By Gurnam Singh | Opinion |
Introduction
Amongst Sikh preachers, scholars and their followers the world over in gurdwaras, university seminars, TV channels and on social media, a debate is raging about the place of logic and rationality, or what in Punjabi we term ‘tarak’ and ‘taraksheelta’, in Sikhi. Characterised as a struggle between so-called ‘missionaries’ and ‘sampradayas’, the divisions appear to be deepening with each side hardening its position and generating its own truth claims.
In very simple terms, the Sikh missionary position is characterised by its assertion that, though characteristically written in the Northern Indian traditional poetic form, Gurbani should be primarily understood through the lens of rationality. In doing so, they cast doubt on the veracity of many miracle stories associated with Sikhi and underplay the importance of religious rituals. Moreover, they minimise or even question the legitimacy of a priestly class and titles such as ‘Sant’ and ‘Brahamgiani’, which are widely used in the sampradaya tradition.
On the other side, the Sikh sampradaya tradition is identified with asserting the primacy of ‘sharda’. This term is derived from the Sanskrit ‘shradda’ which refers to an unquestioning devotion to the divine, which is outwardly demonstrated through various rituals, such as ceremonial worship of, holy texts, artefacts and sites. It may also involve supplication, including bowing down, in front of men who are believed to be spiritually enlightened. They emphasise the importance of revelation, ritual, acceptance and mysticism. They accuse the missionaries of, at best trying to offer a ‘Christianised’ version of Sikhi, or at worst, being ‘nastiks’ or ‘atheists’.
The purpose of this article is not to take any side or to make value judgements about any individual personalities or groups, but to explore the possibility of bridging the differences. Given the realities of a rapidly changing and uncertain world and the power of social media to form opinions on a whim, it is perhaps asking for too much to completely reconcile the two camps. However, by developing a broader appreciation of each other’s perspective and the relationship between reason, truth and belief, it is possible that differences of perspective can be discussed in a convivial manner.
A new age of unreason
In the echo chambers of our hectic social media-driven world, influenced by all kinds of dubious conspiracy theories, the boundary between ‘fake’ and ‘real’ news, or ‘myth’ and ‘fact’ has become blurred or even erased! Centuries-old principles of ‘reason’, ‘logic’ and ‘rationality’ are being cast aside resulting in a free for all where each one of us seeks to claim our own truths. Whilst there is no consensus about why and how humanity appears to have stalled in its endeavour to build on the age of enlightenment where science and reason seemingly triumphed, there is good reason to believe that this trend may be linked to the postmodernist and new age beliefs associated with the rejection of absolute truths and the collapsing of all reality into a subjective realm of self.
In this regard, one needs to consider the immense influence of Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19th-century German philosopher, who argued that truth was always subjective and constructed by the individual. In other words, for Nietzsche, though the physical world exists, the only truth that was possible was what a person interprets and perceives. He believed that all knowledge and understanding is filtered through the lens of culture, language, and individual perspectives. In this regard, though coming from different philosophical trajectories, both Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, come to a similar conclusion that metaphysical concepts only exist through reason which becomes solidified within language. In his book “Thus Spoke Zarathustra“, Nietzsche suggested that facts did not exist, only interpretations and that the pursuit of objective truth was a futile endeavour. Nietzsche’s intervention is seen as part of a wider critique of ‘analytic philosophy’ and a precursor to postmodern ideas about the unstable and problematic nature of truth and knowledge claims.
If we turn the clock back some 300 years ago to a previous age of seismic social and cultural upheaval, namely the so-called European Enlightenment, we see a similar atmosphere of turmoil and confusion. Spanning the 17th and 18th Century, this represents an intellectual and philosophical movement that radically shaped the direction of world history. Notwithstanding the dark side of the Enlightenment, associated with the European imperial project, this period also represented a break from the almost total dominance of orthodox religion and opened new ways of thinking about human well-being, knowledge, government, and the role and power of organised religion.
Written in the wake of the French and American revolutions, The Age of Reason is a book by the American political activist Thomas Paine in 1794, which captures some of the key cultural shifts, most notably the question of the role of organised religion. Paine was scathing about the state of organised religion, which he rejected as corrupt and self-serving. He professed belief in the one God, freedom, justice, equality and kindness towards others. Most critically, he emphasised the importance of belief being underpinned by reason. In today’s age, whilst there seems to be no shortage of belief, though it has clearly shifted from traditional religious authority figures towards the new Gods of film, television, social media and sports.
The Sikh enlightenment
Many of the questions that were being debated amongst European Enlightenment scholars in the 17th Century will be familiar to Sikhs as they resonate with Sikh teachings and the struggles faced by the Sikh Gurus in their crusade against established priestly class and organised religion, some 300 years earlier. However, though no doubt the Gurus had to content with internal conflicts, not least from their own family members, it is the post Guru Period, especially the early 20th Century, when the divisions between the rationalist and traditionalist wings of the Panth become most apparent.
