Reincarnation

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat ji

I am glad you clarified. It is always amazing how many noted and/or accepted scholars of Gurbani do not have academic credentials in History, languages or eastern Philosophy. In fact it would be worth the effort to do an analysis just to see how inter-disciplinary and multi-discplinary Sikh scholarship is.

My concern would be that if one waits until one has conquered the ocean, one will never realise what has collected within the bucket. I.E., you will never begin a serious programme of vichaar and hold it out for others to consider, question and evaluate.

Yes, you got to get going with the bucket you have. Remember, individually, we might all only have a few buckets, but put them together and we have a following river.
Of course, one must collect more knowledge and get more buckets, periodically.

I was asking about a consensus because at least in academic and scholarly domains finding a critical mass of people schooled in a subject is usually the way in which works of scholarship are agreed on as scholarship.

ok I think I get what you are saying. Wouldn't everyone agree though that if someone is studying and interpreting SGGS (formally) they would need to have a background in history, language (and metaphor) and eastern philosophy?

 

[BhagatSingh]

Randip Singh ji, welcome to this thread!

Actually it is/was radically different.

Wheras Hinduism, and Guru Nanaks contemporaries saw reincarnation as some sort of order, rock to plant to animal and then human, Guru Nanak saw only human life as being most important and precious and the rest of reincarnation he saw as random, i.e. people can just from rock to human etc.

yes I am aware of the shabads that you have in that article. They proceed with the following rhythm.
In so many incarnations you were X.
In so many incarnations you were Y.

I am interested in knowing your reasons and why you think he is breaking some ordered hierarchy.

Here's what I think:
From those shabads, ts difficult to conclude that Guru Arjan is rejecting any order or hierarchy. IMO Guru Arjan is just makign a point that you have suffered so much in reincarnation in many different forms, now is the time (as human) to experience Oneness.
He seems to be just listing off different forms one could be in. I think the only thing we can really conclude from this is that Guru Arjan also considers rocks and mountains to be part of reincarnation.

If one says that Guru Arjan intentionally lists them in a random order, then by the same logic is Guru Arjan intentionally leaving out some creations implying we do not incarnate to those forms?

 

[Randip Singh]

Randip Singh ji, welcome to this thread!<?"urn:fficeffice" />

yes I am aware of the shabads that you have in that article. They proceed with the following rhythm.
In so many incarnations you were X.
In so many incarnations you were Y.

I am interested in knowing your reasons and why you think he is breaking some ordered hierarchy.

<o> </o>
Because he is breaking with the Hindu notion of Karma, which directly leads us to believe in the caste system.
<o> </o>
i.e. ones Karma determines ones castes and there is hierarchy of humans, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishnav, Sudra, Untouchable, Animal, Plant, Rock.

Here's what I think:
From those shabads, ts difficult to conclude that Guru Arjan is rejecting any order or hierarchy. IMO Guru Arjan is just makign a point that you have suffered so much in reincarnation in many different forms, now is the time (as human) to experience Oneness.
He seems to be just listing off different forms one could be in. I think the only thing we can really conclude from this is that Guru Arjan also considers rocks and mountains to be part of reincarnation.

If one says that Guru Arjan intentionally lists them in a random order, then by the same logic is Guru Arjan intentionally leaving out some creations implying we do not incarnate to those forms?

<o> </o>
Then that would imply they believed in a caste system too right?

 

[spnadmin]

<o> </o>
Because he is breaking with the Hindu notion of Karma, which directly leads us to believe in the caste system.
<o> </o>

Oh I am so happy I am not talking to myself. cheerleader Thanks!

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Sadh Sangat,

Guru Fateh.

While I am waiting for my responses from G.Singh,Dalbarik Singh ji and other members, I have one more questions to ask :

1.Is there any being in the world that does not have a womb because according to the excellent essay by G Singh ji womb is real and not used as a metaphor?

Sometimes, I myself feel like a floating glacier who broke from the womb and is adrift in the lesser environment called water waiting for my death and hence becoming the part of this lesser environment I am drifting in.

In the next life I hope to become the part of the Gobi desert.

