Talk:Hinduism and Sikhism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Hinduism is the predominant philosophy of the Indian Subcontinent. Buddhism, jainism and sikhism are clearly inspired by it. Many people would like to believe they are separate religion, however, thats like saying the branches of a tree and distinct from the tree itself. Even islam in India has been influenced bu hinduism. The spirituality of the sufis is clearly a result of hindu influence. I have noticed that once sikhs leave India, they feel a special need to assert their separation from the hindu identity. But a little study if history is enough to convince any impartial student that the similaritiies between the two far outweigh any differneces. Jo bole so nihal, sat sri akal!!!! docboston

Biased Hindu Article

I MADE RESPONSES TO IN BOLD BLACK LETTERS TO WHOEVER WROTE THIS

this article is a biased attempt to state similarities between Sikhism and Hinduism, where there are none.......Sikhism is different from Hinduism fundementally:

Sikhism may be it's own religion but lets not distort facts to support an agenda of your own:

Guru Nanak also praises the Vedas.

"The Guru’s Word is the wisdom of the Vedas"

• Guru Nanak states that the Vedas (or other relious texts do not know the mysteries of God -

Page 747, Line 18 - Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਸਿਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸਭਿ ਸਾਸਤ ਇਨ੍ਹ੍ਹ ਪੜਿਆ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥ बेद कतेब सिम्रिति सभि सासत इन्ह पड़िआ मुकति न होई ॥ bayd katayb simrit sabh saasat inH parhi-aa mukat na ho-ee. One may read all the books of the Vedas, the Bible, the Simritees and the Shaastras, but they will not bring liberation.

• Guru Nanak rejected Hinduism, by rejecting the Janeo (Hindu sacred thread), So when did this practice form the basis of Hinduism? How can a whole religion actually be defined on this one practice? For example, does the practice of wearing a turban define the entire religion of Sikhism? To make this clear, no Hindu scriptures require this. These are not obligatory in Hinduism and certainly do not form the basis of Hinduism in any sense. It would be helpful if the poster could have had some knowledge of Hindu scriptures.
• Sikhism does not believe in idol worship or ancestor worship. No Hindu scriptures require idol or ancestor worship, although they don't explicitly prohibit it either.
• Sikhs are permitted to eat meat[1]. (provided it is not ritually slaughtered). The Sikhs Guru's who were from Khatri/Kshatriya (warrior descent), had no qualms about meat eating. Vaishnav Hinduism emphasises strict Vegetarianism. Vaishnavism is only one of the 4 principle denominations of Hinduism and vegetarianism within Hinduism is also debated, clearly the person who wrote this, missed this point. Vegetarianism in Sikhism is also debated by Sikhs themselves, leading for this issue to be open to interpretation.
• Sikhs believe that Karma can be broken by Gods will and submitting to God's will and trying to change what one can. *Hinduism believes you have to die and be reincarnated in your next life to reach a higher level of existence and through good deeds eventually become one with God.
• Sikhs do not believe in going on pilgrimages or bathing at Holy rivers etc.
• Sikhs belive in equality of man and women, under this argument, they literally believe men and women are the same. For example, they can dress the same, look the same and participate in wars together. Hinduism believes women to be subserviant to man. In Hinduism men and women are equal spiritually but are not the same biologically, they have different roles in soceity.
• Sikhs do not believe in a caste system,and Hindus do. Mainstream Hinduism recognizes caste distinctions, but Hindu scriptures teach that all living entities are equal in the eyes of the Lord, and ask all living entities to be treated with respect and love regardless of their place in society.

-Closing statement

In their quest for a distinct identity, Sikhs often resort to distorting history and even go as far as propagating lies about Hinduism (and even Islam) in order to present Sikhism as "unique".Unfortunately, too many times Sikhs compare Sikhism to Hinduism by comparing Sikh scriptures to Hindu traditions and not Sikh scripture to Hindu scripture/teachings. Under this argument, one can claim that Sikhs practice dowry, drink alcohol, treat women as inferior, and discriminate against their fellow human biengs, as many do. Of course, it would be incorrect to associate these practices with Sikhism. Depending upon how one defines religion,one has to ask whether this is actually fair and logical or extremely biased on the part of Sikhs. I would go with the latter.

This has been re-written with an honest outlook.- Truth Seeker

Show me were in the Hindu scritpures Janeo is part of the religion...SHow me were it says idol worship is part of the religion....Show me where in Hinduism it says God cannott break the law of karma just like sikhism says...Show me where it says u have to go on pilgrameges in the Hindu religion.....SHow me where Hinduism it says men are higher then women....Show me where it says Hinduism belives in a caste system....U WONT FIND IT ANYWHWERE...My friend all u are doing is going by what u heard and u have never in ur life actualy read any Hindu teaching....Ur just going by what u saw and what people do...I mean if I did that I could say Sikhs are clean shaven, they drink, they fight, and they have sex before marriage because many SIkhs are like that arent they?...But their is a difference in what people do...And what the teachings say....SO before u type in all this information about what Hindus do...Why dont u try picking up a Hindu book and actually read the ACTUAL teachings....And by the way....I love how u ignoerd all the similarities i wrote in the article lol....Funny man ARYAN818 23:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ARYAN818 23:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Some facts about Hindusim and Hindus

I would like Aryan818 to read the followings:

1) First of all prove that there is a religion called Hinduism.

None of the vedas, puranas, simirities, shastras, mahabharat, ramayan, bhagwat gita and any religious script of so called hindus have any reference to a religion called hinduism. Even word hindu is not found anyhere in above stated scriptes.

2) Who is the founder of Hinduism.

Chirstianity has Chirst as its founder.
Buddhism has Lord Buddha as its founder.
Jainism has Mahavir Jain as its founder.
Islam has Mohammad Sahib as its founder.
Sikhism has Guru Nanak Dev as its founder.

But hindus still don't know who is the founder of hinduism. Strange!!

3) Why so called hindus recognise themselves as hindus?

Chirstians are Chirstians because they are followers of Christ.
Buddists are Buddists because they are followers of Bhudha.
Jainis are Jainis because they are followers of Mahavir Jain.

Muslims are muslims(musaalmaans in many languages and countries) because Holy Kuraan clearly states those who follow the Islaam and recognise Mohammad Sahib as Paigambher are muslims or those who have a pure character(Mussalam-Emaan = Mussalmaan) are muslims(musaalmaans in many languages and countries).

Sikhs are sikhs because from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh all gurus have clearlly called their disciples sikhs. Also Guru ji's baani clearly states the characteristics that must be in a sikh.

But Hindus don't have any of the above mentioned reason behind their being Hindus nor they have any other solid proof from their so called Hinduism(Hindutva) or their religious scripts that can provide any information about this.

I've read the comments by arayan818 on several topics. So i decided to talk here. I would like arayan to find the answers to these questions from unbiased and neutral resourses and then try to prove that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. How can a religion be a part of another so called religion when the later does not have any solid and proven existance. TheSingh 12:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A REPLY-

Firstly, Hinduism (or Vedic) Sanatana Dharma, which means the eternal path, is a clearly defined thiestic religion which has 6 schools of philosophy and a variety of Vedic scriptures.

Second, one can also make the same claim about Sikhism, can Sikhism really be considered a religion? After all, many people believe, including Sikhs themselves that Sikh Gurus never intended to create a religion.

Third, Sikhism fails to even come close to other major religions in the sense that it has no direction or answers to many social ethics and economic issues as well as a general conduct. The only thing Sikhs have is the Guru Granth Sahib which is a Holy book consisting of poetic verses by various saints, in which many of them were Hindu and Sufi saints whom constitute a large portion of the Guru Granth Sahib. Since The Dasam Granth is not considered authentic to some Sikhs I won't include that.

The Rehat Maryada, the Sikh code of conduct,was created in 1950 and can hardly be considered an authentic set of ethics as per original Sikh teachings, as much as 500 years earlier.

Also,to the fellow who made the comparisan of Hindus not having a founder. Get your facts straight, Buddha was not the founder of Buddhism per se, there are a list of 27 other Buddhas, in which stories of them can be found in Buddhist scriptures. Mahavir, was clearly was not the founder of Jainism but it's first reformer. There are 23 other Thirthankaras before him which many of their accounts and stories are written in Jain scriptures. Hinduism was founded by enlightened Sages who professed their knowledge in the Vedas, as well as Saviors (Avatars) whom expounded upon Vedic knowledge (Krishna-Gita, Upanishads) including stories of these saviors stressing Vedic ideals (ie. Krishna, Rama, Balarama etc...). In short, Buddhists have a list of Buddhas, Jainas have a list of Thirthankaras and Hindus have a list of Enlightened Sages (Rishis). Even though these three religions have many similarities, the difference between these religions are Sanatana Dharma(Vedic and thiest)and Jaina Dharma and Buddha Dharma (athiest).

One can also refute the claim that Guru Nanak was the founder of Sikhism, as some believe he was a Musliim and others believe he was a Hindu. Many also believe he was not the founder of a new religion but expounded on the Sant Mat and Sufi traditions, as they were already preaching the same knowledge identical to Guru Nanak (ie. Kabir).

There are accounts of Guru Nanaks life but some Sikhs have accused RSS as inventing Bhai Bala Gi and his writings. If Sikhs are going this far to question events about their own founders life, how can any of the writings be cosidered authentic? What is true or not true? Sikhs question half of their scriptures in paranoia that they are too close to Hinduism (and some cases Islam). When you can't even walk a straight line, how can you speak about other religions?

In conclusion, I have absolutely no problem with Sikhs wanting a seperate identity and am well aware of their struggle to be recognized as distinct. I also have no interest in the political and social issues surrounding this controversy, even though I am well aware of both sides. However, when Sikhs go this far to misinterpret, twist and malign other religions as well as history in order to promote their own viewpoint, it is not only misleading but dangerous.

-Truth Seeker

Reply

actually your own link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism confirms this.

Sources

Can you state the sources to wear you got your information from, not just links to people who talks about Communism.

Their really is no need of sitting down and wasting time for references because 1st their is not alot of info, just opinions....ANd secondly, i cant use religious texts as resources because all the stuff is not written in English...Its written in Sanskrit, Hindi, and Punjabi....BUt this is not a complicated issue....its common sense dude ARYAN818 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So you basiclly just made a article about something you heard, hey with that logic mabye I should make a page abouthow the Vitenam war started after Saddam said something about Bush's mom! Since their opinions and all!

Elven6 15 2006 UTC

There certainly is time to 'waste' getting references. If you can't use religious sources to back your claims, then your claims are likely to be ignorant. There are English versions of both the Guru Granth Sahib [1] and Dasam Granth [2] online. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

First I didnt make this page...SEcondly i am not saying their is no need for references...But u know references dont mean anything in certain subjects....I mean if this was the Vietnam war, like u said, thats diffrent because their are plenty of people with references to prove the points...But in a case like this, their are not alot of references, and if their is, they are hard to find...However I can get references that show an opinion of someone...But then what does that prove?....All that does is get their opinion....I mean i dont have a problem with people who want references to prove somethign...But I have a problem with people like SUKH, GSINGH, AND THAT ANONOMOUS USER who basically already have their mind made up about Hinduism and SIkhism being different when they have never read all the hindu books....Then they cover up their biast opinion by saying OOOO U NEED REFERENCES ARYAN!..Thats wrong.... ARYAN818 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If references are difficult to find, it usually suggests that a particular opinion is not widely agreed upon or that the opinion is likely to be invalid in the eyes of most scholars. You should refrain from adding your controversial additions unless you have sources. If you're unsure why you need sources, see WP:CITE (specifically the first section labelled 'Why sources should be cited').

And, I don't have anything set in my mind. If you can provide reasonable evidence of your assertions, there is no problem with you adding it to the article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You keep telling us to read Hindu texts but my question is have you read Sikh texts before? Or are you just going with the claims of the RSS?

NO thats the wrong question...It doesnt matter if I read the SIkh scripture because I am not making claims that they are different...I am saying they are the same....U on the other hand have given reasons on why they are different and yet u have not read most of the Hindu scriptures....Think about it SUKH...u have admitted that u havnt read most of the HIndu scritpures right? SO how can u say that SIkhism was meant to seperate from Hinduism?...Because u go by what u HEAR...This is what many SIkhs outside of India do....They go by what they hear...I have heard many many many Sikhs give me the strangest opinions on what they think Hinduism is...One guy told me Hindus drink cow piss...Another told me Hindus believe that the Earth is made from Bull horn...Another told me Hindus believe in the caste system...Another told me Hindus believe in many gods...Another told me Hindus believe in Widow Sacrafice...And ur no different...U also have given me strange reasons...and my issue with u...and many SIkhs for that matter...is how can all u guys have this opinion that Sikhism is different from Hinduism, when u openly admitted that u havnt read most of the Hindu teachigns?....Dont ask me if i read the sikh teachings, when im not making any claim that were different ARYAN818 05:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is rich coming from a person who calls anyone wanting to discuss Sikhism as Khalistani's. [3] .And how does the similiarity reconcile itself with no idol worship allowed by Sikhism ? The Sikh Granth even has muslim writers and sufi saints contribution. how does that reconcile with Hinduism ? Sikhism is influenced by Hindusim and Islam, but is not = to either or them. Haphar 19:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism is more closely linked to HInduism then it is to Islam...And by the way my "non biast" friend....The GUrus never wanted to start a new religion...they did not believe in religion

ARYAN818 21:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way it is spelled biased, not biast. Pls see [4]. Not saying Sikhism is closer to one or the other, but that there is an influence of both. Also the 10th guru did start the new religion, it might not have been a new religion prior to that, but from the 10th Guru's time it did become one. So though 9 Guru's "might" ( pls note word might) not have striven for a new religion the 10th Guru through the 5 K's to distinguish a Sikh from a non Sikh did just that. So the statement "The GUrus never wanted to start a new religion...they did not believe in religion " does not apply to all Guru's. And "Could" have applied to some Guru's. Also "they did not beleive in religion" is a bit misleading, make them appear agnostic. "They did not beleive in relgious rituals and customs" is closer to the truth.Haphar 09:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WEll now ur not making sense...the first 9 gurus were linked to both HInduism and Baba Nanak's teachings...they never intended to seperate people or divide them into a Hindu/Sikh catagory...so i dont see why your ignoring the first 9 and just going by the 10th....and the 10th didnt create a new religion either...he created the khalsa which was made because of the fighting with Muslims ARYAN818 05:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Making sense is also a function on a reader's abilty or willingness to see sense. Getting to the point the 10th Guru said Sikh's would beleive in one god and the granth would be their guru. So that started the Sikh's on a path that made them a seperate religion. Buddha or Christ did not "say" either "this is a new relgion" either but from their saying and teachings religions started. Religion is but a path to god, and there are many paths- Buddha talked about how to live life and not God but moksha- yet a religion evolved from that. Sikhism too became a way of life after Guru Gobind Singh . There is no one who came down and proclaimed " Today Hinduism is born here is the Hindu religion" either, so if you are looking for a statement from a guru or a prophet to start a religion, You will not get it in most major religons ( except maybe islam).

