hindu12 Posted September 13, 2007 Report Share Posted September 13, 2007 I had some questions about Sikhism if anyone here can answer would be great. I had read some where that Hindu concepts and Hindu God's appear in the Guru Granth Sahib over 15,000 times. When I go to Sikh sites and read some of what they talk about in reference to Hindu terms and God's the Sikhs say that they are not the same thing as in Hinduism. But how can someone use the term Krishna, Shiv, Durga but not actually mean Krishna, Shiv, or Durga? Like for example, how can a religion say they believe in Jesus, Moses as names for the divine but not actually mean Jesus, Moses but something else. It sounds a bit strange. Some of them also say that books like Ramayana and Mahabharata are fiction and myth and Sikhism is a practical religion but then why do Sikh Gurus use stories from these books? The Sikhs are saying that Gurus did not mean the same thing as in Hinduism but I don't get what's the difference? Some are even saying that the name for Hindu Gods like Ram and Shiva existed before Rama and Shiva and that Rama means Moon and Shiva means power and are completely different from Hinduism. So I guess now Sikhs chant Rama for moon God and not Rama. Can some one confirm from scholars that Rama existed before Ramachandra? and that Shiva only means power. They also say Hari only means God and is not accosiated with Vishnu and never was but I have found no reference in the history of India that the name Hari was ever seperate from Vishnu. If someone here can give me scholarly reference would be nice thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 The name Rama definitely existed even before Lord Rama(son of Kaushalya) was born. But let us see what Sikhs believe. Sikhs use the words Rama, Krishna etc. to refer to God. But by Rama, Krishna, they do not mean Rama, Krishna who incarnated as human beings. By these words, they simply mean God just like we use words like Bhagvan, Ishvar, Parmatma etc. to refer to God. Sikhs do not believe in incarnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted September 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 The name Rama definitely existed even before Lord Rama(son of Kaushalya) was born. But let us see what Sikhs believe.Sikhs use the words Rama, Krishna etc. to refer to God. But by Rama, Krishna, they do not mean Rama, Krishna who incarnated as human beings. By these words, they simply mean God just like we use words like Bhagvan, Ishvar, Parmatma etc. to refer to God. Sikhs do not believe in incarnation. hindus believe the same thing though, rama and krishna are names for God who is omnipresent and can you give me more insight on the name Rama existing before Ramachandra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 One example of name Rama existing before Ramachandra is Parashu Rama. Hindus say that Ramachandra was the son of Dashrath. They also use name Rama to mean God. They say that both are same in the sense that God incarnated on Earth as Ramachandra. Likewise Krishna is God and also Krishna is son of Vasudev and Devki. Hindus say that both Krishna's mean the same. But when Sikhs talk about Ramachandra(Dashrath's son) and Krishna(Vasudev's son), then they mean ordinary human beings. When they use the names Rama and Krishna to refer to God, then they mean the Supreme, who is different from Dashrath's son and Vasudev's son. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted September 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 One example of name Rama existing before Ramachandra is Parashu Rama.Hindus say that Ramachandra was the son of Dashrath. They also use name Rama to mean God. They say that both are same in the sense that God incarnated on Earth as Ramachandra. Likewise Krishna is God and also Krishna is son of Vasudev and Devki. Hindus say that both Krishna's mean the same. But when Sikhs talk about Ramachandra(Dashrath's son) and Krishna(Vasudev's son), then they mean ordinary human beings. When they use the names Rama and Krishna to refer to God, then they mean the Supreme, who is different from Dashrath's son and Vasudev's son. so hindus use the name Rama Krishna for who they are and the supreme whole Sikhs only use it for thr supreme? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Sikhs use the word Rama in both senses. In some verses in Guru Granth Sahib, Rama has been used to mean king Rama (son of Dashrath). But here Rama is not glorified; rather he has been treated as a human being. In some other verses Rama is used to mean God i.e. Supreme. But this Rama is different from Ramachandra(son of Dashrath). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted September 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Sikhs use the word Rama in both senses. In some verses in Guru Granth Sahib, Rama has been used to mean king Rama (son of Dashrath). But here Rama is not glorified; rather he has been treated as a human being. In some other verses Rama is used to mean God i.e. Supreme. But this Rama is different from Ramachandra(son of Dashrath). but dont hindus do the same thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 There is a difference. Hindus say that Ramachandra was human but not ordinary human; rather God who incarnated as human. According to Sikhs, Ramachandra is just ordinary human (no incarnation). Let me give an analogy. At present there are many people with names Rama, Gopala, Krishna etc. We do not consider them as God. Likewise Sikhs do not consider Ramachandra as God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted September 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 There is a difference. Hindus say that Ramachandra was human but not ordinary human; rather God who incarnated as human.According to Sikhs, Ramachandra is just ordinary human (no incarnation). Let me give an analogy. At present there are many people with names Rama, Gopala, Krishna etc. We do not consider them as God. Likewise Sikhs do not consider Ramachandra as God. I still dont get it. So they just use the names Rama and Krishna but dont consider it a name for God? Why would you use those names? Also, most Hindus I know believe Rama and Krishna to be God incarnates but also the eternal supreme Truth that is omnipresent and resided within you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Sikhs believe that Rama is one name of God. But they do not believe that Ramachandra was God. According to them the only similarity between Rama(God) and king Rama(son of Dashrath) is that they have same names. But similarity ends here. Suppose my neighbours name is Rama. His name is Rama but he is not God. Likewise Sikhs say that Rama is one name of God but this Rama is not the same as son of Dashrath. According to Sikhs, son of Dashrath was an ordinary human being just like my neighbour is an ordinary human being. Sikhs believe God never incarnates. They believe God is formless. It is true that most Hindus believe Rama and Krishna to be God incarnates and also the supreme Truth. But Sikhs do not believe in incarnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted September 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Sikhs believe that Rama is one name of God. But they do not believe that Ramachandra was God. According to them the only similarity between Rama(God) and king Rama(son of Dashrath) is that they have same names. But similarity ends here. Suppose my neighbours name is Rama. His name is Rama but he is not God. Likewise Sikhs say that Rama is one name of God but this Rama is not the same as son of Dashrath. According to Sikhs, son of Dashrath was an ordinary human being just like my neighbour is an ordinary human being. Sikhs believe God never incarnates. They believe God is formless. It is true that most Hindus believe Rama and Krishna to be God incarnates and also the supreme Truth. But Sikhs do not believe in incarnation. ohh ok well that makes sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shivaji2000 Posted October 9, 2007 Report Share Posted October 9, 2007 Hari, Rama and the other names of God are there in the Guru Granth Sahib. But as Avinash pointed out, they do not believe in the Divine Incarnation. It is a belief of theirs. We on the other hand believe in the Divine Incarnation, and I know for a fact that divine incarnations are indeed there in India now itself. Let us not focus on trivialities but rather focus on developing our character and making ourselves perfect and helping others to be perfect as well. The Sikh Gurus have been stated by Sri RAmakrishna to be themselves incarnations of Janaka. And indeed , like Janaka, the Sikh gurus emphasized Karma Yoga a lot. Guru Nanak and Guru Govind Singh have been stated to be the descendants of Rama himself . I have read about this a couple of times. Also the Sikh gurus and their teachings are also a part of the hindu heritage and sikhism is a sect of hinduism, and their teachings too are a path to achieve moksha or enlightenment or nirvana or salvation from the cycle of birth and rebirth through mainly karma yoga and bhakti yoga ( or love for God.) Swami Vivekananda has stated that each one of us has to become a Guru Govind Singh if we wish to effect the national regeneration of our country. He was truly one of the greatest heroes India has ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.