Can the modern mind comprehend gurbani?

BhagatSingh · #1 (**permalink**) 30-Aug-2010, 04:08 AM

Redirected from this thread

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-s...tml#post132441

Narayanjot Kaur ji

Quote:

You know, many times when someone challenges or questions a vichaar they are accused of putting mannnmat above gurmat. I often wonder how any vichaar could be anything but the results of our thinking, analysis, comparisons and contrasts. We assemble our thinking and hope that we have captured the essence of shabads that we feel hold the answers. Where else would our understanding come from if not from our intellect. So the only difference between Dr. Baldev Singh and the rest of us is that he iwas trained to use his mind in a certain way, and used it in a disciplined way for many years.

So where do we Gurmat? We find it in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. The sense that we make of it iis what we need to evaluate. Not the words of the Guru but our understanding needs to be evaluated. That is what I am trying to accomplish in my own life. Questions are what keep us honest.

I agree ultimately when the Gurmukhi words are processed through our brain, what we come know and understand is from our own intellect and filters within that intellect. By keeping in mind historical context, knowledge of mankind in th 15th century, etc etc... by keeping in mind these variables, I think they will reduce those filters that tend to give a scientific spin to these texts. And even though, its our intellect that has determined the meaning, we will know that we are getting closer and closer to what it actually meant by them. We will get close to their essence.

Quote:

I am not sure where these words are coming from actually. Who was using recent scientific discoveries to interpret ancient texts? Dr. Singh? But how many times have we read that Guru Nanak actually had an intuitive grasp of modern scientific views such as quantum theory and used such a scientific framework to explain his worldview. Maybe you would elaborate.

Um... that would be Dr. Singh with the Theory of Evolution. And have you forgotten about Project Naad? Their "Sikh Dharma, Science and Quantum Physics" pamphlet? We may not hear those exact words, but that is what is being implied.

Quote:

I do get the gist. However if we ground all of our understanding in the historical realities of Guru Nanak's time then his teaching would logically become outdated or lose its relevance for modern times. You are confusing me. On one hand you seem unwilling to see Guru Nanak's teaching being relevant to modern science. On the other hand you seem to say that his teaching must be placed in an historical context in order to be understood. Certainly knowledge of the history and events surrounding his teaching enriches our understanding. But why limit his teaching by either science or history? Guru Nanak I thought wrote for all peoples and all ages, and Guru Gobind Singh makes Sri Guru Granth Sahib our eternal Guru. To me that means that even without the historical background, the shabad must be piercing in its relevance to our times.

Narayanjot Ji, I am glad you mentioned this. Its not about limiting it, its about being honest.

I have no problem with interpreting verses with a modern spin and with scientific integration BUT when these interpretations are muddled up with the original and are further credited to Guru Nanak and such... that is just dishonest - whether intentional or unintentional. I mean can we really applaud Guru Nanak for what he has done if we interpret his work to describe string theory? What will the upcoming generations think of this?

I am saying that there is no need to muddle it in, in order to keep Guru Nanak's message relevant. They could be kept separate, while maintaining the authenticity of the historical interpretations, we could do modern interpretations as time changes. I am asking for some clarity as well here.

IMO Sikhism is not really a religion. Religion is like the Abrahamic Religions. Sikhism is a tradition, like the other Eastern traditions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism. Just look at how religions were/are in India (excluding Islam)... IMO let's leave these ISMs to the west where they belong. Let's keep Sikhi as Sikhi.

Sikhi is a unique tradition that made an attempt to integrate spiritual, social, political and martial practices in an attempt to get the society to progress. Spiritual practices are available in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. The others, social, political and martial, we find in history. Guru Sahibs building proper housing and villages, and setting up farm land. Amardas ji starting a langar tradition to enforce social unity through equality. Political stance was eventually taken up by Guru Hargobind Sahib, and then came the martial practices. To everyone I have known so far, only a complete bundle of this historical period could ever be considered Sikhi. Sri Guru Granth Sahib alone is not Sikhi. Langar alone is not Sikhi. Rehit maryada alone is not Sikhi. Gatka alone is not Sikhi. Only these practices together are known as Sikhi. Does that sound like a religion to you? It does not. It sounds like an awesome tradition!

Ok so why am I talking about this? What is the relevance of considering Sikhism a tradition, at least in formal discussions?
I think a religious framework (like that of Abrahamic Religions) leads people to attribute their own beliefs to the religion (unknowingly) because they want to be "Sikh", they want to be part of the religion but cannot believe in some of its beliefs. I mean times change and beliefs change, there is nothing wrong with that... but wait, is that how we work in religion?... No at all, in religion there is something wrong with it... and no doubt, there are consequences for professing different beliefs.
SO In an attempt to reconcile their own beliefs with the religion, they attribute their own beliefs (with some compromise) to it (again unknowingly), which leads to (unintentional) dishonesty.

