March 12, 2007
What did Guru Nanak look like?Religion
In California, the Times reports that the School Board unanimously voted last week to alter a seventh grade textbook image relating to Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion (or panth), after protests from the Sikh community (thanks, Chick Pea). 
The controversial image isn’t the big one pictured, but the small one (I’ve added a circle to make it clearer). The image is a 19th century painting of Guru Nanak wearing a crown and what looks like a somewhat cropped beard. Both the crown and the beard shape are troubling to Sikhs, who are accustomed to seeing images of Guru Nanak more along the lines of the bigger image to the right — flowing white beard, and humble attire.
Though the New York Times has helpful interviews with community members on this, the Contra Costa Times actually spells out the issue more clearly:
The image is taken from a 19th-century painting made after Muslims ruled India. The publisher used it because it complies with the company’s policy of using only historical images in historical texts, said Tom Adams, director of curriculum for the Department of Education.
After Sikhs complained that the picture more closely reflected a Muslim man than a Sikh, Oxford offered to substitute it with an 18th-century portrait showing Guru Nanak with a red hat and trimmed beard. But Sikhs said that picture made their founder look like a Hindu.
The publisher now wants to scrap the picture entirely from the textbook, which was approved for use in California classrooms in 2005. There are about 250,000 Sikhs in California.
Sikh leaders say they want a new, more representative image of Guru Nanak, similar to the ones they place in Sikh temples and in their homes. The publisher has rejected those images as historically inaccurate. No images exist from the founder’s lifetime, 1469 to 1538. (link)
All of this raises the question — what, in fact, did Guru Nanak look like? We don’t have any images from his lifetime, and the later ones are clearly products of the values of their eras. What, historically, do we actually know? I went to Navtej Sarna’s recent book, The Book of Nanak, to see what I could find out.
First off, I would recommend Navtej Sarna’s book — it’s part of a series Penguin is doing, that also includes The Book of Mohammed. It’s short, but it’s well-written and accessible.
Secondly, Sarna states the obvious problem with any historical account of Guru Nanak: we don’t have official (as in modernized, chronological) histories to work with, but rather a series of Janamsakhis, some of which were written down shortly after Guru Nanak’s lifetime by personal associates, while others were written down a bit later — at two or three degrees of separation. Some of the relevant manuscripts are mentioned, sketchily, at the Wikipedia site for Janamsakhis. (This Wikipedia entry could be improved!)
Some professional historians simply opt out of saying anything concrete about Guru Nanak’s life. J.S. Grewal, for instance, in The Sikhs of the Punjab, goes right into textual analysis of passages from the Adi Granth, and doesn’t mention any Janamsakhis. Sarna, for his part, acknowledges that his own work is based on the Janamsakhi materials, and proceeds on the basis that some of what is described is factual, while some must be under the category of folklore, and educated guesses have to be made. Along those lines, he comes up with a surprising description of Guru Nanak’s attire:
Nanak was accompanied by Mardana on his travels, who carried his rabab. He dressed in strange clothes that could not be identified with any sect and symbolized the universality of his mesage. He wore the long, loose shirt of a Muslim dervish but in the brownish red colour of the Hindu sanyasi. Around his waist he wore a white kafni or cloth belt like a faqir. A flat, short truban partly covered a Qalandar’s cap on his head in the manner of Sufi wanderers. On his feet, he wore wooden sandals, each of a different design and colour. Sometimes, it is said, he wore a necklace of bones around his neck. (53-54)
Unfortunately, Sarna does not tell us which Janamsakhi this derives from — and I’m sure people would be interested to know, since this is a bit different from the common image of Guru Nanak. Sarna does later mention that at the end of his travels, Guru Nanak gave up these “travel clothes” and adopted the ordinary dress of a “householder.”
At every point, however, what’s emphasized is the strength of Guru Nanak’s personal humility and his rejection of personal wealth or political power (which is not the same as a rejection of the material world). So the crown that’s pictured in the first version of the California textbook is certainly incorrect. The rest, however, is probably open to conjecture and argument.
One other thought: this controversy is obviously part of a new pattern of textbook contestation in California. An earlier chapter occurred last year, when the Hindu Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation wrote long reports offering their criticisms and suggestions of the representation of Hinduism in California school textbooks. In a post on the subject, I reviewed the details of those reports, and came to feel that some were good suggestions, while others seemed to be cases of whitewashing history. Though some of the dynamics are similar, this is a very different (and indeed, much simpler) case.
amardeep on March 12, 2007 08:56 AM in Religion · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Uhh..why don't they just use any image of Guru Nanak, with a caption mentioning what the source of the picture is?
