Introduction:
The psychologist Carl Jung (1875-1961) rationalized that the universal principles of do to others as you would have them do to you and love thy neighbour with their roots in Judeo-Christian ethicality were not injunctions but calculated equations. Reciprocity is the name of the game but, as Jung showed, it was a two-way street. The human individual experiences the world in three dimensions: chaos, order and mediation. Chaos is the unknown; order the known and mediation is the intellectual balancing of both. Order consists of aiding others but with a moral caveat: if we are to aid others we must level the field of opportunity by equalizing both parties. This equality does not consist of the modern welfare dynamic of rendering achievement and excellence relative but rather that we are morally obliged to bargain as hard on our behalf as the other party is obliged to on theirs. Otherwise, one party ends up a slave and the other a tyrant.
Jungian Principle:
Jung argued that aiding someone consists of loving them. There is really no difference between standing up for yourself in the face of imposition or for another. However, if a third party attempts to cease the conflict between a first and second party then its moral purpose (as broker) is to empower the victim to stand up for their rights while positing the culprit on the path of perfection. Who defines this perfection? The third party itself. The victim is empowered to develop strong defenses and the culprit is empowered to develop as a moralistic human. The subconscious template for both is the third party itself. On the other hand, what if the third party limits itself to virtue-signalling and continually aiding the victim? We see here the development of the Freudian-Oedipal nightmare. A misguided attempt at warding off the harsh realities of the world. A transparent example is that of an overprotective parent shielding their child against the dangers of the world but in the process becoming the child’s greatest detractor by disallowing its human development in interaction with its environment.
Self-Sacrifice:
All the above brings us to the question, what is self-sacrifice after a certain limit? Let us first answer, what is self-sacrifice? The imperative for self-sacrifice emanates from the middle path between chaos and order. Conventional religiosity has focused on defining chaos in the feminine owing to its birthing of the unknown and order in the masculine due to its eradication of the unknown. This dichotomy between the known (order) and the unknown (chaos) stems from our gross morphology. The trailblazing neuropsychologist Elkhonon Goldberg argues that our ability to bifurcate reality into these two dimensions is housed in the hemispheric structure of our cortex with one hemisphere solely dealing with logic and order and the other with the chaotic and the unknown. In traditional Indic mythology, the symbiotic existence of these divisions is referred to as Shiv-Shakti. In the Sikh praxis, though, the emphasis is on the third way:
ਏਹਾ ਸਕਤਿ ਸਿਵੈ ਘਰਿ ਆਵੈ ਜੀਵਦਿਆ ਮਰਿ ਰਹੀਐ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
“When the play of S(h)iva and S(h)akti comes to mind then one remains dead while yet alive.”
-Guru Granth, 1257.
The path of mediation between chaos (Shakti) and order (Shiva) is to comprehend that the balance between chaos and order can only be achieved by an individual who straddles the fine line between both. To remain dead while alive refers to the immovable state of the Gurmukh who has realized that both are a part of life. Reacting to one at the expense of the other renders one subservient to their unpredictable mores. Excessive chaos disintegrates the human existence while excessive order only stagnates the same existence. To master both one needs to strike a balance between what one has mastered (order) and what one is mastering (the unknown emanating from chaos). As a result, one becomes the Master of both chaos and order in a similar vein to one’s Maker.
ਸਿਵ ਸਕਤਿ ਆਪਿ ਉਪਾਇ ਕੈ ਕਰਤਾ ਆਪੇ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਵਰਤਾਏ ॥
ਹੁਕਮੁ ਵਰਤਾਏ ਆਪਿ ਵੇਖੈ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਕਿਸੈ ਬੁਝਾਏ ॥
ਤੋੜੇ ਬੰਧਨ ਹੋਵੈ ਮੁਕਤੁ ਸਬਦੁ ਮੰਨਿ ਵਸਾਏ ॥
“The Creator fashioned both Siv and Sakti which remain within their Maker’s command. Watching this command unfold themselves, the Gurmukhs come to realize reality. As a result of their Guru’s words, realization permeates them and all their bonds are broken.”
-Guru Granth, 920.
The notion of self-sacrifice emanates from the altruism which emerges as a result of realizing that both chaos and order can be bent to one’s will. To preserve order within one’s own ranks a warrior will strike chaos within his opponent’s army. On the other hand, the now chaos stricken forces can rally under the command of an astute commander who can banish the chaos by restoring order. Similarly, a chaos infused society can only be repositioned on the path to virtue through order. Yet order alone cannot preserve virtue and requires chaos from time to time to augment its necessity. This last is a salient fact which when confronted inspires individuals to the highest ideals among which is the requisite of the ultimate sacrifice. Conceding one’s own life to provide a catalyst for radical environmental change. What, in a nutshell, is self-sacrifice? An altruistic act of deprivation for the greater moral good of future generations in which one eradicates their present by their very own hand.
