sikhism and guru nanak

[Guest guest]

i was wondering, how do vaisnavas stand to sikhism? they say that guru nanak is the last guru or something.. as muslims say that muhammed is the last prophet..

 

what is the viewpoint on sikhism through the eyes of a vaisnava?

[Avinash]

Sikhs consider Guru Nanak as their first guru and Guru Govind Singh as their last (10th) guru.

 

Before passing away, Guru Govind Singh said that there would be no more guru (i.e. human guru) for Sikhs. He compiled a book Guru Granth Sahib. In that he collected his teachings and the teachings of previous gurus of Sikhism and said that this book should be treated as guru then onwards.

[theist]

Avinash,

 

I believe the Sikhs are personalists and place great emphasis on the Holy Name. Is this true?

 

I know little about Sikhism but from my limited interaction with them I have come to like them.

 

Good question Govinda das.

 

ps I sure liked your old Avatar. This one is a bit creepy.

[Guest guest]

 

Avinash,

 

 

 

ps I sure liked your old Avatar. This one is a bit creepy.

 

im sorry u find me and my pic creepy

but i like it, i named this pic when i took it "the mystic" and worked alot with it.. i work with grapghics and such things.. i thaught also that i whanted a personal avatar of me

[Guest guest]

 

Sikhs consider Guru Nanak as their first guru and Guru Govind Singh as their last (10th) guru.

 

Before passing away, Guru Govind Singh said that there would be no more guru (i.e. human guru) for Sikhs. He compiled a book Guru Granth Sahib. In that he collected his teachings and the teachings of previous gurus of Sikhism and said that this book should be treated as guru then onwards.

 

still it wasnt any answer to my question bout the vaisnava contra sikhism

[Avinash]

First a clarification. I was not very precise in the previous post. Guru Granth Sahib (the holy book of Sikhs) was not compiled by Guru Govind Singh alone. It was started by the fifth guru. Later on the teachings of other gurus were incorporated into it. Guru Govind Singh instructed Sikhs to treat this book as Guru after him i.e. no more human guru.

Together with the teachings of the gurus of Sikhism, the holy book also contains teachings of the teachers of Hinduism and Islam. One of these teachers is Kabir Das.

 

 

I believe the Sikhs are personalists and place great emphasis on the Holy Name. Is this true?

 

By personalists, if you mean those who believe that Supreme has form, then Sikhs are not really personalists. They believe that can can manifest in various forms, but ultimately He is formless. This is one area where they differ significantly from Vaishnavas.

But there are many similarities with Vaishnavas. They believe in holy name, the remembrance of God always, love and devotion for God.

Another similarity is the belief in reincarnation and karma. They believe, just like Hindus, that one's next birth depends upon one's accumulated karma. If somebody is pure, then he will not take birth any more.

Many members in this forum have written on number of occasions that God is not accessible only through intellect, or scholarship or cleverness at argument; He is attained through devotion. This is exactly what Sikhs also believe in.

[Avinash]

Please see

 

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/spiritual-discussions/27828-sikhism.html?

[theist]

 

First a clarification. I was not very precise in the previous post. Guru Granth Sahib (the holy book of Sikhs) was not compiled by Guru Govind Singh alone. It was started by the fifth guru. Later on the teachings of other gurus were incorporated into it. Guru Govind Singh instructed Sikhs to treat this book as Guru after him i.e. no more human guru.

Together with the teachings of the gurus of Sikhism, the holy book also contains teachings of the teachers of Hinduism and Islam. One of these teachers is Kabir Das.

 

 

 

By personalists, if you mean those who believe that Supreme has form, then Sikhs are not really personalists. They believe that can can manifest in various forms, but ultimately He is formless. This is one area where they differ significantly from Vaishnavas.

But there are many similarities with Vaishnavas. They believe in holy name, the remembrance of God always, love and devotion for God.

Another similarity is the belief in reincarnation and karma. They believe, just like Hindus, that one's next birth depends upon one's accumulated karma. If somebody is pure, then he will not take birth any more.

Many members in this forum have written on number of occasions that God is not accessible only through intellect, or scholarship or cleverness at argument; He is attained through devotion. This is exactly what Sikhs also believe in.

 

I have had the feeling for a long time that others who actually perceive of God as a Supreme Being may also consider Him to be formless. Islam itself sounds like that to me. I believe this comes from a lack of information in their teachings. Still they are not in the camp of the Sankarites. Of course the Vaisnava's teach us that the Lord is formless as well as possessing His own transcendental eternal form. So we can't say they are wrong but just in need of further information.

