Are Sikhs,Buddhists and Jains Hindus?

RE: Are Sikhs,Buddhists and Jains Hindus?

Hi niranjan,

I don't think its that simple, I certainly don't think that those 5 points just becuase they are listed, make your (Vivekananda's) claim caste iron and true.

Sure Buddhism is patently a variation on a Hindu based doctrine, but Sikhism has many Islamic-like Sufi-esque Persian influences...
My point is, that usingyour example - itcould just as easilybe claimed that they are all variations to a degree of Zorastranism...(which BTW I dont believe) - but you can see pointright?

RE: Are Sikhs,Buddhists and Jains Hindus?

Yes, I agree. Not that simple. If we consider that "Hinduism" itself differs so vastly - and the word, and the idea that it is one religion was only invented by Europeans as a concept in the early 1800s, then really India and etc is a mixing pot of hundreds of faiths which are similar, and also differ sometimes vastly.

V

RE: Are Sikhs,Buddhists and Jains Hindus?

ORIGINAL: niranjan

Swami Vivekananda says that Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains are Hindus . Check out the 'Complete works of Swami Vivekananda'.

Here are the common points shared by Hinduism and its sects Sikhism , Buddhism and Jainism.

1.All these religions see Om or omkar as a sacred word and is commonly used in the beginning of their mantras or sacred invocations. In Sikhism Om is called as Ik Onkaar .
2.All these religions believe in the existence of the soul and its rebirth in different bodies.
3. The ends or aim of all these religions is the liberation of the soul from the bondage of matter or Moksha. The Hindu Moksha and the Jain Nibbana and the Buddhist Nirvana is one and the same thing.
4.All these religions believe in the law of karma , or the law of cause and effect.
5. Vegetarianism is considered a virtue in all these religions.

Hi Niranjan,

I regret to say that you are mistaken.

Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains would certainly not agree that they are Hindus. And I would agree with them.

First ly, your five points of agreement are misleading. For example:

1. aum^ is more, far more than a sacred word in Sanatana Dharma. Please read the MAndukya Upanishads if you cannot spare the time to read about ten major Upanishads.

I do not wish to comment on its significance in the others, as I am not sufficiently familiar with them. But if you study these closely you would find that they treat aum^ very differently indeed.

2. False. Many Buddhists would tell you that they do not.

3. False. They are SIMILAR, NOT the same.

4. Some do and even then the beliefs differ from that in Sanatana Dharma. Some do not.

5. Not so.Many Hindus are NOT Vegetarian and are no less Hindu for being so.

Again, I do not wish to comment on its significance in the others, as I am not sufficiently familiar with them.But I do know that various streams of Buddhism and Sikhism exists and the significance of Vegetarianism does differ.

If you read the accounts of Shri Shankaracharya's life you should be able to see the distinction between Sanatana Dharma and Buddhism quite well. In brief, Sanatana Dharma requires a belief in brahman and Buddhism does not. Everything else flows from that, as Shankaracharya demonstrated most ably.

Jainism has an absolute requirement for ahimsa. In Sanatana Dharma the concept is very different, as Shri Krishna amply demonstrated. Kurukshetra provides the demonstration most graphically, as indeed does ShrimadBhagabatGita.

In Sikhism there is no such thing as brahman, I believe. I cannot be certain, because I am not an expert on Sikhism. Without brahman, Sanatana Dharma is meaningless. You could not have a clearer distinction.

Venetian; Sanatana Dharma is most certainly not an amalgam of different ideas. It is a coherent whole, although its complex and multi-layered structure makes it difficult to see the coherence. Ultimately there is no difference between the Dvaita and the Advaita streams, as Swami Vivekananda ably demonstrated. Hence, the in-between stream, the bishishta-advaita is also part of the coherent whole.

Live long and prosper.

Prashna.

RE: Are Sikhs,Buddhists and Jains Hindus?

Buddhists I know also have not believed in any God; and the concept of Nirvana, to many of them, differs to Moksha.

Hi Prashna, I'm happy with "Sanatana Dharma" as a term and had it in mind earlier for this thread. To me it can mean Eternal Truth or even "The Way". "Hinduism" is the problematic word as it didn't exist until the 1830s, when an Englishman first wrote a pamphlet with "Hindoos" in the title. Muslims had called all people in the subcontinent "of the Indus" from the 1300s.

So the point abouit the words "Hindu" or "Hinduism" is that followers of Sanatana Dharma didn't feel they were united or a part of a religion until about the 1870s-80s. Then they adopted the word for themselves, through people such as Sri Ramakrishna, and the Brahmo Samaj, to have a political identity uniting them as opposed to the occupying British. In that sense, it isn't a religion.

(In many ways it's more.)

The concept of dividing the world into a few religions was a nineteenth century European one, and "ism" was put on the end of all the words ;)- thus "Hinduism", "Buddhism", Taoism" and so forth. Social philosophers consider this to be an artificial division or creation, whereby words are invented in order to change peoples' thinking. But an Indian in, say, 1750, would not have called him/herself a Hindu.

V

RE: Are Sikhs,Buddhists and Jains Hindus?

ORIGINAL: venetian

1. Buddhists I know also have not believed in any God; and the concept of Nirvana, to many of them, differs to Moksha.

2. I'm happy with "Sanatana Dharma" as a term and had it in mind earlier for this thread. To me it can mean Eternal Truth or even "The Way". "Hinduism" is the problematic word as it didn't exist until the 1830s, when an Englishman first wrote a pamphlet with "Hindoos" in the title. Muslims had called all people in the subcontinent "of the Indus" from the 1300s.

