter call Sikh Gurus from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Rai and
their followers before the creation of Khalsa Order", I had stated that
since Kirpan was not part of Sikhi before the Baisakhi of 1699, applying
this to the earlier period was not appropriate.
Instead of answering this he has made historical statements which only
show that the earlier Sikhs carried Kirpans
2. In order to support his views on other religions and their scriptures
he has misrepresented the relevant hymns both in literal meaning and
spirit. Here are two examples. He states:
What can the poor Vedas and Katebas teach when their authors themselves
did not understand the “One and Only” - Universal God.
(AGGS, M 1, p. 1153)
The original hymn says "Rogi khat darsan bhakhdhaaree nana hathee anaykaa;
bayd katayb karahi kah bapuray na boojhay ik Eka:6:
The meaning of this is 'those who go by rituals and attire of various
types act in ego (Hath) and are sick. How can the scriptures help them
when they do not understand the One Master?
There is no reference here to the authors of the Eastern or Semetic
scriptures as Baldev has interpreted. All scriptures are to be respected.
He has also made a surprising statement that not finding faults with but
understanding the scriptures does not mean endorsing them. I leave it to
the readers to take a view. When one is asked to understand something,
endorsement is inherent.
Again he has quoted
"The readings of the Vedas, Katebas, Simrtis and all the Shastras do not
show the path to salvation (freedom from ignorance and falsehood)" (AGGS,
M 5, p. 747).
The original hymn says"Bayd katab smriti sabh saast inh parhiaa mukti na
hoee; Ek akhar jo gurmukhi jaapai tis ki nirmal soee.
The essence of this is that mere reading of scriptures does not lead to
salvation; one needs to repeat the One Word to understand the true
essence.
Baldev avoided the second part of the hymn, probably because it does not
support his views. It is significant the Guru Nanak says exactly the same
thing in the Slok of the ninth Pauri of Aasa di vaar thus "Parh parh gaddee
ladeeai parh parh bhareeai saath;----Nanak laykhai ik gal hor haumai
jhakhna jhaakh (M1. SGGS, p 467).
We can read loads of books; --- but, without understanding the One Word
all else is wandering under the influence of ego.
The Guru teaches that it is not just reading but understanding and acting
on the scriptural teachings.
The Word mentioned above is Naam, the Creator's virtues.
Baldev Singh has asked me to read the hymns I have quoted. Obviously I
could not have quoted them without understanding. If there is anything
that he would like to point out I will wecome that for further discussion
in the spirit of understanding Gurbani.
3. On the issue of the Sikhs bowing to all those, including Hindus and
Muslims, whose Baanis have been included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Baldev
Singh says "The hymns of these sages were incorporated in Aad Guru Granth
Sahib because they were humanists, not that they were representative of
Hindu, Muslim and Untouchable communities".
I wonder what is the objection to the truth that they were people of other
faiths and we salute them all alongwith the Gurus?
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
It seems that Ravel Singh....
-Baldev Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
It seems that Ravel Singh did not read my comments on the issue of kirpan carefully otherwise he would not have asked the same question again. Now let me put it this way: could Ravel Singh tell us who said that a Sikh without a kirpan is not a Sikh or who and when “kirpan was made part of Sikhi?” There is no evidence anywhere that kirpan is part of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat). However, kirpan did become one of the five K’s of the Khalsa after the creation of Khalsa Order by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699. If we look at the early history of the Khalsa, Khalsa used keep five weapons and later on when muskets became available, Khalsa mastered the art of handling it. Qazi Nur Muhammad who saw the battle between the Khalsa forces and Abdali’s forces at close quarters remarked, “No one can handle the musket as proficiently as the Khalsa soldier does.” And when the Khasa became more powerful and ruler, it acquired cannons. Weaponry changes with time but Gurmat is eternal for the Sikhs. So how could kirapn be part of Sikhi? Further after the creation of Khala large number of Sikhs did not take Khande Dee Pahul however, they were the ones who sent their sons and daughters to fill the ranks of Khalsa in the eighteenth century when becoming a Khalsa meant sure death. Today majority of the Sikhs do not taken Khande Dee Pahul and they do not carry kirpan. No Sikh in his right mind would call them non-Sikhs. Sikh Panth is inclusive not exclusive. Guru Nanak rejected the notion of “exclusive God”. Guru Nanak’s God is Universal (sarab sanjha). People who make absurd statements that a Sikh who does not carry a kirpan is not a Sikh or that kirpan is part of Sikhi, not only spread misinformation about Gurmat but also harm the Sikh Panth by undermining its cohesiveness/unity. Moreover, intentionally or ignorantly they help the enemies of the Panth.
