Pakistan is a distinct land, historically almost always seperate from India

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, as you can see from that paragraph, there is no divine revelation. The sikh gurus propagated their understanding of god. Those who agree with them are sikhs, thats all.
This principle is common to all subcontinental religions.

But still, it could be offensive to some who follow them to be thought to simply be believeing in a "a derivative". From a logical standpoint then, wouldn't the original be the best?

Because Christians don't accept anything of what the muslims say and vice versa.

Not quite true, a lot of the tenets are the same (when you start getting down to universal truths, there is not much room for deviation). There are obviously theological differences, but are you suggesting that Hindu's believe everything Muslims and Christians say, or that Skhs believe everything Hindus say?

Then how do you explain the animosity between Catholics and Protestants, Shiites and Sunnis?

That animosity is not ordained in religion, but due to cultural, social and political events that have exploited those "differences". It is incorrect to assume that it is the religion that commands animosity.

 

[Flintlock]

Well true. Can it be argued that we are not similar considering that we are the same species? What bigger similarity could you get!

Precisely. Unfortunately in our world, differences are given emphasis and similarities are discarded.

The "agenda" part is interesting, and I think that even though most Indians deny it, there is a desire for recreating the original "British Colony" of India. Some are overt about it - on a lot of blogs I have come across statements about "artificial Pakistan", British scheme to "divide India" etc. Then you have the others who nostalgically talk about the "great cricket Team we would have if we were united" etc.

Well, that is a hangover from pre-partition times. Most freedom fighters, muslims and hindus, envisioned British India as remaining one nation after Independence.

Muslims thought of it as an extension of the Sultanate, Hindus had their own reasons, and secularists has their own.

However, there is nothing wrong in romanticizing, and I don't think any pakistani should take offence if some Indians think that way.

It obviously ain't gonna happen, and Indian leaders don't have an agenda to make Pakistan a part of India.

 

[Flintlock]

But still, it could be offensive to some who follow them to be thought to simply be believeing in a "a derivative". From a logical standpoint then, wouldn't the original be the best?

No one is arguing that sikhism is a "derivative" of Hinduism. It is impossible to do that because even hinduism isn't a single idea.

Not quite true, a lot of the tenets are the same (when you start getting down to universal truths, there is not much room for deviation). There are obviously theological differences, but are you suggesting that Hindu's believe everything Muslims and Christians say, or that Skhs believe everything Hindus say?

Yes, but there is far less tolerance of another viewpoint in abrahmic religions than in hindu religions.

That animosity is not ordained in religion, but due to cultural, social and political events that have exploited those "differences". It is incorrect to assume that it is the religion that commands animosity.

Perhaps, but considering the vast multitude of belief systems in the subcontinent, don't you think it would have been a bloodbath by now?
Why isn't it?

There is little difference between the middle east and India. There are kings and tyrants and philosophers and politicians all the same.

Perhaps the devil, as the say, lies in the details.

 

[Awesome]

No one is arguing that sikhism is a "derivative" of Hinduism. It is impossible to do that because even hinduism isn't a single idea

That's like saying Islam and Christianity are actually Judaism version 2 and 3. So we should all become Jews.

Sikhism also borrows heavily from Islam. We don't call it a part of Islam.

Forcibly calling it a part of Hinduism is sort of a big brother attitude.

 

[Flintlock]

That's like saying Islam and Christianity are actually Judaism version 2 and 3. So we should all become Jews.

Sikhism also borrows heavily from Islam. We don't call it a part of Islam.

Forcibly calling it a part of Hinduism is sort of a big brother attitude.

Lol, Hinduism isn't a big-brother since it too has several "versions" of itself.

Hinduism, is simply a word coined to describe the religions of the subcontinent. And fact is, the hindus didn't coin this term. The Afghans and Arabs and British used it.

Think of "Hinduism" as a term similar to "Abrahmic religions".

 

[Awesome]

Lol, Hinduism isn't a big-brother since it too has several "versions" of itself.

Hinduism, is simply a word coined to describe the religions of the subcontinent. And fact is, the hindus didn't coin this term. The Afghans and Arabs and British used it.

Think of "Hinduism" as a term similar to "Abrahmic religions".

Vedic Dharma then.

You know what I mean. The people who believe in Om, Brahma, Shiv, Vishnu.

Who believe in the epic tales of Mahabharat and Ramayan.

Who put their faith in the puranas, the Vedas.

You can call this a religion or a Sanatan Ved, it all points to Hinduism for the layman.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, but there is far less tolerance of another viewpoint in abrahmic religions than in hindu religions.

I would disagree. In Islam at least, the perception of intolerance has been created due to the incorrect interpretations and uninformed beliefs propagated by extremists

The Quran commands tolerance, justice, respect and equality. The perversion of message by the Wahabis, Iranian Mullah's, Taliban etc. cannot be considered true Islam (IMO). But then I only consider the Quran to be the true source of Islamic knowledge, and not the Hadith.

Perhaps, but considering the vast multitude of belief systems in the subcontinent, don't you think it would have been a bloodbath by now?
Why isn't it?

