Is Hindu/Sikh A Valid Adherent?

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Whne Guru Ji mentions the "Elephant" bathing...its a ATTRIBUTE millions of HUMANS have.
What does an elephant do in water..?? IT jumps right in ( Humans jump into Sarovars/teeraths/Ganges River etc)..Then it ses its trunk to throw water all over its body (humans use their cupped hands od dip into the waters)...After the Elephnat is FINISHED..It rushes OUT and on reaching the FIRST DIRT heap..immediately sukcs up the DIRT and SPRAYS it all over its BODY. Immediately after the "cleansing" bath it had..its covered itself in dirt once again. ( Humans emerge from the "purifying waters" of their Teerath/sarovar/holy rivers..etc etc..and IMMEDIATELY begin HEAPING "DIRT" back on themsleves...Dirt of Ninda chuglee, kaamee thoughts, lusty eyes on shapely bodies, anger, krodh, etc etc....in FACT GURBANI clearly declares without a doubt that MOST of the so calle d"pilgrims" who wnet to the teeraths to purify themsleves..in fact returned DIRTIER becasue in addition to whatever paaps etc they went to wash off (impossible to wash the MANN with WATER - itself an exercise in FUTILITY)..their RETURN is LOADED with Extra EGO..hankaar at having WASHED OFF thier imaginary Paaps...

Any Biologist worth his salt can tell us WHY Elephants throw DIRT on their bodies immediately after bathing...the DIRT effectively STICKS to a wet body and provides a "SECURE COVERING" against mosquitoes, bugs etc that irritate the elephant/suck its blood etc. So the odd looking action of the elephant is actually a NATURAL ONE..the Elephant need not have any Gyaan, Knowledge etc...its following its natural instincts..

BUT for HUMANS with BRAINS..knowledge of DHARAM..etc etc..to COPY CAT the Elephant..?????? The Aim of GURU Ji isto EDUCATE the HUMAN do DISCARD this uselss RITUAL which he thinks is DHARAMIK..RELIGIOUS...??? No such thing says Nanak Ji..its so stupid. Guru Ji is UTILISING the Elephant EXAMPLE..to IMPART an important GURMATT PRINCIPLE.

As I mentioned earlier many times...those people rooted in Hindu mythology/dharama etc..just have to notice the word"elephant"...and immediately their minds go into..teh MYTHICAL elephant stuck in some quick sand..the elephant that has no gyaan..no knowledge of dharma etc etc and such "Backwards Compatible" thought process is clearly visible in many translations....even in one of the shabads Bhagat quoted above...( The elephant had no virtue and no knowledge; what religious rituals has he performed?) ............???? why would an elephant need to have "virtue"..dharam and rituals to perform..and why need RITUALS ?? anyway ??

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

If there are no concepts like KARAM /Reincrnations/Transformations etc etc then what is the significance of NAAMu which is the ultimate and Real message of GuRu.?

An important point of consideratin in respect of transformation or reincarnation is that HUMAN FORM is achieved thru SADH SANGATi only.Now the question what this SADH SANGATi referes to in relation to achieving Human Form.?

The above consideration may perhaps give some insight view about what is being said in GuRbanee for reincarnation/Transformation and or Karams.
Prakash.s.Bagga

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

GIYANI JARNAIL SINGH Ji,
Plgive your views of this Sabad as

ਰਾਮ ਸਿਮਰਿ ਰਾਮ ਸਿਮਰਿ ਰਾਮ ਸਿਮਰਿ ਭਾਈ ॥ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਬਿਨੁ ਬੂਡਤੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਬਨਿਤਾ ਸੁਤ ਦੇਹ ਗ੍ਰੇਹ ਸੰਪਤਿ ਸੁਖਦਾਈ ॥ ਇਨ੍ਹ੍ਹ ਮੈ ਕਛੁ ਨਾਹਿ ਤੇਰੋ ਕਾਲ ਅਵਧ ਆਈ ॥੧॥ ਅਜਾਮਲ ਗਜ ਗਨਿਕਾ ਪਤਿਤ ਕਰਮ ਕੀਨੇ ॥ ਤੇਊ ਉਤਰਿ ਪਾਰਿ ਪਰੇ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਲੀਨੇ ॥੨॥ ਸੂਕਰ ਕੂਕਰ ਜੋਨਿ ਭ੍ਰਮੇ ਤਊ ਲਾਜ ਨ ਆਈ ॥ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਛਾਡਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਕਾਹੇ ਬਿਖੁ ਖਾਈ ॥੩॥ ਤਜਿ ਭਰਮ ਕਰਮ ਬਿਧਿ ਨਿਖੇਧ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮੁ ਲੇਹੀ ॥ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ਜਨ ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮੁ ਕਰਿ ਸਨੇਹੀ ॥੪॥੫॥ {ਪੰਨਾ 692}

Can we consider every reference of Hindu Philosophy as Metaphor only.?Then what about the every word of Gurbanee to be considered as True as the whole Banee is from True GuRu.

