Year of Faith

The other day I came across a passage in the GGS that seemed at first to be contrary to the message of Sikhism. At the outset it seemed to show God as distant and uncaring. But looking back on it, especially within the context of the section as a whole, I think I may understand it now, and it isn’t what I had first supposed. Here is the whole section, the passage in question is in bold:

My self! why art fallen into this brooding? The Lord Himself on thy behalf is making endeavor: in rocks and stones has He created living creatures, whose sustenance He there provides. Cherished Lord: those joining holy company are saved: by the Master’s grace attain they the supreme state, and shriveled blocks of timber blossom forth. Mother, father, neighbors, sons, wife- none to any other is a prop.

The Lord for each has provided sustenance- why bear fear in mind? The mother crane that flies away hundred of kosas (roughly a mile), leaving her brood behind, unprovided, famishing- by her remembrance of them they are fed and filled. All the treasures and eighteen accomplishments, in the palm of the Lord are held. Saith Nanak, servant of God: Should I be a sacrifice to Thee a hundred times, still they greatness remain unencompassed.

I’m sure you can see, by just focusing on that one passage, that God can seem rather uncaring, and very distant, and certainly not very personal. But the first section spells out the context of the crane analogy. Even though you cannot see God, or don’t believe that It is there, It is present in the world around you, in your sustenance and the joy you get in life. It created the world in which you partake, and by remembrance of that fact, one is reflecting on God. God has given the means of devoting ourselves, and of having faith.

When one is suffering, when you are hungry, alone and scared, it is easy to lose sight of this fact. Thus the crane story can remind us that although doubt and darkness can cloud our faith, God is found in all things, at all times, and we are never truly separate from It. This message can be empowering, and uplifting, and combined with the charity inherent in Sikhism, it can sometimes amount to a real life-saver.

But one should not interpret this too strictly. In addition to reading the GGS, I have also been reading god is not Great: How Religion Poison Everything by Christopher Hitchens. It is, needless to say, very critical of religion, and it often cites how people in power and the preistly class often use religion as an excuse to allow suffering. After all, one may be in such a deplorable state because of their well-earned karma, or because suffering can build faith and a religious character, or because they have not prayed enough and lack faith and devotion. All of these, Mr. Hitchens argues, are tools used by the religious in avoiding the problem, and keeping aloof of their humanitarian responsibilities, all the while milking the underprivileged of their hard earned income. If one were to put too much stock in this story about the crane the temptation is there to do the same, to use one’s lack of faith or religious devotion as an excuse for not helping one’s fellow man: Why fear for the livelihood your family if you are living in squallor? Surely solace can be found in remembering God in your life, that It is present in all things and that It created this world for your benefit.

I find it hard to believe that any honest Sikh would get away with this interpretation of the GGS, especially considering their charitable and innately humanistic practices. But the same can be said of many of the world’s religions, and history has shown us that it is only a matter of time before it becomes an excuse for atrocities as well as benevolence.

An aside- you may have noticed that I am trying to use the pronoun ‘It’ when referring to God this month. This is because God in Sikhism is genderless, and is referred to without preference to gender in the GGS. However, when translated to English, this cannot be maintained whilst still being intelligible, so the standard though tired male descriptors are used.

The Granth Sahib consists of hymns of devotion to God, inspired reflections on the Divinely-ordained cosmic order, the vision of the higher life and exhortation to man towards lifting himself to the state of spiritual peace and the attainment of liberation.

-An Introduction to Sri Guru Granth Sahib, by Gurbachan Singh Talib

I think this is a very good summation of the contents of the Guru Granth Sahib (GGS), at least the parts that  I have encountered so far.  The translation is a bit awkward in some cases, and it perhaps often denotes meanings that are ambiguous where perhaps there ought not to be ambiguity.  Nevertheless I’m sure I’ll have exploring the meanings and ideas present in this text.

The GGS starts in a manner that is very reminiscent of other holy texts that I have read this year.  There is the courteous and appreciative nod to the many other religious traditions of the day, and also a nod to the various forms of worship.  It is at this point, however, that the standard holy text usually turns and proclaims that while all the other religions and practices are well and good, this one is the best, and only this one is the truth.  They go through all the trouble of making the other faiths feel at home, but really, it is simply an acknowledgment of their existence, to be followed by a condemnation of their falsity and inevitable uselessness.

