Transitioning from transliteration to reading Gurmukhi

[jkvlondon]

3 hours ago, BhForce said:

Do know that everything that Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha writes should not be taken as the absolute truth. Even more so in translation. Then you have no idea what is even being referenced.

Bhulan andar sab ko, abhul Guru kartar... Just needto cross reference with Guru ji as the saying goes anything worth knowing is worth the effort

[dallysingh101]

16 hours ago, Redoptics said:

Thanks will look into it, that kids toy looks fun lol

I tell you one thing that set me back years (unnecessarily in my opinion). When I started trying to read Gurmukhi properly I too tried with Gurbani but for some unfathomable reason no one told me that certain vowel symbols (especially at the ends of words) are grammatical indicators and are not actually read as part of the word. This can confuse people (well it did me). 

So you might want to focus on some other less difficult texts (like children's books with words you might already know) for a bit - just to get proper familiarity with the sounds associated with the symbols. 

Dasam Bani doesn't use these silent symbols so you could also maybe use that as a tool to help nail reading? 

Great that you've got to this point in any case! Good on you.

There is nothing like being able to read in the original script - keep at it!

[dallysingh101]

This might help with interpretation brother.

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/13297-english-translation-of-prof-sahib-singhs-katha-of-japji-sahib/

[BhForce]

On 6/17/2019 at 4:33 AM, dallysingh101 said:

This might help with interpretation brother.

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/13297-english-translation-of-prof-sahib-singhs-katha-of-japji-sahib/

Wow, that's a lot of work by Tejkaran Kaur.

I have to say, though 1) it's a bit presumptuous for a 20-year old to claim one's own opinions as being "A little deeper", implying that Prof. Sahib Singh was completely superficial.

I say that even though I'm not a blind fan of his translation. A little humility is in order, both for traditionalists commenting on Prof. Sahib Singh, and for missionaries commenting on Taksali/Nirmala works. "A little deeper" would be inappropriate even if she had put in a lifetime of learning, teaching, and practicing of Sikhism, which she certainly hasn't. "My thoughts" or "Some more vichaar" would have been better.

2) People should avoid thinking that Prof. Sahib Singh's commentary is the one and only commentary on Guru Granth Sahib. New learners should read other commentaries, too.

 

Good effort, of course.

[jkvlondon]

7 hours ago, BhForce said:

Wow, that's a lot of work by Tejkaran Kaur.

I have to say, though 1) it's a bit presumptuous for a 20-year old to claim one's own opinions as being "A little deeper", implying that Prof. Sahib Singh was completely superficial.

I say that even though I'm not a blind fan of his translation. A little humility is in order, both for traditionalists commenting on Prof. Sahib Singh, and for missionaries commenting on Taksali/Nirmala works. "A little deeper" would be inappropriate even if she had put in a lifetime of learning, teaching, and practicing of Sikhism, which she certainly hasn't. "My thoughts" or "Some more vichaar" would have been better.

2) People should avoid thinking that Prof. Sahib Singh's commentary is the one and only commentary on Guru Granth Sahib. New learners should read other commentaries, too.

 

Good effort, of course.

Have heard that Professor sahib singh ji's reading was a bit superfical/literal in  some parts of his work on Guru ji so taking that into account cross reference with other steeks .

[dallysingh101]

11 hours ago, BhForce said:

Wow, that's a lot of work by Tejkaran Kaur.

I have to say, though 1) it's a bit presumptuous for a 20-year old to claim one's own opinions as being "A little deeper", implying that Prof. Sahib Singh was completely superficial.

I say that even though I'm not a blind fan of his translation. A little humility is in order, both for traditionalists commenting on Prof. Sahib Singh, and for missionaries commenting on Taksali/Nirmala works. "A little deeper" would be inappropriate even if she had put in a lifetime of learning, teaching, and practicing of Sikhism, which she certainly hasn't. "My thoughts" or "Some more vichaar" would have been better.

2) People should avoid thinking that Prof. Sahib Singh's commentary is the one and only commentary on Guru Granth Sahib. New learners should read other commentaries, too.

 

Good effort, of course.

I missed that bit? Tejkaran Kaur adopted a straight translation of the steek by the Professor, so be careful you aren't attributing words from him to her. 

Absolutely agree about looking into multiple commentaries/steeks. I think this falls into the general principle of just relying on one source being potentially dangerous. Not only in terms of taking on potential misunderstandings but also to avoid that sort of deification many apnay all to commonly do, when they encounter such things - even if the work is brilliant. No human is perfect. We shouldn't be blind fans of ANYONE'S translations. Having attempted some myself, I'm acutely aware of the potential for misapprehensions in this. Besides, at this point, I've come to believe that there are aspects of Gurbani that go beyond the semantic too, i.e. rhythmically, auditory etc. and then we have the whole dimension of that beyond the senses - which is the ultimate aim?   

I think the professor did a top job with interpretation along grammatical lines. And his pad arth is an excellent way to get a better understanding of the vocabulary therein.

As I've got older, my own opinion has been to explore interpretations from the colonial period (and any other for that matter) with a bit more of a...ehm...what's the rights words I'm looking for........ehm.... critical eye. That's just to be careful of subtle colonial era protestant influences within. 

