Christianity Many Christians Believe That Jesus Is God. What Does Sikhism Say About It?

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh


Brother Jass Singh Ji,

It is interpetations of tauts of faith who want that the belivers follow them and not God that they do contradicitory interpetations of holy scriptures.

Das here is talking about Holy Vedas,Holy Bible,Holy Kuran and Gurmat.

There are many realtive terms which defince absolutes one ie God's glory.

People fight on those false relative terms which are decayable.

May lord God have mercy on us,Who is,Who was and Who is to come,the Omega(Omkar or Oankar or Othkarkh) and Alpha(Athkarkh).

In New Testment people take this thing lightly but as Sikh das can say this means that God created within all and will take all back within.

Yuo may say das is wrong as per few interpetations but this is at per with sturdt state theroy which was there in revealations much more before it was hypothicated.

Never deem Saints /Apostals less then present day sceintist.

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Dear Balbeer Singh Ji,

The acatual Old Testment is in Hebrow and New Testment is in Greek and Aramic.

It is there that with in Jews(with orders like chabad pronunce khabath),Christians and Muslims there are both interfaith and intrafaith differances about thier translations and well as explantions.

So say person like Martin Luther may be wrong and Catholics and Orthodox or say Yehowa witness can be correct.This just a statement of das.

But it is mark of evil ear that more differance are there in the name of faith itself.(Kalki Avtar,Dasham Granth).

 

[ISDhillon]

Jass Singh Ji

”Maybe you can convert your high fluting unintelligible lingo into an understandable argument”.

Maybe you should try your hand in plain and simple terms instead of the usual pseudo-scholorary sentences which are laced with false merriment and jovial lamentation. My words are easily understandable perhaps there is an element of denial in your framework of logic.


“My dear misguided friend what exactly is that rightful place and how do you know you have accomplished it? What arrogance disguised as selfless sewa and then you have the audacity to say that you write with humility! You are so humble that you have to blow your own trumpet and tell everyone.”

You have not been able to answer any of my questions but instead repeat the same pattern of the unequivocal “need” for a reasoned argument, religion in Sikh terms has a purpose which has a definition all of its own and that is self-realisation your arguments are shrivel in the wake of that. We have been through this before and those who live their lives on false pre-suppositions not only repeat history in their thought ,conduct and society, but also are condemned to rebirth.



“BTW I never said that the Holy Bible was a book of personal opinions. It is the Word of the Living God! ….If that is the case you need to start a new thread on the historicity of the New Testament. “

You don’t need to say it, the whole of the world knows this to be true doing a study on the historicity of the bible will not change our minds a scripture is only true when written by truth, and the flesh is never the living god only word can be that, since the flesh is creation and not creator, but due to personal opinion the contrary is true in Christian circles, hail the literary idol!!. The muslims have changed their belief too I was watching a sermon by a new preacher which I like to call "the greatest stand up comedy in the world" called Dr Zakir Naik he has now changed the revelation of Koran from an indirect message, that was received to mohammed(pbuh) via an angel Gabrielle, when people argued that the revelation is indirect as it came from an angel the Islamic scholars evolved their doctrine and now we are lead to believe that the angel Gabrielle has allahs rooh/soul, this is all incorrect. When a scripture is direct revelation it will awaken your soul like kirtan does, now the muslims scholars will post on many websites about the surahs being perfect and no-one can right a surah like it, but tell me can anyone in this whole cosmos write a mool mantar that can awaken your soul does any scripture on this earth have the same spiritual majesty. No way!!!!

You have at one point stated to one of the participants that because the worldview is different in religions then they cannot all be true, this is a problem with having a pope, when they write books like this then the rest of you follow suit and stop thinking for yourselves, this is why we have conflict in the world, totalitarian worldviews cause the conflict then sit back and say “see this is why we cant live together” but you create the reality yourselves, there is a truth in all religions but fear and the need for power has blinded this. It certainly will not be discovered through partisan religious politics.


”I will not waste time with the rest of your post which is equally unintelligible due to extremely imprecise and ungrammatical constructions. “

Another comment which adds no food for thought but instead suggests that you have been consuming more than your fair share of the blood.:u):

Inderjit Singh Dhillon

 

[Jass Singh]

Inderjit

In case you are not aware, the topic of this thread is the deity of Jesus. Please read my earlier posts on this thread to get the context of this discussion and my arguments for the deity of Jesus. If you want to make the point that the New Testament is not historically reliable then as requested in my last post please start a new thread and I will be more than happy to answer your objections. By introducing various Red Herrings such as Islam & the mystical, nebulous & undefined concept of “self realization” you very deftly avoid the confronting the issues. These Red Herrings are not the topic of this particular discussion. BTW if you introduce loaded terminology such as “self-realization” it is crucial to rigorously define the new terms otherwise it is pointless for you leave the reader to try to read your mind and guess what you mean.

You write:

You have not been able to answer any of my questions

My dear brother, there is nothing for me to respond to because your posts are unintelligible, with ambiguous and incoherent grammatical constructions. When you are able to articulate your questions accurately in logically coherent intelligible precise English I will respond. Commitment to details, clarity and precision is essential to articulate one’s position accurately to avoid any misunderstanding or ambiguity and have a meaningful discussion by presenting logical propositions/arguments. Logic/reason is unavoidable for once you open your mouth & speak or start writing it cannot be avoided. Language by its very nature involves logic/reason.

When you are able to articulate your position we can dialogue i.e. if you honestly & sincerely want to dialogue and communicate & exchange views. To generate light (& not heat) & make it a positive experience it is essential that you completely dissociate yourself from your deepest convictions and beliefs and listen to the other person's point of view without bias or prejudice. I do not see this in your posts. This is because it is not easy to divorce oneself from one's deepest convictions and be impartial and not biased or prejudiced. Try to keep this in mind so that we can have a meaningful & fruitful exchange. And do not resort to ad hominem attacks. Also grow out of the infantile & insulting use of icons and behave like an adult or should I say a mature Sikh. It does not do much for your credibility.

