Bacteria

Of the 4 khaanis, which one would be bacteria? Andej is all birds and insects,othbhaj is plants, jeraj is all mammals, and therefore i think setaj is bacteria and fungi. Setaj could be energy/heat and or sweat/gandh. And bacteria come out of the air and start multiplying anywhere there is a food source. And there food can be sweat and gandh. So it is almost spontaneous generation. For example if u leave food out, it will grow mold. Where did this come from, literally from thin air. So setaj is all microorganisms like bacteria. Manu might have believed it was insects and lice, but he was wrong. There is a setaj category, but he miscategorized it.
Admin, i know u closed the previous topic on 4 Khaanis, but please allow this post to be posted as its new information.

Bacteria is a prokaryotic cell that grows exponentially where there are nutrients to consume it does not grow from heat or thin air as spontaneous generation theory suggests. These bacteria cells have dna and a genetic past meaning it has ancestors. Every living thing with a physical body has an ancestral past even microscopic cells.

All living things have ancestors only Akal Purakh is without ancestory. Cells are living entities with a genetic past. I dont think prokaryotic cells such as bacteria would be classified under the 4 khani system.

Quote

Cells are living entities with a genetic past.

Please define what you mean by living entity?

Quote

I dont think prokaryotic cells such as bacteria would be classified under the 4 khani system.

Looks like you think you have more wisdom than Guru Sahib. Guru Sahib has made it clear that there are 4 Khaanis yet you claim that you don't think bacteria can be classified as 4 Khaanis. Have you discovered new Khaanis that Guru Sahib did not know of?

It may be the case that the known definition of four Khaanis may be incomplete but one thing is for sure that there are only four Khaanis in our world. Only faithless people can claim more wisdom than Guru Sahib.

Kulbir Singh

What part do you not understand when I say Gurbani does not teach Science? Gurbani is above science and has no interest in physical material.

4 Khanis is a reference. There are many references in Gurbani that are not meant to be taken literal.

I believe in Gurbani but not your literal interpretation on Hindu references.

What does Manus concept of 4 Khanis have to do with Gurmat Karam Philosophy. Next you will say Akal Purakh created 4 caste and there are only 4 caste. This is a very shallow debate which I have no interest in.

Quote

What part do you not understand when I say Gurbani does not teach Science? Gurbani is above science and has no interest in physical material.

4 Khanis is a reference. There are many references in Gurbani that are not meant to be taken literal.

I believe in Gurbani but not your literal interpretation on Hindu references.

How do you decide what reference is to be taken literally and what not? Do you take Dharam Rai, Chitr Gupt, Jamdoot, Narak, Swarag, and 5 Khands as literal or are you influenced by Missionaries (as is the case with 4 Khaanis) and deny these notions as part of Hindu literature? Just because Hindus also believe in Dharam Rai, Jamdoot etc. does not mean that Sikhs should automatically reject them.

Next, you are going to reject Karam philosophy since Hindus and Buddhists too believe in it. You may also reject reincarnation calling it a Hindu notion because you don't believe in literal interpretations and are a Bhagat of Darwin and other scientists.

Quote

Next you will say Akal Purakh created 4 caste and there are only 4 caste. This is a very shallow debate which I have no interest in.

No one can say that Akal Purakh created 4 Barans because they are the creation of mankind. Gurmat has not adopted the caste system of Hindus and has rather rejected it unequivocally, therefore you can't invoke this in your favour.

It's sad that you, who have knowledge about Bhai Sahib jee's books are so smitten by science and you are willing to reject notions of Gurmat because they clash with science. it's sad...

Kulbir Singh

Kulbir Singh

Hindus, and Buddhist believe in Karma but there belief is completely different than Gurmat Karam Philosophy. Do you dare say Gurmat Karam Philosophy is not distinct from these man made philosophies of other faiths? If Karam Philosophy is different then why is philosophy of creation similar?

Nothing in Science can contradict Gurbani because science cannot touch Gurbani. Science is about the natural world whereas Gurbani is about the supernatural and supernatural worlds. Dont confuse the two.

In regards to your questions about bacteria or small cells such as prokaryotic cells it wouldnt be classified under the four Khanis. Cells make up organs. Cells have intelligent life but im not sure they include a jeev atma in every tiny cell. I dont know where in Gurbani it says billions of jeev atmas can occupy the same physical body as would be the case of Human beings who have billions tiny cells. Its possible anything is possible, but I dont know where in Gurbani is says such things.

