Happy Diwali.

and happy deepavali for the southies ;)

Happy Diwali to all the Mutineers. Have a peaceful, successful and rewarding year, surrounded by the company of warm-hearted people ;)

Happy Diwali everyone!

Happy Diwali to everyone

Diwali ki Shubhkamna (I hope I phrased it right)

Diwali might just be the oldest festival celebrated by mankind. (or one of the oldest)

We must thank the eternal spirit for all the wealth and health we are provided with.

Don't forget to get drunk and gamble though.

Maybe someone should send Judge Alito a Diwali gift so he can stop hating on Hindus ;)
Apparently our soon to be Supreme Court Justice believes that preventing heathen Hindoos from building their temples is always okay even if the decision to deny Hindoos their temple is arbitrary, capricious and reeks of d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n.
Thankfully, the mafioso was the sole dissenter here (surprise!) and the majority did the right thing.
The whole case is here.
For people who care about civil rights, Judge Alito has this to say to us 'My offer is this: nothing.'
Happpy Diwali :)

Happy Diwali to all.

On the subject of non-Hindus and Diwali, see this.

This is slightly off topic, but I am relatively new to NYC, and the readers / posters of this blog seem to know whats what with everything. So does any one know if there are any Diwali Pooja's in or around the city?

Happy Diwali all. God Bless!

Happy Diwali everyone!!! :)

Yes, Manish, I agree... fall is the time of the year filled with both endless opportunity and regrets... and now that it's colder you can feel it all.

Your poems are wonderful.

Thanks, Andrea.

Jains also celebrate Diwali...

"In Jainism it has special significance, as on this day in 527 BCE (according to Svetambara tradition) that Mahavira gave his last teachings and attained ultimate liberation."

Happy Diwali!

Let's not forget Jains are Hindus too. ^^^^

Let's not forget Jains are Hindus too.

Really? According to whom? Are Sikhs and Buddhists also Hindus?

Happy Diwali! Let's hope that the new year brings everyone joy, prosperity and happiness.

ennis writes: Are Sikhs and Buddhists also Hindus?

Maybe. Maybe not.

M. Nam

Happy Diwali to all y'all from down South in Texas! I'm gonna stay out of religious debates on this post :-)

Ofcourse ! We all know Sikhs came from Hindus. It's a fact that almost every hindu punjabi family gave one son to sikhism. Don't Hindus go to Gurudwaras? Don't the Sikhs respect Ram and Krishna? Sikhism Jainism Buddhism all are derivation from Hinduism. Talk to any buddhist scholar they always have the highest respect for Hindu traditions.

i'm going to stay out of the Sikh/Bhuddist/Hindu debate and tell you a little story about a girl on the prowl for sparklers.

in GA you have to be over the age of 18 to buy sparklers [first, WHAT THE JUNK!?!?! it's a friggin sparkler. second, it's ridiculous that i had to pull out my ID when i'm 25 and obviously not a teenager. third, this means there are NO fireworks stores.]...i decided this year i wanted to do diwali the right way...so i went on a hunt to every store i could think of that would sell sparklers...finally i FOUND THEM AT A PARTY CITY!! on sale in the check out aisle on the bottom shelf. what a pain!!!

on the bright side i get sparklers! woohoo

happy diwali everyone and pre-Eid Mubarak!

Kash Sethi - you are new to this blog and seem to be a nice guy.

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. II) never criticize Ayn Rand, III) remember, Gandhi was a facist, IV) Azad Hind soldiers were facist too but not the Pope or Gehlen Org people, V) Muslims are not really Indians, VI) Brahmins are the elite race of the world, VII) Indian soldiers in WW II were mercenaries, and IX) never ever utter a non-PC throught. Grandstand your way through........sepia mutiny zindabad.

I am just hinting as a friend. Keep this in mind and you do fine.

17 · Kash Sethi on November 1, 2005 05:28 PM · Direct link Ofcourse ! We all know Sikhs came from Hindus. It's a fact that almost every hindu punjabi family gave one son to sikhism. Don't Hindus go to Gurudwaras? Don't the Sikhs respect Ram and Krishna? Sikhism Jainism Buddhism all are derivation from Hinduism. Talk to any buddhist scholar they always have the highest respect for Hindu traditions.

