Images below: First from below - Baba Gurmit Ram. Second from bottom - Sri Sai Baba. Third from bottom - His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar ji.
Columnists
The Tail that Wags ...
by I.J. SINGH
A visiting colleague from Germany handed me his card. It read "Herr Professor Doktor ...., Ph.D., D.Sc." and so on. The rest of the space was filled with additional and equally impressive degrees, titles and appointments.
"Herr" was certainly unnecessary; he was that, beyond reasonable doubt. "Professor" and "Doktor" may have been necessary because in Europe not every professor has a doctoral degree and not every doctor can aspire to a professorship. A full professor is not as common across the Atlantic as in North America.
Professors are notoriously egotistical. (Being a professor, I can pick on my own kind.)
But I see that the need to assert one's ego remains powerful, even in those who profess the calling of religion. This is so even though religions command that on entering their sacred confines, the followers shed their ego outside the door. It is a difficult demand that usually remains unmet. The fault for this may not always lie with the prophets of the religion, but with the smaller minds of lesser mortals that often stray from the path laid down by the masters.
In religion, as in business, a person needs and creates an organization to sell his or her ideas. Perhaps this person is both charismatic and in possession of a much needed and useful product. So he or she arrogates a title or two. That helps the trade, even if that be religion.
But I cringe when I see a card that starts "His Holiness". I mean, where did the man earn such a title?
In Sikhism, it is usually "Sant", "Baba", or sometimes both.
The word sant is the Punjabi equivalent of "saint", whereas baba would translate to "a venerable old man". From their usage, it seems that, in the hierarchy of things, sant outranks baba.
It is good to remember that during the times of the Gurus, there were no sants. No Guru called himself or anyone else a sant. The Gurus used the word "sant" to describe the personification of the qualities that make an individual one with God. No Guru ever even declared himself a Guru. In fact, the Gurus utilized the language of humility in referring to themselves, and used terms such as vichara, daas, gareeb, etc. They looked upon themselves as penitents at the portal of the Infinite - the One Creator of us all.
Baba Buddha or the legendary martyr, Baba Deep Singh, were the only Babas in Sikh historical tradition. "Bhai", literally a brother, was the highest accolade or honor that a grateful Sikh community bestowed upon its scholars. Some examples are Bhai Gurdas or Bhai Mani Singh, the greatest Sikh savants of the Guru period, or Bhai Kahn Singh and Bhai Vir Singh, the most notable Sikh scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Parenthetically, I might add that not all so-called sants have been contemptible; indeed, some have been downright exemplary in their lifestyle. Examples are: Attar Singh and Nand Singh.
Now I see titles like His Holiness, Sri Singh Sahib, Bhai Sahib, Sant, widely flaunted and bandied about, singly or in imaginative combinations, often with Maharaj or Sahib added for added emphasis at the end of the name. I often wonder if the persona is so puny that it needs to be puffed up with such adornments, lest the person still remain unnoticed.
Is the product he is selling so awful that he needs to disguise its bitter taste in all this sugar coating? Would a normal person not feel suffocated with his name buried underneath all those epithets and titles?
Tolstoy, in a short story, "Father Sergius", writes of religious vanity as the most extreme form of all vanities.
Maureen Dowd, a New York Times columnist, labels such vesuvial and cosmic vanity "Acquired Situational Narcissism". It is perhaps the purest form of self-love. It is this that I speak about here. I also recognize that spiritual growth involves moving from a form of self-loathing to a state of self-love or, better yet, self-worth.
I believe that for Sikhs, the practice of such artifice and titles started with the all-surrounding Hindu culture. In Hindu custom, the last name "Vedi" or "Bedi" indicated one who knew at least one of the four Vedas that comprise the repository of all knowledge in Hinduism. One who had progressively mastered two, three or four Vedas, respectively, could arrogate to himself the moniker "Dwivedi", "Trivedi" or "Chaturvedi". "Swami" or "Yogi" - usually a self-ascribed title - speaks of unnamed and nonspecific accomplishments in the sphere of Hinduism. "Pundit" was the Hindu equivalent of a scholar or doctor, but only in matters of Hindu religion. "Maharaj" at the end of a name indicates deep, abiding respect and reverence. It is like adding "The Very Reverend" to a name.
Keep in mind that conceit is often cloaked in asceticism and hubris in spirituality.
