What's In a Name? Reflections on Naam
A journey in Sikh Existentialism through the eyes of Barry Lyndon
[SPOILERS: This piece contains references to events and characters from the 1975 film Barry Lyndon]
CONFLICT DISCLOSURE
In Part I of “The Constitutional Moment at Anandpur,”1 hosted at
, I mentioned that in the view of Bhai Gurdas, to be a Sikh, onemust simply accept the Guru and practice his teachings of reciting the Satnam, dealing with vices such as lust and anger, and leading a charitable and truthful lifestyle.2
It is this simple message, I assert, that won over the early followers of the creed of Guru Nanak and his successors, leading the Mughal Emperor Jahangir to remark that Guru Arjan had, “won over as devotees many simple-minded Indians and even some ignorant, stupid Muslims.”3
For the purpose of describing the process of how the early Sikh community formed, it was enough to simply say that the Guru’s message won over the hearts of his followers. But the perceptive reader may have realized I did not go into the specifics of what this message is, particularly of the Satnam (lit. “the True Name”), and why it spoke to so many people. I do mention,
The acceptance of the Guru by the Sikh shows, on the part of the Sikh, a fundamental change in his personal constitution.4
But what is the nature of this change? One may rightly criticize the work for leaving a topic so central to the development of the Sikh community—indeed, the very question of what is the point of the Sikh path—to such approximations. But I will meekly counter that for the purposes of Part I, it was not so necessary to go into the specific details of what this “point” actually is. The thrust of the piece was to lead the reader into the Guruship of the young Gobind Rai, who existed at a time of multiple institutions competing for control over the Sikh Sangat. This included the masands, parallel claims to the Guruship such as Minas and the Ram Raiyyas, and of course, his own claim. To whom the Sikh Sangat pledged allegiance was, in my view,
indicative of a deeper debate sparked by Guru Hargobind’s Proposal. The debate being, what does it mean to be a Sikh, i.e. what is the correct Sikh doctrine, and how should it manifest in the world?
The doctrine of Nam (lit. “Name”) that figures so prominently in the writings contained in the Guru Granth Sahib, as well as the writings of Bhai Gurdas, will thus be of eminent importance in determining what did the Guruship of Gobind Rai represent. For, if it is true that these different lineages represented different interpretations of Sikh doctrine, then what Sikh doctrine is will thus need to be elucidated. The question then is, fundamentally, what is the point of Sikhi? What are we all doing here? Or perhaps more appropriately, what are we supposed to be doing?
I use the present-tense on purpose. The “point” of Sikhi is not just relevant insofar as it helps us find the contours of a Sikh constitutionalism. It affects us all today, all who attempt to practice Sikhi.
A pessimist may ask, why care enough to attempt to find a “point” of Sikhi? Why try to invent something called “Sikh constitutionalism” — why not just forget about all of this and enjoy the time one has in the world?
That may have sounded provocative, or slightly dramatic. True. But I ask these questions because I believe my answer will help the reader understand my bias, and contextualize this piece as well. I write this because something deep inside me wants, no, needs there to be a point to Sikhi. I am a Sikh, who loves being Sikh. There is something here that I cannot do without, and I do not think it is simply a product of my socialization or some form of denial. No, (“not denial” I shrilly cry!) there is something in Sikhi that appeals to me (perhaps “my essence” is more appropriate) at the most fundamental level.
But when someone asks me what the “point” to Sikhi is, I find it difficult to respond. I suspect some may be in a similar predicament. Many young Sikhs have gone past the answer our parents used to give, which was something along the lines of “The purpose is to be a good person and unite with God.” Now the standard answer seems to be a more sophisticated twist — “The purpose of Sikhi is to shed your ego and unite with the divine that pervades the entire Universe.”
Although formalistic and simple, I don’t think either of these explanations are necessarily wrong. However, I think they mistake the fundamentally emotive aspect of the appeal of Sikhi. It is, of course, very hard to explain and systemize emotion. This is a task for the arts—poetry, music, song. The Sikh writings—the compiled verse of the Sikh Gurus as well as Bhakti and Sufi writers in South Asia—are not in prose or complex logic, no, they are in poetic verse, meant to be sung with musical accompaniment.
But this is only part of the equation. Of course music touches the soul, but the words of Gurbani must also mean something.
The rest of this piece will thus be an attempt at the explanation of Nam. As Sikh theologian and author Dr. Jaswant Singh Neki put it, “Nam is the pivotal doctrine of the Sikh faith.”5 A fuller understanding of Nam will thus (I write in hope) help us better understand why early Sikhs adopted the Sikh path, and it will also flesh out what this path is, especially when trying to follow it today.
A final note before we begin. Just as in the wake of Guru Tegh Bahadur’s martyrdom, when the young Gobind Rai found himself in the midst of a debate in the Sikh community for who may lay claim to the hearts and minds of the Sikh Sangat—so too, I believe today there are multiple institutions vying for the same. And just like the Sikh institutions of the late 17th-century, the players today differ in their interpretation of Sikh doctrine, and just like then,6 the choice will be with the Sangat for which conception of Sikhi speaks to them—for what vision will they place their heads on their hands?
ਜਉ ਤਉ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਖੇਲਣ ਕਾ ਚਾਉ ॥ ਸਿਰੁ ਧਰਿ ਤਲੀ ਗਲੀ ਮੇਰੀ ਆਉ ॥
ਇਤੁ ਮਾਰਗਿ ਪੈਰੁ ਧਰੀਜੈ ॥ ਸਿਰੁ ਦੀਜੈ ਕਾਣਿ ਨ ਕੀਜੈ ॥੨੦॥
If one desires to play this game of love, come my way holding head in hand.
Once one has placed their feet on this path, they do not hesitate to give their head.