3. So the point abouit the words "Hindu" or "Hinduism" is that followers of Sanatana Dharma didn't feel they were united or a part of a religion until about the 1870s-80s. Then they adopted the word for themselves, through people such as Sri Ramakrishna, and the Brahmo Samaj, to have a political identity uniting them as opposed to the occupying British. In that sense, it isn't a religion.

(In many ways it's more.)

4. The concept of dividing the world into a few religions was a nineteenth century European one, and "ism" was put on the end of all the words ;)- thus "Hinduism", "Buddhism", Taoism" and so forth. Social philosophers consider this to be an artificial division or creation, whereby words are invented in order to change peoples' thinking.

5. But an Indian in, say, 1750, would not have called him/herself a Hindu.

V

Hi Venetian,

You are wise and you are very well-informed, indeed. I feel very constrained to reply as I do not have the necessary completeness or depth of knowledge. Still, needs must and i should do the best I can.

1. Absolutely agree. AFAIK, the concept of a God is superfluous to Buddhism (Bouddha Dharma, in BhArat) and most Buddhists I know abhor the concept.

Whereas, it is an essential concept for ALL Hindus.

2. Again, you are so right. Eternal way is an excellent translation. I shall try to explain:

Sanatana : Theliteral Sanskrit concept is "with time" or better "with eternity" . A sense translation would be "self-renewing"

Dharma : The concept is very similar to that in Buddhism. It does mean "way", in this context.

So the complete phrase translates to an "eternal way" or better still "self-renewing way".

It is not the only correct term. The other terms are "Vaidic Dharma" meaning of course "the way in accordance with the Vedas." This term was also used extensively.

3. Once again, you show remarkable insight. I agree with you partly in that "followers of Sanatana Dharma didn't feel they were united or a part of a religion until about the 1870s-80s." But I need to qualify that and that would need more time than I have right now.

4. The suffix "ism" implies doctrine. If there is one thing missing from Sanatana Dharma it's doctrine. That's one reason why I refuse to accept the term "Hinduism". But there are many other reasons. One of these days I must post a thread ststing why the term "Hinduism" is such a drastic misnomer.

5. Agree. But it is essential to understand and appreciate the historical perspective.

Anyway, superb insight and remarkable understanding. Very impressive, indeed.

Live long and prosper.

Prashna

RE: Are Sikhs,Buddhists and Jains Hindus?

ORIGINAL: Prashna

Anyway, superb insight and remarkable understanding. Very impressive, indeed.

Well, I only know this from a course I did a couple of years ago, and the research of my then-tutor, Bob Jackson of Warwick University.

I forget the exact term, but a more long-winded way of putting it is that the creation of new words has a very great effect on peoples' thinking - such as "paradigm" now rightly used a lot in the New Age in the West. Without the word, you can't think of the exact concept. So by naming these religions - such as Hinduism - the British in effect gave non-Muslim Indians a word used more than in any other way to create a political identity, from the 1870s and through to Gandhi and beyond.

By the way, I like "self-renewing" - that's better than "eternal" to me.

Several books I have on Hinduism in general, most by 'Hindus', start out by trying to define it. Is it a "religion"? And they go a bit round in circles as it's a hard thing to answer. They kind of say, "Yes it is, but not really" or, "No, it isn't one religion, but then in many ways it is." 😉

Some of the thinking on this is that we can call Christianity, Islam, and some others "religions" despite the fact that there are thousands of different churches with differing doctines and practices, and Islam is not unified, yet they have SO much in common between churches. For example, the Bible and the Jesus story, the sacraments and the Christian creed. Whereas Sanatana Dharma is much more diverse than this.

V

RE: Are Sikhs,Buddhists and Jains Hindus?

ORIGINAL: venetian

1..Well, I only know this from a course I did a couple of years ago, and the research of my then-tutor, Bob Jackson of Warwick University.

2. So by naming these religions - such as Hinduism - the British in effect gave non-Muslim Indians a word used more than in any other way to create a political identity, from the 1870s and through to Gandhi and beyond.

3. By the way, I like "self-renewing" - that's better than "eternal" to me.

4. Several books I have on Hinduism in general, most by 'Hindus', start out by trying to define it. Is it a "religion"? And they go a bit round in circles as it's a hard thing to answer. They kind of say, "Yes it is, but not really" or, "No, it isn't one religion, but then in many ways it is." 😉

5. Whereas Sanatana Dharma is much more diverse than this.

V

Hi Venetian,

1. Well the tutor's job it is to create the interest and plant the seed. Whether it germinates and bears fruit afterwards is very much up to the student. And you are some student!

There is an old saying in BhArat :
Gurus are found in lakhs and lakhs (lakh = 100,000)
___Shishyas (students) not even one!

2. Absolutely correct. For example, I would probably have called myself a ShAktya in 1850 and just a Dvija another 500 years earlier. Shaktya is someone who worships Shakti, typically, mA Kali (like Sunanda, although her version is a bit too gentle) or mA Durga. Shakti is actually SAkAr Brahman, which might surprise you. Also called mahAmAyA.

3. Self-renewing is the most exact literal translation of Sanatana that I can think of. If you can get hold of Shankara for me, I would like to explore this further. His Sanskrit is a lot better than mine.

4. Most Hindus have this problem. I shall have to start a thread on it here on this MB, soon.

5. Indeed it is. And that is its strength as well as its weakness!

Live long and prosper.

Prashna