Controversial Why Is The Law Of Karma Rejected?

[Ambarsaria]

Luckysingh ji thanks for your post. Some comments below.

....
But the similarity is that for every action their is a reaction, whose magnitude is determined by the factors of the original action!

Luckysingh ji there is nothing wrong with what you say. However the actions and reactions have so many micro variables that it is almost impossible to replicate other than at macro level. You hit a brick with a hammer it breaks into pieces. You hit another brick with the same hammer it breaks into different sizes of pieces. You break someone's heart it breaks. You break someone else's heart it breaks differently.

Hence the issues with laws. Say one person doing wrong is impacted one way or not at all while another is affected differently. To bundle all the variables unknown into Karma and call it a Law is just plain irrelevant. Superficially observed actions just don't lend themselves into replication. Life and life variables are far too numerous to be wrapped into a basic form of a "Law". Of course we can have observations like "hate begets hate", "love begets love", "you do bad you will be punished", etc., but none of these are laws as they are all probabilistic where the probability exists for these being false, true or in between.

This is similar, I would say just on the surface such that 'energy or matter cannot be destroyed, it is simply transferred from one form to the other'

Great example what may be in human terms called law. It is well bounded, verifiable and can be replicated.

Let us review further,

Below is an extract from about sikhs.com that gives a basic explanation on karma.........

Instead, when you start to associate it with other concepts, is when the complications and validity issues arise.

You appear to have posted from aboutsikhs.com as though they got it right. I observe that they have fallen into the exact trap that you have eluded to above that I have underlined.

I excerpt below from aboutsikhs.com quote below,

(1)The scientific concept of cause and effect, action and reaction is called the law of Karma(in religious parlance). A man reaps what he sows. Is it not typical that in spite of the law of Karma, man expects nectar after sowing poison?
(2)Just as our (a) present life is the result of our past Karma, the present Karma will determine our future life. (b)Karma operates in this life and successive ones. (c)The law of Karma does not cease to operate after death, because death is just a matter of physical disintegration, and has no effect on the soul, which survives..........

Whereas about sikhs.com starts all so well in (1) it quickly degenerates into what you so well flagged as " ....when you start to associate it with other concepts....".

Sikhism has no issues with (1) but all of (2) (a, b, c ...) is not what is taught by our Guru ji's or is in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji from what I know. This is Hinduism and perhaps also Buddhism. However, I am no expert on Buddhism whereas I have greater understanding of Hinduism practices.

I stand corrected.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Guru Fateh to all.

Pardon my ignorance and bluntness. My ignorance is that I have no idea about what the Laws of Karma are. Can someone post the Laws here please and their consequences if we break them?

Now my bluntness. Sikhi has nothing to do with previous "lives" nor anything to do with the future ones. For a Sikh, past is the learning step, present is to correct the mistakes of the past so that future can take care of itself.

Hypothetically, if we admit of some laws of Karma, and as we all know that Ik Ong Kaar is omnipresent, then what Karmas do the shooting stars go through or the planets that get sucked into the black hole all the times? What is their fate as far as the Laws of Karma is concerned?

After all, The Source is everywhere, hence omnipresent.

Just a thought!!

Tejwant Singh

 

[Luckysingh]

You appear to have posted from aboutsikhs.com as though they got it right. I observe that they have fallen into the exact trap that you have eluded to above that I have underlined.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/controversies/39975-why-is-the-law-karma-rejected-3.html

Ambarsaria ji, I understand the above as I was more focused on some other points in the aboutsikhs.com text that I'm sure you will agree with.

Namely-

God is the Creator of the first Karma, the origin of the universe, and the destroyer of Karma.
Good or evil by frequent repetition leave their impression on character.

and then

Sikhism modified the theory of Karma in two directions. Firstly, efforts of the individual are necessary for improving his own condition. Man is responsible for his lot. He must not blame God for his destiny. He must think of the present and the future. Secondly, Karma can be changed by prayer and the Grace of God.
When an individual learns to submit to His will, he ceases to make new Karma. He offers all his actions to Him; he acts as the instrument of His Will. According to Sikhism, all past Karma may then be erased through the association with saints, and meditation on “The Name”.

I would point out again that the problem is that many of us find it difficult to see karma as an entity on it's own. It gets associated with reincarnation, caste and free will too easily.
Whereas, reincarnation gets venned with transmigration, karma and caste to top it all.


As far as I see it, Guru Nanak ji was trying to tell us exactly the same thing. He was trying to point that karma is not from previous lives and that it is ALL initiated with his grace.
''Karmi aveh kaprah, nadri mukh duar'' is often translated that 'human birth or life is attained after good karma by his grace''

An entire shabad should be quoted, with Ang number..


Now, I can't exactly agree with this translation since it implies that good deeds by all forms of life, then you get human birth!!
Whereas throughout gurbani it emphasizes how difficult it is to be given the grace for this one life and how we should make the most of it for what it is. ie.. not be doing good deeds just for the sake of next birth!

Maybe the 'karam- is referring to good actions, kindness ..etc.. as in the persian translation. Maybe the 'kapra' is not talking about human body vessel, but actual clothes or essentials for our body survival !!

I don't want to go off topic with reincarnation here, but it will help explain what I mean.

Now, we often hear about the classic 84 lak joon or 8400,00 births..etc...
A very easy and common thing for sikhs to interpret is that '' I'm not a jatt, khatri or rajput now, because I worked my way up the caste ladder in previous births!!
- BUT, instead we often see the interpretation that I have gone through 84 lakh life cycles and worked my way up the species to human !!

Fair enough- at least we rejecting the caste here according to Guru Nanakji.
BUT- we are also saying that I may have been an ant in previous form.
so we have 2 options-

1) human birth after being a BAD ant- birth without limbs/eyes/ears...etc...
2) human birth after being a GOOD samaritan ant !

If we think about it, how much karam will an ant really accumulate that dictate it's future as a human.
I mean is the 'bad' ant really going to be a mass murderer that leads the fellow ants into a pool of poison by tricking them ??

OR is the ant going to be so good, that it applies first aid and carries all fellow disabled ants across the little pond to the feast of disowned choc bar dumped by a human.???

OR will it make fellow ants protective metal shields so that they don't get stepped on ???

REALLY, HOW MUCH KARMA CAN AN ANT ACCUMULATE ??

SO- WHY THE MENTION OF 84 LAKH ??
- I think because Guruji is telling us that the karma does not decide your caste or why you are born blind.
He tells us that we are ALL human and that there are 84 lakh other species alive and known to mankind, that each have a life to live.

The 84 lakh is a confirmation to us that says -''Look, these other species don't have the mind or the free-will to action, love, connect, meditate, teach, learn about the 'waheguru' that us humans do!!! S why are wasting ourselves by not using this free-will for the right thing ???

It's a little like when someone complains about not having enough money for extra snacks in their weekly shopping,-and you tell them that ''look, there are x amount of billion that won't have a meal tomorrow, or they don't even know if they will get any food, and your worried about extra snacks ??''

In a similar waythe 84 lakh is a confirmation of all those species that don't have a caste system and how the hell do they work themselves up the animal kingdom or whatever ??
Come on, do we really think that happens, when we are quite an educated few generations ???


