# Transmigration



## Simranjit (Mar 7, 2018)

Hi,

I'm trying to unsderstand if the hypotesis of transmigration /reincarnation is consistent with the teachings of the SGGSJ. I'm reading this article Misinterpretation Of Guru Nanak's Teachings Part 1 (Baldev Singh) which I already read "diagonally" first. According to the article "Professor W. H. McLeod has claimed that Guru Nanak accepted the theory of karma and transmigration, but Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS), which is the only authentic source of Guru Nanak’s teachings, rejects these beliefs unequivocally."

Currently I'm still familiar with only few parts of the SGGSJ. The Kirtan Sohila is the bani I'm more familiar with. The translation I usually read in the night reads:

"  ਜਾ ਕਉ ਆਝ ਸੋਈ ਬਿਹਾਝਹ੝ ਹਰਿ ਗ੝ਰ ਤੇ ਮਨਹਿ ਬਸੇਰਾ ॥
jaa ka-o aa-ay so-ee bihaajhahu har gur tay maneh basayraa.

Purchase only that for which you have come into the world, and through the Guru, the Lord shall dwell within your mind.

ਨਿਜ ਘਰਿ ਮਹਲ੝ ਪਾਵਹ੝ ਸ੝ਖ ਸਹਜੇ ਬਹ੝ਰਿ ਨ ਹੋਇਗੋ ਫੇਰਾ ॥੩॥
nij ghar mahal paavhu sukh sehjay bahur na ho-igo fayraa. ((3))

Within the home of your own inner being, you shall obtain the Mansion of the Lord's Presence with intuitive ease. *You shall not be consigned again to the wheel of reincarnation.* ((3))

ਅੰਤਰਜਾਮੀ ਪ੝ਰਖ ਬਿਧਾਤੇ ਸਰਧਾ ਮਨ ਕੀ ਪੂਰੇ ॥
antarjaamee purakh biDhaatay sarDhaa man kee pooray.

O Inner-knower, Searcher of Hearts, O Primal Being, Architect of Destiny: please fulfill this yearning of my mind. "

It seems to support the idea of reincarnation.


I would be very grateful if someone can help me to clarify this point.

Love,

Simranjit


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 7, 2018)

ahhh Baldev Singh, I loved his writings, at the end of the day, some believe in reincarnation, some don't, its a personal thing I think. Personally, I believe when your dead, your dead, nothing, dust, but others believe different, I do not think there is a definitive view, although some might say that there is, well, they are lying, its completely open to interpretation. 

You can do one of two things, either spend the next decade finding out which one is correct, and even then, you really won't have a definitive answer, or you can choose whichever resonates with you the best, read the bani, do some research, and most importantly use the litmus test, does it add up, does it make sense, is it consistent, and then go for that one, but do not be surprised if you change sides in a few years as your understanding deepens, and then don't be surprised if you change sides yet again, and again, and again, and again. 

I think its whatever sits best with you, both are equally as valid in Sikhism, in my very very humble opinion.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 7, 2018)

I believe in a different way to look at the idea of reincarnation... which agrees with both science and Gurbani, at least I think so. 

Since I believe there is only one consciousness which is behind all of us, and all things, similar to how you are the consciousness behind all your dream characters when you dream, and when you wake up you realize you were only one the whole time... in that way, the body yes unfortunately turns to dust. But the I AM the primal awareness or being behind the body, controlling the body does not turn to dust, in fact the physical reality itself is essentially an impermanent illusion supported by quantum physics while consciousness or an ‘observer’ exists somewhere outside this reality. That conscious observer is only one and is Waheguru. So it’s not usbthe characters who are reincarnating in the traditional sense of the word, it’s only Waheguru existing as every entity and every character in existence all at once, and all that ever were or will be.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 7, 2018)

oh well, if we are putting forward our own beliefs, I believe that once you are dead, you turn into a giant smurf, and then go and live in smurfland
 a


----------



## sukhsingh (Mar 7, 2018)

Simranjit said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm trying to unsderstand if the hypotesis of transmigration /reincarnation is consistent with the teachings of the SGGSJ. I'm reading this article Misinterpretation Of Guru Nanak's Teachings Part 1 (Baldev Singh) which I already read "diagonally" first. According to the article "Professor W. H. McLeod has claimed that Guru Nanak accepted the theory of karma and transmigration, but Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS), which is the only authentic source of Guru Nanak’s teachings, rejects these beliefs unequivocally."
> 
> ...


I think it's important to delineate the two terms . Transmigration and reincarnation.. I believe sikhi rejects the idea of reincarnation and transmigration of a soul . In fact rejects the idea of soul. 
But does believe in infinity 
The ironic thing is that our physical self will live forever ever but not our consciousness.. 
I believe this shabd can be translated more radically.. And it is talking about the here and now rather than after life..

It is subverting the concepts.. It's saying within you today there is inner peace, you will find conflict in your consciousness and every day you die and will live the same experience. Be righteous today and you will find sukh.. Because otherwise everyday is groundhog day.. 

This shabd for me is so beautiful the way it finishes.. The yearning is still present and therefore..


----------



## Simranjit (Mar 8, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> oh well, if we are putting forward our own beliefs, I believe that once you are dead, you turn into a giant smurf, and then go and live in smurfland



It makes sense given the beard and the cap 

I really appreciate your sense of humour, Harry Ji. It adds some freshness to the forum.



Harry Haller said:


> ahhh Baldev Singh, I loved his writings, at the end of the day, some believe in reincarnation, some don't, its a personal thing I think. Personally, I believe when your dead, your dead, nothing, dust, but others believe different, I do not think there is a definitive view, although some might say that there is, well, they are lying, its completely open to interpretation.
> 
> You can do one of two things, either spend the next decade finding out which one is correct, and even then, you really won't have a definitive answer, or you can choose whichever resonates with you the best, read the bani, do some research, and most importantly use the litmus test, does it add up, does it make sense, is it consistent, and then go for that one, but do not be surprised if you change sides in a few years as your understanding deepens, and then don't be surprised if you change sides yet again, and again, and again, and again.
> 
> I think its whatever sits best with you, both are equally as valid in Sikhism, in my very very humble opinion.




Thanks, it resonates a lot with me.



Harkiran Kaur said:


> I believe in a different way to look at the idea of reincarnation... which agrees with both science and Gurbani, at least I think so.
> 
> Since I believe there is only one consciousness which is behind all of us, and all things, similar to how you are the consciousness behind all your dream characters when you dream, and when you wake up you realize you were only one the whole time... in that way, the body yes unfortunately turns to dust. But the I AM the primal awareness or being behind the body, controlling the body does not turn to dust, in fact the physical reality itself is essentially an impermanent illusion supported by quantum physics while consciousness or an ‘observer’ exists somewhere outside this reality. That conscious observer is only one and is Waheguru. So it’s not usbthe characters who are reincarnating in the traditional sense of the word, it’s only Waheguru existing as every entity and every character in existence all at once, and all that ever were or will be.



Oh, wow. it reached some part of my inner self and moved something..... I think that your words started or accelerated some kind of slow transformation inside of me. Thanks....
I cannot express it better. I hope it makes some sense...



sukhsingh said:


> I think it's important to delineate the two terms . Transmigration and reincarnation.. I believe sikhi rejects the idea of reincarnation and transmigration of a soul . In fact rejects the idea of soul.
> But does believe in infinity
> The ironic thing is that our physical self will live forever ever but not our consciousness..
> I believe this shabd can be translated more radically.. And it is talking about the here and now rather than after life..
> ...



Thanks, I will consider this way of reading it  It resonates with me, actually.

Just to make sure , does sukh mean "pleasure"/"bliss"?


----------



## Original (Mar 8, 2018)

Simranjit said:


> It seems to support the idea of reincarnation.


.....of course it does, for what otherwise would be the objects of Nanak's monotheistic find ? Let's see if we can develop it further using the science of logic:

Spirit survives the death of the body
Simranjit is a spirit
Simranjit therefore, will never die.

The word spirit is interchangeable n synonymous with: consciousness, soul, truth, god, etc  

Note: its the name "simranjit" that will live forever and not the body Simranjit. And, it is this "nam dhan" [taking name, amrit] that is the final abode of the spirit [sachkhand]. If that'd be correct, then it makes sense to avail moments of an organic unity when reading SGGSJ in conjunction with this theory. 

It was to this end, Nanak said, "ad sach, jugad sach, hav b sach nanak hosi b sach", meaning, hey nanak, you were here in the beginning, you are here today and you will be here forever. 

Kirtan Sohila was composed when Baba Nanak was about to leave His physical body and enter His Spiritual body [nam]. Simranjit, you're physical sojourns are to an end and spiritual excursions are to start.

Much obliged


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 8, 2018)

Original said:


> .....of course it does, for what otherwise would be the objects of Nanak's monotheistic find ? Let's see if we can develop it further using the science of logic:
> 
> Spirit survives the death of the body
> Simranjit is a spirit
> ...



well err nothing is a matter of course, we are all learning here, and all options are open, until God himself comes down and gives us clear and concise instructions, then we have to go with what we know given our limited knowledge, the above is your opinion and you are of course welcome to it, but many many do not agree, the only thing that is definitive is that nothing is definitive, all we can do is give it our best stab, and use our experiences, environment, and the way in which we were taught to make some sense of it all. 

as a side note 
"ad sach, jugad sach, hav b sach nanak hosi b sach"
 does not mention the word 'you' so that is your personal spin on it, which of course you are welcome to, however, it is irresponsible to mark your way as absolute to someone that is still finding their feet in Sikhism, would it not be better to assist them rather than dominate them?


----------



## sukhsingh (Mar 8, 2018)

Simranjit said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm trying to unsderstand if the hypotesis of transmigration /reincarnation is consistent with the teachings of the SGGSJ. I'm reading this article Misinterpretation Of Guru Nanak's Teachings Part 1 (Baldev Singh) which I already read "diagonally" first. According to the article "Professor W. H. McLeod has claimed that Guru Nanak accepted the theory of karma and transmigration, but Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS), which is the only authentic source of Guru Nanak’s teachings, rejects these beliefs unequivocally."
> 
> ...


I


Simranjit said:


> It makes sense given the beard and the cap
> 
> I really appreciate your sense of humour, Harry Ji. It adds some freshness to the forum.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your wonderful words and comments.. 

I've always understood sukh to mean peace or contentment, a state of just being..

I don't believe that guru sahibs would promote the idea of transmigration of the soul in a afterlife because sikhi for me is always about the present.. 

Moreover if we were to try and behave in ways to be rewarded by being taken out of the cycle of rebirth in the traditional sense it means we are not doing selfless sewa .. Where as for me this interpretation brings us back to this life ... That through khoj and understanding you will find everything you need within you.. Even though it's hard and you yearn to not have a troubled mind . There is always something more you can do.. 

