- -
- -
There is a lot of confusion prevalent nowadays that the Sikh and Hindus are different especially among the younger lot. Whether Sikhism is different from Hinduism depends on not how one defines Sikhism but how one defines Hinduism. That is if one can define any one of these two.
Hinduism and Sikhism both defy definitions and they both were always considered as ever evolving doctrines. That is upto the time a new variant of Sikhism arrived on the scene. Sikhism as understood by the western Sikh. Sikhism that believes that trimming ones hair and beard renders a Sikh as 'patit'or 'adharmi'. There are many young Indian Sikh who have come to agree with this theory. Why has such a false idea germinated among the young Sikh? I believe its because the modern day ordinary Sikh as well as the Priests have come to accept Sikhism and Khalsa-Panth as one and don't understand that even though every Khalsa-Panthi is a Sikh, every Sikh is not actually required to be a member of the Khalsa and that to maintain unshorn hair and beard is not a compulsion in Sikhism. The personage of Guru Nanak should not be expected to have founded any dogmatic idea. Nanaks Sikhism was meant to free people from the clutches of both the Hindu and the Muslim clergy. His own followers following the clergy blindly would never have been acceptable to Him. But that exactly is whats happening. Nanaks Sikhism never made growing ones hair and beard a condition and was never supposed to be dogmatic. Sikhism was born in an age when Hinduism had absorbed corrupting influences and was rendered as just a doctrine in rituals and outward appearances. Nanaks struggle was against that. The Hindus no longer wear a 'janneyu' or shave their heads but nobody calls them 'adharmy'. But the moment a Sikh shaves his beard he is branded as adharmy by the ignorant Granthi's.
It would not be wrong to say that Sikhism today is what Hinduism used to be be 500 years ago - Grow you hair and beard else you are 'patit' or 'adharmi'. It's a case of another God turning against itself. An edifice created by the Human mind, decimated by Human nature.
"Mund mundae jo sidhhi paee, mukti ped na gaiiya jaee."
I thing the above argument applies both ways. To grow ones hair in order to attain 'siddhi'
is as illogical and unreasonable as shaving ones head to attain 'siddhi' is.
People who believe in the 'Guru-Granth-Sahib' must also know that Nanak had emphasized that his ideas and philosophy was merely a discovery about a reality that had always been there. He was not bringing any new covenants from any God. The history of Nanak or the way he looked is not necessary for Nanaks principles to work. In fact, Nanak stated that he was neither the first nor the last person to have achieved the state of enlightenment. He also asserted that he was not God nor sent by any God as a prophet, and whatever he discovered was available to every human to discover for himself.
And the Sikh of the west ( who I am sure are a minority even there ) say that Sikh are different from Hindus despite the fact that the Sikh Scripture if full of Hymns composed by Hindu Saints long before Nanak arrived. It could be rightly said that Sikhism is the evolution of Hinduism (some call it cleansing) depending on the social and cultural needs of a particular region and that Hinduism can only be defined as a common-wealth or a conglomeration of the various religious, cultural, and social belief systems that either originated or evolved in the Indian Sub-Continent over centuries. How could the Sikh be different from the Hindus?
Wasn't Nanaks Sikhism a culmination of the Bhakti-Movement that started in India long before Nanak ? Kabir and Namdev for example arrived long before Nanak and none of them was Punjabi. Namdev was a Marathi saint. Not all Sikhs come from Punjab; they are spread all over the subcontinent. Tenth guru, Guru Gobind Singh himself was born in Patna, Bihar and did not even speak Punjabi: most of his work is composed in Awadhi, Braj-bhasha and Farsi.
- -
- -
Guru Nanak Ji wrote in the Guru Granth Sahib', Raag Malaar, Pa.1279 thus:
'BRAHMA, VISHNU, MAHESH [SHIVA] the three demigods were created [by God].
He gave BRAHMA the VEDAS and involved them in it's worship.
Ten Avatars did king RAMA [VISHNU] take.