I find it clear and apparent that Guru Nanak ji' is saying that we shouldn't be worrying about karma, you will reap as you sow.
Your actions will give you the reactions...etc..
To add, he is saying that if you feel or believe that there is a karma attached to yourself or hanging over from birth, then it is ALL his doing and he pre-ordains it. Because he is the creator and destroyer of karma.
And he can initiate it good or bad or destroy and create it again !


My personal conclusion is that we create such an action/reaction karma that just goes with reaping what we sow.
We do bad, then eventally it comes back and slaps us, and vice versa.
So, this karma is very much a human way of life, from what I gather- more like 'what goes around, comes around''

BUT- the BIG BUT is that, if we submit to his will, if we jap,meditate,contemplate,kirat,vand and naam..etc.. on the Waheguru, then our bad karma can be wiped by his nadar or grace.
Therefore, a Gurmukh does NOT have the weight of karma hanging on him.

Think about it-
-If kauda raksh, who had obviously created bad karams all his life.
But he never suffered, as all his bad never got the worst of him.
However, Instead he fell at the feet of the Lord and submitted his will and ALL himself to Waheguru !
Thus, ALL his bad karmas were immediately wiped OFF the slate !!



Instead of worrying about the existence of karma and it's governing laws, we should pay attention to 'submitting ALL to the will of God'

That is the bigger message about 'Karma' that can be seen in any reference of gurbani, even if some get heavily mistranslated !

But the 'core' message of becoming a gurmukh and being at the lotus feet of the Lord makes one above the realms of any such karma, is the True message that can't get mistranslated !!

 

[spnadmin]

Luckysingh ji, I have to warn about the quoting of single tuks. When an entire shabad is used to illustrate an argument, most of the time, a fuller and sometimes a different understanding of the tuk is apparent. So the tuk alone has been deleted.

 

[Luckysingh]

<TABLE cellSpacing=5><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਸਾਚਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਾਚੁ ਨਾਇ ਭਾਖਿਆ ਭਾਉ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥

Sācẖā sāhib sācẖ nā▫e bẖākẖi▫ā bẖā▫o apār.

True is the Master, True is His Name-speak it with infinite love.


</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਆਖਹਿ ਮੰਗਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦਾਤਿ ਕਰੇ ਦਾਤਾਰੁ ॥

Ākẖahi mangahi ḏehi ḏehi ḏāṯ kare ḏāṯār.

People beg and pray, "Give to us, give to us", and the Great Giver gives His Gifts.


</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਫੇਰਿ ਕਿ ਅਗੈ ਰਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਦਿਸੈ ਦਰਬਾਰੁ ॥

Fer kė agai rakẖī▫ai jiṯ ḏisai ḏarbār.

So what offering can we place before Him, by which we might see the Darbaar of His Court?


</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਮੁਹੌ ਕਿ ਬੋਲਣੁ ਬੋਲੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਸੁਣਿ ਧਰੇ ਪਿਆਰੁ ॥

Muhou kė bolaṇ bolī▫ai jiṯ suṇ ḏẖare pi▫ār.

What words can we speak to evoke His Love?


</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵੇਲਾ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਉ ਵਡਿਆਈ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥

Amriṯ velā sacẖ nā▫o vadi▫ā▫ī vīcẖār.

In the Amrit Vaylaa, the ambrosial hours before dawn, chant the True Name, and contemplate His Glorious Greatness.


</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਕਰਮੀ ਆਵੈ ਕਪੜਾ ਨਦਰੀ ਮੋਖੁ ਦੁਆਰੁ ॥

Karmī āvai kapṛā naḏrī mokẖ ḏu▫ār.

By the karma of past actions, the robe of this physical body is obtained. By His Grace, the Gate of Liberation is found.


</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਨਾਨਕ ਏਵੈ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਸਭੁ ਆਪੇ ਸਚਿਆਰੁ ॥੪॥

Nānak evai jāṇī▫ai sabẖ āpe sacẖiār. ||4||

O Nanak, know this well: the True One Himself is All. ||4||
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Ang 2 Japji sahib

Sorry, I just assumed that all were familiar with this verse and tuk on page 2




The whole shabad only reinforces what I was trying to say -

Looking again at 'karmi avai kapra, nadri mokh duar'

One recieves kapra or garments for the body by doing good deeds as compared to how the karam or deeds can NOT get one Mokh or salvation.
Entry through the door of salvation is obtained by his grace only.

The last line of the shabad -
''Nanak evai jania sabh apey sachiar''

Evai -this is how one
jaaneeai = knows understands that
sabh-u= every thing is controlled
sachiaar-u =the eternal Master
aap-e = itself, present every where.

thus everything is in the hands of the sachiar.

 

[spnadmin]

A question.

Did Guru Nanak ever speak of a "Law of Karma" as such or did Guru Nanak simply use the word "karma" --and more frequently the word "karam," (often translated as karma)?

Many times I have read the so-called Law of Karma is a law of cause and effect. If that is the case, then we are just taking Newton's law of motion to a moral/ethical level. And that doesn't make sense to me.

Newton's third law of motion: Law III: To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.

Now I don't want to go off another pet direction that claims that Guru Nanak also foresaw the "truths" of modern science, I prefer to think that the idea of actions having consequences was so obvious to Guru Nanak that he needed to make a different point, and make it clearly.

"Actions have consequences" is an understatement. Our actions have consequences, good and bad, virtuous and wicked, beneficial and painful, for ourselves and for others. The consequences of our actions should be so hard to ignore that we use them to understand our own morality: particularly how we treat one another. Talking about laws of karma gets us off the hook in a way. It is almost as if a great discussion absolves us of taking stock of ourselves and our words and deeds.

In so many words, Guru Nanak may be saying that laws of karma, and their connections with past and future lives is just one more way of weaseling out of being moral in the here and now. Laws of karma are distractions from notions of personal responsibility. Instead of saying "the devil made me do it," I might say , "Oops! it was karma, and I did a bad thing, and yes I will pay a price, because actions have consequences. But somehow, when I say that, I am strangely disconnected from the inner remorse I should feel for my actions, when they are wicked."

Laws of karma do not require a person to acknowledge a wrong and to change.The fact is, in Guru Nanak's time "karma" could not be divorced from reincarnation, because in the brahmin system the 84 lak joon were how one cleansed oneself of bad deeds and how one was rewarded for good deeds. Guru Nanak saw that as a cop-out as well as a means of social oppression by caste. We focus on the caste issues so often that we miss the ethical cop-out.

However, Guru Nanak did not ignore the importance of remorse and the need to change. Get stuck with laws of karma; get trapped in empty philosophical ramblings. I am reminded of Guru Nanak giving himself permission to express moral outrage in his words to Babar, and of Babar "getting it" and making restitution.

 

[spnadmin]

Sorry, I just assumed that all were familiar with this verse and tuk on page 2




.

Thanks for posting, and "no." The reason for posting an entire shabad is to prevent misinterpretation. And to prevent tuks from being used to "prove" personal opinions when the shabad says something entirely different.

