Why Desire To End Reincarnation?

[findingmyway]

Dear Narayanjot Bhenji and Tejwant Veerji,
Thank you for your kind words. It is with the help of this wonderful forum and its members that we can all move forward in our understanding. Without Guru's grace and the Guru's sadhsangat we are nothing! I am glad to have the opportunity to develop with the help of the sangat here.

Dear ik-jivan ji,
Thanks for the info about dictionaries

Findingmyway ji,
You wrote, ‘When Guru Nanak marked Lehna with the mark of the gurgaddi and declared him successor, with the goodness of Guru Nanak, bhai Lehna's goodness was also recognised because Lehna contained the same jyot that was inside Guru Nanak. He also had the same way of living, just the bodies were different.’

Still, ‘just the bodies were different’, is a peculiar statement in this context.

Here is an online English/Punjabi translator: http://www.ijunoon.net/. Merriam-Webster puts out a reasonable dictionary. . . lent mine to a Punjabi friend and I don’t think he’ll be giving it back. : (

I think with the reference to 2 separate bodies, its emphasising that the Guru Nanak and Guru Angad were 2 separate people. However, Guru Nanak so inspired Bhai Lehna that his thinking and lifestyle changed and he became perfectly in tune with the way Guru Nanak thinks and therefore the jyot transferred. I think it's a way of stopping anyone getting the idea that Guru Nanak became Guru Angad as they existed at the same time but more that what's inside is what was shared. Sikhi doesn't place any emphasis on the body per se-it's how we use it that matters and I think its for that concept that it's mentioned. Any thoughts?


I watched the movie Avatar yesterday. There was 1 concept in there that was very interesting. It talked about how we are given energy which is borrowed and must be returned at the end of the lifetime. That is what sustains life on Pandora. Could we equate soul to a spiritual energy from Akal Purakh that is given to us for the duration of our life. We have to use it responsibly as we must then return this spiritual energy at the end of our lives? Any thoughts?

Ik-jivan ji, I'm looking forward to your work on souls kudihug

Jasleen.

 

[spnadmin]

ik-jivan ji

Yes at one point in the conversation it did seem you were suggesting that Guru Nanak changed into Guru Angad/Lehna, while Guru Nanak was still alive. And that his soul reincarnated as Guru Angad's soul while Guru Nanak was still alive. That you might have been focusing instead on shared consciousness or shared enlightenment was not immediately obvious, and only became obvious with some dialog. Your impressions honestly are still not clear to me, but becoming clearer. And I don't think I was the only person who had this impression.

 

[ik-jivan]

Findingmyway ji,
You wrote, ‘I think it's a way of stopping anyone getting the idea that Guru Nanak became Guru Angad as they existed at the same time but more that what's inside is what was shared. Sikhi doesn't place any emphasis on the body per se-it's how we use it that matters and I think its for that concept that it's mentioned. Any thoughts?’

In that case, I have to wonder if it was prevalent for people to get ‘the idea that Guru Nanak became Guru Angad’ during that period of time (sometime between 1469 and 1552). To justify the addition of such a disclaimer, it would have had to have been a problematic concept with a rather widespread following. People didn’t believe in ‘shapeshifting’ or anything like that back then, did they? I don’t even think that the Vedic concept of avatars supported this kind of body transition-merging idea. Can you think of a reason why there would have been a need to add this statement, to what would have been a regular transference of guruship and teachings?

You wrote, ‘Could we equate soul to a spiritual energy. . .’

According to Einstein’s equation, everything material (with mass) can be equated to energy. But can we say that soul IS energy or HAS energy? Energy is not, as far as I can tell, conscious. Is it the soul within us that is conscious, or is it some other component of our being, such as mind? Well then, we might as well ask, is mind a part of soul or is soul a part of mind???

