Integrity And Honesty In Discussion

[Kully]

Do you wish to debate the point, or enter into a personal war of words with Harkiranji, if the former, get on with it, if the latter, take it to PM

I wish to debate this point (and others) firstly and only.

I do not wish to get into a war of words with anyone, but like I said, we have to be honest when we are discussing things. I know that Harkiran ji is big enough to accept this and I will not be bringing it up again myself. I have made my feelings clear on this already. If I do it will between Harkiran and myself.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Harkiran Ji, the post I made was deleted for some reason. It was not about the sources we have been discussing. It was about the Sikh Coalition article which you said they had been hounded and goaded into removing by members on another forum. By chance I happened to visit that forum and see that this was not the case. There was one member who brought it up and and also the reply from the Sikh Coalition.

At the time I read your post, I felt very upset about this, but even more upset that it turned out to be overblown and totally exaggerated by yourself. This is one of the reasons I started this topic.

We have to have integrity and be honest when posting here. We are all searching for the truth but we cannot base that search on mistruths. I think it was deleted (not sure why) before you had a chance to see it.

How can you say that when I never mentioned which forum it was? There are countless Sikh forums online! And I never said which. Nor have I ever said a name. There was a specific member on 'a' forum who said outright he personally was the one who went after sikh coalition to remove it. And other members applauded what he had accomplished. I am not after a forum or a specific member. Rather it's the implications that any group can steer a Sikh body into only posting things that give one sided beliefs.

I don't think it's anyone's business to make a Sikh educational body remove any piece of research by anyone just because they don't happen to agree. That's why I am upset that happened. His article had many well researched points that need to be pondered! Making Sikh coalition remove it because it hurts the sentiments of those who believe in DG is wrong. Just like staunch vegetarian Sikhs and let's say there is an article on how Gurbani doesn't actually say you must be fully vegetarian. I can name the verses myself. But if someone wrote an article on that and posted it on Sikh coalition the fully vegetarians then go and complain until Sikh coalition removes it? That is wrong. Everyone has rights to freedom of research and sharing what they learn especially in Sikhi. So it was wrong to force Sikh Coalition to remove that article. Just like many DG believers feel it's beadbi to suggest anything otherwise than it is Gurbani, the non DG believers consider it nindya to associate such crude and woman hating writing to our Guru. And both sides have the right to have a voice.

 

[Harry Haller]

I think it was deleted (not sure why) before you had a chance to see it.

it was off topic, as it clearly says, Kullyji

 

[Kully]

How can you say that when I never mentioned which forum it was? There are countless Sikh forums online!

Harkiran Ji, I know you never mentioned the forum, but there are only around 5-6 forums online. I was researching a recent topic on this site, which took me there.

There was a specific member on 'a' forum who said outright he personally was the one who went after sikh coalition to remove it.

There was a member who said he had emailed the SC to ask why the article was there, as it had nothing to do with the aim of SC which is to help Sikhs in the USA in any interaction/altercation with the US govt departments/bodies/institutions. I have read that members post, but you portrayed it as the SC being goaded and hounded by individuals on that forum. But it was only ONE person who sent ONE email and had a reply to it from the SC. The member says that the SC agreed and removed it. You said that the SC did it to keep the peace, which again was misleading.

And other members applauded what he had accomplished.

Again, there was ONE person who agreed with him. But you claimed there were members applauding.

Any future discussion on this Harkiran Ji, we can do it over the PM if you wsh.

it was off topic, as it clearly says, Kullyji

Harry Haller, many apologies, just realised you are an admin here. I thought that it was very on topic as the topic is about being honest and having integrity when posting. I used it as an example of how we shouldn't be misleading each other.

We all, in contributing to this forum have to remember that we are setting standards for future members to come here, learn, enjoy and discuss but if we stray from that, then who will want to come here? If a member tells some mistruths people will wonder what to believe.

That was one of the reasons why this topic is so important.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Harkiran Ji, I know you never mentioned the forum, but there are only around 5-6 forums online. I was researching a recent topic on this site, which took me there.

