Many maintain that creation depends entirely upon God while remaining an ontologically distinct substance. But does complete ontological dependence actually allow for such a distinction?

What is True Existence?

1. Non-Contingency: If an entity is contingent, its existence relies on conditions outside itself. Conditional existence is not intrinsic existence. If you remove the sustaining conditions, the object vanishes. If a thing can be absent, its existence is borrowed and temporary. Therefore, that which Truly IS must be non-contingent and self-sustaining.

2. Immutability and Eternality: If something is changing and temporary, it undergoes transitions from non-being to being, and back to non-being. Non-existence is woven into its very nature. While it appears to exist, it is merely a temporary synthesis of Being and Non-Being. But Truth (Sat) does not contain its own negation, nor could it have emerged from Non-Being, as such Ultimate Reality must be eternal and immutable, as it simply IS, without beginning, middle, or end.

3. Unchanging Ground: To perceive and measure change, there must be an unchanging background. Every changing reality presupposes an unchanging reference. Otherwise, change itself becomes unintelligible. Furthermore, as every changing thing depends on factors outside itself for its existence, then an infinite regress of dependent things cannot account for the presence of existence, as every step of the ladder is borrowing existence. This too necessitates an unconditioned and unchanging ground from which the chain begins.

Now, if True Existence (Sat) is defined as that which is eternal, unchanging, and independent, and God is eternal, unchanging, and independent, then God is Existence Itself.

Does Creation Have Its Own Existence?

Creation, on the other hand, is temporary, changing, and dependent. A dependent object cannot contribute an independent act of existence. Whatever existence is present within it must therefore be the existence of its ontological ground. As Creation possesses no existence independently, the Existence manifest in Creation is God’s. Creation cannot exist outside of Existence (God), because to be outside of Existence is to be non-existent (asat). In other words, there cannot exist an existent outside Existence itself because if something exists, Existence is already present.

Therefore, creation’s ontological locus must reside within God. Existence is not a mere quality, because if God were to give creation the quality of Existence, it must have already existed to receive it. In other words, you cannot paint a non-existent canvas red (quality).

If creation possesses a real existence distinct from God’s existence, then God’s being does not exhaust reality. If God’s being does not exhaust reality, then God’s being ends where creation begins. And this introduces an ontological limit on God as it reduces God to a finite part of a larger total reality. Rather, to solve for this, it is argued that Creation exists as an appearance within God.

Therefore, if God is Existence itself, and contingent beings contribute no independent act of existence, then the only Existence manifest within creation is God. The distinction cannot be one of substance, but only of name and form.

However, the Law of Non-Contradiction states that an affirmation and its negation cannot both be true of the same thing at the same time and in the same respect.

Before we begin, it is important to note the various types of opposition between two things:

• Contradiction (Paraspara-Viraha-Rūpa-Virodha): A contradiction denotes binary, mutually exclusive states. One must be true. An example is sitting and not sitting at the same time. This is inapplicable because Nirgun and Sargun do not share the same level of reality

• Contrariety (Sahānavasthāna-Virodha): Two opposing positive entities with opposite ends of a spectrum where intermediate states exist. Ex. Black vs. White (where grey exists in between). This may work for describing the three levels of reality in Non-Dualism, but not in the specific context of Nirgun and Sargun.

• Privation / Possession (Bhāva-Abhāva-Virodha): The absence or presence of a quality such as blindness versus sight. This too is inapplicable as Nirgun is a positive reality and not just a bare negation of Sargun.

• Relational (Sāpekṣa-Virodha): Dynamic where one entity is the measure/prior and the other is the measured/posterior. An example is a Dreamer versus Dream. Nirgun is prior and absolute; Sargun is posterior and relative. According to Indian Logic (Navya Nyaya), an opposition is Sapeksa (dependent upon a specific conditioning adjunct); it ceases to be a true logical contradiction. When an opposition is dependent (sapeksa) on a cosmic conditioning factor, it creates a third valid ontological category called mithya (neither real nor unreal) as it carries a dependent and caused existence.

So then we can correctly conclude:

• Nirgun and Sargun are not affirmed in the same respect.

• Nirgun is Vaheguru as the foundational, unchanging, absolute reality beyond the appearance of Maya

• Sargun is Vaheguru within the relative reality of Maya (name and form)

• Nirgun defines Vaheguru’s ontological essence (What Vaheguru is), while Sargun defines Vaheguru’s epistemological manifestation (how Vaheguru is perceived within Maya)

Take this analogy for example:

If you dream that you are running through a field, are you moving or are you still? In the relative category of the dream (Mithya), you are actively running (Sargun). But in the absolute category of the waking world (Sat), you are lying perfectly still in your bed (Nirgun). Both statements are entirely true simultaneously because they belong to two completely different categories of reality. Furthermore, in the same way that the dream of running is dependent on the fact that you are lying in bed still, the Sargun aspect of Vaheguru is posterior to the prior Nirgun Vaheguru

ਓਅੰ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਕੀਓ ਅਕਾਰਾ ॥

oa(n) gurmukh keeo akaaraa ||

Oang, the Gurmukh [understands] form came to be

ਏਕਹਿ ਸੂਤਿ ਪਰੋਵਨਹਾਰਾ ॥

ekeh soot parovanahaaraa ||

He strung [form] upon One thread [of Consciousness]

ਭਿੰਨ ਭਿੰਨ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਗੁਣ ਬਿਸਥਾਰੰ ॥

bhi(n)n bhi(n)n trai gun bisathaara(n) ||

He created the diverse expanse of the three qualities [of Maya - the appearance]

ਨਿਰਗੁਨ ਤੇ ਸਰਗੁਨ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਾਰੰ ॥

niragun te saragun dhirasaTaara(n) ||

[Then] From Nirgun, [Vaheguru] appeared as Sargun

Guru Granth Sahib, 250

Describing Vaheguru as Sargun and Nirgun is not contradictory, as they do not exist in the same respect; they exist at different levels of reality (see the Maya and Mithya article). To delve a bit deeper into traditional Sikh metaphysics, Sargun Vaheguru is the Divine with the limiting adjunct of Maya (name and form). Maya is a superimposition onto the substratum of Nirgun Vaheguru, which is described as Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss. Superimposing (adhyasa/kalpata) means to place or lay something over something else so that both layers remain visible or distinguishable. It involves adding an element to a pre-existing background (a substratum). A substratum (adhistan) refers to an underlying layer, foundation, or basis for something else. In this case, the Eternal, Unchanging, Independent background (substratum) is Nirgun Vaheguru as Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss.

• Adhistan/Adhar (Substratum): The underlying, unchanging, self-sustaining foundation, which is Nirgun Vaheguru as Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss (Sat-Chit-Anand).

• Kalpata (Superimposition): Laying an appearance (Maya) over the substratum so that the background remains the actual reality. Sargun emanates from this cosmic intersection.

The Sargun emanates from a combination of Maya (appearance of name and form) and Nirgun Vaheguru.

ਮਾਇਆ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਰਮੈ ਸਭ ਸੰਗ ॥

maiaa braham ramai sabh sa(n)g ||

Maya [name and form] and Brahm [Existence, Consciousness, Bliss] are within all.

ਨਾ ਓਹੁ ਬਢੈ ਨ ਘਟਤਾ ਜਾਇ ॥

naa oh baddai na ghaTataa jai ||

Brahm does not increase or decrease.

ਅਕੁਲ ਨਿਰੰਜਨ ਏਕੈ ਭਾਇ ॥੩॥

akul nira(n)jan ekai bhai ||3||

No lineage, immaculate [untouched by Maya]; completely One. ||3||

Guru Granth Sahib, 343

Sargun Vaheguru is the pure reflection of Nirgun Vaheguru through the highest quality of Maya (the pure sato gun - one of the three qualities mentioned above). Sargun Vaheguru is the ultimate, unadulterated reflection of the Divine through this cosmic mirror. Just because a mirror reflection is an "appearance" doesn't mean the actual object causing the reflection is fake. From the perspective of the Jiva (the individual navigating relative reality), the Sargun aspect is perfectly, dynamically real, functional, and authoritative. It is the bridge by which the individual crosses over to realize the Nirgun.

The contradiction as claimed by so many critics of Sikhi disappears because Sargun and Nirgun do not share the same level of reality. From the absolute standpoint of Nirgun, there are no attributes, no divisions, and no dualities. From Sargun‘s relative standpoint, attributes, differences between man and Vaheguru (such as all-knowingness and ignorance), grace, and devotion are relatively real. Therefore, Sargun is a relative relation from our perspective, but it does not impose a real, binding relation onto the absolute purity and non-contingency of the Nirgun substratum. Just like the relationship between the dream-self and the waking-self is asymmetrical. The dream-self is entirely dependent on the sleeping person, but the sleeping person’s actual existence is 100% independent of the dream.

Does this mean God is being split into two forms and compromising monotheism or non-duality?

No, Gurbani explicitly confirms:

ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਆਕਾਰ ਆਪਿ ਨਿਰਗੁਨ ਸਰਗੁਨ ਏਕ ॥

nira(n)kaar aakaar aap niragun saragun ek ||

Formless, formed; the One is Nirgun and Sargun

ਏਕਹਿ ਏਕ ਬਖਾਨਨੋ ਨਾਨਕ ਏਕ ਅਨੇਕ ॥੧॥

ekeh ek bakhaanano naanak ek anek ||1||

Describe the One Lord as One, and only One; O Nanak, He is One, and many. ||1||

Guru Granth Sahib, 250

The scholar, Bhai Mani Singh (a close companion of Guru Gobind Singh), explains:

Then the Siddhas questioned:

“When the world was not created, His name would be Sat (True). But when He made the world and became the Doer (Karta) and the Experiencer (Bhugta) [as Sargun], then He cannot be Sat.

Just as in milk, yogurt occurs, and when milk becomes yogurt, then it is no longer milk; and just as from wheat comes flour, and then from flour wheat does not come—in the same way, Brahman [Nirgun] too will become Ishvara [Sargun], and then He will no longer be Brahman.”

Then Baba [Guru Nanak] said: “Here, it is Vivartavada (the doctrine of apparent transformation).

Because just as when waves have not arisen from water, even then it is water; and when waves arise, even then it is water; and when waves play, even then it is water; and when they perish, even then it is water.”

Bhai Mani Singh, Jap Ji Gost

Consider the following classical Non-Dual analogies alongside the water and waves analogy:

ਰਾਜ ਭੁਇਅੰਗ ਪ੍ਰਸੰਗ ਜੈਸੇ ਹਹਿ ਅਬ ਕਛੁ ਮਰਮੁ ਜਨਾਇਆ ॥

raaj bhuia(n)g prasa(n)g jaise heh ab kachh maram janaiaa ||

Like the story of the rope mistaken for a snake, the mystery has now been explained to me.

Guru Granth Sahib, 658

Imagine walking down a dimly lit path at dusk. You see a coiled shape on the ground, perceive it to be a poisonous snake, and immediately experience genuine, physiological panic. Your heart races and you jump back in fear. The fear you experience is 100% real. The psychological and physical effects are real. However, the snake itself is an illusion. There was never a snake there. There is only a rope. Although the rope was perceived as a snake, its existence is ultimately unaffected. The rope never grew fangs, it never secreted venom, and it never actually changed its form. The “snake” did not alter the nature of the rope, nor did it create a second physical entity on the path.

This is precisely how Maya operates as a superimposition upon the ultimate substratum of Nirgun Vaheguru. From the absolute standpoint, only the “rope” (the unconditioned, attribute-less divine essence) exists. It undergoes zero actual modification or change. The “snake” represents the cosmic appearance of names, forms, and attributes within the relative framework of Maya.

Consider another classic Indian philosophical example. Think of the gold and the bracelet. In its Nirgun state, it is simply elemental gold, a pure, formless mass. When fashioned into a crown or a ring, it becomes Sargun (possessing name, form, and function). The crown does not violate the “goldness” of the gold; the crown is nothing but gold. The appearance of the form and a label does not create a second entity. It is also important to note that because Maya is simply an appearance/superimposition, there is no real change to the form of Vaheguru (remember that the real sleeping person’s existence is 100% independent of the dream).

ਕਨਿਕ ਭੂਖਨ ਕੀਨੇ ਬਹੁ ਰੰਗਾ ॥

kanik bhookhan keene bahu ra(n)gaa ||

Jewels and ornaments of many different forms are fashioned from gold.

Guru Granth Sahib, 736

ਅਨਿਕ ਕਟਕ ਜੈਸੇ ਭੂਲਿ ਪਰੇ ਅਬ ਕਹਤੇ ਕਹਨੁ ਨ ਆਇਆ ॥੩॥

anik kaTak jaise bhool pare ab kahate kahan na aaiaa ||3||

Like the many bracelets I forgot were gold; now I do not say what I said then. ||3||

Guru Granth Sahib, 657

Lastly, as mentioned by Bhai Mani Singh, consider the water and waves analogy:

ਜਲ ਤਰੰਗ ਅਰੁ ਫੇਨ ਬੁਦਬੁਦਾ ਜਲ ਤੇ ਭਿੰਨ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥

jal tara(n)g ar fen budhabudhaa jal te bhi(n)n na hoiee ||

The waves of the water, the foam and bubbles, are not distinct from the water.

ਇਹੁ ਪਰਪੰਚੁ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕੀ ਲੀਲਾ ਬਿਚਰਤ ਆਨ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥੨॥

eih parapa(n)ch paarabraham kee leelaa bicharat aan na hoiee ||2||

This manifested world is the playful game of the Supreme Lord God; reflecting upon it, we find that it is not different from Him. ||2||

GGS, 485

This is what you need to do if someone claims Nirgun and Sargun are contradictions

1. Identify the Fallacy: Accuse the critic of a categorical error. They are conflating the ontological essence (Nirgun) with epistemological perceptions (Sargun).

2. Apply the “Respect” Clause: Force them to state how it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction if the two attributes are applied to different modes/respects of reality.

3. Deploy the Asymmetric Relation: Use the dream/gold/rope/water analogy to show that dependence is entirely one-sided; the Absolute remains unconditioned, pure, and unaffected by the manifest attributes.

The term Maya is normally translated as “illusion.” This causes people to think creation must be a malicious, non-existent lie. This isn’t what proponents of Non-Dualism say.

To understand Maya and Mithya, you must first contextualize the three levels of reality within Non-Dual philosophy:

Share

The Levels of Reality

Absolute Reality

Absolute Reality corresponds to unnegatable Absolute Existence. This is Eternal (akal), Independent (Saibhang), and the Ground of all things (aadhar).

ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ॥

aadh sach jugaadh sach ||

True In The Primal Beginning. True Throughout The Ages.

ਹੈ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੋਸੀ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ॥੧॥

hai bhee sach naanak hosee bhee sach ||1||

True Here And Now. O Nanak, Forever And Ever True. ||1||

GGS, 1

Empirical Reality

This is the level of Mithya (Dependent existence) which is apparently real. It is neither absolutely real, as it is dependent on a substratum (God), nor is it absolutely false, as it is experienced and perceived.

The multiplicity of the world (all existing things) is Mithya as it lacks ultimate, independent reality. Evidence of its dependency is a temporary, changing, and composite nature.

ਜੋ ਦੀਸੈ ਸੋ ਸਗਲ ਬਿਨਾਸੈ ਜਿਉ ਬਾਦਰ ਕੀ ਛਾਈ ॥

jo dheesai so sagal binaasai jiau baadhar kee chhaiee ||

Whatever is seen, shall all pass away, like the shadow of a cloud.

ਜਨ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਗੁ ਜਾਨਿਓ ਮਿਥਿਆ ਰਹਿਓ ਰਾਮ ਸਰਨਾਈ ॥੨॥੨॥

jan naanak jag jaanio mithiaa rahio raam saranaiee ||2||2||

O servant Nanak, one who knows the world to be Mithya, dwells in the Sanctuary of the Lord. ||2||2||

GGS, 219

That which is mithya is negated by the knowledge of God (the substratum/support of all things) but has a level of realness when engaged with. It is as real as a reflection. A reflection is a dependent image, experienced as an appearance, but clearly lacking independent existence (it needs the real object it’s reflecting). A common analogy for the experience of the Mithya level is a king dreaming he is a beggar and suffering because of that:

ਨਰਪਤਿ ਏਕੁ ਸਿੰਘਾਸਨਿ ਸੋਇਆ ਸੁਪਨੇ ਭਇਆ ਭਿਖਾਰੀ ॥

narapat ek si(n)ghaasan soiaa supane bhiaa bhikhaaree ||

It is like the king, who falls asleep upon his throne, and dreams that he is a beggar.

ਅਛਤ ਰਾਜ ਬਿਛੁਰਤ ਦੁਖੁ ਪਾਇਆ ਸੋ ਗਤਿ ਭਈ ਹਮਾਰੀ ॥੨॥

achhat raaj bichhurat dhukh paiaa so gat bhiee hamaaree ||2||

His kingdom is intact, but separated from it, he suffers in sorrow. Such is my own condition. ||2||

GGS, 657

Absolute False Reality

This is known as the Asat/Jhooth reality or absolute non-existence. It never existed, nor exists now, nor could it ever exist. This level of reality is negated by the knowledge of the empirical world. Examples of non-existent things include a square circle, the son of a sterile woman, or a town in the sky.

ਬੰਸ ਕੋ ਪੂਤੁ ਬੀਆਹਨ ਚਲਿਆ ਸੁਇਨੇ ਮੰਡਪ ਛਾਏ ॥

ba(n)s ko poot beeaahan chaliaa suine ma(n)ddap chhaae ||

The son of the sterile woman goes to get married, and the golden canopy is spread out for him.

GGS, 477

Today, we’re focusing on the middle level - the Empirical Reality. Also commonly known as Mithya (caused by Maya).

Maya

Maya is philosophically defined as the following:

1. The foundational illusion/power from which all phenomena of false duality (including the ego) emerge.

ਮਾਇਆ ਕਿਸ ਨੋ ਆਖੀਐ ਕਿਆ ਮਾਇਆ ਕਰਮ ਕਮਾਇ ॥ maiaa kis no aakheeaai kiaa maiaa karam kamai ||

What is called Maya? What does Maya do?

ਦੁਖਿ ਸੁਖਿ ਏਹੁ ਜੀਉ ਬਧੁ ਹੈ ਹਉਮੈ ਕਰਮ ਕਮਾਇ ॥ dhukh sukh eh jeeau badh hai haumai karam kamai ||

These beings are bound by pleasure and pain; they do their deeds in Ego.

GGS, 66

ਮਾਇਆ ਵਿਚਿ ਸਹਜੁ ਨ ਊਪਜੈ ਮਾਇਆ ਦੂਜੈ ਭਾਇ ॥ maiaa vich sahaj na uoopajai maiaa dhoojai bhai ||

Within Maya, poise is not produced. Maya leads to the love of duality.

GGS, 68

2. It is undefinable (anirvachnaiyata) in that its products are neither being nor non-being. Its expressions cannot be expressed as being or non-being, but as a third category called mithya.

ਮਿਥਿਆ ਹਉਮੈ ਮਮਤਾ ਮਾਇਆ ॥ mithiaa haumai mamataa maiaa ||

Mithya are ego, possessiveness and Maya.

GGS, 268'

ਕਹੀ ਨ ਉਪਜੈ ਉਪਜੀ ਜਾਣੈ ਭਾਵ ਅਭਾਵ ਬਿਹੂਣਾ ॥

kahee na upajai upajee jaanai bhaav abhaav bihoonaa ||

It was never created, he think its was created, neither existence nor non-existence

GGS, 475

3. It lacks absolute or independent existence. It applies to reality only when actively conditioning it. At any point, it does not cast a limitation on Vaheguru.

ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰਿ ਆਕਾਰੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥ nira(n)kaar aakaar upaiaa ||

The Formless created form

ਮਾਇਆ ਮੋਹੁ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਬਣਾਇਆ ॥ maiaa moh hukam banaiaa ||

By the Will, He created attachment to Maya.

GGS, 1066

4. Maya and its products can be defined by their potential to be completely negated and set aside by true knowledge. Upon realization of true knowledge (through the Shabad), Maya and its products cease to exist.

ਸਬਦੇ ਹਉਮੈ ਮਾਰੀਐ ਮਾਇਆ ਕਾ ਭ੍ਰਮੁ ਜਾਇ ॥ sabadhe haumai maareeaai maiaa kaa bhram jai ||

Through the Shabad, egotism is killed, and the illusion of Maya is dispelled.

GGS, 67

5. Each specific instance of delusion is tied to a particular ignorance that terminates as soon as that specific substratum is directly perceived (through the shabad)

ਰਾਜ ਭੁਇਅੰਗ ਪ੍ਰਸੰਗ ਜੈਸੇ ਹਹਿ ਅਬ ਕਛੁ ਮਰਮੁ ਜਨਾਇਆ ॥

raaj bhuia(n)g prasa(n)g jaise heh ab kachh maram janaiaa ||

Like the story of the rope mistaken for a snake, the mystery has now been explained to me.

GGS, 657

Mithya

Now we move on to the definition of Mithya.

The products of Maya are known as Mithya, which we define as the following:

1. That which is completely distinct from both absolute existence (Sat) and absolute non-existence (Asat). This defies the simple binary categorization. It is not real (Sat) because it can be cancelled out by a substratum. It is not unreal (Asat) because unreal things (a square circle) can never be perceived.

ਕਹੀ ਨ ਉਪਜੈ ਉਪਜੀ ਜਾਣੈ ਭਾਵ ਅਭਾਵ ਬਿਹੂਣਾ ॥

kahee na upajai upajee jaanai bhaav abhaav bihoonaa |

It was never made, though he thinks it was, beyond existence and non-existence

GGS, 475

2. All things that can be perceived/observed (including the mind’s awareness and ego) are called Mithya. Only the Seer is True.

ਦੇਹੀ ਮਾਟੀ ਬੋਲੈ ਪਉਣੁ ॥ ਬੁਝੁ ਰੇ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਮੂਆ ਹੈ ਕਉਣੁ ॥

dhehee maaTee bolai paun ||bujh re giaanee mooaa hai kaun ||

The body is dust; the wind speaks through it. Understand, O wise one, who has died.

ਮੂਈ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਬਾਦੁ ਅਹੰਕਾਰੁ ॥ ਓਹੁ ਨ ਮੂਆ ਜੋ ਦੇਖਣਹਾਰੁ ॥੨॥

mooiee surat baadh aha(n)kaar ||oh na mooaa jo dhekhanahaar ||2||

Awareness, conflict and ego have died, but the Seer does not die. ||2||

GGS, 152

3. An object that is mithya is the counter-positive of a total negation inside the frame/locus in which it is being perceived. For example, a reflected object seems real until we realize it’s just a reflection in a mirror. That’s why mirror mazes are so confusing. We’ll think there’s a path until we walk right into a mirror, which negates that there was a path. The path is negated by its locus within the mirror.

ਤੂੰ ਦਰੀਆਉ ਸਭ ਤੁਝ ਹੀ ਮਾਹਿ ॥

too(n) dhareeaau sabh tujh hee maeh ||

You are the River of Life; all are within You.

ਤੁਝ ਬਿਨੁ ਦੂਜਾ ਕੋਈ ਨਾਹਿ ॥

tujh bin dhoojaa koiee naeh ||

There is no one except You.

GGS, 11

4. Absence within its own components. By taking a reductionist position to all objects, we realize that the object is absent inside the very components that give it birth and support. For example, consider a piece of cloth. The cloth appears to be a real and independent object. But if you look at what’s made up only (the threads) then the concept of the cloth disappears. If you look inside the threads - you’ll see it’s just cotton. At every layer of its own foundation, each independent object is missing. It is an emergent illusion.

ਪੰਚ ਤਤੁ ਮਿਲਿ ਦੇਹੀ ਕਾ ਆਕਾਰਾ ॥ ਘਟਿ ਵਧਿ ਕੋ ਕਰੈ ਬੀਚਾਰਾ ॥੪॥

pa(n)ch tat mil dhehee kaa aakaaraa || ghaT vadh ko karai beechaaraa ||4||

The five elements join together, to make up the form of the human body.

Who can say which is less, and which is more? ||4||

GGS, 1127

Something that is mithya is dependent, temporary, and changing. It cannot be Absolutely Real, as something that is Absolutely Real is independent, eternal, unchanging. Only God is Real, as only God is independent, eternal, and unchanging. Every other temporarily existing object is Mithya.

ਨ ਦੇਵ ਦਾਨਵਾ ਨਰਾ ॥ ਨ ਸਿਧ ਸਾਧਿਕਾ ਧਰਾ ॥

n dhev dhaanavaa naraa || na sidh saadhikaa dharaa ||

Neither the devtas, nor the demons, nor human beings, nor the Siddhas, nor the Earth

ਅਸਤਿ ਏਕ ਦਿਗਰਿ ਕੁਈ ॥ ਏਕ ਤੁਈ ਏਕ ਤੁਈ ॥੨॥

asat ek dhigar kuiee ||ek tuiee ek tuiee ||2|

Existence One, who else? Only You Only You

GGS, 143

6. That which is Mithya is destroyed by right knowledge. For example, when you are having a nightmare, the dream feels real, but when you wake up, the dream doesn’t go away but – it’s simply neutralized by the knowledge of the waking state.

ਦੇਖੌ ਭਾਈ ਗੵਾਨ ਕੀ ਆਈ ਆਂਧੀ ॥

dhekhau bhaiee gayeaan kee aaiee aa(n)dhee ||

Behold Brother, the storm of Wisdom has come.

ਸਭੈ ਉਡਾਨੀ ਭ੍ਰਮ ਕੀ ਟਾਟੀ ਰਹੈ ਨ ਮਾਇਆ ਬਾਂਧੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

sabhai uddaanee bhram kee TaaTee rahai na maiaa baa(n)dhee ||1|| rahaau ||

It has totally blown away the thatched huts of doubt, and torn apart the bonds of Maya. ||1||Pause||

GGS, 331

Maya… The “Deception”?

Maya is not false (a total fiction like the son of a sterile woman); it is vividly experienced and possesses causal utility (Arthakriyākāritva in philosophy). A king dreaming of himself as a beggar leads to real suffering for the king. Therefore, Vaheguru has not staged a fraudulent magic trick to pass off ‘nothing’ as ‘something.’ He has projected a perfectly coherent, functioning, intermediate order of reality meant to serve as a cosmic stage (Lila).

ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਪਸਰਿਆ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਲੀਲਾ ਗੋਵਿੰਦ ਗੁਣ ਨਿਧਿ ਜਨਿ ਕਹਿਆ ॥

braham pasariaa braham leelaa govi(n)dh gun nidh jan kahiaa ||

The expanse of Brahm, the Lila of Brahm. His humble servants call Him the Lord of the Universe (Gobind), the treasure of virtue.

GGS, 458

Illusion does not imply “trickery”. Rather, there is a functional necessity for manifestation.

Maya’s products are name and form insofar as name and form are grounded in God’s True Existence. Name and form account for the appearance. An attempt to isolate name and form from God (Existence, Consciousness, Bliss) is fruitless as it has no independent existence and no explanatory priority, which leads to understanding what mithya is. The same Maya that binds the ignorant one is the same Maya that can promote liberation for the seeker, like the dream tiger waking someone up from their dream by scaring them. For this reason, there is nuance in how Maya is contextualized, with explicit and implicit mentions of both through the three characteristics of Maya (Sato, Rajo, Tamo).

ਰਜ ਗੁਣ ਤਮ ਗੁਣ ਸਤ ਗੁਣ ਕਹੀਐ ਇਹ ਤੇਰੀ ਸਭ ਮਾਇਆ ॥

raj gun tam gun sat gun kaheeaai ieh teree sabh maiaa ||

The Rajo, Tamo, and Sato characteristic; this is all of Your Maya

GGS, 1123

Mithya can be understood as a description of the nature of Maya. As discussed above, it is a third category on the spectrum of existence (Truth) and non-existence (False). Mithya has no independent existence and no True Reality outside of the specific conditions producing it. In this case, Vaheguru is the substratum of Maya without giving Maya any independence. It presents itself simply as it is (name and form) and not what actually is (Existence, Consciousness, Bliss). In the same way, a mirage presents itself as a thirst-quenching pool and not the sand.

ਹਰਿਚੰਦਉਰੀ ਚਿਤ ਭ੍ਰਮੁ ਸਖੀਏ ਮ੍ਰਿਗ ਤ੍ਰਿਸਨਾ ਦ੍ਰੁਮ ਛਾਇਆ ॥

haricha(n)dhauree chit bhram sakhe’ee mirag tirasanaa dhrum chhaiaa ||

O Companion, like Harichandauri [a town in the sky], the mind is deluded, like the deer’s desire [mirage of water in the des inert], or the shade of a tree [temporary]

ਚੰਚਲਿ ਸੰਗਿ ਨ ਚਾਲਤੀ ਸਖੀਏ ਅੰਤਿ ਤਜਿ ਜਾਵਤ ਮਾਇਆ ॥

cha(n)chal sa(n)g na chaalatee sakhe’ee a(n)t taj jaavat maiaa ||

It is fickle, and does not go with you, O my companion; in the end, Maya will leave you.

GGS, 1120

So is Maya Tricking Us?

Let’s first look at some 17th-century Western philosophy.

René Descartes attempted to find absolute certainty by imagining an “Evil Genius” (Malicieux Denie) whose sole purpose was to deceive him, making him believe a sky, shapes, and colours existed when they did not. This led Descartes to doubt his senses and retreat into his famous baseline: “I think, therefore I am.” However, Descartes’ thought experiment contains a caveat.

True deception requires a prior referent and an ontological gap between what is real and what is projected. You can only be “deceived” if there is an independent, baseline reality that you are being led away from.

