- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 54
Kullyji,
let us assume that the DG is not pushing Brahminism, kindly proceed to your next point.
Thank you
let us assume that the DG is not pushing Brahminism, kindly proceed to your next point.
Thank you
let us assume that the DG is not pushing Brahminism,
...good on you !I have been through more of this book and found another 2 references to Brahmans. One is a quote from DG, and the other reference is the same “Uttam jama Brahman ka”, where Chibber is saying that although he is born in the high caste of Brahman, known for its learning and knowledge, he is absolutely devoid of knowledge.
..confirmedChibber goes further on this and says that it was down to the Guru’s kirpa only that he has been able to write this book. Nowhere in the book has Chibber stated that he is proud of being a Brahman. He profusely states that he is a Sikh and has no other Guru except the Guru. He also repeatedly tells others to accept the Guru and follow the Guru’s teachings.
..I'll go along with what you're saying, pls continue ..It is complete nonsense to say that Chibber had some kind of Brahman agenda in writing this book, or that he had any kind of pride of being a Brahman. There is no suggestion of either at all in this book. Time and time again he says that his only refuge is at the Guru’s feet.
..hmn, "history" ? I think we have to be careful Kully Ji to call someone historian just because he's written books. I mean, loads n loads of writers from all over the planet have made brave efforts to base their work on primary n secondary sources, but nothing of the sort springs to mind that would deem it "good history" when it comes to Indian historians because there was no systematic use of sources and there were no accepted methodological principles. Accordingly, I'm obliged to interrogate to my hearts content whether Chibber be a reliable candidate ?It feels that some people have seized on Chibber’s being of Brahman caste to try and negate the valuable history that we find in his book. Can’t argue with the information being presented? Then try and discredit the person presenting the info.
..good !I agree that there is a distinction between spirituality and intellectual study.
..yes, pretty much dependent upon what the subject-matter is ! For example, the existence of God cannot be intellectually analysed. And, if you recall, it was for this reason, I once said to you whether questions of religious faith be susceptible to rational deliberations ?But intellectual study involves studying and analysing
...now this kind of literature throws up lot of questions; who is writing, is it Gobind the mortal man, Gobind the Guru or, is it the transcendent Gobind ?ਸ੍ਵੈਯਾ ॥
ਪਾਂਇ ਗਹੇ ਜਬ ਤੇ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਤਬ ਤੇ ਕੋਊ ਆਂਖ ਤਰੇ ਨਹੀ ਆਨਯੋ ॥ ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਅਨੇਕ ਕਹੈਂ ਮਤ ਏਕ ਨ ਮਾਨਯੋ ॥
O God ! the day when I caught hold of your feet, I do not bring anyone else under my sight; none other is liked by me now; the Puranas and the Quran try to know Thee by the names of Ram and Rahim and talk about you through several stories, but I do not accept them.
ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬੇਦ ਸਭੈ ਬਹੁ ਭੇਦ ਕਹੈ ਹਮ ਏਕ ਨ ਜਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਅਸਿਪਾਨ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਤੁਮਰੀ ਕਰਿ ਮੈ ਨ ਕਹਯੋ ਸਭ ਤੋਹਿ ਬਖਾਨਯੋ ॥੮੬੩॥
The Simritis, Shastras and Vedas describe several mysteries of yours, but I do not agree with any of them. O sword-wielder God! This all has been described by Thy Grace, what power can I have to write all this?.863.
..now this kind of literature throws up lot of questions; who is writing, is it Gobind the mortal man, Gobind the Guru or, is it the transcendent Gobind ?
..he was all three !Don't know. But would like to know what you think. What is your own thought on this?