# Video Of The Day - Kachi Bani - Dr Sukhpreet Singh  Udhoke



## Sikhi 24/7 (Oct 22, 2017)




----------



## Balbir27 (Nov 18, 2017)

I patiently watched the whole video clip because the title was interesting, and concentrated entirely on the words avoiding being influenced by his captivating and forceful manner of speaking.

Dr S S Udhoke appears to preach the issue that *we are following “kachi” (raw) bani* (Gurus message). (*Nothing wrong with that* except some _are _only following the true Bani. So, a sweeping statement like that is not entirely correct.)

On the other hand to illustrate his points, he uses stories which do not have any concrete evidence. The SGGS is concrete evidence and does not contain any stories. The stories (Janamsakhis), although _generally_ accepted (mass effect?), have no concrete evidence (except for undisputed historical facts). Even today, the authenticity is disputed.

I quote from:

https://infogalactic.com/info/Janamsakhis

“_The four Janamsakhis that have survived into the modern era include the Bala, Miharban, Adi and Puratan versions, and each hagiography contradicts the other.[1] These mythological texts are ahistorical and do not offer chronological, geographical or objective accuracy about Nanak's life.[1] The Sikh writers were competing with mythological stories (mu'jizat) about Muhammad created by Sufi Muslims in medieval Punjab region of South Asia_.”

Other Sikh sources like

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/16059-distortion-of-history-by-sukhpreet-udhoke/

also refer to the distortion of history, specifically, by Sukhpreet Udhoke.

I would question as to how the exact words of the Guru in question were recorded as were the answers _throughout_ the life of the Guru. Such an "accurate" biography is non-existent anywhere else despite the availability of all sorts of modern devices for recording word by word. The 15th and 16th Centuries had no such. One would have to devote their whole life to follow the Guru around and use enormous amounts of manuscripts and ink, and, find places to store them, as Guru Nanak, for example, carried out his Udasis, journeys which I would find daunting, leave alone being also a full-time scribe.

So the _gist_ of the stories may be more or less true but everything else is questionable. Should quote exact words and rely on them, to preach that we are following untrue banis? Is it not contradictory? Or is there a _different _agenda where the end justifies the means?

If we are to attempt to bring and keep Sikhi on the right path, should we not be, ourselves, indisputably right?

Apologies for any errors Sadh Sangat.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Admin (Nov 18, 2017)

Balbir27 said:


> Other Sikh sources like
> 
> http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/16059-distortion-of-history-by-sukhpreet-udhoke/
> 
> also refer to the distortion of history, specifically, by Sukhpreet Udhoke.



@Balbir27 ji,

With due respect, both of your Sikh resources are debatable...

Wikis are the most unreliable resource to quote from... except if it is Wikileaks... 

sikhawareness is not even a resource to discredit Dr. Udoke and to call it Sikh resource is an overstatement of sorts. Dr. Udoke may not be a 100% accurate, Sikh history is such a subject nobody can be 100% accurate because Sikh history has been distorted with so much impunity over the two centuries. I would rather listen to Dr. Udoke than those bunch of juvenile wannabes at SA. If you spend a little time on their "Sikh resources" or discussions, you would know what i am talking about.

This is the translation of extract from the original Ladhakhi letter of agreement.
Tibet Justice Center - Legal Materials on Tibet - Treaties and Conventions Relating to Tibet - Ladakhi Letter of Agreement (1842) [374]

There have been many in-depth debates on the subject of Janamsakhis at SPN... to begin with...
Janam Sakhi Are True Events

Bhul chuk di maafi


----------



## Balbir27 (Nov 18, 2017)

Thank you for the information.
I shall certainly look into this much deeper.
Firstly, "Sikhawareness" does not look very reliable, as you believe.
I will need more time to look at the other sources and this may take a while. So bear with me please.
Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Balbir27 (Dec 4, 2017)

@Aman Singh 

Dear Sir
I have realised that it would take me many lifetimes to suss this out.
I do not have the time in my present lifetime, maybe others may have.
I choose to give the benefit of the doubt, simply because this person appears to be protecting a Universal Truth where the means appears to justify the end - the end meaning, what Guru Nanak, and the SGGS, mean.
Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Original (Dec 5, 2017)

Gentlemen, a very good morning to you All -

Is it possible that we might be barking up the wrong tree ?

