Interfaith The Dream Of A Plain Sggsj?

[Ishna]

According to religion scholar Lydia Willskey, the “plain Bible” was a Protestant theory of scripture, first articulated in the seventeenth century, which asserted that the Bible was not a mysterious text in need of elaborate interpretation but one whose “essential truths for salvation could be understood by even the uneducated and simple.” The thesis that the Bible was “clear in meaning, persuasive in message and authoritative in truth claims” was further nurtured in the eighteenth century by an Enlightenment faith in the senses and an “emphasis on the viability of reason.” In this iteration, all one needed to access the truths of scripture was a bit of common sense.

The problem with this characterization of the Bible was that it didn’t account for the wildly divergent experiences of readers. Were the Bible truly plain, observes Willskey, then “whatever reading appeared ‘plain’ to a given reader was the correct one.” One effect of this was to reinforce denominational divisions, which gave rise to even more confusion about the book’s real meaning. Rather than eliminating “the need for further inquiry” it actually “made further inquiry necessary.”

Thus, the dream of a “plain Bible,” rather than guaranteeing a universal form of encounter with sacred texts, only fractured it further.​

The above is from an article titled The Dream of a Plain Bible by Grant Shreve. It got me thinking deeply about how we tend to relate to and interpret our scriptures, and share our perspectives with other people. I've been told directly, heard it said to others, and most likely said it to you, dear reader: Gurbani's message is basic and simple. But you know what? We humans aren't.

 

[Inderjeet Kaur]

One of the wonderful properties of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is that it meets the reader wherever she or he is. I might read a shabad today and the meaning is clear and obvious, then return to the same shabad in a couple years to find that the meaning is clear and obvious - but it means something entirely different to me than it did before because I have moved farther along on my journey and have a different level of understanding. The words have not changed, but I have.

Every shabad has enough levels of meaning to keep us all busy learning for a very long time. Basic and simple? Perhaps for some, it is basic and simple at each level, but with so many depths of meaning, who is to say what it "really" means? As Ishna ji wrote, even if the meaning is basic and simple, we humans aren't.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Actually just like there are hose who believe there are two overlaying meanings in Bible verses, the same can be said for Gurbani. Why can’t it have several layers of meanings that apply to physical life in this reality / mind and also nonphysical reality / spiritual? Maybe it is supposed to be that way so that everyone gets something depending what level they are at. That wouldn’t be able to exist without using metaphor several layers thick.

According to religion scholar Lydia Willskey, the “plain Bible” was a Protestant theory of scripture, first articulated in the seventeenth century, which asserted that the Bible was not a mysterious text in need of elaborate interpretation but one whose “essential truths for salvation could be understood by even the uneducated and simple.” The thesis that the Bible was “clear in meaning, persuasive in message and authoritative in truth claims” was further nurtured in the eighteenth century by an Enlightenment faith in the senses and an “emphasis on the viability of reason.” In this iteration, all one needed to access the truths of scripture was a bit of common sense.

The problem with this characterization of the Bible was that it didn’t account for the wildly divergent experiences of readers. Were the Bible truly plain, observes Willskey, then “whatever reading appeared ‘plain’ to a given reader was the correct one.” One effect of this was to reinforce denominational divisions, which gave rise to even more confusion about the book’s real meaning. Rather than eliminating “the need for further inquiry” it actually “made further inquiry necessary.”

Thus, the dream of a “plain Bible,” rather than guaranteeing a universal form of encounter with sacred texts, only fractured it further.​

The above is from an article titled The Dream of a Plain Bible by Grant Shreve. It got me thinking deeply about how we tend to relate to and interpret our scriptures, and share our perspectives with other people. I've been told directly, heard it said to others, and most likely said it to you, dear reader: Gurbani's message is basic and simple. But you know what? We humans aren't.

 

[RicktheSikh]

Actually just like there are hose who believe there are two overlaying meanings in Bible verses, the same can be said for Gurbani. Why can’t it have several layers of meanings that apply to physical life in this reality / mind and also nonphysical reality / spiritual? Maybe it is supposed to be that way so that everyone gets something depending what level they are at. That wouldn’t be able to exist without using metaphor several layers thick.

That's how I feel. It is, as the Christians would say, the Living Word. That's why I feel the need to read it in the original Gurmukhi (I have so much to learn). I still feel that it speaks directly to me when I read it in English but I know there is some beautiful nuance that I'm missing out on.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

That's how I feel. It is, as the Christians would say, the Living Word. That's why I feel the need to read it in the original Gurmukhi (I have so much to learn). I still feel that it speaks directly to me when I read it in English but I know there is some beautiful nuance that I'm missing out on.