If an entity has no prior baseline of “something else” to contrast a projection against, the projection is not a deception, as it simply is what it is. Because Vaheguru is both the Material and Instrumental cause of creation, there is no independent, external reality running alongside God. God cannot deceive, because there is no “outside world” to create a gap between the projection and reality. There could not have been anything other than this baseline.

Thus, we must reject the colloquial, Western definition of “illusion” and establish the traditional Sikh framework. The cosmos is experienced through two different cognitive lenses:

• Objective Reality: Creation as projected directly by the Divine, stripped of human subjectivities. It is a pure reflection of God in the Sato quality. The world is perceived as Maya but correctly identified as the dynamic, apparent, inseparable creative power or Lila of the Divine. An everyday example would be to recognize that a reflected object in a mirror is simply a reflected object.

• Subjective Reality: The individual’s psychological superimposition of personal desires, fears, labels, and self-projection onto the objective world through the qualities of rajo and tamo. The individual gets caught in ignorance and treats the projection as real, permanent, and independent. It’s like taking a dream as an accurate representation of reality when we’re really just sleeping in bed, or mistaking a reflected object for the real thing.

So is God the cause of us being “tricked”?

No. The trick is epistemic, not ontological. The same Maya that binds the ignorant is the same Maya that is the vehicle of liberation for the wise. Due to ignorance, the Jiva conceals the true nature of name and form (Maya) by attempting to take it as reality in itself, independent of the substratum. Because of this, the individual projects many different ideals upon it through superimposition.

For example, if a man faces a coiled snake in the dark, his ignorance conceals the rope and projects a snake. The rope didn’t trick him; his own mind generated the snake, sparked fear, and made him run. The trick is a self-imposed psychological consequence of the individual and not of God. The same Maya is the cause of liberation for one person, but the cause of bondage for another based on how Maya is perceived.

So is the illusion inherently deceitful?

No. An illusion does not automatically entail deception. Deception only occurs when the individual completely internalizes the projection, cuts its ties to the external conditions producing it, and treats it as independent reality.

For example, a mirage is produced by objective physical conditions (heat and sun). If a traveller identifies it correctly as a mirage, they are looking at an illusion and are not deceived by it. Deception only occurs if the traveller cuts the mirage away from its physical causes and builds a false conviction in their mind that actual water sits there.

Deception also fundamentally requires a deceiver, a deceived, and an instrument of deception. If Vaheguru is both the material and instrumental cause of creation, then the individual (the one supposedly being tricked), the Maya (instrument of the trick), and the Substratum are all fundamentally One Substance (Existence, Consciousness, Bliss).

Can gold deceive a gold bracelet? Can water deceive a wave? For God to pull a malicious trick, you mean God is tricking Himself, which would be a “logical absurdity,” as no one is being perceived, as there is no one else to deceive! The snake projected onto the rope is an error due to the perceiver’s flawed perspective within a Mithya reality. It is not an act of fraud committed by the rope existing in its Absolute Existence.

Take this for example:

ਆਪੇ ਮਾਇਆ ਆਪੇ ਛਾਇਆ ॥

aape maiaa aape chhaiaa ||

He Himself is Maya, and He Himself is the [projected] Shadow

ਆਪੇ ਮੋਹੁ ਸਭੁ ਜਗਤੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥

aape moh sabh jagat upaiaa ||

He Himself generated attachment in the entire universe

If Vaheguru Himself is the Maya (cosmic level), which in truth is just Vaheguru, and He Himself is the Shadow (individual level), then there is no second entity being deceived. This is simply God expressing Himself through the Lila. Vaheguru is playing as the actor, the play, the stage, and the audience.

If Vaheguru is Maya and the Shadow, then the entire concept of cosmic deception is an impossibility. For deception to actually occur, an external magician must intentionally trick a separate observer by passing off a fake reality. The magician, the magic trick, and the observer are all One Essence.

If a shadow falls on the ground, the shadow isn’t lying to the person casting it. The reflection in the mirror isn’t tricking the face looking at it. To claim that God is maliciously deceiving us with an illusion requires you to ignore that the very Light inside you is observing the illusion in His own reflection. The cosmic play is entirely Self-Illumination.

ਐਸੋ ਰਾਮ ਰਾਇ ਅੰਤਰਜਾਮੀ ॥

aaiso raam rai a(n)tarajaamee ||

Such is the Sovereign Lord, the Inner-Knower

ਜੈਸੇ ਦਰਪਨ ਮਾਹਿ ਬਦਨ ਪਰਵਾਨੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

jaise dharapan maeh badhan paravaanee ||1|| rahaau ||

He sees everything as clearly as one’s face reflected in a mirror. ||1||Pause||

GGS, 1318

Another way to look at it is: if the actor pretends to be the deluded, tragic king, is the actor “deceiving” anyone? No. The actor knows exactly who they are behind the mask, but willingly assumes the limitation for the sake of the drama (Lila).

Moh, or attachment, is the objective structural law (Mul Avidhya) required to make a multi-coloured play (Lila). The Actor willingly wears a costume. The character inside the play experiences the drama, but the Actor remains un-deceived.

ਬਾਜੀਗਰਿ ਜੈਸੇ ਬਾਜੀ ਪਾਈ ॥ ਨਾਨਾ ਰੂਪ ਭੇਖ ਦਿਖਲਾਈ ॥

baajeegar jaise baajee paiee ||naanaa roop bhekh dhikhalaiee ||

The actor stages the play, playing the many characters in different costumes;

GGS, 736

The True Self (Vaheguru) of each “character” remains immune to the deception. It undergoes no ontological change. Any perceived “trickery” is actually a localized, self-imposed psychological event. Gurbani outlines this internal dynamic using the ancient analogy of the tree and the birds.

ਨਾਨਕ ਤਰਵਰੁ ਏਕੁ ਫਲੁ ਦੁਇ ਪੰਖੇਰੂ ਆਹਿ ॥

naanak taravar ek fal dhui pa(n)kheroo aaeh ||

O Nanak, the tree has two fruits [pain and pleasure] and two birds [true self and false self] are perched upon it.

ਆਵਤ ਜਾਤ ਨ ਦੀਸਹੀ ਨਾ ਪਰ ਪੰਖੀ ਤਾਹਿ ॥

aavat jaat na dheesahee naa par pa(n)khee taeh ||

They are not seen coming or going; these birds have no wings.

ਬਹੁ ਰੰਗੀ ਰਸ ਭੋਗਿਆ ਸਬਦਿ ਰਹੈ ਨਿਰਬਾਣੁ ॥

bahu ra(n)gee ras bhogiaa sabadh rahai nirabaan ||

One [the false self] enjoys so many pleasures, while the other [the true self] remains in Nirvana through the Shabad

ਹਰਿ ਰਸਿ ਫਲਿ ਰਾਤੇ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਕਰਮਿ ਸਚਾ ਨੀਸਾਣੁ ॥੨॥

har ras fal raate naanakaa karam sachaa neesaan ||2||

Imbued in the fruit of the bliss of Hari, O Nanak, it bears the True Insignia of Grace. ||2||

GGS, 550

In the Mundaka Upanishad, the exact same foundational analogy is found, providing systemic context:

Like two golden birds perched on the selfsame tree,

Intimate friends, the ego and the [True] Self dwell in the same body

The former eats the sweet and sour fruits of the tree of life

While the latter looks on in detachment

As long as we think we are the ego,

We feel attached and fall into sorrow

But realize that you are the Self, the Lord of Life

And you will be freed from sorrow

When you realize that your are the Self,

Supreme source of light, the supreme source of love

You transcend the duality of life

And enter into the unitive [non-dual] state.

Mundaka Upanishad (3)

Because Vaheguru is the creator and essence of this Maya, it remains completely under His Will (Hukam)... it is the execution of that Will. Because Maya exists within God as an appearance (vivarta), it possesses no independent ontological power as it is simply borrowing Existence (isness), Consciousness (perception), and Bliss (experience). It possesses only epistemic utility.

The moment the individual shifts their gaze from the changing and dependent jagat to the underlying unchanging, independent substratum (God), they awake like a dreamer shaking off a midnight dream. The cosmic deception was only a perceptual mistake. The rope never actually became the snake, the movie never affected the screen, and the True Self was never tricked for a single second.

Can We Trust in a God Who’s Projected this Maya?

Yes. In fact, the Mithya nature of Maya is the reason why Vaheguru is trustworthy. Because creation is constantly shifting and dependent, it serves as a cosmic signpost pointing directly back to its permanent, unchanging Source. Realizing this through the path laid out by Guru Nanak is the true purpose of being alive.

Bhai Mani Singh brings our three essays together in the following quote:

Then the Siddhas said that “name and form are created through Maya, and these two are false and Mithya. Therefore, by this, what is established? And if you say that they are true, then you will be in contradiction with the Scriptures”

Then Guru Nanak Ji replied: “Whatever is Mithya exists on the support of a Substratum (Adhar). Just as the snake that appears, appears on the support of the rope; and the silver that appears, appears on the support of the shell; and the water that appears in the barren land, appears on the support of the sun’s rays—in the exact same way, Mithya appears upon a Substratum. That Creator, Akal Purakh is the Substratum of all. And those who do not know the Creator, and [only] know the world’s name and form—[for them] the world is there, and its name and form are also false. But he who is the Creator, His Name is True (Sat) and His Form is True (Sat). Just as the water of the barren land is Mithya, but the barren land itself is Sat; in the same way, the world’s name and form are Mithya, but the Creator is Sat.

And if you say that the Creator’s name and form are Mithya, then whom will you establish as the Foundational Substratum (Adhar-bhut) of the Creator? And whatever you establish as the Foundational Substratum, that very thing we will establish as the Creator. Therefore, the Creator’s Name is True (Sat) and His Form is also True (Sat).”

Bhai Mani Singh’s Jap Ji Gost

Most English-speaking Sikhs are surprised to discover the profound Non-Dual architecture of the Sikh tradition. After all, any cursory internet search or standard high school textbook would simply label the Sikh faith as strictly monotheistic, which then causes a lot of misunderstanding.

Non-Duality isn’t a modern interpretation of Sikhi, but one that has always been taught in the traditionalist schools of Sikhi (Sampardai), dating back to the Gurus. The distortion, or confusion, occurs during the colonial era when 19th-century European scholars and Western-educated Sikh translators attempted to translate the vast depth of Gurbani into English. This doesn’t mean we negate what these scholars say, as there is much more nuance to the conversation that lies beyond the scope of this article.

In the last article, we made Non-Duality simple, and you should have taken away two points:

• Non-Duality means “Not-Two,” which is a way to describe God by pointing out what God isn’t.

• Everything other than God lacks “True Existence” because creation exists purely dependently (Mithya)

None of what’s stated above is some sort of esoteric or secret understanding. It’s quite simple to ascertain these meanings from a literal reading of Gurbani.

ਇਕਸੁ ਵਿਣੁ ਹੋਰੁ ਦੂਜਾ ਨਾਹੀ ਬਾਬਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਇਹ ਮਤਿ ਸਾਰੀ ਜੀਉ ॥੪॥੩੯॥੪੬॥

eikas vin hor dhoojaa naahee baabaa naanak ieh mat saaree jeeau ||4||39||46||

Other the One, there is no second. O Baba Nanak, this is the most superior wisdom. ||4||39||46||

GGS, 107

As discussed, the next question is regarding the relationship between Independent Existence and Dependent Existence.

Every evening, Sikhs around the world describe this relationship in the Rehras, one of the daily prayers.

ਤੂੰ ਦਰੀਆਉ ਸਭ ਤੁਝ ਹੀ ਮਾਹਿ ॥

too(n) dhareeaau sabh tujh hee maeh ||

You are the River of Life; all are within You.

ਤੁਝ ਬਿਨੁ ਦੂਜਾ ਕੋਈ ਨਾਹਿ ॥

tujh bin dhoojaa koiee naeh ||

Other than You, there is no second

If we read this literally, notice two crucial points:

1. The verse does not say “before creation, there was no second.” It explicitly says “all are within You.“ The phrase all (Sabh) denotes all things (creation).

2. By stating that the entire multiplicity exists inside the Divine River and then concluding that there is no second, Gurbani establishes a Non-Dual ontology right here in our daily prayers.

To those untrained in Non-Dual philosophy, this claim might sound paradoxical. How can creation exist within God without being a “second” reality? To understand this, follow along.

To prove that non-duality is the original, authentic metaphysical framework of Sikhi, we need not rely solely on internal Sikh scriptures. We have irrefutable, neutral external historical evidence recorded during the lifetimes of the Gurus themselves.

Dabestan-e Mazaheb is a fascinating Persian text authored by Mir Du’lfiqar Ardestani (who refers to himself as Mobad) between 1645 and 1658. It contains 12 chapters that provide a neutral, objective overview of various world traditions.

Because Mobad was neither a Sikh nor a hostile figure, his accounts are free from most political, colonial, or communal biases. He primarily gathered his data through face-to-face and written dialogue with religious leaders and communities.

The chapter on the Sikhs reports the completion date of 1645. As mentioned in the text, Mobad visited the Sikhs at Kiratpur Sahib in 1643 and 1644, while Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji (the sixth Guru) was leading the Sikhs, whom the author met and maintained correspondence with. Mobad also claims to have maintained correspondence with Guru Har Rai Sahib Ji, the seventh Sikh Guru.

In his chapter on Sikhs, Mobad records a profound philosophical exchange regarding how the Guru explained the nature of reality to an inquirer:

“He [the Guru] was a man, firmly believing in One [God] and comprehending the Unique One. Someone asked him about the reality of the existence of the universe and the condition of being and existence. He replied, “The world is a mere appearance without [real] being, something seen without existence. The [only] Reality in it is the Supreme God; and all these physical bodies and angels are just illusions….In reality, the [only thing] existent is a single Substance, possessed of numerous qualities.”

Here we have an explanation that covers all of the fundamental concepts of Non-Duality:

• “A mere appearance without [real] being… just illusions” – Maya, the superimposed appearance

• “The [only] Reality in it is the Supreme God” – the uncaused, unchanging substratum

• “A single Substance, possessed of numerous qualities” – the concept of Nirgun/Sargun

You can read more about the full conversation and how it reflects passages from Gurbani on our Substack.

The Dependency Model

Why must creation be a “dependent appearance” rather than an independent second reality?

The observable universe is finite, composite (made of parts), variable (subject to change), and contingent. Any composite object is dependent on its underlying material to exist:

Whether the universe is eternal or not is a topic for another article and is irrelevant to a dependency model.

Whether it is eternal or not, it remains fundamentally composite (made of parts) and variable (subject to change). Any composite object is completely dependent on some material to exist.

• A piece of cloth depends structurally on the thread.

• The thread depends entirely on the cotton.

• The cotton depends on the molecules, and so on.

Therefore, the manifest universe possesses zero independent self-existence. It is not ਸੈਭੰ (Saibhang — Self-Existent) like God. This chain of vertical structural dependency cannot regress into an infinite chain of dependency; it must terminate at a fundamental, independent, and unchanging ground of reality.

If you subtract an object’s material cause, that object instantly vanishes into non-existence.

• If you subtract the clay from a clay pot, the “pot” ceases to exist.

• Because the pot cannot exist for a single fraction of a second apart from the clay, the word “pot” is simply a temporary name and form (ਨਾਮ ਰੂਪ / Nama-Rupa) superimposed upon a substance/material.

Consequently, a dependent universe cannot be a separate, standalone “second reality” sitting alongside God. It is an inseparable emanation of God, functioning exactly like rays emanating from the sun:

ਆਪੇ ਸੂਰੁ ਕਿਰਣਿ ਬਿਸਥਾਰੁ ॥

He Himself is the sun, and the rays emanating from it.

GGS, 387

If the universe isn’t a separate or independently real entity, then what is it?

God is the absolute background upon which the temporary appearance of name and form occurs. The development of name and form is caused by something we call Maya (more on this later). Yes, the universe is vividly experienced through our senses, and it is not a “fiction” or “falsehood” as it clearly exists here and now. But it’s a reality that is dependent and conditional. There is something more underlying and realer than this.

Wait, so are you saying God is the material cause of the universe?

That is exactly right. Sikh metaphysics holds that God is both the Efficient Cause (Nimitta Karana: the conscious intelligence) and the Material Cause (Upadana Karana: the foundational substance) of the universe:

ਆਪਣਾ ਆਪੁ ਉਪਾਇਓਨੁ ਤਦਹੁ ਹੋਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਈ ॥

He created Himself [into the appearance]—at that time, there was no other. [Material Cause]

ਮਤਾ ਮਸੂਰਤਿ ਆਪਿ ਕਰੇ ਜੋ ਕਰੇ ਸੁ ਹੋਈ ॥

He consulted Himself for advice, and what He did came to pass. [Efficient Cause]

GGS, 509

To make things easier, I’ll present an analogy:

An everyday example of a combined efficient and material cause is the human dream. Your unconscious mind acts as the efficient cause by designing the plot, while the entire landscape, the characters, and the physical elements of the dream are composed of the abstract fabric of your mind itself.

While sleeping, the dream feels entirely real. The moment you wake up, your active consciousness reclaims its projection; the efficient and material causes are pulled back, and the dream disappears into your memory because you now have a higher order of reality to compare it to.

Why not just say “Ex Nihilo” (creation out of absolute nothingness)?

We believe the doctrine of Ex Nihilo is a fundamental flaw of observed logic, particularly regarding causality. For any change, creation, or manifestation event to occur, an efficient cause must act upon a material subject or a latent potential. “Nothing” is the absolute absence of being; it has zero properties and cannot serve as a “subject” or a potential canvas. Every observed material transformation presupposes some underlying ontological basis.

Let’s make it simpler: let’s presuppose that every observed material transformation presupposes some underlying ontological basis.

Then:

Efficient Cause (EC) + Material Cause (MC) = Event/Object

If the Material Cause is absolute nothing (MC = 0), the formula collapses:

EC + 0 = EC

No new event or material creation can logically occur because there is zero potentiality to actualize.

For someone who wants to refute this, they must explain why causal principles apply to the universe but not to the mode of divine creation. If someone claims that this requires no explanation, then this would be the fallacy of special pleading due to the suspension of causal rules without providing any criterion of exemption.

“If God is the material cause of the universe, then when the universe undergoes decay, corruption, and evil, God must also undergo decay, corruption, and evil!”

A neutralization of this trap is to deploy the concept of Vivartavada (The Doctrine of Apparent Transformation). This also resolves the problem of changeless causation. Because the creation is only an apparent transformation caused epistemologically through association of name and form, the absolute substratum (God) never actually undergoes a state change at any point.

This concept is exactly used by classical Sikh scholars, such as Bhai Mani Singh (a close companion and scholar of Guru Gobind Singh) in the text Sikhan Di Bhagat Mala:

“Just as the objects of a dream appear real within the dream itself but are dissolved upon waking, in the exact same way, the world and the physical body are experienced as real during the period of ignorance (Agiān), but disappear once knowledge (Giān) is attained […]

Then the holy reply was uttered [by Guru Arjan]:

“Pariṇāmavāda is that process where a substance completely discards its own essential nature [such as milk permanently changing into yogurt].

However, even when gold exists in the shape of ornaments, the ornament remains nothing but gold. The wave, even during its appearance as a wave, remains nothing but water. Therefore, it is Vivartavāda.

Ornaments of gold are gold alone, and waves of water are water alone; in the exact same way, the universe is the form of Brahm (the Divine) alone. Those who have recognized the world in this manner are the Jivan-Muktas (liberated while alive).

Just as thousands of water-pots exist within space, yet space is not created by the making of the pots, nor is it destroyed when the pots break; in the exact same way, Brahm is not born by the origination of the world [nor does it perish upon its dissolution]...”

This reflects the definitive verses of the Guru Granth Sahib:

ਕਨਕ ਕਟਿਕ ਜਲ ਤਰੰਗ ਜੈਸਾ ॥੧॥

Like the gold and the bracelet, or water and the waves. ||1||

GGS, 93

In classical Non-Dual philosophy, the Material Cause can be split into two functions.

In classical non-dual philosophy, the Material Cause can be split into two functions.

1. The Transformative Material Cause (Parinami-Upadana): The substance that actually changes its physical shape (e.g., milk turning into yogurt). Metaphysically, this is the domain of Maya (the cosmic appearance of shifting names and forms). The world of Maya is what undergoes change and decay.

2. The Transfigurative Material Cause (Vivarta-Upadana): The foundational reality that acts as the mandatory baseline for the appearance to exist, but which undergoes absolutely zero actual modification or contamination of its essence.

Conclusion

Now let’s look at the verses from the evening prayer again:

ਤੂੰ ਦਰੀਆਉ ਸਭ ਤੁਝ ਹੀ ਮਾਹਿ ॥

too(n) dhareeaau sabh tujh hee maeh ||

You are the River of Life; all are within You.

ਤੁਝ ਬਿਨੁ ਦੂਜਾ ਕੋਈ ਨਾਹਿ ॥

tujh bin dhoojaa koiee naeh ||

Other than You, there is no second

The “all things” (Sabh) exist within God as a dependent, apparent projection (vivarta). The universe is not a rival, second reality competing for realness with God, but a glorious, dynamic play (Pasara, Lila) of the Eternal, Independent, and Unchanging One.

ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਪਸਰਿਆ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਲੀਲਾ ਗੋਵਿੰਦ ਗੁਣ ਨਿਧਿ ਜਨਿ ਕਹਿਆ ॥

braham pasariaa braham leelaa govi(n)dh gun nidh jan kahiaa ||

The expanse of Brahm, the Lila of Brahm. His humble servants call Him the Lord of the Universe (Gobind), the treasure of virtue.

GGS, 458

Subscribe now

Share

Note on Philosophical Vocabulary:

The use of Sanskrit technical terms throughout this article does not imply anything about Sikh political or cultural identity. These terms serve purely as precise analytical tools to explain metaphysical relationships, just as modern Sikh scholars regularly use Western terms such as “monotheism,” “sovereignty,” or “existentialism.”

When you mention that Sikhi holds a Non-Dual or Advaita (Sanskrit for “Not-Two”) metaphysical stance, the immediate response is often

• “Are you saying Sikhs are Hindus?”

• “Are you saying Sikhi has no unique identity?”

• “Are you saying Sikhi is a copy?”

• “Are you implying the physical world doesn’t exist?”

None of these responses accurately reflect what a Non-Dual framework actually proposes. These are ideological extrapolations stemming from a simple metaphysical statement, which is much like trying to force a political agenda onto an objective law of physics.

To understand Non-Duality in Gurbani, we must strip away all the defensive dogmatism and identity politics and start here:

ਅਦ੍ਵੈ ਅਨਾਸ ਆਸਨ ਅਡੋਲ ॥ ਅਦ੍ਵੈ ਅਨੰਤ ਉਪਮਾ ਅਤੋਲ ॥

advai anaas aasan addol || advai ana(n)t upamaa atol ||

Non-Dual, Indestructible, Unchanging Seat. Non-Dual, Endless, Immeasurable Praise

Akal Ustat, Guru Gobind Singh

What is Non-Duality?

Non-Duality is the way to express Oneness apophatically.

To speak cataphatically means to describe what something is (God is One). To speak apophatically means to describe something that God is not (God is not Two).

Non-Duality literally translates to “Not-Two”. It is not an esoteric or a highly intellectualized term. It is simply a linguistic tool to affirm the ultimate reality of Oneness.

ਇਕਸੁ ਵਿਣੁ ਹੋਰੁ ਦੂਜਾ ਨਾਹੀ ਬਾਬਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਇਹ ਮਤਿ ਸਾਰੀ ਜੀਉ ॥੪॥੩੯॥੪੬॥

eikas vin hor dhoojaa naahee baabaa naanak ieh mat saaree jeeau ||4||39||46||

Other than the One, there is no second; O Baba Nanak, this is the highest understanding.

GGS, 107

In the verse above, you can see a cataphatic statement (to say what something is) and an apophatic statement (to say what something isn’t) coming together. God is the One, and there is no second entity other than God at the highest level of understanding.

At the highest level of reality (or understanding), there is only One Existence. Why? Everything other than God does not have a “True Existence” because it exists only in dependence on God. God is the only “True Existence” because God’s existence is independent.

Defining “True Existence” vs. “Dependent Existence”

True Existence (Sat) is:

• Eternal

• Independent

• Unchanging

Dependent Existence (Mithya) is:

• Temporary

• Dependent

• Changing

Consider how Gurbani describes this:

ਨ ਦੇਵ ਦਾਨਵਾ ਨਰਾ ॥ ਨ ਸਿਧ ਸਾਧਿਕਾ ਧਰਾ ॥

n dhev dhaanavaa naraa || na sidh saadhikaa dharaa ||

Neither the devtas, nor the demons, nor human beings, nor the Siddhas, nor the Earth

ਅਸਤਿ ਏਕ ਦਿਗਰਿ ਕੁਈ ॥ ਏਕ ਤੁਈ ਏਕ ਤੁਈ ॥੨॥

asat ek dhigar kuiee ||ek tuiee ek tuiee ||2|

One Existence, who else? Only You, Only You

GGS, 143

What Does Mithya Actually Mean?

That which has some existence but not True Existence is called Mithya. That which has dependent existence, but not Absolute Existence, is called Mithya. Mithya does not mean 'falsehood' or 'non-existence.' Absolute non-existence (Asat) refers to something that cannot exist at all (like a square circle). Mithya simply refers to that which exists temporarily and dependently.

Only its support/substratum (that which it’s dependent upon) is going to remain once it dissolves. Creation is mithya because it relies on the Creator at every single instance to exist.

ਗੁਰੁ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਣੈਹਾਰੁ ॥

gur paramesar karanaihaar ||

The Guru is Parmeshar, the Doer

ਸਗਲ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਕਉ ਦੇ ਆਧਾਰੁ ॥੧॥

sagal sirasaT kau dhe aadhaar ||1||

He gives His Support to the entire universe

GGS, 741

Because the universe requires constant baseline support to exist, it cannot be called independently real. When Gurbani instructs us to view the world as Mithya, it is reminding us not to anchor ourselves in that which is constantly shifting and dependent.

ਜੋ ਦੀਸੈ ਸੋ ਸਗਲ ਬਿਨਾਸੈ ਜਿਉ ਬਾਦਰ ਕੀ ਛਾਈ ॥

jo dheesai so sagal binaasai jiau baadhar kee chhaiee ||

Whatever is seen, shall all pass away, like the shadow of a cloud.

ਜਨ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਗੁ ਜਾਨਿਓ ਮਿਥਿਆ ਰਹਿਓ ਰਾਮ ਸਰਨਾਈ ॥੨॥੨॥

jan naanak jag jaanio mithiaa rahio raam saranaiee ||2||2||

O servant Nanak, one who knows the world to be Mithya, dwells in the Sanctuary of the Lord. ||2||2||

GGS, 219

The Ontology of Reality: The Illusion of Immersion

Creation is simply less real than the most real (God).

Just like a reflection in a mirror is less real than the actual object it’s reflecting. Or a mirage is less real than the sand it’s standing upon. You’d think it’s real (to the point you think you can drink the water), but once you realize it was just sand, what you thought you saw is now less real.

ਹਰਿਚੰਦਉਰੀ ਚਿਤ ਭ੍ਰਮੁ ਸਖੀਏ ਮ੍ਰਿਗ ਤ੍ਰਿਸਨਾ ਦ੍ਰੁਮ ਛਾਇਆ ॥

haricha(n)dhauree chit bhram sakhe’ee mirag tirasanaa dhrum chhaiaa ||

O Companion, like Harichandauri [a town in the sky], the mind is deluded, like the deer’s desire [mirage of water in the desert], or the shade of a tree [temporary]

ਚੰਚਲਿ ਸੰਗਿ ਨ ਚਾਲਤੀ ਸਖੀਏ ਅੰਤਿ ਤਜਿ ਜਾਵਤ ਮਾਇਆ ॥

cha(n)chal sa(n)g na chaalatee sakhe’ee a(n)t taj jaavat maiaa ||

It is fickle, and does not go with you, O my companion; in the end, Maya will leave you.

GGS, 1120

Imagine watching an intensely captivating movie in a dark theatre. You become so absorbed in the plot that your heart races, you identify with the characters, and you forget your surroundings. The world of the movie feels completely real.

Suddenly, the theatre screen glitches. The immersion breaks instantly. You are instantly reminded that the characters, storylines, and landscapes were just part of a movie and not real life.

Compared with physical reality (you sitting in the chair), the movie was less real. Likewise, when the temporary world is viewed alongside its ultimate Source (God), its perceived absolute reality breaks down.

Conclusion:

Once this fundamental structure is understood, the real work begins:

1. What is the exact relationship between Independent Existence and Dependent Existence?

2. How does this realization change how we act, think, and feel?

This is where the bulk of the conversation lies. Many like to jump to these later conversations without understanding what Non-Duality is even proposing, and that’s where they begin making errors.

Rejecting terms like “Non-Duality” simply out of fear or identity politics causes us to miss out on a rich analytical framework which has always existed within the Sikh tradition. We don’t need to fear vocabulary or philosophy in general. Rather, understand the metaphysics and put the pieces together so that Gurbani becomes clearer and deeper to you.

Share

Subscribe now

Preface

The history of philosophy, science, and religion can be understood in one way or another as a history of competing models of reality. Human beings have always attempted to explain the nature of existence, consciousness, and the relationship between self and universe through conceptual frameworks that seek to make sense of experience. From ancient metaphysical systems to modern neuroscience and quantum theories of mind, thinkers across civilizations have proposed radically different models of reality: materialism, dualism, idealism, panpsychism, phenomenology, Buddhist emptiness theories, Advaita Vedānta , and countless others. Each of these models attempts to answer the same fundamental questions: What is matter? What is consciousness? Why does subjective experience exist at all? How do matter and mind relate/interact? And how do we reconcile our direct lived experience with the external world described by science?