For a person preaching inclusivness, there seems too much of an effort to look at differences of opinion rather than common ground. No one is saying there are no influences of Hindusim, it has influences on Sikhism as it has had on Buddhism in India at least, but it is seperate. No one is disputing the that Sikhism ( or christianity or Budhissm) might not have started out as as seperate religion and their founders did not neccecarily want to start a new religion, so veryone is on the same page as you on this. But to now say that the two religions are not different is to deny facts. Haphar 06:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice u ignore most of my points...I have given so many points, and they are good points, on why the Gurus never wanted to create a new religion...and all u do is ignore all of them and then right down ur strange opinions about HInduism...I mean look at u ignore everything i write its amazing...its like it all goes out one earARYAN818 20:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you point out either differences or similarities between Sikhi and Hinduism if you have not read the Guru Granth Sahib?

You must read it in order to do both, not only to point out the differences!! You keep referring to Sikhi as a religion. Religion is the result of a western phenomenon in which ideologies, ways of life came to be systematized. Actually, Sikhi is not a religion. The Gurus wanted to create a new spirit distinct from that of Hinduism and Islam. Inevitably, both have influenced this spirit, this mindset. All ideologies are influenced by something; independent thinking in matters of religion does not exist. The fact is, no Guru could have come up with something completely independent of all religions and religious philosophies! There were bound to be similarities, but this DOES NOT MAKE SIKHI A SECT OF HINDUISM. Guru Nanak himself claimed that he is not Hindu, nor Muslim. THAT, is the only evidence I need to counter your ridiculous attempts to cast off Sikhi as a sect of Hinduism. 169.229.81.24 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.81.24 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Response to ARYAN818

• Idol worship is part of the Hindu religion as you worship rocks and statues on your pilgrimages- I read that in a book on Hinduism in my Religious education classes at school
  • Hindus go on pilgrimages- I have seen pictures of pilgrims on the actual Wikipedia site
• Hindus do regard a woman as being subservient to the man- have you forgotten about the Hindu practice of Suttee where a Hindu widow would be thrown on her dead husband's funeral pyre while his corpse was being burnt (this inhumane practice was outlawed by the British raj). A Hindu Widower would be allowed to re-marry if his original wife died.
• Do you want to see where it states that Hinduism believes in a caste system? READ ANY BOOK ON HINDUISM; IT WILL SPELL IT OUT CLEARLY FOR YOU.
• Sikhs do not care if Hindu books state that Sikhs are Hindus. Sikhs follow the teachings of our Ten Gurus who made it crystal clear that we are not Hindu, hence the creation of the Khalsa which was made to ensure that Sikhs maintained a different identity and belief system from the Hindus.
• Jesus was born a Jew, that does not make every Christian a Jew does it?
• Sikhs in the West and in the East are much more educated than they were even three or four decades ago: that is why we understand that Sikhism is not a part of Hinduism- NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE. Hindus tried to take advantage of Sikh illiteracy to try and dissolve our religion into yours, BUT IT DID NOT WORK!
• The reason we emphasise that Sikhs are not Hindus is because you Hindus give it your all to distort our teachings.
  • Stop trying to take credit for the achievements of the Sikhs in the past 500 years- the day we believe that Sikhs are Hindus is the day that hell freezes over and pigs fly. Have I made myself clear?

Sandeep S K 11:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your right Sandeep...YOur absolutely right...their are many books out their that state everything u say...Their are also books on HInduism that say Hindus drink cow urine...that Hindus believe the Earth is a Bull Horn...and that Hindus believe in eating certian meats.....U know why Sandeeep?....Because Hinduism is not a simple young religion thats easy to learn by non Indians...ALot of western scholars go to India, or read on the writings of racist Europeans from the past, and they just put down how THEY INTERPRET THE INFO...Then...a college comes along and signs the book without double checking...then...students like u read it...and believe what they write.....Ill give u an example...Theirs a book on Sikhism....a guy went to India and saw lots of Sikhs drinking....Smoking....SIkhs that were clean shaven...Sikhs that had sex before marriage...and Sikhs that belived in caste ( u know Jatt this and jatt that, u know the music right?)....And he even said that Sikhs worship Guru Nanak Dev Ji because he saw many Sikhs who had a picture of the Guru on their home walls....But...u and I both know that all these things are not part of Sikhism correct?....See my point? ARYAN818 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You Need Refrences

Until refernces are provided to back up spuroius claims that Hinduism is related to Sikhism, this page will be continually edited to show differences between Sikhism and Hinduism, as well as similarities.

I have no problem with people who want to show BOTH SIMLIARITIES AND DIFFERENCES...BUT...I have a problem with people who type in diffrences that are not true....for example...one guy says that Hindus believe in the caste system and Sikhs dont....now....in no Hindu scripture does it say to bow to statues...the earlierst Hindus, who were aryan, did not believe in idol worship...PEOPLE DID THIS....THeir is a difference between the teachings and what people do...Ill give u another example...Many Sikhs take pride in being a Jatt, which is a caste...but...does that mean that Sikhism teaches the caste system?....get my point? ARYAN818 05:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Aryan, you are clearly not knowledgable enough in Sikhism to write anything about Sikhism, so why are you writing anything at all? Yes some people take pride in being a Jatt, but this caste nonsense is just a hangover from Hinduism. Christianity, Islam, don't believe in the caste system, yet their members in India still enforce it. Get your fact right.

-REPLY

Looks like you know very little about world religions and social divisions. Caste and social divisions are found in many societies around the world that still exist today. Hindu scriptures do mention caste but only on the basis of occupation and running an efficient society. It clearly does not ask to hurt any innocent human bieng. Scriptures clearly speak of love and respect for all living entities.

Sikhs clearly discriminate each other according to their caste or tribe (ie. Jatt)and it would be false and dreamy on the part of Sikhs not to recognize this. Of course it would be wrong to say this is a part of Sikhism right? It is also wrong to blame the problem on Hinduism since many believe caste to be an outdated social custom that has been perpuated by greed, hence why it is found in every religion and society in India. Also, historically many Hindu Saints and Sages have tried to reform society. The Bhakti sects of Hinduism were clearly stressing unity and brotherhood of all mankind, hundreds of years before Sikhism. Therefore, the notion of equality and brotherhood, often magnified by Sikhs as a "unique" teaching of Sikhism, can hardly be considered as special to or owed to Sikhism.

In addition, caste is also found in many other societies where it is sanctioned through religion (ie.Islam-Yemen, Buddhism-Japan).So don't misrepresent facts in order to present your own.

-Truth Seeker

If you have a problem with this page...

I understand people who dont believe that HInduism and Sikhism are the same...It is their right to believe whatever they want....If u want my opinion, I believe that the Gurus never wanted to divide people into a Hindu/Sikh catagory and I think they wanted people to unite as ONE....I have given many facts that prove this and I believe that HInduism and SIkhism were meant to be ONE...HOWEVER...I understand their are people who disagree...I have no problem with people who disagree...BUT...I have a BIG problem when people who write opinions about HInduism when they never read all the Hindu scriptures...Most of these people who argue to me that Hinduism and Sikhism are different have never even read one HINDU scripture, let alone all of them.....Instead, they form their opinions on what they heard or they from opinions from books that are made by scholars who do a bad job of understanding the Indian religions...Ill give u an example...Their is a user named Sandeep...Scroll up and down this page and u will see his opinions on Hinduism...Most of the stuff that he wrote about the differences between Hinduism and Sikhism he got from books that were made by scholars and so he assumes that they must be factual books on Hinduism...And that is not right....For example he said that Hindus believe in Idol worship and Sikhs dont...Now i agree that many Hindus bow down to statues...However in the Hindu books it doesnt say ur supposed to do that...The Hindu books actually teach about having god in ur heart and doing everything with god in mind...Even the earliest Hindus, THE ARYANS, were against IDOL WORSHIP...It doesnt say anywhere in any of the Hindu teachings that people should bow to statues....What im saying is that their is a difference between what the actual SCRIPTURES SAY and WHAT PEOPLE DO....For example in Sikhism the scritpures say that u should not bow down to statues right? But many Sikhs have a picture of Guru Nanak Dev Ji on their wall and some of them even pray to the picture!...The Guru even said that he should not be worshipped and yet many people pray to him...But does that mean that Sikhism believes in idol worship?...NO!...U see my point?...Their is a difference between the ACTUAL TEACHINGS and WHAT PEOPLE DO....Before u make an opinion about Hinduism, or why HInduism is different from SIkhism, go READ THE ACTUAL HINDU TEACHINGS...Dont read some book by a scholar because thats just his INTERPRETATION ARYAN818 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't go deleting your warnings, don't do it again, and no Jatt is not a caste, it is only a caste in the Hindu religion.

Elven6 UTC

Thats funny Eleven cuz many Sikhs take pride in being jatt likes its a race...many sikhs call it a casteARYAN818 20:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Um no their just idiots like you, AND STOP DELETING YOUR DELETION PROPOSAL BEFORE I REPORT THIS!

Elven6

Exactly my point Eleven...they are idiots...but...they do it...so im asking u again...do u know the difference between Hindu teachings and what the people do?...DO u finally understand?.....And for the user Sukh...do u see what I mean?....Its ok when Eleven6 calls me an idiot...and yet if i respond and say something back im going to be blocked....ARYAN818 20:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Elven HAS been indefinately banned for personal attacks on people so your point is moot. Saying things like "they are idiots" is a quick way for you to join him too :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Aryan, it's a shame how Sikhs spread such false propaganda. Like I said, I have no personal problems with Sikhs claiming a seperate identity but much of it is built upon lies.

Deleted items

• You say that you are not here to enforce yours beliefs and that you are happy if both sides of the argument are presented, then why did you delete the quotes from Guru Nanak Dev and Guru Gobind Singh which support the argument that Sikhism is an independent religion? I extracted the quotes from a book written by a Sikh scholar and included references.
  • You say that the differences that I wrote were untrue. All of the information that I wrote was from reading books over the years. It seems that you are the one who is afraid that people may realise the differences between the Hindu and Sikh religions.

• Why did you call Europeans who wrote on the Hindu religion racist? How can Europeans be racist against Hindus if they have allowed the building of the largest Hindu temple outside of India? (Read the article of the Hindu temple in North London). Also, the UK Government recently finished a review of Hindus in the UK in order to allow for their beliefs and listen to their fears and requests.

• You talk about Sikhs who shave, take intoxicants etc... This shows that you know very little about the Sikh religion. Guru Nanak criticised people from all religions (including Hinduism and Islam) for claiming and acting as though they are religious (by following principles and yet going against their religion). In the same way these Sikhs who shave, take pride in social groups (castes) etc…, are not ‘Sikhs’ in the strict sense of the word as Sikhism, unlike Hinduism, states that a person can only be of religion if they strictly follow their religious principles.
  • I agree that many Jatt Sikhs do take pride in their social group, but you must remember that Gursikhs (religious Sikhs) take no preference in a prospective spouses' caste and there have been many cases of religious Sikhs from Jatt backgrounds marrying Sikhs from a 'Low' caste, so to speak.

• Deleting what I say when there is no reference is acceptable, but deleting sentences that are backed up by references is vandalism.
  • What I am saying is that I respect anything you write if it is backed up by references, but I will not have you deleting sentences that I write if they are backed up by verifiable references.

Sandeep S K 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your deleting my stuff so your no different from me....ANd your not making references...All ur doing is going by books made by scholars. U havnt read the actual HINDU SCRIPTURES...YOur just going by scholars who have their own interpretations and their own belief's....Did u read anything I wrote?...Please scroll up and read my paragraph that I wrote...I made it more clearARYAN818 20:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am allowed to delete your writing because you have given no references and it seems as though you are writing off the top of your head.

What do you mean that I am not making references? Books by scholars are legitame references since they are witten by professors (my reference was from professor Kartar Singh, from India).

I understand that there are many sources written in other languages but that should not really matter as long as you provide a reference and like you say, how am I supposed to read a Hindu scripture if its written in Sanscrit??? Anyway, like I said before, I am only interested in SIKH scriptures, I do not care what Hindu scriptures have to say because they had absolutely no input from the Sikh Gurus; Get my point???

Connection

1. Common greeting among Sikhs:"Sat-Sri Akaal" (The truth is eternal)
2. 1st line of the Hindu Rigved:'Ekam Satviprahaa' (The truth is one)

Not a coincidence, that.Netaji 00:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• What do you mean "not a coincidence"
  • "eternal" means indefinite or everlasting
  • "one" is a singular term

So tell me, what do these statements have in common?

Yes, Sikhism does say that there is one God, but so do many other religions such as Islam and Christianity; would you then claim that Sikhism is an offshoot of Christianity, Islam and any other religion you can find similarities with? By the way, if you are using one-off similarities such as these, then why do you not state similarities with other religions that are also advocated by Sikhism? For example, Islam and Christianity both state that there is one God and Islam also endows respect on people who fight for their faith and what they believe in.

Sandeep S K 11:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Eternity IS singular. There's the connection. The situation with Sikhism and Hinsuism is entirely different. Sikhism originated in India. Christianity and Islam originated in other countries and have zero connection to anything Indian. Given that Sikhism originated in India, and the fact that the Sikh Gurus were uaually well versed in the Vedas, even a peripheral similarity with a Sikh doctrine/practice with Hindu scripture cannot be a coincidence on purely etymological/historical grounds and must be investigated. Sikhs may be trying to whitewash the Hindu connection, but that doesn;t change the truth. "Sat Sri-Akaal" indeed.Netaji 16:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That does not make sense, please expand on that. And anyway, it does not matter whether Islam and Christianity came from different countries, as Guru Nanak regularly held religious discussions with Muslims and visited places such as Mecca and Baghdad, both Islamic power houses. His best friend and companion on his journeys was a Muslim and it is evident from Sikh scriptures that Sikhism does have much in common with Islam.