Quote

Hindus, and Buddhist believe in Karma but there belief is completely different than Gurmat Karam Philosophy. Do you dare say Gurmat Karam Philosophy is not distinct from these man made philosophies of other faiths? If Karam Philosophy is different then why is philosophy of creation similar?

I am sorry to say that you seem to have a shallow understanding of profound Gurmat notions and based on this meagre understanding you draw big conclusions. Basic Karma is same for all religions i.e one is held accountable for one's Karma. This is the base of Karma philosophy and in this sense all religions are same. The difference lies in how Jeevs are affected by Karma. Gurmat Karma philosophy is for Gursikhs in the sense that Gursikhs are treated differently for their Karma in the same way as tax is levied on different kinds of residents differently. We will do a detailed video on this subject. There is one Karma system but different Jeevs get different treatment. I don't want to go off topic here, so I will leave it here.

Now please answer the question raised in the previous post:

"How do you decide what reference is to be taken literally and what not? Do you take Dharam Rai, Chitr Gupt, Jamdoot, Narak, Swarag, and 5 Khands as literal or are you influenced by Missionaries (as is the case with 4 Khaanis) and deny these notions as part of Hindu literature? Just because Hindus also believe in Dharam Rai, Jamdoot etc. does not mean that Sikhs should automatically reject them.

Next you are going to reject Karam philosophy since Hindus and Buddhists too believe in it. You may also reject reincarnation calling it a Hindu notion because you don't believe in literal interpretations and are a Bhagat of Darwin and other scientists".

You can't just jump topic to topic and ignore questions asked at your convenience. Carry out a sensible debate. Answer this question: Who are you to decide which notion in Gurbani is to be taken literally and which one to reject under the pretense of it being Manu's notion?

Quote

Nothing in Science can contradict Gurbani because science cannot touch Gurbani. Science is about the natural world whereas Gurbani is about the supernatural and supernatural worlds. Dont confuse the two.

Another nonsense statement that science does not contradict Gurbani. Gurbani is about spirituality but while talking about spirituality it naturally gives examples related to the material world to explain things. These examples that Gurbani give are factual statements about the materiral world and science is at odds with these statements an awful lot of times. I don't even know where to begin. Science gives theories about creation of the world which are at odds with Gurbani. Science attempts to give timeline to creation whereas Gurbani calls it an impossibility. Science gives theory of evolution which is totally against Gurmat. Darwin's theory is pure garbage that has been rejected by Brahmgyani Gurmukh - Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee.

Quote

In regards to your questions about bacteria or small cells such as prokaryotic cells it wouldnt be classified under the four Khanis. Cells make up organs. Cells have intelligent life but im not sure they include a jeev atma in every tiny cell. I dont know where in Gurbani it says billions of jeev atmas can occupy the same physical body as would be the case of Human beings who have billions tiny cells. Its possible anything is possible, but I dont know where in Gurbani is says such things

If you don't know and if you are not sure, then what are you arguing about? You are the one who made tall claims that jeevs can't be limited to 4 Khaanis and in this way you went against the Hukam of Guru Sahib jee. You are the one who started the topic of creatures above and beyond 4 Khaanis. You are the one who, trying to be wiser than Gurbani, claimed a fifth Khaani. Now you say that you are not sure if bacteria are separate jeevs or not. It would have been easier if you had earlier submitted to the truths of Gurbani and believed in the concept of 4 Khaanis.

Kulbir Singh

Is this a religious debate or a science debate. I dont know because you keep mix-matching the two. Decide what topic you want to talk about. Stop mixing up the two for your own convenience.

Karma is different in every religion. Hindus and Buddhist believe they are the masters of their actions, and its through their actions they can receive mukhti. A further point Buddhist dont even believe in a Creator who breaks bondage of karma. Gurmat teaches by the pure grace of Satuguru Ji can we receive Mukhti. We dont simply believe we come into this world because of bad actions and good actions will give us freedom. Freedom, sukh, dukh are all in the hands of Satguru Ji and only submitting to his hukum are we freed. Pray tell me what other religion teaches this concept of Karma and Mukhti. These are all different philosophies of Karma. Gurmat makes it clear how and why the jeev comes into this world and these beliefs are not talked about in both Hinduism in Buddhism. So dont claim that all have the same notion of Karma. Next you will claim Sikhi shares the same belief of Monotheism as Islam and Judaism. Just because they believe in one God it doesnt mean its the same God. Some believe God is a white bearded man. None of these faiths teach God is nirankar.

