The comments in this letter are very correct and although I do not know if Capt. Amarinder Singh is to be held to account for tackling such a vast problem as the endemic corruption in the Punjab, I sympathize with the stress and difficulties of the author of the letter. It is very strange that there is so much corruption in the homeland of the Sikhs when the Sikh faith and culture cherishes so highly truthfulness and honesty and honor as fundamental Sikh attributes? Corruption cannot be tolerated at any level or to any degree and those who take bribes must fear that they will really lose out by their actions to remove corruption from the Punjab.
from Gurmail Sidhu
Place: UK
Editor- The author did not state that Guru Gobind Singh believed in the Vedas. He has made an argument against such a belief.
_._._._._
Dear Editor,
Is it not a fallacy on the part of the author that Guru
Gobind Singh Somehow revered the virtues of the Vedas, when it is stated that Guru Gobind Singh wrote that he did not believe in the Koran, the Vedas or any thing or any other deity except only in Waheguru.
I appreciate the article. It is indeed a beautiful article in the same way as the language of interest. I am really impressed with the in-depth analysis and the artwork in the article. Really a
perfect scripture!
In 2004, Prof. Dharam Singh of the Department of Encyclopedia of Sikhism, Punjabi University, made some absurd statements about Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat/Sikhi) and distorted Kabir’s hymn in his “Keynote Speech” at a seminar in Canada. This speech was published under the title “The Sikh Spirit And The Global Society (Keynote Speech)” in Understanding Sikhism Res. J. 2005, 7(1), 7-10.
In his speech he claimed that “Sikhism not only acknowledges and appreciates other faiths; it accepts their equal validity as well. The very fact that Sikhism is not an evangelizing religion and that it exhorts Hindus to become true Hindus and Muslims to become true Muslims, indicates the Sikh attitude of acceptance and tolerance toward other traditions.” However, he did not cite Gurbani to support his claims. Instead, he turned to Kabir’s hymn “Bed Kteb kaho mat jhoothe jhootha jo na bicharai (AGGS, p.1350)” and distorted its meaning to suite his purpose.
Dr. Sarjeet Sidhu of Malaysia in his brilliant analysis of Dharam Singh’s speech dealt in a superb manner the explosive issue of “political correctness” and the misinterpretation of Kabir’s hymns and other erroneous statements of Dharam Singh. Sidhu’s article “Being Political Correct” was published in Understanding Sikhism Res. J. 2005, 7(2), 33-36 and on SikhSpectrum (www.sikhspectrum.com, November 2005). In my commentary I applauded Dr. Sidhu and elaborated on Dharam Singh’s hypocrisy and distortion of Sikhism (Feedback, www.sikhspectrum.com, November 2005 and Abstracts of Sikh Studies, 2006, 8(1), 125-28.)
Prof. Dharam Singh has not responded either to Dr. Sidhu’s article or my commentary so far. Maybe, he is also following what is called McLeodian strategy: to ignore the critics and the evidence and to continue distorting Sikhism!
Now, in his article “Concept and Tradition of Martyrdom in Sikhism” he has quoted only Kabir’s hymn “gagan damama bajio pario nisane ghao. …” from Aad Guru Granth Sahib to explain the concept of martyrdom in Sikhism. However, His favorite source of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat/Sikhi) seems to be the Dasam Granth and he puts words in Guru Gobind Singh’s mouth without any hesitation or qualms. He calls “Bachitra Natak” Guru Gobind Singh’s autobiography and makes him author of “Chandi Charitra” and the hymn that starts with “mitar piare nu hal murida da kahina”.
Now one would expect that a professor of Sikh Studies keep up with current research on Aad Guru Granth Sahib and spurious literature like Dasam Granth. It seems that Prof. Dharam Singh has either ignored or is not aware of Pricipal Harbhajan Singh and Daljit Singh’s essays on Dasam Granth or Giani Bhag Singh’s Dasam Granth Darpan (Dasam Granth Nirnai) , 1976 or Professor Harinder Singh Mehboob’s critical analysis of Bachittar Natak in Sehje Rachio Khalsa, 1988 or Gurbakhash Singh Kala Afghana’s Bachittar Natak Gurbani Di Kasvuti Te, 1999 or many other articles on Dasam Granth and Bachittar Natak including my article “Bachittar Natak: A Strange Drama” published on the SikhSpectrum (www.sikhspectrum.com, February, 2005) and in Sikh Visra, January 2005, pp. 52-57.