Also, "Indian" means nothing in terms of religion. The country of India was a purely European idea. The first time the nation of India ever existed was 1947 and as much as you may hate it, India was united by the British. If you look back, what are now Indian states such as Punjab were in almost constant conflict with other states over border disputes and had their own militaries, maharajas etc.... The British were able to take over the sub-continent because they were simply able to do it one country at a time. Mughal India was simply part of the Mughal empire included central and western Asia.

There is no 'Hindu connection' to white wash- read quotes from the Sikh Gurus and the reasons behind their lessons; much of our teachings are opposites of Hinduism and Islam. I do not mean to sound bad, but it would be appreciated if you would actually read books on Sikhism.

Sandeep S K 17:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nein mein freund, the mention of 'India' goes back thousands of years to the Macedonians, who named the country from the river Indus. Granted, it's still European. Consider 'Bharat-varsha' instead of India then. THAT does exist in many Indian historical documents dating back thousands of years. I never mentioned the 'Indian Republic' which is a recent thing. Just because Sikhs oppose certain aspects of Hindu scripture does not imply there is no connection with Hinduism. Hinduism , being non-doctrinal, does not demand absolute observance, so opposing certain Hindu customs without being a Hindu apostate is allowed. Please read HINDU scripture before commenting on the Hindu-Sikh connection.Netaji 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to read Hindu scripture- Sikhism is a fairly new religion and therefore, it is unlikely that Sikhism would even be mentioned in Hindu scripture. Sikhs only follow SIKH scripture and not Hindu scripture. And by the way, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism etc.. all have ancient roots in India as they have been well established there for thousands of years, so if the geographical origins matter, then all these religions can be said to have a bearing on Sikhism, and, in your eyes, maybe Sikhism is an off shoot of all these religions.

You say that Hinduism does not require absolute observance, however, Guru Nanak stated that Sikhism does need absoulte observance, with every principle being followed to the fullest extent. Therefore, a person may only be a Sikh if s/he is baptised and follows the principles of Sikhism. That is yet another difference between the two.

Sandeep S K 17:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

'Bharat-varsha' may have been talked about for thousands of years, maybe it referred to the hope of one day creating a Hindu nation. Do not forget, Sikhism was developed during the peak of Mughal India, so would you not say that it is safe to say that Sikhism had just as much influence from Islam as it was an Islamic territory at that time. That is what you seem to be saying. Either-way, we are neither Hindu nor Muslim, as Guru Nanak himself said. GET MY POINT?

Sandeep S K 17:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are obsessed with the Islam connection then go edit the appropriate article. Your fanatical rantings don't change the fact that Hinduism and Sikhism share a connection. Even Khushwant Singh said so, despite you diaspora Sikhs (presumably you're a disapora Sikh) hating him for it. Plus, I agree that Sikhism and Islam share a connection. Like I said, there is a separate article on that Islam and the Sikh Panth. Here, we're talking about the Hinduism - Sikhism connection, not the Islam - Sikhism connection. Buddhism has roots in India, but Islam and Christianity do not. They are not 'rooted' in India in any sense of the word whatsoever. They are middle eastern faiths who (by and large) invaded the subcontinent and imposed their will at point of spear (and later gun)and through slavery, war and genocide. Hinduism, being a non-exclusivist faith, influenced any religion that ORIGINATED in the Indian Subcontinent. Buddhism, Jainism , and Sikhism DID originate in the subcontinent consequently they're all influenced by the Hindu Dharma. In fact, by the same token, Christianity originated from Judaism and Christians acknowledge the influence of Judaism in their faith. What's your problem with acknowledging a Hindu-Sikh connection? Maybe you're just a rabid Khalistani revisionist.Netaji 18:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

At the time Sikhism came into being, Islam was already present in India specially in the region Sikhism started. Hence there was an influence. The Hindu influence is not negated or reduced by the Islamic influence. The Islamic influence reduced after the Mughal's started to target the Sikh's, a move more responsible in making Sikh's a seperate religion than anything else, else the "Khalsa" might not have happened. Haphar 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! I agree. So what's the f'ing problem?Netaji 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There can be a point made to add to a discussion and not to "debate". So the f'ing problem seems to be your tendency to fly off the handle. Do f'ing lighten up a bit before you get varicose veins. Haphar 09:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

All the Sikh gurus were well educated (except Guru Har Krishan who died at the age of 7). They would never have been given the bastion of guruship unless they had good knowledge of the prevelant religious scene at that time. That means, Islam and Hinduism (with some knowledge of Christianity and Buddhism).

Guru Nanak himself doesn't seem to be especially critical of the Vedas. Indeed, there are several times in the Guru Granth Sahib where Guru Nanak speaks in high terms of the Vedas:

Page 463 - ਵਿਸਮਾਦੁ ਨਾਦ ਵਿਸਮਾਦੁ ਵੇਦ ॥ - Wonderful is the sound current of the Naad, wonderful is the knowledge of the Vedas.

Page 791 - ਬੇਦ ਪਾਠ ਮਤਿ ਪਾਪਾ ਖਾਇ ॥ - Reading the Vedas, sinful intellect is destroyed.

Page 941 - ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਪਰਚੈ ਬੇਦ ਬੀਚਾਰੀ ॥ - The Gurmukh is pleasing to the True Guru; this is contemplation on the Vedas.

Page 942 - ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਸਿਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਬੇਦ ॥ - The Gurmukh understands the Simritees, the Shaastras and the Vedas.

Page 1188 - ਬੇਦ ਵਖਾਣਿ ਕਹਹਿ ਇਕੁ ਕਹੀਐ ॥ - The Vedas say that we should chant the Name of the One Lord.

However, Guru Nanak is clear in saying that the Hindu and Muslim scriptures do not know the limits of God:

Page 148 - ਵੇਦ ਕਹਹਿ ਵਖਿਆਣ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਪਾਵਣਾ ॥ - The Vedas speak and expound on the Lord, but they do not know His limits.

Page 355 - ਅਸਟ ਦਸੀ ਚਹੁ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ॥ - The eighteen Puraanas and the four Vedas do not know His mystery.

Page 1021 - ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬੀ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਜਾਤਾ ॥ - The Vedas and the Bible do not know the mystery of God.

Page 1126 - ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬੇਦ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਗੁਣ ਹੈ ਮਾਇਆ ਅੰਧੁਲਉ ਧੰਧੁ ਕਮਾਈ ॥੩॥ - The Shaastras and the Vedas keep the mortal bound to the three modes of Maya, and so he performs his deeds blindly. ||3||

Page 1237 - ਨਵ ਛਿਅ ਖਟ ਕਾ ਕਰੇ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥ ਨਿਸਿ ਦਿਨ ਉਚਰੈ ਭਾਰ ਅਠਾਰ ॥ ਤਿਨਿ ਭੀ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ਤੋਹਿ ॥ - You may study the nine grammars, the six Shaastras and the six divisions of the Vedas. You may recite the Mahaabhaarata. Even these cannot find the limits of the Lord.

The Guru Granth Sahib mentions the Hindu scriptures and Hindu avatars far far far more often than it does those regarding Islam. Indeed, mentions of the *goodness* of Hindu scripture is abound in the Guru Granth Sahib. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your exhaustive information. Could you please put it in the article?Netaji 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have got no problem with the connection that Sikhism shares with Hinduism. What I do have a problem with is Hindus like you who know very little about the Sikh religion and the first thing that pops into your head is that they are both the same- show me where in the Guru Granth Sahib that this is stated. You keep missing the point- I used Islam as an example to show that we are not some Hindu cult, or Hindus for that matter. Yes, Christians do appreciate the influence from Judiaism: they even share a few beliefs but nationalist Jews do not going around trying to dissolve Christianity into Judaism like you Hindus are trying to do to Sikhism.

Let me drill this into your head. It does not matter where a religion hails from; what matters is the beliefs that are instilled. Sikhism was created in a Muslim area- do you hear Muslims ranting about connections like you? Islam and Christianity were and still are very strongly represented in the areas where Sikhism was created as is Hinduism, but it seems that you (hopefully I am talking about a a minority of Hindus) simply think that if a religion is created where a few Hindus live, then that automatically becomes an off shoot of Hinduism, no matter what its beliefs.

"Rabid Khalistan Revisionist"? I expect that from a child but not from an educated adult. Quit while you have some respect because your arguments seem more and more desperate.

Sandeep S K 20:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one childishly capitalizing my posts, you are. Regardless of Sikh doctrine or Hindu texts, this article is about the Hindu-Sikh connection, and so that is what needs to be discussed. Sikh doctrine may be exclusivist, that doesn't change the fact that it is historically linked to the Hindu Dharma. I never said nor implied that Sikhism is a sect of Hinduism. The claim that Sikhs are Hindus is valid not because of religion, but because Sikhs and Hindus are ethnically the same. When it is said that "Sikhs are Hindus" it is not meant that "Sikhism is Hinduism". The former is true, the latter false. Sikhism is a separate religion (since the 10th guru anyways) distinct from Hinduism. Sikhs are ethnically Hindu, where "Hindu" here does not mmean 'those who follow Hinduism' but 'those who are of the Hind (ie the land of the Sindhu river ie Indian Subcontinent)'. last time I checked, Indus river goes through a significant part of Punjab. We are the same race and of the same land (ie Indian Subcontinent). Our only difference is religious, unless you are one of those (minority I hope) 'Sakastani' nutbags who run around claiming that Sikhs are racially distinct from other Indians. If so, then Sieg Heil to you too.Netaji 20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Before I submit my reply, let me say one thing as a precautionary measure (not aimed at anyone in particular - these things just have a habit of getting out of hand). Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Breaking these policies may lead to banning/blocking. So let's all be calm :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't think Sikh doctrine is exclusivist. I think Guru Nanak taught specifically against this sort of thing. Guru Nanak's teachings were that in the eyes of God, all human beings are the same regardless of religion. An exclusivist approach to Sikh doctrine would go against Guru Nanak's teachings.

I don't think we should say Sikhs are Hindus, because the term Hindu does not have the same connotations in English as your are presenting it in your message (i.e. in the same sense it's used in Hind, Hindustan etc.). Most Sikhs are ethnically Indian that is true.

We must remember that this article will show *BOTH* sides of the story. I.e. it will show the opinions of people who think Sikhism is a part of Hinduism, and it will show the opinions of people who think it is not. We shouldn't judge which opinion is right or not. Please feel free to remove any claims that are not sourced. Do not remove claims that are sourced but do work to present them in a neutral manner. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I admit that I have been acting childishly- we both said childish things. However, it must be remembered that this is an extremly sensitive subject and the wrong choice of words may lead to tempers flairing up. I think its time that we wrapped up this debate as we seem to be getting nowhere and seems likely to run on for a long time to come.

Note: I am just about to explain something I have read and it has nothing to do with religion. I do not know what 'Sakastani' means. However, although people of the Punjab share Iranian/Aryan blood with the rest of North Indians, it should be remembered that Punjab bore the brunt of many invasions into the subcontinent and there was subsequently mixing with the huns, turks, etc... and also people emigrating to the subcontinent frequently used Punjab as a gateway. Therefore, it is true that many Punjabis do have a different 'racial' make up. An experiment found that many Punjabis have similar genes to those people who live in modern day Turkey. Just thought you would like to know...

Sandeep S K 21:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the Punjabi racial mix thing. But that does not give people liscense to claim racial purity of Sikhs over Hindus. Sakastan (Scythian - Land) was a concept originated by a minority cabal of the Khalistani separatists that Sikhs were a direct descendant of Scythians from Russia and so were the only 'True Aryans' in South Asia and so had the right to create a RACIALLY aligned Sikh 'Reich' in Punjab. This sort of thing was rejected even by many Khalistani separatists. I admit that Punjabis are a mix of many ethnicities, but so are Sindhis, Bengalis, South Indians etc. The mixes are extremely dilute and any racial distinctions are too minor to constitute a political argument like race-issues do in the West. This issue is purely religious.

As for your argument that 'Hindu' has a different connotation than what I said, may I remind you the lines from that famous poem we all know (Tarana-e-Hindi) composed by, of all people, a muslim

मजहब नहीं सिखाता, आपस में बैर रखना

हिन्दी हैं हम वतन हैं, हिन्दोस्तां हमारा

Transliterating to:

maz'hab nahīn sikhātā āpas men bayr rakhnā

hindi hai ham, vatan hai hindostān hamārā

Translating To:

Faith does not teach us to harbour grudges between us

We are all Indians and India is our homeland

Notice that the word 'Hindi' translates to 'Indian', not 'speakers of Hindi (mainly Hindus)'. Thus Hindi's (or Hindu's) here mean "Those of the Hind". That is the only conotation.Netaji 22:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's not get in to a debate about the racial origins of Punjabis. If we were, we'd be here *forever*. Either way, a Sakastan (something I must say I've never heard of - even with reading a few books on Khalistan), is not something that sits well with Sikhism.

