Happy Diwali. Besides Hindus, some Sikhs also celebrate this holiday:
 |
| These were for Christmas, but close enough |
Sikhs also celebrate Diwali as the period during which the foundation stone for the Golden Temple was laid during in 1577. Diwali… played an important role in the life of Sri Guru Hargobind Ji, the sixth Guru of the Sikhs… Jahangir, the Mughal emperor, arrested Guru Hargobind… later Jehangir relented and let the Guru go. Accompanied by his followers and to the joy of many Sikhs, the Guru returned to Amritsar… The occasion was Diwali and it prompted the followers to celebrate the day with joy and happiness. [Link]
Fall is absolutely my favorite season: Halloween parades, Diwali card parties, Navratri garbas, Eid feasts; a new fashion season, browns and golds and purples and reds which suit the desi palette; a touch of melancholy, a premonition of winter in every breath. It’s a contrasty season, and unlike summer, all your senses are hi-fi.
this commentary is another diatribe of hindu hegemony in action. anyways i’m out. gotta go practice my distinct faith.
Tusi Ek Onkar Satnam Jaroor bolna
sikhgirl, trying to deny history is a bitch, eh? Umair nailed it.
umair did nail it.
diwali is my favorite holiday ever…
gosh… the sights, sounds, laughter, smells, the thrill in the air…
love it love it..
saal mubarakh to all…
the bean
Partially, but not entirely. I will explain.
No. I would say the relationship is more accurately Sikhism-Sufi Islam-Bhakti Hinduism.
Mutineers wanting to learn about the relationship between Sikhism and other major faiths in much greater detail should go to this page. You can click on the “book” links at the bottom of that page for a detailed analysis on specific similarities & differences between Sikhism and other religions.
In the meantime, let me break it down for everyone. The basic Sikh tenet is that fundamental, universal spiritual “truths” have the same origin, ie. from God. Therefore, the faith has a broader view beyond just the organised religions dominant in the Indian subcontinent — it means that the Sikh religious perspective also encapsulates every single other religion on the planet (so that includes Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc etc) and that, therefore, if other spiritual traditions have some concepts and teachings in common with Sikhism, that is because the same divine inspiration (ie. God’s hand) is behind the “truths” realised by various religious figures in those other religions too. The fact that Sikhism teaches that “the same divine light is in all” means that there is no such thing as a “chosen people”, or indeed “believer/infidel”, “pure/apostate” and so on. It doesn’t matter what religion one believes in or practices (if any), it is what Sikhism terms the “5 Thieves” (Ego being the strongest and most dangerous) which can prevent one from gaining a sufficient awareness of God and the divine nature of the universe around them.
So Sikhism does not promote any “special preference” with Hinduism, or indeed any other faiths — because (taking this back to Kush’s analogy) the most accurate description of the relationship would be Sikhism-orthodox Islam-Sufi Islam-Orthodox Hinduism-Bhakti Hinduism-Judaism-Buddhism-Shintoism-Old Testament Christianity-New Testament Christiantity-etc etc etc, in the context of teachings and concepts that Sikhism has in common with some of those promoted by those other faiths and the fact that the divine source behind that was (and continues to be) the same.
It’s another reason why a) everyone is allowed into gurdwaras and b) there is no differentiation between Sikhs and non-Sikhs within gurdwaras — Because the key tenet is that man-made religious “labels” are just that — artificial — and that in God’s eyes there is no difference between us. A devout Sikh is supposed to view his fellow man/woman in the same manner, and identify with (and empathise with) his/her fellow human being irrespective of the other person’s ethnic, national, or religious affiliation. However, someone who believes in this tenet and practises it (along with a number of other basic requirements & believes in Sikhism) is termed a “Sikh”. I guess one way to describe it is “Exclusivity within Inclusivity”, if that makes sense.
a) Possibly due to geographical reasons, ie. not many Christians around. b) More pertinently, because orthodox Christianity is an “exclusivist” faith, ie. it teaches that only Christians have God “on their side” (so to speak).
