The Quintessence of Sikhism: The Doctrinal Sovereignty
by Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia
The Hegelian classification of religions in terms of substance and spirit is of tremendous significance in understanding the doctrinal uniqueness of Sikhism. From this angle, we find that advaita Vedanta is a religion of the Absolute as substance[1]— pure Being. The Absolute (Brahman) here is the indeterminate Universal with no differentiations in its abstract oneness. The One has not differentiated itself out in the many. The realm of particularity (nature, finite being) is not real; it is nothing but illusion, maya. The perception of particularity, of separation from the Universal, is again due to maya. Salvation lies in the knowledge that dispels nescience, the mist of maya. In other words, the finite consciousness, after purging itself of its sensuous content derived from the realm of particularity, realizes in its abstractness its a priori identity with the abstract Universal (Brahman). This is a cognitive realization of unity, and not a process of union, or of re-absorption of the finite part into the infinite whole, for the simple reason that the Absolute admits of no diversity cr differentiation of itself into parts.
The next definite stage is reached when the Absolute qua pure Being negates itself (in the dialectical sense) into 'Nothing', Not-Being, as in Buddhism, which denied the substantialist, noumenal Being behind or beyond the phenomenal becoming. 'Nothing' here being a dialectical negation of Being (substance), the Buddhist concept of shunya is not qualitatively different from the Vedantic Being. That is why Buddhism is deemed as a phase in the development of the religions of substance. In other words, the Buddhist concept betrays an inherent tendency to hypostatize 'Nothing' in the form of Being. This tendency realized itself out in the Madhyamika school of Buddhism. If the Real is to be deemed as devoid of all determinations, predicates and attributes, then, there remains little difference between pure Being and 'Nothing', the two concepts become interchangeable. This is how Vedantic Hinduism swallowed up Buddhism.
The philosophy of Ramanuja represents the synthesis-stage in the unfolding of the Absolute qua substance. The advaita Vedantic abstract Universal and the Buddhist phenomenal particularity, in a sense, merge up in Ramanuja's concept of Brahman as a nirguna Being qualified by saguna attributes; the Absolute is seen here as a differentiated, composite whole in. which the One (universality) is related to the many (particularity) in the sense of the substance-predicates manner.
A qualitative change in the mode of manifestation of the Absolute can be envisaged in the case of Sikhism which marks a transition to the religion of spirit in Indian philosophy. If we take the pre-Nanakian religions of substance in their totality as the thesis, then, the antithesis is represented by the Sankhya philosophy, wherein the abstract Universal substance is dualistically cut into two, as purusha and prakriti. This is an intermediary stage inbetween the earlier religions of substance and the latter religion of spirit (Sikhism). Here prakriti remains of the nature of substance in the materialist sense of the term, while purusha is spirit in the idealistic sense; the relation between the two is that of externality.
In Sikhism, which marks the synthesis-stage of this process there is the full realization of the Absolute qua spirit. The Absolute-in-itself is without any differentiations or determinations (nirguna, nirankar). As Creator (Karta Purakh) the Absolute manifests itself as Spirit. The passive purusha of Sankhya becomes active, creative Purakh. [Vedantic Brahman is sat (being), chit (consciousness) and anand (bliss); creativity is not its quality or attribute.] In Sikhism, prakriti no more remains dualistically external: as creation it becomes internally related to its Creator. In dialectical terminology prakriti (that is, the realm of particularity including man) turns out to be a concrete determination— Name — of the Absolute in its manifestation as Spirit.
All that He creates is His Name. [3]
The Absolute conceived as the abstract Universal-in-itself (Ik Onkar) becomes the for-itself concrete Universal (Sat Nam) when taken in and along with its determinations.
The transition from the category of substance to that of spirit, corresponding to the replacement of the Vedantic spiritualist idealist tradition, marks a fundamental change in the mode of manifestation of the Absolute. As against the Vedantic immanence of Brahman in space and ahistorical time, there is in Sikhism, as a religion of spirit, the concept of God descending, through the Guru-person, in historical time, that is, in history. This process of the Divine Descent (which is the Self-determination of the Absolute as Spirit in the historical dimension) reaches its culmination with the formal diffusion of the spiritual sovereignty of the Godhead into the word (Guru Granth), and the vesting of the Divine aspect of temporal sovereignty into Society (Khalsa Panth) on the Baisakhi day of the year 1699 at Sri Anandpur Sahib through the baptismal ceremony of amrit— a process that institutionalized the evolution of the Sikhs from a religious community into a political entity as an instrument of history— expressing the Will of God[4] — for creating a new, higher civilization different from the earlier Indic and the Hindu civilization[5].
The Sikh conception of the Absolute realizing itself in and through society, which makes the corporate personality of Khalsa Panth as the embodiment[6] of the Spirit, is a revolutionary idea both in speculative and political thought. Much later, Hegel described the modern State (identified with the Prussian military State) as the highest expressional form of the Spirit. The democratic import of the Sikh concept stands in sharp contrast to the tendency towards autocracy and totalitarianism inherent in the Hegelian notion.
It is the concept of the Divine Descent in history as the Self-realizing Spirit that makes Sikhism a State, symbolizing a unique correlation of the temporal and the spiritual sovereignty of God.
The point is that the distinction between a religion of substance and a religion of spirit is not merely an academic question of metaphysics; it has far-reaching consequences on the social, ethical and political levels of reality. A religion of substance tends to deny the existential reality of man, of finite being, of the world of time and space. The dependence of the particular on the Universal is so construed as to turn the relation of man to God as the relation of bondage, of subservience, of submission to authority. The doctrine of oneness with Brahman is seen in a way that leaves no room for the existential reality of man, except as a matter of illusion; or it is said that man is one with Brahman in his essence, though separated off in his sensuousness. Hence the stress on an abstract state of mind which necessitates a withdrawal from the world of the senses. All this goes against the humanistic conception of freedom which can be upheld only in a religion of spirit. It is for this reason that Sikhism is essentially a religion of freedom in the social, ethical and political senses of the term.
A religion of substance, with its concomitant notion of spatial, ahistorical time, brings forth a static society providing for stability, but at the cost of growth and development. In a sense, the characteristics of the Hindu civilization—unchangeability; cyclical-devolutionary view of history; hierarchy; holism, and other-worldly nomization—flow from the spatial conception of time, in the Bergsonian sense, involved in the notion of substance as a being subsisting eternally in its selfsame state in the passive, unaffecting time. When time is divested of its historicity, to be in time does not mean to be subject to change; so Brahman could subsist in its state of self-same, unchanging oneness, while being (immanent) in time
and space.
