Confused about Sikhism/Hinduism differences

[ronki23]

There could be nothing farther than truth than this. From where do you get it?You have no experience of Indian democracy. All this kind of Machiavellian things are done in India. Indira did it to foil Akalis to gain power, and Indira was good at it.

Sikhwiki

and here is another link

Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bhindranwale - WHAT'S HAPPENING? - The Voice of Sikhs

and Anandpur Sahib and imposing Hindi language upon Punjab seem to be the 2 main reasons of the Blue Star operation. Why did Bhindranwale leave Congress; surely something must have been wrong for him to do this.

And it's not normal for Gandhi to threaten the Sikhs just because of Ananpur Sahib; nor is it normal for the Sikhs to be paranoid and arm the Harmandir Sahib complex. So someone is in the wrong here

 

[Poeticus]

Sikhwiki

and here is another link

Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bhindranwale - WHAT'S HAPPENING? - The Voice of Sikhs

and Anandpur Sahib and imposing Hindi language upon Punjab seem to be the 2 main reasons of the Blue Star operation. Why did Bhindranwale leave Congress; surely something must have been wrong for him to do this.

And it's not normal for Gandhi to threaten the Sikhs just because of Ananpur Sahib; nor is it normal for the Sikhs to be paranoid and arm the Harmandir Sahib complex. So someone is in the wrong here

Ronki,

What is it that you seek ?
What answer would comfort thee ?
What can give this thread & topic some rest ?​

 

[ronki23]

Ronki,

What is it that you seek ?
What answer would comfort thee ?
What can give this thread & topic some rest ?​

1. Why do Sikhs say they are not a 'branch' of Hinduism or related to Hinduism when 3 Gurus' sons chose Hinduism and Banda Singh Bahadur was a Hindu
1.5 Banda Singh Bahadur- do Sikhs hate him?

2. If Sikhism is a mix of Hinduism and Islam, why do you get Hinduised Sikhs like Nirmalas and Udasis but not 'Mohammedan' Sikhs?

3. Rehat Maryada; what is it? Why do people say some Sikhs follow 'Rehat' and some 'Maryada'?
3.5 Who discusses and sets the laws on Sikhi if Sikhism believes all are equal in the eyes of God? I assume it must be Amritdari Sikhs?

4. Sikhism says Ram,Krishna,Shiva,Durga,Brahma,Ganesh and Hanuman existed but Waheguru is above them. Hindus think this too don't they?
4.5 From the video/link I posted, why are Sikhs against RSS is RSS had no role in 1984. They also hate Badal of Akali Dal and aren't satisfied BJP won

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPAg9fZM1Y
SikhLionz.com: VHP, RSS, HSS, BJP, SHIV SENA, ARYA SAMAJ, BAJRANG DAL- an introduction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVyW1oj4kWU

5. Why did Indira Gandhi hate Sikhs? The Sikh community says Bhindranwale and co. hid in the Akal Takht because she wanted to kill them. Why did Bhindranwale have this paranoia (it's not normal for someone to arm a holy place to the teeth) and more importantly, what caused him to defect from Congress
5.5. If Congress appeased minorities and is left wing, why did they neglect Sikhs?

 

[Breathe]

1. Why do Sikhs say they are not a 'branch' of Hinduism or related to Hinduism when 3 Gurus' sons chose Hinduism and Banda Singh Bahadur was a Hindu

1. Because they aren't Hindus. Sikhs consider themselves a separate religion.

1.5 Banda Singh Bahadur- do Sikhs hate him?

He's been dead almost 300 years; why would Sikhs hate him?
Disagreeing with him, thinking he did something bad, etc, doesn't mean hate.
It isn't a pre-requisite to be a Sikh to hate him, either. I imagine most know little about him.

2. If Sikhism is a mix of Hinduism and Islam, why do you get Hinduised Sikhs like Nirmalas and Udasis but not 'Mohammedan' Sikhs?

2a It isn't. This is too simplified an interpretation.
2b Socio-religio-cultural appropriation, most likely.

3. Rehat Maryada; what is it? Why do people say some Sikhs follow 'Rehat' and some 'Maryada'?

3a A guideline for rules.
3b No difference.

3.5 Who discusses and sets the laws on Sikhi if Sikhism believes all are equal in the eyes of God? I assume it must be Amritdari Sikhs?

It has its origins in earlier codes of conduct.