But the GGS doesn’t do this, at least it does not seem overwhelmingly so at this point.  It acknowledges time and again that there are many ways of worshiping God, and it’s  all good because really it’s the same God.  It is not seem hostile in any way towards other forms of worship or religion, though it does seem to criticize them:

Holy bathing, austerities, compassion, charity- all are approved if they bring even a grain of merit in God’s eye.   True merit lies in absorbing holy teaching, faith and devotion- in these take the holy purifying bath of the soul.

Here we get a glimpse of what on the outside would seem like a contradiction.  If the GGS gives value to other forms of faith, then shouldn’t they gain God’s merit?  This passage seems to suggest that they do not, that they are really a waste of time.  However, I think that what the author is really getting at is that actions such as compassion and charity are useless if they are not the result of devotion to God.  If one is giving to the poor for one’s own sake and not in the service of God, then that action has no merit.  One is simply looking for a pat on the back, for recognition for their deeds, instead of acting in accordance with the divine.

This is a much more charitable and accurate interpretation, I think.  But it begs the question that if one can only have God’s merit (ie- do genuinely good deeds) if one does things whilst always being conscious of God, what room is there for atheists or unbelievers to do good deeds?  Not much, it seems:

Inexpressible if the state of faith; whoever attempts this, shall in the end regret his rashness.  This state pen and paper cannot record, nor cogitation its secret penetrate.  The great immaculate Name of God may only be realized by one whose ming in faith is firm fixed.

Implicit in the raising up of devotion, faith, and religious tradition is the calling down of unbelievers, and their tools of reason and logic, as opposed to faith, to get at Truth.  This is, I suppose, fair enough.  The GGS states many times the importance of personal experience of the divine and devotion to God through faith.  One is not going to get there by pondering the idea, only through strong belief.  This passage does not necessarily call down those who do not believe in God, but being as I am one who feels somewhat out of place without pen and paper at the ready, and can hardly read a book without something with which to make notes in the margins, I feel a little put out.

If one doesn’t believe in God, who does good deeds not for his or her own sake, but for the sake of something higher, are they not worthy of God’s merit?  I have trouble believing that a divinity so highly praised would really be able to commit such a sin as vanity and prudishness.  God, clearly, is more than that.

Neither in contemplation nor in austerity or self-discipline have I engaged; Nor practised injunction of religion.  King of the Universe! the holy have I not served.  Saith Nanak: Low are our actions.  Succour Thou one, with Thee seeking shelter.

I was pleasantly surprised to read this in the Guru Granth Sahib today.  It was as if the book was giving me a well-deserved brow-beating.  I managed to finally grab a copy a few days ago from the university library (the local library is on strike), along with a small introductory guide, and I was surprised it came in four volumes.  Though to be fair, it is formatted in large, easy to read verses, so the bible would probably be just as huge if it wasn’t all crammed together.  Needless to say I just picked up the first volume and hoped I would get through enough to give me a good idea of what it’s all about.

What I have found so far is that the Guru Granth Sahib is unlike other holy books in that it doesn’t detail any myths, histories (both true and imagined), biographies or anything like that.  It is all just poems and prose dedicated to God.  That’s it, really.  Just hymns, prayers, and praise.  It’s kind of nice, actually, though it has started to get a little tedious.

Anyway, here is a link to an online version, for my long-lost cohorts:

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Online.

And a link to a nice PDF version you can download and read at you leisure:

Sri Guru Granth Sahib PDF.

I recommend that you read, at the very least, the Japuji, which is the first section and the daily prayer.  It sums up the Sikh position on God and religion pretty nicely.

I have already come across a few interesting sections so expect to be see my comments int he coming.

And to anyone reading from the lovely LJ Sikh community, thank you all for your feedback.  I will be sending out emails with more questions and such soon!  Promise!

Now to find myself an iron (not steel, like I had originally said in the intro) bracelet.

