Interpretation of Religious Scriptures

This thread has been redirected from Sehajdhari Sikh Foundaton: Comments Please !http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-s...ts-please.html


My thoughts exactly -- thank you for putting it so well!

ballym, when I read what you are saying (and thank you so much for your thoughtful response, by the way!), it spoke to me. That is the petard on which many Christian Biblical literalists have been hoisted -- live by the literal interpretation of Scripture, die by the literal interpretation of Scripture.

When you ask someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible if they now plan to stone their child to death the next time their child is disrespectful to them, they will look at you and ask if you are insane. If you ask if they are aware of the fact that the poly-cotton shirt they're wearing is a sin, according to the book of Leviticus, which dictates that threads of different fibers should not be woven together, they will appear dumbstruck and mumble something about, "Well no one believes that -- that's just silly..."

And yet, *there it is in Christian Holy Scripture*.

The reality is, *everyone* of *every faith* cherry-picks what works for them from Scripture. Everyone interprets. You could gather together 10 Conservative Christian scholars who claim to believe the Bible is "the inerrant word of God," and every one of them would have a different interpretation of certain passages. A Scripture is only as inerrant as the people who are interpreting what it says.

There is the question of what should be taken literally and what is intended to be metaphorical.

There is also the question of what things were intended to apply only to people of that time, and what things were written with the intent that they should be "normative" and apply to ALL people who believe over ALL time.

There is also the matter of how accurately we are able to translate what was written in an ancient language that we no longer use today. My understanding is that Gurmukhi is to modern-day Punjabi language as Chaucer's Middle English is to modern-day English -- most people would struggle to accurately understand what is being said, never mind get the nuances and symbolism and "in group" references that may not be in use at this point in time. (Please correct me if my understanding on that count is wrong.)

So the conclusion I have come to is that it is fruitless to try to adhere to a literal interpretation of any Holy Scripture -- there's no way to be sure one is actually doing it right. What can be done is to read it with an open mind, an open heart, a measure of common sense, and a focus on the things that ARE clear about what Sikhs reject as untrue, embrace as true, celebrate as delightful, believe to be pleasing to God, and then read the Guru Granth Sahib *with those things in mind* rather than with a measuring tape, a set of scales, a calculator, and a dictionary.

More thoughts than time allows -- I'm so enjoying exploring it though. Thank you to everyone who is sharing their thoughts/opinions/insights here!

Do you agree or disagree with the writer above? Why not share your immediate thoughts with us! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views... Gurfateh!

The Guru's wrote the Sri Guru Granth Sahib JiJ themselves so I will not liken it to the bible. If we want to prevent the misinterpretations that have afflicted the bible and other texts, then it is important to understand it in the original context rather than just relying on your own interpretation. People like Prof Sahib Singh have dedicated years to studying Gurbani grammar and spellings to ascertain the real meanings. Most of the English translations have a biblical slant and use hilarious flowery words IMHO. The choice of what to follow is your personal one, but to say the rest is wrong is an insult to the Gurus. Especially as the contents have been written in such a way as to avoid others y tampering with it. It has been barely over 500 years so we have history (ithihaas) rather than mythology (mithihaas).

Your perception is incorrect. Panjabi is very much alive and well! The Guru's used simplified language compared to previous scriptures to make the Guru Granth Sahib Ji accessible to the common man. They used local languages depending on where they were to speak to the common man in that area and that is why things change. There are languages such as Persian but even within Panjabi, there are lots of dialects. If you've been to England, you'll know how much dialects can differ and it's the same with Panjabi. There is actually a previous thread about this. Some people may struggle more than others as they speak a different dialect than the passage is written in. My understanding is weak as my Panjabi is diluted due to being 2nd generation outside of India. However, people from India understand a lot more as they speak more so have a larger vocab and more correct grammar than me. The difficulties come from the fact it is all poetry. A huge amount is using metaphors and often this is what is lost in translation. Much of the shabadguru is not supposed to be taken literally and the way I am figuring things out is to refer to other sections of bani. Nothing is contradictory about the Guru's teachings so you will find the answer elsewhere about correct interpretation. With it being poetry, things often can be interpreted on a number of levels too. So even of there are 2 separate interpretations, they may not be incompatible. Everytime I read a shabad I see something new and learn something new even if I've read it before!

