Sikhi Is Sikhi A Religion?

[ravneet_sb]

Sat Sri Akaal,

Belief is may be True or False, true for some and false for other. This is relogion.

At ONE ends there is origin which is original and absolute TRUTH, like initiation ONE knows and is TRUTH.

The other end infinite and pragmatic it has both values postive for some and negative for some and cannot be fixed as this is infinite expansion and evolving.

To reach ultimate of ends will remain a human challenge.

So belief of evolving and expansion can not be fixed by Science the scientist and researches have to keep there awareness eue open to witness the evolution and expansion. Else the state will lag behind.

Life exists in static and dynamic states.



Waheguru Ji Ka.Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki fateh

 

[A_seeker]

Guru Nanak said, "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim." Reasoning inductively, we can conclude that his disciples are neither Hindu nor Muslim.

One can interpret "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim." statment in many ways . If Gurus discovery neither Hindu , nor muslim meant founding of a new reilgiion ,he might have added a postive conculsion
Neither Hindu nor Muslins, but SIKHS .

The spritual meaning would be the 'SELF' is beyond wordly division like those of different relgions and sects .The SELF is neither Hindu nor mulsim , neither White ot Black ,neither this or that ;neti neti in the Upanishad phrase .This insight is as typically INDIC(Dharmic) as you can get ,

 

[gjsingh]

Quite right. The Indian mode of spirituality is particularly amenable to apophatic theological discourse.

Yet we would be wrong to not acknowledge the same tradition in Sufism, and Shia Islam generally. And arguably, the Shi'ites in turn got it from the Platonists. And then there is the via negativa of the Christian mystic tradition. Don't forget the Zen mystical tradition in East Asia. And so on and so forth.

Point is that Nanak is not a Hindu and Sikhi is something qualitivatively different from the soil in which it arose.

 

[A_seeker]

Point is that Nanak is not a Hindu and Sikhi is something qualitivatively different from the soil in which it arose.

there was nothing different .Nanak could have easily established a church of his own , introduced his own social and mission code .This however was not his object .He did not want to cut himself from the Hindu community .His apperance was a step towards arousing spritual consiouness through bhakti movement among the soil of Bharat

 

[gjsingh]

Nanak could have easily established a church of his own , introduced his own social and mission code .This however was not his object .He did not want to cut himself from the Hindu community .

True, but he didn't seek to cut himself off from any community. Back to square one.

His apperance was a step towards arousing spritual consiouness through bhakti movement among the soil of Bharat

If Nanak was really this parochial, then why did he bother leaving Bharat? Why spend half a lifetime traveling in Muslim lands, China, Mediterranean, etc?

 

[A_seeker]

True, but he didn't seek to cut himself off from any community. Back to square one.



If Nanak was really this parochial, then why did he bother leaving Bharat? Why spend half a lifetime traveling in Muslim lands, China, Mediterranean, etc?

He never left Bharat, he was on a Udasis mission .In every age there has been travellers and explorers who left their native places for distant countries either as pilgrims or as missionaries ...After completing his Udasis NANAK finally settled in bharat .

​

 

[gjsingh]

One can interpret "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim." statment in many ways . If Gurus discovery neither Hindu , nor muslim meant founding of a new reilgiion ,he might have added a postive conculsion
Neither Hindu nor Muslins, but SIKHS .

But Nanak did create a new, distinct community, neither Hindu nor Muslim, at Kartarpur.

Furthermore, if Nanak had no intention of establishing a durable and unique community with a distinct identity, then he would not have transferred his light successively to each of his 9 human successors. And if all 10 masters had the same jyot, which is something that all Sikhs believe, then everything the succeeding masters have to say on the matter is evidence which should be brought to bear on the question.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the community founded by Nanak has been clearly instructed to defend their distinct identity by any means necessary, up to and including the use of cold steel and hot lead against all oppressors, whether they be Hindu or Muslim, then Nanak cannot be called a Hindu, and neither can Sikhs.

But it sounds like you may be one of those political types that are using an expansive, modernist definition of "Hindu" for nationalistic reasons, meant to encompass anything and everything from Kailash to Kanyakumari. Fine. Nevertheless, it simply is the case that authentic Sikhi transcends the categories and boundaries of Sanatan Dharma. It is a unique and revolutionary theology, despite its debt to the medieval Bhakti sociological phenomenon.

