I read the article on Nanakian philosophy and found it both interesting and informative. It is amazing given the time it was written to find someone who clearly spoke out about the evils of the caste system, poverty, discrimination against women, hypocrisy of most spiritual leaders, (especially those who live off the hard work of others), meaningless rituals, belief in the soul and afterlife, etc. His theme of universal humanism was truly revolutionary for the 16th century. Nanak obviously was a man well ahead of his time.
The only problem I had was with his theological discussions which I found vague and somewhat contradictory. Specifically, I get the impression that god is being defined as something with conscious intelligence, hence a being of some sort. Although Baldev Singh asserts that the term “god” is “strictly confined within the context and framework of naturalism,” reading the actual words of Nanak makes it difficult for me to draw the same conclusion. Nanak writes about an “infinite”, “invisible” and “creative” god made manifest through his cosmic law. He uses terms like omnipotent, omnipresent, merciful, loving, forgiving, etc. Guru Arjan writes that the world is a “creation of the Creator.” Such terms are attributes of conscious beings but not Nature. Nature, i.e., the universe (or universes), just “is.” Nature is a physical process involving matter and energy, not a being. It has no consciousness, no intentions, no abstract attributes.[1]
Also, Nanak’s concept of Cosmic Law seems to imply both the laws of science and morality, the latter much like the Natural Law concept of Christianity. Although humans should seek to the extent possible to live in harmony with nature (cosmic law?), unlike every other species we actively shape nature to our ends which sometimes results in conflict with other aspects of nature. Every time we domestic an animal, cut down a tree, protect ourselves against a typhoon or flood, cultivate land, etc., – in short, build a civilization, we are altering nature to serve our ends. Of course, it could be agued that if we consider ourselves just another, more intelligent animal, then we are doing what every animal does, attempting to use our natural capabilities to ensure the survival of our species.
What I take away from Baldev Singh’s work is a sense that he has interpreted Nanak’s writings to be more in line with modern thought, especially regarding science. I have no problem with this as I believe all ideas should be modified and shaped in terms of the knowledge and needs of the modern day. This is what the late Benazir Bhutto tried to accomplish for Islam in her book, “Reconciliation,” which reinterprets the Koran in terms of the modern day knowledge and needs.
In summary, although I might not be persuaded in every respect of Singh’s interpretation of Nanak’s writings, I think his philosophy would do much to avoid the pitfalls of so many other theologies and philosophies. If I ever write another book about religion I would take care to cast the naturalistic Nanakian philosophy in a very positive light. It certainly is a humanist view that would avoid all the horrible consequences of most religious motivated philosophies.
Warmest regards,
-Joe Daleiden
[1] (My study of physics indicates the physical universe (or universes) probably have no beginning and no end even though life and many of the physical processes now occurring may end . The term Big Bang was an unfortunate choice of words since it seems to imply a sudden beginning but this is not true. All mathematical models of the universe break down when run backward to a period known as “Plank Time.” The term “singularity” is often expressed in the popular press as a very tiny object. Actually it is a mathematical result of the relativistic equations which indicates that at a certain point they no longer hold true. There are many new theories being explored in an attempt to explain what caused the process of the sudden expansion of the universe and I have no doubt that physicists will come up with new theories which better explain the universe(s). Whether or not we will ever understand what caused the “creation” of our universe is problematic and it may take centuries before physics solves that question.
I am very grateful to Baldev Singh for writing a composite anthropological picture of Punjab and India comprising cultural, political and religious aspects of the society as seen from the eyes of Guru Nanak.This is a very important historical source by Guru Nanak as there is hardly any contemporary historical record that tells us the condition of the society living at different strata. I also find the part of paper which deals with "Haumai" very interesting. I have so far found “Haumai” a special concept proposed by Guru Nanak in explaining human psyche. I couldn’t find the mention of Haumai from the Indian Scriptures or Sufi writings. They mostly mention Kaam, Krodh, Lobh, Moh, Hankaar but not in a pentad. I tried to search Bhagats also but I couldn’t find any explanation or detail mention of this concept such as “Haumai”.
Bhagats such as Kabir has used "Hau" and "Mai" in a positivist self meaningful sense but not in the same as in conception of Guru Nanak's (SGGS, p.325).
Many Tikakaara have interpreted the above as Haumai and not Hau and Mai as separate. This problems might have come because of Larivaar and Padshed compilations.I also couldn't find where Bhagat Kabir has discussed this concpet in details. He sure has mentioned hankaar many times. It seems that Sikh Gurus have used the word "Haumai" a combination of two words "Hau" and "Mai"to address the human instincts. From reading Gurbani it seems that Hau or Haumai is like an imaginary paradox within the instinctual human mind. Serious look needs to be given at the work of Gurbani Tikakaars whose translations are widely available to the general Sikhs and more work needs to be done in this direction. I am agreement with the article for the most part and it was an interesting read. However, I don’t think we can call Gurmat or Sikhi a Nanakian Philosophy since it is not something about Nanak.
In the article on Khajurao temples by Zoya Zaidi, does the seduction of Hemawati by the “Moon god” sanctify the subjugation of women through manipulation and deceit?
In response to Yogider Sikand's article on war-torn Kashmir, I want to pose a question to the author. Why do both Hindus and Muslims fail to question the State-sponsored religiosity by the Indian Government in the form of Hindu pilgrimages?
This article clearly points to the need to improve Islam's tarnished image
in the world. This responsibility lies with the Muslims to express and
educate openly about the emphasis of peace, justice, and equality rather
than a radical view justifying violence, oppression,and inequality.
Balwant Singh Dhillon does not mention that Rajput kings killed
the Sikh epresentatives who had gone to them with a message from Banda
Singh. This finds mention in the Sikh Twareekh by Dr. Harjinder Singh
Dilgeer. Either Dr. Dhillon has not read the book or he wrote this article
before the publication of Sikh Twareekh in 5 volumes.
I am thankful to Joe Daleiden for his comments on “Nanakian Philosophy (Gurmat): The Path of Enlightenment, and I also appreciate very much the questions he has raised as this would help in clarifying the concept of God in Nanakian philosophy: “Although Baldev Singh asserts that the term “god” is “strictly confined within the context and framework of naturalism,” reading the actual words of Nanak makes it difficult for me to draw the same conclusion. Nanak writes about an “infinite”, “invisible” and “creative” god made manifest through his cosmic law. He uses terms like omnipotent, omnipresent, merciful, loving, forgiving, etc. Guru Arjan writes that the world is a “creation of the Creator.” Such terms are attributes of conscious beings but not Nature. Nature, i.e., the universe (or universes), just “is.” Nature is a physical process involving matter and energy, not a being. It has no consciousness, no intentions, no abstract attributes.”
Under the heading “God” and in the Conclusion I have stated that Guru Nanak rejected supernaturalism and earlier concepts of God. For Guru Nanak “God” is Cosmos (visible) and Cosmic Law (Hukam) (invisible) that pervades the Cosmos. And it is Cosmic Law that is the “Creator”, and it is in this aspect, that God is infinite, invisible, omnipotent and omnipresent. Further in the Conclusion I have made it clear that to bring this God in the realm of human understanding, Guru Nanak has describes God as Knowledge and Truth. It is on this aspect of God that he wanted people to contemplate all the time.
In other words Guru Nanak wanted people to make Knowledge and Truth as the center of consciousness or thought process. For the advancement of universal liberty, equality, justice, peace and harmony, he
proclaimed that God is without enmity and non-retributive
and embodiment of virtues such as enlightenment, love,
compassion, generosity, kindness and forgiveness.
This is in regards to Harmeet Singh's comment published in the feedback section. Harmeet wrote, "In the article on Khajurao temples by Zoya Zaidi, does the seduction of Hemawati by the “Moon god” sanctify the subjugation of women through manipulation and deceit?".
The answer is, of course, it does not! But, that is how the legend goes. I think the legend is more to establish the descent of the Chandella Kings from the Moon God (hence the name Chandravarman) than to sanctify the subjugation of women through manipulation. One does not know whether Hemwati herself fell for the Moon God or let herself be seduced. But, as far as legends go, they are usually spread with a hidden motive behind them, and this could be one of them, who knows? I thank him for his comments.
Welcome to the SikhSpectrum. I read your response and I really appreciate your interest in Sikhi,(Sikhism). In response to your valid question regarding Naturalism and God, I would like to share with you what Sikhi has to say about this.
Naturalism derives its laws from an inductive observation. Progress in Science is based upon falsification of the present. Falsification is the key to progress here. But, does falsification of something ensures the truth? It is hard to say since the approach is to falsify. In Sikhi, there is another element beside reasoning and that is Perception. Perception is quite different in a sense that it is the producer of reasoning and its type. Reasoning is found amongst all living species and is used for their survival. Humans may reason better than others but Perception is something that dictates how our reasoning functions, what conclusions we end up with and ultimately how we put them in our life.
As you see, Gurbani is not written in only one specific type of reasoning or prose. It is not illogic, but Non-logic at many times in order to stimulate and expand our Perceptions. I think the purpose to write this in a non-prose format is to NOT perceive the meaning of life or God in a reductionist way. In response to your question, I would like to share couple of lines from Gurbani here. Recently, I was also puzzled by things that why do we believe that universe was created out of something. I believe that we think like it because our minds demand that kind of questioning. Gurbani tells us,
What was that time, and what was that moment? What was that day, and what was that date?
What was that season, and what was that month, when the Universe was created?
The Pandits, the religious scholars, cannot find that time, even if it is written in the Puraanas.
That time is not known to the Qazis, who study the Koran.
The day and the date are not known to the Yogis, nor is the month or the season.
The Creator who created this creation-only He Himself knows.
I don’t see anywhere Gurbani claiming that it knows when universe was created. It is agnostic about it and the subtle impression is always that the universe or creation is timeless. If “creation” is timeless then there is no meaning for the creator unless we perceive the meaning of “creator” not as creator in time and space. Here, I see a perfect example of expanding our Perception by stretching the dualism of our mind that demand start and end.
I believe that the message of Gurbani doesn’t lie in the choice of words or meanings of words since the purpose of it is quite different, the message lies in how vastly our Perception can expand which requires the breaking of experiential barriers we have in our Perception. This is why Guru Nanak has used common words, fables, idioms, proverbs and various other similes to break, build and expand our Perception.
Baldev Singh in his presentation of Nanakian philosophy has tried to prove that the concepts of Karma and Reincarnation are against Gurmat i.e. teachings of the Gurus. In order to prove his point he has relied on a couple of verses from Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Gurbani). His effort has been to show that these are linked with Hindu concepts like the caste system and ideas of heaven and hell, which Gurmat rejects, and hence Karma and reincarnation are also rejected. He says:
“Guru Nanak’s successor, Guru Angad amplifies the same
message by pointing out that the authors of Vedas are
responsible for creating the concepts of karma and
transmigration, hell and heaven, ritualistic sin and
virtue, and caste and gender inequality:
kQw khwxI bydI AwxI pwpu puMnu bIcwru]
dy dy lyxw lY LyY dyxw nrik surig Avqwr]
auqm miDm jwqI ijnsI Birm BvY sMswru]
It is the teachings of Vedas, which has created the
notions of hell and heaven, karma and transmigration
and ritualistic sin and virtue,: One reaps the reward
in the next life for the deeds performed in this life
- goes to hell or heaven according to one's deeds. The
Vedas have also created the fallacy of inequality of
caste and gender for the world. AGGS, M 2, p. 1243”.
The literal (and practical interpretation in parenthesis) of the above Slok of the Second Guru is as follows:
The Vedas tell stories which promote thoughts of ritual sin and virtue (based on their belief in superstitions);
Whatever one receives has to be paid back (here and in the hereafter);
They talk of going to hell and heaven (Avtar literally means ‘one who comes down’ and is applied for the prophets and also for birth in the world. Since here it is mentioned along with hell and heaven it means entering these).
They talk of (discrimination based on) high and low castes and gender;
Because of all this the world (its people) wanders (aimlessly) in delusion.
Baldev Singh has translated Avtar as reincarnation because he would like to prove repudiation of this concept in Gurbani.
Before I give the details by way of a few verses endorsing Karma and Reincarnation let us briefly understand what Gurmat says in this connection.
The soul is an offshoot (Jot, light) of the Creator. On Divine command (Hukam) it gives life to body and it is told the time of death. It is also told that it is being sent to play a role in fulfilling the purpose of the Creator. If it fulfills its role then on death of the body it is accepted for merger back into the Creator. This is called entering the Nij Ghar (own home) i.e. where it belongs, and is heaven. If the soul fails to fulfill the role it is sent back to take birth again into a life form decided by the Creator. This continues until the Creator is satisfied. This is reincarnation and the concept of hell. It may be noted that there is no permanent hell but the soul is given a chance every time to succeed. Gurbani uses the expressions Aavagavan, Janam Maran, Aavan Jaana for reincarnation. Karma is described by Paeai Kirt, Poorab Karam or Poorab Janam.
Reincarnation means that the soul has had previous births which are described as Poorab Janam. Baldev Singh, in order not to agree with this clear expression, calls it previous generations and not previous birth. This shows preconceived ideas which block one's understanding with an open mind.
Baldev Singh also states:
Moreover, Guru Nanak rejected the concept of soul as separate entity from God as discussed earlier in this chapter. Nanakian philosophy makes it clear that “Soul” is Hukam, the invisible form of God that pervades the Cosmos.
I am afraid this is not how Gurbani deals with concept in its entirety. Yes, the soul being an offshoot and manifestation of God:
mn qUM joiq srUpu hY Awpxw mUlu pCwxu ]
mn hir jI qyrY nwil hY gurmqI rMgu mwxu ]
O’ my mind you are the embodiment of the Divine Light; recognize your roots. The Lord is ever with you; enjoy His love through the Guru’s teachings (SGGS 441).
However, a change takes place due to association of the soul with the body and its being caught in ego with the result that under the influence of the environment the soul becomes what the Gurbani calls Panch Bhoo Atma or body soul and refers to it as follows:
hir crx irdY vswie qU iklivK hovih nwsu ]
pMc BU Awqmw vis krih qw qIrQ krih invwsu ]2]
If you remember God, your sins will be washed; control your body-soul and you will get to the sacred abode i.e. God. (M: 3, SGGS, p 491).
So soul is not Hukam but is subject to Hukam. To distinguish between God and soul Gurbani calls the former Pratma and the latter Atma:
The purpose of human birth is to reunite the atma with Pratma but the humans have a characteristic affliction, that of ego, which is the real cause of the gulf between the two that is sought to be bridged. Reunion is therefore possible by giving up the ego that caused the separation:
Awqmw prwqmw eyko krY ] AMqr kI duibDw AMqir mrY ]1]
To unite the atma with Pratma, get rid of the duality within (M;1, SGGS p 661).
Baldev Singh has also quoted Shabads which describe the situation before creation, he says :
jb kCu n sIE qb ikAw krqw kvn krm kir AwieAw]
Apnw Kylu Awip kir dyKY Twkuir rcnu rcwieAw]
When there was no visible world (creation), then what
deeds were done or who created karma initially? The
reality is that it is God (Hukam/Cosmic Law), Who
created the world. For God, creation is a game and It
continues to play.AGGS, M, 5, p. 748.
I wonder what is it that Baldev Singh is trying to convey. Of course when nothing existed where was the question of Karma. It appears he wants to use this against the concept of karma which applies after creation has taken place. This defies logic. Gurbani’s intent in such statements is two-fold. One to describe the pre-creation situation and by corollary say that even after creation if the focus is on God alone there is no need to worry about karma, evil or rituals etc. But if God is forgotten they are relevant.
