# Misinterpretation Of Guru Granth Sahib



## kds1980 (Sep 23, 2006)

on various sites sikhs and non sikhs i have seen that severe misinterpretation of guru granth sahib is going on.people just take one or two lines from guru granth sahib and try to prove their point.sometime after reading the whole shabad it is not possible to understand meaning.

today i found a site on kabir's mystic poetry.i am
very much impressed by the site.because along with the poetry they have also tried to explain the poetry.

Kabir : The Mystic Poet

i think we sikhs should made a site which also explain
the meaning of the shabad in english.i want to the views of the people here.
    thanks.


----------



## Dimitri (Sep 24, 2006)

Absolutely.
A shabads in Guru Granth are like poems. One must underatnd the whole poem to make sense of it.

Their is this thread on the forum Zafarnama, if you read the starting lines only one would come to conclusion Aurangzed was great but you gotta the read the whole Zafarnama to understand the point.


----------



## max314 (Sep 24, 2006)

kds1980 said:


> on various sites sikhs and non sikhs i have seen that severe misinterpretation of guru granth sahib is going on.people just take one or two lines from guru granth sahib and try to prove their point.sometime after reading the whole shabad it is not possible to understand meaning.
> 
> today i found a site on kabir's mystic poetry.i am
> very much impressed by the site.because along with the poetry they have also tried to explain the poetry.
> ...





A noble pursuit, and one that I fully support.

However, there are two factors that one of a reflectory disposition ought to take into account.



Depending on the linguistic skills of the translators, the quality of their translatory work will be of varying degrees.
The interpretation of the Granth will vary depending upon the person who is interpreting it.
As you see, whilst there may be a Universal Truth within the writings of the Granth, not every person will necessarily see that Truth.  And, like any poetry, what an individual gets from it depends entirely on the mindset of that individual.

I think that the journey of discovering the meanings of the Granth should be a personal one, as should the experience of gaining whatever answers you think you have received from it.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 25, 2006)

max314 said:


> I think that the journey of discovering the meanings of the Granth should be a personal one, as should the experience of gaining whatever answers you think you have received from it.


 
That is a big topic Max, does the Guru Granth contain an objective truth for us all? Is their a unified single clear message contained therein? Or is is designed to be a subjective truth as you have a preference for.

Technology (and the Gurus nadar), I think, is going to enable us to answer these things definitively soon. Now we can search all instances of a word in the granth and make comparisons to see if our hypothesis regarding meaning fits all. This will help us pinpoint exact meanings more accurately. We could also cross reference with the use of the shabads in other contemporary literature (not that I am comparing the two!). Think about the poor gyani of the past who had to singlehandedly interpret the Guru for the sangat with the minimal of training. Over the next few generations our understanding of our Guru should increase dramatically (I hope!)

Regarding misinterpretations, although my Sant Bhasha is not the best, I too often note a serious discrepancy between the words I understand and know in the shabad and those contained in the translation. Often even the sizes of the two lines are massively different. This suggests some poetic license on part of the translator.

One possible suggestion is to strictly use (if they exist), words that directly translate from those in the original where possible. We should discourage over interpretation in translation perhaps?


----------



## max314 (Sep 26, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> That is a big topic Max, does the Guru Granth contain an objective truth for us all? Is their a unified single clear message contained therein? Or is is designed to be a subjective truth as you have a preference for.
> 
> Technology (and the Gurus nadar), I think, is going to enable us to answer these things definitively soon. Now we can search all instances of a word in the granth and make comparisons to see if our hypothesis regarding meaning fits all. This will help us pinpoint exact meanings more accurately. We could also cross reference with the use of the shabads in other contemporary literature (not that I am comparing the two!). Think about the poor gyani of the past who had to singlehandedly interpret the Guru for the sangat with the minimal of training. Over the next few generations our understanding of our Guru should increase dramatically (I hope!)
> 
> ...




You raise an interesting dicsussion.