Kash, none of what you say is evidence that Sikhs are Hindus.

As a people, Sikhs came from Hindu stock, but they also came from Muslim stock as well. Sikhs also respect Ram and Krishna as much as they would any figure from any religion. However, as Sikhs, when we pray, we seek the blessings of God alone (through Guru or directly), not to Ram, Krishna, or anyone else.

To a large degree, to believe what many of the things Hinduism preaches, or to worship in the manner that Hindus do, would violate many basic Sikh tenets.

Kush and thekingsingh, I had no intentions to hurt any other religion's sentiments. I respect all faiths man, stop assuming what I believe :|

I don't beleive Brahmins are the elites. I'm not into the stupid caste system. That was made thousands of years ago for proper systematic functioning of the society. Later, it got curropted by none other than our own ancestors. Hence I don't like to use those caste-related words.

thekingsingh, relax brotha !!! The fact that every hindu punjabi family donated one son to Sikhism, doesn't that show you we got common roots? No sikhs came out of Muslims bro. Also when you say muslim you can mean arab/south asian anything. I'm just talking about the South Asian Sikhs, they got common roots with the South Asian Hindus. I hold max. respect for Sikhs and their faith and any good Sikh will hold the max. respect for the Hindu Faith. Please don't make me assume you're one of the Khalistanis. We are one, let it be that way please. Hindus go to Gurudwaras quite often, it doesn't voilate the Hindu faith. By saying that going to a hindu temple would voilate the Sikh faith, you are not making the Gurus proud.

Kush, thanks for the advice bro but I'll say what I believe. In any case I didn't/don't mean any offence to any other faith. All faiths are nice, it's the seperatist and the extremists that make it seem fuked up.

Happy Diwali, Eid, and Samhain y'all!

Kash,

I am being sarcastic. Say, what you want. I always do.

Kush

Kash, I won't get into this argument with you.

Hope you're having a happy Diwali.

Happy Diwali to you too bro.

We the same !

sikhs are not hindus. how many times do we have to repeat this? argh. you be you and let me be me.

while my brothas fight it out 'bou diwali,ma folks are bombed and reduced to meat balls and bleeding roses on the streets of Delhi and some others in other parts of the world are prosecuted for celebrating 'divali'.Sometimes, when emotions take control of my thought process,i do sync with Naipaul.

Please don't make me assume you're one of the Khalistanis.

Hmm ... so believing that Sikhism is not the same as Hinduism makes one a Khalistani? Well then sign me up!

Of course Sikhs respect Ram, etc. As much as we respect Jesus Christ, the Pope or the founder/leader of any other religion. Doesn't mean Sikhs believe in these people/deities.

Hindus may culturally go to Gurdwaras, but not religiously. For a Hindu to bow in front of the Guru Granth Sahib and accept the words within would definitely be against his/her faith. Likewise for a Sikh in a Mandir.

Do some research of your own before you educate Sikhs on how we can make our Gurus proud.

Kash Sethi:
Happy Diwali of course...and not to be a downer but I do take offense to your comments about Jains being Hindus. There are significant differences between Jainism and Hinduism. Not that I have any disrespect for Hinduism, I just would not think to call myself a Hindu. Also, please research yourself a bit more because Jainism is older than Hinduism. The common misperception about Jainism is that Mahavira founded it during 6th century BC. But he only revived it, there had already been 23 tirthankars before him. So therefore Jainism is not an offshoot of Hinduism...and Jains are not Hindus. However if by Hindu you mean "from Hindustan", then yes everyone in India is Hindu including Jains. If anything, it would've made even more sense to say that Buddhists are Jains as Buddhism is definitley influenced majorly by Jainism.

Diwali Greetings to everyone at Sepia Mutiny ! From Apu, Manjula, and the Nahasapeemapetilon children. And, er, Homer.

Yes, Homer is still with us. A thousand apologies for not updating my blog on SM recently; I have been most busy, what with the recent Diwali celebrations here in Springfield, and of course my mother is also now gracing us with her august presence for a few weeks.

