'Naam' - My Understanding

BhagatSingh · #82 (**permalink**) 17-Jan-2011, 01:45 AM

Quote:

The fallacy of some of the quoted stuff is little ridiculous. For example the following,I would read both as "Even to call them countless is an understatement (a "bojh", weight on the head)"

Professor Sahib Singh ji say literal to be weight then describe clearly that it is a "mistake". You can live with "bojh/weight" but you should not get in the habit of making mistakes.

Good adivce and all. I just want to point out that that above translation of the line is in fact correct. Prof sahib Singh confirms it when he says that its an understatement and that's why it is a the mistake/sin. Refer to http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-y...tml#post140461
"oh bhe bhul karde han, asankh shabad bhe kafi nahin hai"

spnadmin · #83 (**permalink**) 17-Jan-2011, 02:29 AM

Last whine from me!

Several translations of the pauree have now been posted so that (hint) the meanings of words in context can be shared and dsicussed.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-youth/8672-naam-my-understanding.html

What is the meaning of any word or tuk in the context of the entire pauree? Let's focus on your decision to stick with the issue of sin/mistake. Whether a word means is a "sin" or a "mistake" in translation makes a big difference when one goes from one language to another. So it is not a matter of equivalents where one can mix and match. In English a sin is very different from a mistake and carries a different verbal load altogether. And this can be said for any language. In Italian a "sin" is sbaglio - it carries the sense of a mark or stain against the spiritual purity of the individual, and focuses on an inner state. In English, a "sin" is a transgression, a wrong deed, and focuses on actions, actions which must be punished. Much graver in English? Or graver in Italian? This pauree is in Punjabi, but the meaning in Punjabi has to be found in the right choice of words in the English language because we have been talking mostly about English TRANSLATIONS.

So it does no good to fixate on what the specific Punjabi word/words/phrases mean if we cannot get from the Punjabi to the English equivalent that conveys the message of Guru's Shabad. My frustration all along has been that a verbo a verbo translation, as Cicero said, or literal translation of Punjabi into English gives a wrong result. In fact the shift in attention to individual words served only as a digression from the main point of the topic.

The only reason I even became involved on this thread was when it was so obvious that Naam was mistaken for Logos - a few pages back -- which it is not. And Naam was explained as coming from and then manifesting from Hukam/Ordinance --- which it does not. And Naam was viewed as something distinct from Hukam, which it is not. So what gives? Professor Sahib ji has helped us understand that the "literal" will not help. Therefore we have to get to a fulsome understanding of word and tuk in English, and that will not happen pecking at one word at a time.

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8672

It would be good to go back to the entire pauree 19 so that the significance of the individual words in Punjabi are understood in context by way of an explanation in English in context.

That is what makes translation hard to do. We should not get hung up on one on one matching of words. The translation of Sant Singh Khalsa MD, imho, of both tuk and shabad, truly misses the boat.

findingmyway · #84 (**permalink**) 17-Jan-2011, 03:42 AM

Looking at pauri 19 in context to understand meaning better;
Previous pauri's talked about how many different types of people contemplate the NAAM and how many types of bad people there are. Then in pauri 19 we move on from talking about people to talking about Waheguru.

In the 1st 2 lines the aim is to say that Akal Purakh is limitless. There is nothing and nowhere that is not a part of Akal Purakh and we cannot even comprehend the vastness/greatness. Even to say countless is a huge understatement. Sir bhar here is more related to the head feeling heavy or dizzy with the concept as Akal Purakh is beyond vast and beyond our imagination-the feeling of being overwhelmed. To say it is a burden by using countless doesn't make any sense at all. Especially as we go on to talk about how words are needed but inadequate later on so how can using one word-countless-be a burden? In Panjabi we say my head is bhari or heavy when we are overwhelmed also.

Then the next 6 lines can be grouped together. Even those words aren't enough we use words to words to try and describe Akal Purakh and sing Waheguru's praises. We use words to spread knowledge about Akal Purakh and sing about Waheguru's graces. We need to use words to speak and read and write but in reality our words are insufficient as Akal Purakh is beyond words. Things will happen as per Waheguru's will. So essentially whatever words we use, our relationship with Waheguru, our spiritual connection will be as per hukam.