 

I definetly see them as allies in God consciousness.

 

This makes me appreciate that much more how rare this Krsna conscious movement is.

[theist]

 

im sorry u find me and my pic creepy

but i like it, i named this pic when i took it "the mystic" and worked alot with it.. i work with grapghics and such things.. i thaught also that i whanted a personal avatar of me

 

Hey I don't find you creepy in the least Govinda das. Just the opposite. I see you as much more 'light' than you avatar conveys to me. But it's just subjective.

 

I have a similar alter ego picture of myself which i have a poster of. It is a classic Japanese flute player walking in a certain etheral setting of reeds that can easily be seen as him walking in clouds.

 

 

 

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Guest guest]

 

i was wondering, how do vaisnavas stand to sikhism? they say that guru nanak is the last guru or something.. as muslims say that muhammed is the last prophet..

 

what is the viewpoint on sikhism through the eyes of a vaisnava?

Guru Nanak

 

Birmingham, UK: June 15, 2003 (Part 1)

Tridandisvami Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja

 

[The devotees of the Birmingham Sri Gour Govinda Gaudiya Matha had a special arrangement with their Sikh friends of the Namdhari Gurdwara temple. For the third year in a row Srila Narayana Maharaja's week-long festival of hari-katha would be held in their large assembly hall, and over 200 of the 500 devotees attending would also be able to live there during that time. Moreover, despite certain obstacles, several of the Sikh leaders attended Srila Maharaja's classes. Srila Maharaja expressed his gratitude to them in the following class:]

 

Guru Nanak is a guru who gave transcendental love and affection for the Supreme Lord. Gobind Singh is in his dynasty, or guru-parampara, as we see there in his portrait. The Sikhs were originally Hindus, and they are still Hindus. Their religious principle was to save Hindu and Sanatana-dharma from the clutches of the Muslims. At that time the Moguls, headed by Aurangzeb and others, were very aggressive. Gobind Singh led his followers in making a vow that, "If we will not defeat the Moguls and they do not leave India, we will not shave our heads and we will not shave our beards. They took the vow symbolically on their hands, and therefore they wear a karha on their wrists. You should see this. [srila Narayana Maharaja points to their bracelets] They vowed to wear the bracelets "Until we bring Hindu and Vedic culture independence from the Mogul rulers." They are not separate from the devotees of India; they are followers of Sanatana-dharma; they also know that Krsna and Rama are the Supreme Lord.

 

Guru Nanak used to tell all these facts to his devotees everywhere, and they served everywhere. Gobind Singh lost his two sons because they vowed, "We cannot accept Muslim religion." The Moguls put within a wall, and the wall was being constructed around them. When that wall became up to the sons' waists the Moguls said, "Will you accept?"

 

They replied, "Never."

 

Then, when the wall came up to their chests the Moguls again said, "Now you will have to accept."

 

They replied, "Never!" and when the Moguls then made the wall up to the sons' neck they said, "There is some time to change your mind; otherwise we will cover you."

 

Still they did not accept, and they were covered by that wall. How much great sacrifice the Sikhs performed for India, to save Sanatana Vedic dharma!

 

We are now here in their temple. They should save us and give us shelter so that we can preach Sanatana-dharma in the line of Guru Nanak teaching that Krsna and Rama are the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By chanting and remembering the Supreme Lord we can be happy, otherwise we can never be so. This is the mission of our Sanatana Vedic dharma, of Guru Nanak, and of Gobind Singh and his guru-parampara up to the present time.

 

Some mad Sikhs think, "We are separate from Sanatana-dharma and we should fight the Hindus. A few Sikhs of this nature want "Sikhisthan" or something like that. But there are so many intelligent and pious Sikhs almost all Sikhs are pious and intelligent. Pure Sikhs continuously save Hinduism everywhere; so many thanks that they have given us shelter here, to preach our mission of Rama and Krsna, Gita and Bhagavatam.

 

My blessings to them, and my prayer to Krsna that He will be merciful to them and make them happy.

 

Gaura premanande!

 

Editorial Advisors: Pujyapada Madhava Maharaja and Sripad Brajanath prabhu

Editor: Symarani dasi

Transcriber and typist: Anita dasi

[theist]

Nice. Thanks for that. That then is our example on how to appreciate the Sikhs.