 

[Harry Haller]

ਸਾਚਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਾਚੁ ਨਾਇ ਭਾਖਿਆ ਭਾਉ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥

Sācẖā sāhib sācẖ nā▫e bẖākẖi▫ā bẖā▫o apār.

True is the Master, True is His Name-speak it with infinite love.

Love the truth

ਆਖਹਿ ਮੰਗਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦਾਤਿ ਕਰੇ ਦਾਤਾਰੁ ॥


Ākẖahi mangahi ḏehi ḏehi ḏāṯ kare ḏāṯār.

People beg and pray, "Give to us, give to us", and the Great Giver gives His Gifts.

No matter what you pray and ask for, you will get what your actions merit, regardless

ਫੇਰਿ ਕਿ ਅਗੈ ਰਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਦਿਸੈ ਦਰਬਾਰੁ ॥

Fer kė agai rakẖī▫ai jiṯ ḏisai ḏarbār.

So what offering can we place before Him, by which we might see the Darbaar of His Court?

Can we just perform some ceremony or ritual so that we may be further enlightened?

ਮੁਹੌ ਕਿ ਬੋਲਣੁ ਬੋਲੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਸੁਣਿ ਧਰੇ ਪਿਆਰੁ ॥


Muhou kė bolaṇ bolī▫ai jiṯ suṇ ḏẖare pi▫ār.

What words can we speak to evoke His Love?

Is there something we can chant, or repeat to find enlightenment?

ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵੇਲਾ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਉ ਵਡਿਆਈ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥

Amriṯ velā sacẖ nā▫o vadi▫ā▫ī vīcẖār.

In the Amrit Vaylaa, the ambrosial hours before dawn, chant the True Name, and contemplate His Glorious Greatness.

Why the Amrit Vela is confined to a certain time is beyond me, but personally, to me, this is connection to Creator, maybe make every moment Amrit Vela

ਕਰਮੀ ਆਵੈ ਕਪੜਾ ਨਦਰੀ ਮੋਖੁ ਦੁਆਰੁ ॥

Karmī āvai kapṛā naḏrī mokẖ ḏu▫ār.

By the karma of past actions, the robe of this physical body is obtained. By His Grace, the Gate of Liberation is found.

I think this is very straightforward you reap what you sow, and you are, in effect, the sum of your actions, so it stands to reason, make your actions pure, and you will be pure

ਨਾਨਕ ਏਵੈ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਸਭੁ ਆਪੇ ਸਚਿਆਰੁ ॥੪॥

Nānak evai jāṇī▫ai sabẖ āpe sacẖiār. ||4||

O Nanak, know this well: the True One Himself is All. ||4||

know yourself as you were meant to be, know everything


As for joons, to me that is the different personalities that we exhibit, and how we change as we connect deeper and deeper with Creator

 

[spnadmin]

harry haller ji

So brilliant in their simplicity are your words.

 

[Ambarsaria]

I have done draft translation of Japji Sahib as per my understanding. Here is a sampling as pertaining to this thread and I appreciate any comments as well as stand corrected. In my writings I am much guided by Prof. Sahib Singh ji's efforts but rarely 100%. I do read both Manmohan Singh ji's work and Dr. Sant Singh Khalsa ji's translation of Manmohan Singh ji's work. Here it goes,

ਸਾਚਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਾਚੁ ਨਾਇ ਭਾਖਿਆ ਭਾਉ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥

साचा साहिबु साचु नाइ भाखिआ भाउ अपारु ॥
Sācẖā sāhib sācẖ nā▫e bẖākẖi▫ā bẖā▫o apār.
True is the Master, True is His Name-speak it with infinite love.
ਸੱਚਾ ਹੈ ਸੁਆਮੀ, ਸੱਚਾ ਹੈ ਉਸਦਾ ਨਾਮ ਅਤੇ ਸਚਿਆਰਾ ਨੇ ਉਸ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਨੂੰ ਬੇਅੰਤ ਪਿਆਰ ਨਾਲ ਉਚਾਰਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੈ।
ਸਾਚਾ = ਹੋਂਦ ਵਾਲਾ, ਸਦਾ-ਥਿਰ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲਾ। ਸਾਚੁ = ਸਦਾ-ਥਿਰ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲਾ। ਨਾਇ = ਨਯਾਇ, ਨਿਆਇ, ਇਨਸਾਫ਼, ਨੀਯਮ, ਸੰਸਾਰ ਦੀ ਕਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਚਲਾਉਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਨੀਯਮ। ਭਾਖਿਆ = ਬੋਲੀ। ਭਾਉ = ਪ੍ਰੇਮ। ਅਪਾਰੁ = ਪਾਰ ਤੋਂ ਰਹਿਤ, ਬੇਅੰਤ।

ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਸਦਾ-ਥਿਰ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੀ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਦਾ ਨਿਯਮ ਭੀ ਸਦਾ ਅਟੱਲ ਹੈ। ਉਸ ਦੀ ਬੋਲੀ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਉਹ ਆਪ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਬੇਅੰਤ ਹੈ।
Eternal creator, eternally fair, infinite love is the language
ਆਖਹਿ ਮੰਗਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦਾਤਿ ਕਰੇ ਦਾਤਾਰੁ ॥

आखहि मंगहि देहि देहि दाति करे दातारु ॥
Ākẖahi mangahi ḏehi ḏehi ḏāṯ kare ḏāṯār.
People beg and pray, "Give to us, give to us", and the Great Giver gives His Gifts.
ਲੋਕੀਂ ਪ੍ਰਾਰਥਨਾ ਤੇ ਯਾਚਨਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ: "ਸਾਨੂੰ ਖੈਰ ਪਾ, ਸਾਨੂੰ ਖੈਰ ਪਾ", ਤੇ ਦਾਤਾ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਿਸ਼ਾਂ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ।
ਆਖਹਿ = ਅਸੀਂ ਆਖਦੇ ਹਾਂ। ਮੰਗਹਿ = ਅਸੀਂ ਮੰਗਦੇ ਹਾਂ। ਦੇਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ = (ਹੇ ਹਰੀ!) ਸਾਨੂੰ ਦੇਹ, ਸਾਡੇ ਤੇ ਬਖਸ਼ਸ਼ ਕਰ।

ਅਸੀਂ ਜੀਵ ਉਸ ਪਾਸੋਂ ਦਾਤਾਂ ਮੰਗਦੇ ਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਆਖਦੇ ਹਾਂ,'(ਹੇ ਹਰੀ! ਸਾਨੂੰ ਦਾਤਾਂ) ਦੇਹ'। ਉਹ ਦਾਤਾਰ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਸ਼ਾਂ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ।
So speak and ask for ever more and the creator so blesses
ਫੇਰਿ ਕਿ ਅਗੈ ਰਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਦਿਸੈ ਦਰਬਾਰੁ ॥

