How Sikhism and Buddhism diverged.

[ronki23]

Both religions were founded by members who were followers of Sanathan Dharma: Siddhartha Gautama and Guru Nanak.

Siddhartha lived his early life in luxury but then saw suffering when he left Lumbini: he believed fasting is no good and that the aim in life is to meditate to achieve Nirvana. Apart from fasting there isn't much said about God(s).

Guru Nanak didn't believe in rituals like fasting, wearing janoi and idol worship. He spoke out against sati (immolation).

So both religions diverged from Sanathan Dharma but in different ways. Are/were they considered as Hinduism because they are from the Indus Valley ?

Why was the divergence different ?

 

[Martin]

Both religions were founded by members who were followers of Sanathan Dharma: Siddhartha Gautama and Guru Nanak.

Siddhartha lived his early life in luxury but then saw suffering when he left Lumbini: he believed fasting is no good and that the aim in life is to meditate to achieve Nirvana. Apart from fasting there isn't much said about God(s).

Guru Nanak didn't believe in rituals like fasting, wearing janoi and idol worship. He spoke out against sati (immolation).

So both religions diverged from Sanathan Dharma but in different ways. Are/were they considered as Hinduism because they are from the Indus Valley ?

Why was the divergence different ?

A couple of questions:
1. What's "Sanathan dharma"?
2. Were Siddhartha and Guru Nanak contemporaries?

 

[ronki23]

A couple of questions:
1. What's "Sanathan dharma"?
2. Were Siddhartha and Guru Nanak contemporaries?

Sanathan Dharma is the correct term for Hinduism. Because Hinduism wasn't mentioned in the Vedas. Hinduism refers to people of the Indus Valley.

Sanathan Dharma followers believe in the 4 Vedas and the Mahabharat (the 5th Veda).

So it's wrong to say Sikhism and Buddhism are Sanathan Dharma but geographically they are Hindu.

Sanathan Dharmics hold both Guru Nanak and Buddha in high regard even though they both diverged from Sanathan Dharma.

They diverged in different ways

 

[GURSIKH]

Both religions were founded by members who were followers of Sanathan Dharma: Siddhartha Gautama and Guru Nanak.

Siddhartha lived his early life in luxury but then saw suffering when he left Lumbini: he believed fasting is no good and that the aim in life is to meditate to achieve Nirvana. Apart from fasting there isn't much said about God(s).

Guru Nanak didn't believe in rituals like fasting, wearing janoi and idol worship. He spoke out against sati (immolation).

So both religions diverged from Sanathan Dharma but in different ways. Are/were they considered as Hinduism because they are from the Indus Valley ?

Why was the divergence different ?

Sikhi and Buddhism both have Dharmic origins, both focus on self-realization/Nirvaana.

To me they diverge because
1) Sikhi is theistic(Panentheistic) and Buddhism is not.
2)Sikhi prefer householder life and In Buddhism encourage Monk life style.
3)Element of Khalsa in Sikhi and Ahimsa in Buddhism

 

[ronki23]

Sikhi and Buddhism both have Dharmic origins, both focus on self-realization/Nirvaana.

To me they diverge because
1) Sikhi is theistic(Panentheistic) and Buddhism is not.
2)Sikhi prefer householder life and In Buddhism encourage Monk life style.
3)Element of Khalsa in Sikhi and Ahimsa in Buddhism

Buddha himself had a wife and kids. If I remember correctly he went back to them eventually

 

[Aupmanyav]

So both religions diverged from Sanathan Dharma but in different ways. Are/were they considered as Hinduism because they are from the Indus Valley ?
Why was the divergence different ?

Nothing different, Divergence is not considered a crime in Hinduism, and the variety in Hinduism is vast.
For a long time, Buddhism and Sikhism were part of Hinduism; then for various reasons, they took up a different identity. Most Sikhs have their origin in Hindu families.

 

[ronki23]

Sikhi and Buddhism both have Dharmic origins, both focus on self-realization/Nirvaana.

To me they diverge because
1) Sikhi is theistic(Panentheistic) and Buddhism is not.
2)Sikhi prefer householder life and In Buddhism encourage Monk life style.
3)Element of Khalsa in Sikhi and Ahimsa in Buddhism

Nothing different, Divergence is not considered a crime in Hinduism, and the variety in Hinduism is vast.
For a long time, Buddhism and Sikhism were part of Hinduism; then for various reasons, they took up a different identity. Most Sikhs have their origin in Hindu families.

