Thursday, February 03, 2005
Scriptio continua
I haven’t written anything for a while because I was busy studying for a really big exam. It wasn’t that I didn’t have time… I just couldn’t come up with something I wanted to write about.
I noticed that I can study for something for many days and even weeks before an exam without really absorbing anything. It’s only the last few days of studying that seem to matter. It’s then that I study “actively”. My mind seems to be a lot more focussed and things makes sense a lot quicker when there are only a few hours of study time left.
Most of the time that I do Nitnem, I’m not doing it “actively”. My mind wanders, but isn’t Guru Ji great? To help their Sikhs stay focussed Bani was written in a continuous script. This way we would have to use our minds to read Gurbani and doing it in a casual, unenlightened way becomes almost impossible.
I wish no one had ever altered the way Gurbani was originally written: with no spaces. I’m sure that person meant well, but who was he to make his version the “official” version? He (or they) robbed us of so much. A lot of people who are Sikh probably don’t know that larreedaar script exists or ever existed. That’s unfortunate.
It’s also noteworthy that Gurbani doesn’t have commas, semicolons, and other types of punctuation. We’re expected to figure it out so that we gain something from reading Bani… so that the “glorification of God” comes with each line.
Last month I was reading a book called Eats Shoots & Leaves (Lynne Truss). The book is about grammar and is actually quite interesting:
…Perhaps the key thing that one needs to realize about the early history of punctuation is that, in a literary culture based entirely on the slavish copying of venerated texts, it would be highly presumptuous of a mere scribe to insert helpful marks where he thought they ought to go. Punctuation developed slowly and cautiously not because it wasn’t considered important, but, on the contrary, because it was such intensely powerful ju-ju. Pause in the wrong place and the sense of a religious text can alter in significant ways. For example, as Cecil Hartley pointed out in his 1818 Principles of Punctuation: or, The Art of Pointing, consider the difference between the following:
“Verily, I say unto thee, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”
and
“Verily I say unto thee this day, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”
Now, huge doctrinal differences hang on the placing of this comma. The first version, which is how Protestants interpret the passage (Luke, xxiii, 43), lightly skips over the whole unpleasant business of Purgatory and takes the crucified thief straight to heaven with Our Lord. The second promises Paradise at some later date (to be confirmed, as it were) and leaves Purgatory nicely in the picture for Catholics, who believe in it. Similarly, it is argued that the Authorized Version of the Bible (and by extension Handel’s Messiah) misleads on the true interpretations of Isaiah xl, 3. Again, consider the difference:
“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord.”
and
“The voice of him that crieth: In the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord.”
Also:
“Comfort ye my people”
(please go out and comfort my people)
and
“Comfort ye, my people”
(just cheer up, you lot; it might never happen)
Of course, if Hebrew or any of the other ancient languages had included punctuation (in the case of Hebrew, a few vowels might have been nice as well), two thousand years of scriptural exegesis need never have occurred, and a lot of clever, dandruffy people could definitely have spent more time in the fresh air. But there was no punctuation in those ancient texts and that’s all there is to it. For a considerable period in Latin transcriptions there were no gaps between words either, if you can credit such madness. Texts from that benighted classical period – just capital letters in big square blocks – look to modern eyes like those word-search puzzles that you stare at for twenty minutes or so, and then (with a delighted cry) suddenly spot the word “PAPERNAPKIN” spelled diagonally and backwards. However the scriptio continua system (as it was called) had its defenders at the time. One fifth-century recluse called Cassian argued that if a text was slow to offer up its meaning, this encouraged not only healthy meditation but the glorification of God- the heart lifting in praise, obviously, at the moment when the word “PAPERNAPKIN” suddenly floated to the surface, like a synaptic miracle.”
I noticed that I can study for something for many days and even weeks before an exam without really absorbing anything. It’s only the last few days of studying that seem to matter. It’s then that I study “actively”. My mind seems to be a lot more focussed and things makes sense a lot quicker when there are only a few hours of study time left.
Most of the time that I do Nitnem, I’m not doing it “actively”. My mind wanders, but isn’t Guru Ji great? To help their Sikhs stay focussed Bani was written in a continuous script. This way we would have to use our minds to read Gurbani and doing it in a casual, unenlightened way becomes almost impossible.
I wish no one had ever altered the way Gurbani was originally written: with no spaces. I’m sure that person meant well, but who was he to make his version the “official” version? He (or they) robbed us of so much. A lot of people who are Sikh probably don’t know that larreedaar script exists or ever existed. That’s unfortunate.
It’s also noteworthy that Gurbani doesn’t have commas, semicolons, and other types of punctuation. We’re expected to figure it out so that we gain something from reading Bani… so that the “glorification of God” comes with each line.
Last month I was reading a book called Eats Shoots & Leaves (Lynne Truss). The book is about grammar and is actually quite interesting:
…Perhaps the key thing that one needs to realize about the early history of punctuation is that, in a literary culture based entirely on the slavish copying of venerated texts, it would be highly presumptuous of a mere scribe to insert helpful marks where he thought they ought to go. Punctuation developed slowly and cautiously not because it wasn’t considered important, but, on the contrary, because it was such intensely powerful ju-ju. Pause in the wrong place and the sense of a religious text can alter in significant ways. For example, as Cecil Hartley pointed out in his 1818 Principles of Punctuation: or, The Art of Pointing, consider the difference between the following:
“Verily, I say unto thee, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”
and
“Verily I say unto thee this day, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”
Now, huge doctrinal differences hang on the placing of this comma. The first version, which is how Protestants interpret the passage (Luke, xxiii, 43), lightly skips over the whole unpleasant business of Purgatory and takes the crucified thief straight to heaven with Our Lord. The second promises Paradise at some later date (to be confirmed, as it were) and leaves Purgatory nicely in the picture for Catholics, who believe in it. Similarly, it is argued that the Authorized Version of the Bible (and by extension Handel’s Messiah) misleads on the true interpretations of Isaiah xl, 3. Again, consider the difference:
“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord.”
and
“The voice of him that crieth: In the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord.”
