☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Many Christians Believe That Jesus Is God. What Does Sikhism Say About It?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jass Singh" data-source="post: 21728" data-attributes="member: 1904"><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Inderjitji</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">I do not want to hurt your self esteem but I am forced to call a spade a spade. Unlike you I do not find it at all amusing. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">I. Logic</span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">:</span></strong></span></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Because of your philosophical & theological naivety you do not seem to understand nor appreciate the fact that if you are using language you are using the laws of logic - if you are communicating something intelligible you are in fact using the laws of logic. If you really believe and want to be true & consistent with the worldview that </span></span></strong></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">your only choice is to shut up & stop all verbal & written communication. Your very communications in this discussion forum cuts the very branch on which you are sitting – your arguments self destruct for you discard rationality by stating that in your worldview </span></strong><span style="color: green"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="color: green"></span></span><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Yet you say:</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">And how do you expect me to do that without grammatically coherent language & the laws of logic which are inherent in communication? You cannot have your cake and eat it. The fact is that your so called worldview is fallacious for you cannot live it in reality – you cannot do without rationality & the laws of logic – you use them all the time. To deny this is to live in a philosophical cuckoo land. You try to wriggle out by saying:</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">This shows your utter ignorance of the nature of logic. How can you portray the death of intellect when you are forced to use the laws of logic to do so? You do not have this freedom to use the laws of logic if you are claiming that logic and reason are annihilated. BTW to enlighten you, neither you nor anyone else can annihilate the laws of logic. Without going deeply into the ontological status of the laws of logic, I will point out that they are non-spatial and timeless (transcendent) realities. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You have naively bought into a certain philosophical perspective lock stock & barrel without the knowledge base & intellectual sophistication to see the glaring flaws. Your worldview as embodied in the books “The Doctrine & Dynamics of Sikhism” & “The Sovereignty of the Sikh Doctrine” both by Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia is grossly flawed. The attempt by this author to reinterpret Sikhism via Hegelian metaphysics is laughable. If you read the books carefully you will see that the author states that “Sikhism is NOT THE FINAL WORD, only the best so far.” If it is not the final word, why should anybody take it seriously? This is his Achilles heal which destroys anything that he might have to say about Sikhism. The author in fact destroys Sikhism by RECONSTRUCTING it in the western mold of Hegelianism. He is trying to make Sikhism palatable to intellectuals but in the process destroys Sikhism. It certainly is not the Sikhism of the SGGS & the Sikh gurus who highly prized the intellect. The author is also confused epistemologically but I shall not go into that. The sad part is that you have been hoodwinked into taking it as absolute truth. Since you are not trained in philosophy you will not appreciate nor understand the profundity of what I have just explained and its vast ramifications. Your next response will make it self evident whether you are serious about me providing you:</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">BTW this request proves that I am not asking you to make any paradigm shift for you are already on my paradigm – you cannot live without the paradigm of logic for you consistently smuggle in the laws of logic and are in fact requesting that I use them to provide evidence. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">I suggest you read “Reason & Revelation in Sikhism” by Gurnam Kaur. I did suggest it before but you probably did not bother to get a copy & read it. It is a very well written book but be prepared for many definitions as well as exposition of relevant passages of SGGS. It also has an excellent section on avatar as well as chapters on the Nature of Reason in Sikhism, kinds of Knowledge, the role of Reason in Sikhism, and the nature of Revelation (and indirectly authority). It will correct your unbalanced and incorrect view of the intellect as per the teachings of the SGGS. Your (inconsistent) view on logic and reason is contrary to the teaching of the SGGS and the Sikh gurus. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Dr. Gurnam Kaur reader of SGGS Studies, Punjab University, Patiala writes:</span></span></strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong>"In Sikhism, reason has been considered the source of knowledge. Reason, has been applied for the philosophical criticism of the prevalent philosophical and religious notions, traditions, customs and concepts? Both inductive (agman) and deductive (nigman) reasoning has been used for this purpose."</strong></span></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong>(Page 6, REASON AND REVELATION IN SIKHISM). </strong></span></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Then on page 7 she gives examples from the SGGS and ends with,</span></span></strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong>"Reason is used in the above arguments to dispel ignorance and superstition."</strong></span></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">But here’s juts one quote for you to ponder:</span></span></strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p> <span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">“har kai bhaanai janam padaarath paa-i-aa mat ootam ho-ee.</span></span></strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong>By the Pleasure of the Lord's Will, the prize of this human birth is obtained, and the intellect is exalted.” (SGGS p365 M3)</strong></span></span></p><p> <span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Just do a word search of the SGGS for the word “true” & “truth.” You cannot have truth without the laws of logic. In fact, if you cannot apply logic you have to do away with the SGGS altogether because the SGGS consists of linguistic propositional statements claiming to be the truth about God and reality.