# Soul In Sikhi



## Aisha (Jul 15, 2013)

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

Sangat Ji, I just spent the last little bit reading through one of Seeker3k Ji's old threads, the one about there being a soul in Sikhi. I have my own take on it, my own opinion that I formulated by the time I was done reading the thread. I didn't come up with it on my own, a lot of it was because of "AHA!" moments I had reading other people's posts, and after referring to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji on a few things, I now have my own answer to that question, about what soul is in Sikhi.

Here is the other thread: http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/37159-sikhism-there-soul-who-created-soul.html

This will probably be a long post, just putting it out right now, I always intend to keep them short but it never works out lol.

Okay so first of all, I want to point out post #32 in that thread, by Seeker3k Ji:

"Soul is also called joyt. At the time of death joys will merge with the supper joyt. The joyt was with god was separated from god. Ever since then it is trying to get back to the source. But no one knows what source. Very interesting.
The question is who separate that soul and why? Some claim that soul is like a drop of rain drop. It will travel from the top of the hills and through the rivers and will merge back in the sea. Will that end the cycle of the rebirth of the soul? The soul was there before it was pushed out. At that place soul do no karma. Then why the soul was was pushed out. And going back will guarantee that it will stay there."

And this, I feel, is the underlying problem when trying to determine what "soul" is in Sikhi. "Merge" back with Waheguru? Since when have we ever been detached from Waheguru? Often times in that thread I had to stop myself and double check if I was actually on a forum about Sikhi. The way a lot of people were talking about soul, it sounded like I was browsing a Christian or Muslim forum. The talk about soul was like something I might have heard in the past at Masjid, so I knew right away that something was wrong.

In Sikhi, your soul is not going to ever "merge" back with Waheguru. Your soul was never "pushed" out. The jyot was never "separated from God". Waheguru is omnipresent, and will forever be a part of us. The problem is when people try to personalize the soul, to claim it as their own.  In Siree Raag, Fifth Mehl, Second House, Guru Ji says "Why do you say, "Mine, mine?" Look to God, who has given it to you." That's why I don't think that Sikhs should be saying "my soul", it was never yours to begin with. The irony is that Sikhs know not to get attached to their body, their wealth, their material objects, but forget that the same rule applies to the soul. So that's the first thing, no more "mine mine mine!", none of it belongs to us. Furthermore, enough with the "merging back with Waheguru", you can't merge back with something that you were never separated from to begin with.

Secondly, post #14 by Harry Haller Ji:

"I can only conclude that a baby is born, it has a soul, made up of the DNA of its parents, a small moral compass, and access to say 1/3 of its brain, of its true potential, I think it was seeker3k that asked if a man who was deaf and dumb and blind could be a good sikh, I think he could , I think if you meditate on that moral compass which I would call Guru (not sure which one prakashji, however I would be delighted for you to tell me, and, no, I am not joking, I think there is something in the Gur Guru Guroo post, although Ambersariaji growling is always a sure fire way of sorting the wheat from the chaff), then I think you will find Bani and ultimately Gurubani, *lets be honest, we did not need Guru to tell us most of things that we embrace, truth , honesty, bravery, all these things and more are all stored away in our heads, just waiting to be accessed, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a written living embodiment of that information.* Isaac Newton noted gravity, he did not discover it, it already existed before he noted it, so, I think Guru's knowledge exists in our head already, we just need to keep an eye out for dropping apples."

The bold part is what really stuck out to me, and it was lurking in the back of my head when I read post #49 (also by Harry Ji):

"If we were to theorize that the body is constantly demanding sensory pleasure, and the inner soul, the Guru inside you, is already in consonance, could it be that it is the body that becomes in consonance with creation, rather than the soul. *I have always felt that it is my body that is Manmukh, and my soul is already Gurmukh, and that is the battle, between body and soul.*"

And that's when I got excited! I have noticed the same thing myself, that there is always a part of me that, even in the heat of the argument, when I am screaming at the top of my lungs, knows what I am doing is wrong. There's always that one voice that tells me to walk away, that two wrongs don't make a right, that arguing like children won't solve anything. Of course, the voice telling me to rip the other person apart is usually much stronger and louder, so it is the one that I tend to listen to in situations like that, but the point stands that there is a part of us that is able to objectively distinguish between right and wrong, even if it contradicts our actions.