4. Sikhism says Ram,Krishna,Shiva,Durga,Brahma,Ganesh and Hanuman existed but Waheguru is above them. Hindus think this too don't they?

I've never met a Sikh who believes they literally existed.

4.5 From the video/link I posted, why are Sikhs against RSS is RSS had no role in 1984. They also hate Badal of Akali Dal and aren't satisfied BJP won

Dunno.
Politics.

5. Why did Indira Gandhi hate Sikhs? The Sikh community says Bhindranwale and co. hid in the Akal Takht because she wanted to kill them. Why did Bhindranwale have this paranoia (it's not normal for someone to arm a holy place to the teeth) and more importantly, what caused him to defect from Congress

Dunno.
Politics.
At a guess, because some Sikhs want their own state.

5.5. If Congress appeased minorities and is left wing, why did they neglect Sikhs?

Dunno.
Politics.

 

[Poeticus]

1. Because they aren't Hindus. Sikhs consider themselves a separate religion.

He's been dead almost 300 years; why would Sikhs hate him?
Disagreeing with him, thinking he did something bad, etc, doesn't mean hate.
It isn't a pre-requisite to be a Sikh to hate him, either. I imagine most know little about him.

2a It isn't. This is too simplified an interpretation.
2b Socio-religio-cultural appropriation, most likely.

3a A guideline for rules.
3b No difference.

It has its origins in earlier codes of conduct.

I've never met a Sikh who believes they literally existed.

Dunno.
Politics.


Dunno.
Politics.
At a guess, because some Sikhs want their own state.

Dunno.
Politics.

Crap. You shouldn't have replied.
Just because of your post, this thread
will continue for another ten pages.​

 

[Breathe]

Crap. You shouldn't have replied.
Just because of your post, this thread
will continue for another ten pages.​

Oh God.
:cover:

 

[ronki23]

1. Because they aren't Hindus. Sikhs consider themselves a separate religion.

He's been dead almost 300 years; why would Sikhs hate him?
Disagreeing with him, thinking he did something bad, etc, doesn't mean hate.
It isn't a pre-requisite to be a Sikh to hate him, either. I imagine most know little about him.

2a It isn't. This is too simplified an interpretation.
2b Socio-religio-cultural appropriation, most likely.

3a A guideline for rules.
3b No difference.

It has its origins in earlier codes of conduct.

I've never met a Sikh who believes they literally existed.

Dunno.
Politics.


Dunno.
Politics.
At a guess, because some Sikhs want their own state.

Dunno.
Politics.

Some say you are following code of 'Rehat' while some say 'Maryada'? Difference?

And you can't say the rules existed before because Nirmalas and Udaisis controlled the Gurudwaras. And if I recall correctly, it wasn't until Guru Gobind Singh that the Khalsa came into being so the majority of Sikhs beforehand looked like Hinds? and the Akal Takht; who are the members of it? Who can 'excommunicate' or set rules of being a Sikh?


'Dunno' and 'Politics' is not a 'good enough' answer. Especially when Bhindranwale was not fussed about Khalistan but the attack on Amritsar changed Sikh opinions on India.
I see that the majority of Sikhs hate Indira Gandhi for what she did and they praise Bhindranwale.

How can a protest for more autonomy and rights turn into an armed struggle. Bhindranwale felt threatened;what kind of politician (except Hitler,Mao,Pol Pot or Stalin) threatens to kill protestors?

And Sri Guru Granth Sahib says this about Hindu deities. Don't give me the excuse that other verses contradict as every religious text has contradictions; Torah,Bible,Quran,Geeta,etc.

• Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva stand at His Door; they serve the unseen, infinite Lord (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 1022).
• Everyone must serve the One Lord, who created Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. O Nanak, the One True Lord is permanent and stable. He neither dies, nor does He take birth (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 1130).
• The performance of countless millions of other devotions is not even equal to one devotion to the Name of God (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 1163).
• Even Brahma and his sons sing God's Praises; Sukdayv and Prahlaad sing His praises as well (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 1224).
• He created air, water, fire, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 504).
• Those who serve Shiva and Brahma do not find Salvation. The Fearless, Formless Lord is invisible; He reveals Himself only to the Gurmukh (Guru's follower). United with God, one does not suffer from sorrow or separation; he becomes stable in the world (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 516).
• He created Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva; they act according to His will (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 948).