Netaji, you're correct - in this sense Hindi translate to Indian. Your statement was "Sikhs are ethnically Hindu" - which is an incorrect way to put it in English because in English Hind- exclusively deals with Hinduism. The use of Hind- to mean Indians is outdated and unknown to most English speakers. That's why you didn't translate the sentence to "We are all Hindus and Hindustan is our homeland" :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Jai Hind" is still the rallying call for the Indian Military Corps (a significant fraction of whom are Sikh). Many of them are English speakers (many Sikhs there too). They are not referring to Hindus only here. We should emphasize that Sikh's are 'of the Hind' but not 'followers of the Hindu Dharma' and make the clear distinction. However, I stand by my claim that it is legitimate to call Sikhs ethnically Hindu, just not in terms of the Hindu Dharma, which they do not observe. They are similar to Judeo-Christian people that way. Ethnically Jewish but followers of Christ, Gnosticism & Bible, not the Talmud, Tanakh or all the gazillion commandments that Jews follow that Christians do not. Judeo-Christians regard themselves as "Christian but of the Jewish Ethos".Sikhs are "Sikhs of the faith of Sikhism but of the ethos of the Hind - land". Wikipedia is not required to follow western vernacular, particularly in articles about Indian culture/religions. We can qualify any ambiguities that may result from getting confused between 'Hindu : Those who follow Hinduism' & 'Hindu : Those who are of the Hind (India)'. we can also mention your points that this particular use of the word 'Hindu' is generally restricted to the Indian Subcontinent.Netaji 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think by labelling people Sikhs as Hindus in this sense you're attempting to make an extraneous point and trying to change the definition of Hindu in the English language. Yes, we're not required to follow the Western vernacular, but the point would still stand in Indian English. In Hindi or Punjabi, yes, it would be different, but to write the statement as such in English is merely attempting to make some sort of political/religious statement. The term "India" and "Indian" are perfectly adequate in the English language and they do not have the ambiguity inherent in them that the term Hindu would have in this context. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Issues

This article isn't at all sourced, which is a major issue. I'm not going to list issues with citation, because the whole article needs that. I'm going to bed soon, but I'm noting the following points for further work:

• The introductionary line sounds awkward and unencyclopedic. Actually, the introduction paragraph could do with a complete re-write.
• What do phrases such as "Hinduism allowed the practice of Sati" actually mean? Does Sikhism "allow" the practice of alcohol consumption because most (male) Sikhs drink alcohol?
• "He once indicated that he was not a Hindu after waking up from meditaion; he stated that "there is no Hindu, no Muslim"." - This indicates no such thing. This particular statement could be talked about for a whole thesis, but my interpretation is that it signifies that God views all humans as equal. Not as Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs.
• "Sri Chand, one of his sons, founded the Udasi order, which is considered to be a part of Hinduism but not of Sikhism." - Who considers this so?
• "which is thought to be mainly due to high illiteracy rates amongst Punjabis and other North Indians." - by who?
• "Many Hindus & Sikhs used to visit each other's temples" - used to? They still do don't they...?
• "However, the vast majority of Sikhs are aware that such thoughts are purely those of people who do not have much knowledge on the Sikh religion." - this is a strong claim to make.

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a similar point about you fifth point in the section below. The writer of the article seems to be a vested interest in stereotyping Sikhs as some sort of 'boorish-not-bookish' Klingons or something. Nothing could be further from the truth.Netaji 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and fix the "used to visit each other's temples" bit. I personally know Sikhs who visit Mundirs (Hindu temples) and Hindus who visit Gurudwaras (Sikh temples).J.a.f.a.c. 20:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Other than that, the entire article is basically a wreck. It reads like a debate between people who believe Sikhism should be unified with Hinduism and those who believe otherwise.J.a.f.a.c. 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Derogatory

The following statement is derogatory to Indian-resident Sikhs:

"Sikhs living in the West are generally more educated than their Punjabi Sikh brethren"

There are no statistical references or demographic data to back up this absurd claim. As anecdotal evidence to the contrary, I myself went to a military school in India and the Sikhs were the most well-represented group by far. Several of my teachers were Sikhs, as were quite a few of my classmates (a couple in the top 1/8 th segment of the class). There is a fairly homogeneous distribution of Sikhs in some of India's leading engineering and medical colleges, as well as in literature, the arts, business and other white collar fields.

Looks like the statement was added with no foundational support in order to create a bias. As of now, I give 24 hrs notice for anyone to present documented evidence from accredited sources suggesting that disapora Sikhs are more 'educated' than Sikhs in India. If nobody comes up with anything, I'm removing this POV sentence. Netaji 00:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of this phrase (because it suggests that Indian Sikhs are thick and that's why they can't follow their religion properly). But, the statement isn't necessarily incorrect. As a minority, Sikhs are generally quite privileged, so a higher portion of Sikhs are likely to hold a University degree than the general Indian population. However, in comparison to the percentage of Sikhs in Western countries who hold degrees, this is likely to be small.

All guesses mind you, so the comment should be removed. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. We're in agreement. I'm getting rid of the comment

Alright lets work together

Listen u people are not reading my arguments...I dont have a problem with people who disagree...but no one has made any good points...they keep typing in stuff about Hinduism that isnt true...Caste system...idol worship...etc. etc. these have nothing to do with hindu teachings...its like me saying Sikhs are clean shaven, drink all day, and believe in caste....Their are Sikhs who do this but does that mean that this is part of Sikhism?...NOOOO!....So please i am willing to work with everyone, but be fair in what u type...dont just go by what u hear...learn the Hindu teachings then type ur debate!....I find it funny that everyone else can erase everything but when i do it im the bad guy?? ARYAN818 21:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

First thing first is i'm going to add {{fact}} templates to all the points that are uncited. If they aren't eventually cited they will be removed. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please add references using the <ref> REFERENCE HERE </ref> tag. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"There is no Hindu no Muslim"

When this famous expression of the Guru was taught to me in school, the textbook said that the interpretation was that Hindus and Muslims are one (there is no difference) and should unite through the Guru's teachings. It was NOT meant as an attack on either religion. This is C.B.S.E. syllabus as written by Romila Thapar.Netaji 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's my opinion too. It was Guru Nanak's way of saying that Hindus and Muslims alike are treated equally by God.

I also remember something in the Janamsakhis about him saying that to anyone who asked him whether he was a Hindu or Muslim. Just a thought :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nanak's mentor, Sant Kabir and subsequently Sai Baba also espoused the same message. I think it was the core message of the Sant Mat. This Fire Burns Always 22:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Goody. we're in agreement again. But the context in which it has been quoted in the article suggests a critique on Hinduism and Islam. Somebody plz change the wording to include that the Guru intended it to be a unifying statement rather than a divisive one. Netaji 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A side point- I removed a statement that said that the religions co exist without borders, might have for most of the times, today it is not so true. Also the same line continued to say this was due to high illiteracy rates in Punjabi's and other Northerners. The literacy rate for Punjab, and Haryana is above 69% and 77% for Himachal. Delhi has 81%. These takes care of a vast majority of the Punjabi's in the North. And this is higher than the national average at 65%.

Haphar 09:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a view that "There is no Hindu no Muslim" text actually came from Kabir's bani, although hagiographies of Guru Nanak mention this verse. WH McLeod came to the conclusion that the verse is actually by Kabir. In any case, it declares unity of mankind.--Vikramsingh 02:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

+ Never thought I would see Netaji quoting Romila Thapar on history. Must remember this for future use . :-). Haphar 15:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

+ Just pointing out that if that withered old b***h can say something POSITIVE about Hinduism vis-a-vis another religion then it can't be wrong, coz she usually is so fervently anti-Hindu.Netaji 02:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Text disputed

A part of the text goes "The Gurus themselves had Hindu names such as Har Krishan, Ram Das, and Arjun Dev. Guru Har Rai even named his own son Ram as well. It must be noted that these are not average names. These are extremely religous Hindu holy names. For example if a father named his son "praise Jesus", it would be natural to assume that the father believed in Jesus. So if a father named his son Har Krishan or Ram, combined with the fact they believed in the same teachings, it would be fair to assume that the father believed in Krishna or Ram."- One has to look at contemperory names at that time to come to this conclusion. If non religious names were the norm then this line of logic is fine. But if such names are the norm then it is not, for names become just names, to assume that a westerner names his son Peter because he beleives in St Peter is too much of guess work, he might have a grandfather by that name or he just likes the sound of it. Putting a citation tag for this too. Haphar 09:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Janju

The article currently states:

1478: Guru Nanak Dev refused to wear the Hindu sacred thread (Janju), which was only conferred upon males from the upper castes. He stated that he wanted nothing to do with a religion that only allowed the highest classes in society to be regarded as religious (even though they committed sins against their religion).

There is a verse by Guru Nanak Dev that presents a a non-traditional view of the Janju. The verse actually does not say that he was opposed to Janju, it says he was opposed to restricting who can wear it.

There is some evidence, which suggests that Guru Nanak did wear Janju. The hagiographies are of later origin.--Vikramsingh 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure that Guru Nanak wore the Janju as he had other disagreements with its use:

• He stated that it made no sense as to why women from high castes could not wear the ribbon whereas men could since that implied that even women from the same household were of a lower caste.
• He stated that the janju could not be taken into the afterlife as it could be lost, soiled or broken during the person's life. Therefore, it was hard to believe that a simple thread could confer such a high status on its wearer.

Sandeep S K 16:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

If indeed "Guru manio Granth" is true, Sikhs should be vegetarian, and many of them are. I will locate and quote the bani, if someone wants.--Vikramsingh 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Plz do. Netaji 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the opinion on being a Vegetarian is less clear. Please see [5]. I think it's clear from what Guru Nanak says that being a vegetarian is not necessarily spiritually superior. In fact, from what Guru Nanak says, it's evident that he believed too much emphasis was placed on being a vegetarian and that there were more importan things to focus on. So, I think it's neither here nor there. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Divide and Conquer

This statement:

Max Arthur Macauliffe was appointed Deputy Commissioner in Punjab. He once wrote a warning to Sikhs referring to the danger of the 'Hinduization' of Sikhism by stating that Hinduism was "like a boa constrictor" that would swallow Sikhism

It needs to be mentioned that the British had a vested interest in creating a Hindu-Sikh rift as part of the insidious policy of "divide and conquer". I'm going to add this.Netaji 19:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please find a source for such a claim as it does fall under the banner of "original research". Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This article here, Comparing and Contrasting Judaism and Christianity is much more balanced and is pejorative to neither religion, even though both have been violently opposed to each other for centuries. So, we need to balance this article with a section entitled "Hindu views on Sikhism" as well as the "Sikh views on Hinduism" since this article has to compare and contrast both belief systems.Netaji 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

HINDUS AND SIKHS AS ONE OR HAVING COMMON GROUNDS

It is amazing to see that how a faith has started with Guru Nanak ji saying that “There is no Hindu no Muslman, Ek Pita Ekas ke Hum Barik, Manas ki Pahchan Ekas Pahchan” All his life he advised people to recognize their Identiy as Humans not as Hindus nor Muslims. When you are reading any History you must interpret the sayings in the context of the time period. From the time of the first Guru to the Tenth Guru there existed only two main religions i.e. Hindus and Muslims. Guru Nanak Devji were born at the time when Moghul Emprors were converting Hindus to Islam by force, fear or greed, otherwise they would cause atrocities on Hindus. Looking at the atrocities caused by Muslim Emperor Babar he Said “Eti Mar payee Kurlane Tae’n ki Dard Na Ayaa” means you caused such an atrocity in the society did you not feel the pain? Guru Nanak Devji taught Muslims and Hindus the lessons of Love. He himself was a scholar in Vedas. He preached that Only having book knowledge of the Great religious scriptures like Vedas or Puranas one cannot attain the true knowledge meaning One needs to adopt the teaching in one’s own life. …. If you read the Guru Nanak Devji’s life history from a credible book from Punjab not just some condensed version on the Internet you will know the truth. If you read the Guru Granth Sahib with the Love of God in your heart you will find yourself very humble and respectful. If you read the books on Veda translations such as Advaita Vedanta (Non-duality) theory of God written by Shankara (788-820) or Narada Bhakti Sutra you will find nothing but similarties between the Gurus teachings in 1400 –1700 CE as it was in those scriptures about 4000 years ago. In my opinion Guru Granth Sahib is the modern translation of the Vedas. Gurus have also condemned the superficial rituals such as Janeo binding or offering water to the Sun or Idol worshipping in Hindu culture at that time. When his father had a Priest put Janeo on Him he asked the priest “Such kapah …. Eho Janeo Ji Ka Hay taa Pandhae’ Kath” means if this janeo is beaded with the Truth and Honesty Only then you put this Janeo on me. Putting the Janeo meant that the bearer of the Janeo speaks the truth and is Honest. He observed that people were just wearing Janeo as a custom but they were not following the underlying meaning of wearing the Janeo. That is why he protested this shallow ritual.

The term Sikh means Pupil or a follower is usually used by Hindus who believe in Gurus. At the time of the Sikh Gurus the term Sikh did not mean a separate religion but it meant who follows the Guru’s teaching.

Just a note that all the Gurus and their followers laid their lives to protect Hindu religion. Some of them were executed mercilessly for not accepting to convert into Islam. In humane executions were inflicted upon them such as skinned alive or having cut into little pieces or boiled to death in oil or cutting the head in public or grind alive in two wheels with sharp edges, or cutting half with a slow moving saw. e.g. Guru Teg Bahadur was executed by Aurangzeb for helping to protect Hindus, after a delegation of Kashmiri Pandits came to him for help when the Emperor condemned them to death for failing to convert to Islam. If any of you need any references please go to a library of any nearest Gurudwara you will know. You will find the all the ten Gurus as Great as Jesus who laid their lives for the Truth and the teaching of Love of Mankind in general. Their followers were just as brave as themselves who did not shy away for accepting painful death rather being converted to Islam by force. In my opinion, Hindus and Sikhs should always be thankful to all the ten Sikh Gurus for protecting their Faith from the cruel Moghul emperors of that time. They were not against Islam but against the forceful way of converting others to convert in Islam.

Guru Gobind Singh never went against the teaching of Guru Nanak Dev or other eight Gurus. He always kept Hindus and Muslims in his army. Please note that Guru Gobind Singh was a Saint as well as a Soldier (Sant – Sipahi). Khalsa Panth was created to encourage and motivate weak members of the society to defend themselves with brevity. If you read the whole story of the creation of Khalsa Path in Punjabi you will be amazed how he demanded the sacrifice of his true followers and Five Hindus of LOWER CASTS volunteered for the sacrifice (they were really ready to have their heads cut off for the Guru and by the Guru) Guru ji took each one inside a room and came back with a bloody sword. People could see the blood coming out of the room yet other four offered themselves for the sacrifice. In the end Guruji emerged from the room with Five Piaras (Guru’s Loved Ones) and offered them Amrit, a syrup made of water and sugar (“Amrit” is a Vedic terminology of a syrup that provides Eternity) That is how he prepared an Army of the Khalsas (The Pures) with 5 Ks. Five K – a Short, Comb, Sword, Karha and keeping “Kesh” (Hair) were Army dress codes. He ordered all his followers (Mostly Hindus) to offer their Elder sons to the Guru as Sikhs to go in the war against Aurangazeb (the Mughal Emperor). Guru Gobind Singh never created a separate religion but created an army of Khalsas.