Even their appearance is different :

Buddhist monks shave their heads
Sikhs grow their hair
Hare Krishna's have one ponytail
Sadhus and Rishis grow their hair
Brahmins are bald

 

[Secret Chief]

Buddha himself had a wife and kids. If I remember correctly he went back to them eventually

He did, and they joined the Sangha. Yasodhara and Rahula.


"Later, when the Buddha returned home, Rahula, was urged by his mother to ask his father for his inheritance. The Buddha told his son he had something far more valuable than riches to give him—the dharma. As a monk Rahula was called “lucky Rahula,” known for his eagerness for training, his patience, and his dedication to the monastic code. Rahula’s ordination pained Suddhodana and led him to rebuke the Buddha for hurting his family twice. However, many of the Buddha’s relatives eventually joined him in the sangha, including Yasodhara, who became an arhat."


- Who was the Buddha’s family?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahmins are bald

No, no, no. Brahmins are not bald. I had a thick canopy of hair in my younger days. Of course, the density is progressively decreasing.

 

[Yazata]

Were Siddhartha and Guru Nanak contemporaries?

Not even close. The Buddha was alive very roughly 500 BCE (there's lots of scholarly controversy about that) and Guru Nanak was alive in 1500 CE. That's a difference of about 2000 years.

Perhaps you are thinking of Jainism. One of the most prominent Jain Tirthankaras was Mahavira, who is believed to have been a contemporary of the Buddha. (The early Buddhist suttas refer to the Jains and early Jain writings refer to the Buddha. Predictably, each side is depicted as defeating the other in debate.)

Jains believe that Jainism is eternal and many Tirthankaras preceeded Mahavira. (Just as Buddhists believe that many Buddhas preceeded the historical Buddha.) In my opinion Jainism probaby is an older tradition than Buddhism, perhaps more closely representative of the Shramana (forest ascetic) tradition out of which both Jainism and Buddhism evolved. So some of the earlier Jain figures might arguably be historical.

There are many similarities between Buddhism and Jainism. But far fewer between Buddhism and Sikhism. My opinion is that Sikhism is more of a syncretism between Hinduism and Islam.

 

[ronki23]

A couple of questions:
1. What's "Sanathan dharma"?
2. Were Siddhartha and Guru Nanak contemporaries?

Sikhi and Buddhism both have Dharmic origins, both focus on self-realization/Nirvaana.

To me they diverge because
1) Sikhi is theistic(Panentheistic) and Buddhism is not.
2)Sikhi prefer householder life and In Buddhism encourage Monk life style.
3)Element of Khalsa in Sikhi and Ahimsa in Buddhism

Nothing different, Divergence is not considered a crime in Hinduism, and the variety in Hinduism is vast.
For a long time, Buddhism and Sikhism were part of Hinduism; then for various reasons, they took up a different identity. Most Sikhs have their origin in Hindu families.

Not even close. The Buddha was alive very roughly 500 BCE (there's lots of scholarly controversy about that) and Guru Nanak was alive in 1500 CE. That's a difference of about 2000 years.

Perhaps you are thinking of Jainism. One of the most prominent Jain Tirthankaras was Mahavira, who is believed to have been a contemporary of the Buddha. (The early Buddhist suttas refer to the Jains and early Jain writings refer to the Buddha. Predictably, each side is depicted as defeating the other in debate.)

Jains believe that Jainism is eternal and many Tirthankaras preceeded Mahavira. (Just as Buddhists believe that many Buddhas preceeded the historical Buddha.) In my opinion Jainism probaby is an older tradition than Buddhism, perhaps more closely representative of the Shramana (forest ascetic) tradition out of which both Jainism and Buddhism evolved. So some of the earlier Jain figures might arguably be historical.

There are many similarities between Buddhism and Jainism. But far fewer between Buddhism and Sikhism. My opinion is that Sikhism is more of a syncretism between Hinduism and Islam.

ਚਾਰੈ ਪੈਰ ਧਰੰਮ ਦੇ ਚਾਰ ਵਰਨ ਇਕ ਵਰਨ ਕਰਾਯਾ॥ ਰਾਣਾ ਰੰਕ ਬਰਾਬਰੀ ਪੈਰੀਂ ਪਵਣਾ ਜਗ ਵਰਤਾਯਾ॥

Dharma was now established on its four feet and all the four castes (through fraternal feeling) were converted into one caste (of humanity). Equating the poor with the prince, he spread the etiquette of humbly touching the feet. (Bhai Gurdas Ji, Vaar 1, Pauri 7)

 

[ronki23]

Not even close. The Buddha was alive very roughly 500 BCE (there's lots of scholarly controversy about that) and Guru Nanak was alive in 1500 CE. That's a difference of about 2000 years.