Jass Singh

 

[ISDhillon]

Jass singh Ji,

I have read quite a bit of what you personally think on this and many other websites but you know my worldview and therefore it is futile to think I am going to agree with your style of debate, You have at places referred to the need for a reasoned debate this is a farce that attempts to subliminally usher a paradigm shift in our way of thinking, we are not here for that we are here to show how our philosophy and paradigm is incompatible with the claim for divinity of Christ, from all your posts to date they have all been your personal opinion of somebody else’s personal opinion but you have the audacity to ask me how I can prove someone’s personal opinion is true or false, the whole of Christianity is based on living in hope that you are right, there is no proof whatsoever, Jesus Christ never wrote down that he was god, I too could write a book about a mythical character from history but ultimately it would remain a myth like the candy man or snow white.

A part of interfaith dialogue requires for their to be an ounce of empathy, that you can dip your toe in the water of Sikhism but not become engulfed by it, in that sense you will therefore understand that flesh cannot be god, you all take the blood of Christ and the bread to form the flesh, and as such you symbolically form the body of Christ therefore the flesh is the object of your worship and your soul is some thing static that has no purpose, Sikhism is incompatible with this type of belief we believe it is bani that is god not the gurus body the body is a vehicle, we could accept the divinity of Christ if he had wrote a book himself but he did not therefore the bible is nothing but an unauthorised biography. And to be honest a lot of stuff in the bible is outrageous to me personally therefore I can never accept it as truth. This is because of changing society or shall I say evolution of society, god would not have ordained the writing of such things I can therefore only conclude it to be a scriptural misfit in the religious scheme of things – this is just my personal opinion it is not meant to offend you but I feel I need to make that statement.

There a lot of converts from the lower strata of caste society in India which have embraced your faith and they always tell me that they converted because Jesus is god and then say that they are true lions and princesses, but as you delve deeper into the true meaning of their newfound faith it becomes apparent that their sovereignty is in being spared from cleaning the village drains and the removal of cow dung as harsh as this may sound it is true I stayed 2 months in India and saw that this was the case.

Moving on with the discussion you then go on in one post to say that the gurus never claimed divinity and sidetrack the point in Sikhism that god does not take birth but it is infact the word which is god not the flesh which is an anit-sikh principle therefore will not ever be viable (god is all powerful spirit who creates all flesh and imbibes all flesh he never needs to become apparent in a human form cos he pervades me also its just I am operating in dualism and so too were those who wrote the bible that is why there are so many mistakes in the bible)and there are countless references to that in sggs and no I do not care for hermeneutics’, you cannot set the rules for religious interpretation then expect all to jump on the same bandwagon, the rules of interpretation are subject to your scripture so we will let your scripture defined by them. IN SIKHISM WE ALL HAVE THE SAME ESSENCE OF GOD AND THE OBJECTIVE OF OUR RELIGION IS TO REALISE THE ESSENCE NOT DENY ITS EXISTENCE.

I will look forward for some good answers and hard proof rather than eyewitness accounts etc, you see our guru gave a formal investiture to the Sikh scripture to be the living word of god unfortunately your faith does not claim the same and we need more if we are going to take your opinions as being credible.

Inderjit Singh Dhillon

 

[Jass Singh]

Inderjitji

Finally you come down to earth & start using understandable language. Your excuse about paradigm shifts is a lame excuse to avoid logical argumentation & the normal rules of debate. It is what is termed an ARGUMENT STOPPERS [ways of avoiding reasoning] which is a verbal response to argumentation that is intended to have the effect of ENDING RATIONAL debate in its tracks. In effect you are saying “I’m not going to even consider what you have to say. It is hypocritical bias and prejudice to the nth degree.

Because you deny logic & reason yet use it, you do not have a credible position. You seem to think that the use of reason & logic is somehow a paradigm shift from the teachings of Sikhism. Yet you are blind to the fact that in trying to prove your worldview is correct & mine is wrong you are unwittingly & unconsciously using the very basic principle of logic – the law of non-contradiction. (The Law of non-contradiction is the law that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context.) It is either your view or my view, not both. You are saying that a view (e.g A) and its contradictory (not-A) cannot be simultaneously true. You cannot deny that this is in fact what you are doing. In contradicting your worldview that does not allow you to use logic you cut off the branch on which you are sitting & commit intellectual suicide. Why are you even trying to prove anything if you truly do not believe the law of non contradiction?

Harry Gensler, in Formal Ethics, p.36 offers an amusing dialogue between two Hegelians:

A: Are you still a follower of Hegel?

B: Of course! I believe everything he wrote. Since he denied the law of noncontradiction, I deny this too. On my view, P is entirely compatible with not-P.

A: I'm a fan of Hegel myself. But he didn't deny the law of noncontradiction! You read the wrong commentators!

B: You're wrong, he did deny this! Let me get my copy of The Science of Logic.

A: Don't get so upset! You said that he did deny the law, and I said that he didn't. Aren't these compatible on your view? After all, you think that P is compatible with not-P.

B: Yes, I guess they're compatible.

A: No they aren't!

B: Yes they are!

A: Don't get so upset! You said that they are compatible, and I said that they aren't. Aren't these two compatible on your view? Recall that you think that P is compatible with not-P.

B: Yes, I guess they're compatible. I'm getting confused.

A: And you're also not getting confused, right?

Similarly in your contradictory world where the laws of logic do not apply and P is compatible with not-P it does not matter whether Jesus claimed deity or not. After all Jesus is God is compatible with Jesus is not God & you are wasting your time even discussing it. From now on I shall assume that since you are on this discussion forum, then the use of the laws of logic will not be questioned by you. If you can confirm this in the affirmative, I will reply to your objections about the deity of Christ. If you are unwilling to confirm your acceptance of the laws of logic you really have NOTHING to say.

And if you are serious about your questions & objections about the reliability of the Bible & the historicity of the New Testament why have you not started a new thread so that I can reply? On this particular thread, I refuse to be side tracked from the topic of discussion by your red herrings.