For the sake of brevity let me briefly comment on his three citations. Bachittar Natak repudiates the teachings of Aad Guru Granth Sahib, makes mockery of Guru Gobind Singh’s “Nash Doctrine” and is full of absurd, chimeric, illogical and historically untenable statements. For example, the writer of Bachittar Natak claims in chapter 7: “My parents went on a pilgrimage to the eastern country to bathe at holy places. When they reached Tirbeni, they gave alms and donations for many days. As a consequence of their good deeds, my mother was blessed with me in her womb, at this place. Then they went to Patna where I was born.”
Here the writer contradicts his earlier statement in chapter 6: “When I was meditating on Mahankal (Shiv Ji) and Kalika (goddess Kali) on a snow covered mountain, Hem Kunt, my parents were praying to the Formless One (alakh) while practicing various Yogic disciplines/exercises. When God was pleased with them, He ordered me to take birth in the age of Kalijug.”
In chapter 13 the writer claims that the Mughal rulers had cordial relationship with the Sikh Gurus who approved of the Mughal rulers and as quid pro quo the latter respected and supported the former:
“God Himself created the successors of Baba Nanak and Babur. Recognize the former as spiritual and the latter as temporal sovereign. The successors of Babur severely punished and looted the property of those who failed to tithe the house of Nanak. When these penniless wretched ones begged Sikhs for help, the Mughals looted the Sikhs who helped them.”
From the above it is quite obvious that the writer was an apologist for the Mughals, and appears to be one of those who sang paeans to the Mughal rulers “Eeshwarro va Dilishwaro va, (The emperor of Delhi is as great as God).”
Moreover, either the writer was ignorant of Babur Bani (Guru Nanak’s composition about Babur’s invasion) and Sikh history or he indulged in gross distortion of both. For example, Guru Nanak denounced the invasion and atrocities committed by Babur’s forces. It is astonishing that the writer did not know the fact that the Mughal rulers executed Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur. And the Mughals committed unspeakable atrocities on the Sikhs and there was a bloody struggle between Mughals and the Sikhs that lasted for almost half a century until the victory of the Sikhs.
Chandi Chritra Ukti Bilas, is a metrical version of a Chapter of Markandeyapurana called Durgasaptasati in (Brij/Braj Bhasha). Does the Professor find the contents of “Chandi Chritra Ukti Bilas” consistent with Gurmat/Sikhi? Would he kindly explain what siva in “deh siva baru mohi ihai subh karman te kabahun na taron” stands for in Markandeyapurana/Durgasaptasati? If he thinks that it is the work of Guru Gobind Singh then what is the evidence and what was the need or reason for Guru Gobind Singh to write it?
Once again, does he find the contents of the hymn “mitar piare nu hal murida da kahina? …” compatible with Gurmat/Sikhi? Is the language of this hymn is the “Punjabi spoken during the time of Guru Gobind Singh?” Through whom the writer is sending his message to his Beloved (mitar)? What do “bhath Kherian da” and “yarare da sathar” mean in this hyman?
I hope that Professor Dharam Singh will respond to these questions.
It is not normal to sell your own child. What kind of mother will do that? If you know you can’t take care of your own child then don’t have children.
This article made me very angry and emotional.
First, I am most concerned with the truth of what Guru Nanak wrote: does he or does he not believe in transmigration? I have been a Sikh for almost 25 years and have never encountered anyone whose opinion was that Guru Nanak did not believe in transmigration.
So, to make a minor point, it is hard to criticize McLeod for thinking
what virtually the entire Sikh community believes, namely, that Guru Nanak believes in transmigration. (For example, Cole and Sambhi, The Sikhs, describes Guru Nanak's belief in transmigration, as does The Hutchinson Enclyclopedia of Living Faiths, as, does, well, everyone except you, as far as I am aware).
To make a more important point: if there is no soul, then what is
there? I am left confused as to what Guru Nanak taught. I will re-read
your article carefully, but could you tell me more? This is certainly a
crucial point.
