Dear All
The less said the better for JourneyOflife Ji is profoundly navigating the sangat back home to the land of the five alive, Anandpur Sahib. A commendable dispostion for the want of Sikhism to flourish to fulfill its divine nature, well argued and held a position.
On my part then, an overview perhaps, to say the least, but first, two notable observations:
- Is Sikh a philosophy ? In short, no ! Why ? Because of its belief in the transcendental [Ikonkar] deem it an ideology. Classification that Sikh is a religion by conventional standards is thus arrived because, philosophy seeks truth by reason and argument, religion and mysticism do so by intuition and revelation. The dichotomy is in pursuit of "truth" [sat]; the basis of religionis faith in the unseen and in philosophy is the quest in the unseen. It was through revelations on the whole and mystical in part that the word [shabd] came to glorify the greatness of God without human intervention [meaning, subjectivity removed, ਤਿਲੰਗ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥ ਜੈਸੀ ਮੈ ਆਵੈ ਖਸਮ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਤੈਸੜਾ ਕਰੀ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥ As the word of the Husband Lord comes to me, so do I express it O'Lalo, Ang 722 SGGSJ] and directly from Akal Purakh [AP, nam, source]. Rationality and Emperical observation fall short of the transcendental to render it comprehensible. It is not what one thinks [manmukh] but what one believes [gurmukh]. And, it is the faith of the individual that constitutes belief. Academians have accepted Nanak's AP as trancendental , confirmation of which is Sikhi, meaning, it cannot be argued but experienced [live-it, note here the importance of meditation as a mean to an end from teleological perspective] hence the three pillars, that is KK, VS and Nam Jap [open to wider interpretation].
- Does Sikhi overlap with Philosophy ? Personally speaking, I don't think it does. Gur Ghar is absolutely clear on its doctrinal foundations. It's not so much the overlapping but rather the conceptual understanding. For example, Nanak completely changed the trend of religious life in India, that is, against the world being regarded as unreal [maya], miserable and suffering, he called it real and meaningful [teleological]. That taken as a world-view perspective, potentially has a philosophical ring to it, but not in its entirety is it ideologically a philosophy. It is this anomaly perhaps, which gives rise to abstract thinking, moving away as it were, from the real deal. But, for clarification sake, it must be noted that although, Nanak promoted and encouraged social reform, he never moved away from his ideology nor did the rest of the Banikars in maintaining the status quo of the perishable [physical] and the imperishable [spiritual] world of the soul, Sachkhand. Nanak's emphasis were on social and not religious. He promoted householder's life [garhasthya jeevan] as the bedrock of society. Any society that ignores the sanctity of marriage [voicing against asceticism] ultimately undermines its moral foundation. The individual's personality finds its expression through participation in family life, the training ground for usefulness. This was in view of the sargun nirgun maxim, classic example of which is pauri 38 of Jap Ji Sahib.
What I mean by understanding is, its deep conceptual message. Going to the Gurdwara, doing seva and nam simran all amounts to nothing unless a relationship is found with the "guru" [SGGSJ and Panth, the individual n the state, deontological perspective]. That is not to say, one accords with the Panth's procedural view n belief, but with substantiative Sikhism in order to both, build its institutional image and social status, for the betterment of society as a whole. Furthermore, it helps to understand how Gur Ghar was steeped in the historical perspectives [religion] of its time so it could reproduce and clarify their distinctive vocabularies and conceptual tools [meditation, reincarnation] ensuring contribution of knowledge through its applications to new objects of enquiry [removal of inequalities] were compatible to better the human condition. The only way possible was questioning and pushing at the boundaries of their respective traditions.
Comment [write-up below, is tailored made to reflect contemporary issues. It is not entirely my own, I've used it as a template to advance a contentious issue].
At a time when so many "venerable" traditions are being skeptically scrutinised, if not harshly attacked, it is hardly surprising that moral reasoning is also attracting increasing criticism. Growing number of youngsters [including my own] are questioning whether religious institutions like the science of logic n analysis are indeed proper tools for contemporary problem solving. Sizeable population believe [perception, youngsters] that the institutions and their method of communication and teachings obscures rather than clarify relevant issues in assessing religious fundamentals, mixed marriages [mm] for example.
From a lawyers perspective [past tense], it is true that passes for logic in some judicial decisions are no more than rhetorically weaved words, but equally, it must be noted, that pure logic does not offer a solution to all contemporary problems. In reaching a great many solutions [mm] a value judgment or aesthetic choice becomes inevitable, no matter how much the decision maker [me] exercises caution by means of careful analysis. In deed in some cases [instant] the logical solution may even be inappropriate because certain emotional or other supposedly illogical factors are proper considerations.
Little imagination is required to interpret these statements of the religious thought process that moral principles be sacrificed on the alter of Panthic reasoning. What do you think ?
.