फेरि कि अगै रखीऐ जितु दिसै दरबारु ॥
Fer kė agai rakẖī▫ai jiṯ ḏisai ḏarbār.
So what offering can we place before Him, by which we might see the Darbaar of His Court?
ਤਾਂ, ਉਸ ਦੇ ਅਗੇ ਕੀ ਧਰਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ ਜਿਸ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਉਸ ਦੀ ਦਰਗਾਹ ਦਾ ਦਰਸ਼ਨ ਹੋ ਜਾਵੇ?
ਫੇਰਿ = (ਜੇ ਸਾਰੀਆਂਦਾਤਾਂ ਉਹ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਕਰ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ) ਫਿਰ। ਕਿ = ਕਿਹੜੀ ਭੇਟਾ। ਅਗੈ = ਰੱਬ ਦੇ ਅੱਗੇ।ਰਖੀਐ = ਰੱਖੀ ਜਾਏ, ਅਸੀਂ ਰੱਖੀਏ। ਜਿਤੁ = ਜਿਸ ਭੇਟਾ ਦਾ ਸਦਕਾ। ਦਿਸੈ = ਦਿੱਸ ਪਏ।

(ਜੇਸਾਰੀਆਂ ਦਾਤਾਂ ਉਹ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਬਖਸ਼ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ) ਫਿਰ ਅਸੀਂ ਕਿਹੜੀ ਭੇਟਾ ਉਸ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖਦੇ ਅੱਗੇ ਰੱਖੀਏ, ਜਿਸ ਦੇ ਸਦਕੇ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਉਸ ਦਾ ਦਰਬਾਰ ਦਿੱਸ ਪਏ?
So what to offer by which we see the court of such
ਮੁਹੌ ਕਿ ਬੋਲਣੁ ਬੋਲੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਸੁਣਿ ਧਰੇ ਪਿਆਰੁ ॥

मुहौ कि बोलणु बोलीऐ जितु सुणि धरे पिआरु ॥
Muhou kė bolaṇ bolī▫ai jiṯ suṇ ḏẖare pi▫ār.
What words can we speak to evoke His Love?
ਅਸੀਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਮੁੱਖਾਂ ਤੇ ਕੇਹੜੇ ਬਚਨ ਉਚਾਰਨ ਕਰੀਏ ਜਿੰਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸਰਵਣ ਕਰਕੇ, ਉਹ ਸਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਮੁਹੱਬਤ ਕਰਨ ਲੱਗ ਜਾਵੇ?
ਮੁਹੌ = ਮੂੰਹ ਤੋਂ। ਕਿ ਬੋਲਣੁ = ਕਿਹੜਾ ਬਚਨ? ਜਿਤੁ ਸੁਣਿ = ਜਿਸ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਸੁਣ ਕੇ। ਧਰੇ = ਟਿਕਾ ਦੇਵੇ, ਕਰੇ। ਜਿਤੁ = ਜਿਸ ਬੋਲ ਦੀ ਰਾਹੀਂ।

ਅਸੀਂ ਮੂੰਹੋਂ ਕਿਹੜਾ ਬਚਨ ਬੋਲੀਏ (ਭਾਵ, ਕਿਹੋ ਜਿਹੀ ਅਰਦਾਸ ਕਰੀਏ) ਜਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਣ ਕੇ ਉਹ ਹਰੀ (ਸਾਨੂੰ) ਪਿਆਰ ਕਰੇ।
What word to speak from the mouth hearing which such confirms love
ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵੇਲਾ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਉ ਵਡਿਆਈ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥

अम्रित वेला सचु नाउ वडिआई वीचारु ॥
Amriṯ velā sacẖ nā▫o vadi▫ā▫ī vīcẖār.
In the Amrit Vaylaa, the ambrosial hours before dawn, chant the True Name, and contemplate His Glorious Greatness.
ਸੁਬ੍ਹਾ ਸਵੇਰੇ ਸਤਿਨਾਮ ਦਾ ਉਚਾਰਨ ਕਰ ਅਤੇ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੀਆਂ ਬਜ਼ੁਰਗੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਧਿਆਨ ਧਰ।
ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ = ਕੈਵਲਯ, ਨਿਰਵਾਣ, ਮੋਖ, ਪੂਰਨ ਖਿੜਾਉ। ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵੇਲਾ = ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਦਾ ਵੇਲਾ, ਪੂਰਨ ਖਿੜਾਉ ਦਾਸਮਾ, ਉਹ ਸਮਾ ਜਿਸ ਵੇਲੇ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਦਾ ਮਨ ਆਮ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਦੇ ਝੰਬੇਲਿਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਵਿਹਲਾਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਝਲਾਂਘ, ਤੜਕਾ। ਸਚੁ = ਸਦਾ-ਥਿਰ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲਾ। ਨਾਉ = ਰੱਬ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ। ਵਡਿਆਈਵੀਚਾਰੁ = ਵਡਿਆਈਆਂ ਦੀ ਵਿਚਾਰ।

ਪੂਰਨ ਖਿੜਾਉ ਦਾ ਸਮਾਂ ਹੋਵੇ (ਭਾਵ, ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤ ਵੇਲਾ ਹੋਵੇ), ਨਾਮ (ਸਿਮਰੀਏ) ਤੇ ਉਸ ਦੀਆਂ ਵਡਿਆਈਆਂ ਦੀ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਕਰੀਏ।
Hours of pure dawn contemplate on the qualities of the creator
ਕਰਮੀ ਆਵੈ ਕਪੜਾ ਨਦਰੀ ਮੋਖੁ ਦੁਆਰੁ ॥

करमी आवै कपड़ा नदरी मोखु दुआरु ॥
Karmī āvai kapṛā naḏrī mokẖ ḏu▫ār.
By the karma of past actions, the robe of this physical body is obtained. By His Grace, the Gate of Liberation is found.
ਚੰਗੇ ਅਮਲਾਂ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਦੇਹ ਪੁਸ਼ਾਕ ਪਰਾਪਤ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਦੀ ਦਯਾ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਮੁਕਤੀ ਦਾ ਦਰਵਾਜਾ।
ਕਰਮੀ = ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੀ ਮਿਹਰਨਾਲ। ਕਰਮ = ਬਖਸ਼ਸ਼, ਮਿਹਰ। (ਜਿਵੇਂ: ਜੇਤੀ ਸਿਰਠਿ ਉਪਾਈ ਵੇਖਾ, ਵਿਣੁ ਕਰਮਾ ਕਿ ਮਿਲੈਲਈ ਪਉੜੀ ੯। ਨਾਨਕ ਨਦਰੀ ਕਰਮੀ ਦਾਤਿ। ਪਉੜੀ ੧੪।) ਕਪੜਾ = ਪਟੋਲਾ, ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਪਟੋਲਾ, ਅਪਾਰ ਭਾਉ-ਰੂਪ ਪਟੋਲਾ, ਪਿਆਰ-ਰੂਪ ਪਟੋਲਾ, ਸਿਫਤਿ-ਸਾਲਾਹ ਦਾ ਕੱਪੜਾ। ਜਿਵੇਂ:"ਸਿਫ਼ਤਿਸਰਮ ਕਾ ਕਪੜਾ ਮਾਗਉ"।੪।੭। ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ ਮ: ੧। ਨਦਰੀ = ਰੱਬ ਦੀ ਮਿਹਰ ਦੀ ਨਜ਼ਰ ਨਾਲ। ਮੋਖੁ = ਮੁਕਤੀ, 'ਕੂੜ' ਤੋਂ ਖ਼ਲਾਸੀ। ਦੁਆਰੁ = ਦਰਵਾਜ਼ਾ, ਰੱਬ ਦਾ ਦਰ।

(ਇਸਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ) ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੀ ਮਿਹਰ ਨਾਲ 'ਸਿਫਤਿ' ਰੂਪ ਪਟੋਲਾ ਮਿਲਦਾ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਦੀਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ-ਦ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟੀ ਨਾਲ 'ਕੂੜ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਿ' ਤੋਂ ਖ਼ਲਾਸੀ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ ਤੇ ਰੱਬ ਦਾ ਦਰ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤਹੋ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।
With good fortune comes the garbs and so also the visualization of the creator’s entrance
ਨਾਨਕ ਏਵੈ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਸਭੁ ਆਪੇ ਸਚਿਆਰੁ ॥੪॥

नानक एवै जाणीऐ सभु आपे सचिआरु ॥४॥
Nānak evai jāṇī▫ai sabẖ āpe sacẖiār. ||4||
O Nanak, know this well: the True One Himself is All. ||4||
ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਸਮਝ ਲੈ, ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! ਕਿ ਸਤਿਪੁਰਖ ਸਾਰਾ ਕੁਛ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਤੋਂ ਹੀ ਹੈ।
ਏਵੈ = ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ (ਇਹਆਹਰ ਕੀਤਿਆਂ ਤੇ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਕਿਰਪਾ-ਦ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟੀ ਹੋਣ ਨਾਲ)। ਜਾਣੀਐ = ਜਾਣ ਲਈਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਨੁਭਵ ਕਰ ਲਈਦਾ ਹੈ। ਸਭੁ = ਸਭ ਥਾਈਂ। ਸਚਿਆਰੁ = ਹੋਂਦ ਦਾ ਘਰ, ਹਸਤੀ ਦਾ ਮਾਲਕ।੪।

ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਇਹ ਸਮਝ ਆ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਹੋਂਦ ਦਾ ਮਾਲਕ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਸਭ ਥਾਈਂ ਭਰਪੂਰ ਹੈ ॥੪॥
Nanak realize this way, eternal one is by self everywhere.


ESSENCE: Life as we are is a blessing. Loving contemplation is the way to seek the wisdom of the creator. It is a mark of good fortune to be doing so and realizing of the creator ever more.

<!--[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]-->All errors are mine and I stand corrected.

Sat Sri Akal.

PS: Based on the above do state if I should be posting all of Japji Sahib for consideration and learning. There are already brilliant posts in this area (Japji Sahib sub forum) and I have been hesitant.

 

[Archived_member14]

Ambarsaria ji,

Butting in

Luckysingh ji thanks for your post. Some comments below.
Quote: Originally Posted by Luckysingh

But the similarity is that for every action their is a reaction, whose magnitude is determined by the factors of the original action!

Luckysingh ji there is nothing wrong with what you say. However the actions and reactions have so many micro variables that it is almost impossible to replicate other than at macro level. You hit a brick with a hammer it breaks into pieces. You hit another brick with the same hammer it breaks into different sizes of pieces. You break someone's heart it breaks. You break someone else's heart it breaks differently.

Hence the issues with laws. Say one person doing wrong is impacted one way or not at all while another is affected differently. To bundle all the variables unknown into Karma and call it a Law is just plain irrelevant.

Well, you could try to find out first, what karma exactly is i.e. what constitutes cause and what are results and what are the conditions for the latter to come about. Also you might like to question any insistence on being able to observe a one to one connection between any set of cause and effect.

Karma as a law? Good deeds through body, speech or mind bring about good results and bad deeds, bad results. Good deeds can’t bring about bad results and bad deeds can’t bring about good results.

What constitutes cause / karma? Causes are mental volition of a particular intensity as in:

Ten unwholesome actions:

1. Killing living beings
2. Stealing
3. Sexual misconduct
4. False speech
5. Malicious speech
6. Harsh speech
7. Gossip
8. Coveting
9. Ill-will
10. Wrong views

And

Ten wholesome actions:

1. Abstaining from killing living beings
2. Abstaining from stealing
3. Abstaining from sexual misconduct
4. Abstaining from false speech
5. Abstaining from malicious speech
6. Abstaining from harsh speech
7. Abstaining from gossip
8. Abstaining from coveting
9. Abstaining from ill-will
10. Possessing Right Understanding of the Truth

And what are the results of karma? They are resultant consciousness as in birth in good or bad plane of existence and good or bad experiences through the five senses.

Both cause and effect require a coming together of many conditions, one material and the rest all mental. Take the case of lying; it is the intention to deceive / mislead someone else. This intention arises with consciousness and other mental factors such as feeling, perception, attention and rooted in ignorance and attachment. The intention must be of the intensity that it conditions verbal action leading to the other person being misled. This is karma and a seed has been planted which is passed on from one moment of consciousness to the next until there comes a time where a set of conditions are in place for the resultant consciousness (usually several of them) to arise in the form for example, seeing an unpleasant object, hearing an unpleasant sound or tasting an unpleasant taste.

Now, immediately following these sense experiences, depending on yet other conditions, there is a volitional activity. One person will react with aversion, for another, wisdom may arise to understand the experience and therefore experience detachment. This depends on the accumulated tendency.

Superficially observed actions just don't lend themselves into replication. Life and life variables are far too numerous to be wrapped into a basic form of a "Law".

But one is not asked to “observe”. It is not about conventional actions of different beings in given situations. But rather one is encouraged to develop understanding regarding the nature of different mental states. It is a study where one gradually learns to distinguish states that are volitional in nature from those that are mere resultants. This is the basis for belief in karma. And with growth of understanding is faith or confidence, confident about the value of good and the harm of evil and how one must give pleasant results and the other unpleasant result. And this is the law.

Of course we can have observations like "hate begets hate", "love begets love", "you do bad you will be punished", etc., but none of these are laws as they are all probabilistic where the probability exists for these being false, true or in between.

The example you give is not that of karma and its result. If I hit you and you hit me back, this is not cause and effect. The hurt that you experience is not from “my” bad action, but from your own, one done anytime from the infinite past till the morning of that same day. I experience the hurt from your slap is not the result of my hitting you, but some other deed in the past. Our hitting each other will give results in the future in accordance with the strength of intention, but when this happens, no one can ever predict.

Quote: Originally Posted by Luckysingh
This is similar, I would say just on the surface such that 'energy or matter cannot be destroyed, it is simply transferred from one form to the other'

Great example what may be in human terms called law. It is well bounded, verifiable and can be replicated.

And you think that one should be able to do the same with karma? To begin with, scientific laws involve observations of the conventional world, whereas karma is a mental reality which rises and falls away completely in an instant. Second, both cause and resultant require a coming together of a complex set of conditions all of which are extremely fleeting and not within anyone’s control.