I’m going to inadvertantly, and unintentionally, sound like a “fundie”, so let me apologise in advance for that…..
It depends on why one is keeping pictures of Guru Nanak and how one views him. If there is any kind of “idol worship” occuring, or any praying to him of any kind, or indeed if one is viewing him as an incarnation of God, then in the Sikh religious context that is a complete no-no and indeed highly blasphemous. You are not supposed to pray to the Gurus and certainly not have any excessive reverence for their pictures. All 10 of Sikh Gurus claimed emphatically that they were not God, and that they should not be treated or such or (most of all) worshipped or revered in that manner. Guru Gobind Singh very strongly condemned anyone who (deliberately) made that mistake. Having a picture of one of the Gurus as a source of inspiration is one thing, actually placing it on an altar and possibly praying to it is something else and totally incompatible with the basic tenets of Sikhism. The latter isn’t a recent view in relation to “Khalistan” or anything like that — it’s enshrined in the most fundamental Sikh customs and scriptures going back 500 years. The only being deserving of worship (and the only being one should be trying to achieve a spiritual connection with) is God Himself — infinite, without “bodily” form, unborn and undying.
I should clarify that when Sikhs bow to the Sri Guru Granth Sahib in gurdwaras, they are doing so out of respect for the spiritual truths enshrined within it, and because Guru Gobind Singh instructed Sikhs upon his death that the SGGS should be treated as his eternal successor — in the sense of the teachings inside it, and because he is believed to have passed on an element of his own “divine spark” into the SGGS at the time (ie. wherever a copy of the SGGS exists, even in the present day, the contents of the writings in their totality will therefore have the same “spark”. It follows from the tradition of how one Guru conferred the title of Guruship to another, right from the time of Guru Nanak; the best analogy is “One candle lighting another”). Sikhs do not “worship” the SGGS, or pray to it, either inside gurdwaras or anywhere else.
I wouldn’t necessarily term it as “hardened”, but perhaps people here just have a more accurate view of Sikh tenets.
I’m certainly not referring to Kush or Umair here, but I have got the impression that some of the commentors on this thread (and elsewhere) are intepreting Sikhs’ espousal of differentiation with Hindus (and Hinduism) as some kind of “rejection” or indeed as some kind of antagonistic or adversarial situation. This isn’t the case. It’s not an extreme “black & white”, “either-or” scenario, ie. “You’re either with us or against us”. People do seem to be taking this a little personally, and I suspect that (no offence) there is a little bit of ego driving such wounded behaviour in some cases. (“Why don’t you want to be included with us ? What, are you saying there’s something wrong with Hinduism ?”)
It all comes down to the fact that Sikhs are supposed to regard themselves as “allied” with genuinely good-natured, good-intentioned, and warm-hearted human beings everywhere — and equally — irrespective (as I said before) of the other person’s religious affiliation. So when some people — in this case some Hindus — say “you’re one of us”, the reaction is not positive, because a Sikh is supposed to view him/herself as “one of the entire human race, equally, first & foremost”. In fact, one (obviously not the only one) of the very reasons behind the formation of the Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699 was to give Sikhs an identity and “code” which explicitly diffentiated them from members of every single other organised religion (ie. not just from Hindus but from everyone else too) — but, as I’ve stated before, they were still supposed to identify with other people as their fellow human beings first & foremost, without prejudice or bias.
Regarding the suggestion of Sikhism being “derived” from Hinduism (and Islam, as some have stated) — again this is highly offensive and certainly inaccurate, because it denies the direct, independent spiritual divine inspiration behind Sikhism, especially in the context of the direct relationship between God and the Sikh Gurus.
If one really wants to understand all this for him/herself, I would again suggest that one makes full utilisation of the Sikhnet.com and Sikhs.org websites. Both are packed full of authentic information, they’re certainly not propaganda or “fundie” websites, and they also have full on-line English translations of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Possibly only by actually reading the scriptures directly, yourselves, will you really be able to get the full (and real) picture. I would also recommend that you read the summarised biographies of the Sikh Gurus here in order to gain a more accurate understanding of their teachings; the best evidence is their actions during their own earthly lives.