Brahman is timeless not in the sense of time-transcendence, but in sense of being eternal, that is, eternally self-same in (passive, spatial) time. Thus the Vedantic immanence of Brahman qua substance means the unchangeabilily not only of the Absolute but also of phenomenal reality. Hence the static character of Hindu civilization. If on the other hand phenomenal reality is to be thought of dynamically, then, it would mean restoration of historicity to time, so that
to be in time could mean to be subject to change and development. The time-transcendence of the Absolute (Akal Murat) as such becomes a pre-condition not only for the Being-in-itself of God but also of His Descent into time (history).
Such a conception of the Absolute on the basis of the historical notion of time makes room for a dynamic view of phenomenal reality as envisaged in the Sikh concept of creation. That is how the causal relation of the Absolute Spirit (Karta Purakh) with phenomenal reality (in terms of creation which, in a sense, is Self-determination of the Spirit in time) involves the historical view of time as against the Vedantic notion of its spatiality. The social dynamism of Sikhism is, in a sense, an expression of the underlying historical view of time.
As the spatial conception of time is nothing but a denial of its historicity, so in Vedantic thought the causal relation of Brahman with phenomenal reality could be conceived only in such terms of appearance, reflection, manifestation, configuration, modification, etc., as involve the spatiality of time in the context of which there is either no change but only an illusory appearance (vivartavada), or at the most a change in form
(parinamvada) in which the potential becomes the actual, the cause delivers the pre-conceived effect; Brahman maintains the substantial self-identity of its being-in-itself in the midst of its
phenomenal modification, transformation or transfiguration. In the case of parinamvada, which is common to Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita, Madhava’s Dvaita, Nimbarka's Dvaitadvaita and Vallabha's Shuddhavaita, the change being only in form, there is no real evolution, growth and development, no emergence of new quality or novelty.
If in Shankara's vivartavada the phenomenal becoming is only a matter of illusion caused by maya, in parinamvada it represents an inferior, secondary, transient reality of derivative nature. Such, then, is the nature of the world of time and space in the Vaishnava (theistic) schools of Vedanta, while for advaita Vedanta the worldly reality is only a phenomenon of illusory appearance caused by maya which super-imposes sensory forms onto Brahman.
Basing itself on the spatialily of time, the classical Hindu tradition of religious thought had equated reality with eternity in its concept of sat; the real is eternal in time and the eternal alone is real. The world of time and space being subject to the processes of becoming—origination and development, preservation, and disintegration— is, accordingly, deemed as untrue and unreal in itself; at (he most it possesses secondary, derivative reality.
The Sikh concept of creation, in contrast to the Vedantic terms of appearance, manifestation, transformation, transfiguration, modification, etc., presents a qualitatively new view of phenomenal reality which being created by God is as real as the Creator Himself; the world, though impermanent, is not ipso facto unreal. In other words, the Vedantic concept of sat, partaking of spatial time, is not accepted by Sikh philosophy, which in its conception of creation entails the historical view of time. The concept of creation as a category involving historical time is conspicuous by its absence in systematic Indian thought before Guru Nanak.
The Sikh conception of creation is distinguishable from the Christian idea also. Christian philosophy involves the concept of continual creation of material reality as also the correlative concept of continual sustenance thereof: creation is taking place every moment- a process that counter-balances (lie contrary process of moment-to-moment destruction. The two correlative processes, continual creation and continual destruction, thus ensured what in old physics was known as the quantitative constancy of nature[7]: the Christian idea of creation was, in a sense, homologous to the now outdated steady-state conception of the universe.
On the other hand in Sikh philosophy, there is the idea of creation having been instantaneously brought into being once for all by the Divine Command in a Big-Bang manner. Says Guru Nanak:
With His one Word, the whole expanse of reality came into existence. [8]
The Christian notion of continual sustenance of the world by God also flows from the idea of continual creation. The continuing sustaining activity of God is essential to keep the world going in the same way in which, for instance, continual inflow of electricity is necessary to keep the bulb aglow . Hence the perpetual moment-to-moment dependence of the world on God. As against this view, the Sikh thought envisages that the world has been made self-active, self-operative and self-developing by the Creator who imparted to the created realm the principles of motion and activity, once for all, making the world autonomous as such. The processes of becoming — origination and development, enduring and disintegration— are seen as inherent in matter. Says Guru Nanak:
Phenomenal reality mysteriously conceived three sons (Deities): One produces,
the second sustains, and the third destroys. [9]
In Islamic thought, which also contains the idea of creation, the phenomenal reality is conceived of atomistically; it is without internal causal relationships. Here God is essential not for continual creation of the world, but for two other reasons. First, the sand-like discreteness of the created material reality requires cementing causality for its coming into forms of activity. The universe as such is continually dependent upon God as the transcendental principle of continuity and causality.
Secondly, though externally the things are the creatures of God, internally these are the ideas subsisting in the Mind of God as the Knower in so far as the created things are the ideas, the known, their continual existence depends upon the continual act of knowing by the Knower.
The Sikh conception of creation does not entail an atomistic view of phenomenal reality, which is, rather, seen as subject to internally operative law (Hukam). According to Guru Nanak the transcendental Divine Will operates from within as immanent causation which gives a teleological purpose and direction to the world of time and space.
Secondly, the otherness of the creation is not merely a product of external cognition, it is real in the sense that the world once having been created exists autonomously without necessitating a moment-to-moment dependence upon God (This on the ethical level means that Sikhism does not conceive of man's relationship with the Absolute (God, State) in terms of bondage and servitude; man so far as he partakes of the essence of Godhead has a sovereign person and an autonomy of his own which is inviolable. This is the ideational basis of Sikh people's aspiration for sovereign existence, which over the centuries has expressed itself in various politico-constitutional forms depending upon the variables of the given situation).
The autonomy of the world of time and space, as contended in Sikhism, leads to the autonomy of the earthly life of man which as such comes to be seen as possessing its own principle of legitimacy, its own historically determined logos, without requiring that otherworldly ritualistic nomination, through initiatory and other rites, which alone provides sanctions to one's temporal activities in the Hindu nomos.
