Concept Of Evil Spirits In Sikhism

[muddymick]

Ambarsaria ji,

I don't understand what you are posing.

Yes I think that is apparent.

If you know Punjabi and can read and understand the same, there is no argument from what I understand.

That is is untrue! and a red herring! Especially in light of your absolute failure to address even one logical point!

By the way such positing of concepts is not just one pauri or one shabad.

Another red herring, as at no time did I suggest such. Answering a question that was never posed is just a distraction.

It is consistently and methodically reinforced by various contributors in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Another red herring, suggesting that I acted contrary to this position. I did not, in fact the obverse!

If you do not want to accept Gurbani with simplest of statements that are so easily understood by most

Another red herring, suggesting that because something is accepted by most it is true! that is a fallacy called appeal to popularity.
Here is an explanation Also Known as:

Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.

It is considered in scholarly, academic and theological circles to be ridiculous.

I don't know what me or any other Sikh can do for you.

Nothing as you well know we can only do for ourselves, which I why I suggest you try a more critical and logical appraisal instead repetition of the same illogical mistakes!

You are stretching so called refutations like rubber band but it does not add much to when you are more specific and brief.

another red herring, making wildly inapplicable analogies to discredit.
Stick to the facts, don't use repetition instead of logical argument!

It is OK to sometimes stop arguing and part ways on a subject versus just clutter a thread which is already kind of off-topic in terms of focus on "Evil Spirits".

Distraction and get out clause.
Just address the facts or admit you do not understand (there is no shame in that) the postulations.

I am quite willing to make it much simpler and deal with one point per post!
Or even move it to another thread?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Muddymick ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have no idea why you sound so angry? We are here to have a conversation and trying to learn from each other.

If you do not like what Ambarsaria ji said, then explain your point of view in a mature adult manner. Spitting out words like "red herrings" does not further any dialogue. It makes the accuser look bad and infantile, I might add.

I myself have no idea what you did not understand. Ambarsaria ji's responses were to the best of his knowledge and I happen to agree with him.

I do not understand what your gripe is with the subject and with his responses. There seem to be absence of some connection somewhere. Let's try to find that out via conversation.

Talking about conversation, I am still waiting for your response to my query to you and I can see you are very good at responding quite quickly and I have no idea what is causing this delay from your part. Does it only happen when it interests you? It is a question not an accusation.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[muddymick]

Tejwant ji,

I have no idea why you sound so angry? We are here to have a conversation and trying to learn from each other.

I am not angry I can assure you.

We are here to have a conversation and trying to learn from each other.

Learning is only possible with investigation and application. Not with repetition and diversion.

If you do not like what Ambarsaria ji said

It is not a matter of liking or disliking.

then explain your point of view in a mature adult manner.

which i have and have offered to re-phrase or explain point by point.

Spitting out words like "red herrings" does not further any dialogue. It makes the accuser look bad and infantile, I might add.

I have not spat, I have posted my objection to diversionary devices that were irrelevant to the subject in hand.

I myself have no idea what you did not understand. Ambarsaria ji's responses were to the best of his knowledge and I happen to agree with him.

That is because it was not a matter of what I did not understand. And complicity from any quarter is irrelevant.

I do not understand what your gripe is with the subject and with his responses. There seem to be absence of some connection somewhere. Let's try to find that out via conversation.

Firstly I have no gripe and the suggestion I do undermines my fair and logical appraisal.

That there is an absence of connection I agree wholeheartedly with and tried to adress by requesting dialogue on the points not just blind repetition.
Finding out via conversation was my whole point in offering a number of ways to explore the issue rather than juvenile attempts at undermining a position ( a position that was neither comprehended nor examined I might add)

Talking about conversation, I am still waiting for your response to my query to you and I can see you are very good at responding quite quickly and I have no idea what is causing this delay from your part. Does it only happen when it interests you? It is a question not an accusation.

Sorry you have lost me? If I have been impolite in not answering can you please remind me and accept my apologies.
It may have to wait now as it is 1.20 and I get up at 5.00.
Because I have had a lung infection I have been off work (hence lots of time on the internet in bed) Now I am more tickety boo. I must get back to my routines.
I hope this is acceptable?

Does it only happen when it interests you? It is a question not an accusation.

This is not the first time you have tried this 'it's only a question' approach. Both you and I know that most questions hold an inference! If I asked you 'did you steal that' it carries an inference that I don't trust you or that you are untrustworthy, it infers a suggestion or doubt to those that hear it or read it. I could give you numerous examples that would illustrate this.
I maybe straight forward even a little vociferous at times, but my objection, arguments, disagreements and umbrage are straight forward and honest.

 

[muddymick]

removed due to duplication

 

[Harry Haller]

Travelling on a motorcycle to Blackpool, is my journey only characterised by my motorcycle or if I travel by Robin Reliant (goodness forbid) is it characterised by that?
My Buddhist practice is just that a vehicle to reach a destination. Does it preclude other vehicles? No.
I am not partisan about it, I have no interest in gaining converts or even proving it’s worth to others. I am secure enough to know that at this time and at this place it is a useful vehicle for me.
Do I still admire other vehicles, do I still share journeys, will I eventually share the same destination…yes.
To say I am a Buddhist is an arbitrary label it doesn't define me or my journey it just tells you my preferred mode of transport.
One that in the final destination I will leave behind like some old useless socks!

No one is accusing you of trying to gain converts, all I am saying is that your Buddhist foundations propagate through everything you do.

Your car analogy is flawed, your destination and my destination are not the same, I do not have a destination, only a way of life, only today.

Of course your journey is characterised by your mode of transport, a journey to Blackpool on a motorbike, and a journey to Blackpool in a Reliant Robin are two separate journeys, with two separate experiences, and you will learn separate things during each journey and have challenges related to your mode of transport. For instance, if it is raining, one mode will get you wet, the other mode will get you laughed at, they are two separate journeys.

I personally like Land Rovers, have driven them for years, and I hate driving anything else, I say hate, hate is a strong word, I am happiest in a Land Rover, but even then, not a discovery, nor a freelander, or even a defender, ideally a 4.2 LSE, or a 4.6 HSE, but only in the years 1994-1998. When I plan journeys, I know what to expect on the drive, I know the engines, the gearboxes, how it should handle, how much stuff I can get in it, all the dogs have their own sitting position, its all good. I cannot understand people who say a car is a car, it is much more than that, I am very loyal to my cars, I love them, like people, I can still make a journey in a Robin Reliant, but it would not be the same, and it probably would not get to my destination, if my destination were say, a wooded forest in the middle of nowhere, I have two stickers on the back of mine, one is the Land Rover motto 'one life, live it' and the other is ' you can go faster, but I can go anywhere', they reflect my feelings on cars, and dare I say it, life.

by the way, that's a lot of herrings