Jump to content

Do you agree and support Ranjit Dhahderanwala Prachar?


Do you agree and support Ranjit Dhahderanwala Prachar?  

59 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you agree and support Ranjit Dhahderanwala Prachar?

    • Yes
      20
    • No
      30
    • I don't know him
      9


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Jaggaa said:

So wait, you don't want Sikhs to use logic and instead use what? blind faith?

I don't want Sikhs to rely on logic/scientific reasoning because I believe no-one can prove that Sri Akaal Purkh actually exists.

 

If you can then prove it to me, and i will stop having blind faith that Sri Akaal Purkh exists and use logic instead.

 

33 minutes ago, Jaggaa said:

Pick out something of his you don't agree with and discuss that

I did in my post. I'll repeat it again for you:

"Dhadri says that this is an age of logic and science. That youngsters need to be convinced of Gurmat through scientific and logical means. Which will never succeed. Or if it does will turn Sikhs into athiests, like Christians in the west have largely become after all their scientific and technological achievements. "

I don't agree with that and have said so.

 

If you disagree with me, tell me why.

 

33 minutes ago, Jaggaa said:

Don't speak out silly provocative statements against an individual and grow up or you'll end up pushing MORE people away.

Well my friend, that's unfortunately what you did yourself by not reading my post properly.

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have responded to the views and arguments expressed by Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji in the above video. I apologize for the length.    Maryada Guru Gobind Singh Ji made one maryada Corr

All I hear repeatedly is a message to use common sense, think logically, develop your minds, do paath/ardas yourself and try to understand, make your own connection with waheguru who is inside you.

The guys a chubby d1ck 

2 hours ago, Jaggaa said:

So wait, you don't want Sikhs to use logic and instead use what? blind faith?

Bhai Ranjit Singh is a parcharak, you might not agree with him 100% and that is what you should debate. Pick out something of his you don't agree with and discuss that. Don't speak out silly provocative statements against an individual and grow up or you'll end up pushing MORE people away.

Using logic/science as your fundamental tool to understand Sikhi, Gurbani, Gur-ithihaas, or Gurmat is wrong and misguided. 

Why is it wrong?

  • When someone uses a philosophy, ideology, or doctrine that does not originate from the Guru to try to develop an understanding of Sikhi/Gurbani, the resulting "understanding" of Sikhi they develop will be distorted, warped, and ultimately incorrect
  • If you use any Mat (a philosophy, like Hindu-Mat, Budh-Mat, Marxism, Existentialism, Western Logic, etc.) to understand Sikhi/Gurbani, you use their viewpoint/principles to define and understand Sikhi/Gurbani
  • To truly understand Sikhi/Gurbani, you must use the world view that the Guru has given us. You must take on the nazariya (perspective, viewpoint, frame of reference) of the Guru and use that to learn, understand, and analyze Sikhi

What problems occur when you use a Non-Sikh philosophy?

  • Some Hindus including the RSS use their own philosophical principles to define Sikhi
    • They view the Khalsa as being a sena (fighting force) for the protection of Hindus, that Sikhs are merely a military arm to the wider Hindu community
    • They develop this understanding by using THEIR philosophy/ideology as Hindus,  to define US as Sikhs
  • Using Western Philosophy/Logic/Science to define Sikhi is wrong in the same way

Specific problems with using Logic/Western Philosophy to define Sikhi

  • Not just Sikhi but can any Dharam be truly understood using logic/science?

1.The subject of Sikhi/Dharam and Logic/Science are two separate things

  • Sikhi's subject matter is the invisible, transcendental (spiritual, non-physical) world, Waheguru, the divine, metaphysics, that which you  experience internally, beyond the material world.
  • Logic/Science's subject matter is the visible world. The world you can experience through your five senses, that you can count, measure, observe, and analyze.