 

All obeisances to Guru Nanak and those in his line.

 

[Guest guest]

". . . The first symptom of real bhakti, achieved by the austerities of chanting and remembering Krsna, is causeless knowledge and detachment from this world. You will surely become renounced, whether you are in worldly life or in the renounced order. If you are chanting seriously and perfectly, renunciation is bound to come. We have heard that when Guru Nanak (the saint in India who founded the Sikh religion) was young, his father told him, "Go to the market and bring back the ingredients we need to sell at our shop." On the way to the market he came upon many Vaisnavas and sadhus. Seeing that there was no management of prasadam for them, he quickly went to the market and bought all the paraphernalia needed to make a festival (mahotsava) for them, and for that purpose he spent on all his father's money. He later returned home empty-handed, and his father asked, "Where are the ingredients I told you to buy – the rice, dahl, ghee and other things?"

 

Guru Nanak replied, "I did the shopping, but I have given all the goods for the service of Vaisnavas. In this way I have done some very good shopping for my future life for the benefit of my whole dynasty." He had so much strong belief in Krsna; he knew that if one serves Krsna, Krsna willgive him everything he needs. We do not have this same belief, and therefore it is even very hard for us to give a penny. Some persons can give some of their wealth, but he gave everything. . . ."

 

from lecture titled:

A Celebration of Four Holy Days

Murwillumbah, Australia, February 17, 2002

Tridandisvami Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja

[Guest guest]

Sikhs are a seperate religion but share many beliefs with Hindus. Their concept of God is Ek Onkar or Waheguru, a personal God who responds to devotion but who is formless, but had attributes like the concept of Ishwar or Saguna Brahman in Hinduism. The Sikhs follow a path like Bhakti-yoga.

 

Guru Nanak came from a Vaishnavite family who worshipped Rama as their ishta-devta rather than Krishna. He had a son who started a sect within early sikhism called the udasis, that is quite similar to Hinduism. They are seen as a sect that follows both guru Nanak's view of Sikhism and Hinduism. Later on other sikhs didn't recognise them because they wanted to make a complete split from Hinduism.

 

udasi.org

 

sikh-heritage.co.uk/movements/Udasis/udasis.htm

[Guest guest]

Sikhs seek to MERGE with God. They do not believe in Vaikuntha or that we stay as individual souls after moksha.

 

I asked about this on one of their forums. Here is the thread:

 

sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=19797

[theist]

 

Sikhs seek to MERGE with God. They do not believe in Vaikuntha or that we stay as individual souls after moksha.

 

I asked about this on one of their forums. Here is the thread:

 

sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=19797

 

"Sikhs" can say anything. But I am interested in what Guru Nanak taught. Those that adhere to his teachings are in his line and not others. I can easily understand how Advaita's influence could be accepted by many sikhs though if they teach that God is ultimately formless. That is a hard position to maintain.

[Guest guest]

 

"Sikhs" can say anything. But I am interested in what Guru Nanak taught. Those that adhere to his teachings are in his line and not others. I can easily understand how Advaita's influence could be accepted by many sikhs though if they teach that God is ultimately formless. That is a hard position to maintain.

 

I do not know Guru Nanak's exact teachings on Moksha. But Sikhs have the impression that he taught moksha = Merging with the formless Absolute, and losing individual identity.

 

Also, the Sikh religion is based on the teachings of 10 Gurus: Guru Nanak, Guru Angad, Guru Amardas, Guru Ram Das, Guru Arjun, Guru Har Govind, Guru Har Rai, Guru Har Krishnan, Guru Tegh Bahadur and Govind Singh.. not just Guru Nanak.

[theist]

 

I do not know Guru Nanak's exact teachings on Moksha. But Sikhs have the impression that he taught moksha = Merging with the formless Absolute, and losing individual identity.

 

Also, the Sikh religion is based on the teachings of 10 Gurus: Guru Nanak, Guru Angad, Guru Amardas, Guru Ram Das, Guru Arjun, Guru Har Govind, Guru Har Rai, Guru Har Krishnan, Guru Tegh Bahadur and Govind Singh.. not just Guru Nanak.

 

But to be in Guru nanak's line they must have taught the same thing even if they expanded the the teachings. They are the real Sikhs. So perhaps someone has some quote from the source they can share.

[Guest guest]

Yes, it would be interesting to hear direct quotes from the Gurus on this. If they clearly said that we remain as individual jivas after liberation, then it's strange that the Sikhs today do not seem to interpret this from their writings.