I think the latter (although perhaps a materialist would think the former, assuming soul to be a figment of imagination), where prana/life-energy is what sustains and animates the soul and mind is the consciousness of soul. I consider body to be the apparatus or tool for manifesting the mind-consciousness of soul within the material world. Soul, to me, is the living being sustained and animated by prana/life-energy. It possesses consciousness so it can be aware of its being alive. It possesses body so it can exercise will of consciousness and have a wide variety of experiences while being alive.

Here’s an interesting quote from SGGS ji:
jIau pRwx mnu qnu hry swcw eyhu suAwau ]
jeeo praan man than harae saachaa eaehu suaao ||
Your soul, breath of life, mind and body shall blossom forth in lush profusion; this is the true purpose of life.
Guru Arjan Dev Ji
Siree Raag
47

Still sifting through all the references to soul in the SGGS ji. Lot’s but very few that define what a soul is.

Sat Sri Akal,
t

 

[findingmyway]

Findingmyway ji,
You wrote, ‘I think it's a way of stopping anyone getting the idea that Guru Nanak became Guru Angad as they existed at the same time but more that what's inside is what was shared. Sikhi doesn't place any emphasis on the body per se-it's how we use it that matters and I think its for that concept that it's mentioned. Any thoughts?’

In that case, I have to wonder if it was prevalent for people to get ‘the idea that Guru Nanak became Guru Angad’ during that period of time (sometime between 1469 and 1552). To justify the addition of such a disclaimer, it would have had to have been a problematic concept with a rather widespread following. People didn’t believe in ‘shapeshifting’ or anything like that back then, did they? I don’t even think that the Vedic concept of avatars supported this kind of body transition-merging idea. Can you think of a reason why there would have been a need to add this statement, to what would have been a regular transference of guruship and teachings?

I think the Guru's were far sighted enough to know that things can become distorted with time and therefore the clarification from the start! That is my personal opinion-perhaps someone more learned can add to this?

Interesting take on souls. Am still dwelling on that!

 

[ik-jivan]

Narayanjot Kaur,
Thanks for that. The lack of clarity is likely due to my philosophies about form. We keep shape and form of body only relatively and are constantly, but subtly, changing form. But radically transforming – shapeshifting – is just not a concept I had even considered. I mentioned the subtle form changes to illustrate the illusion of static solidity of the body, to emphasize the greater reality of spirit.

Weird stuff does happen . . . not often, but it has happened that the usual laws of nature have been intercepted. Likewise, with soul, while we might presume the ‘normal’ birth-life-death(-rebirth) sequence, there are a few accounts of soul merger. Another that I am aware of is that of Elijah and his apprentice Elisha, who received the ‘mantle’ of his master (Elijah).

Sat Sri Akal,
t

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Ik-Jivan ji,

Guru fateh.

You write:

Tejwant Singh ji,
You wrote, ‘’Following is what Ik Jivan ji wrote which shows the Hindu ritual of putting the tilak on the forehead and hence is incorrect.

sih itkw idqosu jIvdY ]1]
sehi ttikaa dhithos jeevadhai ||1||
The King, while still alive, applied the ceremonial mark to his forehead. ||1|| ‘
I would be more inclined to interpret the ‘mark to his forehead’ to mean a change in his state of consciousness and capacity of understanding, in line with the concept of God writing His Naam upon ones mind and heart.

Ik-Jivan ji,

I am sorry to say that the facts do not change no matter how subjective your interpretation can become to prove your point. It rather loses the objectivity of what we are talking about.

Your literal translation does say ,"applied the ceremonial mark to his forehead", which is contrary to your personal interpretation after it was pointed out. The above has nothing to do with conciousness but with the Hindu ceremony of tilak which is ceremonial. It is not your fault that the literal translation is incorrect. We all have the duty as Sikhs to point it out.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[ik-jivan]

Tejwant Singh ji,
I wasn’t trying to prove a point. I wasn’t sure of the relevance of tilaks to a discussion of soul and reincarnation. I was commenting on your comment regarding the quote I provided, because I thought I should respond, just to be politely conversant.

