Opinion Let Talk 'original' Sikhi & The Blind Studying Vision

[Original]

what would you call them?

..the "orphans" !

 

[Harry Haller]

so anyone that does not agree with what you perceive to be the correct understanding of Sikhism is, in effect, lost, correct?

 

[Original]

so anyone that does not agree with what you perceive to be the correct understanding of Sikhism is, in effect, lost, correct?

No, incorrect ! Let me explain:

You said: "so anyone that does not agree with what you perceive..."

I say: "I don't perceive, I translate* what the scriptures say"

You said: "...to be the correct understanding of Sikhism is, in effect, lost, correct?

I say: "..lost and orphans are poles apart, similarities for conclusive results will thus be invalid!"

Goodnight

* wider meaning

 

[Harry Haller]

where words have several meanings, you have to rely on your perception, we will have to agree to disagree

in that case define the word orphan in the context you have used,

g night johnboy

 

[sukhsingh]

Come on.. Let's all take a breath

 

[Original]

Sukh, I'm quite happy to pick up from posts #18/19 with a view to develop and sustain the case in point. Other interlocutors are equally invited and welcomed so that together, perhaps, the summit of intellectual realm is reached.

 

[sukhsingh]

Sukh, I'm quite happy to pick up from posts #18/19 with a view to develop and sustain the case in point. Other interlocutors are equally invited and welcomed so that together, perhaps, the summit of intellectual realm is reached.

Come on bro.. I for one went in feet first on this one.. The great thing about this forum is that we don't need be entrenched in our positions

 

[Harry Haller]

Sukh, I'm quite happy to pick up from posts #18/19 with a view to develop and sustain the case in point. Other interlocutors are equally invited and welcomed so that together, perhaps, the summit of intellectual realm is reached.

are you only able to debate with one person at a time? my apologies, Sukh, get in there boy!

 

[Original]

Come on bro.. I for one went in feet first on this one.. The great thing about this forum is that we don't need be entrenched in our positions

Sukh
Scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic theories:

1. General Theory of Relativity and,
2. Quantum Mechanics

They then applied these two theories to produce neuclear energy [electricity] and micro electronics [microwave in our kitchens], respectively. The facts speak for themselves.

But first, the scientists had to graduate to a required level of education about the sciences in particular. They were then to use these sciences to analyse the theories and apply them to give us the finished products. Similarly, is Sikh a science that will yield in abundance all the wants n wishes of human endeavours once studied and then applied, accordingly. Without it I'm afraid is like Plato once remarked "....wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something...".

You don't analyse Nanak's finds you "enjoy" Nanak's finds. But say you were to analyse them? First go n study them so that you know them in truth.

Love n Live young Sikh

 

[sukhsingh]

Sukh
Scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic theories:

1. General Theory of Relativity and,
2. Quantum Mechanics

They then applied these two theories to produce neuclear energy [electricity] and micro electronics [microwave in our kitchens], respectively. The facts speak for themselves.

But first, the scientists had to graduate to a required level of education about the sciences in particular. They were then to use these sciences to analyse the theories and apply them to give us the finished products. Similarly, is Sikh a science that will yield in abundance all the wants n wishes of human endeavours once studied and then applied, accordingly. Without it I'm afraid is like Plato once remarked "....wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something...".

You don't analyse Nanak's finds you "enjoy" Nanak's finds. But say you were to analyse them? First go n study them so that you know them in truth.

Love n Live young Sikh

It's a really nice and neat proposition but I'm afraid that I can't help but feel that you are conflating your assertion and making it analogous with the example you have provided..

First of all in your statement above you choose the word "similarly".. A interesting choice which in itself seems pretty innocuous and innocent but itself demonstrates and betrays your own subconscious attempt to find a relationship between two ideas..

Let's go back to the beginning..

Your original proposition was

Let's talk "original" Sikhi. The Sikhi that Nanak inspired and practiced where truth, beauty and goodness resided. Not your twenty first century "progressive" model advanced by new kids on the block [SPN]. Sorry, but their versions have an extremely short attention span and ponders to only a very narrow demographics within western socities. You can't understand the present without knowledge of its past, can you ? No !