Then the 2 lines that sparked this discussion off, here Prof Sahib Singh writes that in Panjabi the word naam is used more loosely so it doesn't translate strictly to name but can also be used for properties or qualities. In this light these lines are saying that all creation is a manifestation of Akal Purakh, is the form of Waheguru. Just to emphasis that everything we see is part of Akal Purakh and therefore part of Naam. There is absolutely no place that is not part of Waheguru.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8672

The pauri is then rounded up by saying how can I possibly describe Kudrat (God) when my existence is a part of you. To live according to Waheguru's will is the only thing good for us. You are forever constant, loving, formless.

Basically words are a gift from Waheguru and should be used for Kudrat's praises, not to try and fathom the limits! Any words we have are insignificant so focussing on one word or even a bunch of words will not even get you close to understanding Waheguru despite the fact it has been tried countless times. If you are looking for naam as a name you will never find it. Naam is Waheguru and therefore all we see around us and hukam.

BhagatSingh · #85 (**permalink**) 17-Jan-2011, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spnadmin

What is the meaning of any word or tuk in the context of the entire pauree? Let's focus on your decision to stick with the issue of sin/mistake. Whether a word means is a "sin" or a "mistake" in translation makes a big difference when one goes from one language to another. So it is not a matter of equivalents where one can mix and match. In English a sin is very different from a mistake and carries a different verbal load altogether. And this can be said for any language. In Italian a "sin" is sbaglio - it carries the sense of a mark or stain against the spiritual purity of the individual, and focuses on an inner state. In English, a "sin" is a transgression, a wrong deed, and focuses on actions, actions which must be punished. Much graver in English? Or graver in Italian? This pauree is in Punjabi, but the meaning in Punjabi has to be found in the right choice of words in the English language because we have been talking mostly about English TRANSLATIONS.

Spnadmin ji, in my understanding, sin and mistake are not as different, at least in this context. It's hard for me to explain it, because it is a cultural thing. In Punjabi, "weight on one's head" is not really a sin (as you put it) nor a mistake, its somewhere in the middle.
One should realize the inherent ambiguity of words, and the sentiment of the author as it is translated. Also cultural differences can arise, for example, you are from the west, and both translaters (Bhai sahib and Prof Sahib) are from the east. You might be surprised to find how even English words mean different things across cultures.

Regardless, one word is not important. You can go with mistake and I will go with sin/mistake. We should remember though that the original sentiment is "weight on the head". Let's move on.

PS It's not my decision to stick to this particular issue of sin/mistake. If people are going to bring it up, I will most likely respond, as I just did.

Quote:

So it does no good to fixate on what the specific Punjabi word/words/phrases mean if we cannot get from the Punjabi to the English equivalent that conveys the message of Guru's Shabad. My frustration all along has been that a verbo a verbo translation, as Cicero said, or literal translation of Punjabi into English gives a wrong result. In fact the shift in attention to individual words served only as a digression from the main point of the topic.

Agreed

Quote:

The only reason I even became involved on this thread was when it was so obvious that Naam was mistaken for Logos - a few pages back -- which it is not. And Naam was explained as coming from and then manifesting from Hukam/Ordinance --- which it does not. And Naam was viewed as something distinct from Hukam, which it is not. So what gives? Professor Sahib ji has helped us understand that the "literal" will not help. Therefore we have to get to a fulsome understanding of word and tuk in English, and that will not happen pecking at one word at a time.

It would be good to go back to the entire pauree 19 so that the significance of the individual words in Punjabi are understood in context by way of an explanation in English in context.

That is what makes translation hard to do. We should not get hung up on one on one matching of words. The translation of Sant Singh Khalsa MD, imho, of both tuk and shabad, truly misses the boat.

Let us get back to understanding Naam, and I think Pauri 19 will be important so let's discuss it.

Let me start off by stating my concern. This is the progression of the thread as I see it.
We started off discussing the sentence Akhri Naam Akhri Salah
You said it should not be seen as "fFrom the Word, comes the Naam; from the Word, comes Your Praise. ", rather what it really means is "By words He is praised."

Then I pointed the inconsistency with that because later on, it refers to God's Word. When it says

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

ਅਖਰਾ ਸਿਰਿ ਸੰਜੋਗੁ ਵਖਾਣਿ ॥
From the Word, comes destiny, written on one's forehead.

ਜਿਨਿ ਏਹਿ ਲਿਖੇ ਤਿਸੁ ਸਿਰਿ ਨਾਹਿ ॥
But the One who wrote these Words of Destiny-no words are written on His Forehead.