Guru Nanak, Ang 1412
INTRODUCTION: PRELIMINARY MAPPINGS
Many in the Sikh world today hold the view that the word Nam as used in Sikh writings refers to the name of the Sikh divinity.7 And some also believe that name to be Waheguru (lit. “the Amazing Guru”).8
This makes a lot of intuitive sense, especially to one raised in the modern Sikh world. Yet it is still worth noting that there are more complex views on Nam out there. Mandair translates Nam directly to be a word that “names-without-naming the Beloved,”9 with the Beloved being “an absolute sense of oneness … that … can be known and experienced only as an immediacy.”10
ਇਕੁ ਤਿਲੁ ਪਿਆਰਾ ਵੀਸਰੈ ਰੋਗੁ ਵਡਾ ਮਨ ਮਾਹਿ ॥
Forgetting the Beloved, even for a second, feels as if a great disease has come into my mind.
Guru Nanak, Ang 21.
More specifically, in Mandair’s view Nam is “the creative existence inherent in all existence and non-existence … the sonic-mnemic principle that orders, interconnects and provides direction for all existence.”11 It is not “the name of an eminent Being (Madho, Hari, Ram, etc.) which can be repeated as a magical-mechanical formula to attain personal benefits,”12 but “[t]o the extent that it can be objectified as the name of an entity, this entity is the Beloved.”13
However, note that in Mandair’s view, the concept of Nam also brings with it the practices of “nam japna, the chanting or vocalized repetition, which leads to nam simran or mindful meditation or contemplation.”14 If there is a specific name referred to, this is unclear, but in any matter, Mandair claims that the writings of the Sikh Gurus are the result of the “direct and profound experiences of the im/material reality generally referred to as nam.”15
This essay is not to prove the mainstream Sikh view of Nam today to be wrong, as if I have alighted upon the one true interpretation that has eluded all others. No, it is undeniable (and correct, in my view) that the literal word Nam does in fact mean “name.”16 That this “name” is much of what Sikh thought and practice (colloquially referred to as Gurmat) revolves around17 is obvious to most who identify as Sikh (and if it is not obvious to the reader, hopefully it is by the end). And in fact, I don’t believe this essay will add anything necessarily new to Gurmat as a whole. Rather, what I wish to show the reader is this: what the concept of Nam is performing is not simply the function of being the name of the Sikh divine. The doctrine of Nam carries with it overlapping ideas that when stacked together, reveal the purpose of Sikh thought. These ideas will be the subject of this essay, but are first summarized as follows:
The concept of Nam does literally mean name, and when used to reference the individual, means the essence of one’s identity—the character and reputation that has resulted from individuation, e.g. “one’s good name.”
The Nam of the individual ego, not just our actual names but their associated character and reputation is ultimately false.
The Satnam, or “True Name” is an ideal that is indeed predicated on a complete and utter oneness, but one that the Sikh can tap into.
Considering all of the above then, the point of Sikhi (insofar as there is one) as I see it is to move from one’s own name, rotted with our egos, and adopt the “true name” that sets us free from the sorrows of individuation and toward new potentials. The Satnam functions as a sort of Platonic ideal, the imbibing of which allows the individual to move away from identities that have been assigned to them (or those which they attempt to take on) and toward an identity that is timelessly true. This is implicit in much of the gendered metaphor of the Sikh Gurus’ writings—inherent in the painting of the Beloved as a husband by the Gurus is the assumption that we are to take on “His”18 name and have our honor saved.
It was stated earlier that those who seek the loyalty of the Sikh Sangat differ in their interpretation of Sikh doctrine, and it is also the case between competing conceptions of Nam. Under what may be deemed the “Traditional” formulation, Nam is a mantra of sorts, the very sounds of which carry an import best described as holy so as to be recited repeatedly to achieve unification with an external divine. Under the “Mindful” formulation, Nam points to the conception of oneness that is to be contemplated through the same nam simran. Under the “Idealist” formulation which I will proffer, Nam represents a timeless identity (the only “real” identity) that one may be able to adopt, and the practice of nam simran alluded to in Sikh writing is properly construed as a personal transformation toward this ideal. It is this transformation that appealed to the early Sangat, and what I believe appeals to us today.
I. THE NAME OF REDMOND BARRY
When we meet Redmond Barry of Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon (1975), he is a young, insecure man in a small village in mid-18th century Ireland. His father was killed in a duel when he was a boy, and he lives with his poor mother. Barry is in love with his cousin, Nora Brady, who spurns his advances in favor of the older and more successful Captain John Quin, whom the family would rather marry her off to, in order to increase the clan’s prestige.
But the young Barry cannot take this insult to his pride. He challenges Captain Quin to a duel, and technically wins (the viewer later learns his pistol didn’t have real bullets in it, and the Captain was only knocked unconscious). However, he is now a wanted man. His poor mother gives him some money and a horse, and he flees Barryville and heads to Dublin for things to cool off.
What Barry is struggling against is the limitations of his personal identity. He has been assigned this identity, this life, with no say in the matter—is it his fault his father left him and his mother? Is it his fault he wasn’t groomed for the army? Why should Captain Quin receive the affections of the fair Nora, who Barry covets so?
It is this frustration that leads Barry on a path to remake himself, and the viewer is taken through an epic journey of military service, high-roller gambling, and aristocratic debauchery. But note that it is his unrequited love to Nora that precipitates Barry’s struggle against himself. Her rejection leads him to feel a horrible disappointment in his station in life, and his very selfhood.
ਫਰੀਦਾ ਮੈ ਜਾਨਿਆ ਦੁਖੁ ਮੁਝ ਕੂ ਦੁਖੁ ਸਬਾਇਐ ਜਗਿ
ਊਚੇ ਚੜਿ ਕੈ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਤਾਂ ਘਰਿ ਘਰਿ ਏਹਾ ਅਗਿ
Fareed, I only knew of my own pain—in reality the whole world has been taken over by this pain!
Climbing high, I saw that in each and every home burns this fire.
Sheikh Farid, Ang 1382.
