Apologies for the late reply, I have been very busy with work and my in-laws have been staying with us while they're in town.
No problem, thanks for replying. I'm going to go through this because I am unsure of how to draw a distinction between Sikh
religion and Sikh
philosophy, and would love to learn more.
The 'Philosophy, yes. Religion, no' tag under my username is indicating that I am interested in the study of the Sikh philosophy as presented in Gurbani, and I am not interested in the religion as commonly seen today. When I put Gurbani next to today's religion of Sikhi, it does not appear to be consistent.
See that's the thing- I disagree with many of the practices I see Sikhs engaging in around me- but to say you are not interested in the religion as "commonly seen
today" gives the impression there was a time in the past when you
would have been interested in the way the religion was "commonly" practiced.
I can't think of any time when there weren't some problem or the other in Sikhi. Whether it was the fusion with Hinduism that began under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the prohibition of women taking Amrit that developed in the 18th century as the Khalsa became more and more regal, it does not appear to me that any such time existed. Even during the era of the Gurus themselves you had the relatives of the Gurus trying to usurp the gurgaddi for themselves. You had masands during the times of the Gurus who became so corrupt they thought they could make or break the Guru. Guru Teg Bahadur Ji was barred from Sri Harmandir Sahib by these people. It took the establishment of Khalsa on Vaisakhi 1699 and the battles which followed for Sikh institutions to finally be back under the direct control of the Guru.
There has never been a time in any religion's history when the teachings were practiced consistently across all sections of the community. What does this tell us? That there is always both good and bad. It has never been one or the other. Even after Sikhi had become almost a branch of Hinduism following Ranjit Singh's reign, you still had great Sikhs like Kahn Singh Nabha rise up and lead the charge of the Singh Sabha movement, a movement which cemented Sikh identity in the SRM. Even during the era of when the masands barred Guru Teg Bahadur Ji from Sri Harmandir Sahib, we are provided with some of the greatest GurSikhs to have ever existed, people who chose to accompany the Guru to Delhi and be tortured to death by the Mughals rather than give up their Sikhi.
What, then, does this tell us? That good and bad always go together. Even during the worst of times there have always been and always will be great individuals who will rise up and open the floodgates of change. Banda Singh Bahadur did that right after Guru Gobind Singh ji. And even during the best of times there will always be individuals in the community who are apathetic towards the greater teachings and are happy with being tied to the Path on a nominal level. This applies not just to Sikhi, but to all religions.
As a result, if "not interested in the religion as commonly seen today", then at what point in history would the interest have been there? Furthermore I would argue that this is a
great time to be a Sikh. Sikh history has been overwhelmingly married with holocaust, genocide and violence. The last 20-25 years have represented some of the most peaceful and stable times the Sikh community has ever experienced, perhaps
the single most peaceful and stable time of all history. Same goes for practicing the religion, because as Sikhs have branched out all over the world it seems to me like the community has started moving closer and closer to Sikh teachings, not further away from them. This has particularly been the case in the last 5-10 years.
When I put Gurbani next to today's religion of Sikhi, it does not appear to be consistent.
In addition to what I mentioned above about being careful about glorifying Sikh past or being overly condemning of the present community, doesn't this really depend on the fundamental nature of Sikhi? I mean if we take the SGGS to be completely subjective because "it is poetry and interpreted differently by different people" as many say today, then what gives any of us the right to say that our interpretation of Gurbani is the
correct one and as a result be able to say the "Sikh religion [today]" is not consistent with Gurbani?
To be able to make those claims, doesn't it require the existence of certain
objective truths to be present in Gurbani, certain statements that
are actually meant to be taken 100% literally and not be subjective? Without this objectivity, how can any of us say our interpretation of Gurbani is the correct one or that what we believe to be true is actually true at all? Without some degree of objectivity, how do we know we are actually understanding Gurbani in the way the Gurus intended us to?
When I read Gurbani, I feel as though the Guru is the great philosopher, and I am His student, wondering in awe and searching for answers to questions like, "What is the nature of reality?" and, "How should I live life in the best way?" These questions can be asked (and answered) independently of religion, which brings with it so much cultural and traditional baggage.
I agree there is much parallel between Sikhi and philosophical curiosity. But if "the Guru is the great philosopher", why should I follow the Guru over Socrates, Plato or Aristotle? They too were great philosophers and dealt with some of the most fundamental questions concerning "the nature of reality" and "How should I live life in the best way?" And many of their conclusions were at odds with what the Gurus said. So on which basis am I to trust the Guru's conclusions over those of the Greek powerhouses, three of the greatest philosophers if not
the greatest philosophers to have ever walked the earth?
Gurbani doesn't teach religion... It doesn't say 'do this, don't do that'.
Perhaps not to the same degree as a religion like Islam, and that is because Gurbani recognizes that change must come on the inside before it can translate to true virtue on the outside. But it does tell us to do certain actions which help bring about that change. One of those is to meditate/contemplate/absorb ourselves in the Naam when we awaken. Others include trying to make our speech sweet and singing kirtan in Sangat. It tells us to
not speak harshly and to
not associate with certain groups of people, among others. So to a degree Gurbani
does tell us to "do this, don't do that".
It gets you to use your mind, and to question, assess situations for yourself, and act in the way of a Gurmukh.
This is interesting because in many places Gurbani stresses the folly of simply following our own minds. No doubt it asks us to think, to be aware and to question, but someone who relies entirely on their own mind is arguably the dictionary definition of a
manmukh- someone who faces towards their own mind. On the other hand, as you pointed out, Gurbani tries to get is to act in the way of
Gurmukh- someone who has positioned themselves to face in the direction of the Guru's hukam.
And this goes right back to what I was saying before... what is the Guru's hukam, and how do we know our interpretation of it is correct? And if the Guru's were philosophers, why should I listen to them over any of the other great philosophers to have walked the Earth across history? What authority did the Gurus have to tell us "the best way to live life?"