But, personally, I don't feel that  the "technology" of the future is necessary as a verification of Granthian assertions.  A volume whose earliest poetic works date back as far as the 14th Century AD, according to some calenders, 
are obviously not designed to have the facets of their meaning facilitated by modern technology.  Rather, it's a meditation on a moralistic standpoint; something that no amount of scientific advancement can ever necessarly discern.

In the Nietzschean Void - a nihilistic vision that seems to be increasingly realistic as science does indeed progress with much haste into the first half of the 21st Century - there is little else but social tradition and religious doctrine to act as a moralistic legislature by which human beings may govern their actions.  Sikkhism - like so many other organised religions around the world - attempts to remedy the Void by embuing within every man, woman and child a very real  sense of existential purpose.

Most religious texts do this by explaining things through metaphors, be they abstract or narrative poetics.  The problem is when people start taking those metaphors and become far too bogged down in trying to divulge  their apparently cloaked literal meanings, whilst completely missing the point that the passage is trying to make.  This is the same mistakes that the Hindus made when reading their own holy verses.

In my view, if one is to see the Granth for its true worth, they must revolutionise and re-think their entire approach to experiencing it.

I'd like to draw your attention to a quotation by the renowned psychoanalyst and neurologist, Sigmund Freud:

_"The truths contained in religious doctrines are after all so distorted and systematically disguised that the mass of humanity cannot recognise them as truth.  The case is similar to what happens when we tel a child that new-born babies are brought by the stork.  Here, too, we are telling the truth in symbolic clothing, for we know what the large bird signifies.  But the child does not know it.  He hears only the distorted part of what we say, and feels that he has been deceived; and we know how often his distrust of the grown-ups and his refractoriness actually take their start from this impression.  We have become convinced that it is better to avoid such symbolic disguisings of the truth in what we tell children and not to withhold them from a knowledge of the true state of affairs commensurate with their intellectual level."
_

*~ Sigmund Freud ~*​
The problem is, of course, that the arena of an omnipotent, formles, timeless and self-existent God is nowhere near the vicinity of being "commensurate with...[the] intellectual level" of human beings.  Moreover, how on Earth does one begin to articulate such concepts in the limited form of human language?

Poetry and poetic metaphor are, it would seem, the only viable form in which to even attempt this.

But that doesn't mean that the metaphors are truths in and of themselves.  Rather, they are vessels within which you must be willing to be carried if you are to reach the destination that they promise.  And this can't be done with a scientific or technologically dependent mindset.

At the risk of sounding terribly _bourgeoise_, you have to "free your mind"...but you have to "free" it in the right direction.  That direction can only come through consciences intuition, which is the truest state of _gurmukh_.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 26, 2006)

Sorry Max, you lost me there.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 26, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> Sorry Max, you lost me there.


 

BTW, I wouldn't pay too much attention to Freud. He is very original but his theories were based mainly on research using a small sample of middle class Viennese women, hardly representative of the world. Plus most people think he had major sexual issues that were clearly projected onto his work.

I think you may be better off looking at Carl Rogers or Bandura. The latter is especially good.

My point in the original text was refering to semantics mainly, or the meaning of words. This isn't always clear in sant bhasha but I think that technology will help in pinpointing meanings through cross references. I mean now it is easy to quickly find all instances of a word, this wasn't really possible before.

I still feel that the message within the Granth may be made clearer through this, but I agree with you that our own mindset needs to change when we look into the Guru as well. Someone once said that it needed to be approached both analytically and devotionally, either on its own is incomplete.

But still translations that stay as close to the original are preferable than freely interpreted ones in my mind.