Let us now see what Gurbani says directly on the subject of Karma and Reincarnation. A comprehensive statement on this is made in Jap Ji thus:
puMnI pwpI AwKxu nwih ] kir kir krxw iliK lY jwhu ]
Awpy bIij Awpy hI Kwhu ] nwnk hukmI Awvhu jwhu ]20]
One does not become virtuous or evil by words alone; all deeds are written and go with the soul; one eats (reaps) what one sows; rebirth and death is by Divine command (M: 1, SGGS, p 4)
What causes the soul to reincarnate? It is by forgetting Hukam and getting caught by evil:
kwm k®oD Aru loB moh ieh ieMdRI ris lptwDy ]
dIeI BvwrI puriK ibDwqY bhuir bhuir jnmwDy ]3]
One who is caught by lust, anger, greed, attachment and the sensory organs are possessed by temptations, is put in cycles of birth again and again (M: 5, SGGS, p 403).
Awvw gvxu isrijAw qU iQru krxYhwro ]
jMmxu mrxw Awie gieAw biDku jIau ibkwro ]
(Aavagavan) reincarnation has been created by You O Eternal Creator; births and deaths are for the soul that is in bondage of evil (M: 1, SGGS, p 580).
sUkr suAwn grDB mMjwrw ]psU mlyC nIc cMfwlw ]
gur qy muhu Pyry iqn@ join BvweIAY ].bMDin bwiDAw AweIAY jweIAY ]5]
Swine, dog, ass, cat; animal, unwanted intruders, lowly and barbarian; these are the life forms for those who move away from the Guru's teachings; they remain in bondage of reincarnations (M: 1, SGGS, p 832).
Aink jnm BRmy join mwih ] hir ismrn ibnu nrik pwih ]
There are numerous births in numerous life forms; this is hell for those who do not remember the Creator i.e. His Hukam (M: 5, SGGS, p 1192).
Now about Karma:
nwnk swkq nrk mih jim bDy duK shMin@ ]
pieAY ikriq kmwvdy ijv rwKih iqvY rhMin@ ]1]
Those who forget the Master are grabbed by the messenger of death and go through hell; this is the result of past deeds; the soul has to obey as directed (M: 3, SGGS, p 854).
As may be seen Gurbani gives direct sanction to the concepts of Karma and reincarnation.
Baldev Singh has sought to say that when Gurbani talks of fruit of action it is here in the current life. No, Gurbani says it is for both:
eIhw suKu AwgY muK aUjl imit gey Awvx jwxy ]
inrBau Bey ihrdY nwmu visAw Apuny siqgur kY min Bwxy ]3]
Those who remember the fearless Master and live according to the teachings of the Guru; they enjoy here and are glorified in the hereafter; they do not reincarnate (M: 5, SGGS, p 614).
I have given a few quotations from Gurbani; there are hundreds others.
As I pointed out in my last letter in response to Rawel Singh (Reader Feedback, July 2008), I will not debate with him as his understanding of Aad Guru Granth sahib is opposite to that of mine, therefore, I do not want to enter into a futile discussion with him one more time. I disagree with his interpretation of the verses he has quoted. Let the readers decide for themselves. However, I will briefly mention that Gurmat rejects the concept of soul as a separate entity, rather it is Hukam (Cosmic Law) which is universal soul, and it is eternal and immutable. Both Guru Nanak and Guru Arjan make it very clear that in death it is consciousness that dies.
dyhI mwtI bolY pauxu]
buJu ry igAwnI mUAw hY kauxu]
mUeI suriq bwdu AhMkwru]
Eh n mUAw jo dyKxhwru]
The body is made of earth (various elements) and it is
the air (breath) that keeps it alive. O wise one, then
tell me who died because the body and the air it
breathed are still here? It is consciousness that died
along with disputes caused by egotistical pride, but
the One Who takes care of all does not die.
AGGS, M 1, p. 152.
The meaning of the four pithy verses becomes abundantly
clear when we consider that God is both manifest as Cosmos
and un-manifest as omnipresent Hukam. Death of the body
affects only the manifest form of God - the matter
(elements) that constitutes the body. The matter goes back
to earth and is recycled to create new life. The
Omnipresent One (Hukam), which operates in all living
beings and pervades everywhere is Everlasting.
It is remarkable that Guru Nanak defines death as the loss of
consciousness, which is similar to the modern understanding
of death, medically speaking. Cosmos is the manifest form of
God, which is continuously changing, but it does not change
in Its total content.
Guru Arjan elaborates on this issue further. In the AGGS
ghumar (potter), bhanda (pot) and miti (clay, earth) are
used metaphorically for the Creator, being and the material
that makes the being, respectively:
pvnY mih pvnu smwieAw ]
joqI mih joiq ril jwieAw ]
mwtI mwtI hoeI eyk ]
rovnhwry kI kvn tyk ]
kaunu mUAw ry kaunu mUAw ]
bRhm igAwnI imil krhu bIcwrw iehu qau clqu BieAw ] rhwau ]
AglI ikCu Kbir n pweI ]
rovnhwru iB aUiT isDweI ]
Brm moh ky bWDy bMD ]
supnu BieAw BKlwey AMD ]
ieh qau rcnu ricAw krqwir ]
Awvq jwvq hukim Apwir ]
nh ko mUAw n mrxY jogu ]
nh ibnsY AibnwsI hogu ]
jo ieh jwxhu so iehu nwih ]
jwnxuhwry kau bil jwau ]
khu nwnk guir Brmu cukwieAw ]
nw koeI mrY n AwvY jwieAw ]
After death air [breath] merges into air, light mergers
into light (consciousness is lost when Hukam stops
operating in the body) and the earth (lifeless body)
becomes one with earth. What support is there for the
one who cries over this loss? Who has died? O’ who has
died? O’ enlightened beings get-together and ponder
over this question. This is indeed a puzzle! Pause.
Without any information about what happened to the
dead, the one who was crying also dies. The ignorant
fools shackled by doubts and attachments babble about
death as if dreaming. This world is the creation of the
Creator (Hukam). Coming (birth) and going (death) is
controlled by the infinite Hukam. No one dies as no one
is capable of dying. The Eternal One does not perish.
It is not what people think about “soul.” I am
awestruck by the one who understands this reality. Says
Nanak, the Guru has dispelled my doubts. No one dies or
no one comes and goes.
AGGS, M 5, p. 885.
Baldev Singh's response to my comments is surprising. He says that my understanding of Gurbani is opposite to that of his. I submit that all Gurbani is scientifically composed according to established grammar rules. The meanings of most of the words are also well established even though some of them have multiple meanings. His observation can therefore be valid only if either of us is not going by Gurbani. As I see it the difference can be because one of us believes what Gurbani says and is therefore able to quote the relevant verses. On the other hand the other first makes an opinion and then tries to find support from Gurbani but cannot quote the relevant verses. This is what has happened on both the issues we re discussing i.e. Soul being Hukam and Karma and reincarnation/ transmigration.
To his assertion that soul is Hukam I had quoted verses to show what happens to the soul and that soul is not Hukam but subject
to Hukam. He has now quoted two sets of verses to emphasize his viewpoint.
However the verses only bring out the accepted Gurmat teaching that the soul does not die. There is not a word in them to show that the soul is Hukam. Being immortal and Hukam is not the same thing. Here is further proof from Gurbani that the soul is subject to Hukam. Guru Nanak says in Jap Ji:
All living beings are created by Hukam which
cannot be described.---= One who understands Hukam does not speak in Haumai
i.e. ego or self importance.
(M: 1, SGGS, p 1).
The fifth Guru beautifully describes the soul-body relationship
and affirms that the soul is subject to Hukam:
The body bride (does not want to die and) says to the soul husband “O my youthful beloved soul stay with me for ever; I have no value without you; promise you will not leave me":7: The soul says
" I am a servant who has to obey the Hukam of the Great Master who is dependent on none; I can be with you only as long as He keeps me; when He calls me I have to go":8:
(M: 5, SGGS, p 1072 -73).
This should leave no doubt that the soul is not Hukam but rather subject to Hukam.
The situation is similar with respect to karma and reincarnation. He asserts that Gurbani rejects these concepts but has not given a single quotation to support his view. He has quoted Gurbani hymns yes but not one of them rejects these concepts. There are hundreds of verses in Gurbani that unequivocally endorse these concepts. I quoted a few but Baldev Singh just says that he does not agree with my interpretation of them.
It is relevant that Gurbani directly rejects the concepts of idol
worship, rituals, superstitions, gender discrimination and so on. If karma and reincarnation are also rejected there would be verses in that regard.
I do not claim that I cannot be wrong. This forum is for understanding Sikhi as Guru Nanak says:
Sikhi is understanding the Guru’s teachings (M: 1, SGGS, p 465).
Rawel Singh claims that Gurbani supports the belief of Karma and Reincarnation yet he hasn't sourced where in Gurbani the purpose of this belief is defined. So I will ask him, what is the purpose of Reincarnation/Karma in Sikhi?
Karma/Reincarnation is a doctrine of Varna Ashrama and is a policy of repression on the Black Untouchables by the upper caste Hindus for the caste structuralization. It strategically enforces condemnation and commendation. Therefore, what valuable purpose does Karma (condemnation and commendation) serves in Sikhi?
The mention of Chandella Kings (Rajput tribes of mixed blood) and the Malwa Plataeu in Zoya Zaidi's article caught my attention. The present day Punjab comprises of three regions: Majha, Doaba and Malwa. The area south of river Satluj is called Malwa. In Punjab there are Sikh farmers who claim to be descendants of Chandel Rajputs. My wife's grandfather used to sign documents as Gopal Singh Grewal Chandel Rajput. Chandels are also found in the Shivalik hills. It is most likely that the Chandels were pushed out of Malwa region of Punjab by Muslim conquerors.
1. I have had problems with the term "Nanakian philosophy" since the time it was coined by Dr D. S. Chahal of Canada and on many a forum I have given my reasons why there is no need to use this term. However, it seems that this term may have its uses in the context in which McLeod and his students seek to discuss Sikh worldview.
One main advantage of this term that I realize now is that to a Western mind it provides Guru Nanak's statements that philosophical completeness which is associated with the term "Aristotelian philosophy" or "Platonian philosophy" or "Socratic view" etc. For a Sikh, it is quite easy to understand and appreciate the revolutionary ideas the word "Gurmat" communicates and the changes Gurmat brought about. But to a Western non-Sikh mind "Gurmat" seems to be something difficult to understand at this stage (I exclude the Sikhs of European descent from this). Hence "Nanakian philosophy" is acceptable as a transition term, to be replaced by Gurmat at some stage in future.
2. Regarding the nature of Hindu society and how it was affected by the advent of Islamic rule in South Asia, the real picture may not be as straightforward. One, the lower castes were already enslaved in the India of pre-712CE (when Mohammed bin-Qasim conquered Sindh). In fact, advent of Islam may have given the lower castes an opportunity to escape the centuries old slavery that Hinduism had bound them into, by simply converting to Islam.
Two, some of the Khatris (or kshatriyas) who formed the ruling class, did find themselves at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the rights they enjoyed before they were forced to accept Afghans or Mughals as their suzerains. However, even this disadvantage wasn't anything new for many -- as the continuous wars fought between small kingdoms spread all over South Asia resulted in many suzerains and numerous vassals.
As the history of Rajput kings marrying their daughters to Mughals shows, in order to maintain their privileges, the Hindu elite wasn't averse to compromising with the new rulers. This compromise many times resulted in putting some Hindu kings higher than even the Mughal or Afghan aristocrats, as the case of Raja Maan Singh, general of Akbar, proves. The only compromise that they never made was on the question of caste privileges.
Three, the Brahmin has faced only instances of a direct attack on his power by Muslim rulers -- one in the times of Allaudin Khilji and the other in the time of Aurangzeb. Khilji was the first ruler to impose jaziya tax on non-Muslims. A little-known fact of history is that there was a strong and sometimes violent reaction to Khilji's dictate -- by the Brahmins. The Brahmins organized the local Hindu communities and protested in front of the faujdar or kotwal. The protests were not against jaziya per se -- but against jaziya on Brahmins! The unrest spread to such an extent that the emperor exempted the Brahmins from paying jaziya. And the unrest stopped.
The significance of this event is that the Brahmins had never paid tax before and strongly opposed having to pay tax along with other Hindus. Instead, they made other Hindus protest and rescind jaziya on Brahmins while it (jaziya) stayed imposed on non-Brahmin Hindus! Thus, when the term "imposed jaziya on Hindus" is used, it should be taken with a pinch of salt as Brahmins stayed exempt from jaziya even during the time of Aurangzeb when he imposed jaziya afresh (it's imposition had stopped probably when Mughals took over from Afghans).
3. Brahmin's power in society was reduced with the advent of Muslim rulers, who relied on Qazis instead. But on common people, Qazis never enjoyed the sort of stranglehold that Brahmins had on a Hindu's life. This stranglehold they continued to have till the advent of Sikhi which did not say "convert to Sikhi to escape Brahmnic oppression" (as Qazis said, "convert to Islam to attain equality"), instead it challenged the very basis of the whole caste system thereby weakening Brahmin's power even amongst the Hindus themselves.
Finally, it may also not be true that there are no Hindu writings available from that time. Many of the Puranas were written/interpolated between 700CE and 1800CE. It is, however, true that the Hindu writings singularly lack in giving us a true picture of the society of those days. The reason for this again lies in caste system -- the lower castes could not read or write, thus could not record their history. The Khatris though knew how to read and write had court historians (Brahmins) who wrote their exploits. As the Khatris lost their kingdoms, or as they stopped winning any battles, the written accounts stopped too -- it is important to note that written accounts available of any battles involving Hindu kings are written by the victor; one will be at a loss to find an account of a battle from the perspective of the Hindu king who lost it.
Thus, when the victors were Muslims, the Hindu accounts started to disappear. The other section of society which knew how to write, were the traders. But they had their own alphabet (landa script). As the traders traveled to many places and did business with people from many linguistic areas, landa script became a sort of connecting language of common (non-Shudra) people, which ultimately evolved into Sant Bhakha -- the language of men-of-god who were another section of society moving from place to place, and communicating with people from different linguistic areas. The common terms found in Bhagat Kabir's or Bhagat Namdev's bani for example are due to Sant Bhakha.
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my earlier e-mail. As a student and writer on philosophy, in my opinion most philosophical discussions involve the definitions and use of words. If they don’t use the same words in the same way philosophers end up talking by one another and have disagreements when perhaps they should not. Hence I’ll try to be precise in my reply. The word “perceive” has two definitions: 1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing. 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. I will use these definitions in my comments.
First, regarding Guru Nanak's efforts to change perceptions, I don’t have any problem with trying to alter how people perceive the world or our place in it. I think that has been one of the goals of environmental movement. Instead of employing the old biblical view that it is man’s right and responsibility to subdue the earth it, Nanakian philosophy seems to attempt to promote the perception that earth is sacred and should be respected and loved as such. I wholeheartedly support this view. Rather than taking the perspective of Stephen Hawkins who argues that humankind should be preparing to migrate to some other part of the solar system or universe (which is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future, if ever) it makes far more sense to develop a symbiotic relationship to our host planet and reduce population and excessive consumption so that we never have the need to migrate.
We can take notion of the sacredness of earth and nature too far, however, through personification of the universe by applying human or god-like attributes to nature such such as “good” or “loving.” There is no consciousness in nature. Nature is a physical process totally indifferent to human needs. Disease, droughts, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc., even the potential extinction of all life on our planet due to an asteroid impact, are all the result of natural processes. Terms such as “good” and “bad” are judgments made by humans regarding the impact that natural processes have upon us or other species. Moreover, since naturalism does not imply intentionality nor consciousness I see no reason for using the term “God” as synonymous with nature in this connection since it just confuses our understanding of the universe.
This criticism not withstanding, Nanakian philosophy as outlined in Baldev Singh’s paper would attempt to change perspectives for the betterment of humankind. I certainly support this effort. Nanak’s ethical values regarding tolerance, equal rights, opposition of the caste system, humanism, and many other areas are necessary today as at the time of his writing and hence of inestimable value.
I do have some problems with your description of the scientific method. The method does indeed begin with perceiving the world (as in the first definition of perceive above) and then understanding the processes that cause the various phenomena (as in the second definition of the word). In other words, science tries to explain what causes the various phenomena we perceive. It is not the role of science to make value judgments as to what is good or bad in natural phenomena.