Hmmm... I'm a little confused so I hope you can help me to get a little more clarity here?

On the one hand, you're saying, " If we want to prevent the misinterpretations that have afflicted the bible and other texts, then it is important to understand it in the original context rather than just relying on your own interpretation."
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/33567-interpretation-of-religious-scriptures.html

But OTOH, you're saying, "The difficulties come from the fact it is all poetry. A huge amount is using metaphors and often this is what is lost in translation. Much of the shabadguru is not supposed to be taken literally and the way I am figuring things out is to refer to other sections of bani. Nothing is contradictory about the Guru's teachings so you will find the answer elsewhere about correct interpretation. With it being poetry, things often can be interpreted on a number of levels too. So even of there are 2 separate interpretations, they may not be incompatible."

So...even if I don't rely on my *own* interpretation (which would be a ridiculous thing for me to attempt at this stage of my learning anyway, given that I don't yet understand the language and can't even read the characters properly ), I may be offered two different interpretations from people who do know what they're talking about, and *then* I will have to use my best judgment to determine which is more true/right/accurate, etc.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33567

Is that correct?

Thank you, spnadmin ji! I somehow missed this response earlier.

And then there are the bazillions of ordinary, practicing Catholics I know whom I refer to as "cultural Catholics." My ex-husband's Irish family is a perfect example of this. His mother was excommunicated for (of all the stupid things) divorcing a man who beat her black and blue and later marrying a man who treated her gently and with love without first getting an annulment of her marriage to the man who beat her.

She moved to another state and continued to attend Mass with her new husband, and I say "good for her."

Her daughters are, to my knowledge, pro-choice on the issue of abortion, they don't believe homosexuality is a sin, nor did they remain virgins until they married. I know that all of them use birth control.

And yet the Catholic church's teachings expressly forbid all of these things* based on Vatican II's interpretation of Biblical scripture.

*(The notable exception now being that Pope Benedict has decreed that it is acceptable to use condoms for the prevention of disease -- this is a RADICAL departure from previous teachings which basically said, "Hey, if you don't want to become ill or die from a STD, don't have sex with anyone but your spouse. Period. If you sin by doing so and you get a disease, hey... y'know, maybe you deserve to die." It was sort of a social Darwinist twist along the lines of Survival of the Holiest -- ugh.)

Over the last 1500 years, many different Popes have modified what gets included and what gets redacted out of that Bible. Both the meanings and the normative weight of various passages have been reinterpreted over that period of time. I've no doubt that if you were to put (the badly misnamed, IMO) Pope Innocent III in the same room with the current Pope Benedict XVI, a fistfight would break out over how radically different their interpretations of scripture might be.

Only 800 years separate them. There is no language barrier because both of these men would be fluent in Latin as well as other languages relevant to the study of Jesus, his historicity, and Christology as a whole.

What does separate them is a sufficiently significant number of years that they would differ GREATLY in perspective and consequently in wisdom and judgment. Pope Innocent still believed all sorts of nonsensical stuff about mentally ill behavior and epileptic seizures being caused by demonic possession. He most definitely believed that women were not the equal to men (I'm not sure Pope Benedict would entirely disagree with him about that!). And he believed that the Spanish Inquisition was a Great Idea! (The thumbs up being from Pope Innocent III, not me!)

As I have, at this point, only studied a small portion of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, I cannot say how much likelihood there is that the passage of 500 years would result in a significantly different interpretation of intent from the original, but it doesn't seem wildly improbable to me if only because so much has changed in just the last TWENTY years, never mind the last 500...

I work in Corrections. One of the things we're struggling with is how to reintegrate released prisoners into life in the modern world when they have been imprisoned for the last 15+ years. These are people who have never used a computer... have never made a call on a cell phone... have never played a movie on a DVD player or listened to tunes on an iPod, have never read an eBook, have never employed a GPS to get where they need to go. And yet these things are commonly accessible to people all around them and may be required if they want to get a job, travel, etc. The ease with which these tools connect us to others (and to thereby understand others) and to information in general usually results in the ability to shift rather easily from fear of what is different or unknown to acceptance of what is different or unknown because our ease of access to information about that different/unknown thing happens with much greater ease and speed than ever before. We fear less when we come to understand more.