Not too often but not so rarely either, one comes across Hindu savants addressed as "His Holiness Sri (or Shri) 108 Swami....". The "108" refers to the number of Hindu scriptures that the man is reputed to have mastered. I have never seen a number greater than 108, so that must be the limit of such holy books. I do not know if the number 108 includes the four Vedas or if they would be in addition.
The only number larger than 108 that is used with a person's name in the Indian culture, somewhat in jest, is 420. It is a derogatory epithet and connotes a crook - a person who has contravened Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The current Sikh aberration appears to be a byproduct of our Hindu antecedents and culture, and unfortunately Sikhs, too, have appropriated such practices. As I alluded to earlier, there is no precedent from the Guru period of Sikh history for all the Sants, Babas, Maharajs, etc. that are proliferating at an alarming rate.
But we survive and thrive - in India - in a pervasive Hindu Indian culture and now have emerged into the domain of Madison Avenue; necessarily, then, they shape much of our outlook and many of our practices.
Soon, I am afraid, we will have more Sants than Sikhs just as Hinduism, I suspect, has more gods and goddesses than people.
Along with appending Sahib to names of people as well as of Sikh historical towns, I have also noticed announcements of Bhog Sahib, Akhand Paath Sahib or even the rendering of Aasa Ji Di Vaar. Literally, to do paath means to read and bhog is its completion; Akhand Paath is reading without pause or interruption and Aasa Di Vaar is merely one of many compositions in the Guru Granth usually recited in the ambrosial hours of dawn. "Ji" is a term frequently used with a person's name in the Indian culture to denote respect.
I just do not understand how it fits in with Aasa Di Vaar, nor do I see how Sahib belongs with Akhand Paath or Bhog.
One granthi I know absolutely insists that when speaking of any Guru, say Guru Nanak, one must use the full and reverentially complete descriptive "Dhan Dhan Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj". Any shorter reference and the granthi is promptly offended and will have conniptions. Here, dhan stands for blessed, such as in the expression the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ or the Blessed Prophet Mohammed.
Make no mistake. I have the greatest respect and reverence for all the Sikh Gurus and for the Guru Granth, including all the writings in it. Keep in mind that, in the Guru Granth, it is the Shabd - the Word - that is the Guru.
Our penchant for creating such long-winded tails, that more often than not are a drag, is not unique to us. I have noticed that most Muslims will not utter the name Mohammed without adding the expression "peace be upon him" as if it is part of the name.
In a twist that threw me for a loop when I first came across it, I have seen the phrase abbreviated in print and speech, as "Prophet Mohammed PBUH". It took me a moment or two to figure it out.
I notice that some Christian denominations deem it blasphemous to use the name Jesus or Christ without adding "The Lord" before or after the names. I have even seen some so-called holy men and women autograph books or sign letters, not with their names but with their adornments - "Singh Sahib", "Yogi Ji" or "Bibi Ji", as if these ethereal titles have replaced their real names or are integral parts of the names, inseparably attached.
Can it be Akhand Paath or must it be Sri Akhand Paath Sahib Ji?
Is it sufficient to say Guru Granth or must it be Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj or Aad Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? One could dismiss my nitpicking by asking where is the harm with a fuller title indicative of our respect and adoration?
But bear with me a while. I have lived too long in a culture that has dispensed with much of the fruit salad that accompanies a name or tag of identification. To me, descriptive accuracy is not just a luxury; it is essential to uncomplicated, ungarbled communication.
Let us examine a commonly used descriptive title for the Guru Granth - Aad Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. This is the title printed on the recension authorized by the SGPC. To me, aad means "the first". It clearly implies that there is or will be a second compilation, different from the first - perhaps a new version or a revised edition.
I think Aad Beerh would be an appropriate title for the compilation by Guru Arjan in 1604 because it was indeed the first. "Beerh" literally means a tome. Guru Gobind Singh modified it primarily by the addition of Guru Tegh Bahadur's writings and installed this revised version as the Guru Granth in 1708.
It then became no longer the Aad Beerh, but the definitive Guru Granth. To refer to this version as "Aad" is not appropriate unless a second revised version exists or is contemplated. Even the idea is a heresy that no Sikh will entertain.
To me, Sri, Sahib and Ji are honorifics that are commonly reserved for human beings. Guru Nanak may be so addressed, as may lesser mortals like Prime Minister Vajpayee or President Bush. Many Indians routinely refer to me as "Doctor Sahib", which is probably kinder than many other things they may have in mind, but I would not autograph a book or sign off a letter with that title.
As much deference and reverence as I may have for a textbook of Anatomy (that is what I teach), I would not dub it "Sri Anatomy Sahib".