The Islamic atomism, referred to above, resulted in the over-stress on the instability and transience of the world, particularly in Sufi mysticism. The Sikh concept of causality, inherent in the created world, transforms this instability and transience into change and development.
The existential reality being characterized by change and development, there remains no ground for static society in the Sikh value-pattern. By equating the real with the eternal on the basis of spatial time, the Brahminical system* had absolutized the concept of fixity in social organization, wherein the place of each caste, with pre-determined role structures, as well as of the individual in the caste, was considered to be fixed a priori in hierarchical order given by the law of karma.
* The characteristics of Brahminical society and of the Hindu world discussed here refer to the Hindu tradition before its modernization under the impact of Sikhism in the medieval age, and of other forces of modernism in the modern period. However, the process of modernization of the Hindu tradition has been going on simultaneously with the process of neo-traditionalization of the modernist elements. This is the characteristic way in which the Hindu tradition ensures its continuity-in-change.
This system by transforming "a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny,"[10] ensured stability and passive equilibrium, but at the cost of internal dynamism and evolutionary elan. Seen in this context the role of a Hindu avtar is that of periodical restoration of the balance, whenever the passive equilibrium of society gets disturbed. (This involves the cyclical-devolutionary view of time— a species of spatial time— in which history is seen not as an ongoing directional process, but as a series of the flow and the ebb occurring in cyclical periodicity).
The Sikh Guru is not an avtar, not only on the ground that God is not conceived of as incarnating Himself in human form, but also for the reason that he is the initiator of a new way of life in the dimension of directional time (Path = Panth), involving innovative structural changes in society.
Brahminical society permitted only ‘positional mobility’ of the lower castes in the hierarchical structure through a cultural process named sanskritization by M.N. Srinivas: a lower group having circumstantially gained power or wealth would try to emulate the customs, manners, rituals and even caste-denominations of the higher castes for being accepted at a higher rung in the hierarchical ladder. As observed by M.N, Srinivas, this process of sanskritization meant only "positional change for the lower group without any structural change in the system."[11] In fact sanskritization in a way reinforced the principle of fixed hierarchy in so far as it meant vertical mobility within the caste system. It was further retrogressive in that it induced the lower stratum away from self-acquisition of status and respectability in its own light, without losing the self-identity in the borrowed feather of the higher class.
Sikhism played a revolutionary role on the sociological level in re-structuring society on equalitarian basis by rejecting the concept of hierarchical fixity** as the tradition-honored normative principle of social organization which had received its axiological legitimation from the caste-system, which in turn had the law of karma as its metaphysical basis.
** It may be mentioned here that down to the renaissance age in the West, physics accepted the Aristotelian concept of a bounded, finite, stratified cosmos in which the place of everything was pre-fixed, the lighter things having their natural place ‘up’ there, and the heavier ones ‘down’ below. The soul, being the lightest of all things, had its natural habitat ‘up’ in the heaven, while the gross matter was positioned at the other end.
An infinite universe was a logical necessity of Newton’s first law of motion in classical physics which brought in the force of gravity as the principle determining a thing’s place, instead of the earlier principle of pre-determined hierarchical fixity, that prevailed in the cosmos considered finite. In this context one can easily comprehend the far-reaching import of Guru Nanak’s view, expressed in his Japji, about the infinity of the cosmos – a concept that knocked out the principle of pre-determined hierarchical fixity on the metaphysical level.
The sociological significance of the baptismal ceremony of amrit lies in its being a revolutionary alternative to sanskritization. The baptismal amrit provided a new normative principle, process and channel to the lower classes for vertical mobility in their own right, without any sense of guilt about their respective self-identities, which as such were no more required to be sublated into simulated behavior-patterns of the higher caste group. Says Guru Nanak:
The lowest of the low castes,
The lowliest of the lowly,
I seek their kinship —
Why emulate the (so-called) higher ones
Thy elevating Grace is
Where the down-trodden are looked after. [12]
The lower castes and classes were as such provided an opportunity of vertical mobility upto the highest level. The new normative principle of social organization introduced by the baptismal amrit made people realize their essential humanistic identity with a sense of horizontal solidarity as co-equal members in the Order of the Khalsa which does not admit of fixed, stratified role-performances, nor the caste-based differentiation of connubial and ritual functions. Consequently, this
revolutionary normative principle provides for a new kind of -vertical mobility that ipso facto involves an ongoing process of re-structuration of open society on equalitarian basis—a process that stands in sharp contrast to sanskritization that permitted selective vertical movement, while ensuring the foundations of the hierarchized, closed system of caste-based society and the concomitant caste-system, the immobility of which is only a sociological expression of the spatial conception of time involved in the notion of substance as the basic ontological category.
Sikhism, being a religion of spirit, envisions not only a new dynamic relationship amongst men, but also a new kinship between man and God, involving a new mode of human salvation. The advaita Vedanta (non-theistic) postulates a priori identity of substance (tat-tvam asi) between jiva atma (individual soul) and Brahman, without there being any ontological or eptistemological otherness between the two. Salvation as such lies in cognitive realization of this a priori unity (Gian Marg)—a state of being in which the sensory adjuncts and the bodily state of existence are seen as product of maya (illusion). Psychologically this means an abstract state of mind emptied of all empirical content; ethically it means self-withdrawal.
The theistic schools of Vedanta admit of the real ontological otherness between Brahman and man, which has to be transcended into union with God, through Hath Yoga, Karma Yoga or Bhakti Yoga, the otherness here is due to the embodiment of the soul on the phenomenal level, which is deemed as a misfortune for man, being his estrangement from his true essence (Brahman); in his alienated state, man mistakes ego as his real self, that needs to be negated and sublated into an abstract state of mind which as such turns out to be a precondition for re-union into the Absolute, that is, passive re-absorption of the individual into the abstractness of the Absolute.
As this means negation of the existential reality of man and his world the end-result turns out to be an ethics of self-withdrawal which on the socio-political level assumes, at worst, a reactionary nature, and, at best, a reformist character. That is why the Hindu Bhakti based on theistic Vedanta was in its saguna form a conservative force, and in its nirguna form just a reformist trend, revealed by Sikhism which conceived of the relationship between man and God in terms of self-realization in the case of the individual, and Self-determination in the case of God as Spirit. The Absolute becomes Self-conscious Spirit, through its differentiation into the universal (Satguru) and the particular (Gurmukh) which, then, are subsumed under a concrete totality: Khalsa Panth, Guru Panth.