Harjot Oberoi (1994) in his book, The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity, and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition, characterises this as a conflict between ‘Sanatan Sikhs’ and the ‘Tat Khalsa’. The Sanatan worldview advocates a traditionalist devotional interpretation of Sikhi aligned with key religious concepts and beliefs drawn from Hinduism, most notably the Vedas, Puranas, and Hindu epics. The Santanist faction, which in the present days is advocated by the so-called ‘Sant Smajh’ or ‘Society of Saints’ as well as being given legitimacy by a crop of Sikh studies scholars influenced by the kinds of postmodernist thought mentioned above, accuse those who advocate reason and logic of abandoning ‘puratan’ or ‘ancient/original Sikhi, of falling prey to a White European colonial Christian worldview, which they wrongly equate with science and rationality.
On the other hand, the Tat Khalsa worldview promotes a critical approach based on a textual, historical and progressive view of Sikhi. Associated with the Singh Sabha movement and scholars such as Giani Dit Singh, Professor Gurmukh Singh, and Kahn Singh Nabha, the Tat Khalsa has consistently sought to assert a ‘pure’ or ‘true’’’ ‘conception of Sikhi free from Brahmanical influences. In this regard, these scholars can be associated with what might be termed the Sikh enlightenment, representing a period of spiritual and intellectual awakening that took place among the Sikh community during the 18th and 19th centuries. Most importantly this was a period that was influenced by but not reducible to intellectual developments taking place in the West where paradigms associated with science, and reason were displacing the established hegemony of Christianity and the legitimacy of established Biblical explanations.
This period was characterized by a new appreciation for the teachings of the Sikh Gurus, and a renewed commitment to the practice of the religion, based on process of rediscovery and reinterpretation of their spiritual and cultural heritage in the contexts of developments taking place in Europe. The Sikh Enlightenment also saw the development of new forms of religious expression, including devotional music and poetry, and the growth of the Khalsa, the community of initiated Sikhs who are dedicated to the practice of the religion.
The Sikh Enlightenment was not just a religious movement, as was the case in the Singh Sabha Lehar, but also a social and political one that gave birth to the Sikh political party, Akali Dal and the anti-colonial Ghadar Party. It was the values of equality, justice, and compassion, coupled with the revolutionary consciousness imparted by the Sikh Gurus, much of which resonates with developments taking place within the West in the 18th and 19th Centuries, that came to define Sikh praxis in this period.
One of the key tensions between the ‘Sanatan’ and the ‘Tat Khalsa’ centres around how the notion of the ‘puratan’ or ‘old times’ is positioned in relation to ‘the modern’. Perhaps unfortunately so, through the binarism of ‘old’ versus ‘contemporary’, or ‘traditional versus ‘progressive’, unnecessary tensions have been created whereby ‘the modern’ is seen as an assertion of rationality and reason, whereas the ‘old times’ with irrational beliefs and superstition. Indeed, one of the ways in which Western Imperialism and colonialism were justified was around the notion of the ‘civilising mission’ and the ‘white man’s burden’ to enlighten primitive illiterate ‘race’s’.
In truth, all knowledge and wisdom, modern or ancient, are the products of experience and the application of theory. In this regard, there is nothing ‘old’ or ‘new’ about the development of knowledge which has always been realised through (natural) experimentation, observation and the application of theory. That being the case, one does wonder what the true nature of the divisions between the camps is not based on ideas or different readings of text, which will always be the case, but personal and political agendas.
Rationality and human nature
Science and rationality, contrary to popular opinion, are not a product of Western culture. They have, arguably, been a consistent feature of all civilisations in all places and at all times, or at least the beginnings of the modern human species Homo sapiens. Harvard psychology professor, Stephen Pinker, in his latest book, Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters, suggests quotes an example of one of the world’s oldest peoples, the San people of the Kalahari Desert in southern Africa. Until recently, they excelled in their hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which goes back thousands of years. Contrary to the image of pre-modern humans as being savages, these tribes, owed their survival to scientific reasoning. “They reason their way from fragmentary data to remote conclusions with an intuitive grasp of logic, critical thinking, statistical reasoning, causal inference, and game theory.”
Whilst the way we talk about the underlying principles may differ according to the linguistic conventions of any culture, the common thread of rationality and logic that binds all human beings and cultures are there to be seen. Hence, the idea that reason and rationality stand in opposition to Sikhi, or for that matter all faith systems, simply does not stack up. For example, If one were to ask most believers what led them to follow their chosen path, they will provide an instinctive reasoned response. Indeed, it is almost inconceivable to imagine any human communication without recourse to reason.