Sigh
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. It hurts me to see more and more Sikhs in the west alienating themselves from their Hindu brothers. From the examples Guru Gulab, Kush and others gave, it’s pretty evident that Sikhs and Hindus are so very close to each other (Specially Punjabi Hindus).
But Jai, if you feel so strongly about this that you need to type ALL of that ^^^, then yes man you Win. Ok?
I’m sorry every1 for starting this endless debate, all I wanted to do was pass a message of unity since Hindus and Sikhs come from the same North-Indian punjabi stock.
Kash,
I was actually responding mainly to Kush Tandon’s query directed at myself in his previous post, since he’d asked me for some clarification.
Yet again you have missed the point of what I (and several others) have been attempting to say:
Also, not all Sikhs these days are North Indian (or even Indian at all), plus most Sikhs are actually descended from people from all over the Indian subcontinent, even though the greater proportion were from Punjab.
As I said before, your intentions are obviously well-meaning and I applaud you for that, but you do seem to have missed the point of a) what many of us have been saying on this thread, and b) what Sikhism is actually all about.
Some friendly advice: Tone down the patronising manner, especially when commenting/lecturing other people on their own religion — it’s undermining your position and also causing others to react negatively towards you, even though your intentions are not necessarily malicious.
Jai, these are just typed words. You can’t always make out the tone of the person, so if some foos assume I’m lecturing or passing any negative comments to their faith, I really dont care lol.
Yes I know sikhs are brothers with everyone, I’m just saying hindus and sikhs share a special relationship that no other 2 faiths share.
I’m seriously through on this topic. I really don’t want to get into copy pasting stuff from websites.
Good day !
Umair Muhajir has summed up the issue nicely.
Kush: Sure Hindu-Muslim happen all the time, and in liberal families even met with acceptance.
But among Punjabis, Hindu-Sikh marriages were commonplace and arranged. Extremely common until recently.
Thanks Jai for actually trying to get the truth across. Obviously from Tandon’s remarks, he didn’t care to actually read through them – but maybe some other confused person got the picture.
Jai, thanks for the post.
One clarification: if someone tells me that as a matter of belief they believe x, then I acknowledge their belief, and that is the end of the matter. That is how I interpret your statement that it is offensive to say that Sikhism is derived from Islam and/or Hinduism. And taken that way, I have no quarrel with that. However, what I was responding to was a tendency among some on this thread to claim, as a non-theological, secular historical matter, that to speak of such derivation was somehow factually incorrect. With all due respect, the historical record as I read it does not bear that out. But if as a religious Sikh you say such is your view, I do respect that and do not argue such matters, because the language of faith and the language of historiography (at least in my mind) are different.
Perhaps an example will serve to illustrate (I’ll use one “from” Islam so as not to raise any hackles here! 🙂 ). Most Muslims that I know, and also based on what I have read and learned at school, in the mosque as a child, and just generally from being part of a Muslim family, would take exception to the notion that Islam is derived in any away from Judaism or Christianity. This is because their theological belief is that all monotheists were originally Muslims, and later “lapsed” to varying degrees, resulting in the rise of Judaism, Christianity, etc. There is nothing to argue or disagree with as far as people who hold such a view are concerned, because this forms a part (not a big part, but a part nonetheless) of their theology. However, if people who hold these views start saying that their view is correct in some empirical way, such that even non-Muslims, or Muslims who do not share those views, should accept what they are saying to be factually correct, then I respectfully disagree. Because in the latter case we are talking about secular history (in the sense of some factual situation upon which people might agree or at least discuss independent of religious conviction). And on that terrain, it is quite clear that orthodox Islam is derived from and influenced by Judaism and Christianity. And that Christianity is derived from and influenced by Judaism, neo-Platonism, etc. This is not an insult by any means, since I do not believe derivation to be inferior to some imagined originality.
Regarding your statement: Regarding the suggestion of Sikhism being “derived” from Hinduism (and Islam, as some have stated) — again this is highly offensive and certainly inaccurate, because it denies the direct, independent spiritual divine inspiration behind Sikhism, especially in the context of the direct relationship between God and the Sikh Gurus.