Yet not all models are equally convincing. Philosophical and metaphysical systems are judged by several standards. I’d like to break it down into five such conditions.

1) It must possess internal coherence: the theory cannot collapse into contradiction when followed to its logical conclusions.

2) It must reconcile with observable reality, scientific laws, and the broader structure of the universe as we understand it.

3) It must remain psychologically and intuitively sensible; a theory that radically contradicts direct human experience without sufficient justification often becomes difficult to sustain.

4) Examine whether a model creates tensions between lived experience and its own claims about reality. Because many theories sound compelling abstractly yet fail to account for the undeniable immediacy of consciousness itself.

5) We ask whether the theory actually closes the “explanatory gap” — the deep philosophical problem of how subjective experience arises at all. Does the model genuinely explain consciousness, or does it merely relocate the mystery to another level? Additional questions naturally follow as well: Does the framework overcomplicate reality unnecessarily? Does it preserve hidden dualisms while claiming to reject them? Does it reduce one mystery only by introducing another? And ultimately, does it provide an account of reality that is existentially sensible, philosophically rigorous, and satisfying at the same time?

In recent years, a new wave of metaphysical and consciousness-based theories has become popular on social media platforms. These “New Age” models often borrow language from quantum physics, non-dual understandings, panpsychism, idealism and eastern spirituality. Many Sikhs encounter these ideas online and instinctively feel that some of them sound similar to Gurmat because they speak about oneness, consciousness, ego, and unity. However, these systems are rarely examined carefully or discussed academically amongst each other. Important distinctions are often blurred, philosophical assumptions remain hidden, and many arguments are presented emotionally rather than rigorously. As a result, confusion emerges between authentic metaphysical traditions and modern internet spirituality.

Hence why, I wanted to present this essay that I wrote a while back. This essay is a kind of map, it starts with physicalist models, moves into panpsychism, then idealism, and finally arrives at Advaita Vedānta as a deeper non-dual framework for understanding the “explanatory gap”. It will argue why Advaita Vedānta offers one of the most powerful resolutions to the explanatory gap, and why many of its insights often appear strikingly close to certain intuitions found within Gurmat and modern models of reality. Ultimately, this discussion is meant to help Sikhs better understand the philosophical landscape surrounding consciousness today.

Note: I have spaced out the following essay below and added headings throughout so that the argument is easier to follow, especially for a general Sikh audience that may not already be familiar with philosophy of mind, panpsychism, or Advaita Vedānta . Since this topic can become abstract very quickly, the headings are meant to guide the reader step by step. I should also mention that this essay is not meant to be an exhaustive treatment of the topic. Each model, argument, and critique discussed here could be expanded into a much larger academic paper on its own. The purpose here is more modest: to give a concise but structured summary of the main ideas, the major philosophical problems, and the general direction of the argument.

1) Introduction

The explanatory gap, defined as how physical processes give rise to subjective experiences, remains one of the most central mysteries in the philosophy of mind, particularly in the study of consciousness. Panpsychism has been proposed as a solution, attempting to close this gap by taking consciousness as fundamental rather than emergent. In particular, Miri Albahari’s Perennial Idealism, which refines panpsychism by rejecting perspectival consciousness at the base level and posits a non-dual, aperspectival reality. However, this essay argues that while Albahari’s view significantly advances the debate, it ultimately fails to close the explanatory gap and instead relocates it like many other such models. By contrast, Adi Shankaracharya’s Advaita Vedānta provides a more radical and successful resolution by dissolving, rather than explaining, the conditions that generate the gap.

2) Panpsychism: The Attempt to Make Consciousness Fundamental

There is a certain conceptual exhaustion in the traditional mind–body debate, a sense that we are perpetually oscillating between two equally unsatisfying poles. On one hand, materialism leaves us with the “Hard Problem” – the clinching intuition that no amount of physical mapping can ever truly account for the vivid, felt quality of a sunset or the sting of a sharp pain. On the other hand, dualism attempts to rescue the mind by granting it its own substance, only to find itself trapped by “Causal Exclusion”, unable to explain how a non-physical “ghost” could ever pull the levers of a physical machine. This is known as the problem of Interactionism. Whilst both problems have their own solutionists and solutions, this impasse has been explored through a range of competing strategies, from Frank Jackson’s knowledge argument and epiphenomenalism, to Paul Churchland’s reductive materialism, Daniel Dennett’s eliminativist critique of qualia, and Ned Block’s inversion-based challenges to functionalism, yet none fully dissolve the explanatory gap. The modern panpsychist, however, rejects this stalemate and instead proposes that the root of the problem lies in treating consciousness as derivative at all, arguing instead that matter is intrinsically endowed with consciousness from the outset. The panpsychist sees matter with extrinsic structure, the relational, mathematical, and structural roles captured in equations, and proposes that it inherently has intrinsic nature, a “what-it-is-in-itself” as well. By identifying this intrinsic nature as consciousness, the theory attempts to bridge the explanatory gap by suggesting that the “outer” physical world is simply the structural manifestation of an “inner” conscious reality.

3) Micropsychism and the Subject Combination Problem

The first blueprint of this theory is known to be called Microphycism which claims that fundamental micro-entities are subjects (micro-perspectives with micro-experience). Just as an electron has a specific mass and a negative charge, the micropsychist argues it also possesses a “micro-subjectivity” – a primitive, interior point of view. This model is designed to solve the “Hard Problem” by removing the need for a miracle of emergence. In standard materialism, you start with complete “dead,” non-conscious matter and somehow end up with “living” thought; for many, this jump is logically impossible. Micropsychism solves this by ensuring that the “lights are on” from the very beginning. By endowing the building blocks of matter with a tiny bit of “internal zest,” the theory suggests that human consciousness is simply a complex arrangement of pre-existing mental parts, rather than something created out of nothing. However, this is where the theory hits a conceptual wall known as the Subject Combination Problem. While it is easy to see how the mass of billions of atoms adds up to the weight of a human body, it is entirely unclear how billions of “sealed,” private micro-perspectives could ever fuse into the single, unified “I” that you experience. This is because a “subject” is defined by its boundary and its privacy; it is a unified point of view. Then, we must confront the reality that “adding up” subjects doesn’t work like mixing ingredients in a bowl. If you have a trillion tiny subjects, you don’t get one “big” subject; you just have a trillion tiny, isolated experiences. Because the micropsychist cannot sufficiently explain how these separate “inner lives” merge into a single stream of consciousness, they haven’t actually bridged the gap. They have simply relocated it, leaving us back at square one: wondering how the physical structure of the brain (now made of “conscious” bits) relates to the unified experience of the person.

4) Cosmopsychism and the Decombination Problem

The panpsychist sees this and adopts the top-bottom approach instead of the failed bottom-up one, known as Macropanchycism, which claims that the most fundamental conscious entity is the cosmos/universe/one subject itself. Instead of seeing consciousness as a property of subatomic building blocks, this model views the entire universe as a single, unified subject of experience. Individual human minds are not separate “creations” but are somehow derived from or contained within this vast cosmic perspective. It is a strategic attempt to bypass the combination problem entirely: if there is only one “Mind” to begin with, you never have to explain how “many” become “one.” By starting with a “Cosmic One,” the cosmopsychist flips the script. The challenge now is no longer how to build a mind, but how to explain the existence of our own finite, private experiences. This shifts the focus to the Decombination Problem in the study of consciousness: how does one unified, cosmic consciousness partition itself into the billions of distinct, isolated perspectives we see in humans and animals? To navigate this, philosophers have proposed two main versions of the cosmic mind, both of which face significant philosophical pushback. The first version is known as Philip Goff’s “Transparent” Cosmopsychism, also known as the storehouse view, which states that there is one cosmic subject, and our individual minds are “parts” of it, much like organs are parts of a body. Everything you feel is a literal component of the universe’s overall experience.

But this leads to the Incompatible Contents Problem. If the cosmic subject literally feels everything at once, its mind becomes a chaotic dumping ground. At the same moment, it would experience terror, ecstasy, and someone else’s total boredom. A single subject is supposed to have a unified, coherent field of experience, but this “storehouse” view lacks any psychological unity. It’s not a psyche; it’s a warehouse of unrelated sensations. Hence, the arising of the second version, proposed by Itay Shani, is known as the Limited Awareness view. To avoid the “warehouse” mess, Shani suggests the cosmic consciousness provides a general “field” or medium of awareness that underlies us all. However, the cosmic subject is not “privy” to your specific thoughts – it doesn’t “register” your taste of chocolate or your private fears. However, Miri Albahari argues this fundamentally breaks what it means to be a “subject.” If an experience exists within your conscious field, it must, in principle, be given to your point of view. Shani’s model creates a “subject” that contains experiences it isn’t actually conscious of. Albahari calls this ad hoc – it’s a desperate tweak made only to escape the decombination problem, rather than a logically sound description of how perspectives actually work. Just as micropsychism failed to “add up” to a person, cosmopsychism fails to “divide down” into a person without losing its internal logic. Whether we start with the micro or the macro, we are left with a structural disconnect: we still cannot explain the relationship between the unified “inner” experience and the structured “outer” world.

5) Miri Albahari’s Perennial Idealism

We now arrive at the core of the dilemma: how to make progress here, or is the entire panpsychist project effectively dead? This is where Albahari takes inspiration from mystics like Ramana Maharishi and the broader eastern Perennial Philosophy which report consciousness as unified without subject/object differentiation; the seeing/seer/seen triad is not ultimate. They call this the experience of pure consciousness without any object that it interacts with. This is known as aperspectival consciousness, which is consciousness not tied to a POV (point of view). There are no experiences “for” a subject in a unified way. Albahari argues that the base of reality is consciousness-without-a-subject. In this model, “subjects” are not the fundamental building blocks of the universe; they are structures that appear within consciousness later on. Most panpsychists assume that fundamental consciousness must belong to a perspectival subject – a centered “I” that “owns” its experiences. Albahari flags this as the mistake that generates the combination and decombination problem, because these only arise if you assume the basic ingredients of reality are “perspectives”, but if the base is a non-perspectival unity, you aren’t trying to mechanically merge or split “bricks” of experience. Perspectives are simply appearances within the field. Albahari’s conclusion is that we must drop the base-level subject-perspective entirely. By moving to an aperspectival foundation, we stop trying to “chop up” or “glue together” private minds and instead view individual perspectives as limited expressions of an undivided whole.

6) The Inner–Outer Gap Problem

The journey from the “failed” blueprints of micro- and macro-panpsychism to Perennial Idealism is a process of elimination that exposes a hidden dualism in how we think about matter. By proving that both the “bottom-up” and “top-down” models fail, Albahari shows that the problem isn’t just about how subjects combine; it is about the very “out-there-ness” of the physical world; the failure of those two models acts as the logical bridge to Albahari’s Perennial Idealism for the seeker. To understand Albahari’s ultimate pivot, we must first examine the standard model: Panpsychist Materialism. In this model, physical structures and relations – like mass, charge, or brain chemistry– are viewed as observer-independent. They exist “out there,” fully independent of any mind, while consciousness is merely the “hidden inner nature” or the “categorical backing” of that matter. Essentially, they are trying to say that matter is conscious “from the inside,” and that this “inside” explains the “outside” structure science describes. Albahari’s most devastating critique of this model is that Panpsychist Materialism does not actually solve the “Hard Problem” – it simply reverses it. The materialist wants “inner” private experience to ground the “outer” structures of science. They want the “real stuff” behind a brain structure to be experiential. For example, Lucy’s taste of chocolate (Inner) is available only to Lucy; it is essentially private. Scientific structures (outer) are extracted from an observer’s experience. For example, Jim sees Lucy’s brain patterns. If physical structure is observer-independent, it cannot be “made of” an inner experience that is private to a single subject. Science reads the “outer pattern” from Jim’s viewpoint, but the materialist wants that pattern to be grounded in Lucy’s viewpoint. Lucy’s experience is inward-facing and private, while physics is outward-facing and public. Ultimately, attempts to fix this by switching levels – moving from brain details to coarse behavior – still leave the gap. Whether the data is detailed or broad, it doesn’t explain how a private, inner experience grounds an open-air, observer-independent structure.

At the micro-level, the problem becomes even more acute. Physics is fundamentally about relations: distance, location, and spacetime. However, micro-experiences seem monadic – they are “just in here,” owned by individual, isolated subjects. It is deeply unclear what “experiential relations between subjects” could literally be to realize the mathematical relations of spacetime. As even David Chalmers has noted, building a public “space” out of isolated inner feels is a massive challenge. Physics is full of “between-ness,” but micro-experience is “just in here.” Albahari argues that Panpsychist Materialism is “the same gap wearing different clothes.” The Old Problem (Standard Materialism): “We have matter. How could that ever produce subjective experience (pain, redness)?”; new problem (Panpsychist Materialism): “Actually, the basic stuff is already experiential. So, how could private inner experience ever produce a public, observer-independent physical structure (mass, charge, brain geometry)?” The gap hasn’t disappeared; it just changed direction. Before, matter to mind was mysterious. Now, mind to matter is mysterious. If the “outer” world is truly observer-independent, grounding it in “inner” private experience is just as puzzling as old-school materialism. How does “what-it’s-like-for-Lucy” turn into a spacetime structure anyone could observe? This is exactly why the panpsychist seeker ends up with Perennial Idealism. If physical structures are observer-dependent, the structures science finds are located exactly where they show up: in the observer’s conscious field. There’s no mysterious jump; instead of saying Lucy’s private experience creates a public world “out there,” idealism says the “public world” is the shared, structured way things appear in experience. Reality has law-like tendencies or “dispositions.” When conditions are right, observers will have experiences that line up in consistent, measurable ways. This consistency is what we call “physical structure.” Additionally, the world isn’t a finished stage “out there” that experience has to generate; it’s the repeatable pattern of appearances that shows up when subjects interact. While the Panpsychist Materialist tries and fails to get public physics out of private feel, the Panpsychist Idealist simply says public physics is the stable, shared pattern of appearances. In conclusion, this is exactly what the panpsychist seeker ends up with: a Perennial Idealism. But does that really fill the explanatory gap once and for all?

7) Advaita Vedānta : Dissolving the Gap Instead of Explaining It

This now leads us to what can be called the final frontier of the panpsychist project. After eliminating both micropsychism and cosmopsychism as viable models and refining the position into Albahari’s Perennial Idealism, it initially appears that the explanatory gap has finally been resolved. By rejecting the assumption that consciousness must be fundamentally tied to a perspective, and instead positing aperspectival consciousness as the base of reality, Albahari seems to have dissolved the very conditions that generated the problems of composition and decomposition in the first place. However, despite this move, I believe the theory does not ultimately eliminate the explanatory gap – it relocates it to a deeper and more subtle level.

The issue lies in what Albahari still preserves. Her framework maintains a distinction between fundamental reality (aperspectival consciousness) and derivative reality (perspectival subjects and structured appearances). Even though subjects are no longer fundamental, they are still treated as real configurations tied to the arising of objects/imagery. This introduces a sort of residual duality that cannot be ignored. If these perspectival structures are “real enough” to appear, to organize experience, and to sustain a subject-object distinction, then we are forced to ask: how does the non-perspectival give rise to the perspectival? And at this point, the explanatory gap re-emerges, not as the classic gap between brain and experience, but as a manifestation gap – the gap between undivided consciousness and the divided world it appears as. Albahari does identify the correct destination - non-dual consciousness - but her account lacks the full mechanism for how and why this non-dual base manifests as multiplicity. The derivative subject and world are still granted enough ontological weight to demand explanation, and this demand reintroduces the very structure the theory aimed to dissolve. In other words, Albahari solves the wrong level of the problem. She removes perspectival consciousness from the base, but she still assumes that the appearances of perspectives and structures are ontologically significant. This leaves her position caught in a refined version of dualism: not mind vs matter, but unity vs appearance. The question “how does the one appear as many?” remains unanswered, and I’d say this question is simply the explanatory gap in a more abstract form.

This becomes even clearer when we reinterpret Albahari’s framework through an Advaitic lens: a non-dual model of consciousness first proposed by Adi Shankaracharya in the 8th century. What Albahari calls aperspectival consciousness maps closely onto Brahman, the non-dual, absolute reality; what she calls “structured appearances” or derivative configurations aligns closely with what Advaita calls Īśvara: Brahman conditioned by māyā (illusion), the cosmic principle through which the world appears ordered, structured, and intelligible. The crucial difference is that Albahari treats these structured appearances as ontologically significant features within consciousness, whereas Advaita treats Īśvara itself as mithyā - a dependent, non-ultimate level of reality. By not fully collapsing the distinction between Brahman and its apparent structuring (Īśvara), Albahari leaves intact a level of reality that still demands explanation. Thus, the gap reappears precisely at the level of this structuring: how does Brahman appear as Īśvara, and why does this structured world arise at all? This is precisely where Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta intervenes – not as another competing theory, but as a fundamentally different approach to this problem.

Advaita begins with the same insight that Albahari reaches: consciousness (Brahman) is non-dual and fundamental. However, where Albahari stops at positing a non-perspectival base, Advaita goes even further by radically reinterpreting the status of everything that appears within it. The key move is the doctrine of mithyā. The world (jagat) and the individual subject (jīva) are not treated as derivative entities that arise from consciousness. Instead, they are understood as dependent appearances - neither fully real (sat) nor unreal (asat), but anirvacanīya (indefinable). Their existence is entirely borrowed from Brahman, and they have no independent ontological status. This is not a minor adjustment; it is a complete shift in how the problem is framed. If the subject and the world are mithyā, then the apparent gap between inner and outer is also mithyā. It is not a real divide that needs to be bridged – it is an appearance that needs to be understood. The explanatory gap dissolves because one side of the gap (the “outer” world) is no longer treated as an independently real domain requiring grounding.

This dissolution is made precise through the doctrine of adhyāsa (superimposition). Śaṅkara describes human experience as a fundamental error in which the properties of the body and mind are superimposed onto the Self, and the reality of the Self is projected onto the world. This double superimposition creates the illusion of a divided reality consisting of subjects and objects. As Śaṅkara states at the beginning of his Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya, “it is the nature of human understanding to superimpose the attributes of one thing upon another.” What appears as a structured world and a perspectival subject is not something that has been produced by consciousness – it is consciousness itself, misapprehended. This is why Advaita does not attempt to explain how consciousness generates multiplicity. Instead, it explains why multiplicity appears at all, which is avidyā (ignorance). At this point, the contrast with Albahari becomes decisive. Albahari’s Perennial Idealism still treats structured appearances as something that arises within consciousness and therefore requires explanation. Advaita, by contrast, denies that such arising is real in the first place. The world is not a “configuration” of consciousness – it is a misperception of consciousness, much like a snake superimposed on a rope. The question is not how the rope produces the snake, but why the snake appears at all. This is why Advaita succeeds where Perennial Idealism ultimately fails.

Albahari’s framework still operates within the logic of explanation: it seeks to account for how appearances emerge from a fundamental base. Advaita breaks from this entirely. It shows that the explanatory gap is not a problem to be solved through better metaphysical models, but a problem that arises from a mistaken starting point – the assumption that subject and object are independently real. The Upaniṣadic tradition makes this point explicitly. The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad describes Brahman as “that which is not inwardly conscious, nor outwardly conscious… that is Brahman,” rejecting the very categories that structure the explanatory gap. Similarly, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad declares: “Where there is duality, as it were, there one sees another… but where everything has become the Self, what should one see and through what?” As a matter of fact, this isn’t just a poetic flourish – it is a precise philosophical claim: the gap exists only so long as duality is assumed.

I believe Albahari’s project represents the furthest point philosophy of mind can reach while still remaining within the subject-object framework. She identifies the need for a non-perspectival base and rejects the structural assumptions that generate panpsychist problems. However, by retaining the ontological significance of derivative appearances, she leaves the final step incomplete. To be exact, the gap is reduced, refined, and relocated – but not eliminated. Advaita Vedānta completes this final step. Through the doctrines of mithyā and adhyāsa, it shows that the gap itself is an artifact of misperception. There is no need to explain how consciousness relates to the world, because the world is not other than consciousness. As the tradition concludes: “ātmā satyam, tad anyat sarvam mithyā” – the Self alone is real; all else is dependent appearance. At this point, the explanatory gap does not get solved; it in fact, disappears. And this is precisely why Advaita is not just one solution among many, but arguably the only framework that fully closes the gap. All other theories, including panpsychism and Perennial Idealism, remain within the logic of explanation and therefore preserve the duality that generates the problem. Advaita alone dissolves that duality at its root.

Conclusion

In conclusion, when we examine what one may consider the most sophisticated form of panpsychism through Albahari’s Perennial Idealism, it can be seen that it does not fully eliminate the explanatory gap but rather pushes it to a deeper metaphysical problem where the relation between consciousness and structured appearances inside it is unknown. This shows limitations in approaches that treat appearances in consciousness as ontologically significant/real. And this is exactly why this gap can only be eliminated by the deep insights of Advaita Vedānta , which denies the ultimate reality of the subject-object distinction and shows it was never ontologically real to begin with. This resolution not only has a stronger explanatory scope but a fundamentally stronger resolution, which is: the explanatory gap disappears once its underlying assumptions are abandoned.

Why This Discussion Matters for Sikhs

• This essay is now concluded, but I want to briefly clarify the purpose behind presenting it. My hope is that Sikh readers can become more familiar with the academic standing of panpsychism, idealism, and non-dual models of consciousness, especially as these ideas become more popular in modern philosophy and online spiritual spaces. Many of these theories are not just random “New Age” claims; some of them are serious philosophical attempts to answer the explanatory gap — the question of how consciousness relates to the physical universe.

• At the same time, this article is not meant to claim that Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta is automatically the best or final model for understanding reality. Rather, the goal is to show that Advaita offers a highly developed non-dual framework that goes further than many modern theories by adding concepts such as mithyā, māyā, adhyāsa, Brahman, and jīva, which attempt to explain why the world appears divided even though reality is ultimately non-dual.

• For Sikhs, this discussion is useful because Gurmat also speaks deeply about these concepts explicitly as well. However, I will not be discussing those Gurmat-based arguments for advaita in this particular article. That would require its own separate treatment. Again, this does not mean Sikhi and Advaita are identical. They are not. Gurmat has its own language, theology, ontology, epistemology, phenomenology, devotional orientation, soteriology, practice, ethical framework, and understanding of the relationship between the world, the self, and Parbrahm. However, it’s clear that Gurmat does stand much closer to non-dual models than to strict physicalist or dualistic models that separate consciousness, matter, and God into completely disconnected categories.

• So, this article should be read more as a guide than a final verdict. Its purpose is to help Sikhs engage more deeply with these concepts instead of accepting or rejecting them based only on social media explanations. If Sikhs are going to discuss consciousness, non-duality, ego, illusion, and the nature of reality, then we should do so with philosophical seriousness, not vague spiritual language.

• In future articles, I plan to directly examine and critique physicalist and dualistic models using academic arguments from philosophy of mind. I also want to show why non-dual models, including panpsychism, idealism, and Advaita-inspired frameworks, should not be dismissed as irrational or “unscientific.” Many of these models are taken seriously because they respond to real problems that physicalism and dualism struggle to solve. The point is not to force Sikhs into Advaita or any other system, but to give Sikh readers the tools to understand why non-dual approaches may be logically stronger, philosophically richer, and closer to the spiritual intuitions already present within Gurmat.

Bibliography

Śaṅkara. Brahma-Sūtra-Bhāṣya of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya. Translated by Swami Gambhirananda, Advaita Ashrama, 1965.

The Early Upaniṣads: Annotated Text and Translation. Translated by Patrick Olivelle, Oxford UP, 1998.

Albahari, Miri. “Panpsychism and the Inner-Outer Gap Problem.” The Monist, vol. 105, 2022

For those who wish to further engage with these topics, I have included some useful videos on Youtube on panpsychism, idealism, and consciousness-first models that help explain why these theories are taken seriously in modern philosophy of mind.

Why Materialism is Complete Nonsense - Bernardo Kastrup

Is there consciousness beyond the brain? | Philip Goff | TEDxNewEngland

Subscribe now

In the Footsteps of Guru Nanak

The history of external preaching within the Sikh faith starts with no other than its founder, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Born into the Bedi household of Baba Kalyan Das (Mehta Kalu) and Mata Tripta, young Nanak was immersed in the traditional upbringing of his time. From a young age, he was sent to study languages and Hindu scriptures from Pandit Gopal Das, as well as Persian from Maulvi Qutb-ud-din at the local Madrassa. The immersive childhood of Guru Nanak in a diversity of faiths and traditions would later play a vital role in his encounters with the Yogis, Brahmins, Vaishnavites, Jains, and Muslims. In fact, the preaching journey of Guru Nanak began long before his travels. It began in his early school years with Pandit Gopal. The Guru’s response to his teacher is recorded within the composition titled Patti Likhi, where he infused deep spiritual contemplation into the alphabet taught to him. Similarly, at a young age, he questioned and critiqued the practice of wearing the Janeu (cotton thread worn by upper caste Hindus), sharing the wisdom that one should make compassion the cotton, contentment the thread, modesty the knot, and truth the twist. The Guru pointed out the obvious that such a thread (of virtues) compared to the physical Janeu, will not be broken or soiled. From here, we get a clear view of the clever rhetoric played by Guru Nanak and how he communicated his ideas.

ਙੰਙੈ ਙਿਆਨੁ ਬੂਝੈ ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਪੜਿਆ ਪੰਡਿਤੁ ਸੋਈ ॥

Nganga: One who understands spiritual wisdom becomes a Pandit, a religious scholar.

ਸਰਬ ਜੀਆ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੋ ਜਾਣੈ ਤਾ ਹਉਮੈ ਕਹੈ ਨ ਕੋਈ ॥੪॥

One who recognizes the One Lord among all beings does not talk of ego. ||4||

Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji - Patti Likhi - Ang 432

The Guru on his four great Udasis constantly preached the ‘Naam’, including within it, the message of the Non-Dual Divine, equality, honest living, and constant meditational focus on the Divine. While travelling, the Guru constantly shattered the hypocrisy of both the religious and the lay, reminding them that hypocritical actions are useless in the pursuit of liberation and spirituality. Performative actions are only vain, and if Naam isn’t infused, then they are a waste. The Guru famously shattered the ego of the wealthy Malik Bhago when he compared his dishonest earnings to those of the humble Bhai Lalo. After having his pride broken, Malik Bhago became the adherent of Guru Nanak, using his wealth wisely and for the good of all. Sarbat Da Bhalla is a concept deeply rooted in the earliest foundations of Sikhi.

ਕਰਿ ਪਟੰਬੁ ਗਲੀ ਮਨੁ ਲਾਵਸਿ ਸੰਸਾ ਮੂਲਿ ਨ ਜਾਵਸਿਤਾ ॥

Practicing hypocrisy and attaching your mind to worldly objects, your doubt shall never depart.

ਏਕਸੁ ਚਰਣੀ ਜੇ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਵਹਿ ਲਬਿ ਲੋਭਿ ਕੀ ਧਾਵਸਿਤਾ ॥੩॥

If you focus your consciousness on the Feet of the One Lord, what reason would you have to chase after greed? ||3

Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji - Ang 155

The messages shared by the Guru are exactly what and how Sikhs should be preaching. While the attitude against preaching is a recent construct, we need to evaluate what exactly we are preaching. Here, it is important to differentiate our goals with that of the Christians and Muslims. Comparatively, Sikhi is significantly more inclusive and tolerant of others. Our goal isn’t to convert people to increase our numbers or to save souls from a post-mortem hellfire. Instead, our goal is to spread the Guru’s wisdom called Gyan found in Gurbani, which sets itself as the spiritual root of Sikhi. The Gyan encompasses the knowledge of Non-Duality, honest living, and spirituality amidst the hustle and bustle of society. Compassion arises from understanding the Guru’s Gyan, where every single heart is the seat of God. That same Gyan illuminates the mind on the realities of existence and elevates the mind beyond pleasure and suffering for the supreme bliss of Sanjog (Divine union). Through this connection and realization, the noose of death is cut, in which the ego shall finally achieve liberation from the cycle of reincarnation.

But Sikhs don’t Preach… Wrong!

Sikhs don’t just preach, we teach! There exists a common myth that there is no need for Sikhi to be shared with others because “all religions are equal”. This is an erroneous view and can be quickly debunked by a read through Sikh history. Throughout the period of the Sikh Gurus, preachers were sent out all across India and beyond to preach the message of Gurmat. Guru Amar Das, the third Sikh Guru, notably established the structured Manji system. This was an effective system where 22 administrative zones were established, and each was led by a preacher sent by the Guru. The amazing thing is that the preachers weren’t all men! According to some records, 52 of them were women! Sikhi sure was ahead of its time in the gender equality game huh. These selected individuals would preach Gurbani and Gurmat while assisting the local congregation with their day-to-day transactions. They were also responsible for keeping the community in touch with the Guru in Goindwal Sahib.

Guru Tegh Bahadar, the Ninth Sikh Guru, also travelled extensively, going as far east as the Ahom Kingdom in modern Assam. A marker of the significance of this trip is embodied in the written memories of the Sikhs, where history became enriched with mythology. The expedition of Guru Tegh Bahadar has been retold with tales of miraculous powers, including a spiritual battle against the sorceress of Kamrupa (Assam).

Other important groups of traditional Sikh missionaries that propagated Ik Oangkar were the Udasis, Sevapanthis, and the Nirmalas. These groups were instrumental in sharing Gurbani with the masses outside of Punjab. In fact, the Udasi were the most travelled of all these groups and had multiple deras established across India, from North to South and East to West, even across the border in Nepal (see Nanak Math in Nepal). The Sevapanthis, descendants of the lineage of Bhai Ghanaiya, found for themselves an active hub in the region of Sindh, where they remained influential amongst the Sindhi Nanakpanthis.

