Is the Sikh religion influenced by (even based on) Dzogchen?

[deepbluehum]

He went all arounnd looking for the highest/ truest teachings. He did incorporate many things but he was seeking the highest, I wouldn't say he just "made a stew".

Have you been to a Gurudwara? Have you spoken to a Bhaiji? You are reaching with your suppositions about what the Guru Granth Sahib is about. Nanak made a truce between Islam and Hinduism. That's about it. Sikhism is theistic. Waheguru is the Creator God. Sikhs mean the Creator with a capital C, and God with a capital G, not the All Creating King aka nature of mind, freedom from extremes. Nanak could have put all the pretty dharma words in the book, that doesn't mean he understood any of it. He was coming from a theistic Hindu standpoint.

Waheguru can also be said to be those things. I googled the "all creating king" aka Samantabhadra/primordial Buddha and I was pretty shocked the read the similarities.
"Oh all you sentient beings of this threefold world [i.e. the entire universe, both visible and invisible]! Because I, the All-Creating Sovereign, have created you, you are My children and equal to Me. Because you are not second to Me, I am present in you ... Oh all you sentient beings of this threefold world, if I were not, you would be non-existent. ... Because all things do not exist outside of Me, I firmly declare that I am all - the All-Creating One." [3]

"From the three aspects [i.e. the Unborn; no ending; source of the wonder of ceaseless creation] of My nature, i.e. that of the All-Creating One, [comes] the fullness which fulfills all needs." And: "What is known as the revealed Buddha is this evidence of My own being. Because it has the centre, the central vigor, it is the Self of everything. As it does not need any deeds, it is the Buddha since the beginning. As it is free of striving and achieving, it is since the beginning known as great. The Great Self is known as the Great Buddha. This evidence which is unborn and non-conceptual is the dimension of Reality [dharmadhatu] ...". [6]


Wow.

TAG! You're It!

Amazing isn't it? How theistic the tantra sounds and now non-theistic the Guru Granth Sahib sounds? What is going on? Who am I, where am I? What do I believe? As NNR says, you can't rely on belief.

This is why you can't rely on books. I know I said before you can. But I was dead wrong. I forgot how immersed I am in this Dzogchen thing. You have to go to the lineage to see how the whole deal works. If you listen to Guru Choegyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche today, you will get a direct introduction to your real nature. Then you will understand the "Creator" is you and that is what the All Creating King is saying, not god. In fact, tantras purposely throw you off because you need transmission. If you go to a Gurudwara today, you will get lunch and then you will sing songs to the lovely tunes of the Bhaiji harmonium quartet. You can sing Ek Ong Kar Sat Nam a million times and you will never know what Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche will show you in a few minutes. NNR explains devotion is not the path in Dzogchen. In Sikhism it is. kNow why? Because they are worshipping God by another name. Good luck on your journey down the waskawy wabbit hoes. I was a sikh once. I might know something... Sikhs go to worship the creator in the sky. Deal with it.

[Virgo]

Sikhs go to worship the creator in the sky

[Sally Gross]

Waheguru can also be said to be those things. I googled the "all creating king" aka Samantabhadra/primordial Buddha and I was pretty shocked the read the similarities.
"Oh all you sentient beings of this threefold world [i.e. the entire universe, both visible and invisible]! Because I, the All-Creating Sovereign, have created you, you are My children and equal to Me. Because you are not second to Me, I am present in you ... Oh all you sentient beings of this threefold world, if I were not, you would be non-existent. ... Because all things do not exist outside of Me, I firmly declare that I am all - the All-Creating One." [3]

"From the three aspects [i.e. the Unborn; no ending; source of the wonder of ceaseless creation] of My nature, i.e. that of the All-Creating One, [comes] the fullness which fulfills all needs." And: "What is known as the revealed Buddha is this evidence of My own being. Because it has the centre, the central vigor, it is the Self of everything. As it does not need any deeds, it is the Buddha since the beginning. As it is free of striving and achieving, it is since the beginning known as great. The Great Self is known as the Great Buddha. This evidence which is unborn and non-conceptual is the dimension of Reality [dharmadhatu] ...". [6]


Wow.

The parallels, whether merely apparent or actual, are not restricted to Sikhism. A significant strand of tradition in Jewish, Christian and Muslim theology is apophatic, conceiving of God in negative terms. For the Rambam (Moses Maimonides), for example, all talk about God is negative in point of fact: one can say what God is not, but not what God is. In arguing this, Maimonides echoed the great philosophers of Islam. Christian traditions of negative tyheology go way back -- pseudo-Dionysius, for example; and if you look at The Cloud of Unknowing, a key piece of medieval English mystical writing, you will get some sense of how it works itself out there as well.