Perhaps you are thinking of Jainism. One of the most prominent Jain Tirthankaras was Mahavira, who is believed to have been a contemporary of the Buddha. (The early Buddhist suttas refer to the Jains and early Jain writings refer to the Buddha. Predictably, each side is depicted as defeating the other in debate.)

Jains believe that Jainism is eternal and many Tirthankaras preceeded Mahavira. (Just as Buddhists believe that many Buddhas preceeded the historical Buddha.) In my opinion Jainism probaby is an older tradition than Buddhism, perhaps more closely representative of the Shramana (forest ascetic) tradition out of which both Jainism and Buddhism evolved. So some of the earlier Jain figures might arguably be historical.

There are many similarities between Buddhism and Jainism. But far fewer between Buddhism and Sikhism. My opinion is that Sikhism is more of a syncretism between Hinduism and Islam.

I'd like to know more about Jainism as most Jains I know visit Hindu Mandir or have Hindu deities in their homes

 

[Twilight Hue]

Even their appearance is different :

Buddhist monks shave their heads
Sikhs grow their hair
Hare Krishna's have one ponytail
Sadhus and Rishis grow their hair
Brahmins are bald

God I'm a mess. :Op

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are many similarities between Buddhism and Jainism. But far fewer between Buddhism and Sikhism. My opinion is that Sikhism is more of a syncretism between Hinduism and Islam.

That is not entirely correct. My view is that Sikhism is a re-reading of the Advaitic teachings of Upanishads - Ek Onkar / Brahman, everything arising out of it and merging back into it. I do not think Nanak taught theistic Sikhism. @GURSIKH may comment.

 

[GURSIKH]

There are many similarities between Buddhism and Jainism. But far fewer between Buddhism and Sikhism. My opinion is that Sikhism is more of a syncretism between Hinduism and Islam..

We can have a discussion on it, Can you first explain how Is Islam is related to Sikhism ?

 

[GURSIKH]

That is not entirely correct. My view is that Sikhism is a re-reading of the Advaitic teachings of Upanishads - Ek Onkar / Brahman, everything arising out of it and merging back into it. I do not think Nanak taught theistic Sikhism. @GURSIKH may comment.

Hi Sir, Sikhism is theistic. Its about Oneness/Union with the Supreme all pervading IK Onkaar/Par Brahm.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Sikhs grow their hair

Mine just grows on its own. No effort at all on my part.

Everyone grows hair. Some just ritually cut it off.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hi Sir, Sikhism is theistic. Its about Oneness/Union with the Supreme all pervading IK Onkaar/Par Brahm.

From your post at: Non-duality in Sikhism
"Ek means ONE, then how it can be two? duality, dvait is just an illusion."

From a post by Treks at: Non-duality in Sikhism
"Sikhs are encouraged to conquer this sense of separation of the self from the One and in doing so we merge in realization with the One right here and now.

When we live with a perspective of haumai then we are always at odds with everything and are at the mercy of dualistic states of being; rich and poor, good and bad, high and low, sacred and profane, joy and suffering, love and hate. The quest is to transcend the tendency of our mind to haumai by continual remembrance (simran) of the Oneness."

My homage to Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji sahib. The laity do not generally go that deep.

 

[GURSIKH]

From your post at: Non-duality in Sikhism
"Ek means ONE, then how it can be two? duality, dvait is just an illusion."

From a post by Treks at: Non-duality in Sikhism
"Sikhs are encouraged to conquer this sense of separation of the self from the One and in doing so we merge in realization with the One right here and now.

When we live with a perspective of haumai then we are always at odds with everything and are at the mercy of dualistic states of being; rich and poor, good and bad, high and low, sacred and profane, joy and suffering, love and hate. The quest is to transcend the tendency of our mind to haumai by continual remembrance (simran) of the Oneness."

My homage to Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji sahib. The laity do not generally go that deep.

You mean no theism is required if there is Non-Duality, Oneness ?

 

[ronki23]

I wish I could draw and paint because turbans were not part and parcel of Sikhism until the Khalsa was established: I would like to draw and paint Guru Nanak as a rishi. The Gurus wore topis initially.

I would also like to draw and paint Muhammad and Imam Ali.

I don't see any wrong in depicting religious figures provided it's done respectfully