As I said previously, nobody would call Christianity a form of Judaism. Then even more so, Sikhi is not Hinduism.

 

[A_seeker]

But Nanak did create a new, distinct community, neither Hindu nor Muslim, at Kartarpur.

Its called Panth or Sampradaya which has been very common in guru-shishya parampara of Indic traditions . But it doesnt prove your earlier point where you tried to alienate Nanak philosophy from Bharat Dharmic traditions when you quote ".... different from the soil in which it arose." Nanak Movement like many other bhakti movment was very much Bharitya ...

But it sounds like you may be one of those political types that are using an expansive, modernist definition of "Hindu" for nationalistic reasons, meant to encompass anything and everything from Kailash to Kanyakumari. Fine.

I am very clear about my defination of Hindu which is not a religious identity but a geographical and cultural identity.

Sikhi transcends the categories and boundaries of Sanatan Dharma.

It depends on your understanding of what Sanatan Dharrma means ???

 

[gjsingh]

I am very clear about my defination of Hindu which is not a religious identity but a geographical and cultural identity.

What is the difference between your usage of the term Hindu versus the generally accepted, English-language usage of the terms Indian or Indic? And if they are synonyms, then why is the former to be preferably used?

It depends on your understanding of what Sanatan Dharrma means ???

Hinduism.

 

[A_seeker]

What is the difference between your usage of the term Hindu versus the generally accepted, English-language usage of the terms Indian or Indic? And if they are synonyms, then why is the former to be preferably used?


Hinduism.

Please define what is Hinduism than to you ...

And What in sikhi that transcends the Sanatan Dharam or Hinduism ....

 

[gjsingh]

Please define what is Hinduism than to you ...

The janeu thread rejected by Nanak.

And What in sikhi that transcends the Sanatan Dharam or Hinduism ....

The sermon he gave on the occasion:

PAGE 471 - Gurmukhi to English Translation and Phonetic Transliteration of Siri Guru Granth Sahib.

Gurmukhi to English Translation and Phonetic Transliteration of Siri Guru Granth Sahib. Translation Text by Singh Sahib Sant Singh Khalsa, MD. Tucson, Arizona, USA. Phonetic transliteration by Kulbir Singh Thind, MD.

srigurugranth.org

 

[Ajmer singh Randhawa]

One can interpret "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim." statment in many ways . If Gurus discovery neither Hindu , nor muslim meant founding of a new reilgiion ,he might have added a postive conculsion
Neither Hindu nor Muslins, but SIKHS .

The spritual meaning would be the 'SELF' is beyond wordly division like those of different relgions and sects .The SELF is neither Hindu nor mulsim , neither White ot Black ,neither this or that ;neti neti in the Upanishad phrase .This insight is as typically INDIC(Dharmic) as you can get ,

Sat Sri Akal to all members of SPN and it's readers.
Guru Nanak ji said that neither he was Hindu nor Muslim, this he discarded both. And then he kept on connecting people with almighty who never takes birth and die. Who is omnipresent snd merged in every particle of universe. He worshipped him and called Akal Purak means the ' the timeless entity'.
It was his new identity in which he refused to be called him Hindu or Muslim.
By that time, he had not formed Sikh religion. He only preached ignorant to connect directly with Akal Purakh.
Bhai Gurdas ji approved in hiscwar his mission as... ' Maafia sikka jagat vich Nanak nirmal panth chalaia!!
Means Guru Nandk announced openly and formed third way of worship or religion.
His followers were called Sikhs.
10th master created Khalsa and a new religion was formed.

 

[A_seeker]

The janeu thread rejected by Nanak.

if hindusim for you is confined to Janeu wearing than seriously you need to get hold of a book on some basic fundamental of Hindu Dharma

Janeu are symbols .Nanak explained the true message behind the rituals which is to purify body,mind and soul .Nanak was spot on when he critized janeu worned by wrong doers .

HIS ANGER WAS on HYPOCRISY & MINDLESS RITUALS and not on Janeu itlself.

Had Nanak to be born in todays times he would have strongly critized on PANJ Kakkar theory as well just like he did for JAneu and Sunnat .