In fact in the bani quoted it tells you explicitly that it is within you rather than outside.. 

Also if you think about it we are reborn every day and every morning we are reincarnated.. But if we don't change its the same shit different day... Until we make the change.. And if we just yearn to be freed from that cycle and ask to be freed from it it cannot happen it's a contradiction so can't be truth.. 

It's only when we can shed our ego, which happens through true naam japo, vandh shako, kirat karo.. When we can truly see all without discrimination and stand up for the oppressed.. 

It's a tall order but I would say that just knowing or feeling akaal and truth just 0.001% is enough to put you on that path 

And once you have just glimpsed it you can't ever deny it even if you fight it .. 

Bul chuk maaf


----------



## Original (Mar 8, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> well err nothing is a matter of course


..excuse me ! in arbitration, costs follow the event, is a matter of course, police recruits go on to complete their special training following induction, is a matter of course, an employer requesting references for a new employee, is a matter of course and the human body decomposing following death, is a matter of course. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but sufficed to have predicated on subject object relationship when appropriated earlier, above. In layman's terms this would mean, by default the departing soul/spirit will automatically end up in the wheel of 84, as a matter of course. Conversely, the after life factor brought in by Sikhism offer existential solace, which takes the soul/spirit out of a matter of course. Indeed, all this is theoretical thinking which compliments and enriches the reading of SGGSJ.


Harry Haller said:


> the above is your opinion


..no H, its not my opinion, but my ability to take on conceptual world-view of Sikh theoretical standpoint. Get yourself this book, "Sikh Theology of Liberation", by D. S. Harman and read up on it - call me when finish, glad to discuss.


Harry Haller said:


> the only thing that is definitive is that nothing is definitive


....I like it ! and am so proud to see the beautiful Sikh in you emerging, but guess what ? its the something from the nothing that's doing all the cleansing. 


Harry Haller said:


> all we can do is give it our best stab, and use our experiences, environment, and the way in which we were taught to make some sense of it all.


...love it, this is the real you. And if I may add; is it possible that life appears unfair only because we're not seeing the completeness of life ? could a limited view of existence be the reason why we fail to see how, why, when, where and what is going on ?


Harry Haller said:


> "ad sach, jugad sach, hav b sach nanak hosi b sach"
> does not mention the word 'you' so that is your personal spin on it


H, my time to call it day at SPN might be in view now that you've started picking up "gurbani" ! I'm gob smacked ! The "you" I'm referring to is "nam" [God], culminating as it were, into "nanak", meaning, object subject as one. The disciple imbibes the Guru's divine qualities and ultimately becomes one with the Guru, hence, the you manifestations.   

As a practice that has come down from the Arabic/Persian traditions, poets of Indian languages have generally incorporated their pen-names in the concluding lines of their compositions. Nanak is no exception - he uses his first name.  


Harry Haller said:


> it is irresponsible to mark your way as absolute to someone that is still finding their feet in Sikhism, would it not be better to assist them rather than dominate them?


...I'm sorry if I come across as domineering, not that way inclined. I stand corrected and seek forgiveness.

Goodnight


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 8, 2018)

Original said:


> ..excuse me ! in arbitration, costs follow the event


for sure, but life is not arbitration, and the costs that follow the event can be many fold



Original said:


> is a matter of course, police recruits go on to complete their special training following induction, is a matter of course, an employer requesting references for a new employee


neither guarantees good policemen or good employees


Original said:


> and the human body decomposing following death, is a matter of course.


not if its been burned


Original said:


> This is by no means an exhaustive list,


bring it on, I am happy to counter anything on your list


Original said:


> In layman's terms this would mean, by default the departing soul/spirit will automatically end up in the wheel of 84, as a matter of course.


nope, that is just your opinion, and as I said you have your right to it


Original said:


> .no H, its not my opinion, but my ability to take on conceptual world-view of Sikh theoretical standpoint. Get yourself this book, "Sikh Theology of Liberation", by D. S. Harman and read up on it - call me when finish, glad to discuss.


but that is just another persons opinion, your backing up your opinion with the opinion of another, I am afraid until you come and see me with more mangoes and bring God with you, its all just opinion, nothing more


Original said:


> .I like it ! and am so proud to see the beautiful Sikh in you emerging, but guess what ? its the something from the nothing that's doing all the cleansing.


again, your opinion, mine differs


Original said:


> ...love it, this is the real you. And if I may add; is it possible that life appears unfair


life is not unfair, we talk of unfair, but we have food to eat, shelter, warmth, we don't know what unfair is, unfair is being gang raped and watching your newborn being killed, or watching your parents starve, through no fault of your own, its subjective, our lives on the whole are quite fair, we reap what we sow.


Original said:


> could a limited view of existence be the reason why we fail to see how, why, when, where and what is going on ?


but yours is a limited view, I am open to anything, everything,


Original said:


> H, my time to call it day at SPN might be in view now that you've started picking up "gurbani"


hmm this is the solicitor in you, I am picking up on your interpretation of Gurbani, I view it differently, I do believe I have that right, our difference
is that I do not push my beliefs as definitive


Original said:


> I'm gob smacked !


why, because I don't agree with you and the books you have read?


Original said:


> The "you" I'm referring to is "nam" [God], culminating as it were, into "nanak", meaning, object subject as one. The disciple imbibes the Guru's divine qualities and ultimately becomes one with the Guru, hence, the you manifestations.


I can see where your coming from, may I ask you a question, in my view, this refers to the fact that God has always been around, will always be around, and will always be around, that is my interpretation, now unless we live in Nazi Germany, I am entitled to it, it is not blasphemy, are you suggesting I do not have the right to have this view?


Original said:


> ...I'm sorry if I come across as domineering, not that way inclined. I stand corrected and seek forgiveness.


You should know better, yes, you do come across as domineering, as a know it all, I am sure in the circles you mix in, you are a veritable authority on Sikhism, and that is fine and good, but here on this forum, like me, like everyone else you are just another poster, trying to help people, a good teacher, if that is what you wish to be,  does not tell students the answers, which is what you are doing, a good teacher in my view, assists the student in uncovering the answers for themselves, so they get that golden moment of discovery, all I am asking is for you to respect the rights of others to have their own opinion that may be different from yours, without reaching for either your legal bow and arrow, or your inference that Bani is being questioned, both stink of toys being thrown out of the pram, debate with me, talk to me, we can work this through, but only if you accept that there are other thoughts and other ways, I know its hard for you, as it is hard for my dad, the difference is, my dad just nods and smiles when I talk to him, and then says, 'oh well, we're all different', you take it personally, as if your very understanding is 100% perfect in the matter, it may be for you, and that is respected, but that understanding is honed from your experiences, your life, your DNA, your environment, your parents, things that I do not share.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 9, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> I
> 
> Thank you for your wonderful words and comments..
> 
> ...



I used to think so once upon a time until I started to read quantum physics theories and saw some of the experiments for myself. It has become a scary fact to scientists that ‘consciousness’ not in the sense of being awake or unconscious in a physical sense but the primal awareness or being, what they term the observer (you) exists somewhere nonlocal in a quantum state. The physical body is only a vehicle which that I AM is using. The brain is only a computer designed to help you navigate this world. Till date they can not find where memories are actually stored. Case in point, your brain like everything else in your body entirely regenerates (save for the neurons in the cerebral cortex) the neurons in rest of your brain regenerate. The cerebral cortex is not where memories are actually stored either by the way. Processing seems to begin in the prefrontal cortex, however that part of your brain right now, is NOT the same prefrontal cortex you had years ago. Every single cell has been changed out.

In any case quantum physics has now shown that consciousness or an observer exists outside the physical which must exist outside the physical, in order for the physical matter to even manifest. The experiments showed over and over that electrons behave as a wave otherwise and not something solid and tangible. (Ever hear of the philosophical question, if a tree falls in the forest... if there are no humans animals or insects there to witness it, did the forest even exist to have a tree which could fall?) or is reality painted through our memories and observation? Science is actually pointing to that fact! As a wave, an electron - all electrons - would not be something solid and tangible. There would be no matter. And the only thing which causes an electron to become a solid particle is conscious observation. In short, someone is watching. So who is that someone? Since our own conscious observation effects the outcome of the experiments our own consciousness must exist outside the confines of he physical - meaning our awareness must not be created BY the physical brain because the physical brain is made up of the same atoms which contain the same electrons which must be observed into existence.  (Google the “measurement problem” and “double slit experiments”)

If all of our collective awarenesses or ‘I AM’ or the observer in all of us.. that only part of us which is truly who we are... the only part which exists outside of this physical manifestation is the primal being. It just IS. It is the part which is not created. In fact there is only ONE and that one is the same in ALL of us. Just like I tried to explain with a dream. In my dream i create everything, grass, the sun, characters but they are me even if I am seemingly observing only through one characters eyes. I created everything within my own consciousness and observe through one characters eyes at that moment but I really control them all, and when I wake up I realize it was a dream and that I was everything and everyone. The only part of me that was true in the dream was my I AM, my primal being or the observer. Formless consciousness created an entire world.

It’s true of this world also. And there is only one dreamer. So who exactly is transmigrating or reincarnating? When you die physically you won’t cease to exist. The body dies but the observer which is YOU will realize it was a dream and possibly go on creating new dreams. Formlessness and ONE is the base. Everything arises from ONEness. Consciousness creates matter in some beautiful play. Just like you create a dream world.

Ang 21

ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥
Sirīrāg mėhlā 1.
Siree Raag, First Mehl:

ਮਰਣੈ ਕੀ ਚਿੰਤਾ ਨਹੀ ਜੀਵਣ ਕੀ ਨਹੀ ਆਸ ॥
Marṇai kī cẖinṯā nahī jīvaṇ kī nahī ās.
I have no anxiety about dying, and no hope of living.

ਤੂ ਸਰਬ ਜੀਆ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਪਾਲਹੀ ਲੇਖੈ ਸਾਸ ਗਿਰਾਸ ॥
Ŧū sarab jī▫ā parṯipālahī lekẖai sās girās.
You are the Cherisher of all beings; You keep the account of our breaths and morsels of food.

ਅੰਤਰਿ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਤੂ ਵਸਹਿ ਜਿਉ ਭਾਵੈ ਤਿਉ ਨਿਰਜਾਸਿ ॥੧॥
Anṯar gurmukẖ ṯū vasėh ji▫o bẖāvai ṯi▫o nirjās. ||1||
You abide within the Gurmukh. As it pleases You, You decide our allotment. ||1||

ਜੀਅਰੇ ਰਾਮ ਜਪਤ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਨੁ ॥
Jī▫are rām japaṯ man mān.
O my soul, chant the Name of the Lord; the mind will be pleased and appeased.