Science recognizes that our perceptions are often biased due to ignorance, prior experiences, psychological predispositions, etc. The task of science is therefore to try to rise above those biases and verify our perceptions and hypothesis regarding their causes. The use of experimentation and collection of evidence is the heart of this process. You are right in saying that falsification by itself does not result in truth but it is an excellent way of learning what is untrue. Falsification is the only absolute in science But science also develops a degree of certitude as to what is true as well. Unlike falsification the certainty of the truthfulness of a proposition (or perception) cannot be absolute but can posses such a high degree of certainly we can accept it as true for all practical purposes.
Take the case of medicine, for example. Through the use of the method of science we have established the truth regarding the causes and cures for a host of diseases including typhoid, malaria, diphtheria, polio, small pox, whooping cough, pneumonia, chicken pox, syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, dengue fever, some types of cancer and numerous other diseases.
We have also learned much about the origins of species and the physical basis for a myriad of phenomena in the world including the origins of our planet and are very close to explaining the origins of life on our planet. We haven’t leaned the origins of the universe itself or even if this is the only universe. (The use of the term, Big Bang, was most unfortunate because it implies that somehow the universe simply began when we know that the mathematical models which led this conclusion all break down when approaching the very earliest phases of the present universe.) Our present universe could very well be just another phase of a perpetual cycle. Science may or may not resolve this question someday.
Therefore, when it comes to understanding physical phenomena, whether it be understanding the universe or the factors that determine human behavior, the scientific method involving induction and deduction is the only practical way of separating truth from falsehood.
On the other hand, the methods of science can not determine matters of aesthetics and art, nor ethical issues, i.e., what is good or bad, in any absolute sense. However, as I explain in my book, The Science of Morality, The Individual, Community and Future Generations, Science can be used to understand what factors contribute to human happiness and how best to balance conflicting needs and wants among human beings. Science can even provide insight in how to modify human wants and desires for the long term benefit all members of society, present and future.
For example, applying the methods of science to medicine we can create better physical and mental health for society. Applying the methods of science to sociology we can demonstrate how extreme inequality of wealth causes unhappiness for most members of a society, and the resulting friction and social unrest can lead to war and the destruction of a society. The science of economics has been useful in developing distribution systems that increase total production of goods and services while better balancing the needs of various segments of society.
None of the foregoing should be construed as negating the value of any philosophy that focuses on changing people’s perspective to increase human harmony. Quite to the contrary I see science working hand-in-hand with philosophy to achieve greater human happiness for humankind.
Regards,
-Joe Daleiden
I am starting research for a book....
-John Sneddon, UK
Editor- Interested readers please contact Dr. Sneddon directly at jsneddon2@yahoo.co.uk
Dear Editor,
I am starting research for a book on the battle of Neuve Chapelle in
March 1915. This was, in my opinion, a very important battle which is under-
researched. What is available concentrates upon the British battalions
that fought in the battle and tends, intentionally or not, to relegate
the role of the Indian Corps to a secondary role.
In my study I would like to restore the importance of the Indian Corps
to the battle but to my regret I have little 'feel' for the Indian
soldier of 1914/15 nor access to the literature/history of the Indian
soldier other than what is commonly available in British libraries.
I am aware that SikhSpectrum has published a number of articles on the
Sikh soldier, and I wonder if any of your readers would be interested
in collaborating on detailed research into the role of the Indian
Corps in 1914/15.
Regards,
-John M Sneddon BSc, MA, PhD
Verpal Singh is not....
-Baldev Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Verpal Singh is not correct, when he says that the term “Nanakian philosophy” was coined by Dr. Devinder Singh. This term had been used by others, for example, Dr. Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia, long before Dr. Chahal started using it regularly in his journal: Understanding Sikhsim Research Journal launched in 1999. I have been a regular subscriber to The Sikh Review (Calcutta) since 1960 when I was studying for M.Sc. at Banaras Hindu University. I have often come across the terms “philosophy of Guru Nanak or Guru Nanak’s Philosophy” in The Sikh Review and in English literature on Sikhism. Besides, there are some books on Sikhism with the word “Philosophy” in the title, for example:
Rajwant Singh: The Sikhs: Their Literature on Culture, History, Philosophy, Religion and Tradition (1990).
K. S. Duggal: Philosophy and Faith of Sikhism (1982).
Khazan Singh: History and philosophy of Sikh Religion (1914).
Sher Singh: Philosophy of Sikhism (1966).
Moreover, if we examine the meaning of the word “philosophy” in the English dictionary, I do not see how and in what manner it is unsuitable or slights Guru Nanak’s thoughts. On the other hand the word “Sikhism” is also a Western construct derived from the word Sikh and it covers every thing under the sun that concerns Sikhs and their religion. And Sikhs have accepted it without any reservation for more than a century.
I was involved in the discussion with Dr. Chahal and others about choosing a suitable English word or phrase that is most “appropriate and precise” as a title for the message of Aad Guru Granth Sahib. Nanakian philosophy was chosen because Guru Nanak is the founder of the teachings/message of Aad Guru Granth Sahib. Not many Sikhs, and non-Sikhs, know the word Gurmat or its meaning. That is why in order to bring the term (Gurmat) into common usage, I write Nanakian Philosophy (Gurmat) in my writings.
It is ironic that Sikhs who are upset over the use of “Nanakian philosophy” have shown no concern at all that non-Sikhs and almost all the Sikhs educated in the British system, including the ones holding Sikh chairs in the West, have been using the wrong name Adi Granth for the Sikh canon vested with Guruship (Aad Guru Granth Sahib) by Guru Gobind Singh, since John Malcolm used it in Sketch of the Sikhs for the first time in 1812. Probably, due to pronunciation difficulty or wrong information he got from Nirmalas and Udasis or confusion, Malcolm called Aad Granth as Adi Granth.
Aad Granth was complied by Guru Arjan in 1604 and it is different from Damdami Bir (Dasaven Patshah Ka Granth) vested with Guruship in 1708. The latter was prepared by incorporating the bani (sacred hymns) of Guru Tegh Bahadur into a copy of Aad Granth. The word Adi in Punjabi means “addicted” whereas Aad means eternal, first in importance and first.
Regards,
-Baldev Singh
Harmeet Singh has asked....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Harmeet Singh has asked about the purpose of reincarnation according to Sikhi. It has been explained in my first comments that the soul that does not carry out the allotted role in a birth has to reincarnate. This is prescribed by the Creator:
(Aavagavan) reincarnation has been created by You O Eternal Creator; births and deaths are for the soul that is in bondage of evil (M: 1, SGGS, p 580).
It should be understood that at the end of life the soul is told about its performance. Guru Nanak says in Jap Ji:
Whether the soul has succeeded or fallen short is told in God's presence; the soul knows it on getting there. (M: 1, SGGS, p 7).
The point to note is that there is no permanent condemnation to hell as in the Semetic faiths. Every reincarnation is a chance given to the soul to perform and get out of the cycles of reincarnation.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
After reading Rawel Singh’s....
-Gurtej Singh, New Zealand
Dear Editor,
After reading Rawel Singh’s letter, I visited Guru Granth Darpan web site to go through the teeka by Prof. Sahib Singh. Nowhere in this teeka, did I come across anything that reiterated what Rawel Singh claims. Reincarnation is totally rejected in Gurmat.
Please visit the following links: http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/darpan2/0580.html and http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/darpan2/0007.html
On the other hand, if one is to believe in reincarnation then could Rawel Singh please enlighten us on how does one know how many times he or she has reincarnated before and why? What type of actions made him or her go through reincarnations? What were the allotted tasks in his or her previous life that he or she could not carry?
Regards,
-Gurtej Singh
Gurtej Singh has stated....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Gurtej Singh has stated that reincarnation is totally rejected in Gurmat. I had quoted from Gurbani to show how it endorses the concept. For a meaningful discussion I request Gurtej Singh to share what he has read in Gurbani rejecting reincarnation.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
I appreciate your response....
-Harmeet Singh, USA
Dear Joe,
I appreciate your response. Let me elaborate a little more on falsification and pursuit of truth. Let us take for example Newton and Einstein. Einstein proved Newton wrong for considering time and space to be absolute. Newton and Einstein did assume certain certitude of truth and it was the existence of gravity, but the epistemology of gravity as ‘truth” is different for both Einstein and Newton.
Einstein considered gravity a result of bending of space-time but Newton considered gravity a force. Science therefore doesn’t seem to claim its findings and explanations to be absolute and ultimate. Therefore, isn’t it is plausible to say that in scientific method we are evaluating our understanding of “truth” everyday, and it is subject to further evaluations again and again? In this methodology, can our current perceptions turn out to be inapplicable or even false as we approach the new frontiers of universe? If so then there seems to be a possibility that “Truth” could be relative to our perception since it is subject to what we know as of today. And, what we know today may not be enough to know how much we know today. In other words, truth is subject to our limited knowledge.
I believe this is why Guru Nanak didn’t give any definition of truth because truth is more of right way then an ultimate definition or proclamation. As Guru Nanak said, “Truth is higher, still higher is truthful Way”.
Regards,
-Harmeet Singh
I read Rawel Singh’s response....
-Harmeet Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
I read Rawel Singh’s response, and I must say that it is entirely based on a posture and NOT a position. Let me explain.
Principally, reincarnation has many issues as it implies that life is a penance of debt and a suffering to begin with. The suffering has to be bartered off by trading with God through reincarnation. It implies that life at the onset is, in essence, a condemnation. We are born because we are condemned to be born therefore we have to go through birth and death in order to get out of birth and death. The devil lies in believing that some beings are born well while others are not.
The doctrine of reincarnation makes birth a sole event to judge, control, and decide the life of beings. This is exactly the same principle of Hindu doctrine of Varna Ashrama: Judgment and decisions on beings based on one's birth.
I must say that Rawel Singh is propagating the same principle except that he has polished it into a different mannequin. I do take an issue with his mangling of Gurbani in a way to make it suit the principles of Varna Ashrama.
Regards,
-Harmeet Singh
Harmeet Singh has given two views....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Harmeet Singh has given two views. One that reincarnation is a result of barter with God and two that reincarnation is purely based on the Hindu belief of varanashram.
A deal of barter can be made between two entities which are equal or nearly so. In my earlier posts I have given Gurbani quotations to show that the soul is subject to God's Hukam so it cannot make a deal. It only complies with the Hukam. God decides the fate of the soul.
He has also talked of life being condemnation. As pointed out in my last post Gurbani does not believe in permanent comdemnation. While one can say that the soul not being able to merge in God is a punishment, it is not comdemnation as the soul is given another chance every time. Human birth is a blessing because it provides an opportunity to the soul to merge in God.
I have given Gurbani quotations to show endorsement of reincarnation. Harmeet Singh insists it is based on varanashram, a Hindu belief and that I have given it another clothing on a mannequin which means a dummy. Does he mean the Gurbani quotations support the concept of varanashram? So far Harmeet Singh has given his own views without any scriptural references to support them. I submit we mortals cannot decide what God does and must depend on God's word incorporated in Gurbani. He has said "I do take an issue with his mangling of Gurbani in a way to make it suit the principles of Varna Ashrama".
We can get to a solution only if he either gives his interpretation of the Gurbani verses quoted by me, and there are hundreds others, or quotes others in support of his contention.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
Reincarnation - A Synopsis....
-Editor, SikhSpectrum
Here is a synopsis of what has transpired in the discussion on reincarnation. It is hoped that this synopsis will help focus the discussion back to important concepts fundamental to this issue.
Essentially, Baldev Singh, Harmeet Singh, and Gurtej Singh are of the opinion that reincarnation is not accepted in Sikhism. To support his views Baldev Singh wrote in his original article that reincarnation is not accepted in Sikhism.
Rawel Singh opines that reincarnation is a part of the Sikh worldview. According to Rawel, soul is an offshoot of the Creator and on Its command (hukam) the soul gets a life as body and at that moment also knows the time of its death. Both Baldev Singh and Rawel Singh agree that there is no concept of hell in Sikhism, and Rawel Singh goes out further to stress that the soul continues through a series of births and deaths till it reaches perfection that culminates with its merger with the Creator.
Harmeet Singh inquired about the purpose of reincarnation: If reincarnation is important in Sikhism then why is it needed. Reading Rawel Singh’s response one could say that the purpose is to merge with the Creator. However, Rawel did not explain what merging with the Creator implies, and how is that state of perfection realized.
Here is another question that begs an answer. If the Creator expects the soul to merge with It then why create the soul from Itself, as an offshoot, in the first place? In other words, why create; especially when the Creator knows that what is being created is imperfect and hence perpetually condemned to a series of births and rebirths. In this respect one cannot ignore Harmeet Singh’s assertion that to accept reincarnation is to accept that “life is a penance of debt and a suffering to begin with. The suffering has to be bartered off by trading with God through reincarnation. It implies that life at the onset is, in essence, a condemnation.”
Fundamental to this discussion is the concept of soul and how it is defined in Sikhism. While Rawel Singh defines soul as a separate entity created by the Creator (an offshoot of the Creator), Baldev Singh does not agree with this definition. According to Baldev, soul is not a separate entity; instead soul is Hukam (Cosmic Law). Furthermore, Baldev points out that Creator is present in both Its manifest and un-manifest forms and that hukam/soul is the unmanifest form of the Creator. In death the manifest form which include the elements that make the cosmos, and hence the human body, get reabsorbed into the earth and thus recycled into other forms of life. The soul by virtue of being Hukam (Cosmic Law) is everlasting. In death, Baldev contends, what is lost is mere consciousness.
On the topic of Karma, both Harmeet and Baldev Singh suggest that Karma is fundamentally responsible for the Hindu concept of varna ashrama or a rigid caste based social structure. One is reborn based on the actions of a previous birth, and this principle binds humans into a series of births and rebirths.
Harmeet asked Rawel Singh how could Gurbani endorse reincarnation when it clearly rejects the principle of varna ashrama thereby rejecting Karma as defined in Hinduism: That is if Karma is fundamental to reincarnation and reincarnation is fundamental to Sikh worldview then Karma should be fundamental to the Sikh worldview. In his reply Rawel Singh circumvented this question and while accepting that reincarnation is fundamental to Sikhism, instead has asked Harmeet if he believes that Gurbani accepts varna ashrama a view that Harmeet does not support.
In other words, Rawel Singh is asking Harmeet if Gurbani’s acceptance of reincarnation implies its acceptance of varna ashrama. The only problem with this view is that in the ladder of progression it is Karma that leads to reincarnation and not reincarnation that leads to Karma.
On Karma, Baldev Singh asked a question: If past life influences birth in the current life then what was the Karma of the first being (or the first life form). Rawel Singh did not directly address this question; yet he feels that after the act of creation if one is attuned to the Creator then he or she need not worry about Karma, but if God is forgotten then these concepts become relevant.
Finally, this is our impression of how the discussion has progressed. We wanted to focus this discussion back to the important issues. We apologize for any unintended errors.
Editor
In the course of discussions on....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
In the course of discussions on the subject of Karma and Transmigration/ reincarnation some participants have not agreed to the concept on the ground that it represents Hindu viewpoint. Study of Gurbani shows that these concepts have been adapted with significant differences.
To understand the subject it may be useful to see what the concepts are. Starting from birth and till death an account of our deeds is kept by the metaphoric Divine recorders called Chitra Gupt meaning the hidden recorders. These are clerks and present their recordings to Dharam Rai who presents those to God. Whereas the overall concept between Hindu and Sikh teachings is similar there is a very significance difference. In Hindu belief every one is under the jurisdiction of Dharam Rai, but it is not so in the case of Gurmat, the Guru's teachings. The third Guru says:
Dhram Rai no hukam hai bahi sacha Dhram beechaari; doojai bhaai dust
aatma ohu tayri sarkaar (M: 3, SGGS, p 38-39)
Dhram Rai has been directed to consider every case on the basis of
Dharam or righteousness; he is told "your jurisdiction is on those who
are caught in duality for, those souls are defiled".