What have we been doing wrong?

Ever wondered why the Christians and Muslims have such a diverse following, while Sikhs have largely become an ethnoreligious group? Despite the fact that throughout history Gurmat has been shared with people of different backgrounds, today it has been largely limited to the religion of the Punjabis. This has made it significantly more awkward and difficult for people to come into and learn about the faith. Ethnoreligious groups usually give a feeling of exclusivity, where membership is determined by birth. Unfortunately, this also means that for people to adopt Sikhi and enter Sikh spaces, there will be an atmosphere of uneasiness, being viewed as an outsider. Uncomfortable stares, lack of greeting (personal experience), and loneliness often haunt the experiences of foreign Sikhs. Nobody is out there to greet you, to hand out pamphlets like the Muslims do. Yes, we respect everyone’s right to their belief, but handing out pamphlets does not mean converting people; it serves the purpose of sharing our values and teachings with them. Instead of telling people to take the Amrit of the Khanda to become a Sikh, we should share the message of Guru Nanak first. That being the message of Ik Oangkar, ego-dissolution, the five virtuous qualities, and the avoidance of the five unvirtuous qualities. This was the parchar that Guru Nanak did on his Udasis. To accept the will of God, live honestly, and to be conscious of our actions, speech, and thoughts. We cannot expect everyone to maintain the appearance of Khalsa Sikhs. Unlike Punjabis, who have experienced centuries of socio-cultural evolution alongside the Sikh faith, many others do not have that privilege. The Guru’s message is not limited to physical appearance, and we need to be inclusive of others. Throughout Sikh history, there existed a diversity of different sects and appearances. Some shaved their heads like the Suthrashahis, some grew their hair into dreads like Jattadhari Udasis, and some maintained the complete form of the Guru’s beloved Khalsa Sikhs. Yet, all of them belong to the beautiful panth of Nanak. Ultimately, our goal should be to share the message of Guru Nanak and not a membership to secure your seat in heaven. Doing so also makes it more digestible for the family of new Sikhs.

Action Plan - How to Get Started

The first step that ‘You’, as a Sikh, should do is to hold yourself accountable for your own knowledge of the faith. In order to share the faith and philosophy with others, we need to start by refining our own understanding. As Bhai Jagraj Singh from Basics of Sikhi used to say, “arm yourself with knowledge”.

An effective method of doing parchar of Gurmat is through the distribution of pamphlets. By this, I don’t mean going around handing it out like Uber vouchers, but by focusing on a target. An example is Nagar Kirtan events, where the whole community (non-Sikhs included) will be out and interacting with the event. Pamphlets should state the basics of the Sikh faith, as well as its spiritual and social achievements. Similarly, pamphlets could be printed and put into neighborhood mailboxes. No compulsion or uncomfortable interaction necessary! Just slide it in and move on. Perhaps a community event could be organized at the local Gurdwara and the local community could be invited to learn more about the Sikhs. Doing so will ease ethnic and religious tensions and bring the community together. It will also be a great chance to dispel misinformation and make Sikhi accessible to the public.

It is extremely important that Gurdwaras should have information pamphlets, books, or articles available for visitors. This is something that the Islamic community has done exceptionally well. When a new visitor enters a mosque, they are immediately greeted as a brother and handed pamphlets about Islam. This is also one of the reasons why the Islamic conversion rate is so high. From personal experience as a foreign Sikh, very often I enter Gurdwara sahibs without being greeted by others, instead attracting stares. We need to understand that, in addition to feeding people as equals, we should also make them feel comfortable, especially in a location where they feel out of place. Doing so, people will be more motivated to return and learn about the faith from a positive position. Gurdwara Granthis and Ragis should be trained to be able to discuss interfaith topics, basic scientific knowledge, and be able to hold a conversation in English. This leads to the next step. Redesigning the langar hall.

Aesthetic equals impression, and that is particularly true for a first timer. Compare the clean and simple aesthetic of the mosque to the Gurdwara with balloons and Christmas lights left over from Diwali; it is a far cry from the beauty of Puratan (historical) asthans (sites). If we want to be taken seriously, we need to be presented seriously. Think of it like the packaging of two books. It is true that, whether people admit it or not, most of us end up judging a book by its cover, and religions are no different. A cheap, unaesthetic surface will not attract the same level of desire as the neat and aesthetic packaging of the other. When it comes to premium packaging, there is no doubt that Islam is currently the winner.

Redesigning our Space

How could we better utilize our space? One idea is to redesign the langar hall into a space where learning could take place alongside eating. On the walls, information regarding Sikh philosophy, history, and ideals could be added. Starting with a breakdown of the meaning behind Ik Oangkar in one section, which then leads to a Sikh history part that illustrates Sikh Ithihas from the Gurus to the present day. Finally, also a basic knowledge section that shares information on the general FAQ of the faith.

Example:

10 Gurus, and their names

Non-Duality over Monotheism

Sikh perceptions of the afterlife - Reincarnation and Karma

What makes the Sikh perception of God different from others?

Who are the Khalsa?

5 Kakkars

7 Standard Nitnem prayers

Scriptures of the Sikhs - Adi Guru Granth Sahib, and Dasam Granth

Langar and its philosophy

Four Khalsa Kurehits

Sects and diversity within the Sikh faith

The langar hall is the perfect location for such projects, especially considering the fact that it is the most visited part of the Gurdwara. This is a space where Sikhs and non-Sikhs meet and share meals together, hold dialogues, and socialize. Rather than having people scroll through their phones, it is much more productive to create something where the community can read and learn while enjoying their meals. Non-Sikhs that are visiting the Gurdwara for the first time will also be given the opportunity to appreciate Sikh philosophy, history, and arts. This will also allow people to take photos and share them across social media - a marketing bonus!

Public Question Stand

Finally, for those brave and extroverted enough to go out there to directly meet with strangers, Sikhs should also set up public questionnaire stands. This could be done somewhere in the city, at universities, or in well-visited parks. The purpose of this is to spread awareness of the Sikh faith and to clear misunderstandings with members of the general public. It is also an opportunity to go and present ourselves as a major world religion, rather than one that is confined to the ethnographic boundaries of blood and state.

Honoring a Legacy

It is our collective responsibility, as Sikhs, to nurture and support the growth of our faith. As we enter an age marked by increasing diversity and rising challenges to mental well-being, we are called to share the timeless remedies offered by Guru Nanak over 500 years ago. In honoring the legacy of the Gurus as the Jagat Guru - the Teacher of the World, we should strive to carry forward and share Guru Nanak’s evergreen message with all of humanity.

When interpreting Gurbani, many Sikhs doubt the usage of the Non-Dual framework of exegesis. Many Sikhs make it seem as if it was a later addition, after the Gurus, and has no place in the Sikh tradition. Non-Dual concepts, analogies, statements, and explanations surrounding philosophical conclusions in Gurbani are often ignored, reinterpreted, or accused of being later additions. Furthermore, the plethora of evidence suggesting that Sikhs throughout history utilized Non-dual ideas, from Suraj Prakash to Sikhan Di Bhagatmala have received similar reactions of suspicion, denial, and disdain.

​In this article, I’d like to add another layer of evidence. Rather than an internal source (written by a Sikh), this is an external source from a neutral perspective, with no agenda to prove anything. This source is a Persian work on comparative religion that examines the various religions of the Middle East and South Asia. It is best known for its chapter on Akbar’s syncretic religion, the Din-i Ilahi, which offers modern historians valuable insights into this unique tradition. Interestingly, this is also one of the earliest sources to mention the Sikh tradition.1

​Researchers generally believe that Dabestan-e Mazaheb was written by Mir Du’lfiqar Ardestani (the author calls himself Mobad) between 1645 and 1658 and contains twelve chapters discussing various traditions, including Persian traditions, Indic religions, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Emperor Akbar’s Din-i Ilahi. Some scholars, such as Dr. Ganda Singh, believe that Muhsin Fani was the actual author.

​The text consciously maintains an impartial approach to each religion and sect it studies, as the author collects information through oral reports and scripture readings. The chapter on the Sikhs reports the completion date of 1645. As mentioned in the text, Mobad visited the Sikhs at Kiratpur Sahib in 1643 and 1644, while Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji was the Guru, whom the author met and maintained correspondence with. Mowbad also claims to have maintained correspondence with Guru Har Rai Sahib Ji.2

An Account of the Guru in Dabestan-e Mazaheb

​He [the Guru] had seven hundred horses in his stable. Three hundred battle-tested horsemen and sixty musketeers were always in his service. Among them, a set of persons occupied themselves in trade, service and work [on his behalf]. Whoever left his own place took refuge with him.​

He [the Guru] was a man, firmly believing in One [God] and comprehending the Unique One. Someone asked him about the reality of the existence of the universe and condition of being and existence. He replied, “The world is a mere appearance without [real] being, something seen without existence. The [only] Reality in it is the Supreme God; and all these physical bodies and angels are just illusions. We may recall a story of the past. There was a king who went out for hatta jori [Hindi, ‘joined hands’), which in Turki is called qamargha and in Persian parra shikar [hunting through circles of beaters). A deer came within the troops’ circle. The king said that if the deer breaks out [of the circle] in the direction of any one posted there, he should [pursue it and] not return until he has seized it. It so happened that it broke out in front of the king himself. The king rode after it, till he got far away from the troops. He reached a place beyond which, owing to the density of trees, there was no further passage. The king was happy that the deer would come back. But there was a small opening; the deer leapt through it. The king too made his horse leap after it. The horse closing upon itself passed through, but the king got caught in the tree fork and his hands and feet got so much enmeshed that you might say someone had deliberately tied him up. For two days he remained in that spot, till two persons, wife and husband, who collected dry wood, reached that place. The woman said to her husband, ‘See the king has put a thief on the stake?’ The man said, ‘This is not the place for a thief. Let us find out.’ When they went up further, they saw him and recognised him. They said to each other, ‘If we release him from here, he will be of use to us.’ The woman said, ‘He is the king. Once he separates from us, who will let us approach him. If he establishes a connection with us and marries our daughter, we will set him free.’ They told the king [of this condition]. The king agreed to this. When they got him out of that place and took him to their dwelling place, they gave their daughter to him. He remained there for some time. Then they took him to his army. When he wished to enter his palace, the doorkeeper hit him with a spear. The King trembled and woke up. He saw he was sitting on the throne. He saw in front of the throne his liegemen standing in [an attitude of] servitude. Now with this dream, he woke up from his sleep of forgetfulness. He realised that the visible world is mere appearance without [real] being: Whatever one thinks in wakefulness is also a dream. He discovered that life consists in difference of appearances and the separateness of form. In reality, the [only thing] existent is a single Substance, possessed of numerous qualities.

​…

​A person Parra Kaiwan by name, hearing of his virtues, came to see the Guru. The Guru, not recognising him, did not pay him appropriate respect. Consequently, Parra Kaiwan went away. After becoming aware of this, the Guru sent messages to him and invited him back. Parra Kaiwan did not agree to return. A whole week had not passed after Parra Kaiwan ‘s departure, that, on Sunday, 6 Muharram 1055 Hijri [5 March 1645], the Guru departed from this world.

…

​Guru Hargobind in his letters [courteously] called this writer by the title of “Nanak”, who is the Teacher (Murshid) of this sect. I saw him in 1053 A. H. [A.D. 1643-44] in Kiratpur.

…

Har Rai stayed in Kiratpur for one year. When in the year 1055 [A.D. 1645-46], upon King Shahjahan’s orders, Najabat Khan, son of Shahurkh Mirza, led an expedition, conquered Tara Chand’s territories and captured the Raja himself, Guru Har Rai betook himself to Thapal, in the dominions of Raja Karm Prakash, near Sirhind. The Sikhs call Har Rai the Seventh Mahal. He is very closely acquainted with this writer.3

​The Significance

The account in Dabestan-e Mazaheb is a significant external historical source for early Sikh tradition. Written between approximately 1645 and 1658, the text is considered a neutral comparative study of religious communities in the Middle East and South Asia, so it does not concern itself with whether the Sikhs are Non-Dual as much as we are.

The description of Guru Hargobind Sahib’s answer presents an explanation of reality aligned with the language of Advaita (Non-Dual) philosophy. Ardestani (Mobad) records the Guru’s description of the universe as a manifestation that lacks independent existence and is an appearance, emphasizing the single real existence of the Divine. This description parallels later exegetical traditions within the Sikh tradition (like the Nirmala and Giani traditions) that read Gurbani through a Non-Dual philosophical lens, suggesting that this metaphysical conclusion was not a later development.

Additionally, the metaphysical themes described above are consistent with the shabad (below) attributed to Bhagat Ravi Das Ji. Similar imagery appears in older Indic philosophical texts such as the Ashtavakra Gita (6th-8th century CE) and the Yoga Vashista, which also argue for a Non-Dual reality.

Taken together, this evidence suggests that Non-dual interpretation has historical precedent within Sikh philosophical tradition, even during the Guru period, and it was not a Brahmanical infiltration of the 18th century as it is so often accused.

Bhagat Ravi Das Ji, Guru Granth Sahib Ji (657)

ਜਬ ਹਮ ਹੋਤੇ ਤਬ ਤੂ ਨਾਹੀ ਅਬ ਤੂਹੀ ਮੈ ਨਾਹੀ ॥

When I am in my ego, then You are not with me. Now that You are with me, there is no egotism within me.

ਅਨਲ ਅਗਮ ਜੈਸੇ ਲਹਰਿ ਮਇ ਓਦਧਿ ਜਲ ਕੇਵਲ ਜਲ ਮਾਂਹੀ ॥੧॥

The wind may raise up huge waves in the vast ocean, but they are just water in water. ||1||

ਮਾਧਵੇ ਕਿਆ ਕਹੀਐ ਭ੍ਰਮੁ ਐਸਾ ॥

O Lord, what can I say about such an illusion?

ਜੈਸਾ ਮਾਨੀਐ ਹੋਇ ਨ ਤੈਸਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Things are not as they seem. ||1||Pause||

ਨਰਪਤਿ ਏਕੁ ਸਿੰਘਾਸਨਿ ਸੋਇਆ ਸੁਪਨੇ ਭਇਆ ਭਿਖਾਰੀ ॥

It is like the king, who falls asleep upon his throne, and dreams that he is a beggar.

ਅਛਤ ਰਾਜ ਬਿਛੁਰਤ ਦੁਖੁ ਪਾਇਆ ਸੋ ਗਤਿ ਭਈ ਹਮਾਰੀ ॥੨॥

His kingdom is intact, but separated from it, he suffers in sorrow. Such is my own condition. ||2||

ਰਾਜ ਭੁਇਅੰਗ ਪ੍ਰਸੰਗ ਜੈਸੇ ਹਹਿ ਅਬ ਕਛੁ ਮਰਮੁ ਜਨਾਇਆ ॥

Like the story of the rope mistaken for a snake, the mystery has now been explained to me.

ਅਨਿਕ ਕਟਕ ਜੈਸੇ ਭੂਲਿ ਪਰੇ ਅਬ ਕਹਤੇ ਕਹਨੁ ਨ ਆਇਆ ॥੩॥

Like the many bracelets, which I mistakenly thought were gold; now, I do not say what I said then. ||3||

ਸਰਬੇ ਏਕੁ ਅਨੇਕੈ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਸਭ ਘਟ ਭੋੁਗਵੈ ਸੋਈ ॥

The One Lord is pervading the many forms; He enjoys Himself in all hearts.

ਕਹਿ ਰਵਿਦਾਸ ਹਾਥ ਪੈ ਨੇਰੈ ਸਹਜੇ ਹੋਇ ਸੁ ਹੋਈ ॥੪॥੧॥

Says Ravi Daas, the Lord is nearer than our own hands and feet. Whatever will be, will be. ||4||1||

Subscribe now

Not only do these errors in thinking lead to dead ends, materialism, and cynicism for the individual, but they often lead to incredible atomization and social disharmony, in a word: conflict. One need only look at the results; find a town with more than one Gurdwara, and there will also be two Sangats that do not support and collaborate. We have seen it time and again, to the point that it has become a meme.

For those who have not done an end-to-end study of Christianity and its theology, a brief recap and an introduction to these Foolish Twins are needed. The central German monk, Martin Luther, nailed 95 spiritual and temporal objections to various practices of the Catholic Church, such as the selling of indulgences (i.e., “get out of jail free” certificates), and organizational structures that had grown into full institutions to sustain corrupt and vain practices.

Turns out, a good deal of meddling Barrons and Princes also had lost interest in splitting power, wealth, and resources with the Bishops, more loyal to Rome than their respective locales. Luther provided theological and moral justification for ending that arrangement. That word “justification” has and will do a good deal of heavy lifting in both the Christian and the Sikh Reformation. Luther, like the initial Singh Sabha reformers, merely wanted to reform overt corruption, not spark a revolution. The trouble is that it never stops with the initial reformers or their intentions. Others take up the banner, and thus imported their intentions and goals, in Europe; Calvin, Knox, Zwingley, and Cromwell led their peoples into lifetimes of war and unspeakable slaughter, a wound that still bled well into the 1990s with the troubles in Ireland. So too are the endless conflicts in the Sikh community between families and schools of thought.

The Singh Sabha movement was a reaction to corrupt “Masandic” activities, reinforced by British annexation and compounded by the massive Christian missionary activity that followed, as well as by internally revisionist movements like the Nirankaris and Namdharis. Bhai Gurmukh Singh of Lahore essentially played the role of Luther, having both the royal patronage of Kapurthala and a British-Anglican education from the Government College of Lahore, the center of the British Raj in the area. Soon, this banner of Reform was also taken up by both the moneyed interests and the British themselves, as well as the iconoclastic Tat Khalsa. Soon, radical reformers like Bhai Teja Singh emerged advocating for the removal of all Bhagat Bani from Guru Granth Sahib as well as mandated Khalsa initiation for all Sikhs.

Reformation is like a wildfire; once reformist ideas are presented as justification, one cannot control how far others may take them. Just as “order“ can be used as justification for tyranny, “egalitarianism“ can be used as justification for anarchy. The best of intentions do not protect against opportunists, be they genuine or cynical.

By the 1840s, Protestantism had largely stabilized and consolidated. Its theology, in response to the Catholic Counter-Reformation spearheaded by the French crown and the Jesuits and aimed at ending corrupt practices such as indulgences, was distilled into five “Sola” pillars. Two of these pillars were emphasized in the Anglicanism of the time and, by proxy, in the imminent Sikh reformations of the 1840-1880s, commonly referred to as the Singh Sabha Era, which peaked with the handing over of the keys to Harimandir Sahib and the passage of the Anand Karaj Marriage Act. These two pillars, which we will focus on in this article, have, in a deductive sense, been the most influential for Sikh theology: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Both ideas are central to Protestant theology, philosophy, morals, and ethics, and were pioneered by Luther himself. Thus, they also formed the central theological grounding for Anglican theology and higher education, including that propagated at the Government College in Lahore. To be clear here, there is no animosity or malice directed towards Bhai Gurmukh Singh or the Lahore Singh Sabha. People and actions are not in contention here, merely theology and perceptions of religion/Dharam.

So, finally, we examine these two culprits that, I postulate, have caused and continue to cause much conflict in the ranks of the Khalsa and, by proxy, the Quam itself.

Sola Scriptura, “Scripture Alone,” is straightforward; it holds that Scripture is the sole and infallible source of authority for faith and practice, superseding tradition, councils, figures, and even reason and experience. Truth begins on the first page and ends on the last. If a belief or practice is neither explicitly stated nor directly implied in Scripture, it is neither to be believed nor practised. Implicit in this is the idea of “clarity” or “perspicacity”: the notion that Holy Scripture is recorded with sufficient innate clarity of message that almost anyone can comprehend its depth and breadth.

Sola Scriptura should not be confused with the philosophical “Pramana” in Vedantic language that defers to scripture, because there is no corresponding dismissal of perception and reason, as in Sola Scriptura.

This thinking is evident, for example, in the Puritanical refusal to celebrate Christmas. It has a parallel in Sikhi through the Anand Karaj Reform, which has overtaken the Havan Chaunki tradition, a kind of “purification” trend that has washed through the greater Sangat. The unending debates over diet and meat consumption could easily be included in this iconoclastic trend. Rhetorically, if you’ve ever been asked, “But where does it say that in Gurbani?” that is begging the justification on the grounds of Sola Scriptura concerning XYZ practice or belief; the questioner already presupposes an objection to.

An implicit entailment of the aforementioned “clarity” aspect of Sola Scriptura is Sola Fide, or “Faith Alone”. This pillar holds that depth and strength of belief alone grant both righteous living/action and liberation. As long as one’s belief in the divine source of scripture is strong enough, any error in interpretation or understanding will be miraculously corrected; no human effort is sufficient or necessary for righteous living/action or liberation. However, one must be zealously devoted “for the righteous” to be justified, and if someone else has another idea of “that which is righteous,” it quickly devolves into ferocious zealotry versus ferocious zealotry. Because no rationale is needed… only the fire of sentiment.

Not to be confused with “Bhakti” as elucidated in Bhai Mani Singh’s Sikhan Di Bhagatmala, wherein almost childlike innocent love (Premabhagti) is cultivated for the Divine without qualities (Nirguna), even if the mind needs a qualified (Sarguna) aid in the beginning. The main contrast, the Bhagat’s transcendence via Love, is emphasized and utilized, not the “correctness” of the Sarguna focus-aid.

Rhetorically, many miraculous Sakhis are repeated as historical Itihaas, with little evidence or corroboration, merely the sentimental justification of “faith alone”, thereby showing the concept in action.

These two pillars combined to create a simple, easy-to-digest, evangelical Protestant style of Sikhi; one without nuance or depth, prescriptive and prohibitive, just like its Puritanical predecessors.

To the simple-minded, it’s indeed quite simple: “Guru Granth Sahib is our scriptural authority, and fervent faith in that authority justifies the destruction of anything not explicitly stated therein.

But who gets to discern and decide what is “in” the Guru Granth Sahib and what “isn’t in” the Guru Granth Sahib? Is that determination up to scholarship, tradition, reason, or the magisterium of the Khalsa Sahib? No, under the tenets of Sola Fide, it falls to each Sikh’s own mind to discern. Every Sikh’s untrained mind is suddenly made into a de facto “Guru”. That very mind is the one they have come to the Doctor of Doctors to treat for karam, agiaan, avidhya, and the bondage of haumai. THAT mind is responsible for discerning the enlightened poetic scripture and its meaning. It is akin to taking a sick child to the doctor for its illness and then letting the child fill out the prescription pad. Then I was confused about why the cotton candy wasn’t relieving the fever. Even if the mother (heart/sentiment) and the child (kachi-man) believe deeply in the hospital, the Doctor, and the Nurses of great skill… that wouldn’t address the fever at all; in fact, the child (unripe mind) would be made even more ill. This is why we have split Sangats and multiple uncooperative gurdwaras in every city, because every plurality of Sikhs can decide, using their own sabotaged will, what the Truth of Sikhi is, forgetting that the Truth is first and foremost… One. And not determined by popular vote.

This Protestant Sikhism, which developed from the Lahore Singh Saba, was aimed at simple mass appeal as a reaction to the Protestant Christians the British encouraged and facilitated; in this, they were largely successful. However, after imbibing the venom of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide (as well as the other three “Solas” we do not have time to cover), it proved to be a half-temporary inoculation against 20th-century Protestant Christianity and materialism, with seriously deleterious side effects. Most of which were felt only a generation later and had knock-on effects many generations later. Almost every Panthic conflict since this Reformation era can be traced to these epistemological pillars: the petty squabbles about diet, hoax Babas, forgotten Saints, interfaith Anand Karaj, the role of the Akal Takht, the role of the Khalsa Sahib, the idea of a Sarbat Khalsa, Tankhiya, Rehat, Kirtan Vidya, and even basic Santhya is not spared. All have their roots in the insidious nature of these theological perspectives, which were cross-pollinated with Sikhi at a time when the Panth was reorganizing following the fall of the Sarkar Khalsa of Lahore.

As someone from a background where these concepts are taken for granted, I have nothing but empathy and grace for those who have been or are currently caught in this paradigm. Along with the criticisms and contradictions I’ve outlined in this humble and non-exhaustive treatise, which illustrates a profound Protestant narrative in contemporary Sikhi, I offer one more arrow (banded with gold):

If you, dear reader, find appeal in these notions of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide within Sikhi, and believe the reformations of the Singh Saba were correct and justified, then whose preferred beliefs, practices, and Gurmat interpretations are “more correct”? And who exactly gets to decide that, and how do they decide that?

This simple query, when taken with the ideas of the two Sola pillars, leads to endless conflict, feuds and eventually bloodshed. We need only look at the history of our Abrahamic cousins to see this lived out to its conclusion. We need only look to the state of our constantly feuding Gurdwaras, our lack of institutions of higher learning, our lack of libraries, our lack of Akharas, Dharamsalas, and Bungas to see the conclusive results.

Lastly, it would be bad form not to offer an alternative worldview and vision that does not require these pillars. Instead, I offer two alternative pillars: Guru Granth Sahib and Guru Khalsa Sahib. The profound poetic Truth of the refined and enlightened mind, directly touched by that Truth; and the Knightly-Sages that embodied that Truth, past and present. The Guru’s Word and the Guru’s Own. The history of the Khalsa, the discernment of the Khalsa, and one will know the Khalsa because Guru Granth Sahib will always be at the head of their column, a column with room for all of us. Believe in and follow the Khalsa Sahibs, wherever you find them. Seena-Baseena, or chest-to-chest, take the Sangat of the Khalsa Sahibs. But that is another treatise altogether.

For us to grow into our destined power, we must remove this weight around our Panthic neck. However, as the Guru Khalsa Sahib placed it there, so there is no other force in existence that can remove it, except for that same Guru.

May this humble scribbling of a Blind Mule be the start of Vichar. May my dissonant baying be a warning to wolves that your scent has been caught, and those of the Guru’s House are not so easily fooled.

In this essay, I present that the Sikh perpective on religious multiplicity can be summarised by Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s verses on the oneness of humanity in the Akal Ustat, which posits that there are universal experiences and tendencies among diverse religious groups. Guru Gobind Singh’s conclusions support the modern findings of interdisciplinary research pertaining to the development (experience, belief, practice) of religions around the world. A neuropsychological meta-analysis of ethnographic and archeological research proposes universal phenomenological origins. Furthermore, neuroscientists find that there is a biological basis to the experience of “Oneness,” which I argue is a true experience of the reality of the world beyond human subjectivity.

Subscribe now

Introduction

If you’re born a Sikh, you’ve been born into a revolutionary and unique path. A path that goes beyond human thought and can see through the superimpositions of human subjectivities onto objective reality. From the Vedic world to Islamic theology and everything in between, Sikhi explores diverse traditions positively while remaining detached from them. It neither posits an exclusivist position like Christianity, nor does it delve deeply into the nihilistic relativism that marks modern atheism. Instead, it adopts the middle path with nuance taking precedence.

Sikhi affords the human individual the freedom of culturally specific thought, movement, and expression while presenting a shared reality that transcends human identities and concepts. It protects the seeker from the shackles of dogma by speaking up against hierarchies and oppression. Sikhi spreads like the freedom of air and maneuvers through divisive philosophical extremes with ease, like water flowing through rocks. It remains ever rooted to the underlying ground of reality, like the earth under our feet. And it welcomes all beings like a smouldering bonfire on a lonely road in the wilderness, calling to the freezing traveller.

We are Sikhs of the modern world, living in globalised realities and interacting with greater diversity than ever before. Where our next-door neighbours come from diverse backgrounds and creeds, and where members of the same society compete to present their ways of life as absolute “Truth”. Clearly, we all recognise that there can’t be multiple “True” religions. How do we go about this? Do we just disregard them all? If you were to read Gurbani, you’d realise Sikhi is clearly not an exclusivist tradition. Sikhi posits that Truth is found in the journey “within”, which transcends the conceptual ideas like salvation and heaven and hell of other traditions.

So knowing this, how do we, as Sikhs, fit the existence of other religions (which argue only that they are right) in our Gurbani-centred world view? We know that Sikhi (as the path founded by Guru Nanak) emerged later in history, long after traditions like Islam and Christianity were institutionalised and spread worldwide, with clear concepts of “believers” and “disbelievers”. As Sikhi finds itself in a world already beset with religious identity, deeply entrenched theologies, and philosophical positioning, what does it have to say about the evident religious multiplicity of the world?

Finding Unity Among Multiplicity

In Guru Gobind Singh’s composition called Akal Ustat, we find the following lines;

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਕੋਊ ਰਾਫਜੀ ਇਮਾਮ ਸਾਫੀ ਮਾਨਸ ਕੀ ਜਾਤਿ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਬੋ ॥ ਕਰਤਾ ਕਰੀਮ ਸੋਈ ਰਾਜਕ ਰਹੀਮ ਓਈ ਦੂਸਰੋ ਨ ਭੇਦ ਕੋਈ ਭੂਲ ਭ੍ਰਮ ਮਾਨਬੋ ॥ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਕੀ ਸੇਵ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਕੋ ਗੁਰਦੇਵ ਏਕ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਸਰੂਪ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਜੋਤ ਜਾਨਬੋ ॥੧੫॥੮੫॥ ਦੇਹਰਾ ਮਸੀਤ ਸੋਈ ਪੂਜਾ ਔ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਓਈ ਮਾਨਸ ਸਬੈ ਏਕ ਪੈ ਅਨੇਕ ਕੋ ਭ੍ਰਮਾਉ ਹੈ ॥ ਦੇਵਤਾ ਅਦੇਵ ਜੱਛ ਗੰਧ੍ਰਬ ਤੁਰਕ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨਿਆਰੇ ਨਿਆਰੇ ਦੇਸਨ ਕੇ ਭੇਸ ਕੋ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਉ ਹੈ ॥ ਏਕੈ ਨੈਨ ਏਕੈ ਕਾਨ ਏਕੈ ਦੇਹ ਏਕੈ ਬਾਨ ਖਾਕ ਬਾਦ ਆਤਸ ਔ ਆਬ ਕੋ ਰਲਾਉ ਹੈ ॥ ਅਲਹ ਅਭੇਖ ਸੋਈ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਔ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਓਈ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਸਰੂਪ ਸਭੈ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਬਨਾਉ ਹੈ ॥੧੬॥੮੬॥

Someone is Hindu, and someone is a Muslim, then someone is Shia, and someone is a Sunni, but recognise the human species as one.​ Karta and Karim are the same; Razak and Rahim are the same; there is no other second; consider [differentiation] an erroneous illusion. They serve the same One, the Guru is One for all, everything is the form of the One, know it to be the same One Light. 15.85.​ The mandir and the mosque are the same; pooja and namaz are the same; all humans are the same, but the illusion comes in various forms. Gods, demons, spirits, and celestial musicians, Muslims and Hindus; all of these are due to the influence of the garb [culture] of various countries The eyes are the same, the ears the same, the bodies are the same, and the habits are the same; all the creation is the amalgam of earth, air, fire and water. Allah and Abhekh are the same; the Puranas and the Quran of the Muslims are the same; they have One form, and the One has created them 16.86.