We had a lot of fun celebrating the Festival of Lights in our back garden last night. It seemed as though the entire town had turned up. We even constructed a giant ten-headed replica of Ravana, and burned it in the traditional manner by firing a flaming arrow at it. I am pleased to say that my aim is as good as ever. However, it was a struggle to keep the weapon out of Homer’s hands, as he kept trying to find out if he could hit Ned Flander’s house from here.

There was some minor drama when Chief Wiggum tackled me to the ground and tried to arrest me under the Patriot Act when I set off the fireworks. Apparently he thought I was launching homemade missiles and trying to shoot down airliners passing overhead. Ah, no harm done. Although Chief Wiggum did say that nobody at Springfield Mosque had told him about what happens during Diwali festivities, and that he was therefore going to “have a quiet word with the Imam for not explaining his religion properly.”

Marge looked very fetching in her salwaar kameez, although I have no idea how she managed to reach up so high in order to wrap the dupatta around her hair.

Myself and the regulars from Moe’s spent the early hours of the morning celebrating Diwali in proper desi style by drinking and gambling. So, no change for Homer there, then.

Kash Sethi,

I don't think it's appropriate for any of us to try to hijack what was originally a well-meaning, good-natured thread and divert it into a religious argument.

HOWEVER:

Sikhs are definitely not Hindus; you cannot claim otherwise when the Sikh Gurus themselves (all 10 of them) and the fundamental tenets of the faith, especially the scriptures of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, repeatedly emphasised this basic fact. Also, historically a smaller percentage of Muslims did indeed embrace Sikhism.

With all due respect, brother you need to educate yourself a little.

Good places to start are here:

Differences between Sikhism and Hinduism.

Sikhnet (for general historical and religious information about Sikhism, along with an excellent on-line discussion forum).

Sikhs.org (as above, but no discussion forum).

In all my trips to India, I've never encountered any Sikhs or Jains trying so hard to alienate themselves from Hindus. It's only the ones in the west that tend towards groupings.

Please do not give me links, for there are links to prove anything and everything over the internet. Jesus Christ died in India, The Kaba is a Shiv Temple, South Indians should pray Ravana etc etc.. there are links which claim to prove all of the above B.S.

When a Hindu goes to the Gurudwara in India he doesn't feel much different than going to a Temple. The Sikhs pray with him and they don't look at him any different either. It's only abroad that the Sikhs feel the way you guys made me think you feel.

I'm not trying to hijack any other religion or spread Hinduism-related propoganda. As I mentioned before I respect all faiths. But when a faith is derived from another faith, there is nothing wrong in admitting that.

Anyway, when I read someone say "Jainism is older than Hinduism" I lost all interest in trying to debate on this.

I hope you guys had a Happy Diwali.

In all my trips to India, I've never encountered any Sikhs or Jains trying so hard to alienate themselves from Hindus

A more accurate term would be "differentiate", not "alienate". In any case, the Sikhs & Jains you may have met back in India were probably just being polite towards you.

Please do not give me links, for there are links to prove anything and everything over the internet

Be that as it may, the links I've provided you are for the most respected and authenticated Sikh websites in the world. I believe the teachings and information they contain are also in line with established Sikh tenets in these matters.

When a Hindu goes to the Gurudwara in India he doesn't feel much different than going to a Temple. The Sikhs pray with him and they don't look at him any different either.

You may be missing the point or misinterpreting this behaviour. Sikhs don't act in this manner towards Hindus within gurdwaras because they regard themselves as semi-Hindus themselves -- it's because a fundamental tenet of Sikhism is that a gurdwara should be a place of worship for the whole of mankind, irrespective of the individual's official religious affiliation, ie. all people are regarded as equal by God, regardless of whether they're Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, or anything else. It is an individual's character, inner qualities/virtues, and actions which are the most important to God, not what religion they may technically follow (although of course an individual's interpretation of his/her religion may indeed have a substantial impact on his/her behaviour and thinking). The egalitarian behaviour of Sikhs towards members of other faiths when they visit gurdwaras is a reflection of this (and yes Sikhs out here in the West behave this way too).