--- sure you were. I have suspicions that you are actually a member from one in particular where I was brutalized, and came here just to cause trouble. Your agenda is apparent. You came here two months ago claiming to have very little knowledge of DG at all and now two months later you all of a sudden proclaim to know more than the rest of us, and are on a one man crusade to prove it's Guru Ji's work. Nobody becomes THAT vested in a piece of writing they hardly knew about only two months prior!

There was a member who said he had emailed the SC to ask why the article was there, as it had nothing to do with the aim of SC which is to help Sikhs in the USA in any interaction/altercation with the US govt departments/bodies/institutions. I have read that members post, but you portrayed it as the SC being goaded and hounded by individuals on that forum. But it was only ONE person who sent ONE email and had a reply to it from the SC. The member says that the SC agreed and removed it. You said that the SC did it to keep the peace, which again was misleading.

--- Again, you are assuming we are talking about the same site. Maybe that person posted on several sites. I don't think I read the post you are talking about. The wording was very different on the post I read which involved abundant usage of words like 'guru nindaks' etc. (and I am having trouble even finding it again on the forum I originally saw it - so suuuuuure you just 'happened' across it?? LOL) Without knowing which site you went to however, I can't comment.

Again, there was ONE person who agreed with him. But you claimed there were members applauding.

--- I don't think we are talking about the same forum (though possibly we are talking about the same member). Just like I have been on several sites, I am sure its quite likely they have been as well.

 

[Original]

Can someone nail this guy to "one" post ! I'm touched with what he has to say and would like to hear more.

Regards

 

[Kully]

Your agenda is apparent.

My agenda is to learn and discuss.

You came here two months ago claiming to have very little knowledge of DG at all

I still have very little knowledge of DG.

Nobody becomes THAT vested in a piece of writing they hardly knew about only two months prior!

Vested? Thanks for the support, but like I said I don't have much knowledge on DG.

and now two months later you all of a sudden proclaim to know more than the rest of us, and are on a one man crusade to prove it's Guru Ji's work

I never said I know more than anyone. I have read others views and added my own. That is what a forum is about isn't it? But please do not insult truly knowledgeable people by saying that I have some knowledge of DG.

 

[Kully]

--- sure you were. I have suspicions that you are actually a member from one in particular where I was brutalized, and came here just to cause trouble. Your agenda is apparent. You came here two months ago claiming to have very little knowledge of DG at all and now two months later you all of a sudden proclaim to know more than the rest of us, and are on a one man crusade to prove it's Guru Ji's work. Nobody becomes THAT vested in a piece of writing they hardly knew about only two months prior!



--- Again, you are assuming we are talking about the same site. Maybe that person posted on several sites. I don't think I read the post you are talking about. The wording was very different on the post I read which involved abundant usage of words like 'guru nindaks' etc. (and I am having trouble even finding it again on the forum I originally saw it - so suuuuuure you just 'happened' across it?? LOL) Without knowing which site you went to however, I can't comment.



--- I don't think we are talking about the same forum (though possibly we are talking about the same member). Just like I have been on several sites, I am sure its quite likely they have been as well.

Do you want to continue this over PM ? I have said pretty much all I wanted to say on it regarding this topic publically.

 

[japjisahib04]

No, SGGS is complete to be sachiar. But sachiar is is only half of the Miri Piri of Gurmat. We have to balance sachiar by Miri. That is where DG plays a part.