What I mean by that is: shouldn't we be asking what is "kachi" and what is "sachi" Bani in order to grasp what each thing is in "itself"? And that as a result, would culminate in coherent knowledge to provide a base for the apprehension of Nanak's sachi Bani ? I think it will and hence the reason Nanak chose to dialogue with Sidh Gosht to prick their conscience to determine what is sachi as opposed to their kachi Bani.

Dr Udoke is a Sikh crusader, so naturally an element of bias on his part is unavoidable. But as regards the subject matter Bani kachi and sachi, he is clearly not truth seeking but excessively persuasive to win the argument. Question is: Is his first obligation to truth seeking or winning the argument ? And, I suppose the same can be said of these Sikh sites: are they spreading the word of Nanak [sach] or, their "own" [kachi] ?

Over to you...


----------



## Balbir27 (Dec 12, 2017)

@Aman Singh 

Some things have been rankling me and I had to take the help of time in order to pin down the issues. Perhaps we can all discuss.

Respectfully, I think that I never stated that the two Internet sites were anything but “_sources_” _[something that supplies information- “the communication of knowledge or intelligence_”]. Information does not necessarily mean that it is true or false. To construe a source as a “resource” is beyond me.

Secondly, I believe that only 1 of the sources states [truthfully] that it derives its contents from Wikipedia. However, the 2 sources are simply a place where the “views” of individuals are being expressed, similar to SPN. So how does one prove reliability? Whose reliability and in what context? What is the basis of reliability? Some, on SPN simply give their own views unsupported by evidence or any reasonable, constructive explanation.

What exactly is “debatable”? Is it the source, is it the resource, is it the views, or is it the information? And, as _Original_ said, are we debating the right subject?

SA is a site which “supplies” the views of various people, _like SPN_. In my view neither becomes a “resource”. And, therefore, neither can be absolutely relied upon to portray the truth. Perhaps I should have used the word “site” rather than “source”. My error, in that case.

The point being made was that there can be more than one POV, meaning one is obliged to look at _all_ views [and resources] in order to form some opinion, which may _still_ be biased because of life’s experiences. So, once again, what _is_ reliability?

Could you say that one should be discouraged from looking at other sources? In which case the question arises – is the Truth being covered up? Is my Truth better than their Truth? Is it not entirely up to one’s own judgement to decide? Would you not accept that looking at different POVs actually stimulates the mind to ask questions, to seek validations and to explore further? Is that not what Sikhi is all about? I would not like to be one of the blind men trying to discover the truth of what is an elephant. Having been allocated 1 part (source), I would like to ask if there are other parts (sources) to explore? Would you not? I may possibly become a resource, having gained knowledge of all the parts.

I actually _revisited_ SA, and found that to their credit, someone, on that page, further down, gave the exact translation of the Ladhaki letter referred to, matching the _source _given leading to a particular resource of information.

I was making a point that the authenticity of Sakhis is disputed (giving one Wiki source which gave _some_ supporting evidence – that needed corroborating – which is why I posted that in this lifetime I would not be able to suss it out). The other source was simply the POVs from SA [apparently a competitor site].

Re: Janam Sakhi Are True Events

I faithfully went through the whole thread, simply because it was suggested to me, and I trusted, that the sign poster must know something that I don’t.

Believe me, it was a long convoluted journey which would test anybody’s patience and intellect. It was a mammoth task to try to separate the wheat from the chaff [as someone in the thread said].

In the end I was *none the wiser*. There was no concrete evidence provided for or against, regarding the central plank of the thread, that the Janam Sakhis are true events. Kindly correct me if I have missed something, for I am human after all.