But when a faith is derived from another faith, there is nothing wrong in admitting that.

There is something very wrong indeed when such a statement is an outright lie. Sikhism is not "derived" from Hinduism or indeed from any other religion -- no offence, but you appear to be misinformed regarding the actual historical origin of Sikhism. The similarities it may have with some aspects of Hinduism (or any other faiths) is because those aspects are spiritually "true". The differences are because Sikhism views many other matters as false. It certainly does not mean that Sikhism is derived from Hinduism/Islam/etc and it most definitely does not mean that Sikhism is a "sect" or "branch" of Hinduism either.

since we're all arguing about religion... has anyone read this article on bbc?

it's about hindus worshipping baby Jesus on an xmas stamp in the UK.

check it out.

i'm stumped... what made the stamp designer think that this was a good idea?

Kash Sethi:

You say you respect all religions and I'm sure you do. However, your comments say otherwise. The fact that you are not even backing up any one of your statements with concrete facts makes me realize that you honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You can not make statements such as "In all my trips to India, I've never encountered any Sikhs or Jains trying so hard to alienate themselves from Hindus. It's only the ones in the west that tend towards groupings" on first hand experiences only! Have you met all the Sikhs and Jains in India to say such a thing? No you haven't. Plus, are you trying to say that Sikhs and Jains in India know more than the ones in the West? Just because they live in India does not mean that the followers here in the West know less about their religion. Like I said, research yourself a bit more. Then comments like "Jainism is older than Hinduism" wont seem so absurd to you. End of discussion.

Sorry everyone, I totally did not mean to turn this into a religous debate. I love fall too.

To back up what I say, I'm going to have to type long lectures and refer to links! And this blog is really not meant for that. Only thing I'll say is that if a person following a certain vast religion A, starts to concentrate only on some practices/ideologies, preaches them to the world adn gets a following going the new religion IS a derived religion from A.

In either case, just because a religion is derived from another doesn't make it any less. I have the highest respect for some ideologies Sikhism and Jainism concentrate on. And about Jains/Sikhs in India vs abroad, it's true. I've come accross many Sikhs/Jains who just came from India and they never try to "differentiate" themselves. It's usually in our community in the west when non-white people tend to group.

The only thing I said which made you guys fire posts was meant to pass a message of unity. Why you have to come back with a dissing tone is beyond me.

Anyway, I'm through.

What fall? It's getting cold up here already :|

Kash,

You are obviously a well-meaning person and your intentions are good (I've never doubted that, right from your first post) but you are still misinformed about Sikhism. Guru Nanak never actually followed "vast religion A", right from his birth -- which caused a huge amount of trauma with his father in particular.

His spiritual awareness was derived from a) his direct awareness of God right from the get-go, and b) that incident when he disappeared into the river for 3 days and experienced the reality of God in a realm he termed "Sachkhand". The Mool Mantar -- subsequently recorded as the very first page of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji -- is what he sang to God in order to describe His essence. It was after that incident that Guru Nanak really started spreading his message in earnest -- he certainly wasn't deploying a "pick & choose" strategy of drawing on established Hindu teachings, which is what you appear to be implying.

Anyway, as we both said, this isn't the thread for theological arguments. I do wish you a very Happy Diwali too -- but buddy, listen to what everyone on this thread is telling you - don't base your knowledge and worldview on distorted information ;)

I guess one lesson to be learned from the Hindu/Sikh/Jain debate above is that Hindus are stubbornly syncretic in their practice of religion. Others are irritated by said syncretism and think it's a mask for ignorance...

For a Hindu to bow in front of the Guru Granth Sahib and accept the words within would definitely be against his/her faith.

This Hindu sees no contradiction between her faith and bowing in front of the Guru Grant Sahib, as I have done on numerous occassions, with utmost respect. Millions of Sindhi and Punjabi Hindus have a place for Guru Nanakji in their puja altars and would be surprised to hear they're violating their faith

Khushwant singh in a TV interview recalled an event that happened during the khalistani era.
He described conversations with to a gyani who fell in disfavor with bhindrawale torah faction.
He described an arguement which broke out over propesed editing of Gurugranth Sahib where the gaol was to removing hindu references, and 4 gyanis told them to keep the 'jild' (cover) and let him keep the pages.

