Previous

Next

Ask a Question

Summary of Question:	Appropriate Lingustics
Category:	General Sikhism
Date Posted:	Monday, 10/28/2002 5:12 AM MDT

Vaheguru Jee Ka Khalsa, Vaheguru Jee Kee Fateh

Like all other users of this forum, I have learnt a lot from the answers that have been given and admire the work and dedication of the anonymous infrastructure that makes it all possible.

Permit me to please make some suggestions about linguistics that have been used lately.

1. In the article on Bowing B4 Human Gurus Guru Gobind Singh, Guru Gobind Singh has been referred to as the tenth master. Was he really a master? As the Guru Sahibans have all called themselves a "mahal" (body) of Guru Nanak, should not Guru Gobind Singh be referred to as Guru Nanak in his tenth mahal. It is my humble submission that the expression "master" for kalgidhar is sort of demeaning. The expression Guru as used in Gurbani is for someone who leads us from darkness (of spiritual knowledge) into light. The word Master fails to capture the multifaceted dimensions of the expression Guru.

2. Again in the same article a statement is made, "he (the kalgidhar) bestowed that guruship on SGGS very shortly before he died"
Did Guru Nanak in his tenth mahal really die? Guru Nanak as Guru Gobind Singh did leave his body but he is still there in spirit for any one of us who remember him intently enough. The Autobiography of Bhai Randhir Singh tells us about his meeting with Guru Gobind Singh near Nanded less than 60 years ago. Similarly a lot of other Gursikhs do meet with him and communicate with him regularly. May I humbly suggest the expression, "left his body" instead of died for Guru Nanak in which ever mahal we are referring to.

Thank you for considering this request.

Hargurmit Singh


**********************************************

Sat Siri Akal.

Hargurmit Singh,

Thank you for your kind words and gentle reminders about the most respectful way to speak of the Gurus. We will do our best to follow your advice.

All love,

GPK