</span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Logic is a priori not subjective mysticism. Most Sikhs like people of other faiths believe in their religion and scriptures merely because they are born into it and for no other reason. The faith of most people in the world is not a reasoned faith. It is usually a faith in faith (FIDEISM) based on what feels good. Most people are not truly interested in investing their time and energy to find true knowledge. They do not think through their belief system. Some of them like you throw out the intellect altogether, something that none of the gurus would even think of doing. Because it is not based on anything objectively verifiable, it is based solely on subjective experience of the believer</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">II. SELF-REALIZATION:</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Then you talk about a mystical experience – that of self realization & union with the supreme reality. When you say that it is a unitary experience-is it one in which the subject-object distinction is retained or not retained? If it is retained, what information is retained after the experience? And how do you know that your interpretation is correct? Mystical experiences are INTERPRETED in a way that supports the subject’s own PRESUPPOSITIONS and a vicious circularity inevitably occurs. Your mistake is in claiming that mystical experience surpasses rationality. But such a claim is one that can only be made by the use reason. It is non-mysticism, namely RATIONALITY that must make the judgment that it transcends rationality. It cannot make that judgment itself –an experience is just that an experience. The inference and interpretation requires rationality. Therefore, it does not transcend rationality.</span></span></strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p> <span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong>If the distinction between subject and object is obviated in mystical experience, by a unitary experience one can never know that he/she has a so-called mystical experience. A knowing subject requires a subject object distinction. Without a subject there is no knowledge. No knowing subject means no knowledge. Knowledge is a property of subjects, i.e., consciousness, as distinguished from that about which one is conscious. Mystical experience by itself conveys nothing. If it is claimed that it does, only rationality can interpret it. And that is my point, which you cannot deny. The solution is simple – you can talk of mystical experience but don’t deny that rationality has to interpret it, for that is exactly what you are doing anyway. In talking about it, you are not transferring your actual experience since it is private and subjective. In talking about mystical experience, you are inevitably using rationality in trying to communicate your interpretation of the experience.</strong></span></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">III. RELIABILITY OF THE BIBLE:</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You are quite correct in observing that </span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">I have no problem with this and in fact have suggested this to others before you even entered this discussion. Be my guest and start a new thread. How many times do I have to tell you? But beware that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The same criteria will be used to test the reliability of the SGGS. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Please contemplate & reflect on my constructive criticism. When one is challenged in this way, it forces one to further delve into one's reasons for belief and results in learning and growth. If I have a blind spot in some belief, I would rather have it pointed out than be confronted by silence. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Jass Singh</span></span></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jass Singh, post: 21728, member: 1904"] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Inderjitji[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]I do not want to hurt your self esteem but I am forced to call a spade a spade. Unlike you I do not find it at all amusing. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]I. Logic[/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]:[/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Because of your philosophical & theological naivety you do not seem to understand nor appreciate the fact that if you are using language you are using the laws of logic - if you are communicating something intelligible you are in fact using the laws of logic. If you really believe and want to be true & consistent with the worldview that [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]your only choice is to shut up & stop all verbal & written communication. Your very communications in this discussion forum cuts the very branch on which you are sitting – your arguments self destruct for you discard rationality by stating that in your worldview [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=green] [/COLOR][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][/FONT][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Yet you say:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]And how do you expect me to do that without grammatically coherent language & the laws of logic which are inherent in communication? You cannot have your cake and eat it. The fact is that your so called worldview is fallacious for you cannot live it in reality – you cannot do without rationality & the laws of logic – you use them all the time. To deny this is to live in a philosophical cuckoo land. You try to wriggle out by saying:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]This shows your utter ignorance of the nature of logic. How can you portray the death of intellect when you are forced to use the laws of logic to do so? You do not have this freedom to use the laws of logic if you are claiming that logic and reason are annihilated. BTW to enlighten you, neither you nor anyone else can annihilate the laws of logic. Without going deeply into the ontological status of the laws of logic, I will point out that they are non-spatial and timeless (transcendent) realities. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]You have naively bought into a certain philosophical perspective lock stock & barrel without the knowledge base & intellectual sophistication to see the glaring flaws. Your worldview as embodied in the books “The Doctrine & Dynamics of Sikhism” & “The Sovereignty of the Sikh Doctrine” both by Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia is grossly flawed. The attempt by this author to reinterpret Sikhism via Hegelian metaphysics is laughable. If you read the books carefully you will see that the author states that “Sikhism is NOT THE FINAL WORD, only the best so far.” If it is not the final word, why should anybody take it seriously? This is his Achilles heal which destroys anything that he might have to say about Sikhism. The author in fact destroys Sikhism by RECONSTRUCTING it in the western mold of Hegelianism. He is trying to make Sikhism palatable to intellectuals but in the process destroys Sikhism. It certainly is not the Sikhism of the SGGS & the Sikh gurus who highly prized the intellect. The author is also confused epistemologically but I shall not go into that. The sad part is that you have been hoodwinked into taking it as absolute truth. Since you are not trained in philosophy you will not appreciate nor understand the profundity of what I have just explained and its vast ramifications. Your next response will make it self evident whether you are serious about me providing you:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/FONT][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]BTW this request proves that I am not asking you to make any paradigm shift for you are already on my paradigm – you cannot live without the paradigm of logic for you consistently smuggle in the laws of logic and are in fact requesting that I use them to provide evidence. