☀️ 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
Gurmat Vichaar
Gurmat Vichar - Discussions
Video Of The Day - Kachi Bani - Dr Sukhpreet Singh Udhoke
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="Balbir27" data-source="post: 214590" data-attributes="member: 21905"><p>[USER=1]@Aman Singh[/USER] </p><p></p><p>Some things have been rankling me and I had to take the help of time in order to pin down the issues. Perhaps we can all discuss.</p><p></p><p>Respectfully, I think that I never stated that the two Internet sites were anything but “<em>sources</em>” <em>[something that supplies information- “the communication of knowledge or intelligence</em>”]. Information does not necessarily mean that it is true or false. To construe a source as a “resource” is beyond me.</p><p></p><p>Secondly, I believe that only 1 of the sources states [truthfully] that it derives its contents from Wikipedia. However, the 2 sources are simply a place where the “views” of individuals are being expressed, similar to SPN. So how does one prove reliability? Whose reliability and in what context? What is the basis of reliability? Some, on SPN simply give their own views unsupported by evidence or any reasonable, constructive explanation.</p><p></p><p>What exactly is “debatable”? Is it the source, is it the resource, is it the views, or is it the information? And, as <em>Original</em> said, are we debating the right subject?</p><p></p><p>SA is a site which “supplies” the views of various people, <em>like SPN</em>. In my view neither becomes a “resource”. And, therefore, neither can be absolutely relied upon to portray the truth. Perhaps I should have used the word “site” rather than “source”. My error, in that case.</p><p></p><p>The point being made was that there can be more than one POV, meaning one is obliged to look at <em>all</em> views [and resources] in order to form some opinion, which may <em>still</em> be biased because of life’s experiences. So, once again, what <em>is</em> reliability?</p><p></p><p>Could you say that one should be discouraged from looking at other sources? In which case the question arises – is the Truth being covered up? Is my Truth better than their Truth? Is it not entirely up to one’s own judgement to decide? Would you not accept that looking at different POVs actually stimulates the mind to ask questions, to seek validations and to explore further? Is that not what Sikhi is all about? I would not like to be one of the blind men trying to discover the truth of what is an elephant. Having been allocated 1 part (source), I would like to ask if there are other parts (sources) to explore? Would you not? I may possibly become a resource, having gained knowledge of all the parts.</p><p></p><p>I actually <em>revisited</em> SA, and found that to their credit, someone, on that page, further down, gave the exact translation of the Ladhaki letter referred to, matching the <em>source </em>given leading to a particular resource of information.</p><p></p><p>I was making a point that the authenticity of Sakhis is disputed (giving one Wiki source which gave <em>some</em> supporting evidence – that needed corroborating – which is why I posted that in this lifetime I would not be able to suss it out). The other source was simply the POVs from SA [apparently a competitor site].</p><p></p><p><u>Re: <span style="color: #b30059"><a href="https://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threads/janam-sakhi-are-true-events.617/" target="_blank">Janam Sakhi Are True Events</a></span></u></p><p></p><p>I faithfully went through the whole thread, simply because it was suggested to me, and I trusted, that the sign poster must know something that I don’t.</p><p></p><p>Believe me, it was a long convoluted journey which would test anybody’s patience and intellect. It was a mammoth task to try to separate the wheat from the chaff [as someone in the thread said].</p><p></p><p>In the end I was <strong>none the wiser</strong>. There was no concrete evidence provided for or against, regarding the central plank of the thread, that the Janam Sakhis are true events. Kindly correct me if I have missed something, for I am human after all.</p><p></p><p>Incidentally, I’m currently reading “<em>Guru Kian Saakhian</em>” (English translation by Prof. Pritpal Singh Bindra).</p><p></p><p>The introduction of the book includes “An Appraisal” by Dr Balwant Singh Dhillon and “An Introduction” by Pal Singh Purewal. The author simply provides the translation, but the other two, clearly <em>concede that there are controversies in dates and places</em> and give reasonable explanations.</p><p></p><p>The point here is that, regardless of which resource, in the source, one refers to, there appear to be endless controversies. So one may debate until the cows come home, the Earth destructs or the “Dream” ends, but one will not find the true answer. At least <em>I</em> feel I won’t.