Who hasn’t felt this way? A hurt pride, insecurity, inadequacy, wishing you were someone else. A feeling that you are not simply the name you were born with. You feel there is something more to you, something that lurks beyond the name, that is not simply your family name, caste, or even your past actions. There is, at least one hopes, always a potential to make and remake yourself, to strive for something greater. To relate to Redmond Barry is simply human—we struggle against our names just as he does.
What Barry’s path has in common with the Sikh path is the drive to remake the individual. Both assert the individual is not static, is not simply their name, but can change. The difference, of course, is what the two paths see as the ideal to achieve.
Over the course of the first half of the film, Barry journeys to lose his past self—the insecure Irish boy of Barryville—and join the upper echelons of society through marriage with an English noblewoman, receiving the name Barry Lyndon. As one may predict, this ends poorly. Barry is shown to be unable to lose his rogue Irish ways, a fact exploited by his stepson Lord Bullingdon who wishes for Barry’s downfall. He is cast out of his castle, and he and his mother return to Ireland.
One can take several messages from this ending—perhaps the snotty English aristocracy is supposed to be seen as not worth joining. Or perhaps Barry did not deserve to join. But I think at least one point of the film is to show that Barry never actually changed. Sure he adopted the tresses and ways of high society, complete with the noble name Lyndon, but he was always still just Redmond Barry of Barryville.
ਜੇ ਜੁਗ ਚਾਰੇ ਆਰਜਾ ਹੋਰ ਦਸੂਣੀ ਹੋਇ ॥
ਨਵਾ ਖੰਡਾ ਵਿਚਿ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਨਾਲਿ ਚਲੈ ਸਭੁ ਕੋਇ ॥
ਚੰਗਾ ਨਾਉ ਰਖਾਇ ਕੈ ਜਸੁ ਕੀਰਤਿ ਜਗਿ ਲੇਇ ॥
ਜੇ ਤਿਸੁ ਨਦਰਿ ਨ ਆਵਈ ਤ ਵਾਤ ਨ ਪੁਛੈ ਕੇ ॥
Even if your age spanned the four Yugas, even if it was ten times that too,
And you were known on all nine continents, and all followed in your wake,
And you kept a good name, with your praises resounding throughout the world,
If you do not come within the Gaze, then it is not worth even asking about you.
Guru Nanak, Jap, Ang 2.
Of course, the point isn’t exactly to empathize with Barry. In fact, it’s pretty easy to view his opponents to be in the right—it’s not Captain Quin’s fault Nora likes him better, and Lord Bullingdon simply sees through Barry’s design to use his mother’s fortune and title for Barry’s own benefit. Barry is simply attempting to switch out one bastardized identity with another that is just as bastardized.
The Sikh path purports to offer a different solution. Instead of moving from one identity (one “name”) that is false to another that is just as equally false, it offers to the mortal the opportunity to move toward an identity that is true—the Satnam. This will, of course, call into question what is true, and what is false, and here a detour into some philosophy will be necessary.
II. TOWARD A BARRY LYNDON
The problem of Barry isn’t that he has the wrong name. No, the problem, at least from the Sikh perspective, began when he felt himself to be an individual, the feeling of which manifests as a name—or perhaps one could argue, is forced upon Barry by the socialization of society (a bit of a nature or nurture argument, but for the self).
In The Cratylus of Plato, Socrates asks Hermogenes the Sophist,
[S]uppose that I call a man a horse or a horse a man, you mean to say that a man will be rightly called a horse by me individually, and rightly called a man by the rest of the world; and a horse again would be rightly called a man by me and a horse by the world:—that is your meaning?19
After Hermogenes (perhaps reluctantly) answers in the affirmative, Socrates immediately jumps to ask him,
But how about truth, then? [Y]ou would acknowledge that there is in words a true and a false?20
Socrates makes this jump because of his view of what a name does. The name, as per Socrates, is the fundamental piece of logic—the most basic unit of true and false propositions.21 A name is thus itself making a claim about what that thing is. But Socrates also admits that, even if “things” did not have names,
they must be supposed to have their own proper and permanent essence: they are not in relation to us, or influenced by us, fluctuating according to our fancy, but they are independent, and maintain to their own essence the relation prescribed by nature.22
But then what are we doing when we engage in the act of naming? Interestingly enough, when Socrates asks this, Hermogenes states, “I cannot say.”23 Socrates then states (importantly, for our purposes),
“'[A] name is an instrument of teaching and of distinguishing natures.”
Socrates then avers that it thus must be the case that things have true names based upon their natures, and it is the job of the “dialectician” to figure out what names should be, “to express the true forms of things in letters and syllables”24 and inform the “legislator” who then enshrines these names into law.
ਬਾਵਨ ਅਛਰ ਲੋਕ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਸਭੁ ਕਛੁ ਇਨ ਹੀ ਮਾਹਿ
In these fifty-two letters of the alphabet, all that resides in the three realms may be described
ਏ ਅਖਰ ਖਿਰਿ ਜਾਹਿਗੇ ਓਇ ਅਖਰ ਇਨ ਮਹਿ ਨਾਹਿ
But eventually, even these letters will one day fade, understand [It] does not reside in these letters
Kabir, Ang 340.
What the problem is, from the Sikh view, is the very capacity of the mind to “distinguish natures” as Socrates puts it. It is this ability (impossible for the mind not to use) that results in language, with language’s fundamental unit being names and words to describe differentiated things (consider here an analogy to constitutionalism: a national consciousness produces a constitution, similarly a “distinguishing” consciousness produces language).25
When this capacity is applied to the self, it results in the view that the self is fundamentally different from its surroundings. As a necessary consequence, Sikh thought puts forth that lust, anger, greed, attachment, and anger must arise.
ਮੁਖਿ ਨਿੰਦਾ ਆਖਾ ਦਿਨੁ ਰਾਤਿ ॥
ਪਰ ਘਰੁ ਜੋਹੀ ਨੀਚ ਸਨਾਤਿ ॥
ਕਾਮੁ ਕ੍ਰੋਧੁ ਤਨਿ ਵਸਹਿ ਚੰਡਾਲ ॥
From my mouth comes slander day and night,
I spy on the houses of others, I am but a lowly wretch,
Lust and anger have filled my low-caste body!