Let us review further,

Quote: Originally Posted by Luckysingh
Below is an extract from about sikhs.com that gives a basic explanation on karma.........

Instead, when you start to associate it with other concepts, is when the complications and validity issues arise.

You appear to have posted from aboutsikhs.com as though they got it right. I observe that they have fell into the exact trap that you have eluded to above that I have underlined.

I excerpt below from aboutsikhs.com quote below,

Quote: Originally Posted by Luckysingh
(1)The scientific concept of cause and effect, action and reaction is called the law of Karma(in religious parlance). A man reaps what he sows. Is it not typical that in spite of the law of Karma, man expects nectar after sowing poison?
(2)Just as our (a) present life is the result of our past Karma, the present Karma will determine our future life. (b)Karma operates in this life and successive ones. (c)The law of Karma does not cease to operate after death, because death is just a matter of physical disintegration, and has no effect on the soul, which survives..........

Whereas about sikhs.com starts all so well in (1) it quickly degenerates into what you so well flagged as " ....when you start to associate it with other concepts....".

Sikhism has no issues with (1)

So you have no problem with qualifying karma as “law”?
But I doubt that you really know what karma is. You have your own peculiar observation and interpretation which you allow the label karma to be applied.

but all of (2) (a, b, c ...) is not what is taught by our Guru ji's or is in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji from what I know. This is Hinduism and perhaps also Buddhism. However, I am no expert on Buddhism whereas I have greater understanding of Hinduism practices.

If you really understood karma, as in knowing the nature of volitional consciousness, there’d be no reason for you to dismiss past and future lives. You’d begin to understand for example, that birth is in fact a resultant consciousness, and so are life-continuum and death. And if you can see how one consciousness rises and falls away only to be succeeded by another one due to a set of necessary conditions, you’d have no reason to think that the process stops at death.

But of course, there is no soul, just this series of consciousness conditioned variously, till there comes a time when the fuel, namely attachment, is totally eradicated and the death consciousness of that life arises.

But you believe in soul don’t you? Please explain to me what soul is and how do you experience it? The concepts of matter and energy and their being interchangeable, this I can accept. These are based on some very real experiences through the senses and the use of concepts directly and indirectly derived and applying reason and logic. But “soul”, this is pure fiction to me. And you believe this but not so karma, when in fact the latter is very real and constitutes much of what you experience in a day?

 

[Archived_member14]

Spnadmin ji,

A question.

Did Guru Nanak ever speak of a "Law of Karma" as such or did Guru Nanak simply use the word "karma" --and more frequently the word "karam," (often translated as karma)?

Many times I have read the so-called Law of Karma is a law of cause and effect. If that is the case, then we are just taking Newton's law of motion to a moral/ethical level. And that doesn't make sense to me.

But how does this follow? Although I'd prefer to use result instead of effect, I don't see why the idea of cause and effect rightly applies only to Newton's law and anything else using this idea must therefore be compared to Newton's law?

Newton's third law of motion: Law III: To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.

The cause and effect (result) relationship of karma and vipaka (resultant consciousness) is not linear. Mental phenomena are altogether different from physical phenomena.

Now I don't want to go off another pet direction that claims that Guru Nanak also foresaw the "truths" of modern science, I prefer to think that the idea of actions having consequences was so obvious to Guru Nanak that he needed to make a different point, and make it clearly.

"Actions have consequences" is an understatement. Our actions have consequences, good and bad, virtuous and wicked, beneficial and painful, for ourselves and for others. The consequences of our actions should be so hard to ignore that we use them to understand our own morality: in particularly how we treat one another. Talking about laws of karma gets us off the hook in a way. It is almost as if a great discussion absolves us of taking stock of ourselves and our words and deeds.

The “actions have consequence” that you refer to, requires believing in a particular story line, that things operates in a certain way. The reference is to states of mind before and after, on the part oneself and the other person, that are all of the nature of cause. Some people don't feel guilt or remorse and some people don't have a clue for example, that someone has robbed them and it makes no difference. What you are suggesting people go by and consider responsible, is just thinking with ignorance and attachment to acting a particular way. One dreams a situation and feels great at having played one's part rightly.

On the other hand there is this person who has come to see with increased comprehension, the nature of good and evil and regardless of what the next moment brings, he spontaneously does good and avoids evil. Indeed the person who has eradicated wrong understanding and doubt (including about karma), such a person is incapable of lying, stealing or killing no matter what the circumstance.

So from my perspective, the person who believes in karma is the one who is responsible whereas the one who is motivated by the idea of “actions have consequence” and such, he is just playing with himself.

In so many words, Guru Nanak may be saying that laws of karma, and their connections with past and future lives is just one more way of weaseling out of being moral in the here and now. Laws of karma are distractions from notions of personal responsibility. Instead of saying "the devil made me do it," I might say , "Oops! it was karma, and I did a bad thing, and yes I will pay a price, because actions have consequences. But somehow, when I say that, I am strangely disconnected from the inner remorse I should feel for my actions, when they are wicked."

Either you have not being paying attention to what I have written in the past or you think that I'm just talking nonsense. Your characterization and description comes across to me as figment of your imagination. You paint a picture in order to make your own view appear good.

Laws of karma do not require a person to acknowledge a wrong and to change.

I get the exact opposite impression from all those that I have come into contact with. Karma means, do good and avoid evil.

However, Guru Nanak did not ignore the importance of remorse and the need to change.

So avoid evil and do good, no?

Get stuck with laws of karma; get trapped in empty philosophical ramblings.

Empty it is to you. Unlike you, some people know the difference between thinking / philosophizing about karma and studying it as and when it manifests.

I am reminded of Guru Nanak giving himself permission to express moral outrage in his words to Babar, and of Babar "getting it" and making restitution.

I am curious, what that was about?

 

[Ambarsaria]

Confused ji you must be kidding if you want to claim that the following is an all inclusive list of what defines Karma and mental volition driven actions,

1. Killing living beings
2. Stealing
3. Sexual misconduct
4. False speech
5. Malicious speech
6. Harsh speech
7. Gossip
8. Coveting
9. Ill-will
10. Wrong views

The above are society's metrics to good living aside from (1. Killing living beings). All of the 2 to 9 are relative and not absolutely measurable in daily living. One needs a judge or someone will start a religion and start judging peacesign.

Let me elaborate how your list is driven by relativity.

Example: Sexual misconduct
Situation: In Punjab villages it was no no to have village boys showing sexual/marital interest in their own village girls. In Muslim countries near relation marriages are preferred.

Who judges what is good and what is misconduct?

Similar scenarios and non exactness will prevail throughout the 10 items and their complementary negative paired items.

Brother this is no Law and I hope that the Karma is not foundational on this as then it is just simply a house of cards which collapses very fast!

I do not know what I am missing but this is very shallow!

Regards.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Harry ji and Ambarsaria ji,

Guru Fateh.

Very thoughtfully explained and questioned when needed to.

Literal Translations posted as one liners or of the whole Shabad that people copy and post to prove their view point or/and use as a tool to try to win their argument is disgrace to Sikhi in my opinion.

