Sikhism- An Introduction Page 4

  As the Primal Being willed, Nanak, the devotee, was ushered into the Divine Presence. Then a cup filled with nectar [amrit] was given him with the command, ‘This is the cup of Name-Adoration. Drink it … I am with you and I bless you and exalt you. Whoever remembers you will enjoy my favour. Go, rejoice in my Name and teach others to do so … I have bestowed on you the gift of my Name. Let this be your calling.’ Nanak offered his salutations and stood up.

  On his return to Sultanpur Nanak, when he eventually broke his silence, said:

  There is no Hindu and no Mussulman [Muslim], so whose path [system of teaching] shall I follow? God is neither Hindu nor Mussulman and the path I shall follow is God’s.

  An attempt to explain the meaning of this astonishing statement might be regarded as the subplot of this book but, returning to our question ‘Was Guru Nanak a Hindu?’, we can begin to see that Sikhs regard him as one who does not fit into the category of Hindu. He transcended the limits of sixteenth-century Indian sectarianism, not necessarily repudiating the two systems but certainly not being enchained by them. From this time onwards, he was known not as ‘Nanak’ but ‘Guru Nanak’, a title which Sikhs always give to him, capitalizing the ‘G’.

  The place of the guru in Hinduism

  This is not the place for a detailed study of this important Hindu teaching but some awareness of it is necessary if the word guru, when referring the Sikh Gurus, is to be understood.

  A very important feature of Hinduism is the emphasis upon spiritual experience. The word guru is often explained by splitting it into two parts. Gu- means darkness and ru- means light. A guru is one who dispels spiritual darkness and gives light to the disciple (called a chela or sishya, for which the Punjabi equivalent is ‘Sikh’). Guru can also be linked with a word meaning ‘heavy’. He is a person who removes the burden of doubt and ignorance which the disciple brings as the consequence of karma.

  * * *

  Insight

  To be effective, a guru must traditionally possess four essential qualities. He must be shratiya, well versed in the scriptures. He must be brahmanishtam, established in brahman. This means he must have realized the spiritual goal himself. He must be akamakita, unsmitten by desire. He must be stainless, free from guile. Only such a person can enable the seeker to achieve liberation.

  * * *

  As the guru Chaitanya (1486–1533) said:

  The guru is the skilful helmsman, divine grace the favourable wind; if with such means a man does not strive to cross the ocean of life and death, he is indeed lost.

  A helmsman who does not know the way across the ocean of birth and rebirth, samsara, is worse than useless.

  Hinduism teaches that God, Brahman, is within everyone but that the natural state of humanity is one in which this awareness is made impossible through ignorance. The guru is convinced of a divine vocation.

  The chela is equally sure of the guru’s ability to enable him to achieve the same status of brahma vidya, knowledge which is intuitive as well as intellectual, the realization of Brahman.

  As the words of Chaitanya state, the guru is essential to the achievements of moksha (release from samsara). Many Hindus attach great significance to the fact that the guru is a brahmin whose teaching is based on the Vedas (Hindu scriptures), but for some it is not orthodoxy of teaching that matters but how the guru matches up to the devotee’s prayer expressed in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:

  From the unreal lead me to the real, from darkness lead me to light, from death lead me to immortality.

  Guru Nanak’s success is attributable to the fact that those who listened to him felt that his teaching was authentic. His words and his lifestyle possessed a coherence and integrity that was missing in some other men who claimed to be gurus.

  The North India religious situation as Guru Nanak perceived it

  There are two ways of looking at everything, a right way and a wrong way, some people say. This is certainly not the case when examining the teachings of Guru Nanak about Hinduism and Islam. He is often dismissive, as we shall see, but he is also affirmative. Apparently, it is possible to achieve spiritual liberation from material existence through being Hindu or Muslim, but not easy.

  Guru Nanak spoke out strongly against a number of particular aspects of Hinduism but perhaps his condemnation can be summed up in one word – divisiveness. Of course, the contrary argument can be put that Hinduism is a unifying system, but this is not how Guru Nanak saw it and in this book it is the Sikh view that is being expressed and analysed.