The concept of growing out my facial hair for a month is new and strange to me. I grew it out a couple of years ago to see how it would look, and I quickly realized that full facial hair was not my thing. But it did result in my philosopher goatee, perfect for stroking sagely whilst pondering deep questions such as “Where shall we eat?”

I canvass part-time right now for a wilderness organization, so personal appearance is kind of important to me right now. I’m also looking to be hired for another part-time job, so I don’t want to look too shaggy. It would be nice if I could shape it and keep it tidy, but that kind of defeats the purpose. I’m supposed to be doing this in acknowledgment that God’s creation is perfect, not because God’s creation is good but would be better with just a little bit off around the edges. It also symbolizes my place in the Sikh religion, and doesn’t allow me to just blend in with my peers.

However, this is a new and invigorating experience and though it seems daunting I am looking forward to it. It won’t be the first time I will be required to grow a beard. I shall be repeating the process in October when we get to Islam, as they have the same prohibition.

I wanted to post some pictures of my ever-increasing stubble, but my camera is somewhat busted and I’m not happy with how they are turning out. Perhaps I’ll get Andrew to take some of the both of us. He is the resident photographer-person, after all.

Wow. Here we are. Our eighth month and eighth religion. Has it really been that long? It doesn’t seem like it. It seems like we have barely begun, like we have barely scratched the surface. Even though we have covered a lot of ground so far, the depth we can reach has been somewhat limited.

Hopefully this will change in the months to come, because starting this month we are coming to the most popular and well known religions- Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity, with memberships that reach into the billions. We will also be coming to the primary Abrahamic religion, Judaism, in September, and this month we shall be studying Sikhism: the ninth largest religion in the world, and the third largest Dharmic tradition (which includes Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism). There will be plenty of ideas and history to cover, so there will be no reason why this site shouldn’t be brimming with activity.

Right? Right.

Ok, let’s get some things straight for this month…

(more…)

With July very quickly coming to a close, and our month of Sikhism just on the horizon, I thought I would take the opportunity to bring to light a local piece of news concerning Sikhs in Canada.

I found this bit of news through the lovely and informative ReligionNewsBlog, which I highly recommend for those interested in current events in the religious world.

The Canadian government has reversed a decade-old policy that forced Indian Sikhs with the common last names Singh or Kaur to change their surname before they could immigrate.

Singh is a very common last name for male Indian Sikhs, and the same goes for Kaur for female Sikhs.  In the interests of easier and faster processing, the Canadian government felt that such common names, “do not qualify for the purposes of Immigration into Canada.”

I was kind of offended when I read this, and I couldn’t believe that my rather liberal and open country was rejecting people because their name was too common and a bit of a bother.  Though the article points out that most Indian Sikhs, “also have a traditional family surname that they normally use for the immigration application,” thus not making it an impossible or difficult hurtle to jump.  It still seems kind of needlessly disrespectful and unfair.

How would you feel if the country you were looking to live in demanded that you change your name before entering?  What name would you have picked?

It is hard to practice something that you suspect will do you harm.

My posts on Scientology have been few, far between, and I think generally uninteresting. Yes, I have been lazy and neglectful, but it is also that I am genuinely hesitant of getting too close to this religion.

From what I have experienced, and what I have learned, Scientology puts up a strong, rationale, practical, and inviting front. But that is all that it is. Behind it all there is just something that is not quite right. The majority of its principles and articles of belief are not very well justified. A lot of to do is made about the research and thought L. Ron put into this idea, but none of it is shown. Nothing is cited, most of what he says sounds good and reasonable, but I don’t get the feeling that much effort went into any of it.

And none of this helps my suspicions coming into this month. As I’ve said before, when I came to this my background would have put Scientology strictly into the ‘cult’ category. The majority of my friends as well as the literature I have read in the past have been almost universally hostile towards the group, and this is not without good reason.

After its inception, the Church of Scientology began receiving a lot of international flak. In 1962 Scientology was essentially banned in Australia, a ruling that was eventually overturned. The FDA got interested in the claims Dianetics was making about mental health and the use of the E-meter. They remain dubious about the claims to psychological wellness, but the E-meter has since been dubbed a “legitimate religious artifact.” After all of this unwanted attention, the Guardian Office was established. This section of the church handled public relations issues, information gathering, and propaganda against those who spoke out against Scientology or its founder.