Harry Ji is right in that there isn't much in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that we don't already intuitively know. To be truthful, honest, brave, stand up for what you believe in, that information is already stored in us on some basic level. The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is all of that information in physical form in front of you. It is undiluted by personal desires, it is pure, it speaks the truth, there is only one "truth".

So then I got on the SriGranth website and started browsing a bit. The first thing I found that really hit me was in Siree Raag, First Mehl: "The empty body is dreadful, when the soul goes out from within." The body is 'dreadful" when the soul leaves it, but Guru Ji doesn't say that it is dead when the soul leaves. What could that mean? Well, I was doing a bit of reading on 1984 a few days ago, and one of the quotes from Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was "I don't fear for a physical death, but when my conscience dies, that is a real death". I think this is in line with Sikhi teachings. I think most people here would agree that "reincarnation" in Sikhi is not the same as in Hinduism. In Sikhi, it is more of a metaphor. The cycle of births and deaths plays out in this life, "reincarnation" can happen in this life. You can be one person today and be another one tomorrow, depending on which of the 5 evils is the most strong on that particular day.

I have noticed that most of the shaloks (I think that's the right word) that allude to reincarnation in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji usually end in something like this (paraphrasing): "Remember the Naam, the name of the Lord, to end the cycle of births and deaths." I think what Guru Ji is trying to say here is that remembering the Lord, the 5 evils will be eliminated. If they are gone, you will no longer fluctuate between different personalities, you will no longer be a greedy snake one day and a lustful elephant the next, you will have effectively broken the cycle, no more reincarnations for you, and as a result, be living a Gurmukh lifestyle.

Going back to what Harry Ji said, "I have always felt that it is my body that is Manmukh, and my soul is already Gurmukh, and that is the battle, between body and soul." All of us already have Gurmukh inside of us. Gurmukh (soul) and manmukh (body) are at constant war, and I think what the Gurus wanted to do was give us tools to control the body, thus allowing "soul" to take over and for us to let that inner Gurmukh out.

With that being said, I'm going to take a bit of a leap here, perhaps this is pseudo-science, but I think that "soul" is the same thing as consciousness. Now, in the medical field, we're always taught that consciousness is controlled by the nervous system, and that it is experienced through the use of the five senses. But I do not feel that this explanation is suffice. Dreams are a form of consciousness, but they are experienced without the use of any of the five sense organs. Animals like dogs and cats are thought to have a "sixth" sense, whereby they are able to sense danger long before it emerges out in the open. One of my professors has even brought up the subject of trees growing back broken branches and the cells in your body functioning out of their own accord to suggest that at the very least, the current definition of consciousness needs revising. I know that this discussion could open up a can of worms on its own, and I don't intend to go too much deeper into it, but based on my own experiences and research I have done, I (personally) feel that modern science is not even close to defining what real consciousness truly is.

Here's a nice short article that kind of explains what I'm getting at for anyone who is interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-lede-t.html?_r=0

Now, from here: http://www.cuyamungueinstitute.com/articles-and-news/the-mind-vs-brain-debate-what-is-consciousness/

"The mind vs. brain debate has been going on since before Aristotle. He and Plato argued that the soul housed intelligence or wisdom and that it could not be placed within the physical body. In a well-described version of dualism, Descartes identifies mind with the consciousness and self-awareness of itself, with an ability to distinguish itself from the brain, but still called the brain the seat of intelligence."

The mind vs brain debate goes back to the soul vs body battle from before. The theory that consciousness survives the physical death of the body is not limited to religion. It has been worked over for thousands of years now, some of the greatest philosophers of all time, including the Dalai Lama, have tackled it and tried to come up with a hypothesis.

