Sikhism as a socio-religious movement in its historical context, was a powerful liberating force. It freed millions of people from the clutches of orthodoxy and dogmatism, caste order and ritualism, inaction and fear, political oppression and slavery. Sikhism implanted a feeling of self-respect and fearlessness in the minds of millions of erstwhile oppressed people. It inspired them to social action.
It is imperative that any discussion of the Sikh concept of freedom is to be conducted in this context of emergence and historical mission of Sikhism. However, as the Sikh Scripture, Sri Guru Granth Sahib, is not a latter day philosophical treatise, with any chapterised exposition or a conceptual study of the notion of liberty or freedom, we attempt here a perspective of the concept of liberty correlating and collocating various ideas found expressed in Guru Granth Sahib.
Two Paridgms
Let us begin with a preview of the conceptual framework in which the idea of liberty has evolved in the history of human thought. The implied idea here is that the concept of liberty enjoys or suffers, the privileges or the limitations of the paradigm in which it emerges. The first is the transcendental paradigm of traditional religions and philosophy which dichotomises the Being into transcendenatal and phenomenal. In the dichotomic systems, the transcendental and phenomenal realms of being are characterised by oppositional features, such as sacred and profane, eternal and temporal, real and illusory. A rigid evaluative criterion is involved in this type of classification and an hierarchy is built between the opposites.
Thus, for example, the temporal realm is considered as the lower (illusory) one and the transcendental is apprehended as the higher (only reality). Consequently, the idea of freedom, as the supreme ideal in these systems, is defined as the negation of the temporal realm of life. Discussing the Hegelian critique of the transcendental, philosophical and religious systems, Robert C. Solomon points out that human freedom is impossible in these systems and man is given no moral autonomy.
The disharmony of God and man is involved in any religious doctrine which teaches a transcendent God, a God whose existence is somewhat independent of man....A view of God as transcendent moral judge takes moral autonomy and responsibility out of the hands of man and places it beyond him....A transcendent God makes human autonomy impossible.
Consequently Hegel sees a contradiction between the transcendent God and human freedom.1
All transcendental systems of thought speak of freedom in a negative sense as freedom from something else. This means the construction of reality and the other, thus a dichotomic model of being. Classically, the other is the body, the world, the temporal existence. In ancient Greek philosophy, Parmenides, followed by Plato, dichotomised the life into the world of Truth and the world of opinions, the latter meaning the empirical world characterised by changing, chaotic, relative and so as non-being. Christianity continued this tradition naming the earthly life originally sinful and chaotic.
In India, we have the Vedic-Vedantic life of thought which declares that Brahman alone is the reality (at the Paramartika level as they say) while the earthly life is maya or illusion. However, Vedanta maintains, at the Vyavaharika level the caste order, rituals and the karma theory to totally determine the earthly existence.
Thus one finds that the transcendental or dichotamic paradigm leaves the eartly life either totally chaotic or totally deterministic.
The second paradigm, which is in vogue in our times, is the modern anthropocentric one. It seeks, above all, to define freedom as the freedom of the individual man. In a sense, the modern paradigm, at its best, only debates the existence of the transcendental realm, but not the argument of the classical systems that the empirical world is chaotic, relative and individualistic.
Consequently, it defines the concept of freedom in the same vein. As such, the relativistic concept of freedom and also of man is available in the Greek thought, pronounced by Sophists. Protogrous, the representative philosopher of Sophist school declares each individual as the measure of all the things. Modern European philosophy too proclaims that:
Man is free, this is certainly the substantial nature of man...Man's unity with himself is set forth as the fundamental, so that man in himself, acquires the infinite strength.2
The German philosopher Hegel indicates the limitations of this conception of freedom which he considers to be the fundamental of such a conception. He says:
The arbitrary caprice of an individual...or volition, as the impulse to abrogate one's subjectivity.3
Hegel proposes to replace the voluntaristic definition of freedom by the rational one: "It is only as having the power of thinking that the will is free."4
In "thinking", Hegel tries to achieve the concrete unity of freedom and necessity, particular and universal. No doubt, the Hegelian attempt is a contentful one. However, it has its sad end when Hegel sees in the State the realisation of freedom. He maintains that the State is the first relisation of freedom.5 Taking away from the historical context of the French Revolution, the Hegelian conception leads to celebrate bureaucracy and power as the realisation of freedom. Hegelian rationalism is inadequately committed to questions of morality and social justice in its understanding of the concept of freedom.