Hence, rather than seeing rationality as a cultural idea that emerges over time, I think it is much more useful, as Pinker (2022) suggests, to see it as a basic human trait; what makes us human is our inbuilt capacity to reason. Indeed, if one plies logic to this issue, it is inconceivable to see how by abandoning ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’ on what basis can one talk about and evaluate such matters as, historical truth, culpability for injustice, true versus fake practices, reality versus imagination?
Rationality and Gurbani?
A simple cursory scan of Gurbani, which we know is written in poetic form and hence heavily infused with metaphor, simile, personification and magical realism, extols such virtues as wisdom, knowledge, reason, logic and critical thinking but it doesn’t stop there. It is reason and rationality that provides the underpinning for a deeper exploration and realisation of the divine universal force, which is referred to as ‘Ik owankar’, ‘naam’, ‘Paramatma’, and ‘Akaal’. This is a ‘real’ force that permeates all of existence, and then the ultimate purpose/function of the immense mental capacity that humans possess must be to become one with divinity.
Consider the following two quotes from Guru Arjan where he sets out the important relationship between divinity and reason:
ਕਰਤੂਤਿ ਪਸੂ ਕੀ ਮਾਨਸ ਜਾਤਿ ॥ ਲੋਕ ਪਚਾਰਾ ਕਰੈ ਦਿਨੁ ਰਾਤਿ ॥ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਭੇਖ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਮਲੁ ਮਾਇਆ ॥ ਛਪਸਿ ਨਾਹਿ ਕਛੁ ਕਰੈ ਛਪਾਇਆ ॥ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਗਿਆਨ ਧਿਆਨ ਇਸਨਾਨ ॥ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਬਿਆਪੈ ਲੋਭੁ ਸੁਆਨੁ ॥ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਅਗਨਿ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਤਨੁ ਸੁਆਹ ॥ ਗਲਿ ਪਾਥਰ ਕੈਸੇ ਤਰੈ ਅਥਾਹ ॥ ਜਾ ਕੈ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਬਸੈ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਆਪਿ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਤੇ ਜਨ ਸਹਜਿ ਸਮਾਤਿ ॥੫॥
“They belong to the human species, but they act like animals. They curse others day and night. Outwardly, they wear religious robes, but within is the filth of material attachment.
They cannot conceal this, no matter how hard they try. Outwardly, they display knowledge, meditation and purification, but within cling to the dog of greed. Outwardly they apply ashes to their bodies, but the fire of desire rages within; With a stone of ignorance around their neck, how can they cross the unfathomable ocean of falsehood? Those who realise divinity within O Nanak, those humble beings are intuitively absorbed in the Lord. ||5||” (Guru Arjan Dev Ji in Raag Gauree, SGGS p267)
ਪਾਠੁ ਪੜਿਓ ਅਰੁ ਬੇਦੁ ਬੀਚਾਰਿਓ ਨਿਵਲਿ ਭੁਅੰਗਮ ਸਾਧੇ ॥ ਪੰਚ ਜਨਾ ਸਿਉ ਸੰਗੁ ਨ ਛੁਟਕਿਓ ਅਧਿਕ ਅਹੰਬੁਧਿ ਬਾਧੇ ॥੧ ਪਿਆਰੇ ਇਨ ਬਿਧਿ ਮਿਲਣੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ਮੈ ਕੀਏ ਕਰਮ ਅਨੇਕਾ ॥ ਹਾਰਿ ਪਰਿਓ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਕੈ ਦੁਆਰੈ ਦੀਜੈ ਬੁਧਿ ਬਿਬੇਕਾ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
“They read scriptures and contemplate the Vedas. They practice the inner cleansing techniques of Yoga and control of the breath, but they cannot escape from the company of the five passions; they are increasingly bound to egotism. O Beloved, this is not the way to meet the Divine! I have performed these rituals so many times and exhausted, I have collapsed at the Door of the Divine Spirit praying to be granted a discerning intellect.” (Guru Arjan, SGGS p641)
The key point here that Guru Arjan makes is that human beings have the capacity to reason but because of our inner desires centred on the ego, they are also prone to corruption and untruthful living. He is also critiquing a kind of performative piety, which is bound by ritual and thoughtlessness.
