Dear all,
Every work by an interpreter (and we are all interpreters) is a snapshot of his/her understanding at a particular time. Each of the above mentioned scholars may well have grown to change their mind about their earlier attempts. So, let us do our best to understand what is in front of us. Repeated, implicitly pejorative, references to McLeod are not helpful to this discussion - they betray a bias.
I thank those who posted their interpretation of Prof. Sahib Singh's interpretation. Of those that I have studied, his is the most sensible.
The lines prior to the question (Kiv Sachiara hoiai, kiv kurhai tutai pal) and answer (Hukam Razai chalana, Nanak likhia nal), are references to futile activities that do not help us be a Sachiar. That much should be beyond debate. Why? That is because each of the lines refer to activities that prove a failure (na hovai, na utari), which is followed by the question that indicates the earlier lines refer to activities that are not useful in being a Sachiar.
What activities, then, are futile? At first blush, and because most of us do not speak the same language as it was spoken 500 years ago, it appears that Sochai refers to thinking. But that is incorrect. It refers to Such or Sucham.
We know this by referring to the third line of this Paurhi - Sahas sianapan lakh hovain, tan ik na chalai nal.
Bhai Kahn Singh 'Nabha' in his "Mahan Kosh" translates Sianap as understanding, cunning, etc. The reference is to the use of knowledge, which has both positive and negative uses. Clearly, in this line the Guru is referring to the negative aspect of Sianap that proves futile in being a Sachiar. So, we can be confident that the meaning of Sianap has to do with a sense of cunning or misuse/ misapplication of knowledge.
What about thought processes or thinking? Thinking and the process of thought is what leads to Sianap, which may be positive or negative. So, thinking is a prerequisite for Sianap and is covered in this line. Yet, it is not thinking that is being decried in this line. What is being decried is the misuse of what we learn or the lack of implementation of what we claim to have learnt. The Guru says that no matter how cunning or quick we may be, we may yet miss the essential wisdom and the crux of all our learning.
So, back to the first line of the Paurhi - the Sochai here is not the contemporary Sochna, thinking, but an act that is meant to make us Sachiar. Like the other two references - contrived silence (as a means to inner peace), and indulgence (as a way to overcome the urge to indulge), this refers to an act that was common to society and was integrally related to the sphere of religiosity or spirituality (pardon my use of these labels). All we need to do is to look around South Asia and it is clear that the most common act to purify oneself - Such or Sucham - is by way of ritual bathing at Tirath asthan.
BTW, this includes the act of purifying ourselves by "washing" our feet (in the dirty water) before entering Darbar Sahib - which is enforced by the guards (what are they guarding?). This is also reflected in our compulsive hand washing prior to holding a Pothi. We never worry about our mind (and the dirt that is within), but are overly concerned about the cleanliness of our extremities.
Of course, hygiene is important. But, occasional hand washing or washing of our feet (prior to holding a Pothi or entering a Dharamsal) will not clean our mind. That would require a perpetual discipline and focus. It has to do with Hukam and Raza.
The Guru, to my understanding, says that all other acts are futile attempts to be a Sachiar.
So, the Sochai in the first Paurhi refers to ritual cleanliness as a futile means to be a Sachiar.
Is Sucham practiced by us in other ways?
Let's evaluate much that we take for granted, and many holier-than-thou folks take as the proof of their superiority over others.
Akal Sahai!
Gaurav Singh