Literal Translations are dangerous to our Sikhi because the first translators of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru were all Christian missionaries drenched in their own Christian dogmas and for them, all translations of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji or any other Scriptures were seen through the kaleidoscope of Christian dogma which has nothing to do with the idea based Sikhi. Unfortunately, some Sikh Scholars who became their Chelas did the same without having any inkling about Christianity. Hence, we have this Khaljagan- Gumbo in Louisiana- in all the literal translations.

Secondly, we have uneducated people sitting crossed legged on their high chairs at SGPC- The Sikh Governing body. They do not have any knowledge about Gurbani. They have given their official stamp of approval to Sant Singh Khalsa's translation, which is the worst among many.

Harry ji, as you know, for any great student/teacher it is very difficult to put any poetry into prose and then, try to live by what is understood. But the beauty of the poetry is that its interpretation travels with time, especially the one in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru.

This is the only reason, I request people to share their own interpretations/understanding/experiences of the each Shabad they post and compare them to the literal translations because Sikhi is the journey of the individual.

You did a great job in your response BTW.Congratulations!

I remember there was some other Shabad posted in one of the threads which had the word Enraptured and this word is misused 74 times in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji because it is based on the Christian dogma.

Words like Belief, Faith, (En)Rapture have totally different meanings when used in a religious context than what they mean in the Webster's.

I will write about it as a separate thread soon.

Thanks & regards.

Tejwant Singh

 

[spnadmin]

Confused ji

I am gratified that you took the time to read what I wrote, think about it, and then take more time to reply. On the other hand I find remarks such as below off-putting.

Either you have not being paying attention to what I have written in the past or you think that I'm just talking nonsense. Your characterization and description comes across to me as figment of your imagination. You paint a picture in order to make your own view appear good.

After reading all of your comments on this thread, I would take issue only here and there. I understand that you are writing according to your understanding as a Theravedic Buddhist. For me that is an opportunity to learn, not a reason to argue, though I may disagree.

So your retort - I am not paying attention or that I think you are talking nonsense - is your projection. It is ironic you say I was not "paying attention" to you, but maybe that comment follows from your assumption that I was directing my comments to you personally. I don't know why I should pay attention to you, and if you take my words personally, then I doubt there is any purpose in replying to your other questions.

My remarks were addressed to no one in particular. What I have said about moral accountability within the space of our lifetime here and now, in Guru Nanak's philosophy, is shared by several Sikh scholars. It is scholarship that most Internet discussions and web-sites will not bring it to your computer screen unless someone makes a deliberate effort. Anything I wrote that is a figment of my imagination places me in the good company of those who inspire and teach me.

I will provide some background on Babar.
http://www.wichaar.com/news/319/ARTICLE/14799/2009-06-13.html

The savagery of Babar's devastations of northern India left a scar on the Indian psyche that continues in historical accounts even today. When Babar heard that a "holy man" was imprisoned in his jails he called for him. Guru Nanak gave Babar what must have been the mother of all teachings on moral accountability. To make a long story short, Babar as I said "got it," and Babar repented. He made restitution. Guru Nanak never mentioned a law of karma in the 4 hymns that are historical witness to his encounters with Babar.

 

[spnadmin]

Guru Nanak's bani that refers to Babar is sometimes called Babarbani :sippingcoffee: These hymns are located in several places in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. I am copying only the last one. What has always drawn me to Guru Nanak? He calls murder murder, and a city of corpses is a city of corpses, and a ghastly "affair " is a ghastly "affair," without evasion. And though the corpse be torn to pieces, memories of injustice are not forgotten. In the hukam of Akaal Purakh injustice will be righted again. Without mention of 84 lak joon or cleansing of karmas, we hear a clear message that humans must want to set their moral record straight in the here and now. Wish I could put that better. Maybe next time.

Ang 723 Please forgive any mishaps of translation. The point is clear enough.

ਖੂਨ ਕੇ ਸੋਹਿਲੇ ਗਾਵੀਅਹਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਰਤੁ ਕਾ ਕੁੰਗੂ ਪਾਇ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥੧

Kẖūn ke sohile gavī▫ah Nānak raṯ kā kungū pā▫e ve lālo. ||1||

Nanak, the eulogies of murder are sung, and the saffron of blood is sprinkled, O Lalo.


ਸਾਹਿਬ ਕੇ ਗੁਣ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਗਾਵੈ ਮਾਸ ਪੁਰੀ ਵਿਚਿ ਆਖੁ ਮਸੋਲਾ ॥

Sāhib ke guṇ Nānak gāvai mās purī vicẖ ākẖ masolā.

Nanak sings the glories of the Lord in the city of corpses and mentions this affair.


ਜਿਨਿ ਉਪਾਈ ਰੰਗਿ ਰਵਾਈ ਬੈਠਾ ਵੇਖੈ ਵਖਿ ਇਕੇਲਾ ॥

जिनि उपाई रंगि रवाई बैठा वेखै वखि इकेला ॥

Jin upā▫ī rang ravā▫ī baiṯẖā vekẖai vakẖ ikelā.

He, who has made the mortals and attached them to pleasures, sits apart and alone, and beholds them.


ਸਚਾ ਸੋ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਚੁ ਤਪਾਵਸੁ ਸਚੜਾ ਨਿਆਉ ਕਰੇਗੁ ਮਸੋਲਾ ॥

Sacẖā so sāhib sacẖ ṯapāvas sacẖṛā ni▫ā▫o kareg masolā.

He, the Lord is true, true is His decision, and He issues command based on true justice.


ਕਾਇਆ ਕਪੜੁ ਟੁਕੁ ਟੁਕੁ ਹੋਸੀ ਹਿਦੁਸਤਾਨੁ ਸਮਾਲਸੀ ਬੋਲਾ ॥

Kā▫i▫ā kapaṛ tuk tuk hosī hinḏusaṯān samālsī bolā.

The body cloth shall be torn into pieces and shreds. The shall Hindustan remember my word.


ਆਵਨਿ ਅਠਤਰੈ ਜਾਨਿ ਸਤਾਨਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਭੀ ਉਠਸੀ ਮਰਦ ਕਾ ਚੇਲਾ ॥

Āvan aṯẖ▫ṯarai jān saṯānvai hor bẖī uṯẖsī maraḏ kā cẖelā.

Coming in seventy eight (Vikram), they (the Mughals) shall depart in ninety seven and then another disciple of brave Man shall arise.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

From your posts, it clearly shows you are here to proselytize your branch of Buddhism rather than learning about Sikhi and discussing the commonalities between the two if they happen to have any. I remember having a similar conversation with you sometime ago in which you showed your Buddhist ire rather than an interaction. Your posts show your total immersion of Me-ism rather than trying to have a dialogue with the Sikhs so all of us can learn and it is clear that is not your agenda, which is a shame.

I am sure you are very well aware that proselytization is forbidden in Sikhi because our journey is our own as individuals. Be the best human you can be no matter what/who you believe in, sayeth the Guru Granth.

But, let me ask you about only 2 things from your long list in your post. They are in bold.