Jass Singh

 

[ISDhillon]

Jass Singh Ji

“Your excuse about paradigm shifts is a lame excuse to avoid logical argumentation & the normal rules of debate”

This did initially humour me I wish I could write down why but I feel bad to say it cos I think we are starting to be more cordial with one another. The problem with this is that you first ask us to comment on what Sikhs think of the deity of Jesus but this can only be done by our own religious paradigm because otherwise what you are doing is in fact denying the sovereignty of our philosophy, you can give it whatever salad dressing you like I will not be perturbed from following through with my perspective from my understanding of Sikhism and I would request all others to follow suit. You have behaved incredibly immaturely because what you are in fact saying is “why don’t you want to play by my rules” because your “normal” rules for some reason are alien to me. And you are quite correct when you say I have used intellect but only insofar as portraying the death of intellect so the law of contradiction does not apply I am openly stating that I am using my logic to tell you that my logic is wrong and you know my position on this we have this discussion before from our previous encounters please provide me with solid evidence that the essay on the Sikh doctrine “breaks down” I think you will find that it actually doesn’t but the foundation of logic and reason are annihilated, and finally the Sikh god defies contradiction he can be and not be at the same time, contradiction is his creation (transcendental phenomenon) also these laws don’t mean squat and anyone with a single brain cell could tell you that they come from those who are operating in dualism.

You then venture into starting the “new topic territory” which you are quite notorious for but sneakily sidetrack the fact that if the bible is claiming divinity of Christ then surely we must initially look at the bible as being reliable the reliability of the bible is very much central to any topic on Christianity my friend it is the platform from which church is built. Now again you have not answered my questions quite a lot of them from the previous posts and I will continue to answer all your assertions as vague as they may be and then will push you to answer mine, you must be able to defend your faith if you are to be taken seriously on this forum, genuiness is not a systematic rebuttal of your own personal opinion but a knowledge that will enlighten and inspire us to see the light and to date we are no more brighter to these Christian claims than when this post was first started.

I look forward to hearing from you but this time try answering some of my questions just have a quick look back through this thread.

Inderjit Singh Dhillon

 

[Jass Singh]

Inderjitji

I do not want to hurt your self esteem but I am forced to call a spade a spade. Unlike you I do not find it at all amusing.

I. Logic:
Because of your philosophical & theological naivety you do not seem to understand nor appreciate the fact that if you are using language you are using the laws of logic - if you are communicating something intelligible you are in fact using the laws of logic. If you really believe and want to be true & consistent with the worldview that

logic and reason are annihilated

your only choice is to shut up & stop all verbal & written communication. Your very communications in this discussion forum cuts the very branch on which you are sitting – your arguments self destruct for you discard rationality by stating that in your worldview

logic and reason are annihilated.

Yet you say:

please provide me with solid evidence that the essay on the Sikh doctrine “breaks down.”

And how do you expect me to do that without grammatically coherent language & the laws of logic which are inherent in communication? You cannot have your cake and eat it. The fact is that your so called worldview is fallacious for you cannot live it in reality – you cannot do without rationality & the laws of logic – you use them all the time. To deny this is to live in a philosophical cuckoo land. You try to wriggle out by saying:

I have used intellect but only insofar as portraying the death of intellect so the law of contradiction does not apply

This shows your utter ignorance of the nature of logic. How can you portray the death of intellect when you are forced to use the laws of logic to do so? You do not have this freedom to use the laws of logic if you are claiming that logic and reason are annihilated. BTW to enlighten you, neither you nor anyone else can annihilate the laws of logic. Without going deeply into the ontological status of the laws of logic, I will point out that they are non-spatial and timeless (transcendent) realities.

You have naively bought into a certain philosophical perspective lock stock & barrel without the knowledge base & intellectual sophistication to see the glaring flaws. Your worldview as embodied in the books “The Doctrine & Dynamics of Sikhism” & “The Sovereignty of the Sikh Doctrine” both by Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia is grossly flawed. The attempt by this author to reinterpret Sikhism via Hegelian metaphysics is laughable. If you read the books carefully you will see that the author states that “Sikhism is NOT THE FINAL WORD, only the best so far.” If it is not the final word, why should anybody take it seriously? This is his Achilles heal which destroys anything that he might have to say about Sikhism. The author in fact destroys Sikhism by RECONSTRUCTING it in the western mold of Hegelianism. He is trying to make Sikhism palatable to intellectuals but in the process destroys Sikhism. It certainly is not the Sikhism of the SGGS & the Sikh gurus who highly prized the intellect. The author is also confused epistemologically but I shall not go into that. The sad part is that you have been hoodwinked into taking it as absolute truth. Since you are not trained in philosophy you will not appreciate nor understand the profundity of what I have just explained and its vast ramifications. Your next response will make it self evident whether you are serious about me providing you:

with solid evidence that the essay on the Sikh doctrine “breaks down.”

BTW this request proves that I am not asking you to make any paradigm shift for you are already on my paradigm – you cannot live without the paradigm of logic for you consistently smuggle in the laws of logic and are in fact requesting that I use them to provide evidence.

I suggest you read “Reason & Revelation in Sikhism” by Gurnam Kaur. I did suggest it before but you probably did not bother to get a copy & read it. It is a very well written book but be prepared for many definitions as well as exposition of relevant passages of SGGS. It also has an excellent section on avatar as well as chapters on the Nature of Reason in Sikhism, kinds of Knowledge, the role of Reason in Sikhism, and the nature of Revelation (and indirectly authority). It will correct your unbalanced and incorrect view of the intellect as per the teachings of the SGGS. Your (inconsistent) view on logic and reason is contrary to the teaching of the SGGS and the Sikh gurus.

Dr. Gurnam Kaur reader of SGGS Studies, Punjab University, Patiala writes:
"In Sikhism, reason has been considered the source of knowledge. Reason, has been applied for the philosophical criticism of the prevalent philosophical and religious notions, traditions, customs and concepts? Both inductive (agman) and deductive (nigman) reasoning has been used for this purpose."
(Page 6, REASON AND REVELATION IN SIKHISM).

Then on page 7 she gives examples from the SGGS and ends with,
"Reason is used in the above arguments to dispel ignorance and superstition."