However, if we view Sikhism as a tradition (even if only in formal discourse), then we can mentally rest assured, and study Sikhi with a clear view. Remember, in a tradition, there can be no fanatics.

Quote:

Please elaborate. How are you tying this statement to the discussion so far? Unless of course you want to offer your own scientific model for interpreting the shabad guru.

Are there really only two views of reincarnation in this thread?

Well if everyone chimes in and gives a modern version of Guru Nanak's work, then no doubt we will have many more than just 2!

Randip Singh · #2 (**permalink**) 30-Aug-2010, 15:17 PM

Hold on Bhagat Singh,

You are making HUGE assumptions. You are assuming the Guru's never were aware of science, the planets, or even came into contact with such people.

Guru Nanak travelled through the Middle East where science and culture were at its zenith. The Guru's themselves were ALL highly educated probably equivalent to doctorates and proficient in several languages.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/32050-can-the-modern-mind-comprehend-gurbani.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32050

They were highly intellectual.

Also why do you have a problem is some one understands God or the concept of God in terms of a scientific phenomenon? Surely the concept of "God" is one of our own understanding?

For example for me reincarnation makes sense in terms of scientific laws. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it merely changes form. That's a basic scientific law. For a lay person the concept of matter not being destroyed would be difficult to understand because they would say, that "when something is burned it is destroyed". Why cannot this be explained to them in another way?

BhagatSingh · #3 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 02:58 AM

Randip Singh ji, I am not making that huge assumption at all. I am very well aware that Guru Nanak knew of planets and so on. I am asking that to be kept in mind when I say:

Quote:

By keeping in mind historical context, knowledge of mankind in th 15th century, etc etc...

You say:

Quote:

Also why do you have a problem is some one understands God or the concept of God in terms of a scientific phenomenon? Surely the concept of "God" is one of our own understanding?

Firstly, you are confusing "understanding through analogy" with "modern interpretation". I have no problem with either. I haven't even mentioned analogies so thanks for bringing that up.

You say:

Quote:

For example for me reincarnation makes sense in terms of scientific laws. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it merely changes form. That's a basic scientific law. For a lay person the concept of matter not being destroyed would be difficult to understand because they would say, that "when something is burned it is destroyed". Why cannot this be explained to them in another way?

Hmm.. If you mean to say that you can explain reincarnation better by giving an analogy to matter then I have no problem with that.

But if you say that reincarnation is radioactive decay or matter chainging forms as seen here in Asa Mehla 1, Raga X... Isn't that inaccurately representing reincarnation and dishonest? This is the kind of thing I am talking about.

Narayanjot Kaur · #4 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

But if you say that reincarnation is radioactive decay or matter chainging forms as seen here in Asa Mehla 1, Raga X... Isn't that inaccurately representing reincarnation and dishonest? This is the kind of thing I am talking about.

Bhagat ji

I am wondering why you would infer that comparisons with radioactive decay or matter changing forms is "dishonest." I personally do not see reincarnation as a matter of radioactive decay; however, I am intrigued that someone else does. What is the standard or yardstick of honesty that you are using to make a judgment of dishonesty?

BhagatSingh · #5 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 05:07 AM

Look at traditional views of reincarnation, and how Guru Nanak relates to them. Does he say anything to contradict those views? Does he explicitly state his difference of opinion?
If the answer to those two questions is no. Then Guru Nanak's view of reincarnation is probably the same as those philosophers of his time. They (Guru Nanak and Philosophers) have (no doubt) learned from philosophies that existed before them. So then we would need to look at the philosophers and philosophies and see what they are saying.
WARNING: It would be considered disrespectful by the wider Sikh community to say that Guru Nanak's knowledge came from something other than a divine source. Their feelings are sincere but to understand Guru Nanak we need to shun this assumption.

Looking at a wider context gives us a better understanding of Guru Nanak. If one looks at Guru Nanak in a vacuum (with just Guru Nanak and God) then one runs into a problem "how do we interpret this?"
The common thing to do is interpret it using the knowledge and philosophies you have learned... the knowledge and philosophies which were not present during Guru Nanak's time... but when you look at history, the knowledge and philosophies of the time, you are using a good strategy to see what Guru Nanak is actually saying. and that's the bottomline, I want to know what Guru Nanak is actually saying, and the closer I can get to that the better.

We know what Radioactive Decay is, we know what Evolution is, we know what Big Bang is and so on... but no one from around the 15th century(or before) is going to know anything about those recent discoveries. So to say that "what a person from 15th century takes X to be Evolution, Radiactive Decay or Big Bang" comes off as dishonest whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally.

