Atheism Do You Believe In Waheguru

Taken from Internet:

In a mother's womb were two babies. One asked the other: "Do you believe in life after delivery?" The other replies, "why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later. "Nonsense," says the other. "There is no life after delivery. What would that life be?" "I don't know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths." The other says "This is absurd! Walking is impossible. And eat with our mouths? Ridiculous. The umbilical cord supplies nutrition. Life after delivery is to be excluded. The umbilical cord is too short." "I think there is something and maybe it's different than it is here." the other replies, "No one has ever come back from there. Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery it is nothing but darkness and anxiety and it takes us nowhere." "Well, I don't know," says the other, "but certainly we will see mother and she will take care of us." "Mother??" You believe in mother? Where is she now? "She is all around us. It is in her that we live. Without her there would not be this world." "I don't see her, so it's only logical that she doesn't exist." To which the other replied, "sometimes when you're in silence you can hear her, you can perceive her." I believe there is a reality after delivery and we are here to prepare ourselves for that reality....

Oh wow, this is really good! Often times I find myself questioning the existence of God, and I still say that we can't be completely sure, but this really brought me back down to earth, so to speak. Thank you for it

Its a pretty story but from a Sikh point of view it does not work for me on several levels

1.

Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later. "Nonsense," says the other. "There is no life after delivery. What would that life be?"
Reference:

Click to expand...

This infers there is an afterlife, something other than this life, something to make preperations for, its Vedic, not Sikh.

2

."This is absurd! Walking is impossible. And eat with our mouths? Ridiculous. The umbilical cord supplies nutrition. Life after delivery is to be excluded. The umbilical cord is too short"

Click to expand...

To me, this implies we live in a world where God loves us and all we need to do is worship him, open our mouths, and he will provide for us, a bit more Abrahamic, but I still cannot see any Sikh thinking.

3.

"No one has ever come back from there. Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery it is nothing but darkness and anxiety and it takes us nowhere." "Well, I don't know," says the other, "but certainly we will see mother and she will take care of us."

Click to expand...

Ah yes, God is here to take care of us, bless us and help us pass our exams, marry, fall in love, feed us, we are not helpless creatures under the power of some deity, we are Sikhs, capable and in consonance (damn spell checker changed that to incontinent, good job I noticed)

4.

You believe in mother? Where is she now? "She is all around us. It is in her that we live. Without her there would not be this world." "I don't see her, so it's only logical that she doesn't exist." To which the other replied, "sometimes when you're in silence you can hear her, you can perceive her." I believe there is a reality after delivery and we are here to prepare ourselves for that reality....

Click to expand...

Waheguru is not a person, it does not have a personality, it is nothing but the truth, the eternal truth that exists to be aligned with

I suppose you could always lean towards the Abrahamic or the Vedic and prepare yourself with ceremonies and rituals for the big day, but I prefer to focus on what is happening right now, myself.

harry haller said:

I
This infers there is an afterlife, something other than this life, something to make preperations for, its Vedic, not Sikh.

Click to expand...

Harry Ji;

WADR, in YOUR opinion. While I acknowledge that there are scholars who share that opinion, it seems that most Sikh scholars agree that reincarnation is a core part of Sikhi belief (and that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji has numerous references to it)

It would be helpful if posters would note when their opinion is or is not mainstream -- especially for those of us being introduced to Sikhi.

Presenting a non-mainstream opinion as "Sikhi" just confuses us.

Humbly,
Akiva

akiva said:

Harry Ji;

WADR, in YOUR opinion. While I acknowledge that there are scholars who share that opinion, it seems that most Sikh scholars agree that reincarnation is a core part of Sikhi belief (and that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji has numerous references to it)

It would be helpful if posters would note when their opinion is or is not mainstream -- especially for those of us being introduced to Sikhi.

Presenting a non-mainstream opinion as "Sikhi" just confuses us.

Humbly,
Akiva

Click to expand...

akiva ji

I often run that same issue across my consciousness. Here is the problem. There is no "mainstream." There are however schools of thought, sampardyan. Two points to bring once again to the attention of all.

The cycles of death and rebirth are tied historically, through vedic texts, to the caste system. They are the justification for it.

The passages from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that seem to support reincarnation, on careful scrutiny, can also be read a different way.

