Dear Tejwant Ji
To be brutally honest, who on this forum does?
We are all hypothesising
I guess Sinner Ji pitched his view quite nicely when he said:
Thanks
R
In Sikhism, Is There A Soul? Who Created The Soul? Who Controls The Soul?
Dear Tejwant Ji
To be brutally honest, who on this forum does?
We are all hypothesising
I guess Sinner Ji pitched his view quite nicely when he said:
Thanks
R
This is exactly the right note. To take it a bit further, to understand the meaning of aatma in the context of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the word must be intepreted within the context of full shabads. Even a detailed study of one shabad would help teach the unique sense of Sikhi on the subject of soul.
Thanks to both Ambarsaria ji and to Prakash.s.Bagga ji
BhagatSingh
SPNer
- Apr 24, 2006
- 2,921
- 1,656
With the Grace of the Soul
The soul is there prior to any knowing so how can you know the soul by trying to know the soul? (meditate)
You are before you are a friend, father, mather, brother, sister. So how can you find out what you are if you look for yourself in those relationships. Those are reflections of you. Knowing those relfections does not provide knowledge about who you really are. Similarly, the soul cannot be found by looking at images/descriptions of the soul.
You know before you know friends and relations, science, art, math, sprirutality, religion, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji... The understanding of soul is so simple (the simplest thing) that as soon as you go from I know to "I know the soul" (for instance) the knowledge of soul is lost.
You want to know the soul, and so you come here to ask on the forums, and wait till someone tells you what a soul is. How can they? As soon as they have began to describe it (if they truly know), the knowledge of the soul is lost. What they are referring to is just the reflection of the soul (found in their words), and I am sure you do not want reflections, you want the actual thing.
So you are better off trying to figure out what a soul is through these hints. You are better off going into solitude in a quiet room and find out in yourself what is there prior to knowing...
One cannot know the soul as one comes to know a limb or organ or a friend or SPN member. The soul cannot be known in this sense of the word knowledge, of acquiring new content about the function and anatomy of a limb or organ. The soul cannot be known in this sense of the word knowledge, of acquiring new content as you find about the qualities of a friend or SPN member by meeting him, discussing the nature of soul with him and seeing how he responds and what he says.
The soul is there prior to any knowing so how can you know the soul by trying to know the soul? (meditate)
You are before you are a friend, father, mather, brother, sister. So how can you find out what you are if you look for yourself in those relationships. Those are reflections of you. Knowing those relfections does not provide knowledge about who you really are. Similarly, the soul cannot be found by looking at images/descriptions of the soul.
You know before you know friends and relations, science, art, math, sprirutality, religion, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji... The understanding of soul is so simple (the simplest thing) that as soon as you go from I know to "I know the soul" (for instance) the knowledge of soul is lost.
You want to know the soul, and so you come here to ask on the forums, and wait till someone tells you what a soul is. How can they? As soon as they have began to describe it (if they truly know), the knowledge of the soul is lost. What they are referring to is just the reflection of the soul (found in their words), and I am sure you do not want reflections, you want the actual thing.
So you are better off trying to figure out what a soul is through these hints. You are better off going into solitude in a quiet room and find out in yourself what is there prior to knowing...
Bhagat-teer Ji.
You are an entity which exists before,alongside ,after and remains 'linked' to those physical aspects of form by breath.
We can't know it ,but we can realise it within ourselves ,because we are actually that which we are trying to discern ,who else can we hope to know our real self.On a lighter note, I know a singh who became a sinner who tried to be a Musketeer and now thinks he is a Pimp-ernel ,so as you see that is just not knowing what to call oneself.
I heard on the radio yesterday that almost 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage do they have Souls?
Those relationships form ones identity in life , our perception is that we are that form that we see,what I mean is we take on the responsibility of being a father rather than 'becoming'one we are the same as before in essence but our values change.It does not confound or enlighten us it is just a fact.Bhagat Singh said:
You are an entity which exists before,alongside ,after and remains 'linked' to those physical aspects of form by breath.