It is one thing to point to apparent parallels, which are doubtless legion; and quite another thing to appeal to them as putative evidence that the founder of Sikhism, the medieval Muslim philosophers, Maimonides or whoever else, were closet Buddhists, practitioners of Dzogchen, or directly influenced by Buddhism or Dzogchen. Nanak may have been influenced to some degree or other; but unless apophatic theism is also influenced, the conception of God which is at stake seems to have been elaborated elsewhere independently of Buddhist influences and is at odds with Buddhist teaching in significant respects. Perhaps the most crucial and fundamental point of difference is that apophatic conceptions of God, negative though they are, nevertheless conceive of God (whatever the word means) as Creator of all from nothing, the reason why there is anything at all rather than nothing. Whether this notion is within the bonds of sense or not, and whether the question "why is there anything at all rather than nothing" falls within the bounds of sense is another matter. (My own view is that both the notion and the question are outside the bounds of sense and are therefore meaningless, though the question appears to be meaningful until it is examined more carefully). Sufism and Advaita inter alia, rather than Samye, look like more fruitful places to seek the roots of the God-conception in Sikhism.

[Jikan]

Here is an analysis that is of some (not complete) relevance to this discussion.

http://www.gurmukhyoga.com/forum/index. ... =page&id=1

[Virgo]

Here is an analysis that is of some (not complete) relevance to this discussion.

http://www.gurmukhyoga.com/forum/index. ... =page&id=1

This guy (the author) is just pissed off that a Sikh was teaching yoga. Many Sikhs get up in arms about that. But yoga or not the question here is more about Guru Nanak's spiritual practices, influences, and views than it is about 3Ho.

Kevin

[deepbluehum]

Waheguru can also be said to be those things. I googled the "all creating king" aka Samantabhadra/primordial Buddha and I was pretty shocked the read the similarities.
"Oh all you sentient beings of this threefold world [i.e. the entire universe, both visible and invisible]! Because I, the All-Creating Sovereign, have created you, you are My children and equal to Me. Because you are not second to Me, I am present in you ... Oh all you sentient beings of this threefold world, if I were not, you would be non-existent. ... Because all things do not exist outside of Me, I firmly declare that I am all - the All-Creating One." [3]

"From the three aspects [i.e. the Unborn; no ending; source of the wonder of ceaseless creation] of My nature, i.e. that of the All-Creating One, [comes] the fullness which fulfills all needs." And: "What is known as the revealed Buddha is this evidence of My own being. Because it has the centre, the central vigor, it is the Self of everything. As it does not need any deeds, it is the Buddha since the beginning. As it is free of striving and achieving, it is since the beginning known as great. The Great Self is known as the Great Buddha. This evidence which is unborn and non-conceptual is the dimension of Reality [dharmadhatu] ...". [6]


Wow.

The parallels, whether merely apparent or actual, are not restricted to Sikhism. A significant strand of tradition in Jewish, Christian and Muslim theology is apophatic, conceiving of God in negative terms. For the Rambam (Moses Maimonides), for example, all talk about God is negative in point of fact: one can say what God is not, but not what God is. In arguing this, Maimonides echoed the great philosophers of Islam. Christian traditions of negative tyheology go way back -- pseudo-Dionysius, for example; and if you look at The Cloud of Unknowing, a key piece of medieval English mystical writing, you will get some sense of how it works itself out there as well.

It is one thing to point to apparent parallels, which are doubtless legion; and quite another thing to appeal to them as putative evidence that the founder of Sikhism, the medieval Muslim philosophers, Maimonides or whoever else, were closet Buddhists, practitioners of Dzogchen, or directly influenced by Buddhism or Dzogchen. Nanak may have been influenced to some degree or other; but unless apophatic theism is also influenced, the conception of God which is at stake seems to have been elaborated elsewhere independently of Buddhist influences and is at odds with Buddhist teaching in significant respects. Perhaps the most crucial and fundamental point of difference is that apophatic conceptions of God, negative though they are, nevertheless conceive of God (whatever the word means) as Creator of all from nothing, the reason why there is anything at all rather than nothing. Whether this notion is within the bonds of sense or not, and whether the question "why is there anything at all rather than nothing" falls within the bounds of sense is another matter. (My own view is that both the notion and the question are outside the bounds of sense and are therefore meaningless, though the question appears to be meaningful until it is examined more carefully). Sufism and Advaita inter alia, rather than Samye, look like more fruitful places to seek the roots of the God-conception in Sikhism.

Nah, it's Islam. 100%

[asunthatneversets]

That's nice and beautiful bla bla bla. But that won't change Islam's history of invading peaceful nations,

Nothing which hasn't been done by countless other nations or groups identifying with particular ideologies.

slaughtering their children and kidnapping and raping their women to transform the society into Islamic nation.

Nothing which hasn't been done by countless other nations or groups identifying with particular ideologies.