However, in the same composition of Akal Ustat, Guru Gobind Singh writes of the Divine as,

ਅਗਾਧੇ ਅਭੈ ਆਦਿ ਅਦ੍ਵੈ ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ॥ ਪਰੇਅੰ ਪਰਾ ਪਰਮ ਪੂਰਨ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸੀ ॥੬॥੯੬॥

Unfathomable, Fearless, Primal, Non-dual, and Indestructible. Beyond the beyond, Supreme, Complete Illuminator. 6.96.

Along similar lines to Guru Gobind Singh regarding the development of religions, Bhagat Kabir Ji also profoundly engages with the question we all face today. We are constantly faced with sales pitches after sales pitch about the “true way” to God. From Mormons to Jehovah’s Witnesses, to the Muslim classmates in the lecture hall. How did Bhagat Kabir Ji respond? According to the exegesis of this passage in Sant Hari Singh’s Gurbani Arth Bhandar, during the time of Sikandar Lodhi, Bhagat Kabir Ji was asked by a Qazi as to why he spent time with “infidels” who were destined to hell. Since Kabir Ji was raised a Muslim and should spend time with other “believers”. The Qazi also said to Kabir Ji that he should also be circumcised.

Kabir Ji replied,

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਕਹਾ ਤੇ ਆਏ ਕਿਨਿ ਏਹ ਰਾਹ ਚਲਾਈ ॥ ਦਿਲ ਮਹਿ ਸੋਚਿ ਬਿਚਾਰਿ ਕਵਾਦੇ ਭਿਸਤ ਦੋਜਕ ਕਿਨਿ ਪਾਈ ॥੧॥ਕਾਜੀ ਤੈ ਕਵਨ ਕਤੇਬ ਬਖਾਨੀ ॥ ਪੜ੍ਹਤ ਗੁਨਤ ਐਸੇ ਸਭ ਮਾਰੇ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਖਬਰਿ ਨ ਜਾਨੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਸਕਤਿ ਸਨੇਹੁ ਕਰਿ ਸੁੰਨਤਿ ਕਰੀਐ ਮੈ ਨ ਬਦਉਗਾ ਭਾਈ ॥ ਜਉ ਰੇ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਮੋਹਿ ਤੁਰਕੁ ਕਰੈਗਾ ਆਪਨ ਹੀ ਕਟਿ ਜਾਈ ॥੨॥ ਸੁੰਨਤਿ ਕੀਏ ਤੁਰਕੁ ਜੇ ਹੋਇਗਾ ਅਉਰਤ ਕਾ ਕਿਆ ਕਰੀਐ ॥ ਅਰਧ ਸਰੀਰੀ ਨਾਰਿ ਨ ਛੋਡੈ ਤਾ ਤੇ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਹੀ ਰਹੀਐ ॥੩॥ ਛਾਡਿ ਕਤੇਬ ਰਾਮੁ ਭਜੁ ਬਉਰੇ ਜੁਲਮ ਕਰਤ ਹੈ ਭਾਰੀ ॥ ਕਬੀਰੈ ਪਕਰੀ ਟੇਕ ਰਾਮ ਕੀ ਤੁਰਕ ਰਹੇ ਪਚਿਹਾਰੀ ॥੪॥੮॥

Where have the Hindus and Muslims come from? Who put them on their different paths? Think of this, and contemplate it within your mind, O men of evil intentions. Who will go to heaven and hell? ||1|| O Qazi, which Scripture have you read? All such scholars and students have died, and none have discovered the inner meaning. ||1||Pause|| Because of the love of women, circumcision is done; I don’t believe in it, Brother. If God wished me to be a Muslim, it would cut off by itself. ||2||​ If circumcision makes one a Muslim, then what about a woman? She is the other half of a man’s body, and she does not leave him, so he remains a Hindu [pagan]. ||3|| Give up your Scriptures, and remember the Lord, you fool, and stop oppressing others so badly. Kabir has grasped hold of the Lord’s Support, and the Muslims have utterly failed. ||4||8|

- 477, Guru Granth Sahib Ji

Here, Kabir Ji showcases the arbitrariness of religious identity. Using circumcision as an example, Kabir Ji argues that religious identity is simply a human endeavour to systematise the spiritual world (which is lost in the process). By rhetorically questioning the development of these multiple paths, Kabir Ji argues for arbitrary societal development as the answer because if they had divine origins, Kabir Ji would have already been metaphorically “circumcised, meaning the path would have been self-evident. Just as circumcision is a human development, so are these paths. Bhagat Kabir Ji engaged in a conversation with a Muslim. Now, let’s take an example of how Bhagat Namdev replies to a Hindu.

Once Bhagat Namdev declared his disbelief in the worship of mythological gods and goddesses. A Hindu pandit then came to Namdev Ji and told him to recite the Gayatri Mantra as it is the highest mantra. Hearing this, Bhagat Namdev Ji replied;

ਆਜੁ ਨਾਮੇ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਮੂਰਖ ਕੋ ਸਮਝਾਊ ਰੇ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰੀ ਗਾਇਤ੍ਰੀ ਲੋਧੇ ਕਾ ਖੇਤੁ ਖਾਤੀ ਥੀ ॥ ਲੈ ਕਰਿ ਠੇਗਾ ਟਗਰੀ ਤੋਰੀ ਲਾਂਗਤ ਲਾਂਗਤ ਜਾਤੀ ਥੀ ॥੧॥ ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਧਉਲੇ ਬਲਦ ਚੜਿਆ ਆਵਤੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ ॥ ਮੋਦੀ ਕੇ ਘਰ ਖਾਣਾ ਪਾਕਾ ਵਾ ਕਾ ਲੜਕਾ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਥਾ ॥੨॥ ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਰਾਮਚੰਦੁ ਸੋ ਭੀ ਆਵਤੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ ॥ ਰਾਵਨ ਸੇਤੀ ਸਰਬਰ ਹੋਈ ਘਰ ਕੀ ਜੋਇ ਗਵਾਈ ਥੀ ॥੩॥ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਅੰਨੑਾ ਤੁਰਕੂ ਕਾਣਾ ॥ ਦੁਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਸਿਆਣਾ ॥ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਪੂਜੈ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ਮਸੀਤਿ ॥ ਨਾਮੇ ਸੋਈ ਸੇਵਿਆ ਜਹ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਨ ਮਸੀਤਿ ॥੪॥੩॥੭॥

O Pandit, your Gayatri was grazing in the fields. Taking a stick, the farmer broke its leg, and now it walks with a limp. ||1|| O Pandit, I saw your great god Shiva, riding along on a white bull. In the merchant’s house, a banquet was prepared for him - he killed the merchant’s son [to feed the white bull]. ||2|| O Pandit, I saw your Ram Chand coming too. He lost his wife, fighting a war against Ravan. ||3|| The Hindu is sightless; the Muslim has only one eye. The knower is wiser than both of them.1

-874 to 875, Guru Granth Sahib

Similar to the case of Bhagat Kabir Ji, Bhagat Namdev disagrees with the identification with a path. To him, it’s all just made-up stories and that none of them (Hindu or Muslim) can comprehend reality. The Divine that Namdev served was beyond the paths created by Islam and the indigenous traditions of the subcontinent (Hindu).

By considering the words of Guru Gobind Singh, Bhagat Kabir Ji, and Bhagat Namdev Ji, we can reach a conclusion about the Sikh view of religious multiplicity. Profoundly, there is an acceptance of all religions, while there is a rejection of them as inter-subjective, systemised, and contextual developments, which brings various issues (like blind faith in the case of Hindus and oppression of others in the case of Muslims). The diverse range of religions worldwide is due to historical development, which is culturally contextualised by geography. These religions may stem from the same human tendency to connect with a consciousness greater than themselves, but when they define it, they can do so only within the confines of previous traditions and cultural limitations.

Therefore, we can conclude that in Sikhi, Oneness is seen as positive in all, as Sarguna, and at the same time beyond cultures and religious identities. However, these traditions are also negated as they cannot reach the incomprehensibility of the Divine as Nirguna.​

From the University of Michigan, Arvindpal Mandair echoes these lines in his understanding of the Sikh tradition;

“According to Guru Nanak, this One is neither thing nor predicate. ‘One’ signifies a state of existence in the world, both psychological and physical. Insofar as it is a state, this One is qualitative, sovereign and therefore absolute. This state of absolute Oneness can only be realized through experience and expressed only through paradox. Thus we can speak of this One as personal, as a feeling of an infinitely close presence, and we can give this infinitely close presence a variety of names such as Madho, Hari, Ram, suggesting the experience is of a personal God who takes manifold forms (sarguṇ). But, at the same time, the experience cannot be grasped by our mind for this very same One is also impersonal and formless (nirguṇ) experienced as continually slipping away.”2

Nikky Guninder Kaur also argues similarly;

“There is a genuine intention to know and interact with people of other faiths and overcome any sense of alienation or fear of the other. If Bhagat Namdev relates to the One in the form of Krishna or Ram, there is no reason to exclude him from the Sikh sacred text. Since nothing, nothing whatsoever, could be excluded from the Infinite One envisioned by the founder Sikh Guru, his successor Guru Arjan confidently included a multitude of West Asian and South Asian concepts and images and accents.”3

Now let’s see if this view of Sikhi is substantial and grounded in reality.

Spreading Epistemic Wings: An Ethnographic and Neuropsychological Argument

Interestingly, modern research arrives at the same structure of reality that’s articulated ontologically by Gurbani. In an interdisciplinary study of Neolithic and modern world traditions by David Lewis-Williams and David Pearce in 2005,4 which brings together phenomenology, ethnography, neuropsychology, and archeology, conclusions similar to those of Guru Gobind Singh were reached.

The archeologists argue that world-famous anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s definition of a “religion” contained a hole. Geertz argued that religions were (1) a system of symbols which act to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men (3) which also formulated conceptions of a general order of existence (4), and these were clothed with an aura of factuality (5), the moods and motivations seemed uniquely realistic.

This is a strong definition, but a missing piece to the puzzle was how these conceptions of a general order for existence acquired “an aura of factuality. Meaning, how did societies develop a certain belief system that they thought to be true?

According to Lewis-Williams and Pearce, there are three dimensions of religion that are integrated with one another. The first is experience, which is derived from the human nervous system. A set of mental experiences (AUB, visions, dreams) created by the functioning of the human brain under natural and induced conditions brings about what we call “religious experience. These experiences serve as “proof” or “witness” to the existence of cosmological realms and the supernatural. According to researchers, all religions have some orientation towards unseen things and altered consciousness beyond day-to-day activities. The authors argue that this is where the universality of religion lies. Despite diverse geographical and ethnographic research, they find that there are universal ways in which humans respond to states of consciousness produced by the human nervous system. This is perhaps where the “Truth/Revelation” is experienced. However, religions then develop from these humble beginnings to create a contextual shared sense of diverse mental states, from Paul’s vision of Christ to Muhammad’s donkey/horse ride to heaven.​

The second dimension of religion is belief. Belief is the attempt to codify our religious experiences. These experiences, which are universal to all humans, are now shared through language and cultural contexts. These shared beliefs then become a feature of society, and the elaboration of this becomes systemised and takes on a life of its own as “theology. Written scripture becomes canon to which people appeal to support their arguments and views. Belief can also exclude those who don’t “believe” in the right things. Religious beliefs then become an intellectual system intended to order and explain engendered religious experiences.

Finally, the third dimension of religion is practice. This leads people into religious experiences, which then manifest belief. Practice can include rituals (communal or individual). They can be highly formalised or informal. They can also be large, extensive social projects, such as the construction of a religious structure. They can produce social hierarchies (caste systems, priesthood, religious elite). They can even lead to the practice of violence and warfare, and the oppression of another group of people.

Different traditions hold certain dimensions as most important. For Sufi mystics, the experience is the most important, and for Islamic Jurists, the practice is even more so. For the Church, belief may be the arbitrator between heaven and hell. For Sikhs, I would say that experience (of the One) is most important, then practice, then belief. In terms of the Khalsa and its goal of sovereignty, practice would be paramount. Because experience is more important than belief in Gurbani, we diverge from those who argue for the importance of belief above all (Protestant Christians) and so on.

From these three universal dimensions, religious traditions now converge into degrees of formalisation. A system of practices, beliefs, and experiences is then elaborated and socially deployed. This process is historically grounded and shaped by cultural and environmental moulding. Converting from one belief system to another is essentially accepting a new system to understand these initial experiences that emerge from the normal functioning of the human brain.

Bringing together a plethora of ethnographic studies, archaeological discoveries, and neuropsychology, this investigation examines a universal human basis for religion. This investigation thus strengthens the likelihood of the understanding presented by Guru Gobind Singh in Akal Ustat. They diverge because the authors limit themselves to the biological level, whereas Guru Gobind Singh works at an ontological level. Despite working in different categories, they reach similar conclusions: diverse religions emerge from a universal in humans. I hope this prompts readers to consider the applicability of Gurbani beyond the spiritual world. Where we are able to piece together this diverse world and find unity at its origins biologically, historically, and physically, and metaphysically through a lens of Oneness.

​Absolute Unitary Being and Ontology

A particular neuropsychological experience that I think is important to the Sikh tradition is listed above as AUB (Absolute Unitary Being). It finds mention as one of the states of consciousness that may influence the development of belief systems in certain cultures. Before reading more, keep in mind that neuroscience explains the conditions of the experience and not the truth-value of what is being experienced. Researchers have found that, through intense focus and reflection, people experience a state in which the boundaries between themselves and others dissolve. Coined by researchers Andrew Newberg and Eugene d’Aquili at the University of Pennsylvania, the term describes a profound, rare state of consciousness in which there is complete loss of self, space, and time, resulting in an experience of infinite, undifferentiated “oneness”.5 It is where the subjective self becomes absorbed into a larger “Self,” Which occurs when certain parts of the brain are deprived of neural input. There is a “unitary continuum” that changes from eating and sleeping to art and beauty to intense concentration and religious experience. To those who experience AUB, it is viewed as “more real” than the intersubjective baseline realities we live in day to day.

Many Sikhs, learning of a neuropsychological foundation for mystical experience, will see it as a threat to the legitimacy of their tradition. However, having a biological basis for an experience is in no way saying that the larger ontological and metaphysical realities presented by the Sikh tradition and other Non-dual schools are no longer viable. These researchers are anthropologists and neuroscientists, focused on humans and their experience of the world across cultures (phenomenology). It does not try to answer deeper ontological questions of existence and consciousness. Instead, it explains only the biological cause of an experience (all experiences are biological). It does not conclude whether the experience is true. A problem with the scientific world is that it can explain how things work and their qualities, but it cannot explain the “thing” itself. It cannot explain things we treat as real but are not objects, like time, self, meaning, consciousness, and matter. Matter, for example, has “qualities”, but its actual substance is always escaping us. According to Herbert Spencer, our conception of matter is simply the opposite of space (resistance versus no resistance)6, which again is simply a quality of the thing, and not the thing itself. We can go deeper and deeper into the structure of the atom, but not what it “is”. On the other hand, like other systems of metaphysics, Sikhi situates the individual in an ontological world and addresses questions of existence and the origins of consciousness.

This is where I’d like to introduce readers to the “hard problem of consciousness/matter”. Philosophers like David Chalmers would posit that consciousness is a fundamental, non-physical feature of the universe. Brain function, behaviour, and information processing can be solved, but the question of consciousness will always remain. He further argues that the world cannot be just material/physical, as that does not exhaust the total of reality.

​According to Chalmers, consciousness is fundamental to our universe as…

​“ 1. In our world, there are conscious experiences.

2. There is a logically possible world physically identical to ours, in which the positive facts about consciousness in our world do not hold.

3. Therefore, facts about consciousness are further facts about our world, over and above the physical facts.​

4. So materialism is false.

If a physically identical zombie world is logically possible, it follows that the presence of consciousness is an extra fact about our world, not guaranteed by the physical facts alone. The character of our world is not exhausted by the character supplied by the physical facts; there is extra character due to the presence of consciousness.”7

The fathers of the field of Quantum Physics also theorised on similar lines.8

Max Planck, the father of Quantam Physics:

And according to Eugene Wigner,

This is a whole rabbit hole that readers can dive into if they wish. However, it shows that Sikhi does not end at spirituality and just “experience”, but has serious ontological implications.

To conclude, one can argue that the experience of AUB led to the development of a tradition we now call “Sikhi,” with a system of beliefs and practices and a well-established community worldwide. The experience of AUB may be a true experience of reality in that human conceptualisation and subjectivity fade away, and the human mind can now experience the world as it really is (a universal and undivided consciousness that is fundamental to existence).

Sikh Identity in an Ever-Evolving World

Gurbani provides us a revolutionary way of understanding unity among multiplicity, not just spiritually/psychologically but also historically, ontologically, and scientifically. Rather than fall into exclusivism or relativism, we direct ourselves towards a nuanced and realistic middle path. Despite the profound understandings of reality and the world around us provided by Gurbani, why do we then fall into identity politics and communal conflicts?

The answer is simple. Sikhs, too, are human beings who are products of their time. From the contextual world of the rehitnamas written during a time of conflict with Indo-Islamic powers to the Singh Sabha, which finds itself in a nationalising colonial world; Sikhs, too, are products of the environment. Each generation of Sikhs has a responsibility to contextualise the teachings of the Gurbani to their contemporary context. And each time, that adaptation will occur differently. The world in which we inhabit today (smartphones, AI, suburbs) is vastly different from the times of Bhai Vir Singh, in which Victorian and colonial thinking was “high culture”, and the times of Kavi Santokh Singh, in which “Vedanta” and “Puranic classics” represented “high culture”

However, I see lots of room for improvement for the generation of Sikhs born in the West in the 21st Century. However, we have chosen to bind ourselves. We choose to allow Sikhi to be just “another” religion. A “religion” among other religions that is meant to be believed in and practised just like the others. We forget what Sikhi truly brought to the table. It was to be a path to go beyond religions and their boundaries of thought. The greats like Bhai Vir Singh and Puran Singh saw this. Kavi Santokh Singh saw it too. It was meant to be the end of religion and the end of philosophy. We’ve opened up shop in the market of “religions” when we were supposed to leave the marketplace itself.

Why did we set up shop in the first place? When we were supposed to go beyond religion and provide the perfect spiritual life to the individual, why did we buckle down and pretend we’re like the others? That our belief system is simply one among others. That we don’t see a universality within the multiplicity of world religions? In other words, how did Sikhi lose its ability to connect with the rest of the world? When did it become simply another tradition?

According to Arvindpal Mandair, the main culprit was the dawn of colonisation, and that “colonial elites subtly recast Sikh tradition as a sui generis religion by channelling it through the modern state’s intellectual apparatus. The end result was Sikhism - an entity with a much reduced capacity for making connections to the wider world, to other societies and traditions of thought”9

This is the Sikhism we’re dealing with. We must shed it and begin to deal in Sikhi. And the way to do that is to connect directly with Gurbani and the writings of past Sikhs rather than follow along the implicit ideas of Sikhism that our communities push. However, keep in mind that transcending religion philosophically doesn’t necessarily mean we shed its practical uses in our world.

This article has been inspired by the words below as we spread our epistemic wings and attempt to think-in-between.

“Sikh philosophy can be considered an antidote to the debilitating effects of colonial frameworks inherited by Sikhs and other formerly colonized peoples. Given that one legacy of European colonization was the narrowing and disempowerment of indigenous epistemic frameworks (a process facilitated by the intellectual work of native elites who internalized European systems of knowledge and its attendant matrix of power and governmentality), what the ‘assemblage’ Sikh philosophy offers is an expansion and empowerment of gurmat’s epistemic potential. It does this by providing a portal that doesn’t simply translate between two different worlds but more importantly reconfigures translation into a process of thinking-between the two worlds. Thinking-between is much more than just an act of linguistic translation. It is synonymous with the process of subjectivity itself. In this way, Sikh philosophy not only explores Sikh ways of knowing and existing; perhaps more importantly, it equips Sikh concepts with wings so that they can travel much further than the ethno-cultural milieu which birthed them, find new places to settle and develop new connections to other societies and different thought systems in an increasingly complex world that we all share.”10

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Aum is Brahman. Aum is this all
- Taittirīya Upaṇiṣad, 1.8.1

It is the nāda — the sound from which multiplicity arose, it reflects that crucial point at which the one without a second, appeared to become many.1 In a similar stream of thought, Guru Gobind Singh points out

(He) first uttered Oaṇkāra from which he expanded into the manifold.

Bacitra Nāṭaka—Wonderous Play, Gurū Gobind Singh

Oṃkāra represents multiplicity, the perceivable manifold, bound by duality, time and space.2 Oṃkāra by means of its four constituents, A-kāra, U-kāra, M-kāra and the Ardha Bindu embodies the three modes or qualities of māyā, it contains reference to the three states, namely, waking, dreaming and deep sleep and the variegated identities attached to these states, both of the jiva — Individual or microcosm and īśvara — the collective or macrocosm (with the intention of not burdening the readers with technicalities, they have been described superficially)3. It represents the duality of material experience, it depicts the subject-object relationship we share with all that is material— both tangible objects perceived by the senses and the most subtle thoughts of the mind. Yet, even amongst this apparent duality, the Guru by the means of ik or the numeral 1 affirms non-duality, he sees both the fierce, everchanging and manifold waves sitting on the surface of the ocean and the still waters underneath.

we see a table, the Guru sees wood, where we observe the rising and falling of waves within an ocean, the Guru sees neither ocean nor the wave, rather water alone. There is a great Sanskrit saying which concisely summarises this relationship between perception and reality as:

Dṛṣṭir eva sṛṣṭi, sṛṣṭir eva dṛṣṭi

Perception alone is sṛṣṭi, sṛṣṭi alone is perception

Our perception alone is the only reality or world (sṛṣṭi) known to us, we cannot even confirm the existence of anyone distinct to ourselves, the world may very well be an illusion, a mirage in a desert, a mere fiction of the mind. The world or what we consider reality is alone our perception! We are stained by subjectivity, you are reading this article, yet each word, each character is up for interpretation, you may consult a dictionary, but each word constituting that definition is subjective to our understanding. The third Nānak, Gurū Amardāsa in Rāga Māru describes this subjectivity as he has created no one like anyone else;4 yet even behind this multiplicity of creation and opinion, there exists a singular ik reality which is inherently non-dual and ever-present in all bodily and mental experience.

Traditional (saṃpradāic) commentary5 on the writings of the Guru’s describes a question served to Gurū Nānak by the Siddhas yogic ascetics, prompting the true-Gurū to elucidate the nature of māyā or duality to which Gurū Nānak declares the radical principle of non-duality —

Dūja kaun kahā nahī koī

Sabh mahi ek niraṅjan soī

Dūji durmati ākhai doi…6

O’ Siddhs who and where is second? There is no other. In all there exists the one (ik) blemish-less (niraṅjana). The dual-minded evil intellect (durmati) speaks of the second!

Gurū Nānak cannot fathom the duality or the thought of the second as for him it does not exist, in his lived experience there is only one, he sees oneness alone, he hears only of the one, and the thought of any entity existing independently of God as second does not cross his mind. He confirms this by outlining his perception, his reality.

Dharaṇi gagan nah dekhau doi

Nārī purukh sabāi loi

I do not see the earth nor the sky, in both men and women I only perceive the all-pervading light (consciousness)

It is this loi or light of consciousness, which illuminates the entirety of this inert world! It is this light which Gurū Nānak talks of in his ārati

Tis dai cānaṇi sabh mahi cānaṇu hoi7
from whose luminosity, all becomes luminous.

Which the Upaṇiṣads too speak of –

… tasya bhāsa sarvam idam vibhāti8
The sun shines not there, nor the moon and the stars. Nor do these lightnings shine. How could this fire? All shine after him who shines. All this is illumined by his radiance.

Guru Nānak’s bāṇi seems to reflect the thought of radical non-dualists of the ancient past, the Ajātavāda or theory of non-origination of Gauḍapāda comes to mind, postulating the theory that creation itself does not exist, It cannot cease to exist, there is only consciousness and anything other it a mere appearance. the world is likened to the son of a barren woman (vandhyā-putra) a metaphor shared in the bāṇi of Bhagta Kabīr –

ਬੰਸ ਕੋ ਪੂਤੁ ਬੀਆਹਨ ਚਲਿਆ ਸੁਇਨੇ ਮੰਡਪ ਛਾਏ ॥9

Bansa ko pūt bīāhan caliyā suine maṅḍap chāe

The son of a sterile woman goes to get married, and the golden canopy is spread out for him.

It is impossible and unthinkable that a barren or sterile woman can even have a son, yet before our eyes we can see her son standing beneath a golden canopy getting married to his soon-to-be wife. Such is the false nature of the world, it cannot exist! How can this dualistic and manifold world of multiplicity exist in the presence of non-duality, how can duality even be conceived in non-duality, for thought even requires the duality of the thinker, thinking process and the thought itself! It is illogical to posit such an idea, how can a barren woman have a son? How can duality be conceived in a non-dual reality? such is the play and potency of the bewildering Māyā or illusion, projecting this unreal and impossible manifold.

In the Vedantic world there is a famed verse regarding the nature of Māyā

Aghaṭita ghataṇa paṭiyasi māya

That which makes even the impossible possible is known as māyā

Māyā is neither ‘real’ in the sense of sat, as for something to be sat it must exist but also appear to exist, by its nature of existence. If something does not exist, it should not appear to exist, by means of its nature of non-existence (asat). Yet, māyā fits in neither category, it is sad-asat vilakṣaṇaṃ it is unique, it does not exist, yet appears to exist, it is mithya (illusory), giving birth to Bhrama or false knowledge, seeing something for what it is not! Seeing multiplicity in oneness, cognizing duality in a non-dual substrate, perceiving a false snake in a rope -

ਮਾਧਵੇ ਕਿਆ ਕਹੀਐ ਭ੍ਰਮੁ ਐਸਾ ॥

Mādhave kia kahīai bhramu aisā

O Mādhava , what can I say about such an illusion (bhrama)

ਜੈਸਾ ਮਾਨੀਐ ਹੋਇ ਨ ਤੈਸਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Jaisā manīai hoi na taisā

Things are not as they seem.

All this talk of a non-dual reality in the vāṇi or writings of the Gurus leads to a fundamental problem, if we are to accept the Guru’s teaching as that of non-duality, what is to be done to realise such a non-dual truth, what is to be done of practices such as Bhakti (devotion) and the Gurus constant emphasis on nām the divine-name or śabda which is to be meditated upon coupled with loving-devotion (prema-bhakti). How can the dual practices of meditation which incorporate the triad of the meditator, the process of meditation and an object of meditation? What is to be done with the dualistic mood of divine love or prema? What is to be said for the Birhā or intense pain of separation extolled in the bāṇi of Sheykh Farid?10

In order to answer these questions we must understand a fundamental principle, though reality may be non-dual, for the lived realisation of the non-dual Oṃkāra we must first embrace the dualistic love of God, perform the practice of meditation on the divine nām, it is this duality which leads to non-duality, it is venom which holds the potency to create its cure. Only one who considers himself to be ignorant can become enlightened, only one who takes himself to be limited can yearn to attain union with the limitless. It is this dualistic love and devotion for the divine, which drowning our ahamkāra or I’ness and Individuality in the ocean of pure unconditioned love, unveils the once obscured non-dual reality, leading to instant and everlasting emancipation.

Just as a thorn having pricked one’s foot can be removed by yet another thorn, similarly the duality resulting in the thought “I am different from God’, “I’m limited” or “I’m Ignorant”can be dispelled by yet another duality of devotion to Nām— the divine name, leading to the rise of true-knowledge (Brahma-gyān) that “I, beyond the limiting body-mind am non-different to that non-dual truth!”

This understanding is reflected in Guru Angad’s teaching on Haumai

Haumai dīragh rogu hai dāru bhī is māhi11

Haumai is a chronic disease, but it contains its own cure as well.

The term Haumai is a compound of two pronouns ‘Hau’ and ‘mai’ both referring to ‘I’ resulting in its literal meaning as ‘I, I’ or I’ness, it reflects the individual-conditioned consciousness and is equated with the mind (manas), it is this sense of individuality or the mind which is Haumai, this continuous identification with the actions and thoughts of the body is Haumai binding the individual to its limited nature, superimposing the pains and limits of the body and mind to the forever pure non-dual ātmā or self. But, it is this same Haumai, mind or Conscious thinking subject which when associating itself to the divine, realises its non-dual nature becomes free of the sorrows resulting from individuality, and enjoys immortal bliss.