But the Bible was written in Aramaic to Greek to Latin to............. Hence, unless one knows Aramaic, there is no original text.
As far as the English Translation of the SGGS, our only Guru is concerned, the original translators like Max Arthur Macauliffe (10 September 1841 − 15 March 1913) worked for the Indian Civil Service. However, another translator, Dr W. Hew Mcleod or Professor William Hewat McLeod (2 August 1932 - 20 July 2009), was a Christian missionary. As both were Christians, they did carry their biblical baggage with them into translating the SGGS, hence it is misleading.

I have an inkling that both were given some kind of agenda by the British Empire.
The Sikh students of these " Sikh scholars" continued on the same biblically twisted translations. Therefore here we are now.

But one thing I would like to add is that there is a basic difference in the thoughts between Sikhi and the Christian translators which one should keep in mind.

The Abrahamic religions are based on the commandments which are literally etched in stone and are the marching orders for the devotees to follow about the dos and don'ts of life, if not, then Hell and Heaven are awaiting. This is a carrot and stick approach.

Whereas SGGS is the toolbox for self-betterment which teaches us how to use the tools. In other words, SGGS sows the seeds of inner manifestation where the individual decides about the wills and willnots in one's life.

Thus, the approach to the understanding of Gurbani has to be different. It cannot be biblically xeroxed.

 

[RicktheSikh]

But the Bible was written in Aramaic to Greek to Latin to............. Hence, unless one knows Aramaic, there is no original text.
As far as the English Translation of the SGGS, our only Guru is concerned, the original translators like Max Arthur Macauliffe (10 September 1841 − 15 March 1913) worked for the Indian Civil Service. However, another translator, Dr W. Hew Mcleod or Professor William Hewat McLeod (2 August 1932 - 20 July 2009), was a Christian missionary. As both were Christians, they did carry their biblical baggage with them into translating the SGGS, hence it is misleading.

I have an inkling that both were given some kind of agenda by the British Empire.
The Sikh students of these " Sikh scholars" continued on the same biblically twisted translations. Therefore here we are now.

But one thing I would like to add is that there is a basic difference in the thoughts between Sikhi and the Christian translators which one should keep in mind.

The Abrahamic religions are based on the commandments which are literally etched in stone and are the marching orders for the devotees to follow about the dos and don'ts of life, if not, then Hell and Heaven are awaiting. This is a carrot and stick approach.

Whereas SGGS is the toolbox for self-betterment which teaches us how to use the tools. In other words, SGGS sows the seeds of inner manifestation where the individual decides about the wills and willnots in one's life.

Thus, the approach to the understanding of Gurbani has to be different. It cannot be biblically xeroxed.

Agreed. Unfortunately (or fortunately, everything is hukum after all), it seems that one of the reasons Sikhi hasn't spread as wide as other religions is the language barrier. I look forward to learning Gurmukhi with the intention of being fluent in the human language in which God has chosen to speak to me.

 

[sukhsingh]

I don't believe in exclusivism of truth but there exists in gurbani a unique approach .. The way we engage via bani is different from all other religious traditions .

 

[Ishna]

@Tejwant Singh Actually, McLeod's translations were the very first I read, and actually I hold them in high regard. Have you read his translation of Japji Sahib? I'm interested to know your particular criticism of it.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

@Tejwant Singh Actually, McLeod's translations were the very first I read, and actually I hold them in high regard. Have you read his translation of Japji Sahib? I'm interested to know your particular criticism of it.

@Ishna ji,

Here is the related thread-https://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threads/japji-translation-questions.32802/

 

[Ishna]

@Ishna ji,

Here is the related thread-https://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threads/japji-translation-questions.32802/

Thank you! But if anything it reinforces the potential good quality of McLeod's translation. I'm going to post a chunk of it so we can peer over it with our eye glasses and tweezers! Stay tuned.

 

[Ishna]

@Tejwant Singh I'm sorry, I started a post about McLeod's translation of Japji Sahib but I got bored and figure if I got bored, so would others! I'll do it if there is other interest, and people can message me for a taste if they don't have access to the book and want to see for themselves.

 

[Kanwaljit.Singh]

it is funny that at one time (when i was really young) I had read Osho's discussions on Japuji Sahib and found them interesting

 

[Tejwant Singh]

it is funny that at one time (when i was really young) I had read Osho's discussions on Japuji Sahib and found them interesting

Sadly, many Sikhs still prefer Osho translation of Jap ji for some reason.