☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
The Prison Of One-Word Labels
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Admin" data-source="post: 115626" data-attributes="member: 1"><p>The gambler never wins in the end simply because over the long haul the odds are set to favor the house. I am not a gambler but I got roped into a fixed game with odds set against me when I entered a discussion on the Internet with my eyes wide open. In fact, they must have been wide shut. The bait was irresistible with lures glistening like polished diamonds. The angler reeled me in with a few words taken out of context from my own essays. How could any man resist the temptation?</p><p></p><p>I had mentioned in one column some years ago that I became an Amritdhari Sikh. It was a public declaration of a very private intention and action but it seemed pertinent in context. A bright Sikh picked it up. He highlighted the lines indicating my personal transformation to Amritdhari and instantly labeled me a traditionalist.</p><p></p><p>I wouldn’t have minded the label because there are many traditions of Sikhism that I revere, even if I fall short in honoring them entirely. But he went on to claim that the counterpart of a traditionalist is a modernist.</p><p></p><p>My first response was somewhat general. I pointed out that our lives are mostly too complex to be summarized usefully in a one-word descriptive label. I know that we use such handles for convenience of communication but I doubt that we enhance our understanding all that much. </p><p></p><p>There are many who reject my writings because they label me a traditionalist. And there are just as many who absolutely detest what I write because I don’t seem to respect the traditions that they do. </p><p></p><p>When I wrote on Hew McLeod, his loyal friends were unhappy over what they labeled as my failure to unconditionally laud him. And I do appreciate him. But his diehard foes were equally convinced that I had failed to understand McLeod’s failings. Similarly, an essay on Khalistan that I wrote at the height of the insurgency angered both sides. </p><p></p><p>I must be doing something right.</p><p></p><p>But my critic came back with something that really got my goat. I can’t do better than to reproduce pertinent parts of our exchange by e-mails.</p><p></p><p>Said he: “I beg to say that I stand by the label of traditionalist as against modernist. Let me first explain in the words of Jaroslav Pelikan, the sterling professor and immediate past president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and one of the leading scholars of religion in the world with more than 30 books to his credit: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living… Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition.”” </p><p></p><p>But this was a serious misreading of the noted church historian who was speaking on the vindication of tradition - not its rejection - when he delivered the Jefferson Lectures in 1983. He covered four issues: rediscovery of tradition, recovery of tradition, tradition as history, and tradition as heritage. Pelikan explored the nexus between history and tradition to elucidate our break with the past that has resulted in rejection of tradition. </p><p></p><p>Pelikan’s words are meant to shock both those who reject and those who adhere to tradition without proper reflection. Blind acceptance of tradition for tradition's sake is traditionalism, he warns us; a living tradition embodies the best of its cultural heritage. Dead traditionalism holds its culture hostage. His lectures are an excellent apologia for the role of tradition in society. </p><p></p><p>My critic continued: “Since you are now a Khalsa, you are pure and bound to a belief system and cannot go to reality direct, immediate. The belief system will hinder you; it will never allow you to go beyond its boundaries. It is a sort of imprisonment. The prison may be beautiful, very well decorated, comfortable, and convenient but please remember a prison is a prison. Only a real man, a man of courage, can face the reality… In the final analysis, traditionalism seems to be too reactionary and too nostalgic to offer a workable way to move through and beyond modernity… </p><p></p><p>“It is just difficult to accept that one can be a good Sikh, especially Amritdhari Khalsa, and a good modernist. The two terms are mutually exclusive because their condemnation of each.” (Emphasis added)</p><p></p><p>So where does the critic place himself? If the two terms are mutually exclusive, he is then either a Sikh or a modernist. </p><p></p><p>He and many others seem to have reserved the term traditionalist (hence not modern) for any Sikh who wears a turban and has unshorn hair.</p><p></p><p>Sikhi and modernity are not incompatible. On the contrary, Sikhi presents a very modern way of life. It is just that we have never looked at Sikhi through modern eyes. What the mind does not know the eye does not see.</p><p></p><p>To me the antithesis of being modern is to be primitive. However uncivilized I may be, primitive I am not. </p><p></p><p>Traditionalists, like lawyers who routinely look to precedent, are not primitive in their approach even if one disagrees with them. Precedent and tradition provide a sense of continuity that is important to a society’s sense of self. Don’t underestimate its value because it has none to you.