In the tradition of Guru Nanak, Duality is not opposed to non-duality, rather, duality is a means to non-duality. When the divine, of the nature of bliss, desires to experience himself, he expresses himself as duality, adopting numerous names and forms, transforming into the manifold world. Sugar cannot taste sugar, to taste sugar one must become different, one must play the game of duality consisting of both the enjoyer and the sugar being enjoyed. Guru Nanak encapsulates this mood, in the following Śabad —

ਆਪੇ ਰਸੀਆ ਆਪਿ ਰਸੁ ਆਪੇ ਰਾਵਣਹਾਰੁ ॥
He himself is the object full of nectar, the nectar itself and its enjoyer.

Guru Nanak talks of complete oneness and non-duality, but does not sacrifice bhakti or devotion and love for the divine (prema). In many Bhakti schools or Vaiṣṇava philosophical schools of thought, a form of bhedābheda (doctrine of simultaneous difference and non-difference) is taught, sacrificing complete unity or kaivalya and standing firm in the qualitative oneness between the individual and godhead, yet quantitative distinction, the jiva (individual) is limited whereas the divine is limitless, and this difference cannot be negated, the jiva can never truly be one with Godhead, there must be some form of difference, but in the Gurmat of Guru Nanak, the mood and nectar of dualistic bhakti is experienced whilst standing firm in non-dual realisation (jñāna) that the wave was never unique or separate from the ocean, the ocean contains a drop, and the drop contains the entirety of the ocean.

Bhakti is traditionally divided into nine types or Navdhā bhakti, consisting of śravaṇa (hearing), kirtana (singing), smaraṇa (remembering), pāda sevana (serving his feet), arcana (worship), vandhana (glorifying), Dāsya bhāva (considering one-self as a servant), Sakhā/Sakhī bhāva (considering oneself a friend), ātma nivedana (complete surrender). The fifth gurū, Gurū Arjan in his bāṇi refers to navdhā bhakti stating bhagati navai parkārā (bhakti is of nine-types), and upon a close reading of Gurbāṇi one may find these moods of devotion or bhakti in Gurbāṇi12 shared with all other bhakti schools, yet in Gurbāṇi this nine-fold bhakti only acts as an aid to the primary form of devotion or bhakti, namely, parā bhakti13 which transcends duality itself, and embodies non-duality, this parā bhakti or undivided devotion can be seen in Gurbāni as —

ਜਲ ਤੇ ਤਰੰਗ ਤਰੰਗ ਤੇ ਹੈ ਜਲੁ ਕਹਨ ਸੁਨਨ ਕਉ ਦੂਜਾ ॥੧॥

From the water, the waves rise up, and from the waves, the water. They are only different by figures of speech. (SGGS, Ang 1252)

ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਮਹਿ ਜਨੁ ਜਨ ਮਹਿ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ॥

The devotee is in Brahman, and Parabrahman in the devotee. (SGGS, 287)

ਸੋ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਦੂਰਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਤੂੰ ਹੈ ॥

That Prabhu is not far, he is your true-self! (SGGS 353)

Parābhakti is undivided bhakti which emphasises and leads to direct non-dual realisation, wherein the devotee renouncing his identity and individuality becomes inseparable to the object of devotion or God, where the triad of the meditator, meditation and object of meditation fade. It is Parābhakti which leads one to the realisation of one’s true nature, which establishes the non-dual relationship between the individual and supreme, which harmonises both devotion and knowledge, multiplicity and oneness.

In conclusion, the path to radical non-dual realisation is by the means of duality, by the means of love, of prema, of bhakti, of devotion, of complete surrender to the divine name, the ambrosial nām and constant reflection of the Guru’s śabda or teaching. The beauty of the Guru’s teaching lies in his harmonisation of both duality and non-duality, of both dualistic Bhakti, devotion and non-dual realisation or Gyān. Ending this note, In a world of disharmony, debate and duality, the Guru’s teaching acts as a bridge, harmonising conflicting views, yet remaining detached and unique, I would like to lay stress upon this short stanza from Bhai Daya Singh’s teaching to the Khālsā, on the nature of Gurmat

ਸੁਨਹੁਂ ਖਾਲਸਾ ! ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਮਤ ਕੋ । ਜਿਸ ਤੇ ਜੀਵ ਪਾਇ ਸਦ ਗਤਿ ਕੋ ॥੩੬॥

ਬੇਦ ਸ਼ਾਸ੍ਤਰ ਕੋ ਸਾਰ ਨਿਕਾਰਾ । ਹਿਤ ਸਿਖਨ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਉਚਾਰਾ । ਸਕਲ ਮਤਨਿ ਸੋਂ ਮਿਲ੍ਯੋ ਪਛਾਨੋ । ਅਰ ਸਭਿ ਤੇ ਨ੍ਯਾਰੋ ਪਹਿਚਾਨੋ ॥੩੭॥

O’ Khalsā, listen to the teaching of the true-gurū, by which a jiva may attain salvation. The Gurū for the benefit of his Sikhs has brought forth the essential teaching of all the Vedās and Śāstras! Recognise it to be in agreement with all traditions, yet know it to be unique and different from all!

(Bhai Dayā Singh’s instruction to the Khālsā, Narrated by Kavi Santokh Singh in Suraj Parkash, Season (rutt) 5, Aṅsū 49)

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

This article brings together explanations of Nirgun and Sargun from three figures central to the Sikh exegetical tradition: Bhai Surat Singh, his student Giani Sant Singh, and his student Mahakavi Santokh Singh. Tracing this intellectual lineage highlights the importance of transmission across the three main exegetical schools within the Sikh tradition, some of which continue to exist today. The lineage discussed here belongs to the Giani samparda (pranali) originating with Bhai Mani Singh, one branch of which later developed into what is now known as the Taksal.

Bhai Surat Singh (Mid 1700s)

Translated by Jvala Singh (manglacharan.com)

Bhai Visa, Gopi, Bhai Gopi, Tulsia Bharadaji Brahmin, and Bhai Bheeada, and Bhai Goind Ghei, came into the presence of Guru Arjan, and respectfully inquired

“In one place Namdev says:

ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦੁ ਓਹ ਭੀ ਆਵਤ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ। ਰਾਵਨ ਸੇਤੀ ਸਰਬਰ ਹੋਈ ਘਰ ਕੀ ਜੋਇ ਗਵਾਈ ਥੀ।
Oh Pandit, I’ve seen your Ramchandra come and go here, battling with Ravan, having lost his wife.

Adi Guru Granth Sahib: 874

But also later that same Namdev who has said:

ਦਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮੁ ਚੰਦੁ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਤਤ ਰਸੁ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਜੈ
The son of Dasaratha, my king is Ramchandra, says Nama, drink the nectar of Amrit, the truth of his name.

Adi Guru Granth Sahib: 973

When listening to the first command then the slander of the avatars occurs. And in the second the praise of the avatars. How can we understand this?

Then a command was made, “One is worship of sarguna the Divine with qualities. And in the other, worship of nirguna the Divine without qualities. Just like on the surface of an ocean there are many waves which splash up from within. And if one were to go to a river, then this river too is just the ocean. This is all only water.

In the same way the Great King Maharaj‘s avatars (incarnations) behave in this manner and that form of the Eternal-Consciousness-of Bliss is providing power consciousness to all. Also the Pandits that were devoid of wisdom, and worshipped the sarguna Divine with qualities, and who were malicious towards the Sadhus and Saints, that line the first, was said to them. That which takes a body, its nature is to experience pain and pleasure. But a wise one gyani understands the body as false/temporary, along with pain and pleasure.

Of Sarguna worship one is a worshipper of the symbol/characteristic/virtue. The other is a worshipper of identification/name. The worshipper of the symbol/characteristic/virtue understands the power consciousness of the Deathless-Being within all, and does not have any hatred or opposition with anyone. Whereas with the worshippers of identification, the worshippers of Krishna will dislike the worshipper of Ram, and the worshipper of Ram dislikes that of Krishna.

You all shall be the worshippers of their symbol/characteristic/virtue and shall become fearless.” And their the Sikhs liberation was obtained as a result of this teaching.1

Giani Sant Singh (Early 1800s)

ਅਗੁਨ ਸਗੁਨ ਵਿਚ ਨਾਮ ਸੁਸਾਖੀ।।

Within Nirgun [quality-less] and Sargun [with-quality]: the Name is the great witness.

ਉਭੈ ਪ੍ਰਬੋਧਕ ਚਤੁਰ ਦੁਭਾਖੀ।।

The awakener of both, the wise explainer of both.

Within Nirgun and Sargun, the Name is alone a witness [Sakhi]. ‘Sakhi’ (ਸਾਖੀ) refers to one by whose testimony [another] becomes convinced. It is through the Name that Nirgun and Sargun are known. ‘Ubhai’ (ਉਭੈ) refers to Nirgun and Sargun; ‘Prabodhak’ (ਪ੍ਰਬੋਧਕ) is the awakener-Name. Meaning that the name ‘Ram’, through the lens of Sargun, identifies the son of Dasrath, and through the lens of Nirgun, identifies that ‘ਰਮਤੀਭਿਰਾਮ:’ all pervasiveness. [The Name] is the ‘Dubhakhi’ (ਦੁਭਾਖੀ) meaning the one that describes both. Moreover. ‘Ubhai’ (ਉਭੈ) [also] refers to the worshipper of Nirgun and Sargun, and within them is a dispute. The worshipper of Nirgun says that Ram, Krishan, etc., are illusions of the atma [Self]. The worshipper of Sargun considers Ram, Krishan, etc. to be manifested/present [physical] and does not allude to the Nirgun Divine. Evidence the Vrindavan Mahatamya: ਅਪਿ ਬ੍ਰਿੰਦਾਬਨੇ ਰਮਯੇ ਸਿੰਗਲਤੰਸ ਇਛਤਿ ਨ ਭੁ ਨਿਰਾਵਿਖਯੰ ਸੋਖਯੰ ਕਦਾਚਿਦਪਿ ਸਤਮ:। To be a jackal wandering in Vrindavan is a great profit, and to receive the null rock-like liberation of the wise is useless. Then, upon the teaching of both by the Name, do they become equal, ‘Chatur Dukbhakhi’ (ਚਤੁਰ ਦੁਭਾਖੀ).2 I offer this understanding to the followers of non-difference [Nirgun], that for the love of the bhagats [devotees], the All-Powerful, Pervasive Self, manifested as Ram Chandar, Krishan Dev. To those who accept the exalted Brahm of all life [Nirgun], understand the avtar [incarnations] as the atma as well, and do not perform their slander. I offer this understanding to those who are the worshippers of Sargun; that if you accept the difference between Sri Ram Chandar and Krishan Dev, many pleasures, pains, and countless conflicts will come your way, and you will suffer when your worship is dispelled due to transmigration. How will you be free from pain if you only perform worship of your Isht [deity]? That is to say, you should recognize the omnipresent and all-pervasiveness so that you awaken both [Nirgun and Sargun]. In reality, this ignorant conflict is resolved once one begins to invoke the Name, corrects their mind, and understands the indifference between Sargun and Nirgun; then this conflict is erased.3

Mahakavi Santokh Singh (early 1800s)

ਤਿਥੈ ਜੋਧ ਮਹਾਬਲ ਸੂਰ ।।

[Within Upashna Kand], there are soldiers and great sun-warriors.

Above Karam Kand [the rank of action] is Upashna Kand [the rank of devotion], within which are soldiers and great warriors. What are they like? They are like the sun. Just as the sun repels the enemy of darkness, in the same way, the Saints repel arrogance and illuminate with the bliss of the higher being. For this reason, they are great warriors. Within this line, the upmay [object being compared] are the saints [warriors] and the upma [the object being compared to] is the sun. For this reason, Rupak Alankar [metaphor] is employed.

ਤਿਨ ਮਹਿ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਹਿਆ ਭਰਭੂਰ ।।

Within them [the warriors] Ram resides present.

What makes the warriors exalted? He [Guru Nanak] says that it is because within the organs of the saint’s body, Ram is fully present. Whatever [the saints] see with their eyes, everything they see is the form of Ram. In this way, with the aid of a method, they have understood no difference with Ram [and his Maya]. Why have the [saints] understood no difference? Because they have cherished the meaning of Ram within their minds. How? The Ram residing in all, that Ram also abounds in all bodies. It is through understanding this that great soldiers have triumphed over the wicked [-difficulty in translation-], within them the son of Dasrath resides, and they become great warriors. Ram possesses two meanings [both of which are employed in this line]: one is the Ram that is present everywhere, and the other is the one who took on a body as the husband of Sita. How do we know the second meaning is employed? He [Guru Nanak] says:

ਤਿਥੈ ਸੀਤੋ ਸੀਤਾ ਮਹਿਮਾ ਮਾਹਿ ।।

There within the pure is Sita-the, the praise [of Ram].

Within those saints in whom Ram is present, the praise of Sita, who is the refuge from evil, is also present.

ਤਾ ਕੇ ਰੂਪ ਨ ਕਥਨੇ ਜਾਹਿ ।।

The beauty of her form cannot be described.

The form of Sita, [the consort] of Ramchand, is so elegant that words cannot grasp it. It is because [Sita] is the incarnation of Lachmi, who surpasses all beauty. The beauty that is possessed by Sita is possessed by her alone and no one else. Because of such beauty, it is impossible to describe her. The Ram that permeates throughout everyone, his greatness cannot be relayed. Even Sheshnag [the serpent] with a thousand faces cannot explain it fully. For this reason, the greatness that is Sita cannot be described. Within the first line, the word ‘ਰਾਮ’ [Ram] has Shalekh Alankar [double entendre]. Because of the letter ‘ਰ’ [r] occurring four times, there is a Brit Anupras Alankar [alliteration]. In the next line, there is Savaiv Rupak [metaphor], in correspondence to the first line. This is because Sita takes the form of the praise of Ram.4

Share

Leave a comment

ਦੋਹਰਾਃ

ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਚਰਨ ਸਰੋਜ ਕੇ, ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਅਮੀ ਪਹਿਚਾਨ।

ਅਮਰ ਅਜਰ ਸੁਖ ਪਾਇ ਹੈਂ,ਜੇ ਕਰਿਹੀ ਤਿਹ ਪਾਨ॥੧॥

Realise that the Love of the Lotus Feet of the Supreme Guru is amrit

If it is drunk, attain immortal and unendurable happiness.

ਕਬਿੱਤਃ

ਦਿਗ ਬਿਜੈ ਹੇਤ ਸਾਜਿ ਬੇਦੀ ਕੁਲਕੇਤੁ ਦਲ

The army [bearing] the Bedi Clan flag was created.

ਚਲੇ ਦੰਭ ਦਲਿਬੇ ਕੋ ਦਲਿਨਿ ਬਿਦਾਰਿਯਾ।

And went to crush hypocrisy and slash the [demon] army.

ਭਗਤਿ ਕੀ ਕੇਤੁ, ਪਟ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਕੇ ਸਮੇਤ

Devotion is the battle standard, with the cloth of Love

ਕਰਿ ਕੀਰਿਤਿ ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨੋ ਘਹਿਰਾਨੋ ਘਨ ਭਾਰਿਯਾ।

Making God’s praises into battle drums, roaring [like] the heavy clouds.

ਗਯਾਨ ਕੋ ਖੜਗ ਧਰਿ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਕਮਾਨ ਕਰਿ

Adopting the sword of wisdom and the bow of ‘ways’.

ਨਾਨਾ ਦ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟਾਤ ਲੀਨ ਸਿਲੀਮੁਖ ਧਾਰਿਯਾ।

Taking the arrows of immersion in many analogies

ਜਹਾਂ ਦਿਢ ਕੋਟ ਤਹਾਂ ਕਰਾਮਾਤ ਤੋਪ ਸੰਗਿ

Wherever there were powerful fortresses, with the canons of miracles

ਢਾਹਿ ਕੇ ਮਦਾਨ ਕੀਨ ਮਿਲੇ ਅਰਿ ਹਾਰਿਯਾ॥੨॥

Destroying and flattening them, the enemies meet their defeat.

ਕਬਿੱਤਃ

ਨਾਮ ਕੋ ਭਜਨ ਨੀਕੋ ਪਹਿਰ ਸੰਨਾਹਿ ਤਨ

High devotion to the Name is the body armour.

ਕੋਟਕਿ ਤਰਕ ਤਰਵਾਰ ਨ ਕਟਤਿ ਹੈ।

Which cannot be cut by the many swords of scepticism

ਨੀਵੋ ਮਨ ਰਾਖਨ ਸਿਪਰ ਗਹਿ ਹਾਥ ਬਿਖੈ

Taking into hand the shield of a humble mind

ਕ੍ਰੋਧ ਰੂਪ ਬਾਨ ਜਾਂ ਕੋ ਛੁਇ ਨ ਸਕਤਿ ਹੈਂ

The arrows of anger cannot touch

ਧੀਰਜ, ਸੰਤੋਖ, ਸਤਿ, ਦਾਨ, ਇਸ਼ਨਾਨ ਮਤਿ

Patience, contentment, truth, cleanliness, and intellect

ਦਯਾ, ਉਪਕਾਰ ਅਤਿ ਸ਼੍ਰਧਾ ਜੀ ਛਕਤਿ ਹੈਂ।

Compassion, kindness, and faith are the rations

ਧਰਮ ਤੇ ਆਦਿ ਜੋਧਾ ਔਰ ਵਡੇ ਚਢੇ ਸੰਗ

Dharma and other warriors charged

ਜੀਤਬੇ ਕੋ ਮੋਹ ‘ਮਾਰ ਮਾਰ’ ਹੀ ਰਟਤਿ ਹੈ॥੩॥

To conquer attachment, they cry “kill, kill”!

Kavi Santokh Singh in Sri Nanak Prakash (1823)

The verses of Kavi Santokh Singh above describe a spiritual battle between the army of Guru Nanak Dev Ji and the forces of evil led by attachment and ego. In these verses, Guru Nanak Dev Ji adopts the sword of wisdom, the shield of humility, and the armour of devotion, and holds off waves of attacks from scepticism and anger. When faced with fortresses of egos, the Guru destroys them through the canons of miracle. Miracles that change the hearts of evil men like Sajjan Thug. Miracles that flatten egos and create saints out of evil-minded people.

Apologetics comes from the Greek word apología, which means “speech in defence”. It’s the term used for when someone makes an argument against you, and you defend yourself. Apologetics is the discipline of defending an ideology, usually religious doctrine, through systematic argumentation and discourse (this is straight from Wikipedia, by the way). It’s important to define Apologetics because people hear the term “Apologetics” over the internet but don’t know what it actually means. I’ve even had Sikh community members send me messages wondering why I would apologise for Sikhi, that Sikhs should be unapologetic about their faith. So it’s important to understand what Apologetics actually means… it doesn’t mean being sorry.

“Sikh Apologetics” is not new, and it has always been part of our comprehensive tradition one way or another. The verses of Sri Nanak Prakash you read above describe a sense of “apologetics” where Guru Nanak Dev Ji’s army is on the offensive to conquer attachment, but also defending itself from the sceptics and hatred. Kavi Santokh Singh writes this profound description of Guru Nanak Dev Ji’s mission before he expounds the interaction between the Guru and the siddhas in the Himalayas, where, according to Sikh tradition, the bani called Sidh Gost (the conversation with the siddhas) was written. The Sidh Gost is composed in question and answer format and can be viewed as one of the earliest forms of Sikh Apologetics. The Nath Yogis test and ask questions like the one below, and the Guru responds eloquently to each and every question.

It isn’t the only writing of the Sikh tradition which deals with external religions, beliefs, and philosophies. From Guru Nanak Dev Ji’s Sidh Gost, to Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Akal Ustat, to the Vaaran of Bhai Gurdas Ji, the pattern’s clear: Sikhi has always engaged in dialogue with other worldviews. The Sikh tradition has adopted, compared, questioned, and challenged the various beliefs, philosophies, and practices that surrounded the contextual development of the panth.

Not only in the panth’s genesis, but also in pivotal moments like the spread of the Nirmalas around the mid-18th century and the Singh Sabha reform movements beginning in the late 19th century, Apologetics has been key to establishing identity and influence as a community. From Pandit Tara Singh Narotam’s Sri Gurmat Nirney Sagar’s comparisons between Gurmat with other Indic traditions like Buddhism, Samkhya, and Vedanta to Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha’s monumental text Ham Hindu Nahi, the defence of the tradition through reasoning has always been crucial.

Our goal is to help organise and advertise, not monopolise in any way, this key aspect of our tradition and history into a modern format that’s accessible for everyday people. There is a need, not just to accumulate knowledge but to use it wisely in the defence of the Sikh tradition. We can make grocery lists of definitions and esoteric debates all day long and post them on “deep knowledge of Sikhi Instagram pages”, but what do they truly accomplish in terms of the wider community?

Subscribe now

Where it Began

Now, let me tell you guys how I came up with the idea of Sikh Apologetics.

I’ve always been into Sikh Philosophy. I love reading about it, thinking about it, and talking about it. So one time I went to talk about it. To listen to me speak, a Christian pastor was sitting in the crowd. He was there to study Sikhi. Why? Because he wanted to understand Sikhi enough to refute it and prove to Sikhs that Christianity was the “true path” and that Sikhi was a lesser path.

Intrigued by this challenge, I began spending time with him, learning about Christianity while he learned about Sikhi. It was a beautiful experience, and he’s a really good guy. That being said, he was part of a network of Christian apologists (like Wes Huff) whose actual job was to prove Christianity as true and other religions as false while also leading a Church. While spending time with him, I was introduced to the world of apologetics, which included mainly Jews, Muslims, and Christians and their never-ending debates surrounding revelation.

However, what worried me was the ever-increasing pressure on Sikhs to step their game up. I was exposed to a world I barely knew existed. Countless books and lectures have been produced on how to convert Sikhs by evangelical groups… and I won’t deny, the conversion of Sikhs in the West has been effective. While Sikhs across the globe are preoccupied with the Pentecostal mega-churches in Punjab, informal evangelical churches in North America have been targeting western-born Sikhs.

In October 2019, a Christian global consultation, including over 60 ministry leaders from 10 different countries, came together for a program called the Global Sikh Consultation (GSC). The objectives of the massive event were to discuss how to begin the mass conversion of Sikhs around the world. The result of the global convention was a document called the Edmonton Appeal, which called on the churches of the world to begin converting the Sikh community. You can read the Edmonton Appeal below.1

THE EDMONTON APPEAL

Over sixty Kingdom ministry leaders and reflective practitioners from ten nations, gathered at the Lausanne GLOBAL

SIKH CONSULTATION in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on October 22-25, 2019, issue this urgent appeal to the Global

Church.

We Acknowledge

1. That Sikhism is the fifth largest organized religion in the world but the Global Church is largely ignorant of its beliefs, culture, and practices.

2. The Global Church has not made reaching the Sikhs with the Good News of Jesus a priority.

3. That God’s loving purpose is to see all people including Sikhs experience salvation in Christ and be part of God’s forever family.

4. That the Church is God’s agent to fulfill the redemptive plan for Kingdom advance.

5. That the Holy Spirit is alive and active today in drawing all sinners to Jesus.

6. That God sovereignly performs miracles, healings, and deliverances to demonstrate His Kingdom’s rule and power.

We Believe

1. That there is only one true and living God, the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of all things existing eternally in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – full of love and glory.

2. That all humans are made in the image of God but have been marred by sin since the Fall.

3. That the living God has revealed Himself through the trustworthy Biblical Scriptures and has fully and finally revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, the Son of God when the Word became flesh. Hence, Jesus was fully God and fully man.

4. That through the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross, He took upon Himself God’s judgment due to all sinners by dying in their place and making the way for us to be saved.

5. That the gift of personal salvation and the experience of complete forgiveness of sin are only available by God’s grace in Christ through personal repentance of sins and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

6. That spiritual life in Christ, of holiness and joyful service, is nurtured by the Word of God and empowered by the indwelling presence and transforming the power of the Holy Spirit.

7. That calling of service to others is important but it flows out of one’s relationship in Christ and one’s love for fellow humans.

8. That fellowship with other followers of Jesus is essential for spiritual growth and balance.

We Appeal

1. That the Global Church seize the opportunities of evangelizing and discipling the unreached millions of followers of the Sikh faith everywhere and develop them to be Great Commission disciple-makers.

2. That the followers of Jesus and congregations will focus and fervently pray for the salvation of all Sikhs.

3. That relevant demographic research continues to be undertaken to define missiological and evangelistic priorities to reach Sikhs.

4. That the followers of Jesus be encouraged and equipped to contextually share the Good News of Jesus with Sikhs in word and deed.

5. That the followers of Jesus will live as authentic witnesses and personally engage with their Sikh contacts and neighbors, and build meaningful relationships with sincere Christ-like love.

6. That the Good News of Jesus is sensitively communicated in a clear, coherent, consistent, and culturally appropriate manner.

7. That Sikh Background Believers(SBBs) be developed into Christ-like leaders for the Global Church.

8. That local churches and ministry agencies will collaborate to develop resources, strategize effective approaches to reach Sikhs with the Good News of Jesus and plant contextual churches.

9. That those engaged in evangelizing and discipling Sikhs need prayer, patience, and perseverance.

After 2019, Christian evangelical groups shifted their focus to the Sikh community. Many pastors admit that Sikhs are easier pickings than Hindus, Muslims, and atheists. The reason is the distance the average Sikh had from the core teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji and the hierarchical system (Amritdhari vs Non-Amritdhari) that proved to be a barrier toward spirituality for non-Khalsa Sikhs. Your average Punjabi Sikh teenager from Brampton or Surrey is an ideal target. All you need is the perfect mix of belonging and spirituality to bait them in. Take here an example of a Christian lecturing on how to convert Sikhs.

• Initially do not quote Bible verses

• Ask lots of QUESTIONS

  1. “What does your religion teach about GOD?”

  2. “Tell me about your GURUS”

• Learn the Sikh greeting “Sat Sri Akal”

• FRIENDSHIP EVANGELISM

  1. Establish a relationship of love & trust one on one

  2. Most have family problems of one sort or another. They do not trust their people but will confide in a caring outsider

  3. Ask them if you can pray for them. They have ritualistic prayers & are touched when a Christian prays.

In a podcast between Canadian Christian apologists (one being from the School of Theology from the University of Toronto), western-born Sikhs are identified to be low-hanging fruit because of their lack of knowledge of their traditions as well as their conflict between western individuality and their parent’s collectivist thinking. Christians believe they can take advantage of this conflict that leaves many young Sikhs feeling empty to spread the gospel. They find that it’s actually really easy to convert young Sikhs.

In terms of Islam, we all know what’s happening in the UK. I suspect it’s beginning to rise here in North America. Bhai Mohan Singh has been in Canada dealing with a few cases here and there as well. Muslims have tactics of conversion that are different from Christians. While Christians might purposely arouse feelings of victimhood, belonging, and inner connection, Muslims will adopt much more aggressive tactics.

And these things are working, folks. Those who live in the West, we all know a cousin or a friend, or a friend of a friend, who’s converted to Christianity or Islam (don’t get me started on Islam). And they both use our community against itself. Many of my Punjabi peers from high school now have bible verses in their social media biographies. I’ve also spent time around ex-Sikhs who converted out of the religion (there’s a large community of them) to understand their mindsets. The reasons all point to two factors… a lack of real engagement with Gurbani and the toxicity of the community. We all know how toxic it can be to exist around other religious Sikhs. The ignorance and toxicity of the community are being used against itself.

Every church I’ve attended in the Greater Toronto Area has included a few young ex-Sikhs gleefully taking part in their community. With my own eyes, I watched Christians cut the hair of a sardar in Brampton and baptise him in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with crowds of Christians cheering and rejoicing.

Apologetics

We need to revive a form of Sikh Apologetics that does two things at once. It needs to defend Gurmat against external pressure but also reform our internal culture. We must disseminate and protect Sikh philosophy with the weapons used by Guru Nanak Dev Ji above, but also confront the way we as a community interact with each other. If young Sikhs are being converted into Christianity and Islam, it’s not because they are more compelling theologies, but because we’ve failed as a panth to provide our people a living connection to Guru Nanak Dev Ji. We’ve also failed to foster a community that reflects the core teachings of Gurbani outside of religious paraphernalia and hierarchies bounded by the “holier than thou”.

And we’re working on all of this. By taking all the knowledge we got from our santhya classes in deras, the long hours in university lectures, and our lived experiences, we want to enact change. We want you to feel confident in being a Sikh. We want you to feel comfortable being in Sikh spaces. We’re here to take monumental doctrines and make them easy and clear. We want to ensure that if you ever get caught in a street dawah debate, you can hold your own. We want to help forge an identity that omits strength, faith, and rationality to the rest of the world.

We’re here to provide and foster to the best of our ability

• clarity of doctrine

• confidence in discussing Sikhi intellectually

• Groundedness in Gurbani

• Proving Sikhi with rational proofs

• emotional and communal belonging

• cultural and philosophical literacy

• defence against missionary tactics

• internal reform on how Sikhs approach religion and dogma

So if you believe in this mission, subscribe using your email or follow us on Instagram and watch us grow. If you really, really believe in us, you can become a paid subscriber on SubStack for $5 a month (cancel any time). That money will go back into our initiatives, mainly for equipment, archive and library access, as well as writing materials.

Welcome to Sikh Apologetics.

Subscribe now

ਇਕਸੁ ਵਿਣੁ ਹੋਰੁ ਦੂਜਾ ਨਾਹੀ ਬਾਬਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਇਹ ਮਤਿ ਸਾਰੀ ਜੀਉ॥
Without the One, there is no other; O Baba Nanak! This is the highest understanding.