Do they have the same problem with Buddha or Jesus?
John, the question is what image will best illustrate the subject. You put in an image by a more recent artist that is based on an artist's vision and imagination, but then it's a separate work of art -- and no longer an illustration of a historical figure.
And yes, there is a good deal of debate about what Jesus looked like, and doubt about whether the image that has dominated for centuries is based on historical fact. Aside from the beard and robe question (did he have a beard?), there are also questions of complexion.
I'm less sure about the Buddhist tradition, though it might be noted that the way the ancient Indian sculptors represented Buddha is quite different from the way East and Southeast Asian sculptors have represented him -- people recast Buddha somewhat to resemble themselves.
It's pretty silly to think that pictures of the founder of a faith would not depict the cultural traditions of that faith. Especially when the only "accurate" picture comes from a conqueror. The only reason Guru Nanak is being mentioned in a Western textbook is because of his continuing importance to Sikhs. Sikhism is more important to world history than the nature of the man himself. So why insist on historical "accuracy" when it just offends the relevant believers?
People would freak out at depictions of Christ as an African, or even as an olive-skinned Middle Easterner (which, of course, is what he most likely was). When history textbooks talk about the role of Christianity, they show Christ as Western Europeans see him, since they are the ones who formed the largest community of believers. Only showing Spanish Moors' depictions of Christ wouldn't be acceptable. The same logic should apply here.
Amardeep,
Even though I don't comment on your posts very often (fear of sounding incoherent), I enjoy them immensely and have been inspired by several and used them in my teaching. When my PE/Health classes are in the classroom I encourage a lot of class discussion on community wellness and what customs/traditions help and hinder our health. We talk about culture and religion more often than most people might think we would/should in a PE/Health class.
I focus particularly on African-American communities, since that's my predominant population. My kids have had very little exposure to Desi folks and I try to address any misconceptions they might have and give them information about communities they might not otherwise interact with.
Your posts,'17 Year Old Desi Girl Makes Scientific Breakthroughve', 'Like Skin' and now this one are all so good because they generate discussion in my class and help my kids see similiarities between themselves and others they may not think they have anything in common with.
As Neal 'with no e' says, some people do freak out at images of Jesus as an African or darker complected. My students are aware of this and are bothered by it. It's cool for them to see other peoples in the world struggling with similiar issues like textbook images that are troubling as well as identity.
Thanks.
Thanks Coachdiesel -- I'm glad my posts are sometimes helpful. Amongst a group of rather over-educated bloggers, I'm always aspiring to be the nerdiest of all.
BTW, I hope your face has healed somewhat since last week!
There about 250,000 sikhs in California????
That number is alot higher then the truth. A more accurate number would be about 125,000 to 150,000 sikhs in Calfornia. I have family in California who have done census work for the state and this is number that they say is closer to the truth.
One think I've always wanted to know since I was a kid is? Why is Guru Nanak skin tone so light. Yes there are some punjabi's like me and several people in my family who have light skin. But on the average most punjabi are not as light as Guru Nanak.
Clueless, The NYT goes with the lower number provided by SALDEF. Not sure why Contra Costa Times is using such a high estimate...
Amardeep
Is it the fact that the original picture has Guru Nanak wearing a crown that was particularly disconcerting? Because that does radically alter how he is viewed doesnt it? It makes him seem like a maharajah rather than a humble down-to-earth spiritual leader who taught that all castes are equal, right?
(Happy Birthday Coach D!)
Red Snapper, Yes, I think the crown is really it -- maybe I should have spelled that out a bit more directly in the post.
The Sikh community in California also didn't like the shape of his beard, but I think it would have passed unnoticed but for the crown. The beard part might be the community's attempt to make Guru Nanak look more like a modern Sikh, and I don't know that that claim is based on any actual evidence. (Not that there's evidence Guru Nanak trimmed his beard either.)
But the crown goes against historical evidence as well as the spirit of the teachings.
Amardeep --
Thanks for this, you shed a great deal of light on the subject. The one thing that sticks out to me though is their need to have a "historically accurate" image, whereas with Jesus and Buddha they're happy to use a "conventional" image but then identify it as being from a later time period. I'm wondering why they're not doing that here.