I take the above to be a statement of religious belief, I accept it as such, and there is simply nothing to dispute. By “certainly inaccurate” I understand you to mean that the Sikh faith does not see itself as derived from Sufi Islam and/or Bhakti Hinduism, and I accept that as a given. But the self-image of religions is not dispositive of the non-theological, historical question– although a dialogue between the two is to no purpose, since the two simply speak in different idioms.
As an aside, let me turn to SMR’s post, which I think raises a very valuable point, i.e. a second dimension to this conversation– namely the Hindu perspective. Surely it would be presumptuous of me to tell a Hindu who says that he or she worships Guru Nanak or reveres him that such belief is “merely” respect and of no religious consequence, and that said Hindu is confused about the difference between respect and belief? Yet some of the comments on this thread (not yours) said precisely that. That is, whether or not Hindus worship Guru Nanak in a way that is blasphemous to Sikhs is a separate question from whether or not Hindus worship him. The fact that the latter might be true itself illustrates that the relationship between Hinduism and Sikhism is different from that between Hinduism and orthodox Islam (heterodox Islamic strains are a different thing; for instance, note the worship of the Sai Baba, who was a Sufi saint). The contours of that relationship might be blasphemous to some Sikhs, but (I’ll paste SMR’s line here as I can’t better it) from the Hindu perspective: But your intolerance extends to MY beliefs, and it’s claustrophobic.
From the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, English translation on Sikhs.org, Japji sahib p2-6:
Guys, I’m really sorry that I started this:
Kash is engaging in ad hom argumentation; he’s disregarding the facts presented and just insisting on his point of view. He’s also claiming that people are saying things that they aren’t, while refusing to acknowledge that what he’s arguing is potentially hurtful of pernicious.
His is an absurd argument, it’s one that my grandparents fought and won. To keep insisting that Sikhs are theologically the same as Hindus just because there are certain sociological similarities is bizarre. Are chinese-americans the same as jewish-americans for the same reason?
We don’t need to prove our distinctiveness to anybody, least of all somebody who is behaving like a very rude guest.
Let’s simply ignore him. I have no problem with somebody who disagrees with me, but at this point, he’s acting in bad faith.
I’m on the road for the next few days, but I’ll check in via wifi … if this keeps getting uglier, these comments will get closed.
Again, I apologize to Manish to putting the pebble in the road that seems to have overturned the entire apple cart here. This was a simple holiday post, one that was respectful to everybody. Let’s keep it that way.
Peace Out,
Ennis Mutinywale
Jai,
Thanks for your scholarly, historical take on the things. That was my only interest. I wanted to hear the Old Testament-New Testament, Jesus Christ being a Jew, and currently some Christians feel a very close kinship with Jews but others do not (references: Passion of Christ movie, Palestenian Christian due to current politics often do not have friendly relation with Jews) type of analysis for Hinduism-Sikhism.
I will the last persion to impose Hindu stamp everywhere – as I really do not practise organized religion but would encourage serious discussion.
“I would say the relationship is more accurately Sikhism-Sufi Islam-Bhakti Hinduism” Jai,
I like that take. Thank you.
No, not exactly the same, but the relationship is much more than “sociological”, its also theological. Do Sikhs not believe in karma, samasara and rebirth? Did these foundational theological concepts appear ex nihilio to the Sikh Gurus?
Did Hindus give over their first-born to an alien faith? That would appear to be demographic suicide to me, and misunderstands Punjabi liminality.
Are there not countless references to Hindu devas in the Granth Sahib?
Was not EVERY SINGLE SIKH GURU a Hindu Khatri?
Sikh particularism (like a host of other particularisms) is a late product of colonialism.
Asserting that (the tens of millions) of Hindus who keep an image of Guru Nanak in their mandir are idolaters is profoundly hurtful, and, in my opinion, a misunderstanding of how Sikhism developed in Punjab.