We can't know it ,but we can realise it within ourselves ,because we are actually that which we are trying to discern ,who else can we hope to know our real self.On a lighter note, I know a singh who became a sinner who tried to be a Musketeer and now thinks he is a Pimp-ernel ,so as you see that is just not knowing what to call oneself.
I heard on the radio yesterday that almost 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage do they have Souls?
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,387
- 5,690
Seeker9 ji just my observation (not scientific or religious) that soul is representative of all your thought and sensory. So as much as genetics and mental illness I don't know of scientific studies but for a layman observing it is very strongly so genetically.
Again as soul has to be reflective of all I assume it can not be independent.
Karma is a very dangeorus and exploitive concept. It relates to the caste system, higher beings and lower beings based on past lives and re-incarnations and migrations from animal, insect and other souls to human souls, etc. I will suggest, genetics is not Karma but is a universal rule of creation irrespective of Karma.
It is very hard to speak for other people's situations. There is an observable fact about sensory faculties trying to compensate for lack of each other. There is no shortage of people who showed brilliance in their life when one of the faculties were impaired at birth or after.
Just to connect here is an example,
Stevie Wonder one of my favorite Singer/musician/composer who apparently in some songs plays all sounds on keyboard and remixes (incredible),
Stevie Wonder ~ Superstition - YouTube
One has to know the inside of others to answer this. I can't. For me "Maya" stuff is personal like the "soul" and needs to be tackled individually, too much preaching and grand standing on it everywhere.
As the genetics of offspring is a combination of two soul mates, it is hard to predict any specific outcomes.
In a way, if the above applies, it also totally rules out soul re-incarnation as a complete entity from one body to another.
Hope above answers are in the right context.
Sat Sri Akal.
It is ironic, there are over 16000 members of SPN but only hand full members write in forum. I am curious why others don’t reply or write.
In my interaction with major religions majority of the people admit there is soul (atma).
I have talked with many Sikhs in India Uk and USA Canada. Most Sikhs believe that there is soul. But here hardly any one admits that there is soul.
Maybe some don’t want to get into debate knowing their belief be chattered.
Soul and reincarnation is intertwining. But the 3 major religions do not admit there is incarnation. Sikhism is from Hinduism maybe that’s why most Sikhs believe in soul and reincarnation.
If majority of the people believe in soul and few don’t. Are the majority right or few are right? Most people will say if majority is right.
There for ages majority believed that earth was flat and sun goes around the earth. The earth was the center of the universe. Majority did not even know that moon was made of land. It took one man to declare that it is the earth that revolves around the sun. Pandats knew that earth revolve around the sun but they hid it from public. Even still now few people in India still believe that sun revolve around the earth. No one can change their belief.
What if one says that he (I use he as person not man) knows and know the soul. And he says he have seen his past life? People want proof. There is no proof of reincarnation. Those who know are not into proving. People do not want to know the truth. It will break their belief.
DNA and Karma is same thing. Then it was called Karma now it is called DNA. Pandat used it to make money. Pandats was always in search for new ways to make money and control public.
If one studies both with open mind then he can understand it is same thing.
Those who have experience, no proof is needed
Those don’t have experience. No proof is enough
In my interaction with major religions majority of the people admit there is soul (atma).
I have talked with many Sikhs in India Uk and USA Canada. Most Sikhs believe that there is soul. But here hardly any one admits that there is soul.
Maybe some don’t want to get into debate knowing their belief be chattered.
Soul and reincarnation is intertwining. But the 3 major religions do not admit there is incarnation. Sikhism is from Hinduism maybe that’s why most Sikhs believe in soul and reincarnation.
If majority of the people believe in soul and few don’t. Are the majority right or few are right? Most people will say if majority is right.
There for ages majority believed that earth was flat and sun goes around the earth. The earth was the center of the universe. Majority did not even know that moon was made of land. It took one man to declare that it is the earth that revolves around the sun. Pandats knew that earth revolve around the sun but they hid it from public. Even still now few people in India still believe that sun revolve around the earth. No one can change their belief.
What if one says that he (I use he as person not man) knows and know the soul. And he says he have seen his past life? People want proof. There is no proof of reincarnation. Those who know are not into proving. People do not want to know the truth. It will break their belief.