I think comedian Eddie Griffin said something similar about Jesus' racial identity, on his HBO special.
"Read your Bible. It says Jesus was a 'man of bronze'...Hair like lamb's wool. If that ain't an Afro, my name isn't Eddie m.f'n Griffin. You've never seen sheep go 'Baaa, baaa' (tossing long, flowing non-wooly hair)."
Why cant they use what NCERT uses for Indian books? Why does these ass*oles from west always try to show as if they know better?
Do they really know what Jesus looked like? Wait, before I ask that Q - do they print Jesus's picture in school text books?
People would freak out at depictions of Christ as an African, or even as an olive-skinned Middle Easterner (which, of course, is what he most likely was).
someone should look up the depictions of jesus in the text in question. i remember in middle school our world history book showing jesus as an olive-skinned dark haired man, and some mormons used to aryan jesus were a bit perplexed ;-) the teacher had to explain that jesus was after all a jew, not a swede....
What the Guru's looked like was supposed to remain a mystery. They didnt want people worshipping idol's, so they wouldnt let artist draw portraits of them because they didnt want people putting up pictures of them and worshipping/praying to them.
Which is what most Sikh's do anyway, but whatever.
ShallowThinker - completely agree that these images are not for worshipping - but on the other hand, these images are out there and in some way provide a lot of comfort to many people. My 16 month old nephew just said the word "ba" - as in "BabaJi" - while pointing to a picture of Guru Nanak this weekend and I think it's great that he's able to associate an image with the belief - not that he really understands it at this age, but I'm sure it will be a comforting image for him as he grows older.
Now if we're talking about people praying to these images (*cough* Bend it Like Beckham *cough*)- that's a whole separate issue.
exactly shallowthinker!
reminds of of the scene in bendit, where the family starts praying to the picture in the living room that jesminder passed her exams. i was aghast! but watevz!
whoa sonia kaur, great minds think alike!
>>completely agree that these images are not for worshipping...
Images are for whatever people (who own copies of these images) want to do with them.
M. Nam
o
amardeep - wouldn't all the gurus before guru govind singh, be minus the beard/turban/long hair?
p.s. i say this in jest. no disrespect intended. - am i the only one who notices that guru nanak looks a tad toasted?
Hmm, this is interesting. I don't think I have anything new to add except that I agree they should do away with the crown while the beard issue is ambiguous. A historical image does not necessarily count for much when you're not sure of what he looked like in the first place!
I am wondering - who painted that picture of Guru Nanak with the crown? What is the source of the image?
"completely agree that these images are not for worshipping"
Is it ok to worsip idols, Sonia?
Sourav,
I've been wondering much the same thing -- none of the media coverage of this event has specified the origin of the painting with the crown. I'm actually considering ordering the textbook from Amazon just to see the name of the painter, and get a better sense of where this particular image is coming from.
Sure, if the religion you believe in says it's ok.
Can religions contradict each other and be right at the same time?
Nuanced article from sikh intellectual on traditional images of Nanak and other sikh gurus:
http://www.sikhnn.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=527&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Possible source for image in California text book?
http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/22734-popup.html
Just to share a bit with you all here.....The popular pictures/images of Sh. Guru Nanak Dev ji and other Sikh Gurus that we have in our homes, are creations of a very famous Punjabi artist Sardar Sobha Singh. Punjab School Education Board used to have a whole chapter on him in Punjabi text books-and thats where i learnt first about the person who was behind these wonderful paintings.
Quoting from the Wikipedia link above:
Sonia - if guru nanak's message is that all religions are equal, what is the harm if a sikh prays to an idol or offers namaz in a mosuqe..it is all the same, no?
for that matter, what difference does it make, given his message of universality, whether nanak's picture in a california text book makes him look regal/muslim/black/white?
um.....ok, thank you so much for supporting the stereotypical "darkie" desi look.
Guru Nananks skin color never got me wondering. in most pictures of guru nanak that i've seen, like the ones above, he has a very light brown to medium brown skintone. I don't know what Punjabi people you know, but he doesn't seem extra light skinned for a Punjabi to me. He looks like he has a fairly normal skin tone for someone from that region. Theres plenty of people all over India & Pakistani that have the same skin color.
And I'm glad to see I was not the only one astonished by the Guru Nanak worshipping scene in Bend It Like Beckham. That was just weird. And the sari thing was too.