How Sikhs wanted more of a separate religion it was in the early 19th century. The Singh Sabha movement defined the boundaries of the Sikh community vis-a-vis the Hindus. vis-a-vis the Hindus. Such moves were largely in response to the Arya Samaj movement's strident initiative to incorporate Sikhism within the Hindu fold. (By the way, do you know that Shahid Bhagat Singh’s family believed in Arya Samaji Movement). Hindu idols, which had been installed in the Golden Temple premises, were removed. Bhai Kahn Singh, a Sikh spokesman, wrote in 1899, "we are not Hindus". This sentiment was vividly expressed in the everyday lives and rituals. The Sikhs knew by now who they were not.

If you really need to know how Sikhs and Muslims became more and more hostile in the late 18th century to early 19th century you should read the History of India. In 1857, after the great revolt by all the Indians (Hindu, Sikh, Muslims etc. as united) against the British, the British never wanted Indians to remain united. That is why they inspired Sikhs to identify themselves separate. They infused fears in Sikhs that Hindu religion will take over Sikhs. They infused fears in Muslims that the Hindus are different than Muslims. They inspired the birth of Muslim League in early 19th century and inspired them to demand a separate Muslim state i.e. Pakistan. This was their strategy – Divide and Rule.

Now only 500 hundred years after Guru Nanak Dev ji, now the children of His followers have got their a Separate Identity. No one is talking about the Identity of “Ek Aum Kar” - “Manas ki Jaat Ekas Pahchan – Ek Pita Ekas ke Hum Barik” - God is One - Let our Identity be just Humans as we are the children of the same God.

Sat Shree Akaal (Truth prevails until Eternity) or Sanskrit common saying – Satya Mev Jayte (Truth always prevails) By : - Jason321 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The article needs cleaning up

The article is by now very confused. It is very hard to follow.

Inserting more text does not help.

--Vikramsingh 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Truth, sometimes, is not straightforward. It is multidimensional. Confusion is good because it demands for more unbiased research and hence leads to reality.

Jason321 01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

HINDUISM - SIKHISM >SEPARATE or ONE RELIGION

It is impossible to state that these two religions are separate or one. There are evidences that both religions are separate and other evidences are they are one.

The term Hinduism itself is disputed because it does not reflect a religion but people living new Sindhu River in ancient times. The Hindu scholars advocate the religion's true name can be "Sanathan Dharma" that means ETERNAL. ETERNAL here means Eternity of the soul, GOD is Eternal, Truth is Eternal, etc.

Similarly, SIKHISM, itself means followers of GURUS. (SIKH means pupil or students). Hinduism has this culture of having Gurus and Pupils relations. It is not found in Abrahmic religions such as Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Hindus that follow one Guru they call themselves as Sikhs of that particular Guru. By that means it can be proven that SIKHISM as a term is an integral part of HINDUISM. Moreover, SIKHISM also preaches that GOD is ETERNAL and Eternity of the soul, Truth is Eternal, etc. Therefore, by faith, it believes in AKAL (Eternal) Faith means Sanathan Faith.

Here are some the similarities and differences.

SIMILARITIES

1. Eternal belief

2. Karma theory

3. Akal Purukh or Absolute Brahman

4. Accepting the existence of all the Hindu deities such as Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesha, and Goddess Durga etc.

5. LOVE as uniting or basis of our existence

6. Concept of Reincarnation

7. Concept of Maya

There can be many more similarities but I could think of these only at this time. Please feel free to add more.

DIFFERENCES

1. Sikhism emphasis on praying to Akal Purukh (GOD). It states that all the deities get reincarnated and die. People should pray to the Akal Purukh (the Supreme Soul) that created all these deities. In Hinduism some sects pray to Akal Purukh or Nirguna Brahman and some sects pray to Saguna Brahmans such as Brahma, Vishnu or Mahesha etc.

2. In Sikhism idol worshipping is not advocated. There is no reference itself of idol worshipping but it is a very common practice to keep idols in temples for worshipping. It is a very common practice to keep the Pictures of Sikh Gurus in Gurudwaras and homes. But there are not any rituals performed for worshipping. Some Hindu sects such as Arya Samaj etc. do not advocate idol worshipping.

3. Sikhs keep turbans and beard etc. Hindus as well at one time wore turbans and beard. This practice has been diminished over time in Hinduism. Some Sikhs as well do not keep turbans and beard except that are Khalsas.

4. Marriage rituals differ in a sense that Hindus use Fire as witness and Sikhs use Guru Granth Sahib.

5. Sikhs usually go to Gurudwaras for prayers and Hindus go to temples. This is what is generally followed these days. There is no any stipulation in either religion that prohibits any one from entering any of religious places. Many Hindus go to Ashrams (means Gurudwara) of their Gurus as well as Temples. This is a difference from observation point of view.

6. Use of 5 Ks for the Khalsas.

There can be more differences as well. Please feel free to add more.

There are more similarities than differences. The underlying basic concepts are in majority are the same. The differences are in practicing rituals. The Gurus and the Gurumat (the true knowledge) should be viewed as flowing sweet water of a spring that is for everyone. The more you try to restrain them in boundaries the more you deplete the underlying greatness of the Gurus. More emphasis on similarities brings love, happiness and ever lasting trust. More emphasis on differences brings hatred ness, arrogance, jealousy and fear that bring nothing but anxiety for no reason.

Jason321 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In Hinduism the woman is suservient...

Someone in the beginning of this page has commented that Sikhs belive in equality of man and women. In Hinduism the woman is subservient to the man.

The reasoning behind this comment was provided by the author of this comment that Hindus do regard a woman as being subservient to the man- have you forgotten about the Hindu practice of Suttee where a Hindu widow would be thrown on her dead husband's funeral pyre while his corpse was being burnt (this inhumane practice was outlawed by the British raj). A Hindu Widower would be allowed to re-marry if his original wife died.

The Suttee practice seemed to have existed about 400 years ago in some parts of India. It is not followed these days except for some reports of some incidents reported recently. There is no reference of Suttee practice in any of the Hindu religious books dating back to 6000 years ago to present. There are evidences that it existed in the SOCIETY not in religion as a way of ending a widow’s life fearing the exploitation by the victorious rivals in wars. Whatever, the reason may be but it seemed to have existed in Indian culture. With times, there are many practices develop out of fear, greed and lust etc. that are not recommended by religious scriptures but become customs anyway. Suttee practice seemed to be a custom just like that. These customs can be called the Evils of the society. Many spiritual leaders try to iron out these practices from the society. That is what Guru Nanak has done. If it existed prior to Guru Nanak’s birth it means it existed in the society that Hindus and Sikhs both were a part of. If one blames Hindus for this evil practice Sikhs do share a part of the blame for that time period because they were both a part of the same society. Today, neither, the Hindus, nor the Sikhs, follow Sutte practice. Moreover, this is Deragotary remark on another religion. How can a Woman be subservient to the man in Hinduism when Guru Gobind Singh, himself, has praised Mother Durga. In Hinduism there is so much respect given to Woman that they respect females in different customs such as

• They respect young females by touching their feet in their festival of Navrataras as Kanjaks.

• They worship God in female form as well (In other religions, God is worshipped as Male only)

• They also call the avataras with identity of their mothers such as Krishna as Devaki Nandan, Hanuman as Anjani Putar, etc.

• The Avatars such as Vishnu and Shiva are worshipped along with their wives not alone

• Shiva is specifically known as Ardh-Nari-Ishwar (Half Shiva and Parvati, his wife, representing Husband and Wife as ONE). Mother Parvati is known as the strength of the Lord Shiva.

These days, in Punjab, there are lots of killing of the female fetuses are happening. Many other examples of the woman abuse are present but it will be wrong to say that in Sikhism woman is subservient to man.

There are many examples in the communities following any relgion that woman is treated subservient to man and many examples in the same communities to the contrary as well. It does not mean that religion is teaching that.

It is fine to say that Sikhism believe in equality of man and woman but it is wrong to comment that in Hinduism the woman is subservient to Man.

I will request the author to delete this deragotary remark. I will wait for the authors’s response for 30 days, otherwise, I will remove this remark.Jason321 03:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Whosoever has taken the remarks out - Thank you. Jason321 02:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of Janeu (Hindu Sacred thread)

ARYAN, In response to your assertion: "1478: Guru Nanak Dev is said in the Janamsakhi to have weared the Hindu sacred thread and had a lock of hair on his head.[1] He stated that he wanted nothing to do with a religion that only allowed the highest classes in society to be regarded as religious (even though they committed sins against their religion). The first five gurus respected the sacred thread and Vedic marriage ceremonies."

To begin with, I would like to suggest that you let someone with a clear knowledge of English language to proofread your contributions towards Wikipedia before posting them. This is only a suggestion and shouldn't be looked upon as an insult to you. Secondly, you claim that according to Guru Nanak Dev’s Janamsakhi (Biography), he wore a Hindu sacre thread(Jeneu or Janeoo). I completely disagree with you on this issue and to prove my credibility, I would like to mention that I have thoroughly read Janasakhis of various Sikh gurus. Moreover, I checked your souces i.e. Vedalankar, Kshitish: Storm in Punjab. Word Publ., Delhi 1985 (1984), to verfiy your claim and I found nothing to match your assertions in that book. However, if you maintain your position and would like me to closely inspect the book, please provide me page numbers etc. In the meantime, I am providing you this excerpt by a critic on book titled, “Spiritual Masters – Guru Nanak by Harish Dhillon. The review was excecuted by Dr. Sukhraj Singh Dhillon, PhD. He writes, “He[Harish Dhillon] describes story of Nanaki's marriage to Jai Ram in a style that itches in reader's mind. He goes into great details and creates a scene about initiation ceremony of Janeo-- the sacred thread that Nanak rejected as an empty ritual. He describes Nanak's arguments that actions and deeds, and truthful living are more important, permanent and pure than the thread that can get dirty and soiled. The description is so powerful that not only janeo but any kind of initiation seems like a ritual.”[http://www.indussource.com/review-guru-nanak.htm as retrieved on Oct 30, 2006 12:56:54 GMT. ] This further nullifies your claim that the Sikh gurus conformed to “Vedic Marriage”. Please make the changes accordingly. As a side comment, your assertions and statements on this page are highly biased and I look forward to editing this article; of course, any addition or deletion will be accompanied by a citation on my part and I will follow the convention set forth by Wikipedia.

Regards

Edits I have made I would like to provide a reasoning to the changes I have made to the article. First of all, I feel that this article's rhetoric is biased in that it tries to convince the reader that Sikhism is an off-shoot of Hinduism. Evidenced by the minimal contrasts to Sikhism and Hinduism, and the biased usage of sources. Also, phrases such as "the older son was a 'Sikh'" trivialize Sikhi. The refusal of other editors to take into consideration comments such as the one above also are troubling. It am very dissapointed that instead of being an unbiased, rational article that shows both sides of an issue, only one side is clearly deliniated.

Edits: (all scripture is from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib)

Background to the disagreements: Line 10: added "mankind." The gurus' ideals trenscended their present situation between Islam and Hinduism. Seen as such in the Sikh Ardaas..."Sarbat da Bhalla"

Changed the sentence (The Guru believed in some Hindu concepts) to reflect that the gurus did not believe in all Hindu ideas.

Bhairao, Fifth Mehla:"I do not perform Hindu worship services, nor do I offer the Muslim prayers..." Guru Arjun Dev Ji, pg 1078 "Even the Vedas do not know the Guru`s Glory. They narrate only a tiny bit of what is heard"

Deleted "most" in sentece: The Khalsa, ordained by Guru Gobind Singh, is regarded as being the completion of the development of the Sikh religion. Sikhs see the Khalsa as ordained by Guru Gobind Singh as the completion of Sikhism. If this was not true, Sikhs would not celebrate Vasakhi as a religous holiday.

Foundation of Sikh Panth: Added a wikilink to the Janamsakhis. This is important because these were stories that were told long after the passing of the gurus and their validity is disputed. Added (Hindiusm) to clarify which religion was being discussed Deleted the vedic marriage rights, for reasons given in the last discussion. Older Sikh orders other than the Nihang are all but now extinct. 'The Sikhs' Kushawant Singh The quote by Shourie is based on an interpretation that I believe is taken out of context. For now, I feel like it would be better deleted than stay there. If someone can maybe provide more context to the quote, I would more than love to see it stay. The last quote has nothing to do with the foundation of the Sikh panth.

Chronology of Separation: I added "Others hold the view that this practice was to honor the legacy of Sikhism, literally "giving" the eldest son to Sikhism". This is a valid viewpoint that is shared among Sikhs and is just as legitamate as some of the other non-cited "others have the view that" statements that are in this article I added "This also can be viewed as the Guru standing up for humanity, not necessarily Hinduism." as this again shows the Guru's love for social justice. To exclude this idea is again providing one side of the story. I edited the pilgimage site to clarify that sites were shared, not temples I added "some" in the marriage part because no one view on Sikh-Hindu marriage is shared by the majority. I deleted the AUM part cause it has nothing to do with the chronology of separation

Cultural Differences The viewpoint of Punjabi identity as being most salient is found through most of the diaspora. This can be seen in many contexts, most easily by a simple poll on www.punjabonline.com I added the 1984 bit because it is something that is engrained in the Sikh mindset.