My recount of personal interpretation was intended to assuage any concern you might have had that I interpreted the line to mean the Hindu custom. Yet the interpretation isn’t any more relevant to a discussion of soul and reincarnation than I think the comment I was responding to is.

Was there a point that you wanted to prove by making the statement, ’Following is what Ik Jivan ji wrote which shows the Hindu ritual of putting the tilak on the forehead and hence is incorrect’? Did you mean to indicate how flawed the English translation of SGGS ji is?

Now you have me wondering. . .Would you mind interpreting the line from Gurmukhi to English, please?

Here it is again:
sih itkw idqosu jIvdY ]1]
sehi ttikaa dhithos jeevadhai ||1||

Sat Sri Akal,
t

 

[spnadmin]

ik-jivan ji

I re-read your comments on your earliest memories in infancy and childhood and now think I understand a little better the thoughts that you are bringing to the discussion in this thread. I can see now how "changing form" (Guru Nanak becomes Guru Angad) makes sense to you, whereas it did not to me, but seemed as if they were sharing a body as well as a jyote.

Tell me if I have it right. Your personal experience of consciousness shared by you and "the Other" was so great that you felt it in a very physical way. So much so that the sense that there was an Other was overcome. It was more than a soul or a consciousness or a jyote shared in two bodies, but a sense of complete oneness. In that same way you may then understand the connection between Nanak and Angad to be similar. It suddenly hit me that this might be how you understand/experienced the oneness of soul or consciousness. If so, your comments then seem logical to me. The absence of duality on every plane of being.

I am not sure 100 percent if that is how the shabad being discussed should be understood. But this is very much like the idea of taking refuge.

 

[ik-jivan]

Narayanjot Kaur ji,
It’s my awareness of particle physics that informs my understanding of the subtle, but constant, changing of form.

The main reason physical objects don’t coalesce like water with water is resistive electric charge at the atomic level. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge
Fortunately, most objects are neutral in charge, so attraction and repulsion is equal.

However, we get electrostatic shocks when we or the objects we come in contact with are not neutral, but positively or negatively charged. This is an indication of anion and cation ‘mobility’.

In Quantum Physics it has been observed that electrons vanish, not to be found anywhere in our dimension. They also appear from nowhere. This happens constantly.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

In addition to the cellular regeneration I mentioned, there is an elemental transmutation of matter (food) into energy, as well as other cellular compounds and structures that become our bodies. Then at the least complex level – the atomic level – we have electrons coming and going from our bodies all the time. That we keep the shape and form that we do is a matter of balanced positive/negative energy exchange. There are a number of ways to change the polarity of charge.

All this science goes to say that solidity and constancy of form is an illusion. Not an unimportant matter, but certainly not a reliable measure of reality. To my way of thinking, ‘I’ am not a body. Instead, ‘I’ have a body, which can be taken away by death in an instance. In early childhood, I experienced of illness that kept me in bed and sleeping most of the time for 3 months. My body was weak and near death, but my consciousness was not diminished at all. However, spending 3 months in an unconscious and semi-conscious state has a way of altering your sense of reality, as does near death experience.

We share consciousness all the time. We are doing it right now with an exchange of written words – symbolic expressions of conscious thoughts and ideas. We do it more subtly, with glances and demeanor, as well as touch and simple sounds. The closer our thoughts and ways harmonize, the more subtle our communication and mutual understanding can be. We see this ‘pod’ mentality within families, but it isn’t the familiarity that gives rise to the seeming ‘sixth sense’, for we often ‘just don’t understand’ certain family members. It is the harmonization of characteristics and thinking . . . the sharing of the joyt, at whatever luminosity we hold in common.
Again, I don’t think the bodies of Guru Nanak and Guru Angad changed forms or merged or shapeshifted, or anything like that. What I am saying is that the bodies involved are not barriers to soul merger. What I am saying is that Guru Nanak and Guru Angad in their lifetimes were harmonised in thinking and being, which allowed for a soul merger once Guru Nanak left his body behind.