Guru Nanak, Ang 24.
Sikh thought is not alone in this view. Controversial German jurist Carl Schmitt stated Hegel’s dialectic (which can perhaps be said to be a systemization of the mental processes behind the distinguishing of natures alluded to by Socrates) is of a “specifically political nature … quantity transforming into quality has a thoroughly political meaning.”26 Schmitt was convinced that the very act of othering (as advanced by Hegel) necessitated the creation of enemies—such was natural as “this negation is mutual and this mutuality of negations has its own concrete existence” between different peoples.27 Of course, Schmitt is talking about political bodies, such as when one differentiates between Germans and Jewish people, but this can very easily be applied to individuals, such as when a consciousness differentiates between I, Redmond Barry and the other, Captain Quin.
Where Sikh thought differs from the brutal realism of Schmitt (as well as really any thinker who takes “otherness” to be a given) is it denies that this dialectic is the true state of affairs in reality. Sikhi agrees with Socrates that there is a permanent essence to all things, and a true name would be a combination of letters and syllables that best describes this essence, however, it would disagree that this essence can be differentiated between things within reality and maintain its truth. A true name would need to be that which can be true when applied to everything, and thus, any name which implies a differentiation (for example, singling out the mass of atoms that is Redmond Barry’s body and calling it Redmond Barry) would be necessarily false.
ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਹੈ ਸੋਇ ॥
ਤਿਸ ਦੈ ਚਾਨਣਿ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਚਾਨਣੁ ਹੋਇ ॥
Within all is the light, there is but only that light,
By the light’s illumination, its rays are present in all.
Guru Nanak, Aarti, Ang 13.
One may, at this point, be a little confused as to why any of this is important. Is the fact that we use names really that complicated? Isn’t this all a bit semantic?
It may seem that way, but the actual use of names is not as important as what they purport to represent—the individuation of consciousness that gives rise to self-interest (which, recall, necessarily gives rise to the ailments of the self). This is what not only philosophers, but every human struggles against—from the Redmond Barrys to the Captain Quins. If our pesky minds had only just stayed shut, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
ਮਨ ਤੂੰ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਰੂਪੁ ਹੈ ਆਪਣਾ ਮੂਲੁ ਪਛਾਣੁ ॥
ਮਨ ਹਰਿ ਜੀ ਤੇਰੈ ਨਾਲਿ ਹੈ ਗੁਰਮਤੀ ਰੰਗੁ ਮਾਣੁ ॥
Mind—you are the form of Light, recognize your essential origin,
Mind—the Divine is alongside you, through the teachings of the Guru you may be imbued with its color.
Guru Amar Das, Ang 441.
According to the Guru, the essence of the human is the exact same essence that pervades all. It is human faculty that sees its own essence as different. But by now, the impatient reader may be screaming at the screen. “Different from what exactly?! Am I to believe that I simply do not exist?”
III. LORD FAKENHAM
Consider for a moment that science had advanced to the point where it could make a blueprint of the exact composition of your cells and dispatch it to another location, where you are recreated exactly as you were before, and destroying your old body.28 Is this teleportation of you, or is it a recreation of another being? What if your old body was not destroyed, and you simply had another you walking around?
Parfit proffered that in both cases, although you and your replica are qualitatively identical, you are not numerically identical, both conditions of which need to be fulfilled to constitute personal identity.29 One (haha) must be “one and the same person” to qualify as numerically identical.30
But what does this “person” actually mean? Is it someone who stays the exact same through spacetime? Because if it were so, given the fact that cells regenerate and bodies undergo natural changes, no one could fulfill this requirement of personhood.31 One may then say, the requirement of physicality is only such that enough of the brain needed to generate a continuous personality is what makes a person.32 Fine—but is a continuous personality sufficient to make “one” person? Are you really who you were a year ago? Five years ago? Twenty? Are “you” simply a collection of memories that inform your present mind?33
Some would answer yes—that “[w]hat united all of these experiences is, simply, that they are all mine.”34 Parfit offers a more complex answer, that perhaps while “A person’s existence just consists in the existence of a brain and a body, and the occurrence of a series of interrelated physical and mental events,” this could be logically consistent with the claim that “A person is an entity that is distinct from a brain and body, and such a series of events.”35 He analogizes to a nation or republic that is a distinct entity from its parts, but does not exist separate from it—a sort of twist on the classic axiom that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.36
So, as the argument goes, when Barry calls himself Lieutenant Fakenham in an attempt to evade capture by a Prussian patrol, following his desertion from the British army, he is still the same person. Sure he is using a different name, but his personhood remains constant. This is in my view one of, if not the, best arguments for Socrates’ belief that individual things, including people, can have their own particular nature—particularized essences.
Only it turns out, Parfit himself did not believe it.
Instead, he asserted, the self is “not [a] separately existing entit[y] … Our existence just involves the existence of our brains and bodies.”37 He asserted that,38
“Our identity over time just involves (a) Relation R—psychological connectedness and/or psychological continuity—with the right kind of cause, provided (b) that this relation does not take a ‘branching’ form, holding between one person and two different future people.
To Parfit, “[w]hat fundamentally matters”39 in explaining the unity of consciousness and the unity of a whole life is Relation R. And Relation R’s cause may be “any cause”40 — which could mean the simple fact that a brain has continued to be in a body (the normal case), or that a brain has been transplanted in another body, or…some “causes” that may seem to be purely of someone’s uniquely peculiar psychology (like identifying with a future community).41
Parfit also asserted Buddhism42 agreed with his view on the self (the view being that the self is ultimately false). He quotes a Buddhist text stating43
A sentient being does exist, you think, O Mara?