It is important to realise that rationality and reason are not truths in themselves, and indeed, Gurbani also highlights that those who are seen by themselves, or others as educated intellectually minded people are not immune from egotistical thinking and behaviour. As Guru Nanak in Asa di Vaar states:
ਪੜਿ ਪੜਿ ਗਡੀ ਲਦੀਅਹਿ ਪੜਿ ਪੜਿ ਭਰੀਅਹਿ ਸਾਥ ॥ ਪੜਿ ਪੜਿ ਬੇੜੀ ਪਾਈਐ ਪੜਿ ਪੜਿ ਗਡੀਅਹਿ ਖਾਤ ॥ ਪੜੀਅਹਿ ਜੇਤੇ ਬਰਸ ਬਰਸ ਪੜੀਅਹਿ ਜੇਤੇ ਮਾਸ ॥ ਪੜੀਐ ਜੇਤੀ ਆਰਜਾ ਪੜੀਅਹਿ ਜੇਤੇ ਸਾਸ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਲੇਖੈ ਇਕ ਗਲ ਹੋਰੁ ਹਉਮੈ ਝਖਣਾ ਝਾਖ ॥੧॥
“You may read and read loads of books; you may read and study vast multitudes of books. You may read and read boatloads of books; you may read and read and fill pits with them. You may read them year after year; you may read them as many months are there are. You may read them all your life; you may read them with every breath. O Nanak, only one thing is of any account: everything else is useless babbling and idle talk in ego”. (Guru Nanak, SGGS p467)
Reason and rationality are not ideologies but simply a set of tools, or if you like, a means to an end. They are a method whereby we can develop consensus, even if that consensus shifts over time. It is a method.
Coming back to those who debate against reason and rationality, there is a key contradiction in their argument: That is, if you reject the basic rules of reasoned argument, then on what basis are you making your arguments and defence of your ‘anti-rationality’? In other words, if you deny the value of reason, logic and rationality, then you should find different ways to make your arguments. But we all know there is no other way of engaging in proper debate, which is why those who oppose reason and rationality end up opposing any form of debate and dialogue. Yet we all know, in his teachings and practice Guru Nanak emphasised the critical importance of dialogue, discerning intellect, critical reflexivity and logic.
The modern band of post-structuralist Sikh scholars, such as Arvind-Pal Mandair, draw attention to the indeterminacy of language and objective reality and the influence of European colonialism. They contend their aim is to open new understandings of Gurbani and other Sikh texts, as well as recover different pre-colonial meanings. Yet, in doing so, they valorise subjectivity and deny the possibility of truth and fact, which also raises questions about the idea of a unified Sikh identity, both as a belief system (dharam) and people (quom). Ironically, whilst constructing the enlightenment and its emphasis on rationality as some Western colonial European imposition on Sikhs, they draw largely from the theories of white western scholars, most notably those identified with German Idealism and French Post-structuralism to make their arguments.
Conclusion
Reason and rationality do not belong to any one culture, nation, or religion, but are a universal component of the human condition, though over the ages and across cultures they may be expressed differently. And there is plenty of evidence to assert the view that Sikhi encourages the use of reason in understanding the nature of one’s existence and purpose. In this regard, as we try to make sense of a ‘post-truth’ age, arguably there has never been a more important time to defend reason, rationality, social progress and the possibility of objective truth.
However, Sikhi also warns the limits and even dangers of an over-reliance on reason, which can only ever be mean to an end; the ultimate purpose in life is not to solve problems or puzzles, but to achieve a state of spiritual transcendence or ‘sehaj avasta’. As Gurbani sates, ‘the mind is the embodiment of the divine light, and its function to realise this’. The key question then is how does one reach such an exalted state of consciousness or inner peace, and in this regard, as Guru Nanak states in the opening verse of Jap Bani, this is not through the multitude of rituals, but to live one’s life according ‘hukam’ or ‘divine order’ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਰਜਾਈ ਚਲਣਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਨਾਲਿ (SGGS p1). Similarly, Guru Arjan states, ‘Let all intellect be burnt away, except only the essence of spiritual wisdom lasts ਸਭ ਬੁਧੀ ਜਾਲੀਅਹਿ ਇਕੁ ਰਹੈ ਤਤੁ ਗਿਆਨੁ (SGGS 1413). So, one can conclude that from a Sikhi perspective, reason and devotion, or if you like, materiality and spirituality, do not need to be seen as diametrically opposed to each other but as equally necessary.
Gurnam Singh is an academic activist dedicated to human rights, liberty, equality, social and environmental justice. He is an Associate Professor of Sociology at University of Warwick, UK. He can be contacted at Gurnam.singh.1@warwick.ac.uk
* This is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Asia Samachar.
RELATED STORY:
Miracles and Godmen (Asia Samachar, 31 July 2020)
ASIA SAMACHAR is an online newspaper for Sikhs / Punjabis in Southeast Asia and beyond. When you leave a comment at the bottom of this article, it takes time to appear as it is moderated by human being. Unless it is offensive or libelous, it should appear. You can also comment at Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. You can reach us via WhatsApp +6017-335-1399 or email: asia.samachar@gmail.com. For obituary announcements, click here.