In saying this, I fully recognize that the awe and reverence that Sikhs feel for Guru Granth transcend all description. Yet, when I tag it as Guru, what more respect can I possibly give? I think Sri and Sahib become superfluous, even unnecessary. I recognize also that Sikhs look to the Guru Granth as the "physical" embodiment of the ten Gurus and that could explain why Sri and Sahib are appended to the name.
But I submit that such a literal interpretation does not do justice to the Sikh point of view. The Guru Granth remains the metaphorical body of the Gurus. The Shabd - the Word - is the Guru; a Guru that comes alive and talks to us only when we read the words therein and try to integrate them into our lives.
Some obvious absurdities can and do creep in when we treat the Guru Granth in anthropomorphic terms. I see such an attitude in carting a plate full of all that will be served later in langar, along with a glass of water, to the Guru Granth just prior to Ardaas - the Sikh congregational prayer.
Perhaps this practice, too comes to us from Hindu tradition, where delectable food preparations are regularly offered to idols of gods and goddesses for bhog. I have seen very devout Sikhs turning on the fan, a light or an air conditioner in the room where the Guru Granth is ensconced, not because someone is going to be in that room reading from it but that the Guru purportedly needs light and air conditioning, just as we humans do. It conveys eminent devotion and respect, but dismal sense.
The best way to show love for your children and friends is to pay attention to them. The best way to respect your teacher is to heed the lessons. The best way to discover and revere the Guru in the Guru Granth is to take note of what it tells us.
Many of the tails added to names are a vestige of royalty or indicative of our own insecurities. They corrupt the language and have little to do with reality or how we truly feel.
[May 11, 2008]
Conversation about this article
1: Gursharan Singh Toor (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada), May 11, 2008, 10:01 AM.
Do you have any elaborate publication on the following topic suitable for a novice like me. The following is from your article: "The Shabd - the Word - is the Guru; a Guru that comes alive and talks to us only when we read the words therein and try to integrate them into our lives."
2: Raj (Canada), May 11, 2008, 12:21 PM.
I always wondered, but never thought to much about it. But it got me thinking when I was in India and saw a show called "Kaun banega ...." hosted by Amitabh. In the process of verifying answers, he would refer to the computer and say "Computer ji, please lock this answer". Everyone in my family would start laughing as soon as he'd say it. But, our hosts thought we were nuts, even though they were convent educated too. Now, it is pathetic that we have extended such stupidities to machines. What's next? dog ji ... billi ji?
3: Joginder Singh Ahluwalia (Richmond, California, U.S.A.), May 11, 2008, 4:08 PM.
An intersting article. To the best of my knowledge, "108" does not refer to the number of Hindu scriptures but the number of beads in a mala. This, however, does not change the point being made.
4: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), May 12, 2008, 12:17 PM.
Your comments are much appreciated. Raj raises an interesting and pertinent sidebar. Gurshar singh Toor Ji -- In lieu of an elaborate presentation, I offer you very brief citations: "Ditthae mukt n hovayee jitcher sabd n karay vichar" (Page 594) - It is not the sight and idolization of the Guru Granth that is liberating, but engagement with the word therein. Secondly, "Banee Guru Guru hae banee vich bani amrit sarey" (Page 982). The Word is the manifest spirit of the Guru; The Guru is immanent in the Word". This idea also resonates in the line "Munn too(n) jote daroop hai(n) aapna mool pehcchan" (Page 441) - that askes us to nurture the divine spark within each of us. Dr. Joginder Singh raises an interesting point. I have seen many maalaas of varying length, each with a different number of beads. So, the number of beads is likely not fixed. Even if it is, the more interesting question is where did this number (108)come from. It must have been important to Hindu tradition before it found a place in a malaa. and I am not sure there is an easy answer to that.
5: Prabhu Singh Khalsa (Española, New Mexico, U.S.A.), May 12, 2008, 3:53 PM.