ਅੰਤਰਿ ਲਾਗੀ ਜਲਿ ਬੁਝੀ ਪਾਇਆ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਗਿਆਨੁ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Anṯar lāgī jal bujẖī pā▫i▫ā gurmukẖ gi▫ān. ||1|| rahā▫o.
The raging fire within is extinguished; the Gurmukh obtains spiritual wisdom. ||1||Pause||

ਅੰਤਰ ਕੀ ਗਤਿ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਗੁਰ ਮਿਲੀਐ ਸੰਕ ਉਤਾਰਿ ॥
Anṯar kī gaṯ jāṇī▫ai gur milī▫ai sank uṯār.
Know the state of your inner being; meet with the Guru and get rid of your skepticism.

ਮੁਇਆ ਜਿਤੁ ਘਰਿ ਜਾਈਐ ਤਿਤੁ ਜੀਵਦਿਆ ਮਰੁ ਮਾਰਿ ॥
Mu▫i▫ā jiṯ gẖar jā▫ī▫ai ṯiṯ jīvḏi▫ā mar mār.
To reach your True Home after you die, you must conquer death while you are still alive.

ਅਨਹਦ ਸਬਦਿ ਸੁਹਾਵਣੇ ਪਾਈਐ ਗੁਰ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ ॥੨॥
Anhaḏ sabaḏ suhāvaṇe pā▫ī▫ai gur vīcẖār. ||2||
The beautiful, Unstruck Sound of the Shabad is obtained, contemplating the Guru. ||2||

ਅਨਹਦ ਬਾਣੀ ਪਾਈਐ ਤਹ ਹਉਮੈ ਹੋਇ ਬਿਨਾਸੁ ||
Anhaḏ baṇī pā▫ī▫ai ṯah ha▫umai ho▫e binās.
The Unstruck Melody of Gurbani is obtained, and egotism is eliminated.

ਸਤਗੁਰੁ ਸੇਵੇ ਆਪਣਾ ਹਉ ਸਦ ਕੁਰਬਾਣੈ ਤਾਸੁ ॥
Saṯgur seve āpṇā ha▫o saḏ kurbāṇai ṯās.
I am forever a sacrifice to those who serve their True Guru.

ਖੜਿ ਦਰਗਹ ਪੈਨਾਈਐ ਮੁਖਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮ ਨਿਵਾਸੁ ॥੩॥
Kẖaṛ ḏargėh painā▫ī▫ai mukẖ har nām nivās. ||3||
They are dressed in robes of honor in the Court of the Lord; the Name of the Lord is on their lips. ||3||

ਜਹ ਦੇਖਾ ਤਹ ਰਵਿ ਰਹੇ ਸਿਵ ਸਕਤੀ ਕਾ ਮੇਲੁ ॥
Jah ḏekẖā ṯah rav rahe siv sakṯī kā mel.
Wherever I look, I see the Lord pervading there, in the union of Shiva and Shakti, of consciousness and matter.

ਤ੍ਰਿਹੁ ਗੁਣ ਬੰਧੀ ਦੇਹੁਰੀ ਜੋ ਆਇਆ ਜਗਿ ਸੋ ਖੇਲੁ ॥
Ŧarihu guṇ banḏẖī ḏehurī jo ā▫i▫ā jag so kẖel.
The three qualities hold the body in bondage; whoever comes into the world is subject to their play.

ਵਿਜੋਗੀ ਦੁਖਿ ਵਿਛੁੜੇ ਮਨਮੁਖਿ ਲਹਹਿ ਨ ਮੇਲੁ ॥੪॥
vijogī ḏukẖ vicẖẖuṛe manmukẖ lahėh na mel. ||4||
Those who separate themselves from the Lord wander lost in misery. The self-willed manmukhs do not attain union with Him. ||4||

ਮਨੁ ਬੈਰਾਗੀ ਘਰਿ ਵਸੈ ਸਚ ਭੈ ਰਾਤਾ ਹੋਇ ॥
Man bairāgī gẖar vasai sacẖ bẖai rāṯā ho▫e.
If the mind becomes balanced and detached, and comes to dwell in its own true home, imbued with the Fear of God,

ਗਿਆਨ ਮਹਾਰਸੁ ਭੋਗਵੈ ਬਾਹੁੜਿ ਭੂਖ ਨ ਹੋਇ ॥
Gi▫ān mahāras bẖogvai bāhuṛ bẖūkẖ na ho▫e.
then it enjoys the essence of supreme spiritual wisdom; it shall never feel hunger again.

ਨਾਨਕ ਇਹੁ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਰਿ ਮਿਲੁ ਭੀ ਫਿਰਿ ਦੁਖੁ ਨ ਹੋਇ ॥੫॥੧੮॥
Nānak ih man mār mil bẖī fir ḏukẖ na ho▫e. ||5||18||
O Nanak, conquer and subdue this mind; meet with the Lord, and you shall never again suffer in pain. ||5||18||

It’s obvious to me that ‘conquering death while alive’ can only mean true knowledge that death is not the end. The body obviously dies. If we continue to think we are only the body then how can we truly contemplate what it means to exist beyond it? Once you know with full understanding that YOU are NOTA just a body, then you have conquered death because you know it’s just part of the same illusion. You gain spiritual wisdom. The ‘true home’ is beyond the physical, it’s the primal formless ONEness and being. The understanding of how reality works, union of Shiva and Shakthi (creation and destruction) of consciousness and matter. Gurbani already gave us the same knowledge that the quantum physics experiments mentioned above only learned hundreds of years later. That there is an intrinsic relation where consciousness is a catalyst of creation and destruction of matter (the very fabric of physical reality). Once you know this, and understand the OBSERVER, knowing the state of your inner being, then death is conquered because you see that it was all a dream and you were the dreamer.

So no I don’t believe in soul jumping as traditional reincarnation or transmigration says... but yes I do believe in existence beyond the physical.


----------



## Original (Mar 9, 2018)

Good morning Everyone,

*I think God is eavesdropping ! checkout today's hukamnama on page 694, SGGSJ:*





​
*Backdrop
*
I have used the word "eavesdropping" above, meaning, Gurprasad [God's Grace]. To illustrate 2 things:

The Guru [SGGSJ] is listening and,
Wants to move on from the primitive concept of "reincarnation" to a modified and compatible version, preserving as it were, its authenticity on the one hand, and accommodating evolutionary variations on the other.
So yes, Sikhism do believe in reincarnation [proofs in the pudding, hukamnama above] but not the same way as it did 500 years ago. Human civilisations once believed the Earth to be flat, is it flat [moot] ? Similarly, our forefathers believed in reincarnation with the mindset of that particular time in history. If that'd be correct, then whosoever, read, translate or interpret Gurbani must do so in light of the culture and the ideology prevalent at the time of its inception, meaning, reincarnation was part of a belief system [Sikh].

Many thanks


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 9, 2018)

Original said:


> Good morning Everyone,
> 
> *I think God is eavesdropping ! checkout today's hukamnama on page 694, SGGSJ:*
> 
> ...



I have long since given up calling myself a Sikh, mostly out of respect for real Sikhs like you sir, however, Sikhism and Philosophy still interest me hugely, especially Sikh history, its always a pleasure to read the forum and see so many different points of view, we talked briefly about your beliefs, from what I remember, you believe that each life brings you closer to God, and to perfection, any unresolved issues get dealt with in the next life, you seem intent on proving a point, that Sikhism and reincarnation are a given, rather than sharing your views on the topic, if your trying to prove a point, my good friend Tejwantji could argue with you for months, and there would be no result, just a huge waste of everyone's time, instead of trying to prove the point, perhaps outline more details on your belief system, how does reincarnation, as you believe in it, work? I for one would be most interested, genuinely, to ask questions and make myself familiar with the exact mechanics of this, ie, is it similar to the Hindu system? do humans always reincarnate as humans? how does the system work? I think such a post would be beneficial to the OP, and indeed to us all, and would make a worthwhile use of time, rather than sabre rattling.


----------



## Simranjit (Mar 9, 2018)

Thank you all for your points of view. I'm enjoying the thread very much. Lots of food for thought. Lots of perspectives about my question and even about other things, including the way to approach our learning and our teaching others, which both as a learner and as a teacher (I teach science at a high school) it is of my interest.



Original said:


> Good morning Everyone,
> 
> *I think God is eavesdropping ! checkout today's hukamnama on page 694, SGGSJ:*
> 
> ...


I think that this texts can be used or not to prove that "Sikhism believes in reincarnation" depending on how one interprets the words "I" and "you" . If "I" means Simranjit, me, my counciousness which is independent and detached from others, then yes, it seems that the text is consistent with the hypotesis of reincarnation. But it would be different if "I" means another thing... or even if "I" and "you" are the same thing. I'm finding it  difficult to express and develop further my ideas. I didn't sleep much tonight and I'm tired (sigh..) , but I hope I'm able to express myself better.

As Harry does, I'd really like to ask you to explain more about how you think reincarnation works. I'm very interested.

As for now, I'm not much inclined to believe in reincarnation in the sense that "me", "Simranjit" has lived in other bodies before. At the moment my thoughts and intuition lead me to believe that (using a quite known methaphore) we are like waves of a vast ocean. Just part of it, apparently individual, but only a manifestation of this ultimate reality which is this ocean. The waves would be "incarnations" or even "reincarnations" if with it means that the one incarnating once and again is the sea, not the individual waves... 

Not sure if it makes much sense !


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 9, 2018)

I'd like to come back as a ladyboy, it would make being a hermit more interesting


----------



## Simranjit (Mar 9, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> I'd like to come back as a ladyboy, it would make being a hermit more interesting


Sometimes, if reincarnation exists, I'd like to come back as an hermaphrodite animal, like a snail. At times this would make my (romantic) life much easier.... And also snails are very beautiful creatures....

The thing is that....for now...the only certainty is that this is the life we have, and learning as much as possible here and now is the most conservative thing we can do, in case we don't have another chance, and also to make this life more happy......


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 9, 2018)

Why wait? You could do that now if you really wanted... 




Harry Haller said:


> I'd like to come back as a ladyboy, it would make being a hermit more interesting


----------



## Original (Mar 9, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> I have long since given up calling myself a Sikh


..a *Real *Sikh is he/she who comes to learn and not teach [rules me out]. Who better than you Sir Harry, when it comes to learning, a model student. You are a true Sikh who stands on an unmovable "path" [Sikh the learner]. It is not the strongest, nor the intelligent but the most responsive to accept change and you have it.