You are misled by a false conception,
This bundle of elements is void of Self,
In it there is no sentient being,
Just as a set of wooden parts,
Receives the name of carriage,
So do we give to elements,
The name of fancied being.
It would appear that if this sage were in the place of Hermogenes, he would tell Socrates that the work Socrates believes the dialectician should do—find the essence of things and put a name to it—is ultimately false, because there is no true essence.
But that’s not the whole story. Although lengthy, other conversations amongst various Buddhist sages will also be of importance (for their dissonance with Sikh thought, rather than for their valence).44
Buddha has spoken thus: ‘O Brethren, actions do exist, and also their consequences … but the person that acts does not. There is no one to cast away this set of elements and no one to assume a new set of them. There exists no Individual, it is only a conventional name given to a set of elements.
Vasubandhu: When Buddha says, ‘I myself was this teacher Sunetra,’ he means that his past and his present belong to one and the same lineage of momentary existences; he does not mean that the former elements did not disappear. Just as when we say ‘this same fire which has been seen consuming that thing has reached this object,’ the fire is not the same, but overlooking this difference we indirectly call fire the continuity of its moments.
Vatsiputriya: If there is no Soul, who is it that remembers?
Vasubandhu: What is the meaning of the word ‘to remember’?
Vatsiputriya: It means to grasp an object by memory.
Vasubandhu: Is this ‘grasping by memory’ something different from memory?
Vatsiputriya: It is an agent who acts through memory.
Vasubandhu: The agency by which memory is produced we have just explained. The cause producive of a recollection is a suitable state of mind, nothing more.
Here, if the Buddha maintains he is psychologically connected to his past teacher, perhaps Vasubandhu is implying one can “remember” all the people who they have been psychologically connected to at some point in time. And this principle perhaps does not need to be limited to people, as the sages elsewhere discuss,45
Vatsiputriya: What is an actual, and what a nominal existence?
Vasubandhu: If something exists by itself (as a separate element) it has an actual existence. But if something represents a combination (of such elements) it is a nominal existence.
If the only thing that exists by itself is (insert here: reality, the Universe, etc.) then, according to Vasubandhu, this is the only thing that can actually exist. The rest have only a “nominal” existence—a falsehood created through name.
The mental and the material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found.
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll,
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.46
IV. REDEEMING REDMOND
The Sikh view is not so nihilistic.
The Sikh and Buddhist views share the common understanding that, indeed, reality is made of a fundamental, unchanging element—only this can be said to truly exist.
ਤ੍ਰੈ ਗੁਣ ਪੜਹਿ ਹਰਿ ਤਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਣਹਿ ॥
ਮੂਲਹੁ ਭੁਲੇ ਗੁਰ ਸਬਦੁ ਨ ਪਛਾਣਹਿ ॥
ਮੋਹ ਬਿਆਪੇ ਕਿਛੁ ਸੂਝੈ ਨਾਹੀ ਗੁਰ ਸਬਦੀ ਹਰਿ ਪਾਵਣਿਆ ॥੬॥
Reading about the three gunas of reality (the Creative, Sustaining, and Destructive aspects—symbolized by Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) does not enlighten one to its essence,
Forgetting the root, the mortal has not recognized the Guru’s word,
Engrossed in attachment, they understand nothing, it is through the Guru’s word that Hari is found.
Guru Amar Das, Ang 128.
This reality is fundamentally a oneness. The Guru Granth Sahib begins with
ੴ
which has been famously difficult to translate. The first symbol is definitely the Indic numeral for one (“Ik”)—that is beyond doubt. But the second symbol, a letter in the Gurmukhi alphabet with an extended curved line at the top known as “Ongkar” has confounded modern and traditional scholars alike. For a long time, it was translated to “God,” now in some sections, it is sometimes referred to as “the Universe,” “the Big Bang,” “Reality,” etc.
These translations may do for a world in which we must communicate using reasoned sentences—explaining Sikh doctrine to friends, coworkers, or even family members. But it misses something fundamental to Sikhi. Which is that it is impossible to completely describe this “thing.”
ਆਵਹੁ ਸੰਤ ਪਿਆਰਿਹੋ ਅਕਥ ਕੀ ਕਰਹ ਕਹਾਣੀ ॥
ਕਰਹ ਕਹਾਣੀ ਅਕਥ ਕੇਰੀ ਕਿਤੁ ਦੁਆਰੈ ਪਾਈਐ ॥
ਤਨੁ ਮਨੁ ਧਨੁ ਸਭੁ ਸਉਪਿ ਗੁਰ ਕਉ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਮੰਨਿਐ ਪਾਈਐ ॥
ਹੁਕਮੁ ਮੰਨਿਹੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਕੇਰਾ ਗਾਵਹੁ ਸਚੀ ਬਾਣੀ ॥
ਕਹੈ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਸੰਤਹੁ ਕਥਿਹੁ ਅਕਥ ਕਹਾਣੀ ॥੯॥
Come my beloved saintly friends, let us tell stories of the indescribable,
Let’s tell these stories of the indescribable, through which we may reach Its door,
Let us give this body, mind, and wealth to the Guru and obtain the ability to obey the Hukam (Command),
Which Hukam is that? To sing the true words—
Says Nanak, listen my saintly friends, let us explain the stories of the indescribable.
Guru Amar Das, Anand, Ang 918.
What gets lost in the English here, is the clever juxtaposition of the word “akath” (“indescribable”) with “kathyo” (“to explain, describe”) in the last line. Guru Amar Das is making explicit the paradox of trying to describe the Beloved. The way he is describing it (“akath”) is directly opposed to the entire task of description (naming, distinguishing) itself. The Guru would tell Socrates, well, good luck trying to get to the true name of anything, because the only “thing” that is actually true (the Beloved) cannot actually be named.
But this is where the Satnam makes its arrival. Because right after the ੴ in the beginning of Guru Granth Sahib, the very next thing to be written is
ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁ
This, like Ik Ongkar, can be read in multiple ways as well. It can be seen as simply saying, “the True Name,” or, as is more commonly the translation, it could be describing Ik Ongkar—either saying “Its name is true,” or, that “It is the True Name.”
