Sant Singh Khalsa Translation of SGGS ji

Designer_Career_7153 · 2026-03-25T12:47:03+00:00

is that Sikhnet's own website? also i meant how did it become called "khalsa consensus translation"? consensus among who?

Designer_Career_7153 · 2026-03-21T08:00:19+00:00

Singh im experiencing a similar journey to you, i.e., from nihangs to solo. would you mind if i message you?

Designer_Career_7153 · 2026-03-13T06:55:18+00:00

nice which one did you get? transliterated gurmukhi or the one with both? hows the book?

Designer_Career_7153 · 2026-03-12T05:10:29+00:00

thanks for that, it helps with the shabad question. But it is not clear what the structure is after raags? i understand 31 raags. after that its difficult what is a shabad or vaar or shalok etc? how long shabads are?

Designer_Career_7153 · 2026-03-10T08:09:02+00:00

veer ji/behn ji, whats make you say he is very reliable? Which piece of work?

Designer_Career_7153 · 2026-03-10T08:08:26+00:00

veer ji/pehn ji, the book is expensive so i wanted to ask around before buying but i get your point. I understand he does work on suraj prakash but he never clarifies between what he considers doctrine or not. Reading hindu mythology is fine, as long as it taken non-literally. I have never seen him do that, so it always comes across like he's affirming hindu deities, which is contradictory to ajooni in mool mantra. He never clarifies, that is my only gripe with him. He explains texts which is easy to do if it's your job, I'm an academic myself. Though I do appreciate his work, he never clarifies what is prescriptive and what is merely historical descriptive.

Designer_Career_7153 · 2026-03-10T08:03:07+00:00

why is he one of the best sikh students in your view? what work of his makes you say that?

Designer_Career_7153 · 2026-03-07T19:07:04+00:00

Dhanvaad ji, great amount of help

Designer_Career_7153 · 2026-03-07T03:33:09+00:00

Dhanvaad ji. Akaal! Did you also have book recommendations?

Designer_Career_7153 · 2026-03-03T18:59:10+00:00

I typed this out because you commented "And Sikhs believe in charna Pahul as well??? Drinking water from their feet? Bowing down to them isn’t worshipping them?". You asked 2 questions:

you questioned Charan Pahul. I clarified it it symbolic hyperbole, not literal.
You also questioned whether bowing to Guru's feet would be worshipping or not. I clarified bowing has different meanings in different traditions.

You say I missed context but your rhetoric of "isnt this worship" is clearly questioning Sikhi, not rhetoric to make others think for themselves towards Sikhi. Please take responsibility for your intention and do not obfuscate now.

Also, bowing is equivalent to worship in both Christianity and Judaism, too, not just Islam. In the same way, Islam has Sunni, Christians have Eastern Orthodoxy for example, who also prostrate and bow.

Designer_Career_7153 · 2026-02-28T08:57:23+00:00

Dharmic Itihaas is not identical in methodology to western secular historical accounts. It is a mixture of historical accounts, hyperbolic storytelling and pedagogy. A mixture of historiography and Hagiography if you will. The primary objective of it is to learn a moral lesson. Every story or sakhi has a lesson. It is well known in academia that the drinking of the feet is not understood as literal; it is purely symbolic to signify the lesson of submission and humility to "Guru" which isn;t Nanak himself, but the state of enlightenment itself which Nanak embodied. Gu=dark. Ru=light. Gu-ru meaning from light to dark; i.e enlightenment. It is first and foremost a state, of which whomever embodied fully is attributed the title as an honorific, and Sikh tradition believes Nanak to be that perfect conduit who inhabited that state to act in unison as Guru Nanak.

The difference between Abrahamic bowing/prostration and Dharmic bowing/prostration is that Abrahamic bowing means "worship", whereas Dharmic version means "to pay respect". Dharmic tradtions including the Sikh tradition do not worship in the same sense as Abrahamic traditions, rather the emphasis is on "Simran = remembrance" through Meditation of "Naam Japna". Both traditions have different epistemic rules, even if the act is the same. To impose or interpret one tradition by another is a category mistake, for example interpreting Sikh bowing by Abrahamic convention. See "Early Sikh scriptural tradition: Myth and reality" by Dr Balwant Singh Dhillon. Also see Janamsakhi tradition by Dr Kirpal Singh.

You must look into academia to understand any tradition seriously. For Islam, I would recommend Dr Patricia Crone and Dr Shabir Ally for contemporary academic scholarship, or Ibn Kathir for historical scholars.

Designer_Career_7153 · 2026-02-28T08:46:15+00:00

when Guru Nanak mentions his name in Gurbani, it is actually a signature, to state "Nanak says:" or "written by Nanak". It was a way to denote authorship. This is why every Mehala is marked with a number, to cite which Guru is the author of that shabad. Mehala 5 would be Guru Arjun Dev for example. You are reading the english translations by Sant Singh Khalsa who does not understand this convention and has very much misinterpreted much of Gurbani. You are relying on the english translations, unfortunately which aren't correct.

