Since I made my thoughts on the clear on SRM I find it curious that you choose to carry on the exchange and then finish by saying there is no point engaging..I can link you to the SGPC SRM, but you will reject it. Therefore, we have reached an impasse. Good luck to you.
I wonder how you have come to a conclusion that Dasam Granth is one amongst the first equals when even Akal Takhat has said that its veracity is under consideration and no further discussion be done on this.I've always understood the dasam Granth to be part of the sikh framework but I SGGS to be first amongst equals if you like?
Being a pedant and being aware of the sensitivities around this subject I believe I was careful to not draw any conclusions. Secondly there is a difference between, as you paraphrased, "first equals" and what I said.I wonder how you have come to a conclusion that Dasam Granth is one amongst the first equals when even Akal Takhat has said that its veracity is under consideration and no further discussion be done on this.
Let me be very clear and explicit. Do you reject the existence of a text, within sikh discourse, commonly known as the dasam Granth / Bachittar Natak?Please rephrase your question. Yours is a confirmation question rather than an information one where you are pretending to be Ms. Cleo, meaning you know the answer to my question. If that is the case then your question becomes irrelevant and rather argumentative. After you have done that, then I would love to respond to it. Thanks.
Just read your own post .How can I reject something that does not even exist? It used to be called BN before. I do not know if you know about that or not.
@sukhsingh ji,How can something that did not exist also "it used to be called..."
So the point is that it has it was historically referred to as Bachittar Natak and not Sri Dasam Granth..? Is this how hazuri Sikhs have always referred to it
Sukh Singh,Aman ji please indulge me.. Or correct me again .
Am blind to something I shouldn't be..
I genuinely am confused about the lack of engagement and explanation..
I can only apologise and ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt.. I did not think I was being belligerent . But if I was I apologise.. I felt like I was being open and honest about 'my understanding' of the topic and felt I was being quite rational. Although I accept that I may be mistaken in that..Sukh Singh,
To be honest, I stopped engaging with you after noticing you pounce at every little thing and feel offended for naught. This forum is the most open one in all aspects of life.
I also urged you to stop using one-liners as posts but rather put your thoughts in paragraphs as this is not a messaging app. You did not care and still continue the same.
When you decide to change your attitude, we can interact and learn from each other.
Please make an attempt to be an asset to yourself. Thanks.
Sukh Singh ji,I can only apologise and ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt.. I did not think I was being belligerent . But if I was I apologise.. I felt like I was being open and honest about 'my understanding' of the topic and felt I was being quite rational. Although I accept that I may be mistaken in that..
I do genuinely feel that my own questions were lost in the mix and were left open .. I genuinely am not here to rage against people but explore..
I can only share my understandings perspectives, rationale which inform me.. They may well be ill informed, in fact most probably are..
I come to this forum to learn to digest perspectives I have been exposed to, that does make me ignorant ..
Paji I can only but try and will with all humility endeavour to do soSukh Singh ji,
Let the bygones be bygones. No harm, no foul. A Sikh learns, unlearns and relearns with every breath till the last one. Please put your queries, doubts in paragraphs one by one so we can start anew. Let's start with number one and we will go to the next one after the interaction is exhausted for the first one.
What do you think?