Among these, I prefer the first translation the most. This is because I think it accords best with how the phrase and its variants are used in the rest of Gurbani as well as by Bhai Gurdas. In the Japji Sahib, the first full-length composition of the Guru Granth Sahib, ascribed to Guru Nanak, there are several uses of “the True Name”
ਸਾਚਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਾਚੁ ਨਾਇ ਭਾਖਿਆ ਭਾਉ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥
ਆਖਹਿ ਮੰਗਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦਾਤਿ ਕਰੇ ਦਾਤਾਰੁ ॥
ਫੇਰਿ ਕਿ ਅਗੈ ਰਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਦਿਸੈ ਦਰਬਾਰੁ ॥
ਮੁਹੌ ਕਿ ਬੋਲਣੁ ਬੋਲੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਸੁਣਿ ਧਰੇ ਪਿਆਰੁ ॥
ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵੇਲਾ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਉ ਵਡਿਆਈ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
ਕਰਮੀ ਆਵੈ ਕਪੜਾ ਨਦਰੀ ਮੋਖੁ ਦੁਆਰੁ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਏਵੈ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਸਭੁ ਆਪੇ ਸਚਿਆਰੁ ॥੪॥
True is the Master, True is the Name, speak it in unlimited awe,
The people continuously beg, “Give it please!” — and the Giver continues giving
Then what offering should we put forth, that will allow us to see the Court?
At the timeless time, contemplate the greatness of the True Name,
Through karma comes the clothes, through the Gaze comes the liberating Gate,
Nanak, know this at least—everything is its own Truth.
Guru Nanak, Jap, Ang 2.
This passage may seem monotheistic in the Abrahimic sense, as references are made to a “Master” and “Giver.” But I think these must be read in context of the message scattered across Gurbani, some of which has been quoted already, that the Beloved being discussed is contained within the self.
ਸੋ ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਮਹਿ ਬਸੈ ਨਿਰੰਤਰਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਦਰਪਨਿ ਨਿਆਈ
That very same Infinite dwells within you, Nanak, just as if looking into a mirror
Guru Tegh Bahadur, Ang 632
Consider here, Bhai Gurdas as well,47
ਪਾਤਾਲਾ ਆਕਾਸ ਲਖ ਜੀਤੀ ਧਰਤੀ ਜਗਤੁ ਸਬਾਇਆ।
ਜੀਤੀ ਨਉਖੰਡ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਸਤਿਨਾਮ ਦਾ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਫਿਰਾਇਆ।
Underworlds and heavenly realms numbering in the hundreds of thousands were won, so too all the land of the world
Winning over the nine continents, he began rotating the wheel of the True Name
Bhai Gurdas is particularly relevant here because he specifically uses the word ਸਤਿਨਾਮ (Satnam) in the above writing—other than the omission of the “ੁ” at the end of the word, it is written exactly the way it is found in the beginning of the Guru Granth Sahib. But Bhai Gurdas does not use the term Waheguru in this verse.
Later in the same Vaar, Bhai Gurdas, in a Pauri titled “ਸੱਤਿਨਾਮ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਤਾਪ” (“the Greatness of the True Name”) writes the folllowing,48
ਬਾਬਾ ਬੋਲੇ ਨਾਥ ਜੀ ਸਬਦੁ ਸੁਨਹੁ ਸਚੁ ਮੁਖਹੁ ਅਲਾਈ।
ਬਾਝੋ ਸਚੇ ਨਾਮ ਦੇ ਹੋਰੁ ਕਰਾਮਾਤਿ ਅਸਾਂ ਤੇ ਨਾਹੀ।
ਬਸਤਰਿ ਪਹਿਰੌ ਅਗਨਿ ਕੈ ਬਰਫ ਹਿਮਾਲੇ ਮੰਦਰੁ ਛਾਈ।
ਕਰੌ ਰਸੋਈ ਸਾਰ ਦੀ ਸਗਲੀ ਧਰਤੀ ਨਥਿ ਚਲਾਈ।
ਏਵਡੁ ਕਰੀ ਵਿਥਾਰ ਕਉ ਸਗਲੀ ਧਰਤੀ ਨਥਿ ਚਲਾਈ।
ਤੋਲੀ ਧਰਤਿ ਅਕਾਸਿ ਦੁਇ ਪਿਛੇ ਛਾਬੇ ਟੰਕੁ ਚੜਾਈ।
ਇਹ ਬਲੁ ਰਖਾ ਆਪਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਜਿਸੁ ਆਖਾ ਤਿਸੁ ਪਾਸਿ ਕਰਾਈ।
ਸਤਿਨਾਮ ਬਿਨੁ ਬਾਦਰਿ ਛਾਈ ॥੪੩॥
Baba (Nanak) said, “Nath ji, listen to the true words I utter from my mouth,
Without the True Name, I have no other miracles about me.
I may wear clothes made of fire, and build my house in the snow of the Himalayas,
I may prepare iron to eat, and chain the entire world to my command,
I may expand myself so, and (repeated) chain the entire world to my command,
I may weigh the entire sky against but a few crumbs,
I may carry so much power that simply saying it pushes away anyone,
But without the True Name, these powers are but the shadow of clouds.
Notably here, the word Waheguru is again not found. Rather, it is at the end of the first Vaar (section) of Bhai Gurdas’ writings that one finds the verse titled “ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ” (“Waheguru Mantar”). Here, Bhai Gurdas ascribes the origin of each of the letters in Waheguru, and then ends the verse stating,49
ਚਾਰੋ ਅਛਰ ਇਕੁ ਕਰਿ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜਪੁ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਜਪਾਵੈ।
ਜਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਉਪਜਿਆ ਫਿਰਿ ਤਹਾਂ ਸਮਾਵੈ ॥੪੯॥੧॥
By joining the four letters, the recitation of the Waheguru mantra is accomplished,
To the source from which it arose, it is merged back.
