Introduction:
The postmodern age has produced a pick-and-choose buffet of quasi-spiritual standards that seek to erode the metaphysical objectivity of belief itself. This is not rooted in technological innovation, but in European Enlightenment irreligiosity that seeks to reduce the transcendent to the level of human rationality and master it minus any obligatory adherence to the divine in the first place. What we are left with then is a spirituality sans structure.
One might ask, what is the problem with this brand of spirituality? After all, the antithetical structural spirituality (spirituality deduced from a well-defined religiopolitical/sociopolitical belief) can easily stand accused of inhumane barbarity historically. While the answer will induce much hair-splitting, it is also imperative we consider why this fatherless spirituality has fast overtaken its historic predecessor of obligatory adherence and belief defining spirituality.
The necessity of writing this article originated when witnessing the irresponsible discourse of missionary and upgrade Sikhs who compulsively argue that the Sikh identity of Kes (unshorn hair) is not necessary to Sikh spirituality that, somehow, can be followed sans adherence to Sikhi. Although their illogicality has been refuted multiple times, it is crucial we comprehend the praxeological mistakes they make to effectively reduce the impact of their baleful rhetoric.
Postmodern spiritualism:
Postmodern spiritualism is marked by a distinct aversion to crystallized religious structures. From a Sikh perspective while it is conducive to criticize and alternate the practices of Sikh sampradas or self-styled traditionalists relapsing into Sanataanism due to environmental and religiopolitical pressure, this has to be done within a predefined limit. What are we criticizing? Why are we criticizing it? What is the alternative as per Gurmat? Why is this the alternative?
In the current climate, however, it is evidential that the most vocal critics have adopted the postmodern spiritualism route lacking any intellectual grounding of their own signaling their own ineptitude. Ignoring all recent research to the contrary, they have constructed an elaborate fantasia of some Brahminical conspiracy that has relegated their purview of Sikh spirituality to the background while confounding Sikhs with meaningless and ostentatious rituals.
To their credit, there is a microcosm of truth in what they claim. But it is highly conspicuous that lacking any distinctive Sikh-led nuance of their own, they have shifted from revivalism to aimless postmodernist deconstruction rooted in a misunderstanding of the term Religion. Postmodern spirituality elaborates that any structured belief is prone to being hijacked by aggrandizing minorities and misused against adherents. But how true is this?
Historically, other than Sikhi each and every structured belief system has retained a priestly class. This is an innate attribute of the belief and not an anomaly. In the Sikh world, the 18th century Khalsa retained the Akalis-eminent gatekeepers who greenlighted conversions to Sikhi while expanding the faith among the masses ensuring the proper upkeep of Sikh rites. While gatekeeping is not fundamentally priestly, its structuralism renders it a favorite target of postmodern spiritualism.
The essence of postmodern spiritualism lies in breaking down obligatory belief structures to argue for the secularization of spirituality implying that effort is not necessary to tread the spiritual path but an inherent sense of ethicalness. Ethicalness sans structural spirituality though renders ethicality subjective and incongruent with belief in an unchanging benevolent Creator. This is highly conspicuous with the upgrade denomination that panders to the latest trends.
Aims:
If effort is indeed unnecessary in adhering to spirituality, then how is spirituality to be judged impartially? How is the validity of a certain brand of spirituality to be judged against another? No coherent answers forthcoming, postmodern spiritualists regurgitate the shallow argument that their spirituality is the great equalizer in terms of uniting humanity i.e. there is no obligatory externality required to follow it. That the external world does not matter but internality.
Considering their vocal denouncements of Brahminism and superstition it is no wonder that we miss the subtle contradictions in their narrative. A cursory comparative analysis of postmodern spirituality and Brahminism substantiates the symbiotic relationship between both as Brahminical spirituality itself emphasizes the religiopolitical/sociopolitical defanging of structuralism to render it a matter of private proposition and not societal perfectness.
What we have then is a chaotic comedy of imbecility. Postmodern spiritualists castigate Brahminism while upholding enlightenment era secularistic spirituality masked as Sikhi that essentially aims for the same objective as Brahminism: the reduction of societal involvement on the part of the faithful. Faith is reduced to a matter of abstractions and personal belief while Brahminical theocratism or state worship acquires control over the hearts and minds of the citizen.
It is imperative to elaborate here that although postmodern spiritualists cry foul over theocracy often pointing to Islamist theocracies as exemplars of the concept’s atrocious impacts; in their hunt for validation and undeserved equality they ignore that theocracies are as diverse as the faiths establishing them and Sikhi has no relation with Islam. Thus the postmodern spiritualist is a creature of contradictions asininely emulating the tactics of his foes.
