Near Death Experiences: Reality, Dreams Or Other

[Harkiran Kaur]

What is a Soul? We must know what it means to an individual or to a collective group before we attempt to link it with our ancestors.

Input from all is requested.

To say "A" soul is wrong thinking as there is only ONE. But soul is that which surpasses the physical. The "I AM" the "Experiencer" behind every consciousness. When you remove all traces of ego identity built based on life experiences - the character you associate with right now - even if you remove all that there still exists an experiencer consciousness. The awareness. That's the 'soul'.

But ultimate reality is Oneness and as such there is only One soul. There are however many characters.

 

[Ambarsaria]

What is a Soul? We must know what it means to an individual or to a collective group before we attempt to link it with our ancestors.

Input from all is requested.

Tejwant Singh ji let us start a separate topic. However, I believe it is a subject in itself and probably many threads on it. By the way if you search for soul in Thread titles at SPN, there are 73 thread with the word soul in them.

One suggestion if I may; when you ask all to provide inputs; please provide your input in first person. As the saying goes, "Do first yourself, what you ask others to do".

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Original]

What is a Soul? We must know what it means to an individual or to a collective group before we attempt to link it with our ancestors.

Input from all is requested.

Good morning Sir [04:32 UK]

If you're looking for a detailed answer then I suggest you navigate over to, what is a soul by Singh_Man in the research box above. But otherwise, for sake of advancement with current topic to hand, I'll give you the philosophical reasoning behind ithe existence of the soul.

First premise: do you believe in God ? If affirmative then deductive reasoning would have it thus:

1. God exists
2. Soul is part of God
3. Therefore soul exists

All in all everything flows from the validity of 1, conversely speaking, one could argue [atheist], no God doesn't exist. And since existence is not a predicate it doesn't require proof, that is to say, for example, 'Tom went into the woods and saw 4 Tigers, there could've been 5'

As I have maintained from day dot that certain matters fall within the realm of belief, which the scientific method cannot help with in determining existence. For example, if you have a triangle then it must [necessity] have 3 sides, but you could equally argue [atheist] that there is no triangle in the first place and hence no sides.

In short Sir, it's a question of belief and since we're conversing on the property of a Sikh site [SPN] one would presume it's members to be "believers" rather than non believers of the existence of God.

Hope it helps ! Bye for now -

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant Singh ji let us start a separate topic. However, I believe it is a subject in itself and probably many threads on it. By the way if you search for soul in Thread titles at SPN, there are 73 thread with the word soul in them.

One suggestion if I may; when you ask all to provide inputs; please provide your input in first person. As the saying goes, "Do first yourself, what you ask others to do".

Sat Sri Akal.

Ambarsaria ji,

Guru Fateh.

My input is in many of those 73 threads regarding soul.
The reason I raised this question about soul here is because of yours and Original ji's posts which mention it and link it to our ancestors.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

First premise: do you believe in God ? If affirmative then deductive reasoning would have it thus:

1. God exists
2. Soul is part of God
3. Therefore soul exists

All in all everything flows from the validity of 1, conversely speaking, one could argue [atheist], no God doesn't exist. And since existence is not a predicate it doesn't require proof, that is to say, for example, 'Tom went into the woods and saw 4 Tigers, there could've been 5'

As I have maintained from day dot that certain matters fall within the realm of belief, which the scientific method cannot help with in determining existence. For example, if you have a triangle then it must [necessity] have 3 sides, but you could equally argue [atheist] that there is no triangle in the first place and hence no sides.

In short Sir, it's a question of belief and since we're conversing on the property of a Sikh site [SPN] one would presume it's members to be "believers" rather than non believers of the existence of God.

Hope it helps ! Bye for now -

Original ji,
Guru Fateh.