I'm not even going to talk about the state of Brahmgiani.....personally I feel I haven't even stepped on the first rung of the ladder of spirituality


----------



## kds1980 (Sep 26, 2006)

i want all of you to show something
if we read following lines.guru granth sahib looks quite against women
ਮਨਮੁਖਾ ਦੈ ਸਿਰਿ ਜੋਰਾ ਅਮਰੁ ਹੈ ਨਿਤ ਦੇਵਹਿ ਭਲਾ ॥ 
मनमुखा दै सिरि जोरा अमरु है नित देवहि भला ॥ 
manmukhaa dai sir joraa amar hai nit dayveh bhalaa. 
Over the head of the manmukh is the order of the woman; to her, he ever holds out his promises of goodness. 


ਜੋਰਾ ਦਾ ਆਖਿਆ ਪੁਰਖ ਕਮਾਵਦੇ ਸੇ ਅਪਵਿਤ ਅਮੇਧ ਖਲਾ ॥ 
जोरा दा आखिआ पुरख कमावदे से अपवित अमेध खला ॥ 
joraa daa aakhi-aa purakh kamaavday say apvit amayDh khalaa. 
Those men who act according to the orders of women are impure, filthy and foolish.


----------



## drkhalsa (Sep 27, 2006)

Dear Kds1980

These lines are written not written for man womwn realtion in general instead it represent a specific situation( but common) where man looses his purpose due to greed and personal benefits in the relation with women and in essence become manmukh.

These lines could be better understood if somebody has read Tria Charitar in Dasam Granth as it explains such relations and consequences in detail



Jatinder Singh


----------



## kds1980 (Sep 27, 2006)

dear jatinder singh

i very well know about it.i was debating with the some hindus about guru granth sahib.on the following site
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27882&start=1305

they bring these lines and i tried to explain them.but they said that you have islamic mentality and you don't want to accept the truth.sggs is against women.


----------



## kds1980 (Sep 27, 2006)

that's why i want a proper explanation of such shabads should be written in along with the shabad in english or in future anti-sikh people will misinterpret guru granth sahib severly


----------



## max314 (Sep 27, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> Sorry Max, you lost me there.




Well, give it another read if you have time.  There's nothing very complex in there.  It's all fairly straight forward.  Just follow the beats.



			
				dalsingh said:
			
		

> BTW, I wouldn't pay too much attention to Freud. He is very original but his theories were based mainly on research using a small sample of middle class Viennese women, hardly representative of the world. Plus most people think he had major sexual issues that were clearly projected onto his work.



I think you may have jumped the gun a little.  I think perhaps you  didn't read the quotation.

There's nothing "sexual" about the passage I quoted, so any discrepencies you feel his work has on the grounds of "major sexual issues" would have little to do with the quote.

It was a statement regarding how we communicate things to children when they are not yet of the intellectual level to be told the literal truth.  I paralelled this to human beings not posessing any language that can accurately and completely describe the literal truth of God, and hence the resortment to use of metaphors.



			
				dalsingh said:
			
		

> I think you may be better off looking at Carl Rogers or Bandura. The latter is especially good.



I'm not interested in listing  random psychologists, Dal.  I presented a specific quote of Sigmund Freud's because it was relevent to the point I was trying to make about the communicability of religious doctrines.



			
				dalsingh said:
			
		

> My point in the original text was refering to semantics mainly, or the meaning of words. This isn't always clear in sant bhasha but I think that technology will help in pinpointing meanings through cross references. I mean now it is easy to quickly find all instances of a word, this wasn't really possible before.



If your talking about people reading the Granth with more knowledge of its lexis, then yes, its words will quite naturally be clearer.



> I still feel that the message within the Granth may be made clearer through this, but I agree with you that our own mindset needs to change when we look into the Guru as well. Someone once said that it needed to be approached both analytically and devotionally, either on its own is incomplete.



Here's the only problem, however.

To be analytical is to be  completely objective.

To be devoted is to be completely subjective.

One cannot be both reverential and scientific at the same time.  They are mutually exclusive traits.



			
				dalsingh said:
			
		

> But still translations that stay as close to the original are preferable than freely interpreted ones in my mind.



Naturally.