Second, out of nine quotes of Gubani in my letter, he has picked two and asserts that I have misinterpreted them. Let us examine them to find my error. Ravel Singh’s interpretation is given in italics.
1. The original hymn says "Rogi khat darsan bhakhdhaaree nana hathee anaykaa; bayd katayb karahi kah bapuray na boojhay ik Eka:6:
The meaning of this is 'those who go by rituals and attire of various types act in ego (Hath) and are sick. How can the scriptures help them when they do not understand the One Master? There is no reference here to the authors of the Eastern or Semetic scriptures as Baldev has interpreted. All scriptures are to be respected.
I have interpreted only the second verse (baid kataib karahe kah bapure na bhhooje ik eka” as: What can the poor Vedas and Katebas teach when their authors themselves did not understand the “One and only” - Universal God. (AGGS, M 1, p. 1153).
However, Ravel Singh has combined this verse with the preceding verse (Rogi khat darsan bhakhdhaaree nana hathee anaykaa) in order to point out that my interpretation is incorrect.
I f we look at the entire Sabad, Guru Nanak says that the whole environment is filled with Haumai (self-centeredness) and people are suffering from this malady. For example, he says that even the Hindu Avatars were suffering from the disease of Haumai.
Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva were afflicted with self-centeredness (Haumai) as the rest of the world. Only those are liberated who realize God by contemplating on Truth. (AGGS, M 1, p. 1153.)
Ravel Singh interpretation of “Rogi khat darsan bhakhdhaaree nana hathee anaykaa” as: “The meaning of this is 'those who go by rituals and attire of various types act in ego (Hath) and are sick,” is not compatible with meaning of the words in the verse. Khat means six and darshan means philosophy, so here Guru Nanak is talking about six schools of Hindu philosophy. Here is my interpretation of this verse.
The followers of six schools of Hindu philosophy and numerous acetic orders are suffering from Haumai.
Ravel Singh’s interpretation of second verse as; “How can the scriptures help them when they do not understand the One Master?” is also not correct because in this verse Guru Nanak mentions both Vedas and Katebas (Semitic texts). It is improper to interpret the second verse in conjunction with the first verse which is only about Hindus? How could Hindus read/understand Katebas when they regarded Muslims as malesh (polluted, defiled) and the language of Katebas as malesh bakha (language).
I stand by my interpretation of the second verse as: “What can the poor Vedas and Katebas teach when their authors themselves did not understand the “One and Only” Universal God.
Further his statements: “There is no reference here to the authors of the Eastern or Semetic scriptures as Baldev has interpreted. All scriptures are to be respected. When one is asked to understand something, endorsement is inherent.” do not make any sense. Texts do have authors! Does Ravel Singh think that Vedas and Semitics texts came out of thin air? Besides, the two verses do not say that all scriptures are to be respected. Further who says, “When one is asked to understand something, endorsement is inherent?” If that were so, we wouldn’t be having this debate!
2. Baldev avoided the second part of the hymn, probably because it does not support his views.
The original hymn says "Bayd katab smriti sabh saast inh parhiaa mukti na hoee; Ek akhar jo gurmukhi jaapai tis ki nirmal soee.
The essence of this is that mere reading of scriptures does not lead to salvation; one needs to repeat the One Word to understand the true essence.
If we examine the entire Sabad, Guru Arjan rejects Hindu ceremonies, formalities as well as scriptures. I have interpreted “baid, ktaib, smriti sabh sassat in parhian mukat na hoee” as: The readings of the Vedas, Katebas, Simrtis and all the Shastras do not show the path to salvation (freedom from ignorance and falsehood)" (AGGS, M 5, p. 747). My interpretation is compatible with verse word for word. However, Ravel Singh has combined this verse with next verse “Ek akhar jo gurmukhi jaapai tis ki nirmal soee” and goes on to say that “The essence of this is that mere reading of scriptures does not lead to salvation; one needs to repeat the One Word to understand the true essence.” If Guru Arjan wanted to say “that mere reading of scriptures does not lead to salvation” then why would he mention the Hindu and Semitic scriptures by name? The reason he mentioned the names of the scriptures is that he wanted to emphasize the point that Hindu and Semitic scriptures are not helpful in the realization of Universal God/ Truth.