Back to the Sikhi now. So if consciousness is soul, what does this mean? Well, in Raag Dhanaasree, First Mehl, Guru Ji says "Amongst all is the Light-You are that Light, By this Illumination, that Light is radiant within all, *Through the Guru's Teachings, the Light shines forth.*"

AHA! And there it is, staring at us in the face  I cannot remember who said it, and in which thread, but I remember reading someone having said "there is only true path of living, all others are false". The teachings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, we already know them, we have those values instilled in us from day 1. All that information we carry is staring at us in the face through Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The writing in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is what our soul tells us every single day. How to live, how to treat other people, what to focus on, what to disregard, it's all soul vs body. Your soul will be telling you the objective truth, it doesn't matter how mad you are how hurt, there will always be a part of you that knows the difference between right and wrong. Your body, or more specifically your brain, is maya, it will be acting in the interests of worldly gains and pleasures.

This "light" is jyot. Jyot is soul. Jyot is present in everything, the same way consciousness (in one way or another) is present in all beings. All of us have the same light inside of us. And it makes sense. "Ek Onkar" (One God/Truth), omnipresent, inside everything and everyone. I agree with post #7 in that thread, by Ishna Ji, more specifically this part "It's the morsel of jyot which is infused in everything. It is not unique to your personality, when YOU die, YOU die, your molecules are re-circulated into creation and your jyot is re-circulated." People attempt to personalize the soul in Sikhi. They make it sound like it carries your personality, your quirks, your interests, likes, dislikes etc... Like it is a ghost version of you that will continue on after your death, because it is comforting to believe that.

But comforting doesn't always equal true. The same light is in all. There is only one light. Likewise, we all have the same "soul". There is only one true way of living, there is only One Truth, Ek Onkar. There is nothing unique about mine or your jyots, in fact, they aren't even "mine" or "yours", they are a part of the larger Ocean, the "Universal Consciousness", Waheguru.

Guru Ji talks about this human life being special for a reason. Because although consciousness exists in all beings at some level, sentient or otherwise, only as humans are we able to go beyond the maya, the worldly desires, only as humans are we able to defeat the body and become one with our soul, the objective truth. "Connecting with Waheguru" means to follow the teachings of the Guru and allow that light, jyot, soul, to shine through.

"Merging with Waheguru", when it appears in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, is really talking about overcoming the 5 evils, defeating the maya and getting in touch with your soul, because that soul is already a part of Waheguru.

Yes, I know that the quote by Bhindranwale above talks about "conscience, not "conscious", and they have different definitions, but I feel like "conscience" is a part of the greater "conscious". My argument was that jyot=soul=consciousness. In a large part of my post, I was talking about your soul being able to distinguish between right and wrong, knowing the objective truth etc... That's why I think that conscience has a part to play in it as well. Is it really a coincidence that acts such as rape and murder are almost universally condemned? That caring for others is considered a good thing? I don't think so. But only as humans are we able to get past the maya and 5 evils to connect with it. In this respect, the idea that the jyot (light) of Waheguru is within all, is the same everywhere, we have the same "souls", are all a part of the Universal Consciousness, and our conscience is a part of it, makes sense (to me). 

One of the quotes from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji from above was "The empty body is dreadful, when the soul goes out from within", so soul=consciousness, and "conscience" falls under the umbrella of "conscious", without the soul, without the "conscience", people truly are dreadful indeed.

So just to finish, here's another quote by Seeker3k Ji:

"Most tell me that God create soul. Then it must be God who control the soul. God chose the life for us. Some one said here that we don’t have personal soul. When one die he just die that’s all. If that is the case then why we need to study the holy books and do the naam simran? If good soul and bad soul end up in same place then don’t need to waste time doing naam simran. Bani tell us to do the naam simran.???"

Well, my reply to that would be that you don't HAVE to do anything! Everyone is free to live their life the way they want to, Sikhi isn't about forcing your beliefs onto anyone else, it is about respecting individual freedoms and choices. Seeker3k Ji, if you think that Naam Simran is a waste of time, then don't do it. If you think that studying holy books is a waste of time, you are free to do something else. Every being is promised two things: a birth, and a death. Life is an ocean. All of us are going to cross it. How you get to the other side is up to you. You may go through the trouble of swimming across if you have exceptionally bad luck. You may get a canoe and try to paddle your way across on your own, although there is no guarantee that it will be a smooth journey. Line 2, Page 20 of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji says "O Nanak, the Boat of Truth will ferry you across; contemplate the Guru." This option requires you to give yourself to the Guru, get on the Gurus boat, sit back and relax. The Gurus boat has a headlight, it has a radar and a map. Come with your head in your hands. Going down the path of the Guru means that you connect with your soul/consciousness, and listen to your conscience. There is only One Truth, you must live this Truth everyday, and that is much easier said than done. The consciousness is perfect, the body is not. It is a constant battle, but the Guru, through Gurbani, gives you the shield, armor and sword you need to win the war. Whether you ever use those tools is completely up to you.