Thus, the two paradigms in which the question on freedom are discussed, have their own shortcomings, that they are equally onesided, either transcendental or empirical. As we see, the history of philosophy, despite the earnest attempts of many philosophers to synthesize the two ends, remains unfulfilled to accomplish the same. It is at this juncture that one encounters the Sikh perspective of freedom.
Sikhism - A Third Paradigm
We start discussing the Sikh idea of freedom from its conception of reality which forms the basis of any philosophy and religion. Sikhism perceives the reality as One, Unified and Dynamic. The Sikh mulmantra names it as Ik-oankar. The reality as understood by the Sikh Gurus is the concrete unity of transcendence and immanence, spiritual and mundane, God and the world, eternal and temporal, transcendental and socio-historical. Guru Nanak says:
Wherever I look,
His sole presence I behold,
Himself in each being immanent.
Himself the sun, with rays out-spread,
Himself the hidden reality,
Himself the visible forms.
Attributed and unattributed are two terms devised,
But in unison One Reality formulate.6(SGGS: p.387)
During the period of the sixth Guru this was formulated as the principle of miri-piri. This is a new conceptual frame in which the notion of freedom is to be pondered over. It repudiates the raw and crude extremes of determinism and relativism. While excluding the abstract ends, the spirit of Sikhism is inclusive and reconciliative. The reality is conceived by the Sikh Gurus as a whole structure, no one component is inimical to the other. Guru Arjan says:
All beings by the air of breath
has He bound together,
Fire to wood is joined.
Water and earth in one spot
has He placed -
Neither inimical to the other. (SGGS: p.1235)
Guru Nanak confirms the idea of reconciliation by saying:
In love, through sweet speech
comes reunion.
Denial of religious scriptures
with truthfulness is healed.
The dead to the world by
righteousness is tied
These in the world be the
means of reconciliation.
Should brass, gold or iron be broken,
The smith in the fire fuses it together. (SGGS: p.143)
This intense spirit of oneness, unity and inclusiveism suggets that the idea of freedom cannot be conceived in Sikhism as freedom from something other. Sikhism would agree with the view of Masao Abe, a Zen Buddhist, that:
If you are free from something, there is still duality.7
Thus, Sikhism overcomes any dichotamic understanding of reality and consequently, its conception of freedom is also to be understood and realised in a holistic paradigm.
Hukam Is Not Deterministic
Hukam, the Divine Will, word or ordinance is the one concept which is often indicated as carrying the intonation of determinism in Sikhism. It is true that Hukam is a prominent concept in Sikhism and it is one of the structuring principles of Sikh ideology. It is also true that traditionally the concept of Divine Ordinance stands for God's determination of worldly affairs.
In Hindu tradition, for example, it is held that, besides the natural order, the hierarchical social system was created by Divine Ordinance. The Vedic tradition calls it Sanavhana dharma or apaurushya, meaning the timelessness and irrevocability of the "varna" system. This gives a fatal rigidity to the system and any change in it is seen as apostasy.
Following these ideas, the Sikh conception of Hukam too is often understood as a principle of Divine determination which acts as if against the notion of freedom. However, a closer look at the same reveals the distinction. Hukam in Sikhism is the Divine Ordinance. But the concept is a dynamic one. Dynamic means change, development, growth, evolution, appearance of new, formation of fresh relations in the structure, one becoming many and many uniting into one, etc.
