Prelude:
The term Duality is a salient hallmark of all traditional Indic faiths. Its linguistic proliferation can be gauged by the fact that, as a term, it is even mentioned in Gurbani. However, while Indic spiritualism holds Duality to be a stumbling block on the path to some renunciative salvation, in Sikh nuance its definition is radically different. Duality in the Sikh praxis commences at and, ultimately, concludes at the level of cognition (SaramKhand-“ਸਰਮ ਖੰਡ”). It does not extend beyond to any other mental/psychological level i.e. becomes some truth per se. Neither is it vilified. Rather, it is postulated as being an awry tool for cognizing with reality, but one which has to be mastered.
History:
As an epistemological and etymological concept, Duality can be credited to Jainism-the precursor to and early parent of later age Vedism. In Jain soteriology, derived from more ancient Sramanism, reality is dichotomized into two conflicted and often competing aspects of conceptual Ajiva and evidential Jiva. The former is the spiritual nuance and the latter the non-spiritual existence with their being no personalized Creative entity to lend purpose to their existence. Humankind is composed of equal parts Ajiva and Jiva with the purpose of life, as ascribed by Jain scriptures, to prevent the entanglement of Jiva in both positive and negative outcomes. Naturally, with Creation lacking direction sans Creator the empirical world is to be renounced and neither good nor bad committed as this foists attachment with dualism. Societal idealism and humanist progression are eschewed in favor of total renunciation and both a physical and psychological apathy enunciated. Life, summarily, is obsolete and should be purposeless to avoid contamination of Jiva which can only be adjudged in light of the Jain yardstick of Ajiva.
Sankhya:
Historically having fractured from the more ascetic Jains, Sankhya mysticism preserved the latter’s emphasis on renunciation but introduced several patent deviations. While there is no Creative entity, what is assumed is the existence of Prakirti-an universal trifurcation of three individualistic modes. This is complemented by the existence of the Purusa or sentient human who must transcend this otherwise nuclear trinity to achieve true renunciation a la Jainism. Prakirti is in equilibrium but prone to being disturbed when the Purusa lives life empirically. It consecutively drowns the proactive Purusa in the multiple trials and tribulations of life. To evade its clutches, the Purusa is to renounce a purposeful life and not enter into the dualism of good and bad. Again, akin to Jainism, there is no impartial yardstick which liberates the individual cognitively to adjudge truth and falsity for themselves. Rather the system’s word has to be taken Prima facie. Proactiveness is mitigated for anti-progressive apathy.
Yoga:
Yogism is believed to have been formed as a complement to Sankhya mysticism in it’s embryonic form. It consists of both physical and mental exercises to foment supraphysiologic experiences in which some alleged out-of-body sensory transcendence is experienced. The existence of a God-like entity, a supreme Purusa, is assumed but this is conceptual on the grounds that this entity is neither creative not has it created. Rather, its apathy is to be emulated. The Yogi, as a mystic, is to hone both body and mind to eliminate attachment to the world. The ultimate aim is to disintegrate the human mind as it is the host of all parasitical attachment. Again, good and bad conduct must be avoided as it foists attachment to the empirical world which is believed to be illusory. The system, similar to the earlier two, is anti-progressive and renunciative. There is no soulful dissolution in some supreme entity as neo-Yogis today purport. Rather, the mind is to be dissolved into nothingness for nothingness is authentic.
Vedism:
Vedism was born as a confluence of the residual vestiges of Sramanism, Jainism, Sankhya mysticism, Yogism and the ambiguous beliefs of the invading Aryans. Without deviating into any historic element, suffice it to say that Vedism succeeded in conquering the world of Indic spiritualism through state support. The Aryans were seasoned warriors and veteran conquerors. Their multi-tiered hierarchy and priestly classes amalgamated their principle beliefs with that of the conquered peoples of the subcontinent. The result was Vedism, the new faith of the conquerors and-by default-the conquered.
Vedas Per se:
The earliest Veda, of the paleographical quadrilogy, is the Rig Veda consisting of 1028 hymns to various polytheist deities. Corroborative material is provided in the form of the Brahmanas which simplify the quadrilogy. The underlying assumption, in the Vedic purview, is the existence of Brahman. The latter is no personalized Creator nor even creative in any sense of the term. Brahman is neither sentient, nor even conscious. The Vedas and the Brahmanas are vague on any concrete comprehension or even definition of the concept. What can be deduced from within the aforementioned texts is that Brahman is the underlying power which animates the vagaries of the system’s multiple deities and grounds it as a supra-mystical system. Is Brahman impartial? The answer is a resounding negative as it is susceptible to being mastered by individuals who master the Vedas.