First premise: do you believe in God ? If affirmative then deductive reasoning would have it thus:

1. God exists
2. Soul is part of God
3. Therefore soul exists

All in all everything flows from the validity of 1, conversely speaking, one could argue [atheist], no God doesn't exist. And since existence is not a predicate it doesn't require proof, that is to say, for example, 'Tom went into the woods and saw 4 Tigers, there could've been 5'

You are contradicting yourself again. There is a difference between a religious Belief/blind faith that can not be questioned and an Existence which is based on empirical evidence. One believes in a Spaghetti Monster for example because one has been told to, from a religious point of view. And what exists is simply IS. No belief needed there.

Your examples of Tom and a tiger are irrelevant here. The number of tigers and the existence of a tiger are two different things. Yes, a tiger exists. No belief needed there. How many Tom saw has nothing to do with the point being discussed.

Sikhi is not a belief system and there is no god in Sikhi. Let's try not to insert Hindutva and/or Abrahamic values about beliefs in Sikhi which many have been trying to do since the time of Guru Nanak.

For a Sikh, Ik Ong Kaar IS. SGGS, our only Guru teaches us that.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

To say "A" soul is wrong thinking as there is only ONE. But soul is that which surpasses the physical. The "I AM" the "Experiencer" behind every consciousness. When you remove all traces of ego identity built based on life experiences - the character you associate with right now - even if you remove all that there still exists an experiencer consciousness. The awareness. That's the 'soul'.

But ultimate reality is Oneness and as such there is only One soul. There are however many characters.

Harkiran ji,

Guru Fateh.

Is this your personal view regarding soul?
Just curious.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Harkiran ji,

Guru Fateh.

Is this your personal view regarding soul?
Just curious.

Not just my personal view, but supported by Gurbani. I wont post the applicable passages right now because to post each one I'd have to post the full shabads which would derail the topic because it would take likely 4-5 full posts of 3000 characters each. I have posted them before however.

Also, Sikhi does not believe in a 'God'? That might be news to a vast majority of Sikhs you know! If they refer to Ikonkar as God what does it matter? There is a CREATOR, that Creator is CONSCIOUS of creation. That Creator is both formless and ALL forms. Just because some play with semantics over the idea of a bearded guy sitting on a cloud doesn't mean that the Sikhi definition of our Creator can't be referred to as 'God' are you really that concerned about terminology? Or do you not believe in a conscious creator at all?? In which case that very much does make you Atheist by definition - someone who does not believe in a Creator. Though I would not be surprised since you tend to interpret everything in Gurbani as referring to only states of mind.

So removing the specific term 'God' do YOU personally, believe there is a creator who created everything - and is conscious of said creation?

Gurbani actually says this ONE creator is all there is, and we all posses the divine light. The doer behind us all is actually 'him' (now dont pls get into tizzy because usage of him vs her we understand its difficult to use it when referring to conscious sentience).

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Not just my personal view, but supported by Gurbani. I wont post the applicable passages right now because to post each one I'd have to post the full shabads which would derail the topic because it would take likely 4-5 full posts of 3000 characters each. I have posted them before however.

Also, Sikhi does not believe in a 'God'? That might be news to a vast majority of Sikhs you know! If they refer to Ikonkar as God what does it matter? There is a CREATOR, that Creator is CONSCIOUS of creation. That Creator is both formless and ALL forms. Just because some play with semantics over the idea of a bearded guy sitting on a cloud doesn't mean that the Sikhi definition of our Creator can't be referred to as 'God' are you really that concerned about terminology? Or do you not believe in a conscious creator at all?? In which case that very much does make you Atheist by definition - someone who does not believe in a Creator. Though I would not be surprised since you tend to interpret everything in Gurbani as referring to only states of mind.

So removing the specific term 'God' do YOU personally, believe there is a creator who created everything - and is conscious of said creation?

Gurbani actually says this ONE creator is all there is, and we all posses the divine light. The doer behind us all is actually 'him' (now dont pls get into tizzy because usage of him vs her we understand its difficult to use it when referring to conscious sentience).

