Jump to content

Bachitar Natak Granth - An Excerpt


shaheediyan

Recommended Posts

The joys of Asian diasporic religiosity...

"I just don't understand how or why people try to use logic to explain God and his workings! Its not just Sikhs, but also 'scholars' of other religions who explain their supremacy and inferiority of others beliefs through their 'sciebtific logic and reasonings'. That theirs is a modern scientific religion.

Since when has the creator become bound to the laws of logic and reasoning? IS that not an attempt to humanise Him; the next step being to find faults with Him and His creation?

If we were to use logic then one easily explain the non-existance of God. Hell, I could even convince you guys that we live in a giant, green teapot!

Its a bit like my 7yo niece telling me off for speaking English wrong and not knowing anything. LOL"

"The writer of that article seems to use too much logic for every single thing in Bachitar Naatak. Using this type of logic, one can also put doubts on Gurbani of SGGSJ. Where does it all end?

Seems like pure bullshit to me!"

Too much logic hey...

Well ever heard of the term exegesis? The science of interpretation of religious texts?

Now... I know that the majority of you think very highly of santhiya which is nothing more than learning someone else's interpretation of a sacred text. But that isn't actually exegesis. All it is , is the swallowing of one intepretation.

Now fact is that Sikh literary history has and still has scholars who go beyond the parot understanding of sacred texts and decide to undertake the necessary studies to be able to intertret the text in question. For that you need:

1. Learn the languages and grammars of the sacred text. If you haven't then you might as well keep quiet.

2. Study the socio-historical and religious context of the time.

3. Study the literature of the time and area to be able to compare the use of words.

4. Study the traditional writings about that text.

5. Study of rhetoric, logic and literary criticism.

Only after having mastered these among others may one claim to have an idea of what is happening. The historical taksals provided some of these branches of knowledge given the fact that history as a discipline is a very new thing to India. As for the knowledge of other religious traditions I can safely say that one of the only ones to have done his homework was Pandit Tara Singh Narotam regarding Vaishanvism and Tantrism. For the rest I have to admit that when Sikh preacher talk about other religions I can't fail to think that they have no clue of what they are talking about. But that is an Indo-Paksitani thing which is shared by many swamis and mullahs. It is this love for half baked definitions that makes "Sikhs into cow worshippers" and "Muslims into linga worshippers" and what not.

Scripture uses language and language is a code made of signs that have a meaning and that are linked to each other through logic. When a text says:

"That house is white" when in fact that house is black we have an issue. Either the text has a hidden meaning that must be referenced somewhere OR the text is simply inaccurate.

Imagine we have a text that says:"The White House is black" when in fact in reality we all know it is white, we have a problem.

Either the text has a hidden meaning or it doesn't and it is absolute nonsense.

In that case we look at what traditional interpreters say. Who knows maybe some scholar means that the White House is morally corrupted, or that with Obama is has become black. Now when we check and the traditional scholars say:" the white house is black" means it is really black not white in the literal sense" then we have a problem.Either that text is false or it has not been written by the supposed author.

Now let's take the Mahadin issue:

- King of Arabia : false

- had his name repeated over God's: false

- cut the ling of the kings: false

i.e. Mahadin can't for all historical and logical reason be the Prophet (pbuh). We have to ask: is there a hidden meaning in the traditional literature?

Reply: no

All the satiks of Dasam Granth identify Mahadin with the Prophet (pbuh) which is tantamount to saying that the White House is Black because the statement simply doesnt match up with reality. Many will continue to say that the white house is black and that Mahadin is the Prophet (pbuh). But any person who has aqal will ask:

-maybe it wasn't written by the 10th master because it is a blatant lie

-maybe he did write and Sikhs have to rethink how they can conciliate having a Guru who states things that are not true.

- maybe there is another meaning but it got lost, in which case it is a question of rethinking religious practise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...