In the above Sabad there is clear message of transmigration as Dogs/Pigs.

Prakash.s.Bagga

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Bj3RE0zv38A#t=95s

 

[Kamala]

Thank you so much Scarlet Pimpernel!

 

[Luckysingh]

Although I don't deny reincarnation, this video regarding Guru Gobind Singh ji's previous life, I'm sorry, I don't really buy that.
I mentioned this in another post about the Dasam Granth. How the integrity of it has been tampered with and diluted over the many years. It's authenticity is a huge question mark.
We have the Guru granth sahib and that is the original sacred granth.

I find it difficult to digest if non of the other gurus ever mentioned previous lives. Also, the Bachittar natak, from which they concluded Hemkund as being a place before his birth, I actually intepreted the description differently along with many many others.

Sat kartar

 

[Ambarsaria]

Ambarsaria ji,...

Confused ji my response follows. I have tagged paragraps for clarity as,

• CJ ---> Confused ji
• AJ----> Ambarsaria

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[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]-->

AJ: We all rise from materials and become materials again.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="1" width="533"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"><td style="border:inset 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:inset windowtext .75pt; padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

CJ: What is this "we" that you are referring to? Something which exists separate from and before the formation of the body or rises at the same time as the body? Is it in fact part of the body or is it that the body is part of it? Is it the owner of the body or the product of the body? Or is it in fact the body itself?

AJ: We are simply materials shaped with living thought. We continuously and forever, conditions permitting, make transformations between material, material with living thought, material. There is no continuation of a physical material blob on a one on one basis as long as baby’s are not born as fully grown adults at birth representing a continuation of another adult cat, dog, monkey, chimpanzee or human who may have passed away.

AJ: The legacies we leave can be very living but that is not re-incarnation

Quote:
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="3" width="523"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt inset; padding: 0.75pt;">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
CJ: Of course it is not, but it is you who keeps insisting on interpreting the reference to the latter as being in fact the former.

AJ: Brother Confused ji I do not insist. I simply believe it to make sense and pose it as such. I am not offended if someone does not believe in what I believe. However if they are going to contort Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji wisdom, of what I understand, I protest based on my understanding thereof. We also need to recognize that we are not as original, as absolute in our living and thought as we may pretend to others or ourselves. Humans are social and associative animals.

CJ: And what of this idea about leaving behind a legacy? If your children and grandchildren think about you or make a reference to what you may have taught them, this is not about you, but about them. It would seem that people who think this way about what they leave behind are only seeking solace in such thoughts.

AJ: Brother Confused ji there is no solace in such future thoughts that you may interpret from views expressed. This virtual carrying out parts of others is not in our control or something we can shape. That is part of creation and living.

CJ: Are you referring to what is passed on through the genes perhaps? If so, I'll just say that apart from appearance and other physical attributes, it does not take much power of observation to note that any similarities must be not greater than between a given pair of complete strangers. For example you and I may have more similarities in mental behavior than we do with our own parents.

AJ: At crude level of observation, yes we may have similarities. At finer level of observations there are vastly much larger number of smaller similarities with ancestors.<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="33" width="522"><tbody><tr style=""><td style="border: 1pt inset; padding: 0.75pt;">
</td></tr></tbody></table>AJ: My pig analogy is related to Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and some others who believe that whole package of a human being is a single transformational entity which as a whole continues to persist but as a single tranche. I just do not believe this and at least in Eastern philosophies, the way I understand this is how the layman/laywoman are guided by religious preachers. Are they preaching wrong? Not for me to judge.

AJ: This is plain trash talk. After death, cremation we become part of much. Some grasses, some trees, some plants, some microorganisms, some life forms will eat parts of what we become (say grass), give milk and sustain and make another child strong. Veer that is not re-incarnation, that is basic creation.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="18" width="523"><tbody><tr style=""><td style="border: 1pt inset; padding: 0.75pt;">
</td></tr></tbody></table>CJ: While you perhaps think that those who believe in reincarnation are motivated in part by a longing for continued existence, what you state above comes across as no different but with the added flavor of romanticism.

AJ: Confused brother there is huge difference. I state one to many physical transformation, one to many legacy (spiritual complex legacies) transformations.