Carva- even tho I'm not sonia, I'll answer this one.
What does Guru Nanak saying all religions are equal have to do with sikhs worshipping idol/offering namaz? As long as Sikhs respect people of other religion who do that, theres nothing wrong here. Worshipping idols is not a part of Sikhism, but we don't have a problem if other religions do that because that is a part of their religion. If its not a part of our religion, why in the world would we be doing it? you make no sense at all, carva.
And we would appreciate if the picture of Guru Nanak used was as accurate as possible. Sikhs are not Hindus, nor are they Muslims, they are just Sikhs. Theres nothing wrong with wanting a picture that is accurate of our beloved Guru
Very well said nkn!
I have read sepia mutiny for a long time and enjoyed it thoroughly. Could not resist a comment for this one:)
It seems to me that the quest for "historical accuracy" actually undermines the essence of many religions, which to me is the idea of faith, and too often wanders into diatribes on authority and control. Particularly in this case, when there were no images of Guru Nanak from his lifetime, it seems to have turned into a debate on who "speaks" for the Sikh religion. Once you go down that road, you run into interesting companions -- those who preach a hard-line about Jesus Christ, Mohammed (PBUH), and Hindutva among others. This makes it incumbent on teachers to discuss these implications of representation with students. The seven year old who points to a picture of Babaji now may be the one creating a new image of Babaji in the future. It reminds me of what I heard a young boy say once at a Hindu temple: "If God is inside all of us, can they put a statue of me in there?"
I'd heard before that illustrations of historical figures/events in textbooks are always depictions from history (as close as possible to the time period in question). This makes sense to me since art is an aspect of history and one of the ways we know about the past. The problem in this case is that the depictions of Guru Nanak are markedly different depending on the time period and identity of the artist. And that the image held by most Sikhs today is a modern depiction rather than a historical one.
This is for a 7th grade textbook where the main point is fleshing out world cultures... the authors should have just looked harder for ONE painting that wasn't as obviously colored by Hindi/Moslem perspectives.
Btw, I taught 7th grade social studies in four of the last seven years and the three state-adopted texts I've seen did not include Sikhism at all since it is not in the state standards. This school year, however, had a new adoption.
Who worships idols?
Thanks nkn =)
Carva ~ not sure if you're instigating or if you're sincere, but as Sikhs we believe that all religions are equal, but obviously realize that all religions are very different from one another. As long as a person sincerely follows his or her own faith, they're on the right path to God. But this doesn't mean that a Sikh should start doing Namaz or a Hindu should start wearing a turban.
thanks, nkn and sonia.
my mother told me a story the other day that got me thinking about sikhism.
she mentioned that we [kashmiri hindus] would not be around, had it not been for the bravery/sacrifice of sikhs. esp, the sikh guru teg bahadur.
you know, she actually flirted with the idea of raising me as a sikh. and from what i understand, there are some hindu families in punjab who do just that - raise one son a sikh and one a hindu.
that is what raised my query.
Carva, there is a different historical tradition for families who raise one child as a Sikh and one as a Hindu. It mostly speaks to the tension between hoping your oldest child will raise a family vs. committing your child to an ascetic (religious) lifestyle (as was traditionally done with the oldest son in many families). Many families chose to raise their oldest as Sikh because it allowed for both - a religious and family-oriented lifestyle.
At any rate, back to the photo issue - I really don't understand why they can't go without a photo. I think a picture of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji would be a lot more useful. Sonia and Shallow really hit it in my opinion. Given that, in the teachings of Sikhi, we are strictly discouraged from using images, why not exclude a photo altogether? I also am under the impression that the "historical photo" is not meant to offend - Guru Nanak Ji was highly respected, and this representation is probably an artist's way of honoring him or attempting to "elevate" him to look like the ruling class at the time. I doubt that it was intended to offend, although it may not be the most accurate representation.
And for the record, I really don't think the Janamsakhis are a legitimate historical source from a religious perspective for a long list of reasons.
Amardeep, Clueless, perhaps the CCTimes used higher estimates because they spoke to folks more locally-based? The east and south bay Sikh populations are super huge, especially if you start extending to the border of Contra Costa/Alameda into the Stockton/Tracy area. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there are 250K folks who identify as "Sikh" in California, but then you get into an argument over who is and isn't visibly Sikh.