In regards to Science you dont have a clue what your talking about. Where does Gurbani disagree with Evolution. Do you even understand evolution? In simple terms, evolution simply means everything changes according to their environment. Everything changes only Akal Purak is without change. Also please use Bhai Sahibs quote where he rejects Evolution. He rejects people using evolution theory to interpret the 5 khands the same way you use science and Gurbani interchangeably. These are two different things. Dont put words in Bhai Sahibs mouth. He doesnt need you too.

In regards to 4 Khanis and the original question. The original video about Aliens claimed a person can only travel to different worlds through spirit, and in this world a spirit can enter a body in this world through 4 means ( mammal womb, egg, vegetation, and heat/sweat). The person asked if bacteria can be classified as part of the 4 khanis. I said no because because bacteria is made up of tiny cells and Im not sure cells are occupied by a jeev atma. If you are saying they do please rationalize your answer based on Gurmat pangtis. If you are going to make claims and claim it as Gurbani then back it up with Gurbani.

Quote

Is this a religious debate or a science debate. I dont know because you keep mix-matching the two. Decide what topic you want to talk about. Stop mixing up the two for your own convenience.

You are really a fool if you think that Gurbani doesn't mention the corporeal world. You are speaking the same language as other missionaries who think that Gurbani is just a philosophy and doesn't have any practical application to this world.

Guru Sahib refers to 5 Khand whereas science doesn't accept this notion. Guru Sahib tells us that there is a Hirda and Dasam Duar in this body. This also goes against what science teaches.

You have to choose whether as a Gursikh you want to experience this world through Gurbani and Gurmat or through the fake lens of science. There can only be one truth.

Quote

Next you will claim Sikhi shares the same belief of Monotheism as Islam and Judaism. Just because they believe in one God it doesnt mean its the same God. Some believe God is a white bearded man. None of these faiths teach God is nirankar.

Allah or God is a Devta like Vishnu and Shiv. Vaheguru is above these deities.

Preetam Singh

Preetam Singh have you not read anything from my previous post.

I said Science cannot touch Gurbani. Science is about the natural world whereas Gurbani is about the supernatural. Im not sure you even know what Science is. Science is not a religious. Science only makes observations about the natural world ( not supernatural world) and based on evidence it makes statements or theories about the natural world why would it talk about spiritual words like Sach Khand? What does Science have to do with the 5 Khands are you telling me these Khands are similar to our worlds with the same natural laws of Earth. Does Sach Khand have a solar system which revolves a sun. Does it have a moon that orbits around it? Is it made of physical matter. Do not make such tall claims. Sorry, but you are starting to sound like the Missionary. Missionaries similar to you like to mix Gurabani with Science. Gurbani is above Science it doesnt talk about the corporeal world the way you thing. Every single pangti is directed towards Naam. What does the physical world have relation towards Naam.

You seem to have a vendetta against Science or understanding Science. Since you are so anti-science stop using the internet, computers, cars because understanding Science makes these things available.

bhul chuk muaf Vahiguroo Jio,
Suthra Singh ji, maybe you should research brahmgyani vs science or tiny cells, to know Brahmgyanis have Vahiguroo unlimited gyan ji?_/\_

Quote

Is this a religious debate or a science debate. I dont know because you keep mix-matching the two. Decide what topic you want to talk about. Stop mixing up the two for your own convenience.

This question makes no sense. This is a religious forum and we are debating about a Gurmat stance. While discussing Gurmat, the topic of 4 Khaanis came and you came along claiming that you know more than Gurbani by saying that there is a 5th Khaani. We only talk about Gurmat on this forum and if a scientific principle contradicts a Gurbani statement, then we stand with Gurmat, no matter how convincing the scientific principle may seem to the five senses.

Quote

Karma is different in every religion. Hindus and Buddhist believe they are the masters of their actions, and its through their actions they can receive mukhti.