That means those living virtuous lives are not subject to Dharam Rai's jurisdiction
but the account of deeds is still kept.
Who has done what is known only when the final balance sheet is drawn. The
concept of the balance sheet is that we receive a lot from the Divine, family and the society in many ways. These must be matched by our 'paying back by deeds and materially to the society on the basis of "Ghaal khaaey kichh hathahu dayi" (M: 1, SGGS, p 1245) i.e. earn honestly and share. If the 'debt' is not cleared there is debit
balance or 'Baaki'. Those with Baaki are hauled up and the account
papers of those having credit are destroyed. The first category are mercilessly handled by the messenger of death and those with credit are shown respect. Guru Nanak summarizes this thus:
Nanak aakhai ray manna suneeai sikh sahee; laykha rab mangaseea baitha
kadhi vahee; talbaan pausan aakeea baaki jina rahee; Ajraeel Fraysta
hosee aaey tahee; aavan jaan na sujhaee bheeri galee tahee; koor
nikhutay naanka oraki sachi rahee (M: 1, SGGS, p 953).
O my mind take this correct advice; with the account book opened God
will ask you to explain the account; those in debit will be hauled up;
it is here that the Ajraeel the messenger of death will appear;
once in his hold there is no way to escape coming and going (reincarnation);
that field is narrow; remember falsehood loses and truth always prevails in the end.
How does the messenger of death act?
Maaya mohu praytu hai kaamu krodhu ahankaara; eih jamm kee sirkaar hai
aynha upar jamm ka dand kraara (M: 3, SGGS, p 513).
Attachment to Maaya, lust, anger and vanity haunt the mind; the Jamm has jurisdiction over those under their influence and the Jamm punishes them severely.
On the other hand those who live virtuously are shown respect:
Koti bighan binseyh hari seva nihchal govind dhaam; bhagwant bhagat
kau bhau kichh naahi aadaru dayvat jaam (M: 5, SGGS, p 702).
All impediments in the way to the Master's abode are removed for those who obey the Divine (this is Seva); the Lord's devotee has nothing to fear, the Jamms show repect to them.
As may be seen unlike the Hindu belief that every one is caught by the Jamms, Gurmat teaches that Gurmukhs need have no such worry.
The problem seems to arise because, since according to Gurbani, a Sikh leading life according to the Guru's teachings will not reincarnate, it is being believed that the concept of reincarnation itself stands rejected.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
Please allow me to comment....
-Baldev Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Please allow me to comment on three important points that have been over looked in your synopsis.
1. In my discussion on reincarnation I quoted about a dozen verses from Gurbani and bhagat-bani that emphasize that the present life is the only chance to realize God/Truth. Now, according to reincarnation there could be many chances, theoretically unlimited. Sikh Gurus did not talk about past or future life; instead they urged people to rise above animal level, to make the most of their life by becoming Gurmukhs (moral enlightened beings) as the progress of society is dependent on the Gurmukhs.
2. Sikhs Gurus rejected the Hindu and Semitic concept of salvation:
rwju n cwhau mukiq n cwhau mn pRIiq crn kmlwry]
bRhm mhys isiD muin ieMdRw moih Twkur hI drswry]
I don’t crave for worldly kingdom or salvation; I crave for the comfort of God’s beautiful lotus feet (meditation on God’s excellences). Whereas others search for Brahma, Shiva, sidhas, munis and Indra (Hindu deities), I yearn for the glimpse of the Master.
AGGS, M 5, p. 534.
surg mukiq bYkuMT siB bWCih iniq Awsw Aws krIjY]
hir drsn ky jn mukiq n mWgih imil drsn iqRpiq mnu DIjY]
All yearn for the pleasure of heaven through salvation and continuously place their hopes in them. But the devotees, who long for vision of God, do not ask for salvation, as they are satisfied having the vision.
AGGS, M 4, p. 1324.
3. Elaborating on Guru Nanak’s explanation that when a being dies, it is the death (loss) of consciousness (Hukam stops operating), Guru Arjan says that that no one dies (see my reply to Rawel Singh).
dyhI mwtI bolY pauxu]
buJu ry igAwnI mUAw hY kauxu]
mUeI suriq bwdu AhMkwru]
Eh n mUAw jo dyKxhwru]
The body is made of earth (various elements) and it is the air (breath) that keeps it alive. O wise one, then tell me who died because the body and the air it breathed are still here? It is consciousness that died along with disputes caused by egotistical pride, but the One Who takes care of all does not die.
AGGS, M 1, p. 152.
nh ko mUAw n mrxY jogu ]
nh ibnsY AibnwsI hogu ]
jo ieh jwxhu so iehu nwih ]
jwnxuhwry kau bil jwau ]
khu nwnk guir Brmu cukwieAw ]
nw koeI mrY n AwvY jwieAw ]
No one dies as no one is capable of dying. The Eternal One does not perish. It is not what people think about “soul.” I am
all-praise for by the one who understands this reality. Says
Nanak, the Guru has dispelled my doubts. No one dies or no one comes and goes.
AGGS, M 5, p. 885.
Now what more evidence is needed to prove that Guru Nanak rejected reincarnation and the Hindu or Semitic concept of soul?
In my manuscript, I pointed out very clearly in great detail that Guru Nanak rejected all essentials of Hinduism, including the moral authority of its scriptures and the Sanskrit language. However, there are some people in the Sikh community, so called Sanatan Sikhs, who cannot accept this fact. For these people Sikhs are Kesadhari Hindus and Guru Granth Sahib is the fifth Ved, the essence of Vedas and Upanishads. During the Singh Sabha movement people like Sir Khem Singh Bedi (who wanted to become the living Guru of Sikhs) vehemently opposed the Gurdwara Reform Movement and the Anad Marriage Act. For such people distortion/subversion of Gurbani comes naturally to prove that Guru Nanak was a votary of Vedas.
Regards,
-Baldev Singh
The synopsis posted as part....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Editor's Comments
Rawel Singh ji,
There is no hostility towards you. The synopsis is based entirely on your views as sent to us by you and published on the website. The only thing that was deleted was your insistence that Baldev Singh is not quoting Gurbani to prove his views. We let you know the reason for the deletion and it being that Baldev Singh is looking at this issue in its entirety based upon what he believes is the foundational principles of Sikhism. You can read the related Gurbani quotes that he has used in support of his arguments in his original manuscript that was published in the current issue of SikhSpectrum. You have a right to disagree with him as much as he has a right to disagree with you, and this was also clearly pointed out to you.
Please read your emails that were sent to us. You are complaining that we are wrong in stating that "Rawel Singh goes out further to stress that the soul continues through a series of births and deaths till it reaches perfection that culminates with its merger with the Creator." Previously, this is what you wrote:
“The soul is an offshoot (Jot, light) of the Creator. On Divine command (Hukam) it gives life to body and it is told the time of death. It is also told that it is being sent to play a role in fulfilling the purpose of the Creator. If it fulfills its role then on death of the body it is accepted for merger back into the Creator. This is called entering the Nij Ghar (own home) i.e. where it belongs, and is heaven. If the soul fails to fulfill the role it is sent back to take birth again into a life form decided by the Creator.” [emphasis mine]
Now you tell us, “This is not correct. Nowhere have I mentioned that the purpose of reincarnation is to merge with the Creator.”
The synopsis is based on what you have sent to us and we request you to kindly read your emails to us one more time before you accuse us of misinterpreting your views.
Furthermore, you wrote “The purpose of creation is a separate issue, but if we look around, every creature and even the plants, the mountains and the seas play a role in how the creation functions. So God has a purpose for every element of creation. I suggest this be kept as a separate subject.”
Previously, you had emphasized that purpose or goal for every creature had a significant influence in whether it would or would not reincarnate. You said, “Harmeet Singh has asked about the purpose of reincarnation according to Sikhi. It has been explained in my first comments that the soul that does not carry out the allotted role in a birth has to reincarnate. This is prescribed by the Creator.” Is it wrong to believe that by “allotted role in a birth” you mean God’s purpose for every element of creation.
Finally, the need for a synopsis was to bring the discussion back to the basics as it appeared to drift away from the fundamental issue of this discussion. We are glad that you have sent us the following email and as before we are happy to publish it. We will let SikhSpectrum readers analyze this ongoing discussion and decide whose arguments they find more convincing. Is it not how discussions usually work?
Respectfully,
Editor
Dear Editor,
The synopsis posted as part of the ongoing discussion does nor represent how I have put across the Gurmat view. I say this because I say nothing as my own view.
Right from the very beginning of this discussion I have had to face the hostility of the Editor as his communications made it clear that he does not agree with the concept of Karma/ Reincarnation. Portions of my missives have been deleted essentially from the point of view of Baldev Singh and Harmeet Singh. I will be specific.
I had pointed out that Baldev Singh had not given even one relevant quotation from Gurbani against reincarnation and asked him to quote. This was deleted.
I made a request to Baldev Singh to please discuss since he had earlier declined. This too was deleted.
From Harmeet Singh’s comments it was clear that he thinks reincarnation is lnked with varaashram in Hindu thought. I asked him that since Gurbani endorses reincarnation, does it mean Gurbani is exposition of Hindu thought. This too was deleted.
Now about the synopsis.
The driving idea in my posts has been that there are hundreds of verses in Gurbani endorsing karma/ reincarnation and quoted a few. I pointed out that Gurbani directly rejects ideas of caste system, idol worship, gender discrimination and son. If the concept of Karma/ Reincarnation is to be rejected Gurbani would say so.
This is not reflected in the synopsis.
Baldev Singh asserts that Gurbani rejects but does not quote even one verse. Simply saying that these are Hindu views does not hold water because Gurbani is neither pro nor anti any religion. It has its own teachings. Simply because a view is also held by the Hindus does not make it invalid. Baldev Singh did quote one verse only to misinterpret the word “avtar” as reincarnation.
The synopsis says “Harmeet Singh inquired about the purpose of reincarnation: If reincarnation is important in Sikhism then why is it needed. Reading Rawel Singh’s response one could say that the purpose is to merge with the Creator. However, Rawel did not explain what merging with the Creator implies, and how is that state of perfection realized”.
This is not correct. Nowhere have I mentioned that the purpose of reincarnation is to merge with the Creator.What I mentioned was “He has also talked of life being condemnation. As pointed out in my last post Gurbani does not believe in permanent comdemnation. While one can say that the soul not being able to merge in God is a punishment, it is not condemnation as the soul is given another chance every time. Human birth is a blessing because it provides an opportunity to the soul to merge in God”.
Regarding the implication of merger with God I had earlier stated that the soul initially came from God and “If it fulfills its role then on death of the body it is accepted for merger back into the Creator. This is called entering the Nij Ghar (own home) i.e. where it belongs, and is heaven”.
The role of the soul is like that of an employee being sent on a project and told not to come back until the project is complete. He is also given a deadline. He is allowed to come back if the job is done but his request to return is rejected if not. Coming back here is equivalent to merging of the soul in God.
The synopsis says “In this respect one cannot ignore Harmeet Singh’s assertion that to accept reincarnation is to accept that “life is a penance of debt and a suffering to begin with. The suffering has to be bartered off by trading with God through reincarnation. It implies that life at the onset is, in essence, a condemnation.”
My reply “A deal of barter can be made between two entities which are equal or nearly so. In my earlier posts I have given Gurbani quotations to show that the soul is subject to God's Hukam so it cannot make a deal. It only complies with the Hukam. God decides the fate of the soul”.
The synopsis asks as to why did God create the soul if was to reincarnate? The purpose of creation is a separate issue, but if we look around, every creature and even the plants, the mountains and the seas play a role in how the creation functions. So God has a purpose for every element of creation. I suggest this be kept as a separate subject.
The synopsis has reiterated Baldev Singh’s view that soul is Hukam. Baldev Singh is unable to give even one Gurbani verse which says so. All he is able to quote is that the soul is immortal. But I have quoted a number of verses which the synopsis has not even mentioned. I quote one verse to show that the soul is subject to Hukam:
The body bride (does not want to die and) says to the soul husband “O my youthful beloved soul stay with me for ever; I have no value without you; promise you will not leave me":7: The soul says " I am a servant who has to obey the Hukam of the Great Master who is dependent on none; I can be with you only as long as He keeps me; when He calls me I have to go":8: (M: 5, SGGS, p 1072 -73).
This also not reflected in the synopsis.
The synopsis further says “On Karma, Baldev Singh asked a question: If past life influences birth in the current life then what was the Karma of the first being (or the first life form). Rawel Singh did not directly address this question; yet he feels that after the act of creation if one is attuned to the Creator then he or she need not worry about Karma, but if God is forgotten then these concepts become relevant”.
My reply to the first part was “I wonder what is it that Baldev Singh is trying to convey. Of course when nothing existed where was the question of Karma. It appears he wants to use this against the concept of karma which applies after creation has taken place. This defies logic. Gurbani’s intent in such statements is two-fold. One to describe the pre-creation situation and by corollary say that even after creation if the focus is on God alone there is no need to worry about karma, evil or rituals etc. But if God is forgotten they are relevant”. Any one conversant with Gurbani will know this verse of the fourth Guru “Dharam Rai dar kaagadphaaray jan Nanak laykha samjha (M: 4, SGGS, p 698).
When Dharam Rai (who has the account of our deeds) evaluated my account he tore off the papers.
This is what is meant by saying that for one, who lives as he should, there is no worry about karma.
As pointed out above God has purpose in creation; the question of Karma arises only after the first birth.
The synopsis again says “Harmeet asked Rawel Singh how could Gurbani endorse reincarnation when it clearly rejects the principle of varna ashrama thereby rejecting Karma as defined in Hinduism: That is if Karma is fundamental to reincarnation and reincarnation is fundamental to Sikh worldview then Karma should be fundamental to the Sikh worldview. In his reply Rawel Singh circumvented this question”.
This is not correct again. I had said that clearly that Gurbani endorses Karma and gave the following Gurbani quotation:
“Now about Karma:
Those who forget the Master are grabbed by the messenger of death and go through hell; this is the result of past deeds; the soul has to obey as directed (M: 3, SGGS, p 854).
I had also said “Gurbani uses the expressions Aavagavan, Janam Maran, Aavan Jaana for reincarnation. Karma is described by Paeai Kirt, Poorab Karam or Poorab Janam”
As may be seen Gurbani gives direct sanction to the concepts of Karma and reincarnation”.
It would be apparent that the synopsis is not balanced but supports the view that Karma/ Reincarnation is not a valid concept. I request the Editor to be neutral or become part of the discussion.
What I find most intriguing is that none of the participants opposing the concept of Karma/ Reincarnation are caring to respond to the Gurbani quotations given by me. They are also not giving any quotaions on the subject. I wish to reiterate that none of the quotations given by Baldev Singh oppose the concepts. His view on the soul being Hukam is not supported by Gurbani.
I wish to reiterate that we are discussing the concepts of Karma/ Reincarnation as contained in Gurbani. Every statement that is made in this regard should therefore be supported by Gurbani quotations.
I am glad to find that Baldev Singh has responded to the synopsis. I hope he will take part in the discussion.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
Baldev Singh in his comments on....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Baldev Singh in his comments on the synopsis has raised three points trying to disprove the concept of reincarnation. Let us deal with them in the order he has given them.
He says “In my discussion on reincarnation I quoted about a
dozen verses from Gurbani and bhagat-bani that emphasize that the present life is the only chance to realize God/Truth. Now, according to reincarnation there could be many chances, theoretically unlimited”.
I
am afraid Baldev Singh is trying to confuse the issue. What does he mean by this life? If he means human birth I agree it is according to Gurmat. But how does he infer that a human reincarnates only as a human. I reproduce Guru Nanak’s verse quoted earlier:
Swine, dog, ass, cat; animal, unwanted intruders,
lowly and barbarian; these are the life forms for those who move away from the
Guru's teachings; they remain in bondage of reincarnations (M: 1, SGGS, p 832).