Incidentally, I’m currently reading “_Guru Kian Saakhian_” (English translation by Prof. Pritpal Singh Bindra).

The introduction of the book includes “An Appraisal” by Dr Balwant Singh Dhillon and “An Introduction” by Pal Singh Purewal. The author simply provides the translation, but the other two, clearly _concede that there are controversies in dates and places_ and give reasonable explanations.

The point here is that, regardless of which resource, in the source, one refers to, there appear to be endless controversies. So one may debate until the cows come home, the Earth destructs or the “Dream” ends, but one will not find the true answer. At least _I_ feel I won’t.

What say you?

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Admin (Dec 15, 2017)

Balbir27 said:


> And, as _Original_ said, are we debating the right subject?



Before I respond, I agree with Original ji that we are, indeed, not debating the right subject! 



Balbir27 said:


> Respectfully, I think that I never stated that the two Internet sites were anything but “_sources_” _[something that supplies information- “the communication of knowledge or intelligence_”]. Information does not necessarily mean that it is true or false. To construe a source as a “resource” is beyond me.



@Balbir27 Ji,

Thank you for taking your precious time to explain your reservations...

My sincere apologies for attributing more importance to those two ("sources") than they actually deserved. 

In the context of judging Dr. Udoke, in those two "sources", the only information that construed a "resource" was the mention of "Ladaakhi Letter of Agreement", which clearly seems to corroborate the views of Dr. Udoke. Rest of the information on those two "sources" is nothing more than mere POVs. IMHO, a collection of POVs does not construe a "resource".



Balbir27 said:


> Secondly, I believe that only 1 of the sources states [truthfully] that it derives its contents from Wikipedia. However, the 2 sources are simply a place where the “views” of individuals are being expressed, similar to SPN. So how does one prove reliability? Whose reliability and in what context? What is the basis of reliability? Some, on SPN simply give their own views unsupported by evidence or any reasonable, constructive explanation.



As already stated above, the only "reliable" information in those two "sources", was the mention of "Ladaakhi Letter of Agreement". In the context of this discussion, I would construe it as a reliable "resource" unless another verifiable "resource" to the contrary is presented. The question of How, Whose & What does not hold any validity because we have a reliable "resource" at our disposal.



Balbir27 said:


> Some, on SPN simply give their own views unsupported by evidence or any reasonable, constructive explanation.



Most respectfully, just because everyone else does it, does not make it a right precedent to follow... An expected level of collective responsibility is expected from all of the SPNers...

For example, SPN has been advocating, since inception, to discuss full shabds in Guru Granth Sahib to derive the real meaning of the shabd while corroborating our statements in a discussion but hardly anyone follows it... Some of the senior respected members ignore this rule blatantly on this forum but it does not make it right.



Balbir27 said:


> What exactly is “debatable”? Is it the source, is it the resource, is it the views, or is it the information?



In the context of this discussion, which is whether Dr. Udoke is distorting Sikh history or not, the 'source(s)' are debatable [_open to discussion or argument._], the views (POVs) are also debatable as the information provided in these views is also debatable but the resource ["Ladaakhi Letter of Agreement"] is not because it holds the Truth.



Balbir27 said:


> SA is a site which “supplies” the views of various people, _like SPN_. In my view neither becomes a “resource”. And, therefore, neither can be absolutely relied upon to portray the truth. Perhaps I should have used the word “site” rather than “source”. My error, in that case.



Nowhere I stated that SPN is a "resource" not did I ever mention anywhere that only SPN portrays the Truth.

I stated "I would rather listen to Dr. Udoke than those bunch of juvenile wannabes at SA." I completely stand by my statement because we have a reliable "resource". In this context, unless, someone can present a verifiable reliable "resource" to the contrary, the information presented to us from a currently reliable resource construes a Truth. [my POV]



Balbir27 said:


> The point being made was that there can be more than one POV, meaning one is obliged to look at _all_ views [and resources] in order to form some opinion, which may _still_ be biased because of life’s experiences. So, once again, what _is_ reliability?