I already stated that basic Karma i.e. one is held accountable for one’s actions is same for all religions. I understand the differences very well and have stated that in my previous post. By Guru Sahib jee's Kirpa, this Daas has written several articles and videos on differences between Gurmat Karma philosophy and other religion's Karma notions. There is no need to repeat that here. And the debate is not about Karma; therefore kindly stick to the issue.

Quote

A further point Buddhist dont even believe in a Creator who breaks bondage of karma. Gurmat teaches by the pure grace of Satuguru Ji can we receive Mukhti. We dont simply believe we come into this world because of bad actions and good actions will give us freedom. Freedom, sukh, dukh are all in the hands of Satguru Ji and only submitting to his hukum are we freed. Pray tell me what other religion teaches this concept of Karma and Mukhti. These are all different philosophies of Karma. Gurmat makes it clear how and why the jeev comes into this world and these beliefs are not talked about in both Hinduism in Buddhism. So dont claim that all have the same notion of Karma. Next you will claim Sikhi shares the same belief of Monotheism as Islam and Judaism. Just because they believe in one God it doesnt mean its the same God. Some believe God is a white bearded man. None of these faiths teach God is nirankar.

Total wastage of time and energy because none of the above gobbledygook relates to the topic on hand.

Quote

In regards to Science you dont have a clue what your talking about. Where does Gurbani disagree with Evolution. Do you even understand evolution? In simple terms, evolution simply means everything changes according to their environment. Everything changes only Akal Purak is without change.

Darwin’s evolution theory or the improvised modern theory of evolution is total nonsense. To believe in the atheist theory of evolution, which is only a theory and there is no proof of this theory, is retarded thing to do for a religious person. Anyway, I don’t want to waste my time on trying to convince you that our ancestors were not monkeys. If you believe that your ancestors were monkeys, then I don’t have a problem with it. I know that mine were not. So let’s agree on this and move on. If Guru Sahib Wills, we will prepare a video annihilating the evolution theory.

Quote

Also please use Bhai Sahibs quote where he rejects Evolution. He rejects people using evolution theory to interpret the 5 khands the same way you use science and Gurbani interchangeably. These are two different things. Dont put words in Bhai Sahibs mouth. He doesnt need you too.

It seems like you have not read Bhai Sahib’s books. Bhai Sahib in a booklet (not in Punj Khand book) has equalled such person who believes in Darwin’s theory to be a Naastik (atheist). Brahmgyani Bhai Sahib jee has named Darwin specifically in that book. We will use this quote when we produce a video against evolution theory.

Quote

In regards to 4 Khanis and the original question. The original video about Aliens claimed a person can only travel to different worlds through spirit, and in this world a spirit can enter a body in this world through 4 means ( mammal womb, egg, vegetation, and heat/sweat). The person asked if bacteria can be classified as part of the 4 khanis. I said no because because bacteria is made up of tiny cells and Im not sure cells are occupied by a jeev atma. If you are saying they do please rationalize your answer based on Gurmat pangtis. If you are going to make claims and claim it as Gurbani then back it up with Gurbani.

I don’t need to classify creatures in 4 Khaanis. The classification definitions can be wrong but what can’t be wrong is that there are only 4 Khaanis and not 5 or more as you claimed.

Kulbir Singh

Welcome back Batman! Im sure your sidekick Robin needed a break.

Quote
Kublir Singh

This question makes no sense. This is a religious forum and we are debating about a Gurmat stance. While discussing Gurmat, the topic of 4 Khaanis came and you came along claiming that you know more than Gurbani by saying that there is a 5th Khaani. We only talk about Gurmat on this forum and if a scientific principle contradicts a Gurbani statement, then we stand with Gurmat, no matter how convincing the scientific principle may seem to the five senses.

If you want to debunk scientific principles using Gurmat than that fine. There is no harm in this. But if you dont understand anything about those scientific principles even the basics then you are only going to embarrass yourself.

Once again the original poster asked if bacteria could be considered part of 4 khanis. Bacteria is made of many tiny cells. Based on Mannus 4 khani system then no prokaryotic cells cannot be part of the animate life that Mannu refers too. I never once said there are 5 khanis. Please quote me where I said that. I dont consider cells to be part of any khani system where have I stated that it is as you keep claiming. Im simply explaining to the person what bacteria is. Bacteria does not create insects.

