Jump to content

Buddhism And Hinduism: The Similarities And Differences


Big_Tera
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Yeah, but what is your definition, so we can have a conversation.

I define and understand the western term "relgion" (which has no roots in the eastern lexicon) as something that is inherently dualistic, belief based, and contains rituals.The concept of "god" as understood through the else of most or all "religions" is very different from the universal and timeless concept of ੴ   (which wasnt created in 1469)

 

Quote

Also, it would be interesting to know how you define "dharma".

 

I define and understand the eastern term "Dharam" is the timeless truth, and isnt specific to any time period, nor does it have multiple prophets or have rituals. I understand Dharma to be generally all encompassing, while "relgion" isnt. Dharma applies to all, and is a fundamental truth, while religion is often limited to one creed, people, or even species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am skeptical of the neat division of religions in to "religion" vs. "dharma", but it all depends on your definitions, and am open to new information.

 

40 minutes ago, TheeTurbanator said:

I define and understand the western term "relgion" (which has no roots in the eastern lexicon) as something that is inherently dualistic, belief based, and contains rituals

Hmm, sounds like Hinduism.

Dualistic? How about the Hindu school of Samkhya?

"Samkhya is dualistic realism. It is dualistic because it advocates two ultimate realities: Prakriti, matter and Purusha, self (spirit). "

http://indianphilosophy.50webs.com/samkhya.htm

Samkhya is strongly dualist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya

Contains rituals? Sounds like the Vedas.

Vedic Rituals and Sacrifices From Srauta Sastras

1 hour ago, TheeTurbanator said:

I define and understand the eastern term "Dharam" is the timeless truth, and isnt specific to any time period, nor does it have multiple prophets or have rituals.

Timeless, so from the beginning of humanity? Prior to humans, there can't have been such a thing as human "dharam" because animals are already automatically in their "dharam". Anyway, Muslims believe that Islam dates from the first man, Adam:

"Adam (peace be upon him) was the first of the Prophets, as it says in the hadeeth narrated by Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh" https://islamqa.info/en/10551

So is that timeless enough?

Multiple prophets? Like Sri Ram and Krishan ji, or the other of the 24 incarnations of Vishnu?

Or the 10 Guru Sahibs?

Dharam doesn't have rituals? So Sanatam Dharam doesn't have rituals? Or it isn't a dharam? Or every Hindu that circumambulates a fire to get married is a-dharmic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheeTurbanator said:

"Religion" is defined in a very western, abrehamic context, and the term "Dharma" just like many other terms such as ੴ  have no adequate English counterparts. 

Would you define "mazhab" as the same as "religion"? Or different to or the same as "dharam"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Or the 10 Guru Sahibs?

 

There are no 10 Gurus, there is only One, and the Guru isnt a "prophet". Gurbani literally says there is only One Guru:

"There is One Bani; there is One Guru; there is one Shabad to contemplate." - Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 646

https://www.sikhitothemax.org/ang?ang=646&source=G

 

56 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Hmm, sounds like Hinduism.

Dualistic? How about the Hindu school of Samkhya?

 

Sikhi is described by the Guru himself as the "Sach Dharam", is that also like the term "Hinduism", Sanatana Dharma?

 

 IS SIKHI HINDU-IZM???

 

As I already stated in my other comment,  Sanatana Dharma, is a blanket term used to describe an ocean of different south Asian originated beliefs, some may be dualistic, others may not. Sikhi is unified, who knows, Sanatana Dharma might also be, but its not interpreted that way by modern scholars. 

 

56 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Dharam doesn't have rituals? So Sanatam Dharam doesn't have rituals? Or it isn't a dharam? Or every Hindu that circumambulates a fire to get married is a-dharmic?

Modern day "Hindus" (basically Indians) are not really dharmic, and just do a lot of stuff out of superstition and ritual, this goes against the sach dharam. Also, the marriage ceremony that you are talking about isnt the same across the board. 

 

 

Quote

 

Would you define "mazhab" as the same as "religion"? Or different to or the same as "dharam"?

 

 
Im not sure about that term, and I need to research it before I give my thoughts. I haven't really heard this word before, but I think I know the argument your trying to make. 
 

 

Quote

I am skeptical of the neat division of religions in to "religion" vs. "dharma", but it all depends on your definitions, and am open to new information.

 

 
The words that we use when describing something, especially something as important as Sikhi, are important. Gurbani itself is very careful in how its constructed. In regards to dharma vs relgion. there is a significant difference between eastern and western schools of thought, and to truly understand each school, one must look at them through their respective theological lenses. Distinct words are important becuase they serve to help (literally) distinct ideas. 
 
Would you be fine if people started calling the Aadh Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji: "Timeless Teacher Book Sir" or Siri Guru Gobind Singh Ji as "Teacher Preserver Lion Sir", or whatever is commonly understood to be the correct "translation".  The words that we use, especially in a highly evolved, and constantly changing language like English, matter. One could argue that why speak English at all, however thats not the point. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/02/2018 at 6:23 AM, jkvlondon said:

it was an invite not an order ...chill. If you are on to a good thing is it not good manners to let others know so they can find out if they like it too?

That is the excuse christians and islam uses. A true believer is one who seeks knowledge himself of other faiths. By all means if someone asks you can tell them. But under no circumstances must you try and convert others. That is the one of the fundemental beliefs in Sikhism. We must never try and convert. 

Sikhs believe everyone has freedom to believe or not believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

That is the excuse christians and islam uses. A true believer is one who seeks knowledge himself of other faiths. By all means if someone asks you can tell them. But under no circumstances must you try and convert others. That is the one of the fundemental beliefs in Sikhism. We must never try and convert. 

Sikhs believe everyone has freedom to believe or not believe. 

explain why then female paracharaks were appointed in kashmir and afghistan by Guru Sahiban themselves , to do parchaar is to tell about sikhi nobody asked the parchaariks to do parchaar ...so what is your point now ....I agree that no sikh ever forced a conversion by duress of any kind but sikhi of itself is enough of a draw to the soul that people take it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Big_Tera said:

That is the excuse christians and islam uses. A true believer is one who seeks knowledge himself of other faiths. By all means if someone asks you can tell them. But under no circumstances must you try and convert others. That is the one of the fundemental beliefs in Sikhism. We must never try and convert. 

Sikhs believe everyone has freedom to believe or not believe. 

One of the fundamental beliefs?... 

You're looking at sikhi through abrahamic lenses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Big_Tera said:

By all means if someone asks you can tell them. But under no circumstances must you try and convert others.

The entire point of parchaar isnt to "convert" others, its to spread the universal truth of seva and simran, which belong to no external identity. When Guru Nanak Dev Ji traveled he didnt go around converting people, he just spread the truth and people joined Sikhi on their own. The literal definition of what a "Sikh" is as per Gurbani includes one who himself chants the name, and also inspires others to do so. 

 

5 hours ago, Big_Tera said:

That is the one of the fundemental beliefs in Sikhism. We must never try and convert. 

No one, LITERALLY NO ONE here, is making the argument that Sikhs should go out and "convert" people. 

Just think about this logically: If Sikhi is the truth, then why not spread the truth? If Sikhi isnt the truth, then why be a Sikh? 

"Sikhi doesn't need selling, it needs telling" - Jagraj SIngh, founder of Basics of Sikhi. 

PS: Its Sikhi, not "Sikhism" 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use