He attacked and killed demons but all in accordance with God's command.
God did SHIVA serve but he too did not find his limits.
Attaining true value he created his [heavenly] throne.
He has set the world to task and concealed himself.
He makes all function this Karma is divinely ordained.'
This is entirley reminiscent of what is stated in the Mahabharata, where it was written by Rishi Vedvyas Ji that God who is referred to as Omkar or Parbrahma, converted Himself into Lord Vishnu. Out of Lord Vishnu's navel came Lord Brahma and from His forehead came the Akal Pursh (otherwise known as Akal or Lord Shiva ) .
When Vishnu, Brahma and Akal combined their powers, or shaktis, to create the image of the Mother goddess it was Durga who came forth. Durga is also known as Shiva, Devi, Mata, Parvati, Chamunda, and Jwaladevi. Guru Govind Singh was a great devotee of Durga Mata.
- -
- -
Guru Nanak spoke to a Vaishnav Hindu ('Guru Granth Sahib', Raag Thiti Gauri, Pa.300) thus :
'He who focuses his mind on God is a Vaisnu [follower of VISHNU] He is a man of great knowledge.
He is a warrior of a high clan who worships Bhagwant [God/VISHNU].
Be they Khatri, Shudar, Vaise or a Chandal [Four castes of Hinduism] by contemplating God they are saved from vice.
They who ever have acknowledged God, Nanak asks for the dust of their feet.
- -
- -
The third Sikh Guru Amardas said of a true Sanatan Brahmin ('Guru Granth Sahib', Raag Gujri, Pa.512) thus:
'He who appreciates BRAHM [God] call him a Brahmin, he day and night stays absorbed in Har [God].
He lives in accordance within the will of the true Guru truth and Sanjam [self-restraint] he practices thus his ailment of ego flees.'
- -
- -
Bhagat Kabit says ( Shri Guru Granth ji, Pa.1350) :
Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.
You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?
- -
- -
Thanks
- -
- -
- -
There is a lot of confusion prevalent nowadays that the Sikh and Hindus are different especially among the younger lot. Whether Sikhism is different from Hinduism depends on not how one defines Sikhism but how one defines Hinduism. That is if one can define any one of these two.
Hinduism and Sikhism both defy definitions and they both were always considered as ever evolving doctrines. That is upto the time a new variant of Sikhism arrived on the scene. Sikhism as understood by the western Sikh. Sikhism that believes that trimming ones hair and beard renders a Sikh as 'patit'or 'adharmi'. There are many young Indian Sikh who have come to agree with this theory. Why has such a false idea germinated among the young Sikh? I believe its because the modern day ordinary Sikh as well as the Priests have come to accept Sikhism and Khalsa-Panth as one and don't understand that even though every Khalsa-Panthi is a Sikh, every Sikh is not actually required to be a member of the Khalsa and that to maintain unshorn hair and beard is not a compulsion in Sikhism. The personage of Guru Nanak should not be expected to have founded any dogmatic idea. Nanaks Sikhism was meant to free people from the clutches of both the Hindu and the Muslim clergy. His own followers following the clergy blindly would never have been acceptable to Him. But that exactly is whats happening. Nanaks Sikhism never made growing ones hair and beard a condition and was never supposed to be dogmatic. Sikhism was born in an age when Hinduism had absorbed corrupting influences and was rendered as just a doctrine in rituals and outward appearances. Nanaks struggle was against that. The Hindus no longer wear a 'janneyu' or shave their heads but nobody calls them 'adharmy'. But the moment a Sikh shaves his beard he is branded as adharmy by the ignorant Granthi's.
It would not be wrong to say that Sikhism today is what Hinduism used to be be 500 years ago - Grow you hair and beard else you are 'patit' or 'adharmi'. It's a case of another God turning against itself. An edifice created by the Human mind, decimated by Human nature.
"Mund mundae jo sidhhi paee, mukti ped na gaiiya jaee."