I always understood re-incarnation to be stated as a single unit of life becoming another single unit of life. Example man becomes serpent, serpent becomes rat, rat becomes pig, pig becomes cow, cow becomes a human, and so on. This definition of re-incarnation I do not believe in. It is given great eminence in Hinduism as 8,400,000 forms of life transformations one-on one in a cycle.

CJ: While annihilationism and eternalism are in fact two opposing views, you appear to entertain both of them at once. You want to stress that with the end of this life, nothing of the person remains, but at the same time you like to believe that part of him exists in the form of other things and this must go on eternally. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? And what do you have to say now with regard to the previous identification of self with the physical body and at another time with the concept of 'soul'? (1)Is the self that is locked into the one body now, at death then turn into the many different ones? (2)And what of the soul, does it not exist anymore?

AJ: Confused Brother ji nothing remains at physical of a person as a unit or material blob and single entity. Gets transformed into far too many to count. Say if we were to mark each molecule in our body and trace it over 5, 10 years to see where it went, it could be in all kind of life, things and places.

At the spiritual level, our interactions and associative soul/spirituality impacts continue to impinge consciously and sub-consciously in lot of lif that we directly or virtually interact with. Spiritual linkages to Buddha exist for you, spiritual linkages to Guru Nanak Dev ji exist for me, and so on our relationships with people no longer alive through physical or virtual interactions we had or are having with such.
No I am not trying to have my cake and eat it too and I hope above explains.

Specific question 1: Physical body after death is kaput and becomes many different life or other forms.

Specific Question 2: Soul is a living an transforming entity in life and after death. In life you have many sensory enablers to enhance spiritual interactions through the five senses. After death the interactions continue but are limited by legacy and availability of interactions to be shared. This varied from person to person. Some like Buddha, Guru Nanak Dev ji even after death hundreds of years ago are interacting better that a person unknown to us in the neighborhood, village/town, city country and the world at large.

AJ: Don't get your knickers in a know as you are quite smart but just suffering from excessive information clutter which is quite obvious. You quickly find multiple sources to prove points and this is not learning, trying to continuously prove one is right.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="23" width="505"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"><td style="border:inset 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:inset windowtext .75pt; padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
</td></tr></tbody></table>CJ: The problem is not information clutter. Regardless of how well read / learned anyone is, it is the nature of ignorance and attachment to 'self', that there is jumping around amongst different views in order to find support.

AJ: Confused Brother ji, I by design or plan I don’t jump around. That however does not prove I have not jumped around. Jumping around is a natural phenomenon in the process of learning and understanding a specific item. Jumping around lessens as we start to understand more completely and firmly.

CJ: Do I expect to convert anyone? Not at all. What I however would be happy with is that those who read in will to a lesser or greater extent, question their understandings in the particular area.

AJ: Intent of my humble response is the same.

Hopefully I have answered but if a miss, error, etc., please feel free to flag.

Good to dialog with you.

PS: Sorry folks formatting gremlins/things I don't understand are creating havoc. I don't have energy to fix right now. May be later.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Although I don't deny reincarnation, this video regarding Guru Gobind Singh ji's previous life, I'm sorry, I don't really buy that.
I mentioned this in another post about the Dasam Granth. How the integrity of it has been tampered with and diluted over the many years. It's authenticity is a huge question mark.
We have the Guru granth sahib and that is the original sacred granth.

I find it difficult to digest if non of the other gurus ever mentioned previous lives. Also, the Bachittar natak, from which they concluded Hemkund as being a place before his birth, I actually intepreted the description differently along with many many others.

Sat kartar

It is really interesting to note that nearlly all stories of PREVIOUS BIRTH phenomena are related to GuRu Gobind Singh ji only. Why so?

This leads to certain design to malign and dilute the basics of Sikh philosophy.

Prakash.s.Bagga
This needs to be understood.

 

[Ambarsaria]

It is really interesting to note that nearlly all stories of PREVIOUS BIRTH phenomena are related to GuRu Gobind Singh ji only. Why so?

This leads to certain design to malign and dilute the basics of Sikh philosophy.

Prakash.s.Bagga
This needs to be understood.

Prakash S. Bagga ji very astute obersvation my veer.

Prakash .S. Bagga ji it is very simple indeed. Upto Ninth Guru ji, you could not tell a Sikh from a Hindu. You de-focus Sikhism from Guru Gobind Singh ji, mission accomplished for Hindus. No more Khalsa and Sikhs officially become part of Hinduism.

There will be very many and more concerted attempts to sabotage Guru Gobind Singh ji's from Sikhism. For example,

• Sanatanism
• Dehras
• Dasm Granth
• etc.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Archived_member14]

Ambarsaria ji,

CJ: What is this "we" that you are referring to? Something which exists separate from and before the formation of the body or rises at the same time as the body? Is it in fact part of the body or is it that the body is part of it? Is it the owner of the body or the product of the body? Or is it in fact the body itself?