“In this House, as is the respect for the grandfather, so is the respect for the child. Respect is of one essence here in this House.

Why? This House was revealed by Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Guru Sahib said “there is no perspective of inequality within us where one is respected more or less.” If one has a perspective of inequality within them, then they cannot be called a Guru.

Our philosophy is of Non-Duality.

If someone were to ask us “O Sikhs, you have grown in the world, what is your philosophy?”

Be fearless and say “Ours’ is a path of Non-Duality. We have no hate for anyone.”

- Sant Inderjit Singh Raqbewale

There’s something wrong with us… We Sikhs who are born in the West. This is not to say that there aren’t beautiful and good things about our people, such as resilience and goodwill; but, for a long time, I’ve been bothered by some of my observations.

I write on this topic because I come from a space of service to my community. I desire to see my people be the best they can be. My goal is to create spaces that foster growth, development, and introspection in our people. If our communities remain places of hurt, exclusion, and isolation, then we cannot hope, as a society, to achieve any of our communal goals, spiritual or worldly. When our spaces and sangats are instead filled with power plays, slander, harassment, and abuse, how can anyone expect to grow in any way in such environments?

I know that I’m not the only one to notice these things. We all feel or think the same way, yet no one speaks up about it, and those who do attempt to speak up about it are pushed away and excluded. Usually, those who speak up have already reached a breaking point. And that breaking point is used to make their message seem unimportant and undignified. Those who speak up about it usually disappear as they attempt to distance themselves from the community, and their message fades into nothingness. However, depending on who’s reading, I hope my words are either taken as a legitimate analysis of our diasporic communities, a call to action to enact change, or a moment of self-reflection.

The Crisis

I had spent the earlier part of this year in Christian and Islamic spaces, investigating factors regarding the uptake in conversions among Western Sikhs in Ontario. After months of conversation and observation, I’ve noticed certain things that remained common amongst all of these converts. It was a lack of knowledge regarding Sikhi, abuse or struggle stemming from the family, and a pattern of negative experiences with the Sikh community that caused the individual to feel isolated, excluded, and hurt.

Each of these individuals desired to feel belonging alongside a spiritual and personal connection to God. It seemed that each time, the Sikh community acted not as a beacon of faith but as a barrier against a relationship with God. For many Sikhs, they were unworthy of God because they looked a certain way. And when they approached the mighty and great Sikhs with their struggles ranging from poverty to sexual abuse, these young individuals were dismissed and treated as if they were at fault and thus, received no care or support. In their search for belonging and a connection to God, they end up in Christian and Islamic networks where they learn they are valued and loved.

Of course, they’d feel love and belonging in other communities when ours is a source of suffering. According to a 2024 report from Sikh Women Aid that surveyed 675 Sikh Punjabi women in the United Kingdom, 32.89% of Punjabi Sikh women had experienced sexual abuse. According to Rape Crisis: England and Wales, on average, one in four women experiences sexual abuse. In the Sikh community in the UK, 1 in 3 women have experienced sexual abuse. That’s above the national average.

And don’t think the religious community is innocent in these numbers. According to the 2024 report, 8% of those 675 Sikh women experience faith-based abuse from those in positions of spiritual and religious authority. 8% of 675 is 54. Out of a thousand, that number rises to 80 women. These numbers are to go up as Sikh Women’s Aid uncovers more cases, citing that 16% of their casework involves religion.1

I wonder how many go unreported? How many stories of abuse have you heard? How many examples of abuse do you see that you’ve simply disregarded because you yourself have grown to normalise it? This sickness has embedded itself in our diasporic communities. And it thrives because we are unable to confront these realities due to some ingrained fear and selective attention.

Beyond ignoring sexual abuse, other toxic traits exist among many of us that stem from izzat. We are quick to judge and we judge harshly. Not only are we quick to judge, but we are quick to envy. We envy because we are so deeply entrenched and bound to a social currency. Because of this tendency, rather than places of growth and wholesome belonging, the inner workings of many young adult Sikh groups and clubs are places where love triangles, personal vendettas, and organised exclusion occur.

These are houses of ruthless politics where sides are taken, and reputations are destroyed. Where a single rumour can bring the entire organisation to the brink of civil war. And God forbid someone makes a mistake or a malicious person makes rumours about them… as they will never hear the end of it. In these spaces, there are many with motives filled with jealousy, the need for validation, and to be at the top. How can we ever dream of growing when these are the spaces we inhabit? To find the solution, the root cause must be understood first.

Izzat: The Root

Why such intensity? Because everything traces back to our dependence on social validation – izzat. Yes, izzat… something so foreign to us controls our social behaviours. We, as Sikhs born in the West, are still unconsciously slaves to this sociological phenomenon. Izzat is the currency of our community and includes things like reputation, image, and standing. It’s the invisible scoreboard everyone is terrified of losing points from. Instead of genuine cultivation, it’s the cultivation of image. We, like our parents, obsess over external approval and validation. And it seems to be stronger within religious circles as these are Sikhs that are most “connected” to their native “roots”. Sure, humans naturally want belonging and respect, but izzat tends to weaponize that instinct where rather than just “being” you are now “performing.” Rather than actually reading bani at an akhand paath, you are now “performing” to read bani and behind all your thoughts, there’s a sense of smugness as you realize you get social standing points. The importance is no more in the teachings of bani, but rather the satisfaction of social gain. Izzat turns every action into a social calculation. And this is why many Sikh spaces become hostile, competitive, paranoid, and performative instead of genuine and grounded spaces of spiritual development.

Izzat makes vulnerability impossible. You cannot admit you are struggling because to struggle is to lose social points in Sikh circles and give your enemies ammunition. Neither can you question or doubt anything because to doubt is to admit to not knowing, and now you lose some more of these invisible points. Because of izzat, problems never get solved because it’s always about the way others perceive you. Being entrenched in such a culture only forces you to stay quiet about your struggles. Speaking up will only be followed by guilt for speaking up.

Izzat exists at different levels in different ways. It informs your life among the family, where last names and prestige are placed higher than individual wellbeing. Here, you simply exist to improve your parents’ public image. Izzat also informs the friends you make. You befriend those who have better social standing, even if you don’t like them as people, and for a long time, your Sikh friends are simply transactional. Izzat influences your opinions of others, where rumours discredit everything they do in this zero-sum game. You cannot afford to make a mistake or show weakness… so that makes you ruthless and afraid. And religiously, any uniqueness or non-conforming actions are taken as threats against the religion itself.

The Corruption of Morality

Izzat also warps and deletes the Sikh sense of morality. Sikhi has a concept of morality based on principle rather than outright “dos” and “don’ts”. Sikh morality is formulated through realisation and knowledge. When you believe or know the One you worship is within all, and all is within the One, you have no choice but to act positively towards creation.

Similarly, Sheikh Farid proposes that if you know the True Master is residing in all, then why hurt anyone?

Rather than being forced to act morally, the Sikh instinctively acts righteously because it is simply the right thing to do. There is no fear of punishment, and there is no desire for a reward. Goodness, because goodness reflects the reality of Existence, and thus it becomes a duty.

Izzat takes morality and twists it. Now, instead of acting out of principle and realisation, people act out of performance. Morality is now a strategy. It is now an act that brings profit. Rather than doing it because it is “right”, we do it because it looks “right” and we can profit from it. Rather than doing seva because you actually believe in the concept of daan (charity), you do it because seva will make you seem better in the eyes of others. Goodness and morality become optional and the appearance of goodness and morality become mandatory. This is why Gurbani is memorized and recited over and over again but never embodied. Why they may act righteously online, but stay silent when their own friends engage in cruelty. Where they may harass and bully other Sikhs into depression, but they remain “committed” to the panth.

Someone controlled by izzat will not flinch when hurting someone physically, mentally, emotionally, or socially. For the fear of being ousted is stronger than the fear of doing evil. Many young Sikhs will never think twice when doing questionable things as long as they know no one will see it. Do as you please, but make sure your image is filtered for the rest of the world. This is why many Singhs in bana will not flinch when sexually assaulting a young girl in his sangat. This is why a Sikh woman will not question cheating because she doesn’t want to wait for marriage with her arranged fiancé. Or why a Sikh vying for leadership and power may not mind spreading a few damaging and malicious rumours to discredit his opponents. Additionally, as is evident, Izzat does not allow for apologies when wrongdoings are done. Apologising is seen as weak and admitting you have flaws.

Furthermore, izzat creates cowards. Cowardice is incentivised when speaking the truth hurts your image. If confrontation and speaking up risk your reputation, you pretend that nothing happened. I myself have seen people shy away from speaking against the malicious slander of their own ustad who has taught them all they know, because they follow the crowd and fear going against the trend. Where is the backbone? It is lost in fear of public opinion.

Living Sikhi vs Performing Sikhi

To follow Izzat is to take from the community. To use Sikhi for social profit and validation. To truly follow Sikhi is to give to your community. Be like Guru Nanak Dev Ji, who, despite being slandered and ostracised, still followed the path of Love. A Sikh once asked Guru Angad Dev Ji, “why did the Guru still give despite everyone slandering him?” Guru Angad Dev Ji answered that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was like a fruit tree. People would throw bricks and rocks at the branches of the tree, and in response, the fruit tree still let down its fruit. Once, even Bhai Mardana Ji got angry at Guru Nanak and left after saying harsh words. Yet still, Guru Nanak Dev Ji ensured Bhai Mardana Ji was kept safe from the dangers of the forest. Bhai Mardana asked for forgiveness for his harsh words, and Guru Nanak Dev Ji told Bhai Mardana that there was nothing to forgive.

If only we could forgive and find a place in our hearts to see other Sikhs as our own. If only we understood each other and saw each other as children of the One. We share the same Guru. No one has a claim to the Guru more than anyone else. If only we could see others as temporary companions… on this journey called life.

To forgive is not to excuse, nor is it to tolerate, nor is it an excuse to not speak up when a wrongdoing is committed. Rather, forgiveness is derived from understanding and love. And love calls for action to serve both the perpetrator and the victim towards goodness. It is to accept and understand that mistakes are made because we all live in ignorance. As Jesus once stated while being hung on the cross,

Forgiveness is divine and is the highest penance one could commit to. It is also the hardest penance of them all. By committing yourself to forgive, you search within yourself, and you find what truly matters. Forgiveness is only found through self-reflection and inner work. By forgiving, you bring yourself to be like the “One”.

The problem isn’t Sikhi, but the way we have inherited Sikhi. We have inherited an identity rather than a lived reality. We’ve inherited aesthetics rather than principles. And the way we have formed our diasporic culture with the fundamentals of izzat is what pushes identity and aesthetics to matter so much. We equate identifying as a Sikh to being a Sikh, and because of this, we are empty shells with no substance. Because of this shell of an identity, we are performative and use our community as food for validation and for clout. Without any sense of true responsibility, we hope to push ourselves to stages, leadership positions, and ideas of holiness without any true appreciation for the thesis of Sikhi. We find pleasure in these performative accomplishments above any real or tangible service.

As such, despite identifying as Sikhs, we act in ways that are condemned by Gurbani, where value is not placed on public or outer religious life, but on the inner path, the inner pilgrimage, an inner reform. Our spaces reward the image of Sikhi rather than the morals and practices of lived Sikhi. When will we ever begin living Sikhi?

Once we truly begin living Sikhi by reading Gurbani as if it actually means something and not as if it’s a magical junction of words, seeing the stories of our Gurus as real and having happened and not just stories in books, and working to believe in a living and ever-present Divine and not just a concept, only then can we begin to heal ourselves and thus begin healing our communities. Only then can we be courageous to speak up against the immorality that pervades our diasporic localities. To turn away from the cruel external culture we have created, we must look inwards. Focus on your own journey rather than looking at others. And once we turn inwards using Gurbani, and develop love and accept who we are underneath all the masks we wear, then we can radiate that love and acceptance outwards to those around us. And this is not an easy solution…it requires patience, reflection, and courage to stand for love despite everything telling you not to.

As Sikhs born in the West, there is a clear conflict within all of us that leaves us empty. Pulled by empty materialism and narcissism from one side and by conformity and izzat from the other, it’s difficult to find a comfortable space to just be. It is on each of us to reflect on which world we want to inhabit, and that will take effort. We must do it soon or risk never living fulfilling lives as we jump from the extremes of fundamentalism to complete disassociation. The onus is on you and me.

Where do we go from here? If there’s anything to take from this, it’s to:

1. Turn inwards first to reflect on your own intentions. Ask yourself whether you do it for “them” or for your own journey towards Vaheguru.

2. Reflect, understand, and embody Gurbani. Use Gurbani to develop yourself through contemplation, reflection, and application.

3. Practice forgiveness and compassion actively. There is nothing higher than these qualities in the spiritual path of a Sikh. Realise that everyone has good intentions, but they might be led by influences greater than themselves. Cruelty tends to emerge from fear, ignorance, conformity, and the inability to empathise with others.

4. Serve genuinely because you believe in the principles of Sikhi. Ask yourself whether you serve so others can see you serve, or whether serving genuinely matters to you.

5. Actively work to create safer spaces around you by practicing the above. Work on maintaining genuineness and support in your social groups.

6. Speak up and challenge harmful social practices, intervening with care, understanding, and reflection rather than shame or anger.

Share Sikh Apologetics

Leave a comment

This article has been written in response to ‘Advaitist Delusions’ by Preetam Singh, who has attempted to give an alternative meaning of “ਆਤਮ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਾਮੁ ਹੈ ਆਤਮ ਹਰਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਸਬਦਿ ਵੀਚਾਰਾ ਹੇ ॥”, according to grammatical theory, in hopes of declaring that the ‘ਆਤਮ’ and ‘ਰਾਮੁ’ are two separate entities. This article will attempt to articulate the flaw in his interpretation and understanding of grammar.

First, it would be most proper to discuss the etymology of the word ‘ਆਤਮ’ and how it appears in other languages. The original tatsam form is ‘ਆਤਮਨ’, whereas the common tatbhav forms are ‘ਆਤਮ’ and ‘ਆਤਮਾ’. Other forms include ‘ਅੱਤ’, ‘ਆਤੁਮ’, ‘ਆਤੁਮਾ’ and ‘ਆਦ’. According to the Sur Sagar Kosh and Sahityak Braj Bhasha Kosh, the following meanings have been given: (1) ‘ਜੀਵ’, soul. (2) ‘ਚਿੱਤ’, consciousness. (3) ‘ਮਨ’, mind. (4) ‘ਬ੍ਰਹਮ’, the Divine. (5) ‘ਧਰਮ’, purpose, duty. (7) ‘ਅਪਨਾ’, ownself. An interesting difference between the two dictionaries is that the Sur Sagar Kosh attributes ‘ਆਤਮ’ to the feminine gender and the Sahityak Braj Bhasha Kosh attributes it to the masculine gender. This is because the word ‘ਆਤਮ’, although being in the feminine in most vernacular languages, was originally masculine. This change is most likely because ‘ਆਤਮਾ’ had assimilated into the ‘ਆ’ ending feminine nouns like ‘ਰਸਨਾ’, ‘ਤ੍ਰਿਸਨਾ’ and ‘ਜਿਹਬਾ’. Within Gurbani, ‘ਆਤਮਾ’/‘ਆਤਮ’ has been used in both genders (however mainly in the masculine); in fact, Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha classifies its gender as ‘ਵਿਕਲਪੀ’1, a word that appears in all three genders. Other words of this classification stated by Dakha are ‘ਭਿਸਤ’ and ‘ਦਿਲ’. Note the following lines:

“ਜਿਨੀ ਆਤਮੁ ਚੀਨਿਆ ਪਰਮਾਤਮੁ ਸੋਈ ॥”

The nominative termination ‘ਉ’, the verb ‘ਚੀਨਿਆ’ being formed from the masculine participle and the use of the masculine pronominal adjective ‘ਸੋਈ’, all make it very clear ‘ਆਤਮ’, in this instance, is in the masculine gender.

“ਏਕ ਸਮੈ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਆਤਮਾ ਉਚਰਿਓ ਮਤਿ ਸਿਉ ਬੈਨ ॥”

I will name this instance of ‘ਆਤਮਾ’ as an improper masculine noun, as despite being masculine ending in ‘ਆ’ as indicated by the masculine participle of ‘ਉਚਰਿਓ’, it has not been inflected in the oblique.

“ਰਾਮ ਰਾਇ ਸਿਉ ਭਾਵਰਿ ਲੈਹਉ ਆਤਮ ਤਿਹ ਰੰਗਿ ਰਾਤੀ ॥”

First, if ‘ਆਤਮ’ had been in the masculine, it would have had the accusative termination ‘ਉ’, and the form of the verb ‘ਰਾਤੀ’ would have been ‘ਰਾਤਾ’; for this reason, here, ‘ਆਤਮ’ is feminine.

This is very important to distinguish, as when it comes to the compound of ‘ਆਤਮ ਰਾਮੁ’, it must be discerned whether ‘ਆਤਮ’ is masculine, improper or feminine within the compound. This next line will, for this reason, be very crucial.

“ਆਤਮਾ ਦੇਉ ਪੂਜੀਐ ਗੁਰ ਕੈ ਸਹਜਿ ਸੁਭਾਇ ॥

ਆਤਮੇ ਨੋ ਆਤਮੇ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਤਿ ਹੋਇ ਤਾ ਘਰ ਹੀ ਪਰਚਾ ਪਾਇ ॥”

Here, the gender of ‘ਆਤਮਾ’ is clearly in the proper masculine; as if it were in the improper or feminine, it would not have been inflected in its oblique form. “ਆਤਮੇ ਨੋ ਆਤਮੇ ਦੀ” clearly shows an oblique inflection indicating the masculine gender, like in “ਕਰਤੇ ਕੀ ਮਿਤਿ ਕਰਤਾ ਜਾਣੈ ਕੈ ਜਾਣੈ ਗੁਰੁ ਸੂਰਾ ॥” ‘ਕਰਤਾ’ is a masculine noun ending in ‘ਆ’, and because of that, it takes the form ‘ਕਰਤੇ’ when in the oblique. Now, if in the compound ‘ਆਤਮਾ ਦੇਉ’, the word ‘ਆਤਮਾ’ was in any other case besides the nominative, it would have been in the oblique form, ‘ਆਤਮੇ’.

One may be confused, as I have stated ‘ਆਤਮਾ’ in the compound ‘ਆਤਮਾ ਦੇਉ’ is nominative, but as indicated by ‘ਪੂਜੀਐ’, it is clearly in the accusative. To understand this, we must first discuss the types of compounds. (1) ਤਤਪੁਰਖ (Tatpurakh), where the first part of the compound is in the oblique. (2) ਕਰਮ ਧਾਰਯ (Karam Dharya), where the first part of the compound is an attributive noun or adjective. (3) ਬਹੁਬ੍ਰੀਹ, (Bahubrih) a compound noun used as an adjective. In Sanskrit, there are many more variations, but they will not be discussed in this article. Here are examples for each: (1) Tatpurakh, ‘ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ’, ‘ਮੋਖ ਦੁਆਰੁ’ and ‘ਨਿਜ ਘਰਿ’. The first part of each compound denotes the genitive case. (2) Karam Dharya, ‘ਸਾਚੁ ਨਾਮੁ’, ‘ਚਰਨ ਕਮਲ’ and ‘ਕੂੜੁ ਬੀਬੀ’. In the first compound, the first part is an adjective. In the second compound, ‘ਚਰਨ’ is an attributive noun and is therefore not in the nominative. The third compound, although one may be inclined to infer the first part as an adjective, is in reality an attributive noun, which is why it is in the nominative termination ‘ਉ’. (3) Bahubrih, ‘ਸਾਰਿੰਗਪਾਣੀ’, ‘ਕਾਲਮੁਖਾ’ and ‘ਚਿਰੁ ਜੀਵਨੁ’. All of these compounds act as adjectives. Now, since it has been made certain that the first component of the compound ‘ਆਤਮਾ ਦੇਉ’ is in the nominative, the only possible compound it can be is the Karam Dharya, meaning the initial segment ‘ਆਤਮਾ’ is an attributive noun. This is what I mean by stating ‘ਆਤਮਾ’ is in the nominative.

Dakha defines upsarjan as a subordinate unit which shares the position of its governing word.2 Although the examples given by Dakha do not seem very profound to me, considering this theory in a new light with new examples, I have found it to be exceptionally beneficial. For example:

“ਗੁਰਦੇਵ ਮਾਤਾ ਗੁਰਦੇਵ ਪਿਤਾ ਗੁਰਦੇਵ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਪਰਮੇਸੁਰਾ ॥”

We encounter the compound ‘ਗੁਰਦੇਵ’. Every interpreter has understood that both components of the compound, ‘ਗੁਰ’ and ‘ਦੇਵ’, are in the nominative; however, one should stop to consider the fact that ‘ਗੁਰ’ is not in the nominative declension of ‘ਗੁਰੁ’. It would also be ludicrous to suggest that ‘ਗੁਰ’ is in the genitive case (as in ‘ਗੁਰ ਦਾ ਦੇਵ’). The only coherent conclusion that can be drawn is to consider ‘ਗੁਰ’ as the upsarjan, which shares the nominative position of ‘ਦੇਵ’. The same can be said about the compound ‘ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਦੇਵ’ and various others. Not so coincidentally, this same convention can be seen within ‘ਆਤਮ ਦੇਉ’.3

“ਆਤਮਾ ਦੇਉ ਪੂਜੀਐ ਗੁਰ ਕੈ ਸਹਜਿ ਸੁਭਾਇ ॥

ਆਤਮੇ ਨੋ ਆਤਮੇ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਤਿ ਹੋਇ ਤਾ ਘਰ ਹੀ ਪਰਚਾ ਪਾਇ ॥”

This line is written by Guru Amardas and is from the Var of Siri Ragu. Take note of this line’s composition and compare it to the next line:

“ਆਤਮ ਦੇਉ ਪੂਜੀਐ ਬਿਨੁ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਬੂਝ ਨ ਪਾਇ ॥”

This line comes shortly after the previous line in the Var of Siri Rag and is also written by Guru Amardas. The composition of this line also directly mirrors the previous line. For this reason, and what has already been discussed, it is improper to suggest that ‘ਆਤਮ’ is genitive in the compound, whereas ‘ਆਤਮਾ’ is not.

“ਆਤਮ ਦੇਉ ਦੇਉ ਹੈ ਆਤਮੁ ਰਸਿ ਲਾਗੈ ਪੂਜ ਕਰੀਜੈ ॥”

The first ‘ਆਤਮ’ is without a termination, while the second ‘ਆਤਮੁ’ is with one, despite both being of the same case. Again, in light of the word ‘ਗੁਰਦੇਵ’, the only possible conclusion I can draw is to consider ‘ਆਤਮ’ as the upsarjan, which shares the nominative position with ‘ਦੇਉ’. The second ‘ਆਤਮੁ’ requires a termination as it is physically separated from ‘ਦੇਉ’ by the word ‘ਹੈ’. The line ‘ਗੁਰ ਗੋਵਿੰਦੁ ਗੋਵਿੰਦੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਹੈ ਨਾਨਕ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਭਾਈ’ aligns with this as well.

For the line “ਆਤਮ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਾਮੁ ਹੈ ਆਤਮ ਹਰਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਸਬਦਿ ਵੀਚਾਰਾ ਹੇ ॥”, Preetam Singh has given the following meaning: ‘(ਜੋ) ਆਤਮਰਾਮੁ ਹੈ, (ਸੋ) ਰਾਮੁ, ਆਤਮ (ਵਿਚ) ਹੈ, ਸ਼ਬਦ ਵਿਚਾਰ (ਜਾਪ) ਸੇ ਹਰਿ (ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ) ਪਾਈਤਾ ਹੈ।’ which I have translated as, ‘(That who) is Atamramu, (that) Ramu is (within) the Atam, through contemplation (jap) of the Shabad, Hari (Vaheguru) is attained.’ In most manuscripts of the Guru Granth Sahib, the line is ‘ਆਤਮ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਾਮੁ ਹੈ ਆਤਮੁ ਹਰਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਸਬਦਿ ਵੀਚਾਰਾ ਹੇ’, where the second ‘ਆਤਮੁ’ is in the nominative termination of ‘ਉ’, which matches perfectly with the lines previously discussed.

‘ਆਤਮੁ’ cannot be in the locative case, so to suggest the meaning of ‘ਆਤਮ (ਵਿੱਚ)’ would be improper. Now, just as ‘ਗੁਰਦੇਵ’, ‘ਆਤਮ ਦੇਉ’ and all of what has been discussed, the ‘ਆਤਮ’ in ‘ਆਤਮ ਰਾਮੁ’ acts as the upsarjan and shares the nominative termination of ‘ਰਾਮੁ’.

Even if this theory of the upsarjan is incorrect, Preetam Singh has stated “ਜੀਵ ਹੈ ਰਾਮ ਔ ਰਾਮ ਹੀ ਜੀਵ ਰੂਪ ਹੈ, ਏਹ ਉਪਦੇਸ ਬੀਚਾਰਣੇ ਤੇ ਹਰੀ ਕੇ ਸਰੂਪ ਕੋ ਪਾਈਤਾ ਹੈ॥੭॥ This Arth is incorrect because in order for this Arth to be derived, the word ਆਤਮ would have to have an ੁ on the ਮ in both cases.” This is problematic, as there exist manuscripts in which the word ‘ਆਤਮ’ has the ‘ਉ’ termination in both cases (that being said, I think only the second ‘ਆਤਮ’ requires termination, as I have explained above).

The Gian Prabodh of Guru Gobind Singh entails a conversation between the ‘ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ’ and the ‘ਆਤਮਾ’. “ਉਚਰਿਓ ਆਤਮਾ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਸੰਗ ॥” (The Aatma inquired to the Parmatma). In this composition, the ‘ਆਤਮਾ’ is also referred to as ‘ਆਤਮਾ ਰਾਮ’. Such as in, “ਦਿਨ ਅਜਬ ਏਕ ਆਤਮਾ ਰਾਮ ॥” (The Atama Ram on a strange day…). In fact, the entire opening is focused on the unity between the ‘ਆਤਮਾ’ and ‘ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ’, where the question “ਇਹ ਕਉਨ ਆਹਿ ਆਤਮਾ ਸਰੂਪ ॥” (What is this form that is Atama?) is posed, and the following response is given. “ਯਹਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਆਹਿ ਆਤਮਾ ਰਾਮ ॥” (This [form] is Brahm, O Atama Ram!). Oxford Languages has also given ‘ਜੀਵਾਤਮਾ’ as a meaning of ‘ਆਤਮਾ ਰਾਮ’.

In conclusion, this is how I think the following line should be interpreted:

ਆਤਮ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਾਮੁ ਹੈ ਆਤਮ ਹਰਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਸਬਦਿ ਵੀਚਾਰਾ ਹੇ ॥

The Atam is Ram, the Ram is Atam; Hari is obtained having contemplated through the Sabad.

If there have been any shortcomings, please let me know. This has been my humble attempt to interpret the endless Bani of the Guru; please forgive any mistakes.

Why don’t you watch the video before you read. If you’ve never watched the Last Samurai, I highly recommend it.

A question every Sikh faces is the question of “Why can’t you cut your hair?” This was a question I got every time I entered a new social circle growing up. Even fellow Punjabis and Sikhs would ask me this question to the point it got annoying. But did anyone ever have a legit, historically informed practical answer?

Is it because “it’s the way God made man” or is there more to the story? The idea that “it’s the way God made humans” is not a strong argument for many. Then would losing weight or gaining muscle or cutting my nails be considered as wrongdoing as I am changing the will of God? What if a baby was born with a benign tumour on the side of her face? Would removing it be going against God’s Will? God’s “Will” is a deeper concept than what this argument presents. Simply put, we cannot change God’s Will or even go “against”. If the answer for keeping hair was that simple, then this would not have been included in the GGS:

ਕਬੀਰ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਇਕ ਸਿਉ ਕੀਏ ਆਨ ਦੁਬਿਧਾ ਜਾਇ॥

Kabir, when you love the One, mere dualities leave

ਭਾਵੈ ਲਾਂਬੇ ਕੇਸ ਕਰੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਘਰਰਿ ਮੁਡਾਇ॥

[if the dualities have not gone then it does not matter] whether you keep long hair or shave your head bald.1

Now, Bhagat Kabir Ji is not saying to cut your hair nor is he saying you can’t be bald. There is no commandment here other than to fall in love with God. Kabir Ji is asking to go beyond outside appearances and focus on the inner journey of love towards God. This is the most important thing beyond all practices, rituals, and beliefs. Bhagat Kabir Ji is also referring to the various monastic ascetic traditions in India here. Some, like the Yogis, keep uncut dreads, and some would completely shave their heads. One can follow the meaning of Bhagat Ji’s statement while keeping uncut hair as a religious tenet. Kabir Ji wants readers to understand that the true path is inside and it not what attempt to show the rest of the world outside.

A similar message is portrayed in the Dasam Granth, the works of the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh Ji. In the Akal Ustat (the Praise of the Deathless) composition, the tenth Guru writes,

ਤੀਰਥਿ ਕੋਟਿ ਕੀਏ ਇਸਨਾਨ ਦੀਏ ਬਹੁ ਦਾਨ ਮਹਾ ਬ੍ਰਿਤ ਧਾਰੇ।।

Having bathed at millions of pilgrimage sites, given lots of charity, and taken on great fasts

ਦੇਸ ਫਿਰਿਓ ਕਰਿ ਭੇਸ ਤਪੋ ਧਨ ਕੇਸ ਧਰੇ ਨ ਮਿਲੇ ਹਰਿ ਪਿਆਰੇ।।

Having wandered the country, adopted religious garbs, kept long hair, yet the beloved Hari could not be met”2

Again these lines address empty religious rituals and practice, specifically in the Yogic way, and on the fact that nothing leads to liberation except the love of God. It is not saying Sikhs must cut their hair. It is teaching Sikhs to fall in love with God and go inward and to think beyond outward religious appearance which only leads to pride and false righteousness. The verse ends with the thesis,

ਦੀਨ ਦਇਆਲ ਅਕਾਲ ਭਜੇ ਬਿਨੁ ਅੰਤ ਕੋ ਅੰਤ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ ਸਿਧਾਰੇ।।੧੦।।੨੫੨।।

Without devotion to Merciful of the Poor, the Deathless, in the end, one goes to the house [of death]3

Thus in keeping in a similar message as Bhagat Kabir’s lines, it is clear the inward path is the backbone of the Sikh faith. The purpose of the Sikh is to go beyond all outward religious distinctions that only exist in name and find true spirituality and experience of the Divine within.