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. ||1||

ਗੋਤਮ ਨਾਰਿ ਅਹਲਿਆ ਤਾਰੀ ਪਾਵਨ ਕੇਤਕ ਤਾਰੀਅਲੇ ॥ You saved Ahliyaa, the wife of Gautam; how many have You purified and carried across?

ਐਸਾ ਅਧਮੁ ਅਜਾਤਿ ਨਾਮਦੇਉ ਤਉ ਸਰਨਾਗਤਿ ਆਈਅਲੇ ॥੨॥੨॥ Such a lowly outcaste as Naam Dayv has come seeking Your Sanctuary. ||2||2|| (SGGS : 988)
Pondering over above shabad , wasn't it Krishna who saved honor of draupadi ? Also , God is formless , Chakra is related to Krishna .

ਨਿਰਾਹਾਰੀ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਸਮਾਇਆ ॥ He is beyond need of any sustenance, free of hate and all-pervading.
ਧਾਰਿ ਖੇਲੁ ਚਤੁਰਭੁਜੁ ਕਹਾਇਆ ॥ He has staged His play; He is called the four-armed Lord.
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. ||9||
ਬਨਮਾਲਾ ਬਿਭੂਖਨ ਕਮਲ ਨੈਨ ॥ He is adorned with garlands of flowers, with lotus eyes.
ਸੁੰਦਰ ਕੁੰਡਲ ਮੁਕਟ ਬੈਨ ॥ His ear-rings, crown and flute are so beautiful.
ਸੰਖ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਗਦਾ ਹੈ ਧਾਰੀ ਮਹਾ ਸਾਰਥੀ ਸਤਸੰਗਾ ॥੧੦॥ He carries the conch, the chakra and the war club; He is the Great Charioteer, who stays with His Saints. ||10||
ਪੀਤ ਪੀਤੰਬਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣ ਧਣੀ ॥ The Lord of yellow robes, the Master of the three worlds.
ਜਗੰਨਾਥੁ ਗੋਪਾਲੁ ਮੁਖਿ ਭਣੀ ॥ The Lord of the Universe, the Lord of the world; with my mouth, I chant His Name.
ਸਾਰਿੰਗਧਰ ਭਗਵਾਨ ਬੀਠੁਲਾ ਮੈ ਗਣਤ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਸਰਬੰਗਾ ॥੧੧॥ The Archer who draws the bow, the Beloved Lord God; I cannot count all His limbs. ||11|| ( SGGS : 1082)


ਸੰਖ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਮਾਲਾ ਤਿਲਕੁ ਬਿਰਾਜਿਤ ਦੇਖਿ ਪ੍ਰਤਾਪੁ ਜਮੁ ਡਰਿਓ ॥ He is adorned with the conch, the chakra, the mala and the ceremonial tilak mark on his forehead; gazing upon his radiant glory, the Messenger of Death is scared away. (SGGS : 1105)

 

[Breathe]

Some say you are following code of 'Rehat' while some say 'Maryada'? Difference?

No difference.

And you can't say the rules existed before because Nirmalas and Udaisis controlled the Gurudwaras.

They were already there.

And if I recall correctly, it wasn't until Guru Gobind Singh that the Khalsa came into being so the majority of Sikhs beforehand looked like Hinds?

Little information on that. Conflicting reports.

'Dunno' and 'Politics' is not a 'good enough' answer.

I don't care.

how can a protest for more autonomy and rights turn into an armed struggle.

When it's effectively against the law to separate from the Union, there's going to be trouble when there are separatist movements who want to do just that. Politics is an ugly game.

http://india.gov.in/sites/upload_files/npi/files/coi_appendix.pdf

(11) PART XI.
(b) For article 248, substitute the following article, namely:—
‘248.
Residuary powers of legislation.
—Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to—
[...]
(aa) prevention of other activities directed towards disclaiming, questioning or disrupting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India or bringing about cession of a part of the territory of India or secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union or causing insult to the Indian National Flag, the Indian National Anthem and this Constitution; [...]

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention)Act, 1967

(b) "cession of a part of the territory of India" includes admission of the claim of any foreign country to any such part ;
[...]
(i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession;
(ii)which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India ;
[...]

And Sri Guru Granth Sahib says this about Hindu deities. Don't give me the excuse that other verses contradict as every religious text has contradictions; Torah,Bible,Quran,Geeta,etc.

Metaphor. Sikhs don't take them literally.

