Jump to content

Reincarnation And The Population Problem


Malkeetv
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sri Waheguru ji ka Khalsa

Sri Waheguru ji ki fateh

I recently came across a website promoting Stephen Blake's book in which he has refuted reincarnation by using mathematics and logic.

You see, in this way of thinking, people even deny god . He is using his brain, his mind, to analyze, that which is beyond mind´s capacity.

Another problem highlighted by him is that if the souls are reincarnating, how come there is an increase in population (where are the new souls coming from)

Suppose we are in summer, and we see a lot of people in the beach, then what will this guy say?

Oh, where have all these people come from? Or when night comes,people go to their houses, they have not disappeared, they have just gone out of our limited sight/vision.

Stupid fellow.

They were at home, and according to the summer season, have come to the beach to cool down. But that does not mean, if in winter we hardly see any people on the beach, and in summer it becomes full, that the population has increased. They were somewhere already, it is just that at a concrete time, they appear before the eyes.

Then, who are we interfere with Nature?

We do not even know what will happen with us in the next moment, and we are just calculating things which are much higher and deeper, beyond our comprehension. True manmukhs, true moorakhs ...

Since Gurbani supports reincarnation, Muslim websites are using this book against Sikhi. Does any one has mathematical and logical rebuttals against this book?

Let them do what they want. We can never ever change anyone. It is only by His glance of mercy, that one comprehends Gurbani in the true sense, how our Guru Sahibans wanted.

The only mathematical and logical rebuttals, if ever can be given by me and most of our sikh brothers/sisters, is a big capital 0 (zero).

That is it.

We all know Maya is false, howsoever shinning it may look and noises may make ....

So is the same with this book and its author and alike ...

Sat Sree Akal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA, VAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

An old joke goes kinda like this:

One day, scientists triumphed that they had created a human from dirt. They hailed their achievement and mocked their status equal to God. God appeared at all of the ruckus.

God: What's all the ruckus?

Scientists: We have made a human from dirt. We are your equals! We don't need you.

God: Great! Now make dirt...

Scientists: ...

I mean really? So God is so powerless that It cannot make more souls? This is the same Almighty that created the Universe with ONE word. The same Almighty that (per science's own theories) may be sustaining multiple UNIVERSES in multiple DIMENSIONS.

Humans are so dumb...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever we see a dish of food on the table, we know someone has definetely made it.

In the same way, if we see any form of life, we should also understand, it is because, it is going through destiny karma, of previous lives.

Otherwise, if, the soul was with God, it would not come back again.

We do bhakti, and love Wahiguru, in order to become free once and forever of the mayavee creation, by merging ourselves with Him.

Because, doing the bhakti of others (gods, devis, devtas, prophets) apart from Wahiguru, can at most lead us to heaven, Swarg, Baikunth, Shivpuri or even Brahamlok, but within certain time, when our shubh karmas are finished, we shall once again fall from those regions or planes into the wheel of eighty four.

So Wahiguru does not create any new souls and pushes them into Maya, otherwise why would He through Gurmat, tell us via Guru Sahibans, to do the Bhajan Bandagee, to achieve real freedom, and as said above, by becoming one with Him.

it is clear, He wants us to go back to Him, not that, to some He calls back, and then creates more souls for replacement and sends them into creation.

Human ignorance has no limits ....

Sat Sree Akal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gurbani states there are 8.4 million incarnations.

Scientists are still discovering new species so how can they be sure of their number ?

That may actually be an analogy. Gurbani states that Creation is limitless and many times countless is used instead, it could very well be a way to help the people of that time . The Species mentioned could have many,many sub-sections. scientists now categorize species differently than in ancient times. SO it would be futile to compare them both together. It would be like how some fields classify certain molecules into one section. but others subdivide them further. One is not more right than the other. The approach is just different. Countless times in bani it's mentioned about Creation being limitless.