You write:

Well, you could try to find out first, what karma exactly is i.e. what constitutes cause and what are results and what are the conditions for the latter to come about. Also you might like to question any insistence on being able to observe a one to one connection between any set of cause and effect.

Karma as a law? Good deeds through body, speech or mind bring about good results and bad deeds, bad results. Good deeds can’t bring about bad results and bad deeds can’t bring about good results.

What constitutes cause / karma? Causes are mental volition of a particular intensity as in:

Ten unwholesome actions:

1. Killing living beings
2. Stealing
3. Sexual misconduct
4. False speech
5. Malicious speech
6. Harsh speech
7. Gossip
8. Coveting
9. Ill-will
10. Wrong views

And

Ten wholesome actions:

1. Abstaining from killing living beings
2. Abstaining from stealing
3. Abstaining from sexual misconduct
4. Abstaining from false speech
5. Abstaining from malicious speech
6. Abstaining from harsh speech
7. Abstaining from gossip
8. Abstaining from coveting
9. Abstaining from ill-will
10. Possessing Right Understanding of the Truth

1. Killing living beings
1. Abstaining from killing living beings

Do you commit the number 1's in your 2 lists? You would be untruthful and dishonest if you said no, to put it mildly. Is this untruthfulness, if provided NO in your answer due to the Law of Karma as you understand it or is it the part of the branch of Buddhism your adhere to?

I will discuss the other falsehoods in your lists after your response.

Thanks and regards.

Tejwant Singh

 

[Archived_member14]

Ambarsaria ji,

Confused ji you must be kidding if you want to claim that the following is an all inclusive list of what defines Karma and mental volition driven actions,

These are full courses of action which when performed will give results. The mental factor of intention however arises with all states of consciousness and when accompanying moments of volition that are weak and not constitute full course of action, the effect then is simply accumulation of tendency / habit but not give rise to results in the future.

1. Killing living beings
2. Stealing
3. Sexual misconduct
4. False speech
5. Malicious speech
6. Harsh speech
7. Gossip
8. Coveting
9. Ill-will
10. Wrong views

The above are society's metrics to good living aside from (1. Killing living beings). All of the 2 to 9 are relative and not absolutely measurable in daily living. One needs a judge or someone will start a religion and start judging .

The whole point of my posting here for the past few years is to encourage people to refer to mental states. All of the above refer to mental states with particular intentions. I do this so that people will stop believing that morality is relative but begin to understand that in fact they are very real and each have characteristics particular to them that are unchangeable, meaning for example, false speech is always false speech regardless of whether it is acceptable by society or not.

Let me elaborate how your list is driven by relativity.
Quote:Example: Sexual misconduct
Situation: In Punjab villages it was no no to have village boys showing sexual/marital interest in their own village girls. In Muslim countries near relation marriages are preferred.

Who judges what is good and what is misconduct?

People are generally ignorant and have wrong understanding about the way things are. The reason one develops wisdom is so that one's own understanding then becomes guide to action. Other people having different sets of value are due to their own ignorance, attachment and wrong understanding. Rather than allow this to cause confusion and come to the conclusion such as that, moral values are relative, you can with your own compass, know which direction to take.

Right understanding which one has developed is the best or rather only, judge.

Similar scenarios and non exactness will prevail throughout the 10 items and their complementary negative paired items.

Brother this is no Law and I hope that the Karma is not foundational on this as then it is just simply a house of cards which collapses very fast!

Stealing as a particular kind and intensity of intention is always stealing, regardless of where one is situated in space and time. This is known with any certainty, by each person himself/herself. You can’t expect the law to be able to deal directly with this, although sometimes lawyers do try to bring to light such. But really, is there a better criterion than “intention” to judge who is guilty and who is not?

 

[Archived_member14]

Spnadmin ji,

I am gratified that you took the time to read what I wrote, think about it, and then take more time to reply. On the other hand I find remarks such as below off-putting.

Quote: Either you have not being paying attention to what I have written in the past or you think that I'm just talking nonsense. Your characterization and description comes across to me as figment of your imagination. You paint a picture in order to make your own view appear good.

Well, I have been expressing my views for a long time. Along the way people here have expressed their personal view about karma and I have tried to explain what I consider the right understanding to be. I have even created a thread on the subject where you or anyone else could have joined in for a discussion to find out whether or not my interpretation is the more correct one. In this thread itself, I did this in my message to Ambarsaria ji and invited him to address it. You as a participant of this discussion could have done it too, but you did not. Instead like everyone else, you come in with your own interpretation and express your criticisms based on that.

You say that my view is just one of many, but do you think the same about your own when you begin to express your disagreement? Indeed to do what you did “after” I stated my views sounds like you are saying that I'm wrong and you are right. So perhaps we should be discussing this first then?

After reading all of your comments on this thread, I would take issue only here and there. I understand that you are writing according to your understanding as a Theravedic Buddhist. For me that is an opportunity to learn, not a reason to argue, though I may disagree.

You learn something that you consider wrong? If you disagree with what I've said so many times and don't want to discuss it, is it wrong then that until then, I'd perceive you as mischaracterizing in order to make your point? Your putting me in the box of Theravada Buddhist does nothing to credit your position since I've always stated that I consider myself as expressing the “Truth”. Besides I argue not only with Sikhs and Mahayana Buddhists, but also with most of the Theravada Buddhists out there as well.

So your retort - I am not paying attention or that I think you are talking nonsense - is your projection. It is ironic you say I was not "paying attention" to you, but maybe that comment follows from your assumption that I was directing my comments to you personally. I don't know why I should pay attention to you, and if you take my words personally, then I doubt there is any purpose in replying to your other questions.

Oh yes, I project, and I don't take my own judgments in such matters seriously anyway. But there is also this.

This is a group discussion and points are being made by each participant which others read. Unless you clearly state that it is not addressed to me, I would have to consider myself one participant in the discussion and that my past comments have been taken into account. But best would be that you comment on my interpretation and not just give your own and then try to knock that one down.

My remarks were addressed to no one in particular. What I have said about moral accountability within the space of our lifetime here and now, in Guru Nanak's philosophy, is shared by several Sikh scholars. It is scholarship that most Internet discussions and web-sites will not bring it to your computer screen unless someone makes a deliberate effort. Anything I wrote that is a figment of my imagination places me in the good company of those who inspire and teach me.

Yes a figment of imagination it is, yours as well as those of your source of inspiration, so long as no attempt is made to get into a discussion with me about the subject. I know of other Sikhs who do believe that karma was taught by Guru Nanak.

I will provide some background on Babar.
http://www.wichaar.com/news/319/ARTI...009-06-13.html

The savagery of Babar's devastations of northern India left a scar on the Indian psyche that continues in hitorical accounts even today. When Babar heard that a "holy man" was imprisoned in his jails he called for him. Guru Nanak gave Babar what must have been the mother of all teachings on moral accountability. To make a long story short, Babar as I said "got it," and Babar repented. He made restitution. Guru Nanak never mentioned a law of karma in the 4 hymns that are historical witness to his encounters with Babar.

Why would not mentioning the concept mean it is being rejected? Do you think I need to mention karma each time that I talk about morality to my kids for example?

 

[Ishna]

Off topic much?