-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do Buddhism and Sikhism say about each other?
- Thread starter ronki23
- Start date
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
As a Buddhist i have nothing negative to say about other religions, so Sikhism is just another true path for those who follow it.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
I remember reading that Guru Nanak practiced Vipassana. But other than that no other linkages come to mind.
A major similarity between Buddhism and Sikhism is the teachings of universal brotherhood and equality. Both Buddha and Guru Nanak condemned the caste system and casteist discrimination.
A major similarity between Buddhism and Sikhism is the teachings of universal brotherhood and equality. Both Buddha and Guru Nanak condemned the caste system and casteist discrimination.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
By the time of Sri Guru Nanak Saheb ji, Buddhism had merged into Hinduism in India and Buddha had been accepted as an avatara of Lord Vishnu.
It is just as much insistent on 'dharma' as Buddha was.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
In a sense I see the path described by Buddhism as somewhat incomplete on two fronts - my knowledge is cursory and comes from childhood studies and being exposed to other buddhists
1. The true inward looking nature and the adherence to the eight fold path leads to nirvana - but what is nirvana - not completely spelt out - if it is the breaking of the birth / death cycle then what happens to the essence
2. In the immortal words of Guru Gobind Singh -
If one does not take a stand against evil bent on destruction - then even the most pious and holy nature is not enough - both the Maryada Purshottam as well as the Leela Purshottam bear witness to that - both tried diplomacy and failing that took up arms
I have said to @Amanaki that I do not agree with 100% pacifism - but as @SalixIncendium would say - that is part of the dogma I believe in.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Maybe @ManSinha was refering to me about total pasifism, because i stated i will not defend my self with hurting others.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Buddhism is not 100 % pacifist. Ashoka the Great, renounced external aggression and conquests, but he was ever-ready for self-defence in the face of aggression from outside. Baladitya was a Buddhist emperor who defended his land from the Hun barbarians.
The monks of the Shaolin temple, trained in martial arts, once aided the weak forces of a just Chinese ruler from that of a stronger but tyrannical ruler on the reasoning that the just ruler was better and progressive for the masses.
Chandragupta Maurya who defeated the Greek imperialists, and the first Indian emperor in recorded history, was a Jain and gave up his life in old age through santhara in a cave.
Chandragupta Maurya - Wikipedia
Last edited:
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Pacifism and nonviolence is meant for the monk, not the householder who must act in self-defence if needed.
Sikhism is a religion meant for the householder and does not uphold the monk's way of life. Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism uphold's both the householder's and monk's way of life.
Sikhism is a religion meant for the householder and does not uphold the monk's way of life. Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism uphold's both the householder's and monk's way of life.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
I would whole heartedly agree - as the line below states - the earlier Masters and the teachings put emphasis on worshipping along with doing one's daily work - in the form of a "dialog" between two individuals - as @Aupmanyav and I have discussed previously - Sikhism holds that that being a householder and remaining true to the Divine - takes one thru the Maya and back into the One.
And then of course - the 10th Master added Shastar Vidya - the art of using weapons - to the mix - making the person a saint - soldier
I personally believe - the idea of learning weapon use and the daily practice and exercise that goes with it - was also an inducement to a healthy lifestyle - however like many teachings - that has not quite been upheld as time has passed on.
ronki23
Well-Known Member
I found this on the internet; it happened not too long ago
Former buddhist finds acceptance and peace in Vancouver Sikh community | Daily Hive Vancouver
I don't see why you can't be both Sikh and Buddhist. I don't know that much about Buddhism but through my Hindu upbringing we see Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu. Sikhs are important to Hindu Punjabis for their sacrifices against the Mughals
Former buddhist finds acceptance and peace in Vancouver Sikh community | Daily Hive Vancouver
I don't see why you can't be both Sikh and Buddhist. I don't know that much about Buddhism but through my Hindu upbringing we see Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu. Sikhs are important to Hindu Punjabis for their sacrifices against the Mughals
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
In a sense you can be who ever you would like - what ever brings you peace and a sense of satisfaction that you are on the right path. I personally do not think labels are all that important. (I know for a full blooded Sikh person who chooses to maintain an identity it is kinda odd of me to say that but that said.....) If you like the Buddhist way - great - by all means do a deeper study and endeavor to find a path through that and if elements of Sikhism interest you - then study that as well - at the end of the day - you alone have to find your path - you can ask for guidance - but ultimately one has to choose one's path individually.
Unguru
I am a Sikh nice to meet you
I couldn't care less about Buddhism, best part about it is it's meditation practices which aren't really exclusive to Buddhist doctrines in the first place. I think it prides itself too much in things that it doesn't even own. The historical Buddha was kinda interesting but not much more,
I don't think that such an essence is part of Buddhist teachings.
One of the core Buddhist concepts is Anatta, "Not Self", which denies the Hindu Atman ("Self", sometimes translated as "Soul").
Another one is Anicca, "Impermanence".
Then there are Sunyata, "emptiness", as well as Pratītyasamutpāda, "Dependent Arising".
The exact implications are, as one would expect, a matter of some dispute.
Incidentally, the Sikh concept of Langar is utterly fascinating. It caught my attention from the literal minute that I heard of it.