As a non-Indian, I find it boring that whenever a Sikh
disagrees with someone else's opinion they cry conspiracy. To the
observer, this weakens your credibility. I find it tedious and
frustrating that critics of McLeod and his so-called adherents fail to
distinguish between questioning whether there is sufficient historical
evidence to verify a belief and questioning the belief itself.
For example, no historian will ever agree that Jesus rose from the dead. According to historians, that isn't possible, and so it is not an
historical fact. This opinion of historians is absolutely of no concern
to Christians, nor should it be. If McLeod or anyone else wants to
suggest that there is insufficient historical evidence that Guru Gobind
Singh passed Guruship to Siri Guru Granth Sahib, I welcome his opinion as an historian and find that interesting. Meantime, there is not sufficient historical evidence to prove McLeod's theory, nor does he suggest there is. He is speculating and offering his opinions. Why should we be concerned about an historian's opinion?
As educated people, when we see it for what it is, it offers no offense to our traditions nor any cause to even question them. We all agree that Siri Guru Granth Sahib is the perpetual and living Guru--let historians speculate how that came to be all they like. I have faith in the Sikh tradition in this most essential respect and so should the authors! Meantime, if they don't like someone's scholarship, please do better research and write their own scholarly papers. That would be far more constructive.
It was really very sad on the part of the author to criticize such a great personality, who sacrificed his life for the independence of
India and who also fought for Sikh rights. We salute Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh jee.
- Tarandeep Singh
I am responding to the good letter of....
-G.B. Singh, USA
from G.B. Singh
Place: USA
Dear Editor,
I am responding to the good letter of Sat Kartar Singh Khalsa of Canada that starts with "As a non-Indian."
I understand the points he is raising and they are valid to an extent. However, the circumstances surrounding McLeod needs careful scrutiny. If McLeod was a lone voice, I could afford to ignore him and I might be tempted to say he should be ignored. Unfortunately, the reality is a different one: there is an "army" of McLeodian scholars who are bent upon promoting their vested agendas. The latest assault is a book by Prof. Doris Jakobsh of Canada portraying the Sikh Gurus as anti-woman. Yes you can ignore all of this and close your eyes and pretend as if there is nothing to be concerned. Somehow, I believe that strategy might not work here and will in all probability convey a wrong message to McLeod and his associates. Whether Jesus rose from the dead or not is an irrelevant issue--that being purely a mythology. Sikh Gurus and Sikh religion are not a mythology.
In the scholarship arena and with all due respect, it is perfectly okay to probe these people and their works, and if applicable, bring forth the underlying currents that have prompted these "historians" to the task at hand.
- GB Singh
I am not the only one....
-Baldev Singh, USA
from Baldev Singh
Place: USA
Dear Sat Kartar Singh Khalsa,
I am not the only one, but numerous others who have studied Aad Guru Granth Sahib
(AGGS) have concluded that Guru Nanak rejected “karma and transmigration”. Moreover, to understand this question one needs to understand the relationship between the atrocious and dehumanizing Varna Ashrama Dharma/ Caste system and “karma and transmigration”, which were invented to justify the former. Reverend McLeod admits that Guru Nanak rejected the Caste system. So, if Guru Nanak rejected the Caste system then why would he accept its justification?
The only authentic source of Nankian philosophy (Gurmat/Sikhi) is the sacred hymns (bani) of AGGS. What you have read or quoted in your letter is the interpretation of Nankian philosophy by British colonists, Christian missionaries, Westerners and Bipran — the opponents of Nanakian philosophy— Udasis and Nirmalas and, the proponents of Caste ideology. Have you read The Sikh Revolution by Jagjit Singh and Sikhism: A Comparative Study of its Theology and Mysticism by Daljeet Singh?
Last year Colonel GB Singh debated Biblical God, soul and heaven with Reverend Zekveld on SikhSpectrum.com. I have added my commentary to this debate and finally I combined my pieces into an article: “A Comparison of Two Credos: Christian and Sikh.” I wrote this article on basis of bani (sacred hymns) of AGGS. Quoting various verses I have demonstrated very clearly that AGGS rejects incarnation of God, transmigrantion, Hindu view of karma and, Biblical God, soul and heaven and miracles. This article is archived on SikhSpectrum (May 2006). I have also written a detailed article “W. H. McLeod’s interpretation of Guru Nanak’s Bani). This article is also archived on SikhSpectrum (February 2006). I urge you to read these articles and then point out what is wrong with my interpretation. My articles are solely based on the AGGS.