Harry Haller said:


> Sikhism and Philosophy still interest me hugely,


I hope one day you will understand the difference between Sikhism and Philosophy - you will unquestionably fall in love with the wisdom of your forefathers - who were Sikhs and always will be Sikhs.


Harry Haller said:


> from what I remember, you believe that each life brings you closer to God,


..each moment more likely !


Harry Haller said:


> you seem intent on proving a point, that Sikhism and reincarnation are a given,


..much of what I write can be cross-checked with my Guru [SGGSJ]. I only translate n interpret Gurbani consistent with the teachings of Guru Granth and Guru Panth. As I said earlier, my forefathers lived in a society and at a time when belief in afterlife was rife. Europeans call it reincarnation, transmigration; we call it janam janam [see today's hukamnama]. And of course, we've evolved from having a bird brain to a King Singh 1.


Harry Haller said:


> if your trying to prove a point,


...no, not at all. Only trying to protect n preserve the teachings of my forefathers. Coconuts like you and my own children [some of them] will dilute it beyond recognition if not policed.


Harry Haller said:


> my good friend Tejwantji could argue with you for months, and there would be no result, just a huge waste of everyone's time


...no that's not true, he's a beautiful soul who has his own agenda. Besides, you can't serve two masters, I can only serve SGGSJ, the "original" with 1430 pages and I obey my Panth, albeit, needing constitutional reform. He's divorced them both.


Harry Haller said:


> how does reincarnation, as you believe in it, work?


....Guru Gobind Singh, after losing His four sons in the name of Sikhi, was tormented by His wife mata ji Sundari, thus: "where are my sons ?" to which he replied, "char mua toa kiya huya jeevat kai hazaar" [translation - so what if you've lost four, thousand will be born]. You, I and others are His sons/daughters, Gobind Singh have therefore, reincarnated.


Harry Haller said:


> I for one would be most interested, genuinely, to ask questions and make myself familiar with the exact mechanics of this, ie, is it similar to the Hindu system?


...Hindu, if you ask me is a derogatory term coined by the minor Asia lot [Arabs] to socially segregate the early ethic communities living in and around River Indus as inferior sub-species. From an ideological perspective, the theory of reincarnation both compliments and corroborates with the workings of Nanak's AP. It provides the necessary time span for the scales of justice to be balanced, since clearly such does not always occur in a single life. And Nanak's reincarnation answers with simple clarity n precision the most complex questions: "why do bad things happen to good people ?" along with the converse, "why do good things happen to bad people ?". Nanak answers beautifully, "karmi apo apni" [you reap what you saw]. This dovetails neatly into theoretical thinking [reincarnation]. That is to say, what we are today is the result of our yesterdays, meaning past lives.

Sikh is a distinct and unique religion that was "revealed" not found nor created, but revealed to young Nanak because evolution [God] deemed it critical for the inhabitants of Indus Valley civilization to survive the onslaught of the barbaric conquering Moslems.  Sikhs own India and not just Khalistan.


Harry Haller said:


> do humans always reincarnate as humans?


...good question ! scan your body for a mo - and - tell me, what part resembles mum n what part resembles dad ? They've already reincarnated - as handsome H. Its you bro, which body you gonna move into ? Nanak wants to give you a spiritual body, that is, "nam dhan". But only when you're ready [stanza 38 japjisahib]!

Love n Live


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 9, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Why wait? You could do that now if you really wanted...



actually I could not, my features are too masculine, not so much Dolph Lungdren than an indian looking homer simpson, I have frodo feet, it would just take way too much work, and the results would be bad, really bad, nah, I will have to start from scratch


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 9, 2018)

Original said:


> .a *Real *Sikh is he/she who comes to learn and not teach [rules me out]. Who better than you Sir Harry, when it comes to learning, a model student. You are a true Sikh who stands on an unmovable "path" [Sikh the learner]. It is not the strongest, nor the intelligent but the most responsive to accept change and you have it.



Everything I have learned has been through fire and brimstone, scars stop you making the same mistakes again and again, and is much more effective than theology, in my opinion (see what I did there), learning is quite painful for me, I have to be bloodied and bruised before I do, I live and learn through life, I thought that made me a Sikh once, but the absence of any theology negates that, lets say I live by certain Sikh values that are universal. 



Original said:


> I hope one day you will understand the difference between Sikhism and Philosophy - you will unquestionably fall in love with the wisdom of your forefathers - who were Sikhs and always will be Sikhs.


Oh I do, only too well, Sikhism is Sikh Philosophy diluted by tradition and culture


Original said:


> .much of what I write can be cross-checked with my Guru [SGGSJ]. I only translate n interpret Gurbani consistent with the teachings of Guru Granth and Guru Panth. As I said earlier, my forefathers lived in a society and at a time when belief in afterlife was rife. Europeans call it reincarnation, transmigration; we call it janam janam [see today's hukamnama]. And of course, we've evolved from having a bird brain to a King Singh 1.


I can, and have provided links to respected people within the Sikh community that would disagree with you, I won't because it gets us nowhere, you will have to accept that the above is not the only way lauded by Sikhism.


Original said:


> .no, not at all. Only trying to protect n preserve the teachings of my forefathers. Coconuts like you and my own children [some of them] will dilute it beyond recognition if not policed.


Yes, you mentioned this when we met, as I munched your mangoes, (that is not a euphemism), I resent the use of the word coconut, although I know it is not an insult, more a statement of fact, your saying I am white inside, and brown outside, take a good look at our motherland next time you go home, from what I hear, I am an amateur, India, Punjab is becoming is actually to western for me, its more western than the west, so happens when the coconuts become mainstream? its already happening, look at the news, the tv, our homeland is one big coconut. As it happens, I resent the term because my inside is neither white nor brown, I never embraced british culture anymore than I embraced Indian culture, I just wanted to know the truth, whatever colour it was, I respect your desire to police this, you will not be offended if I therefore police you. After all someone has to police the police, no?



Original said:


> ..no that's not true, he's a beautiful soul who has his own agenda. Besides, you can't serve two masters, I can only serve SGGSJ, the "original" with 1430 pages and I obey my Panth, albeit, needing constitutional reform. He's divorced them both.



and I am sure he feels exactly the same as you, with the same feelings regarding divorce, so who are we to believe? but its not about that, everyone should be able to put their point forward without running to convenient one liners that may possibly have incorrect translations, and have been invariably taken out of context from the entire essence of what they may have been trying to portray. 



Original said:


> ..Guru Gobind Singh, after losing His four sons in the name of Sikhi, was tormented by His wife mata ji Sundari, thus: "where are my sons ?" to which he replied, "char mua toa kiya huya jeevat kai hazaar" [translation - so what if you've lost four, thousand will be born]. You, I and others are His sons/daughters, Gobind Singh have therefore, reincarnated.



that is not definitive, that is another way to justify your stance, I asked how it worked, with respect, not another soundbite, so how does it work, can you explain the mechanics, again, I am not being twee, I want to know, you get born, you do stuff, you die, fill in the blanks., 



Original said:


> ...Hindu, if you ask me is a derogatory term coined by the minor Asia lot [Arabs] to socially segregate the early ethic communities living in and around River Indus as inferior sub-species. From an ideological perspective, the theory of reincarnation both compliments and corroborates with the workings of Nanak's AP. It provides the necessary time span for the scales of justice to be balanced, since clearly such does not always occur in a single life. And Nanak's reincarnation answers with simple clarity n precision the most complex questions: "why do bad things happen to good people ?" along with the converse, "why do good things happen to bad people ?". Nanak answers beautifully, "karmi apo apni" [you reap what you saw]. This dovetails neatly into theoretical thinking [reincarnation]. That is to say, what we are today is the result of our yesterdays, meaning past lives.



what about pigs? bring the animals into this, before we go any further, but thank you for starting. 



Original said:


> Sikh is a distinct and unique religion that was "revealed" not found nor created, but revealed to young Nanak because evolution [God] deemed it critical for the inhabitants of Indus Valley civilization to survive the onslaught of the barbaric conquering Moslems. Sikhs own India and not just Khalistan.



this is a classic case in point, now this is your opinion, and its a good opinion, not as good as the opinion that I do actually look like Dolph Lungdren, now that is a good opinion, but yours is good too, however, "[God] deemed it critical for the inhabitants of Indus Valley civilization to survive the onslaught of the barbaric conquering Moslems. Sikhs own India and not just Khalistan." I mean how do you know? Do you speak to God? actually don't answer that, it will just make things worse, but you can see where I am coming from, your speaking for God............



Original said:


> .good question ! scan your body for a mo - and - tell me, what part resembles mum n what part resembles dad ? They've already reincarnated - as handsome H. Its you bro, which body you gonna move into ? Nanak wants to give you a spiritual body, that is, "nam dhan". But when you're read



uhm you didn't answer the question, I suppose my head does look a bit like a baby elephants butt now my hair has gone, but could you just answer the question?


----------



## Original (Mar 9, 2018)

Simranjit said:


> I think that this texts can be used or not to prove that "Sikhism believes in reincarnation" depending on how one interprets the words "I" and "you" . If "I" means Simranjit, me, my counciousness which is independent and detached from others, then yes, it seems that the text is consistent with the hypotesis of reincarnation.


Simranjit,

Because God cannot be "objectively" tested but "subjectively" realized you cannot do lab tests on souls n data re reincarnation.  The theory as I explained earlier is constructed to support an ideology, and since Sikhism is an ideology, reincarnation a theory, you cannot no matter what, find consistency in thought and understanding of the scriptures if you depart from the theory of reincarnation.


Simranjit said:


> I'm finding it difficult to express and develop further my ideas.


Reincarnation for you is a "new life" [Sikh] and your next body is not physical but spiritual. Sikhi isn't carried in books, debates n discussions but in the hearts and minds of its believers. Believe therefore, in Simranjit and rise to meet your lover [God].
My dearest, do you not know why you're a Sikh and not another ? It is because you've been separated from your true love [Guru, shabd] all this time and now through Simranjit, will  meet Him who resides within. All this slowly but surely, will be revealed.


Simranjit said:


> As Harry does, I'd really like to ask you to explain more about how you think reincarnation works. I'm very interested.


..very simple ! you've always existed. Take a look, starting with your mum, nan, greatgrand nan and all the way back to the beginning of creation; who carried you forth to the body Ester ? And now, "ah ha" moment OMG I've been all those people [in part] separated through human exodus from my real self [simranjit]. Question for you is, what is the next vehicle that will carry my soul home ?


Simranjit said:


> we are like waves of a vast ocean.


..would you deny beautiful Ester [wave] an independent, unique and autonomous existence on account having merged into this ocean ?