AJ: We are simply materials shaped with living thought.

So you do not identify humans with only the physical form, but with his capacity to experience, think, feel, perceive, having intention and so on as well? Does this mean then that you would revise your previous statement re: "We all rise from materials and become materials again"? And I take it that when you refer to “we”, this is only for the sake of communication and not pointing to something outside of this mental - physical entity?

We continuously and forever, conditions permitting, make transformations between material, material with living thought, material. There is no continuation of a physical material blob on a one on one basis as long as baby’s are not born as fully grown adults at birth representing a continuation of another adult cat, dog, monkey, chimpanzee or human who may have passed away.

Could you please explain and elaborate on the following:

1. Transformation between material, material and living thoughts, material.
2. Continuation of physical material blob.


Also, please tell me what you mean by "one on one basis" as against not one on one, so that I may come to know better what you are rejecting and what it is that you want to promote?

I’ll respond to the rest of your message after receiving yours to the above.

 

[Kamala]

Lol so you're saying if you don't agree with smething it'd diluted? I mean Dusht Daman is real and is the Guru ji's previous incarnation. Denying that is like.

 

[Ambarsaria]

Ambarsaria ji,
CJ:So you do not identify humans with only the physical form, but with his capacity to experience, think, feel, perceive, having intention and so on as well? Does this mean then that you would revise your previous statement re: "We all rise from materials and become materials again"? And I take it that when you refer to “we”, this is only for the sake of communication and not pointing to something outside of this mental - physical entity?

AJ:
Before conception = Material
Conception = Material + Life (Growing)
Living= = Material + Life
At Death = Material + Life (Declining)
After Cremation= = Material

CJ: Could you please explain and elaborate on the following:

1. Transformation between material, material and living thoughts, material.
2. Continuation of physical material blob.

AJ: Confused ji I hope the explanation to point one prior suffices. If not let me know in how and what way it is unclear and I will elaborate.

CJ: Also, please tell me what you mean by "one on one basis" as against not one on one, so that I may come to know better what you are rejecting and what it is that you want to promote?

AJ: Confused ji what I mean is that there is no way that I know of or seen any evidence of how a person at death as a whole (all material when all life has ended in the material) as lock stock and barrel becomes a complete living form using all the material created by a dead body. For that to occur 100% the dead person has to be resuscitated.

So for me at death, body material ends up into many different forms, body life ends up into many lives bugs (maggots for the buried people), germs, etc; the soul continues to disperse and merge with innumerable others as it does while being in an alive person and during life.

Thanks for your comments.

Regards.

 

[Kanwaljit.Singh]

Remember

Dushta daman is not Amrit da daata

Dushta daman is not Sarbans daani

Dushta daman is not father of khalsa

Dushta daman is not aape Gur chela

Dushta daman wasn't tenth Nanak

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Dusht Daman Born out of the Cheetah skin on which the mythical Shiva sat for eons of time..is "REAL" ?? get real !!. Sikhs are NOT Harry Puttars.
GURMATT of SGGS is a 21st century modern GYAAN based religion...no such myths allowed here..

 

[Archived_member14]

Ambarsaria ji,

AJ:
Before conception = Material
Conception = Material + Life (Growing)
Living= = Material + Life
At Death = Material + Life (Declining)
After Cremation= = Material

Before conception = Material

So you choose to identify yourself with that which exists even before there is any possibility of knowing that you exist!?

Indeed judging from what you write at the end, what you are saying is that this in turn is composed of souls coming from all over....?

Conception = Material + Life (Growing)

By 'life' do you refer to mentality or also some particular kind of materiality?
And this life is a product of the materiality existing prior to it? Do you, like the scientist materialist, see mind as epiphenomena of matter?

Can you elaborate what significance has the 'growing' have here?

Living= Material + Life

What is your meaning of ‘living’ here such that you differentiate it from ‘life’? Is conception not an instance of ‘living’ too?

At Death = Material + Life (Declining)

You may like to correct the above, since it appears to suggest that life continues on for little longer after death. This would then make the concept of birth, life and death rather meaningless.

After Cremation= Material

Again what you are doing is identifying with something which does not have any power of knowing what it is or anything at all.

If you identify a being with materiality before birth and after death, what significance you give to the fact of birth and death? In other words, other than pointing them out, can you tell me what your understanding of these phenomena are?

CJ: Could you please explain and elaborate on the following:

1. Transformation between material, material and living thoughts, material.
2. Continuation of physical material blob.

AJ: Confused ji I hope the explanation to point one prior suffices. If not let me know in how and what way it is unclear and I will elaborate.