You should not speak so ignorantly about science on the basis of your religious interpretations especially since you have an amateur and rudimentary understanding of Science. Your views on Evolution is a perfect example. No where does it say that Man comes from Monkeys. Please quote a reliable source that says this. Where did you learn this from? Some creationist website? In regards to ape and Man, Evolution teaches all mammals have a common ancestor. Evolution is not so basic as you make it out to be. Its a very vast subject. If you are going to make a video about evolution you should first do some research on the subject. Do you have any science credentials to speak against science principles? How can someone prove something wrong when they have no knowledge on the subject? Also do not wait for a video to post Bhai Sahibs quote against Dariwn. Im accusing you of putting words in Bhai Sahibs mouth so you should provide the quote or book and page number. Bhai Sahib has referred to some Scientist as nastics but he was referring to certain scientist he was not referring to all Science and scientist. He even mentions how science takes place in Amrit Sanchar. He was not so anti science as you assume.

Quote

Welcome back Batman! Im sure your sidekick Robin needed a break.

Haha! No problem Mr Darwin. How was your trip to Patiala, Mr Darwin?

Quote

Once again the original poster asked if bacteria could be considered part of 4 khanis. Bacteria is made of many tiny cells. Based on Mannus 4 khani system then no prokaryotic cells cannot be part of the animate life that Mannu refers too. I never once said there are 5 khanis. Please quote me where I said that. I dont consider cells to be part of any khani system where have I stated that it is as you keep claiming. Im simply explaining to the person what bacteria is. Bacteria does not create insects.

But you said that all creatures can't fit in 4 Khaanis; hence you tried to be wiser than Gurbani that clearly says there are 4 Khaanis.

Quote

You should not speak so ignorantly about science on the basis of your religious interpretations especially since you have an amateur and rudimentary understanding of Science. Your views on Evolution is a perfect example. No where does it say that Man comes from Monkeys. Please quote a reliable source that says this. Where did you learn this from?

Darwin did say that man descended from apes, albeit ancient apes and here is the quote to that extent:

The anthropomorphous apes, namely the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang, and hylobates, are separated as a distinct sub-group from the other Old World monkeys by most naturalists. ... If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group, then as man agrees with them, not only in all those characters which he possesses in common with the whole Catarhine group, but in other peculiar characters, such as the absence of a tail and of callosities and in general appearance, we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man. ..

"It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere. "

Quote

Do you have any science credentials to speak against science principles? How can someone prove something wrong when they have no knowledge on the subject?

Before asking my science credentials, I ask you, what are your Gurmat credentials that you are debating about Gurmat? Where did you learn your Gurmat Vidya? Which learned Gursikhs and theologians did you sit with and learned and researched Gurbani principles? I know that you can't even speak one sentence in pure Punjabi and can't do Arth Vichaar of one Pauri of Siri Japjee Sahib and probably can't even do Shudh Uchaaran of one Pauri of Siri Japjee Sahib. So much so, that you are hiding under an assumed name while debating Gurmat principles. What Gurmat principle are you following by debating under an assumed name?

Quote

Also do not wait for a video to post Bhai Sahibs quote against Dariwn. Im accusing you of putting words in Bhai Sahibs mouth so you should provide the quote or book and page number.

Read Bhai Sahib jee's book: ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਸੰਬੰਧੀ ਸ਼ੰਕਿਆਂ ਤੇ ਉਟੰਕਣਾਂ ਦੇ ਉਤਰ. It's a small book and you will find reference to Darwin in there. Bhai Sahib called Preet Lari editor Gurbaksh Singh a Naastik (atheist) for supporting Darwin which means that he rejected the evolution theory. He even writes that if he was to write about evolution theory, it would end up being a book but that he would desist from doing so.

Kulbir Singh

Im not debating Gurmat im debating psuedo scientist by so called theologians who are acting as they have scientific knowledge. Once again you dont seem to understand evolution and probably struggling with English comprehension. The quote you provided doesnt say man comes from apes he says man, apes, gorillas etc have a common ancestor. This theory was Darwins contribution to the theory of evolution. Theory of evolution is vast and nowhere does it say that man comes from monkey. How can that happen? Thats common sense? Monkey and Man are both distinct species and they are still present today. Your understanding of Biology and Evolution seems very rudimentary and it seems based on creationist websites or Hollywood films.

Provide the page number. Talking about Dariwn is not the same thing as saying evolutionist are nastiks. Many evolutionist are nastiks it doesnt mean they all are and Bhai Sahib believe they all are. This is only your assumption.