How different the world will be in just another 20 years...

This is why my focus is so much on the internal... the implications of Sikh practice and the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji on the soul... rather than on the physical manifestations of devotion and faith. All of these things fall away when we die. All of these physical things will become moot when the time comes that we are less and less human and more and more machine. Who, 500 years ago, could have predicted such an evolution for our species?

Just some things I'm thinking about...

Siri Kamala ji

In the spirit of continuing the discussion in its new and probably much better location I would reply to this one paragraph as follows;

If we look at the various versions of the Christian and Hebrew testaments that have been endorsed by the Roman church, we would probably find that there were not "many" but more accurately "several" where modifications and redactions occurred--- until Vatican II. The number of approved Roman Catholic Bibles mushroomed after Vatican Council II. It is an interesting point, worth some investigation.

Prior to Vatican II, the outstanding and historical translation of the Latin bible, or Vulgate, in use for centuries, was spurred by the rise of Protestantism. That instigated a response in the Roman Church to translate the Latin Bible into common languages, in large part because of the impact that the German Bible of Martin Luther was having on conversions away from the Roman Church.

But more to the point of the thread title "interpretations of religious scriptures." The interpretations of scripture in the Roman Church have changed frequently, and are also debated in a heated fashion in ecclesiastical circles. The average Roman Catholic accepts the story told from the pulpit as to what he/she should believe, or rejects it.

And this is a unique aspect of Sikhi that I find most attractive. In the Sikh Rehat Maryada we are enjoined to learn Gurmukhi and to study the Guru Granth. "Parchar" or evaluation of scriptures is an ongoing activity in gurmat classes worldwide, in gurdwaras at night and in special clinics and gurmat camps. Experts can be freely challenged by members of the sangat. There is no clergy, and it is incumbent on Sikhs to study and discuss the meaning of gurbani. Because of this, ordinary people who have not attended "granthi school" become major voices of scholarship as they delve deeper and deeper into historical sources and comparative analyses. IMHO, that scientists, teachers, doctors, lawyers, judges apply their analytical skills and become established and recognized scholars of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, on a par with professors of religious studies, is not only remarkable, but it is also rare in other faiths.

AMEN ~ especially to your last paragraph, spnadmin ji.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33567

I get the sense you've discussed this stuff a time or two before... ;-)

LOL! No, Siri Kamala ji!

This is probably the first time I have discussed this particular issue. It is something that amazes me all the time.

One thing that has been discussed here, though I have not. There is considerable discussion on forums and in general about the importance of requiring a high level of formal education of our granthis. I have not the tiniest doubt that this would be a good thing. But I do FEAR that in time that would lead to institutionalizing "expert" knowledge and would discourage "parchar" because in the end for many of us it is easier to be told what to think by an "expert". Sorry to say.

Dear spnadmin ji, so long as communication is unrestricted in at least a large portion of the world, I trust that the definition of what counts as "expert" will become increasingly broadened, not more restricted. Everything is becoming decentralized and globalized in this marketplace of ideas. The good ideas (like Sikhi!) will succeed and the bad ones (like backwards, fear-based, repressive fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity and Islam) will fall away. The only way they succeed these days is in the hands of despotic leaders who either control their resources literally (as with the Taliban) or brainwash them into believing their future in the afterlife is at stake, regardless of what resources they have access to in this life (as with Fred Phelps - I doubt he has more than a handful of followers who are not family members either by birth or marriage...).
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33567
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33567

Have faith! animatedkhanda Jo Bole So Nihal...Sat Sri Akal, right?

Well I believe that the debt of gratitude I owe you here is for your optimistic assessment of the future. Good, because I tend to be weighed down by doubts. You are proposing an almost Darwinian view of the evolution and survival of ideas, and how ideas become extinct and how novel thoughts take hold. I am glad that Sikhi has taken hold on the modern mind.

Having said that, I just posted today some really depressing news in Interfaith Dialogs/Islam about just how despotic leaders can be. Two people who are members of religious minorities, in two different stories, have been arrested under the blasphemy laws of Pakistan. I feel we should be sobered up by this, because anything can happen "here."