Miscellaneous I deleted this becuase it was basically a repository for biased facts that didn't fit anywhere else

Please please please respond with questions/concerens. Idasproul 06:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good.However, I suggest you see wikipedia rules, such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Also, removal of sourced edits (edits with references attached) is considered WP:Vandalism and carries severe penalties (editblocks). Of course, you are a new user, and you propably did not know that, so it is excusable. Welcome to wikipedia anyways. Some of your points are interesting and merit discussion. However, it would be preferable that you refrain from removing sourced edits, but work to present a neutral point of view (ie one not subscribing to Hindu or Sikh beliefs, but with a scholarly objectivity that your revert did not reflect). Thank you and welcome again.Hkelkar 06:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I made some recent edits, adding the scripture you cited above. There are some grammatical problems with your most recent edit (as anon). There is no word in the English Language called "weared". The past perfect tense of "wear" is "worn". Also, "God" is generally capitalized (not "god", though, in my religion, we use the term G-d). There were other minor grammatical errors that needed to be corrected. Let us now begin to discuss your points above one by one, shall we? Hkelkar 07:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistakes that I made concerning Wiki standards and rules. As you point out, I am a new user and I appreciate your understanding. And concerning the mistakes such as "god" and "weared" were already in the article, I just did not correct them. Where would you like to begin? Idasproul 07:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, you need to provide some WP:Reliable Sources to back your statements. Also, bear in mind that you have made some claims which are called "Original Research" ie basically your interpretations, and wikipedia has a policy called WP:NOR that disallows original research. For instance, your statement "a simple poll on www.punjabonline.com" is an example of original research, a conclusion that you have drawn based on polls. This is disallowed unless an authoritative body has conducted research on said poll and has published the findings in a reputable medium. Also, bear in mind that the article must present all significant viewpoints on the subject matter (Hindu-Sikh relations) to maintain Neutrality, regardless of the position taken by Sikh canon, or Hindu canon for that matter. Of course, if you can source your claims, then your statements concerning Sikh canon can be added in a neutral narrative. Furthermore, your edits, when expressing a view, must be attributive ie not stated as fact but as specific opinion and sourced accordingly. Many of your statements are , in fact, opinions which need to be sourced and attributed if the opinions are noteworthy (ie reliably stated as such). Also, the 1984 Sikh riots are already mentioned in the article. Hkelkar 07:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism as an Offshoot of Hinduism or Islam

This term seems offensive because it gives an impression as if Sikhism is any lesser than the other Great religion. Sikhism does share lots of common grounds mainly with Hinduism and some from Islam. Sikh Gurus have provided the Gurumat for the Humanity in general not for any Hindu or Muslim in particular. As far as contribution to Sikhism by Hindus or Muslims are concerned I would say that all the ten Gurus have come from Hinduism. Not a single Saint from Muslim religion has ever become a Sikh Guru. The most of the contributions from Islam has been the inclusion of some poems from Muslim Sufi Saints. The Sufism in Islam has always been the target of Criticism by Radical Islamic fundamentalists. Love is the basis of our very own existence. Does it matter if we are born from a Christian, Hindu, Sikh or Muslim family? Does our birth guarantee that we are born with the knowledge from Gurumat, Vedas, Quran or Bible? If not, why even confine us in religious boundaries by birth? All the prophets such as Jesus Christ, The Bhudda, Guru Nanak Dev, etc are our prophets regardless of our backgrounds. Did Guru Nanak ever say that his preaching are only for one sect of society? Did Guru Gobind Singh ever say that his followers are only one Sect? If not, we are wasting our precious energy on the useless issues of whether Sikhism is an offshoot of any religion or not. Even if it does - what difference does it make? If one regard it as having it come from Hinduism then All the Hindus should regard the Gurus as their Great Masters of the Past and learn the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib. If any Muslim thinks that the Sikhism has come from Islam, they should learn from the Guru Granth Sahib rather than considering only Prophet Mohammad as the last prophet sent by GOD. People don't even read the Guru Granth Sahib but find it an excuse to fight with each other. If any Hindu thinks that Sikhism in indebted to them as it has come from Hinduism, they should know that Had it not been the sacrifice of Guru Teg Bahadar and Guru Gobind Singh the whole of India would have been converted to Islam by force, greed or biased political system by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. The biggest example of systematic biased political conversion of Sikhs and Hindus are present in Pakistan. Not all the Hindus and Sikhs migrated to India at the time of division in 1947. Of all the Muslims left in India none were converted to Hinduism or Sikhism. The Muslim population is growing in India by leaps and bounds. On the other hand, most of the Hindus or Sikhs left in Pakistan either converted to Muslims or Christians fearing their lives. Only few are left to practice their religion with disgrace. See the articles Kidnap Hindu Girl, Force Marriage to Muslim: Pakistan By J. Grant Swank Jr. (11/25/2005); Living in fear By Imdad Soomro 24 Apr 2003; Sikh Nursaries in Pakistan (Google Search). Only recently, the Pakistani Government, under international pressure and to boost tourism revenue, is showing their open mindedness towards tourist Hindus and Sikhs.

If any Sikh thinks that their religion has no connection from Hinduism or Islam, he should not forget the sacrifice of all the Hindus and some Pathans (from Muslim Saint Mian Mir) who lay their lives to serve the Gurus. Guru Gobind Singh Ji in Dasam Granth preaches the strongest connection of Sikhism with Hinduism. Therefore, there is no offence to acknowledge the strong connection with Hinduism.

I would say that Sikhism along with Modern day Hinduism, Bhuddism, Jainism share a lot of ancient Indian Wisdom. All of these religions are the branches of One Tree, connected but have their own identity as well.

Let us learn from our past to better our present and future. Therefore, cherish the connections, celebrate and respect the differences. Let us use our energy to use the teachings of Christ, Bhudda, Krishna, Guru Nanak to better the society and ourselves. Jason321 22:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Khushwant Singh

Can someone give full context for the quotes about Sikh philosophy being Vedantic? Arrow740 12:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy is not a religious scholar. This is a bad article. Arrow740 23:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I went through here and removed long uncited OR. I'll add to this article myself when I get time. Khushwant Singh is not a reliable source for analysis of either Sikh philosophy or Vedanta. Arrow740 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename

This should be called "The relationship between Hinduism and Sikhism" or "Hinduism and Sikhism." Any thoughts? Arrow740 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous discussion

This is a completely superfluous discussion repeated at countless forums. It serves only one purpose and that is to give a chance to irritate and spew venom. Nobody can force another person let alone a community to subsume his or her identity to his own.

No community emerges or develops in a vacuum.

India is a large country and Hinduism itself as practiced from one region to another and one community to another can be vastly dissimilar. Dissimilarities in religious beliefs and practices even between Hindus from a common region can be substantial.

On the other hand as the Sikh community has grown ( in numbers) so has the heterogeneous growth of sub sects . Some have an overtly religious disposition while others have regional or clan identities.

The irony is that the politics and politicians of identity (dharma rakshak). …While on the one hand champion the right to protect the identity of a community, are the first ones to takeaway the right of the individual to his/her identity.

The killing of the girl child among Punjabis of all hues is certainly one issue where there seems to be a high degree of common concurrence … .is the girl child Less Sikh, less Hindu, Less Human?? Intothefire 16:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points. There's way too much POV on these topics. It's unfortunate that people can't learn how to be more dispassionate because these topics should be more interesting than childish antagonism. Pythn 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hinduism and Sikhism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

this article is good if you are a sikh but my dad has always told me to respect every religion including sikhism so when i read this i was devestated the way they insult hindus which i am in the guru granth sahib i dident expect this from sikhism not even imagined any religion could dis respect another religion.I am an hindu by the way.

Last edited at 19:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

possible inconsistency

It is claimed that:

1509: Guru Nanak's declaration "I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim" Alah rām kė pind parān.

According to Merriam Webster the term 'Hinduism' was first used in 1809, so how can Guru Nanak have said something like that? (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hinduism) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.83.33 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The word "Hindu" does appear in Guru Granth Sahib - ang 885. "Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu. Some yearn for paradise, and others long for heaven. Says Nanak, one who realizes the Hukam of God's Will, knows the secrets of God" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions (talk) 21:57, 25 Dec 2018 (UTC)

Highly flawed content

The content of this page is very misleading and the author's of the page has selectively used flawed and highly refuted work of some people like Khuswant Singh, Harjot Oberoi and W. H. Mcleod. I have objection to the content and intent of this article. I'll wait for some time for the original creator of this page to come and talk for their choice of words and citations on this article, after which this article will be edited.

• Khuswant Singh is not an authority on Sikhism, his work is flawed and many genuine Sikh scholars have academically exposed his work.
• Harjot Oberoi was removed from the his position of Sikh chair for his highly erronous work, he continues from behind the scene to spread misinformation.
• W. H. Mcleod is more of a missionary than a historian. His thesis, which was later published in the form of book had thesis committee members who had no knowlegde about Sikhism. Its like one presenting and passing a thesis presetation on Quantum Physics in front of thesis committee which does not even know anything about conventional physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Aulakh (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is rarely one main author of any article on Wikipedia, every article is edited by many different authors, sometimes thousands. You can find who made certain edits by browsing the article's History. As for your objections, they may be valid. If you believe those sources are unreliable, feel free to be bold and remove them and any disputed statements that are supported solely by them. I don't know anything about these sources myself, but if someone happens to think they are important and reliable, they can bring it up again here. Thanks for sharing your concerns. -kotra (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do as time permits. Currently, removed the following unreferenced propaganda "However, Sikhism, like Hinduism is a religion which can be practiced regardless of language or culture and turbans are also worn by Hindus (and Muslims) in many parts of India. Nevertheless, this propagation furher fueled the need of the Sikhs to form a separate identity.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Aulakh (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Khushwant Singh secularist?

The line in the article reads, "Secularist Sikh writers like Khushwant Singh have written that despite innovations ...". Please provide information how it was decided that Khushwant Singh is a secularist. Who did this research and what are the references? At what platform was this research (KS being secularist) published? If he himself claimed that, please provide his claim in quotes and also give references. Thanks, ---- A. S. Aulakh^Talk 19:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Table confusing and possibly incorrect

Some of the entries in the table are confusing. Particularly the line

12. Use of force accepted if other means fail

This has "Sex-methodology accepted. Ahimsa." next to it for Vishnavism. What does this mean? Vishnava are not total pacifists, as the Gita says, when it is correct to fight then fight. And what does sex methodology have to do with it. This is not the only line I don't understand, but certainly the strangest -- Q Chris (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

this page should be deleted that person "sikh history" is biased and whats to subert history to fit his or her own personal view. just because what u do doesn't mean the rest(majority) of the Sikh believe or should follow what you live by. stop changing our post. all u can get is some biased book that u quote and present them as facts. sikh know guru ji hunted but guru ji didnt eat meat that is for sure. a lot of history is biased because they had there own agenda in writing incorrect stuff about guru or sikh at that time. you think the enemies of sikh wrote the correct version of history they probably distorted it and now you are presenting it as facts.

Remember WP:AGF, also remember that if you remove cited references again you will be blocked from editing. Thanks--Sikh-History 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hinduism and Sikhism

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hinduism and Sikhism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Hinduism and Sikhism.

Hy there, I just read your article and in second reference it is mentioned that

McLeod, William H. (2014). "Sikhism: History and Doctrine". britannica.com. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 15 January 2019. Sikhs claim that their tradition has always been separate from Hinduism. But Sikhism too believed in Ram and other avatars of Vishnu and Lord Shiva as recited by the tenth Guru Gobind Singh in the granth. Nevertheless, many Western scholars argue that in its earliest stage Sikhism was a movement within the Hindu tradition; Nanak, they point out, was raised a Hindu and eventually belonged to the Sant tradition of northern India, a movement associated with the great poet and mystic Kabir

But it is completely opposite guru gobind singh wrote it in dasam granth due to two reasons 1 guru gobind singh want that his sikh have knowledge of all the religions and hindu brahmans did not allow low class people to read any scripture, to made it available for all the sikhs guru sahib wrote it in punjabi language which is also much easier than complicated sanskrit And for clarification he mentioned in the last that he believes alone in supreme power not one of these

And Guru nanak sahib born in hindu family but never accept any hindu belief or did any hindu ritual read history carefully

Jazzul (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sham

Either you are a Hindu or a Sikh. One can't be both. At the most a person can be liberal minded. But that sort of a person would be regarded as a spiritual person and not a religious person. There is considerable difference between the two.

There are no similarities between the two religions. Eventhough a lot of persons who were born Hindus converted to Sikhism, it does not bring the two together. If any similarity exists, it is between the thought and beliefs of two individuals or a group of persons, but not between these two religions. Ajjay (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You cant be Hindu and Sikh? Wow thats amazing. There have been plenty of people who go to both a Mandir & Gurudwara. And there was a time in India when people were Hindu and the oldest mail was a Sikh....So you cant be both? I consider myself both. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was raised in a very religious and large Sikh family, and we have attended Mandir quite a few times, made donations, and prayed to hindu Gods, even though we are not actually Hindu. Some of my aunts and uncles have married into Hindu families. My cousins who were born of the hindu/sikh parents worship both religions as that was how they were raised. So they are proof, you can indeed be both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuroame (talk • contribs) 02:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ajay, who are you to dictate who can be what? The very statment: "There are no similarities between the two religions" Is utter rubbish. There blatently are similarities between the two religions particualrly in the context of Hindu bhakti and Sikhi. Why else would the teachings of Hindu bhagats and even sufi be incorporated into Sikhi? It does not make them the same religion. If people could not follow both traditions then do explain why Hindu-Sikh marriage is fairly common place despite the attempts of puritanical politics that have sought to drive a wedge between the communites. It is a fact that that many Panjabi and Sindhi Hindus and Panjabi sikhs follow elements of both traditions, it is called religious syncretism and it happens in many parts of the world.--86.20.74.243 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One cannot be both Hindu and Sikh. It's like saying I follow both Islam and Christianity or any other combination. One simple concept. Sikhism does support or believe in icon worship and clearly steers you away from it. Hinduism on the other hand strongly promotes it. Here you have two roads in opposite direction. You cannot be on both. When it comes to religion you can only follow one and not both. By saying you are both it is clear you are neither nor have you really understood the teaching of either. As for you example on following common tradition I live in a western world. The Christmas ritual(buying a tree, sticking presents underneath it etc) is followed by many people from different religious background. This does not make them Christian. The same applies to Halloween, Easter etc. Many western people also take part in the celebration of Vasakhi. This does not make them Sikhs. By going to a Mandhar and taking part in some ritual does not make you a Hindu. Religion is a belief not an act, and what Sikhism teaches you is, 1 Gode and no Idol Worship. Hinduisam teaches many gods through Idol worship. How can you follow both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.45.188 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes very misleading

Present Day Scenario, The Truth Hindus in all(in particularly Hindu punjabis) lose no chance in humilating and cracking jokes on Sikhism & Sikh community in any gatthering or function....They have have taken over from were what Mulims used to do befor Indias Partition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.121.67 (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok first of all Sikhs crack jokes on Hindus to. Lets not get all innocent. Secondly most Hindu Punjabis go to a Gurudwara or believe in some form of Sikhism so dont act like they hate on Sikhs cus they dont like them. And third, this article is not mis leading, its building a case for people who believe in both Hinduism and Sikhism. If you dont believe in the unity of these two religions, then thats your opinion. But there are many people who believe that Hindus and Sikhs are pretty much the same (with some differences). After all the Gurus did teach us to unite. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a Punjabi Hindu and i in no form believe in any Sikh concept at all and i never visit a Gurudwara and i know not even a single Punjabi Hindu who believes in any sikh ideas. 122.161.152.30 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you must live in a little hole, because when i was last in Panjab in 2004 and before that in 2001 Once in during Janmashtami, many sikhs were lining up in Ludhiana to visit the Hindu Mandir in Model Town, on Diwali there were hindus going to both places of worship not least my own relatives and have you ever been to vaishno devi shrine in Jammu? Sikhs a plenty! It does not been all Hindus and Sikhs do this in the Panjab, but many do. --86.20.74.243 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a Panjabi Hindu.. I and my Sikh friends used to visit Gurudwara and then used to go to Hanuman Mandir on every tuesday..My sikh friends often visit Shivji temple...and there is a huge population of Hindus who visit 'Harmandir Sahib' golden temple and other Sikh sacred places such as Poanta Sahib etc... Hindus and Sikh are like brothers...People who say shit on each other religions or creates rift should get punished :P . Thanks and Regards Shekhar Tagra --121.241.64.81 (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sikhs do not go to Hindu temples or pilgrimages?