But yes, I do feel the ‘Other’ in a physical way – Anhad Shabad/Ajpa Jaap. .Yet the sense of Oneness is with everything, physically at least and I think we are all working on Oneness of consciousness. . . that’s what all this is for, isn’t it? : )

Sat Sri Akal,
t

 

[spnadmin]

ik-jivan ji

Many inspiring thoughts in your comments. I just want to repeat this part because it is you speaking so clearly.

But yes, I do feel the ‘Other’ in a physical way – Anhad Shabad/Ajpa Jaap. .Yet the sense of Oneness is with everything, physically at least and I think we are all working on Oneness of consciousness. . . that’s what all this is for, isn’t it? : )

 

[findingmyway]

I think another part of soul is conscience. Some people listen more to conscience and some less, hence the different level of connection with God. Conscience also gives us the incentive to do good around us. Any thoughts?

 

[spnadmin]

The question of coming to an understanding of the "soul" per gurmat is cresting in this thread. We have referred to the "soul" on several occasions to explain or elaborate views of reincarnation. However, it would be interesting to see what gurbani tells us about the soul specifically, in life and in death.

If some of you would post a few ideas, then I will move them to a separate thread. It could be very interesting.

welcomekaur

 

[ik-jivan]

Findingmyway ji,
For sure, I have thoughts about conscience: the sense of what is right and wrong that governs somebody's thoughts and actions, urging him or her to do right rather than wrong.

To me, conscience is where our hukam orders from Waheguru come from. I’m not talking about dramatic, world changing Divine Commands, although Waheguru certainly does select His devotees for those too. I mean the ‘learning hukams’ that ordinary people get. Every day, we make small decisions about seemingly insignificant and mundane things . . . like choosing to give up a seat on the bus to and elder, but these small matters of choosing to act selflessly add up over a lifetime. We become what we practice.

Here’s a Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji sloka how we transform our soul through actions:
kir kir krxw iliK lY jwhu ]
kar kar karanaa likh lai jaahu ||
actions repeated, over and over again, are engraved on the soul.
Guru Nanak Dev Ji
Jap 4
Source: http://www.sikhitothemax.com/page.asp?SourceID=G&PageNo=4

All in all, I think the conscience is the study guide for learning how to live peacefully with self and others. We seem to have a built-in teacher of life-lessons and to me His Name is Waheguru. What’s more is that if you take the training course seriously and apply your conscious will to every test question, you feel – by the presence of absence of peace in your heart – whether you did the right thing and even whether there is more to do to complete the lesson.

To me, the conscience is the Other, the Presence, the Satguru who is patient, but persistent in encouraging and guiding us to become a better people. I suppose I feel the ‘otherness’ of the conscience, because – despite being very good at rationalizing self-interest – I just can’t find peace within myself if I do something even just a little selfish.

Here’s an example. . . let’s say I’m packing lunches and one portion is just a little bigger than the other. I will either have to make the portions equal or give the bigger one to someone else. The other person won’t know the difference and they’re still getting enough, so why can’t I take the bigger one for myself? I’m doing the lunches. I deserve it. My rational thinking mind says, ‘Hey! It’s OK. I can do it. Who cares, anyway?’ But my conscience sneaks up on me and whispers, ‘But that would be selfish, regardless of whether anyone knows or is unaffected.’ So there, I want to do one thing, but my conscience tells me to ‘do the right thing’. Where does this secondary attitude about the situation come from? It’s just a completely harmless act. So what’s the big deal? Why would I debate with myself to take care of myself first?

What is the conscience to you? Do you think it’s just self-talk? What’s your opinion about the cause and effect of insignificant little internal debates, like the example above? Where do the sentiments of guilt and remorse come from?

I’ve focused on selfishness vs. selflessness, but we could just as readily look at deceitfulness vs. truthfulness, or cowardice vs. courage, or any of the many vice-virtue pairs to see what kind of consequences result from either obeying or ignoring the conscience. . . maybe we could set out some objectives for what we want to learn from this discussion. So far, I have described the behavior of ‘my’ conscience and gave my perspective on what it is to me.

