saloku mahalā 2.
eh kinehī āsakī dūjai lagai jāi.
nānak āsaku kāṁḍhīai sad hī rahai samāi.
caṅgai caṅgā kari manne mandai mandā hoi.
āsaku ehu na ākhīai ji lekhai vartai soi.1.
eh kinehī āsakī dūjai lagai jāi.
nānak āsaku kāṁḍhīai sad hī rahai samāi.
caṅgai caṅgā kari manne mandai mandā hoi.
āsaku ehu na ākhīai ji lekhai vartai soi.1.
saloku mahalā 2. |
eh kinehī āsakī dūjai lagai jāi. |
nānak āsaku kāṁḍhīai sad hī rahai samāi. |
caṅgai caṅgā kari manne mandai mandā hoi. |
āsaku ehu na ākhīai ji lekhai vartai soi.1. |
Guru Angad deals with duality in the context of love in this first verse, posing a rhetorical question: What kind of love is this, if you still have the other love? What is the love that allows you to leave your Beloved and go love someone else? Whereas in previous ballads, duality was contextualized in material attachments, this is specifically about relationships. Guru Angad says, if we are still attached to the other, instead of the One, then this is not love. The Lover is the one who is always remaining with the One. This is about existing in service and devotion to the Beloved, without a second thought or the metaphorical “wandering eyes.” Guru Angad went through this same experience with Guru Nanak, existing in loving service to Guru Nanak. We experience this in our human relationships, too. If in our relationships, we are distracted, if we are easily able to detach from the one we love as soon as someone else comes along who fulfills a need, then we are not truly in love. And this verse is not only about duality in the relationship — it is also about the ways we keep score. We all have tendencies to think if we put in certain things, the people with whom we have any sort of relationship will owe us something in return, that if we give and take, others must do the same. But the problem arises when we mentally keep score, and the relationship becomes about evening the score, or about who owes who what. If we are measuring our relationships and have a list of positives and negatives, if we are judging “goodness” and “badness,” constantly calculating, then we are not lovers. Lovers cannot be calculating or keeping score, they cannot be set on “winning.” Love is not about accepting one thing in one minute because we deem it to be “good,” while rejecting or questioning another thing the next minute because we deem it to be “bad.” If we are still doing that, we cannot be called lovers, because we do not yet understand the depths of love. Lovers operate in a realm beyond consequences and calculations. Lovers are carefree. Guru Angad is telling us that in love, we do not even think to keep score — there is no score. Everything just is.
What kind of love is this in which one, who claims to be in love of the Beloved, IkOankar, but attaches one’s mind to another for the fulfillment of a need.
Nanak! Only that person can be considered a true lover, who remains immersed forever in love with the Beloved, irrespective of the situation.
One who accepts a favorable command of the Beloved as good, but turns away from the Beloved upon hearing a command that is unfavorable, that one cannot be called a true lover, who deals in love by keeping score.
Nanak! Only that person can be considered a true lover, who remains immersed forever in love with the Beloved, irrespective of the situation.
One who accepts a favorable command of the Beloved as good, but turns away from the Beloved upon hearing a command that is unfavorable, that one cannot be called a true lover, who deals in love by keeping score.
What kind of love is this, (in which one who claims to be in love), attaches to another.
Nanak! (Only that person) can be called a lover, (who) remains immersed (in love of the Beloved) forever.
(One who) accepts a favorable (command of the Beloved) as good, (but) turns away (upon hearing) an unfavorable (command), that (one) cannot be called a (true) lover, who deals in (love like an) account.
Nanak! (Only that person) can be called a lover, (who) remains immersed (in love of the Beloved) forever.
(One who) accepts a favorable (command of the Beloved) as good, (but) turns away (upon hearing) an unfavorable (command), that (one) cannot be called a (true) lover, who deals in (love like an) account.
With an interrogative tone, the salok captures the attitude of a selfish lover. The salok elicits interest and attention right in the beginning by putting a question mark on the love of a selfish lover, which remains till the end of the salok. The following lines of the salok highlight the character of a selfish lover as well as contrast it by defining the character of a true lover who occupies a higher plane. Thus, two basic characteristics of love, ‘focus on one’ and ‘devotion/surrender,’ have been imparted here. One who is not devoted to and focused on one, cannot be called a true lover.
The differentiative scheme employed to compare a true lover and a selfish lover adds elegance to the salok while clarifying its message. Additionally, the inherent parallelism in the compound words like ‘caṅgai caṅgā’ (good as good), ‘mandai mandā’ (bad as bad/wrong), etc., introduces a special aural beauty in the salok.
Based on vocabulary and pronunciation/articulation, all four lines of this salok have a meter convention of 13+11 = 24. This can be categorized under a two line verse/couplet with 13+11 characters each (doharā chand). This salok has been created by clubbing two doharās.
The differentiative scheme employed to compare a true lover and a selfish lover adds elegance to the salok while clarifying its message. Additionally, the inherent parallelism in the compound words like ‘caṅgai caṅgā’ (good as good), ‘mandai mandā’ (bad as bad/wrong), etc., introduces a special aural beauty in the salok.
Based on vocabulary and pronunciation/articulation, all four lines of this salok have a meter convention of 13+11 = 24. This can be categorized under a two line verse/couplet with 13+11 characters each (doharā chand). This salok has been created by clubbing two doharās.