A Blog-like Entity

28 oct 06

On your entry on who is tougher "Gurkhas" or "Sikhs". It is like comparing apples and oranges. Well, Sikhism is being embraced all over the World among various cultures, races, countries etc. and Khalsa is eternal.

i used to have posted on the web an essay, entitled "your religion is wrong", that mercilessly trashed and derided christianity. it was part of a catharsis i underwent a couple of years ago, and that seething hatred i felt for a few months has long since been replaced with detached observation. that essay was the only one that brought forth an unsolicited email from the web-browsing public -- someone who took issue with what i said, although he was very polite about it. i don't remember what his argument was -- one can argue anything, and it's not really important to consider, but the essence of his email was "i don't like your essay".

actually, i did tone the essay down a bit as that seething simmered to a low boil, even changing the title ("your religion is mostly wrong"). but, the point is that it's not nice to say mean things about someone's religion, because people take the instructions of their "god gene" pretty seriously, and it's deeply hurtful to, for instance, a muslim to see a picture of mohammed in a tutu and pink ballet slippers.

it might be all right for people to go on about their beliefs and rituals -- spiritual doctrine and ritual are essential parts of the human identity, and belief in a godhead might even be genetically determined. there are a lot of good ideas in the koran, torah, and new testament about how to live and treat your fellows. of course, there are parts that can be (mis)interpreted by "fundamentalists" to justify all kinds of nasty behavior. an obvious problem when your holy book says "go out and kill" is that a few logical followers are going to take that literally.

there's a book out called the end of faith that's sort of like a 500 page version of my essay on christianity, except it rips into all of the abrahamic monotheistic systems. i read a few pages, and the author is enraged, and sarcastic. the thesis is "no, it's not ok to 'tolerate' these religions, because they're bad for society", and more abstractly, that it's dangerous, ill-conceived, illogical, and harmful to base acts on faith. i can't say i totally disagree, but let's get away from abrahamism, because i'm tired of writing about it.

it's relatively easy to ignore the inherent silliness of sikhism -- namely, the heavy ritual aspect -- because the central doctrine ("pantheistic monotheism", which i'll talk about a bit later) is relatively strong, if not a little bit confusing and paradoxical. and hey -- if you want to go around in a turban carrying a squiggly dagger all of the time, be my guest; at least you don't believe anyone literally rose from the dead to forgive your sins, and is going to literally come floating back down to send you off to "heaven".

regarding your submission: yeah, i agree -- it was a stupid question to begin with. what does "tougher" mean, anyway? but i had to answer it, and so, to the best of my ability, compared apples to oranges and reached a decision. that said, i have to mention that one can say "it is inappropriate to compare x and y, because x and y are too different" about any x and y.

furthermore, the x and y of "gurkhas" and "sikhs" share an important property with regards to the subject: militarism is an essential part of their cultures. the problem with the offending question ("who is tougher, the sikhs or the gurkhas?") comes from the word "tougher" -- if the question had been "will you compare and contrast the military history of the sikhs and the gurkhas?", then there wouldn't have been a problem, because parameters would have been established and value-judgements removed.

you can go back over any one of my answers on this website and talk about how it's not scholarly, badly researched, biased, or whatever. and it's most likely true -- i'm not trying to write an encyclopedia here, or even properly cite my sources (ha). it's just an excuse to do some journal writing. but, of course, an essay that makes any sort of statements about, let alone value judgements on, an ethnic group (yow!) is going to inspire greater scrutiny (to say the least), even if the scrutiny only amounts to a variant of the "apples and oranges" critique, the oversimplification critique, the improper terminology critique, the lack of proper sources/experience critique, etc. and all of these are valid, regarding any analyses of sikh-gurkha toughness.

i'm not sure what i think of the cultural props of sikhi (comb, breetches, etc) -- their purpose is to define a community and symbolize faith and doctrine, which is good and bad, i suppose. it's a rather glaring example of something i often rail against, however: identity politics. "we are sikh! you are not sikh!" this hasn't been demonstrated to be a helpful way of looking at things. on the other hand, no one's going to argue that community is a negative thing.

the biggest problem with sikhism as i see it is that it has features of inherent violence, a problem in the abrahamic faiths (especially islam). here's a quote:

The Khalsa began when Guru Gobind Singh, holding a sword, asked a crowd of Sikhs which ones would die for their faith and for them to step into a tent. One man walked into the tent and the Guru followed. A few seconds later only the Guru emerged holding his sword, covered in blood. After asking if there were any more, four people strode into the tent, ready to be slaughtered for their faith. It was then that the crowd found out that none of the five men were actually killed, and these five men became The Khalsa Brotherhood. They were baptised and they could then baptise others that follow the "Five Ks" and the other requirements into the brotherhood

the biggest positive thing i see coming out of sikhism is religious tolerance, something that (as i mentioned in my other sikhism essay) was at least partly a reaction to religio-ethnic conflict in india (namely, hindu vs. muslim).

according to sikhiwiki (teehee), sikhs worship one pantheistic god, amounting to "pantheistic monotheism", which is a paradoxical concept (reminds me if china's "capitalist communism").

pantheism, of course, is the belief that all of reality, everything that is, constitutes one living "god" object. it's really a bit meaningless, and is more or less the same thing as atheism. if you're in a good mood and feel that the universe is worthy of reverence and awe, you put on your pantheism hat. if you're in a bad mood and think it stinks, then you put on your atheism hat. it might be impossible to reconcile pantheism/monism with monotheism, but sikhi makes a go of it.

Sikhs follow a strict monotheistic faith in an eternal, creator god within which there exists two distinct natures. One nature is physical and encompasses perfect attributes; this is the nature which Sikhs can understand and meditate upon.