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]I suggest you read “Reason & Revelation in Sikhism” by Gurnam Kaur. I did suggest it before but you probably did not bother to get a copy & read it. It is a very well written book but be prepared for many definitions as well as exposition of relevant passages of SGGS. It also has an excellent section on avatar as well as chapters on the Nature of Reason in Sikhism, kinds of Knowledge, the role of Reason in Sikhism, and the nature of Revelation (and indirectly authority). It will correct your unbalanced and incorrect view of the intellect as per the teachings of the SGGS. Your (inconsistent) view on logic and reason is contrary to the teaching of the SGGS and the Sikh gurus. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Dr. Gurnam Kaur reader of SGGS Studies, Punjab University, Patiala writes:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [B]"In Sikhism, reason has been considered the source of knowledge. Reason, has been applied for the philosophical criticism of the prevalent philosophical and religious notions, traditions, customs and concepts? Both inductive (agman) and deductive (nigman) reasoning has been used for this purpose."[/B] [B](Page 6, REASON AND REVELATION IN SIKHISM). [/B][/FONT][/COLOR] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Then on page 7 she gives examples from the SGGS and ends with,[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [B]"Reason is used in the above arguments to dispel ignorance and superstition."[/B][/FONT][/COLOR] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]But here’s juts one quote for you to ponder:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]“har kai bhaanai janam padaarath paa-i-aa mat ootam ho-ee.[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [B]By the Pleasure of the Lord's Will, the prize of this human birth is obtained, and the intellect is exalted.” (SGGS p365 M3)[/B] [/FONT][/COLOR] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Just do a word search of the SGGS for the word “true” & “truth.” You cannot have truth without the laws of logic. In fact, if you cannot apply logic you have to do away with the SGGS altogether because the SGGS consists of linguistic propositional statements claiming to be the truth about God and reality.[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Logic is a priori not subjective mysticism. Most Sikhs like people of other faiths believe in their religion and scriptures merely because they are born into it and for no other reason. The faith of most people in the world is not a reasoned faith. It is usually a faith in faith (FIDEISM) based on what feels good. Most people are not truly interested in investing their time and energy to find true knowledge. They do not think through their belief system. Some of them like you throw out the intellect altogether, something that none of the gurus would even think of doing. Because it is not based on anything objectively verifiable, it is based solely on subjective experience of the believer[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]II. SELF-REALIZATION:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Then you talk about a mystical experience – that of self realization & union with the supreme reality. When you say that it is a unitary experience-is it one in which the subject-object distinction is retained or not retained? If it is retained, what information is retained after the experience? And how do you know that your interpretation is correct? Mystical experiences are INTERPRETED in a way that supports the subject’s own PRESUPPOSITIONS and a vicious circularity inevitably occurs. Your mistake is in claiming that mystical experience surpasses rationality. But such a claim is one that can only be made by the use reason. It is non-mysticism, namely RATIONALITY that must make the judgment that it transcends rationality. It cannot make that judgment itself –an experience is just that an experience. The inference and interpretation requires rationality. Therefore, it does not transcend rationality.[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [B]If the distinction between subject and object is obviated in mystical experience, by a unitary experience one can never know that he/she has a so-called mystical experience. A knowing subject requires a subject object distinction. Without a subject there is no knowledge. No knowing subject means no knowledge. Knowledge is a property of subjects, i.e., consciousness, as distinguished from that about which one is conscious. Mystical experience by itself conveys nothing. If it is claimed that it does, only rationality can interpret it. And that is my point, which you cannot deny. The solution is simple – you can talk of mystical experience but don’t deny that rationality has to interpret it, for that is exactly what you are doing anyway. In talking about it, you are not transferring your actual experience since it is private and subjective. In talking about mystical experience, you are inevitably using rationality in trying to communicate your interpretation of the experience.[/B][/FONT][/COLOR] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]III. RELIABILITY OF THE BIBLE:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]You are quite correct in observing that [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]I have no problem with this and in fact have suggested this to others before you even entered this discussion. Be my guest and start a new thread. How many times do I have to tell you? But beware that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The same criteria will be used to test the reliability of the SGGS. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Please contemplate & reflect on my constructive criticism. When one is challenged in this way, it forces one to further delve into one's reasons for belief and results in learning and growth. If I have a blind spot in some belief, I would rather have it pointed out than be confronted by silence. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Jass Singh[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Many Christians Believe That Jesus Is God. What Does Sikhism Say About It?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top