Confused about Sikhism/Hinduism differences

[Poeticus]

Comments like that are the reason I don't like Indian people.

Oh, you don't like Indian people? How ironic.

I've already said that i'm Gujarati and I speak it but I can't read or write it. Don't you think the reason I investigate these movements is because of such comments?

You "investigate" [lmao, really? you "investigate" lol] these movements because you are paranoid.

Perhaps the separatists don't like being around other Indians who think like that

Or, maybe they were treated as outsiders by their own Punjabi Sikh communities in the Indian Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh....

And Khalistanis are Sikhs so why can't this be in SikhDIR? One of the reasons this movement occured was the Hinduization of Sikhism?

Khalistanis are not Sikh. Shri Mahatma Guru Gobind Singh-ji would not approve the blowing up of airliners that boarded young children and women.

And, "Hinduization of Sikhism?" There were two movements; the first one was "universal", the second one solidified a separate Sikh identity. So, any "Hinduization" still occurring isn't a recent phenomenon.

Also, speaking of Khalistan as a terror movement, Mandela's ANC was considered a terrorist movement once upon a time.

Strawman.

Anyway, can any of you answer why Sikhs and Muslims don't cooperate considering Islam influenced it too?

I thought Khalistanis and the ISI cooperate. Didn't you suggest something similar much earlier?

I'm also thinking that there is no one Khalistan movement? Some of these people trained at Al Qaeda's camps and others killed Hindus,bombed Air India,etc. Some of these morons drink alcohol and smoke; I don't think there's one movement

Irrelevant.

there's a 'then' and 'now' mentality. Why do Sikhs not share festivals/visit Mosque if they share Hindu festivals and practices and visit Mandirs?

They don't have to share any non-SIkh festivals if they don't want to. Unless, you are going to force them....?

It because of Islam being more closed minded? India,Pakistan and the UAE are countries with many Muslims and have many,many Sikhs/open Mosques (well, Dubai has a few); if Sikhs are the more open minded of the World Religions, why don't they share rituals?

There isn't a strong correlative morality when it comes to "sharing rituals" and "open mindedness".

I shared Diwali with Chinese (Buddhist/Atheist) and Palestinian Muslims

Good for you. Would you like a candy?

but I didn't get Chinese New Year or Eid invitations in return

Aw. You must have been heartbroken.

 

[ronki23]

Oh, you don't like Indian people? How ironic.



You "investigate" [lmao, really? you "investigate" lol] these movements because you are paranoid. Well no, I look into them because if people are bigoted and think you're not one of them just because you don't speak the same language (even though you have another common language e.g. English),then i'm pretty sure there'd be people like me who pretty mad with Indians too. As a matter of fact, isn't another one of the reasons for the Khalistan movement because India tried thrusting Hindi upon Punjab when the state's national language is (rightfully) Punjabi?



Or, maybe they were treated as outsiders by their own Punjabi Sikh communities in the Indian Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh....



Khalistanis are not Sikh. Shri Mahatma Guru Gobind Singh-ji would not approve the blowing up of airliners that boarded young children and women.Are you kidding me? That can be used by any religion. True Muslims don't believe in child suicide bombers and hijacking planes yet i'd say well over 75% of Muslims I know are anti Semitic and anti American. Every religion has its morons, don't dress it up by saying they're not 'true' (and please don't go into this bull about the evils of Islam as Buddhists (Sri Lanka,Japan WWII,Burma and old Tibet) Hindus,Christians (KKK,Mormons,Baptists, all major Churches during Salem) and Jews (Zionists) have lunatics misinterpreting/loopholing their religion too)

And, "Hinduization of Sikhism?" There were two movements; the first one was "universal", the second one solidified a separate Sikh identity. So, any "Hinduization" still occurring isn't a recent phenomenon.



Strawman.



I thought Khalistanis and the ISI cooperate. Didn't you suggest something similar much earlier?



Irrelevant.



They don't have to share any non-SIkh festivals if they don't want to. Unless, you are going to force them....? But Sikhs (allegedly) share such festivals with Hindus e.g. Diwali,Hola [seriously, it was done a day after Holi to 'one up' Hindus],Raksha Bandan (Hinduization)



There isn't a strong correlative morality when it comes to "sharing rituals" and "open mindedness". Of course there is. If you're open minded, you have no qualms about celebrating in another religion's festival/inviting others to yours



Good for you. Would you like a candy?



Aw. You must have been heartbroken.Funny thing is, Palestinians and Chinese are technically Asians (most Arab countries are in Asia) so I guess i've got to avoid all Asians in the future if Indians too are like this

Responses in bold

 

[Poeticus]

Fine, I'll grant that Khalistanis are Sikh, but who said anything about going into the "evils" of all those other religious communities? What's up with the repeated going after imaginary baits?

And, it wasn't India that tried to impose Hindi upon the Indian Punjab. It was the INC - Congress Party.

And, if a few Sikhs "allegedly" share various "Hindu" festivals...then...so be it. No biggie if they do; no biggie if they don't. But, if they don't...it's apparently a crime against all of humanity to you, isn't it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Anyway, can any of you answer why Sikhs and Muslims don't cooperate considering Islam influenced it too?