Just to pick up on one particular comment Oxford offered to substitute it with an 18th-century portrait showing Guru Nanak with a red hat and trimmed beard. But Sikhs said that picture made their founder look like a Hindu.
Guru Nanak was a Hindu Khatri so of course he is going to look like a Hindu. Why is this so difficult to accept - do the militatns think that Sikhs fell out of the sky as a fully formed religious grouping and landed in Punjab. Also many hindu khatri's are very fair skinned, by Indian standards, therefore the depiction of Nanak's skin colour may be relatively accurate.
very interesting stuff, thanks for posting.
The restriction on cutting hair, trimming the beard, etc didn't come into effect til lthe time of the tenth guru, Guru Gobind Singh - so, presumably there is no reason why Guru Nanak would have dressed/had a hairstyle/beard like today's amritdhari Sikhs. He probably dressed much like other upper-caste Hindus of Punjab in that period, at least early in his life, and may then have adopted a dress more in keeping with his ideals of renunciation, etc.
Looks like yet another case of an overzealous 'faith community' imposing their idiocy on society. At least it seems all religions encourage the same sorts of unthinking conformism in their adherents. Competitive idiocy, I call it...
>>At least it seems all religions encourage the same sorts of unthinking conformism in their adherents
All except one...
M. Nam
Yes!
Don't mess with our free thinking non conformist tolerant saffron balls!
Hail Mogambo!
Sonia,
You wrote about the child saying 'ba' to the photo of Guru Nanak. Really cute. I like it.
Arrrrr, matey, unhand that smokin' iron... it be "puff, puff, PASS," not "puff, puff, PLUNDER"...
Spoorlam - Now where was the need for that [# 44]. Whenever any other religion's followers are confronted as being intolerant, why do people like you divert attention to unrelated stuff. Can't Sikhs be intolerant? Take a look at the silly stuff they are objecting to, for god's sake.
I can very well imagine the response if Amardeep had written a post on Hindus protesting the depiction of one of their dieties? tut tut...the pooh pooh....those regressive hindus and their backward ways....
As some guys here suggested, Nanak and the other Gurus, except Gobind, were very likely clean shaven or at least sans turban.
Ramu
Actually, I thought that Spoor Lam was responding to MoorNam's proclamation of Hinduism's unique and singular status as non conformist and tolerant, which is obviously wrong and ripe for satire, and his comment was therefore serving a need of deflating a pompous ego and self-image.
Vicky - How did you divine that from, "All except one..."?
All,
I take back my statement "All except one.." with a sincere apoplogy.
I should have said : "All except two..."
M. Nam
ok, ok, Moornam, I will guess. It has to be, Islam and Catholicism. right?
I'm putting my money on Scientology and Latvian Orthodox.
When do we find out the right answers? What's the prize?
In the writings of Guru Gobind Singh, the words "Khalsa Mero Roop Hai Khaas" resonate with all Sikhs. This line means "The Khalsa is my Finest Image." Guru Gobind Singh revealed the Khalsa to the world in line with his image. In the writings of Bhai Nand Lal, it says that Guru Gobind Singh is the 10th embodiment of Guru Nanak. In fact, all of the writings of Guru Gobind Singh are prefaced with "Patshahi 10" which means "The 10th Eternal Master."
Guru Gobind Singh was the son of Guru Tegh Bahadur, the grand-uncle of Guru HarKrishan, the son of Guru Har Rai, the grandson of Guru Arjan, the son of Guru Ram Das, the son-in-law of Guru Amar Das, the uncle of the husband of the daughter of Guru Angad, who was known as "Ang" because he was a "part" of the Guru.
All of the Gurus were called "Mahala" or mansion 1-10, reflecting the legacy or light was being passed forward. The Gurus that wrote in Guru Granth Sahib used "Nanak" as their pen-name, signifying their divine light was the same as Guru Nanak.
So, in light of this, it would be historically accurate to say that all of the Gurus from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh, although having a different physical stature (height, weight, facial shape) must have kept a similar lifestyle and followed similar rules of conduct.
In India there are countless historical artifacts belonging to the Gurus. The white hair of Guru Amar Das Ji, the kanga of Guru Gobind Singh ji, the chola of Guru Hargobind Ji, the sandles of Guru Nanak Dev ji. All of these are available, among other artifacts.