2. The foundation of Sikhi and Logic/Science are two separate things

  • Sikhi is anchored in Vishwaash, a faith in the Guru that is unwavering. 
  • Logic/Science is anchored in Shanka, in questioning. You begin with suspicion, ask why for everything

3. By using Logic/Science as your benchmark to test what ideas you accept/reject, you've consciously or unconsciously accepted that Logic/Science has as a higher importance than Sikhi

  • If you test Sikhi/Gurbani by using Logic/Science, you automatically are accepting that Sikhi/Gurbani is only correct if it is acceptable by the standards of Logic/Science

4. Logic/Science has a negative/dark side to it

  • Logic/Science brought great acceleration in technologies and development. Along with the many benefits, it has also caused damage to society and our world.
    • Proliferation of nuclear weapons that annihilate nature itself, the creation of extremely potent and fatal recreational drugs, the exploitation of natural resources, climate change that will cause havoc all over the world, etc.
    • If Sikhi is compatible with Logic/Science, than just as Logic/Science has a negative/dark side, Sikhi too must have a negative/dark side. 
      • But Sikhi does not 

For more discourse regarding the interpretation of Sikhi/Gurbani and how Western Philosophy/Logic/Science relates to us as Sikhs I recommend listening to Prof. Prabhsharanbir Singh, Prabhsharandeep Singh, and Sardar Ajmer Singh.

The following videos cover these topics if anyone would like an in-depth analysis and explanation by some of our leading Sikh thinkers. Many of the above points are derived from these videos. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, S1ngh said:

He is the court jester and trained theaterics without any knowledge of our dharm. He might do good if he joins the Scientologists and leave sikhi alone. 

Friend, again I would be thankful if you explain to me what sense of justice our Guru told us to follow should we be studying.  You place emphasis on this, I want to know your opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jaggaa said:

So wait, you don't want Sikhs to use logic and instead use what? blind faith?

Bhai Ranjit Singh is a parcharak, you might not agree with him 100% and that is what you should debate. Pick out something of his you don't agree with and discuss that. Don't speak out silly provocative statements against an individual and grow up or you'll end up pushing MORE people away.

When Guru Sahib says give me your head.  This doesn't mean to use science and logic as the tool to see if Gurbani is saying the right thing.  Yet this is what Ranjit Singh is doing.  Gurbani says give me your head and don't look to another.  This includes not to look to your and others logic and science to say what is religion, spirituality and how to practice it. When Gursikhs don't understand something in Gurbani.  They read further on in Sri Guru Granth Sahib  to find the answer or re-read what they have already read and/or look for a more learned Sikh to provide the answer from Gurbani.  

Where was science when Vaheguru took the form of half man and lion to destroy an egotistical King?  Where was logic and science when Vaheguru turned a temple to face his Bhagat, Bhagat Naamdev ji? Can science and logic explain how Baba Deep Singh fought without his head?  Sikhi cannot be measures by anything.  Sikhi is about living and becoming what is being taught.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HardeepCov said:

After you answer my questions and 'slowly' read my post again.

Ok.

3 hours ago, HardeepCov said:

How do you know it will never succeed?

 

I base it on the western civilisation that has rejected Christianity and God ever since it start living according to scientific discovery.

 

3 hours ago, HardeepCov said:

 Is it better to believe in fairy tales?

What fairy tales? Like Baba Deep Singh fighting with his head cut off?

Tell me what particular fairy tales you have in mind.

 

3 hours ago, HardeepCov said:

When children ask why we do something or why such and such is happening do you think its better to give them an answer which makes logical sense or better to say something like lok idha kehde aa? Sianhe idha kehde aa? Babaji idha kehnda aa? That's not good enough especially for older more independent thinking kids. Or do you want our children to be like sheep and just follow the crowd?

 

Well this ties in with the question I put to you. Prove to me using science and logic that "god" exists so I can pray to him/her/it.

I'm one of these older, more independent thinking children. I don't want to be a sheep and follow the crowd. So please prove to me using science and logic that "god" exists so I can pray to him/her/it.

Also who would you count as "lok,siane,babaji" ?

I think that Bhai Gurdas Ji, Bhai Mani Singh ji etc don't fall into the above category.

 

3 hours ago, HardeepCov said:

Also science has been changing since the development of the Quantum theory. Many quantum physicists say there were atheists but now believe in a higher power and believe the universe is made by design.

"many" ? So you shouldnt have a problem in proving that "god" exists and I should pray to him/her/it.

 

3 hours ago, HardeepCov said:

Science is a great tool but I don't think it has all the answers. Some of these we need to find within ourselves.