I think that is the grouse that Pakistanis also have with Sikhs. Why did not they join hands completely with Pakistan, why did not the Sikh soldiers in Indian army rebelled (a few did and I think have been pardoned) to hand over Punjab to Muslims or at least severe it from India in the way India did in Bangladesh? Tough Luck. Sikhs were generally more level-headed than that.

 

[ronki23]

Fine, I'll grant that Khalistanis are Sikh, but who said anything about going into the "evils" of all those other religious communities? What's up with the repeated going after imaginary baits?

And, it wasn't India that tried to impose Hindi upon the Indian Punjab. It was the INC - Congress Party.

And, if a few Sikhs "allegedly" share various "Hindu" festivals...then...so be it. No biggie if they do; no biggie if they don't. But, if they don't...it's apparently a crime against all of humanity to you, isn't it?

Forgot to say, if Khalistanis are terrorists, does that not mean Bhindranwale was a terrorist too? There is no evidence he did wrong though so I guess the conclusion would be there are several branches of the movement.

And do Sikhs not celebrate/pray with Muslims due to Mughals? Is it a 'double negative' as Muslims would never bow to the SGGS and Sikhs wouldn't say

لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله


Simply because of the word Muhammed? Because it seems the Sikhs who pray in Hindu Mandirs are loopholing via Dasam Granth Sahib

 

[ronki23]

Cooperate on what? Your statement is too broad.

I'm sure Guru Gobind Singh Ji's little children would have cooperated with them if they hadn't been bricked alive for refusing to convert to Islam (which everybody knows doens't use force to convert people...).

Using iPad but don't verses like below (several of them) show Sikhs have more in common with Hindus than let on?

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva stand at His Door; they serve the unseen, infinite Lord (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 1022).

Hindus too believe in a being superior to these 3

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

muslims would never bow to the sggs and sikhs wouldn't say
ساعدونا فى نشر الصفحة والدال على الخير كفاعلة عملية لن تأخذ ثوانى
simply because of the word muhammed?

ما الذي تتحدث عنه؟
Nevermind...

 

[ronki23]

ما الذي تتحدث عنه؟

Typo

لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

 

[Poeticus]

Forgot to say, if Khalistanis are terrorists, does that not mean Bhindranwale was a terrorist too? There is no evidence he did wrong though so I guess the conclusion would be there are several branches of the movement.

And do Sikhs not celebrate/pray with Muslims due to Mughals? Is it a 'double negative' as Muslims would never bow to the SGGS and Sikhs wouldn't say

لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله


Simply because of the word Muhammed? Because it seems the Sikhs who pray in Hindu Mandirs are loopholing via Dasam Granth Sahib

Using iPad but don't verses like below (several of them) show Sikhs have more in common with Hindus than let on?

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva stand at His Door; they serve the unseen, infinite Lord (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 1022).

Hindus too believe in a being superior to these 3

Who really gives two figs?

 

[ronki23]

Who really gives two figs?

I saw the response before you edited lol

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. Sikhs wouldn't say لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله. Simply because of the word Muhammed?

That has always been the problem with Abrahamic religions. They appropriate - whether it was Musa, Isa, Mohammad, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Joseph Smith, or Bahaullah - "My word is the last, MY WAY". That is why Hindus and Sikhs would not say this.

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva stand at His Door; they serve the unseen, infinite Lord (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 1022). Hindus too believe in a being superior to these 3

They don't. Many Hindus will agree that the three are aspects of the unseen, infinite One Lord (Ek Onkar). If it comes to that, then the whole universe is only an expansion of the unseen, infinite One Lord, and that there is no second. You come back to 'advaita'. IMHO, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji also meant that, but fumbled at his verses.

 

[Treks]

Using iPad but don't verses like below (several of them) show Sikhs have more in common with Hindus than let on?

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva stand at His Door; they serve the unseen, infinite Lord (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 1022).

For a Sikh, the existence of any other beings below Akaal Purakh is inconsequential. Take the shabad So Dar for example, which is illustrating a myraid of creation; taken in totallity it gives a sense of the individual human being a tiny speck in the vast expanse of Karta Purakh's creation, but it all ends with a very clear reminder that everything is below Ik Onkar, is subject to It's will. It opens the way for a direct experience and direct line to Akaal Purakh, because nothing stands in the way between you and the infinite.

Sikhism is a fully indepentent religion Ronki. You need to understand that it does not need Hinduism or Islam to stand on it's own.

Sikhs celebrate some festivals the Hindu's do in a secular capacity, just like atheists in the West who celebrate Christmas with their families and friends - they're certainly not celebrating the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. Same for Sikhs revelling on Diwali.

Sikhs who pray in Hindu mandirs are not Sikhs according to the Sikh Rehat Maryada. At best they are so-called Sanatan Sikhs piecing together their own religion, picking whatever they like for whatever they like. They haven't understood the import of Gurbani or the history of the Sikhs and disregard the first word of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji: IK (one). I'm sure they have their reasons for doing what they do and that's fine, it's their path and their relationship to God, but it's about a Sikh as I am German (relatives on my father's side were from Germany but I'm 4th generation Australian).