Ennis, there’s no need for you to apologize. You didn’t start it. Others did – and it’s always those who seem much too eager to claim that Sikhism is a sect of Hinduism. Coincidentally, these claims come from people who aren’t Sikhs themselves.
Here, here.
Sonia, Umair, Ennis — thank you for your responses. (By the way Sonia, you may be mixing up “Kush” with “Kash” — Kush Tandon isn’t the one causing the controversy, it’s Kash Sethi).
Umair — Your post was very diplomatic and I thank you for taking the time out for writing it. It adds yet more weight to my opinion of you being a really good guy 😉 With regards to the question of non-Sikhs — Hindus in this case — worshipping pictures of Sikh Gurus and why that would be offensive to many, the reasons are a) as mentioned before, the unequivocal condemnation of such practices by the Sikh Gurus themselves [for example, some non-Sikhs started viewing Guru Gobind Singh as a Krishna-type avtaar during his own lifetime and he was pretty forceful in his admonition of such an attitude towards him], and b) it’s to do with the misappropriation of Sikh icons and religious material by people of other faiths. The most public example of this, and one which I’ve mentioned before a couple of times, is the deliberate and consistent depiction of allegedly “Sikh” characters in some of Ekta Kapoor’s serials on Star Plus constantly praying towards paintings of Guru Nanak and referring to him as “Waheguru” — the triple heresy here being idolatry, the fact that Guru Nanak was not Waheguru in either name or identity, and the fact that “Waheguru” – a term coined by Guru Nanak himself — actually refers to the immortal, unborn, infinite entity/spirit I mentioned in my earlier post, ie. God, Allah, etc.
Eddie,
These concepts appear in Buddhism too. So is Sikhism a “sect” (or “derived from”) Buddhism ? Of course not. It just means that these concepts — at least from the Sikh perspective — are theologically “fact”, irrespective of which organised religion they may appear in.
Not in the Hindu context. Rama, Krishna etc are not viewed as “Gods” or even “demi-Gods” — they are regarded as being spiritually aware and (in many ways, not others) saintly individuals; however, they are not regarded as having the same level of spiritual enlightenment or moral authority/ethical conduct of any of the 10 human Sikh Gurus.
Apologies if it is unfortunately “hurtful” but I am afraid this is a fact, and a practice which is totally incompatible with fundamental Sikh tenets, the direct instructions of the Sikh Gurus themselves, and the contents of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (which itself was written directly by the Gurus — it wasn’t dictated to anyone else, nor was it written after the Gurus’ deaths).
The key words are “in your opinion”. This doesn’t necessarily make it a fact.
Kush,
Hopefully my previous post, and indeed this one too, should have clarified Sikhism’s viewpoint vis-a-vis Hinduism (and other faiths). Some aspects of conventional Hinduism are viewed as true, others are viewed as historically, factually, and spiritually false. But as I mentioned in my message to Kash Sethi, there isn’t any antagonistic viewpoint towards Hinduism or Hindus in general. The bottom line is, it depends on what the person’s basic character and behaviour are like — how good their “heart” is — irrespective of their religion.
Some Sikhs will feel a kinship with Hindus because most happen to be descended from them, and because (apart from 1984) historically Hindus haven’t attempted to slaughter them en masse or converted them to their own faith.
Some Sikhs will have a hostile attitude towards Hinduism because of the events of the 1980s and because of the current activities of some right-wing Hindu groups to absorb Sikhism into Hinduism (especially if they keep insisting that Sikhism is a Hindu “sect”).
Some Sikhs will have a neutral attitude.
Some Sikhs will not differentiate between people based on their religious affiliation and will have a “goodwill to all men” attitude. Which, in the final analysis, is basically what Sikhism is all about 😉
I think that Buddhism, along with Sikhism, is part of a larger Dharmic meta-tradition that includes plenty of other traditions. Yes, its my opinion, shared by many others. If some Sikhs find this offensive, my apologies.
There is nothing particularly un-Hindu about this. Vaishnavas and Shaivas routinely subordinate Vishnu and Shiva to each other. Neo-advaitins subordinate all deities to Brahman. In Tamil Nadu, the Ramayana does not even have ritual status. So this claim is hardly distinctive.