> I'm not even going to talk about the state of Brahmgiani.....personally I feel I haven't even stepped on the first rung of the ladder of spirituality



There is only one rung on that ladder.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 27, 2006)

max314 said:


> Well, give it another read if you have time. There's nothing very complex in there. It's all fairly straight forward. Just follow the beats.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes, I just studied Freud and generally the feeling by the majority today is that he was way off the mark. That may have made me switch off a bit when reading that bit of the post. My own bias, I do apologise.



max314 said:


> It was a statement regarding how we communicate things to children when they are not yet of the intellectual level to be told the literal truth. I paralelled this to human beings not posessing any language that can accurately and completely describe the literal truth of God, and hence the resortment to use of metaphors.


 
Yes very true, I think Gurbani explicitly says as much a few times.





max314 said:


> I'm not interested in listing random psychologists, Dal. I presented a specific quote of Sigmund Freud's because it was relevent to the point I was trying to make about the communicability of religious doctrines..


 
Cool, I just though I'd suggest some better alternatives to understanding psychology, those guys are more inline with Sikh thought. But your point is taken.





max314 said:


> If your talking about people reading the Granth with more knowledge of its lexis, then yes, its words will quite naturally be clearer..


 
And I think this will be a no small thing. Having a better understanding of the grammar may hopefully also help to gain new levels of understanding similarly.





max314 said:


> Here's the only problem, however.
> 
> To be analytical is to be completely objective.
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps, but still, spirituality and militancy are seen to be mutually exclusive by many, but Sikhism still promotes them.

I'm not too sure about reverential and analytical approaches being mutually exclusive though. Maybe together they offer a "holistic" perspective.
Reverence alone often leads to blind superstition whilst the belief that science or analysis alone can answer all questions is also false (it is called positivism just for the record).

As we are on the topic Max; A few quotes by Einstein on religion:Just because they are interesting (note these alone do not sum up his entire belief about religion and God).

"The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science." 

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. "


----------



## max314 (Sep 29, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> Yes, I just studied Freud and generally the feeling by the majority today is that he was way off the mark. That may have made me switch off a bit when reading that bit of the post. My own bias, I do apologise.



Not a problem.  Though I hope that this relatively small incident will help encourage us all to overcome any other prejudices or biases we may posess, and allow us to see the Light of Truth in all its purity instead of seeing it through a socially or psychologically-imposed filter.



> Yes very true, I think Gurbani explicitly says as much a few times.


 
I believe so.



> Cool, I just though I'd suggest some better alternatives to understanding psychology, those guys are more inline with Sikh thought. But your point is taken.



_Bon_.



> And I think this will be a no small thing. Having a better understanding of the grammar may hopefully also help to gain new levels of understanding similarly.



That's the hope.



> Perhaps, but still, spirituality and militancy are seen to be mutually exclusive by many, but Sikhism still promotes them.



I'm not so sure of that.  The two  biggest world religions - Christianity and Islam - both endorse a "crusade" or "jihadist" culture.  Sikkhism isn't the first organised religion to support killing people in the name of an ideal.  And I doubt it will be the last.



> I'm not too sure about reverential and analytical approaches being mutually exclusive though. Maybe together they offer a "holistic" perspective.
> Reverence alone often leads to blind superstition whilst the belief that science or analysis alone can answer all questions is also false (it is called positivism just for the record).



One requires no proof.  The other requires nothing _but_ proof.

I think that they are, by definition, mutually exclusive and entirely irreconcilable.



> As we are on the topic Max; A few quotes by Einstein on religion:Just because they are interesting (note these alone do not sum up his entire belief about religion and God).
> 
> "The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science."



Yeah.  One could interperate that as being curiosity.

Science, religion and philosophy are - of course - man's attempt to understand and compartmentalise an infinite and ultimately unknowable universe.



> "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."



Einstein is following his intuition, as he is often known to have done.  His last great work was that of a proof that was to be an equation expressing God as a mathematical formula.  He pursued this to the grave.



