Establishment:
During his Odysseys throughout the known world of his epoch, Guru Nanak stringently criticized the contemporary religiosity which had beaten a hasty retreat from society and justified its asceticism on the grounds that a family life was sinful and led to temptation. For the Guru, the world was the true arena of spirituality and what better way to acquire familiarity with the Creator than to participate wholeheartedly in Creation and seek its progression? To this end he made the Householder’s Life the primary cornerstone of the Sikh life.
The Family:
The non-Sikh faiths enunciate a cynical view of family life rooted in the alleged fact that this world is illusory and the next world, post-death, is the true world with this plane being but a stepping stone to the latter. To enter this otherworldly heavenly realm one has to perform various antics in this world to supplicate the gatekeepers of the next. Whether the next realm is one of dissolution or tangibility depends on the belief system in question. What cannot be denied, however, is that there is no stringent emphasis placed on leading a family oriented life while shouldering all the burdens and responsibilities which accompany it. The true Householder, by the very virtue of being a householder, is the embodiment of perfection and an ardent adherent of reality. Machiavelli observes that religion,
“…has glorified humble and contemplative men, monks, priests, humble and contemplative men rather than men of action. It is assigned as man’s highest good humility, abnegation, and contempt for mundane things…”
but comparatively in ancient more realistically grounded times,
“…the other(s) identified it (goodness) with magnanimity, bodily strength, and everything that conduces to make men very bold…”
-Introduction To Political Philosophy, Lecture XI.
As observant as he was, Machiavelli was unable to wholly articulate why true sociopolitical and moralistic harmony depended solely on the citizens of a republic. He keenly underscored that such citizens given their status as free men harmonizing with their leaders would die to defend their freedoms thus hampering foreign armies. But what grounded these citizens so profoundly in their home and hearth? Their families. Their progeny and the knowledge that the state, as political Leviathan, would not interfere in how they led their families and the legacies they imparted to them. The Khalsa political order is based on this structural reality.
ਸਤਿਗੁਰਿ ਮਿਲਿਐ ਭੁਖ ਗਈ ਭੇਖੀ ਭੁਖ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
ਦੁਖਿ ਲਗੈ ਘਰਿ ਘਰਿ ਫਿਰੈ ਅਗੈ ਦੂਣੀ ਮਿਲੈ ਸਜਾਇ ॥
ਅੰਦਰਿ ਸਹਜੁ ਨ ਆਇਓ ਸਹਜੇ ਹੀ ਲੈ ਖਾਇ ॥
ਮਨਹਠਿ ਜਿਸ ਤੇ ਮੰਗਣਾ ਲੈਣਾ ਦੁਖੁ ਮਨਾਇ ॥
ਇਸੁ ਭੇਖੈ ਥਾਵਹੁ ਗਿਰਹੋ ਭਲਾ ਜਿਥਹੁ ਕੋ ਵਰਸਾਇ ॥
“Accepting the truth one’s internal hunger departs. By wearing the robes of a mendicant inner hunger does not vanish. Hunger stricken, these mendicants wander hearth to hearth only to be penalized in the world beyond. They do not achieve any satisfaction irrespective of whatever food they are offered. Stubborn, they beg and take, hindering whoever donates to them. Instead of being such beggars, the Householder’s Life is infinitely better and worthy of being lived in which ones gives rather than takes.”
-Guru Granth, 586-587.
The contemplative monks of Machiavelli’s era can just as well be the Hindu-Islamic renunciates of the Gurus’ era. They would wander from door-to-door, hearth-to-hearth, selling tall tales of deities and what-not. In the mornings and evenings they would beg from families. In the afternoons and nights, fully sated, they would criticize the very same householder’s who fed them for being sinners given that their families attached them to the world which was illusory.
Guru Nanak confronted the hypocrisy of these renunciates. Householder’s sweated to provide for their families; shouldered responsibilities to feed themselves and their children while imparting strong values to their progeny. To eat food earned through their blood and sweat and still venomously criticize them was abject hypocrisy. What was more, as was the case throughout history, rarely did these contemplative monks take to the field of battle to defend home and hearth. It was only the Householder who died for freedom and liberty. If not for themselves, then for their children and their neighbors. Not the hypocritical priests who fled at the first sign of trouble. After all, what dog did they have in the fight given they had no families to care for?