What are your views? How does the conscience behave in you? In your opinion and through your experiences, does it seem like a natural or supernatural (spiritual) phenomenon?

Chardi Kala!
t

 

[ik-jivan]

Narayanjot Kaur,
OK. . . OK. . . I'll get back to pulling references from the SGGS ji. But how could I resist Findingmyway's questions about conscience? : )

The way I see it, conscience is one of those things that make humans 'freaks of nature'. . . that and incessant thinking and the creative urges.

Sat Sri Akal,
t

 

[spnadmin]

ik-jivan ji

I hope you don't think I was being critical. I was not. My question was for some additional content in order to get another thread started on a very interesting topic.

 

[ik-jivan]

Narayanjot Kaur ji,
No. No. I understood you fine. It’s just that you echoed exactly what my conscience has been nagging me to do all week – research references to the soul. I actually got caught up about organising slokas by theme. . .

I have a strategy. I want to sort ALL of the references I find in the SGGS ji and then we can summarise the conclusions for each theme. E.g. origin, purpose, nature, et cetera. However, there are a lot of references. Is there some place to put pages and pages of reference, so that they can be reviewed, like an index, but not have them clutter the discussion? Is there any way to use them for footnotes, but keep them out of the main discussion?

Sat Sri Akal,
t

 

[spnadmin]

Usually all of the major search engines make it possible for you to post a link to the verse or pangatee, so you see one small part of the shabad with the reference, and then above it the link to the Ang and the entire shabad.

I am not aware of a way to set this up like a table or chart with columns for page, origin, purpose, etc. because the forum software does not support tables. So the best you could manage would be an outline standard for each entry. If that makes sense?

We have some learned readers and writers here who know the shabads and the significance of each. They might want to debate your schema for organizing things based on their personal understanding. And that would then mean there would be many digressions about how things should be organized, and away from the topic of the thread. Frustrating.

Whenever I have uploaded a chart it was actually a jpeg file after it was taken as a page grab from a larger file or document.

A table or chart is a good way to marshall a lot of information. At the same time a table or chart can lead to some heated discussion because an entire shabad often leads one to a completely different conclusion from a single line. The entire shabad gives the total message intended by the Gurus, whereas single lines tend to sound/look like kernels of wisdom that one might find on a greeting card. So here I recommend caution.

Why not go with a standard way of presenting the basic information for one entry, followed by a complete shabad, and then your personal interpretation. Keep your table at hand so you can pick up with the next entry and be organized. But we generally do not like it when the shabad is omitted.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

I think another part of soul is conscience. Some people listen more to conscience and some less, hence the different level of connection with God. Conscience also gives us the incentive to do good around us. Any thoughts?

Findingmyway ji,

Guru Fateh.

Interesting take on conscience. I have a question or two about it.

How about intuition and subconscious?

Are these three things co-related and do they intermingle with each other without any conflicts?

Ik Jivan ji,

I would also urge you to pitch in.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Ik-Jivan ji,

Guru Fateh.

You have quoted 1/3 of the whole verse which is on page 47 of SGGS, in search for the word soul.

Can you please enlighten us which word in the following partial verse means soul.

Here’s an interesting quote from Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji:
jIau pRwx mnu qnu hry swcw eyhu suAwau ]
jeeo praan man than harae saachaa eaehu suaao ||
Your soul, breath of life, mind and body shall blossom forth in lush profusion; this is the true purpose of life.
Guru Arjan Dev Ji
Siree Raag
47

Can you also please give your personal take on this?

We also know that the shabad that has the verse of RAHAO in it shows us the central idea/message of the whole shabad. Does your take compliment that verse?

Thanks and I must say, I quite enjoy your posts.

Regrads

Tejwant Singh

 

[ik-jivan]

Narayanjot Kaur ji,
There's a solution. I've attached an incomplete 'draft only' of a structured PDF file. . .

OK, now I know how to upload a PDF. I'm removing the draft. It's incomplete.