> "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. "



Science teaches facts.  Religion teaches morals.

Human beings need them both, but I have rarely come across 'religious' people who will ever allow logical facts to enlighten their regressive dogmas.  Which is a pitty.

Some nice quotes.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 29, 2006)

max314 said:


> Not a problem. Though I hope that this relatively small incident will help encourage us all to overcome any other prejudices or biases we may posess, and allow us to see the Light of Truth in all its purity instead of seeing it through a socially or psychologically-imposed filter.


 
That's a tall order. I don't think many of us can view anything without our little (or large!) biases.

Anyway, on the topic of religion and science:

Religion and Science

_The following article by Albert Einstein appeared in the *New York Times Magazine* on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It has been reprinted in *Ideas and Opinions*, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pp 36 - 40. It also appears in Einstein's book *The World as I See It*, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28._ 


Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests. 
The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God. 
The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates. 
Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it. 
The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. 
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another. 
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. 
We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. 
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.


----------



## max314 (Sep 30, 2006)

*1. - Religion of Fear*

_"...it is above all fear that evokes religious notions..."_

This kind of religion is one that causes the creation of a priest class or caste (like the Brahmins, for instance) and utilises peoples' fears in practical matters of every day life as a tool with which to subjugate people to spiritual blackmail.


*2. - Religion of Morals (A God of Providence)*

_"The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God."_

Einstein seems to approve of this form of religion.  He feels that it has a constructive role to play


It seems important to note that, in each case, Einstein is targetting human emotion as the creator of God.  It is as though humans live their lives with only one certainty - death - and, in the process, create a sense of purpose and meaning so that they don't feel as though their lives are entering the void upon dying.

But on the usage of religion, he seems to be advocating - as, indeed, do I - the importance of religion as a moralistic framework under which civilised communities can exist in an ethical way.

Einstein's summary opinion on the matter seems to be this:

_"The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates."_

And I heartily agree.

But there is also a third way.


*3. - Cosmic Religious Feeling (A Universal God not bound by any dogma)*

This is what I beleive Guru Nanak was atttempting to acheive.

_"...there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it."_

According to Einstein, "only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to...this level".  I don't think I am in any way "exceptional" or "exceptionally high-minded", but I do believe that I have experienced what Einstein describes as "Cosmic Religious Feeling".  It is quite possible that this is why some misunderstand my sentiments and think me an atheist or some sort of religious heretic.  In essence, all I have ever tried to do is seek the Truth in as pure and indiluted form as my human mind will allow.

_"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints."_


----------



## roopsidhu (Sep 30, 2006)

SSA to all
There are many verses / Shabads in SGGS ji which can proove that gurbani teaches us to respect the women to the maximum
Roopsidhu


----------



## dalsingh (Oct 1, 2006)

*MAX*

*3. - Cosmic Religious Feeling (A Universal God not bound by any dogma)

*This is what I beleive Guru Nanak was atttempting to acheive.

_"...there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it."_

According to Einstein, "only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to...this level". I don't think I am in any way "exceptional" or "exceptionally high-minded", but I do believe that I have experienced what Einstein describes as "Cosmic Religious Feeling". It is quite possible that this is why some misunderstand my sentiments and think me an atheist or some sort of religious heretic. In essence, all I have ever tried to do is seek the Truth in as pure and indiluted form as my human mind will allow.

_"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints."_

_-----------------------------_

I think I know what you mean, studying science and reflecting on our little knowledge of the universe seems to lead to this.

I am really glad that our Gurus pointed us in the right direction. 

One day i hope, Sikhs and the world will wake up to the gem under their nose.


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 13, 2006)

kds1980 said:


> on various sites sikhs and non sikhs i have seen that severe misinterpretation of guru granth sahib is going on.people just take one or two lines from guru granth sahib and try to prove their point.sometime after reading the whole shabad it is not possible to understand meaning.
> 
> today i found a site on kabir's mystic poetry.i am
> very much impressed by the site.because along with the poetry they have also tried to explain the poetry.
> ...