Moreover, AGGS rejects earlier religious traditions and all the essentials of Hinduism (Sangat Singh, The Sikhs in History, New Delhi: Uncommon Books, fourth edition, 2001, p. 19. J. S. Grewal, The Sikhs of the Punjab, New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 31. Jagjit Singh, The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View, New Delhi: Bahri Publications, 4th reprint, 1998, pp. 104-105.)
Nanakian philosophy is based on logic, not on faith, Guru Nanak urges us to use critical (discerning intellect) in every walk of life.
I would urge you to read my article “ Understanding W. H. McLeod and his Work on Sikhism” published on the SikhSpectrum, August 2005 (archived).
If you like, I can e-mail these articles to you. Please read what AGGS says, not what others have written based on unreliable secondary and tertiary information?
In my correspondence with McLeod, I pointed out to him that there are numerous verses in the AGGS, which make it abundantly clear that our current life is the only chance to become a sachiara (gurmukh, to understand and realize God). According to “karma and transmigration” there could be many chances, theoretically unlimited. He refused to debate the issue. So, please read my article on McLeod and his scholarship. I am willing to debate what I write on the basis of Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS).
- Baldev Singh
It is not a question only of McLeod....
-Baldev Singh, USA
from Baldev Singh
Place: USA
Dear Sat Kartar Singh Khalsa,
It is not a question only of McLeod, there are many like him whose agenda is to cast doubt on the uniqueness of Nanakian philosophy and the “independent Sikh identity”. Moreover, if they were genuine scholars or ethical professionals, I would not question their scholarship.
Take a look at the following example from page 70 of McLeod’s “Exploring Sikhism”, published in 2000. “The questions ‘Was Guru Nanak the founder of Sikhism?’ and ‘Is Sikhism a variety of Hinduism?’ are misleading because the answers have to be both yes and no.”
Now do you think that this is the statement of a genuine scholar or a missionary who wants to cast doubts on the uniqueness of Nanakian philosophy and the “independent Sikh identity”? During the days of slavery and colonization, missionaries used to be blunt in ridiculing and denigrating native religions, however, nowadays, due to changed circumstances, their intent is still the same but tactics are different like—casting doubt about validity of other religions.
I would like you to read my article “Understanding W. H. McLeod and His Work on Sikhism” archived on SikhSpectrum.com (August 2005) and www.globalsikhstudies.net.
I would be glad to answer the questions you may have about the article. Let me state briefly. Neither McLeod’s thesis’ supervisor nor advisers had knowledge about Guru Nanak or Sikh Religion or Punjabi language. The examiners approved the thesis without even reading the entire thesis. His thesis was on Guru Nanak and his teachings. Do you consider it genuine research? My article deals with his fraudulent research and unethical behavior. This article would help you to understand why I wrote the article about Endowed Sikh Chairs at Western universities.
- Baldev Singh
Where did I criticize Bhai....
-Baldev Singh, USA
from Baldev Singh
Place: USA
Dear Tarandeep Singh,
Where did I criticize Bhai Randhir Singh’s personality or undermine his sacrifice for the independence of India? I published an analysis of his writings and his interpretation of Gurbani. Please read my article again carefully! Could you point out anything in my article, which is not Bahi Sahib’s writing or my misinterpretation of his writings. I would urge you to read the books yourself, particularly, Undithi Dunia, which I purposely left out, as it is too much for any person with common sense to swallow. SikhSpectrum published the short version of my article; the full article was published in Sikh Virsa. If you would like to read the full article, I would gladly e-mail it to you.
I have been reading SikhSpectrum online. I have noticed the following lines "Guru Nanak rejected all the essentials of Hinduism like incarnation of God, hell and heaven, transmigration, caste system and karma,” in an article named "A Comparison Between the Two Credos: Christian and Sikh Rejoinder to Rev. Tony Zekveld by Baldev Singh, published in issue number 22, November 2005.
I am learning about my religion Sikhism. I have always believed Sikhism supports reincarnation (transmigration of souls). I enjoyed the article but I can't accept the fact that Sikhism doesn't support reincarnation. I have just read today’s (5/Sept/2006) hukumnama from Sikhnet website and the following lines indicate mentioning of reincarnation.