So far I have seen this copy of so called DG only confuses, distorts sachiar part even. The author did not had knowledge that as per ideology of SGGS without parents there is no child but DG contradicts and says, 'ਪਉੜੀ ॥ ਸੂਰੀ ਸੰਘਰਿ ਰਚਿਆ ਢੋਲ ਸੰਖ ਨਗਾਰੇ ਵਾਇ ਕੈ ॥ ਚੰਡ ਚਿਤਾਰੀ ਕਾਲਕਾ ਮਨ ਬਾਹਲਾ ਰੋਸ ਬਢਾਇ ਕੈ ॥ ਨਿਕਲੀ ਮੱਥਾ ਫੋੜਿ ਕੈ ਜਨ ਫਤੇ ਨੀਸਾਣ ਬਜਾਇ ਕੈ ॥ ਜਾਗ ਸੁ ਜੰਮੀ ਜੁੱਧ ਨੂੰ ਜਰਵਾਣਾ ਜਣ ਮਰੜਾਇ ਕੈ ॥... ਪੰਨਾ ੩੧੭. So let us first talk of tobe truthful

 

[japjisahib04]

Guru Nanak's test was for the best Sikh. Unless I'm wrong I haven't heard of the UK Monarchy conducting any such tests for their next inheritor of the throne. I hope this clears your doubts.

But you have brought DG at par SGGS without proving that it is meant for equality, humanity.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

But you have brought DG at par SGGS without proving that it is meant for equality, humanity.

How can it be for equality when it tells men to distrust women, and says wives should do nothing in life without their husbands permission, even going to washroom!? How can it be for equality when it says that God regretted creating the female gender? How can it be for equality when it condemns a woman who was a victim of 'severe beating' and calls her the lowest because she fought back in self defence, however the beating is not even mentioned let alone condemned (as if it's just an insignificant part of the story (you know like walking in the park)?? How can it be for equality when it depicts women as being so filled with lust that we will do anything to sha-g a man, even kill for it? Plus much much more.

If it was for equality, where are the stories depicting men in the same light as above? Where are the moral messages telling women to never trust any men even their own husbands? If it was for equality where are the messages saying men should have to ask their wives for permission to go potty? Where does it say that God regretted creating men?

 

[Original]

Dear All - beautiful Sunday morning !

Justice must be done. Kully Ji must be given the opportunity to make his case and distinguish the facts in issue from facts in controversy. In my view he should be given the opportunity to be heard. Contents of the subject matter are not an issue, however, if some of us view the contents as an issue and want to base their reasoning upon them to determine authenticity, then a separate claim should be made supported by credible evidence.

Kully Ji, kindly attend to QA so that clarification on my part be sought to swiftly move forward with adjudication.

Many thanks

 

[Harry Haller]

Justice must be done. Kully Ji must be given the opportunity to make his case and distinguish the facts in issue from facts in controversy. In my view he should be given the opportunity to be heard. Contents of the subject matter are not an issue, however, if some of us view the contents as an issue and want to base their reasoning upon them to determine authenticity, then a separate claim should be made supported by credible evidence.

Kully Ji, kindly attend to QA so that clarification on my part be sought to swiftly move forward with adjudication.

No one is censoring Kullyji, he has never been denied the opportunity to be heard, however, this is not a playground for score settling, it is a forum, not Coronation Street, keep to the facts, keep it tight and cool, it makes good reading for everyone, descending into personal attacks and issues will always end up in deletion.

 

[Ishna]

descending into personal attacks and issues will always end up in deletion.

This 10000x. This is the biggest issue recently.

 

[Kully]

But you have brought DG at par SGGS

I haven't. The Khalsa Panth did so, 200 years before I even got round to learning about it.

How can it be for equality.....

Harkiran Ji, why do we have to cover the same ground in more or less every post/topic?

I have asked you very politely, several times, to start topics on the particular charitars you are posting selective quotes from.

What are you achieving by posting the same info over and over? Does it get you closer to the meaning or understanding of what is being discussed, or its it just a way of prolonging this merry-go-round so that eventually the core questions are not discussed ?

 

[Kully]

So far I have seen this copy of so called DG only confuses, distorts sachiar part even.

DG does not distort, it's our own undertstanding that has shortomings in which we see what we want to see.