All of this came to the attention of various government agencies with very familiar acronyms on July 8th, 1977. Scientology churches in Washington, DC as well as Los Angeles were raided after a Scientologist and member of the Guardian Office spilled the beans on their operations. The Guardian Office had been stealing confidential information from various government offices regarding investigations into the church, and information about people and groups who were against Scientology. They were caught trying to get information they could use to blackmail or besmirch their enemies.

The Guardian Office was of course disbanded after this little event. Now far be it for me to suggest that no other religion has members that go out and break the law, and have members that slander those that disagree with them. But to have a branch specifically designed to fulfill this purpose seems like a bit much.

Then again this doesn’t seem to be abnormal in the early history organized religion. The early Christian church certainly wasn’t friendly to the local pagans, to those who weren’t keen on jumping on the early Christian bandwagon. Early in its beginnings, Islam had to defend itself numerous times by force. Perhaps I shouldn’t be so quick to judge Scientology, perhaps it is sorting itself out into something a little less extreme.

I’d Like to start a religion. That’s where the money is.

-L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd A. Eshbach

Then again, perhaps not.

First, I’ll go ahead and apologize again to myself and to anyone else reading this for not updating and being more involved in the project. I really want to be committing more time to this, after all I only have a few more months to get it right, and those will be taken up with the larger, more complex faiths. Despite what it may seem like, what with the very few posts concerning paganism, and the disparagingly few so far to cover Scientology, this is a very important project for me, and I don’t take it, nor my lax duties, very lightly.

That said, today I would like to share one of the cornerstones of Scientology- the eight dynamics of existence.

According to Scientology, all life exists and strives under the commandment to survive. As time passes we wish to be able to grow and survive, not only as an individual, but as a group, and even as a spiritual being. In Scientology and Dianetics these urges are called dynamics. L. Ron Hubbard originally posited four different dynamics in Dianetics (one to four). Later on, after his research that would culminate in the doctrine of Scientology, he posited four additional dynamics (five to eight). These eight dynamics are symbolized as the Scientology cross.

The dynamics are, generally, as follows:

First- The survival of oneself. This is the urge to become an individual and survive as a fit, unique person for the longest possible amount of time.

Second- Survival through family. This is the idea that one can live on through one’s children and the rearing of future generations. It encompasses sex and the basic relationships of the family.

Third- Surviving as a group. The third dynamic encompasses survival as a member of any group- a group of friends, a company, a class, a nation, or even a world. Whether it be transitory or permanent, large or small, each group that you consider yourself a part of is considered a third dynamic of survival.

Fourth- The survival of humanity. This dynamic is the continued existence of mankind as a species, including all races (each of which separately would count as a third dynamic).

Fifth- The survival and preservation of all life. Here the dynamics begin to step up a notch in scope and spirituality. The first of these is the urge for every form of life to survive as well as one’s own. The fifth dynamic is to survive for the sake of all life to survive.

Sixth- Survival of the physical universe. Scientologists believe that we have the urge to see the survival of matter, energy, space, and time (MEST). In addition to our own selves, our groups, and various forms of life, it would make sense that we would also want the substance of the universe in which we inhabit to survive as well, such as our own planet.

Seventh- The survival of the spirit and the spiritual universe. This is the motivation to continue on existing after we cease to exist as a body in the physical universe, the dynamic of the thetan.

Eighth- Existence as infinity, or the Supreme Being, or God. This is the dynamic of the never-ending life, to exist throughout all time (or perhaps even without time).

It is important to note that no one dynamic is considered more important than any other, though each person may put more stock and resources into some rather than others, this is just a matter of taste. An environmentalist would probably focus more time on the fifth and sixth dynamic, whereas an athlete may focus primarily on the first and third dynamics. All eight dynamics are closely interlinked, and if one or more gets pulled out or ignored, all of them suffer as a consequence.