In other words, this process of differentiation (which in the case of man means his separation from the Absolute in his state of embodiment) is a necessity, both logical and historical, for the Absolute in its Self-determination as Spirit. What is necessary for the Absolute is an opportunity for man to re-unite with God in a state of self-realization. That is why in Sikh religion there is great stress on this concept of opportunity, with the correlative emphasis on the intrinsic significance of bodily state of man, and his. self-realization in and through existential state of being without self-abstraction, self-annihilation and self-withdrawal. Says Guru Arjun:
Through God's Grace you have got the human body,
Now alone is the opportunity to meet your Lord. [13]
From the absolute Being, man is separated off as an object, so that he could unite with the absolute Spirit as a subject. Man as a spirit becomes a self-conscious, self-realized being; from a mere object he becomes a subject through ethical consciousness, social responsibility and political activity. This is how, in Sikhism, man's relationship with God is transformed into his relationship with society and State — a relationship in which the individual operates as a self-conscious spirit, that is, as an active subject and not as a passive object. Herein lies the essence of the revolutionary nature of the sociological role played by Sikhism vis-à-vis the conservative-reformist Hindu Bhakti movement.
That man does not remain a passive object but becomes an active subject in his relationship with God is another way of saying that his communion with the Divine is of the nature of unity of spirit and not unity of substance.
The Bhakti mysticism pre-supposes that the Absolute without that revolutionary dynamism
admits of personal relationship with man. This entails two assumptions: the saguna concept of the Absolute as a Person, or a Pantheos, entering into personal relationship with the individual; and the reality of finite self positing a relationship of 'otherness' with God, which is to be transcended in mystical communion. Theistic Vedanta of Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vallabha, and Chaitanya provides for these two assumptions in one way or the other, leading to various Bhakti schools of saguna dhara. Here the manifestation of Brahman as God with personal relationship with man is considered real and not a maya-caused phenomenon; equally real is the existentiality of finite self.
With Shankara, on the other hand, Brahman, which remains nirguna, only appears as Ishvara (Personal Deity) on the phenomenal level so long as man remains on this level; once he transcends the empirical level he realizes that the saguna form of the Absolute, as well as his 'otherness', is nothing but illusory appearance. However, so long as man remains on the empirical level, the Ishvara form of the Absolute has validity for him; the loving adoration of Ishvara, as in the Bhakti-Marg, is, however, only a way to the higher realm of contemplative realization of oneness with nirguna Brahman. The nirguna Bhakti school (the Sant tradition as distinct from the Vaishanava tradition) is akin to this line of thought, though it is not wholly based on this metaphysical foundation.
The Vaishanava Bhakti owing to the underlying conception of saguna Brahman, tended to make the form (rup) of the Absolute as the focus of loving devotion; for this reason the feeling of agape changes into that of eros, as in the case of Krishna Bhakti. The nirguna Bhakti of the Sant tradition, on the other hand, made the essence (nam) of the Divine as the centre of adoration; consequently the feeling of agape here is sublated into contemplative bliss (sahaj anand) passing into the consciousness of identity with the Absolute.
Sikhism, though often mixed up with the Sant tradition of the Hindu Bhakti movement, is metaphysically different from the advaita Vedanta of Shankara as well as from theistic Vedanta of Ramanuja and others. As discussed earlier, the fundamental difference is that in Sikhism the basic category is that of spirit while for Vedanta it is substance. That is why in the Vedanta-influenced Bhakti schools—both nirguna and saguna — the ultimate, desired relationship between man and God is of the nature of unity of substance and not the unity of spirit.
The nirguna Bhakti envisions this relationship as, say, between the finite space bound in a pot and the outer infinite space; once the pot is broken the finite is again indistinguishably one with the infinite – the two remained one substance all the time. For the saguna Bhakti, the man-God relationship is of the nature of the relationship between the inflowing river and the ocean; the river on getting submerged into the ocean loses its earlier determinate (nam-rup) 'identity' and 'otherness' and becomes indeterminately one with the substance of the latter.
In the Sikh Bhakti, the individual without losing his self-identity, his form, realizes a unity of spirit with God. Guru Amar Das states the ideal as such:
Two forms united in the oneness of spirit. [14]
Looked at from this angle, Sikhism comes closer to the Semitic tradition of thought. In Christian mysticism the liberated individual soul retains its distinctive personality in unison with the Divine Personality. In Islamic mysticism, the mystic, after the stage of fana "recovers himself and lives in God"[15]; this corresponds to the metaphysical postulate of Islamic thought that the individual soul subsists as an idea in the Divine Mind, shining as a star in the Divine Firmament.
According to Sikhism man in communion with God realizes his true self, that is, he comes to partake of the humanly realizable attributes of Godhead and as such there remains no question of extinguishing the empirical ‘I’; the ‘I’ identity, rather, enlarges itself in and through the collective identity of the holy group (sangat) in a process whereby the latter emerges as a Person embodying the unities-in-spirit. The Sikh conception of-self-realization in which man becomes a self-conscious spirit, an active subject, has not only spiritual but ethical, social and political dimensions also. The Sikh ideal of jiwan mukti as such awakens man into spiritual and political consciousness, self-transcendence here is self-realization, self-awakening; it is not self-annihilation on the bodily level, self-abstraction on the psychological level, self-withdrawal on the socio-political level, and self-absorption on the metaphysical level.
The uniqueness of the revolutionary Sikh concept of self--realization is glossed over for the reason that Sikhism is usually confused with the Bhakti movement, the metaphysical basis of which was provided by Ramanuja's Vishishtadavaita, representing a theistic trend of Vedanta, carried from the South to North India by Ramanand who influenced Kabir and other Bhaktas. It is pertinent to point out here that Guru Gobind .Singh has rejected Ramanand's mission in an unmistakable way:
And then Ramanand was ordained by the Lord
Who carved out his own Vairagi path,
Wearing a necklace of wood beads,
Little did he realize the Divine Logos. [16]
The point is that in its essentials, Sikhism is distinguishable from the postulates, ethos and aims of the Hindu Bhakti movement. This difference, in a sense, refers to the social dynamics of the Sikh revolution which emerged as a dynamic ideational expression of the embryonic growth of the post-feudal, trans-feudal social relations and forces, in sharp contrast to the ideology of the age rooted in Vedantic idealism. The materialist aspect of the Sikh metaphysics, in a sense, corresponds to the anti-feudal character of social dynamics of the Sikh movement.