Nothing about my touchy feelies can change that. Next you are going to celebrate the virtues of communism. Islam and communism are the culprits of destruction against Buddha dharma too. I hope they are destroyed together.

No virtues have been celebrated thus far to warrant further celebration of any ideology (be it communism or any other). It has nothing to do with celebrating virtues. It comes down to identification with thought and attachment to belief. If you think Islam or communism could possibly destroy the dharma then you've mistook the dharma for a belief system yourself. You don't understand that by wishing for the demise of Islam or communism you're only contributing to the belief identified prejudice you claim to be rejecting. Feeding the fires of separation and sewing the seeds of hate and war all in the name of peace. That isn't what the Buddha taught. By eradicating Islam or communism you merely replace one ideology with another and the ignorance persists. The conflict is within the mind and must be resolved within the mind. It's a psychological crisis. You downplay addressing the problem within because you don't understand (don't seem to at least), and that's ok, if I was to wholeheartedly reject your message I would be falling victim to the same delusion. So please continue with your prejudiced discrimination and hold an entire belief system accountable for the actions of radical subsidiary factions and rouge extremists. It's unsound logic in my eyes but to each their own.

That being said I understand you're an opinionated person and there's nothing wrong with that, we all are in our own ways. So no contention here, I just don't agree, but sometimes agreeing to disagree is the best route.

[catmoon]

Hm. Dzogchen is as atheistic as any other branch of Buddhism. If Sikhism were based on Dzogchen, the Sikhs woud all be atheists too.

[Blue Garuda]

Hm. Dzogchen is as atheistic as any other branch of Buddhism. If Sikhism were based on Dzogchen, the Sikhs woud all be atheists too.

Somewhere early in the thread, people discussed what was meant by 'God' and whether that was personified or a term for an energy or nature within us, etc.

In India, Hindus may appear polytheistic but actually be expressing the natural forces of creation and destruction as personified through the deities and ultimately 'God'.
Most Hindus I met were very relaxed about every religious practice being a form of 'God' including Buddhism and Jainism. I noted that the Hindu practice of Darsana (Darshan) in linking with the nature of the deity with which eye contact is made, to be similar to Buddhists seeking to link with the nature of Shakyamuni, other Buddhas and of course with their Guru through Guruyoga - of course a form of Dzogchen practice.

Anyway, you might now trigger 10 pages of 'Is Buddhist Atheistic' as you chose that as the assumption for your conclusion about Sikhs. LOL

[kalden yungdrung]

Hm. Dzogchen is as atheistic as any other branch of Buddhism. If Sikhism were based on Dzogchen, the Sikhs woud all be atheists too.

Somewhere early in the thread, people discussed what was meant by 'God' and whether that was personified or a term for an energy or nature within us, etc.

Most Hindus I met were very relaxed about every religious practice being a form of 'God' including Buddhism and Jainism. I noted that the Hindu practice of Darsana (Darshan) in linking with the nature of the deity with which eye contact is made, to be similar to Buddhists seeking to link with the nature of Shakyamuni, other Buddhas and of course with their Guru through Guruyoga - of course a form of Dzogchen practice.

Anyway, you might now trigger 10 pages of 'Is Buddhist Atheistic' as you chose that as the assumption for your conclusion about Sikhs. LOL

Tashi delek,


I have met some Hindhus in Varanasi and they are very carefull if they start discussing Dharma with Buddists.

Some saddhus i have met were very furious, wild but also very clever.

In Tantra there are a lot of similarities sure in case of the Yogini Tantras. But the aim in Hindhu Yogini Tantras is related to the God Shiva.
Brahman followers and Vishnu folowers have another God. It was for me not so clear what the diffinition of a Hindhu was/is.

Since Patanjali there seems to be another Hindhu system popular in India. India has so its popular deities like Indra one time was and also Brahman.

But one of the main differences between Shikkism and Buddhism would be that Gods are not eternal beings. They have to die like all what is composed according Buddhism and the 6 realms.

There is a big agreement between Buddhism and Hindhuism regarding the vertical and horizontal Kosmos.


Mutsog Marro
KY

[DorjeVajra]

Comparative Religious And Philosophies : Anthropomorphlsm And Divinity - Page 308 Nanak Lama

http://books.google.no/books?id=yivKuDm ... ak&f=false

Read this book and you find the answer you are looking for ...

Hidden Teachings of Tibet: An Explanation of the Terma Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism

http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Teachings- ... 086171122X

[Sherab Rigdrol]

Really disappointed to see the name Yogi Bhajan or his made up exercises being thrown around in this thread. That is not Sikhism, nor yoga. Any mention of him or his cult takes away from your argument. If you want something to bite your teeth into, I suggest you read this.
http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/santmat1.html
Sant Mat is one of few authentic esoteric practices of Sikhism. They do a lot of comparative analysis with dzogchen. Enjoy!