Harkiran ji,

Guru Fateh.
This subject has been discussed here before. God per se is considered a deity/creator. Ik Ong Kaar is not a deity which is also interchangeably used as Creator and you know very well the difference of "Creator" in the Abrahamic religion and in Sikhi. This is the reason I do not use the word god/creator in Sikhi.

We used to call a Sikh house of worship as a SikhTemple but now we call it a Gurdwara in English. Even non Sikhs call it like this because we are using the right name.

The same should be done with Ik Ong Kaar.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Harkiran ji,

Guru Fateh.
This subject has been discussed here before. God per se is considered a deity/creator. Ik Ong Kaar is not a deity which is also interchangeably used as Creator and you know very well the difference of "Creator" in the Abrahamic religion and in Sikhi. This is the reason I do not use the word god/creator in Sikhi.

We used to call a Sikh house of worship as a SikhTemple but now we call it a Gurdwara in English. Even non Sikhs call it like this because we are using the right name.

The same should be done with Ik Ong Kaar.

Ok but you are still playing with semantics... Its understood that the concept of our Creator in Sikhi is formless / yet is all form and that is different from a creator concept who exists separate from creation as in Abrahamic religions etc. But Many use the word God to simply mean 'creator' and do not mean to mix it up with bearded guy sitting on a cloud concept. Without derailing the topic because of terminology why cant we just continue the actual topic??

I prefer Akal Purakh / Waheguru to 'God' but its easier sometimes to explain to my non sikh friends that these are terms to explain our concept of what they term God. Even if their picture of what God is differs a bit from ours, the idea is 'Creator' just the same.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Ok but you are still playing with semantics... Its understood that the concept of our Creator in Sikhi is formless / yet is all form and that is different from a creator concept who exists separate from creation as in Abrahamic religions etc. But Many use the word God to simply mean 'creator' and do not mean to mix it up with bearded guy sitting on a cloud concept. Without derailing the topic because of terminology why cant we just continue the actual topic??

I prefer Akal Purakh / Waheguru to 'God' but its easier sometimes to explain to my non sikh friends that these are terms to explain our concept of what they term God. Even if their picture of what God is differs a bit from ours, the idea is 'Creator' just the same.

No, it is not, what you mentioned in bold. The Earth is not 6000 years old as "created" by the Abrahamic creator/god.

 

[Harry Haller]

If we were to assume that the stress and pressure of impending death brings about an experience, which more often than not is extremely pleasant, could this not be due to the body's ability to finally let go, to let go of fear, to let go of living, to let go of everything, it is not often that a body, a mind can completely let go of all responsibilities, desires, needs, fears, aspirations, but maybe in these circumstances, it does, and what follows could be seen as a glimpse into the state of mind of the faithful.

I have been chastised in the past for comparing certain experiences to drug related highs, however, I feel the comparison is fair, heroin will make the body completely immune to pain and put the brain in a state not that different to the state of impending death, ie, nothing matters, so why is it such a surprise that the experiences could be so similar?

This is why I personally have no wish to enter this state, I know that if I did, or if I got a glimpse, then it is game over for me, with my addictive nature, I would chase these experiences and do what I could do obtain them, I would meditate 24/7, chant, do whatever it took, I would enter the state of an addict, desperate once more for those glimpses, those feelings, real life would become irrelevant,

my own opinion

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Harry Ji. They are not 'euphoric' as in like drugs. For many they are very negative experiences.

The base experience seems to be similar:
Floating over or by ones body
Seeing the physical body from different perspective
Silver cord (ironically also mentioned in Christian bible)
Tunnel with light at end
Rushing / static / electricity like sounds

What the person experiences at other end of tunnel is different. For some it's peaceful and for others is hell. (It's said we actually judge ourselves and our next transmigration is based on how we do so) others still are told they have unfinished business here. So some choose to come back to right the wrongs that causes the judgement to be 'hell' while others come back to finish things, and others because it's just not time to leave or they are attached to things here.