The idealistic conception of reality, whereby the world of time and space was dubbed as maya, was a significant ingredient of the feudal ideology of the period. By stressing the spiritual character of the material reality in time and space— as the creation of God— Guru Nanak was in fact emphasizing the materiality of reality. This is how a post-feudal revolutionary ideology grew in the form of Sikhism, that gave expression to the dynamics of a new socio-economic order. This had far-reaching repercussions on the political level as well.
The advent of Islam, particularly in its political form and thrust, on the Indian horizon in the medieval age resulted in the alienation of the Hindu society from political power in its own right. Instead of responding to this situation in a positive way, Hindu society of the period betrayed a negative, escapist attitude. The collective alienation from power on the-political level was turned upside down through the Bhakti ethos, into individual alienation of the soul from God on the theo-metaphysical level. The compulsive surrender to political Islam-was in a way homologous to voluntary self-surrender to God; the political alienation was compensated in re-union with the Divine.
The conservative, retrogressive nature of the Hindu Bhakti movement lies in the point that it indirectly provided an ideological legitimation to the political alienation of the Hindus, thus rendering them incapacitated on the sociological level. Niharranjan Ray rightly observes that the Vaishanava
"Bhakti movement betrayed an attitude of surrendering abjectly and absolutely as much to theii persona! God as to the established social order." [17]
On the other hand Sikhism, purged the Bhakti concept of alienation of its self-withdrawing, self-annihilating desideratum; man's spiritual relationship with God was made a new plank for his positive socio-political relationship with State, thereby ensuring access to political power.
The Sikh conception of salvation through self-realization (jiwan mukti) is contradistinguishable not only from the Hindu concept of mukti but also from the Buddhist concept of nirvana. The original Buddhism denied substantial Being (Vedantic Brahman) behind or beyond phenomenal becoming, that is, flux-like reality. Nirvana was postulated as a transcendental experience of stillness in which there was cessation of flux. Behind this view of substantial lay a pre-supposition that man's nervous apparatus was like a passive reflex system with an inherent inertial tendency towards restful stillness, or atleast minimization of activity; this on psychological level meant a blissful, tension-free state of being ensured by insulation of the system against aflux of internal and external stimuli. (That is-why Barbara Low has named this supposed passivist tendency as the Nirvana Principle[18] in psychology— a tendency which is no more accepted by modern bio-psychological thought [19]).
Nirvana, as such, is essentially a psycho-metaphysical concept which entailed an abstract state of mind brought about by self-withdrawal from stimuli, that is, from the flux of the world of time and space. The self-withdrawal here is due to the view that primodial state of mind is that of tension-free inertiality of a closed system in passive equilibrium. The Vedantic self-abstraction, on the other hand, is due to the postulation that the aboriginal state of the essential self is that of adjunct-free beingness – a state in which atma realizes its a priori identity with abstract, indeterminate Brahman: The self-abstraction in either case entails an ethics of self-withdrawal, of the world and life negation, in which passivity is raised to the level of the supreme normative principle of individual and social life.
This stands in sharp contrast to the Sikh ethics of action, of the world and life affirmation. In a sense the basic difference is that the Sikh ethics envisages action in historical time, as against the Hindu conception of Karma Yoga which is action in spatial time, that is, “not action in time but action in Eternity.”[20]
The pre-Nanakian classical tradition of India, owing to its over-stress on the ethos of self-abstraction, self-negation and self-surrender, remained, in a sense, anti-humanist with its negative attitude towards the phenomenal reality – the bodily state of man and the world of time and space. The trans humanist orientation of both the Vedantic mukti and the Buddhist nirvana on an empirical level meant an anti-humanist ethos. The Sikh concept of jiwan mukti with its stress on self-realization and a positive attitude towards the phenomenal world introduced a humanist value-pattern which constitutes a watershed in the development of the ethical tradition of India.
Sikhism views the world of time and space as true and real. The bodily state of man is deemed as an opportunity to realize God. As such the human condition is intrinsically good; it is neither a state of sinful Fall as in Christianity, nor an occasion of maya-caused separation from the Absolute as in Hinduism.
The pre-Nanakian value-pattern, being caste based was differential and not universal; dharma was the performance of one’s caste-determined duty relating to his fixed status in life in hierarchized society, which was supposed to remain in equilibrium so long as each person did his pre-determined duty as nishkam karma - duty for the sake of duty. This state of affairs was legitimized as the reign of dharma in the universe, any disturbance of which was seen as the pre-ponderance of evil over good; the disturbed equilibrium warranted intervention of the avtar to restore the balance, that is, to restore the reign of dharma.
This reign of dharma is differentiable from the rule of law on two counts. First, the reign of dharma in so far as it involved the concept of nishkam karma (disinterested action) rules out the notion of one's rights obtainable in the modern conception of rule of law. Secondly, as mentioned above, the conception of dharma entailed differential value-pattern, as against the universal equalitarian desideratum of the rule of law. Writes Nirad C. Chaudhuri:
"In its social doctrine, the Gita was not egalitarian, but staunchly attached to the caste-system, and to it only the Brahmin and the Kshatriya were noble by birth." [21]
No doubt, in the pre-Nanakian period, there have been occasional reactions against the caste-based differential ethics; but these reactions were usually regressive in the sense that they gave individualistic, rather than altruistic, orientation to ethical system; the liberation from the caste-bound hierarchized ethical code was sought in the ethics of individualism with a tendency towards asceticism, self-denial, self-mortification. This sort of individualistic ethics thus became an adjunct of mysticism, with the result that neither individualistic ethics nor the allied mysticism could play any leavenous role in changing the static pattern of society.