The word Nam is not used here, instead it is the word Mantar. This does not automatically mean the word Waheguru isn’t the “Satnam” referred to throughout Gurbani. A very common argument, with some considerable weight, is that mantras are usually themselves names for the divine: “Hare Krishna” “Ram Ram” etc. It is difficult to fully prove the claim that Waheguru is the Satnam correct or incorrect—to the extent that the word Waheguru shows up in Guru Granth Sahib, it is used by the Bhatts (Sikh bards) and it is unclear if it was meant to signify the name of the Beloved.50
Whatever the case, if Waheguru was seen as the name of the Beloved, the last line of the above verse implies the function of its recitation is to return one’s consciousness to its origin. And this would appear to be the universal view of what Nam does—return the soul to the Beloved from which it was separated through the process of differentiation. Dr. Neki writes,
ਪਹਿਲੇ ਵਿਚ ਨਾਮ ਦ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟਾ ਤੋਂ ਦ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟਮਾਨ ਵਲ ਉਤਰਿਆ, ਹੁਣ ਦੂਜੇ ਪਖ ਵਿਚ ਦ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟਮਾਨ ਤੋਂ ਦ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟਾ ਵਲ ਨੂੰ ਯਾਤ੍ਰਾ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ
First, Nam brings out of perception the distinguishable, and now from the opposite side it will take the distinguishable back to perception.51
V. BECOMING BARRY
A short recap of where we are. Sikhi, Buddhism, and Parfit all seem to be on largely the same page on a personal identity—that it is logically false. Our mind’s capacity to distinguish, to differentiate itself, seems to be at the root of this issue, which leads to the hurt, pain, and suffering that make us become Redmond Barry at his worst. Some, like Schmitt and Hegel, seem to think this simply an unavoidable consequence of having a mind, a part of human life. And others, like Barry himself, embrace it—they decide to take differentiation to the extreme, chasing an ideal that centers the self above all others. Others, like Sikhi and Buddhism, seem to think it possible to overcome the mind’s capacity to differentiate. But how?
ਕਿਵ ਸਚਿਆਰਾ ਹੋਈਐ ਕਿਵ ਕੂੜੈ ਤੁਟੈ ਪਾਲਿ ॥
ਹੁਕਮਿ ਰਜਾਈ ਚਲਣਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਨਾਲਿ ॥੧॥
But then how does one attain a character of truth, how does one shatter this veil of illusion?
Walk along with the underlying Hukam, Nanak, that has been written all along.
Guru Nanak, Jap, Ang 1.
Perhaps one can sell egodeath to one’s mind by convincing it that its self-extermination is good for it. Parfit states he found the falsity of the self to be “liberating, and consoling.”52 Before he came to this revelation, his “life seemed like a glass tunnel, through which [he] was moving faster every year, and at the end of which there was darkness.”53 But after,54
When I changed my view, the walls of my glass tunnel disappeared. I now live in the open air. There is still a difference between my life and the lives of other people. But the difference is less. Other people are closer. I am less concerned about the rest of my own life, and more concerned about the lives of others.
Here’s the thing. Taking Parfit at his word, we can assume this philosophical breakthrough really did change his life. But the vast majority of humanity, so long as we are flesh and blood, are emotional beings. We can say we have attained “Oneness” all we want—
ਸੋਚੈ ਸੋਚਿ ਨ ਹੋਵਈ ਜੇ ਸੋਚੀ ਲਖ ਵਾਰ ॥
ਚੁਪੈ ਚੁਪ ਨ ਹੋਵਈ ਜੇ ਲਾਇ ਰਹਾ ਲਿਵ ਤਾਰ ॥
ਭੁਖਿਆ ਭੁਖ ਨ ਉਤਰੀ ਜੇ ਬੰਨਾ ਪੁਰੀਆ ਭਾਰ ॥
ਸਹਸ ਸਿਆਣਪਾ ਲਖ ਹੋਹਿ ਤ ਇਕ ਨ ਚਲੈ ਨਾਲਿ ॥
Through simple rituals of purity one does not become pure, even if they do a hundred thousand,
By remaining quiet, inner peace is not obtained, even if one stays deeply focused for a long, uninterrupted time,
By keeping fasts, one does not appease their inner hunger, even with many worldly goods to do so,
A thousand clever tricks—heck, even make it one hundred thousand—you will not take even one of these with you.
Guru Nanak, Jap, Ang 1.
but the best method in the Sikh view, is recognizing the Hukam (“Command”) mentioned earlier.
What exactly is this Hukam? There are many different takes out there. But, closely after, the Guru notes,
ਨਾਨਕ ਹੁਕਮੈ ਜੇ ਬੁਝੈ ਤ ਹਉਮੈ ਕਹੈ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥੨॥
Nanak, those who have understood the Hukam, will not say that there is an “I” (Haumai) that exists.
But now you may be banging your head on the wall in frustration. How does that help understand the Hukam? Why are there so many circles?
Well, it wouldn’t be any fun if the answers were just handed to you. Hukam is a concept expanded upon many times throughout Gurbani, but I’m not sure if it is really explainable. But what comes next is my best guess.
A hint here is this line from Guru Angad,
ਹਉਮੈ ਏਹੋ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਹੈ ਪਇਐ ਕਿਰਤਿ ਫਿਰਾਹਿ ॥
ਹਉਮੈ ਦੀਰਘ ਰੋਗੁ ਹੈ ਦਾਰੂ ਭੀ ਇਸੁ ਮਾਹਿ ॥
Haumai (the ego) is such a Hukam, by its effect there are many wandering due to past actions,
Haumai (the ego) is indeed a chronic disease, but its cure is contained within it as well.