(To sum up the translations) This inconsistency is not present in Dr. Sant Singh nor Bhai Manmohan Singh's translation. They take akhri to mean God's word, FIGURATIVELY written or spoken by God.
This inconsistency is not present in Nikki Harinder Kaur because she translates the whole pauri not as God's word but as simply "through words". I explained how this is flawed with regards to the reference to destiny, "words on one's forehead", and that God writes these words of destiny.

At this point, I agreed with Dr Sant Singh's and Bhai Manmohan Singh's translation as I thought:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

Its through his word, we see it. Its through his word we see God's physical, sargun, form, which is manifestation of the Naam.

Which is consistent when Naam is taken as hukam. I bet this probably needs some discussion to straighten out.

Then you posted Prof Sahib Singh's translation. He DOES have an inconsistency in his translation. He starts of by translating akhri as "through words" then when it comes to the two sentences mentioned/quoted above, he switches to "God's word". Why does he do that?

BhagatSingh · #86 (**permalink**) 17-Jan-2011, 03:57 AM

Jasleen ji, I jsut saw your post. I will reassess and correct my understanding, accordingly. Thanks for replying!

spnadmin · #87 (**permalink**) 17-Jan-2011, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

At this point, I agreed with Dr Sant Singh's and Bhai Manmohan Singh's translation as I thought: Which is consistent when Naam is taken as hukam. I bet this probably needs some discussion to straighten out. But Dr. Sant Singh and Bhai Manmohan Singh are not consistent with each other on very important points of translation.

Then you posted Prof Sahib Singh's translation. He DOES have an inconsistency in his translation. He starts of by translating akhri as "through words" then when it comes to the two sentences mentioned/quoted above, he switches to "God's word". Why does he do that?

Bhagat Singh ji

I have not a lot more to say on this matter. You have a need to move beyond the particulars. Understanding anything, including Gurbani, is a matter of being able to continually move back and forth from the part to the whole. How does the whole (pauree, shabd) create a context and help us understand the parts (words, tucks)? And how do the parts complete the whole? Going back, how does the completeness of a shabad change the way we understand the words.

It is also clear to me that you have not understood that translation of a shabad is not just about Punjabi, but also about English. What makes sense in Punjabi may not make sense in English. That is so basic. So hammering away at a Punjabi meaning gets us nowhere.

And that is why Professor Sahib Singh gives a broad interpretation in which he moves from the specific to a more evolving sense of why and how words can mean what they mean.

I am satisfied with the vichaar of findingmyway ji. It captures my sense of pauree 19. It also fascinates me that Nikki Guninder Kaur said something very similar but you disputed it.

BhagatSingh · #88 (**permalink**) 17-Jan-2011, 04:21 AM

You are right I was too much focused on a few words. I agree with your and Jasleen Ji's sense of the pauri.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8672
Going back to Nikki Harinder Kaur, I can see now that she's got hold of the essence of the pauri. Though I maintain she's still got those two sentences wrong. They are better understood through Bhai Manmohan Singh ji or Prof Sahib Singh ji.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8672

No more concerns from me. I am going to study Gyani Ji's reply on page 8. Will come back after.

Gyani Jarnail Singh · #89 (**permalink**) 17-Jan-2011, 06:50 AM

I would suggest all of you have a look at the Japji Sahib Translation/core concepts doen by my younger brother Dr Karminder Singh Dhillon Boston. Its available in the follwoing issues of The Sikh Bulletin..
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8672
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8672
Part 1 - Nov-Dec 2007 issue
Part 2 - March-April 2008 issue
Part 3 - May June 2008 issue
Part 4- Nov Dec 2008 Issue
Part 5- May June 2009 Issue
Part 6-Sept-Oct 2009 Issue
Part 7 - March-April 2010 Issue
Part 8- Nov Dec 2010 Issue
Part 9/10 to be continued..

This Conceptual look at Japuji is by a devout Gursikh, an accomplished academician whose command of Punajb/English/Gurbani Core Issues/Gurmatt Issues/Sikh history is par excellence. Maybe Spnadmin Ji can create a file of all the relevant downloads here at SPN all in One Thread for easy reference.

spnadmin · #90 (**permalink**) 17-Jan-2011, 08:15 AM

The thread has been created Gyani ji
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8672

Here it is: A Study of Japuji Sahib by Dr. Karminder Singh (Boston) at this link http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/jap-ji...tml#post140516
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8672

Each issue is available as a pdf file which a reader can download to his/her computer.