Harkiran Ji - good morning,
Sorry for the delay in corraboratting with what you've set out to covey, but here [below] is something I've put together from previous posts of the similar kinda genre to express it as a view for the avoidance of doubt and clarity of subject matter. It is in no way to be construed as a propaganda for Hindu thought but rather, be treated as complimentary thereof for the purpose of this discussion.
Sikhism is a system of belief and as such doesn't need derogations or scholarly interpretations. It is the word of our "guru" and is therefore true. Of course, one may tailor stitch to fit for purpose in yielding personal benefit of some kind because the word is omnipresent. But otherwise, simple literal interpretations ought to be an immediate comprehension by the mind giving the words their ordinary signification, unless, when so applied they produce an inconsistency, or an absurdity or inconvenience so great as to convince the reader that the intention of the Banikar [author of SGGSJ] could not have been to use them in their ordinary signification as to mean something completely anew. And then, and only then must the mind shift to consider alternatives. That is to say, the use of acceptable sciences of interpretation. But suffice to say, that ought not to be the case because Nanak and the Banikars spoke to masses in their local dialect and the use of complex and sophisticated language would've meant defeat of the very objective they set out to achieve, that is, explaining complex concepts in simple terms.
Guru Nanak was a social reformer who dismissed Brahmnical practices on account it being too ritualistic, prejudicial, discriminative and above all meaningless. Although, he shifted from Hindu practices, he did not all together denounced Hindu ideology. The ideology surrounding birth, death, rebirth, karma, dharma and so forth are very much Hindu. Of course, we [Sikh] can sugarcoat and import theoretical alternatives to advance our disposition in light of Western thought and practice, but the fact and beauty to be found in the verses of SGGSJ remains to be rooted in Hindu ideology [Brahm, i.e. God], which resonates with an aspiring soul, an airing soul which is very much Indian [note, not Sikh]. All the Gurus and the Banikars were from sub-continent India, their pattern of thought was Indian. In light of modern advances of science and technology together with evolutionary modifications [21st Century] there can arise valid arguments to validate alternative interpretations, but insofar, the written word of SGGSJ is to be read and construed for meaning, it must in my view be read with the intent and the disposition of the writer at the time of his writing and in the era of his social being, notwithstanding, as it were, alternatives predicated by evolutionary modifications.
The point of the discussion which I am advancing is to show that Hindu thought and culture was part and parcel of an "ideal" system of the times in which the writers of SGGSJ lived. Take you for example, in a democratic society conforming to the "rule of law" [social ideal, Canada] albeit, dispassionately, but no nonetheless, obeying to the T as a social ideal. So too were the authors of SGGSJ within the confines of a system with which they had to accept as a social ideal [Hindu thought and not practice] and construct their [Sikh] idealists. Their pattern of thought and expression ought to be interpreted in the light of their environment, culture and genetic make to effect true and authentic interpretations.
Ideologies develop overtime to better survival conditions and greater good conducive ness in principle, Sikhism too, is evolving for better, but we must remain true to its founding principles and conditions.
Thank you !