Evolution:
The introduction of Sramanic belief into the Aryan mix naturally entailed an evolution of Indic spiritualism. The developing Vedic system came to dominate the world of religiosity as never before but, as a religiopolitical principle, it also adopted the renunciative attitude of pre-Vedism. The conquering Aryans had a zest for live as evinced by the Rig Veda. But subsequent, and often inorganic, amendments would underscore a renunciative attitude. Speaking presciently, this was the genesis of the compartmentalized caste hierarchy in which renunciation for salvation vis-a-vis Karma would be imposed on the masses to keep them mentally enslaved. This embryonic religiopolitical evolution is witnessed in the Upanishads, disparate commentaries authored by Vedic sages.
Upanishads:
What distinguishes the Upanishads from the Vedas in terms of content is that while the initial Vedic Brahman is an object, the Upanishadic Brahman is principally an intangible element. This newer Brahman is not a Creator in the sense of any personalized Maker, but rather a reality to be experienced. Empiricism is an illusion and purposeless-only Brahman is real. The Upanishadic Brahman is an ocean in which all life flowed with the figurative comparison being as rivers into the ocean. But neither is this Brahman individualistic as the very purpose of its self-revelation was to invite dissolution into its very self. This was true salvation and could only be achieved by renouncing the empirical world in pursuit of Brahman for Brahman is authentic and the individual a microcosm of Brahman. Individuality is a result of action, both good and bad, and a corollary of dualism. To eradicate dualism individualism has to be curbed and for this renunciation is a necessity.
Vedanta:
While the Upanishads proved discordant on the nature of Brahman, with some schools arguing maybe it was the Creator, Vedanta contended otherwise. The most influential of the Vedic offshoots, Vedanta was spearheaded by Gaudapa and Sankara. Both were unmoving in their firm belief that Brahman was no personalized Creator for Creation was a falsity and falsity was/is directionless. Did Brahman manifest the empirical world? Both Gaudapa and Sankara would answer the question in a negative vogue in a roundabout fashion. The empirical world is an illusion, akin to a rope being mistaken for a coiled serpent in the darkness. Brahman is the only reality. The world is false, the deluded individual accepts his soul to be autonomous while seeped in ignorance. When they awaken to Brahman, they realize there is no individuality but solely Brahman. They then seek to dissolve their mind into Brahman for Brahman is non-dual.
The foremost existence, in Vedanta, is that of Brahman and Prakirti. Where did Prakirti originate from if Brahman is not the Creator? The contradiction is veiled away by asserting that Brahman utilizes Prakirti to spin the illusion which we declare the empirical world. But if Brahman is purposeless than why the usage of Prakirti? Both Gaudapa and Sankara would resolve the dilemma by resorting to mental obfuscations. Sa(r)gun or the tangible Brahman in the form of a deity was correlated to the absolute Brahman of the Vedas, but only as an educational principle. As Sa(r)gun it was understood to be the cause and effect of empiricism but again, the fundamental sticking point of Brahman being purposeless but still utilizing Prakirti was left unanswered.
Sankara would argue that the Sa(r)gun Brahman was a helpful illusion but an illusion nonetheless and was to be penultimately discarded. With empiricism and tangibility being illusory, it was only natural for Vedanta to follow its parent faiths’ chain of thought and negate life in pursuit of non-duality. Those who questioned Vedanta by stepping outside its pale were dismissed as being egoistical and bound by dualism. Its mental obfuscations were further justified on the grounds that one had to be rid of duality to comprehend matters beyond Avidya or non-Vedanta. The system, clearly, is as foolproof to logic as Jainism with its dichotomy of Ajiva and Jiva.
Vaisnavism:
The last in the evolution of Vedism, Vaisnavism is as much a reconciliatory effort among various Vedic sects as a belief system. Vaisnavism arose as a rudimentary facsimile of the Pancaratra or Bhagvat(a) schools of thought which espouse polytheism in the sense that Brahman is left untouched but accepted as being tangible in the vagaries of the Gods. The Gods, as mediums of Brahman, are deified to the degree that they are inseparably synonymous with Brahman. The affects of this were historically palpable with the rise of Bhaktism which emphasized devotional worship of a deity to transcend illusion while negating a life grounded in truth and moralism.