POVs or opinions hold little merit, if we do have a verifiable "reliable resource". In this context, we do have a reliable "resource", which takes a personal bias out of the equation.

or perhaps, you can expound a little on: What _is_ reliability?



Balbir27 said:


> Could you say that one should be discouraged from looking at other sources?



I would never say anything like it.



Balbir27 said:


> In which case the question arises – is the Truth being covered up?



Your statement has a false premise. Truth can never be covered-up... [my POV]



Balbir27 said:


> Is my Truth better than their Truth?



There can only but One Truth, rest are just POVs based on _life's experiences._



Balbir27 said:


> Is it not entirely up to one’s own judgement to decide?



Not sure... our own judgements are influenced by our lives experiences, which actually may or may not reveal the Truth. [my POV]



Balbir27 said:


> Would you not accept that looking at different POVs actually stimulates the mind to ask questions, to seek validations and to explore further?



Yes, we are 100% in agreement!



Balbir27 said:


> Is that not what Sikhi is all about?



Yes, Sikhi is all about exploring and evolving...



Balbir27 said:


> I would not like to be one of the blind men trying to discover the truth of what is an elephant. Having been allocated 1 part (source), I would like to ask if there are other parts (sources) to explore? Would you not?



Due to our perceptions and prejudices, in that weak personal moment, we all become one of those blind men trying to discover the truth of what is an elephant.

Most respectfully, in this context, let us consider one of your sources: [SA] ... Apparently, you did not read the "source" in its entirety before posting here at SPN. Perhaps, you may have already adjudged Dr. Udoke in your POV as being a person who is distorting Sikh history.

So, all that mattered to you at that weak personal moment, was to supply a source, which had some POVs discrediting Dr. Udoke, without being aware that one of posts had that "reliable" information, which you were seeking at first place. What is appreciable is that being a Sikh, you revisited the "source", which revealed the reliable "resource" clearly available in that source.

We should definitely explore all the possibilities with an open frame of mind. Truth transcends any personal prejudices. POVs hold little merit when faced with the Truth.



Balbir27 said:


> I may possibly become a resource, having gained knowledge of all the parts.



Gaining knowledge is an eternal quest. But how may one know that s/he have gained knowledge of all the parts?



Balbir27 said:


> I actually _revisited_ SA, and found that to their credit, someone, on that page, further down, gave the exact translation of the Ladhaki letter referred to, matching the _source _given leading to a particular resource of information.



I truly appreciate your quest for gaining information. Had you gained the knowledge of that "resource" before posting your reservations against Dr. Udoke, we would not be having this discussion. 

Just to reiterate, I am supporting Dr. Udoke in the context of this discussion. Actually, the credit goes to the person, who took the initiative to find and reproduce a reliable "resource".



Balbir27 said:


> I was making a point that the authenticity of Sakhis is disputed (giving one Wiki source which gave _some_ supporting evidence – that needed corroborating – which is why I posted that in this lifetime I would not be able to suss it out). The other source was simply the POVs from SA [apparently a competitor site].
> 
> Re: Janam Sakhi Are True Events
> 
> ...



The intent of providing you this link was only to keep the discussion focused on janamsakhis in a dedicated thread on janamsakhis.

The authenticity of Sakhis can only be corroborated against the litmus test of Gurmat Values and Principles laid down in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, our only Guru. There can be no other more reliable "resource" to corroborate the authenticity of the Sakhis as true events or not...



Balbir27 said:


> The point here is that, regardless of which resource, in the source, one refers to, there appear to be endless controversies. So one may debate until the cows come home, the Earth destructs or the “Dream” ends, but one will not find the true answer. At least _I_ feel I won’t.
> 
> What say you?



Absolutely, I could not have said it in any other better way possible! 

Please excuse my limited English diction... No offense intended...

Bhul chuk maaf


----------



## Balbir27 (Dec 15, 2017)

Aman Singh Ji

Many thanks for your responses.

I think, at this juncture, we both have our own POVs, and rightly so.

Sat Sri Akal


----------