The first, I now have a vague idea. But I’d still need you to say something about the second.

CJ: Also, please tell me what you mean by "one on one basis" as against not one on one, so that I may come to know better what you are rejecting and what it is that you want to promote?

AJ: Confused ji what I mean is that there is no way that I know of or seen any evidence of how a person at death as a whole (all material when all life has ended in the material) as lock stock and barrel becomes a complete living form using all the material created by a dead body. For that to occur 100% the dead person has to be resuscitated.

I think this is what I was trying to address in my last message.
Why do you bring the idea of material body transforming into another material body in to argue against the concept of reincarnation when no one has talked about the latter in these terms?

But I think I see why you can’t help doing this and correct me if I am wrong.

You posit that mind or sentience is the product of materiality. Starting with matter you see that at birth this gives rise to mind. But this is still at the most rudimentary form which then goes through a transformational process whereby it becomes more developed up until a particular point when decay sets in, leading to death. And this probably means that with decay of the physical body, also decline in mental capacity happens.

In this particular scenario it is then hard for you to accept the idea of rebirth / reincarnation the way it is understood. While you have tied mind and its development and decline to the growth and decay of the body, to believe that a particular mind with all its accumulated tendencies can after death “continue” in another form is not tenable.

Would this be a more or less fair representation of your position Ambarsaria ji?

So for me at death, body material ends up into many different forms, body life ends up into many lives bugs (maggots for the buried people), germs, etc; the soul continues to disperse and merge with innumerable others as it does while being in an alive person and during life.

And the bug, having eaten from more than one place have in effect not only increased the size of its soul, but made it more variegated than otherwise. And can you explain what you mean by the fact that your soul for example, merges with mine even while both of us are alive?

 

[Kanwaljit.Singh]

I have never been to the Hindu temple. But there is a Laxman Mandir also in the vicinity of Hemkunt Sahib (it predates the Gurudwara sahib). And many simple 'Sikh' people also visit and pray at temple.

That reminds me, there are many other historical Gurudwaras which have a small temple sharing boundary (and sometimes within the complex) e.g. Poanta Sahib.

I saw a Sikligar community in Hyderabad, which had a roadside temple coming up in the community. People said after the morning darbar at local Gurudwara, many people would go and pray there. A new Granthi ji was asked to come in and he made them get over the practice.

I think the problem is that most of us live in fear, fear of losing wealth, fear of some ill to fall upon the family, fear of dying etc. And in that case, we would 'seek' help from whatever means we can lay hands upon.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat Singh ji
I have enjoyed comparing and contrasting these shabads. Below is a briefing of what I made of them.

Lucky Singh ji,
I'm glad you enjoyed it. My thoughts on the shabads below yours.

After studying all 5 shabads, It becomes apparent that one does not have to believe in reincarnation to achieve liberation. This is important.
But, its more a case of what could happen if you don't achieve liberation, why we are here- because countless chances to achieve have failed.

Guru Arjan Dev Ji points us in the direction that we may not have had chances to liberate in the other life forms, but through the sadh sangat we obtain human life form- one chance yet again to achieve liberation.

Guru Arjan Dev ji says after being born as animals, plants, etc you have finally been been born as a human to be in the company of Saints (Saadh sangat) so serve them and through Guru's teachings meditate on "Hari, Hari".
Renounce your falsehood and pride. ਜੀਵਤ ਮਰਹਿ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਰਵਾਨੁ ॥੩॥ - even to truly understand this one already needs to be enlightened. The basic idea is that you die as that false sense of self which sees itself as a distinct entity (Haumai). Once you die as that false self while remaining alive you will then be accepted in the Lord's court ie attain liberation.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji points that we act according to past actions and pre ordained destiny cannot be erased. - this doesn't require much elaboration.

That is a long shabad so I won't go into it but the message is the same as the other shabads. We can try to go into past actions and what that means. The idea that Guru Sahibs are putting across is the notion that the soul because it assumes form (reincarnates) many times, accumulates bad karma. This is no different to the accumulation of bad karma in this life, as one performs bad deeds one's mind gets molded into a evil mind. One who does good deeds through his life is clearly moulding his mind into a good mind. (I'm stating it in a nutshell, good and evil are clearly very complex topics) Accumulation of karma is not some sort of point system. It is a natural transformation of a soul according to the deeds one carries out.
We know that people are born different. One's genes play a big role in how we develop. Some people are born smarter/dumber. Some people are born stronger/weaker. Some people are born good. Due to their genetic predisposition, some are simply more inclined to seek out knowledge and Truth. They tend to develop a virtuous character. The ancients put this phenomenon in terms of past actions and accumulation of karma. The more good karma you have the more inclined you are to seek the Truth in this lifetime. You will seek spiritual wisdom and knowledge in general; you want to learn. Many people are not into that but those with good karma are. You will act according to your genes, you will act according to your past karma and preordained destiny. In this case, you will be more inclined to seek spiritual wisdom and one who is more inclined to seek spiritual wisdom has more chances of liberation than one who does not.