Many modern day Sikhs take a pilgrimage to the Golden Temple don't they. From that article:

...Similarly Diwali is one of the festivals which sees the Harmandir Sahib beautifully illuminated with Divas/Diyas (lamps),lights and fireworks are discharged. During these special occasions 1-2 million pilgrims visit the Holy shrine named Harmandir Sahib.

That sounds like there is pilgrimage to me. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

An annual event is not a pilgrimage. Many gurdwaras are lit up during the New Year and an abnormally large crowd shows up on those days. Are you saying that New Year's visits are pilgrimages? "Pilgrims" and "pilgrimage" are simply poor choices of words.3swordz (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

.3swordz Your point is a valid one, but please cut out the personal remarks. Debate content and not editors. Thanks --Sikh-History 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

this remark was made a LONG while ago when I was new here. In much more recent developments, the user and I get along fine. So stop tracing my edits. I see no need to monitor your edits, or to interact at all save for if you have another direct problem with me. 3swordz (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

you know what, to avoid yet another stupid needless conflict with you, I'll fix the tone right now. you've gotten me to cop to something (ancient), good job.3swordz (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

False claims

Quote-

"Sikhs can often be told apart by physical appearance. Hindus refer to God by many names such as "Rama,", "Krishna" or "Durga", however they view these human forms of God as a symbolic represenation of One universal ultimate Truth and reality called "Aum" or "Brahman" that is omnipresent and eternal and resides in all living entities as professed by every Hindu scripture. Sikhs refer God as "Waheguru" or "Raab," and the Sikh God is omnipotent, omnipresent, formless, genderless. This God is referred to in both male and female tenses throughout the Guru Granth, showing the nature of a single creator. Rama, Krishna etc. are considered mere creations of God and are nowhere near God's greatness, in Guru Granth Sahib Ji they are also crticised as being filled with ego. Therefore, Sikhs are strictly forbade from worshipping them, but must worship the One alone as described in the Mool Mantar and praised throughout Guru Granth Sahib Ji."

"Rama, Krishna etc. are considered mere creations of God and are nowhere near God's greatness, in Guru Granth Sahib Ji they are also crticised as being filled with ego. Therefore, Sikhs are strictly forbade from worshipping them, but must worship the One alone as described in the Mool Mantar and praised throughout Guru Granth Sahib Ji"

Now i shall quote from the Guru Granth Sahib to proove that these lines are 100% false.

Sloka Sahaskritee M: 1Guru Nanak Dev says-

Ek Krishna sarab devaa dev devtaa-t atmah aatma-m Sri vaasa-v devasya koi janas bhev Nanak taako daas hai so-ee Niranjan dev

Translation

There is only one Krishna, rest are all demigods(devtaa-s). He is the master of all demigods. He is the Supreme soul (Param-atma) Nanak is the servant to that controller.

Asaa M:5 Sloka

Hari Hari Naam japanti-aa kach kahe na Yamkaal Nanak man tan sukhi hoi anteh milay Gopal

Translation

By chanting the name of Hari ( Krishna ) Yamraj ( incharge of death ) doesnot say anything. Nanak says, " the mind as well as the body gets happiness and in the end one meets Gopal ( Krishna's childhood name ).

also refer to - Gujri Sri Trilochan jiu ke Padey Ghar 1, Asa di Vaar, Maroo M5, Raag Goand Baani Naamdev jiu ki Ghar 2, Soret M5, Guru Gobind Singh's book- Chaubees Avtara. I can quote 100 more references from the Guru Granth Sahib where endless Glories of Lord Krishna and Lord Ram are sung and they are declared to be the Supreme Lord.

Now to the 2nd point -

indus refer to God by many names such as "Rama,", "Krishna" or "Durga", however they view these human forms of God as a symbolic represenation of One universal ultimate Truth and reality called "Aum" or "Brahman" that is omnipresent and eternal and resides in all living entities as professed by every Hindu scripture.

i can quote a lot here but i shall quote only 1 verse

Sri Bramha Samhita, text 1

Isvara Parama Krishna Sat Cit Ananda Vigraha Anadir adit Govinda Sarve Karan Karanam

Translation

Krishna is the Supreme controller He is eternal, blissful and full of knowledge. He is origin of all and has no origin himself. He is the Prime cause of all causes.

So this makes it clears that the Hindus hold Sri Krishna as just not a symbolic representation but as God himself. Nowhere in the Sikh holy book or any Hindu sacred text has this been said, if there is then please quote, till then i shall delete this part.

As such the whole article seems to been have written by some sikh gentleman who wishes to declare his own views as universal and the article must be considered for deletion. 122.161.152.30 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't share any of the numerous quotes where Hindu demigods are dismissed as illusions, and tell of the fruitlessness of worshipping them. Hindus can't honestly call the Guru Granth Sahib and the Dasven Granth Hindu poetic masterpieces and simultaneously believe that it is literal. Poetry is metaphor, and metaphor is used extensively in those tomes. You can't pull quotes out of context to support your point; many quotes that can be used for your purposes are parts or larger stories where the Gurus say to worshippers of false Hindu idols, 'Waheguru is the REAL (insert random Hindu demigod here)' as opposed to 'Waheguru IS (insert random Hindu demigod here)'. And this article really should be deleted, as its mere existence implies more of a link than there really is (none). 3swordz (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Implying there is no link is entirely your own agenda and not that of the Gurus. Tell me about simple panjabi farmers of the 16th century and their grand understanding of metaphors, or perhaps the Gurus were actually using plain language so that common folk could understand them? Sounds more plausible. Now as far as wordhipping Demi Gods goes, the Bhagavad Gita even states;

"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet." BG 7.23

Metaphors simplify concepts, don't know how "lofty" a tool they are. Many folk sayings, for example, are metaphorical. As for "plain language," that's ridiculous. the SGGS is high poetry, not prose or a class lesson. Punjabi farmers may not have been scholars by profession but they weren't a bunch of idiots either.

As for your quote, I don't think that the vast majority of Hindus, who worship demigods, are going counter to what their scripture dictates, your agenda aside. Demigods are revered extensively in your texts and puja to these deities are a core aspect of your "low-intelligence" religious mainstream, whether you like it or not.3swordz (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

HELP!!! NEEDED for Article on Sikh Rajputs

Someone put a tag on "Sikh Rajputs" article that it will be deleted in five days etc., this article can not be deleted as Sikh Rajputs exist and most claims made in the article are true as well known to local Indians in Punjab only the need is that some interested and knowledgeable editors with access to proper history books etc. can eventually come forward and develop the article properly in time, quoting credible sources. Foreign born and raised editors with no direct local Indian knowledge are requested not to vandalize it as per their own fastly held thoughts and beliefs.

Thanks

Atulsnischal (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I recover the page Spartan locke (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sikh names

Some people will not accept cultural differences between Sikhs and Hindus, like Sikhs cannot have their own culture without the blessing of Hindus. Someone put this up:

*Many Sikhs have adopted Hindu names such as Devender, Jitender, Joginder, Manjeet, Gaganjeet, Govind,Arjan ,Angad, Raminder, Jeet, Preet, Inder, Veer etc. as their own, as they are in close geographical proximity.

Names like Joginder, Manjeet, Gaganjeet, Raminder, and most names ending in -inder, -preet, or -veer are culturally Punjabi names, with mostly Sikhs having names in this fashion and very few Hindus (very few Hindu males, NO females), and no Hindus with those particular names. Govind, I will concede, is predominantly a Hindu name, and Arjan is more Hindu, but Punjabi Sikhs do not have names in this style for , and moreover this argument is not about those names.

More urbanized Sikhs outside of Punjab but in India living among Hindus (Jatts call them "Papae," can't really show the pronunciation,)may adopt Hindu names for their children on rare occasion, like names with Abhi- or -esh for males, or names ending with -a for females, for example (Abhi-, -esh, and -a are firmly Hindu), but their numbers are near inconsequential. Point is, there is a rather firm dichotomy, and Punjabi Hindus may adopt the names of the majority Sikhs in Punjab when they're surrounded by them.

If you think I'm just inferring this from a general observation, I live in the Bay Area (abound with Hindus, Sikhs, Asians, Middle East, etc.) and have a job that involves customers signing payment documents; I go through hundreds each day. As most of the clients are of Hindu persuasion, you see a pattern with these things. Sure it's not scientific, but it's not like all the Hindus with Punjabified names stayed back in India, and it's a pretty large random sample. It's an inference that isn't absurd to make. Hindus need to just back off with their assimilation propaganda and accept this; it wasn't until you found out you outnumbered us a hundredfold that you found the courage to try and dictate what our culture is anyway.3swordz (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Superfluous discussion on differences or similarities

This is a completely superfluous discussion repeated at countless forums. It serves only one purpose and that is to give a chance to motivated individuals to irritate and spew venom. Nobody can force another person let alone a community to subsume his or her identity to his own.

No community emerges or develops in a vacuum.

India is a large country and Hinduism itself as practiced from one region to another and one community to another can be vastly dissimilar. Dissimilarities in religious beliefs and practices even between Hindus from a common region can be substantial.

On the other hand as the Sikh community has grown ( in numbers) so has the heterogeneous growth of sub sects . Some have an overtly religious disposition while others have regional or clan identities.

The irony is that the politics and politicians of identity (dharma rakshak). …While on the one hand champion the right to protect the identity of a community, are the first ones to takeaway the right of the individual to his/her identity.

The killing of the girl child among Punjabis of all hues is certainly one issue where there seems to be a high degree of common concurrence … .is the girl child Less Sikh, less Hindu, Less Human??
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Flagrant misuse of sources

A bunch of quotes were pulled out of context, in some cases altered, and placed in the article, probably by a Hindu who wanted to portray Sikhs as also vegetarian. I've added some context to reveal their true context; they have nothing to do with vegetarianism. As people well know, a few of the Gurus were themselves hunters, at times for sport. Hindu propagandists frequently misuse sources on many, many articles. This little section will show just a little of that. For more info, simply access the source: www.srigranth.org :

• Page 467: "They (the truest of the true) burn away the bonds of the world, And eat a simple diet of grain and water."

This line emphasizes simplicity, and no gluttony.

• Page 332: "You kill living beings and worship lifeless things, at your very last moment, You will suffer terrible pain."

What's funny is that this passage condemns not meat-eating, but Hindu practices, hypocrisy, and corruption! Irony...: They do not listen to the Lord's Praises, and they do not sing the Lord's Glories, but they try to bring down the sky with their talk. You should always be careful around those whom God has excluded from His devotional worship. They do not offer even a handful of water, while they slander the one who brought forth the Ganges. Sitting down or standing up, their ways are crooked and evil. They ruin themselves, and then they ruin others. They know nothing except evil talk. They would not even obey Brahma's orders. They themselves are lost, and they mislead others as well. They set their own temple on fire, and then they fall asleep within it. He does not honor his ancestors while they are alive, but he holds feasts in their honor after they have died Tell me, how can his poor ancestors receive what the crows and the dogs have eaten up? Making gods and goddesses out of clay, people sacrifice living beings to them. Such are your dead ancestors, who cannot ask for what they want. | You murder living beings and worship lifeless things; at your very last moment, you shall suffer in terrible pain. You do not know the value of the Lord's Name; you shall drown in the terrifying world-ocean. You worship gods and goddesses, but you do not know the Supreme Lord God. Says Kabeer, you have not remembered the Lord who has no ancestors; you are clinging to your corrupt ways. (332)

• Page 1350: "Do not say that the Vedas are false, false are those who do not reflect.

OUT OF CONTEXT:Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false. This line preaches simply open-mindedness of all belief systems. It was altered to try to legitimize Hindu texts only, for Sikhs. You're slipping, Hindutva friends.

If in all is one god, then why does one kill the hen?" This is part of a critique of the Muslim Halal prayer practice, praying over lifeless matter. Read the whole passage, don't yank quotes out of context.

• Page 723: "The world eats dead carcasses, living by neglect and greed. Like a goblin, or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat. So control your urges, or else the Lord wil throw you into hell."

gluttony and materialism. once again, read the passage.

• Page 898/899: "You are the treasure of mercy, O my Beloved Lord God. I cannot even describe Your many Glorious Virtues. The cat sees the meat, but does not eat it, and the great butcher throws away his knife; the Creator Lord God abides in the heart; the net holding the fish breaks apart."

God's mercy and benevolence. Some context:

You are the treasure of mercy, O my Beloved Lord God. I cannot even describe Your many Glorious Virtues. The cat sees the meat, but does not eat it, and the great butcher throws away his knife; the Creator Lord God abides in the heart; the net holding the fish breaks apart. The dry wood blossoms forth in greenery and red flowers; in the high desert, the beautiful lotus flower blooms. The Divine True Guru puts out the fire.

• Page 1374: "Sayeth Kabir, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils) where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is willing to have their head cut?"

this quote is either fabricated or alternately (and erroneously) translated from the said source. Anyway, read the passage.