But here’s juts one quote for you to ponder:


“har kai bhaanai janam padaarath paa-i-aa mat ootam ho-ee.
By the Pleasure of the Lord's Will, the prize of this human birth is obtained, and the intellect is exalted.” (SGGS p365 M3)


Just do a word search of the SGGS for the word “true” & “truth.” You cannot have truth without the laws of logic. In fact, if you cannot apply logic you have to do away with the SGGS altogether because the SGGS consists of linguistic propositional statements claiming to be the truth about God and reality.Logic is a priori not subjective mysticism. Most Sikhs like people of other faiths believe in their religion and scriptures merely because they are born into it and for no other reason. The faith of most people in the world is not a reasoned faith. It is usually a faith in faith (FIDEISM) based on what feels good. Most people are not truly interested in investing their time and energy to find true knowledge. They do not think through their belief system. Some of them like you throw out the intellect altogether, something that none of the gurus would even think of doing. Because it is not based on anything objectively verifiable, it is based solely on subjective experience of the believer

II. SELF-REALIZATION:
Then you talk about a mystical experience – that of self realization & union with the supreme reality. When you say that it is a unitary experience-is it one in which the subject-object distinction is retained or not retained? If it is retained, what information is retained after the experience? And how do you know that your interpretation is correct? Mystical experiences are INTERPRETED in a way that supports the subject’s own PRESUPPOSITIONS and a vicious circularity inevitably occurs. Your mistake is in claiming that mystical experience surpasses rationality. But such a claim is one that can only be made by the use reason. It is non-mysticism, namely RATIONALITY that must make the judgment that it transcends rationality. It cannot make that judgment itself –an experience is just that an experience. The inference and interpretation requires rationality. Therefore, it does not transcend rationality.

If the distinction between subject and object is obviated in mystical experience, by a unitary experience one can never know that he/she has a so-called mystical experience. A knowing subject requires a subject object distinction. Without a subject there is no knowledge. No knowing subject means no knowledge. Knowledge is a property of subjects, i.e., consciousness, as distinguished from that about which one is conscious. Mystical experience by itself conveys nothing. If it is claimed that it does, only rationality can interpret it. And that is my point, which you cannot deny. The solution is simple – you can talk of mystical experience but don’t deny that rationality has to interpret it, for that is exactly what you are doing anyway. In talking about it, you are not transferring your actual experience since it is private and subjective. In talking about mystical experience, you are inevitably using rationality in trying to communicate your interpretation of the experience.

III. RELIABILITY OF THE BIBLE:
You are quite correct in observing that

if the bible is claiming divinity of Christ then surely we must initially look at the bible as being reliable

I have no problem with this and in fact have suggested this to others before you even entered this discussion. Be my guest and start a new thread. How many times do I have to tell you? But beware that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The same criteria will be used to test the reliability of the SGGS.

Please contemplate & reflect on my constructive criticism. When one is challenged in this way, it forces one to further delve into one's reasons for belief and results in learning and growth. If I have a blind spot in some belief, I would rather have it pointed out than be confronted by silence.

Jass Singh

 

[ISDhillon]

Jass Singh Ji :8-

So now your getting rude that’s ok I don’t mind, however a large portion of your new message is the same logic…reason…yadaa yadaaa yadaa, when I communicate I am not using logic I am using grammatical construction but only to convey that logic is incorrect and you have been unable to show how the sikh doctrine does breakdown because you know very well it involves a paradigm shift in thinking, say what you may but this doctrine is irrefutable and therefore the only true religious doctrine, plenty of people have rebutted the Christian doctrine by playing what you call “normal debating rules” but I cant even start to do that because I believe that the bible is man made and I need hard proof that it is not.

You then go on to twist the highly esteemed scholar and most authoritative on Sikhism by saying that sikhsim does not claim to be the final word of god then call that laughable and guess what I will share in your laughter but only at your ignorance, you see we are not a totalitarian faith no one can fully sing the praises of god and all religions ARE EQUAL, you then profess your sophistication by claiming that transcendental phenomenon is a part of logic and reason but the dawn of post-modernism is enough to make you choke your words. Your last post was a great failure it’s a rehash of everything you have said in all your other posts and the reason why you continue to respond is not to correct me but because you know I have got you by the short and curlies and guess what I never had to do a course in critical thinking I just accept the infallibility of truth which is bani..

Have some respect for the Sikh scholar who has portrayed the sovereignty of the Sikh doctrine don’t argue with it just convert, because tomorrow onwards I may become silent and refuse to engage in logical debate, but the doctrine still exists and works this is why a famous scholar called Cunningham said that “Sikhs are bound by an objective known only to them” our basic category is spirit and this you will have to obey and I am going to continue in this path because I know that I am not living in hope I have the truth with me when I practice my faith I have a subjective experience and when you have those experiences people like you are just momentary experiences but the inner experiences is forever. And how very convenient that you bring up the other scholar who if I remember correctly actually contradicted you by calling reason divine hukum and that reason in sggs was used for social reform do you really think she means reason in the sense of apologetics I think not you would get a severe beating if you were to try your tactics on any of those scholars they wont stand for your intellectual rubbish you’ll be done and dusted in next to no time.

You then say you cant have truth without logic and fail to understand that sat is spirit which is ultimate reality therefore sach is something that is right the 2 are totally different, something that is right is not true its just right, because some people will say that having premarital sex is wrong but others may say its fine, truth has no hand in this, this is a sikh perspective not a Christian one. We are told certain rights and wrong in religion but that is not the true path but the most righteous one. You then second guess the mind of guru ji by saying the gurus would never have thrown out intellect even though the purpose of sikhsim is self-realisation which requires no intellect this is blasphemy of the guru and then you introduce words like fideism which I couldn’t care less about and no one is interested in Sikhism to find objective truth but to create a harmonious world of gurmukhs, something the church of hate could do with.

Then you state in you lengthy paragraph on self-realisation that we are in some way deceiving ourselves because “how do you know?” – answer: because the guru says so! And that is enough for us you my dear friend are actually a sleep, and devoid of religion also for that matter, religion is not about living in hope that is false merriment, religion is about becoming glory and that you aint.