3. His statement “On the issue of the Sikhs bowing to all those, including Hindus and Muslims, whose Baanis have been included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib” is preposterous and mischevious. When Guru Arjan incorporated the thoughts of Kabir, Namdev, Farid and others in the Aad Granth, he did not use the epithet Hindu or Muslim for them. They are called bhagats and their collective composition is called bhagat bani. The Gurus did not use the label Hindu or Muslim for them anywhere in the Aad Guru Granth Sahib. Calling them Hindu or Muslim is distortion of Gurmat and insult to Sikh Guru.
Finally Aad Guru Granth Sahib must be understood and interpreted in a logical and consistent manner not the way Ravel Singh has done. And the discussion must be focused on what it says, not what we think.
This is certainly an analytical article. This aspect of the meaning of the
term 'Hindu' was quite unknown to me. However, Baldev Singh goes
too far to say that the modern usage and meaning of this term
'Hindu' and Hinduism is a mere fabrication of modern writers. In the
place of calling it a 'fabrication' he may call it a natural evolution of
the meaning of this term through ages. Apart from the history of emergence
and birth of "Hindu', this term, today refers to the whole range of
connotation in the context of secular as well as religious aspect of
India. this is not an Isolated case in the evolution of words and its
meaning.
Baldev Singh has not addressed the real issues again.
1. I had objected to his contention that if kirpan is part of Sikhi then
does it mean that the Gurus and earlier Sikhs were not Sikhs. He has not
answered that and talked of things not relevant.
2. On the interpretation of the hymns, in both cases he contends that I
have considered two verse together. No Sir, they are not two verses but two
parts of the same verse. Baldev Singh wants to consider only half the
verse and thus form his ideas out of context. I invite him to study
Gurbani seriously and he will find that Guru Sahiban have not left
anything hanging or finish with a negative idea anywhere. The solution
thereto has also been given. That is applicable to the verses in question.
I suggest he forms ideas based on full and not half texts.
I maintain that Gurbani adversely comments on rituals.
Gurbani asks us to respect all religions. Guru Arjan sahib says:
The Guru has enabled me to shed delusions; Allah and Paarbrahm are One (M:
5, SGGS, p 997).
3. He is also of the view that when Gurbani refers to Hindu practices in
one part of the verse and then to Bayd and Katayb in the next the two
cannot be linked. No, the reference is to rituals and Gurbani is not for
any community, the Guru addresses all together.
He has made a surprising statement that Gurbani does not indicate whether
an author is Hindu or Muslim. How does he then explain Bhagat for Ravidas
and Sheikh for Farid?
Finally, he has used the expression 'preposterous and mischievous' for me.
I submit we are discussing Sikhi and not trying to score points by using
unwarranted language. I will never use such words.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
Rawel Singh implies....
-Harmeet Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Rawel Singh implies: Sikh
Gurus endorsed the philosophy of Islam, Hinduism and Christianity .
Rawel opines that Gurbani only
questions the rituals but endorses the philosophy present in the Hindu and
Semitic scriptures. Interestingly, Rawel doesn’t provide any decision from Gurbani to claim that Gurbani agrees with the Hindu and Semitic
scriptures and their philosophies. He also doesn't provide any decision of Gurbani
regarding their status of “respectful endorsement” claimed by him.
Rawel Singh also proclaims
that Kabir and Farid are considered as Bhagats but he again doesn’t provide any
evidence as to where in Gurbani the Gurus have titled them as Bhagats or Sheikhs.
These conclusions of
Rawel Singh look unsubstantiated so far.
Regards,
-Harmeet Singh
Harmeet Singh has raised....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Harmeet Singh has raised questions which have been answered in my earlier
posts. They are as follows.
Gurbani asks a Brahmin to be a good Brahmin thus:
The Brahmin is one who tries to know the Creator and lives as would please
the guru; Sees God abiding in his mind and he sheds ego(M: 4, SGGS, p
850).
Similarly about the Muslim:
It is difficult to claim to be a Muslim, if he wants to be called a Muslim
he should become one; the first thing necessary for this is that he should
love his faith and share what he has, with others; he should be a Muslim
who goes by the teachings of his faith and thus overcome death and
rebirth; should give up ego and accept God's will; he should love all
mankind; only then he can be called a Muslim (M: 1, SGGS, p 141)
This should leave no doubt that Gurbani advises both Hindus and Muslims to
be good in their respective faiths. This is endorsement.