Tejwant Singh

 

[findingmyway]

Re: An informal critique of Dr. Baldev Singh's article plus a discussion of things brought up in the thread.

A lot has been going on in this thread and it is taking me sometime to digest it all!

[

QUOTE=BhagatSingh;132407]

I still have to see what Kala Afghana has written but I have read Dr. Baldev Singh's article several times now... I have to say I found it kind of funny this time around. Now that I understand the Fact of Evolution and have some understanding of Eastern Traditions (Budddhism, Hinduism and its schools, Sikhism), I don't buy into his arguments. I am sure Dr Baldev Singh ji is being quite honest with his interpretations of Gurbani but I am not so sure if they are correct at all. In fact, they have been interpreted with scientific glasses, which simply gives a scientific overtone to all verses he presents. and such overtones are just not there in the original. A simple fact of history that Modern Science is fairly recent compared to Guru Nanak's time, puts doubt on interpreting Sri Guru Granth Sahib scientifically. You just won't get the right interpretation if you interpret it in a modern context, and so Dr. Baldev Singh's article is what you would expect as a result, in hindsight.

Is it fair to discount science completely? A lot of the Guru Granth Sahib is very logical and makes sense. Why shouldn't gurbani be interpreted according to logic? Certainly historical context matters but is that the only concext that can be used?

I think G Singh's Post (provided by Dalbirk ji here i nthe thread) pretty much explains reincarnation in Sikhism. There IS a belief in reincarnation and transmigration of souls.

But aren't reincarnation and transmigration of souls 2 completely different concepts? Do they have to be interrelated?
----------------------------

Dr Baldev Singh ji says:

I am not so sure of this actually. This is one of the assumptions Singh makes in his article. I am not so sure Guru Nanak rejected the caste system, he certainly rejected the discrimination based on caste system. Races aren't like castes but if one takes the analogy at the superficially, then Guru Nanak was against Racism not the idea that there are separate races. Although, back in the day, castes would be considered no different to races.

I disagree. IMHO Guru Nanak Dev Ji recongnised that caste was different to race adn was used as a means of discrimination. After having travelled so widely, I think Guru Nanak would be very wise to different races, which is effectively genetic differences whereas caste differences were applied across races in India according to status. South and north Indians are different races and this difference is visible. The difference in high and low caste is not visible except by manmade marks.

As per the following Verse, we see Guru Nanak ji is not rejecting castes:



In this verse, Guru Ramdas ji says that castes were created by God.

The verses you quote, I would interpret them completely differently. To me they say God has created all so why see differences (and therefore reject the caste system). Incidentally the word varan in one of your quotes can also mean colour so maybe that line is actually referring to race rather than caste??
How do you explain these quotes?
PkV jwqI PkVu nwau ]
sBnw jIAw iekw Cwau ]
Awphu jy ko Blw khwey ]
nwnk qw pru jwpY jw piq lyKY pwey ]1]
Worthless is the caste and worthless is the status attached to
it, as the Protector of all is One. “One may consider oneself
high, but Nanak says, “High is the one who is approved by
God.” AGGS, M 1, p. 83.
kc pkweI EQY pwie ]
nwnk gieAw jwpY jwie ]34]
Nanak, whether one is inferior or superior is found out when
one goes to the court of God (when one is tested on the
touchstone of Truth). AGGS, Jap 34, p. 7.
jwxhu joiq n pUChu jwqI AwgY jwiq n hy ]1] rhwau ]
Recognize the Light that is present in all. Do not ask anyone's
caste as there is no caste under God’s domain. AGGS, M 1,
p. 349.
Ksmu ivswrih qy kmjwiq ]
nwnk nwvY bwJu snwiq ]4]3]
Those who forget God are degenerate. O Nanak, without
contemplation on God one is low/outcaste. AGGS, M 1, p. 10
and p. 349.
jwqI dY ikAw hiQ scu prKIAY ]
mhurw hovY hiQ mrIAY cKIAY ]
What good is caste/social status? One’s true worth is
determined by Truth/truthful living. Caste/social status is like
holding poison in hand. If one tastes it, one dies. AGGS, M 1,
p. 142.
AgY jwiq n joru hY AgY jIau nvy ]
ijn kI lyKY piq pvY cMgy syeI kyie ]3]
Caste or worldly power is of no avail--under God’s domain
rules are different. Only those are honored there, who earn
merit through truthful living! AGGS, M 1, p. 469.
AY jI nw hm auqm nIc n miDm hir srxwgiq hir ky log ]
Respected one, I am neither of high nor low nor medium
caste; I serve God, Who is my Protector. AGGS, M 1, p. 504.