Now I have tried my best to help you by showing you the true sikh path but instead you throw the baby out with the bathwater and bring in insults if you can prove the doctrine wrong then do it and make haste, all I have done is for your own rehabilitation you are living a life of unholy and you are free to do so because I believe in the sovereignity of man therefore you are entitled to your faith, but you have failed to enlighten me. I think what I am saying is that you must play by our own rules if you would like a sikh perspective otherwise the only option left is for you to visit a non-sikh forum because otherwise why would you be even on this forum asking us to provide you for a sikh perspective when you reject it out right, we don’t need to know how you prove a personal opinion right, we could do that for you: set up some think tanks, we do however need to know how Sikhism allows for the divinity of Christ and as yet your main aim has been to prove Sikhism to be illogical and deceiving yet we know the bible to be the biggest conspiracy of all.

Chow !!!

Inderjit Singh Dhillon :crazy:

 

[Jass Singh]

Inderjitji

Forgive me if my objectivity hurt your feelings for you seem to interpret it as “rude.” But there again since in your worldview there are no laws of logic it also correct that I am “not rude.” Your so called Sikh doctrine is not touted by anybody except you. The Sikh authorities do not promote it and for a very good reason it is not found in the SGGS, which is the final arbiter of Sikh doctrine not you or Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia.

And my dear friend much more highly esteemed scholars than Ahluwalia have been proved to be wrong. Even Alfred North Whitehead the hardest to understand philosopher said that his philosophy was not the final word, only the best so far. And Ludwig Wittgenstein thought he had written the final all encompassing treatise on philosophy. Prior to that there was Kant. The history of philosophy is littered with outdated philosophies. Postmodernism was the buzz word about a decade back & espoused by Jasbir Ahluwalia in writing his books. Unfortunately it too is now outdated and shown to be flawed.

You write:

I never had to do a course in critical thinking

It is high time you did for you do not know what you are talking about. You need to get a college level education in philosophy to understand your utter inadequacy. It is apparent that you have not studied Hegel or postmodernism in detail. If you had, you would know that your worldview is a distortion and an aberration of Sikhism as taught by the SGGS whose locus of thought & paradigm is Eastern philosophical thought not western Hegelian reconstruction & postmodernism.

As far as logic goes, you are in denial & guilty of intellectual dishonesty. You write:

when I communicate I am not using logic I am using grammatical construction but only to convey that logic is incorrect.

Now what on earth is this supposed to mean? Last time you said that:

logic and reason are annihilated.

If they are annihilated do they resurrect just for you to use & then slip into non existence?

You write:

you have been unable to show how the sikh doctrine does breakdown

Simple - it breaks down because it is a RECONSTRUCTION of Sikhism through Hegelianism. If anything is sovereign according to your worldview it is NOT SIKHISM but Hegelianism! Your so called paradigm shift is nothing more & nothing less than a paradigm shift to Hegelianism - an alien philosophy as far as Sikhism is concerned.

You write:

say what you may but this doctrine is irrefutable and therefore the only true religious doctrine

Once again you do not want to be confused with the facts. You don’t even remember what you write for you contradicted this when you wrote:

no one is interested in Sikhism to find objective truth

What do you think you are saying when you say this

doctrine is irrefutable and therefore the only true religious doctrine.

Furthermore you contradict your worldview by talking about a “TRUE” religious doctrine. If

logic and reason are annihilated

you cannot talk about something being true for it entails its contrary being false, which is logic. Furthermore, why do you keep gravitating to Christianity and trying to prove it false? You do not have that right for there is no true or false in your worldview because

logic and reason are annihilated.

In your worldview it is quite OK to simultaneously believe that Christianity is true and you are wasting your time. It is obvious you did not understand my last post about the two Hegelians.

You write:

I have tried my best to help you by showing you the true sikh path

My dear friend you contradict yourself time after time. How can you talk about

the true sikh path

when true is compatible with false because

logic and reason are annihilated.

You write:

You then go on to twist the highly esteemed scholar and most authoritative on Sikhism by saying that sikhsim does not claim to be the final word of god

Well according to your worldview it can’t be the final Word of God – there is no truth or falsity in your worldview because logic

and reason are annihilated.

And saying that Sikhism is the final word of God is compatible with Sikhism is NOT the final Word of God for

logic and reason are annihilated.

BTW postmodernism by its very nature is relativistic & therefore if you are espousing Hegelian reconstruction of Sikhism and postmodernism, it is a given that Sikhism CANNOT be the final Word of God.

Your real worldview comes to light when you write

I just accept the infallibility of truth which is bani.

Once again you smuggle in the laws of logic by talking about “truth.” This is contrary to your worldview in which

logic and reason are annihilated

which means it is compatible with being fallible bani. Your worldview is intellectually bankrupt. Your real worldview is what we term fideism not postmodernism which is relativistic and would not allow you to make such absolute claims. This is further substantiated when you write:

“how do you know?” – answer: because the guru says so!

This is classic fideism. In addition you contradicted yourself when you later said

this doctrine is irrefutable and therefore the only true religious doctrine.

How can it be

is irrefutable and therefore the only true religious doctrine

if there is no objective truth?

You write

And how very convenient that you bring up the other scholar who if I remember correctly actually contradicted you by calling reason divine hukum and that reason in sggs was used for social reform do you really think she means reason in the sense of apologetics

It is obvious you have not read the book I suggested and FYI I have met Prof. Gurnam Kaur and she means reason as deductive & inductive logic as in the quote from her book. The fact is you cannot live without logic.

As far as subjective experience goes please re-read my last post.

And then you write:

you would get a severe beating if you were to try your tactics on any of those scholars they wont stand for your intellectual rubbish

You mean a singular scholar, namely your guru, Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia? Here’s a challenge, bring him on the discussion forum.

BTW what was your answer to the passage from the ultimate authority for a Sikh, the SGGS? Here it is again.
“har kai bhaanai janam padaarath paa-i-aa mat ootam ho-ee.
By the Pleasure of the Lord's Will, the prize of this human birth is obtained, and the intellect is exalted.” (SGGS p365 M3)
How come you want to disparage, contradict & disrespect your guru by saying that

logic and reason are annihilated?

What are you going to with all the deductive reasoning in the SGGS e.g. the Siddh Ghosht?

You write:

you are living a life of unholy

How do you know and what has it to do with anything? We are not here to discuss my life. This is just an ad hominem attack and utterly irrelevant. I could say the same about you – so what?