 

Can you imagine 500 yrs from now someone reading a book from Srila Prabhupada or another Vaishnava Acharya, and getting the impression that they taught Merging with God, and that the soul loses its individual identity. It's unthinkable that one could get that impression from their writings.

[theist]

 

Yes, it would be interesting to hear direct quotes from the Gurus on this. If they clearly said that we remain as individual jivas after liberation, then it's strange that the Sikhs today do not seem to interpret this from their writings.

 

Can you imagine 500 yrs from now someone reading a book from Srila Prabhupada or another Vaishnava Acharya, and getting the impression that they taught Merging with God, and that the soul loses its individual identity. It's unthinkable that one could get that impression from their writings.

 

Not so unimaginable really. I have scores of conversations with new age moonbeamers where they refuse to hear what is being clearly said. It is like they have an internal mistranslator on in their head that turns everything they hear into "it's a one." Or many so-called christians who insist Jesus Christ is God contrary to Jesus's own words and life example.

 

But I hear your point, Srila Prabhupada so thoughoughly emphasised the point that no serious student of his could ever think otherwise. Other teachers may not have done this however.

[Avinash]

Throughout Guru Granth Sahib, God is described as nirankar. The word nirankar comes from the Sanskrit word nirakar, which means formless. But it is interesting to note that Guru Granth Sahib also says, while glorifying God:-

 

You have thousands of eyes, and yet You have no eyes. You have thousands of forms, and yet You do not have even one. You have thousands of Lotus Feet, and yet You do not have even one foot. You have no nose, but you have thousands of noses. This Play of Yours entrances me.

My mind is enticed by the honey-sweet Lotus Feet of the Lord. Day and night, I thirst for them.

[theist]

This is an interesting topic I will be interested to see how it turns out. There are those that claim God is formless ultimately but that His avatars are fully transcendental. Opposite of what we have learned about the Brahmajyoti being the effulgence of the Lord's transcendental form.

 

If someone believes in the formless as ultimate and who also believes that formless is a distinct unlimited being (God) how would we classify them?

 

There are sever flaws in this theory that readily show themselves. For instance if God is ultimately formless and distinct from the eternal jivas at the same time what happens to the jivas when they transcend the need for further births in this world?

 

Appears to me personalism without an acceptance of Vaikuntha can't hold water for long.

[Guest guest]

 

Appears to me personalism without an acceptance of Vaikuntha can't hold water for long.

 

Also, without an acceptance of Vaikuntha, what desire is there for Moksha. If this material universe is the only semi-reality, and beyond is some formless void of nothingness, what motivation is there to escape to this nothingness? At least here we have the illusion of being individuals and experiencing some temporary joy in the forms and activities of the world (assuming the material universe is all that exists with forms and people).

 

Ultimately, every soul desires True Bliss and transcendental activity (not nothingness and non-activity) AND a Personal connection with other sentient beings. This is why we seek friends, lovers, etc.. we naturally enjoy the company and interaction of others. Despite what some might tell you, no one truly desires to be alone, or to be sucked into some impersonal light, where they experience nothing and do nothing. The soul's natural state is to be active not asleep..

[theist]

Agreed. But what about this idea of a personal God who is formless. It certainly is due to a incomplete information but yet people that hold that view aren't really impersonalists either. It appears to me to be a very shaky unstable position from which one could fall into full fledged impersonalism very easily.

[Guest guest]

 

Agreed. But what about this idea of a personal God who is formless.

 

Seems like a contradiction. I wonder if they (Sikhs) cling to this formless concept, because of their rejection of the Vedic religion, specifically the Puranas, which describe God taking personal forms.

 

Some can't understand how The Supreme Lord (Ra-dha-Krsna) comes to earth as a PERSONAL being, and engages in earthly activities (when they consider God as beyond earthly activities and possessing a body something like ours).

 

Since the Sikhs reject Avatars, they're probably trying to disassociate God from being a Being like you and I, that interacts with others in a personal body; dances with cowherd girls, eats butter, etc... I think they are basically saying God is beyond description and comprehension, and forms and concepts? If I recall Krishna addresses these type of people in the Gita, who are unable to understand His personal form.

[theist]

Yeah that is how I think also generaly. Not sure about the Sikhs though in particular but you explaination makes sense.

 

ps please differentiate yourself from other guests so conversations can run more smoothly.