</p><p></p><p>I would interpret the word traditionalist to mean one who does not question and reinterpret the meaning of precedent. If done to laws of a secular society, it makes for a bad lawyer. If done to religious teachings, it renders them irrelevant and fossilized. So that’s a label I don’t want. The one-word label remains inaccurate, arbitrary and, most importantly, misleading.</p><p></p><p>But my critic did not stop there. He appeared to cherry pick what he thinks are Sikh traditions to attack them. First he sets them up as straw men and then he knocks them down.</p><p></p><p>To my understanding Sikhism does not allege, as my critic contended, that “there is no salvation outside of Sikhism” or that “if you have Amrit baptism you are saved.” Sikhism clearly does not teach a doctrine of exclusivity or that an Amritdhari is destined for heaven and others are not. </p><p></p><p>I can see where historically the Judaic-Christian-Islamic tradition is coming from on the idea of a chosen people and what they have done with it. I understand it but I don’t have to own it. It is not mine nor is it the Sikh position. </p><p></p><p>If readers on both sides of an issue find differences with me, what does that make me --¬ a traditionalist, in his meaning of the term, or a non-traditionalist as many others allege? Sometimes both sides respond by claiming that “I.J. Singh does not understand Sikhism.” Perhaps so, but all I can put forth is my own understanding of it. </p><p></p><p>Each side is looking at me through its own prism. Both are right. Yet, I can refuse to be boxed by a label. </p><p></p><p>My character flaw is that I refuse to accept that some minds are made up, conclusions are already etched in stone, and discussions are - like loaded dice - not open, honest exchanges. But this is a trait that I refuse to abandon. </p><p></p><p>This drawn out exchange produced a good kind of tiredness; but the results remained so much sound and fury signifying nothing.</p><p></p><p>I wondered if we had been talking to each other or at each other. Nothing had moved. And that seemed like a good time and place to put down the loaded dice.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Note: <em>The author, Inder Jit Singh, is an anatomy professor at New York University. He is also on the editorial advisory board of the Calcutta-based periodical, The Sikh Review, and is the author of four books: Sikhs and Sikhism: A View With a Bias; The Sikh Way: A Pilgrim's Progress; Being and Becoming a Sikh; and The World According to Sikhi. He can be reached at: <a href="mailto:ijsingh99@gmail.com"><span style="color: blue">ijsingh99@gmail.com</span></a></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Admin, post: 115626, member: 1"] The gambler never wins in the end simply because over the long haul the odds are set to favor the house. I am not a gambler but I got roped into a fixed game with odds set against me when I entered a discussion on the Internet with my eyes wide open. In fact, they must have been wide shut. The bait was irresistible with lures glistening like polished diamonds. The angler reeled me in with a few words taken out of context from my own essays. How could any man resist the temptation? I had mentioned in one column some years ago that I became an Amritdhari Sikh. It was a public declaration of a very private intention and action but it seemed pertinent in context. A bright Sikh picked it up. He highlighted the lines indicating my personal transformation to Amritdhari and instantly labeled me a traditionalist. I wouldn’t have minded the label because there are many traditions of Sikhism that I revere, even if I fall short in honoring them entirely. But he went on to claim that the counterpart of a traditionalist is a modernist. My first response was somewhat general. I pointed out that our lives are mostly too complex to be summarized usefully in a one-word descriptive label. I know that we use such handles for convenience of communication but I doubt that we enhance our understanding all that much. There are many who reject my writings because they label me a traditionalist. And there are just as many who absolutely detest what I write because I don’t seem to respect the traditions that they do. When I wrote on Hew McLeod, his loyal friends were unhappy over what they labeled as my failure to unconditionally laud him. And I do appreciate him. But his diehard foes were equally convinced that I had failed to understand McLeod’s failings. Similarly, an essay on Khalistan that I wrote at the height of the insurgency angered both sides. I must be doing something right. But my critic came back with something that really got my goat. I can’t do better than to reproduce pertinent parts of our exchange by e-mails. Said he: “I beg to say that I stand by the label of traditionalist as against modernist. Let me first explain in the words of Jaroslav Pelikan, the sterling professor and immediate past president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and one of the leading scholars of religion in the world with more