There is little difference between the middle east and India. There are kings and tyrants and philosophers and politicians all the same.

Perhaps the devil, as the say, lies in the details.

But then you could also argue that the people and beliefs of Africa and Asia are inferior to the Europeans, considering that they have advanced far more than them. But the truth is that they aren't. The set of cultural and political circumstances they had to deal with propelled them in a direction that allowed for their societies to evolve progressively, whereas ours did not.

Religion, belief systems and race make easy scapegoats, such arguments also bolster ones sense of esteem and superiority, that "we" (our religion, race, ethnicity whatever) are better - but the truth is that the world works through an extremely complex interplay of events.

 

[Flintlock]

I would disagree. In Islam at least, the perception of intolerance has been created due to the incorrect interpretations and uninformed beliefs propagated by extremists

The Quran commands tolerance, justice, respect and equality. The perversion of message by the Wahabis, Iranian Mullah's, Taliban etc. cannot be considered true Islam (IMO). But then I only consider the Quran to be the true source of Islamic knowledge, and not the Hadith.

Well then, I guess the shias and sunnis are just unlucky to get such bad religious leaders!!

But then you could also argue that the people and beliefs of Africa and Asia are inferior to the Europeans, considering that they have advanced far more than them. But the truth is that they aren't. The set of cultural and political circumstances they had to deal with propelled them in a direction that allowed for their societies to evolve progressively, whereas ours did not.

This is actually a very interesting debate.

But we are digressing, and this also happens to be a very very sensitive subject, so no more discussion on this.

Religion, belief systems and race make easy scapegoats, such arguments also bolster ones sense of esteem and superiority, that "we" (our religion, race, ethnicity whatever) are better - but the truth is that the world works through an extremely complex interplay of events.

The concept of "race" per se has been discarded by scientists.

There is nothing in one particular race that makes it superior to all others. The differences between people, physical and mental, is a result of environmental and political factors.

So there is no question of superiority or inferiority!!

And yes, you are absolutely correct.
The world is far to complicated to make any one thing the scapegoat, but there is always a chain of events that eventually leads to the cause of the trouble.

 

[Scorpius]

And how exactly do yo decide what Hinduism is? Is it Vedism? Is it Vashnavism? Is it Shaivism? Is it ISKCON?
What about Buddhists? Shouldn't they be pissed as well? Shouldn't jains be angry that their religion is classified under hinduism?

There are certain core principles that almost all religions of the subcontinent share. This is why they are classified under the same name, i.e. hinduism.

Jeez, even I have gripes with "Xtreme" hindus. Who doesnt?

It's not about what Hinduism is, it's about what Sikhism is.

They claim to be a seperate religion, unlike Hindus they do not believe in the caste system.

Most religions end up declaring those who are offshoots but with significant ideological differences as "cults", etc. Instead Hindus try to claim the religion as there own.

 

[Flintlock]

Vedic Dharma then.

Vedism is one of the branches of hinduism yes, but it can't describe all the beliefs in hinduism.

You know what I mean. The people who believe in Om, Brahma, Shiv, Vishnu.

Who believe in the epic tales of Mahabharat and Ramayan.

Who put their faith in the puranas, the Vedas.

Sikhs too believe in Vishnu, Shiva, Ram etc. but as creations of the one god.

They too recognize the Vedas, Puranas. Read up the Guru Granth Sahib if you wish.

However, their interpretations and philosophy differs from other beliefs.


Here is a quote from the website The Sikhism Home Page


The Sikh Gurus never believed in the exclusivity of their teachings. The Gurus undertook travels to spread their message to peoples of different cultures in their own native languages. The Gurus did not believe in the ideas of any language being 'sacred' or 'special'. It is in this spirit that various Sikh scholars have undertaken efforts to translate Sri Guru Granth Sahib into a number of languages in order to spread the teachings of the Gurus and to bring the Sikh religion to the people of the world as Guru Nanak wished.

You can call this a religion or a Sanatan Ved, it all points to Hinduism for the layman.

Well, pop-knowledge isn't always correct now, is it.

 

[Flintlock]

They claim to be a seperate religion, unlike Hindus they do not believe in the caste system.

Well all denominations consider themselves separate from others. Also, the caste system is now outlawed in Hinduism, but certain people still follow it. What is your point?

Most religions end up declaring those who are offshoots but with significant ideological differences as "cults", etc. Instead Hindus try to claim the religion as there own.

Again, how are you defining hinduism here. Vedism? Shavism? Vaishnavism?

Perhaps we need some sikh dude here to explain in detail. I'll try and get my sikh friend to come here and clarify.

 

[Samudra]

I would disagree. In Islam at least, the perception of intolerance has been created due to the incorrect interpretations and uninformed beliefs propagated by extremists.

Perception is reality is perception. The non-believers will be guided in their actions only by their perceptions.

The rationalization of the religion by pointing out to possibly incorrect interpretations will only be perceived as what it is : the rationalization of the religion by shifting the blame while the non-believers continue to suffer.

 

[roadrunner]

Isn't that what matters in the end? Recent history? Why would you separate culturally similar areas on the basis of ancient history?