You write: you

have failed to enlighten me.

My friend you can lead a horse to water, you can’t make it drink and there are none so blind as those who will not see!



You write:

you must play by our own rules if you would like a sikh perspective.

My friend, you mean YOUR (Inderjit’s) rules. But you (Inderjit) have no rules for

logic and reason are annihilated.

By your (Inderjit’s) rules this is compatible with saying that I must NOT play by your rules if I would like a Sikh perspective. After all

logic and reason are annihilated

and therefore a proposition & its contrary are compatible. Good luck to you but you certainly do not live life this way. It is a farce and shows the utter bankruptcy of such a view. Your bankrupt perspective, your worldview and paradigm is NOT the Sikh perspective, worldview or paradigm. So stop equating the two. Your worldview & the Sikh worldview are not equivocal. All you are doing is parroting and pontificating an aberrant view of a scholar who has gone off at a tangent by reconstructing Sikh philosophy via Hegelianism & postmodernism.

Then you write:

your main aim has been to prove Sikhism to be illogical and deceiving

My dear friend please read the previous paragraph and do not jump to false conclusions; I have been proving that you (Inderjit) are illogical and your (Inderjit’s) reconstructed Sikh worldview via Hegelianism & postmodernism is fallacious and a distortion of Sikh philosophy as taught by the gurus in the SGGS.

Unlike you I have gone through every single statement made by you without picking and choosing which ones to address. You avoid many of my arguments and arrogantly dismiss them without a rebuttal. The quote from SGGS p365 M3 is just one such example. With one broad stroke you bury your head in the sand and arrogantly pontificate that

logic and reason are annihilated.

Then according to your worldview this is compatible with logic and reason are NOT annihilated. I hope you got the point. If not, there is no hope for you and you are living in a make believe world – in cuckoo land. Like I said before, logic is a priori & it is undeniable for you cannot deny it without using it and you tie yourself up in epistemological knots.

Jass Singh

 

[ISDhillon]

Jass Singh Ji :}--}:

“If they are annihilated do they resurrect just for you to use & then slip into non existence?”

this is true and exactly what I am saying, if I keep my mouth shut I would not have to stoop to your level of reason but my doctrine remains supreme. The sikh doctrine by the greatest philosopher on earth has taken the wind out of your sails that’s why you keep criticizing him if their was something you could find which was wrong you would have done it by now but you can’t so instead you do your own adhominem (r whatever you want to call it) attacks on him, and believe this matey all literature that comes from pataila university is written to be concordant with this doctrine so you are living in your own reality when you say it is dismissed by sggs or Sikhism , BTW you probably think I have forgotten but I am still waiting I think this is the 6th time, for you to show me how the doctrine breaks down so far you just re-configure your logical paragraphs which will have no bearing on me, do you have anything to add to this discussion? You then try to make believe that it is copycat philosophy but if you have actually read the books I suggested which I know you have not because I have proven your motives to be suspect once before, you would have seen that the philosopher actually disregarded Hegelian idea of spirit and said the idea of spirit in Sikhism was different. My gurus believed in sacrificing the mind body and soul to them and therefore when you try to talk about them as authors you are at the end of a long and growing list of dead and miserly philosophers who lived their whole lives on a lie and will live their lives with false merriment and missionary activities because they have no inner experience, wow that is the greatest sach on earth that’s why so many spirituality centres have been centre up because chriatianity is too crap to cater for the conditions of man.

“you cannot talk about something being true for it entails its contrary being false, which is logic”

you really are as thick as pigshit arnt you?, I have said for umpteen times that truth is some thing concrete it is spirit, now you think logic is right I think logic is wrong but that is not a truth it is an opinion truth has no hand in such things, WAKE UP. If Dr Jasbir Ji was as you have insulted him then tell me why is It that he holds such figures in the UN and many other seats in international affairs, you have failed to understand the surface of his work that’s why you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

“By the Pleasure of the Lord's Will, the prize of this human birth is obtained, and the intellect is exalted.” (SGGS p365 M3)”

this does not support your position at all the intellect is not mat, mat is path of the mind, and this is because human birth is for one path and that is self realization which is what mind is used for we never need any intellect the Neanderthals were more holy than us.

“My friend you can lead a horse to water, you can’t make it drink and there are none so blind as those who will not see!”

when the mind is naked a man is predictable, I foresee all your endeavours and hang you clean to dry so that you can recuperate your worth, but as a {censored} likes to dance and enjoy the show so too does the missionary revel in his own psychosis.

Now I have addressed many points in your boring posts and I have one thing to day you are a fraud and a big one at that, the Sikhism we all know and love today is one which does not share a braincell with you, the Sikhism is a pure and unblemished doctrine which seeks to give succour to all peoples of differing faiths but it will never be drowned in the madness of logic and reason, there are many riddles in your bizarre network of philosophy and only you can know the real truth of what you are trying to portray but the simple fact remains that if logic and reason were important then why did the saints not got about their business like you do, the gurus never in their life did what you are doing today it was god in their words which awaken the soul.

However christiantity offers no such truth, it does offer a personal opinion of righteousness but that we do not consider to be important, you see the moral life will lead you to the moral life, immorality will lead you to immorality they can do nothing for your soul only its rebirth, you pick out one quote in sggs which also disagrees with your perspective but leave out the abundance of treasures which ask you to achieve self-realization, this is your biggest sin to deny the infallibility of bani, you read it as if it were a book on non-fiction or fiction but it is neither it is a key to salvation it must be surrendered to otherwise you will continue on the highway of error.

This is becoming incredibly boring now and you have still not answered many of my questions perhaps because you know deep down inside your position is flawed but that as I have mentioned before is a relationship with you and your conscience/soul, and please don’t use my rebuttals against me it just shows how sad your ability to be creative and genuine is by siphoning excellence in the aim of building your own Christian agenda, but believe I will not give up until you answer my questions or until you give up. I eagerly await a simple response without all the logical crap just in simple terms the way I do which will prove to me that

a) our doctrine breaks down

b) how the bible is not personal opinion

Other than that the balls in your court.