than 30 books to his credit: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living… Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition.”” But this was a serious misreading of the noted church historian who was speaking on the vindication of tradition - not its rejection - when he delivered the Jefferson Lectures in 1983. He covered four issues: rediscovery of tradition, recovery of tradition, tradition as history, and tradition as heritage. Pelikan explored the nexus between history and tradition to elucidate our break with the past that has resulted in rejection of tradition. Pelikan’s words are meant to shock both those who reject and those who adhere to tradition without proper reflection. Blind acceptance of tradition for tradition's sake is traditionalism, he warns us; a living tradition embodies the best of its cultural heritage. Dead traditionalism holds its culture hostage. His lectures are an excellent apologia for the role of tradition in society. My critic continued: “Since you are now a Khalsa, you are pure and bound to a belief system and cannot go to reality direct, immediate. The belief system will hinder you; it will never allow you to go beyond its boundaries. It is a sort of imprisonment. The prison may be beautiful, very well decorated, comfortable, and convenient but please remember a prison is a prison. Only a real man, a man of courage, can face the reality… In the final analysis, traditionalism seems to be too reactionary and too nostalgic to offer a workable way to move through and beyond modernity… “It is just difficult to accept that one can be a good Sikh, especially Amritdhari Khalsa, and a good modernist. The two terms are mutually exclusive because their condemnation of each.” (Emphasis added) So where does the critic place himself? If the two terms are mutually exclusive, he is then either a Sikh or a modernist. He and many others seem to have reserved the term traditionalist (hence not modern) for any Sikh who wears a turban and has unshorn hair. Sikhi and modernity are not incompatible. On the contrary, Sikhi presents a very modern way of life. It is just that we have never looked at Sikhi through modern eyes. What the mind does not know the eye does not see. To me the antithesis of being modern is to be primitive. However uncivilized I may be, primitive I am not. Traditionalists, like lawyers who routinely look to precedent, are not primitive in their approach even if one disagrees with them. Precedent and tradition provide a sense of continuity that is important to a society’s sense of self. Don’t underestimate its value because it has none to you. I would interpret the word traditionalist to mean one who does not question and reinterpret the meaning of precedent. If done to laws of a secular society, it makes for a bad lawyer. If done to religious teachings, it renders them irrelevant and fossilized. So that’s a label I don’t want. The one-word label remains inaccurate, arbitrary and, most importantly, misleading. But my critic did not stop there. He appeared to cherry pick what he thinks are Sikh traditions to attack them. First he sets them up as straw men and then he knocks them down. To my understanding Sikhism does not allege, as my critic contended, that “there is no salvation outside of Sikhism” or that “if you have Amrit baptism you are saved.” Sikhism clearly does not teach a doctrine of exclusivity or that an Amritdhari is destined for heaven and others are not. I can see where historically the Judaic-Christian-Islamic tradition is coming from on the idea of a chosen people and what they have done with it. I understand it but I don’t have to own it. It is not mine nor is it the Sikh position. If readers on both sides of an issue find differences with me, what does that make me --¬ a traditionalist, in his meaning of the term, or a non-traditionalist as many others allege? Sometimes both sides respond by claiming that “I.J. Singh does not understand Sikhism.” Perhaps so, but all I can put forth is my own understanding of it. Each side is looking at me through its own prism. Both are right. Yet, I can refuse to be boxed by a label. My character flaw is that I refuse to accept that some minds are made up, conclusions are already etched in stone, and discussions are - like loaded dice - not open, honest exchanges. But this is a trait that I refuse to abandon. This drawn out exchange produced a good kind of tiredness; but the results remained so much sound and fury signifying nothing. I wondered if we had been talking to each other or at each other. Nothing had moved. And that seemed like a good time and place to put down the loaded dice. Note: [I]The author, Inder Jit Singh, is an anatomy professor at New York University. He is also on the editorial advisory board of the Calcutta-based periodical, The Sikh Review, and is the author of four books: Sikhs and Sikhism: A View With a Bias; The Sikh Way: A Pilgrim's Progress; Being and Becoming a Sikh; and The World According to Sikhi. He can be reached at: [EMAIL="ijsingh99@gmail.com"][COLOR=blue]ijsingh99@gmail.com[/COLOR][/EMAIL][/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
The Prison Of One-Word Labels
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top