The Sikh value-pattern was conceived to act as a revolutionary leaven for a fundamental change in individual and social life. Dharma is no more seen as a hierarch administering a caste-based, differential moral code, and preserving as such the hierarchical equilibrium of society; it is, rather, seen as born of Divine compassion:
Dharma, the earth-sustaining Bull,
is the logos born of Divine compassion. [22]
Being an expression of Divine compassion, dharma is a non-discriminatory, equalitarian moral principle which makes one's actions as the determinant of his place in society as well as his-position in the reckoning of God:
Our caste or birth is not recognized in
the House Truth,
It is one's deeds that determine one's
real caste (identity) and place of honor. [23]
The normative principle for one's action no more remains the pre-determined, caste-based role-performance as an end in itself; the fixity of role-performance having been dispensed with as such, the way is paved for restructuration of society on equalitarian basis. Herein lies the revolutionary character of the Sikh value-pattern.
The Sikh value-pattern is not only non-differential but is also non-individualistic; the stress is not on self-seeking, individual liberation but on altruistic concern for the humanity as a whole (sarbat da bhala). The Sikh ethics is, as such, of corporate character.
The Bhakti movement could not play a revolutionary role on the sociological level owing, inter alia, to its individualistic mystique; the stress here was on individualistic salvation in the world hereafter realizable through the mystical union with God. Says Kabir:
Kabir, take not another with thee
On the saintly path to union. [24]
On the other hand Sikhism enlarged the conception of salvation by investing it with a collectivistic, societal dimension. In his Japji Guru Nanak lays emphasis on collective amelioration as the goal for man:
Those who meditate on the Divine Name,
Their toiling journey is rewarded,
With redeemed faces, Nanak, they
take along to salvation many more. [25]
Thus, the role of religion was given a sociological orientation. Sikhism, as such, going beyond the hounds of mysticism emerged as a nomos-creating, Prophetic religion; the institutional growth of Sikh religion is due to this new conception of pregnant with revolutionary socio-political potentialities. Unlike the Hindu rituals, the Sikh ceremonies are essentially of the nature of sacraments in the nomizational role of Sikhism.
The Sikh conception of ideal man (gurmukh) is essentially different from the Sufi conception of darvesh and the Hindu notion of bhakta, as the latter are steeped in the ethics of individualism.
In the new value-system heralded by Sikhism, the individual's rights— social, political, religious and cultural — have been given due significance so pointedly for the first time in the history of Indian praxis. Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom was for up-keeping the individual's right to religious freedom.
The Sikh value-pattern introduced a new conception about the source, nature and exercise of political power. The postulate of the Sikh polity is that Godhead is the ultimate, aboriginal source and centre of all spiritual and temporal power. As mentioned elsewhere the spiritual sovereignty (piri) descending in time through the Guru-person devolved upon the Granth (The Sikh Scripture) and the temporal sovereignty (miri) got diffused into the Khalsa, which as such becomes the repository of the temporal, including political, power. Guru Gobind Singh symbolically expresses this idea of the Khalsa Panth being the repository of all power by attributing all his achievements, acquisitions and endowments to the benediction of the Panth:
My victories in the battles are
all due to my followers—the Khalsa.
They have filled my stores,
I owe to them my learning
It is their sacrifice that has vanquished my foes
Their grace kept me away from ill,
My charity was made possible by their aid;
I am elevated by their benediction—
Otherwise, millions of beggars like me go unnoticed. [24]
The Sikh polity as such comes to have a republican, democratic character which in the feudal context of the medieval age was a revolutionary concept of tremendous significance in changing the complexion of political power. The Khalsatantra— Halemi Raj in the words of Guru Arjun Dev—is, is in a sense, the highest form of loktantra (democracy).
The Sikh concept of God as Sacha Patshah, as opposed to the earthly feudal king, contained seeds of socio-political revolt of tremendous historical significance. This concept struck against the notion of the Divine rights of the king and heralded a new pattern of political organization.
Further, the idea of temporal sovereignty having been vested in the Panth played great historical role in the Sikh people's struggle for political ascendancy in the Punjab in the eighteenth century in particular, and in the subsequent periods in general. The concept of the sovereignty of the Khalsa provided the motivating spirit for the relentless struggle against the State; it also gave the principle of unity, cohesion and organization to the Sikh people in the form of voluntary submission to the supreme collective authority of the Guru-Panth, with Sri Akal Takhat as the symbolic seat of this sovereignty.
Another significant aspect of the Sikh polity needs to be mentioned here. The unity of religion and politics in Sikhism (which makes the Sikhs a religious group as well as a political community) is essentially of the nature of correlation of the two sovereignties—spiritual (piri) and temporal (miri). Accordingly, the relationship between religious institutions and secular institutions is not of the type of coalescence of the two, or of subordination of the one to the other.
As such, in Sikhism the State and the Church have their distinctive autonomous existence and role in their respective domains, being correlatively under the suzerainty
of the Guru Khalsa as the historically determinate expression of God-in-history, For this reason the Sikh polity, with its ideal of Halemi Raj, is of non-theocratic character; there is no merger of the religious and the secular power in a single person or in a single institution.
Sikhism envisioned a new socio-economic order marked by the values of equality and justice, without any discrimination on grounds of creed, caste, country and sex. The Hindu concept of karma (action) was given a this-worldly humanistic orientation whereby action was equated with service (sewa), labor (kirat). To do labor is to partake of the creativity of Godhead. Labor is seen as the matrix of all values, spiritual and material. Contributing their own share according to their capacities, all are co-equal partners in the commonwealth of values, as proclaimed by Guru Arjun:
All are partners in Thy commonwealth,
You treat none as alien. [26]
This being the case there remains no question of exploitation of labor of other persons. Says Guru Nanak:
To exploit the rightful due lo others
is like eating the (forbidden)
Cow for one (Hindu), and swine
for the other (Muslim).
The Lord vouchsafes for us only
if we are not usurpers. [27]
But injunction against exploitation of labor in itself is not sufficient in the new socio-economic order conceived by Sikhism. Society for its collective obligations needs surplus value, the traditional sources of which have been exploitation of labor, colonial plunder, war and the like. The voluntary offerings (daswandh) in the presence of Sri Guru Granth are of the nature of contribution to the surplus value required
for the corporate needs of the community in particular, and society in general; unlike the Hindu ritual these are not the offerings to propitiate the Deity. Says Guru Nanak:
Oh Nanak, he alone realizes the way
who eats the fruit of his toil,
sharing with others. [28]
The new social order envisioned by Sikhism is anti-holistic. As discussed earlier, the Vedantic thought in all its forms and hues does not concede any in-itself existential reality of the individual self; the essence of the self is atma which is a part of the whole, the One-Brahman. The identity of the two is realized either in cognition of the a priori unity, or in union
with God through self-absorption. Once this identity is realized, there remains no maya-caused feeling of separate self-identity of the individual. This extinction of personality, of individuality, leads to the holistic character of the classical tradition of India in which the individual has no intrinsic, separate self-identity of his own, his identity being the overall identity of the social whole — caste, clan, race, etc.— to which he belongs as a passive
part.
