sunmukh ji
I appreciate the time and the reflection that is obvious in your comments above. It is really important, as you seem to anticipate, that we are clear what you mean by this statement.
I am understanding you to mean there are common concepts in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and other scriptures, in part because the Gurus and bhagats of Sri Guru Granth Sahib were not only familiar with these concepts but were reaching out to the experience of the people of their times.
It is a slippery slope to the argument that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is derived from earlier texts. I do not think you are saying that. Please understand that for us, our Guru has no bibliography of previous research. Our Guru is complete.
Do not take my remarks as rebuke, but only to clarify matters.
Many thanks
Ek OnKaar Sat Naam
SPNadmin ji, I am not suggesting SGGS ji is incomplete.
I am suggesting there is use of particular terminology, whether it be soch as in the initial post from Ishna ji,
sochai soch na hova-ee jay sochee lakh vaar
or "sach" in the preceding line,
hai bhee sach naanak hosee bhee sach.
or "sat" in Sat Naam ( or Sati as discussed with Prakash S Bhagga ji in another thread), which will have devolved from Guru Sahibans familiarity with other texts of their period, which their peers and ancestors will all have come across as well. Guru Sahibans also studied these texts, even though there is no plagiarism. They would not use the terms if they had not come across them, and if the local populus was not familar with them. For the same reason, that is why the use of Abrahmic terms is limited, and there is no reference to any religions of Australia, Americas, or Sub-Saharan Africa. We have to be truthful, in that most new ideas are borne through past experience, and adaptation. New concepts are very limited in comparison. The concept of God is an ongoing development from pre-pagan times with its concomitant tantric macabre sacrifices to the current notions.
Now, if one wishes to understand exactly what is being meant by a particular term, like the ones above, or terms like "four directions" or "three qualities" if one cannot make sense of a translation, then either one can look elsewhere in SGGS ji, or one can read other Sikh texts eg Vaars, or listen to Kaatha.
However there is also the option of looking at texts which explain Vedic terminology. If the terms are common, then looking at these texts may short-track one to the meaning, if one really wants to know exactly what was meant. Some sanscrit rooted Vedic technical terms may really only be fully understood by Brahmins, and unless one makes such a study one may be making guesses based on current lay usage of words. They may sound similar to current words, but they may have completely different meanings.
For example there is the term "sunn-ia" in Pauris 8-11. It is commonly translated as "listening" probably because the word in Punjabi is similar. The translated pauris sounded really odd to me. Recently I looked at a Buddhist book and it spoke of a "sunn" state. Then I did a search for this word. It is rooted in sanscrit and refers to zero/void so in fact it is actually linked to what Buddhists refer to as the empty state. This completely changes the meaning of those pauris. The pauris are to do with objects who reside in consciousness of this empty or sunn, state , ie devoid of self-identity.
Then some Hari Krishna guy gave me a book called "Veda -Secrets from the East" in the city shopping centre. They were handing them out free of charge. I have read just few pages so far, of about 400, and it is about Bhagavada_Gita and devotion to Krishna alone as the godhead. It speaks of other vedic deities, cows, castes and yoga and so on, but it comes back to notion that devotion to Krishna will override all and any failings in following other aspects. I was shocked at how similar parts of it is ( parts, not in whole)to my understanding of Sikhi. Just the glossary explains many terms seen in SGGS ji. For some parts such as dealing with materialism, karma, reincarnation, seva, sangat, kirtan it could prove very revealing, and it even has a chapter on Jap (ie chanting of God's name).
Then I read in book (on Tibetan Buddhism) about the concept of creating amrita(nectar of immortality). It was claimed it is a vedic idea, to do with some ancient battle between demi-gods and gods. Anyway, it was formed by churning the world's oceans, with a mountain found in Bihar, till it formed, with lots of intermediate stages. This got me thinking why water is stirred, with recitals, and then claimed to be amrit. The point is, a lot of the current practices and terms, whether they are lotuses, world-oceans, sunn, or amrit, will have roots in something or another, and until they are researched, then one will be left puzzled.
I can't see how it can harm me to read something that explains the terms and phrases also used in SGGS ji in clear concise language.
At the end of the day, SGGS ji advocates love of One God. If I love God, which I do, then what have I to fear?
Sat Sri Akal