From these we can form an image, which is historically accurate, of the Gurus. None of them could have been fat. Guru Nanak had to travel on foot from India to countries as far as Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Tibet, etc. Guru Amar Das did seva day and night. Guru Hargobind Sahib was a warrior, as was Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib and Guru Gobind Singh ji. Guru Har Krishan Sahib ji went on tours to Delhi to heal people, Guru Angad Dev Ji promoted wrestling and exercise, Guru Ram Das Ji managed construction of the Harimandir Sahib which Guru Arjan Dev Ji completed. Guru Har Rai Ji managed a pharmacy and kept an army, and all of the Sikhs had to be physically fit.
From the artifacts available, you can also find Guru ji's weapons, kirpans, sheilds, etc. as well as turbans. But you will never find a hat, topi, cap, etc.
It would be historically inaccurate to assume that Guru Nanak Dev Ji wore a cap or any type of hat. It would be consistent with all of the other Gurus, the artifacts available of theirs, and the traditions set forth by Guru Gobind Singh Ji for the Khalsa, that the Gurus never wore hats or caps, but turbans. Turbans are the emblem of royalty, and the Sikhs are an autonomous, self-determined, self-governing sovereign nation. Singh means lion, who is the King of the jungle. Kaur means prince, who is the son of the King. Guru Gobind Singh was called "Sache Patshah" which means the true eternal master (not temporary like the Moghuls, or the British monarchy).
Just because an illustration is OLD, does not mean it is historically accurate. This is especially the case when the persons drawing the illustration are commissioned by antagonists to the Sikhs. What type of account of the Sikhs could the Moghuls or Brahmins present? Obviously one that is skewed in favour of their own traditions. This is precisely why Guru Har Rai's son Ram Rai was disowned - he tried to please the Moghuls by changing Gurbani. In the same way, it is in fact historically accurate that many aspects of Sikh history have been changed in order to please the Moghuls, Brahmins, British Imperialists, or Singh Sabha leaders. People, out of fear of oppression, have time and time again altered their own history in order to maintain the status quo. Just because this is old news, does not mean it the truth.
There are historically accurate accounts documenting the instructions of Guru Nanak to Bhai Mardana. One of those primary instructions was for him to keep his kes (hair on his head). Guru Amar Das's white kes (hair on his head) is a historical artifact on display in a museum in India.
Yes, some new standards were set by Guru Gobind Singh Ji on Vaisakhi of 1699, but kes was not one of them, nor was the turban. The turban and kes were encouraged and commonplace among Sikhs since the first parchar missions of Guru Nanak.
I want to clarify about my sentence map above where I say Guru Gobind Singh was the son of Guru Tegh Bahadur, etc.
The next relationship is relevant to the previous person. It is not to say that Guru Gobind Singh had that relation with all the Gurus as their time-span was 230 years and 6 or 7 generations.
Banned for trollery in the form of posting under four handles in the same thread: Anuj / Carva / Ramu / Guru Gandu Singh.
Shallow Thinker- somebody probably addressed your earlier comment, but as I kind of skimmed over to the end, I feel that your statement that 'that's what most Sikhs do anyway' is a bit unwarranted. Putting up a picture of Guru Nanak Ji or Guru Gobind Singh Ji etc as a means to represent one's faith in their home, to serve as a symbol of their faith, is not the same thing as 'worshiping' it. I cannot speak for all Sikhs, for perhaps some do bow down to said images, but I know that out here in Toronto (or even amongst my extended family and friends all over the world), that is definitely not the practice! Sikhism reiterates throughout its principles and philosophies that idol worship is not a tenant of the religion, but that we must instead worship the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, as that is the last and final Guru. Those images then are merely symbolic-'shout-outs' in a sense- to one's religion.
On another note, would worshiping the SGGS ji not also count as idol worship under the definitions of the previous Gurus? If God is the ultimate authority out there... we are supposed to follow it, but then aren't all of the practices allocated to the respect of the SGGS ji fall under worshiping it?
Rather, don't they fall under*?
Great blog by the way!
There's a difference between respecting/venerating something and actually worshipping it. If one actually prays to the SGGS ji then one is crossing the line into non-canonical practices. Treating its contents as sacred and the teachings as the successor to Guru Gobind Singh, however, is a different matter.
If they're taken to extremes -- which, personally, I sometimes think is indeed the case -- then yes, you veer dangerously close to that point.
And with regards to the original question:
The simple answer is: "It doesn't matter".
The most important thing is his teachings and the example of his actions, not his appearance.