Just like Hinduism is not Janeu nor is Sikhi Panj Kakkar

 

[Ajmer singh Randhawa]

if hindusim for you is confined to Janeu wearing than seriously you need to get hold of a book on some basic fundamental of Hindu Dharma

Janeu are symbols .Nanak explained the true message behind the rituals which is to purify body,mind and soul .Nanak was spot on when he critized janeu worned by wrong doers .

HIS ANGER WAS on HYPOCRISY & MINDLESS RITUALS and not on Janeu itlself.

Had Nanak to be born in todays times he would have strongly critized on PANJ Kakkar theory as well just like he did for JAneu and Sunnat .

Just like Hinduism is not Janeu nor is Sikhi Panj Kakkar

Its an

if hindusim for you is confined to Janeu wearing than seriously you need to get hold of a book on some basic fundamental of Hindu Dharma

Janeu are symbols .Nanak explained the true message behind the rituals which is to purify body,mind and soul .Nanak was spot on when he critized janeu worned by wrong doers .

HIS ANGER WAS on HYPOCRISY & MINDLESS RITUALS and not on Janeu itlself.

Had Nanak to be born in todays times he would have strongly critized on PANJ Kakkar theory as well just like he did for JAneu and Sunnat .

Just like Hinduism is not Janeu nor is Sikhi Panj Kakkar

Its your own assumption if Guru Nanak ji had criticized on 5 Ks.
On the contrary if you want me to debate here, you have to writename of Guru Nanak ji respectfully or get out of this forum. The disrespect shall not be tollrated. It also shows how you would be respecting your elders at home.
Janeoo is a ritual of Hindus a ceremony also called Upanayanaa, a Hindu educational sacrament, one of the traditional saṃskāras or rites of passage that marked the acceptance of a student by a preceptor, such as a guru or acharya, and an individual's initiation into a school in Hinduism. oIts one of the 16 Sanskars of Hindu religion.
But is there any Hindu who passed through all these 16 Sanskars?
Answer is none.
Even Lord Krishna or Rama didn't go through it because three sanskars have to be completed when child is in womb of mother.
Its so disgusting that the first Sanskar is done on the first night. The Brahmin is seated near the bed of newly wed couple, onle a curtain is hanged to separate him. When he will see the good time to eject siemen, only then the male will eject in vagina of his partner and thus first sanskar gets completed.
Rest also very disgusting.
Its first introduction of your Hindu religion.

 

[gjsingh]

if hindusim for you is confined to Janeu wearing than seriously you need to get hold of a book on some basic fundamental of Hindu Dharma

Janeu are symbols .Nanak explained the true message behind the rituals which is to purify body,mind and soul .Nanak was spot on when he critized janeu worned by wrong doers .

HIS ANGER WAS on HYPOCRISY & MINDLESS RITUALS and not on Janeu itlself.

Had Nanak to be born in todays times he would have strongly critized on PANJ Kakkar theory as well just like he did for JAneu and Sunnat .

Just like Hinduism is not Janeu nor is Sikhi Panj Kakkar

Now, kindly explain difference between Indian, Indic, and Hindu, Hinduism and Sikhism on your understanding, as previously requested.

 

[gjsingh]

if hindusim for you is confined to Janeu wearing than seriously you need to get hold of a book on some basic fundamental of Hindu Dharma

Confined? No. Emblematic? Yes.

 

[A_seeker]

Now, kindly explain difference between Indian, Indic, and Hindu, Hinduism and Sikhism on your understanding, as previously requested.

I had already defined what Hindu means ??

Indic ,Indian , santan ,Hinduism are all terms related to Indian Subcontinent ,its culture ,languages and philosophies

 

[gjsingh]

I had already defined what Hindu means ??

Indic ,Indian , santan ,Hinduism are all terms related to Indian Subcontinent ,its culture ,languages and philosophies

No, you didn't. Be explicit.

 

[A_seeker]

I am pasting what I wrote earlier


"। am very clear about my defination of Hindu which is not a religious identity but a geographical and cultural identity."

 

[gjsingh]

I am pasting what I wrote earlier


"। am very clear about my defination of Hindu which is not a religious identity but a geographical and cultural identity."

Define said identity.
Explicate difference between Indian and Hindu. Why is 'Hindu' preferable to 'Indian'?
And, since you requested same of me, define Hinduism and Sikhism.

We can't have a sensible conversation without common understanding of terms.