Let's leave aside "I don't think it has all the answers" for the moment. Lets get somewhere on the most basic question. Let science prove that "god" exists.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jaggaa said:

now exploring more mainstream Sikhi

Please elaborate on what this "mainstream Sikhi" is.

Ranjit Dhandri, or anybody for that matter, is under no obligation to follow or believe the opposite of whatever kind of Sikhi you think he preaches but that doesn't mean that you do complete khandan mandan of Traditional/Sampardaic Sikhi. This is not the Sikh way of doing veechaar/prachaar.

His extreme 180 on his viewpoints, deliberately provocative and controversial speeches/videos etc, baseless challenges, and as I said shameless khandan mandan makes many suspicious of his motives which come off as underhanded and deceitful. I'm not trying to insult him but the farce he calls prachaar/katha is just him ignorantly running off at the mouth.

If he was a figure in a different arena, he would have unconditionally lost all credibilty.

I mean Jeez the guy doesn't even know what Merry Christmas means lol instead confidently giving his own whacky, erroneous (but hilarious) arth...that should be an indication of this guy's avastha and level of gyaan. Ehna hankaar?

 

Gurbar Akaal!

  • Like 1
  • Confused 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Jaggaa said:

People are against Bhai Ranjit Singh because of him calling out a lot of the story/sakhian spread throughout our history.

People are also against ghaghri because he has called Bhai Gurdas Ji a liar. He has also committed the folly of trying to redefine what "god" is which against the Mool Mantar. He has also told people that "god " wants them to sleep-in, in the mornings because that is the way "god" has designed them, to recharge their batteries instead of waking up for nitnem.

I'm sure you have heard ghaghri say that births and deaths are only in the mind. What nonsense is that?

 

This has nothing to do with sakhian. You are trying to portray this as the only reason that people are against ghaghri.

 

45 minutes ago, Jaggaa said:

I see people using certain stories to gain exclusivity and influence under the banner of Guru Sahib.

So do I. I see a person in flambouyant outfits which I would expect to see in Brazilian gay/lesbian parades gaining influence only because of SGGS in his diwans and a load of brain-dead cult followers.

 

45 minutes ago, Jaggaa said:

Just because a particular Sakhi was written/spoken by a well known "Gursikh" in say the 1800's doesn't automatically make it authentic because what's there to say he didn't just do what the same people are doing today?

 

So the Guru could make mistakes according to you? Bhai Gurdas Ji vaaram contain a lot of sakhis. Guru Sahib also selected Bhai Gurdas Ji to scribe SGGS. Could Guru Sahib have done this without knowing that Bhao Gurdas has written in his vaars?

 

45 minutes ago, Jaggaa said:

Bhai Sahib is entitled to his own interpretation to Guru Sahib, at no point is he going against Gurbani.

Saying there is no reincarnation. No 84 lakh joon is going against Guru Sahib.

 

45 minutes ago, Jaggaa said:

I'd say he comes from a very priveleged background having initially been among a sadhu/dera background and now exploring more mainstream Sikhi -

"mainstream" ? Mainstream Sikhi has never rejected reincarnation.

 

45 minutes ago, Jaggaa said:

people who are outright disregarding him because he's challenged something they were taught from a young age. That's what I don't agree with.

Thats because you are wrong. People, like me, outrightly oppose him because of his anti-gurmat teachings.

I oppose him because he is a big supporter of darshan rogis group in USA. They support him and he supports them. the same rogi who changed the khande di pahul vidhi.

Such a heinous crime by darshan rogi yet not ONE word from ghaghri about it whilst every Sikh who has faith in his Guru has spoken against rogi.

 

46 minutes ago, Jaggaa said:

I mean there's nothing wrong with having strong opinions but I can't engage in a conversation with someone who is simply blurting out some sort of emotional me vs you type of speech. I'm not interested because it seems like a waste of time as not only is it counter-productive it doesn't belong in a discussion from where one can learn from.

 

Tough. I might not be the person who you are refering to, but I will respond to any type of applause from anyone for ghaghri.

I myself don't understand why you would stand in support of someone who has said the anti-gurmat things ghaghri has said. its like you have no faith in Gurbani.

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use