However, if one is looking for guidance regarding what an "ideal Sikh" is supposed to look like, or some point of focal reference point for the physical appearance of a Sikh Guru, then of course you have Guru Gobind Singh for that. And -- tying this into the controversy about the "crown" in Guru Nanak's picture -- the tenth Guru did indeed deliberately wear a "kalgi" (a deliberate royal symbol) in his turban.
Historical evidence is very important.
If historical evidence is manipulated or changed it does not reflect the thought, view or teaching at that particular time.
Most often historical evidence is changed to the modern times and original is lost.
This often leads to the fact that these altered modern views then tend to lead to them being accurate and correct.
Then this leads to these modern views to be correct and anything else as offensive even though they might be correct.
This happens to the current generation of the time who are bought up with the modern traditional views.
NOW..
Sri Guru Nanak is one of the greatest spiritual teachers of the world religions.
But what did he look like ?
Did he have his hair cut with a turban on top ?
since there is no proof that Guru Nanak kept long uncut hair, this should not be offensive to suggest.
If this if found to be offensive then it often offends those cannot accept change or all their life hard to accept different.
Remember there was no sikhism at Guru Nanak's time, He was not a sikh, he did not declare to be a Sikh, this was formed afterwards.
Now this raises the question if he did have cut hair which is more likely at the time, does this current change Sikhism ?
These are question and answers that need to realised with a very neutral mind with prejudice.
Without this it cannot be done.
Similar to those finding recently of Jesus tomb in the middele east at http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com
Is this is fact and true, no strict Christian will still accept this view even if DNA proof had been show.
This is the human mind and way, it's hard for some to accept change or go against spiritual things afraid of being punished for thinking otherwise. This is exactly what Guru Nanak was against, he taught us not not wrap us around useless rituals, fastings, ceremonies, appearances, sects, idols, pilgrimages but live an honest truthfull life with questions. Without questions humans cannot progress.
Question again, What did Guru Nanak look like ?
It's better to read his teachings and learn from them.
Don't accept anything outside the teachings as facts, societies and religions have changed with times. Sometimes aways for the original path, sometimes towards a narrower path, most often not on the same original objective path.
The question with previous above comments, did Guru Nanak have uncut hair ? Answer, who really knows, but interesting question.
I have come across some website mentioning this verse to prove that uncut hair was taught by Guru Nanak.
"Let living in God's presence, With mind rid of impurities, Be your discipline.
Keep the God-given form intact, With a turban donned on your head."
GGS Page 1084, Line 12
HOWEVER
The Guru Granth Sahib translation authorised by Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee by S.Manmohan Singh Vol6 Page 3568 It says:
"Make pure that is impure. Deem thou the Lord's presence thy counsel. Let the complete body be the turban on thy head. A Muslim is he whi is kind-hearted. He ought to cleanse his inner pollution from his mind. He should not draw near the worldly pleasures and ought to be poure like the flower, silk, clarified butter and deer-skin."
GGS Page 1084, Line 12 to Line 15 (Complete Full Translated Version)
Compare the two translations, this is scary. See the word 'hair' is forced in the translation. This is how teachings become corrupt.
These people know that the general public will not know these sentences and decieve to impose strict tradition views/rules on them.
The whole verse is about when Guru Nanak travelled to Mecca. It mentions turban because the turban was seen as a pure thing. In the verse explaining that let the Muslim's complete body should be (pure) ie the whole body should be regarded as the turban on thy head. Its does say or mean don't cut your hair or that you must wear a turban. This is a sentence explaining the muslims whole body should be kept pure away from eg, unearned food, evil five desires, etc. You have to read the paage before and after the sentence. Some take out one sentense to justify or impose their own false views.
This has lead away from the true path or down the very narrow path, away from the original objective path.
Wah Guru, Satnam !! (Truth will always win)
DUDES, THESE GUYS NEVER EXISTED AT ALL. GET THE BOOK "DIVINE INITIATION" BY BHAGWAN SHRI SHANMUKHA ANANTHA NATHA FROM AMAZON.COM NOW. IT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING IN DETAILED.
1 · John said
Do they have the same problem with Buddha or Jesus?
As for as I know, I have read very old Janamsakhis. They all reperesent Guru with the New York times picture of Guru--Cut beard and with a cap on His head. Bottomline, let them have any picutre they want to have. Simply we (Sikhs) do not believe in pictures of Gurus. Let them show Gurus as clean-shaven, we wont mind. Accept gladly.