It's an interesting article. There is one error in it. You mentioned titles that are "widely flaunted and bandied about," one of them being "Sri Singh Sahib." This title has only ever been bestowed on one man, and it was given by the Akal Takht, not by himself. When Sri Singh Sahib first brought western Sikhs to India in the 70's, the people at Akal Takht acknowledged: "This Singh Sahib is creating other Singh Sahibs, therefore he must be Sri Singh Sahib." Sri Singh Sahib considered the title a way for the Akal Takht and the general leadership in India to acknowledge him and keep tabs on him. It wasn't a personal delineation. His influence was already too big for the Indian leadership to ignore. He was going to carry forward his mission either way, but if they didn't acknowledge him, they would have seemed incompetent as he was the only Sikh to reach thousands of non-Sikhs with the message of the Guru. Furthermore, the titles of Yogi Ji and Bibi Ji are the titles that thousands of non-Sikh people use to identify Sri Singh Sahib Harbhajan Singh Yogi, and his wife Bibi Inderjit Kaur. When I was a kid, I only knew one "Bibi Ji" and that was Bibi Inderjit Kaur Ji, her title was and is sufficient for thousands to identify her. The Akal Takht recently issued a letter to Bibi Ji, acknowledging both her mission and the mission of her late husband. Both titles were used in the letter from the Akal Takht, which is the temporal seat of authority for all Sikhs. Therefore, as a Sikh, I feel like the titles are both appropriate and that they are well deserved. One last comment is that I've never once referred to the Sri Guru Granth Sahib as anything less. It is the center of the life of every Sikh, I feel like the title is very appropriate. Furthermore, understanding the different meanings between Gur, Guru, Sat Guru, Sri Guru, and WaheGuru, one will know that there is only one Sri Guru. Think of the thousands of manmukhs and thousands of Gurmukhs in this world, but there was only one "Sri Mukh" and that was Patashahee Dasveen, Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
6: Chintan Singh (San Jose, California, U.S.A.), May 12, 2008, 8:13 PM.
I agree with the article but with a tiny caveat, in defence of those who refer to the Gurus, Gurdwaras and akhand paatths with lots of accolades and titles such as Dhan Dhan, Sri Sahib, etc. They are probably at a formal relationship point in their journey as a Sikh, meaning that while they are progressing on the path of Sikhi, they may have not reached the closeness or itimacy with the Guru. Their current emphasis is perhaps on formalities, customs and protocol, as opposed to having the intimate connection with the Guru where the emphasis changes to self reflection and inner transformation. The second point I would like to make is that in India, where one is a very small minority and where complete unconditional secularism is still a far fetched dream, oftentimes by default, you end up accepting the norms and practices of the majority and unfortunately sometimes that also means unknowingly or unwillingly compromising your own religious values. I have had such discussions with my family in India where I have felt that they are not following the Sikh Maryada or protocol fully and their response has been: "It is easy to make such claims when you live in a free and open society as the West offers, but it is difficult to be a Sikh in an uncompromised way in a place where the majority populace has opposite practices and norms". We complain that Sikhs in India nowadays practice rituals of the Hindus such as Rakhree and others, but one starts to observe these rituals to be fit in the larger society and, before you know, a generation or two has passed practicing such rituals and they become your own rituals.
7: Rawel Singh (New York, U.S.A.), May 13, 2008, 2:37 PM.
Among the many prefixes and suffixes the author has pointed out are Sri and Sahib, in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. He is of the view that since 'Guru' has already been prefixed, there is no need for anything more. It needs to be appreciated that his observation would have been okay if the scripture was just called Granth and Guru was added. The author has probably said this on the analogy of the Bible to which "Holy" is sometimes added. 'Guru Granth' is one composite name of the scripture. Granth is not its name. Sri is indicative of the spiritual status and Sahib of respect. That is why they are used in "Sri Guru Granth Sahib". The author has also referred to the Langar being brought before Ardas and compared it to the food offering to the idols as in Hindu temples. In our case the Langar is distributed as parshad, just like the Karah Parshad. Both are offered in Ardas and consecrated by the Hukamnama followed by Kirpan Bhet. They are not put on any idol or image but are for the Sadh Sangat, the 'mouth' of the Almighty.
8: Roopinder Singh Bains (Surrey, British Columbia, Canada), May 13, 2008, 5:52 PM.
Great article. My understanding is that "aad" means original, and not first? Also, the Guru Granth is the embodiment of the compositions of the Gurus, Bhagats and Bhatts, so not just of the Ten Gurus.
9: A.S. Rai (New Delhi, India), May 15, 2008, 1:53 AM.
It was interesting to read your write up as to how some of our practices are contrary to the canon laid down in the Guru Granth. To me, this is happening because we have stopped reading and studying it. Part of the problem is that, as language has evolved, it has become difficult to understand what is contained in it. To me, it seems that not only should we all read and try to understand the message in it, but we should also incorporate it in our community practice of discussion and debate. This practice should be extended to include members of other communities and creeds. Keep up the good work you are doing ...