Everything is from my limited knowledge on Gurbani, apologies if I said anything contrary to Sikhi, I don't claim any of this to be true, it is really just my own personal opinion.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Ikk Khalsa (Jul 16, 2013)

Aisha Ji,

Very well said. I don't know how good your Punjabi is but I will recommend you to listen to "Professor Sarbjit Singh Dhunda" when you get a chance and I am sure you would like what he has to say about real Sikhi.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 17, 2013)

I am TRULY AMAZED...Aisha ji has hit the nail fair and square on its microscopic head !!! and some cant hit it when the head is a mile wide !!


----------



## Ikk Khalsa (Jul 17, 2013)

Gyani Ji,

As we know Aisha Ji started studying Sikhi not too long ago and she is on the right track to understand the deep concept of it. And the sad part is that our own Sikhs are still practicing Hinduism in the name of Sikhi. Below are few videos of a young Sikh preacher who I tried to talk to few times about not interpreting Gurbani literally. BTW I am not trying to bash this veerji in video because I know his intentions are right and effort is there but at the same time he is taking our younger generation on wrong path.

Can we escape reincarnation? Did the Gurus? - Question #5 - YouTube

Ghosts and Evil Spirits, do they exist? - Question #10 - YouTube

Miracles (1 of 2) - Guru Nanak in Mecca and Baghdad- Question #3 - YouTube


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 17, 2013)

Ikk Khalsa ji

I saw his face peering up at me from my gmail this morning... And I was going to post these YouTubes. Then decided not to do it because I did not want to spread his message, or help him spread his own message here at SPN.

They won't be deleted either because they do not violate TOS. We value his freedom to speak his mind, more than he values god-given bibek of questioning and  open-mindedness of anyone else.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 17, 2013)

I have also emailed him several times, using his Youtube videos to show him how he is inserting Hindutva in Sikhi when our Gurus tried to get away from it. I told him that he is distorting Gurbani and invited him to have a chat. I also offered him to express his ideas behind his videos here on SPN.

No response yet. These kinds of people are dangerous to Sikhi youth who look upon them as one of their own unlike the Babas in the Gurdwaras who are not their type.

We at SPN should make our own YouTube videos combating each of his or responding to each of his in a Sikhi manner with true Gurnat values.

Any volunteers? 

We can all pitch in to get the message right.

Let's stand our Sikhi ground for the sake of Sikhi.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Ishna (Jul 18, 2013)

I've only watched the first two of the videos posted by Ikk Khalsa Ji.  I have to say honestly now that I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.  He's appears to be speaking honestly from what he understands which is a lot compared to some other Sikhs.  I think his videos show at least a middle way and leave the door open to further thought and study.  Perhaps sat sangat jio can explain a bit more clearly what the problem is, please?


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Jul 18, 2013)

I think the soul doesn't have a 'personality' and that's how we always think of it.

So what leaves our body when we die and how can it be reincarnated?

We are like the clouds in the sky, or drops of water on a leaf or an iceberg floating in the Arctic?


----------



## Astroboy (Jul 18, 2013)

Kanwaljit Singh said:


> I think the soul doesn't have a 'personality' and that's how we always think of it.
> 
> So what leaves our body when we die and how can it be reincarnated?
> 
> We are like the clouds in the sky, or drops of water on a leaf or an iceberg floating in the Arctic?



Buddha was asked by a disciple, "I want Happiness."

Buddha replied, "Remove the "I" as it is ego,
Remove the want as it is desire,
and what remains is Happiness.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 18, 2013)

> I think the soul doesn't have a 'personality' and that's how we always think of it


 
do we have personalities as people?