The Vedantic relationship between atma and Brahman provides metaphysical basis to the holistic tradition for which the individual has no existentiality of his own, no self-identity, no intrinsic significance, but only group-determined identity and derivative value in the social scale. This, among other things, means passive submission to the authority of the group, the caste, the State. Holism also served as a pillar of the caste-edifice. Further, the holistic character of the pre-Nanakian
tradition is also anti-democratic in the sense that democracy postulates the individual to be the primary unit possessing intrinsic worth and will, identity and individuality, which is not repudiated.
In consonance with its concept of self-realization, the Sikh value-pattern rejects the holistic tradition of classical Indian thought. As on the metaphysical level the relationship between man and God is not postulated in terms of self-annihilation, the corresponding relationship
On the sociological level is consequentially not envisioned holistically; the individual, rather, is
seen as possessing not caste-determined identity but a self-identity of his own in terms of his individuality, his intrinsic worth, value and will, expressible in his actions which as such constitute the ethico-social norm for determining his place and position in the ultimate reckoning of values.
The distinctive characteristics of Sikhism, under discussion, flow from its being a religion of spirit. This quality also accounts for the nature of Sikhism as a revealed religion of a special kind. Reality is accessible through the following four main traditional modes of knowledge: sense-perception, intellectual cognition, intuition, and revelation. While mystical religions are based on the mode of intuition, the 'higher1 religions involve the mode of revelation which is of two kinds: indirect and direct revelation. In Islam, the Divine revelation was given to Prophet Mohammad indirectly, that is, through "an angel customarily identified as Gabriel."[29]
Direct revelation is further of two types. In Hindu (Vedic) thought the revelation does not descend from a single source or focus—God. What is revealed, rather, is the primordial sound diffused in the cosmos. This primordial sound is Om, the symbol of Brahman. But Om is not only the auditory symbol of the Absolute, it is also the symbol of Brahman as the Word; sphota expressing the identity of the two[30]. But here arises a paradox. Brahman is on the one hand identified with the Word, and on the other hand is said to be inexpressible in words. Says Bhartrihari:
"The true reality is known under its illusory forms, by the words, under untrue disguises." [31]
This paradox is resolved when we know the connotation of the concept of the Word, The Word (Akshara-Brahman) identified with Brahman expresses the summum genus; it relates to the general and not to individual members thereof - particular things, or determinate reality. The Word, as such, expresses the universalia in rebus: Brahman. It is the all-inclusive concept, the generic abstractness of which corresponds to the ontological abstractness of Brahman as the basic substance excludent of all determinate aspects, qualities and attributes. Because, the Word, here, is generic abstraction, and not determinate language which, expresses reality in its determinate forms and aspects, so Brahman qua the Word remains inexpressible, that is, beyond determinate expression in determinate words.
This brings into bold relief the essential difference between the Hindu and the Sikh concept of the Word (shabda). The Gurbani (shabda) is the determinate Word expressing the ultimate reality in determinate forms. The Absolute in its determinate form, Name, as such does not remain inexpressible in words: Says Guru Nanak:
In words His Name is prehendcd.
…………………………………
In words His predicates are sung,
In words is expressed the union with God. [32]
It was Ihe Word as the real determinate expression of the indeterminate that was given to the Guru in direct revelation by God Himself. The Janamsakhi story of Guru Nanak having been "taken in a vision to God's presence,"[33] when he disappeared for three days while bathing in the river Baeen, is a mythopic way of saying that the Sikh Prophet received direct revelation from the Lord Himself in the form of the Word (shabda). Says Guru Nanak:
O, Lalo, I utter The Word as
I receive it from the Lord. [34]
The Word as the articulation of the Divine Name is “the qualitative expression of God's personality [35].” It is this conception of the directly revealed determinate Word— distinguishable from the Hindu sphota and the Neoplatonic logos — that elevates the Adi Granth, the Sikh Scripture, to the status of the eternal Guru expressing the Divine Spirit that descended in history through the revelatory medium of the Sikh Prophets:
The Word is the manifest Spirit of
the Guru; the Guru is immanent in the Word. [36]
Sri Guru Granth having embodied the Divine Spirit as such there remains no question or need of a continuing series of bodily living Gurus; the Guru verily is the revealed Word, and not the bodily form.
Some other aspects of the revelatory character of Sikh religion also need to be mentioned here. Unlike some Semitic religions, Sikhism does not claim, on three grounds, to be the final revelation of the ultimate reality. First, Sikh philosophy accepts the epistemologic relativity of the modes of cognition of reality. No mode of cognition is capable of expressing reality-in-itself; what is apprehended is relative to the mode of apprehension, which determines the form in which reality is known. Guru Nanak expresses this idea figuratively in Japji by saying that the brave sees God in the form of Might; the intellectual comprehends Him in the form of Light (of knowledge); the aesthete perceives the Divine in His aspect of Beauty; the moralist envisions Him as Goodness, while to some others He appears in the form of the Creator[37]. Guru Arjun Dev expresses the same idea in the following words:
A myriad persons appeared as
His Prophets
who expressed Him but only partially
He is expressible in myriad modes. [38]
Secondly, Sikh philosophy contends the universality as well as the historicity of the content of revelation. The revelation has a universal as also a historical aspect; while in its ultimate concerns it refers to the mankind as a whole, it is simultaneously stamped by the spatio-historical conditions of the age in which it originates. In other words, Sikhism sees religious consciousness of mankind in its growth and development. Referring to the six traditional philosophical systems of Hindu religious thought, Guru Nanak says that these, as the manifestations of the Absolute in different times and places, are like the changing seasons which refer back to a single centre, the Sun.
Accepting the historicity of various religious beliefs, rituals and practices, Sikh religion stresses their out datedness in changed circumstances, without repudiating their aboriginal significance and validity; emphasis is on making a person himself realize the irrelevance of the old, outdated beliefs and rituals without forcing religious conversion on him. In Sikhism there is no place for proselytism through force or inducement. Sikh religion upholds the fundamental right of every person to profess and practice his religion freely.