</p><p></p><p>What say you?</p><p></p><p>Sat Sri Akal</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balbir27, post: 214590, member: 21905"] [USER=1]@Aman Singh[/USER] Some things have been rankling me and I had to take the help of time in order to pin down the issues. Perhaps we can all discuss. Respectfully, I think that I never stated that the two Internet sites were anything but “[I]sources[/I]” [I][something that supplies information- “the communication of knowledge or intelligence[/I]”]. Information does not necessarily mean that it is true or false. To construe a source as a “resource” is beyond me. Secondly, I believe that only 1 of the sources states [truthfully] that it derives its contents from Wikipedia. However, the 2 sources are simply a place where the “views” of individuals are being expressed, similar to SPN. So how does one prove reliability? Whose reliability and in what context? What is the basis of reliability? Some, on SPN simply give their own views unsupported by evidence or any reasonable, constructive explanation. What exactly is “debatable”? Is it the source, is it the resource, is it the views, or is it the information? And, as [I]Original[/I] said, are we debating the right subject? SA is a site which “supplies” the views of various people, [I]like SPN[/I]. In my view neither becomes a “resource”. And, therefore, neither can be absolutely relied upon to portray the truth. Perhaps I should have used the word “site” rather than “source”. My error, in that case. The point being made was that there can be more than one POV, meaning one is obliged to look at [I]all[/I] views [and resources] in order to form some opinion, which may [I]still[/I] be biased because of life’s experiences. So, once again, what [I]is[/I] reliability? Could you say that one should be discouraged from looking at other sources? In which case the question arises – is the Truth being covered up? Is my Truth better than their Truth? Is it not entirely up to one’s own judgement to decide? Would you not accept that looking at different POVs actually stimulates the mind to ask questions, to seek validations and to explore further? Is that not what Sikhi is all about? I would not like to be one of the blind men trying to discover the truth of what is an elephant. Having been allocated 1 part (source), I would like to ask if there are other parts (sources) to explore? Would you not? I may possibly become a resource, having gained knowledge of all the parts. I actually [I]revisited[/I] SA, and found that to their credit, someone, on that page, further down, gave the exact translation of the Ladhaki letter referred to, matching the [I]source [/I]given leading to a particular resource of information. I was making a point that the authenticity of Sakhis is disputed (giving one Wiki source which gave [I]some[/I] supporting evidence – that needed corroborating – which is why I posted that in this lifetime I would not be able to suss it out). The other source was simply the POVs from SA [apparently a competitor site]. [U]Re: [COLOR=#b30059][URL="https://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threads/janam-sakhi-are-true-events.617/"]Janam Sakhi Are True Events[/URL][/COLOR][/U] I faithfully went through the whole thread, simply because it was suggested to me, and I trusted, that the sign poster must know something that I don’t. Believe me, it was a long convoluted journey which would test anybody’s patience and intellect. It was a mammoth task to try to separate the wheat from the chaff [as someone in the thread said]. In the end I was [B]none the wiser[/B]. There was no concrete evidence provided for or against, regarding the central plank of the thread, that the Janam Sakhis are true events. Kindly correct me if I have missed something, for I am human after all. Incidentally, I’m currently reading “[I]Guru Kian Saakhian[/I]” (English translation by Prof. Pritpal Singh Bindra). The introduction of the book includes “An Appraisal” by Dr Balwant Singh Dhillon and “An Introduction” by Pal Singh Purewal. The author simply provides the translation, but the other two, clearly [I]concede that there are controversies in dates and places[/I] and give reasonable explanations. The point here is that, regardless of which resource, in the source, one refers to, there appear to be endless controversies. So one may debate until the cows come home, the Earth destructs or the “Dream” ends, but one will not find the true answer. At least [I]I[/I] feel I won’t. What say you? Sat Sri Akal [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Gurmat Vichaar
Gurmat Vichar - Discussions
Video Of The Day - Kachi Bani - Dr Sukhpreet Singh Udhoke
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