I thing the above argument applies both ways. To grow ones hair in order to attain 'siddhi'
is as illogical and unreasonable as shaving ones head to attain 'siddhi' is.
People who believe in the 'Guru-Granth-Sahib' must also know that Nanak had emphasized that his ideas and philosophy was merely a discovery about a reality that had always been there. He was not bringing any new covenants from any God. The history of Nanak or the way he looked is not necessary for Nanaks principles to work. In fact, Nanak stated that he was neither the first nor the last person to have achieved the state of enlightenment. He also asserted that he was not God nor sent by any God as a prophet, and whatever he discovered was available to every human to discover for himself.
And the Sikh of the west ( who I am sure are a minority even there ) say that Sikh are different from Hindus despite the fact that the Sikh Scripture if full of Hymns composed by Hindu Saints long before Nanak arrived. It could be rightly said that Sikhism is the evolution of Hinduism (some call it cleansing) depending on the social and cultural needs of a particular region and that Hinduism can only be defined as a common-wealth or a conglomeration of the various religious, cultural, and social belief systems that either originated or evolved in the Indian Sub-Continent over centuries. How could the Sikh be different from the Hindus?
Wasn't Nanaks Sikhism a culmination of the Bhakti-Movement that started in India long before Nanak ? Kabir and Namdev for example arrived long before Nanak and none of them was Punjabi. Namdev was a Marathi saint. Not all Sikhs come from Punjab; they are spread all over the subcontinent. Tenth guru, Guru Gobind Singh himself was born in Patna, Bihar and did not even speak Punjabi: most of his work is composed in Awadhi, Braj-bhasha and Farsi.
- -
- -
Guru Nanak Ji wrote in the Guru Granth Sahib', Raag Malaar, Pa.1279 thus:
'BRAHMA, VISHNU, MAHESH [SHIVA] the three demigods were created [by God].
He gave BRAHMA the VEDAS and involved them in it's worship.
Ten Avatars did king RAMA [VISHNU] take.
He attacked and killed demons but all in accordance with God's command.
God did SHIVA serve but he too did not find his limits.
Attaining true value he created his [heavenly] throne.
He has set the world to task and concealed himself.
He makes all function this Karma is divinely ordained.'
This is entirley reminiscent of what is stated in the Mahabharata, where it was written by Rishi Vedvyas Ji that God who is referred to as Omkar or Parbrahma, converted Himself into Lord Vishnu. Out of Lord Vishnu's navel came Lord Brahma and from His forehead came the Akal Pursh (otherwise known as Akal or Lord Shiva ) .
When Vishnu, Brahma and Akal combined their powers, or shaktis, to create the image of the Mother goddess it was Durga who came forth. Durga is also known as Shiva, Devi, Mata, Parvati, Chamunda, and Jwaladevi. Guru Govind Singh was a great devotee of Durga Mata.
- -
- -
Guru Nanak spoke to a Vaishnav Hindu ('Guru Granth Sahib', Raag Thiti Gauri, Pa.300) thus :
'He who focuses his mind on God is a Vaisnu [follower of VISHNU] He is a man of great knowledge.
He is a warrior of a high clan who worships Bhagwant [God/VISHNU].
Be they Khatri, Shudar, Vaise or a Chandal [Four castes of Hinduism] by contemplating God they are saved from vice.
They who ever have acknowledged God, Nanak asks for the dust of their feet.
- -
- -
The third Sikh Guru Amardas said of a true Sanatan Brahmin ('Guru Granth Sahib', Raag Gujri, Pa.512) thus:
'He who appreciates BRAHM [God] call him a Brahmin, he day and night stays absorbed in Har [God].
He lives in accordance within the will of the true Guru truth and Sanjam [self-restraint] he practices thus his ailment of ego flees.'
- -
- -
Bhagat Kabit says ( Shri Guru Granth ji, Pa.1350) :
Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.
You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?
- -
- -
Thanks
- -
- -