Simranjit said:


> The waves would be "incarnations" or even "reincarnations" if with it means that the one incarnating once and again is the sea, not the individual waves...


..dispel with this kind of thinking because it's never ending and embrace moment of eternity,  "love n live". Meditate on thyself and remove the veil of deception [mental excursions] and switch to spiritual heights. Speak truth, eat truth, sleep n side with truth and make truth your lover.

The ocean is but an aggregate of all rivers flowing in to it, be therefore the river and enjoy the journey. The journey that is unique, independent and above all, sublime.

More another time


----------



## Original (Mar 9, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> I can, and have provided links to respected people within the Sikh community that would disagree with you, I won't because it gets us nowhere, you will have to accept that the above is not the only way lauded by Sikhism.


..it is only fair that if I've erred or violated any of the scriptures I must be given the opportunity to have my say, make good, correct or take ownership and be justly weighed before you commit me to the fire ?


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 9, 2018)

Original said:


> ..it is only fair that if I've erred or violated any of the scriptures I must be given the opportunity to have my say, make good, correct or take ownership and be justly weighed before you commit me to the fire ?



strange, I have already admitted I laud Sikh principles but do not consider myself a Sikh, I have no theology, so I am not. 

Therefore I am in no position to accuse anyone of violating anything, or indeed committing anyone to the fire, I ask you to clarify your position, and the position of Sikhism, you seem to struggle with fact that there may be differences. 

To wit, I am not saying my way is correct, as I have no way, I merely respectfully ask you to explain yours, nothing more.


----------



## Original (Mar 9, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> I laud Sikh* principles*


..so does an assassin laud Sikh principles in tracking down his target, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a desirable outcome, does it ?

I'm sorry, we've digressed from the OP - I'm happy to continue, maybe, under relevant heading ?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 10, 2018)

Simranjit ji,

Guru Fateh.


Simranjit said:


> ਨਿਜ ਘਰਿ ਮਹਲ੝ ਪਾਵਹ੝ ਸ੝ਖ ਸਹਜੇ ਬਹ੝ਰਿ ਨ ਹੋਇਗੋ ਫੇਰਾ ॥੩॥
> nij ghar mahal paavhu sukh sehjay bahur na ho-igo fayraa. ((3))
> Within the home of your own inner being, you shall obtain the Mansion of the Lord's Presence with intuitive ease. *You shall not be consigned again to the wheel of reincarnation.* ((3))
> 
> It seems to support the idea of reincarnation.



The confusion lies in the understanding the difference between the acknowledgement of this ingrained belief in Hinduism which is based on caste system and its acceptance in Sikhi. One thing important to notice in this belief is that a Brahmin will always be reincarnated as Brahmin. The same is true for the low caste people who will never be able to step up on the ladder of the caste system.

The verse above shows the acknowledgement of the belief in Hinduism but rejects this very belief in Sikhism provided one follows the Sikhi path.

Secondly, the Shabad by Bhagat Ravi Das that Original posted in his post #18 says the same thing. Its translation has been distorted by Original, perhaps due to his lack of Gurmukhi skills or lack of his understanding of Gurbani, or both. One has to learn the history of Bhagat Ravi Das to understand what this low caste cobbler is trying to convey.



> ਬਹੁਤ ਜਨਮ ਬਿਛੁਰੇ ਥੇ ਮਾਧਉ ਇਹੁ ਜਨਮੁ ਤੁਮ੍ਹ੍ਹਾਰੇ ਲੇਖੇ ॥  Page 694
> 
> Bahuṯ janam bicẖẖure the māḏẖa▫o ih janam ṯumĥāre lekẖe.
> 
> For so many incarnations, I have been separated from You, Lord; I dedicate this life to You.



In a nutshell, Bhagat Ravi Das, who was born during the time of Guru Nanak is talking in the above verse how fed up he is with the belief in reincarnation because he would always be a cobbler no matter how many times he is reborn. Hence he is pleading with the One Source to help him get rid of this wretched belief.



Original said:


> So yes, Sikhism do believe in reincarnation [proofs in the pudding, hukamnama above] but not the same way as it did 500 years ago. Human civilisations once believed the Earth to be flat, is it flat [moot] ? Similarly, our forefathers believed in reincarnation with the mindset of that particular time in history. If that'd be correct, then whosoever, read, translate or interpret Gurbani must do so in light of the culture and the ideology prevalent at the time of its inception, meaning, reincarnation was part of a belief system [Sikh].



So, the above claim by @Original is not a Sikhi concept but a Hindu one which is not surprising because this kind of Hindu belief is not uncommon in Original's posts for some reason. His posts are filled with Hindutva sprinkled with some Sikhi here and there.

In fact, Original's claim here makes no sense and is rather self-contradictory.


> "So yes, Sikhism do believe in reincarnation [proofs in the pudding, hukamnama above] but not the same way as it did 500 years ago."



As per Original's above claim, the belief in reincarnation has been diluting for 500 years. Sikhi started about 500 some years ago yet he fails to find the connection between the two, which is expected.

If reincarnation is accepted in the SGGS, our only Guru, as per @Original, then why would the belief be diluted because Gurbani can never be diluted?
Does he not believe in the SGGS, our only Guru, anymore?

I hope @Original would respond to these contradictions and why his lack of faith/belief in the SGGS, our only Guru, by claiming that people do not believe in our Guru's teachings so fervently as they did 500 years ago.

In closing, I would say that Sikhi does acknowledge this Hindu belief of reincarnation like it does many other beliefs from Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions but rejects it in Sikhi by giving us tools to get rid of carrying this cross for all our lives.
One thing worth repeating is that the acknowledgement of a belief in other religions is not acceptance of the same in Sikhi.

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Original (Mar 10, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur Ji

Your writing reflects your wisdom. You are an exalted personage within the spiritual sense of the word "wisdom". Post #12 says it all save few add-on's and it is to this end [add-on's] that I now venture, trusting you the reader to repose some confidence in my accuracy.


Harkiran Kaur said:


> I used to think so once upon a time until I started to read quantum physics theories and saw some of the experiments for myself. It has become a scary fact to scientists that ‘consciousness’ not in the sense of being awake or unconscious in a physical sense but the primal awareness or being, what they term the observer (you) exists somewhere nonlocal in a quantum state.


...can we call it chance ? I mean the uncertainty principle ! This will then make sense when you read it in conjunction with SGGSJ.


Harkiran Kaur said:


> The physical body is only a vehicle which that I AM is using


correct ! And, this I AM [Exodus 3:14] uses this physical body as a vehicle to experience the "subjective" sense of the self that we call "i am, me, my". So what we have is a big I AM [objective, absolute, God] manifesting in the small i am [subjective self, me, i, my, HKJ] to generate* conscious *experience [is moment, conscious observer] for otherwise there is no way of confirming the existence of the big I AM [Ekonkar, God]. 

Allow me to expand a little further ! 

This conscious observer is the mind [i am, self] and forever on the run thinking n believing this illusionary world to be the real world. Guru Ji is trying to pull him back and saying, this is not the real world, "hey mind, you're part of the whole and the whole is I AM" [441, SGGSJ]. 


Harkiran Kaur said:


> In any case quantum physics has now shown that consciousness or an observer exists outside the physical


..of course it does ! Guru Ji on page 139, SGGSJ confirms it, thus: to see without eyes, hear without ears, walk without feet, speak without tongue. What does that tell you ? no body -more below*


Harkiran Kaur said:


> When you die physically you won’t cease to exist.


...I beg to differ. Scientists explain that the self must be the collective property of the neurons in your brain, which have mostly stayed with you throughout life [current] and which will cease to exist after you die and hence, the reason you can't remember past life. This bundle of neurons have made a permanent home within your bodily frame that has given rise to a subjective sense of self-hood and labelled it HKJ. This HKJ bundle is so unique that it cannot occupy two places at the same time in any given space [as opposed to two events occurring at the same time in two different locations in space, hence, the prerequisite of a conscious observer], and therefore can only recall experiences which the bundle has gone through within that HKJ frame [body].


Harkiran Kaur said:


> The body dies but the observer which is YOU


..the observer is I AM [alive forever]. The you, the HKJ was a human experience of the spiritual being that has no name, no shape and is beyond communication. We cannot ascribe any properties, qualities  to something that IS an existence. It is inconceivable. If one was to write, it will be relative and not real.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> It’s obvious to me that ‘conquering death while alive’ can only mean true knowledge that death is not the end.


..look what the mystic poet Rumi writes: 

As long as you do not die while living
How will you obtain true benefit ?
Therefore, die and come out of your body.
You have died many times, yet still you remain behind the veil
For the method of dying you did not learn.

Lord Krishna says to Arjun: you have died many deaths before which you remember not' [Bhagvad Gita].



Harkiran Kaur said:


> Once you know this, and understand the OBSERVER, knowing the state of your inner being, then death is conquered because you see that it was all a dream and you were the dreamer.


..death is conquered when you have mastered the art of dying. Paul say "I die daily" [I Corinthians 15:31]. Sikh spiritual [nam simran] is to that end where the soul learns to leave the body. The conscious mind having experienced an out of body existence soon learns to detach from physical phenomenon 

*  the shabd on page 139, SGGSJ goes on to say, 'speaking without tongue is dying while alive, O Nanak, realize this and meet the husband ' is testament to the death of the body and the survival of the soul. The subjective self [mind] needs to experience this in order to exit the wheel of 84.
















.


----------



## sukhsingh (Mar 10, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> I used to think so once upon a time until I started to read quantum physics theories and saw some of the experiments for myself. It has become a scary fact to scientists that ‘consciousness’ not in the sense of being awake or unconscious in a physical sense but the primal awareness or being, what they term the observer (you) exists somewhere nonlocal in a quantum state. The physical body is only a vehicle which that I AM is using. The brain is only a computer designed to help you navigate this world. Till date they can not find where memories are actually stored. Case in point, your brain like everything else in your body entirely regenerates (save for the neurons in the cerebral cortex) the neurons in rest of your brain regenerate. The cerebral cortex is not where memories are actually stored either by the way. Processing seems to begin in the prefrontal cortex, however that part of your brain right now, is NOT the same prefrontal cortex you had years ago. Every single cell has been changed out.
> 
> In any case quantum physics has now shown that consciousness or an observer exists outside the physical which must exist outside the physical, in order for the physical matter to even manifest. The experiments showed over and over that electrons behave as a wave otherwise and not something solid and tangible. (Ever hear of the philosophical question, if a tree falls in the forest... if there are no humans animals or insects there to witness it, did the forest even exist to have a tree which could fall?) or is reality painted through our memories and observation? Science is actually pointing to that fact! As a wave, an electron - all electrons - would not be something solid and tangible. There would be no matter. And the only thing which causes an electron to become a solid particle is conscious observation. In short, someone is watching. So who is that someone? Since our own conscious observation effects the outcome of the experiments our own consciousness must exist outside the confines of he physical - meaning our awareness must not be created BY the physical brain because the physical brain is made up of the same atoms which contain the same electrons which must be observed into existence.  (Google the “measurement problem” and “double slit experiments”)
> 
> ...