Cheers!
in my opinion if you read Guru Granth sahib where does it spend so much time talking about what religion we are? it talks more about deeds and motivations than religious affiliation
i understand from a point of view why fellow Sikhs try to differentiate ourselves, and also why (some) non-Sikhs want to amalgamate us, which is very annoying, rude, and maybe worse
but even though, i still feel like its almost beneath sikhi to be talking about our faith being so different in an organized sense
if a man proclaims himself hindu but his thoughts are accord with Guru Granth sahib then who cares what he calls himself? the place where i get a bit put off is if somehow we are not able to teach Sikhi from the Guru Granth Sahib in the future. for instance if people forget Gurumuhki, or we lose all copies of Guru Granth sahib, or else there are no people with gyan to teach us Sihki. The other thing is, besides Guru Granth Sahib I want to learn from people who have been inspired from Guru Granth Sahib, so in that way it is helpful if someone says they are a Sikh, because then I know that person’s example is coming from Gurubani.
As long as we have the ability to teach Sikhi to other’s and learn it ourselves, i really don’t actually care what people consider our Faith to be.
eddie, i think you have a point that the idiom and many of the things discussed in Sihki are related to, as you say, a “dharmic worldview”
Yamuna,
if you understand that passage, I think you will weep from the beauty of that statement
My apologies .. you’re right. Sorry about that Kush.
Jai,
Thanks for taking the time to write your views. So do Umair and others. I always think a scholarly and historical discourse is worth something ….otherwise, we are going no where. We always have to acknowledge pluralism of thought too.
God, was I part of some flame, I missed. I am a beef-eating Hindu who has been to a temple only twice in last 20 years. My view of organized religion is very close to one by Jesse Ventura[link]…….but no preaching here on my part.
PS: I am trying to limit 1-2 comments a day on sepia muntiny since I have some serious deadlines and milestones ahead, and therefore would not like to be part of flame wars.
Thanks man, and thats all I was saying. I did not argue that Sikhism is not in some measure “distinct”, nor did I privilege Hinduism. What I think is that we share a common heritage that even extended to intermarriage.
Later
Sonia,
No offense. No worries. Apologies accepted. I can understand confusing “Kush” and “Kash”.
However,
If Jai Singh (many thanks and respect) would have not corrected it then I would have been branded an “ignorant mofo“.
In last 2 weeks, I am starting to have some very serious doubts about the general intelligence, carelessness, laziness of people commenting here on sepia mutiny.
How am I bigoted/ ignorant when I made the following comments on this thread:
“There are few things you stay out on this board: I) do not connect hinduism to any other religion in a historical or judaism-christianity type relationship, you will be badly ambushed.”
“Maybe, Jai Singh could answer that purely within scholarly context. Wouldn’t you call Sikh-Hinduism relationship more like Judaism-Christainity and historically less complicated than theirs. Personally, I am not religuous and am only interested in your answer from theological viewpoint. I am just responding to second SMR’s response.
As I added one of my sister-in-law is sikh. then I have Chinese too, and perhaps soon Russian.” “umair did nail it.” “Thanks for your scholarly, historical take on the things. That was my only interest. I wanted to hear the Old Testament-New Testament, Jesus Christ being a Jew, and currently some Christians feel a very close kinship with Jews but others do not (references: Passion of Christ movie, Palestenian Christian due to current politics often do not have friendly relation with Jews) type of analysis for Hinduism-Sikhism.
I will the last persion to impose Hindu stamp everywhere – as I really do not practise organized religion but would encourage serious discussion.”
“Jai,
I like that take. Thank you.“
V IMPORANT NOTE: You do not have Abhi’s coworker (meaning a rocket scientist) to understand few simple things. I am not directing it toward anyone in particular but in general. I have very little tolerence for stupidity.
Well, I’m glad to see things have ended on a more-or-less civilised note 😉
And to think that in the heat of the argument, with all the accusations and counter-accusations flying around, nobody commented on bechara Apu’s Diwali message !