Hukam in Sikhism stands to indicate the Divine Ordinance by which a reality of dynamic whole or a reality of creative-whole has been created and is ever being newly created, which includes oneness and multiplicity, eternality, renewal and change.
All the endless expanse of Creation arose out of one Note, giving rise to millions of streams," says the Japuji Sahib (SGGS: p.3).
Again, it states:
In innumerable aspects, categories
And species has He made the creation. (SGGS: p.6)
It is this moment of One becoming the many, and the spirit of change that guarantee the perspective of freedom in Sikhism. Union and separation are the twin moments which spearhead the process of creation and eternal becoming. Creation by Divine Ordinance, it should be underscored, is an expression of freedom. As Berdyaev maintains,
Creation means transition from nonbeing to being through a free act....Creation presupposes freedom and arises out of freedom.8
And as it becomes clear from Gurbani, the Creator has bestowed the faculty of creativity to his creation too, above all, to man. Hukam, the Divine Ordinance assures this:
All beings by Divine Ordinance arise,
By the Ordinance in actions engage. (SGGS: p.55)
The moment of freedom is implanted in man. Man is rooted in God. The tree ("ped") of Creation is rooted in God. Consequently, there exists a similarity between God and man.
Bhagat Ravidas says: What difference between Thee and me, and me and Thee? No more than between gold and bangle, and water and the wave. (SGGS)
The Creator takes no bounds,
so are we not bound,
he takes no impurity,
nor are we made impure.
As He is pure,
so are we like Him. (SGGS: p.391)
By truthful living through the creative acts, man participates in God's continuing act of universal and social renewal and recreation.
A creative act is therefore a continuation of world-creation and means participation in the work of God....And this presupposes freedom.
Immanence Of God - The Sources Of Human Freedom
It has been already discussed in the present paper that the concept of Transcendent God is inadequate to render justice to the idea of human freedom and consequently philosophers such as Spinoza and Hegel resort to the notion of immanent God to make possible the realisation of freedom and moral autonomy. Immanence of God in the world and in man is a consistent theme that Sikhism also pursues.
"In all creation is the Lord pervasive" (SGGS: p.376), says Guru Arjun.
More elaborately, the fifth Guru says:
The Lord that has bestowed on you
mind, body and substance.
And inperfect order cherished your being,
Who of all faculties has made you
Master, and placed within you
His endless effulgence -
Contemplate Him ever. (SGGS: p.47)
It is this "endless effulgence of God in man", which becomes the perpetual source of human freedom. If God is immanent in all beings, then there is divinity in all created beings, above all in man. It is due to this fact, the Sikh Gurus repeatedly claim that God is Holy and all His creation, this world is Holy. The idea of immanence of God infuses meaning to time, society and history. The temporal, social and historical acts of man, inspired by ethical concern and social justice, are evaluated by the Sikh Gurus as real and holy:
"Himself He prompts the creation to act", (SGGS: p.114), says Guru Amar Das. Guru Nanak affirms:
Himself he inspires action,
Himself the Doer.(SGGS: p.349)
The Gurus declare that it is these deeds of man which are really counted:
Man receives retribution as are his deeds,
Himself man sows and himself consumes the produce.(SGGS: p.662)
Here and elsewhere, man and his deeds are placed in an autonomous ethical plane. The immanence of God in man and that immanence inspiring man to ethically good and socially just activities define the ideal of man (sachiar) in Sikhism. It is in this sense that human life is celebrated as a gift and a rare opportunity in Sikhism. Guru Amar Das testifies:
The human incarnation(birth) is a rare gift,
only by earning it, does one find it. (SGGS: p.565)
Human freedom consists in realising this opportunity. The simple but wonderful words of Avtar Singh can be quoted here:
The Absolute in Sikhism is conceived as Activity (Karta). The self-realisation is patterned on the nature of the Absolute. The Self, through its cognitive functions, affective and conative functions, is to proceed to its ideal realisation.10
Here the Sikh ideal is indicated as "to proceed" and not as "to return".