I fully agree that.. I believe that their is a transference of energy but not soul in the popular understanding of the word


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 11, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> I fully agree that.. I believe that their is a transference of energy but not soul in the popular understanding of the word



Rather the energy/soul IS Waheguru... that energy is aware, that energy IS you (and me and everyone). You won’t cease to exist.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 11, 2018)

Of course HK will cease to exist. But I AM not HKJ. No more than I was an archeologist last night named Samantha running through the Amazon in my dream. I have already accepted that HKJ is only one costume I have worn or will wear (ang 736) By the way in the out of body state you do remember. It’s more like when you wake up and remember it was a dream but you do remember the dream. People have experienced out of body experiences in this life.



Original said:


> ...I beg to differ. Scientists explain that the self must be the collective property of the neurons in your brain, which have mostly stayed with you throughout life [current] and which will cease to exist after you die and hence, the reason you can't remember past life. This bundle of neurons have made a permanent home within your bodily frame that has given rise to a subjective sense of self-hood and labelled it HKJ. This HKJ bundle is so unique that it cannot occupy two places at the same time in any given space [as opposed to two events occurring at the same time in two different locations in space, hence, the prerequisite of a conscious observer], and therefore can only recall experiences which the bundle has gone through within that HKJ frame [body].
> 
> 
> .


----------



## Original (Mar 11, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> I fully agree that.. I believe that their is a transference of energy but not soul in the popular understanding of the word


Sukh, 
Energy is too wide; kinetic, gravitational, molecular, etc etc. Becasue of our rational nature we've classified things in various categorises n groups: cows in cowsheds, horses in stables, pigs in pigsties, n so forth. Logic dictates that in order to discern the form from the substance we must label them respectively. For example, Sukh is a man, but so are Harry n Kully. They are not exactly alike, but have something in common and this something in common is their "*form*"[{censored}s, genitalia]. Whatever might be distinctive, individual belongs to their *"substance"* part, that is, they all *love* Original. In this regard, philosophers from antiquity have divided the human into four dimensions: physical, emotional, mental and spiritual. And it is to this spiritual part that they've pigeonholed the soul part so that arguments can accordingly be had under this heading.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 11, 2018)

Original said:


> Sukh,
> Energy is too wide; kinetic, gravitational, molecular, etc etc. Becasue of our rational nature we've classified things in various categorises n groups: cows in cowsheds, horses in stables, pigs in pigsties, n so forth. Logic dictates that in order to discern the form from the substance we must label them respectively. For example, Sukh is a man, but so are Harry n Kully. They are not exactly alike, but have something in common and this something in common is their "*form*"[{censored}s, genitalia]. Whatever might be distinctive, individual belongs to their *"substance"* part, that is, they all *love* Original. In this regard, philosophers from antiquity have divided the human into four dimensions: physical, emotional, mental and spiritual. And it is to this spiritual part that they've pigeonholed the soul part so that arguments can accordingly be had under this heading.


Originalji,

I am not a {censored}s, and I don't love you,

regards


----------



## Original (Mar 11, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Of course HK will cease to exist. But I AM not HKJ. No more than I was an archeologist last night named Samantha running through the Amazon in my dream. I have already accepted that HKJ is only one costume I have worn or will wear (ang 736) By the way in the out of body state you do remember. It’s more like when you wake up and remember it was a dream but you do remember the dream. People have experienced out of body experiences in this life.


Beautiful princess,

If you don't learn to come out of your body how can you meet Nanak's Nirankar ? Reading of scriptures, philosophising and all the rest don't mean a thing unless n until you meet Nanak's "govind". Check out page 378, SGGSJ where Guru Sahib is saying, " hey Harkiran, this body is given to you by God who lives within n without. Meet him without [outside] so that you'd be able to recognise Him when you die for good".

This is what sets Sikhi apart and makes it  "unique" !

Keep a diary n record your out of body excursions. The more you record the more you'll have, unless, external forces n factors beyond your control jeopardises them.


----------



## Original (Mar 11, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> Originalji,
> 
> I am not a {censored}s, and I don't love you,
> 
> regards


Forgive me. I take it back, terms of endearment had clothed it a jovial banter !

I'm sorry -


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 11, 2018)

Original said:


> Forgive me. I take it back, terms of endearment had clothed it a jovial banter !
> 
> I'm sorry -


I love jovial banter, perhaps we could do that once you have addressed my lost post, I feel rather left out, is it cos I am a man?


----------



## sukhsingh (Mar 11, 2018)

Original said:


> Beautiful princess,
> 
> If you don't learn to come out of your body how can you meet Nanak's Nirankar ? Reading of scriptures, philosophising and all the rest don't mean a thing unless n until you meet Nanak's "govind". Check out page 378, SGGSJ where Guru Sahib is saying, " hey Harkiran, this body is given to you by God who lives within n without. Meet him without [outside] so that you'd be able to recognise Him when you die for good".
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but it all sounds like a load of codswallop


----------



## Original (Mar 11, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> I love jovial banter, perhaps we could do that once you have addressed my lost post, I feel rather left out, is it cos I am a man?


It's always a pleasure chatting to you H, but now with advanced souls on board, I feel obliged to be more careful not to go off-topic. Thanks to Harkiran, she's reined us in again let us help develop the discussion further.

Love you


----------



## Original (Mar 11, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> I'm sorry but it all sounds like a load of codswallop


..probably does and that'll be your perception. I'm a LION, hear me roar, "meow".


----------



## sukhsingh (Mar 11, 2018)

Original said:


> ..probably does and that'll be your perception. I'm a LION, hear me roar, "meow".


You couldn't be less humble if you tried


----------



## sukhsingh (Mar 11, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Rather the energy/soul IS Waheguru... that energy is aware, that energy IS you (and me and everyone). You won’t cease to exist.


To be a pedant I agree partially .. 
The energy IS.. But their is no you or everyone.. Just IS


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 11, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> To be a pedant I agree partially ..
> The energy IS.. But their is no you or everyone.. Just IS



I agree. But the you and everyone you are referring to are the costumes. The dream characters... The you and everyone I am referring to are collectively are all the same ONE. 

In other words there is only ONE of us really here, we just don’t know it. It’s really I, and I and I etc... we or the physical bodies are the Sargun or manifest expression of the ONE. But it’s still just ONE. The Haume is false. We think we are this identity in this life but we aren’t. It’s like a part being played in a play, only it’s the same one actor playing all the parts. It’s only once the play is over and the costumes (these haume identities) are removed we see it was the same one actor playing all the parts. (Ang 736) we are asked to reflect where did they come from to begin with and where did they go? The answer at least to me is they are inconsequential. Harkiran is inconsequential as is sukhsingh. Same as our dream characters are inconsequential because they are not us, they aren’t our real identity.


----------



## Simranjit (Mar 13, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> I agree. But the you and everyone you are referring to are the costumes. The dream characters... The you and everyone I am referring to are collectively are all the same ONE.
> 
> In other words there is only ONE of us really here, we just don’t know it. It’s really I, and I and I etc... we or the physical bodies are the Sargun or manifest expression of the ONE. But it’s still just ONE. The Haume is false. We think we are this identity in this life but we aren’t. It’s like a part being played in a play, only it’s the same one actor playing all the parts. It’s only once the play is over and the costumes (these haume identities) are removed we see it was the same one actor playing all the parts. (Ang 736) we are asked to reflect where did they come from to begin with and where did they go? The answer at least to me is they are inconsequential. Harkiran is inconsequential as is sukhsingh. Same as our dream characters are inconsequential because they are not us, they aren’t our real identity.


Harkiran, your points of view in this thread are most interesting for me....They make me seing something I was (kind of) already seing but from a different inspiring perspective.

I understand the meaning of the word "inconsequential" but still I'm not sure what you mean when you say that individuals are inconsequential. Could you explain it to me, please?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 13, 2018)

Simranjit said:


> Harkiran, your points of view in this thread are most interesting for me....They make me seing something I was (kind of) already seing but from a different inspiring perspective.
> 
> I understand the meaning of the word "inconsequential" but still I'm not sure what you mean when you say that individuals are inconsequential. Could you explain it to me, please?



Let’s say you dream tonight you are a superstar singer or actress named Starr. In the dream you interacted with your manager, a guy named John and your band members, and producer etc. Now you wake up tomorrow morning and remember being Starr. 

Was Starr real? We’re YOU Starr? Or was Starr inconsequential because it was only a character you played while in the dream? When you woke up you remembered you were Simranjit. So ‘Starr’ was a false identity.... and wholly inconsequential right? How about John your manager? Who was John? Did he exist? Actually John was also YOU. Same as all the band members right? But when you woke up you realized that all of them were only characters created in your dream. By you. They were ALL you right? Therefore, the individuals in that reality were inconsequential because they were all really controlled by YOU Simranjit and when the dream was over YOU (Sinranjit) didn’t cease to exist right and when you woke up you realized that everything was in your own mind and a dream. 

Now apply that same logic to this reality. Because science can already glimpse the ONEness of a base conscious awareness or energy (the observer) me (Harkiran) and you (Sinranjit) are just characters as were John and Starr etc. However when ‘I AM’ will awaken, ‘I’ (meaning me, you, everyone) will realize we were all really one dreamer. Waheguru. Therefore Harkiran, Simranjit etc are inconsequential. However I am not. ‘I’ (you) will wake up one day and realize I (you) was dreaming / creating everything in my own thoughts.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 13, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Let’s say you dream tonight you are a superstar singer or actress named Starr. In the dream you interacted with your manager, a guy named John and your band members, and producer etc. Now you wake up tomorrow morning and remember being Starr.
> 
> Was Starr real? We’re YOU Starr? Or was Starr inconsequential because it was only a character you played while in the dream? When you woke up you remembered you were Simranjit. So ‘Starr’ was a false identity.... and wholly inconsequential right? How about John your manager? Who was John? Did he exist? Actually John was also YOU. Same as all the band members right? But when you woke up you realized that all of them were only characters created in your dream. By you. They were ALL you right? Therefore, the individuals in that reality were inconsequential because they were all really controlled by YOU Simranjit and when the dream was over YOU (Sinranjit) didn’t cease to exist right and when you woke up you realized that everything was in your own mind and a dream.
> 
> Now apply that same logic to this reality. Because science can already glimpse the ONEness of a base conscious awareness or energy (the observer) me (Harkiran) and you (Sinranjit) are just characters as were John and Starr etc. However when ‘I AM’ will awaken, ‘I’ (meaning me, you, everyone) will realize we were all really one dreamer. Waheguru. Therefore Harkiran, Simranjit etc are inconsequential. However I am not. ‘I’ (you) will wake up one day and realize I (you) was dreaming / creating everything in my own thoughts.