Maybe personalities are a nice safe anchor that we can use to stop us drifting into wherever we wish, so in effect a personality grounds us, but does not represent us, other than how we may wish to be represented.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 18, 2013)

harry haller said:


> do we have personalities as people?
> 
> 
> Maybe personalities are a nice safe anchor that we can use to stop us drifting into wherever we wish, so in effect a personality grounds us, but does not represent us, other than how we may wish to be represented.



Thanks. You are asking one of the fundamental questions asked in the field of psychology, and the subject of more than 100 years of statistical investigation in its branches that study self-concept and personality theory. After all that time some argue personality is a relatively permanent trait; others argue that it is a transient state; yet others argue it is the way we define our "self" when we reflect on our social-interactions and the feedback we get from others. Is it real?


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 18, 2013)

I consider myself as having no personality. I happen to be quite jealous of those that have one, that are true to their selves, that continue with the facade of personality right through thick and thin, because that is who they are. If I had a personality, it would wear a suit! and a turban, and a full beard, it would be calm, kind, loving, responsible, trustworthy, always smiling, never angry, 

Reading back, I have in fact described my father, so my ideal personality is to be like my dad, I once asked my dad how hard it was to be him, and he said it was easy, because it was who he was. Well dad, I envy you, hugely, because you are one of the few genuine people who are on the outside what they are on the inside. 

For the rest of us, well, consider this, if you were the last person on earth, and there were no survivors, would you still carry this anchor round with you, or would you discard it, my money is on the latter, which then begs the question, who exactly do we personify ourselves for?

In my humble view, the only personality worth adopting is the true one. 

If there is ever a world war 3, and there is only one survivor, if the man picking his way through the rubble, is a smiling Sikh turbanned man, in his sixties, who walks around calmly, slightly bemused, stops every now and then to clean his glasses, smiles brightly and says, 'ah thats better, I can see whats going on now', well that will be my dad.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 18, 2013)

Ishna ji

Why the big fuss? For any of us who feel there is a fuss to be made, my own reaction is like that of Ikk Khalsa ji 





> Below are few videos of a young Sikh preacher who I tried to talk to few times about not interpreting Gurbani literally. BTW I am not trying to bash this veerji in video because I
> know his intentions are right and effort is there but at the same time he is taking our younger generation on wrong path.



I could do a better job of responding if I had taken the time to create a verbatim transcript of what he is saying - but literal understanding is exactly the problem. Perhaps better than "literal" is the idea of taking things at "face value."

Note the little boxed inserts along side when he speaks. Mukh=Mukhti=Muksha was one of them. One can either memorize it as a handy aide to understanding. Or one can and should say, So What? What is that supposed to mean? But we all know many Sikhs who go about popping out sayings just like that as if the saying of it equaled understanding the meaning of it. And I do not know what it is supposed to mean in light of the talk in the video. It isn't even related to it. Of course someone here might decide to explain it to me, but that would be Person X's understanding only. The throwing out of this and that expression, like a tag line for faith, is a common practice among fundamentalists in all religions. (E.g., "vengeance is mine saieth the Lord" and that sort of thing)

Another example comes into play when we are again looking at the black insert and there is talk of the charan of the Guru, specifically loving the Guru's feet. There is a deep philosophical significance to the idea of the Guru's feet in Gurbani... which goes unexplained in the video. Rather we are told that liberation comes from love of the Guru which has something or other to do, very unclear, with loving his feet. Nearly everyone will get that loving his feet should not be taken literally - Guru Granth doesn't have any feet to speak of anyway. Nearly everyone however is left scratching his/her head wondering how to make the connection.

My concern is less with the Hindutva (not really that bad actually) and more with a kind of "blurbism" ... just remember this little blurb and once all blurbs are added together you will have the basics of Sikhi. No you won't. It is as annoying as the facebook preference we can now set on searchgurbani that allows us to "Share" a tuk so our friends can "Like" a tuk. Like nano-vichaar, without the benefit of the software that puts it all together.


----------



## FranglophonePunjabi (Jul 18, 2013)

Aisha Ji,

words can not describe how thankful I am of you for creating that post. Despite being born into a Punjabi family that calls itself "Sikh", I was never taught anything about the religion and as a result I find myself today trying to learn about my own heritage, culture, history all by myself. Who were my ancestors? What made them believe in Sikhi so strongly that they decided it better to give up their lives than their faith in Guru Ji? How was a tiny minority of Punjabis able to establish an empire stretching from Tibet to Afghanistan? These are all questions I ask myself on a daily basis, and because no one in my family has much Sikh knowledge, I feel like sometimes I am walking around with a blindfold on.