That being said, I do believe the professor's contribution is of very high value.   And one definitely doesn't lose out by exploring it. 

 

[BhForce]

Agreed regarding various ways of interpretation.

14 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I missed that bit? Tejkaran Kaur adopted a straight translation of the steek by the Professor, so be careful you aren't attributing words from him to her. 

No, I realize that she straight translated Prof. Sahib Singh. But then she went on to give her thoughts, as you noted on Sikhawareness:

Quote

PS - It should be noted that Bibi Tejkaran has expanded on Professor Singh's teeka with her own interpretation of the text under the sections subtitled 'A little deeper'.

So that's what I'm reacting to. Her calling her thoughts "A little deeper." So by extension, I can only surmise that she must think Prof. Sahib Singh's thoughts must be "A little shallower."

[dallysingh101]

4 hours ago, BhForce said:

 

So that's what I'm reacting to. Her calling her thoughts "A little deeper." So by extension, I can only surmise that she must think Prof. Sahib Singh's thoughts must be "A little shallower."

Oh, I get where you are coming from now.

I wouldn't have interpreted her comments like that myself. I would've thought that this was an attempt to analyse what had been encountered. Sort of like churning what one had imbibed through the reading and an attempt to extract more from it. 

Not that it was shallow but rather an attempt to get a deeper grasp of its depth and significance. I know Tejkaran holds the professor in the highest esteem, so I don't think she is going where you think. 

 

 

[dallysingh101]

23 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think the professor did a top job with interpretation along grammatical lines. And his pad arth is an excellent way to get a better understanding of the vocabulary therein.

I think the above point warrants further elaboration. Redoptics, sorry if the original post and objective is going on a tangent with this, but I think it is an important point. It's sort of an attempt at contextualisation. 

When Ernest Trumpp wrote his disparaging orientalist (British sponsored) 'thesis' on Sikhs and Gurbani in the late 1800s (shortly after the annexation), he wanted to employ a grammatical approach but claims that gianis of the time told him that this was not possible. He disparagingly put this down to Sikh ignorance. Here's an extract:

Recently I read (or tried to!) read a VERY academic paper by Arvind Mandair on the topic of modern 'Sikh theology' which emerged as a result of the colonial encounter. He made an important point (in my opinion) that the scathing criticism from the aforementioned work sort of set up the direction of most Sikh literature that was created subsequently. It was attempt to respond to these 'criticisms'. He also (very interestingly and possibly significantly - if true), suggests that Sikhs have yet to extract/free themselves fully from the paradigms imposed on them during the colonial period. 

Anyway, Professor Sahib Singh's interpretation is historically important because it is essentially that which Trumpp claimed Sikhs were incapable of producing - a more strict grammatical interpretation - with all it's strengths and weaknesses. In one of his biographical extracts the Professor also claims that he also stopped interpretations along 'poly-semantic' lines, meaning multiple interpretations of Gurbani, because (if I recall rightly) Arya Samaj fellows openly insulted Sikhs saying things along the lines of: These people don't understand their Gurbani so they produce a bunch of interpretations of the same tuks.  

This gives some background to the production of the Professor's work. He essentially employed old Indic grammatical forms on Gurbani (which all the now silent vowel symbols are supposed to represent). Does this make sense? 

[jkvlondon]

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think the above point warrants further elaboration. Redoptics, sorry if the original post and objective is going on a tangent with this, but I think it is an important point. It's sort of an attempt at contextualisation. 

When Ernest Trumpp wrote his disparaging orientalist (British sponsored) 'thesis' on Sikhs and Gurbani in the late 1800s (shortly after the annexation), he wanted to employ a grammatical approach but claims that gianis of the time told him that this was not possible. He disparagingly put this down to Sikh ignorance. Here's an extract:



Recently I read (or tried to!) read a VERY academic paper by Arvind Mandair on the topic of modern 'Sikh theology' which emerged as a result of the colonial encounter. He made an important point (in my opinion) that the scathing criticism from the aforementioned work sort of set up the direction of most Sikh literature that was created subsequently. It was attempt to respond to these 'criticisms'. He also (very interestingly and possibly significantly - if true), suggests that Sikhs have yet to extract/free themselves fully from the paradigms imposed on them during the colonial period. 

Anyway, Professor Sahib Singh's interpretation is historically important because it is essentially that which Trumpp claimed Sikhs were incapable of producing - a more strict grammatical interpretation - with all it's strengths and weaknesses. In one of his biographical extracts the Professor also claims that he also stopped interpretations along 'poly-semantic' lines, meaning multiple interpretations of Gurbani, because (if I recall rightly) Arya Samaj fellows openly insulted Sikhs saying things along the lines of: These people don't understand their Gurbani so they produce a bunch of interpretations of the same tuks.  

This gives some background to the production of the Professor's work. He essentially employed old Indic grammatical forms on Gurbani (which all the now silent vowel symbols are supposed to represent). Does this make sense? 

Ernest Trump This was the same kan4rwho used smoke his cigars whilst thumbing through Guru ji ...As for aryas they are prone to spout nonsense to undermibe sikhi at any or allchances, guddhey lok