The Freudian-Oedipal Nightmare:
But let us consider this, what are the limits of self-sacrifice? The Guru Granth is empathetic:
ਨ ਭੀਜੈ ਭੇੜਿ ਮਰਹਿ ਭਿੜਿ ਸੂਰ ॥
“They who kill and are killed for any mundane cause are not warriors in any sense. The Supreme Maker is not won over by such acts.”
-Guru Granth, 1237.
Within context one understands that this verse refers to the deaths of those who die mutely and without forming any firm conviction in their minds as to what they aim to die for or desire their demise to achieve.
On the other hand, even the cause for which one dies decides the status of their death. Let us consider a thorny subject here; whenever or wherever in the world a crisis strikes some sections of Sikhs are the first ones to reach there and establish Langar. This is a praiseworthy act, but questions are beginning to be asked here as to are we trivializing Langar into another form of virtue-signalling? Why is it that only Langar is being commercialized by the Sikhs to the degree that it has become stereotypically associated with the community? Are we encouraging the Freudian-Oedipal nightmare complex against ourselves? Are we now undertaking the role of an institute, a parent and a state which breeds entitlement and apathy by disallowing victims the ability to empower themselves for the future by handing them everything they require in the name of selflessness? Has a hand-up been devolved into a hand-out?
What is the Divine Will?
Does an infinite Being who has fashioned Creation as an extension of themselves tolerate freeloaders? After all, a salient principle of nature holds that those unable to make an effort to fend for themselves necessary starve unless they are in such a grim state as to require aid. This same query is answered in the Guru Granth,
ਨ ਭੀਜੈ ਦਾਤੀ ਕੀਤੈ ਪੁੰਨਿ ॥
“The Maker is not mollified or won over by charities and donations…”
-Guru Granth, 1237.
And,
ਨਾਮੁ ਹਮਾਰੈ ਪੂਰਨ ਦਾਨੁ ॥
“The essential wisdom of how to live life is my divine donation.”
-Guru Granth, 1145.
Seemingly discordant, these two verses reflect a startling reality. The first is that virtue-signalling is neither ethically or morally justifiable. The second is that the greatest donation, the greatest act of self-sacrifice, is to empower another with the wisdom of how to live their life free of dependence on another. Both verses make manifest the fact that self-sacrifice (the sacrifice of one’s time, possessions and even life) is not a matter to be taken lightly. One must exercise great caution and aim to empower the recipient of the sacrifice so they can vouch for themselves rather than rely on others. This particular fact is observable in the lives of the sixth, seventh, ninth and tenth Gurus who ensured that while the Sikhs continually liberated the oppressed masses-they never lost sight of their own goals and empowered others to defend themselves. This policy proved bountiful for post-Guru era generalissimo Baba Banda Singh of whom it is said that he ignited such a flame of revolution within the minds of 18th century Punjab’s peasantry that farmers and laborers armed with sticks and stones outfought the era’s greatest veterans in the battlefield.
Self-Sacrifice in the Sikh praxis:
The Sikhs today only remember sacrifice but forego the self to argue that they are some cannon-fodder sword-arm kitchen boys for the world. It is true that the notion of virtuous self-sacrifice is deeply embedded in the Sikh psyche given that the progenitors of our faith made the ultimate self-sacrifice and inspired countless others after them to do the same. Any argument then that the Golden Rule does not emphasize “sacrifice yourself for others” might seem false on the face of it. But the Gurus’ archetypal martyrdoms as well as of their Sikhs exist as examples of how to accept finitude, betrayal, and consequences of opposing imposition and tyranny heroically-how to walk alongside God despite the tragedy of self-conscious knowledge- and not as an injunction to victimize ourselves in the service of others.
Self-sacrifice does not imply or even mean to suffer silently and willingly when some community/faith/organization and religion demands more from us consistently than is offered in return. To do otherwise means we are supporting tyranny and allowing ourselves to be treated like slaves minus the chains and whips. There is no virtue in allowing ourselves to be victimized by the bullies of tomorrow irrespective of whatever liberal definition of Sikhi is thrust upon us and whatever the state of the bully is today. Our heritage and history reverberates with the fact that standing up for ourselves is akin to standing up for another. After all, this life has been given to us on lease as it has been to humanity since its emergence from the hoary mists of time. The greatest legacy we can bequeath the world is not a container full of dal, rice and six rotis. It is to show each and every breathing individual that while their life is finite; its potential is infinite.
Self-Perception:
How we view ourselves is essentially important to how we conduct ourselves. We Sikhs have been brainwashed into seeing ourselves as being expendable and emerging solely to either feed the world or die a meaningless death in defence of one hunk of rock over another. It is high time that we adopt the following three-fold view of ourselves:
-We must treat ourselves like someone we are responsible for helping (thank you Dr. Jordan Peterson).
-We Sikhs have a purpose in this life which far exceeds Langar and standing up for others.
-Empower others to depend on themselves rather than on ourselves or others.
We are fully aware of the consequences of such a worldview. But, like we say, bring on the hate-no ground will be conceded.