Singh then argues that:
Hence, essence of God is present in everything. We call it soul when it is specifically present in life. It does not have to be consciousness, in that sense.
BTW contrary to what Singh seems to believe, this is exactly what Hindu tradtions also say about the soul, and it does not contradict with reincarnation.

In Sri Guru Granth Sahib, soul is not separate from God but it does have to suffer during life. Reincarnation means that the soul has to suffer over and over again. The discipline of Bhagati is ultimately meant to release the soul from the the cycle of births and deaths, from the suffering.

Why can the purpose of being a gurmukh not be to be released from pain and suffering in the current life?

A number of other posts have mentioned that without reincarnation there is no point to be a better person but I do not understand this viewpoint so please could someone explain further? Does the reward of no longer suffering once you realise the lord not bear enough fruit. This is what Anand Sahib talks about. Why can that not be our aim for this lifetime, why focus on the next lifetime? Why is the reward of being a better person and experiencing true happiness in our lifetime not enough reward?

Will return with more thoughts later

 

[findingmyway]

Sadh Sangat,

Guru Fateh.

While I am waiting for my responses from G.Singh,Dalbarik Singh ji and other members, I have one more questions to ask :

1.Is there any being in the world that does not have a womb because according to the excellent essay by G Singh ji womb is real and not used as a metaphor?

Sometimes, I myself feel like a floating glacier who broke from the womb and is adrift in the lesser environment called water waiting for my death and hence becoming the part of this lesser environment I am drifting it.

In the next life I hope to become the part of the Gobi desert.

Tejwant Singh

Birds do not have wombs which is why they lay eggs externally

 

[findingmyway]

Tejwant Singh Ji,
I am looking forward to your posts and your take on things.

Another thought has just struck me. People in support of the traditional view of reincarnation often cite karam determining into how much comfort one is subsequently born into. In gurbani it clearly states that you do not take material wealth with you after death. However, the traditional view does not strictly follow this as if you are a good person, you supposedly are born into a good house with many comforts????

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Birds do not have wombs which is why they lay eggs externally

Jasleenji- Findingmywayji ( a beautiful name),

Guru Fateh.

This forum allows me to think aloud and that is all what I do. We all have the same tool box in the form of SGGS, our only Guru. This is our only GPS through which we can find our way. No pun intended.

As many amphibians and reptiles including birds do not have wombs, so does that mean that these joons are out of our reach during reincarnation?

Can we erase them from our reincarnation slate?

The Essay by G Singh insists that we go back to the womb.

Too bad, I wanted to come like Guru Gobind Singh's falcon one day but it seems that this is not possible anymore.

Tejwant Singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

Randip Singh ji

Then that would imply they believed in a caste system too right?

Hmm...
I think there are two ways of opposing the caste system.
1. You oppose the evils that result from the system.
2. You oppose the entire system itself.

Which one do you think Guru Sahib is opposing? and why do you think so?
-------------------
Tejwant Singh ji,
If I may ask you a question as well.
Do you think that if we took the word womb to mean "a part of anatomy from where life ultimately comes out of", which could apply to any life, do you think that this definition would undercut G Singh's position?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

Tejwant Singh ji,
If I may ask you a question as well.
Do you think that if we took the word womb to mean "a part of anatomy from where life ultimately comes out of", which could apply to any life, do you think that this definition would undercut G Singh's position?

Are you using womb as a metaphor or a biological part of the body? And how is G Singh using the same word?

Only when you explain that, then we can discuss about it further.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Are you using womb as a metaphor or a biological part of the body? And how is G Singh using the same word?