Sethi points out there were a significant families in punjab where one boy (usualy the eldest) became a sikh and this tradition was slowing in recent history and it essentialy stopped in the khalistani era. There was a bhand group that used to travel in punjab haryana western up kashmir area and one of the skits they had was about that.

I 2 have family members both men are in their 70's who who became sikhs as young boys.

So the line in india between hindu,sikh,jain and even buddhism is blurry for many individuals.
What it means is basicaly its left upto the individual to make there choices

BTW for a while there were more sikhs outside punjab than in punjab a lot of them mostlikely reverted back to (or got absorbed back) into 'hindu' religion.

>>I 2 have family members both men are in their 70's who who became sikhs as young boys.

This is ABSOLUTELY correct. And Sikhs and Hindus routinely intermarried until the Khalistani period--several in my own family.

Sikhs and Muslims? Never. Hindus and Muslims? Heck no.

That alone should tell you something about "liminality".These days radical Sikhs complain that they are losing population due to "Hinduization" in Punjab.

This Hindu sees no contradiction between her faith and bowing in front of the Guru Grant Sahib, as I have done on numerous occassions, with utmost respect. Millions of Sindhi and Punjabi Hindus have a place for Guru Nanakji in their puja altars and would be surprised to hear they're violating their faith

Sure, anyone can bow in front of the Guru Granth Sahib out of respect .. I know many non-Sikh friends who have done it or whose relatives do it regularly. However, by bowing we are supposed to be accepting all of the teachings in the scripture. If you practice a different faith, then this isn't possible.

There's a big difference between respect in a religion and belief in it - I think a lot of you are getting the two confused.

there is nothing "radical" with insisting that your faith is not conflagrated with other faiths.

the case examples you use of hindu families raising one of their sons as a sikh are CASE EXAMPLES of how some people have been introduced to the faith and how different families practice or intermingle attributes of different faiths but are not a reflection on what are the very definitions of the faith.

also, historically, those hindu families chose to raise their child as sikhs in deference and respect to the sikh faith, NOT because the sikh faith is an offspin of hinduism. i could give you links on this, but as i read above, the trend in this comments section is to dismiss all forms of documentation and regarded references and itstead use stories and hearsay as the burden of proof.

happy divali to hindus
happy bandhi chor divas to sikhs
eid mubarak to muslims

happy happy happy to everyone

"Hindus and Muslims? Heck no."

I know a few cases. One of my 1st cousin brother-in-law's sister is married to muslim and others through friendship.

Sikh and Hindu
Many, many cases. Another 1st cousin's wife (ny sister-in-law) is a sikh.

but as i read above, the trend in this comments section is to dismiss all forms of documentation and regarded references and itstead use stories and hearsay as the burden of proof.

also, historically, those hindu families chose to raise their child as sikhs in deference and respect to the sikh faith, NOT because the sikh faith is an offspin of hinduism.

No-one is saying that Sikhs are Hindus in the same way that Tiwaris and Sharmas are Hindus. But it is indubitably the case that the boundary between the Hindu and Sikh faiths is not akin to the boundary between orthodox Islam and, say, Hinduism, or between Judaism and Sikhism. This is not a question of good or bad, it's just that a different kind of boundary is involved. As a secular historical matter, hardly any respectable scholar will disagree that Sikhism is a product of the long encounter between Islam and Hinduism in Punjab; the future historical development of which led to a much greater affinity between Sikhism and Hinduism than between the former and orthodox Islam.

The move toward Sikh "differentialism" is, like the parallel (albeit explicitly political) move toward the two-nation theory, and becomes apparent from the nineteenth century onwards.
This non-Hindu non-Sikh certainly agrees that many Sikhs in India also have such a "differentialist" view (they are free to); but I am struck by how inthe UK, USA, and Canada, this is the ONLY view one encounters, almost as if the difference has "hardened" in the diaspora.

there is nothing "radical" with insisting that your faith is not conflagrated with other faiths.

