D&amp;D Religion&#x27;s &quot;Ask About Sikhism&quot; Thread

Shiva means the Auspicious One. Also Shiva is formless in Hinduism too so I don't understand the difference.

Reply 382

As we had discussed a little while back, in Sikhism, Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu aren't considered either manifestations of God, ways to percieve him, etc.(Don't get picky on this wording now, you know what i mean :wink:

)
They are created by God and are seperate (and lower) entities , just as any other being is.
The Shiva in Deh Shiva isn't:

Its just a word to describe Vaheguru.

Reply 383

USingh

As we had discussed a little while back, in Sikhism, Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu aren't considered either manifestations of God, ways to percieve him, etc.(Don't get picky on this wording now, you know what i mean :wink:

)
They are created by God and are seperate (and lower) entities , just as any other being is.
The Shiva in Deh Shiva isn't:

Its just a word to describe Vaheguru.

Shiva is a word to describe God in Hinduism/Vedanta too. Shiva is formless in Hinduism/Vedanta too. Shiva in Vedic philosophy is no different to how you percieve Shiva. That image is you posted is not Shiva any more than the word 'Vaheguru' is literraly the Vaheguru that you pray to.

Reply 384

Right, well if YOU also only use the word Shiva to describe the formless ONE (Vaheguru), then why on earth did you pose the question in the first place? Why would you be surprised at Guru Gobind Singh Ji praying to Vaheguru?

Anyway, I still think you haven't gotten completely what the Sikh view on the devte are. That person in the picture is not to be considered as a representation of formless God, but is an actual being created by Formless God, not to be worshipped. If somoene uses the idea of a man cross-legged with snakes, etc. to pray, then they are praying to this seperate being, not formless God (even if that is what they believe).

Guru Gobind Singh Ji says:

"Someone calls Brahma as the Lord-God and someone tells the same thing about Shiva; someone considers Vishnu as the hero of the universe and says that only by remembering him, all the sins will be destroyed;"

I.e. neither Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu are to be considered as 'representations' of God, or ways to percieve him, as they are seperate created beings. Like you wouldn't use your neighbour as a representation of God, because he is something made by God!

Reply 385

That's very true. I don't find it suprising at all that the Guru prayed to Shiva. Appreciate your answers.

Reply 386

^see my edit

It would still be incorrect to say Guru Ji prayed to Shiva, Guru Ji only prayed to Vaheguru, and Vaheguru alone is "the auspicious one", or peace, etc.

Reply 387

I don't think you understand fully the nature of Shiva/worship in Hinduism which is why you disagree. It's blatent the Guru was praying to Shiva, which is a word used to describe the formless God, which is completely the same as for Hindus.

Again, appreciate your thoughts.

Reply 388

You are saying that after reading one line.
This whole conversation backs up why we are told to go to Guru Granth Sahib Ji before Dasam Granth.
As someone who has with God's grace been under Sikhism for 17 years, I can assure you that Guru Gobind Singh Ji never prayed to who the 'meditating man with snakes' represents.
In Gurbani it says that Shiva (the one prayed to by Hindus) was created by God and will be destroyed by God.
With all due respect, it is clear you won't understand.

Reply 389

I respectfully disagree.

Another question. I read online that Guru Tegh Bahadur said:

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

Which is translated as:

My religion is Hindu and how can I abandon what is so dear to me? This religion helps you in this world and that, and only a fool would abandon it. God himself is the protector of this religion and no one can destroy it.

As a response to Aurangzeb forcing him to 'embrace' Islam. Is this true?

no.

Interesting. It was Bhai Santokh Singhji, a historian, who said that he did in his history of the Gurus entitled Sri Gur Pratap Suraj Granth. Very revealing.

Reply 392

_H_

Suave

Interesting.

Indeed. Especially since i have just checked the relevant 'Raas' of Suraj Parkaash (i believe it's the twelfth), and have not found the quote in question. Could you provide a page number please?

Reply 393

Is that the same text? Suraj Parkaash =/= Sri Gur Pratap Suraj Granth or am I missing something?

Reply 394

_H_

Sorry, i should have mentioned: Yes they are the same text. Suraj Parkaash is just an abbreviation of Sri Gur Prataap Suraj Granth. The copy that i checked was titled Sri Gur Prataap Suraj Granth, but i called it Suraj Parkaash out of habit.

Try 12.64.34-35?

Yeah i know who kavi Santokh Singh is. I don't have a copy of the granth, but if you wish to base off historical sources, then credibility must be tested. You may like to know that Sooraj Parkash is not a contemporary account, but was written in 1843, whereas Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji's martyrdom took place in 1765.
You should know that Santokh Singh was a bhang (drug) addict and also had alot of childhood hindu influences.
In Sikh circles his accounts are in no way authorative and it is pretty much well known his writings need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
It does contain some correct things, simply because he based it on earlier accounts, however there are many innacuracies, some stories originating from his drug-fuelled imagination.
All these accounts were also very much prone to adulteration therefore they must always be tested against Gurbani.
It's been a few hundred years and Sikh scholars have pretty much decided that this particular story isn't true. Though undoubtedly some will decide to disagree :rolleyes:

Anyway what I found interesting was the way in which you speak against the Gurbani line where Guru Sahib declares himself not to be a Hindu, asking what Guru Ji meant by the word, but have no problem accepting it with this one.

Reply 397

USingh

Anyway what I found interesting was the way in which you speak against the Gurbani line where Guru Sahib declares himself not to be a Hindu, asking what Guru Ji meant by the word, but have no problem accepting it with this one.

To me it shows that the word 'Hindu' isn't what you, nor the Guru, fully understand it to be. If on one hand there is a voice saying you're not a Hindu, yet from somewhere else there is a voice that you are (generic 'you') a Hindu, it means either there is a contradiction, or, the term 'Hindu' isn't understood properly by one or more parties.

Another question. What aspect/part of the Vedas do Sikhs disagree with?

Reply 398