Not really.. Hundred years from now, Pakistan will have its own culture, distinct from India. The culture I would say is already distinct. Example, many Indians worship the cow, Pakistanis do not. These are all religion based, but other example includes the dowries and so on..Religion based differences, but other things will change..

Also, the word is Persian Empire and Greek Empire. India or Pakistan are not Empires, they are Dem.Reps. which guarantee equal representation to all regions. It is a union of states, each with their own unique history and culture, along with a common fabric that unites them.

Well, it doesn't matter. Who do you think built Bela, or all the stupas in Pakistan.

Alexandria on the Indus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alexandria Bucephalous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hyphasis and so on..

Tamils, as Samudra said, have their history, Kerelites have theirs, and Marathis, Sikhs, Kashmiris all have unique civilization and history.
United to form India, these regions are not being culturally suppressed or diminished. Infact their culture is flourishing.

Not at all. Kashmiris don't want to be part of India. Sikhs rebelled. Assamites do rebel. The Tamils had their own movement against India..and so on..

 

[Flintlock]

Not really.. Hundred years from now, Pakistan will have its own culture, distinct from India. The culture I would say is already distinct. Example, many Indians will worship the cow, Pakistanis do not. These are all religion based, but other example includes the dowries and so on..Religion based differences, but other things will change..

Er....hundred years from now? Hello? Thats your argument?

Really, from what I hear dowry is rampant in Pakistan too, irrespective of what Islam has to say on the issue:

Dowry — alive and kicking -DAWN - The Review; April 27, 2006

But I get the drift of your arguments....you are implying that Pakistanis are superior to Indians in all aspects, and therfore don't deserve to be compared with these inferior people. Fine, whatever makes you happy.

Fact is, that Punjab, Haryana, Uttaranchal, UP and Pakistan are culturally more similar to each other than the South Indian states. Interestingly, there was no movement to separate India as North and South. Infact, much of South India remained Independent throughout history and even Mughal period.

Well, it doesn't matter. Who do you think built Bela, or all the stupas in Pakistan.

Alexandria on the Indus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alexandria Bucephalous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hyphasis and so on..

By the way, what is this obsession with Alexander? Does the introduction of the Alexander Factor suddenly make India and Pakistan irrecoverably different?

What about the fact that those stupa designs originated from the east? What about the fact that buddhism itself arose in the east?

Why would you give more weight to differences and ignore the similarities?

Not at all. Kashmiris don't want to be part of India. Sikhs rebelled. Assamites do rebel. The Tamils had their own movement against India..and so on..

Sadly, Kashmiris have been influenced by Anti-India propaganda coming from pakistan and Religious fundamentalists.

Sikhs Rebelled? Go to Punjab now and say Khalistan...everyone will laugh at you.

Assamese ULFA is a caricature of an extremist organization. They don't have any mass movement and go around blasting bombs in schools....not a nice way to win public support.

Tamils had movement? You are joking right? Ah...perhaps the language riots of the 60s....that was definitely not what you call a "freedom movement".

Fact is, that the current democratic govt. gives equal representation to all territories and culture. There is no dominating power in India by any ethnic group.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Perception is reality is perception. The non-believers will be guided in their actions only by their perceptions.

The rationalization of the religion by pointing out to possibly incorrect interpretations will only be perceived as what it is : the rationalization of the religion by shifting the blame while the non-believers continue to suffer.

Perceptions based on incorrect and "choice" interpretations are not reality - they are a sign of ignorance and an inability, or lack of desire, to move beyond fallacious beliefs - perhaps because they fit in so well with biases and prejudice inherent in us. Such perceptions only widen the divide, increase the animosity and perpetuate intolerance.

Should non-believers be influenced by their "perceptions" in, say, a Taliban controlled Afghanistan? Absolutely.

Should they also bring those perceptions to Dubai, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Malaysia and most parts of Pakistan - absolutely not. And there starts the rot, for those wont to judge everything by the same yardstick.

We talk often of the "greatest nation" and the 'greatest democracy" the world has ever seen - the United States - a paragon of freedom, constitutionalism, and equality. Yet has it not suffered from the perversions of slavery, segregation, racism and even today, profiling and the deprivation of basic rights based on appearance and faith?

To point out that such "laws" are a perversion, a "misinterpretation", of its noble constitution is not "rationalizing injustice by shifting blame" - it is laying blame where it should go, and highlighting the causes and mentality that led to the degradation of universally true values espoused in its constitution.

Were your argument to be taken, we should simply be done with it, toss it away into the nearest trash heap, this noble constitution. Why bother explaining what went wrong - why bother correcting those wrongs - it is merely an exercise in "shifting blame" is it not? Who cares of all the good it has wrought, of all the good it can continue to offer - absolute infallibility is apparently the only commodity valued around these parts.

Religion will not vanish, faith will not disappear - the choice is between encouraging an evolution of belief through interaction, acceptance, tolerance and respect, or sticking our heads in the sand, hoping it goes away, while screeching demonizing inanities at it.
I choose the former.