- Jul 20, 2012
- 1,393
- 1,921
@Tejwant Singh Ji,
You keep bringing up the word 'pragmatist' or 'Pragmatic' etc.
First, can you please show me in SGGSJ where it says everything must be approached in this way? I have been unable to find the word even once in SGGSJ. You keep saying we must use ONLY SGGSJ to explain our point of view with everything, yet I can not find anywhere in there that says all of our thought must be 'pragmatic'.
Anyway reference your question to Original Ji let's first look at the meaning of the word 'Pragmatic'.
When I google the word Pragmatic I get this:
prag·mat·ic
praɡˈmadik/
adjective
So if Guru Nanak Dev Ji did in fact experience the divine himself then it is no longer theory, it is personal subjective evidence of the divine - to him it would be real. As with all subjective evidence, it can't be proven to others unless they have the same experience. Even if they do not however, it doesn't discount the experience happened to that person. So for Guru Nanak Dev Ji, being in company of the divine when he went into the river, it was not theory, nor philosophy, for him it was truth. So it would still satisfy him being 'pragmatic' by the dictionary definition of the word.
But I am still wondering where it says that our thought must be only 'pragmatic' when interpreting Gurbani. Remember with things that can not YET be proven by science, one person's subjective evidence may be another person's theory. But it doesn't mean it isn't real... SO if that person then describes what they experienced to someone else poetically and metaphorically, we would do an injustice by telling everyone they must only interpret it based on scientific knowledge of what is real... scientific knowledge at this present moment, which we would be very naive to think we know it all at this moment. It's very likely that the inner workings of the universe will be known to all in the future, proving a creator... and then THAT will be the picture of reality at that time. What if that knowledge is already within SGGSJ and you are dismissing it to be speaking merely of only states of mind as if it were merely a psychology book, not our Guru...
You keep bringing up the word 'pragmatist' or 'Pragmatic' etc.
First, can you please show me in SGGSJ where it says everything must be approached in this way? I have been unable to find the word even once in SGGSJ. You keep saying we must use ONLY SGGSJ to explain our point of view with everything, yet I can not find anywhere in there that says all of our thought must be 'pragmatic'.
Anyway reference your question to Original Ji let's first look at the meaning of the word 'Pragmatic'.
When I google the word Pragmatic I get this:
prag·mat·ic
praɡˈmadik/
adjective
- dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
So if Guru Nanak Dev Ji did in fact experience the divine himself then it is no longer theory, it is personal subjective evidence of the divine - to him it would be real. As with all subjective evidence, it can't be proven to others unless they have the same experience. Even if they do not however, it doesn't discount the experience happened to that person. So for Guru Nanak Dev Ji, being in company of the divine when he went into the river, it was not theory, nor philosophy, for him it was truth. So it would still satisfy him being 'pragmatic' by the dictionary definition of the word.
But I am still wondering where it says that our thought must be only 'pragmatic' when interpreting Gurbani. Remember with things that can not YET be proven by science, one person's subjective evidence may be another person's theory. But it doesn't mean it isn't real... SO if that person then describes what they experienced to someone else poetically and metaphorically, we would do an injustice by telling everyone they must only interpret it based on scientific knowledge of what is real... scientific knowledge at this present moment, which we would be very naive to think we know it all at this moment. It's very likely that the inner workings of the universe will be known to all in the future, proving a creator... and then THAT will be the picture of reality at that time. What if that knowledge is already within SGGSJ and you are dismissing it to be speaking merely of only states of mind as if it were merely a psychology book, not our Guru...