DNA and Karma is same thing. Then it was called Karma now it is called DNA. Pandat used it to make money. Pandats was always in search for new ways to make money and control public.
If one studies both with open mind then he can understand it is same thing.
Those who have experience, no proof is needed
Those don’t have experience. No proof is enough
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,387
- 5,690
seeker3k ji some comments. Please ignore my directness as Ithat is easiest way for me to write or respond. I try not to sugar coat.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w
unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->
Sat Sri Akal. mundahug
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w
unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->
Same deal as “How many books have you written versus how many books have you read”?
This is a personal matter with many, so I respectfully accept that many do not want to share such thoughts with you and such may not even be occupying much of their thinking time. We learn through life that what we may consider brilliant and important may be neither to someone else or even the majority.
I assume you mean shattered (not chattered). In case that is not the case I will say, "Who wants to chatter with someone who is looking for win-lose!" We need to sometimes look at ourselves.
Here we go again how much Sikhism has adopted from what. I would have used more flowery language but I bite my tongue for good of spn. Your scientific survey among Sikhs about reincarnation may be a little flawed.
Truth is not necessarily known by how many people believe in it. If pig meat is proven scientifically to be no different than cow meat, cow meat is shown not different than chicken meat, and protein in soybeans is similar to both. Do you seriously believe that such will get Muslims to eat pork or Indian majority to start eating cows!
This is very interesting analogy. I know some religions claim that they discovered everything that was there to be discovered thousands of years ago. lol
Sat Sri Akal. mundahug
Not sure what "3 major religions" you are talking about. Also I think you mean "reincarnation" rather than "incarnation." There is a difference.
However, the concept of reincarnation is not consistent with the dogma of Christianity or Islam. Reincarnation does not fit either with the definitions of atonement for sins or with the resurrection of the body in the final days of judgement. More about that if anyone is interested.
One compares apples and oranges when one tests the beliefs of adherents of Sikhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, or any other dharmic path, by using Christianity, Judaism or Islam as the yardstick.
Beliefs about the soul in Judaism are not firmly decreed as part of Jewish dogma, though there will be clear statements made by one or another religious scholar.This then affects Jewish beliefs about the soul, and about the soul's connection to the hereafter, or life after death. In other words Jewish dogma is not set in these matters as found in other faiths or belief systems. Much depends on the historical era in which Jewish scholars wrote, and/or on the tradition of Judaism that a Jew follows.
These links demonstrate the extent to which Jews differ amongst themselves on both the nature of the soul and life after death.
http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm
http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/beliefs/afterlife.htm
See the section on The World to Come at this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Eschatology
See Judaism at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife#Judaism
Last but not least ........ Sikhism is not "from Hinduism." And much like Judaism, Sikhism has no required dogma or belief about the soul or reincarnation. Please do not insist that it does. Please do not generalize from one or another grouping of Sikhs and their beliefs to the quom at large. Thank you.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
This is Great!
I came here as an atheist, which meant that I embraced the following
1. there is no god
2. all actions are done for the right reason, not for pleasing some celestial beardy
3. At death, you die, period
4. You operate within the rest of the world, you may do wrong and get away with it, but ultimately you have to deal with yourown conscience, again, not Mr celestial beardy, some of those actions will have consequences, good or bad
5. The meaning of life is to find a balance between what you want to do, and what you should do
And now, thanks to many many people on this forum, I have become a Sikh!!, which means the following
1. there is no god
2. all actions are done for the right reason, not for pleasing some celestial beardy
3. At death, you die, period
4. You operate within the rest of the world, you may do wrong and get away with it, but ultimately you have to deal with yourown conscience, again, not Mr celestial beardy, some of those actions will have consequences, good or bad
5. The meaning of life is to find a balance between what you want to do, and what you should do
6. There are teachers that are able to guide you, so you do not feel alone, these teachers have compiled a book, that if you read it, you will be able to experience and validate what is the truth, and what is not, the book is so beautiful and accurate, that it makes the truth come alive, so much, that you will feel you are sitting in front of all 10 Gurus while they instruct and teach you, not as a god, or a super being, but as normal men who achieved the impossible, and are now willing to help you do the same
I came here looking for more than this, for eternal life, and a god I could personalise, I am now happy to acknowledge, after some thought, and reading of the above, that a soul is a combination of knowledge gained through DNA (via birth), interaction with creation, and a few personal wild cards thrown in for fun. It encapsilates 'you', and when you die, it is integrated back into creation through burial, burning.