The second nature, non-physical, is too complex for the human mind to understand. Among Sikhs, God is generally called Sat Guru, which means the "supreme Guru," or "supreme teacher." Other names include Akal Purukh and Vahiguru. This second nature is so abstract and mystical that Sikhism sometimes borders on being pantheistic rather than simply monotheistic.

this is how they do the pantheistic monotheism -- they split "god" up into two components, one for each "nature". this is the nice thing about judaism and it's descendants: you have pissed-off yahweh of the desert, who's going to fuck you up. simple, to the point, hard to argue with.

perhaps sikhs' "pantheistic monotheism" sprouted up as a reaction to the hindu pantheon -- little elephants with six arms and such. but, they liked the basic monism (all is of one substance) concept, and so stuck with it, but wanted to move the "ultimate reality" concept into a more reasonable vehicle: namely, "one god". unfortunately, i'm not sure that works any better than the aforementioned six-armed elephant and his cohorts.

i've heard that sikhs bristle when people think of their religion as some sort of compromise between hinduism and islam. i can understand this, certainly -- no one likes to be called unoriginal. and it's true -- sikhism writes its own material. however, if you read it, a lot of it includes rants and raves about hinduism and islam and how stupid they are. so i'm forced to the conclusion that some (not all) sikh material (doctrine, creed, etc) is reactionary in nature, although i haven't seen any that's actually lifted.

ok, sure. one pantheistic god. i might buy that, if i don't try to wrap my mind around it too much -- enter the second nature of divinity, which is impossible for humans to grasp. nice touch. tip: when creating a confusing religious doctrine, state that part of the doctrine is that it's impossible to understand (see "christianity" and "the peace of god which passes human understanding").

let's say i decide i like pantheistic monotheism, monotheistic pantheism, or whatever. do i really have to wear sacred underpants all the time? i really don't understand why one has to go around looking like an alien everywhere one goes -- it doesn't seem conducive to spirituality to purposefully set yourself apart from the society you're in, and demonstrate your belonging to a secret club that's implied to be better than everyone else.

check out this sentence:

Sikhism advocates the belief in one pantheistic God (Ek Onkar) who is omnipresent and has infinite qualities.

one pantheistic (comprising everything that is) god who is omnipresent and has infinite qualities. so the whole of all reality is personified? we're giving a name to all that is, and identifying it as some sort of entity? a single god, who contains everything, and who is contained by everything. i suppose my problem is with the "who." when a sikh sits down to pray to a god, directs his emotional energy at ek onar, this takes the focus away from all that is, and onto a single entity. even if the ek onar-object is nothing more than a conceptual entity through which to focus your reverence for the Great Whole, it's obviously going to remain difficult to remember that the great whole is there at all when you're praying to some"one" with a name.

i'd like to see the monotheism component abandoned entirely, seeing as i feel it's a relic from the abandonment of hinduism. however, it's a lot easier to think about god as a single entity, which is reflected in the sihki "duality of divinity" doctrine -- they've provided an effective "way out" of conceptualizing monism, which might indeed be impossible.

here's something interesting i found on the "sikh afterlife":

There are five Khands or realms: the first is Dharam Khand in which all souls must appear to receive their account in the court of Dharam Rai. The next realm is Giaan Khand in which reside countless gods and goddesses and angels and also beings like Buddha and other prophets. After this realm is Sharam Khand. Sharam Khand is a level that cannot be understood by the human mind. In it, the mind and intellect are re-shaped to see and understand new realities.

All the above mentioned places: heaven, hell, Dharam Khand, Gian Khand, Sharam Khand are all transitory. Beyond these are "true" realms. These are Karam Khand and Sach Khand. Karam Khand is for true devotees of Akaal who have meditated on him and Sach Khand is where Gursikhs go who have meditated on Gurmat Naam and become one with God. Here they are forever immersed in bliss and unity with God and forever sing his praises.

this seems pretty far removed from a spiritually-evolved pantheism, and sounds more like something out of dante's inferno. however, i googled around a bit for `sikh khands` and found a few different interpretations on what, exactly, they are.

(The five khands) signify in the Sikh tradition the five stages of spiritual progress leading man to the Ultimate Truth.

five stages of spiritual progress, as opposed to five realms in heaven.

one word to describe sikhi: confused. i suppose this might be a good thing; there's a lot to talk about with your buddies, which further strengthens the community.

being that it's so ambiguous, complicated, and confusing, sikhs do the same thing with their religion as everyone else does: avoid thinking about it too much, and just go through the motions, and in the meantime enjoy the community this generates. as long as you don't kill any infidels, convert anyone by the sword, try to teach children creationism, forbid stem cell research, or circumcise any babies, then anything you want to believe is fine by me, just so long as you don't drop by too often to talk about it. once and a while is fine, though (jehova's witnesses and mormon missionaries get a little nervous when they're enthusiastically invited inside -- you should try it sometime).

why can't a religion just stop at "the universe is wondrous and worthy of reverence and awe -- here are some ways we suggest you express that reverence, for the purposes of creating cohesive community and possibly church bake sales"? a "religion" based on what you see, and what you feel, not on some zealous guru or prophet's schizophrenic ramblings. the fundamental problem of humanity is echoed in religion: we're subservient, and do what people tell us to do. we refuse to think for ourselves.

that said, i stand by my ruling -- according to my research, the gurkhas kicked more sikh ass than the sikhs kicked gurkha ass. but yes -- sikhism has some nice features, although it also has some questionable ones. and sure -- khalsa is eternal (why not?).

sorry if this was offensive. but, if you mention any religion to me (let alone tell me one is particularly swell), i'm pretty much going to tell you it's full of shit.