Ang 1023
Think about what this capacity to differentiate has given us. Yes, it has given us much pain and suffering due to our own egos. But it has also given us the ability to find beauty in the dark desert that is human existence. And here is where Sikhi breaks from Vasubandhu and the Buddhists. It is not through disengaging with society, or the mental gymnastics involved in “letting go” of the ego, or any one magical formula that one “remembers” (simar) their common origin—the Satnam. No, instead, I argue Sikhi offers its solution in the aesthetic, in the arts, in feeling—this is the reason why the Guru Granth Sahib is written in verse to be sung in ragas, and not cold philosophical prose.
ਪੁਰਖ ਮਹਿ ਨਾਰਿ ਨਾਰਿ ਮਹਿ ਪੁਰਖਾ ਬੂਝਹੁ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਗਿਆਨੀ ॥
ਧੁਨਿ ਮਹਿ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨ ਮਹਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਅਕਥ ਕਹਾਨੀ ॥੩॥
The female is in the male, and the male is in the female—one who understands reality will contemplate this,
The focus is in the melody, and within the focus one becomes Gurmukh—they can tell stories of the indescribable.
Guru Nanak, Ang 879.
It is through this personal transformation—mediated by the shabad and Sikh aesthetic—that the Sikh moves from their name, with its ultimately false identity and frustrating limitations, to the Satnam, the True Name of an undifferentiated [reality/Beloved]. The most important thing is this a process that can only be felt. But that is why it worked. The Sikh Sangat was moved by the message of the Guru and the Shabad. The message that one’s personal identity is false, but that they may be able to attain something greater, struck something deep inside the people who heard it. This is why I describe the formation of the Sikh Sangat as a fundamentally democratic process—no one was forced to become a Sikh, rather (insofar as the history suggests), something within the people felt the Guru must be right. It should not be forgotten that Guru Nanak traveled with only one companion—Bhai Mardana, the rababi (an Indian lute player), who provided the music for the Guru’s verse.
ਇਕ ਬਾਬਾ ਅਕਾਲ ਰੂਪੁ ਦੂਜਾ ਰਬਾਬੀ ਮਰਦਾਨਾ।
One was the Baba, the very form of Akal, and the other was Mardana, the rababi.55
Id. (citing Vaaran Bhai Gurdas, Vaar 11, Pauri 3 https://www.searchgurbani.com/bhai-gurdas-vaaran/vaar/11/pauri/3/line/1).
Wheeler M. Thackston, The Jahangirnama: Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor of India 59 (1999).
Khem Singh, supra note 1.
See Dr. Jaswant Singh Neki, Naam Da Gurmat Siddhant, Chardikalaa.com (Sept. 22, 2012) (opening paragraph). https://www.chardikalaa.com/?p=500
Forgive me if this is unclear, for I plan to explain this fully in Part II of The Constitutional Moment at Anandpur.
See Kahn Singh Nabha, Gur Shabad Ratankar Mahan Kosh 2451 (ed. Baljinder Singh Rara Sahib, published online) (the second definition stating it to be a word that “as used in Sikh writings, enlightens one to the nature of God and his command” (author transl.)). https://old.sgpc.net/CDN/Mahankosh.pdf
Vaaran Bhai Gurdas, Vaar 1 Pauri 49 (on the “Waheguru” mantra) is often referenced to prove this point. Bhai Gurdas does note his belief that the first letter of several different “names” of the divine from Indic mythology (Vishnu, Hari, Ram, and Govind) have been combined to create this mantra. It may indeed be possible he views it as another “name” for the divine, however, note that Naam is not used to describe the word “Waheguru” itself. https://www.searchgurbani.com/bhai-gurdas-vaaran/vaar/1/pauri/49/line/1
Arvind-Pal Singh Mandair, Sikh Philosophy: Exploring Gurmat Concepts in a Decolonizing World 68 (2022) (emphasis in original).
Id. at 52.
Id.
Id. at 70.
Id. at 70.
Id. at 68.
Id. at 45.
See supra Nabha, note 6.
See Neki, supra note 5.
I use the gendered “His” in reference to the Beloved here, not because Sikh doctrine commands that the Beloved is a masculine Being of sorts—indeed, I quite agree with Mandair’s formulation of the Beloved as a principle (although what that principle is may be further litigated, and in some ways will be in this essay) and so obviously it does not actually have gender—but because I believe the force of the metaphor of the Husband-beloved and Bride-soul common in Gurbani is lost if these two actors are degendered. When referencing the Beloved in this context I think it is actually necessary to use “His” to maintain the original meaning, just as if the Beloved is described in fearsome feminine terms by a Sikh writer, its English pronouns would need to be feminine (“Her”) to give effect to the metaphor.
Plato, Cratylus (transl. Benjamin Jowett, 1999). https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1616/1616-h/1616-h.htm
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
See discussion in Section I of Khem Singh, supra note 1.
Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political 62 (transl. George Schwab, 2007) (originally published 1932).
Id. at 63.
See Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons 199-200 (1984).
Id. at 201.
Id.
Id. at 203-4.
Id.
Id. at 207.
Id. at 214.
Id. at 211.
Id. at 211-12.
Id. at 216.
Id.
Id. at 217.
Id. at 215.
See id. at 454 (expressing concern for future humanity because Parfit would like to see the development of Non-Religious Ethics—moral reasoning without the belief in “God, or in many gods”).
Id. at 502 (quoting the Cila Mara in Theodore Stcherbatsky, The Soul Theory of Buddhist, Bulletin de 'l’Academie des Sciences de Russie 839 (1919)).
Id.
Id.
Id. (quoting Theodore Stcherbatsky, The Central Conception of Buddhism 26 (1923)).
Id. (quoting Visuddhimagga in Steven Collins, Selfless Persons 133 (1982)).
Vaar 1, Pauri 37.
Vaar 1, Pauri 43.
Vaar 1, Pauri 49.
Ang 1402.
Neki, supra note 5.
Parfit, supra note 28 at 281.
Id.
Id.
Vaar 1, Pauri 35.