Interesting Ikk Khalsa Ji that you posted videos by basicsofsikhi, that has been one of my sources of knowledge since he does everything in English. The one thing I could never bring myself to believe in though was reincarnation. It makes absolutely no sense to me from a scientific or philosophical perspective. I never believed that was what Guru Nanak Dev Ji taught, but because every source I have ever referred to always said that is what Sikhs have to believe in, I did my best to make sense of it, but to no avail.

Thank you for mentioning reincarnation in your post Aisha Ji, I was not at all aware that there was another possible way of interpreting those shabads. "Reincarnation" during this life, the way you have explained it, is exactly what I believe in, that without Guru Jis knowledge, we will always be changing between different personalities, our desires will keep changing, so one day we are somebody, tomorrow that person is dead and another one is born. But once we become grounded in Guru Jis teachings, our true self shines through and we are living a truthful life the way the Gurus intended, and the cycle ends because now we are permanently GurMukh.

And all this as a non-Sikh yourself, you are a real inspiration to me that I shouldn't let myself coming from a background where everyone is unedcated on Sikhi stop me from seeking out the answers that I want and trying to learn as much about this amazing path as I can. If you, as a Muslim, can become so knowledgable on a religion that you were not born into and is so different from everything you were brought up to believe in, if you can gain this much knowledge on Sikhi all by yourself (because reading your post, it sounds like you know A LOT), then there is no excuse for me not to do it as well! You are a real inspiration to me Aisha Ji, keep up the good work and Ramadan Mubarak


----------



## Luckysingh (Jul 18, 2013)

When it comes to personalities, it is only what we think we recognize.
A soul has all the possible personalities that can exist blended in one in my opinion.

I think that we should all dig into and try and understand these different personalities within so that we can understand more of the others around us.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 19, 2013)

harry haller said:


> do we have personalities as people?
> 
> 
> Maybe personalities are a nice safe anchor that we can use to stop us drifting into wherever we wish, so in effect a personality grounds us, but does not represent us, other than how we may wish to be represented.



Harry ji,

Guru Fateh.

Is that a trick question?

Our  personalities are as fluid as the gushing waters which  mould rocks with their power. The same waters get still as glass and form a lake before tumbling down the rocks with all their rage again.

Let me put it another way. Our personalities are like surfers. Depending on the waves we catch; our minds, balance, and mindset change in order to ride them or go through the tubes without tumbling. But nothing is guaranteed except the desire to ride another wave of life and hope to do a bit better the next time.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 19, 2013)

Soul is how we act in this world, the only one we know. Sikhi teaches us to sow the seeds of soul food within and share it with others. If we do not, we know the food goes bad very easily because after death, there is nothing left for us to do.

So, Soul is the living, breathing, falling down, slipping, dusting off, getting up and doing seva is any aspect-Us. The rest is nothing but void- total emptiness.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 19, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Harry ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



Tejwantji

What you are describing, to my mind, is something other than personality.The personality is the outward facade we show the world, most are fairly constant and predictable, the gushing waters you speak of I know well, and as per your writings, I would say you do too, but personality? Could it be the 8.4 million different personalities that we can choose to be any one of, but out of which only one, or even none, is true.

So those other personalities that nestle behind the main personality, I would say are various combinations and to various degrees of the five thieves. How we choose to act on, or live by these thieves defines our current personality.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 19, 2013)

harry haller said:


> Tejwantji
> 
> What you are describing, to my mind, is something other than personality.The personality is the outward facade we show the world, most are fairly constant and predictable, the gushing waters you speak of I know well, and as per your writings, I would say you do too, but personality? Could it be the 8.4 million different personalities that we can choose to be any one of, but out of which only one, or even none, is true.
> 
> So those other personalities that nestle behind the main personality, I would say are various combinations and to various degrees of the five thieves. How we choose to act on, or live by these thieves defines our current personality.



Harry ji,

Guru Fateh.