May I ask what difference this has made to you life? I am not getting into a debate on it, we have had enough of them, but simple question, given what you know, what difference has it made to your life?

thanks


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 13, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> May I ask what difference this has made to you life? I am not getting into a debate on it, we have had enough of them, but simple question, given what you know, what difference has it made to your life?
> 
> thanks



Huge. Like when your eyes have been opened your whole outlook changes. Instead of hopelessness of thinking this one short life is it before ceasing to exist for rest of eternity, you know there is more. I mean it’s kind of depressing to think that the average 70-80 years is it. That every bit of knowledge you gain, the hobbies you learned, the things you studied, even memories fade and in only a few generations are forgotten. I know very little about my great grandparents. Any further back forget it. So what was the purpose... why live, love, learn, gain wisdom, if only a very very few will ever even be remembered a few generations in the future? What was the point? The answer is there IS a purpose and we don’t cease to exist. It’s only through this human form that conscioisness can ask the very important question of who am I and why am I here. That’s why Gurbani says it’s on THIS life this is your chance to meet Akal Purakh while alive.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 13, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Huge. Like when your eyes have been opened your whole outlook changes. Instead of hopelessness of thinking this one short life is it before ceasing to exist for rest of eternity, you know there is more. I mean it’s kind of depressing to think that the average 70-80 years is it. That every bit of knowledge you gain, the hobbies you learned, the things you studied, even memories fade and in only a few generations are forgotten. I know very little about my great grandparents. Any further back forget it. So what was the purpose... why live, love, learn, gain wisdom, if only a very very few will ever even be remembered a few generations in the future? What was the point? The answer is there IS a purpose and we don’t cease to exist. It’s only through this human form that conscioisness can ask the very important question of who am I and why am I here. That’s why Gurbani says it’s on THIS life this is your chance to meet Akal Purakh while alive.



In the past, I would have spent some time picking holes in replies like this, but to what end, I am pleased that you have found a way of life and a purpose, genuinely pleased, so rather than question or disrespect your way of life, I would simply question whether it would be applicable to me, only as it is being lauded as a universal answer as opposed to a description of your journey,

If we run with the concept that this is not a dream, and that God does not intervene in any way shape or form, then what we have are millions of beings all interacting, learning, being born, and dying. Such a concept is equally as eye opening, I never felt hopeless at life, and acceptance of life not being a dream is actually, to me, more comforting, I have an affliction you see, I feel the pain and joy of others, quite acutely, to the point where in the past, I would feel compelled to offer assistance to anyone and everyone who I perceived to be in pain, for us in the west, yes, life is great, we live, we love ,we learn, but for many many millions, life is not really like that, I see a lot of hopelessness, a lot of pain, a lot of suffering, the more I see, the more I myself suffer, to the point where living in the style of a hermit is the only answer, for me anyway, I would not suggest it as a lifestyle. You ask what is the point of all this, only to live an average of 70-80 years, you talk of hobbies, what of those that live a life of suffering and pain? So at this juncture I would ask a simple question, where does Karma come into all this? You wish to cling on to life and eternity due to the pleasant warmth of your life, for those for whom life is a daily challenge, maybe due to disability, or personal demons, would they feel the same? Do they have the same hunger for eternity? Do they pray that in the next life they come back as an able bodied person, or a person that is not being gang raped in a war zone? or a person that does not begin every day shooting up in the arm? or even a person that is not serving a life prison sentence for something they did not do, I wonder if they have the same feelings as you do?

So the question is simply, thank you for your answer, but why the great inequality in peoples lives, why are some people living nice lives, and some not so nice ones?

thanks


----------



## sukhsingh (Mar 13, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> perceived to be in pain, for us in the west, yes, life is great, we live, we love ,we learn, but for many many millions, life is not really like that, I see a lot of hopelessness, a lot of pain, a lot of suffering, the more I see, the more I myself suffer, to the point where living in the style of a hermit is the only answer, for me anyway, I would not suggest it as a lifestyle.



Bro I was touching upon this point from a slightly different angle the other day.. At what point do we make the leap from being hermits and feeling the affliction of others to actually doing something..? 
It's a hypocritical question and one which applies to myself..  

As like minded people who obviously see beauty in the world when do we stop the intellectual pursuit and engage?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 13, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> Bro I was touching upon this point from a slightly different angle the other day.. At what point do we make the leap from being hermits and feeling the affliction of others to actually doing something..?
> It's a hypocritical question and one which applies to myself..
> 
> As like minded people who obviously see beauty in the world when do we stop the intellectual pursuit and engage?



Sukh Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

I am sorry to say, I have no idea what you are talking about. Would you be kind enough to elaborate what you actually mean because this is not the first time you mentioned about engagement by Sikhs?
You will be surprised about our engagement in the societies we live in.

Lots of Sikhs engage themselves daily from Alaska to Australia.  Sikh Gurdwaras have food pantries and engage themselves with the needy all over the world. If you need any concrete examples, they are all over the WWW.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 13, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> Bro I was touching upon this point from a slightly different angle the other day.. At what point do we make the leap from being hermits and feeling the affliction of others to actually doing something..?
> It's a hypocritical question and one which applies to myself..
> 
> As like minded people who obviously see beauty in the world when do we stop the intellectual pursuit and engage?



I have done my time, I did 20 years of it, gave up life and threw myself into the pit of the world , now, I am afraid I would not {censored} on someone if they were on fire, but that is just the stage of life that I am at now, I cannot answer your question, because you are an individual, and even then, even in your individuality, you are also everything, and capable of quite diverse thoughts and actions, although due to the state of being we call personality, most will rarely see the day of light, my own experience is that helping people is done purely for the self, I only helped people because I felt their pain, if I did not, then I would not have helped them, so by helping them, I was easing my own pain, in the end, looking back, most of the people I 'helped' would have made it on their own anyway, so all I in fact did was satisfy my own ego (that I am a good person), and take away the chance for others to feel that wonderful moment when they themselves eased themselves out of a bad situation, and instead, made them feel like victims or that they were helpless, one person in particular comes to mind, all I did was make them more and more helpless the more I did, if I had left well alone, they would probably not be as helpless as they are now, they would be strong, with a sheet of self victory behind them, instead they have sheet of all the things that they were incapable of doing, that I did, the more you give money to a beggar, the more you take away their self respect, their ability to fend for themselves, the more you lend to a gambler, the longer you prolong the gambling problem, the more you assist someone that cannot live on their own means, the more you prolong the inevitable point where they cut their cloth according to their income, the longer you spend propping someone up with emotional problems, the longer they will wallow in their own nightmare, and so on and so on, but that is only my own experiences, I guess we are all different, I do not believe that there is a universal template that applies to us all, we have to find our own way home.


----------



## Original (Mar 14, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur Ji

Much of what you've written compliments two scientific theories:

String theory [wave/particle is ONE] and,
Multiverse [one character playing multiple roles].
Pauri 16 n 22 of japjisahib supports the view of the infinite worlds [multiverse]. In this theory, where every possible world exists, along with all the infinite versions of HKJ. That is to say, you is the Gobind, Nanak, Christ, Buddha, etc exist in the multiverse. What does that mean ? It means, in the field of infinite possibilities, as pure potential, you exist on all these levels simultaneously. But at the level of experience, you exist only in one [HKJ] - your own projected plane of existence at any one time. This means, HKJ lives today, will live forever and has lived forever. Her unique and independent stay "here n now" cannot be ignored on account she is part of a whole for it is the part that makes up the whole.

The inconsequential you is fundamental for there cannot be a whole without a part.

Much obliged


----------



## Simranjit (Mar 16, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Let’s say you dream tonight you are a superstar singer or actress named Starr. In the dream you interacted with your manager, a guy named John and your band members, and producer etc. Now you wake up tomorrow morning and remember being Starr.
> 
> Was Starr real? We’re YOU Starr? Or was Starr inconsequential because it was only a character you played while in the dream? When you woke up you remembered you were Simranjit. So ‘Starr’ was a false identity.... and wholly inconsequential right? How about John your manager? Who was John? Did he exist? Actually John was also YOU. Same as all the band members right? But when you woke up you realized that all of them were only characters created in your dream. By you. They were ALL you right? Therefore, the individuals in that reality were inconsequential because they were all really controlled by YOU Simranjit and when the dream was over YOU (Sinranjit) didn’t cease to exist right and when you woke up you realized that everything was in your own mind and a dream.
> 
> Now apply that same logic to this reality. Because science can already glimpse the ONEness of a base conscious awareness or energy (the observer) me (Harkiran) and you (Sinranjit) are just characters as were John and Starr etc. However when ‘I AM’ will awaken, ‘I’ (meaning me, you, everyone) will realize we were all really one dreamer. Waheguru. Therefore Harkiran, Simranjit etc are inconsequential. However I am not. ‘I’ (you) will wake up one day and realize I (you) was dreaming / creating everything in my own thoughts.


I think I see what you mean by inconsequentail now, thanks 

I start embrazing more and more the same approach. At the same time  these "identities" or "characters" suffer, love, feel pain, struggle.... Many people are in so much pain.... And this is not inconsequential. So, the only thing that worries me about this approach that I'm embrazing myself is that thinking that our self percieved identities (and those of others) are unreal and inconsequential  could lead us to inaction, to acceptance of pain and suffering. It could stop us from trying to change the world into a better one for everybody. I don't mean this is your case Harkiran, most provably it is not. I just mention it to share my concern as this approach (or a distorted version of it) is almost "trendy" among western "new age" followers and I've meet quite a few good "spiritual" people saying that we must accept the Universe as it is, that only egos suffer, that the desire to change the world comes from ego too and bla bla bla. At the end of the day these people only sing mantras and do yoga...but nothing to make a better world ....

It is not that I'm doing a lot, either actually.Sigh,....