"Be kind to me, O Purifier of sinners; I am so tired of wandering through reincarnation. Prays Nanak, I am the slave of the Lord; God is the Support of my soul, and my breath of life. || 2 || "
Samvat 538 Nanakshahi Page 547 Guru Granth Saheb.
Can you please shed some light on this topic or guide me towards sources that can? Many thanks in advance.
I agree with Dr. Baldev Singh that Sikh religion does not believe in any
form of reincarnation. Whatever we do in this life/world, we are
responsible as Gurbaani advises us - As you sow, so shall you reap. It
means from Birth to Death.
Gurbaani quoted from Bihagraa Mahla Fifth, Page 547 - Guru Granth Sahib
does not support the theory of reincarnation. Said Stanza 2 says: O True
Lord! We are very poor people just like hungry beggars, whereas the
Almighty God is our greatest Benefactor. We are always engrossed in the
worldly pleasures. We pray and seek God's Refuge. We remain entangled in
worldly falsehood like attachment, greed and egoism so much that we commit
so many errors. The Almighty God is free from all such bondage. We have to
face the consequences of our deeds, good or bad. We are now completely
tired and fed up by roaming around in doubts and dual-mindedness and the
mind is also upset. By virtue of his Divine light through Mahla Fifth,
Guru Nanak says: I am a humble devotee of the True Lord, the Support of
all human beings and other creatures. Accordinly I pray for God's Grace.
We ourselves have seen that as soon as a person breathes his/her last or say
dies, that is the end of life of that person forever. But if he/she has
rendered good service during the life time, he/she is ever remembered by
the world, which means we remember his/her good teachings and try to follow them
to elevate our own life.
My humble request is that we should try to comprehend the complete Shabd
rather than picking one or two lines. If anyone has made more in-depth
study of Guru Granth Sahib, that scholar should share his/her views by
explaining the complete Shabd.
This is a note to Raman Singh Dhanoa. He said that Sikhs do not believe in
transmigraiton of the soul, but why does it say then in the Guru Granth
Sahib "I am so tired of wandering through reincarnation."
I think that it is not referring to the actual process but to the religion
that believes in it. Sikhs do not admit to reincarnation, but say to Waheguru, I wish to
embrace Sikhism to dismiss views such as transmigration
because "I am so tired of wandering through [the fear of] reincarnation."
Perhaps this makes more sense?
Although the book provides a pretty good narrative on Sikh history,
numismatically the book does not provide enough information on Sikh
coinage as the name suggests. The various mints, the reason for
introducing the symbol of the leaf on the coins, the various symbols on
Sikh coins, the way mints for Sikh coins were organised etc. are several
isuues which remain unattended.
-Gurprit Singh
Owner: Sikh Coins group on Yahoo Groups.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SikhCoins/
I am not a supporter of anything that breaks Panjab from India. I am very proud to
be an Indian first and then a Panjabi or a Jat or a Majhail. If my country
needs me anytime, I will be the first person to leave USA and be there
whereever India needs me. But at the same time the way these majority
Governments are trying to govern Sikhs is not acceptable.I dont go with
whole ideology of Mr.Mann but he made a good case that sikhs should have
thier own personal law. And I promise within the framework of the constitution
we will fight for rights and not surrender like Badal. Mr. Mann I
will support any cause but not any sepratist movement like
Khalistan. We need to rise to the occassion and work for the next
generations to come, and they should be proud of what we did for them. We
sikhs are not separtists, we are nationalists from our bone, but we need
our own laws, no matter if they are going to be more or less like Hindu Laws, But we
need our laws. In the end I want to tell you I was a attorney in India in the
District Court, Amritsar for five years. Again, I realy appreciate your and
Mr.Tur's approach. Thanks again for a voice for Sikhs in the Parliament.
The reincarnation theory is deeply embedded in the pysche of common sikh
populace.
Since most of the preachers/pracharaks have toed this line only, so it
becomes imperative
that people(including me) regard this belief as true.
The problem lies in the fact we find it difficult to question those whom we
feel are enlighted in the light of Gurbani.
Their dominance on our minds is more out of fear of our lack of
knowledge/values rather than their own virtues.