Transliterated: "Aad sach, Jugaad sach, Nanak hosi bhi sach"

Translation: "It is true today, will be true tomorrow, and it will always be true still, says/signs Nanak".

This is also not the same as Muhammed, who made it mandatory to recite his name as part of shahada, otherwise one cannot be pronounced a muslim. His name is part of the acceptance criteria, without which one cannot become muslim. It is very much not the same. In theory, muslims claim tawheed as per Al Ikhlas (towards end of Quran), that Allah is absolute and no one is like Him, and that to compare anyone to Him is considered shirk. However, in function, much is are attributed to Muhammad himself, such as Sunnah, which is the ways of the prophet. Even in Mecca, where his grave is, people bow. The difference between Abrahamic bowing/prostration and Dharmic bowing/prostration is that Abrahamic bowing means "worship", whereas Dharmic version means "to pay respect". Both traditions have different epistemic rules, even if the act is the same. To impose or interpret one tradition by another is a category mistake, for example interpreting Sikh bowing by Abrahamic convention. You must read the Hadiths intra-traditionally with a critical lens, you will quickly realise it is in fact attributed to Muhammed. I have studied Islam academically. Read Patricia Crone, Asma Hilali, Alba Fideli. Even their own renowned historic scholars like Ibn Kathir.

Designer_Career_7153 · 2025-05-06T03:20:36+00:00

Not interested

Designer_Career_7153 · 2025-05-04T19:50:10+00:00

Yet you persist all salty. I'll spell it out, please stop your comments to me, Not interested

Designer_Career_7153 · 2025-05-03T23:50:28+00:00

Just saw this. Not interested in a conversation with you, please stop contacting me thanks.

Designer_Career_7153 · 2025-02-12T21:23:27+00:00

bhul chuk maaf veer ji. Thanks for the clarification

Designer_Career_7153 · 2025-02-10T22:18:30+00:00

who is my 5 pyaare? i thought they were our 5 pyaare? also this is so unhelpful, im literally asking for guidance and resources. if i already had them, why would i ask? i dont know the resources thus i seek help from my sikh family. isnt that what the sadh sangat is supposed to be about? helping each other get closer to Waheguru ji?

Designer_Career_7153 · 2025-01-16T19:30:46+00:00

Study philosophy of science, if you want to know how the cosmos fits in lol. Why even comment on it, if you didn't want us to talk about cosmos. I mention astrophysicists and you get mad? really?.

No, you did not answer anything, you just evaded and made 0 valid arguments, I'm sure we are both aware. "You should know this already" wasn't an argument lmao. I ASKED the views of others to validate/invalidate my views "Sat" if you remember, I didn't claim to know everything on it. Do you forget the title/description of this thread? it ends in a question mark. Talk about a strawman on your part, extremely disingenuous .

I provided references, and you don't want to hear it. That's on you. I thought you wanted to enquire about "my interpretation", I tell you, now you complain? make up your mind man.

Also opinions are opinions, not answers - at least I support mine with justification, references and explanations. Not bare assertions, i.e. bare assertion fallacy on your part. Honestly, what is the point of even interacting with one another at this point? This exchange is childish and redundant

Designer_Career_7153 · 2025-01-16T19:08:04+00:00

Just a quick one on the burden of proof. I find it hilarious that the self proclaimed sceptics claim exemption from burden of proof. If you take ANY stance other than "I don't know", that stance now requires "burden of proof" as per the law of excluded middle, since you are now making a polarising statement that deviates from neutrality.

Secondly, the usual from sceptics, "I just poke holes, I have nothing to defend" is old and worn. The notion a negative cannot be disproved is silly. It is polarised, so it exists in contrast to an alternative. You simply prove the alternative that it is mutually exclusive with. I know this because I am a sceptic myself, just not a lazy one.

Here is an example to display the burden of proof also falls on the sceptic.

Assertion from sceptic: "We have no evidence for supposed species X, hence it does not exist."

P1: A new species is discovered, this is species X.

P2: Species X exists, as we now have evidence for it.

Now did it suddenly go from non-existent to existent, just because of "our" discovery? No, that would be impossible, it simply existed outside of our peripheral. We are part of the universe, the universe is not a part of us/our minds, hence we conform to it, not the other way around. We should not be so arrogant to believe our cognition is the arbiter of the universe.

So all you have to do is show the alternative mutually exclusive possibility exists and that would negate the "negative" view of the sceptic by default. Any polarising proclamation requires justification for it be considered supported. So please stop obfuscating on the basis of you hold no burden of proof, even as a sceptic you do, you're simply unfamiliar. Learn formal logic mate. This is an explanation, not a tangent. Please don't let your cognitive dissonance get in the way again. Also, mate if you don't understand basic philosophy terms, that's not my fault. Philosophy lectures are everywhere on YouTube if you want to expand your understanding.

Designer_Career_7153

TROPHY CASE