Religio:
We now come to the bedrock question of Sikhi, is Sikhi a religion? This is a potently loaded question triggering much emotive hair-splitting between various denominations and schools of thought. What is Religion? In its current form, the term refers to personalized abstract principles held in common by particular members of a belief-based group. These principles are solely transcendental and not allowed any conspicuity on the political platform.
The secularized liberal state displaces religion and supplants it with itself conceptualizing the argument that man is free to pursue his own desires without any consequences or obligations. Exigency arising from the human need for security compel it to establish legal and security frameworks although these are often loaded against the victim in socialist states on the grounds of rehabilitation over respite. The structural spirituality of Sikhi radically disagrees with liberalism.
The self in Sikhi is a means to uniting with its Divine Maker through thought and deed as enumerated by the Guru Granth,
ਇਹੁ ਸਰੀਰੁ ਕਰਮ ਕੀ ਧਰਤੀ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਮਥਿ ਮਥਿ ਤਤੁ ਕਢਈਆ ॥
“This body is but the field of action, through it the Gurmukhs discover and obtain the true essence of life.”
-Guru Granth, 834.
Because the body is the field of action, belief in the transcendental divine cannot be reduced to a mere personal principle or even belief alone. It retains its own religiopolitical power that must be enacted as a means of obtaining this true essence of life. This is the uniqueness of Sikh structural spirituality. It refuses to divorce spirituality from temporality making temporality the condition of spirituality; a notion only paid lip-service to by postmodern spiritualists.
In this sense then, Sikhi is not classifiable as Religion but as Religio-a collection of actions governed by a strong performative obligation. This is akin to the Roman comprehension of belief and faith that was mirrored throughout the ancient world. Religio in itself consisted of Religio: the temporal obligation and habitus: the spiritual obligation with worldly effort being symbolic of how closely one adhered to this philosophically pragmatic code.
The followers of Religio opened themselves to judgement by retaining a distinctive physical identity underscoring their efforts at adhering to it. After all, how immersed one was in habitus could only be judged through physical identity markers that heralded affiliation and allowed onlookers to gauge one’s authenticity and/or hypocrisy while traversing the path of Religio. The Samurai Bushido likewise echoes this civic spirituality meant for the few.
The rise of Christianity against the backdrop of Roman atrophy witnessed the reduction of Religio as a spiritual-temporal force with Augustine inimically claiming that habitus (or the Christian illogicality) being greater than Religio as a religiopolitical force. While the Romans believed that only the adherents of Religio could better the world, Christianity argued for the negation of this world in pursuit of the other.
The objective logicality of Religio furnishes one transparent fact, structuralized spirituality differs from faith system to faith system and only adherents can enjoy the fruits of structuralized spirituality because they commit to making the effort to adhering to it. This latter reality is what evades postmodern spiritualists who argue Sikhi is for everyone. Sikhi is not for everyone nor its spirituality unless its cherry-picked. Its only for adherents who conform to it in totality.
Secularism far from being a separation of church and state is the supplantation of the transcendental church with the temporal church on the basis that man should be free to pursue his own desires without any restrictions. But without any divine constraints to restrain him, man’s own bestial sense hijacks his higher self to produce calamity. This was what Religio prevented prior to its obliteration by the secularistic enlightened state. It recognized man’s own limited morality.
ਹਰੀ ਅੰਗੂਰੀ ਗਦਹਾ ਚਰੈ ॥ ਨਿਤ ਉਠਿ ਹਾਸੈ ਹੀਗੈ ਮਰੈ ॥੧॥ ਮਾਤਾ ਭੈਸਾ ਜਾਇ ॥ ਕੁਦਿ ਕੁਦਿ ਚਰੈ ਰਸਾਤਲਿ ਪਾਇ ॥੨॥
“The ass feeds on the green leaves. It awakens only to bray and deplete its life under burden. The intoxicated bull remains forever wild. Frolicking their lives away, both beasts only ever acquire hell.”
-Guru Granth, 326.
Man is but an intelligent beast without the recognition of a transcendental authority over him. This is the cornerstone of Sikhi, to escape the confines of the beast and ascend to the heights of enlightenment man is obligated to undertake the responsibility established by the Sikh Gurus. Akin to the ancient Greeks, the Sikh conception of belief holds that internalized spirituality is obsolete without exterior application undertaken only by those obliging themselves to follow it.
The Mark Of Singhs:
We have established so far that Guru Nanak’s Sikhi is not universal but exclusive. Its message is for those who oblige themselves to follow it in word and deed. None other. This is further reinforced by the fact that Sikhi retains a structured spirituality and not the atrocious abomination of postmodernist spirituality. Its spirituality is distinct and rooted in Religio over Religion signifying the necessity of an inherently distinct identity. What is this identity?