Now this is what Gurbani says about the animal and beasts:
When you are an animal with four feet and two
horns, how will you praise the Lord? (Kabir, SGGS, p 524).
Animals cannot remember God and hence cannot realize Him. So there are no unlimited chances for God realization. Baldev Singh should not say things not supported by Gurbani. Moreover the above verse of the first Guru confirms reincarnation.
2. Baldev Singh has quoted two verses that say that God’s devotee does not look to Mukti but love of God. I wonder what was the purpose of quoting these unless he just wants to prove that he has quoted Gurbani. These have no bearing on reincarnation.
3. He has quoted two sets of verses one of which shows that God does not die. The second says that God does not die and the soul does not perish.
Based on these he asks “Now what more evidence is needed to prove that Guru Nanak rejected reincarnation and the Hindu or Semitic concept of soul?”
Pray how does this reject reincarnation? The concept of
reincarnation presupposes that the soul is immortal which the second verse confirms.
Baldev Singh then goes on to say that those who support
reincarnation are Sanatn Sikhs or Keshadhari Hindus, obviously pointing at me. So is this all he has to disprove the concept of reincarnation? I have already pointed out the fallacies in his inferring things what Gurbani is not saying.
He says Guru Nanak rejected all essentials of Hinduism. May I remind him that immortality of the soul is a fundamental belief in Hinduism as it is in Sikhi. Then according to him Sikhi should reject the concept of immortality of the soul. He must answer that question. Also as mentioned above immortality of the soul is fundamental to reincarnation and accordingly the Sikh and Hindu teachings are similar.
I wish to remind Baldev Singh that Gurbani rejects Hindu concepts of caste system, gender discrimination and rituals etc he should quote even one verse in the whole of Gurbani that rejects immortality of the
soul and reincarnation. Sir, it does not. Please prove me wrong by a direct quote where reincarnation is mentioned. I have quoted several verses in my posts which directly support reincarnation. I invite him to give his interpretation of them.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
I don’t think we are far apart....
-Joe Daleiden, USA
Dear Harmeet Singh,
I don’t think we are far apart in our notion of truth. I believe our differences are primarily a matter of semantics. When I use the term truth I am referring to reality, simply put, all that is physical. Philosophically, this is in accord with the school of Naturalism which holds that all explanations must finally make reference to objects and events in space-time. When you use the term truth I believe you are referring to our knowledge of reality. (I think you use the term “perspective” synonymously with “knowledge.”) I agree with you that we can never be absolutely certain of our perspectives or knowledge of reality. Knowledge is a matter of degree. For some statements we can have a very high degree of certainty, such as the sun will rise tomorrow, and of sometimes we have a very low degree of certainty, such as statements regarding the Big Bang.
To make matters more confusing there are multiple uses of the term “reality.” This is nowhere more evident than in physics where physicists apply mathematical models to explain causes of interactions in the physical world.
Allow me to explain.
There is much misunderstanding of the difference between Newtonian physics and the physics of Relativity since they are based upon different mathematical models to measure the relationships between physical bodies moving through space (e.g., planets or stars). The problem arises in use of the term “reality” in connection with two different phenomena: physical objects such as planets or stars, and measurements of relationships between those objects, such as distance, relative speed, and gravitational attraction.
Newton’s law of the gravitational attraction is given as the square of the distance between objects, is a fairly accurate measure but didn’t account for the constant relative movement through space of the two objects. In fact, by employing Newton’s calculus it was impossible to get an extremely accurate measurement. Einstein used a very different mathematical method which was able to attain more accurate measurements.
What Einstein’s mathematics did was to treat the measurement of space and time (space-time) “as if” it was curved. Note that this does not change the physical entities in any respect, only our measurements of the relationships between those physical entities. This is essential if we seek to more accurately measure gravitational attraction or in sending a rocket or information packet such as light waves or particle, from one planet or star to another. However over time that phrase “as if” has been dropped, the result being that writings on physics since Einstein have caused much confusion by using the word “reality” to mean both physical objects and the measurement of relationships between those object.
The purpose of the foregoing is to illustrate the problems caused by semantics.
If you are using the term perspective in the sense of knowledge I agree that we must remain open to new information and insights in our understanding of the physical world.
Much of the discussions in philosophy over the centuries involve semantics and that is precisely my concern in my earlier letters concerning Nanak’s philosophy. When Nanak uses words such as omnipotent, omnipresent, merciful, loving, forgiving, etc, he falls victim to the anthropomorphic fallacy, i.e, the attribution of conscious motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.
It is a natural step then to call this conscious being a god and slide down the slippery slope to monotheism.
During the pre-scientific age of Nanak’s writing, which were revolutionary in so many ways, every culture believed in a some form of god or gods. Nanak realized this was a fallacy and we cannot blame him for employing some of the attributes of the concept of god to nature. However, like every philosopher and philosophy, it would be wrong to accept his every utterance as the final word. As you point out we must be open to continued new perspectives. Since his time philosophy, especially, the school of logical positivism, has focused on improving the language of philosophy the result of which is to more clearly understand the natural world.
Warmest regards,
-Joe Daleiden
In his first letter....
-Baldev Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
In his first letter, (Reader Feedback, October 2008) while commenting on my manuscript (Nanakian Philosophy (Gurmat): Path of Enlightenment), Rawel Singh asserted that “I have misinterpreted Gurbani to prove that Gurmat rejects karma and reincarnation, and he gave his own interpretation of couple of my quotes and presented his own quotes and explanation to prove that Gurmat endorses reincarnation and karma”. In my reply I said that I do not want to enter into a futile discussion with Rawel Singh as his interpretation of Gurbani is opposite to that of mine (see the discussion between Rawel Singh and Baldev Singh, Reader Feedback, July 2008). Rawel Singh was surprised by my response and reacted as if I had offended him in some way.
Now in his response to Editor’s Synopsis Rawel Singh said twice that “Baldev Singh had not given even one relevant quotation from Gurbani against reincarnation.” Why any reasonable person would draw such a conclusion? My manuscript of over 115 pages is entirely based on Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS) and it provides a systematic, logical and comprehensive exposition of the message of AGGS.
Moreover, I have provided several pertinent and important quotes from the AGGS and their English translations under each heading to point out that Guru Nanak rejected earlier paradigms of God and other concepts related to God: soul, salvation, hell, heaven and Varana Ashrama Dharama and its theological base of karma and reincarnation. How could Rawel miss all of it? Maybe he did not read the manuscript or he did not understand it or he has some other motive or his understanding of AGGS is opposite to what I have presented. Very likely, it is the last reason as when he says “Baldev Singh had not given even one relevant quotation from Gurbani against reincarnation” he is unwittingly agreeing with me that his understanding of Gurmat is opposite to that of mine.
Let me make it clear for the readers that my exposition of Nanakian philosophy is radically different from that found in standard Sikh texts or English, Punjabi and in other languages translations of AGGS, as they are highly influenced by Brahmanical/Vedantic and Christian superstition. On the other hand I have attempted to extricate Nanakain philosophy (Gurmat) from the glossy paint of Brahmanical/Vedantic and Christian superstition. Gurmat is a whole life (life affirming) system in contrast to Brahmanism/Vedanta which is life negating.
I have pointed out very clearly that Guru Nanak repudiated supernaturalism, and instead he proclaimed that discerning intellect and critical thinking as prerequisite for the understanding of God and pursuit of life’s objectives. For Guru Nanak, God is both Cosmic Law (Hukam) and Cosmos. To bring this universal God in the realm of human understanding, he describes God as Knowledge and Truth. It is on this aspect of God that he wants people to contemplate all the time. In other words he wants people to make Knowledge and Truth as the center of consciousness or thought process. For the advancement of universal liberty, equality, justice, peace and harmony, he proclaimed that God is without enmity and non-retributive and embodiment of virtues such as enlightenment, love, compassion, generosity, kindness and forgiveness. He denounced asceticism and celibacy, and instead advocated household life as the only proper way for the understanding of God, the pursuit of daily life and betterment of society.
The purpose of life is to become a Gurmukh (God-centered being) by understanding Truth and living a truthful life in harmony with the environment. Gurmukh exercises control over Haumai and the five: Kaam (lust, sexual drive), Kroadh (anger), Loabh (covetousness, economic drive), Moh (attachment) and Ahankar (egotistical pride) drives/instincts. Gurmukh is humble, compassionate, generous, kind and forgiving, and loves all and treats all as equal without any distinction. Gurmukh fights for justice for all and ameliorates the societal problems via enlightening others.
Further, according to my understanding of AGGS, Hukam (Cosmic Law) is the universal soul that is eternal/everlasting. And the words poorbala and agae mean past and future, respectively. Whereas believers in karma and reincarnation interpret poorbala, agae and darghah as: previous life, next life and dharamaraj’s court, I interpret them as: past and future of our life span right here and darghah as universal conscience of mankind that is the source of human values and human rights.
Besides, I do not claim that my exposition of AGGS is the only correct one; other students of AGGS with critical thinking would provide better expositions as this is how humans have moved closer and close to truth since their ancestors evolved in Africa centuries back. But right now my exposition of AGGS is only one that can explain Guru Nanak’s Revolution that is egalitarian socially and plebian politically.
After careful reading of my manuscript, a reader who understands universal human values and rights would agree with me that Guru Nanak was indeed a revolutionary and far ahead of his time by centuries. Now revolutions are not started by believers in karma and reincarnation or destiny or predetermined course of life (read chapter 1). To argue this point, I will limit my discussion to the history of the Indian subcontinent as this will ring the bell more clearly and distinctly. For example when the believers in karma and reincarnation were prostrating before blood sucking tyrant rules and praising them by elevating them to the status of Brahmanical God “Ishwaro va Dillishwaro va, (the Lord of Delhi is as great as God”, Guru Nanak called those rulers as butchers and ferocious lions and their administrators as hunting dogs, and he called for the establishment of a rule that would provide justice for all.
There is no other King, except the Almighty.
AGGS, M 1, p. 936.
There is one Throne and one Emperor.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1188.
Only the ones who has control over lust, anger, greed, attachment and egotistical pride (Gurmukh) is worthy of sitting on the throne.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1039.
In tune with the true revolutionary zeal, Guru Nanak gave a clarion call to the masses to join his movement with an explicit warning that it would require supreme sacrifices:
If you want to play the game of love (follow the righteous path/Truth) then follow me and be prepared to sacrifice your life. Once you step on this path, do not hesitate to offer your head.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1412.
This proclamation is central to the Sikh revolution as it is the basis of Miri-Piri (temporal and spiritual sovereignty) and the evolution of the noble Khalsa Order. Only a moral person (Gurmukh) can be a Mir-Pir/Khalsa.
Later when the believers in karma and reincarnation were sending their precious daughters to the “Harms (concubine quarters)” of those whom they regarded as maleshas (polluted/defiled) for the sake of their economic benefit and political survival, Guru Arjan called for establishing Halemi Raj, for which he became a martyr on May 30, 1606.
All are partners in Your (God) commonwealth and You do not look at anyone as a stranger.
AGGS, M 5, p. 97.
Living in harmony with all is our creed, as we do not regard as anyone as enemy or stranger.
AGGS, M 5, p. 1299
Now the Merciful One has issued a Command that no one would be persecuted/harassed by anyone. All would live happily in peace under the benevolent rule of justice.
AGGS, M 5, p. 74.
Guru Arjan’s successor, his son Guru Hargobind girded two swords, as the Sikh tradition puts it, one symbolizing his spiritual authority and the other his temporal power. He successfully resisted armed aggression against him by Mughal officials and Hindu Khatris who were opposed to Sikh Gurus and their teachings. Later on when Emperor Aurangzeb terrorized the Hindus by imposing forced conversions to Islam, Guru Tegh Bahadur (ninth Nanak) counseled him that a civilized person neither threatens anyone nor is intimidated by others. He became a martyr in Delhi on November 11, 1675 for his valiant stand
for the freedom of conscience/religion and human rights:
Nanak, a civilized person does not threaten any one nor
is intimidated by anyone.
AGGS, M 9, p. 1427.
Left with no alternative for peaceful co-existence with freedom, justice and equality for all, Guru Gobind Singh (tenth Nanak) created the Khalsa brotherhood, army of saint-soldiers on the Baisakhi day of 1699 to fight against the tyranny of the murderous Mughal regime supported by the caste hierarchy. Inspired by the Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat), the Khalsa forces forged mostly from the downtrodden stocks of the Hindu Society--Sudras and Untouchables--fought against three formidable foes: the mighty Mughals, the caste hierarchy and the foreign invaders for about three-quarters of a century. Eventually the Khalsa established a Kingdom over a vast tract in the Northwest region of the Indian sub-continent.
On the other hand the response of caste-ridden society resting on the superstructure Varana Ashrama Dharama and karma and reincarnation/transmigration was Vaishnava Bhagti, which was nothing but a façade to hide the perfidy, cowardice and dereliction of duty displayed by the Hindu elite (Dwijas –twice born: Brahmans, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas) in the defense of their land and population against the onslaught of Muslim invaders/conquerors. Its main objective was to protect the economic interests of Dwijas under the new political reality – Muslim rule. It was accomplished by creating one sided matrimonial alliance between the Mughlas and the defeated Hindu ruling elite: royal Rajputs, and loyalty to the Mughal regime: “Ishwaro va Dillishwaro va, (the Lord of Delhi is as great as God).” The political surrender of the collective Hindu society was synonymous with the surrender of Vaishnav Bhagat before the Brahmanical God. The loss of political power was compensated by emphasizing the nothingness of world (mithya, allusion) on the one hand and the promise of Brahamnical salvation - moksha (Baikunth or Swarg) on the other.
Varana Ashrama Dharama and Karma and Reincarnation/Transmigration are incompatible with universal human values: liberty, equality, justice, love and respect. According to Varana Ashrama Dharama people are born unequal and they remain so till death in spite of their best efforts. The concept of Karma and Reincarnation was invented to justify the most atrocious and dehumanizing system “Varana Ashrama Dharama” invented for the exploiting of man by man.
Finally, I have two questions for Rawel Singh : 1) Did Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur court martyrdom to uphold freedom of conscience and universal human values and rights or they suffered for their previous karma? 2) Did Sikhs who were burned alive by putting burning tires around their necks while Indian Army looked the other way and the police cheered the mobs, die horrible deaths due to their previous karma? Until and unless I get a clear answer from Rawel Singh, there is no point in debating Gurbani with him.
Regards,
-Baldev Singh
Rawel Singh is asking for....
-Gurtej Singh, New Zealand
Dear Editor,
Rawel Singh is asking for specific verses from Gurbani that reject reincarnation. There is not one but many. Please allow me to cite a few:
1. tayraa sabad tooNhai heh aapay bharam kahaahee naanak tat tat si-o mili-aa punrapjanam na aahee. ||4||1||15||35|| (Guru Granth Sahib, p. 162)
2. anaathah naath karay bal jaa-o punrap janam naahee gun gaa-o. ||5|| (Guru Granth Sahib, p. 224)
3. sun man magan bha-ay hai pooray maa-i-aa dol na laagee kaho kabeer taa ka-o punrap janam nahee khayl ga-i-o bairaagee. ||4||2||53|| (Guru Granth Sahib, p. 335)
With the above quotes I am not expecting Rawel Singh to come back to me with his stunted understanding of Gurbani. Anyone with basic Punjabi language native skills can understand the meaning of the three quotes mentioned above. Let us leave these quotes for the readers.
Apart from Gurbani, if one believes in reincarnation then such a person is in total denial of ethics and human-rights--this needs separate discussion. I would appreciate if Rawel Singh is able to provide me principally with the outcome indicators that I asked for in my last comment addressed to him. These indicators are:
1. If one is to believe in reincarnation then could Rawel Singh please enlighten us on how does one know how many times he or she has reincarnated before and why?