10: Tarundeep Singh (San Francisco, California, U.S.A.), May 16, 2008, 4:13 AM.
I agree with you, Dr. I.J. Singh 'ji' that we should not do anything blindly as Sikhi has, as you mention, taught us to seek the truth in every situation. I use the term 'ji' out of respect because you are much older than me - that is also a ritual, but I hope that this conveys the fact that I respect you as an elder, and so you can correct me if I mention anything that is wrong. Some rituals I believe, like referring to elders by the term uncleji or auntieji, denote respect and give our culture substance, especially if we follow through on this outward respect to develop inward respect of elders and ultimately all beings. Also, the fact that I called you uncleji doesn't mean that another 28 year old off the straight will do so, and indeed, I would not frown upon them if they didn't and neither would you object. Similarly, if someone wants to call an individual that they respect by the term 'Sri Singh Sahib ji' should they not be allowed to do so if they want and if it is very personal to them? I don't understand how this will affect you if they don't force you to use the same nomenclature? Bhai Sahib and Bibiji are viewed by many here in California and indeed across the world, as their father and mother as a result of the love and hope that they have given people. I see the vibrancy in Sikhs that they have mentored and helped develop as individuals and see no reason why they can't assume a respectful term for teachers whom they revere. Extending two hands together in prayer form as a greeting is also a ritual, but I believe represents the idea that the same God is in the person whose hands are extended, as in the person who is receiving this gesture. If these rituals are followed by loving / respectful actions and beliefs, can these very rituals that you condemn not be ascribed value as being an inspiration for us to act with love and peace? Is the foundation of our belief in allowing everyone to have a right to their own view and practice? I thought that as Sikhs, we were tolerant of others and able to let others live how they want to (as long as they are not harming anyone), whilst at the same time upholding righteousness, peace and love? As Sikhs, we have in the past upheld others' religious freedoms even if we do not share their beliefs, so should we not be allowing people to freely express their religious intentions, even if they don't accord with our own. As you point out, every individual has a right to determine how to practice their dharma: if it feels unsophisticated to you, is it not better for them to progress on the path themselves and find that out themselves? I heard from someone that knowledge is like a drug - you cannot force this down people's throats - the recipient must be a willing recipient and able to understand the knowledge. In the same way that you cannot send a four year old to sit in one of your university classes, so you can't expect all to fully understand the beauty of the formless divinity or fully experience the depth of beauty and peace of Gurbani (I know I do not). When you say that 'Soon, I am afraid, we will have more Sants than Sikhs, just as Hinduism, I suspect, has more gods and goddesses than people', I interpret this as a criticism of Hinduism's belief in various gods and goddesses. As such, are you not deferring to an unsophisticated view of Hinduism that would be practiced by those Hindus who are relatively new in their spiritual quest? To my knowledge, all the gods and goddesses are actually supposed to be different facets of the One Divinity, in the same way that the vastly different collections of cells make up one human body, and in the same way that there may be hundreds of people on this earth or in this universe, but all ultimately have the same Creator. Your article highlights, in some cases, the practices of some Sikhs as being based on ritual, but if people develop faith and belief in the form of the Guru, and then continue on the path to conceptualize the Guru's "hukam" as being within, and then start to experience Gurbani (as another commentator has written above) and live the Guru's Word, is that not a valid spiritual route for people like me (who are not as advanced in our spiritual progression as many others) to take? Through conceptualizing the form, is it not the case that one can develop a deeper spiritual conceptualization of the formless Divinity: is it not possible to let them follow the path they desire, and for you to take the path that you correctly believe in, and for all to end up at the same final ending point at differing speeds? I am not well versed in Gurbani's true meaning, so forgive me if I make a mistake, but when Guru Arjan Dev ji writes about his longing for Guru Ram Das ji's darshan in the first pauris of Shabad Hazaarey, is he not longing for the physical Darshan of the Guru? Is it the form of the Guru that he is attracted to, or the Immortal Word of the Guru or is it both? I attach value to the physical presence or darshan, just because people develop sobriety and reflectiveness in the presence of the Guru and there is an uplifting feeling of having the Guru's Darshan. Is the offering of 'parshaad' in front of Guruji an act of consecrating the food, in the same way that if we thought about the Guru for every moment of the day, we would be able to surrender our actions to the Guru and consecrate our actions? Is this symbolism not important for us to push ourselves to fulfilling that ideal: the obvious questions that I ask, having bowed to the Guru, offered food before the Guru, is how can I do this in my everyday life - I firmly believe that it is a great inspiration to have that, and it is this inspiration which helps develop my faith, although I understand it may not help the many who are far more advanced in their spiritual path. Please keep writing, uncleji, as this article is an inspiration, as you can tell by my long email.