----------



## Simranjit (Mar 16, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> In the past, I would have spent some time picking holes in replies like this, but to what end, I am pleased that you have found a way of life and a purpose, genuinely pleased, so rather than question or disrespect your way of life, I would simply question whether it would be applicable to me, only as it is being lauded as a universal answer as opposed to a description of your journey,
> 
> If we run with the concept that this is not a dream, and that God does not intervene in any way shape or form, then what we have are millions of beings all interacting, learning, being born, and dying. Such a concept is equally as eye opening, I never felt hopeless at life, and acceptance of life not being a dream is actually, to me, more comforting, I have an affliction you see, I feel the pain and joy of others, quite acutely, to the point where in the past, I would feel compelled to offer assistance to anyone and everyone who I perceived to be in pain, for us in the west, yes, life is great, we live, we love ,we learn, but for many many millions, life is not really like that, I see a lot of hopelessness, a lot of pain, a lot of suffering, the more I see, the more I myself suffer, to the point where living in the style of a hermit is the only answer, for me anyway, I would not suggest it as a lifestyle. You ask what is the point of all this, only to live an average of 70-80 years, you talk of hobbies, what of those that live a life of suffering and pain? So at this juncture I would ask a simple question, where does Karma come into all this? You wish to cling on to life and eternity due to the pleasant warmth of your life, for those for whom life is a daily challenge, maybe due to disability, or personal demons, would they feel the same? Do they have the same hunger for eternity? Do they pray that in the next life they come back as an able bodied person, or a person that is not being gang raped in a war zone? or a person that does not begin every day shooting up in the arm? or even a person that is not serving a life prison sentence for something they did not do, I wonder if they have the same feelings as you do?
> 
> ...


Harry Ji,

I see love and pain in your replay. A pain that I share. I just wanted to tell you......


----------



## Simranjit (Mar 16, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Sukh Singh ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


I think that Sukh Singh is talking about engaging in changing the very structures that make this world so unfair. I look forward to his replay to see if I'm guessing right...


----------



## Simranjit (Mar 16, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Sukh Singh ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


this is beautiful and inspiring and makes me happy, among many other reasons that realate more to my inner path, that I came across Sikhi


----------



## Simranjit (Mar 16, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> I have done my time, I did 20 years of it, gave up life and threw myself into the pit of the world , now, I am afraid I would not {censored} on someone if they were on fire, but that is just the stage of life that I am at now, I cannot answer your question, because you are an individual, and even then, even in your individuality, you are also everything, and capable of quite diverse thoughts and actions, although due to the state of being we call personality, most will rarely see the day of light, my own experience is that helping people is done purely for the self, I only helped people because I felt their pain, if I did not, then I would not have helped them, so by helping them, I was easing my own pain, in the end, looking back, most of the people I 'helped' would have made it on their own anyway, so all I in fact did was satisfy my own ego (that I am a good person), and take away the chance for others to feel that wonderful moment when they themselves eased themselves out of a bad situation, and instead, made them feel like victims or that they were helpless, one person in particular comes to mind, all I did was make them more and more helpless the more I did, if I had left well alone, they would probably not be as helpless as they are now, they would be strong, with a sheet of self victory behind them, instead they have sheet of all the things that they were incapable of doing, that I did, the more you give money to a beggar, the more you take away their self respect, their ability to fend for themselves, the more you lend to a gambler, the longer you prolong the gambling problem, the more you assist someone that cannot live on their own means, the more you prolong the inevitable point where they cut their cloth according to their income, the longer you spend propping someone up with emotional problems, the longer they will wallow in their own nightmare, and so on and so on, but that is only my own experiences, I guess we are all different, I do not believe that there is a universal template that applies to us all, we have to find our own way home.


I see beauty in feeling other's pain. Even if we help them because we feel pain and we want to ease it. Actually, would you take your own hand out from a fire if you didn't feel pain? 
I think we share the need to be happy and we cannot be happy while others are suffering. I agree that this is why we want others to stop suffering. But I don't see ego in it.... We are all the same, I think. No wonder that we feel other's pain and that we want to ease it as we want to ease our's.....


----------



## sukhsingh (Apr 24, 2018)

Why does transmigration even matter? We can never answer the question


----------



## Ishna (Apr 25, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> In other words there is only ONE of us really here, we just don’t know it. It’s really I, and I and I etc... .



Alrighty.  Gurbani pretty clearly says the opposite to this.  There is no I - only You (ਤੁਹੀ, tuhi, god).  Here's an example, from Guru Nanak Ji's shaloks beginning on ang 143:

*ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਃ ੧ ॥
Shalok, First Mehl:*

ਹਮ ਜੇਰ ਜਿਮੀ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਪੀਰਾ ਮਸਾਇਕਾ ਰਾਇਆ ॥
All the spiritual teachers, their disciples and the rulers of the world shall be buried under the ground.

ਮੇ ਰਵਦਿ ਬਾਦਿਸਾਹਾ ਅਫਜੂ ਖੁਦਾਇ ॥
The emperors shall also pass away; God alone is Eternal.

ਏਕ ਤੂਹੀ ਏਕ ਤੁਹੀ ॥੧॥
You alone, Lord, You alone. ||1||

*ਮਃ ੧ ॥
First Mehl:*

ਨ ਦੇਵ ਦਾਨਵਾ ਨਰਾ ॥
Neither the angels, nor the demons, nor human beings,

ਨ ਸਿਧ ਸਾਧਿਕਾ ਧਰਾ ॥
Nor the Siddhas, nor the seekers shall remain on the earth.

ਅਸਤਿ ਏਕ ਦਿਗਰਿ ਕੁਈ ॥
Who else is there?

ਏਕ ਤੁਈ ਏਕ ਤੁਈ ॥੨॥
You alone, Lord, You alone. ||2||​
And so on - I encourage you to find ang 143 and have a read - the shaloks start towards the end of the page.

Now, imho, informed from what I've learned from Gurbani... the costume that is "I" is temporal, in Maya, and is essentially nothing - it will cease to exist, and all that will be left is god.  The experience of your life is not yours.  It is god's, and god's alone.  We just need to realise this while we're alive and live accordingly.  

Side note: Tuhi tuhi makes a very nice meditation chant.  There is some nice kirtan of it online.  When I went to Sikh camp back in 2010 we had the privilege of Veer Manpreet Singh Ji visiting at the time and the best memories I have of camp are those 5am kirtan sessions in the dim light, in darbar sahib, with the rest of the really keen campers, quietly chanting along with Veer ji and the instrument he was using.


----------



## Original (Apr 25, 2018)

Ishna said:


> Alrighty.  Gurbani pretty clearly says the opposite to this.  There is no I - only You (ਤੁਹੀ, tuhi, god).  Here's an example, from Guru Nanak Ji's shaloks beginning on ang 143:
> 
> *ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਃ ੧ ॥
> Shalok, First Mehl:*
> ...



..WOW... that'll be one hell of a world to live in ! No individual identity would mean no "moral culpability". Ishna's world will be inhibited by tight-fisted liars, cheats sleeping around with whatever takes their fancy and losers twiddling their thumbs because it doesn't really matter, its not them but god who's experiencing it all. Hardly a recipe for social cohesion, hey ?

Count me in Girl !


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 25, 2018)

Original said:


> ..WOW... that'll be one hell of world to live in ! No individual identity would mean no "moral culpability". Ishna's world will be inhibited by tight-fisted liars, cheats sleeping around with whatever takes their fancy and losers twiddling their thumbs because it doesn't really matter, its not them but god who's experiencing it all. Hardly a recipe for social cohesion, hey ?
> 
> Count me in Girl !



welcome to the real world that the rest of us live in


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 25, 2018)

Ishna said:


> Alrighty.  Gurbani pretty clearly says the opposite to this.  There is no I - only You (ਤੁਹੀ, tuhi, god).  Here's an example, from Guru Nanak Ji's shaloks beginning on ang 143:
> 
> *ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਃ ੧ ॥
> Shalok, First Mehl:*
> ...



I have quoted this many times before, only because it is very special to me, but I do feel it is appropriate to bring it up given what you have said, it is the end of one of my favorite books, knulp, by herman hesse

can't you see that you had to be a gad-about and a vagabond to bring people a bit of child's folly and child's laughter wherever you went? to make all sorts of people love you a little and tease you a little and be a little grateful to you?

After a short silence Knulp admitted in a whisper:'yes, come to think of it, your right.But that was all in the old days, when I was young. Why didn't I learn a lesson from all that and make something of myself? There was still time.'
The snow was no longer falling. Again Knulp stooped to rest. He meant to shake the snow off his hat and clothes, but he didn't get round to it, he was tired and lost in thought. Now God was standing right before him, His wide-open eyes gleaming like the sun. 
'Let well enough alone,' said God. 'What's the good of complaining? Don't you see that whatever happened was good and right, that nothing should have been any different? Would you really want to be a gentlemen now, or a master craftsman with a wife and children, reading the fire by the fireside? Wouldn't you run away again this minute to sleep in the woods with the foxes and set traps for birds and catch lizards?'
Again Knulp started off, unaware that he was staggering with weariness. He felt much happier now and nodded gratefully to everything God said. 
'Look, ' said God, 'I wanted you the way you are and no different. You were a wanderer in my name and wherever you went you brought the settled folk a little homesickness for freedom. In my name, you did silly things and people scoffed at you. You are my child and my brother and a part of me. There is nothing you have enjoyed and suffered that I have not enjoyed and suffered with you.'
'Yes, ' said Knulp, nodding heavily. 'Yes, that's true, and deep down I've always know it.'
He lay resting on the snow.His Weary limbs had grown light and his inflamed eyes smiled.
When he closed them to sleep a little, he still heard God's voice speaking and still looked into his bright eyes.
'So you've nothing more to complain about ?'
God's voice asked.
'Nothing more,' Knulp nodded with a shy laugh
'And everything's all right? Everything is as it should be?'
'yes,' Knulp nodded 'Everything is as it should be.'


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 25, 2018)

Original said:


> ..WOW... that'll be one hell of world to live in ! No individual identity would mean no "moral culpability". Ishna's world will be inhibited by tight-fisted liars, cheats sleeping around with whatever takes their fancy and losers twiddling their thumbs because it doesn't really matter, its not them but god who's experiencing it all. Hardly a recipe for social cohesion, hey ?
> 
> Count me in Girl !



@Original, your dreams are coming true. Congratulations!


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 26, 2018)

The “I” I was referring to is not the costume but the actor... the actor IS I (all of us) err I mean you as in what makes you an aware entity (not the body) is the I. And it’s the same I in everyone else. I mean the I AM. Not the ‘me me me’ haume nor the costume of flesh and bones.



Ishna said:


> Alrighty.  Gurbani pretty clearly says the opposite to this.  There is no I - only You (ਤੁਹੀ, tuhi, god).  Here's an example, from Guru Nanak Ji's shaloks beginning on ang 143:
> 
> *ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਃ ੧ ॥
> Shalok, First Mehl:*
> ...


----------

