Re: Sikhism is not the same as Hinduism..or Islam, .....or Christianity.....etc
Hinduism doesn't have a problem recognizing or defining itself.
Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Only anti-Hindu prejudices keep defining it as something altogether insidious, corrupt and hostile and undesirable. It's just a culture with some very ancient and meaningful spiritual philosophies. People keep describing politicians, corrupted fake babas, spies and anti-communal elements as "Hindu." Is that really necessary? Should the world define the worst behavior of Sikhs as "Sikhism?" The majority of the worlds religions share some part of the original ancient teachings, because Hinduism is one of the mother religions of the world. Why does everyone keep getting bent out of shape and trying to deny that? Take the best and leave the rest and give respect for what is beautiful. Isn't that tolerance the essence of Gurbani?
Everyone is so hung up on identities. And nothing of this earth or these identities is permanent. Everything is passing away, why cling to meaningless outward forms anyway? The spiritual essence is eternal truth. It can't pass away. The written words can pass, but the light of truth behind them is eternal. No one can lay claim and own it. It isn't a matter of any individual community's pride. Truth is truth. It is the timeless essence of the God. And the Light of God's truth belongs to everyone, to all God's children in the whole world. Sectarian prejudices are the death of peace. A million wars are in these hatreds and divisions. The Light of truth flows in the spaces between thoughts and words expressed in genuinely spritual concepts and the harmony between people. Let's bless that harmony. People who draw dividing lines only create conflicts and the greed of political jostling for self-importance, prominance and power. To have, they take the beauty from others and define it as "their own."
Please, let's not do this with spirituality of Sikhism. It's contrary to the Guru's teachings to have a concept of independant nationhood as if Sikhs would inherit a legacy of owning the expensive booty at the expense of everyone else. The nationhood of the Khalsa Raj is destined to be one of service and sacrifice. There will be no self-enrichment of petty kings and dictators. In the Sat Yug it will be the leadership of authentic, inclusive and all embracing spirituality that puts the other guy first. So let's dispense with these materialistic notions of "Sikh nationhood." Khalsa Raj will not belong to the Sikhs. They will belong to the whole world, and even universes upon universes, because they will establish Dharmic harmony. That is the authentic teaching about "Sikh nationhood." The Lord Himself shall rule. And the holy people will establish justice and equality. That is the meaning of Khalsa Raj.
On point A:
Are Sikhs as a community largely descended from the culture and people of the Indus Valley?
And the answer is, yes. Sikhs are not a different culture, a superior Aryan race, a separate nationhood. All that colonial baloney should have died with British ownership of India. While acknowledging Hindu society largely intermarried and gave eldest sons to be raised as Sikhs, you still hear people talking about how Sikhs come from Aryan Pathans and Scythians and look scornfully down on Indic people. That is so shamefully filled with self-hatred. The French colonials did this exact same thing with Rwandan tribals, fostering a self-hatred and racist/cultural divide so complete it led to genocide. These petty distinctions are colonial attitudes. It has nothing to do with spirituality, which is why saints of every religion see the universal One truth in the highest teachings of every faith, irrespective of superficial outer differences.
But from a realistic viewpoint, when categorizing Sikhism as a separate religion, a number of untruths arise. First, the independance creates discord, just as we see inflamatory and insulting comments degrading the value and spiritual validity of the Hindu faith. Second, we see a notorious judgmentalism creep in where people adopt positively abusive attitudes toward Hindu's in general. And third, this separatism promotes a fundamental schism between Hindu's and Sikhs as pertains to political objectives, so in some issues the communities are at each others throats.
When you talk of voter blocs, it's precisely this attitude, "We're going to vote as Sikhs, for Sikh issues and pro-Sikh politicians" which is so undermining the best interests of the Punjab as a whole. One of the most shameful things is you have people shouting for independant Khalistan, and spending money to propagate this, make offices where they can become chairman of this and that. And Vandana Shiva, a Hindu, is the one actually going around trying to create financial relief programs to help the farmer suicide crisis. So what kind of Khalistan would we even have, if the leadership doesn't even care about the farmers? If the leadership doesn't even care about supporting the orphans of their own militants? It's so fake it has to be addressed. These attitudes are poison. No truth is in them.
On point B:
Are Sikh teachings related enough to Vedanta to be considered part of Dharmic religion?
And the answer is, yes. Sikhism doesn't have enough points of departure or any new ideology which would even conflict with the fundamental Vedic teachings and Puranic clarifications regarding definitions of God, creation, salvation, purpose of life, method of attaining purification through japping Naam Gurmantra, Guru-Shishya relationship necessary for liberation etc. Sikhism remains a completely Indic spiritual philosphy, recognized by Abrahamic religions immediately by the characteristics commonly seen as "Hindu:" reincarnation, transmigration, moksha, samadhi, yoga, devas, avataars, pantheistic all-pervading Oneness.