And do Sikhs not celebrate/pray with Muslims due to Mughals?

No, they don't.

Why on earth would Sikhs expect Muslims to engage in Sikh religious practices??

You're really failing to grasp that Sikhism is a separate, distinct religion, self-sufficient and able to be lifted away from it's Punjabi homeland and applied to other cultures (albeit with some difficulty just right now but the future is bright in that regard). You need to work on separating ideas of religion, culture and nationality so you can see how they interact with each other in the complex geography and history of what used to be the whole of India.

 

[Treks]

If it comes to that, then the whole universe is only an expansion of the unseen, infinite One Lord, and that there is no second. You come back to 'advaita'. IMHO, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji also meant that, but fumbled at his verses.

The first part is good, it's getting to the panentheistic core of Sikhi.. but shall we walk before we run for Ronki's sake?

The last part is close to disrespectful in what is the SIKH DIR for crying out loud.

 

[Poeticus]

This whole thread is disrespectful to the SikhDIR.

 

[Treks]

I've put in a request for it to be moderated/moved. Thanks MV ji for your ongoing support.

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Post***

Thread closed for review.​

 

[Badran]

***Mod post***

Thread reopened and moved to the Dharmic Religions DIR.​

 

[ronki23]

As this thread was closed, I PM'd some people of the following quotes that show the Sri Guru Granth Sahib's mentioning of the Hindu deities. I'm not getting a proper answer here. I Agree Sikhs are monotheistic, but couldn't Krishna,Brahma,Vishnu,Shiva and (Dasam Granth) Rama and Durga have a purpose. Like Waheguru could be the King but the Gods could be the Knights?

After all, Abrahamic religions believe in a Supreme God but they also believe in Angels

@Aupmanyav said Hindus don't believe in a God above the Trimurti. Yet that's not exactly true. As others have said, there is no one Hinduism so some do indeed believe in a Supreme. In the West we're taught there's a Brahman as a supreme being. Vishnuvaites, Shivaites and Hare Krishnas all argue over who is Brahman

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva stand at His Door; they serve the unseen, infinite Lord (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 1022).

By the order of God, Brahma obtained a body. By the order of God, Shiva was born. By the order of God, Vishnu was born. Everything is created by God (Benti Chaupai Sahib, Pauree 7).

ਦੁਹਸਾਸਨ ਕੀ ਸਭਾ ਦ੍ਰੋਪਤੀ ਅੰਬਰ ਲੇਤ ਉਬਾਰੀਅਲੇ ॥੧॥
In the court of Duhsaasan, You saved the honor of Dropati, when her clothes were being removed.*

*I guess Sikhs could mean Waheguru did this but they then say

ਸਾਵਲ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਰੂਪ ਬਣਾਵਹਿ ਬੇਣੁ ਸੁਨਤ ਸਭ ਮੋਹੈਗਾ ॥੯॥

He assumed the beautiful form of the blue-skinned Krishna; hearing His flute, all are fascinated and enticed.

Dasam Granth Sahib:

तै ही दुरगा साजि कै दैता दा नासु कराइआ ॥
O Lord! By creating Durga, Thou hast caused the destruction of demons.

तैथों ही बलु राम लै नाल बाणा दहसिरु घाइआ ॥
Rama received power from Thee and he killed Ravana with arrows.

तैथों ही बलु क्रिसन लै कंसु केसी पकड़ि गिराइआ ॥
Krishna received power from Thee and he threw down Kansa by catching his hair.

बडे बडे मुनि देवते कई जुग तिनी तनु ताइआ ॥
The great sages and gods, even practising great austerities for several ages;

Now, as there are two 'extreme' views from each end: Sikhs who think Hinduism is false and the Gods being 'silly' (that's a nice word and i'm referring to Sikh Sangat and Topix), and Hindus who think Sikhs are nothing more than the militant branch of Hinduism; I wonder what Sikhism says about Allah and the Muslim Prophets?
As i've said 100 times, Sikhs and Muslims probably won't talk much about one another as Muslims say Muhammed is the final Prophet while Sikhs say Guru Gobind Singh is the final Prophet. It's also a pretty Indian thing for Hindus and Sikhs to dismiss the influence of Islam

Also, as this thread is now about Dharmic religions, is there really a difference between Jainism and Hinduism anymore? Thousands of Jains now pray to Hindu Gods yet they too believe in a superior God to those of the Hindus and they seem to be more agnostic in their outlook on life (like how all life is sacred)

 

[Treks]

Article on the differences between Sikhism and Hinduism available from Page 6 of The Sikh Bulletin newsletter Jan-Feb 2011 here: http://sikhbulletin.com/Bulletins/SikhBulletinJanFeb2011.pdf if you can be bothered reading it Ronki. Includes discussion about Hindu deities.

 

[Sb1995]

Lol who cares about Islam, this is Dharmic DIR. Why would Sikhs pray with muslims..

-Jai Shri Ram
-Waheguru