You have been given answers. Either accept them or move on. I'm not seeing any reason to continue this discussion as it seems dishonest.

 

[ronki23]

No difference.

They were already there.

Little information on that. Conflicting reports.

I don't care.


When it's effectively against the law to separate from the Union, there's going to be trouble when there are separatist movements who want to do just that. Politics is an ugly game.

http://india.gov.in/sites/upload_files/npi/files/coi_appendix.pdf

(11) PART XI.
(b) For article 248, substitute the following article, namely:—
‘248.
Residuary powers of legislation.
—Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to—
[...]
(aa) prevention of other activities directed towards disclaiming, questioning or disrupting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India or bringing about cession of a part of the territory of India or secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union or causing insult to the Indian National Flag, the Indian National Anthem and this Constitution; [...]

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention)Act, 1967

(b) "cession of a part of the territory of India" includes admission of the claim of any foreign country to any such part ;
[...]
(i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession;
(ii)which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India ;
[...]

Metaphor. Sikhs don't take them literally.

You have been given answers. Either accept them or move on. I'm not seeing any reason to continue this discussion as it seems dishonest.

If they were 'already there' then why would Sikhs complain about being Hinduised? Anyway, it still doesn't answer who has the power to excommunicate

Your answer of 'dunno' and 'I don't care' don't answer the question. If RSS helped Sikhs, and BJP is not Congress, and BJP is in liason with Akali Dal, what is the Sikhs' problem?


Bhindranwale never wanted Khalistan so how was he a separatist? As a matter of fact, Gandhi wanted him so he could control the Sikhs. But something changed and he joined the Akalis

and where in SGGS does it say they're metaphors? Udaisis beg to differ

"I am not for or against Khalistan, but if we are given a separate Sikh nation we will not make the same mistake as '1947, we will certainly take it."

"We are not in favor of Khalistan nor are we against it." This is the job of the Center (The Central Government). It is not Bhindranwale's or Longowal's job. The Center should tell us, does it want to keep these turbaned people with it or not?”

"I am not opposed to Khalistan, nor am I for it, I seek only equal rights for Sikhs."

Read more: Sant jarnail singh ji khalsa bhindranwale – famous quotes
​

 

[Breathe]

:ignore:

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

 

[ronki23]

I went to Gurudwara day before yesterday- in Southampton there are 3 + 1 Ravidasi one.
There was a huge poster on the door:

Was a bit shy as the langar hall was empty but the kitchen itself had seating. And upstairs the Sri Guru Granth Sahib was 'sleeping'
A gentleman then tells me to follow him on the way in- I only heard 'prasadam' so followed suit. I waited in langar hall and said 'paaji' so assumed they called me in.

Had a nice langar with the fellows; 2 were in their 20s (I assume) and the other 2 in their 40s. They seemed to feel quite strongly about this but had no issue with a Hindu Gujarati like myself coming in.

I asked them why Congress appeases minorities (which they agreed) but not Sikhs; they didn't have an answer but said that they didn't think Sant Jee was a terrorist and condemned the day of Operation Blue Star; I said it was a sad period and agreed with them. But to be fair, they told me Khalistan was supposed to have happened in 47 and they are the ones who told me their views on Bhindranwale- I am not stupid enough to start the discussion out of the blue. I just entered the conversation when I heard all 4 Gurudwaras are taking a coach up, just like the one when I was studying last year in another city

Anyway, it was my birthday yesterday and it's crazy to hear what happened at Amritsar today. Don't tell me ISI was to blame today too ¬¬

Would love to watch highlights of the D-Day memorial though; that, to me, is arguably more important as it influenced where family lived/what language we may be speaking!!!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Had it not been for ISI and Pakistan's defeat by India in Bangladesh, Sikh insurgency would not have occurred. How come there was peace in Punjab earlier?

 

[ronki23]

Had it not been for ISI and Pakistan's defeat by India in Bangladesh, Sikh insurgency would not have occurred. How come there was peace in Punjab earlier?

I don't fully understand the history of India post independence, but a friend online, and the Sikh I met on Thursday, say that the Sikhs were promised a homeland, just like the Muslims; but were cheated and instead the Muslims ended up with 2 (Pakistan and Bangladesh).

The person online, and from what I can see looking up Sikhism in post-British India, said that Congress feared the Akali Dal would push for Khalistan, so Congress used Bhindranwale to use votes.