As for the logic and maths to counter that claims this Professor has made. It's pretty self explanatory. There are far too many variables for any sane Mathematician or even logistically solving it.

The concept of when ensoulment occurs, what has a soul and what doesn't. Not to mention you'd need to look at creation as a whole. so unless the esteemed Proffessor can actually calculate the size, the quantity and the actual scale of the universe and all those who inhabit it. His conclusions are practically void for Sikhs. No idea about other faiths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Net pay after taxes. If you don't agree, think about this: If you were a trader and started off in China with silk that cost 100 rupees and came to India, and you had to pay total 800 rupees taxes at every small kingdom along the way, and then sold your goods for 1000 rupees, you'd have 100 rupees left, right? If your daswandh is on the gross, that's 100 rupees, meaning you have nothing left. Obviously, you owe only 10% of 100, not 10% of 1000. No, it's 10% before bills and other expenses. These expenses are not your expenses to earn money. They are consumption. If you are a business owner, you take out all expenses, including rent, shop electricity, cost of goods sold, advertising, and government taxes. Whatever is left is your profit and you owe 10% of that.  If you are an employee, you are also entitled to deduct the cost of earning money. That would be government taxes. Everything else is consumption.    
    • No, bro, it's simply not true that no one talks about Simran. Where did you hear that? Swingdon? The entire Sikh world talks about doing Simran, whether it's Maskeen ji, Giani Pinderpal Singh, Giani Kulwant Singh Jawaddi, or Sants. So what are you talking about? Agreed. Agreed. Well, if every bani were exactly the same, then why would Guru ji even write anything after writing Japji Sahib? We should all enjoy all the banis. No, Gurbani tells you to do Simran, but it's not just "the manual". Gurbani itself also has cleansing powers. I'm not saying not to do Simran. Do it. But Gurbani is not merely "the manual". Reading and singing Gurbani is spiritually helpful: ਪ੍ਰਭ ਬਾਣੀ ਸਬਦੁ ਸੁਭਾਖਿਆ ॥  ਗਾਵਹੁ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਪੜਹੁ ਨਿਤ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰ ਪੂਰੈ ਤੂ ਰਾਖਿਆ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ The Lord's Bani and the words are the best utterances. Ever sing hear and recite them, O brother and the Perfect Guru shall save thee. Pause. p611 Here Guru ji shows the importance of both Bani and Naam: ਆਇਓ ਸੁਨਨ ਪੜਨ ਕਉ ਬਾਣੀ ॥ ਨਾਮੁ ਵਿਸਾਰਿ ਲਗਹਿ ਅਨ ਲਾਲਚਿ ਬਿਰਥਾ ਜਨਮੁ ਪਰਾਣੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ The mortal has come to hear and utter Bani. Forgetting the Name thou attached thyself to other desires. Vain is thy life, O mortal. Pause. p1219 Are there any house manuals that say to read and sing the house manual?
    • All of these are suppositions, bro. Linguists know that, generally, all the social classes of a physical area speak the same language, though some classes may use more advanced vocabulary. I'm talking about the syntax. That is, unless the King is an invader, which Porus was not. When you say Punjabi wasn't very evolved, what do you mean? The syntax must have been roughly the same. As for vocabulary, do you really think Punjabis at the time did nothing more than grunt to express their thoughts? That they had no shades of meaning? Such as hot/cold, red/yellow/blue, angry/sweet/loving/sad, etc? Why must we always have an inferiority complex?
    • I still think about that incident now and then, just haven't heard any developments regarding what happened, just like so many other things that have happened in Panjab!
    • There was a young Singh from abroad who went to Anandpur Sahib Hola and got into a fight with some Punjabis who were playing loud non-religious music. He had bana and a weapon or two. There were more of them than him.  He ended up losing his life. Don't be like that. Not worth it to fight manmukhs. @californiasardar1 ਮੂਰਖੈ ਨਾਲਿ ਨ ਲੁਝੀਐ ॥੧੯॥ Argue not with a fool. p473
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use