Inderjit Singh Dhillon :star:

 

[devinesanative]

The English and Philosophy Teacher is suffering from some of the Psychological Ailments , one of which is "GOD COMPLEX".And there are similar ailments.

This Teacher is also suffering from one of the deficiency is "ATTENTION DEFICIENCY".

He has so much proficient knowledge in English and Philosophy , but none paid attention to him.

So, Instead of repeatedly making him understand , I think we all of us have to listen him first , understand him , Analyse Him and then Diagnose.
:u):

 

[Jass Singh]

My dear friend devinesanative

You have indeed been silent, but since when have you become a psychoanalyst? Stop trying to psychoanalyze the person – it’s nothing but a cheap shot – a worthless ad hominem attack which is fallacious reasoning. Is this the best you can do –lower yourself to the level of attacking the person instead of his reasoning? It is intellectual dishonesty. A genuine seeker of Truth analyzes the person’s arguments. But alas this will take an investment of your time for you may need to go on a learning curve and may result in very uncomfortable cognitive dissonance (if it clashes with your deeply held beliefs).

Jass Singh

 

[devinesanative]

Why you are struck in this thread only , like a Hem and not moving beyond this thread .

you repeated shout to start a new thread , but not .

You repeated shout to start a thread on historicity but not .

You have attacked and criticized almost all the members but not Vijaydeep ji's .

Why ???? can you just tell me ?

 

[devinesanative]

1. What is Intelligence ?
2. What is Spirituality ?
3. What is Rationality ?
4. How do you percieve this world ?
5. What is your Idea about this World ?
6. Were you really Born ?
7. How did you Born and Why ?
8. Who was behind your Birth ?
9. I saw you talking with Jesus , Is it Right ?
10. Where is this world Going ?
11. Who is running this World ?
12. Who is behind the Universe ?
13. What is the purpose of life ?
14. What is the Theme of life ?
15. When did life Started ?
16. Is there any end to This World ?
17. Is there any Universe other than this ?
18. Do you really Exist or you are inside the Dreams of Some other Person ?
19. How do you Exist ?
20. From where did you Came from Where will you go ?


I hope these are enough ...... for you right now ........

Now Instead of Attacking me , Reply me gracefully and with documented Proof with a seal put by God.

 

[Jass Singh]

My dear Inderjit

My goodness you have actually stooped to the LOW level of derogatory name calling

you really are as thick as pigshit arnt you?

This is another example of an ad hominem attack & of the worst kind. Have you ever heard of manners & civility and you call yourself a guru’s Sikh? I wonder which guru would have modeled this behavior for you. Is this behavior a part of your so-called Sikh doctrine? How hypocritical can you get when you state that the purpose of Sikhism is

to create a harmonious world of gurmukhs.

Is this how you model & reflect harmony & what a gurmukh should be?
It appears that you have the habit of continually committing the ad hominem fallacy:

you are a fraud and a big one at that

I gave you a challenge and instead of trying to second guess what Jasbir Ahluwalia meant in his writings, bring him on the forum. I am sure he will say that you are MISREPRESENTING his views. BTW I have read his books and on page 47 of his book, The Sovereignty of the Sikh Doctrine, he writes:

“That Sikhism does not claim to be the final revelation of reality accounts for its non-exclusivity…”

WOW straight from the horses mouth!!! Did you overlook something or what? How does that make you look like? It looks like YOU have not read his book and are indeed misrepresenting Ahluwalia’s doctrine. Why? Because you do not have the prerequisite foundational philosophical training and sophistication to appreciate what Ahluwalia is saying nor his paradigm! End of matter QED! Actually I need go no further as this alone debunks all your nonsense about your own manufactured so-called Sikh doctrine. It neither reflects Ahluwalia accurately nor the teachings of the SGGS.

You commit the classic ad populum (appeal to popularity). It is always incorrect to say that something is true because it is popular – numbers do not confer wisdom; the majority has been wrong very often. You actually go beyond this by attempting to use bandwagon propaganda which is very similar, except it adds a coercive aspect where people feel intimidated into accepting something. In addition to pressuring one to believe because most people do, there is the threat of rejection by the group. This is a particularly sinister technique as it attempts to eliminate diverse points of view by intimidation e.g. “Everyone knows that Jasbir Ahluwalia’s doctrine is true, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?”

You also commit the fallacy of appealing to authority by saying:

If Dr Jasbir Ji was as you have insulted him then tell me why is It that he holds such figures in the UN and many other seats in international affairs.

An Appeal to Authority is not always fallacious, but always something a critical thinker must consider. It is where you are asked to accept something as true based upon the word of an expert (authority). We cannot be experts about everything and so must rely upon the judgment of others. But the expert must fulfill two conditions:
1) the expert is in fact an authority in a relevant area.
2) There does not exist significant contrary belief by equally competent experts.
The first is obvious but the second is often overlooked. The principle here that you are missing is that experts cancel each other out.
Endorsing Ahluwalia because of the UN or other public offices is also fallacious. Endorsement is a type of appeal to authority where someone puts their "stamp of approval" on an idea, candidate, or product.
You write:

Sikhism we all know and love today is one which does not share a braincell with you, the Sikhism is a pure and unblemished doctrine which seeks to give succour to all peoples of differing faiths but it will never be drowned in the madness of logic and reason

Once again let me quote: Ahluwlia from his book, The Sovereignty of the Sikh Doctrine page10:

There has been no conscious system-building attempt at presenting the Sikh doctrine in the form of a logically consistent framework – a gestalt-like organic structure – essential for knitting together Sikh ontology, Sikh ethics, Sikh sociology, Sikh polity, Sikh praxis into a coherent whole.

There you have it straight from the horse’s mouth – the pure and unblemished doctrine! Once again you are MISREPRESENTING Ahluwalia! Have you indeed read his book? Maybe it went in one ear and out the other. It looks like it is you who does not share a brain cell with Ahluwalia or true Sikhism. My dear friend, logic is a priori – you have no choice – even Ahluwalia recognizes this and declares your statement that

logic and reason are annihilated

as nonsense!
You keep trying to muddy the waters by bringing up the issue of Christianity. This is the 3rd time I am requesting that if you are serious about your questions & objections start a new thread.