11: Bhupinder Singh (Warwick, England), May 16, 2008, 9:00 PM.
I'm afraid to say that we can't simply blame Hindu tradition for the proliferation of sants. We have to understand that it is a profound failure by mainstream Sikhism to appeal to the masses. Something is missing, people feel estranged, marginalised, and alienated from some of the institutions of Sikhi that allows these sants to flourish. I'm a practising Sikh but even I feel disgusted and alienated from Sikh institutions and practice sometimes.
12: D.J. Singh (U.S.A.), May 17, 2008, 7:13 PM.
This passage is taken from the poetry section of sikhchic.com titled "His Last Words" by Prof Puran Singh. 'On October 07, 1708, Guru Gobind Singh ji stated "Henceforth, the Guru shall be the Khalsa and Khalsa the Guru. I have infused my mental bodily spirit into the Granth Sahib and the Khalsa". He then put on a muslin waist-band, hung this on his bow on his shoulder and took his musket in his hand. He opened the Granth Sahib and placing a coconut before it, solemnly bowed to it as his successor. Then uttering "Wah Guru Ji Ka Khalsa, Wah Guru Ji Ki Fateh", he circumambulated the sacred volume and said, "O Beloved Khalsa! Let him who desireth to behold me, behold the Granth Sahib, obey the Granth Sahib. It is the visible body of the Guru.' The first master denounced the worship of idols. He refused to wear the janaeu. Why then did the tenth master place a coconut before the Granth Sahib? Why did he go around the sacred volume? Why did he bow before it? What was the message? How best can we follow it?
13: Sharanjit Singh (Chandigarh, Punjab), May 18, 2008, 7:46 AM.
The article is so well-written, but misses one factor which can point to the reason we create elaborate names and epithets which are then exploited by the fakes. I read somewhere to the effect that we are afraid of following our spiritual teachers in view of our worldly inclination to keep pursuing easier and already familliar paths. But we also love our teachers and are equally afraid of their greatness. I deduce that out of this love and fear we develop our devious ways of respecting them, for example, by honorifics, by bowing, by traditional covering of heads, removing of shoes, etc. Our fear is also on account of the fact that we are not able to follow our teachers due to our above-said inclination. In order to compensate for this lapse of ours, we resort to cheating of our teachers. How? In the name of respect and love for our Gurus (teachers), we introduce elaborate customs as some named above in order to create a distance between our teachers and ourselves. It is easier to add a number of honorifics before their names, to cover our heads, to raise elaborate structures for them, to offer flowers/food/money/time etc., than to follow their teachings. For example, it is so difficult to be truthful, to serve and treat all human beings equally, to toil and share with others and to be humble and remember the Creator all the time. All the more difficult is to ourselves read such teachings of our Gurus which order us to do so. So if we can escape reading, we can escape following those teachings also. On the other hand, it is so much easier to create a big physical pedestal for our teachers, to raise stages around it, to offer food to our teacher in the name of langar, to bow before our teacher whevever convenient, to create customs of reading the teachings (aarambh, prakash, hukamnama, bhog, etc.). It creates sufficient distance between us and our teacher and we remain content that we are giving due respect and love to our teacher. In the process, we can avoid following their teachings about which nobody would talk if the rituals are through. Have we noticed that our distance of even bowing before our teacher is increasing day by day? We even use ugly plastic flowers, golak, embroidered sheets and whatever we can think of, to increase this distance. If we forget elaborate honorifics and other paraphernalia to create a distance from our beloved Guru, we would feel nearer to Him and may sometimes read and follow. It is this weakness of the general public which the pundits of so called Hindu faith have exploited. They have not only created rituals to satisfy the public but also assigned their performance to Brahmins themselves. In such a situation, there is a great distance between themselves and their teachers (Brahmins) who are further distant from their so called gods (even idols). Our Gurus eliminated the distance by abolishing idol worship, priestly class and rituals but due to the aforesaid propensities and easy availability of distancing rituals in the neighbouring yards, we have already covered much distance in adopting Hinduism. With this speed, in the near future, the only difference will remain that we we will call our idol Guru Granth with more honorifics than the Hindus call their stone idols.