Once a throught is echoed repeatedly, it becomes difficult for a person to
think otherwise.
So I would requested scholars like Dr. Baldev Singh and others to come up
with more articles/literature of this natue,
and let the masses delibrate their old view in the light of new thought.
This is in response to Dr. Baldev Singh's views on reincarnation. In support of his views he has quoted the Slok by Guru Angad Sahib on page 1243 of AGGS which gives many aspects of Hindu belief namely paap, pun, narak, surg, avtar, high and low castes and clarifies that these are the result of bharam or delusion. But the learned Dr has tried to link these particularly reincarnation (avtar)and caste system. The Gurmat teaching is that those who do good deeds do not take birth again and merge back into the Source. We are reminded of this in Sohila every night "Ihaa Khaat---- Jaa kau---Bahur na hoi--" Page 13,(Take benefit of this life and be comfortable in the hereafter--Acquire what you took this birth for, by following the teaching of the Guru; you will then not be subjected to rebrith).
Reincarnation is emphasized thus: "Jumi jumi marai mrai pir
jumai. baht sajaey paya des lumay" page 1020, (the person who is subjected to reincarnations is born again and again, dies and is born again; suffers long while going through these cycles).
There is thus no consideration for caste or any thing else it is only
one's deeds which determine one, fate. On caste Gurmat is very clear e.g. "janhu jot n poocho jaati aagay jaat na hay" page 349.(Identify the light within all; do not ask the caste; caste is not recognized in God's court. The Hindus may believe that one is born into a caste as per his deeds; Gurmat takes no note of it. As the leaned Dr has rightly said reincarnation and Karma go side by side they are a reality as per Gurmat; disregard for caste is clear.
The learned Dr has also brought in the question of evolution. Yes Gurmat accepts the concept of evolution but it it far different from that of Darwin according to whom nothing was created. The leaned Dr has echoed this view by saying that everything originated and evolved from a profoundly simple life. But this is only an echo, because being a Sikh he has not forgotten the origin part. It may be revealing to many that Darwin in his book The Origin of Species talks only of evolution; there is nothing on origin although the title of the book indicates origin.
Dr. Baldev Singh has talked also of the Creator. The concept of the Creator is anathema for the Creationists. Guru Nanak summed up the whole concept of creation and evolution in one hymn when he said "Keeta pasaau Eko kavaao, tis te hoi lakh dariaao" page 3. (Everything was created by a single command; then evolved into millions of streams). So it is clear that evolution takes place taking the creation as the starting point.
The letter by Mr. Rawel Singh needs a whole lot of clarifications and I am afraid I can’t do it here. It seems he has not read my answer to Raman Singh Dhanoa about reincarnation posted on the SikhSpectrum.com (Feedback, August 2006). Besides, he quotes the literal translation of a single verse in support of his views without regard to the integrated message of the entire Aad Guru Granth Sahib. A single verse should be quoted only if the meaning is very clear and obvious. Let me state briefly my understanding of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) in response to Rawel Singh’s letter.
1. Nanakian philosophy is about the transformation of a human being into a gurmukh (sachiara, Godlike), which is the primary purpose of human life.
2. God is Immanent as well as Transcendent. Cosmos is the Immanent manifestation of God, and cosmos is continuously evolving/changing. Now what is Transcendent? Transcendent is that which pervades everywhere: It is God-consciousness or Hukam (Cosmic Law or Divine Law).
3. Soul, according to Guru Nanak, is not a separate entity; it is the Transcendent One Itself
4. Guru Nanak made it clear that nothing dies in terms of physics. On the physical death of a person, the elements that constitute the body are recycled in the Immanent, manifestation of God. The Transcendent (Soul) that pervades everywhere remains unchanged. Now let us look at what Guru Nanak says about death.
The body is made of earth (various elements) and it is the breath (air) that makes it alive. O wise one, try to understand who has died here? The body and the air it breathed are still here. It is consciousness that has died along with disputes caused by Haumai (self-centredness). The One Who (God, Atma) watches (takes care of all) does not die.
AGGS, M 1 p. 152
It is remarkable that the modern medical sciences define death of a living being as the loss of consciousness.
The Creator neither increases nor decreases in totality
AGGS, M 1, p. 9
And according to Einstein, Energy and Mass are interchangeable, but the sum total of the two remains constant.
