Previous

Next

Ask a Question

Summary of Question:	From A Hindu Point Of View
Category:	General Q's from Non-Sikhs
Date Posted:	Friday, 2/06/2004 3:30 PM MST

Sat Siri Akaal. Before I ask my series of questions, I would just like to say that I am a 17 year old Hindu, and my only goal is to learn. I have a very crude and rudimentary knowledge of Sikhism, and since I have attempted to delve deep into the various aspects of my own religion, I feel that I cannot disregard Sikhism, a closely related dharma. I would greatly appreciate it if you experts out there could respond to these questions/statements.

First of all, I would like to say that I am truly agree with Sikhism's rather unique advocation of practicality. Most religions tend to be rather dogmatic about their own belief systems. But let me pose an example. I personally am a vegetarian. However, I completely agree that it cannot be known that eating meat is a sin. Eating plants, since they too are living creatures, could be considered just as sinful. But, cannot one say that being a vegetarian also has a multitude of physical, mental, and emotional benefits? Unlike the days of old, in this modern world, vegetarians can easily obtain the adequate proteins to survive without eating meat. Also, from a yogic standpoint, meat is a heavy substance, in that it does not pass freely through the body, and takes longer to digest. I think that vegetarianism can also be legitimately practiced among the Sikhs, if the life style is looked at from a practical point of view.

I also respect and understand the value of the 5 Sikh symbols. However, I still would like to ask a question concerning the teachings against cutting any bodily hair. I would understand why the Gurus would have advocated having long hair. To appear in one's natural state helps curb vain and foolish desires. Also, in battle, a warrior with a full grown beard can look extremely fierce. Nevertheless, not trimming bodily hair can have negative side-effects. For example, if long hair and beards are not properly groomed, then one can contract a multitude of skin diseases. I understand that to be a Sikh, one cannot and should not cut one's hair. However, in applying the ever-important practicality stressed by the Gurus, is it not more practical to trim hair to a more manageable length? Would this not help prevent the spread of unnecessary disease? I think I understand that the comb is one of the 5 articles kept by all Sikhs at all times. Thus, I can see that Gurus taught that hygene must be maintained, especially with long hair. Still, I would like to ask, that in abiding by the religion's practice of practicallity, would it not be more practical to cut one's hair?

I would now like to address several issues that the Gurus rejected from the Hindu doctrines. Perhaps I can clarify certain misconceptions.

I understand that Sikhism teaches monotheism, and rejects so called "Hindu polytheism." Hinduism is not a polytheistic religion. There is but one, timeless, formless God. However, the 30,000 or so idols that we Hindus worship are different forms of that one God. It makes no difference whether one prays to Shiva or Indra or Vishnu or Wahe Guru. It is essential that a timeless, formless God be given a form that the majority of people can comprehend. It gives an image to focus on during meditation. The idols in our temples are not Gods, but mere representations of one God.

I believe that Sikhism rejects the belief that through reading the Vedas and understanding them, one can attain self-realization. I too reject this completely. Reading the Vedas is meaningless if the teachings taught in them are not practiced. In the end, the Vedas are merely a guide, and the actions each individual performs determines if one becomes self-realized.

The caste system has been thoroughly rejected by the Gurus, and I totally agree with them. The caste system had utterly deteriorated 500-1000 years ago. However, I would like to point out that, ideally, Hinduism teaches that all castes are equal and equally important. Each individual job plays an equal role in maintaining the harmony of society. However, as Brahmins became corrupt and began to hide the true knowledge and meaning of the scriptures from the other castes, the caste system rapidly became a system of social structure. Thus, the downfall of the priestly caste is to blame for this. (Ironically, I am of the Brahmin caste).

Lastly, I would like to ask why is there a rejection of the fundamental teachings of the Gita? I think that the essentials of the Gita and the essential philosophies that the Gurus taught are one and the same. To be a karma yogi, as Krishna tells Arjun to become, is to serve others. And just as in Sikhism, it is through serving others only that one can become self-realized. The distinction in the three different yogas is that to a karma-yogi, serving others is his/her life. To a jnana yogi, self-realization comes from meditation. Buddha was a jnana yogi. However, after becoming enlightened, Buddha continued to serve others as he taught others the 8 fold path. This too is karma yoga. To a Bhakti yogi, complete devotion to God helps one attain self-realization. It is through this complete compassion that one can become enlightened. If one has complete compassion, then one will obviously be more than willing to perform karma yoga and help others. Christ was a bhakti yogi, and yet, he helped many in need.

Again, I would like to say that my purpose is solely to learn. I would like to apologize in advanced for any misconceptions that I may have said in the above questions and comments. I look forward to an answer and to learning more about this great religion!

*********
reply
*********
Sat Siri Akaal. Your queries are thoughtful. On the topic of being vegetarian, you are essentially right. Sikhi doesn't take the approach that eating meat is a 'sin', rather that the Gursikh doesn't do so because it meant that a living sentient being gave its life for a Sikh. So much on this Forum on this topic. Please use the searchbar and keywords meat and/or vegetarian to see what's been said.

RE: Long hair. The purpose of the kanga as one of the 5 Ks is to remind Sikhs to be clean and to GROOM their kesh and beards. Frankly speaking, if one's hair is 3 feet long, what else does one do but put it up and cover it to keep it clean? This topic of hair is also covered ad infinitum on this Forum. A whole category is devoted to it, please review that too.

Many of us recognize that Hinduism is, essentially, monotheistic. The Gurus, however, only saw people who worshipped a rat or a stone or some one of the other Forms of God, and who forgot that the rat or stone was but one form of God. The Gurus saw people worshipping idols as God, or a single form as God. The people forgot or were never taught that the rock AND the stone AND the lingam or whatever else are ALL manifestations of the One Creator. Moreover, the Gurus taught us that God is everywhere, and is KNOWN from within, not from outside through temple worship, pilgrimages, baths, etc. So worshiping an idol or ALL idols is still not knowing God.

Caste may have been a good idea once upon a time thousands of years ago, but it is outdated and limits people from growth opportunities, corruption of Brahmin castes notwithstanding. Our Gurus spoke against it often and for good reason. Our Siri Guru Granth includes much of the bani of Kabir, a mere tanner, who understood God from within. The caste system tells us that Kabir could never know God or be priestly. Use the searchbar on 'caste' on the Sikhnet site and find a paper by Dr. Harbans Lal on caste that is very good.

I personally find the Bhagavad-Gita to be a wonderful piece and has much in it that is reflected in Sikhi. Our Gurus did not mean to say that the Gita is worthless. What they ARE saying is that reading of sacred texts does not gain you (1) internal knowledge of God or (2) liberation from the rounds of births and deaths. The 'karma yoga' of the Gita is the selfless service, or seva, taught by Sikhs and advocated in SGGS.

Guru rakha,
-DKK