First of all this statement is loaded with your own value judgements, you by definition are suggesting that a) you have a exclusive understanding of what 'guru nanak message was'

B) that you reject alternative narratives as some how corrupted, not based on any critical analysis but rather because you see it as a cultural flaw associated with modernism and the western world

C) you seem to suggest, (rather 'passive /aggressively' I should add) that there exists a model of thinking that you term 'progressive' and by insinuation is characterised by a shallowness, lack of depth by whomever it is you are raging against.. I for one think that a fundamental aspect of guru nanak ji teachings are based on humility and in my limited knowledge have always felt that he was able to challenge ignorance, highlight fallacy in logic/behaviour not by being so crude but by illustrating contradictions

..that's precisely my point ! You wouldn't know Original Sikhi without the knowledge of its essentials just as you wouldn't Marxism, without its theory, concept, method and analysis, soaked in Hegelian philosophy.

I can't help but feel that you are trying to bamboozle us by using this analogy.. To just expand upon your thoughts here.. Scholar's to this day have and continue to argue and explore the 'marxist' framework.. Probably the only thing two scholars could ever agree about Marxism is that one theme it addresses is the nature of a materialist economic social system..
So there for I would ask following your logic can you please define what pure Marxism is?

its not my opinion at all ! Sikh doctrinal is "absolutely" clear on the meaning/purpose of human birth and how liberation is its defining feature towards which all endeavours must be directed.

To just conclude can you please provide evidence of where sikh doctrine is absolutely clear or to be precise where guru nanak is absolutely clear about what that doctrine is..

I find particularly troubling your conflation about science and studying so that one can speak authoritatively.. Sounds like you are inadvertently making a case for the exclusivity of knowledge and therefore promoting brahmanism something that I thought guru nanak ji was very much against

 

[Harry Haller]

Sukh, I'm quite happy to pick up from posts #18/19 with a view to develop and sustain the case in point. Other interlocutors are equally invited and welcomed so that together, perhaps, the summit of intellectual realm is reached.

I'll stay out for a while I think, once you have answered Sukh's questions, then you can answer mine, GOOD LUCK!

 

[Original]

It's a really nice and neat proposition but I'm afraid that I can't help but feel that you are conflating your assertion and making it analogous with the example you have provided..

First of all in your statement above you choose the word "similarly".. A interesting choice which in itself seems pretty innocuous and innocent but itself demonstrates and betrays your own subconscious attempt to find a relationship between two ideas..

Let's go back to the beginning..

Your original proposition was

First of all this statement is loaded with your own value judgements, you by definition are suggesting that a) you have a exclusive understanding of what 'guru nanak message was'

B) that you reject alternative narratives as some how corrupted, not based on any critical analysis but rather because you see it as a cultural flaw associated with modernism and the western world

C) you seem to suggest, (rather 'passive /aggressively' I should add) that there exists a model of thinking that you term 'progressive' and by insinuation is characterised by a shallowness, lack of depth by whomever it is you are raging against.. I for one think that a fundamental aspect of guru nanak ji teachings are based on humility and in my limited knowledge have always felt that he was able to challenge ignorance, highlight fallacy in logic/behaviour not by being so crude but by illustrating contradictions



I can't help but feel that you are trying to bamboozle us by using this analogy.. To just expand upon your thoughts here.. Scholar's to this day have and continue to argue and explore the 'marxist' framework.. Probably the only thing two scholars could ever agree about Marxism is that one theme it addresses is the nature of a materialist economic social system..
So there for I would ask following your logic can you please define what pure Marxism is?



To just conclude can you please provide evidence of where sikh doctrine is absolutely clear or to be precise where guru nanak is absolutely clear about what that doctrine is..

I find particularly troubling your conflation about science and studying so that one can speak authoritatively.. Sounds like you are inadvertently making a case for the exclusivity of knowledge and therefore promoting brahmanism something that I thought guru nanak ji was very much against

Respected SPNrs

Good morning & welcome to 2018.

Sukh, the ebb n flow of my conveyance is to an end to show that debate, discussion, arguments can be had provided the subject matter is "known". For how can wheat be separated from sheaf if the actor separating the two doesn't know the difference between the two ? It is in this regard I say, knowledge of Sikh ideology, theory, distinctive vocabulary and conceptual toolkit is a prerequisite for any intellectual enquiry to yield conclusive or inconclusive results.

speak soon

Ps - apologies in advance for delayed reciprocity. Extremely busy planning diary dates for 2018 and then Im away to Anandpur Sahib for a short vacation.