  He was acutely aware of living in a society fragmented not only by the rivalry of two religions but by a Hindu religion which, in his view, effectively taught social disunity and religious segregation, giving little or no hope of spiritual liberation to most villagers. He had a clear view of one spiritual reality immanent in all creation and therefore in every person. Hinduism, for him, did not affirm the rich diversity of the One spiritual reality in speaking of its many forms: it taught polytheism and the worship of idols, and, through one particular concept, denied the unity of humankind.

  Pollution

  We cannot go far in an attempt to understand Sikh teaching without being aware of a key Hindu concept, that of pollution. This has nothing to do with dirt and the environmental issues that concern us in the twenty-first century. The river Ganges at Banares is as polluted as the Tyne was in my childhood, when I was warned not to fall into it for I would certainly catch things from it that would kill me. Yet the Ganges is pure, and the source of purification for all who bathe in it – with sincere pious motives, of course. Certain places and seasons are pure. The higher the caste, the more pure a person is. Brahmins are almost naturally pure. If they incur impurity from bodily contact with an impure person, with a corpse, or through sexual intercourse, for example, they can regain their status of purity by bathing or performing other rituals. The Hindus who used to be called ‘untouchables’ are people at the other end of the spectrum, living in a state of permanent impurity. To touch them or things with which they have been in contact results in pollution.

  Hinduism has always had its critics of the concept of ritual pollution. Mahatma Gandhi is one of the most recent examples, and the Hindu tradition itself changes. Being jostled together on a bus, or confronted by a professor or bank manager who is of low caste, may stimulate reflection upon traditional concepts of superiority. The kala pani, the Black Ocean, is something no Hindu should cross, for fear of pollution, but there are some 550,000 Hindus living in Britain, not to mention Indonesia, the Caribbean and the USA. I once met a brahmin who asked where I had learned about Hinduism. When I told him that I had learned ‘in Britain’, he said that was impossible as there could be no Hindus in Britain. He meant either that by crossing the Black Ocean they had ceased to be Hindus or, more likely, that no true Hindu would even contemplate travelling beyond the pure land of India.

  Ritual pollution and purity are not concepts unique to Hinduism. They are clearly found in Judaism and Islam, as well as some forms of Buddhism. In Christianity, the notion of sacred places implies that others are profane, especially when such buildings as churches are specially consecrated and the Mass or Eucharist has to be conducted by persons set apart for the purpose. When additional emphasis is placed upon these officiants being celibate and male (to avoid the pollution of menstruation), then the importance of ritual purity for many Christians, though they may have become unaware of it through familiarity, becomes obvious. Perhaps no more need be said, but the Christian view of the Blessed Virgin Mary might be a fruitful area for further exploration.

  Ritual pollution, for Guru Nanak, led to a society in which the brahmin priests would only minister to those who belonged to the three upper classes (brahmin, kshatriya and vaishya); where women of any class were excluded because menstruation and childbirth, both involving blood, rendered them impure. The six recognized philosophical systems of Hindu teaching, based on the most important Hindu texts, the Vedas, did not provide alternative but e
qually acceptable paths to liberation – they each claimed to be the only one capable of helping men to achieve that goal, which was, of course, closed to all women.

  The following passages provide some illustrations of his criticism:

  If the principle of impurity is admitted, then impurity is everywhere. There are worms in cow dung and in wood. Many though the grains of corn be, there is none of them which does not contain life. There was life in the primordial waters from which vegetation came. How can impurity be warded off? It is to be found in every kitchen. Nanak says, pollution is not removed in this way [through rituals]. It is washed away by knowledge of God. (AG 472)

  Perhaps the mention of cow dung requires explanation. The cow is a pure animal whose products are therefore purifying, hence the Hindu custom of using cow dung as a covering for the floor of the kitchen, the place in a house which must be most pure. Guru Nanak is saying that, if the taking of life causes impurity, no one can be free from it if the argument is taken to its logical conclusion.

