New posts

Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!

Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up Log in

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 163212" data-attributes="member: 586">Aristotle ji,- Of course there were and still are Jain and other monks. But since I was talking about the monks under the Buddha and you were talking about the same when comparing with Sikhs, I didn't expect you or anyone to suddenly place the concept in a more general context. -Not the question of terminology, but the understanding in relation to the particular concept. A monk under a Buddha is totally different from any other kind of monk. He is one who by virtue of appreciating the teachings on the Four Noble Truths, a disciple of the one teacher, the Buddha. It is evident therefore that the Buddha-to-be can't have been a monk of this kind. -The Buddha was enlightened to the Four Noble Truths, the fourth of which is the Path. This means that whatever happened prior to his enlightenment, it wasn't the same as what he then taught to his followers. And given especially that since the Path can arise not only in those who are recluse, but also householders, this means that the understanding in those who were disciples of the Buddha and wanted to ordain is different from that of the Buddha-to-be when he left his palace. Indeed the first disciples were enlightened before they decided to ordain, in fact there were arahats who did not have any attachment at all. Could you say that these people cut their hair as a result of following Buddha's example? Moreover it was common practice that people in those days, left their homes and became recluses. This includes those outside of the Buddha's teachings. So why would it be said that the Buddha's disciples followed *his* example particularly?- OK, but remember that I pointed out to you that in Buddhism, there are lay persons and these can become enlightened as well. This shows that the Buddha's teachings are not defined by the existence and practice of monkhood.  But you compared Buddhism and Sikhism in a way suggesting that one aimed at renouncing the world whereas the other not. Regarding your suggestion that Sikhs in keeping hair point to the opposite of renunciation, I’d like to add this. Just as I think it is wrong to say that Buddhist monks shave their head to “symbolize” renunciation, I think it is even more wrong the idea that Sikhs keep hair as symbol of life of a householder, since this would make it attachment to symbols which I don't think even Guru Nanak would approve of. In fact I would be very surprised if it is established that Guru Nanak as a householder, kept long hair, because I don't think he did. -In paintings which of course came much later. But there are suggestions also that he was bald, I don't know. In any case, he was fully enlightened and therefore in a situation very different from his follower monks.</blockquote>

Verification