Inderjit, if you are intellectually honest you will have to admit that you do not have a leg to stand on and all your arguments so far have been flawed. Don’t believe me - believe the quotes directly from your guru i.e. Ahluwalia. So put this matter about

logic and reason are annihilated

to rest and start learning what true Sikh doctrine is.It is OK to make mistakes but it is not OK to wallow in them stubbornly remaining in self-defensive denial after they have been shown to be fallacious. With all respect, you need to go back to the drawing board for you have a lot of learning to do. God bless.

Jass Singh

 

[Jass Singh]

My dear devinesanative

I have repeatedly suggested that if anybody wants answers to their questions and objections about the reliability of the Bible & the historicity of the New Testament that they should start a new thread. If you are so eager, be my guest, the ball is in your court.

 

[ISDhillon]

Satsriakal Jass Singh Ji OMG

“Have you ever heard of manners & civility”

please accept my heart felt apologies.

“That Sikhism does not claim to be the final revelation of reality accounts for its non-exclusivity…”

this makes me howl your twisting things again and sidetracking oh my god you have to get some new material, and I said in my previous post that this means:

“You then go on to twist the highly esteemed scholar and most authoritative on Sikhism by saying that sikhsim does not claim to be the final word of god then call that laughable and guess what I will share in your laughter but only at your ignorance, you see we are not a totalitarian faith no one can fully sing the praises of god and all religions ARE EQUAL”

“You commit the classic ad populum (appeal to popularity).”

If I was doing this then surely I am wasting my time the consensus is 2 bilions Christians to 24 million Sikhs I think you have now become paranoid and it is quite scandalous of you to think I give a damn whether anybody cares what I think this is all my response to you as an individual so let me just make a statement to anyone who is reading this: LOOK AWAY!!!.

Then you go on to twist words again by producing a quote:

“There has been no conscious system-building attempt at presenting the Sikh doctrine in the form of a logically consistent framework – a gestalt-like organic structure – essential for knitting together Sikh ontology, Sikh ethics, Sikh sociology, Sikh polity, Sikh praxis into a coherent whole.”

What this means if in fact it even exists is that the sikh doctrine is one, all other works have been written about Sikhism and no one has ever tried to rewrite the doctrine and guess what that’s straight from the horses mouth, here some more quotes:

“A former IAS officer, Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia is recognized as a leading Sikh scholar and Punjabi writer, poet and critic. He has published more than two dozen books in English and Punjabi in the areas of philosophy, Sikhism, Punjabi prose, poetry and literary criticism. Ahluwalia's seminal work The Sikh Doctrine is considered an authoritative text on Sikh philosophy. The Times of India's editorial on The Sikh Doctrine hailed it as "an original contribution of the highest order to the development of modern Indian thought". Dr. Ahluwalia's latest book The Doctrine and Dynamism of Sikhism is a post-modernist look at Sikhism.
Ahluwalia has lectured abroad extensively on Sikhism, Indian philosophy and Punjabi literature. He served Punjabi University where he is now Vice Chancellor as its first Director for Development and Planning. Dr. Ahluwalia also set up the Punjab State University Text Book Board and served as its first Director. In his role as a distinguished scholar of Sikhism, Ahluwalia is on the International Editorial Board of World Faiths Encounter, the journal of the World Congress of Faiths.
Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia was appointed Member-Secretary of the high-level Punjab Government committee in 1986 for preparing the draft of the All India Sikh Gurdwaras Legislation. Ahluwalia was a member of the State-level Khalsa Tercentenary Celebrations Committee of the Punjab Government as well as a member of the Anandpur Sahib Urban Planning and Development Authority and the Anandpur Sahib Foundation set up by the Punjab Government for the Khalsa Tercentenary projects.

Dr. Ahluwalia served as Chairman, Punjab School Education Board before he took over as Vice-Chancellor of Punjabi University, Patiala, in May 1999.”
I think it is high time to eat some humble pie compadre. Again you have failed to answer any of the questions that I wrote on the previous posts looks like the roaring lion is a wet cat never mind, I understand what this all about I decided to go to sggs and to do a search on spiritual ignorance which may clarify all of this and to my surprise guruji says:

“Attachment to Maya is an ocean of darkness (ignorance); neither this
shore nor the one beyond can be seen. The ignorant, Manmukhs suffer
in terrible pain; they forget God’s Name and drown. They arise in the
morning and perform all sorts of rituals, but they are caught in the love
of duality. Those who serve the True Guru cross over the terrifying
world-ocean. O Nanak, the Gurmukhs keep the True Name enshrined
in their hearts; they are absorbed into the True One (sggs 89).”
I do not hate you but I do expect you to mend your ways otherwise there is no hope for you either.
With love,:shy:
Inderjit Singh Dhillon

 

[Jass Singh]

My dear devinesanative

These are wonderful questions – excellent questions. You might just be a budding philosopher in disguise. How about starting a separate thread for each one otherwise you might end with a knotted mess!

Sorry to disappoint you but I never said that I had all the answers to everything - I am not omniscient. Due to our finitude, some things will remain opaque and a mystery and others may be apprehended but not fully comprehended. But this does not mean that we cannot have a robust and intellectually stimulating discussion as did the ancient Indian philosophers.

Jass Singh

 

[devinesanative]

Dear Sweet and Lovely Jass Singh Jeo


It seems that you know me very well . Not only know me but , it seems that you have lived in my neighbour .

Whatever perception you have about me , I don't know how far is it correct .

I have been on this forum for the past three to four months . What I have researched , observed , analyzed and understood is that most of the people live in Preconcieved Ideas and 50 % of the ideas are cooked up about any particular person.


Some do live in Fairy Tale Dreams.


You have taken utmost care in dealing with few members and was very harsh with some members .

And , this is what is called Dualism .


My Dear friend , let me tell you one thing .

"Scholars are a dime a dozen , but a wiseman is a rare Bird".

There is a relation between the two

Teacher :: Student
Guru :: Shishya

Student asks and gains knowledge and becomes pundit , and then blows in his own horn.And shows that He knows everthing.


The shishya Seeks the wisdom and becomes a humble and meek man .

This combination is never correct

Teacher::Shishya
Guru::Student