True Equipoise:
Where is true peace to be found if not in asceticism and renunciation? What, after all, is true peace? True equipoise? The benumbing of the mind through avoiding familial responsibility? Or is it something else? What is the definition of true peace from a householder’s perspective as per Sikhi?
ਜੋਗੀ ਭੋਗੀ ਕਾਪੜੀ ਕਿਆ ਭਵਹਿ ਦਿਸੰਤਰ ॥
ਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਸਬਦੁ ਨ ਚੀਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਹੀ ਤਤੁ ਸਾਰੁ ਨਿਰੰਤਰ ॥੩॥
ਪੰਡਿਤ ਪਾਧੇ ਜੋਇਸੀ ਨਿਤ ਪੜ੍ਹਹਿ ਪੁਰਾਣਾ ॥
ਅੰਤਰਿ ਵਸਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਣਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਘਟਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਲੁਕਾਣਾ ॥੪॥
ਇਕਿ ਤਪਸੀ ਬਨ ਮਹਿ ਤਪੁ ਕਰਹਿ ਨਿਤ ਤੀਰਥ ਵਾਸਾ ॥
ਆਪੁ ਨ ਚੀਨਹਿ ਤਾਮਸੀ ਕਾਹੇ ਭਏ ਉਦਾਸਾ ॥੫॥
ਇਕਿ ਬਿੰਦੁ ਜਤਨ ਕਰਿ ਰਾਖਦੇ ਸੇ ਜਤੀ ਕਹਾਵਹਿ ॥
ਬਿਨੁ ਗੁਰ ਸਬਦ ਨ ਛੂਟਹੀ ਭ੍ਰਮਿ ਆਵਹਿ ਜਾਵਹਿ ॥੬॥
ਇਕਿ ਗਿਰਹੀ ਸੇਵਕ ਸਾਧਿਕਾ ਗੁਰਮਤੀ ਲਾਗੇ ॥
ਨਾਮੁ ਦਾਨੁ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਦ੍ਰਿੜੁ ਹਰਿ ਭਗਤਿ ਸੁ ਜਾਗੇ ॥੭॥
“The Ascetics, Mendicants and Renunciates beg in foreign lands. Why? Because they do not comprehend the words of wisdom which lead to the merit within them. The priests, the scholars, the intellectuals and the astrologers and those who endlessly recite scriptures-neither do they realize that their Maker is already within them. Some perform penance in forests; some reside forever in shrines. Unenlightened as they are-why are they renunciates? Some avoid sex and others undertake celibacy. But without living the words of wisdom they only come and go earning no merit. Then there are the Householders who being the seekers of the truth serve and attach themselves to its wisdom. They make the imbibing of wisdom and making others wise their purification. They remain forever awake in dedication to their Maker.”
-Guru Granth, 419.
Equipoise, in Sikhi, can only be achieved through the Householder’s Life. The householder is a Creator in his own right; creating and furthering life through their children and imparting to them the strong values required to live and triumph the battle of life. Alongside, they seek the betterment of society and the world for the future of these children. True Equipoise lies in accepting the responsibility which accompanies the creating and leading of a family. Peace comes not with renunciation but with the responsibility accompanying the leadership of the most fundamental of human units-the family.
ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਸੇਵਨਿ ਸੇ ਵਡਭਾਗੀ ॥
ਸਚੈ ਸਬਦਿ ਜਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਏਕ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਗੀ ॥
ਗਿਰਹ ਕੁਟੰਬ ਮਹਿ ਸਹਜਿ ਸਮਾਧੀ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮਿ ਰਤੇ ਸੇ ਸਚੇ ਬੈਰਾਗੀ ॥੧॥
“They who serve the truth are immensely fortunate. They hold the Divine words of wisdom (emanating from the Creator) sacred and engrave them in their consciousness. In their own households with their own families they are in true equipoise. Nanak, such are the true renunciates.”
-Guru Granth, 1246.