Vaisnavism’s greatest contribution to Vedism is the creation of the composite Bhagvad Gita. Alleged to have been revealed by the deity Krishna to the hampered monarch Arjuna, the Gita proscribes a Vedantic approach to life. The attainment of Brahman is the supreme goal for Brahman is the cause of all. What, however, is left unanswered is the rationality (the why) behind the cause. It is implied that Sa(r)gun Brahman as Vishnu, and his multiple avatars, is capable of delivering one to the realm of the unadulterated Brahman through renunciation of life. To sidestep the issue of why life if everything is purposeless, emphasis is placed on the caste divisions as a hierarchical qualification for salvation. Again, ascetic meditation is recommended and moralism reduced to caste duties. Fundamentally, then, Vaisnavism personalizes Brahman but is by no means free from the constraints of earlier Indic faiths.
Summary:
The Indic perspective, as we have seen above, is more or less contemptuous of Duality. Conceptually, it is a negative and anathema to the spiritual life. Good fosters attachment to this world and vice versa. Reality is otherworldly and incomprehensible to the human mind even if it is refined through experimental endeavor. What is left unsaid is that creation is aimless, purposeless and human life is similar. There is no Creation for Creation is an illusion and illusion is nothing. What manifests this illusion? The explanations are as ambivalent as convoluted.
Prior to Dayanand Saraswati’s revamping of Vedism, Brahman by no means was a Creative entity on the same lines as the monotheistic Creator in other faiths. Neither was it a sentient supra-force or intelligence. Brahman was the goal but an incomprehensible goal. For the contemporary power structures, Brahman proved instrumental in mentally suppressing the masses. The otherworldly denotations of the concept saw their subjects renounce the sociopolitical paradigm, disallowing their rulers from being held accountable for societal malaise. Such was the situation when Guru Nanak established Sikhi.
The Sikh Purview:
For over 4,000 years the Indic religious paradigm derided Duality as an unsurpassable bloc in the journey for salvation. The establishment of Sikhi upturned this established nuance to contend otherwise. The initial element to fall to Gurmat was the concept of Brahman. In the Sidh Gosht, Guru Nanak would delineate to the offended Siddhas that one Supreme Creator birthed Creation as an expression of virtue. Mankind was created with a modicum of the Creator’s supreme intelligence within it and given a purpose. This purpose was to become an equal stakeholder in the progression of Creation alongside its Creator. When the Siddhs heatedly inquired as to where Creation came from, the Guru retorted:
ਆਦਿ ਕਉ ਬਿਸਮਾਦੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ਕਥੀਅਲੇ ਸੁੰਨ ਨਿਰੰਤਰਿ ਵਾਸੁ ਲੀਆ ॥
“To even consider existence beyond existence; to contemplate what was before Creation is to enter a truly wonderous state of mind. The Creator was in isolation yet still permeated the nothingness…”
-Guru Granth, 940.
It is crucial to note here that the very concept of Brahman is negated here by the Guru. The Creator is sentient, is personalized and has adopted a purpose which has been conveyed to mankind through the medium of Creation. This naturally denotes Creation to be as real as its Creation. Where then does Duality stand in the Sikh purview? As far as renunciation is concerned Gurbani is emphatic:
ਮਾਇਆ ਕੀ ਕਿਰਤਿ ਛੋਡਿ ਗਵਾਈ ਭਗਤੀ ਸਾਰ ਨ ਜਾਨੈ ॥
“Claiming renunciation, they are unable to leave this world which they call an illusion. Such freebooters are not true Saints in any sense of the term.”
-Guru Granth, 381.
The “they” in question are renunciates and the query posited to them is why they are unable to depart the illusory world at will and remain forever absent? Why they offer convoluted excuses that they have been returned to “lead the world” if the world is an illusion?
On the issue of renunciation, Guru Nanak would evidentially clarify that Indic spiritualism feared pain in life. On this account he would observe,
ਨਾਨਕ ਬੋਲਣੁ ਝਖਣਾ ਦੁਖ ਛਡਿ ਮੰਗੀਅਹਿ ਸੁਖ ॥ ਸੁਖੁ ਦੁਖੁ ਦੁਇ ਦਰਿ ਕਪੜੇ ਪਹਿਰਹਿ ਜਾਇ ਮਨੁਖ ॥ ਜਿਥੈ ਬੋਲਣਿ ਹਾਰੀਐ ਤਿਥੈ ਚੰਗੀ ਚੁਪ ॥੨॥
“Joy and pain-two different garments for one life. Why then pray for joy and negate pain? Why not accept the two rather than retreat from life to avoid one for the other”?
-Guru Granth, 149.