The author did not had knowledge that as per ideology of SGGS without parents there is no child but DG contradicts and says, 'ਪਉੜੀ ॥ ਸੂਰੀ ਸੰਘਰਿ ਰਚਿਆ ਢੋਲ ਸੰਖ ਨਗਾਰੇ ਵਾਇ ਕੈ ॥ ਚੰਡ ਚਿਤਾਰੀ ਕਾਲਕਾ ਮਨ ਬਾਹਲਾ ਰੋਸ ਬਢਾਇ ਕੈ ॥ ਨਿਕਲੀ ਮੱਥਾ ਫੋੜਿ ਕੈ ਜਨ ਫਤੇ ਨੀਸਾਣ ਬਜਾਇ ਕੈ ॥ ਜਾਗ ਸੁ ਜੰਮੀ ਜੁੱਧ ਨੂੰ ਜਰਵਾਣਾ ਜਣ ਮਰੜਾਇ ਕੈ ॥... ਪੰਨਾ ੩੧੭. So let us first talk of tobe truthful

The only distortion I see here is yours. The quote that you have selectively shared is pertaining to one of the Chandi Banis, which are based on the existing Chandi Purans. Guru Sahib has just translated what was written there already.

 

[japjisahib04]

The quote that you have selectively shared is pertaining to one of the Chandi Banis, which are based on the existing Chandi Purans. Guru Sahib has just translated what was written there already.

So you admit chandi puran is not dhur ki baani but merely a translation of dismissed and rejected mythology by gurbani and guru sahib had no other job but to entertain himself by translating this dismissed stories and you are blindly propagating these as guru's word. In similar way charitar 108 also contradict ideology by SGGS by stating, 'ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥
ਏਕ ਦਿਵਸ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਪਿਲ ਮੁਨਿ ਇਕ ਠਾ ਕਿਯੋ ਪਯਾਨ ॥ ਹੇਰਿ ਅਪਸਰਾ ਬਸਿ ਭਯੋ ਸੋ ਤੁਮ ਸੁਨਹੁ ਸੁਜਾਨ ॥੧॥ ਰੰਭਾ ਨਾਮਾ ਅਪਸਰਾ ਤਾ ਕੋ ਰੂਪ ਨਿਹਾਰਿ ॥ ਮੁਨਿ ਕੋ ਗਿਰਿਯੋ ਤੁਰਤ ਹੀ ਬੀਰਜ ਭੂਮਿ ਮਝਾਰ ॥੨॥ ਗਿਰਿਯੋ ਰੇਤਿ ਮੁਨਿ ਕੇ ਜਬੈ ਰੰਭਾ ਰਹਿਯੋ ਅਧਾਨ ॥ ਡਾਰਿ ਸਿੰਧੁ ਸਰਿਤਾ ਤਿਸੈ ਸੁਰ ਪੁਰ ਕਰਿਯੋ ਪਯਾਨ ॥੩॥ that a lady could become pregnant by remote control. Please note with the invent of internet and awareness, this small group who is undermining and are all bent on humiliating the logical dhur kee bani will soon be exposed.

 

[swarn bains]

Either you are teasing the scholars, toying with them or you are mentally unstable. Which one?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

The only distortion I see here is yours. The quote that you have selectively shared is pertaining to one of the Chandi Banis, which are based on the existing Chandi Purans. Guru Sahib has just translated what was written there already.

So you admit that is just a translation? That it is NOT Guru Ji's word? But you will still say Charitropakhyan IS from our Guru and not a translation?

Please tell us, Why would Guru Gobind Singh Ji bother to translate for us his Sikhs, beliefs from other ideologies which were already rejected right from the time of Guru Nanak Dev Ji?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I have asked you very politely, several times, to start topics on the particular charitars you are posting selective quotes from.

It would be inappropriate to discuss the individual charitars in full because this site is accessible to minors.

And also you are the one who keeps saying the story must be taken over all as a theme because of the background story of the king and advisor. Therefore the message must be general throughout and common in all the stories. That theme that just jumps right out - is that women are not to be trusted and are deceitful and lustful and will stop at nothing to get what (who) they want. This is apparent because the advisor is trying to convince the king to not trust his new wife - and hence stop the execution of his son. The damage is that the message to all men is to never trust any woman even their own wives.