True renunciates do not renounce the world but rather the ways of the world. This was a point made prescient to us by Dr. Balwant Singh Dhillon in an exegesis of Guru Nanak’s philosophy. It was also something explained by Guru Hargobind to the ascetic Samarth Ramdas who had caustically remarked that while Guru Nanak was supposedly spiritual his successors were militant rulers. The Householder is to renounce obsession with the world and their family. Not passion and love. Obsession blinds one to necessity while love and passion empowers them to discipline and guide their own when necessary.
The Three Foundations:
The Householder’s Life has three components. One consists of men the second of women and the third of children. Men complement women; women complement men. This is how the Creator has designed the two existent genders. The union of both produces offspring; the young. These are the three foundations of the Householder’s Life.
Reputed psychopathologist Sir Simon Baron-Cohen, after decades of scientific research, concludes that neurobiological variations between men and women delineate the separate natures of both which while different are also complementary. On a forensic note, even after the liquefication of organs post-death enough variations exist between male and female skeletons to differentiate between both. Male skeletons retain 36% more bone mass than females along with having more pronounced mastoids, squarer jaws and narrower pelvises. Needless to say, these are natural gender markers and not mindless figments of ‘social constructs’ as alleged by gender theorists.
Women are neurobiologically attuned to empathy and making things. Men are neurobiologically more attuned towards building things. These dissimilarities are not a cause for inequality as emphasized by religion. Rather, they comingle to produce a future generation of children strongly grounded in the values of their forefathers. And what are children if not the continuation of their parents?
The Role Of Women:
The role of women in historic Sikh societies was that of preachers, warriors, leaders, teachers, nurturers and above all mothers. Guru Gobind Singh’s foremost retainer and majordomo Mata (honorary mother) Sahib Kaur remained unwed her whole life due to personal compulsions but acted as an adoptive mother to the Khalsa’s orphaned children. She took the widowed sister of commander Bhag Singh Alhuwalia under her wing and raised her son Jassa Singh as her own son who became the legendary Jathedar Sultan-ul-Qaum (Commander and Ruler invested with the authority of the Khalsa) Jassa Singh.
A generation earlier, Khalsa generalissimo Banda Singh was wed by his advisers to a Rajput princess who was converted to Sikhi to cement a political alliance. Concerned at whether his offspring through her would remain a Sikh, he wed a second time to prominent Sikh preacher Sahib Kaur. Their son Ranjit Singh traveled far and wide imparting the Khalsa gospel and converting thousands to Sikhi like his mother before him.
Above all, it was firmly articulated by the Gurus that women had the ability to birth children. For Sikh women it was rendered a sacred duty to raise children steeped in Sikh lore and Khalsa values. Whereas modern feminism vilifies motherhood as a sin, Sikhi celebrates it as a divine virtue.
ਭੰਡਿ ਜੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਨਿੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਮੰਗਣੁ ਵੀਆਹੁ ॥
ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਦੋਸਤੀ ਭੰਡਹੁ ਚਲੈ ਰਾਹੁ ॥
ਭੰਡੁ ਮੁਆ ਭੰਡੁ ਭਾਲੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਬੰਧਾਨੁ ॥
ਸੋ ਕਿਉ ਮੰਦਾ ਆਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਜੰਮਹਿ ਰਾਜਾਨ ॥
ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੀ ਭੰਡੁ ਊਪਜੈ ਭੰਡੈ ਬਾਝੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਭੰਡੈ ਬਾਹਰਾ ਏਕੋ ਸਚਾ ਸੋਇ ॥
“From a woman is a man born; within a woman he is conceived and to a woman he is engaged and wed. A woman becomes his greatest friend and through her (their) future generations come. When this woman dies he seeks another; he is bound to women after all. So then why declare her as bad when from her emperors are born? A woman births another woman; without women we would not exist at all. Nanak, only the true Creator is without women. None other.”
-Guru Granth, 473.