I can reload once again the pdf file from Sikh Review that explores the topics above in exacting detail along with other treatises from other scholar sites. One place to take a look is the Darpan of Professor Sahib Singh, which I know you have at your fingertips.

And yes there are other sources which insist on a different understanding. However these are associated with Nirmala influences, which are definitely themselves influenced by philosophies rising in Benares.

harry haller said:

Its a pretty story but from a Sikh point of view it does not work for me on several levels

1.

This infers there is an afterlife, something other than this life, something to make preperations for, its Vedic, not Sikh.

2

To me, this implies we live in a world where God loves us and all we need to do is worship him, open our mouths, and he will provide for us, a bit more Abrahamic, but I still cannot see any Sikh thinking.

3.

Ah yes, God is here to take care of us, bless us and help us pass our exams, marry, fall in love, feed us, we are not helpless creatures under the power of some deity, we are Sikhs, capable and in consonance (damn spell checker changed that to incontinent, good job I noticed)

4.

Waheguru is not a person, it does not have a personality, it is nothing but the truth, the eternal truth that exists to be aligned with

I suppose you could always lean towards the Abrahamic or the Vedic and prepare yourself with ceremonies and rituals for the big day, but I prefer to focus on what is happening right now, myself.

Click to expand...

Satnaam Ji,

Its a lovely article, but i think it's just portraying one who only believes in what they see and feel physically and what they 'know' or think they 'know', and another who believes in the unseen, who has a sense of something more, something greater, something imense that is sustaining him/her...

in that sense its a beautifully written article/scenario...


god bless all...

Back on topic!

WAHEGURU SIMRAN BY BHAI RAJINDER SINGH SINGAPORE - YouTube

Dhukh Bhanjan Taera Naam Jee-Raag Gauri Maajh - YouTube
Shabad Interpretation in English:

Waheguru, your Naam relievers all sorrow; destroyer of sorrow is your name. All day and night dwell upon the wisdom of perfect true Guru. That heart, in which the supreme Lord Waheguru abides, is the most beautiful place. The messenger of death does not trouble those who chant the glorious praises of the Lord with their tongue. I have not understood the wisdom of serving Him, nor have I worshipped Him in meditation. O Lord, the Life of this World, I seek your support, you are vast and incomprehensible. When the Lord of the Universe became merciful, sorrow and suffering departed. Those who are protected by the True Guru, do not face difficult times. The Guru is the all-pervading Lord, the Guru is the merciful Master; the Guru is the True Creator Lord. When the Guru was totally satisfied, I obtained everything. Nanak has surrendered to Him forever.

http://gurmatgiangroup.com/

spnadmin said:

The cycles of death and rebirth are tied historically, through vedic texts, to the caste system. They are the justification for it.

Click to expand...

Spnadmin ji

IN Hinduism, yes. But in Sikhi?

asking from ignorance -- would the same argument be made for the buddhist belief in reincarnation/cycle of death and rebirth?

(to my limited understanding the Buddhist and Hindu views of the cycle are different -- where would the Sikhi view fit in?)

Akiva

spnadmin said:

I often run that same issue across my consciousness. Here is the problem. There is no "mainstream." There are however schools of thought, sampardyan.

Click to expand...

spnadmin ji

Wouldn't the SGPC Rehat Maryada be considered a "mainstream" position?
(I'm aware that it doesn't go into this question -- i'm just trying to establish if/what "mainstream" Sikhi is.

(It could be as simple as the "majority" position at any time, for example. That seems to be the origin of the SGPD Rehat.)


Akiva

akiva said:

spnadmin ji

Wouldn't the SGPC Rehat Maryada be considered a "mainstream" position?
(I'm aware that it doesn't go into this question -- i'm just trying to establish if/what "mainstream" Sikhi is.

(It could be as simple as the "majority" position at any time, for example. That seems to be the origin of the SGPD Rehat.)


Akiva

Click to expand...

Akiva ji

Yes we are going off-topic but your questions are thoughtful. The problem of establishing a "mainstream" in my opinion rises from the lack of a hierarchy of clergy in Sikhism. Parchaar, the dialog of individuals on matters of belief, is not restricted to scholars with credentials in Sikh theology as we find in many other religions. It is however a responsibility of the sangat, and that makes it hard for norms of belief to solidify.

