☀️ 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: 21761" 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'">Forgive me if my objectivity hurt your feelings for you seem to interpret it as “rude.” But there again since in your worldview there are no laws of logic it also correct that I am “not rude.” Your so called Sikh doctrine is not touted by anybody except you. The Sikh authorities do not promote it and for a very good reason it is not found in the SGGS, which is the final arbiter of Sikh doctrine not you or Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">And my dear friend much more highly esteemed scholars than Ahluwalia have been proved to be wrong. Even Alfred North Whitehead the hardest to understand philosopher said that his philosophy was not the final word, only the best so far. And Ludwig Wittgenstein thought he had written the final all encompassing treatise on philosophy. Prior to that there was Kant. The history of philosophy is littered with outdated philosophies. Postmodernism was the buzz word about a decade back & espoused by Jasbir Ahluwalia in writing his books. Unfortunately it too is now outdated and shown to be flawed. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You write:</span></span></strong></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">It is high time you did for you do not know what you are talking about. You need to get a college level education in philosophy to understand your utter inadequacy. It is apparent that you have not studied Hegel or postmodernism in detail. If you had, you would know that your worldview is a distortion and an aberration of Sikhism as taught by the SGGS whose locus of thought & paradigm is Eastern philosophical thought not western Hegelian reconstruction & postmodernism. </span></strong></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">As far as logic goes, you are in denial & guilty of intellectual dishonesty. You write:</span></span></strong></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">Now what on earth is this supposed to mean? Last time you said that:</span></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green"></span></strong></span><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">If they are annihilated do they resurrect just for you to use & then slip into non existence? </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You write:</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Simple - it breaks down because it is a RECONSTRUCTION of Sikhism through Hegelianism. If anything is sovereign according to your worldview it is NOT SIKHISM but Hegelianism! Your so called paradigm shift is nothing more & nothing less than a paradigm shift to Hegelianism - an alien philosophy as far as Sikhism is concerned. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You write:</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Once again you do not want to be confused with the facts. You don’t even remember what you write for you contradicted this when you wrote:</span></span></strong></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">What do you think you are saying when you say </span></strong><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 12px">this </span></span><strong><span style="color: green">Furthermore you contradict your worldview by talking about a “TRUE” religious doctrine. If </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">you cannot talk about something being true for it entails its contrary being false, which is logic. Furthermore, why do you keep gravitating to Christianity and trying to prove it false? You do not have that right for there is no true or false in your worldview because </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">In your worldview it is quite OK to simultaneously believe that Christianity is true and you are wasting your time. It is obvious you did not understand my last post about the two Hegelians. </span></strong></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You write:</span></span></strong></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">My dear friend you contradict yourself time after time. How can you talk about </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">when</span></strong> <strong><span style="color: green">true is compatible with false because </span></strong></span> </p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You write:</span></span></strong></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">Well according to your worldview it can’t be the final Word of God – there is no truth or falsity in your worldview because </span></strong><strong><span style="color: black">logic </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">And saying that Sikhism is the final word of God is compatible with Sikhism is NOT the final Word of God for </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">BTW postmodernism by its very nature is relativistic & therefore if you are espousing Hegelian reconstruction of Sikhism and postmodernism, it is a given that Sikhism CANNOT be the final Word of God. </span></strong></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">Your real worldview comes to light when you write </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">Once again you smuggle in the laws of logic by talking about “truth.” This is contrary to your worldview in which </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">which</span></strong> <strong><span style="color: green">means it is compatible with being fallible bani.</span></strong> <strong><span style="color: green">Your worldview is intellectually bankrupt.</span></strong> <strong><span style="color: green">Your real worldview is what we term fideism not postmodernism which is relativistic and would not allow you to make such absolute claims. This is further substantiated when you write: </span></strong> <strong><span style="color: green">This is classic fideism.</span></strong> <strong><span style="color: green">In addition you contradicted yourself when you later said </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">How can it be </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">if there is no objective truth?</span></strong></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">You write </span></strong></span><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">It is obvious you have not read the book I suggested and FYI I have met Prof. Gurnam Kaur and she means reason as deductive & inductive logic as in the quote from her book. The fact is you cannot live without logic. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">As far as subjective experience goes please re-read my last post. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">And then you write:</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You mean a singular scholar, namely your guru, Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia? Here’s a challenge, bring him on the discussion forum. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">BTW what was your answer to the passage from the ultimate authority for a Sikh, the SGGS? Here it is again. </span></span></strong></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></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">By the Pleasure of the Lord's Will, the prize of this human birth is obtained, and the intellect is exalted.” (SGGS p365 M3)</span></span></strong></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">How come you want to disparage, contradict & disrespect your guru by saying that </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">What are you going to with all the deductive reasoning in the SGGS e.g. the Siddh Ghosht? </span></strong></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">You write: </span></strong></span><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">How do you know and what has it to do with anything? We are not here to discuss my life. This is just an ad hominem attack and utterly irrelevant. I could say the same about you – so what? </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">You write: </span></strong><strong><span style="color: black">you </span></strong></span><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">My friend you can lead a horse to water, you can’t make it drink and there are none so blind as those who will not see! </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">You write: </span></strong></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">My friend, you mean YOUR (Inderjit’s) rules. But you (Inderjit) have no rules for </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green"> By your (Inderjit’s) rules this is compatible with saying that I must NOT play by your rules if I would like a Sikh perspective. After all </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">and therefore a proposition & its contrary are compatible. Good luck to you but you certainly do not live life this way. It is a farce and shows the utter bankruptcy of such a view. Your bankrupt perspective, your worldview and paradigm is NOT the Sikh perspective, worldview or paradigm. So stop equating the two. Your worldview & the Sikh worldview are not equivocal. All you are doing is parroting and pontificating an aberrant view of a scholar who has gone off at a tangent by reconstructing Sikh philosophy via Hegelianism & postmodernism. </span></strong></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">Then you write: </span></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green"></span></strong></span><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">My dear friend please read the previous paragraph and do not jump to false conclusions; I have been proving that you (Inderjit) are illogical and your (Inderjit’s) reconstructed Sikh worldview via Hegelianism & postmodernism is fallacious and a distortion of Sikh philosophy as taught by the gurus in the SGGS. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">Unlike you I have gone through every single statement made by you without picking and choosing which ones to address. You avoid many of my arguments and arrogantly dismiss them without a rebuttal. The quote from SGGS p365 M3 is just one such example. With one broad stroke you bury your head in the sand and arrogantly pontificate that </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green"> Then according to your worldview this is compatible with logic and reason are NOT annihilated. I hope you got the point. If not, there is no hope for you and you are living in a make believe world – in cuckoo land. Like I said before, logic is a priori & it is undeniable for you cannot deny it without using it and you tie yourself up in epistemological knots. </span></strong></span></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: 21761, member: 1904"] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Inderjitji[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Forgive me if my objectivity hurt your feelings for you seem to interpret it as “rude.” But there again since in your worldview there are no laws of logic it also correct that I am “not rude.” Your so called Sikh doctrine is not touted by anybody except you. The Sikh authorities do not promote it and for a very good reason it is not found in the SGGS, which is the final arbiter of Sikh doctrine not you or Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]And my dear friend much more highly esteemed scholars than Ahluwalia have been proved to be wrong. Even Alfred North Whitehead the hardest to understand philosopher said that his philosophy was not the final word, only the best so far. And Ludwig Wittgenstein thought he had written the final all encompassing treatise on philosophy. Prior to that there was Kant. The history of philosophy is littered with outdated philosophies. Postmodernism was the buzz word about a decade back & espoused by Jasbir Ahluwalia in writing his books. Unfortunately it too is now outdated and shown to be flawed. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]You write:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]It is high time you did for you do not know what you are talking about. You need to get a college level education in philosophy to understand your utter inadequacy. It is apparent that you have not studied Hegel or postmodernism in detail. If you had, you would know that your worldview is a distortion and an aberration of Sikhism as taught by the SGGS whose locus of thought & paradigm is Eastern philosophical thought not western Hegelian reconstruction & postmodernism. [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]As far as logic goes, you are in denial & guilty of intellectual dishonesty. You write:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]Now what on earth is this supposed to mean? Last time you said that: [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][/FONT][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]If they are annihilated do they resurrect just for you to use & then slip into non existence? [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]You write:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Simple - it breaks down because it is a RECONSTRUCTION of Sikhism through Hegelianism. If anything is sovereign according to your worldview it is NOT SIKHISM but Hegelianism! Your so called paradigm shift is nothing more & nothing less than a paradigm shift to Hegelianism - an alien philosophy as far as Sikhism is concerned. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]You write:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Once again you do not want to be confused with the facts. You don’t even remember what you write for you contradicted this when you wrote:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]What do you think you are saying when you say [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][SIZE=3]this [/SIZE][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green]Furthermore you contradict your worldview by talking about a “TRUE” religious doctrine. If [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]you cannot talk about something being true for it entails its contrary being false, which is logic. Furthermore, why do you keep gravitating to Christianity and trying to prove it false? You do not have that right for there is no true or false in your worldview because [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]In your worldview it is quite OK to simultaneously believe that Christianity is true and you are wasting your time. It is obvious you did not understand my last post about the two Hegelians. [/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]You write:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]My dear friend you contradict yourself time after time. How can you talk about [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green]when[/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green]true is compatible with false because [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][/FONT][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]You write:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]Well according to your worldview it can’t be the final Word of God – there is no truth or falsity in your worldview because [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black]logic [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]And saying that Sikhism is the final word of God is compatible with Sikhism is NOT the final Word of God for [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]BTW postmodernism by its very nature is relativistic & therefore if you are espousing Hegelian reconstruction of Sikhism and postmodernism, it is a given that Sikhism CANNOT be the final Word of God. [/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]Your real worldview comes to light when you write [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green]Once again you smuggle in the laws of logic by talking about “truth.” This is contrary to your worldview in which [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]which[/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black] [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]means it is compatible with being fallible bani.[/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black] [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]Your worldview is intellectually bankrupt.[/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black] [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]Your real worldview is what we term fideism not postmodernism which is relativistic and would not allow you to make such absolute claims. This is further substantiated when you write: [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green]This is classic fideism.[/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green]In addition you contradicted yourself when you later said [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green]How can it be [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green]if there is no objective truth?[/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]You write [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]It is obvious you have not read the book I suggested and FYI I have met Prof. Gurnam Kaur and she means reason as deductive & inductive logic as in the quote from her book. The fact is you cannot live without logic. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]As far as subjective experience goes please re-read my last post. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]And then you write:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]You mean a singular scholar, namely your guru, Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia? Here’s a challenge, bring him on the discussion forum. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]BTW what was your answer to the passage from the ultimate authority for a Sikh, the SGGS? Here it is again. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]“har kai bhaanai janam padaarath paa-i-aa mat ootam ho-ee. By the Pleasure of the Lord's Will, the prize of this human birth is obtained, and the intellect is exalted.” (SGGS p365 M3)[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]How come you want to disparage, contradict & disrespect your guru by saying that [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]What are you going to with all the deductive reasoning in the SGGS e.g. the Siddh Ghosht? [/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]You write: [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][/FONT][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]How do you know and what has it to do with anything? We are not here to discuss my life. This is just an ad hominem attack and utterly irrelevant. I could say the same about you – so what? [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]You write: [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black]you [/COLOR][/B][/FONT][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]My friend you can lead a horse to water, you can’t make it drink and there are none so blind as those who will not see! [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]You write: [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]My friend, you mean YOUR (Inderjit’s) rules. But you (Inderjit) have no rules for [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green] By your (Inderjit’s) rules this is compatible with saying that I must NOT play by your rules if I would like a Sikh perspective. After all [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]and therefore a proposition & its contrary are compatible. Good luck to you but you certainly do not live life this way. It is a farce and shows the utter bankruptcy of such a view. Your bankrupt perspective, your worldview and paradigm is NOT the Sikh perspective, worldview or paradigm. So stop equating the two. Your worldview & the Sikh worldview are not equivocal. All you are doing is parroting and pontificating an aberrant view of a scholar who has gone off at a tangent by reconstructing Sikh philosophy via Hegelianism & postmodernism. [/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]Then you write: [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]My dear friend please read the previous paragraph and do not jump to false conclusions; I have been proving that you (Inderjit) are illogical and your (Inderjit’s) reconstructed Sikh worldview via Hegelianism & postmodernism is fallacious and a distortion of Sikh philosophy as taught by the gurus in the SGGS. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]Unlike you I have gone through every single statement made by you without picking and choosing which ones to address. You avoid many of my arguments and arrogantly dismiss them without a rebuttal. The quote from SGGS p365 M3 is just one such example. With one broad stroke you bury your head in the sand and arrogantly pontificate that [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green] Then according to your worldview this is compatible with logic and reason are NOT annihilated. I hope you got the point. If not, there is no hope for you and you are living in a make believe world – in cuckoo land. Like I said before, logic is a priori & it is undeniable for you cannot deny it without using it and you tie yourself up in epistemological knots. [/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/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