This is why makes it less likely to be just like a drug induced high. Also it can't be REM (dreams) because when these experiences have happened the brain was not in a REM state. In fact the brain was not processing imagery at all (occipital lobe) so where do the images come from? Even memory centres are shut down. For some there is a timeline when things happened. Some patients have accurately described things in the operating room - no not general things like an operating table - but like conversations etc at that time. But their brain was not able to process that information even if they heard it on the table since they were in cardiac arrest, no memory could be formed not only because of the lack of brain function but also the anesthetic itself which suppresses REM etc.
Also the idea that the entire experience took place prior to the cardiac arrest or before they lose consciousness is debunked because of those where it happened during surgery because as I said, it's well known general anesthetic suppresses REM (dream state) and causes amnesia even if the patient is not fully induced into unconsciousness.

 

[Harry Haller]

Harry Ji. They are not 'euphoric' as in like drugs. For many they are very negative experiences.

yes, this is called a bad trip!

However the point I am trying to make is the similarity between say being high on heroin and an NDE.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

yes, this is called a bad trip!

However the point I am trying to make is the similarity between say being high on heroin and an NDE.

But there is still no sense of physical euphoria... I mean the physical sensations that people are after with drugs. NDE / OBE do not have that. I mean I have been on pain meds narcotics before, and that floaty high feeling you get from the medication, that is not there at all in OBE / NDE.

And to have a bad trip (or any trip) you kind of require to be awake / forming memories of it LOL. Otherwise you are just unconscious.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Reincarnation is a bad word to use... that implies that we are all little separate individual souls who jump from life to life in different bodies.

Transmigration is a better term. And there is only ONE soul. ONE universal consciousness... Its that ONE universal consciousness (Akal Purakh) which is experiencing itself through duality - through many different eyes - Through Ego we have forgotten the divine light inside of us is all there really is. Rest is part of the illusion.

But yes that ONE soul, does inhabit ALL forms, and ALL times. And that ONE soul is the 'doer' the 'experiencer' behind us all. And even then you will pick apart my words... but for lack of better vocabulary.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

The very implication of what NDE / OBE are, warrants a look at what the 'soul' is. In its simplest explanation, it's that part of us which is nonphysical and exists independent upon the physical body. Whether or not you believe that anything exists independent of the physical body is irrelevant. That is the idea of what we are looking at when examining the idea of NDE / OBE. Some people may have different ideas of what that entails and that is dependent upon how 'real' we also consider the physical to be.

In Sikhi, There is only ONE Universal soul - Ik Onkar, Waheguru, Akal Purakh. Only ONE consciousness or awareness and all of us are actually that ONE playing different parts. This makes sense if you think of the Universe as one single 'field' of energy. Like the radiowaves in the air. They don't produce music until a receiver tunes in on a specific station and then wow we hear music! But until the antenna intercepts those radiowaves and sends them to the receiver, they are just waves. Pure frequency. Vibration. That pure frequency IS Creator. And it's aware. But being formless, the only way it can experience itself is through its own creation... turning frequency into form... tuning into this reality and viewing things from the perspective of a character in that reality. But it's all just a television show, or radio station and once the receiver is switched off... it goes back to being pure frequency. Ask yourself when you turn off the radio, did the song cease to exist? It's still there playing... Think of the DJ as being Waheguru. Think of this reality as the radiowaves (pure frequency) that you only realize while you are tuned in to it. It's an advanced program... like virtual reality. You can interact same as in a 3d video game! But when your game ends, you the player have only tuned out of this reality and back into the pure frequency form. This is 'soul'. And this description is not far off because we know looking deep into reality that everything solid, really is just energy at a slow state of vibration.

Our separate identities form because we wrongly assume we are the identity of this physical body. We have forgotten that we are the actor behind the costume so to speak. Or the dreamer instead of the dream. (funny how these analogies are used in Gurbani! Coincidence??)

