Hinduism & Sikhism

[Guest guest]

<These two core doctrines are not "unique to Hinduism". This complementary pair

is found in Buddhism and Jainism as well.>

 

1. Absoulutely. And this is one reason why many Hindus regard Buddhism and

Jainism ALSO as part of Hinduism.[As most of us know, Plato and Pythagoras also

accepted reincarnation, as did a few others in the Christian/Judaic tradition at

one time.]

 

2. As to the Law of Karma in the Vedas, your observation is quite correct. But I

was commenting on some of the reasons why many MODERN Hindus consider Sikhism to

be part of Hinduism. Not many MODERN Hindus who hold these views have read the

Vedas fully.

 

3. But, on this matter, Hindus do speak from an informed and deeply felt

cultural instinct. It is a fact that the vast majority of Hindus do consider

Sikhs and Jains to be of their own extended family. They do feel at home in

Gurudwaras and in Jain Temples, and many Sikhs and Jains feel likewise in Hindu

temples.

 

4. My intention was to clarify the issue, not to take sides. I was NOT arguing

for one view or another. That is why I gave the Sikh perspective as well.

 

V. V. Raman

August 27, 2002

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "V.V. Raman" <vvrsps@r...> wrote:

> Some Thoughts on the Links between Sikhism and Hinduism

 

> B. From the Sikh perspective:

>

> 1. Sikhism explicitly rejects the authority of the Vedas: this

makes Sikhs Non-Hindus.

 

 

Which lines of Granth Sahib can be read to mean "Sikhism explicitly

rejects the authority of the Vedas" ? Is it not true that somewhere

GS exhorts the followers to spread the gloy of vedas?

 

 

>

> 2. Sikhism (in principle) rejects the caste-system, allowing

everyone to enter the place of worship.

 

 

The defining principle of caste system is the groups marrying aomg

themsleves and to some extent hierarchy among these groups - social

or ritual hierarchy. Looked at this way. Sikhism is no less casteist

than Hinduism. Traditional Hinduism made a meal of caste system,

whereas non-traditional Indian sects are apologetic about it. But in

terms of pratice, both accept it.

 

 

 

 

> 5. The whole purpose of Sikhism was to free itself from the

constraints of Hinduism and form a more universal religion which

would incorporate whatever is best in Hinduism, in Islam, and in the

new visions of the Gurus.

 

 

It is difficult to define the "whole purpose" of any religion leave

alone Sikhism.

 

 

BTW, Sikhism is declared an ethnic religion in the UK on the

unanimous demand of sikhs with no opposition from any sikh. This

demand flies in the face of alleged universalism. Let us not try to

fit words like "universalism" on religions.

 

 

All religions are born , spread and maintained in certain social and

historical context. The "universalism" of religions is a myth.

[Guest guest]

> 1. Sikhism explicitly rejects the authority of the Vedas: this

makes Sikhs Non-Hindus.

 

But can somebody be clear about the level of "rejection"?

 

> 2. Sikhism (in principle) rejects the caste-system, allowing

>everyone to enter the place of worship.

 

In Hinduism today so can all castes enter all places of worship.

 

> 3. Unlike in Hinduism, one is not born a Sikh, but is initiated

into the religion.

 

> 4. Unlike traditional Hinduism, Sikhism permits/welcomes converts.

 

This too is true of Hinduism today.

 

> 5. That many Punjabi Hindus feel closer to Punjabi Sikhs than to

South Indian Hindus is very true. But this has to do with language

and regional culture much than with religious identity. Many

Bangladeshis feel closer to West Bengalis because of the language:

this does not prove that their religions are the same. Many Jews in

America feel closer to American Protestants than to Hebrew-speaking

Israelis. This does not mean that Judaism and Christianity are the

same.

 

But do Bangladeshi Muslims worship the Hindu gods worshipped by West

Bengalis? Or do American Jews worship Jesus?

 

As I noted before, my Punjabi Hindu friend, worships a Sikh guru.

[Guest guest]

V.V. Raman wrote:

> Some Thoughts on the Links between Sikhism and Hinduism

 

V.V. Raman's thoughts on the two perspective are interesting.

 

Whether someone is or is not a Hindu depends on the definition of the

word Hindu being used. If "accepting the authority of the vedas" is a

requirement for one to be Hindu, then the Sikhs would not be Hindu.

But this definition of a Hindu is new one and appears to have been

influenced by the definitions of Christianity and Islam, which are

book-based religions.

 

Historically Hinduism has accepted "converts". Many Yavanas

(IndoGreeks) of Takshashila and Bactria were Vaishnavas, as we learn

from the Heliodorus column in Vidisha and coinage of Indo-Greeks.

Hinduism was quite popular in Cambodia, Champa and Indonesia only a

few centuries ago. The Hindu "ban" on conversion appears to have been

a result of Islamic ban on reconversion of people to other faiths.

 

In Sikh tradition, most of the Gurus are indeed consider descendants

of Lord Rama. In his autobiographical "Vichitra-natak" Guru Gobind

Singh himself describes the Bedis (Guru Nanak's clan) and Sodhis

(Guru Gobind Singh's clan) as being descendants of Lord Ram. The two

other Gurus are considered to be descendants of brothers of Lord Rama.

 

Sikhism rejects the view that a group can be higher simply because of

the birth. Sikh texts do accept the four varnas on the basis of

karma. I think Sikhism also accepts the social groups, all the Gurus

were married only within their Khatri community. Modern Sikh

interpretations may be different due to the impact of M.A. McAuliffe

and the Singh Sabha movement in the early 20th cent.

 

Sikh have intermarried with Hindus, and fact Sikh rules still allow

Sikh men to marry Hindu girls (but not the other way). Sikhs always

had a significant shortage of women, they still do. The last Guru had

translated durga-saptashati from Markandeya Purana. The translation

is called Chandi di Vaar and a part of it is a part of the ardaas,

the Sikh prayer.

 

Yashwant

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Timothy C. Cahill" <tccahill@l...> wrote:

>I know of several studies on the subject, which conclude that this

> central concept is curiously absent from the Rig Veda.

 

Would appreciate some of the most important ref.s

 

Thanks,

N. Ganesan