Sikhism from an academic perspective

[Guest]

I ms Sikhism a religion or dharma?

Setting aside political issues, do you feel that Sikhism is very closely related to Hinduism?

Sikhism talks about yugas, prahlad, dhruv, ram chander, kishan, dharam raaj, moksha, yamdoots, reincarnation. All these things & more are common to Hinduism, minus the idols, havans & superstitions.

In addition. Sikhism is based on SatGuru - Sikh concept. In puratan times in previous yugas- the system was of Gurkul.

Sikhism might be the original, pure Santan Dharma.

Setting aside all political things, what do you feel?

ofcourse in present day - Sikhism is a distinct dharma with its own identity and sees both Hindus & Muslims as one. 

[ipledgeblue]

well we should respect sikhi by not calling it sikhism, which is a british colonial religious consturct

also hinduism term only existed from colonial times, and is a british colonial construct of combining different hindu and local traditions into the religion construct.

[AcceptWill201]

3 hours ago, ipledgeblue said:

well we should respect sikhi by not calling it sikhism, which is a british colonial religious consturct

also hinduism term only existed from colonial times, and is a british colonial construct of combining different hindu and local traditions into the religion construct.

I did think that too because its rare for Sikhs to use the word Sikhism. In the west it's often used by non Sikhs or in textbooks or as you mentioned coined by the colonial Christian's. 

To quote something I read "It was long ago during the British Raj that some english writers tagged -ism to Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Judaism and Budhism referring to them as inferior religions to their own. You certainly do not see it tagged to Christianity, Islam, or the Jewish religions"

 to answer the original poster ...of course all religions are closely  related,  in the sense they all to varying extents connecting the individual to the Creator. 

yes Gurbani mentions all those things and uses many terms which are common to the languages used in that part of the word. But theres no doubt  Guruji exposes many practices of the other religions which dont align to Gurmat.

[GurjantGnostic]

24 minutes ago, AcceptWill201 said:

I did think that too because its rare for Sikhs to use the word Sikhism. In the west it's often used by non Sikhs or in textbooks or as you mentioned coined by the colonial Christian's. 

To quote something I read "It was long ago during the British Raj that some english writers tagged -ism to Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Judaism and Budhism referring to them as inferior religions to their own. You certainly do not see it tagged to Christianity, Islam, or the Jewish religions"

 to answer the original poster ...of course all religions are closely  related,  in the sense they all to varying extents connecting the individual to the Creator. 

yes Gurbani mentions all those things and uses many terms which are common to the languages used in that part of the word. But theres no doubt  Guruji exposes many practices of the other religions which dont align to Gurmat.

 

 

[ipledgeblue]

15 hours ago, AcceptWill201 said:

I did think that too because its rare for Sikhs to use the word Sikhism. In the west it's often used by non Sikhs or in textbooks or as you mentioned coined by the colonial Christian's. 

yes I mean when our own term for sikhi isn't used by the rest of the world, and a colonial term is used instead - then doesn't it show the lack of control we have on how we are described by indian and british governments?

[MisterrSingh]

One thing I've noticed since trying to understand the academic side of Sikhi is how little mention there is of Buddhism in mainstream Sikh discourse in terms of how it informs the greater spiritual and religious picture of Indian belief.

Buddhism was a major movement in a religious, spiritual, and temporal sense for centuries in India, not a niche or fringe belief system. The British affect on our faith and our people also has no direct religious reference that we can point to for further comprehension.

The Brahmin dogma Vs Islamic shariat dichotomy that dominates Sikh thought seems to limit and date our religious worldview to a specific period of time. Today, when we try to understand the modern world and Sikhs place in it, we use the framework of a particular social period of Indian history to understand and formulate ideas for the future.

Sikh academics have a habit of either developing an attitude where they think they've outgrown the unavoidable provincial nature of Sikhi by undermining its uniqueness and limiting it purely to a social and militaristic reformation of existing Dharmic thought, OR the other end of the spectrum where Sikh thought is so insular and limiting that it refuses to countenance the fact that changing times dictate changing attitudes WITHOUT compromising the core tenets of the belief system.