Ref: 26 Sonia Kaur. " Is it O.K. to worship idols.
It is not O.K. to worship idols because Sikhism and Hinduism do not teach idol-worship. In fact no religion does teach to worship idols. All religions came into this world to teach to give up idol-worship and to worship one limitless and abstract First Cause i.e. God, Whom we can not see to make his idol (because He is not made up of matter). (You can only see matter to make up an idol of.)God is limitless i.e. infinte and unseeable. Therefore, you can not make an infinite idol of an unseeable God. Therefore idol worship is against intellect.
If You study Granth Saheb and Vedas, you will find that the Idol worship is not O.K. (Idol is a lump of dead matter.It canot do any creation. God is ever living and eternal Who have created all the universes and their contents. Therefore, it is a wise thing to worship Him than worshiping a lump of dead matter which is His creation and can help you at all.)
LOL--please back off of commenting on my relationship with my Ganesha statue. I'm pretty confident that my family (and me!) are plenty intellectual, thank you very much.
66 · rob said
"I am pretty confident that my family (and I!) are pretty intellectual, thank you very much."
OK, sorry for the error in grammar (if indeed it is one, though I'll take your word for it)--it's, for me, at the edge of, "who cares". Seems far from, for example, the annoying conflation of its and it's, but--whatever.
Ref: 27 · Al_Mujahid_for_debauchery."Can religions contradict each other and be right at the same time?"
(1) If two religions contradict each other, one of them can be wrong or both of them can wrong.
(2) If more than two religions contradict each other, then only one of them can be a right/true religion or all of them can be wrong/false religions.
(3) To find out if a religion is a true religion, you should try to find out universal truths in that religion. For example, it should discourage idol-worship, it should encourage its followers to love fellow human being irrespective of his/her cast, creed, colour and nationality etc. It should also encourage its followers to love only One abstract God. Because the purpose of our life is to find God through His love. (Because He is like our father, mothers, friend, beloved, creator, owner, creator,and owner of all universes and their contents etc.)
The more universal truths a religion contains, the more true a religion is. Because universal truths enables us to get nearness and love of God.
In fact, a true religion must also teach its followers to live every moment of their life by good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. If this religion contradicts any other religion or religions, then this religion will be the right/true religion.
Fatima.
I heard that way back when Guru Nanak requested every Hindu family to donate one son to him so he could make them warriors to protect the non-muslims in India from the muslims and from there, sikhi, or the Sikh way of life was created. So maybe that has to do with the tradition of some Hindu families in the west of India raising one son a Sikh even now.
69 · Fatima Hussain said
fatima, it is entirely unclear that any truth 'leads' to god. i'm not even sure what you mean by that sentence. as far as i know no set of physical facts ('truths') alone has led to the conclusion that god exists. you can have 'faith' that god exists, but that is all that can be said.
it seems like you also share my admiration of the hippies. they were the pioneers of equal opportunity loving.well - the basic Idea of Guru Nanak was to bring out the difference of caste - colour - creed - religion - wealth etc and we have started debating on his type colour form looks ......... for him the most important were our virtues, our deeds, our actions, our commitments, our sacrifices - our humbleness - our charity - our respect to all ---------- damn with worshipping - He was just a Guru - we call him as a teacher not a God or Almighty - he can show us the way but cant do miracles for us ............ just like our teachers in school and colleges - they teach us subjects and make us work hard but we do our own hard working get guidance and lessons but after completion of studies in that institute we dont keep sitting next to them - worshipping them - we go out in the world to create - and discover - and invent and help mankind - they too are our gurus from schools and colleges - similarily we take lessaons from Nanak , Ram, Jesus, Mohammed , Budha - but dont need to worship them - as these gurus and teachers have instructed and told us to worship only the Almighty - which these Gurus and religous leaders are not ................. These gurus formed another subject in our lives a subject on humanity and how to live - we have gurus in each decade - who have helped mankind to grow - develop - florish - like Einstein - disoverers of medicine - electricity - latest science etc ............... we dont need to worship any or we worship all these too ............... we should worship Mother Teresa too .............. or we must bear to worship Only the almighty - creator and destroyer - inventor - of space and universes - the one whom we can never know or understand as what ever we do he creates every sinle second more complex - things to which we can never get to ............ never ...........