And I am not sure how the Sikh Rehat Maryada fits into the discussion except to say that SRM has a lengthy history of worldwide input and approval. Hence it represents a compromise of differing perspectives fit together to arrive at an agreed-to view. Even in its inception SRM was hardly a consensus view in the ordinary meaning of the word "consensus." In fact from its historical start to finish, there were important participants who bolted because they found the compromises unacceptable. Buy-in continues to be debated, including sangats that do not hold to the nitnem as given in the SRM. The nitnem bani is an area where considerable negotiation occurred. I don't want to go too far off topic at this point.

Belief in reincarnation is not something that can be negotiated in the way an agreed to nitnem can be negotiated. Reincarnation is one of those core concepts related to understanding "life after death," and to the theological disposition of good and bad deeds. We do find in SRM many instances where Brahmin practices and pujas are outright rejected. Consequently it is a fair inference that Brahmin theory on reincarnation can be rejected as well without fear of falling out of the "mainstream."

I do not dispute your request that we as commentators describe the sources of our opinions on reincarnation and many other topics. If that is to be a rule, then all must conform, including those who are bringing a Brahmin view.

akiva said:

Spnadmin ji

IN Hinduism, yes. But in Sikhi?

asking from ignorance -- would the same argument be made for the buddhist belief in reincarnation/cycle of death and rebirth?

(to my limited understanding the Buddhist and Hindu views of the cycle are different -- where would the Sikhi view fit in?)

Akiva

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know. I understand that there are differences between the Hindu and Buddhist views. Keep in mind that different branches of Buddhism are not in total agreement either on this matter.

p/s I cannot even say that Sikhi and Buddhism are similar in their rejection of a person-like god. Some Buddhists venerate idols that personify aspects of the divine, and others do not. And some Sikhs harbor idols of Ganesh and pictures of Prithi Chand in gurdwara, and others find this unacceptable.

Akiva ji, there are numerous threads covering these topics. The search bar at the top of the page is a fantastic resource. Many of the threads are long but worth reading all the way through to fully explore different viewpoints. It can be time consuming but well worth it!

Good evening all,

Well, say if the one of the Babies (hypothetical) believed that the Mother was her or his saviour and that she was the only path to salvation (let's name it heaven) because she 'told him or her so'. So say if the other Baby said 'no' and affirmed that the Mother had sent down an angel that spoke to them alone, and told him or her that s/he was her prophet and it was their job to spread her truth of their being, say, reincarnation.

Now, you have two conflicting views (which is comparable to actual religions). So which one is true? It is easy to say that Baby one heard those voices, therefore it must be true. But, I've just cited a case where Baby two has also heard a voice. Their revelations can't both be true, right?

akiva said:

Harry Ji;

WADR, in YOUR opinion. While I acknowledge that there are scholars who share that opinion, it seems that most Sikh scholars agree that reincarnation is a core part of Sikhi belief (and that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji has numerous references to it)

It would be helpful if posters would note when their opinion is or is not mainstream -- especially for those of us being introduced to Sikhi.

Presenting a non-mainstream opinion as "Sikhi" just confuses us.

Humbly,
Akiva

Click to expand...

Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh,

Would you be kind enough to give us the references from The SGGS of what is in the bold above, so that we can further this conversation?

One whole Shabad with your personal understanding of it will be a good starter and then we will move on to the others.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Arvind said:

Taken from Internet:

In a mother's womb were two babies. One asked the other: "Do you believe in life after delivery?" The other replies, "why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later. "Nonsense," says the other. "There is no life after delivery. What would that life be?" "I don't know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths." The other says "This is absurd! Walking is impossible. And eat with our mouths? Ridiculous. The umbilical cord supplies nutrition. Life after delivery is to be excluded. The umbilical cord is too short." "I think there is something and maybe it's different than it is here." the other replies, "No one has ever come back from there. Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery it is nothing but darkness and anxiety and it takes us nowhere." "Well, I don't know," says the other, "but certainly we will see mother and she will take care of us." "Mother??" You believe in mother? Where is she now? "She is all around us. It is in her that we live. Without her there would not be this world." "I don't see her, so it's only logical that she doesn't exist." To which the other replied, "sometimes when you're in silence you can hear her, you can perceive her." I believe there is a reality after delivery and we are here to prepare ourselves for that reality....