In the traditional religious systems the ideal is regressive, that the Self (the atman, for example in Advaita) return to be re-absorbed into its original abode, the Absolute idea (Brahman) after discriminating its earthly, temporal relations. In such a case, it is difficult to attribute any amount of positive freedom to self as it is expected to lose itself in the process of discrimination to achieve non-differential unity with Brahman.
The Sikh idea is progressive in the sense that man comes out of his individual shell (haumain) and spreads out to the whole, the abode of truth, the total existence. The immanence of whole in man and its dynamism leads him to the reconstruction of the whole. Man acts, and he acts freely, transforms the whole to its betterment. Man acts very similar to the Karta Purakh and his progressive spirituality is projected towards the future. At this momemt, man is free, fearless, pure, true and his sense of justice is intensely acute. No wonder that the great Guru pronounced the following words at such a moment:
Listen, Thou art Creator of all -
Should a powerful foe molest one equally powerful,
Little would the mind be grieved.
But when a ferocious tiger falls upon a herd of kine,
Then must the Master be called to account. (SGGS: p.360)
Conclusion: Unity Of Structure And Agency
The above discussion on the Sikh concept of freedom reminds us of a controversy in modern sociological and philosophical theory. Scholars identify two modes of thought prevalent among the modern theories. The first one gives priority to the structure, the whole, or the rule, paying little care to the agency of change, freedom and action. This mode of thought is usually called a conformist one.
The second makes fundamental the moment of action and change, thus relinquishing the structure and rule. Anthony Giddens, a modern sociologist, reporting this situation in recent thought, considers both as onesided and abstract, indicating that the main reason for such a dichotomy is that the structure (Rule) in such systems is understood as static and as a system of constraints. Consequently, the reaction is that theories onesidedly celebrating freedom and action are postulated.
Anthony Giddens advances a concept of unity of structure and agency in which neither the structure is static and constrained, nor the agency is a voluntaristic reaction to the former. Both structure and agency are proposed to be seen as dynamic and forming a coherent unity.11
Another Giddens sociological discussion has something important to suggest to help the understanding of the Sikh concepts of Hukam and freedom, Divine order and human action, the whole and free action. The concepts mentioned above form a type of unity, and not a conflict, in the Sikh mode of thinking. They are interdependent and form a type of continuity. Hukam expresses not only the created structure but also the dynamism of that structure. The idea of immanence of God in world and in man is the expression of continuity of Hukam as a principle of dynamism in world and in man.
Consequently, there is no need to counterpose Hukam and human freedom. Hukam is not a barrier to action but it essentially involves in the production of the latter. Hukam enables man to act, it makes him free to act. As such, even the Sikh model of human action cannot be properly worked out separately from the understanding of the dynamic nature of Hukam, the Divine Ordinance.
We conclude by saying that the unity of structure and agency, Hukam and freedom, has become possible due to the enormous liberative force put into the thought process by the Sikh Gurus from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh, about which we mentioned at the outset of the present paper.
NOTES & REFERENCES
1 Robert C Solomon, From Rationalism to Existentialism, Harper & Row, New York, 1972, p.42.
2 Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, Roultedge and Kegan Paul, London, Vol.III, 1963. p.401.
3 Ibid., p.402
4 Ibid., p.402
5 Ibid., p.402
6 Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Translated by Prof. G.S. Talib, Punjabi University Publication, patiala.
7 Masao, Abe, Zen and Western Thought, Macmillan, 1985, p.200.
8 Charles Hartshorne and William L. Reese (Ed.), Philosophers Speak of God, University of Chicago Press, 1953, p.291.
9 Ibid., p.291
10 Avtar Singh, Ethics of The Sikhs, Punjabi University, Patiala, 1991, p.255.
11 Anthony Giddens, Central Problems In Social Theory, Chapter II ; Agency, Structure, Macmillan, 1979, p.49-95.
