Integrity And Honesty In Discussion

[Tejwant Singh]

Parma ji,

Guru Fateh.

="Parma, post: 210174, member: 4724"]I can only go by trying to understand its interpretation the actual factual evidence of how the literature is regarded as acknowledgement of authentication on the Guru ji's work I can only gain by trying to understand its context.

One can only gain by knowing, firstly its authentication in the same way we have about the SGGS, our only Guru. What would one understand what the author is trying to convey when one has no idea who the author is?

Any law that has ever been made or applied has been after human interaction

Would you care to elaborate what you mean by the above and how it is related to this?

and the Granth has literature more on actions then it does on the implementation of actions in its defence of being seen as a form of guidance on spiritual literature, (before actions(=Dasam Granth) comes feelings(= Guru Granth), (my few thoughts)

Sorry, need your help to comprehend the above part.

The rest I guess is for individual interpretation some individuals don't claim any benefit after reading the alphabet, is the glass full or empty that's for the reader to decide and how they perceive views.

Well, the interpretation is only valid after the authentication of DG as we are comparing in a way, DG and SGGS by taking them as par. The fact is we know the authors of the latter. The former is nothing but hearsay which may be fine with any other belief system but not for Sikhi.

No one reads the alphabets. We memorise them with their corresponding sounds, so we can use them to express ourselves in the languages of the alphabets. This has also nothing to do with the analogy of half full, half empty glass in my opinion.

Please elaborate your thoughts on this.

Thanks.

 

[Parma]

Parma ji,

Guru Fateh.


One can only gain by knowing, firstly its authentication in the same way we have about the SGGS, our only Guru. What would one understand what the author is trying to convey when one has no idea who the author is?

That can only I guess be taken into account when reading an entire book on who the author is if the author is disputed, I'm trying to understand it too. Having said that I am not defending a value mechanism. The Dasam Granth Stands as it does.

Would you care to elaborate what you mean by the above and how it is related to this?

Sorry, need your help to comprehend the above part.

Nothing quite simple really the Dasam Granth is being classified as a religious text of Sikhi and to add weight to the debate I can see how actions represent value to that idea at the end of the day the Guru Granth Sahib doesn't have a law system attributed to it like lets say the 10 commandments to administer Sikhs, I can understand that when it comes to the langar and so forth how these interwoven systems can have issues and problems this maybe taken into account as we had 10 Guru's rein acting the verse and values of mohabbat and yet no law mechanism and the Dasam Granths interpretation on human interactions however offensive are a sort of reimbursement of the point no point having a go I can only elaborate on what I find an intriguing subject matter as well.

Well, the interpretation is only valid after the authentication of DG as we are comparing in a way, DG and SGGS by taking them as par. The fact is we know the authors of the latter. The former is nothing but hearsay which may be fine with any other belief system but not for Sikhi.

That's fine if it really is just hearsay.

No one reads the alphabets. We memorise them with their corresponding sounds, so we can use them to express ourselves in the languages of the alphabets. This has also nothing to do with the analogy of half full, half empty glass in my opinion.

I cannot understand the above statement. My thoughts are quite clear in trying to state a message your writing as there is something for me to defend on this issue. I have no intention of disputing a alphabet or a teaching method. There could be a issue with trying to show self worth in this posting. God bless. My value is at nothing hope you can explain yourself more wisely to the sat sangat of the dispute on this. Waheguru ji ki khalsa, waheguru ji ki fathe.

Please elaborate your thoughts on this.

Thanks.

 

[Kully]

I accept SGGS as my puran Guru. It was a response to another post which asked if I did.

Certainly. Let me try it this way.

Queen Elizabeth has 3 sons, but only Prince Charles will be King. He will be the King of Britain. Does that mean that we need to have no recognition of Prince Andrew and Prince Edward?

If I were to acknowledge Princes Andrew and Edwards as the children of the Queen and therefore princes in their own right, would that be denigrating King Charles position?

In the same way, can't I say that DG being the writings of Guru Sahib is very important to me, without being accused of "abandoning SGGS, or "making DG on par with SGGS" or as has been stated above "not be content with Charles as King"?

Will I stop accepting KIng Charles as King?

I don't think anything is on a par with SGGS.

It seems from feedback that this forum has taken me to be an advocate of putting SGGS and DG on an equal par. I wish to state that I could never do this if my own Guru has stated it is not to be. I have never once called for DG to be shown the same reverence that SGGS has. I do not beleive in it. Nor have I ever called the DG by the title of Guru.

Hopefully the above quotes will make that clear where they should already have.

 

[Admin]

Bansawalinama In Regards To Dasam Granth

 

[Kully]

Bansawalinama In Regards To Dasam Granth

I don't understand.