Many of us on the forum have been blessed with good karma in the past, we have a strong desire to know the Truth. We seek it everywhere we go.

Sins of countless reincarnations or chances are washed away when liberated -not just the sins of this life which we are aware of, there are many more from before-IS THE message I get from Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji's, He also tells again, that the human life form is when we have a better oppurtunity to achieve liberation as the capabalities of the elephant are restricted.

Guru Tegh Bahadur ji says through meditation, through Simran on Hari one attains Nirvana ie gets liberated, even from all their past evil actions. Countless such actions from past lives are washed off. One, under that shelter of Simran, becomes freed from accumulated karma. The idea is simple during simran you transcend who you are and become very present and alert. From this presence you can act with freedom. You are no longer limited to your own past karma, your conditioning. You can be whoever you want to be.
An example of this: when you walk to the bus station if you are normally inside your head discussing and thinking, kind of anti-social, not very active and unaware of the outside world. Say you are walking towards your particular bus stop, and you see an old man hurrying to catch his bus, which is about to leave. If today you were doing Simran and were present to the situation, as the doors closed and the bus was about to leave, you run up to it and knock on the door and let the driver know there is someone who needs to get on the bus. You transcend your past karma, your conditioning, the way you normally are, and act with freedom to do whatever you need to. In this case you chose to run and help the old man out.

Overtime you can replace the past bad karma with the new virtuous behaviour (good karma).

Guru Tegh Bahadur ji also mentions Ajaamal as an example of someone who did Simran. Ajaamal was a bad Brahmin, a sinner throughout his life, who in the end (ant kaal) cried out the name of his son, whom his Guru named Narayan. Ajaamal uttered Narayan in the last moment and was saved. http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/histo...-story-of-great-sinner-ajaamal.html#post45593

Guru Ramdas Ji points us at the link of karma. Being human and having this chance is the result of previous good karma? or maybe the ability that a being has to meditate on the naam due to good karma,that a stone otherwise can't attain.

I talked about this above under Guru Nanak Dev ji. One with goood karma is more likely to meditate and thus achieve liberation.
ਨਾਮਹੀਨ ਧ੍ਰਿਗੁ ਜੀਵਤੇ ਤਿਨ ਵਡ ਦੂਖ ਸਹੰਮਾ ॥
Those who do not meditate on the Name, they live lives in constant suffering.

ਓਇ ਫਿਰਿ ਫਿਰਿ ਜੋਨਿ ਭਵਾਈਅਹਿ ਮੰਦਭਾਗੀ ਮੂੜ ਅਕਰਮਾ ॥੩॥
They are constantly reincarnated (contantly enter joon/species one of the 8.4 million species); they are unfortunate with bad karma.
They are constantly reincarnated because they did nothing about their past karma. If they had meditated and acted from a state of presence, which would give them freedom to develop good karma, they would have escaped the cycle of continuously coming and going in and out of the world.

All Joons undergo suffering but they can be transcended. Once we transcend our joon we become liberated. We become Ajooni. Avtars, Gurus, Prophets, etc were Ajooni. They transcended their human joon. God is Ajooni, as he is the transcendental reality. He is not limited to any one particular form, even though he is manifest in all of them.

Guru Amardas Ji points us towards the truth, be the truth and we will then meet with the truth OR countless reincarnations. Pre ordained destiny, again cannot be erased. However, he goes on further to mention 'Jin ka▫o pūrab likẖi▫ā ṯin saṯgur mili▫ā ā▫e'- (Those who have such pre-ordained destiny come to meet the True Guru). This being in reference to those who live the truth, realize the shabad and have their personality in the image of God's own, have a pre-ordained destiny (attained) to meet the Guru which is in contrast to when he mentions the fake pandits,scholars etc that keep getting destined into the reincarnation cycles due to their actions. So, destiny can mean either achieving liberation or cycles of reincarnation.

Yes. Some people will tend to seek wisdom more than others. Those who do will find one who has wisdom to share, they find a Guru, and increase their chances of liberation.

My gurmukhi is not that good, I can mostly do single words at a time. I have used the engraijhi translations to quote my above perceptions.

Sat kartar
Lucky Singh

 

[Archived_member14]

Kanwaljit ji,

I think the problem is that most of us live in fear, fear of losing wealth, fear of some ill to fall upon the family, fear of dying etc. And in that case, we would 'seek' help from whatever means we can lay hands upon.