Also:
“Comfort ye my people”
(please go out and comfort my people)
and
“Comfort ye, my people”
(just cheer up, you lot; it might never happen)
Of course, if Hebrew or any of the other ancient languages had included punctuation (in the case of Hebrew, a few vowels might have been nice as well), two thousand years of scriptural exegesis need never have occurred, and a lot of clever, dandruffy people could definitely have spent more time in the fresh air. But there was no punctuation in those ancient texts and that’s all there is to it. For a considerable period in Latin transcriptions there were no gaps between words either, if you can credit such madness. Texts from that benighted classical period – just capital letters in big square blocks – look to modern eyes like those word-search puzzles that you stare at for twenty minutes or so, and then (with a delighted cry) suddenly spot the word “PAPERNAPKIN” spelled diagonally and backwards. However the scriptio continua system (as it was called) had its defenders at the time. One fifth-century recluse called Cassian argued that if a text was slow to offer up its meaning, this encouraged not only healthy meditation but the glorification of God- the heart lifting in praise, obviously, at the moment when the word “PAPERNAPKIN” suddenly floated to the surface, like a synaptic miracle.”
Comments:
By DAVINDER SINGH, at
2/04/2005 12:03 PM
I couldn't agree more with you on your stance of gurbani in the original form (larivaar). This has led to our gurdwarrai being infested by great pakhand. I don’t know if you know of this one gurdwara in Surrey (Dashmesh Darbaar), this is where they have like 10 akhandpaaths going on at the same time and one person reads bani and the rest follow it with their fingers. It’s a complete joke the people that do paath there have no practice they don’t even know proper Punjabi let alone the rules of gurbani viakarn. They just put a good pathi at bhog to show that the guy can actually do paath, other than that they do paath silently and when someone comes in one person starts to do paath out loud.
The people that split the larivaar bani into the way it is now in the common ped-cheed saroop, did not have too much expertise in gurbani, they just split the words in a way they thought was right. In the last 20 years scholars like Joginder Singh Talwara have compiled a list of places where the words have been split against the rules of grammar and meaning. So with so many ped-cheed birs in use each time that someone does paath there is the likelihood that they could be reading bani incorrectly without any knowledge.
When someone does paath from a ped-cheed bir they can look around and still do paath, it means their mind can wander elsewhere. But if a person is doing paath from a larivaar saroop they can’t be negligent and have to pay full attention. It is this attention that makes the paathi focus more and ultimately gurbani read with complete focus has great impact on the listeners.
I asked one singh at a rural gurdwara just outside of Surrey why they didn’t do larivaar saroop parkash there, told told me that one big time Taksali singh took over 20 minutes just to take hukam. Since then they started to do parkash of a padh-ched saroop.
Things are not as gloomy as they seem, all historical gurdwarrai and takhats have larivaar saroop parkash. That includes Darbaar Sahib and Akal Takhat Sahib. Apparently the taksal gives santhayia from larivaar pothis. But the AKJ’s are the only group that do parkash of a larivaar Bir at all programs.
You wrote a bit about grammar and punctuation in the latter part of your post. If you ever have free time and want to know more about gurbani grammar and pronunciation rules you can check out this thread:
http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=8503&t=8503#reply_8503
About larivaar:
http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=7900&t=7696#reply_7900
The people that split the larivaar bani into the way it is now in the common ped-cheed saroop, did not have too much expertise in gurbani, they just split the words in a way they thought was right. In the last 20 years scholars like Joginder Singh Talwara have compiled a list of places where the words have been split against the rules of grammar and meaning. So with so many ped-cheed birs in use each time that someone does paath there is the likelihood that they could be reading bani incorrectly without any knowledge.
When someone does paath from a ped-cheed bir they can look around and still do paath, it means their mind can wander elsewhere. But if a person is doing paath from a larivaar saroop they can’t be negligent and have to pay full attention. It is this attention that makes the paathi focus more and ultimately gurbani read with complete focus has great impact on the listeners.
I asked one singh at a rural gurdwara just outside of Surrey why they didn’t do larivaar saroop parkash there, told told me that one big time Taksali singh took over 20 minutes just to take hukam. Since then they started to do parkash of a padh-ched saroop.
Things are not as gloomy as they seem, all historical gurdwarrai and takhats have larivaar saroop parkash. That includes Darbaar Sahib and Akal Takhat Sahib. Apparently the taksal gives santhayia from larivaar pothis. But the AKJ’s are the only group that do parkash of a larivaar Bir at all programs.
You wrote a bit about grammar and punctuation in the latter part of your post. If you ever have free time and want to know more about gurbani grammar and pronunciation rules you can check out this thread:
http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=8503&t=8503#reply_8503
About larivaar:
http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=7900&t=7696#reply_7900
By pavandeep, at
2/04/2005 1:07 PM
DUDE u suck ass,your blog s immature and i hate myself for going through it..my dog craps better than you blog,you seem like a fuckin rascist,you are the kid who had one too many heart breaks,and couldnt take it like a man..you are obviously a self centerd low life,who is easily broken.
y dont you get a life ,you stupid idiot.
y dont you get a life ,you stupid idiot.