Gurbani asks people not to find fault with the scriptures bur try to
understand them:
Do not find faults with the Esatern or Semitic scriptures; the fault lies
with one who does not contemplate on them (Kabir, SGGS, p 1350).
Gurbani asks the seeker to understand the essence of the scriptures:
Understand the essence of Bayd, Puraan and Smritis (M: 5, SGGS, p 274).
The endorsement of the Hindu scriptures is direct in the following verse:
Smritis, Baysd, Puraanas and Potiis declare that without Naam everything
is false and empty talk (M: 5, SGGS, p 761).
Harmeet Singh has also asked to show evidencethat Gurbani has titled Kabir
Ji as Bhagat and Farid Ji as Sheikh. Harmeet Singh Ji, it is so throughout
SGGS. For example please refer to the following:
P 1364 - Slok Bhagat Kabir Jeeo kay.;
p 1377 - Slok Sheikh Farid Kay.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
Regarding the on going debate....
-Baldev Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
The Singh Sabha Movement period is regarded as the time of renaissance in Sikh history because after the death of Guru Gobind Singh in 1708 for the first Sikh scholars started looking at the uniqueness and revolutionary nature of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat). Stalwarts like Professor Gurmukh Singh and Bhai Dit Singh Gyani, the leading light of the Panth, challenged the Brahmanical interpretation of Gurmat by Udasis, Nirmalas, Pujaris and the likes of Sir Khem Singh Bedi and his ilk. And they met head-on the malicious and vicious propaganda of Arya Samajists and defeated the designs of Christian missionaries, Brahmo Samaj and Ahmadiyas.
Erudite scholars like Bhai Kahn Singh, Bhai Vir Singh, Professor Puran Singh and Professor Sahib Singh contributed greatly to the proper understanding of Gurmat. The latter devoted most his life to the translation of Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS) in simple prose in Punjabi based on Gurbani grammar that he developed. More recently distinguished scholars Jagjit Singh the author of The Sikh Revolution and Daljeet Singh the author of Sikhsim: Comparative Study of Its Theology and Mysticism have explained very eloquently and convincingly that Nanakian Philosophy is indeed unique and revolutionary, as Guru Nanak rejected earlier religious traditions including all the essentials of Hinduism and its scriptures and the Sanskrit language. I am deeply indebted to these scholars for my understanding of Gurmat. In the October issue of the SikhSpectrum, I will publish comprehensive and systematic detailed analysis of AGGS under the title: Nanakian Philosophy: The Path of Enlightenment. I would gladly welcome constructive criticism of the article for rectifying my mistakes.
Regarding the on going debate between me and Ravel Singh let me refresh the memory of the readers by pointing out that I commented on Nanak Singh Nishter’s article (SikhSpectrum, July 2008) for two reasons: misinterpretation of Gurbani and his statement “That a Sikh without a kirpan (sword) is not a Sikh.” I could not understand why a well-wisher of the Panth like Nanak Singh Nishter would make such a statement that undermines the unity of the Panth and insults vast majority of the Sikhs who do not take Khande Dee Pahul, hence do not carry a kirpan. Nanak Singh Nishter has not responded to my comments as yet, however, Ravel Singh criticized me, without saying a word about the implication of Nishter’s statement.
Now a debate is useful if it enhances proper understanding of the subject. In my opinion arguing for the sake of argument is an exercise in futility therefore; I would urge the editor to terminate this debate for the following reasons.
1. In my comments on Nishter’s article I asked if “Without having a Kirpan (a weapon) no body is entitled to be called a Sikh, nor his prayer is complete” then what would Nishter call Sikh Gurus from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Rai and their followers before the creation of Khalsa Order on the occasion of Vaisakhi in 1699, and what happened to their prayers? Further what is the source of this statement?” And in my two letters in response to Ravel Singh I asked, “Who said or where it is written that a Sikh without kirpan is not a Sikhs.” In stead of answering my question and throwing light on the subject Ravel Singh has given three different irrelevant amusing answers:
“I had objected to his contention that if kirpan is part of Sikhi then does it mean that the Gurus and earlier Sikhs were not Sikhs. He has not answered that and talked of things not relevant.”
“On the issue of the kirpan, Baldev Singh asks if the kirpan is so necessary to be a Sikh what shall we call the gurus until the time Amrit was administered by the tenth Guru. This is a surprising comment because Kirpan was not part of Sikhi then. Let us not raise questions where they are not warranted.”
