Jump to content
Redoptics

Transitioning from transliteration to reading Gurmukhi

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

trumpp.png.cad35a6e9682c4a1d6a84d086c5cee5a.png

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

trumpp.png.cad35a6e9682c4a1d6a84d086c5cee5a.png

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

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

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

Yep, that's the kunjur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 7:20 AM, dallysingh101 said:

a VERY academic paper by Arvind Mandair on the topic of modern 'Sikh theology' which emerged as a result of the colonial encounter

Do you have a link?

I should refrain from commenting until I read it, but is it possible that the missionaries are a direct consequence of the British? That all the stuff they are saying is just to please the British Sahib, who isn't even around anymore?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BhForce said:

Do you have a link?

I should refrain from commenting until I read it, but is it possible that the missionaries are a direct consequence of the British? That all the stuff they are saying is just to please the British Sahib, who isn't even around anymore?

I think it is more about a shift in contextualisation that was brought about by the brits. It's perfectly understandable as a consequence of colonisation, but the BIG question is whether it is a smart thing to do (even more so, as you've alluded to), when we've thrown off that subjugation. Sure, apply some western constructs to see what we get, but if we are oblivious to the very fact that what we are doing is essentially introducing major shifts and outside ideas to original Sikh thinking, then we are being very dimwitted. Then we have a colonisation of the mind itself - regardless of the physical presence of those that caused this.

 

Will try and find that link for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BhForce said:

Do you have a link?

I should refrain from commenting until I read it, but is it possible that the missionaries are a direct consequence of the British? That all the stuff they are saying is just to please the British Sahib, who isn't even around anymore?

It's obvious that the missionaries are a direct result of this in my opinion. It's a weird (And very subtle) assimilation of victorian era, protestant, racialised and even prudish thinking (amongst many things). This explains why caste is going on stronger than ever (notice this is most strong within the community to whom brits most successfully introduced their racialised theories and depended upon for their colonial misadventures abroad). Also notice how this externally introduced victorian era prudery (which interestingly goray themselves have since outright rejected - go out on any Friday/Saturday night and see for yourself) is the direct cause of apnay looking upon Charitrio  Pakyaan with suspicious and even contemptuous eyes (as it now seems ashleel to them). There is an honest, earthy 'realness' to the original Sikh perceptions of human nature which have gone amongst the masses and has been replaced by prudery. I believe this naivety and coyness played a part in why so many 'religious' conservative apnay  turned a blind eye to all the grooming issue that was and is going on. There was a political and military confidence that was attacked too. 

I don't think the missionaries are trying to please the brits, they just can't see outside of the framework they've inherited, and actually believe what they are pushing is the real thing. This bit will be very controversial - but maybe this is the logical conclusion to the Singh Sabha lehar? They might have had real good intentions, but ultimately when we introduce these things in - they take on a life of their own with unforeseeable long term consequences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an apparent summary of some of Mandair's work. I just skimmed through it. Haven't read it fully yet. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

It's obvious that the missionaries are a direct result of this in my opinion. It's a weird (And very subtle) assimilation of victorian era, protestant, racialised and even prudish thinking (amongst many things). This explains why caste is going on stronger than ever (notice this is most strong within the community to whom brits most successfully introduced their racialised theories and depended upon for their colonial misadventures abroad). Also notice how this externally introduced victorian era prudery (which interestingly goray themselves have since outright rejected - go out on any Friday/Saturday night and see for yourself) is the direct cause of apnay looking upon Charitrio  Pakyaan with suspicious and even contemptuous eyes (as it now seems ashleel to them). There is an honest, earthy 'realness' to the original Sikh perceptions of human nature which have gone amongst the masses and has been replaced by prudery. I believe this naivety and coyness played a part in why so many 'religious' conservative apnay  turned a blind eye to all the grooming issue that was and is going on. There was a political and military confidence that was attacked too. 

I don't think the missionaries are trying to please the brits, they just can't see outside of the framework they've inherited, and actually believe what they are pushing is the real thing. This bit will be very controversial - but maybe this is the logical conclusion to the Singh Sabha lehar? They might have had real good intentions, but ultimately when we introduce these things in - they take on a life of their own with unforeseeable long term consequences. 

The main reason why caste was re introduced during the British raj period is because that is the only method by which they could control such a mass of people using the brahnwaad soch to further their own agenda, plus the brahmins were quite willing to increase their control of society . These missionaries have been bitten by the all western approach to doing analysis of our faith's scriptures and history that 'scientifically provable' is the hallmark of the truth.  They were created to become a class of 'sikh intelllectuals' to poke holes in everything sikh an agenda which suited both delhi hukamats: british and 'hindu dominant'

Singh Sabha lehar started with great intent but was also infiltrated with disrupters of sikhi aims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Here's an apparent summary of some of Mandair's work. I just skimmed through it. Haven't read it fully yet. 

 

 

images.jpeg.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jkvlondon said:

Yes Sikhi is panentheism

Exactly some people get confused,  thought an image was best to show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×

Important Information

Terms of Use