It seems the 'turning point' was the Anandpur Sahib Resolution and Congress trying to force Hindi language upon Punjab.




and it seems that Bhindranwale and co. hid in the Golden Temple out of fear of the Indian army.
Why did the Indian army storm the Temple on the day a Sikh Guru was martyred, knowing that there were thousands of pilgrims there?

Assume that it was the original Sri Guru Granth Sahib that was destroyed? Either way, Indira Gandhi must have been crazy if she wanted to kill the Sikhs just because they demanded more rights.

And Bhindranwale said,

'we like to live together, we like to live in India'

though i'm not sure why he chose to hide in the Amritsar complex, perhaps he wanted to negotiate and thought the army wouldn't be foolish to storm a holy place


and that still doesn't explain why on Wednesday there was a sword fight at Harmandir Sahib between Sikhs, not ISI agents; but Sikhs.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, sikhs. Simaranjeet Singh Mann, an IPS officer, who is in doldrums now after resigning from the police services, wants power. So, he challenged the Akali Dal. The Harminder Sahib care-takers did not allow him to address the gathering. He tried to snatch the mike out of the Akal Takht Jathedar's hand, something that people in Sikhism cannot do.

 

[ronki23]

Yes, sikhs. Simaranjeet Singh Mann, an IPS officer, who is in doldrums now after resigning from the police services, wants power. So, he challenged the Akali Dal. The Harminder Sahib care-takers did not allow him to address the gathering. He tried to snatch the mike out of the Akal Takht Jathedar's hand, something that people in Sikhism cannot do.

He's on the side of Khalistan; I see that Akali Dal has split into Akali Dal India and Akali Dal Amritsar.

Still doesn't explain why Gandhi didn't want to give Sikhs rights e.g Anandour Sahib if Congress appeases minorities. and why the army was sent in such an important day??

But Bhindranwale could have hidden elsewhere? Or was it he felt threatened and knew the Sikhs would object to military intervention so could only have negotiated there??

Anyway, the protests in trafalgar were today and it took so long to get in/out of London; seeing these protests last year were what made me wonder how many Sikhs are anti India- though I researched Sikhi beforehand when I found it wasn't a branch of Hinduism (though that's the point of this thread-seeing whether it really is or not!)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Army action on that day because the separatists had congregated there. Congress had tried to appease Sikhs but that did not work since ISI and ex-patriot Sikhs also were involved. ISI must have paid huge amounts to them to to create unrest, I am sure, they still do. They do the same in Kashmir. Syed Ali Shah Gilani was found involved in hawala deals which the government in power overlooked in the interest of peace in the state. One has to do all this in real-politik. Bhinderawale was virtually a prisoner in the hands of separatists.

Sikhs do not consider themselves to be Hindus. Though many Hindus rever the Sikh gurus, the Granth Sahib, and do not consider Sikhs as much different, only a panth, another road to the same goal.

 

[ronki23]

Army action on that day because the separatists had congregated there. Congress had tried to appease Sikhs but that did not work since ISI and ex-patriot Sikhs also were involved. ISI must have paid huge amounts to them to to create unrest, I am sure, they still do. They do the same in Kashmir. Syed Ali Shah Gilani was found involved in hawala deals which the government in power overlooked in the interest of peace in the state. One has to do all this in real-politik. Bhinderawale was virtually a prisoner in the hands of separatists.

Sikhs do not consider themselves to be Hindus. Though many Hindus rever the Sikh gurus, the Granth Sahib, and do not consider Sikhs as much different, only a panth, another road to the same goal.

They had been there for months though, Bhindranwale for years. Why did the army choose the day of Guru Arjun Dev when thousands of pilgrims were attending?

and when did Bhindranwale take orders to be a 'prisoner'? He was the Sikh representative of Congress but then diverged- i'm assuming it was Anandpur Sahib that caused him to leave Congress

 

[Aupmanyav]

Simple, they wanted to eliminate the maximum number of separatists. When one is surrounded by a thousand armed militant, there is not much chance to differ.

 

[ronki23]

Simple, they wanted to eliminate the maximum number of separatists. When one is surrounded by a thousand armed militant, there is not much chance to differ.

They could've chose any other day to do it- official reports say 492 were killed, unofficial say 5000. I'd say 492 stands for the number of pilgrims killed- not that 100 dead is 'better' as that's still 100 innocent lives lost