“I had stated that since Kirpan was not part of Sikhi before the Baisakhi of 1699, applying this to the earlier period was not appropriate. Instead of answering this he has made historical statements which only show that the earlier Sikhs carried Kirpans.”
2. In his second letter he used two lines (tuks) in appropriately to argue that I have misinterpreted Gurbani whereas I used single tuks. Since his interpretation is not consistent with words in the lines/tuks he has quoted, he is hiding behind the meaning of “verse” insisting: “No Sir, they are not two verses but two parts of the same verse.” He knows very well that I was talking about two lines/tuks. I am aware that verse means: group of lines, a section of a poem or song consisting of lines arranged together to from a single unit, however, in Punjabi verse means tuk/line. He has quoted the following two couplets. In each couplet there are two tuks/lines.
Rogi khat darsan bhakhdhaaree nana hathee anaykaa.
Bayd katayb karahi kah bapuray na boojhay ik Eka.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1153.
Bayd katab smriti sabh saast inh parhiaa mukti na hoee.
Ek akhar jo gurmukhi jaapai tis ki nirmal soee.
AGGs, M 5, p. 747
3. Khat means six and drashan means philosophy and the Punjabi dictionary defines the expression khat darshan as “six schools of Hindu philosophy” and it is used in the same sense in the AGGS whereas Ravel Singh insists that it means rituals. Further he insists that when Guru Arjan says: “Bayd katab smriti sabh saast inh parhiaa mukti na hoee. Ek akhar jo gurmukhi jaapai tis ki nirmal soee” he means “The essence of this is that mere reading of scriptures does not lead to salvation; one needs to repeat the One Word to understand the true essence.”
It seems it is very difficult for him to accept that in the first line/tuk Guru Arja says: That reading of Vedas, Smritis, Shastars and Katebas are not helful in the realization of Universal God/Truth. For some reason it is very difficult for him to accept that Guru Nanak rejected all the essentials of Hinduism, Hindu scriptures and Sanskrit. On the other hand he has no problem in distorting Gurus’ thoughts in order to argue that Sikh Gurus’ accepted Vedanta and admired Hindu scriptures. He keeps insisting that Gurus respected and accepted all scriptures in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary:
Many a brahmas (learned persons) got tired of studying the Vedas, but they could not estimate even an iota of God’s greatness. The sidhas (yogis), who tried their utmost to realize God through yogic discipline, could not even liberate themselves from the corrupting influences of the world. Ten incarnations of Vishnu including Shiva, the ascetic, who got tired of smearing his body with ashes, could not fathom the greatness of God.
AGGS, M 5, p. 747.
It is the teachings of Vedas, which has created the concepts of sin and virtue, hell and heaven, and karma and transmigration: One reaps the reward in the next life for the deeds performed in this life and goes to hell or heaven according to one’s deeds. The Vedas have also created the fallacy of inequality of caste and gender for the world.
AGGS, M 2, p. 1243.
It seems that his interpretation of Gurmat is not very different from that of Hindutva organizations like Bharatiya Janta Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh who regard Sikhs as Kesadhari Hindus.
4. In my last letter I made it crystal clear that Guru Arjan used the epithet, bhagat for Kabir, Namdev, Farrid and others and there is no reference in the AGGS where the Gurus reffered to them as Hindus or Muslims but he still asks, “He has made a surprising statement that Gurbani does not indicate whether an author is Hindu or Muslim. How does he then explain Bhagat for Ravidas and Sheikh for Farid?” Well Ravel Singh may call them Hindus and Muslims or whatever he wants, however, a Sikh would call them bhagats because a Sikh follows Guru’s Path (gurmukh marg).
5. In this debate the views of Professor Puran Singh (1881-9131, a renaissance man and father of open verse Punjabi poetry) and Professor Harinder Singh Mehboob (author of Jhana Dee Raat, Sehje Rachio Khjalsa and Ilahi Nadir De Painde) on the Brahmanical/Vedantic interpretation of Gurmat are very important and relevant.
The words Brhman (Brahm) and Para-Brahm also come in Guru Granth, but as Cunningham says “by way of illustration only.” Similarly the names of all gods and goddesses of Brahmanical Pantheon.