Click to expand...

Arvind ji,

Guru Fateh.

Sorry to burst the water here. Pun intended. Pardon my ignorance but to me personally, this hypothetical makes no sense at all.

I would like you to help me in understanding it.

What did you think of this post before posting it? What came to your mind about this 'dialogue' between the two fetuses which would be potential human beings ?

Please share your thoughts with us.

Having said that, allow me to say something about the title of the thread,"Do you believe in Waheguru..."?

Truth needs no belief. Hence Ik Ong Kaar Is.

Thanks & regards

Tewant Singh

harry haller said:

Its a pretty story but from a Sikh point of view it does not work for me on several levels

1.

This infers there is an afterlife, something other than this life, something to make preperations for, its Vedic, not Sikh.

2

To me, this implies we live in a world where God loves us and all we need to do is worship him, open our mouths, and he will provide for us, a bit more Abrahamic, but I still cannot see any Sikh thinking.

3.

Ah yes, God is here to take care of us, bless us and help us pass our exams, marry, fall in love, feed us, we are not helpless creatures under the power of some deity, we are Sikhs, capable and in consonance (damn spell checker changed that to incontinent, good job I noticed)

4.

Waheguru is not a person, it does not have a personality, it is nothing but the truth, the eternal truth that exists to be aligned with

I suppose you could always lean towards the Abrahamic or the Vedic and prepare yourself with ceremonies and rituals for the big day, but I prefer to focus on what is happening right now, myself.

Click to expand...

There is life after death and, that is what Sikhism believes in. Those who do not believe in the theory of birth, death and rebirth are NO SIKHS. If Vedas also subscribe to this theory it does not mean that it is Vedic belief and not Sikh belief. We do differ and agree with other religions on certain aspects like birth, death and rebirth with Vedic culture and Singularity of God and rejection idolatry with Islam. We neither become Hindus nor Muslims for such beliefs. But certainly one who does not believe in the theory of birth, death and rebirth is NO SIKH. The Muslims and Christians do not believe in birth, death and rebirth theory.
Do Aristotle, Findingmyway, Gyani Jarnail Singh and Tejwant Singh agree with Harry Haller? It is very much absurd for a Sikh to denounce the theory Gurbani agrees with.

Tejwant Singh said:

Arvind ji,

Guru Fateh.

Sorry to burst the water here. Pun intended. Pardon my ignorance but to me personally, this hypothetical makes no sense at all.

I would like you to help me in understanding it.

What did you think of this post before posting it? What came to your mind about this 'dialogue' between the two fetuses which would be potential human beings ?

Please share your thoughts with us.

Having said that, allow me to say something about the title of the thread,"Do you believe in Waheguru..."?

Truth needs no belief. Hence Ik Ong Kaar Is.

Thanks & regards

Tewant Singh

Click to expand...

Sat Sri Akaal,

Please don't ask questions, no answers are available,
just expression of my own imagination.

First science is realized through imaginative sense.
than Science realize it through common sense,
that's re search always on.


One is formed of thought,

There are 84 lac channels of thought, yet to be scientifically proved.
governing the human mind,
a particular thought arrangement may reappear in a physical being.
through physical appearance may differ,
area of origin may differ.
is it re arrangement,
re in carnation
or
life after death,
yet to be scientifically explored.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru ji Ki Fateh

akiva said:

Spnadmin ji

IN Hinduism, yes. But in Sikhi?

asking from ignorance -- would the same argument be made for the buddhist belief in reincarnation/cycle of death and rebirth?

(to my limited understanding the Buddhist and Hindu views of the cycle are different -- where would the Sikhi view fit in?)

Akiva

Click to expand...

I would suggest you to please read Gurbani and try to understand and reflect the true meaning of the shalokas. It is a matter of agreeing with our Gurus or not. Those who believe in Gubani are True Sikhs and on the contrary those who subscribe to Muslim and Christian theory are NOT SIKHS.

Those who do not believe in the theory of birth, death and rebirth are NO SIKHS.

Click to expand...

I hate to sound childish, but Says who?

Please, furnish me with the evidence to support your loudly stated claim.