More radical was his departure from the conventional understanding of Maya or illusion. Indic spiritualism purported that both good and bad were negative on the grounds they hinged the actor to an illusory drama. The Guru would hold,
ਅਪਰਾਧੀ ਦੂਣਾ ਨਿਵੈ ਜੋ ਹੰਤਾ ਮਿਰਗਾਹਿ ॥ ਸੀਸਿ ਨਿਵਾਇਐ ਕਿਆ ਥੀਐ ਜਾ ਰਿਦੈ ਕੁਸੁਧੇ ਜਾਹਿ ॥੧॥
“Those who live in denial of reality…they are the true sinners. They are the true loyalists of negativity. What can be achieved by them if they merely bow their heads when their hearts remain attached to falsity”?
-Guru Granth, 470.
The reality here is Hukam (“ਹੁਕਮਿ”), the impartial cosmological constitution fueling Creation. It is a tangible study of the Creator’s virtues and, unlike Brahman and Prakirti, is universal for all Creation ergo Sikhi’s ubiquitous stance on universal brotherhood. Hukam is subject to the Creator’s will and unlike Prakirti is not a co-equal to the Creator. Those who deny Hukam live in a self-imposed illusion (a delusion); they are truly lost in Maya of their own making.
On the issue of Duality, the Pujarivaadi infiltrators of Sikhi have copied Vedism in arguing that Gurmat accepts the very same principles. Gurbani, as the repository of pristine Sikhi, however negates this fallacious view. Good and bad, injustice and justice are to be analyzed through Hukam and human cognition- Bibek- which is to be forever refined by the pursuit and embodiment of knowledge.
ਤਹ ਸਾਚ ਨਿਆਇ ਨਿਬੇਰਾ ॥
“True justice, the Creator’s justice, is based upon the truth and truth alone…”
-Guru Granth, 621.
Morality and immorality are not figments of an imagination attached to an illusory Creation. Rather, they invoke yardsticks to adjudge human behavior and refine humanity’s collective cognition.
Intriguingly enough, to prove contrary to Gurbani the Pujari clique has introduced dubious “historical” texts in the Sikh psyche under the nom de plume of prominent Gurmukhs to fool the layman. These attempt to impose Indic, as opposed to Sikh, philosophies and subtly derail Gurmat. Ironically, these ambiguous texts form the daily staple in Gurudwaras rather than relevant enunciations from the Guru Granth.
ਗਾਫਲ ਗਿਆਨ ਵਿਹੂਣਿਆ ਗੁਰ ਬਿਨੁ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਨ ਭਾਲਿ ਜੀਉ ॥
ਖਿੰਚੋਤਾਣਿ ਵਿਗੁਚੀਐ ਬੁਰਾ ਭਲਾ ਦੁਇ ਨਾਲਿ ਜੀਉ ॥
ਬਿਨੁ ਸਬਦੈ ਭੈ ਰਤਿਆ ਸਭ ਜੋਹੀ ਜਮਕਾਲਿ ਜੀਉ ॥੭॥
“Without wisdom, we tend to fear death more than is necessary. Careless and senseless, the common man runs helter-skelter and fails to seek out and discover the truth. Various goods and bads pull at him and through inner conflict he is finished.”
-Guru Granth, 751.
Duality in Sikhi is indecision. Whereas at a certain level indecision can act as a cautionary tool, at a base state it uproots the individual. While seeped in individuation (“ਹਉਮੈ”), the human mind is subject to being lured and fooled by various discordant and jaundiced purviews of good and bad. At times it is misled into renouncing the world to be free of the consequences of both; at other it is misled into blinding itself in the name of good being conformism and bad being infidelity.
ਦੁਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਸੁਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਮੰਧੇ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ਸਗਲਾਣਾ ॥ ਦੁਹਹੂੰ ਤੇ ਰਹਤ ਭਗਤੁ ਹੈ ਕੋਈ ਵਿਰਲਾ ਜਾਣਾ ॥
“The whole world has been misled into fighting over good and bad. The Gurmukh comprehends what truly is good and what truly is bad. Such an individual remains aloof from the tomfoolery of others.”
-Guru Granth, 51.
Conclusion:
Sikhi’s perception of Duality is far removed from the conventional definition and even treatment of the term. It is significantly more reality-based, negates otherworldliness and emphasizes proactivity rather than socio-spiritual apathy. It is, however, ironic that rather than accept this salient truth of Gurbani Sikh religiosity is more focused on amalgamating it with belief systems which the Gurus disparaged and discarded. Will it succeed? With the Sikh youth daily awakening to the potency of Gurmat, the answer seems a foregone conclusion.
