☀️ 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
Can The Modern Mind Comprehend Gurbani?
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="BhagatSingh" data-source="post: 132504" data-attributes="member: 2610"><p>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?</p><p>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. </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="color: Red">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.</span></span> <span style="color: Red"><span style="font-size: 9px">Their feelings are sincere </span></span><span style="color: Red"><span style="font-size: 9px">but to understand Guru Nanak we need to shun this assumption.</span></span></p><p></p><p>Looking at a wider context gives us a better understanding of Guru Nanak. If one looks at Guru Nanak in a vacuum <span style="font-size: 9px">(with just Guru Nanak and God)</span> then one runs into a problem "how do we interpret this?" </p><p>The common thing to do is interpret it using the knowledge and philosophies you have learned... the knowledge and philosophies which were <strong>not</strong> 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 <strong>actually</strong> saying. and that's the bottomline, I want to know what Guru Nanak is <strong>actually</strong> saying, and the closer I can get to that the better.</p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"></span></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>---------------------------</p><p>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)</p><p>If a Christian wants to compare a historical interpretation of Genesis with Big Bang. we would see (at least) the following being pointed out:</p><p>God directly creates the Earth through his Word (Historical Interpretation)</p><p>vs </p><p>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)</p><p></p><p>That's fine! Agreed?</p><p></p><p>But if that Christian <strong>instead</strong> claims that Bible means to say the following <span style="font-size: 9px">[when it says "he then gathered the <strong>waters</strong> (particles) and created <strong>land</strong></span> <span style="font-size: 9px">(solar systems)]</span>: </p><p><em>"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"</em></p><p></p><p>No he's wrong, that's not what the Bible means to say, that's a modern interpretation of the Bible. </p><p></p><p>And as long as this modern interpretation is <strong>regarded separate</strong> from the historical interpretation (which is below) it's fine by me.</p><p>In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.<span style="font-size: 10px"> He then gathered the <strong>waters </strong>(on Earth) and created <strong>land.</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong></strong>Muddle up the two and it comes of as dishonest. get it?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">-------------------------------</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BhagatSingh, post: 132504, member: 2610"] 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. [SIZE=1][COLOR=Red]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.[/COLOR][/SIZE] [COLOR=Red][SIZE=1]Their feelings are sincere [/SIZE][/COLOR][COLOR=Red][SIZE=1]but to understand Guru Nanak we need to shun this assumption.[/SIZE][/COLOR] Looking at a wider context gives us a better understanding of Guru Nanak. If one looks at Guru Nanak in a vacuum [SIZE=1](with just Guru Nanak and God)[/SIZE] 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 [B]not[/B] 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 [B]actually[/B] saying. and that's the bottomline, I want to know what Guru Nanak is [B]actually[/B] saying, and the closer I can get to that the better. [SIZE=1] [/SIZE] 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) 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 [B]instead[/B] claims that Bible means to say the following [SIZE=1][when it says "he then gathered the [B]waters[/B] (particles) and created [B]land[/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=1](solar systems)][/SIZE]: [I]"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"[/I] 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 [B]regarded separate[/B] from the historical interpretation (which is below) it's fine by me. In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.[SIZE=2] He then gathered the [B]waters [/B](on Earth) and created [B]land. [/B]Muddle up the two and it comes of as dishonest. get it? ------------------------------- [/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Can The Modern Mind Comprehend Gurbani?
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