OBEs and NDEs glimpse into this reality that you are more than the physical ego identity you associate with. You see a glimpse of the larger picture. Harry Ji asked before what good do these experiences do, if they don't help THIS life and reality? Fair question, but what if THIS reality... the physical one is NOT the point? The point is the much larger picture from the perspective of ONEness. The ways to get to that perspective require living in harmony with all that is. But you should never lose focus of the bigger picture. If it helps to only focus on the small picture for now then fine... you are not harming anyone. But you are not progressing yourself to escape the prison of this limited reality.

Leaving you with this...

 

[chazSingh]

yes, this is called a bad trip!

However the point I am trying to make is the similarity between say being high on heroin and an NDE.

have you had a NDE? i know you mentioned that you had a heart attack recently...but did you have a NDE of some kind of afterlife or experience of a world \ dimension beyond the physical?

 

[Ambarsaria]

<snip - AK>

chazSingh ji you may have a point but to his credit, Tejwant Singh ji has tried to clarify this in an old thread as follows,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threa...-and-what-is-the-significa.37654/#post-157074

Re: Creator /God ਦਾਤਾ/ਰੱਬ in SGGS is Masculine or Feminine and what is the significance?

This shows how our Gurus were visionary and practiced gender equality in all aspects. The proof is that they gave both genders to Ik Ong Kaar in Gurbani. There are many Shabads in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru where Ik Ong Kaar is mentioned as Father, Mother, Sister, Brother, mate etc. etc.

So, in order to have gender equality, The Source is explained in both genders. What a great vision of our Gurus!

One more interesting thing to notice is that Ik Ong Kaar is addressed as Tun, Tunhee, Tera etc. etc. which in Punjabi language are singulars but in Punjabi culture, they are considered disrespectful, even insulting when addressed to our elders. We use plurals like Tusi,Tuhadei, Tuhanoo etc. etc. as a sign of reverence and respect.

Thanks to our visionary Gurus, they only used the singular, not as a sign of an insult nor as a sign of disrespect but to breed/ create/develop closeness to Ik Ong Kaar. Hence, Ik Ong Kaar is our Father, Mother, Sister, Brother, and the most important, our Mate, our Friend.

Tejwant Singh

#18 Tejwant Singh, Nov 26, 2011
Last edited: Nov 26, 2011

This subject is a bit tertiary to thread topic so we should control ourselves from going in tangents.

You may also refer to an older thread in this regard as there was good dialog in that too,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threads/sri-guru-granth-sahib-review-of-ikoankar.37225/

I believe there is a significant difference between OBE and NDE. NDEs I never had but OBEs I am having continuously including when I am typing this post

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Ishna]

This thread is very close to closing if people can't stop talking about other members.

"Great minds discuss ideas;
Average minds discuss events;
Small minds discuss people."

You all have great minds, so don't preoccupy yourselves with the easy talk about other people, and focus on the Sikh ideas we're all here to learn, read about and discuss.

Thank you Ambarsaria Ji for steering the conversation back with great effort.

 

[Original]

Reincarnation is a bad word to use... that implies that we are all little separate individual souls who jump from life to life in different bodies.

Transmigration is a better term. And there is only ONE soul. ONE universal consciousness... Its that ONE universal consciousness (Akal Purakh) which is experiencing itself through duality - through many different eyes - Through Ego we have forgotten the divine light inside of us is all there really is. Rest is part of the illusion.

But yes that ONE soul, does inhabit ALL forms, and ALL times. And that ONE soul is the 'doer' the 'experiencer' behind us all. And even then you will pick apart my words... but for lack of better vocabulary.

HKJ

Good to talk - hope all is well at your end and that your en route to a speedy recovery !

....sadly my dear, it's an inheritance from the colonialism's vocab [reincarnation], The natives call it "janam" and it has a beautiful ring to it, meaning, immortal soul recycling as it were to exit the wheel of 84. Read within that context and understood as a concept of theoretical reasoning of an era, the beauty is beyond measure.

I'll say more another time - Goodnight !