Despite the many sectarian differences within Hinduism, and they are at times profound, there remains an overiding, definable spiritual theme in Dharmic belief systems. And that is what they share from Vedanta, all the above themes found within Sikh theology are Vedic. They are learned philosophies from the Vedas. And that is how the religions and scholars of the world will define you, regardless of how you define yourselves, because they will have that recognition, despite denials, of what is fundamentally a Dharmically rooted faith. So you can call yourselves whatever you like, but these facts will not change. And then it just becomes a matter of questioning self-delusion.
The Dharmic teachings of how to obtain righteousness, and what is the reality of the universe, within Gurbani are
Vedantic.
On point C:
Did Sikhism distinguish itself as separate community, by helping the Hindu community when it was in distress?
And the answer is, no. It is completely incredible that the Sikhs, as a standing Army, considered the Hindu villagers from their native villages, as "foreigners," as altogether different from themselves. Most especially, since the overwhelming majority of Sikhs were born in Hindu families, and this includes the families of the Gurus. And during time of crisis, war, massacre, rape and torture, the Sikhs did not decide to be brave and noble and lay down their lives to protect these "corrupted," "hypocritical," and "deluded" people and rescue their "fake" idol-worshipping religion. That's just not even tenable as a thesis statement. It sounds as if the Moghals have been reborn as modern Sikhs when you find attitudes like these towards Hindus. And these attitudes and comments are common enough to warrant concern for the spiritual jeevan of the Sikh community. What kind of self-definition is this, which defines Sikhism in terms of "not being as bad as the Hindu's are?" What the Sikhs heard and felt within their being, was women and children and old people crying under terrible oppression. And their hearts opened up. They related to their own "family members" undergoing hardships of military occupation. This is what they were fighting and dying for as Khalsa. The whole purpose of a spiritual Army was to protect Dharam, to protect righteousness, to defend the innocent from harm, to be willing to die for justice. Because the Sikh Guruji heard the Hindu people crying, He lifted His sword against injustice, no matter the cost. Do you really think the Sikh Guruji who taught that "I am not a Muslim, I am not a Hindu" did not understand that the human soul has no parentage, no religion?
And so people say, "I am not a Hindu, I am a Sikh." But Guruji didn't say, "I am not a Muslim, I am not a Hindu, I am a Sikh!" Because a Guru is not the disciple, and Sikh means disciple. So if Guruji is not a Hindu in a way to divide people, why are Sikhs trying to be Sikh identity, in a way to divide people? It's totally contrary to what Guruji said.
What I find, is when people say they are not a Hindu, they are a Sikh, it means something different from this tuuk of Gurbani. It means, "I look down on Hindu India and distance myself from what I disrespect." And that kind of attitude, which despite denials, is VERY prevalent, is actually filled with self-loathing. Because culturally, racially, even within spiritual philosophy, how different are Sikhs from Hindus? And the answer is "not very different." Diffferences have been exaggerated. But they remain unbelievable.
Just as Gurbani often has tuuks which seem to say the opposite thing, but are reflections of different principles and no true contradiction at all, so there exists historical commentary such as Guru Nanak Dev Ji, born in a Hindu family and being a Guru traveling to Mecca and being warned not to pass there because the Moghals kill Hindus. And we hear Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji to Aurengzeb, when given the choice to convert to Islam or die, saying:
utra bhandyo dharma hum Hindu | aati priya ko kim kare nikandu ||
lok parlok ubhay sukh dani | aanan paayiyat yahi samaani ||
mati maleen moorakh mati jey-yi | isko tyagey paamar soi ||
Hindu dharma rakhey jag mahi | tumre karey vinsai yeh nahi ||
"My answer is that I am a Hindu and I love Hindu Dharma.
How can anybody destroy it? It provides happiness both in this world as
well as in the other world. There is no other religion like it. Only a
deranged person or a fool would leave it to become vile. Hindu dharma
would remain in the world for ever. It is not going to be destroyed by
your efforts."
Even if you pick apart the word "Hindu" and remove it from your minds and consciousness, banish it from your communities with a sigh of relief. You will all still remain the spiritual sons and daughters of a beautiful and unique heritage rooted in the richness of the people of the Indus Valley. So call yourselves a separate "nation," a separate "people," and a "separate "religion" if you like. Just don't be dismayed if other people within Sikhism view it differently. Try not to get so carried away with being different that you lose what was most precious about Sikh Satguruji in all His wonderful forms, and that is the cherishing of humanity, and willingness to embrace as spiritual equals, even the Muslims who were horrifically oppressing Hindustan.
Don't forget to be a brother and a sister, not just among yourselves, but of the whole world.
~Bhul chak maaf karni ji
