@An Humble Creature
ਕੇਰਪਾ ਕਾਰਕੇ ਮੈਨੂ ਸਰ ਨਾਂ ਅਡਰੈਸ ਕਰੋਜੀ।
ਜੇ ਤੂਆਨੂ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਸੌਖੀ ਲਾਗਦੀ ਹੈ ਤਾ ਉਹੀ ਵਰਤੋਜੀ। (Apologies for any errors)
You addressed your answer to
@balbir singh. I’m sorry I do not know who that is. Perhaps you may wish to be more accurate in future to avoid confusion. There may be thousands with that name on this planet or on this forum. Accuracy, at least for me, is important. I assume however, that you actually
meant to address me,(if not please disregard), so here are my thoughts:
I seem to have touched something in you and hurt something really bad. For that, please accept my unreserved apologies for it is never my intention to hurt, but it is always my intention to
learn and correct and learn from my corrections. I could not be fairer to myself than that. I don’t know about anybody else.
You may wish to ponder on this - I remember, long ago, I had presented a case, in writing, to a barrister who had commented “it’s a dog’s dinner, is it not?” He then took great pains to decipher what I had written and presented it in such a way that it made communicative and legal sense to the Judge. Take heart from this. The expectation from him was that despite my having “qualifications”, my presentation did not seem to translate into the expected “legal” standard. The “essence” was there, but the communication was “atrocious” (terrible) or “a dog’s dinner” for him. So what is “atrocious” for somebody may be “flawless” for another. The reason, in my case, lay in the fact that our qualifications were in very different fields. However, I personally do not believe in qualifications. They are simply a means to an end and do not really show what that person really is. What
is more important is a person’s
thoughts and deeds. Those are the
true qualifications. I was born without any ABC or D after my name and I shall die without any such letters attached to me. I believe that the only “qualifications” that my God will be considering would be my “
thoughts and deeds” in the life I led. Maybe something more, but nothing less. I may be wrong, but that is my belief.
Aristotle actually used the word “animal” -
“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ” Is that what you meant?
My personal beliefs do not include any discrimination whatsoever regarding, caste, colour, height, width, weight, dress, education, wealth, poverty, religion etc. If anyone believes otherwise, then it is entirely a matter of their own opinion, howsoever derived.
You wrote about something that I allegedly possess - “
treasure of knowledge”. To me,
the more I learn, the less I seem to know and the more I realize how much I don’t know. So, I do not know what treasure you are referring to. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
You stated that you cannot “
dare to correct, admonish or enlighten”, me. Regardless if it is me or anyone else, the bottom line is that if you feel that someone is incorrect, rude or in the dark, then is it not your duty to correct, admonish or enlighten, as the case may be? Why do you feel that you cannot? That, I am unable to understand.
Thank you for enlightening me regarding the meaning of “Yachak”. Much appreciated.
I believe some people are awaiting your reply to some questions and issues that they have raised. Please do not let me distract you from your mission regarding “
social evil and social reform” and that you are “
concerned about decline population ratio of community, every where in world”.
Ek Oankar
Sat Sri Akal