Reincarnation

BhagatSingh · #55 (**permalink**) 30-Aug-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narayanjot Kaur

Bhagat Singh ji

I have moved your last reply to this thread.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-s...d-gurbani.html

The only minds we have to read and interpret gurbani, or to have this discussion about Reincarnation, are the minds we now have. Be we merchants, professors, biochemists, students, and the like. Of course we have filters. there is no getting around it. So did each and every person who every wrote a translation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, or the author of Guru Granth Darpan, Professor Sahib Singh. He wrote from the perspective of the late 19th and early 20th Century, as a Sanskirt scholar and activist in the Gurdwara Reform Movement. Thus it is unworkable to make "filters" cause for dismissing individual points of view.

I disagree with that notion; I don't like the attitude where one thinks that "there is no getting around to it". in fact we CAN get around it.

Do you think there is no difference between the interpretation done by the average "Joeinder" and a person who has studied history around Guru Sahibs time and has learned Sanskrit?

Filters are present in both but the latter has reduced them. He can work around most of his because of his qualifications, while Joeinder doesn't have the resources to do so. Now read the first paragraph of that post. I am precisely talking about this kind of reduction in filters and not a removal of them. Removal is just not going to happen... duh!

Quote:

I have asked you to give your vichaar of a shabad rather than quoting one line, so that the forum can understand how you have responded to points rasied in previous posts by me and other members.

However, you have been a bit unfair.Your reply so changed the basic direction of the discussion that one would have to debate each and every new and unique presumption you have introduced, before being able to circle back to the thread itself. By that time the original direction of the thread would be lost.

Please do give us your vichaar of the shabad. Be sensitive to issues raised by others. Do not change the framework of conversation in a way that absolves you from being responsive, and rather gives you a way to redefine the debate. Thanks.

I apologize if you found my reply unfair but did you not ask me to elaborate? So then be patient...

Ok now that that's (literally) out of the way. Onto the shabad

My explanation is meant to me supplementary to the quoted shabad's translation.

Quote:

Aasaa, First Mehl:
If a beggar cries out at the door, the Master hears it in His Mansion.
Whether He receives him or pushes him away, it is the Gift of the Lord's Greatness. ||1||

Guru Nanak says: Good and Bad things are gifts of God.

"Gift of the Lord's greatness" = In other words, in this world of multiplicity, we perceive intellectual distinctions. Like a ray of light splitting off into the rainbow when passing through a prism. Our mind is like that prism which sees the One as many. The greatness lies in the power of Maya that is associated with the One. Maya creates the prism.

Quote:

Recognize the Lord's Light within all, and do not consider social class or status; there are no classes or castes in the world hereafter. ||1||Pause||

God's essence is in all living things. Do not worry about social status because that does not exist outside of this world of multiplicity.

Quote:

He Himself acts, and He Himself inspires us to act.
He Himself considers our complaints.
Since You, O Creator Lord, are the Doer,
why should I submit to the world? ||2||

So what we perceive as a world of multiplicity, is actually coming from the one. Thus no need to "submit to the world".

Quote:

You Yourself created and You Yourself give.
You Yourself eliminate evil-mindedness;
by Guru's Grace, You come to abide in our minds,
and then, pain and darkness are dispelled from within. ||3||

By Guru's Grace (through Bhagati) that prism is broken, and we see one ray of light instead of multiple distinct rays.

"come to abide in minds" - we get a direct experience of the Oneness

Quote:

He Himself infuses love for the Truth.
Unto others, the Truth is not bestowed.
If He bestows it upon someone, says Nanak, then, in the world hereafter, that person is not called to account. ||4||3||

Once the prism is broken, we see the Oneness and will not suffer through reincarnation.
"person not called to account" - that's only done if the person is still in samsara (cycle of births and deaths)

Narayanjot Kaur · #56 (**permalink**) 30-Aug-2010, 18:31 PM

Bhagat Singh ji

How do you decide who is the average "Joeinder?" And how do you decide who is the authority you want to respect?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/9096-reincarnation.html

Thanks for your vichaar. More later.

BhagatSingh · #57 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 02:07 AM

Naryanjot kaur ji
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=9096
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=9096
People with qualifications in Sikh history and languages are good candidates for the authority you want to respect. Those with an additional background in Eastern Philosophy are better candidates. Those who are also disinterested and objectively studying texts are even better.
Over time as interpretations converging from independent sources (from good candidates) are (probably) going to be more accurate.

Narayanjot Kaur · #58 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

Naryanjot kaur ji
People with qualifications in Sikh history and languages are good candidates for the authority you want to respect. Those with an additional background in Eastern Philosophy are better candidates. Those who are also disinterested and objectively studying texts are even better.
Over time as interpretations converging from independent sources (from good candidates) are (probably) going to be more accurate.

And what criteria do you propose to judge the qualifications of these candidates? And by what publicly vetted process do you plan to gain consensus? And how do you propose to find a consensus or demonstrate that a consensus is there?

You still have not told me who the average "joeinder" is.

thanks

BhagatSingh · #59 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narayanjot Kaur

And what criteria do you propose to judge the qualifications of these candidates? And by what publicly vetted process do you plan to gain consensus? And how do you propose to find a consensus or demonstrate that a consensus is there?

Well if they have studied Sikh History, Indian Languages and Eastern Philosophy formally that would be awesome.
I do not really plan on getting a consensus. I am not sure what a consensus has to do with anything I have said.

Quote:

You still have not told me who the average "joeinder" is. thanks

I am the average Joeinder.

I only have a bucket full from the vast oceans of knowledge I need to grasp (that is knowledge of Sikh History, Languages and Eastern Philosophy) before I can make accurate historical interpretations.

Narayanjot Kaur · #60 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

Well if they have studied Sikh History, Indian Languages and Eastern Philosophy formally that would be awesome.
I do not really plan on getting a consensus. I am not sure what a consensus has to do with anything I have said.

I am the average Joeinder.

I only have a bucket full from the vast oceans of knowledge I need to grasp (that is knowledge of Sikh History, Languages and Eastern Philosophy) before I can make accurate historical interpretations.

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.

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.

BhagatSingh · #61 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narayanjot Kaur

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.

Quote:

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 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (formally) they would need to have a background in history, language (and metaphor) and eastern philosophy?

BhagatSingh · #62 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 17:08 PM

Randip Singh ji, welcome to this thread!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randip Singh

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 · #63 (**permalink**) 31-Aug-2010, 20:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

Randip Singh ji, welcome to this thread!ffice

ffice" />

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

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.

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

i.e. ones Karma determines ones castes and there is hierarchy of humans, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishnav, Sudra, Untouchable, Animal, Plant, Rock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

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?

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