Exceptions like Mata Sahib Kaur exist, yet the majority of Sikh women historically have been mothers foremost and undertaken other duties later. They have nourished and raised great leaders, preachers and warriors. Taru Singh was left fatherless by the Khalsa-Mughal wars. His mother imparted strong Sikh values to him. Ultimately, not only did he uphold his Sikh faith but also covertly supported Khalsa guerillas warring for Sikh sovereignty. He was subsequently arrested and scalped but remained firm in his convictions. Where did he derive his strength from? Sikhi. Who firmed him in Sikhi? His mother. Was her motherhood a sin? A modern self-styled Sikh feminist would answer in the affirmative.
The current generation of diasporic Sikh women, in the majority, have been corrupted and misled by hyper-excessive liberalism branded about as feminism which argues that unless women have the same power as men they are powerless. This is not only counterproductive to the very cause of feminism but also negates the historic source of power held by women-motherhood. Motherhood is a Sikh woman’s greatest strength. It should be her first and foremost priority to raise Gursikh children. This is not to say that women should shun work outside the house or remain subservient to men. But rather prioritize their young over their careers. In this way not only does Sikhi cement itself from generation to generation, but children are removed from the nefarious influences of bandwagon following day-cares which indoctrinate them with antithetical values.
The Sikh child of today is an indoctrinated creature easily falling into line with what the powers that be rule. The Sikh child of yesteryear was strong, independent and able to see through any trap woven for them. The crucial difference here is that while mothers like Taru Singh’s imparted Sikh tenets to him; the Sikh mothers (although exceptions exist) of today rarely teach anything besides God is one; all paths lead to God; be human first fallacies and how to use iPhones to their toddlers.
The Role Of Men:
Mothers nourish and nurture. Fathers discipline and lead. The child created within a mother’s womb is guarded fiercely by her while their father strengthens them by building up their fortitude and disciplining them. But the father is also psychologically a distant figure; this being the primeval memory of the human brain hearkening back to when males left their families to roam near and afar to hunt for game. The father imparts character; the mother augments it through guidance. The father imparts discipline; the mother tenderizes his roughness by explaining its necessity to the child. Fathers in Sikhi serve dual purposes. Not only should their children’s virtue reflect their character but they, themselves, should be used as the yardstick to measure their children’s Sikhi against. They should renounce all addictions and act as the rocks on which their children build their own fortitude. A Sikh father is the first line of defense. The mother the final.
ਕਲਿ ਕਲਵਾਲੀ ਕਾਮੁ ਮਦੁ ਮਨੂਆ ਪੀਵਣਹਾਰੁ ॥
ਕ੍ਰੋਧ ਕਟੋਰੀ ਮੋਹਿ ਭਰੀ ਪੀਲਾਵਾ ਅਹੰਕਾਰੁ ॥
ਮਜਲਸ ਕੂੜੇ ਲਬ ਕੀ ਪੀ ਪੀ ਹੋਇ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥
ਕਰਣੀ ਲਾਹਣਿ ਸਤੁ ਗੁੜੁ ਸਚੁ ਸਰਾ ਕਰਿ ਸਾਰੁ ॥
ਗੁਣ ਮੰਡੇ ਕਰਿ ਸੀਲੁ ਘਿਉ ਸਰਮੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਆਹਾਰੁ ॥
ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਖਾਧੈ ਜਾਹਿ ਬਿਕਾਰ ॥੧॥
“These dark times are the vessel brimming with lust and the mind the drunkard. Anger is the (other) vessel brimming with obsession and it is served by hubris. When one imbibes (these vessels) they are joined by falsehood and greed which ultimately ruins them. Alter these then and make practical virtue your distillery and the truth your ingredient to produce the most excellent of wines-the one of truth. Make goodness your bread; enlightened deeds your churned cream and humility your meat. The Gurmukh obtains such consumables and obliterates their sins by partaking of them.”
-Guru Granth, 549.
To reiterate, exceptions exist but a majority of Sikh fathers today are more valorous on the Bhangra stage and at the liquor store rather than in the battle which is life. The fall of the Khalsa Householder’s Life, in part, can directly be traced to many Sikh men who are emasculated of masculinity and deny the Soldier-Saint ethos of the Khalsa to push forward only the Saint line under the façade of democracy; only god can judge me; times have changed fallacies. Whereas historically Sikh fathers emulated the examples of Guru Arjan and Guru Gobind Singh by introducing their children to the world of strategy and warfare; today’s fathers introduce them to the numbing illusions of Johnny Walker.