Saying that "a person from 15th century takes X to be Evolution, Radiactive Decay or Big Bang" is not the same as understanding X through analogy or comparisons.

---------------------------
It's always easier to see things when talking about other religions. So here's an example: (Now Bible is even older than Sri Guru Granth Sahib so there are fewer things known at the time of the Bible)
If a Christian wants to compare a historical interpretation of Genesis with Big Bang. we would see (at least) the following being pointed out:
God directly creates the Earth through his Word (Historical Interpretation)
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32050
vs
after Big Bang... billions of years later... a supernova explodes and our solar system was formed from the left over particles of the dead star (Modern Science)

That's fine! Agreed?

But if that Christian instead claims that Bible means to say the following [when it says "he then gathered the waters (particles) and created land (solar systems)]:
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32050
"after Big Bang... billions of years later... a supernova explodes and our solar system was formed from the left over particles of the dead star"

No he's wrong, that's not what the Bible means to say, that's a modern interpretation of the Bible.

And as long as this modern interpretation is regarded separate from the historical interpretation (which is below) it's fine by me.
In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. He then gathered the waters (on Earth) and created land.

Muddle up the two and it comes of as dishonest. get it?
-------------------------------

Randip Singh · #6 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 15:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

Randip Singh ji, I am not making that huge assumption at all. I am very well aware that Guru Nanak knew of planets and so on. I am asking that to be kept in mind when I say:
You say:
Firstly, you are confusing "understanding through analogy" with "modern interpretation". I have no problem with either. I haven't even mentioned analogies so thanks for bringing that up.

You say:
Hmm.. If you mean to say that you can explain reincarnation better by giving an analogy to matter then I have no problem with that.

But if you say that reincarnation is radioactive decay or matter chainging forms as seen here in Asa Mehla 1, Raga X... Isn't that inaccurately representing reincarnation and dishonest? This is the kind of thing I am talking about.

My dear young and extremly talented friend. You made another assumption and have not understood anything of what I have written here.

I have always contested for many years that Bani must be read in:
1) It's Sociological context
2) Economical context
3) Historical context

Based on this I read Bani. I am not looking at it through todays eyes at all. Fools Wrangle over Flesh is testimony to that.

Also, I am not saying reincarnation is the same as seing it through as radioactive decay, but if someone chooses to understand it like that, let them. There are many concepts in Bani, which today we ould find hard to imagine. How many of us know what a Pipal tree is in the West? and yet at the same time there are Universal concepts eg Greed, Lust, Anger, Materialism, Egotism.

Randip Singh · #7 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 16:01 PM

Quote:

Then Guru Nanak's view of reincarnation is probably the same as those philosophers of his time. They (Guru Nanak and Philosophers) have (no doubt) learned from philosophies that existed before them. So then we would need to look at the philosophers and philosophies and see what they are saying.

Actually it is/was radically different.

Wheras Hinduism, and Guru Nanaks contemporaries saw reincarnation as some sort of order, rock to plant to animal and then human, Guru Nanak saw only human life as being most important and precious and the rest of reincarnation he saw as random, i.e. people can just from rock to human etc.

With regard to contemporay philosophers Nnak and the follwoing Guru's only included Bhaghat Bani's they agreed with eg shaloks where Bhaghat Kabir describes woman as a black Cobra are ommited and that of Shaikh Farid stating Islam as the only way are ommited.

Nanakian philosophy was his own and very unique. NO doubt he learnt from those around him, but his thoughts and ideas were his own and extremly radical.

BhagatSingh · #8 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 16:40 PM

Randip Singh ji,
Let me state once more for my own satisfaction that I made none of the assumptions you have suggested in your posts. I was aware of the fact that Guru Sahibs knew about planets and I was aware of the fact that you have advocated for gurbani to read in context. Also, I have no problem if someone chooses to understand reincarnation as radioactive decay. If you carefully read my posts, it should conform to these statements.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32050
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32050

I am taking up your second post over in the reincarnation thread.

jasbirkaleka · #9 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 22:43 PM

Guru Fateh
,
Bhagat Singh Ji,

Exactely my thoughts.But I coud never project them in such an aloquent manner as you did. Thank you.

findingmyway · #10 (**permalink**) 01-Sep-2010, 02:21 AM

I'm really confused as to what is being said here. To fully understand the poetry and analogies used in gurbani we must have an understanding of the historical context. Agreed. However, transferring those principles into modern day thinking is not acceptable? Must we stay in the past? A lot of the confusion seems to be caused by struggling to understand when something is literal and when an analogy is being used to improve understanding.