  Bathing is the most common way of removing pollution. Of this practice Guru Nanak wrote:

  Should a man go to bathe at a place of pilgrimage with the mind of a crook and the body of a thief his exterior will, of course, be washed, but inwardly he will be twice as dirty as before. Outside he will be like a cleaned gourd while within he will contain pure poison. Saintly people are pure without such ablutions; the thief remains a thief even if he bathes in pilgrimage places. (AG 789)

  His view on caste and social eminence is tersely summed up in these words:

  Caste is preposterous and worldly renown is vain. Only the One gives support to all. (AG 83)

  He once spoke with caustic sarcasm of the white-robed brahmin offering services for a fee at pilgrimage sites:

  Herons dressed in white feathers abide in places of pilgrimage. They tear and rend living beings and so are no longer white. (AG 729)

  Of Islam’s specialists in jurisprudence, Guru Nanak said:

  The qazi sits to administer justice. He tells his beads and mutters the name of God [Khuda or Quddus, the Holy One]. He gives justice only if his palm is greased. (AG 952)

  The hungry mullah he accused of turning his home into a mosque (AG 1245), to which the pious poor would come bringing donations.

  It was not easy to be a Hindu or a Muslim, Guru Nanak warned, but he never said it was impossible. It meant taking God seriously and making the necessary social responses which were consequential upon it. It required the treading of the path of union with God:

  The way of union is the way of divine knowledge. With brahmins the way lies through the Vedas; the kshatriya’s way is the way of bravery; the shudra’s way is that of serving others. The duty of all is to meditate upon the One. (AG 1353)

  He alone is a brahmin who knows the Transcendent One, does deeds of penance, devotion, and self-restraint. He who observes the dharma of humility and contentment, thus breaking his bondage and becoming liberated, is a brahmin. Only such a brahmin deserves respect. He only is a kshatriya whose bravery lies in performing good deeds, whose body is yoked to charity and alms giving, and who sows the seeds of kindness. Such a kshatriya is acceptable in God’s court. (AG 1411)

  In such passages Guru Nanak does not seem to be proclaiming a social revolution. The shudra should still serve others, but he does impose a similar requirement upon other classes. Humility, self-restraint, charity and kindness all focus attention upon the other rather than oneself.

  Similar verses can be quoted with reference to Islam. Two might suffice:

  To be a Muslim is difficult. Only those who really are Muslims should be given the name. First, such a one should regard the religion of God’s devotees as sweet and have effaced self-conceit as if with the file that scrapes a mirror. Becoming a true follower of the Prophet, let him put aside all thoughts of life and death. He should heartily submit to God’s will, worship the Creator and efface self-conceit. Then, if he is merciful to all sentient beings, let him be called a Muslim. (AG 141)

  Make mercy your mosque, faith your prayer carpet, what is just and lawful your Qur’an, modesty your circumcision, and civility your fast. So shall you be a Muslim. Make right conduct your Ka’aba, truth your pir, and good deeds your kalima and prayers. (AG 140)

  Guru Nanak felt that it was not easy to be a Hindu or a Muslim. Ritualism which stressed the outward form of religious observance rather than the religion of the heart stood between the worshipper and God, and there was always the temptation to use religion, as he believed brahmins and teachers of yoga did, to dominate the credulous, or, as the mullahs and qazis did, to gain political approval from Muslim rulers.

  Guru Nanak – mystic, social reformer, or political revolutionary?

  Evidence for all these views can be found in the life and teachings of Guru Nanak, and from time to time each has appealed to Sikh and non-Sikh writers. Certainly he was a mystic if the term is used of someone who has direct inner experience of God. When nothing would deter Nanak from his vocation of serving God, his parents arranged his marriage. This was as ineffective as all other attempted remedies. The climax came one day when, aged about 30, he took his normal, daily bath in the local river, the Bein, and disappeared. Searches failed to discover him. Three days later, according to Janam Sakhi accounts, Guru Nanak returned to his village. In a hymn in the Guru Granth Sahib the Guru describes what had happened. He said:

  I was an out of work minstrel, God gave me employment. God gave me the order, ‘Sing my praise night and day’. God summoned the minstrel to the divine court and bestowed on me the robe of honouring God and singing divine praises. (Adi Granth [AG] 150)

  The imagery is that of a royal court where the king would appoint people to various posts and give them a robe of office.