Though the Hindu rituals of the sacred thread (janeu) and the sacred mark on the forehead (tilak) are doctrinally rejected, Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificed his life in protest against the persecution of the Kashmiri Brahmins who were being forced to forsake the thread and the mark. This martyrdom was not for the sake of the tilak and janeu as such, but was assertion of the fundamental right to religious freedom — a concept that springs from the postulate that no "ism" can be conceded monopolistic finality as regards its claim to truth, to cognition of reality.
The third reason why Sikh religion does not declare itself to be the full and final revelation of reality is the postulate of the infinity of God's qualities, attributes and aspects which constitute the knowable reality.
That Sikhism does not claim to be the final revelation of reality accounts for its non-exclusivity which is reflected in its pluralistic conception of society — a conception that is different from the Hindu concept of concentric society, and the Islamic idea of uni-central community. The pluralistic society, as envisioned by Sikhism, does not erode or dilute the respective self-identities of various communities co-existing therein. It is significant to note here that Guru Nanak calls upon a Muslim to realize his true identity by following the essence of Islamic religion:
It is rather difficult to be called a Muslim,
If there be one let him be so known.
He should first abide by the piety of his Prophet's
Faith. [39]
Nowhere has any Hindu, Muslim or votary of any other religion urged to renounce his identity, his faith, his moorings. By the same logic, the self-identity of the Sikh people, in which lies their cohesiveness, has also been made a categorical imperative.
The Sikh community was conceived right from the very beginning as a distinctive entity distinguishable from the Hindu as well as the Muslim community. Guru Nanak had declined: to wear the sacred thread of the Hindus; the point was not merely the rejection of Hindu formalism but also of the Hindu nomos, the Hindu value syndrome. Significantly enough, Guru Amar Das, the third Sikh Prophet, was exempted by the Mughal Government from payment of pilgrimage tax, leviable on all the Hindus, on the ground that the followers that he was leading to various holy places were not Hindus.
The doctrinal identity of Sikhism was laid down by Guru Nanak; the socio-cultural identity of the Sikh society was-established by Guru Amar Das through nomizational ceremonies, and the political identity of the Sikhs as a "people" was. institutionalized through baptismal amrit on the Baisakhi day of the year 1699 at Sri Anandpur Sahib by Guru Gobind Singh, who in very categorical terms enjoined upon them to preserve their self-identity:
The Khalsa shall continue to be blessed with
all my power,
So long as it preserves its identity and uniqueness.
But when the Sikhs take to the Brahminical path,
I would not stand by them. [40]
The basis of the Sikh identity in general is the sovereignty of the doctrine stressed by Guru Amar Das in the following words:
The six systems of (Hindu) thought have
pervasive influence over man,
But the Guru's system transcends them all.
REFERENCES
1 W J. Staee, The Philosophy of Hagel. Dover Publications, N.Y., 1955, p. 495.
2 Ibid., p. 498.
3 Sri Guru Granth,, p. 4.
4 (The Divine Will cre-ited the Khalsa as His Army on earth to fulfill the Mission—Sarloh Granth.)
5 Arnold Toynbce, A Study of History, Oxford University Press, 1934-54., Volume V, p. 667.
6 (This verily is the phenomenal form of the Timeless, Who manifests Himself in the corporate body of the Khalsa —Prehlad Rai, author of a Sikh Rehatnama.)
(The Khalsa is my deierminate form. I am immanent in the Khalsa— Guru Gobind Singh.)
7 Milic Capek, The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics, D. Van Nostrand Company, N.Y., 1961. p. 327.
8 Sri Guru Gruiith, p 3.
9 Ibid., p. 7.
10 Karl Marx. 'The British Rule in India", in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, On Colonialism, Progress Publishers. Moscow, 1968, p. 41.
11 M.N. Srinivas, Social Change in Modern India,. Los Angeles. California, 1966, p. 6.
12 Sri Guru Granth, p 15.
13 Ibid., p. 378.
14 Ibid., p. 788.
15 Radhakamal Mukerjee, The Theory and Art of Mysticism, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1960, p. 117.
16 Guru Gobind Singh, Bichitra Natak, Canto VI,. 25.
17 Nihirranjan Ray, The Sikh Gurus and the Sikh Society, Punjabi University, Patiala, 1970, p. 26.
18 Barbara Low, Psychoanalysis : A Brief Account of Freudian Theory, Allen and Unwin, London, 1920, p. 73.
19 Robert R. Holt, "A Review of some of Freud's Biological Assumptions and Their Influence on His Theories", in Psychoanalysis and Current Biological Thought, edited by Norman S. Greenfield and William C. Lewis, the University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin, 1965, p. 108.
20 Juan Mascaro, The Bhagavad Gita, Penguin Books, 1972, p. 24.
21 Nirad C. Chaudhuri, Hinduism, B.I. Publications, N.D., 1979, p. 266 (Footnote).
22 Sri Guru Granth, p. 3.
23 Ibid., p. 1330.
24 Ibid., p. 1370.
25 Ibid., p. 8.
26 Ibid., p. 97.
27 Ibid., p. 141.
28 Ibid., p. 1245.
29 James Kritzeck (ed). Anthology of Islamic Literature, Penguin Books, 1964, p. 54.
30 F. Max Muller, The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, Associated Publishing House, N.D., 1980, p. 382.
31 Quoted by F. Max Muller, Op. cit., p. 381.
32 Sri Guru Granth, p. 4.
33 M.A. Macauliffe, The Sikh Religion, S. Chand and Co., N.D., 1963, p. 34.
34 Sri Guru Granth, p. 722.
35 Gopal Singh, Sri Guru Granth Sahib, (English translation of the Sikh Scripture), World Sikh-University Press, Chandigarh (India), 1978, p. XXX.
36 Sri Guru Granth, p. 982.
37 Ibid., pp. 1-2.
38 Ibid., pp. 1235-1236.
39 Ibid., p. 141.
40 Sarbloh Granth.
41 Sri Guru Granth, pp. 360-361.
Source: The Sovereignty of the Sikh Doctrine: Sikhism in the perspective of modern thought, by Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia, Bahri (1983).