2. What type of actions made him or her go through reincarnations?
3. What were the allotted tasks in his or her previous life that he or she could not carry?
Regards,
-Gurtej Singh
At the end of his post Baldev....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
At the end of his post Baldev Singh asks “1) Did Guru Arjan
and Guru Tegh Bahadur court martyrdom to uphold freedom of conscience and
universal human values and rights or they suffered for their previous karma”?
This question is least expected from someone who writes about Gurmat and Sikh history. He should know that in each case the Gurus made the supreme sacrifice for a cause on which Guru Angad says:
One should die for what one holds dear; it is a curse to
live in its absence (M: 2, SGGS, p 83).
Now about the Karma aspect. Yes they died because of Karma.
Firstly it was their karma that made them Gurus. Secondly they were destined to
play that role of offering sacrifice and
chose to play it. Their martyrdoms changed the course of history. That it was
destined is clear from the fact that Guru Tegh Bahadur although fit to be a
Guru was not bestowed that position by his father the sixth Guru – he became
one later. Why? Simply because he was to receive martyrdom at a given point in
time. Let us make no mistake; every thing happens by Divine command and this
was also one.
One can offer similar explanation for the genocide against
the Sikhs in 1984 CE, in India.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
Gurtej Singh has quoted....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Gurtej Singh has quoted three Gurbani verses and according to him this is rejection of the concept of
reincarnation.
Let us imagine some one saying “if you cover yourself when
going out in the cold you will not catch cold”. Does that mean one who defies this
will also not catch cold; in other words does it reject the possibility of
catching cold. The very fact that Gurbani is mentioning how to escape
reincarnation confirms the concept. He has quoted only three but there are hundreds others.
About his other questions the Creator alone knows what or
where the soul has been. I had quoted earlier also to show that the soul takes many life forms. The Creator takes the decision on reincarnation based on our deeds. These have all been covered in the quotations given in response to
Baldev Singh’s writing / comments. I request Gurtej Singh to please see those.
He also asks what the allotted tasks were in my previous
birth. Since I do no know my previous birth I am unable to answer that. In fact
very few can.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
My name is Weston....
-Weston Koyama, USA
Dear Editor,
My name is Weston Koyama. I am a high school student in Oregon who is
studying different religions. Currently, I am tasked with getting as
many opinions (not objective fact, but opinions) as possible on
people's faiths. I have set up a blog where students at my school may
comment on their faith in respect to moral degradation of society and
the current atmosphere of hopelessness.
You may access my blog at http://westonkoyama.blogspot.com/ . Any
personal opinion or insight regarding the specific objections to
society, which I have written on my blog would be most appreciated.
Sincerely,
-Weston Koyama
Thanks for clarifying Einstein’s....
-Harmeet Singh, USA
Dear Joe Daleiden,
Thanks for clarifying Einstein’s perspective. It seems that none of them were wrong but only their relativistic reference was different. Maybe, Newton never thought about the existence of another reference in universe but I am sure he would be awe struck about the imagination of theoretical physics and the claims of particle Physics. Have you also noticed what Einstein said regarding the particle nature of light and other tiny particles about their dimensions of time and space (relative to our frame of reference) has been irrationally embedded with an assertion that suggests biological clocks slow down while traveling?
Coalescing Particle nature and biological nature seems to be an irreferential embedment. Similarly here, the relative distances between Evaluation/Measurement and Experience are too far to be referenced to each other.
According to Guru Nanak, we can’t evaluate experience against a standard since the existence of Experience in Nature is non-referential. “A mute has tasted molasses, but how can he/she say to describe about it if he is asked?” (p.334) “How can an Experience be described? They alone know it, who have tasted it.” (p.215)
For example, we can’t add miles to pounds and it is hard to describe a poem through Math. An individual’s experience of singing, swimming, dancing, laughing or any other human expression is non-referential as it is unique for all. To address the question why Guru Nanak has described God In anthromorphic terms as loving, forgiving, etc- we will be leaving much out if we don’t take a holistic look into Guru Nanak’s writings. Nanak has repeatedly said that God is an Experience and this Experience is unfathomable.
In his attempt, Guru Nanak used human emotions, common linguistic symbols, idioms, prevalent lingo, even agnostic terms at times to express God. However, any description of God and Truth are NOT ultimate, according to Nanak, even his own. Guru Nanak doesn’t seem to imply that Nature or other inanimate objects have human emotions of love or caring but an Experience in God is loving. God, according to Nanak is beyond human emotions of anger, emotional attachment, fear etc but Guru Nanak's expression will be human since he was a human. Guru Nanak has further implied to Experience nature “As Is” besides studying “As Is”.
The aim of Sikhi is to give a meaningful Experience that accepts the reality of us and of nature. To give an example, the Experience of let’s say pain or pleasure, according to Nanak, should be no different on a cognitive level. What he is implying is that pain is definitely real but our perception of it being negative in essence is NOT true. According to Nanak, pain is also under the Hukam and shouldn’t be taken as negative in life. Here Nanak is implying to Experience the nature “As is”. Nanak has continuously tried to change our experiential perception but at the same time has also advised us to be reasonable beings where human Experience is NOT enough to measure and evaluate.
I don’t believe both philosophies (naturalism and Sikhi) are in disagreement here but their relativistic reference seems to be different, if not opposite.
Sincerely,
-Harmeet Singh
There is well-documented....
-Baldev Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
There is well-documented evidence that Jahangir and Aurangzeb were responsible for the death of Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur, respectively, and the massacre of Sikhs in 1984 was sponsored by the Congress party. In spite of this evidence, Rawel Singh claims that both the Gurus and Sikhs died because of their karma in previous lives:
Yes they died because of Karma. Firstly it was their karma that made them Gurus. Secondly they were destined to play that role of offering sacrifice and chose to play it. Their martyrdoms changed the course of history. That it was destined is clear from the fact that Guru Tegh Bahadur although fit to be a Guru was not bestowed that position by his father the sixth Guru – he became one later. Why? Simply because he was to receive martyrdom at a given point in time. Let us make no mistake; every thing happens by Divine command and this was also one. One can offer similar explanation for the genocide against the Sikhs in 1984 CE, in India.
Thus, Rawel Singh has exonerated Mughal rulers and the Congress Party of their heinous crimes against humanity while holding the Gurus and Sikhs responsible for their own deaths. Besides, his statement endorses what Rajiv Gandhi said about the killing of thousands of Sikhs in 1984: “When a big tree falls, the earth/ground shakes.” Moreover, if Sikhs were massacred because of “Divine Command” then does that make the “Divine Being” genocidal.
Further, for people who believe in karma and reincarnation, universal human values and human rights have no meaning, as for them everything is predestined. It is “human conscience that conceives and nurtures, and defends human values.” Universal human values constitute the core of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) and the driving force for the Sikh revolution.
Has this book been published, and is it possible to communicate with its
author?
Regards,
-Job
Towards the end of....
-Gurtej Singh, New Zealand
Dear Editor,
Towards the end of his comment Rawel Singh wrote, "He also asks what the allotted tasks were in my previous birth. Since I do no know my previous birth I am unable to answer that. In fact very few can." Now, about the analogy of 'catching cold', one would need to prove that 'cold' exists. If we cannot prove that cold exists then how can one 'catch a cold'? I see a contradiction here.
Regards,
-Gurtej Singh
Applause and congratulations....
-Baldev Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Applause and congratulations to Harmeet Singh! I have been reading his letters with great interest. I am deeply impressed with his understanding of Nanakian philosophy and his knowledge of science, eloquence and scientific approach to the subject under discussion. Human society gets closer to “Truth” from generation to generation. In “Nanakian Philosophy (Gurmat): The Path of Enlightenment” I have attempted to carry the understanding of Nanakian philosophy of earlier generations of Sikh scholars forward. I hope that Harmeet Singh and other young Sikhs would expand and expound what I have presented with deeper understanding, greater clarity and better eloquence.
Regards,
-Baldev Singh
I would like to ask....
-Harmeet Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
I would like to ask Dr. Baldev Singh and other students of history if upper-caste Hindus were hand-in-glove with Mughals, why would Aurangzeb try to diminish an important asset of Mughal Empire by acting against Brahmins of Kashmir? And, why did Aurangzeb choose Brahmins of Kashmir only?
Regards,
-Harmeet Singh
The story of Kashmiri....
-Baldev Singh, USA
Harmeet Ji,
The story of Kashmiri Brahmins is a concocted story. In January 2008 The Sikh Review published a well-researched article by Sardar Sher Singh, a retired IAS officer, on this subject. Please write to the editor of The Sikh Review for a copy of this article.
Sardar Sher Singh, "Guru Teghbahadur Courted Shahidi for "Millat-e-Nau", The Sikh Review, January 2008, pp. 42-53.
Regards,
-Baldev Singh
At the outset I wish to....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Baldev Singh has stated:
"Thus, Rawel Singh has exonerated Mughal rulers and the Congress Party of their heinous crimes against humanity while holding the Gurus and Sikhs responsible for their own deaths.-----Further, for people who believe in karma and reincarnation, universal human values and human rights have no meaning, as for them everything is predestined".
At the outset I wish to reiterate what I said earlier that the Gurus were not killed they chose to sacrifice themselves for the cause they held dear. In all cases when God wants to punish some one He uses instruments and does not Himself take the blame for it. He desired to punish the Lodis for poor governance and used the Mughals to punish them:
Kuraasaan khasmaana keeaa hindustaan draaiaa; aapay dos na dayee karta jammu kari mughalu chraaiaa (M: 1, SGGS, p 360).
Having secured Kuraassan, the Mughals created terror in India; the Creator not taking blame Himself used the Mughals as the messengers of death.
So let us make no mistake everything happens with Divine command. Rawel Singh can never exonerate those who did these things but that does not take us away from the fact that It is all Divine-ordained. God also does not exonerate those who do such things. It is clear from what happened to those who do such things. See what happened to the Mughals and to the family that was responsible for the Sikh genocide in 1984. They were first put on the wrong track by God and then punished. Guru Nanak says
Jis no aapi khuaaey karta khus laey changiaaee (M: 1, SGGS, p 417).
Whom the Creator desires to put on the wrong track, He takes away goodness from him.
So those who did these things were put on the wrong track by the Creator Himself because He wanted to punish them.
Now that Baldev Singh's condition on Karma have been answered let us proceed to discuss the real issue that is what does Gurbani says on the subject of Karma and Reincarnation. I request that the following please be answered by Baldev Singh:
1. Give just one verse from the whole of Gurbani directly rejecting Karma/ Reincarnation the way it rejects the caste system, rituals, superstitions and gender discrimination directly. No reliance on what other faiths believe, please.
2. Say why he is ignoring the hundreds of Gurbani verses endorsing the concepts of Karma and Reincarnation.
3. Give his interpretation of the Gurbani verses quoted by me. I reproduce them below for easy reference:
Let us now see what Gurbani says directly on the subject of Karma and Reincarnation. A comprehensive statement on this is made in Jap Ji thus:
One does not become virtuous or evil by words alone; all deeds are written and go with the soul; one eats (reaps) what one sows; rebirth and death is by Divine command (M: 1, SGGS, p 4)
What causes the soul to reincarnate? It is by forgetting Hukam and getting caught by evil:
One who is caught by lust, anger, greed, attachment and the sensory organs are possessed by temptations, is put in cycles of birth again and again (M: 5, SGGS, p 403).
(Aavagavan) reincarnation has been created by You O Eternal Creator; births and deaths are for the soul that is in bondage of evil (M: 1, SGGS, p 580).
Swine, dog, ass, cat; animal, unwanted intruders, lowly and barbarian; these are the life forms for those who move away from the Guru's teachings; they remain in bondage of reincarnations (M: 1, SGGS, p 832).
There are numerous births in numerous life forms; this is hell for those who do not remember the Creator i.e. His Hukam (M: 5, SGGS, p 1192).
Now about Karma:
Those who forget the Master are grabbed by the messenger of death and go through hell; this is the result of past deeds; the soul has to obey as directed (M: 3, SGGS, p 854).
Editor- If you have information please send it directly to P.J. Clarke.
Dear Editor,
I'm looking for a John Keane, who fought and died with the Gurka Rifles.
He fell on the 24th November, 1915. He was born in Bengal, India. Can't find
his obituary anywhere. Greetings to the site owners. Well done.
Regards,
-P. J. Clarke
Author of Mayo Comrades of the Great War, 1914-1919 pjmclarkw2004@yahoo.com
In the ongoing discussion....
-Akashdeep Singh Aulakh, USA
Dear Editor,
In the ongoing discussion on re-incarnation, I was astonished by the following comment from Rawel Singh on Gurus and the genocide of Sikhs in 1984 in India.
"Secondly they were destined to play that role of offering sacrifice and chose to play it. Their martyrdoms changed the course of history. That it was destined is clear from the fact that Guru Tegh Bahadur although fit to be a Guru was not bestowed that position by his father the sixth Guru – he became one later. Why? Simply because he was to receive martyrdom at a given point in time. Let us make no mistake; every thing happens by Divine command and this was also one.One can offer similar explanation for the genocide against the Sikhs in 1984 CE, in India."
These views are far from my understanding of AGGS, and they contradict the philosophy enshrined in AGGS on the subject matter. The statement of predestined events insults the hard work of Sikh gurus and other leaders who have sacrificed their lives for the sake of society. These comments deny the conscious decisions of the Gurus and trash them with the concept of destiny (or pre-destination). Both, denying the role of conscious and the belief in destiny do not conform to Nanakian philosophy. Later, Rawel Singh contradicts himself by first mentioning that the Gurus attained Guruship because of Karma and then proposing exactly opposite, that is – they were "destined". May I ask, if the Gurus were "destined" then what is the role of “Karma”?
While it is true that the entire system governs under the Hukam/Law of Akaal, it is not true that things like who gets what are micromanaged and predestined. The criteria for who gets what is inter-woven into the Law of Akaal just like other criteria's but there is nobody sitting up there and predestining what will happen in the course of life for a particular person. Gurbani does not suggest that one does not have freedom of choices and that they have already been made by making an individual "destined" to something.
Understanding the philosophy in AGGS on the subject of destiny by a mathematical analogy we can view the outcome of ones life as the RHS (Right Hand Side) of a big polynomial equation. This polynomial equation is Akaal's Hukam (Law) and could be predestined, still what one inputs into the numerous variables in the LHS (Left Hand Side) of the equation are not directly controlled by Akaal. Here comes the role of conscience and the choices one makes during the course of life. It is these inputs that steer the life of an individual to where it goes. Down the line, there are random events though. They can be good and bad and both are important components of the Law and hence have to be met with equal acceptance. Guru Nanak states: -
O Nanak, it is futile-talk to ask to be spared from sorrow and ask for just happiness.
Sorrow and happiness are both given (from the Hukam) like two garment that have to be worn by the humans.
Where one is bound to fail in getting something asked, there, its better to remain silent.
[AGGS, M1, p 149]
According to the philosophy enshrined in AGGS, conscience plays an important part in driving a person toward good or bad. In this respect, the Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) is different from the belief of Devils and Holy Spirits of Christianity and Devs and Rakhsas of Hinduism because, according to respective religions, they are ready-made good and bad. If the system is a "destined" one, like Rawel Singh suggests, it would have been a passive one. On the contrary, the system of Akaal is an interactive system. As such, the path of the state machine (another mathematical concept) of ones life is not known in advance and is only determined as one inputs the variables.
The Law (of Akaal) evaluates the good and bad deeds. It is by virtue of ones own actions that some are driven closer while some others are driven farther (from the truth).
[AGGS, M1, p8]
To steer the life appropriately, one needs to understand the Hukam and base modus vivendi on it, that is why Nanak proclaimed: -
“How could one become a sachiara (Godlike, gurmukh) and
how could one get rid of ignorance and falsehood?” “By
living in harmony with the Hukam (Cosmic Law) is the
answer,” says Nanak. [AGGS, M1, p1] (Nanakian Philosophy (Gurmat): The Path of Enlightenment - Baldev Singh, SikhSpectrum, Issue No.33, October 2008)
"One who earns his bread with the sweat of brow and shares, O Nanak! has realized the (true) path".