I agree with your observation.
One time a few years ago, while walking past a building where there was a figure of some Hindu god on one corner, I remarked to my friend, that Thai people as they grow richer, become more stupid. This was with reference to the trend at the time, of putting up images of different Hindu gods in front big well known buildings with the hope that people passing by will offer flowers and incense to them. And like you, I remarked that people become more and more superstitious out of fear of losing what they have and / or hope that by doing the kind of thing, they will gain something.

And we can see here, that it is not the Hindus or anyone else that is to be blamed, but each person's own accumulated tendency. And while we sometimes are able to recognize certain gross manifestations of idol worship and ritualistic practice, given our own lack of understanding, I think we should at least acknowledge the possibility of being caught in similar kind of practices although in different form.

The root of wrong practice is attachment to self, leading to desire for results. So long as we have not seen through this tendency, we will inadvertently do things that come down to as following rules and rituals. It is therefore foolish in my opinion, to keep pointing a finger at other people and involve in blaming games. Because while the attention is to what the index finger is pointing at, the three that is pointed in our direction will continue to have influence and we'll likely end up doing no different from what "they" do.

Indeed if we are honest, we'd acknowledge the existence of ritualistic practices within the Sikh community that clearly have no relation to any Hindu influence. This is because the tendency to this exists in each one of us and therefore our business should be to recognize this and not waste time pointing fingers at other people. In other words, just because we recognize wrong practices out there, this does not automatically mean that we know and follow right practice, but only that ours is perhaps less obvious. Indeed it could even be that we are fooled by our own explanations with regard to what we do, when the fact is that ours *is* as bad.

Besides, an outside observer may notice the derision with which remarks are made against the Hindus and wonder if Sikhs are not taught kindness and moral restraint. They may see the claim of protecting one's own religion as in fact an excuse to express aversion. The enemy out there is actually in here and we are feeding it in the name of good.

 

[Ambarsaria]

Confused ji thanks for your post.

I do have a few questions as to what one should do when people say wrong about our Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and misdirect.

1. Do nothing and assume such will go away!
   • Best way to treat a barking dog is to ignore it
2. State your argument politely and hold strength of your expression to not forceful
   • Sometimes this goes against one's upbringing
   • Saying culturally back home, "Shoes on your feet don't listen to reason but need to be forced to fit" (Laton ke boot baton sey nahin mantey)
3. Sikhism is not a passive religion and culturally we are not passive and we do a bit of "you do, you get"
   • Why would you consider to be a bad thing between two people so acting or communicating!
     • I know such is less than ideal!
4. Buddhism was destroyed in India by Hinduism due to its passivity, why is it not a bad thing and why is it not important for Buddhism to flourish versus being destroyed
   • I know at a personal level one may say, so what, but is this right in the overall context of human living?

Always great to converse with you.

Regards.

 

[Ambarsaria]

Ambarsaria ji,


<table style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" alt="" 0?=""><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: #fbfdff; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .25pt">AJ:
Before conception = Material
Conception = Material + Life (Growing)
Living= = Material + Life
At Death = Material + Life (Declining)
<font face="Verdana">After Cremation= = Material <!--?"urn:

</p>Quote:
<table style=" border=" 0"="" alt=""><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: #fbfdff; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .25pt">Before conception = Material



</td></tr></tbody></table>
So you choose to identify yourself with that which exists even before there is any possibility of knowing that you exist!?
AJ: Confused ji knowing or not knowing has nothing to do with creation. You just become at conception.

CJ: Indeed judging from what you write at the end, what you are saying is that this in turn is composed of souls coming from all over....?
AJ: A baby soul that flourishes and grows with the impact of genetics and interaction with other souls.
Quote:
<table style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184" class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: #fbfdff; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .25pt">Conception = Material + Life (Growing)



</td></tr></tbody></table>
By 'life' do you refer to mentality or also some particular kind of materiality?
And this life is a product of the materiality existing prior to it? Do you, like the scientist materialist, see mind as epiphenomena of matter?

CJ: Can you elaborate what significance has the 'growing' have here?
AJ: Confused ji in “Conception = Material + Life (Growing)” I imply that there are elements that create faculties in life forms. This includes the physical phenomena creating a baby soul. These are affected by Genetics (materiality) or other building blocks of life and their impacts that may still be unknown. I look at the following definition of a word I did not know before,
· EPIPHENOMENON
o a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it; specifically : a secondary mental phenomenon that is caused by and accompanies a physical phenomenon but has no causal influence itself

I cannot relate well to it, perhaps you can explain if my description leaves some to be addressed.