We now turn to the works of two esteemed Sikh exegetes, Giani Udham Singh and Giani Bishan Singh to answer this question. Contrary to popular opinion that the Guru Granth is solely focused on internalized spirituality, Giani Udham Singh argues to the contrary in his magnificent analysis of the Sikh identity: Kes Chamatkar (the mystique of unshorn hair). Giani Bishan Singh’s contextual translations/transliterations of the Guru Granth solidify this perspective further.
Keeping in mind that Religio denotes the profound interrelationship between the spiritual and temporal paradigms, let us analyze the structured obligations required of a Sikh in the canonical Guru Granth.
ਤੇਰੇ ਬੰਕੇ ਲੋਇਣ ਦੰਤ ਰੀਸਾਲਾ ॥
ਸੋਹਣੇ ਨਕ ਜਿਨ ਲੰਮੜੇ ਵਾਲਾ ॥
ਕੰਚਨ ਕਾਇਆ ਸੁਇਨੇ ਕੀ ਢਾਲਾ ॥
ਸੋਵੰਨ ਢਾਲਾ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਮਾਲਾ ਜਪਹੁ ਤੁਸੀ ਸਹੇਲੀਹੋ ॥
“Your eyes are beauteous and your teeth alluring. Your nose is handsome and your hair unshorn. Your skin is magnificent like gold. So my companions, take up your rosaries to remember such a Creator and none other.”
-Guru Granth, 567.
Drawing upon the Lahore Singh-Sabha intellectual tradition and its older predecessors (the Nirankaris, original Namdharis and Shahid Misl Akalis) Both Gianis, Bhai Vir Singh, and Professor Sahib Singh unanimously conclude that this verse by Guru Nanak refers to the ideal physicality of the human being. In essence, the individual has been designed with perfect physical attributes including unshorn hair that complement their exteriority.
The credit for this design, Guru Nanak proclaims, is the Creator’s alone ergo why the human physicality in this verse is referred to as being the latter’s. Giani Bishan Singh prudently forewarns that this does not refer to some specific manifestation of the Maker in this world. Rather, it describes the gifts the Maker has bequeathed to the greatest among his Creation: man. Summarily, the verse endorses the preservation of unshorn hair as divine symbolism.
While man is indeed a beast, unshorn hair denotes the ability to rein in the inner savage and control it for sacrosanct (read Religio) purposes. Though many might argue that the poetic nature of the Guru Granth disqualifies it from being seen as injunctive, this also runs contrary to their secularistic spirituality claims as by that same token their own endorsements are rendered fallible just because the poetic nature is neither injunctive in their case.
With unshorn hair denoting the prestige that accompanies self-mastery, another verse speaks of the necessity of retaining a dastaar or turban to keep this unshorn hair clean and safe.
ਕਾਇਆ ਕਿਰਦਾਰ ਅਉਰਤ ਯਕੀਨਾ ॥
ਰੰਗ ਤਮਾਸੇ ਮਾਣਿ ਹਕੀਨਾ ॥
ਨਾਪਾਕ ਪਾਕੁ ਕਰਿ ਹਦੂਰਿ ਹਦੀਸਾ ਸਾਬਤ ਸੂਰਤਿ ਦਸਤਾਰ ਸਿਰਾ ॥੧੨॥
“Let your deeds reflect your character and make trust upon yourself your woman. Observe and remain buoyant as this world progresses on. Make the impure pure by remaining forever observant of the Maker, and tie a handsome turban atop your head as a result.”
-Guru Granth, 1084.
The dastaar signifies the supremacy of the wearer lending them regality. With Sikh spiritualism retaining a distinct temporal edge welded to its ethos and praxis, the dastaar and unshorn hair in the fashion of ancient emperors signifies an up-righteous sage ruler who is the master of himself and others around him. It is insignificant whether times have changed. Those who adhere to follow the Gurus’ path alter themselves for the path and not the path for themselves.
Postscript:
And so we must avail ourselves of the traditions of our forefathers and their conservatism in upholding them. The spirituality of the hairless is nothing but the vacuous spirituality of a cynical and fast unravelling world. Those who meanwhile adhere to the dynamic spiritualism of Guru Nanak, oblige themselves to follow it in full without any self-exhibiting weaknesses.
This is very powerful. I’ve kept my kes for the last 2 years. It has been very challenging as my wife has betrayed me and I’m in the middle of a divorce. The path is very difficult friends. Vacuous spirituality on the other hand is easy. Sikh renaissance has been very helpful on my journey and an incredible resource. Please continue your work