I feel this is a problem for us, but I don't see a solution to it in our present state, because we've evolved into particular groups from a habitual sense owing to various historical moments and experiences, and we lack the kind of Sikh minds that see things from viewpoint that sees the bigger global picture without succumbing to the unprovable metaphysical or mystical side of things.

[GurjantGnostic]

2 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

One thing I've noticed since trying to understand the academic side of Sikhi is how little mention there is of Buddhism in mainstream Sikh discourse in terms of how it informs the greater spiritual and religious picture of Indian belief.

Buddhism was a major movement in a religious, spiritual, and temporal sense for centuries in India, not a niche or fringe belief system. The British affect on our faith and our people also has no direct religious reference that we can point to for further comprehension.

The Brahmin dogma Vs Islamic shariat dichotomy that dominates Sikh thought seems to limit and date our religious worldview to a specific period of time. Today, when we try to understand the modern world and Sikhs place in it, we use the framework of a particular social period of Indian history to understand and formulate ideas for the future.

Sikh academics have a habit of either developing an attitude where they think they've outgrown the unavoidable provincial nature of Sikhi by undermining its uniqueness and limiting it purely to a social and militaristic reformation of existing Dharmic thought, OR the other end of the spectrum where Sikh thought is so insular and limiting that it refuses to countenance the fact that changing times dictate changing attitudes WITHOUT compromising the core tenets of the belief system.

I feel this is a problem for us, but I don't see a solution to it in our present state, because we've evolved into particular groups from a habitual sense owing to various historical moments and experiences, and we lack the kind of Sikh minds that see things from viewpoint that sees the bigger global picture without succumbing to the unprovable metaphysical or mystical side of things.

I wonder if Gurbani didn't mention some people because it wasn't necessary...or productive...or they didn't have to. Like the..troubled kids at school got advice but the good kids..not perfect... didn't need a lesson and perhaps if given too much attention could distract readers who don't understand from Sikhi?

Not much on Jesus either. 

If Jesus was on a good track, but his faith is totally destroyed and over run, and the Gurus had too nice of things to say about Jesus, it could funnel people into Christianity, which isn't the point or going to help them. 

I heard Katha that Jesus came to a Brahmgyani and said his desire is for his people to join the Sikh Paanth. 

[MisterrSingh]

2 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

I wonder if Gurbani didn't mention some people because it wasn't necessary...or productive...or they didn't have to. Like the..troubled kids at school got advice but the good kids..not perfect... didn't need a lesson and perhaps if given too much attention could distract readers who don't understand from Sikhi?

Not much on Jesus either. 

If Jesus was on a good track, but his faith is totally destroyed and over run, and the Gurus had too nice of things to say about Jesus, it could funnel people into Christianity, which isn't the point or going to help them. 

I heard Katha that Jesus came to a Brahmgyani and said his desire is for his people to join the Sikh Paanth. 

I see what you mean. Since trying to wrap my head around this issue from a historical pov I'm realising that the British did as much -- if not arguably a little more -- damage to us as the Mughals. While the Mughals came at us and hacked away in the hope we'd just collapse, the British first approached as allies and friends.

Can you imagine how different the verses in Gurbani would be if the ire of the bhagats was directed not only at the idolatry and inequality of Hindu society but also the scheming and calculating nature of the British and by extension the front of Christianity as a civilising force?  Unfortunately for us there was nobody of the stature of a Guru Nanak Dev Ji at the time of the British encroachment into Sikhi that could contextualise what was happening to us, and guide us accordingly. The period of history when the British entered the picture should've been one where we settled and established the norms of our faith, our powerbase, and our culture. It needed to be the foundation from which we spread and conquered. Instead we got bogged down in other issues that ultimately weakened and fractured us, the affects of which we can see with our eyes today.