So if the path is strictly inward, why do Sikhs keep hair? If it’s not prescribed in the Guru Granth Sahib nor the Dasam Granth, why do Sikhs not cut their hair? Because. Gurbani is focused on the spiritual journey within, while the ways of the Khalsa, as a political and social force, create a bounded identity that allows it to maintain an ever-looming presence. Let’s look at some historical sources like rehitnamas. Most, if not all, historical codes of conduct (rehitnamas) require the keeping of uncut hair. Rehitnamas express the Khalsa way of life.

ਜਬ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਸਬ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟ ਉਪਾਈ।

When the world was first created

ਤਬ ਹੀ ਮਾਨੁਖ ਦੇਹਿ ਬਨਾਈ।

The body of the man was created

ਤਨ ਇਸ ਕੇ ਸਿਰ ਕੇਸ ਜੁ ਦੀਨੋ।

On top of the body, hair was given

ਸੋ ਇਹ ਤਨ ਸਿੰਗਾਰਹਿ ਕੀਨੋ।।੭੯।।

It was made into the adornment of the body. 79.

ਦਾੜ੍ਹਾ ਮੁਛ ਸਿਰ ਕੇਸ ਬਨਾਈ।

Beard, mustache, and hair on the head was made

ਹੈ ਇਹ ਦ੍ਰਿੜ੍ਹ ਜਿਹ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਰਜ਼ਾਈ।

This was God’s Will, is there any doubt?

ਮੇਟ ਰਜ਼ਾਇ ਜੁ ਸੀਸ ਮੁੰਡਾਵੈ।

Those erase the Will and shave their heads

ਕਹੁ ਤੇ ਜਗ ਕੈਸੇ ਹਰਿ ਪਾਵੈ।।੮੦।।

How will they attain Hari in this world? 80.

ਪਾਂਖਹੁ ਬਿਨ ਬਿਹੰਗ ਜਿਮ ਹੋਹੀ।

Like a bird without its wings

ਊਰਬ ਬਿਨਾ ਭੇਡ ਜਿਮ ਕੋਈ।

Like a sheep without its wool

ਬਸਨ ਬਿਨਾਂ ਨਾਰੀ ਹੈ ਜੈਸੇ।

Like a woman without clothes

ਕੇਸਨ ਬਿਨਾ ਹੋਇ ਨਰ ਤੈਸੇ।।੯੧।।

Such is the man without hair. 91.

ਕੇਸਨ ਨਰ ਧਾਰੇ ਹੈ ਜਬਹੀ।

When a man keeps uncut hair

ਪੂਰਨ ਰੂਪ ਹੋਇ ਹੈ ਤਬਹੀ।

Then, he attains his complete form

ਕੇਸ ਏਕ ਪੁਨ ਰਹਤ ਸੁ ਪਾਈ

Hair is one, but then rehit (conduct) must be attained

ਤਾਂ ਕੀ ਮਹਿਮਾ ਕਹੀ ਨ ਜਾਈ।।੯੨।।

The glory of such cannot be said. 92.

ਬੇਦ ਰਹਤ ਜਿਮ ਦਿਜ ਨ ਸੁਹਾਵਤ।

Without the conduct of the Vedas, the twice-born is not exalted.

ਸੀਲ ਰਹਤ ਕੁਲ ਨਾਰਿ ਨ ਭਾਵਤ।

Without the conduct of calmness, the woman is not loved in the family

ਬੇਗ ਰਹਤ ਜਿਮ ਬਾਜ਼ੀ ਹੀਨ।

Without the conduct of swiftness, the horse is useless

ਰਹਤ ਬਿਨਾ ਇਹ ਕੇਸ ਮਲੀਨ।।੯੩।।

Without good conduct, hair is defiled. 93.4

An important thing to note is that Desa Singh states that without good conduct (signalling the inner path as well as a moral living), hair is defiled.

As translated by W.H. McCleod, Chaupa Singh’s points are a little different.

“The Gursikh must always protect the dignity of his kes [hair] and thus preserve the honour of his Sikh faith. The kes is the outward symbol of the inward faith of the Sikh. It is the seal of the Guru, the visible sign of loyalty to his teachings”5

Similar to Bhai Desa Singh, Bhai Chaupa Singh directly links the outward symbol of the hair to the inward path of the Sikh. The outward practice of the Sikh is meant to symbolize that they have adopted the inner path.

In the Bhai Daya Singh Rehitnama, we see this;

“The kes merits great respect, the noblest of all features. Twice a day, hair should be combed.”6

Now that you’ve gotten a glimpse of what these historical codes of conducts have to say, let’s look at other works of literature that stem from other Sikh writers.

Kavi Santokh Singh, a pre-colonial scholar, who wrote historical and hagiographical poetry of all the Gurus in the magnum opus Suraj Prakash, alongside a few exegetical commentaries like the Garab Ganjani Tika, includes such a question when writing the history of the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh. A Khatri named Nau Nidh approached the Guru near Agra and asked why the Sikhs kept uncut hair.

“ਸ੍ਰੀ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਜੀ ! ਤੁਮ ਪੰਥ ਚਲਾਯੋ ॥ ਬਾਣਾ ਰਚਯੋ ਕੇਸ਼ ਰਖਵਾਯੋ ॥

Oh Lord, you have started this Path, you have established the robes (of the Khalsa) and made them keep uncut hair.

ਗੁਰੂ ਗਰੀਬ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਬਤਾਵਹੁ॥ ਕਿਸ ਕਾਰਨ ਕਰਿ ਇਨਹੁਂ ਰਖਾਵਹੁ ॥੩॥

Guru! Helper of the poor, tell me - Why do you make them keep uncut hair?

ਸੁਨਿ ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਮੁਖ ਫੁਰਮਾਵਨਿ ਕਰਯੋ ॥ ਤੁਮ ਕੋ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬਹੁਤ ਬਿਚਰ੍ਯੋ ॥

Hearing this, the Guru said, “You have studied many Shastras”

ਪੜ੍ਹਨ ਸ਼੍ਰਵਨ ਮਹਿਂ ਬੈਸ ਬਿਤਾਈ ॥ ਇਹ ਗਤਿ ਲਖੀ ਕਿ ਨਹਿਂ ਤੁਮ ਪਾਈ ॥੪॥

“You have spent your life listening and reciting the Shastras, yet you have not come to realize the answer”

ਧਰਮ ਰਖਨਿ ਕੇਸ਼ਾਦਿਕ ਭਲੇ ॥ ਸਨਕਾਦਿਕ ਤੇ ਆਵਤਿ ਚਲੇ ॥

Adorning hair and other things is beneficial to keeping one’s Dharma, since the time of the sons of Brahma, this has occurred.

ਭਾਰਥ ਖੰਡ ਬਿਖੈ ਸ਼ੁਭ ਦੇਸ਼ ॥ ਕੇਸ਼ ਰਾਖਣੋ ਧਰਮ ਬਿਸ਼ੇਸ਼’ ॥੫॥

In the great continent of Bharat [India], keeping hair is an exalted part of Dharma.

ਸੁਨਿ ਕੈ ਨਉਨਿਧ ਬਹੁਰ ਬਖਾਨਾ ॥ ਆਪ ਕਹਹੁ ਸਭਿ ਸਾਚ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨਾ ॥

After listening, Nau Nidh then replied, “What you have said is all true.

ਪ੍ਰਥਮ ਕੇਸ਼ ਧਾਰੀ ਸਭਿ ਕੋਈ ॥ ਅਬਿ ਤੌ ਸਮਾ ਰਹ੍ਯੋ ਨਹਿਂ ਸੋਈ’ ॥੬॥

Everyone used to keep their hair, however times have changed.”

ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਭਨ੍ਯੋ ‘ਸਮਾ ਕ੍ਯਾ ਕਹੈ ॥ ਸੋ ਰਵਿ ਸੋ ਸਸਿ, ਸੋ ਜਲ ਅਹੈ ॥ ਬਾਯੂ, ਬੰਨੀ, ਬਸੁਧਾ ੳਈ ॥ ਦੋਸ਼ ਸਮੈ ਕੋ ਕ੍ਯਾ ਕਹਿ ਕੋਈ ॥੭॥

Sri Guru Ji replied, “What of the times? The same sun, moon, water, wind, fire, and Earth remain. How can one blame time?

ਆਪਨ ਆਪ ਕੋ ਦੋਸ਼ ਲਖੀਜੈ । ਰਾਖੇ ਜਾਇਂ ਨ ਸਾਚ ਕਹੀਜੈ ॥

Put the blame on yourself! Are you just unable to keep uncut hair? Tell the truth.

ਕੇਸ਼ ਰਖਨਿ ਕੀ ਸਮਰਥ ਹੀਨੇ॥ ਦੋਸ਼ ਸਮੇ ਪਰ ਕਲਪਨ ਕੀਨੇ ॥੮॥

You do not have the strength to keep uncut hair, so you think of placing the blame on times for changing.”7

Furthermore in Gurbani, the tangible form of God (when the formless takes form) is described as beautifully haired, showcasing the symbolism of hair for divinity.

For example,

ਕੇਸਵ ਕਲੇਸ ਨਾਸ ਅਘ ਖੰਡਨ ਨਾਨਕ ਜੀਵਤ ਦਰਸ ਦਿਸੇ॥

Beautiful haired, destroyer of pain, destroyer of sin, Nanak lives, seeing the Vision of You8

It’s not only Sikhs that keep uncut hair, but the keeping of uncut hair is present in other Indian traditions as well and can signify detachment, spirituality, asceticism, divinity, and warrior classes. Shiva, the god of destruction is most famously shown with long and matted hair. Other deities are expressed with topknots. Even today, a trip to India will show various ascetics with long uncut hair.

Other than the Gurbani, all sources referenced above emerge from the post-Guru, pre-colonial period (1708 - 1849). Let’s look at an example of analysis of the Guru period (1469 - 1708). In his recent focusing on the life of Guru Hargobind Sahib (1604 - 1644), Pashaura Singh notes that the militaristic conduct of the Sikhs had already begun to emerge while citing the Guru’s own official edicts.

“Interestingly, Guru Hargobind had already made the special undergarment breeches (kacchairā), the kirpan (“sword”) and kaṛā (“wrist-ring”) as part and parcel of the dress of his spiritual warriors. These articles were useful in the militaristic context of his times. Following the lead of his grandfather, Guru Gobind Singh delivered the nucleus of the rahit (“code of conduct”) at the inauguration of the Khalsa. By sanctifying the hair (kes) with amrit, he made it “the official seal of the Guru” (kes guru dī mohar hai), and the cutting of the “bodily hair” was thus strictly prohibited. To keep the hair neat and tidy,

the kaṅghā (“wooden comb”) became an integral part of the Khalsa dressu. The Tenth Guru further imposed a rigorous ban on smoking. In addition, he made the wearing of “five weapons” (pañj hathiār) such as sword, disc, arrow, noose, and gun obligatory for the Khalsa: “Appear before the Guru with five weapons on your person.”9

Now that we have looked at a few historical Sikh sources like rehitnamas (code of conducts), historical poetry, and Pashaura Singh’s study of the Guru’s official edicts, we can paint a much better picture of what hair means to the Sikhs of old. Now let’s look at some more historical evidence, this time from contemporary non-Sikh sources. These sources provide a look into the meaning of hair before Sikhs were forced to rationalize its logic to colonial authorities. It is important to note that some of these are the accounts of non-Sikhs who only wrote what they could understand from their limited perspectives as outsiders to Sikhi, Punjab, and Asia in general.

British traveller and civil servant of the East India Company, George Forster (d. 1792) adventured from India into Afghanistan and then into Russia. Interestingly, Forster was part of an intelligence gathering effort centred on the Sikh kingdoms. Forster was charged with studying Sikh history and politics and reporting back to his superiors. In his memoirs he writes,

“The military Siques permit the hair of the head and the beard to grow long; they usually fix an iron bracelet on the left hand, and they are prohibited the use of tobacco. These regulations, which were probably instituted by the law-givers to distinguish them from other nations, are now become duties of a primary class, and seem almost to form the essence of their creed”10

William Francklin was a writer who had previously worked on biographies of famous people in the late 18th and and early 19th century. In his Military Memoirs of Mr. George Thomas, the rogue Irish mercenary who somehow became an Indian king (an extraordinary story), various observations of Sikhs are present. Francklin met Thomas on his way to exile and began writing down Thomas’ extraordinary story (I hope there’s a Netflix show on it one day). Thomas had various insights into the Sikhs of the time as he and the Sikh kings had met on the battlefield many times as Thomas dreamed of conquering the Punjab.

“The Seiks are armed with a spear, a matchlock, and scymetar. Their method of fighting, as described by Mr. Thomas, is singular: after performing the requisite duties of their religion by ablution and prayer, they comb their hair and beards with peculiar care; then mounting their horses, ride forth towards the enemy, with whom they engage in continued skirmish, advancing and retreating until man and horse become equally fatigued…The Seiks, among other customs singular in their nature, never suffer their hair or beards to be cut: consequently, when mounted on horseback, their flowing locks and half naked-bodies, which are formed in the stoutest and most athletic mould, the glittering of their arms, and the size and speed of their horses, render their appearance imposing and formidable, and superior to most of the cavalry in Hindoostan”11

Lastly, the famous Muslim poet Mir of Delhi, writes his observations of the ongoing skirmishes between the Sikhs and the invading Afghans in North India shortly after the Battle of Panipat in 1761.

“With loose beards and hair tied in a knot on the head they would launch an offensive. Hue and cry continued the whole night, and in the day there were frightful screams of lamentation and grumbling. The Sikh infantrymen would strike the Abdali (Afghan) horsemen with a sword. The saddles of their horses were covered in blood. The ordinary Sikh soldiers would drag away Abdali’s archers and would inflict upon them all kinds of afflictions. In short these mean people brutalized and disgraced the insincere (Afghans) to such an extent that they lost all prestige in the eyes of chiefs of the neighbourhood. The Durranis (Afghans) could no dare fight them in pitched battle”12

Let’s bring it all together

The source above provides snippets of the multitude of answers from various Sikh and non-Sikh sources to the question of keeping long, uncut hair. According to the Sikh writers above, it was a requirement of the path of Dharma (righteousness, duty, morality), which existed in the land of India from the beginning (the four sons of Brahma). To Chaupa Singh, uncut hair signified that one partook the path of the Guru and that it was an outward sign of the inward path. Uncut hair is an identifier of the Sikh that always remains close to the Sikh as it was part of their body. Dr. Pashaura Singh’s research showcases something similar along these lines that hair was seen as the seal or sign of the Guru. To Europeans and other non-Sikhs, the Sikh’s hair was something that distinguished the Sikhs from other communities in India, proving that it really was the Guru’s seal and had strong political implications. Desa Singh and Daya Singh view hair as an example of the will of God and as an adornment of the body and that hair is what makes the body beautiful. However even they make it clear that just by having long hair, it is not guaranteed one will attain liberation. It is a symbol of an inner path. The only path to liberation, as Kabir and Guru Gobind Singh put it, is the inner path of loving the One and the subjugation of the mind’s dualities.

Today?

Today, Sikhs have a plethora of reasons for keeping uncut hair. For some, as for the Sikhs of the past, it represents their loyalty to the path of the Guru and the path of Dharma. For some it represents a rebellion against modern vanity and consumerism. For others, hair is a signifier of beauty. Some Sikhs even believe uncut hair may have health and spiritual benefits.

It takes great strength to keep uncut hair and all Sikhs should do the best they can to follow the tenant. I applaud everyone that has done with Sikhi in mind. Many Sikhs of history like Bhai Taru Singh have even given their lives over their hair. Bhai Taru Singh chose to be scalped rather than have the hair on his head be cut. Interestingly, it’s not just Sikhs who value their hair.

Hair is a medium of expression around the world. Just like you may go on social media and post your opinions, hair is a way to communicate messages that you want others to know. For centuries, various cultures have used hair to express things like religious identity, status, wealth, occupation, and ways of life. Nowadays, you can see people with many different hairstyles. Hair is a big thing and people like to use it to tell their story and express who they are.

Let’s look at how the black community in North America uses hair as a medium of expression. Stemming from some communities in Africa, hairstyles expressed tribal identity alongside status, age, marital status, and even wealth. During the times of the slave trade, hair was used to map escape routes. Locs and twists were even used to hide food and seeds. During the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, hairstyles like afros and twists were used to signify black power and expression. Even today, hair is a big deal in the black community regarding the expression of oneself, especially in rebellion to all the oppression the community has faced. The black Sikh community, afrodhari as they coin it, is a growing community and represents the coming together of two cultures that value hair. It’s important to understand their specific struggles with hair due to “natural hair” (a term used to denote African hair). One Black Sikh also notices these similarities and once said

“Realize that hair plays a big part in African American history and culture (the same way it does in Punjabi culture) and for someone to attack it shows just how ignorant you are”13

In North American Indigenous communities, hair is considered sacred. Long hair represents a strong cultural identity and hair ornamentation, grooming, and styling are part of ceremonies in various Indigenous cultures. The long hair of many Indigenous children was the first to be cut when they were kidnapped and sent to residential schools in Canada to force assimilation. Take for example this lived experience of forced cutting,

“When I was about 5 years old, my grandfather first told me about being forced to cut his hair when he was carted off to boarding school, and I am sure I heard this more than a dozen times as I grew up. But as I got older, he would tell me more about his experience and what it meant to him. Eventually, he told me his hair was cut in an effort to strip him of his culture and identity. Cutting his hair was their way of showing dominance over him through forced assimilation. He said that every time his hair was cut, he would cry, and every time he would cry, he would be physically punished… His story is important because we are taught as children that we don’t cut our hair unless we have experienced a significant loss, like the death of a close family member, traumatic event or significant life change. Tribes have different teachings about the value of hair and how to care for it. In our family, we are taught that our hair is a physical extension of all our thoughts, prayers, dreams, aspirations, experiences and history.”14

In these two key communities oppressed by settler colonial powers, hair has been a way to take back their freedom in their own way. Looking at the way these peoples have expressed themselves through hair, it is safe to say that uncut hair provides a similar use in saying to the world “Hey, I’m a Sikh of Guru Gobind Singh!”

Before concluding this crucial article, I’d like to present my personal experience with hair. I’ve always had uncut hair. Throughout middle school and high school in the late 2010s, I was teased relentlessly for it. Reading the stories of Sikhs who gave their lives for their hair, I always felt that the teasing was test to prove my loyalty to Sikhi. In popular culture, I had no role models to look at that looked like me. The public figures of today like Jagmeet Singh were still local politicians. However, through those tough years, one movie scene always stuck with me, My father’s favourite movie (and mine) is the The Last Samurai (2003). In The Last Samurai, soldiers of a modernizing army stop a samurai warrior and cut off his top knot and strip him of his weapons. Before doing so, the samurai is ready to draw his blade, but the American captain (who has already seen the brutalization of the Native Americans) sent to assist Japan’s modernizing army suggests the samurai not react for his safety. The scene is an emotional one, especially as the soldiers cut the samurai’s top knot after stripping him of his swords. He cries as his ancient identity is disrespected and erased with every cut. Kicking him over, leaving him dishonoured on the street, reflecting the famous words of “ਬਿਨਾ ਸਸਤ੍ਰ ਕੇਸੰ ਨਰੰ ਭੇਡ ਜਾਨੋ - Without weapons and hair, understand the man to be a sheep.” This scene always remained with me and despite being young and naive, I understood the importance of my uncut hair. Within it contained the struggles, the sacrifices, and the journey of my people just like it did to that samurai. It would be my struggle to keep it in a society that made fun of me. Fortunately, adulthood has proved no issues.

It is up to the reader to decide which reasons resonate the most. But what can be concluded is that Sikhs keep uncut hair as a fundamental tenet of their practice as a sign of following the Guru and Dharma, as well as a political and outward expression of the Sikh identity.

Thank you for reading!

Comment down below what your kes mean to you!

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share Atam Khoj

Are you confused by the plethora of definitions of Nām, Shabad, and Maya? You are not alone. The modern Sikh panth encompasses a wide range of perspectives. With various schools of interpretation, each with its own vocabulary, assumptions, methodologies, and goals, finding a consistent understanding of Gurmat can be difficult. This diversity is obvious online, where one group teaches X and another insists on Y. Both sides quote Gurbani, both sound certain about their conclusions… So what’s going on here?

The reason for all these differing opinions and definitions is partly that different groups of Sikhs attach themselves to different interpretative frameworks. What is an interpretative framework? An interpretative framework is a lens that you use to make sense of something. It is a conceptual lens that a group uses to create a consistent Gurmat ideology. These frameworks have evolved through history and allow for different groups to come to different conclusions regarding Gurbani because of various factors. Each group maintains the Guru Granth Sahib as the highest authority, but some schools may use texts such as the Dasam Granth, the works of Bhai Gurdas Ji, the works of Bhai Nand Lal Ji, and other traditional sources.

These differing interpretative frameworks are the core drivers of the many theological and philosophical divisions that exist in the Sikh panth today. Since the fall of the Sikh empire, these two broad interpretive paradigms have dominated Sikh discourse: a Reformist framework shaped by colonial epistemological influences, and a Traditionalist framework rooted in pre-colonial indigenous exegetical lineages. Their debates still inform nearly every debate among Sikhs today.

This article gives a brief outline of how these two approaches to Gurbani emerged. It is humbling to say that this subject deserves far deeper academic treatment than a short piece by a layman, but the goal here is to introduce the idea to readers so that they can begin to recognize the epistemological foundations of today’s Sikh discourse. We will attempt to dive deeper into each framework in incoming articles.

The Reformists

Colonial Agents or Anti-Colonists?

On one side of the spectrum, you have the Reformist Sikhs who hold post-colonial understandings of the Sikh tradition and emerged from various movements by Western-educated Sikhs, known as Singh Sabhas. Reformist Sikhs believe that traditionalist Sikh interpretations are corrupted by Indian philosophy and Brahminical underpinnings and attempt to interpret the teachings of the Guru from a Western theological perspective. This, however, had many implications on communicating the teachings of the Gurus, as it is obvious the Gurus lived in an Indic-Islamic context well before the advent of Immanuel Kant and Max Weber, who formalized the modern colonial epistemological system utilized to make sense of science and diverse cultures in a religious context. That being said, the reformists believed that their teachings represented the “true and original Sikhi” that existed during the time of the Gurus before the traditionalist scholars took control and inserted Brahminical corruptions.

According to Dr. Arvindpal Mandair, this development was part of an epistemological colonizing process. In his book, Sikh Philosophy, Mandair finds that “The transformation from pre-colonial to nationalized forms was mediated through intercultural mimesis between Sikh and European scholars, a process that disguised itself as natural translation. Native elite scholars internalized the epistemic categories of the ruling global knowledge system, specifically the categories of religion and the secular, and applied them to their own texts, thought systems, and communities… The end result was Sikhism – an entity with a much reduced capacity for making connections to the wider world, to other societies and traditions of thought”1

The reformists were so preoccupied with carving out a unique identity in contrast to Hinduism and Islam within the colonial context of India that they achieved something never seen before. In one of the most important works in Sikh academia, The Construction of Religious Boundaries, Harjot Oberoi concluded that “For over three hundred years, the chequered history of the Sikh movement had not generated an all-embracing definition of a Sikh. The Tat Khalsa, through a series of innovations, purges and negations, supplied this definition in less than three decades.”2

And from the 1880s on, the Reformists took a relentless position in the landscape of Sikh discourse. From this reform came a framework for understanding Gurbani, characterized by

• That the original teachings of the Gurus had been lost in the past centuries and corrupted by Brahmanical hegemonies

• A strong attraction towards ethical monotheism

• A suspicion of Indic philosophical language

• The development of “Sikhism” as a comparative “world religion” in conversation with Western intellectual hegemonies 3

• Strict boundaries when it came to Sikh identity

Traditionalist/Sampardai Sikhs

Corrupted or Misjudged?

Another major interpretative framework comes with the pre-colonial Traditionalist exegetical lineages. This framework is made up of the four main pranalis (lineages) of teaching from the precolonial era. First, it was the Bhai lineage, which included those like Bhai Gurdas Ji, the Udasi lineage, the Nirmala line, and finally the Giani line. The Udasis and the Nirmalas still exist. One of the most famous of Nirmala preachers in the modern day was Giani Sant Singh Maskeen. Many Sikhs are familiar with the seminary Damdami Taksal (especially after the events of 1984), which claims the precolonial giani line. The exegetical tradition with the most intellectual output may have been the Nirmala line, which was extremely influential throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.

Contrary to what modern writers propose, these groups interpreted Gurbani through Indic philosophical methodologies — often Vedanta — while maintaining Sikh distinctiveness. They saw Gurbani as a text rooted in an Indic epistemological context, as it utilized and interacted with metaphors, categorizations, terms, and philosophical frameworks present within the Subcontinent. Yes, these scholars used the language of Indian philosophy, but in order to spread the message of Gurbani. According to Mandair, “most Nirmalā scholars, despite working within the dominant framework of Vedantic philosophy, nevertheless managed to maintain a degree of difference between the two traditions.”4

My Opinion

Can they be reconciled?

I maintain the argument that the beauty of Gurmat is in the immediacy of experience and the aesthetic of the Non-Dual rather than a conceptualization of it using Vedanta or Western Ontotheology. However, this is a conversation for another time, and as Bhagat Kabir Ji argues on ang 340 in the Guru Granth Sahib, some sort of interpretative framework is needed to instruct the human mind and its need for organization. However, the true nature of “the Divine” will always be beyond all human concepts.

When it comes to communicating the message of Gurbani to those from other traditions and providing theological and philosophical proofs of Sikhi, one can choose either medium/framework. It is important to note that both are just that…mediums of communication. Just like one can use different coding scripts to build the same program, these are simply different perspectives on Sikhi.

These are tools you have at your disposal; however, each framework has unique advantages and disadvantages. For example, the Reformist framework may not have the capacity to relate to the diversity of world traditions, while the Traditionalist framework may find it difficult to properly translate itself into an English conversation in a Western context.

Interestingly, despite its “foreignness” in our present-day society, I find that the Traditionalist framework of interpretation offers stronger arguments than the other side, and I have experienced these practically while debating Christians, Muslims, atheists, and even fellow Sikhs. The Reformist simply exists on a “belief” basis. The Reformist will be forced into a corner to “agree to disagree” with followers of other belief systems, while the Traditionalists can follow logical systems that stay true to Guru Nanak’s all encompassing Non-Dual doctrines.

Of course, there are many types of Reformists with varying levels between the spectrum of Abrahamic monotheism and Indic pantheism, and each will have different answers to those that come from different creeds. However, many Reformist ethical monotheistic arguments and proofs are easily dominated by the stronger monotheistic systems of Islam and Christianity. Alongside my own anecdotal experience, Arvindpal Mandair also notes the limitations of “Sikh reformist mode of thought [which] far from restating an original Sikh monotheism, actually makes a shift from previous Indic patterns of nonduality by importing a version of the ontological proof for God’s existence.”5 When you’re not true to who you really are, it’s hard to express yourself to the rest of the world. In the same way, through this imported system of theology, it’s increasingly difficult to express the message of Sikhi to the globalized world. There is a reason why we, as a diaspora, struggle to connect with Sikhi outside of identity politics.

Beyond its uses in interfaith and inter-philosophical discourse, I also find that Traditionalist models of interpretation are more “natural” to that of Gurbani in terms of linguistic-philosophical continuity. Maybe that is why I find them more convenient to convey the message of Guru Nanak. The reason why I say this Indic philosophical framework is more natural to Gurbani is because in Gurbani, the languages of Vedanta and Patanjalī are constantly used internally. From the rope and the snake, to the bracelet and the jewellery. From the King’s dream as a beggar, to the two birds perched on the tree. From the sterile woman and the son to the reflections of the water pitcher, Gurbani is rife with language that inserts it into an Indic philosophical conversation. That is not to say non-Indic conversations aren’t happening in Gurbani, such as those surrounding Sufi and Islamic paradigms, but it is more common to find ideas stemming from centuries of discourse revolving around Indian ideas like bhaktī, giān, and mokshā/muktī.

Why is there an uneasiness in the community surrounding Indic philosophical discourse? There are many factors, such as the historical process of identity making throughout the 19th and 20th century and recent communal tensions. 1984 and later South Asian geopolitics are still fresh in the inter-conscience of the global Sikh community, which disallows many Sikhs to be receptive to re-engaging with indigenous Indic ideas. Unconsciously and consciously, Sikhs around the world attempt to distance themselves from anything “Hindu.” This limits us in our understanding of Gurbani, as the Gurus lived during a time when religion wasn’t exactly comprehended in the way it was after the influx of Western categorizations of religion on the eve of colonization. We must let go of this fear and immerse ourselves into Gurbani without expectations and biases for its ideology, but that is difficult as we tend to approach Gurbani with our ready-made conclusions stifled by modern politics and implicit paradigms.

Stay tuned for the next parts in the series as I take a closer look at each framework and its historical development and modern application.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share