*And to anyone who tries to say that Sikhs literally refer to and therefore worship Hindu gods: Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider. Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord. Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction. One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself. 1374

And there are other passages that make this point, or that the Hindu gods are flat-out false.3swordz (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

The assertion "Sikhs do not go to Hindu temples" needs clarification. As it stands it is just not true. It sounds as though Sikhs are barred from visiting Hindu temples, when in fact they do. The Mandir that I attend has many Hindus from the Punjab, and there are very close connections between their community and the Sikh community, many families are related by marriages. It is not unusual to see Sikhs in the Mandir. What I think this means is that Sikhs would not go to a mandir specifically to worship (though some do seem to worship when there but not directly facing the murtis). This should be clarified. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the statement is self-evident, that it already means that Sikhs don't worship worship in the Hindu way. It should be taken for what it implies, not just literally. Of course Sikhs aren't banned from going to mandirs, I've been in a Hindu mandir once for a few minutes to drop off a gift for my Hindu neighbor's new kid; I wasn't kicked out. That aside, idol worship is forbidden in Sikhism (never mind what they "seem" to do). Just change the wording, there's no need for a tag.3swordz (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

At the mandir that I attend, the man who rings the kantee (bell) is a sikh. He is an elder who wears a turban and has a beard (so I know he is Sikh). My best friend is a sikh person and she and her family ALWAYS go to the mandir on shivratri and diwali. I think people who say that sikhs don't go to the mandir and hindus don't go to the gurudwara are intolerant and quite backwards. Open your eyes and take a look at reality. There are many sikhs who donate to the mandir and there are many hindus that go to the gurudwara. In the community that I live in the mandir is usually atleast 25 to 30% sikh - and there is a gurudwara next door so it's not because they don't have anywhere else to go. I think we need to be accepting of the fact that sikhs and hindus - especially those from Punjab are connected more than we like to believe. Unity717 (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This article deals with conventions, not exceptions. One weakly-backed counterexample changes nothing. The fact of the matter is that Sikhs by and large go to Gurdwaras exclusively. Punjabi Hindus may go sometimes as well; living in such a Sikh-dominated region they have often taken on some Sikh characteristics: for example, they may venerate the Sikh Gurus as bhagats, but by doing Hindu-style puja to their images, etc. They aren't Sikh but often aren't purely Hindu either, traditions meld. No one is denying Punjabi cultural connectedness. Regardless, you still can't "equitably" sort out cultural characteristics (like, "oh, as many Sikhs go to mandirs as Punjabi Hindus go to Gurdwaras!") no matter how much it doesn't sit well with you. As for your random stats, and your "kantee" being a Sikh, wherever this venue is, I strongly doubt that. The proscription of idol worship and devotion to any other god/gods is a central tenet of Sikhism, one that is stated unequivocally. Stating that Sikhs always go to Gurdwaras is closer to the truth than your PC-everyone-goes-everywhere-or-else-it-isn't-fair version of the world, so don't throw around "backward" and "intolerant." Don't try to edit the truth to make everyone happy if it distorts it. Such statements aren't made out of malice, it's the truth.3swordz (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you have lived in Punjab for considerable period of time. Please try to refrain from sentiments and write what is true. All those who are born and brought up in Punjab or have lived there for considerable time know that the two sides are very much inter-mingled. They maintain separate identities, but very much like two brothers. and above all, Punjabis are Punjabis first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.131.82 (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you who ought to refrain from sentiments and generalizations. Moreover, you missed the point, that as many Sikhs can't be going to Mandirs as Hindus go to Gurdwaras because such activities as idol worship, central to mandirs, are flat-out proscribed in Sikhism, and the Rehat Maryada bars allegiance to other religions. As you say yourself, they maintain seperate identities. Again, these statements aren't malicious, but the truth, "brothers" rhetoric aside. Who said they couldn't be friends? And really, what does that or Punjabi pride have to do with anything?3swordz (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Shortcomings - question mainly for Sikhs

The following are listed as references in th Guru Granth Sahib to Shortcomings in other Scriptures

• Page 148 - ਵੇਦ ਕਹਹਿ ਵਖਿਆਣ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਪਾਵਣਾ ॥ - The Vedas speak and expound on the Lord, but they do not know His limits.
• Page 355 - ਅਸਟ ਦਸੀ ਚਹੁ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ॥ - The eighteen Puraanas and the four Vedas do not know His mystery.
• Guru Nanak, on page 1021 - ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬੀ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਜਾਤਾ ॥ - Neither the Vedas (four Hindu texts) nor the four Katebas [Semitic texts: the Torah, the Zabur (Psalms), the Injil (Gospel), and the Quran] know the mystery (of the Creator of the Cosmos).[9]

• Page 1237 - ਨਵ ਛਿਅ ਖਟ ਕਾ ਕਰੇ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥ ਨਿਸਿ ਦਿਨ ਉਚਰੈ ਭਾਰ ਅਠਾਰ ॥ ਤਿਨਿ ਭੀ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ਤੋਹਿ ॥ - You may study the nine grammars, the six Shaastras and the six divisions of the Vedas. You may recite the Mahaabhaarata. Even these cannot find the limits of the Lord.

Are these really meant as short comings. I would read it (maybe naively) as saying that God is limitless, if He does have any limits we cannot comprehend them even in our greatest holy books. I would say that these quotes would only amount to shortcomings if the Guru Granth Sahib does describe limits to God. IThe same goes for God's mysteries.

In fact the only reference that I would say could possibly be a "shortcoming" is this one:

• Page 1126 - ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬੇਦ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਗੁਣ ਹੈ ਮਾਇਆ ਅੰਧੁਲਉ ਧੰਧੁ ਕਮਾਈ ॥੩॥ - The Shaastras and the Vedas keep the mortal bound to the three modes of Maya, and so he performs his deeds blindly. ||3||

Reading it [in context] it could be talking about someone with an impure heart. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the God referred to in the Guru Granth Sahib is simply described as unknowable, and it makes no attempts to quantify God's power, whether through earthly manifestation (giving power to insignificant Hindu gods; trying to justify God's actions as in the Western texts; describing Jesus as God's "special" son, or even more boldly as God incarnate; angels maybe as well?) or otherwise. May sound like a cop-out at first, lol, but it does strengthen God's absolute power on another level, to be worked for through good deeds. At any rate, no other religious text is belittled; as one quote in that very section states, "Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false"(1350). They are simply trying to attribute qualities to the unquantifiable. Nanak himself made no claims to divinity. This is just my interpretation as a Sikh. 3swordz (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 3swordz, this is useful. The article as it stands seems to imply the opposite, that the Vedas do not specify some limits which are there. Incidentally, I don't see myself how the existence of demigods or devas limits God any more than any being having free will does, but that is OR so I won't put it in. I will try to clarify the references. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with Christian-Jewish relations

It seems rather similar, who else thinks its a good idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are similarities, but turn the idea on its head: could you justify a section in an article on Christian-Jewish relations that compared it to Hinduism and Sikhism? -- Q Chris (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Tat Khalsa

Someone tagged on these blatantly biased statements (in bold)

1. 1873: The first Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha was founded in Amritsar. They worked towards spreading the essence of Sikh scriptures against, what they considered as attempts to subvert Sikhism from within.[18] In a short span of time the number of Singh Sabhas rose to 117 in Punjab. They were supported by the British who wished to weaken the Sikh community and strenghthen their hold on Punjab province.
2. 1879: Another Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha; popularly known as Lahore Singh Sabha was founded by pro-British Sikhs in Lahore to counter Sanatan Singh Sabha, which advocated the view that Sikhism is a part of a larger Dharmic tradition. They held extremist views about Sikhism and were subtlely backed by the British under their policy of "Divide and Rule".

Ridiculous. So the Tat Khalsa was involved with the British simply because they wanted to retain their distinct identity from outside encroaching influences (mostly introduced by the corrupt mahants, not Sikhs)? The only people who say this are Hindus who can't stand the fact that Sikhism is very distinct from their tradition and would have liked the Sikhs at least partially absorbed into Hinduism as Sanatan seemed to have liked. Obviously and fortunately, most Sikhs at the time didn't go for that.

Under 1873: These actions to stop the infiltration of outside traditions into Sikhism would "weaken" Sikhs and Punjab? How does that figure? Under 1879: So if the Sikhs did not to be Hindus, they were implicit British allies? Again, stunning logic. The Sikhs never liked the British in Punjab, as they obviously counted under foreign influence, alongside Hindu traditions/crooked mahants/idol worship etc. Better keep in mind that the Sikhs never had to join some implied "Hindu" or "Dharmic" alliance to give the most lives for independence, far more than other communities and their "ahimsa"/"take it on the chin until they feel sorry for us" philosophies. Many editors seem to like bleating "divide and rule" whenever their perceived "Hindu rashtra" beliefs are challenged. The Sikhs fought the British the most directly while staunchly remaining Sikhs and nothing else.

The Sikhs asserting their distinct identity was not "divide and rule," it was simply yet another community against the British. The Tat Khalsa is to thank for the Sikh community's sense of distinctiveness today, the movement didn't breed a bunch of extremists as implied.3swordz (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Improve Article

This article may be improved by a comparative exploration of concepts such as for example of Moksha atman dhyan naam mantra karma bhakti , krodh, lobh, moh, ahankaar , and transmigration of the soul in Sikhism vis a vis the different schools of Hinduism .

There are broadly 6 schools of hindu philosophy .

• 1. Sankhya, a strongly dualist theoretical exposition of mind and matter.
• 2. Yoga, a school emphasizing meditation closely based on Sankhya
• 3. Nyaya or logics
• 4. Vaisheshika, an empiricist school of atomism
• 5. Mimamsa, an anti-ascetic and anti-mysticist school of orthopraxy
• 6. Vedanta
  

Intothefire (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Exploring on from this earlier post above , regarding some Spiritual terms found in both Hinduism and Sikhism encapsulating vital philosophical and spiritual realms
Viz Moksha atman dhyan naam mantra karma bhakti , krodh, lobh, moh, ahankaar , and transmigration of the soul in both streams ,

I have put together a table that may be developed through discussion , and form content for the article on a later date .

Term	Wikipage with Sikh Explanation	Wikipage with Hindu Explanation	Other pages of Interest/My Comment
Moksha	Moksh in Sikhism	Moksh in Hinduism
Atman	Atman	Ātman (Hinduism)
Dhyan	Meditation in Sikhism	Dhyana in Hinduism
Naam	Naam Japo Nāma	Nāma	Example
Mantra	Mantra in Sikhism Mul Mantar	Mantra in Hinduism	Bīja
Karma	Karma Sikhism	Karma in Hinduism	Example
Bhakti		Bhakti	Surprisingly I could not find an a Wiki article for Bhakti in Sikhism
Krodh,	Krodh		I could not find a wiki article on Krodh in Hinduism
Lobh	Lobh		I could not find a wiki article on Lobh in Hinduism
Moh	Moh Maya in Sikhism	Maya (illusion) Maya in Hinduism	I could not find a Wiki article on Moh in Hinduism
Ahankaar,	Ahankar	Ahamkara	Example
Reincarnation	Reincarnation in Sikhism	Reincarnation in Hinduism	Karma Samsara Sansara

This table is by no stretch of imagination a comprehensive glossary of terms , nor a perfect one for wikilinks . Nor perhaps even a perfect one for the wikiliks , which may be improved upon .Feel free to edit it , add to it so that it can ultimately be added to this article as a comparative List . This article has great scope to be improved . Intothefire (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sikhism and "Punjabi Hindus"

There should be a mention of the following in the article with well researched references.

"Punjabi Hindus" hold Sikhism in high regard, many Punjabi Hindus not only in India but worldwide today visit their local Gurudwaras regularly and adhere to the preaching’s of the Guru Granth Sahib. Sikhism is traditionally seen as a religion of warriors who were protectors of Hindus and Dharma against marauding Islamic invaders who sought to convert Hindus to Islam by lethal force and against oppressive Mughal government and religious extremism of Mughal Emperors and specially that of Aurangzeb.

There has been a long standing practice in Punjab which still continuous where Hindu families give their first born son to the Guru to be baptized as a Khalsa Sikh warrior and join the Guru’s army of protectors. This practice started when Guru Gobind Singh in 1699 asked the Hindu families to give him their eldest sons to help raise the new Khalsa Army to protect Dharma and all against Mughal tyranny and forced conversions to Islam. As it is the Hindu religious duty of every Kshatriya including every Rajput to bear arms and protect society and the Dharma, local Punjabi Hindu including Kshtriya families and Rajputs living in Punjab keenly supported the Guru and offered him their eldest sons all too willingly and the tradition continued hence many Punjabi Rajput families too have been giving their eldest sons to be enrolled in the Guru’s Army and baptized as Khalsa Sikhs. Thus there are many Hindu, Punjabi Hindu Rajput and Punjabi Hindu Mair Rajput families whose kin are proud followers of Sikhism today with their eldest sons as baptized Khalsa Sikhs. Thus there are many Sikhs who call themselves "Sikh Rajputs" today and still use Rajput family names.

mrigthrishna (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of problems with this article

When I try to put down information on the Sikhism page they take it down and tell me that's what this page is for. So then I try to put information down on this page, and it to gets taken down. Why does this keep happening?

Their are sections in this article that are biast and have information about Hinduism that is kind of not giving the bigger idea. And the section that explains the diffrences between Sikhism and Hinduism I also have a problem with. Who is in charge of this aritcle then here? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use WP:Personal Analysis, and also see section on WP:POV. I have had to revert personal analysis, because it differed from what the actual refernce states. Thanks--Sikh-History 09:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do they take it out? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hindus and Sikhism in Punjab

This section needs to be clarified because it is just a jumble of words. I read it three times and came out worse off than the first time I read it. --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

non-RS websites

@Sirdaar: Per reliable sources and WP:WWIN guidelines, I have removed the content and websites you added. Blogs and questionable websites are not appropriate for this or other wikipedia articles. I have also restored the content that is supported in the cited scholarly sources. If you disagree, please explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hinduism and Sikhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018031716/http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/wiah/index.htm to http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/wiah/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030827045441/http://allaboutsikhs.com/books/gst/ to http://allaboutsikhs.com/books/gst/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)