 
Hi KDS,

On the "Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh" Essay we did, the motivating factor for us (whether Vege or Meat eater), was mistranslation. All of us were dumbstruck and dumfounded by continual mistranslation of Angs, Tukhs, Shabads, by fanatics from various Sants/ Jatha's trying to push their own narrow Agenda's.

The Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is a deep examination of the spiritual maladies that affect us us human beings. How Kaam, Krodh, Moh, Lobh and Hankaar, can destroy us as human's. How by being slaves to these things we become Animals. It tells us how priviledged we are to be born with conscienceness (that no other species on this planet has), and how we can use that awareness of our existence, to better ourselves, and our fellow human beings. How we must forge the temporal (mind and body), in order to aid us in terms of spirituality.

Given all this, what do this misinterpreters think the great Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is........a menu......a cheap menu in a restraunt of what to eat and not to............what bigger insult and a slap in the face to our Ten Guru's is there than that?

Other's think it is a means to attack people different from us...........be it homosexuals, blacks, chinese, whites.

Other's are even worse, and use it to surpress women............

Our Khalsa Sikh's have become the New Age Brahmin's.........they are only concerned they will be polluted and keep pure....they think that touching certain things and people will pollute them. They are more concerned with bashing Mona's than their own spiritual development. They are more concerened with modes of dress and styles of turban than humankinds welfare.

What would our Guru's make of this?

I witnessed a classic debate on Main Page with a fanatic editor there called HarjiSingh who was so concerned to maintain his fanatical sant/jatha stance he denied that Halaal and Bismil were forms of Islamic *Ritualistic* Islamic slaughter.....instead he stated they just mean kill?

How do you deal with people like this? Beat them up? Shun them? 

No.......carry on writing articles and books to counter their ignorance. Speak to the youth who have turned away from Bani. It does not matter their beard is trimmed......it does not matter they are monay......it does not matter they are female......it does not matter they are not punjabi......it does not matter they can't read or write Punjab.....or eat meat or not.......get them interested in Sikh History...........tell them that fanatics don't rule Sikhism........give them a chance to deleop interest........they may adopt the Kakkars...they may not...........that is up to them!!!!

It is time for the vast majority of easy going and moderate Sikhs to rise and silence the fanatics.....

Best Wishes....and sorry for the ranting...


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 13, 2006)

<<Our Khalsa Sikh's have become the New Age Brahmin's.........they are only concerned they will be polluted and keep pure....they think that touching certain things and people will pollute them. They are more concerned with bashing Mona's than their own spiritual development. They are more concerened with modes of dress and styles of turban than humankinds welfare.>>

veer ji i totaly agree with you.the worst thing they are doing is they just take single line from guru granth sahib to prove their point.
there is a single line in  guru granth sahib which says
"Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false" (Ang 1350).

now muslims have started misusing this to convert sikhs to islam .so for the time i have seen tapoban giving importance to full shabad
phorum - message board

similarly i can show you many lines from guru granth sahib which does not
make any sense if you do not read full shabad.its better for our knowledgeable sikhs to understand this.


----------



## cool_1951 (Oct 14, 2006)

kds1980 said:


> on various sites sikhs and non sikhs i have seen that severe misinterpretation of guru granth sahib is going on.people just take one or two lines from guru granth sahib and try to prove their point.sometime after reading the whole shabad it is not possible to understand meaning.
> 
> today i found a site on kabir's mystic poetry.i am
> very much impressed by the site.because along with the poetry they have also tried to explain the poetry.
> ...


I fully agree with your nice suggestion.This will be a step further for the purpose of providing vehicle to our religion which has not been appreciated by the western society.Even if there is a risk of slight difference of opinion coming out of the semantics and allied reason the end result would be a dividend.I fully endorse your views.

Thanks for a nice suggestion.Some one has an original idea.


----------