Conflagrated means burned, you probably meant conflated.

I know many non-Sikh friends who have done it or whose relatives do it regularly

Do your non-Sikh friends keep pictures of Guru Nanakji in their altars too?? I mean, please! North Indian Hindus have more than mere "respect" for Sikhism.

There's a big difference between respect in a religion and belief in it - I think a lot of you are getting the two confused.

No the confusion is over what we're arguing about. You're arguing about Sikhism. I'm arguing about Hinduism. I'm not saying you are a Hindu as I am (obviously that would be offensive). But your intolerance extends to MY beliefs, and it's claustrophobic.

also, historically, those hindu families chose to raise their child as sikhs in deference and respect to the sikh faith, NOT because the sikh faith is an offspin of hinduism

Hindus respect Christianity too. Why is there absolutely no Hindu tradition of raising one child as a Christian?

For the record, I'm NOT arguing that Sikhism is an offspin of Hinduism. Just that claims that the Hindu relationship to Sikhism is derived just from respect are mighty ignorant.

I am from North India (my surname should be a dead give away). One of my aunt who used to go Gurudwara very regularly, sometimes daily. My mother sometimes go to gurudwara. None of them claim ownership over Sikhism or anything like that, however in their mind the connection is more etheral. Yes, quite a few would have Guru pictures in their alter. I do not think it is as clinical just respect but then I am not interested in being part of 100 comments to and forth. I agree more GGK on this issue.

Also, as Saheli has pointed out I have seen Jesus picture in Hindu family prayer room.

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.

this commentary is another diatribe of hindu hegemony in action. anyways i'm out. gotta go practice my distinct faith.

this commentary is another diatribe of hindu hegemony in action. anyways i'm out. gotta go practice my distinct faith.

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

umair did nail it.

Partially, but not entirely. I will explain.

Wouldn't you call Sikh-Hinduism relationship more like Judaism-Christainity and historically less complicated than theirs.

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.

Hindus respect Christianity too. Why is there absolutely no Hindu tradition of raising one child as a Christian?

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).

Do your non-Sikh friends keep pictures of Guru Nanakji in their altars too??

Yes, quite a few would have Guru pictures in their alter.

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.

but I am struck by how inthe UK, USA, and Canada, this is the ONLY view one encounters, almost as if the difference has "hardened" in the diaspora.

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.

It hurts me to see more and more Sikhs in the west alienating themselves from their Hindu brothers.

Yet again you have missed the point of what I (and several others) have been attempting to say:

1. Sikhs are brothers with EVERYONE -- not just Hindus.
2. Sikhs are differentiating themselves, not "alienating" -- there is a huge difference between the two terms.

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:

... the Guru's Word is the Wisdom of the Vedas... The Guru is Shiva, the Guru is Vishnu and Brahma; the Guru is Paarvati and Lakhshmi... Listening-Shiva, Brahma and Indra... Listening-the Shaastras, the Simritees and the Vedas...

The Vedas and the Puraanas speak... Brahma speaks, Indra speaks... The Gopis and Krishna speak. Shiva speaks, the Siddhas speak. The many created Buddhas speak.

Guys, I'm really sorry that I started this:

Let's not forget Jains are Hindus too.

Really? According to whom? Are Sikhs and Buddhists also Hindus?

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.

>>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?

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.

Guys, I'm really sorry that I started this:

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.

We don't need to prove our distinctiveness to anybody, least of all somebody who is behaving like a very rude guest.

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,

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?

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.

Are there not countless references to Hindu devas in the Granth Sahib?

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.

Asserting that (the tens of millions) of Hindus who keep an image of Guru Nanak in their mandir are idolaters is profoundly hurtful,

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).

and, in my opinion, a misunderstanding of how Sikhism developed in Punjab.

The key words are "in your opinion". This doesn't necessarily make it a fact.

Kush,

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.

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 ;)

>>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.

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.

>>Are there not countless references to Hindu devas in the Granth Sahib?
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.

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

(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).

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.

>>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"

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 !