Original ji,
Guru Fateh.
Thanks for the response. I was reluctant at first to respond but after re-reading your post as a response to mine forced me to do it because there are so many inaccuracies, flip flopping in your post and not answering the questions asked in many of my posts is making me do this. I apologise in advance because I mean no offence. The beauty of this wonderful forum SPN is that we can interact openly and learn from each other.
Forgive me if I've come across as being a grumpy sausage, truth is, metaphysical n the transcendental truths cannot be argued but believed, sorry therefore, from an epistemological perspective, refrain from entertaining such an undertaking.
Would you be kind enough to elaborate the above with the help of SGGS, our only Guru. I know I have asked you the questions regarding 'Beliefs' in Sikhi in many of my posts but the questions have been ignored. I hope it is not the case this time as your professional background demands that from yourself.
On the contrary however, I'm forever discussing n advocating the way of Gur Ghar in its spiritual endeavours, that is, the unity of humankind, purpose and meaning of human birth.
I apologise once again, I have no idea what you mean by the above. Are you implying that some of the members do not do that? Please use SGGS to teach us what you mean.
Time allowing, have a read of "understanding sikhism" [SPN] in which I've attempted to show why both emperical study and rationality fall short of qualifying as means to prove the objectivity of the absolute n the transcendental [Ikonkar].
I am sorry but I re read the thread you mentioned above, I see nothing that you claim here. Would you be kind enough to do it again?
Of course, you being a pragmatist may struggle to get your head around the perishable n the imperishable world view within which Sikhism was found, that is not say, you're wrong and I'm right, no, not at all, but is vis-a-vis, theological axioms. And, the beauty of the diversity in creation is its intellectual independence - you have yours and I have mine.
Orginal ji,
It is sad to notice that you have determined my incapacity to grasp things the way you want me to. Here in your own words, "to you being a pragmatist may struggle to get your head around the
perishable n the
imperishable world view within which Sikhism was found"
What do you mean by the above? Please simplify for a simpleton like me.
I would ask you the same questions and also add some more which I have done before without getting any response from you.
1. Was Guru Nanak a Pragmatist when he refused to wear the Janeiu at the tender age of 8?
2. Was Guru Nanak a Pragmatist when he started throwing the water?
3. Was Guru Nanak a Pragmatist when he was in Mecca and asked the mullah to put his feet towards the direction where there was no Allah?
4. Was Guru Arjan a Pragmatist when he was put on a hot plate?
5. Was Guru Teg Bahadur a Pragmatist when he offered his life so the Kashmiri Pundits could worship whoever they wanted to?
6. Is not going to pilgrimages and practicing mechanical rituals as it is a common practice in Hinduism, Islam a Pragmatic thought process instilled to us by our visionary Gurus?
7. Is Sikhi based on questioning as started by Guru Nanak or not?
One can go on and on but this will suffice for now. I hope you respond to each of the questions above from your personal perspective, the Sikh you are through only Gurmat values in the SGGS.
I'm delighted to learn that you consider yourself to be a scholar of Sikh history and wish you the very best and hope you'll succeed where others have striven. Sikh history can definitely do with surgical improvisation within the confines of conventional legislation. And, it was in that regard a disposition, I responded to I J Singh's article on the same, thus
Original ji, now you are making things up for the reasons only known to you. I never said I was a Scholar, ever. I said I am a Sikh historian as all of us are if we are Sikhs. The proof is in the above questioning. Sikhi is a unique way of life where our Gurus rejected the following:
1. They never called themselves Gurus but just by numbers. Only Bhattvani mentions them as Gurus in the SGGS.
2. They never talked about themselves in a Me-ism manner but rather gave us tools to become better people in a Pragmatic manner.
3. Sikh history (the questions above) is oral history which was passed on to others. They never had historians or portrait painters either to write about their lives and/or to paint their portraits which the Mughal era was famous for during the birth of Sikhi.
So, any part of Sikh History that contradicts the Gurmat values in the SGGS is concocted by someone and should be rejected vehemently rather than embracing it. This is the reason perhaps that Guru Amardas beautifully says in Anand that a life of a Sikh is not just a high wire event but a Sikh lives and walks on the razor's edge all the times. Is that pragmatism or something else? I would love to hear your view as you claim that you are not a Pragmatist but I must say I am because I follow and practice my Gurus' teachings enshrined in the SGGS, our only Guru.
This is the very reason I reject the part of the Sikh history where a book called 'Dasam Granth' is believed to be written by Guru Gobind Singh and worshiped by many without a second thought inspite of the nasty/sexual contents which totally contradict the teachings in the SGGS because SGGS gives us the tools on every page to practice in our lives in order to breed goodness within to be shared with others.
Original ji, do you practice the same from dasam granth? If you do not, then you are not following the teachings of our Gurus I am afraid.I know you believe in this book wholeheartedly where I reject it vehemently.
The reasons of the above Pragmatic reasoning is worth repeating so that we can ponder on the Gurmat values a bit further as far as the above book called the dasam granth is concerned.
Our 10th Guru, Guru Gobind Singh who sacrificed his own dad for the freedom of practice of religions by all, sacrificed all his 4 children, added our 9th Guru's poetry to the SGGS on different pages when it was called Adi granth, (Please correct me if I am wrong, you did mention in one of your posts that Guru Arjan Dev ji left some pages blank so that our 10th Guru could add Gurbani which I would need an explanation from you for better understanding).
He also created the Khalsa Panth by lowering his level to ours and hence raising ours by taking khandei de pahul from the Panj Pyaras as it is well known in Sikh history, did not even add a single word of his own as Sikh history being the witness, that he was a prolific poet and a polyglot -in fact he had 52 poets at Poanta Sahib, but according to your claim he would write a book called dasam granth whose writings contradict the SGGS whom he called as our only Guru through several rehatnaamas.
Would you be kind enough to explain the above through your Sikhi wisdom?
Regarding your response to Dr. I. J. Singh's article, I do not think he has read it. If he had, he is very good at interacting. If you like, Aman ji can give you his email address. He happens to be a good friend of mine and a great author. If you have not read any of his books, I would urge you to do that.
I'm sorry I've not attended to any of your recent comments directly because what I am you're not, that is, I believe in both Granth [spiritual,1430 or 1429 pages] and Panth [temporal, prehistoric lot] and you don't,
.
Not only that, you ignored my questions of your claims about the Panth for the reasons only known to you and distorted my questioning to your claims. I never said in my post that I do not believe in the Panth. That is your personal concoction I only asked you the historical side of it.
Here it is again:
When did this ideology Of Granth- Pranth got sealed according to you before we delve further into it? Was it from the start by Guru Nanak or much later? Only by knowing the history one can further discuss where you are trying to lead us with your argument.
I believe in the mile long Ardas and you don't,
Once again, you are crediting me with something that I never said. I have often asked about the origin of Ardaas that we currently use in this forum and the one/s our Gurus used. Please explain your stance above for my better understanding.
I believe and accept that my ancestors were simpletons who believed in anything and everything without qualifications and they were backwards and still are, you don't,
Original ji, you are making things up again which is a sad thing to see especially coming from a well learned Sikh as you are. Please show me where I mentioned the above in any of my posts.
you're a pragmatist and I'm not.
Yes, I am proudly a pragmatist because I try to emulate my Gurus.
Let us respect one another for who we are and not for what we are !
I agree because we are all Sikhs and in order to understand ourselves better we are taught to be Pragmatic by our Gurus by asking and responding in our interaction, the notion you reject.
Thanks & regards
Tejwant Singh