  It seems clear from such accounts as these that Guru Nanak was a mystic. However, in the early days of independent India, after 1947, Nehru condemned ascetics and recluses who seemed to contribute nothing to society. ‘Aram haram hai’ was his slogan, which might be translated as ‘idleness is forbidden’. With this kind of ‘mysticism’ in mind, Sikhs have sometimes been suspicious when their founder is described as one. There are no stories of idleness associated with him; on the contrary Guru Nanak was a man of action. It would be wrong to suggest that he was a man who ignored the world through his devotion to God. He believed that God was present in the whole of creation, including all human beings. Consequently, he denounced aspects of society which, in his judgement, oppressed people and denied them their full humanity. He criticized the division of society into four varnas or classes because it denied the possibility of spiritual liberation in their present life to the fourth class, shudras, and to the so-called untouchables who were outside it altogether. Into this group of spiritual rejects women also fell.

  * * *

  Insight

  Guru Nanak taught that there was one God and one humanity and that no one was beyond the reach of God’s grace.

  * * *

  Guru Nanak asked those who considered women impure and incapable of spiritual liberation, mukti:

  Why do you condemn woman, the one from whom great men and kings are born? It is through despised woman that we are conceived and born; it is to woman that we become engaged and married; woman is our lifelong companion who perpetuated the race. (AG 473)

  Unnecessary contact with Muslims was often frowned upon in the society in which Guru Nanak grew up. They were regarded as impure and carriers of spiritual pollution, as were Jains or the few Christians who might be encountered. Guru Nanak’s companion throughout many of his journeys was a Muslim musician, Mardana, of the mirasi or dum caste (Figure 2.1). His family, with its traditional occupation of singing and dancing at festivals and weddings, would have been regarded as low caste even after it had converted to Islam. By choosing the company of Mardana, Guru Nanak, a member of the twice-born vaishya varna, was making a statement about his attitude to class and the concept of pollution.

  Figure 2.1 Guru Na
nak with his companions, the Muslim Mardana, holding the rebeck, and the Hindu Bala, preaching to Bahi Lalo, a low-caste carpenter, who became one of this followers. The Gurus are usually shown with haloes.

  Guru Nanak had no political power. Even at his death it is unlikely that the number of Sikhs ran to many thousands. However, this does not mean that political issues did not concern him. In 1520 the Mughal leader Babur sacked the town of Saidpur. Guru Nanak and Mardana not only witnessed the destruction, they were also taken prisoner. The Janamsakhis describe a conversation that the Guru had with Babur who was a Sufi mystic as well as a military leader. In it, the Guru interceded for the captives who had been taken by the Mughal army. As a result Babur released them. This incident hardly portrays Guru Nanak as a political revolutionary but it does demonstrate that the plight of the oppressed concerned him. So do the many passages in his hymns which accuse brahmins, yogis and mullahs of exploiting the credulity of simple people. It might be claimed that, if the egalitarian teachings of Guru Nanak had ever gained acceptance, the consequence for Punjab society would have been revolutionary.

  Finally, there is a need to dismiss another interpretation of the purpose of Guru Nanak’s word which some books still accept, though every scholar seems now to have rejected it. Sometimes it is said that Guru Nanak attempted to blend the best of Hinduism and Islam in a new religion that would appeal to both communities and bring them together. A moment’s reflection will enable us to realize the inadequacy of this suggestion. Who is to define the ‘best’ of any religion, first of all? (Usually a Westerner using liberal Christianity as the criterion.) Secondly, there was no possibility of bringing together those who followed the teachings of the Vedas and the ministry of the brahmins, with those for whom the Qur’an was authoritative. It is, in fact, unlikely that Guru Nanak wished to create a religion at all, bearing in mind his comments on the inadequacy of religion!