Do you honestly mean, your passion towards your wonderful wife, your love for your pets, your caring nature towards your customers to whom you charge less than you could have and many other parts of your amazing personality are many facades of your supposedly self?

If they are, then what are you really as a person?

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 20, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Harry ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


 

yes, I am afraid they are, merely a few of the many facades of myself.Experience and age has taught me which of the facades create a consonance, and which do not.

As a person I am whoever I wish to be, my amazing personality is nothing of the sort, I may be a madman, but even madmen have responsibilities, to animals, to people, its not quite the same as love, but to my mind, the end justifies the means.

As a person, crack open my heart and you will see a sad wolf tearing himself to pieces and smearing blood on the walls, that is who I truly am, its not a pretty sight.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Jul 22, 2013)

I was thinking what makes a personality and I wonder if it is names of Panj Pyare:

Dya
Dharam
Himmat
Mokham
Sahib

PS: If I am not wrong, the new names were given to them after baptization, right?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 22, 2013)

harry haller said:


> yes, I am afraid they are, merely a few of the many facades of myself.Experience and age has taught me which of the facades create a consonance, and which do not.
> 
> As a person I am whoever I wish to be, my amazing personality is nothing of the sort, I may be a madman, but even madmen have responsibilities, to animals, to people, its not quite the same as love, but to my mind, the end justifies the means.
> 
> As a person, crack open my heart and you will see a sad wolf tearing himself to pieces and smearing blood on the walls, that is who I truly am, its not a pretty sight.



Harry ji,

Guru Fateh.

I am sorry to say that I disagree with you and with the traits as you call them facades only if you call them different roles in our lives that we play on this revolving stage called life as facades, then I am with you. Perhaps we are using the wrong term- facade-. If we translate this into Roles, then we all play roles in our lives.We treat/play role with people whom we are passionate about in the same manner because the chemistry formed by the energy of the two unconsciously makes us do that. We can transport the same to our pets, customers, strangers and many others we come in contact with on our daily basis.

The goodness, you have cultivated within despite your wolf howlings has always been there and with the experiences of time you have been able to deepen its roots. Hence, perhaps a glimpse of its ray is shared with some and to the others, the whole lighthouse which does not warn the boats to runaway but invite them to anchor themselves there because it is safe without any jagged edges.

At times, we are capable of making even the bitterness of love into sweetness. And you do have that in you which is a rare gift you have been bestowed with. It may have been hidden under your howlings but the light of love within makes these wonderful hidden things sprout.

I'd better shut up now.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## findingmyway (Aug 3, 2013)

Aisha said:


> AHA! And there it is, staring at us in the face  I cannot remember who said it, and in which thread, but I remember reading someone having said "there is only true path of living, all others are false". The teachings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, we already know them, we have those values instilled in us from day 1. All that information we carry is staring at us in the face through Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The writing in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is what our soul tells us every single day. How to live, how to treat other people, what to focus on, what to disregard, it's all soul vs body. Your soul will be telling you the objective truth, it doesn't matter how mad you are how hurt, there will always be a part of you that knows the difference between right and wrong. Your body, or more specifically your brain, is maya, it will be acting in the interests of worldly gains and pleasures.



Aisha ji thank you for such a wonderful, thoughtful post. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it! I would like to add to the above thought. I also the battle between mind and body, and I think this week's shabad of the week is a great example. However, I don't equate brain to maya. A lot of base behaviours are nothing to do with the brain but are controlled by other parts of the central nervous system. Gurbani talks about the dasam dwar-a gateway on the top of the head. I think this refers to the brain. You also go on to talk about consciousness, which can only happen with the brain. Therefore the brain can either follow a manmukh path, being controlled by the 5 evils and the physical senses. Or it can come alive to illusion and follow a Gurmukh path. I hope that makes sense!




> One of the quotes from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji from above was "The empty body is dreadful, when the soul goes out from within", so soul=consciousness, and "conscience" falls under the umbrella of "conscious", without the soul, without the "conscience", people truly are dreadful indeed.



This for me shows the pivotal role the brain has in freeing us from illusion or keep us trapped depending on how it is used! It is a door or handcuffs.


----------



## findingmyway (Oct 7, 2017)

An additional thought, I like to differentiate between mind and brain!


----------

