{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02207001522070015, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.870535714285714, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Questioning Hermeneutics with Freud: How to interpret dreams and mute-speech in Sikh scripture

This paper begins to question the interpretive endeavor when it is applied to the Adi Granth. The text itself expresses a view that the ‘world is a dream’ and that there is real difficulty in communicating the truth about reality, since it is like a mute person who enjoys, but is unable to express, the taste of his sweet; that is the sweetness of the mystic experience. I raise the question: what is hermeneutics to this situation? How is one to interpret a dream and a text that is the ‘speech’ of a mute person? Traditional hermeneutic theories (conservative, moderate and critical) do not seem to cater for this problematic since they do not concern themselves with the unconscious, the sub-text, the dreams underlying waking thought. I thus turn to Freud to gain clues about the interpretation of dreams, and thus attempt a preliminary radicalization of hermeneutic theory. It is suggested that perhaps a reversal is required where dreams precede worldly reality, and interpretation is a sign of delusion, obviously locating and implicating this very text within the very problematic it attempts to illuminate. Beyond this ironic tautology I ask: could there be a self that does not dream and does not interpret?