CJ:
Quote:
<table style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184" class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: #fbfdff; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .25pt">Living= Material + Life



</td></tr></tbody></table>
What is your meaning of ‘living’ here such that you differentiate it from ‘life’? Is conception not an instance of ‘living’ too?
AJ: Living I define as something alive versus dead. Life being an element that defines one to be living. May be at the end of the day it means the same.
CJ:
<table style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184" class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: #fbfdff; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .25pt">At Death = Material + Life (Declining)



</td></tr></tbody></table>
You may like to correct the above, since it appears to suggest that life continues on for little longer after death. This would then make the concept of birth, life and death rather meaningless.
AJ:I meant to describe that other manifestations of life continue to exist in a rotten corpse long after death while the primary part of the body defined as living would have been considered to have ceased at death.
CJ:
<table style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184" class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: #fbfdff; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .25pt">After Cremation= Material



</td></tr></tbody></table>
Again what you are doing is identifying with something which does not have any power of knowing what it is or anything at all.
AJ: Knowing or not knowing has no application at this stage for object in question.


CJ: If you identify a being with materiality before birth and after death, what significance you give to the fact of birth and death? In other words, other than pointing them out, can you tell me what your understanding of these phenomena are?


AJ: I simply consider this to be a chemical phenomena with special element of life trigger at conception. Life trigger being an entity directed in creation of a being. What fully defines this, I do not know right now other than basic genetics and cell division governed by DNA.
<table style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184" class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: #fbfdff; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .25pt">CJ: Could you please explain and elaborate on the following:

1. Transformation between material, material and living thoughts, material.
2. Continuation of physical material blob.

AJ: Confused ji I hope the explanation to point one prior suffices. If not let me know in how and what way it is unclear and I will elaborate.



</td></tr></tbody></table>
The first, I now have a vague idea. But I’d still need you to say something about the second.


Quote:
<table style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184" class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: #fbfdff; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .25pt">CJ: Also, please tell me what you mean by "one on one basis" as against not one on one, so that I may come to know better what you are rejecting and what it is that you want to promote?

AJ: Confused ji what I mean is that there is no way that I know of or seen any evidence of how a person at death as a whole (all material when all life has ended in the material) as lock stock and barrel becomes a complete living form using all the material created by a dead body. For that to occur 100% the dead person has to be resuscitated.



</td></tr></tbody></table>

CJ: I think this is what I was trying to address in my last message.
Why do you bring the idea of material body transforming into another material body in to argue against the concept of reincarnation when no one has talked about the latter in these terms?

But I think I see why you can’t help doing this and correct me if I am wrong.

CJ: You posit that mind or sentience is the product of materiality. Starting with matter you see that at birth this gives rise to mind.
AJ: Material and life genie.
CJ: But this is still at the most rudimentary form which then goes through a transformational process whereby it becomes more developed up until a particular point when decay sets in, leading to death. And this probably means that with decay of the physical body, also decline in mental capacity happens.
AJ: After death yes but before that there is great variance from being enhanced to decayed.

CJ: In this particular scenario it is then hard for you to accept the idea of rebirth / reincarnation the way it is understood. While you have tied mind and (1) its development and decline to the growth and decay of the body, to believe that (2) a particular mind with all its accumulated tendencies can after death “continue” in another form is not tenable.
AJ: (1) Development and decline I do not tie down to growth and decay but make a layman observation. It varies enough to be generalized.
AJ: (2) A particular mind with all its accumulated tendencies to “continue” as a complete and single unit in another form I do not find tenable at all. That is what I understand.

CJ: Would this be a more or less fair representation of your position Ambarsaria ji?
AJ: As stated in (1) and (2) above.
Quote:
<table style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184" class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: #fbfdff; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .25pt">CJ: So for me at death, body material ends up into many different forms, body life ends up into many lives bugs (maggots for the buried people), germs, etc; the soul continues to disperse and merge with innumerable others as it does while being in an alive person and during life.



</td></tr></tbody></table>
And the bug, having eaten from more than one place have in effect not only increased the size of its soul, but made it more variegated than otherwise. And can you explain what you mean by the fact that your soul for example, merges with mine even while both of us are alive?
AJ: Confused ji soul for me is a fundamental inner entity continuously evolving during our life time. It gets influenced by others and influences others. This is what I meant by souls impacting other souls and getting impacted by other souls. The souls are not necessarily required to be living to impact. It could be thoughts reflecting other people’s souls in print, in media, in art, and so on. This is the merging and evolving influences that I classify as souls growing and sharing between one and many, almost to infinity in small and large measures.
QUOTE]
Hope above addresses your questions to me.

Regards.