After death some bodies are burnt, some are buried and some are left to be devoured by animals/birds (dogs). Some are thrown in water while others are thrown in a dry well. There is no evidence where the so-called “soul” goes after these different methods of disposal of the dead body, opines Nanak.
AGGS, M 1, p. 648
Neither the Jio (Soul) dies, nor It transmigrates. The One, Who has created the cosmos, also controls its working.
AGGS, M 1, p. 151
One earns what one does here, do not believe that the benefits of deeds performed in the current life will be rewarded in the next world.
AGGS, M 1, pp. 729-730
Moreover, in my article I have quoted many verses that emphasize that our present life is the only chance to realize God (to become a sachiara -- gurmukh, Godlike). Whereas according to the doctrine of reincarnation there could be many chances, theoretically unlimited. Besides I quoted verses that challenge the Karma theory.
5. I do not think that the Rawel Singh is fully aware of the Varna Ashrama Dharma/caste system. The Caste System along with the karma and transmigration (reincarnation) constitutes the three external pillars of the caste system arranged on a hierarchical pyramid structure. In other words, both Karma and reincarnation are part of the invented trilogy and they both are designed to justify the caste base. My understanding is that Gurus did not debate with masses on their beliefs or their own thoughts, instead they urged them again and again to live truthful lives and not to worry about hell or heaven or life after death. On the other hand the Guru debated with the learned people like Pandits, Mullahs, Qazis and yogis.
Before Guru Nanak there was no Punjabi literature in prose or poetry except for the couplets of Baba Farid. So Guru Nanak used the terminologies of other religions and the language that was spoken in Punjab and the adjoining areas during his time. However, the meaning of religious terminology in his hymns is often not the same as in other religions and the same is true of the vocabulary he used to explain his thoughts.
Rawel Singh says, “Slok by Guru Angad Sahib on page 1243 of AGGS which gives many aspects of Hindu belief namely paap, pun, narak, surg, avtar, high and low castes and clarifies that these are the result of bharam or delusion.”
In this hymn Guru Angad makes it clear that hell and heaven, karma and transmigration, caste and gender inequality are man-made concepts, the teachings of Vedas. A million dollar question! you need to ask is this: If there is no hell or heaven then where does one “reincarnate” after death?
Then Rawel Singh quotes two verses to support his belief in reincarnation. “We are reminded of this in Sohila every night "Ihaa Khaat----Jaa kau---Bahur na hoi--" Page 13, (Take benefit of this life and be comfortable in the hereafter--Acquire what you took this birth for, by following the teaching of the Guru; you will then not be subjected to rebirth.)
In Sohlia, the union of a gurmukh with God is depicted in the imagery of a Punjabi wedding resulting in union of the couple. Rawel Singh would agree with me that gurmukh is jiwan-mukta (a liberated being). So the union of a gurmukh with God is in the present life. Besides his interpretation of the verse is a reflection of the deep impact of the Vedantic or Brahmanical thinking. Let us examine the verses he has quoted:
In this stanza, Guru Arjan urges the audience to make the present life successful. Successful life according to Gurmat means becoming a gurmukh. To understand the words like “aagai” and “phera” one should not focus on their literal meaning, rather understand them from the angle of Gurmat/Sikhi. “Past” does not mean previous life; it means the time span from present back to the time of birth. Similarly “future” (aagai) does not mean life-after-death; it means time span between the present and the approaching death. Words like phera, avai javi mean spiritual death and rebirth and, they apply to a manmukh who is caught up in duality. Similarly "Jumi jumi marai mrai pir jumai baht sajaey paya des lumay, page 1020,” does not mean cycle of birth and death (reincarnation); it means spiritual death (moral degradation) and spiritual regeneration (moral life) that most human beings experience during their lifetime.
The evolution described in AGGS is the same as the evolution described by Darwin. Rawel Singh must know that whatever happens in the cosmos is subject to Hukam and nothing is beyond it and it is immutable. Darwin’s evolution is also the product of Hukam. Darwin’s understanding of creationism was strictly from the Bible and the theory of evolution is un-Biblical. Creationism from the Bible perspective is not the same as from AGGS. We must be careful when we use these terms. More likely such usages without qualifications end up confusing the readers.
Interesting....