As a person becomes more aware of their lives and the world around them, they become more interested in these dynamics. Scientology helps by explaining each of these areas of existence and teaching people how to balance between them and apply themselves to them so that they may feel more fulfilled and eventually get to the point where they feel they can survive in the eighth dynamic. That is, to exist for eternity as an infinite, spiritual being.

Today a few news sites, more than a few LJ communities, and dear Andrew all brought to my attention a little bit o’ religious drama.  It occurred in the US senate on Thursday, that a Hindu priest gave the opening prayer, an honor usually given to a Christian priest.

This in and of itself is not something extraordinary.  According to CNN, priests from all manner of religions have been invited into the Senate to give their own version of a fitting opening prayer.  It seems reasonable that all faiths of the USA be given at least a bleak, vain nod to their inclusion into the lives of US citizens.  After all, the senate is supposed to be representative of the nation, right?

Wrong.  The senate should be representative only of Christians and their values, at least that is what three protesters thought when they began openly heckling and disrupting the priests’ prayer.  They asked forgiveness for the sin of upholding other gods before their God, and for betraying the name of Lord Jesus Christ.

What the hell people?

First off, what exactly are you defending?  The right, which you do not have, and does not exist, for your religion to be the only one upheld in the United States government?  Why are you concerned with the kind of invocation that occurs, when there is not meant to be any link between religion and politics?

Oh, right.  Religion in politics is fine as long as it is your own religion being preached.  I forgot.  It is such a simple solution that it is hard to keep it in mind.  After all, it seems to be working so well in the Middle East.

Oh boy… deep breathe.

Here is the prayer the poor man was trying to get across:

Let us pray.

We meditate on the transcendental glory of the deity supreme, who is inside the heart of the earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of heaven. May he stimulate and illuminate our minds.

Lead us from the unreal to real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening. May no obstacle arise between us.

May the Senators strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world, performing their duties with the welfare of others always in mind. Because by devotion to selfless work one attains the supreme goal of life. May they work carefully and wisely, guided by compassion, and without though for themselves.

United your resolve, united your hearts, may your spirits be at one, that you may long dwell in unity and concord!

Peace, peace, peace be unto all.

That is what they were protesting, though they didn’t bother to listen.

If there is one thing I will take away from this month, it will be the practicality of Scientology. The entire religion is focused on action- whether it be auditing, or taking a course, or reading, volunteering, or working in part of the massive Church of Scientology bureaucracy, one must be in motion to be a Scientologist.

They do not waste time on fancy allegory, metaphors, prayer, or silent contemplation. As mentioned before, there is a nod to an “author of the universe”, whoever that may be, but it is only window dressing for the real meat of the religion. No time for theological debate or paradox. Scientology posits that while you are essentially good, you are broken, and they can fix you. This process of bettering yourself by getting rid of engrams and that pesky reactive mind is what makes up the majority of Scientology. It is a single identifiable process, a technology, a practical religious philosophy.

But altruistic it sure ain’t. The stress it puts on practicing what you preach is commendable, but they aren’t exactly giving it away. You have to pay for every book, every course, and every auditing session, and they do get more expensive as you move on. Every other religion we have come across gives away their wisdom for nothing. Their holy books are so common they are practically free, and once you have them it is up to you to work through them and to understand them. Or you can consult a priest/nun/monk and they will be all too happy to help you. Most religions give out their wisdom for free, or for a donation of your choosing. Such is not the case with Scientology.

This makes it difficult to believe that they exist for your own benefit rather than for their own profit. If they really wanted to help you, to “save” you, why would they be so eager to get you to pay? Wouldn’t they be like all the other religions whose ideas and techniques are practically open source?

I’d like to think that this isn’t a trade off for having a practical philosophy. That if you want to establish an idea dedicated to helping people that you have no choice but to charge money for the service you will offer. It seems that most religions I have experienced identify a problem, whether it be the dissolved ego, the cycle of death and rebirth, or the issue of original sin, and then offer their own solution. This solution costs no more than time, consideration, and devotion (and perhaps a little faith), and really, this seems proper for anyone who really wants to get you to understand the problem and to help you.

But charging people for the entire process?  Sounds more like a self-help technique than a religion.