The above verse from the Guru Granth provides a definition of what true masculinity consists of. Sadly, it lies forgotten.
The War On Children:
The Greek sculptor Pygmalion falls in love with a statue of a woman he carves. Aphrodite blesses it with life. Pygmalion was a celibate who decried women as prostitutes until he fantasized that maybe his sculptor had more virtue than the marketplace sluts. Subsequently, Pygmalion fathers children with this statue turned real woman and lives happily ever after. His children were an expression of the time when he transcended his own ego to love another. Just as the Maker’s love is creative, so is the consensual love between a man and woman. By connecting with the world outside his own, Pygmalion entered a heightened state of selflessness which allowed him to love. The result was his children. So it is with men and women today. The result of their love is children.
A child, in Sikhi, is a man and woman’s greatest creation for all other human creations-whether art, technology or even knowledge-are supposed to guide and serve future humans and who but children are our immediate link with the future? After we depart the worldly plane, they will carry forward our legacy and immortalize us.
But children today are a rare commodity. Falling birth rates aside, insulatory parenting and technology has impacted their emotional maturity. Girlhood has become synonymous with altering genders given that the commercialization of pornography has reduced women to gaggers both literally and figuratively. Boyhood has been synonymized with the pursuit of cheap and undeserved dopamine hits through the conduits of drugs and sex. The men of the future will be enfeebled and gaze with wonder at times long past when their forefathers trained in martial arts and indulged in afterschool gang fights. What is left in childhood for both genders then?
In trans lingo women are disparaged as breeders. Fie to the feminists who support this negation of motherhood and its sacredness. The silence of men on the irreversible damage dissolving society has become a symbol of their success. Women are breeders; men simps. And what of children? Puberty blockers such as Lupron annihilate their fertility. Dr. John Money’s horrific scientific experiments on the Reimer twins have become a commercialized facet of modern medicine and adversely affect children.
Girls are thoroughly objectified and then brainwashed into believing that selling their body is true feminism as it empowers their liberation. One can imagine the amount of perverts, sexual organs in hand, supporting this liberation. Boys are suppressed mentally to be less troublesome i.e. agree with whatever is hurled their way and never show spine or independence in their own decision making.
And the peak is reached when Sikh preachers themselves argue that Sikh children retaining the Khalsa 5 K’s be allowed to discard them to flaunt those curves and parts in the name of progress for Miss Universe contests. And their followers will do likewise yet hypocritically argue against the objectification of women.
Do parents have any say over their children today? When a twelve year old is made in charge of their own sexuality or a ten year old coached to claim another gender identity than what he is born in one needs to ask three questions:
Are the parents products of a collapsing society?
Are the parents under constraint and unable to guide their child?
If so, where do these constraints emanate from?
Only the Householder’s Life as enunciated by Guru Nanak is the panacea for a world gone awry and a humanity cutting off its own feet.
The Householder’s War:
The way is hard. There are seemingly insurmountable obstacles littering it. There is betrayal. There is ostracizing. There is dissolution on each and every step. Yet life is such a play that all moves result in consequences whether good or bad. Guru Nanak identified this as the Householder’s War. It could be argued that for the Khalsa one vote one family adage holds true. After all, if the nuclear family structure is strong and consensus based then each and every Sikh family will vote in accordance with each member’s wish. In this war men have their own duty; women their own. Neither is high; neither is low. Both are equal in raising the Khalsas of the future. So what will it be readers? Faces creased with past worries but glimmering smiles when one raises the next generation to be stronger? Or forced smiles and inner shame at rearing human beasts? The way is finer than the hair and sharper than the sword. But if we read it every morning, then why not live it? After all, Householders are free men. And free men die for their families and freedom.
Too true- once I was in USA with a group of mostly American men, discussing on feminism, masculine traits, etc. Some were arguing that the advent of pornographic material is fine. When I asked them something along the lines of "would you allow your daughter/other lady relative to sell herself on these kind of websites" one of them said "it is their freedom, their choice" etc. Terrible thinking ingrained in the students due to modernisation.