It is to be regretted that Sikh and Hindu scholars are interpreting Guru Nanak in the futile terms of the colour he used, the brush he took; are analyzing the skin and flesh of his words and dissecting texts to find the Guru’s meaning to be same as of the Vedas and Upanishads! This indicates enslavement to the power of Brahmanical tradition. Dead words are used to interpret the fire of the Master’s soul! The results are always grotesque and clumsy translations, which have no meaning at all. Macauliffe’s almost schoolboy-like literal rendering into English, following possibly the interpretations given him by the Brahmanical type of gyanis, the un-illuminated theologians who lacked both the fire of inspiration, and the modern mental equipment and who were decayed and eaten up by the inner fungus of the Brahmanical mentality, has made the live faith of the Sikh a dead carcass. It has produced neither the beautiful artistic color of the idol and the shrine, nor the fervor of the inspiration of love. And from his translations, one thinks Sikhism is weak Brahmanism. Much that is redundant is put before a world-audience, without the light that made every straw and every little dust particle, every pretty detail even, radiant and beautiful (Puran Singh, Spirit of the Sikhs, Part II, Volume Two: Punjabi University, Patiala, 2nd ed., 1993, pp. 75, 271.).
I do not claim that in Sehje Rachio Khalsa I have presented ideal paradigms of the exposition of Gurmat but in utmost humility I would like to state that in this book I have presented some directions/guidelines for the exposition of Gurmat that would warn the Sikh genius to be aware of the misleading Brahmanical role in the understanding of Sikh spirit (Gurmat). While explaining Guru Gobind Singh’s purpose in the establishment of the Khalsa Order and the essence of the teachings of AGGS, a large section of Sikh intellectuals has confined Gurmat insights within the boundaries of Hindu history, scriptures and mythology. Many of the publications on Sikhism by university scholars, Guru Granth Sahib’s Farikoti translation and the The Baisakhi of Guru Gobind Singh by S. Kapur Singh I.C.S could be considered as such examples (Harinder Singh Mehboob, Sehje Rachio Khalsa Punjabi): Singh Brothers, Amritsar, 2nd ed., p. 26.).
Finally let me end this debate with Guru Nanak’s advice that is very appropriate for scholars to keep in mind during debates.
O’ Priest, do not tell lies, speak the truth; cure your self-conceit by imbibing the Truth (AGGS, M 1, p 904). One loses credibility by one’s own actions and no one trusts him/her again (AGGS, M 5, p 268). It is the wisdom of learning not to denigrate anyone and not to debate/argue with the ignorant (AGGS, M 1, p. 473).
Regards,
-Baldev Singh
The debate with Baldev....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Editor- This discussion is now closed.
Dear Editor,
The debate with Baldev Singh is tending not to contribute much to
understanding of Gurmat. I therefore propose to close it with the remarks
that I had started at with the following teachings.
It is not good to slander any one; only the silly manmukhs(the self
oriented )do it (M:3, SGGS, p 755).
Nanak says satguru, the true guru, is one who brings people together (M:
1, SGGS, p 72).
These views to my mind are universal not Brahmanism.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
According to Rawel....
-Harmeet Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
According to Rawel, Gurbani addresses a Brahmin to become a “good” upper caste Brahmin within Hinduism. In other words Gurbani asks for preservation of Caste order, based on the Varna (color) doctrine.
I am not surprised to see the distortion of semantics and syntax of Gurbani by self-dictating it where Rawel specifically contends that Gurbani endorses the philosophy of Hindu scriptures. To sum-up that Gurbani endorses the Hindu scriptures means that Gurbani must endorse the modus operandi of Hindu Scriptures (Hinduism); Varna, around which Hinduism is wrapped.
I am therefore not surprised as why he would endorse the validity of Hindu Brahmin as “upper-class Brahmin”.
And on top of everything, Rawel again minces with the semantics of Gurbani to conclude that to be a good Muslim he/she should overcome birth and re-birth. This is an absurd statement for a Muslim.
Sikhs have the right to question any scripture, any philosophy, and match it with the truth-value of Gurbani. To say Gurbani endorses any philosophy let alone a Hindu philosophy belies on ducking down Gurbani itself. Gurbani asks us for the pursuit of truth, it doesn't make totalitarian decisions for us. However, Rawel Singh uses a totalitarian attitude towards not looking at the Hindu Scriptures.
To arrest the pursuit of truth is totalitarian, it seeks to cover-up the very truth that one is trying to expose and it becomes preposterous to use Gurbani for totalitarianism.
It is quite probable that....