[AGGS, M1, p1245]
May I ask Rawel Singh ji, if the guruships were predestined then what was the role of the actions and conscience of the Gurus before they were passed on the responsibility of carrying forward Nanak's mission? Moreover, are we wasting time seeking justice for the 1984 genocide victims because they were just destined and there is nobody to hold accountable for the killings?
Regards,
-Akashdeep Singh
A debate or discussion o....
-Baldev Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
A debate or discussion on any subject on a forum like the SikhSpectrum is useful if it adds to the knowledge of the subject and enlightens the readers. This general rule finds strong and unequivocal support in Gurbaani: “Nanak, always salute the “liberated one,” who liberates others from ignorance and falsehood, AGGS, M 5, p. 295.”
In “Nanakian Philosophy: The Path of Enlightenment” I have made abundantly clear with ample quotes from Aad Guru Granth Sahib that Guru Nanak rejected earlier definition of God and the allied beliefs: souls and salvation, karma and reincarnation, hell and heaven and man made sin and virtue. In other words, there is total rejection of Brahmanism (Varna Ashrama Dharma) and it foundation made up of karma and reincarnation.
Moreover, universal human values constitute the core of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) and the driving force - the ideological base of the Sikh revolution. On the contrary, in Rawel Singh’s letters I have not come across even once the mention of human value or even human rights. He explains (justifies) the killing Sikh Gurus by Mughals and Sikhs a by Hindu mobs led by Congress party as the result of their karmas. So Rawel singh’s interpretation of Aad Guru Granth Sahib is Barahmanical, which in my view and the views of many learned Sikhs is the total repudiation of Nanakian philosophy. Thus there is no common ground on which I should discuss Gurbani with him.
Sometime back when a listener asked Prof. Richard Dawkins, the distinguished evolutionary biologist during a National Public Radio interview, “Why don’t you debate with the creationists?” “Because creationism is not science,” quipped Prof. Dawkins. Similarly, karma and reincarnation is not Nanakian Philosophy. So I don’t have to convince Rawel Singh as there is no point. I shall let the readers draw their own conclusions based on my views versus those of Rawel Singh’s that have been published in the feedback section of SikhSpectrum.
I am sure SikhSpectrum readers will take this opportunity to read, understand, and analyze our views on this topic and form an intelligent opinion on whether karma and re-incarnation have any role in Nanakian philosophy. In view of this, I humbly urge the Editor to end the discussion on this topic, and let readers who have questions for me directly correspond with me at baldevsingh07@comcast.net.
Editor- We are closing the discussion on Karma and reincarnation between Baldev Singh & Rawel Singh. Interested readers are advised to please read the discussion that has transpired so far and is available on the feedback section of Issue No 33. Readers who are new to this discussion are advised to read Baldev Singh’s original article that started this discussion. Both Baldev Singh and Rawel Singh have fundamental differences in how they approach this topic including how Sikhism defines Hukam, soul, etc. and their discussion provides insights that will prove beneficial to SikhSpectrum readers as they decide whether karma and reincarnation is a part of Sikh worldview or not.
Dear Editor,
Baldev Singh in his article on Nanakian Philosophy had stated that Gurbani rejects the concepts of Karma and Reincarnation. I questioned this and gave Gurbani quotations to show how Gurbani endorses them. He initially declined to discuss the issue but later raised certain points basically whether everything happens by Divine command or not. I answered these with quotation of Guru Nanak's verses. He does not seem to agree but does not quote any Gurbani verse to support his statement. The fundamental philosophy of Guru Nanak is that every thing is subject to Hukam or Divine commands. Guru Sahib says "Hukmay andar sabh ko baahar Hukam na koey" (Japu Ji Pauri 2). (Every one is subject to Hukam, no one is beyond it).
After giving the clarifications I requested him to respond to three points. One, to quote just one verse from Gurbani which rejects; two say why he is ignoring hundreds of Gurbani verses endorsing the comcepts; and three to give his interpretation of a few verses quoted by me that support the concepts. He repeatedly states that he has quoted Gurbani to support his views. But not even one of the verse quoted by him does that so I asked him to show which verse does. His answer: I do not want to debate. I submit there is no debate on personal views involved in this. We have only to see what Gurbani says on the subject and I have supported all my statements with Gurbani quotations. He has again stated that my views are Brahaminical. Does he mean to say all the Gurbani quotations are an exposition of Brahminical thought? I have requested him to show how Gurbani supports his views and rejects the concepts.
Akashdeep Singh has stated
“Later, Rawel Singh contradicts himself by first mentioning that the Gurus attained Guruship because of Karma and then proposing exactly opposite, that is – they were "destined". May I ask, if the Gurus were "destined" then what is the role of “Karma”?
”He has further asked “if the guruships were predestined then
what was the role of the actions and conscience of the Gurus before they were passed on the responsibility of carrying forward Nanak's mission? Moreover, are we wasting time seeking justice for the 1984 genocide victims because they were just destined and there is nobody to hold accountable for the killings?”
The basis for these doubts seems to be his understanding
that Karma and destiny are different. Karma not only represents the
consequences but also how the soul acts later. This should be clear from the second Guru’s Slok in Aasa Di Vaar where he explains that even a behavior like Haumai or ego is by Hukam and a result of paeiai Kirt or Karma:
Haumai eho Hukam hai paeiai kirt kamaaey (M:2, SGGS,
p 466).
Ego is by Hukam and one acts according to this Karma.
So all deeds, good and bad are governed by Karma that is destiny.
Because of the past good deeds the gurus achieved the spiritually exalted status and had the ability to offer self-sacrifice. This aspect is also clarified by Guru Nanak thus:
Hukam chaaaey aapnay karmi vahai kalaam; Nanak sachaa
sachi naaey sachu sabhaa deebaanu (M: 1, SGGS, p 1241).
The Creator wields his pen of Hukam based on one’s deeds;
the eternal Lord is just and so is His court.
So Hukam is based on deeds and one faces consequences and acts
accordingly.
To the question whether one should do nothing if every thing
is by Hukam, the answer is that we still have to act and those actions are also governed by Hukam. This should be clear from the way different ways different people react to similar situations. In my response to Baldev Singh’s comments I have given what Guru Nanak says about how God punishes the wrong-doers through others.
Akashdeep Singh has talked of acting according to conscience.
Yes every one acts according to conscience which is also formed by Hukam based on past deeds.
What I have stated above seems difficult to believe only because we think we do what we like. Once we submit our mind to the Divine –
and this is learnt through the Guru’s teachings – we would realize that the Creator is the Kaaran Karta, the real doer, we are only the instruments.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
I too am skeptical that atomic....
-Joseph Daleiden, USA
Dear Harmeet Singh,
I too am skeptical that atomic clocks slow down while traveling. A couple experiments in this regard concluded contend an atomic clock in space ran a few millions of a second slower than a companion clock on the ground, but that could be due to differences such as regular clocks experience. It might also be due to the difference in the effect of the relative gravity in space or the magnetic field. What seems intuitively reasonable is that due the time it takes for information (light) to travel from space to earth from the perspective of a viewer on earth the distant clock would appear to be running slower as its distance from earth increases. However as the clock began its return to earth it would appear to be running faster until by the time it landed it would be recording the same time as the clock left on the earth. However this is not what physicists believe would occur based upon the mathematics of relativity. However since the effect only becomes relevant as objects approach the speed of light is difficult to test the hypothesis.
Here again I believe physicists may be confusing reality and the perception or measurement of reality. Physicists seem at times to confuse the reality of “things” i.e., physical objects and events, with the reality of the measurement of those objects or events. For example, to measure the distance between two planets, since they are both moving, we find that the mathematics of relativity gives a slightly more accurate (in a sense a more “real”) answer than Newton ’s calculus. Hence there is do doubt that relativity does indeed provide a more correct, true or “real” answer to questions involving measurements of time and distance. But at the subatomic level, it is questionable whether the quarks are real, physical things or conceptual artifacts of the attempt to measure and explain the properties of energy and matter
In philosophy there is the same problem of distinguishing reality from the perception or experience of reality. Reality, i.e., the physical world, exists regardless of whether there is anyone to perceive it. However there are a myriad ways of perceiving that reality. For example looking at a waterfall, one person may perceive it as a powerful expression of the force of nature, another as a source of energy in the form of hydroelectric power, a third as an expression of the beauty of nature providing a feeling of peace and harmony. All are valid perceptions. I believe to the extent that Nanak philosophy tries to get people to perceive (or experience) reality from different perspectives is extremely valuable as long as it doesn’t confuse experience of reality from reality itself.
On the other hand, I find no value in using the word “God” in as an explanation or description of either what is real or our perception of what is real. The school of philosophy know as logical positivism made it clear that to the extent we can have meaningful discussions on any topic we have to define our words. If we use words that cannot be defined then it becomes impossible to communicate. For the positivists there are three kinds of statements: those that are true, those that are false, and those that simply have no meaning.
If I say that I believe in a “eunie, you have a right to ask what do I mean. What is a eunie? If I say that it is everything, then you can ask, “how does it differ from the term universe?” Is it a thing? Is it a feeling? Is it a way of perceiving things or events? If I answer it is all of that, our discussion can proceed no further because there are no analytical or meaningful statements that can be made referring to such an ill-defined and all encompassing term
If, on the other hand, someone states that there are many ways of viewing a thing or an event, I must agree because that can be demonstrated. Moreover, it can be demonstrated that certain perspectives are far more conducive to the happiness and welfare of human beings than others. For example, it is far better for humanity to perceive our environment as something of great value to be protected for future generations rather than exploited and destroyed to facilitate as much current consumption as possible.
In the final analysis, I believe that the result of Nanak philosophy and that which I have proposed in my book “The Science of Morality” would yield many of the same prescriptions for happiness and moral behavior. The difference would be my reliance on the methods of science to evaluate specific moral practices and customs to evaluate their long term contribution to human happiness.
I have greatly enjoyed this discussion and the education you have provided on Sikh beliefs.
With warm regards,
-Joseph Daleiden
To avoid taking tangents....
-Akashdeep Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
[This is further to Rawel Singh's comments, published on Sikhspectrum "Comments and Feedback" page on Issue No. 33, October 2008, while responding to mine.]
To avoid taking tangents to the subject, it will be useful if Rawel Singh can first establish:
1. How far behind the present is he extending the “past” that he talks in his comments?, and
2. How he came to know the “past” mentioned in AGGS extends to a “previous birth”?
From there we can proceed onto discussing if the “Karma” and the “destiny” theory are supported by Gurbani. Regardless, while responding to my previous comments Rawel Singh has done an imprecise translation when he quoted the following:-
“Haumai eho Hukam hai paeiai kirt kamaaey (M:2, SGGS, p 466).
Ego is by Hukam and one acts according to this Karma”
Here Rawel Singh translates kirt to his “Karma-theory” conveniently whereas kirt nowhere in gurbani means the “Karma-theory” Rawel Singh proposes. The dictionary “Mahankosh” by Kahan Singh Nabha defines “kirt” simply as “actions”; nothing like the “Karma” theory of Rawel Singh ji. Taking into consideration Aad Guru Granth Sahib, Guru Granth Darpan by Sahib Singh, Kahan Singh’s Mahankosh and general knowledge of the Gurmukhi/Punjabi language, the verse quoted by Rawel Singh comes out to mean the following:
Ego is such a component of the Hukam/Akaal’s-Law that puts one into a vicious circle of actions [AGGS, M2, p 466]
Naturally, an action taken under the effect of ego prompts one to take another action to protect the previous (obviously wrong) action; and another one to protect later action, and so on so forth, thus putting one into a cycle of actions unconstructive actions. There is no mention of “Karma/Destiny theory” in the quote. Therefore, I am not sure how Rawel Singh came up with the translation he proposed.
A Later quote from Rawel Singh is from the following verse:
Here too there is no such meaning that can confirm the Karma-theory that Rawel Singh proposes. The meaning of the above lines in English is:-
All the doings, all the performances of penances, and all the songs (of worship),
All the intellect, all the conscious/enlightenment, and all the pilgrimages and the places (of pilgrimage),
All the kingdoms, all the orders, and all the pleasures and delicacies,
All the humans, all the divinities, and all the yoga and the meditations,
All the nether worlds, all the celestial realms, and all the organism of the cosmos,
Operate under the Hukam/Law; and the actions of individuals yield results in accordance with the Hukam.
[AGGS, M2, p 1241]
I feel Rawel Singh is doing direct transliteration of the words to arrive at a wrong meaning. Gurmukhi/Punjabi is inherently metaphorical language. One cannot do blunders like translating, “Mera sir chakkar kha reha” to “My head is eating circles”; simply because “chakkar” is “circle” and “kha” is “eat”. The statement actually means in English –“My head is spinning” (I’m feeling dizzy).
To further understand the meaning of Gurbani quoted above by Rawel Singh let us take into consideration a quote from Japji in AGGS where Guru Nanak states:
Hukmi hovan aakaar hukam na kahiya jaye
Hukmi hovan jee hukam milai vadiyayi
Hukmi uttam neech hukam likh dukh sukh payiye
Ikna hukmi bakhsees ik hukmi sada bhavayiye.
Hukmai andar sabh ko baahar hukam na koye.
Naanak hukmai je bujhey ta humai kahai na koye.
While in accordance with the Hukam the bodies/shapes come into being, the hukam itself is indescribable. In accordance with the Hukam the living organism come into being, (Operating) In accordance with the Hukam, one earns respect. In accordance with the Hukam some have risen to being among the best, while some others have fallen low; From the outcome of Hukam one gets pain and pleasure. While some have achieved blessings via Hukam, some others wander aimlessly (under the same Hukam/Law). The Hukam(Akaal’s Law) covers everything; nothing is outside its limits. O Nanak! One who has understood this Hukam (Akaal’s Law), does not speak out of ego. [AGGS, M1, P 1]
Both the verses above are coherent in their central meaning, that is – all around that one sees is covered under the Hukam/Law of Akaal and that no smartness/shrewdness will help to circumvent the Hukam/Akaal’s-law. Yes, AGGS supports the view that the Hukam/Akaal’s-Law covers all that we see around; and on a macro scale one can argue that the law (Hukam) itself is pre-made. Nevertheless, the claim that things and actions are micro-destined is not supported by AGGS. Once again, quoted Gurbani by Rawel Singh does not say anything like “destiny/pre-destination” or the Karma-theory.
Rawel Singh further says, “…Hukam is based on deeds and one faces consequences and acts accordingly.” This statement gives a wrong cause and effect relationship. Hukam/Law is not based on deeds rather the result out of the Hukam/Akaal’s-Law is based on deeds. Rawel Singh is transliterating “Hukam” to some kind of verbal, written or spontaneous order. He seems to relate things into personification of somebody sitting up-there and issuing individual Hukams after actions like the mythological figures from Hindu beliefs Dharamraj-Chitragupta duo would be shown in the TV serial Ramayana etc.
The Hukam AGGS talks about is a law not “orders” per say; this is clear from Guru Nanak’s words – “Hukame andar sabh ko, bahar hukam na koi (The Hukam/Akaal’s-law covers everything; nothing is outside its limits)”. It still does not say anything about the “Karma and Reincarnation” theory that Rawel Singh intends to support with the quote.
Rawel Singh also says, “…Creator is the Kaaran Karta, the real doer, we are only the instrument”. This is a fallacious conclusion and attribution. By this claim, Rawel Singh asserts that a human-being is a passive element of the system of Akaal and that AGGS supports this view. AGGS does not support this view - that we are mere “instruments”; because instruments are directly driven by others without any presence of their own conscious. I request Rawel Singh ji to substantiate to the readers via Gurbani that Human beings are “only the instruments”.