So this it, ladies and gentlemen, for the current setup that defines you and is you, dies when you die. I am not lauding this as the definitive answer, but it is certainly the one that I intend to live by for the rest of my days, or until a close study of the SGGS proves otherwise
I came here as an atheist, which meant that I embraced the following
1. there is no god
2. all actions are done for the right reason, not for pleasing some celestial beardy
3. At death, you die, period
4. You operate within the rest of the world, you may do wrong and get away with it, but ultimately you have to deal with yourown conscience, again, not Mr celestial beardy, some of those actions will have consequences, good or bad
5. The meaning of life is to find a balance between what you want to do, and what you should do
And now, thanks to many many people on this forum, I have become a Sikh!!, which means the following
1. there is no god
2. all actions are done for the right reason, not for pleasing some celestial beardy
3. At death, you die, period
4. You operate within the rest of the world, you may do wrong and get away with it, but ultimately you have to deal with yourown conscience, again, not Mr celestial beardy, some of those actions will have consequences, good or bad
5. The meaning of life is to find a balance between what you want to do, and what you should do
6. There are teachers that are able to guide you, so you do not feel alone, these teachers have compiled a book, that if you read it, you will be able to experience and validate what is the truth, and what is not, the book is so beautiful and accurate, that it makes the truth come alive, so much, that you will feel you are sitting in front of all 10 Gurus while they instruct and teach you, not as a god, or a super being, but as normal men who achieved the impossible, and are now willing to help you do the same
I came here looking for more than this, for eternal life, and a god I could personalise, I am now happy to acknowledge, after some thought, and reading of the above, that a soul is a combination of knowledge gained through DNA (via birth), interaction with creation, and a few personal wild cards thrown in for fun. It encapsilates 'you', and when you die, it is integrated back into creation through burial, burning.
So this it, ladies and gentlemen, for the current setup that defines you and is you, dies when you die. I am not lauding this as the definitive answer, but it is certainly the one that I intend to live by for the rest of my days, or until a close study of the SGGS proves otherwise
Veer Ji
Your claim started like this:
Guru Nanak's claim started like this:
'There is one God'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zQeXuV-A6Jw
Your claim started like this:
Harry Haller said:
Guru Nanak's claim started like this:
'There is one God'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zQeXuV-A6Jw
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
SPji,
there is no god, the translation of Ek Onkar deserves its own thread :interestedkudi:
there is no god, the translation of Ek Onkar deserves its own thread :interestedkudi:
Good call
Yes, there is no patriarchal celestial beardy one who is temperamental, selfish and moody at times wrathful (e.g Old Testament) whilst being benevolent at other times
Troubled chap....perhaps He could meditate more for some inner peace....
Veera another way of looking at it isSeeker 3k in the Title of thread said:
In Sikhism is there a Soul who created the Soul, [&] who controls the Soul?
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
or maybe he could find Sikhismlol
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,387
- 5,690
spnadmin ji my comment for consideration,
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w
unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->
Sat Sri Akal.
I think what Harry Ji meant is there is no beardy patriarchal God that punishes generations and appreciates burnt offerings and begging prayers.....
That is what I think....
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,387
- 5,690
At Harry Haller ji's service in return for his services,
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/37225-sri-guru-granth-sahib-review-ik.html
Look forward to seeing spn sangat there.
Sat Sri Akal.
Ambarsaria ji
Yes....
That is how I came to the conclusion that there is a God in Sikhi. japposatnamwaheguru: Of course I can put [God] in brackets as I frequently do because the word [God] does seem to give some of us hives. In brackets, the word can be used provisionally. Apologies
Yes....
That is how I came to the conclusion that there is a God in Sikhi. japposatnamwaheguru: Of course I can put [God] in brackets as I frequently do because the word [God] does seem to give some of us hives. In brackets, the word can be used provisionally. Apologies
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