Only when you explain that, the we can discuss about it further.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

I think G Singh understands womb the way I do. He says:

Going into “garbh” is not a metaphor, it is all about taking birth through a mother; it is that simple.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

I think G Singh understands womb the way I do. He says:
Quote:
Going into “garbh” is not a metaphor, it is all about taking birth through a mother; it is that simple.

Would you call an egg laid by a reptile or a bird taking birth through a mother even before it is hatched?

 

[BhagatSingh]

Would you call an egg laid by a reptile or a bird taking birth through a mother even before it is hatched?

Why not?
After all, in (most) mammals the fertilization of the egg takes place inside, and in birds and reptiles it takes place outside. The source of life is still the womb (of the mother).

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Why not?
After all, in (most) mammals the fertilization of the egg takes place inside, and in birds and reptiles it takes place outside. The source of life is still the womb.

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

I beg to differ with you.

It is not life yet. Life only begins after the egg is hatched. It is a potential life if not eaten by some predators which is not the case of someone being nurtured in the womb until a miscarriage takes place which is totally a different thing than the predator eating or eggs getting smashed due o the weight of the amount being laid..

Many of us eat organic eggs of many reptiles and birds. Do you think we are eating life? If we are, then what bad karams have they committed in their past lives to become our favourite dish?

Tejwant singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

Tejwant Singh ji,
I understand you so far, please continue.

 

[Santokh Singh1989]

I have a few questions, if i may humbly ask them, for those people who do not believe in transmigration and/or reincarnation in the traditional sense, (traditonal sense being the body dies and as per their karma, their soul transfers to another life form, be it plant, animal, human, etc). They will be straightforward.

What do you believe happens to the soul after the body dies?

Where does it go if anywhere? and

Is there any such thing as negetive reprocutions for our actions outside of the life we currently live?

Thank you.

Regards.

 

[Randip Singh]

Randip Singh ji<?"urn:fficeffice" />

Hmm...
I think there are two ways of opposing the caste system.
1. You oppose the evils that result from the system.
2. You oppose the entire system itself.

Which one do you think Guru Sahib is opposing? and why do you think so?

<o> </o>
Come on, stop playing games welcomemunda
<o> </o>
The question is what YOU think so, not me!!!
<o> </o>
I do not have a problem with understanding why the Guru’s theory of Karma and Reincarnation was fundamentally different from Hinduism, but you clearly do.
<o> </o>
The question is why do YOU think they either:
<o> </o>
1) Opposed the evils of the caste system.
<o> </o>
Or
<o> </o>
2) Opposed the entire system.
<o> </o>
My view is clear. They didn’t believe in Karma (in the same way as Hinduism), hence they didn’t believe in the caste system.

 

[findingmyway]

Randip Singh ji

Hmm...
I think there are two ways of opposing the caste system.
1. You oppose the evils that result from the system.
2. You oppose the entire system itself.

Which one do you think Guru Sahib is opposing? and why do you think so?

Is there anything good about the caste system? What is the purpose of it outside of repression? I know it didn't start as a repressive force but by Guru Ji's time it was too far down the path of repression to reverse it. It was no longer a socially functioning system. The quotes you gave in earlier posts in support of the caste system just say to me that God created all, not that the Guru's supported the caste system! Please expand on your view.......

 

[findingmyway]

I have a few questions, if i may humbly ask them, for those people who do not believe in transmigration and/or reincarnation in the traditional sense, (traditonal sense being the body dies and as per their karma, their soul transfers to another life form, be it plant, animal, human, etc). They will be straightforward.

What do you believe happens to the soul after the body dies?

Where does it go if anywhere? and

Is there any such thing as negetive reprocutions for our actions outside of the life we currently live?

Thank you.

Regards.

There is currently a debate about what soul is on another thread so this is worth visiting also:
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/new-to-sikhism/26496-why-desire-to-end-reincarnation.html

If the soul is in a mountain or tree, can it have good or bad effects?? I like to think with each birth that the slate is wiped clean and we can earn our way to liberation from dukh! Babies are called innocent as they have no karam yet. If they are affected by previous lives then we can't call them innocent!

I felt inspired after watching the movie Avatar yesterday. I like the concept in there that the soul is borrowed energy from the creator. This energy should be used responsibly as it will one day be returned