While AGGS agrees that the choices one made in the “past” are important factors that decide ones “present”; Rawel Singh seems to make a sweeping generalization in extending the “past” beyond the boundaries of the human-birth to justify hypothetical “Re-incarnation” theory. There are no references in AGGS indicating “past-human-birth” or “future-human-birth” of the same individual but there are references on the urgency of realizing “the truth” in “this” birth. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the “past” of AGGS on this issue is limited to past of the present (the one and only) Human birth and that Rawel Singh’s generalization is unwarranted.
If Rawel Singh disagrees, the readers would find it useful if he can first address the issue of “past” and how he extended it to the “previous births”. Please substantiate via Gurbani that the “past” AGGS refers to, includes something like “previous-birth”.
Furthermore, by suggesting the pre-ordained karma/destiny theory, is Rawel Singh suggesting the Sikhs to go about preparing their “Janam Kundalees”. Are we, as Sikhs, missing the opportunity to know our destiny in advance?
With regards,
-Akashdeep Singh
Akashdeep Singh has raised....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Akashdeep Singh has raised many questions which have at least
partly been answered in my previous post. I shall take them in the sequence he has raised. He asks:
1. How far behind the present is he extending the “past” that he talks in his comments?
2. How he came to know the “past” mentioned in AGGS extends to a “previous birth”?
There is no limit to the period up to the length of the past. The consequences of deeds keep accumulating until one gets rid of the
next birth. Gurbani does not define this period but makes it clear that one has to face the consequences of deeds account of which is kept. Guru Nanak says in the 19th Pauri of Aasa Di Vaar:
Keeta aapo aapnaa aapay hi laykha sandheeai (M: 1, SGGS, p 473)
One has to face the consequences based on the account of one’s
deeds.
He is likely to ask the question where does it talk of past deeds? The answer to it is that an account (Laykha) can only be of past deeds.
He is further likely to ask where it says past lives because past deeds of the current life have also to be accounted for. Here are a few Gurbani quotations on the subject since he has repeatedly raised this question in his post:
Poorab janam parchoon kamaaey hari hari hari naami
piaaray; gurpraadi amrit rasu paaiaa rasu gaavai veechaaray (M: 4, SGS, p 982).
By virtue of (good) deeds done in previous births bit by bit,
one lovingly remembers God in the current life; this comes with the blessings of the Guru and one receives the nectar of contemplation on Naam.
Poorab janam kay laykhu na mitaee janam marai ka kau dosu
dharay; binu gur baadi jeevan hour mrnaa binu gur sabdai janamu jarai ;9: (M: 1, SGGS, p 1014).
The account of past births cannot be erased and one keeps reincarnating; none else can be blamed for this; without obeying the Guru one keeps suffering likewise unless one follows the Guru.
These two verses make the following points:
. Effects of past lives are a reality.
. Consequences of deeds, both good and bad are reaped. This is Karma.
. Reincarnation is a consequence of accumulated bad deeds.
. One can get out of these cycles by following the Guru.
Akshdeep Singh further says: Rawel Singh has done an imprecise translation when he quoted the following:
“Haumai eho Hukam hai paeiai kirt kamaaey (M:2, SGGS, p 466).
Ego is by Hukam and one acts according to this Karma
Here Rawel Singh translates kirt to his “Karma-theory” conveniently whereas kirt nowhere in gurbani means the “Karma-theory” Rawel Singh proposes.
Again according to him Prof Sahib Singh’s Darpan gives the
following translation:
“Ego is such a component of the Hukam/Akaal’s-Law that puts one into a vicious circle of actions”
No, Darpan says for Paeiai kirt phiraahi: “Kirt day paan day
kaaran jeev phirday hann, keetay hoay karma day sanskaaran anusaar jeev murr uhnaan hi kammaan noo karan vaastay daurday hann”.
This means because of the results of past deeds men wander again and again (Phiraahi), under the influence of past deeds men run to do the same deeds again. This entirely what I said and Akashdeep Singh objected.
The reason is that Akashdeep Singh has only looked at only kirt which means deeds but not considered Peiai kirt which means past deeds.
Akashdeep Singh has tried to find fault with my translation of the following saying it does not confirm Karma:
It is clear that God’s orders are based on man’s deeds. He has also said “I feel Rawel Singh is doing direct transliteration of the words to arrive at a wrong meaning”.
I ask him to show which transliteration I have used. If he
means translation he should show what is wrong. It is not right to twist the meanings in order to give one’s own views; we can explain things but the spirit should not be lost.
I had quoted “Hukmai andar sabh ko baahar hukam na koay” to
show that nothing is beyond Hukam. Whatever we do is according to Hukam. And in order to reinforce this Guru Sahib says” Nanak Hukmay jay bujhai ta haumai kahay na koay”. He is trying to link this to Dharam Raj which I have not done.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
I had not responded to....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
I am sorry I had not responded to the following statement of Akshdeep Singh:
I request Rawel Singh ji to substantiate to the readers via Gurbani that Human beings are “only the instruments”.
Here are two quotations from Gurbani:
Jo tis bhaavai su karay karaaiaa; Nanak vajdaa jant vajaaiaa (M: 3, SGGS, p 313).
The creator makes us act as per His will; the humans play as he makes them, like a musician playing on a musical instrument.
Udam mati PRB antarjaami jio prayray tio karna; jio natooaa tant vajaavai tantee tio vaajeh jant janaa (M: 4, SGGS, 798-99).
The efforts and thinking is imparted by the Creator, we act as He motivates us; it is like a singer playing a stringed musical instrument, the strings give the sound as the singer wants them to, similarly humans act as God desires.
I seem to have made an error in the last post. The last sentence in that may please be read as follows:
He is trying to link it to Janam Kundalees which I have neither said nor believe.
However I have given sufficient quotations now to show that humans act according to Divine will.
Regards,
-Rawel Singh
The anecdotal fallacy undermines....
-Akashdeep Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
The anecdotal fallacy undermines the understanding of Nanakian Philosophy in its real perspective and also the proper translation of AGGS (Aad Guru Granth Sahib). A discerning mind takes into consideration the possibility of alternative views to make sure that a particular point of view is not the result of his/her own biased perspective. A serious reader of AGGS reads hymns in entirety while keeping in mind various factors like:
Sikh gurus lived in a society which was shackled in superstitions; they often challenged the common beliefs by questions and offered their own views.
The Gurus used the vocabulary of local people to discuss and debate with them.
The AGGS has instances where the Gurus used the myth-theory-words; only to underscore that the belief in them, investing time in them, fear of them are a waste of the time available in this all precious present birth.
Relying on mere occurrences of words in AGGS to assert that Sikh Gurus believed in re-incarnation is as fallacious as claiming that they believed in Ram/Siva etc from Hindu mythology. Undue weight in reasoning on the number of times a particular word or phrase occurs in AGGS to support the re-incarnation theory does not add any value to the argument.
Going through the previous comments from Rawel Singh in the current reader 's feedback section (SikhSpectrum Issue 33), I don’t agree that Rawel Singh has appropriately addressed the questions that were put forth by my earlier comments. I also find myself in disagreement with his generalization that past, in the hymns that he has been quoting, can be extended to any limits. In the most recent reply, Rawel Singh has provided following translations of two verses, which seem as imprecise as the previous ones (underline emphasis mine):
Verse-1: Poorab janam parchoon kamaaey hari hari hari naami piaaray; gurpraadi amrit rasu paaiaa rasu gaavai veechaaray (M: 4, SGS, p 982).
By virtue of (good) deeds done in previous births bit by bit, one lovingly remembers God in the current life; this comes with the blessings of the Guru and one receives the nectar of contemplation on Naam.
Verse-2: Poorab janam kay laykhu na mitaee janam marai ka kau dosu dharay; binu gur baadi jeevan hour mrnaa binu gur sabdai janamu jarai ;9: (M: 1, SGGS, p 1014).
The account of past births cannot be erased and one keeps reincarnating; none else can be blamed for this; without obeying the Guru one keeps suffering likewise unless one follows the Guru.
These translations are inflicted with the ideological-shackles built by Vedas and enforced by the priestly brahamanic class. Such flawed translations and views are nothing but propagation of the Varnashrama dharma and are the adulteration of the Nanakian Philosophy; which is being done inadvertently and advertently by many.
Brahmins wanted the majority of the non-brahmin population to believe that they (the brahmins) are higher by birth because they did some "good deeds" in previous birth and now they need not do anything but enjoy the interest earned from the previous birth. They also exploited the people, whom they called "low caste", by preaching that it is nothing they ( the “low caste”) can do to change their lives in their present birth, because - they are still facing the consequences of the “bad deeds” of the previous birth.
By creating the myth of re-incarnation and building fears around it, the Varnashrama dharma system made sure to restrict all means of development of the down trodden. Through re-incarnation theory, this system puts the problem beyond present birth and the results of present life to after death; thus making knowing the problem, fixing it and reaping the results beyond the reach of down-trodden. The slippery slope arguments built around this system did not stop here, through Varnashrama dharma system, the brahmins went to the extent of making the people believe that by gifting the Brahmins and offering prayers to and by the Brahmins one can be absolved of “sins” and be guaranteed of a seat in “Heaven” after death.
This web of superstition, myths and fear of re-incarnation was woven to make sure the down-trodden remained subservient for their entire life; and their future generations forever. Guru Nanak noticed this fear in the society and has spoken against it in his attempts to bring people out of this unwarranted fear installed in them by the Varnashrama dharma system of Hinduism. Guru Nanak notes:
“This poor society, engulfed in the fears of birth and death, is wasting life by investing prayers in duality”
[AGGS, M1, P598].
He then follows up attempting to bring the down trodden out of these fears of life and death –
“The true guru breaks the shackles (of duality); you will not come into the womb again. O Nanak! The jewel of knowledge glows in that mind, where the belief in the Formless is instilled”
[AGGS, M1, P598]
The phrase Poorab janam is indeed very intriguing and should be dealt with care. Personal experiences in life, not being able to explain or understand the cause of sorrow, seeking only and only happiness, lack of hope and the pre-existing notion of life before birth and after death can easily make a human mind fall prey to a cognitive illusion such as re-incarnation. A person reading AGGS with a mind already influenced with the re-incarnation concept and related stories will quickly jump to translate this phrase (poorab janam) to “previous birth” thus becoming guilty of anecdotal fallacy during the process of translation.
The affect of this cognitive illusion, called Re-incarnation, is so intense that one can even find its victims translating the metaphor janam-janam to “Re-incarnation” regardless of the ample evidence presented by its everyday usage where it simply means – a very long duration of time. Several such wrong translations can be seen on the websites that have English translations of AGGS. The initiative and effort by these websites in making AGGS searchable online is worth appreciation. Notwithstanding, the confusing translations on these websites are detrimental in true understanding of Nanakian Philosophy for English readers who do not have a background in Punjabi culture.
On the contrary, in depth reading of AGGS, the reasoning of Sikh Gurus, their laying immense importance on “this” life, their mentioning urgency in doing things in “this” life all indicate otherwise. A deeper thinking also provokes a further thought - how would the Gurus have said the following sentence in Punjabi ? – “Pichli sari jindagi jeda kamm keeta, oh taan bharna payoo” (what you did in your past life, you will have to face the consequences of it). It should be noted that the word “jindagi” (life) was not used by the Gurus in AGGS and past-life does not mean previous-birth.
The phrase “Poorab janam parchoon kamaaey” in verse-1 above, quoted by Rawel Singh, means – the result of good deeds of the past life, not previous birth - there is no conclusive evidence in favor of previous birth. The Punjabi usage of the phrase poorab janam is also not previous birth, but simply – past life. Translating/mapping words into Hindi and English without seeing their usage and perspective in Punjabi takes one away from the real meaning, often very far away.
For instance, one admirer of Sant Singh Maskeen, out to protect his idol’s claim that “souls/fairies come to listen to his discourse”, when challenged, translated pariyaan from Anand Sahib to “fairies” (which are called pariyaan in Hindi). I need not illustrate the absurdity of this translation to those who understand Punjabi and Anand Sahib, but for the sake of interested English readers - this word in Punjabi means harmonics of music. The word may be spoken the same, may be spelled similar in Punjabi and Hindi transliterations, yet the meanings in respective languages (Harmonics/Punjabi vs. Fairies/Hindi) are miles apart.
Focusing our attention back onto the phrase poorab janam and seeking its real meaning in English, one should read the complete hymn starting from page 1013 in AGGS. In this hymn, from which Rawel Singh quoted, Guru Nanak starts by describing his point of reference that is - human birth, and then goes onto describing what a common person was doing in his/her life. He then seems suggesting one to be cautious during the entire course of life because one cannot simply erase the past.
Poorab janam kay laykhu na mitaee
janam marai ka kau dosu dharay;
Facing the consequences of your past-deeds cannot be avoided,
Why to blame birth and death for them?
[AGGS, M1, p 1014]
Here, in fact, Guru Nanak is talking against the “Re-incarnation” myth that the society around him was engulfed in. It is well known that people often tend to allege that their present condition is due to some previous birth, or some feel that they are being re-incarnated over and over. Guru Nanak suggests to get out of this blame-game on birth and death and to be very cautious during the course of present life; the more erroneous the past, the difficult it is to undo the unfavorable consequences in the future. Ironically, Rawel Singh is using this quote to support his belief in “Re-incarnation”.
As such, the following conclusions by Rawel Singh have been made rather hastily, in lack of conclusive evidence and fallaciously: -
“These two verses make the following points:
Effects of past lives are a reality.
Consequences of deeds, both good and bad are reaped. This is Karma.
Reincarnation is a consequence of accumulated bad deeds.
One can get out of these cycles by following the Guru.”
Point-1 is naturally reflected in many places in AGGS so there is no argument about it, but it is past-life not past-lives/births. Point-2 is supported, but Rawel Singh fallaciously adds to it –“This is Karma”. No it isn’t. Point-3 is Varanashrama dharma belief not Sikh belief. Cycles could mean anything and it should be noted that AGGS calls the death of conscious as real death.
Before proceeding further, to exclude swinging back and forth between the Karma-theory and the Punjabi word karm/kirt, I would like to reproduce the definition of Karma given by Rawel Singh in his reply to my first comment - “The basis for these doubts seems to be his understanding that Karma and destiny are different. Karma not only represents the consequences but also how the soul acts later.” Therefore, wherever Rawel Singh uses the word “Karma”, I am bound to believe that his usage in translation conforms to his understanding that is reproduced above.
In reply to my comments, Rawel Singh did the following translation, to which I objected and Rawel Singh now seems to say there is no difference in our understanding.
“Haumai eho Hukam hai paeiai kirt kamaaey (M:2, SGGS, p 466).
Ego is by Hukam and one acts according to this Karma”
Since there is a difference of definition of the word Karm in Punjabi and Rawel Singh’s definition of Karma, I had objected that this is imprecise translation. Neither the Punjabi word kirt nor the usage of the word karm in Punjabi conforms to the “Karma-theory” that Rawel Singh proposed. Readers should note that Rawel Singh’s “Karma” definition includes pre-destination and debt/credit accumulated from previous birth. I stand by my objection; re-visiting the definition of “kirt” in Mahankosh and re-checking Sahib Singh's translation of the verse does not make my objection any less.
Further, the word “payiye” in AGGS simply mean what it would mean in natural Gurmukhi/Punjabi language; it translates to “indulge; fall in” in English. This word is so common in Punjabi that it does not need scholarship to know its meaning. Example, “payiye puthey rah, jaaeyiye ho swah” (pun intended). I hope this example phrase from me is not similarly translated to - If you walk on upside down road you will turn into ashes. It actually means –If one falls in/on wrong path; unfavorable results are expected.
Rawel Singh may not have literally translated to the DharamRaj-Chitragupt duo stories. However, the critical thinking approach encouraged by Guru Nanak is missing from his reasoning and his translations hint of induction from Hindu mythology. For example, turning a blind eye to the inherent metaphorical style of Punjabi language, Rawel Singh personifies – “…accounts are kept”, “order are given”, “God’s orders are based on man’s deeds” so on so forth.
I read the article on Nanakian....