Quote

The quote you provided doesnt say man comes from apes he says man, apes, gorillas etc have a common ancestor.

I did mention in my previous post "ancient apes" but you did pay attention, which means that the ancestors were not current apes but ancient apes. Either way, evolution still says that man came from apes or ancient apes or apes-like animals and this is what is against Gurmat In any case, this is not a debate on evolution and as I said before, if you believe that your ancestors were monkeys, you are welcome to believe so but my ancestors were humans for sure. )

If after this debate you get back your faith on Gurbani, and away from atheism, and start believing in the wisdom of Gurbani e.g. 4 Khaani, 84 Lakh Jooni (which you probably doubt as well since it's at odds with Baandar (monkey) theory of Darwin), then it would be great.

If Guru Sahib jee does Kirpa, we will refute the Baandar theory of Darwin in a video, in the coming future.

Kulbir Singh

"I did mention in my previous post "ancient apes" but you did pay attention, which means that the ancestors were not current apes but ancient apes. Either way, evolution still says that man came from apes or ancient apes or apes-like animals and this is what is against Gurmat"

Ape is a broad category, and Im not sure you entirely understand its meaning or the quote you just mentioned. Perhaps this is why you think Evolution goes against Gurmat? Evolution did not start with Darwin and it definitely did not stop with him. His thoughts on common ancestors is the basis of evolution . Evolution has a long history if you are going to refute you should at least study it first.

What the quote says that all primate have a common ancestor and that ancestor is now extinct. This means that present day primates ( gorilla, monkey, modern man) are not our ancestors but instead our relatives our closest being the chimpanzee. So they monkey you see in the zoo is not your ancestor instead hes your cousin because based on your DNA you have a common ancestor. This can be proven through DNA, a code which explains the physical history of your body. Keep in mind this is a very distant ancestor millions and millions of years ago. Human frame gradually changes over time . All bodies physically change over time. Even your Punjabi ancestors look different than your African ancestors. All humans are related but they look different according to their physical environment.

The quote you provided doesnt specifically say that Human are animals but it hints we are animals. This is what some people may reject because they find it offensive to be called an animal. This is cultural . To call someone an animal is offensive. But at the end of the day its just a word and based on classifications its more convenient to place man in animal kingdom. Scientifically ( based on the human anatomy ) we are part of the animal kingdom. We ( humans) are leaders of the animal kingdom.

All animals have distinct ancestors that are now extinct. The Lion who is King of Jungle has the Sabber tooth tiger as an ancestor. Saber tooth tiger would kill a lion in an instant. The birds who are kings of the sky have dinosaurs as their ancestors and who can compare modern bird with dinosaurs. Humans who are kings of the land have an ancestor that we currently dont know fully what that ancestor was like due to lack of fossil evidence from this time. He must have more powerful than a Gorilla and more smarter than modern man. His kesh adorned over his body must have been a sight to see. The world is billions of years old I dont see how the human body could have remained the same the whole time.

I see no point in making a video against Evolution. There are already reputable Sikhs who have studies both Gurbani and Science and discussed this issue.
[www.youtube.com]

If you are going to make a video and you wont it to be successful then you will have to learn about DNA, Genetics, Cell , Ecosystems, and Human Anatomy. You need to be able to answer how Human beings currently have the frame they have. If you claim it came out of thin air ( spontaneous generation) and this is what Gurbani teaches few Gursikhs ( at lease the educated ones ) are going to believe this explanation or agree with your interpretation of Gurbani. Evolution is an educational topic not a religious one. We should keep religion and science separate from one another but if we are going to attempt to mix the two then we have to make the efforts to learn both subjects otherwise we are going to become targets of ridicule. I really dont see how anything in Science can contradict religion. The beliefs of a scientist can contradict religion and the beliefs of a religious person can contradict science but these are based on interpretations of both the scientist and religious person. Ultimately the two subjects dont cross paths because one is about the mundane the other is about something more spectacular. Science is for the brain Sikhi is for the spirit ( heart). You cant understand Science through the spirit and you cant understand Sikhi through the brain it takes faith.

I don't know why you have started a full fledged debate on evolution. This topic has been debated here many times and there is no point in repeating it again. In the nutshell, evolution is a theory and not a fact or a law. There is no compulsion or need to accept a theory as a universal truth.

ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ ॥

The above Pankiti clearly states not only that there are 8.4 million life forms but also that this number does not go up or down. There are more such Pankitis as well but for a Sikh just one Pankiti will suffice.

Now if we believe that one life-form can evolve or devolve to something else, then we have to accept that a new life-form has been created and this will violate the above Hukam of Guru Sahib.

I am not an expert on the evolution theory but know that one of the claims it has made is that humans have possibly evolved from Baandars (ancient apes). The human life form is very special and as per Gurbani this life form is the doorway to Vaheguru and only in this life form it is possible to meet Vaheguru and for this reason this body has secret Dasam Duaar or the mystical tenth door. How did the genetic mutation or whatever it is called, caused to create a life form that contains something as specific as the Dasam Duaar?

It is the Jeev-Aatma that goes through different life forms and but the life forms don't evolve to different life forms. A cat is going to stay a cat and will not become a dog, no matter what. Yes within the parameters of the cat life form, it may become large, small, Black, White etc. but it cannot become a different life form.

What to talk about and trust science that changes every now and then. With the recent discovery of the so called "god particle" it has rendered many old theories obsolete. The theory of evolution is just a theory and nothing else. Most of it including its concept of the survival of the fittest is garbage. According to Gurbani, Vaheguru is Deena Naath and Ghareeb Nivaaz. He would never allow the survival of the strong just because of their strongness. He according to His will may many times let the biggest underdog to survive and let the fittest perish. Darwin's evolution theory is for Manmukhs who believe that Vaheguru jee is not leading the world and that it came into being and evolved to this level as part of some accidental chemical reactions. Can we believe such nonsense when we know that even a leaf does not move without Vaheguru's will?

Furthermore, Gurbani also asserts that out of the 8.4 million life forms, 4.2 million life forms are in water:

ਬਇਆਲੀਸ ਲਖ ਜੀ ਜਲ ਮਹਿ ਹੋਤੇ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਭੈਲਾ ਕਾਇ ਕਰਉ ॥1॥

I haven't read anywhere in Hindu texts that there are 4.2 millioin life forms in water i.e. ocean. When our Guru Sahibaan and respectable Bhagat Sahibaan are making such strong claims, then we ought to believe in their assertions. What was the need for Bhagat jee to be so specific in the above Pankiti, if it was not the truth?

Science can say whatever it wants to say. Even if our all 5 senses say something contrary to Gurbani, we ought to reject such notion. The eyes on a clear day see that far away the sky and earth meeting but we reject the testimony of the eyes and don't believe that the sky and the earth can meet. Same way, if Gurbani is very strongly asserting that there are 8.4 million life forms, and out of these 4.2 million are in water, then we as Sachyaar Sikh ought to believe in this claim.

Kulbir Singh

Quote

If you are going to make a video and you wont it to be successful then you will have to learn about DNA, Genetics, Cell , Ecosystems, and Human Anatomy.

We have team that does production of Gurmat videos, and there are Gursikhs who have studied all this. So don't worry.

Quote

You need to be able to answer how Human beings currently have the frame they have. If you claim it came out of thin air ( spontaneous generation) and this is what Gurbani teaches few Gursikhs ( at lease the educated ones ) are going to believe this explanation or agree with your interpretation of Gurbani. Evolution is an educational topic not a religious one.

If some chela of Darwin does not want to believe Gurbani truths and wants scientifically observable truths, then Sikhi is not for that person. What proof did Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee give when He said "Ik Oankaar"? He just declared that Vaheguru is there and then stated His qualities. No proof was given on the onset but proof does come once a Sikh submits before Guru Sahib. The proof comes in form of actual experience. Same way, while talking about spiritual matters, Guru jee has made some statements about the corporeal world which are many times at odds with science. In such cases a Gursikh always believes Gurbani even if there are so called solid proofs of scientific nature. Evolution is a theory that does not conform to statements made by Gurbani about this world; hence the theory is not correct. A lot of scientific theories and so called truths are false but I don't want to get into this debate. I don't have time for this. Rather than wasting my time with you, we could work on a video that can help thousands of people. This debate is just not worth the time and a person who is a chela of an atheist like Darwin, will never understand like the saying once a Comrade always a Comrade. Same way, son of science can't become son of truth.

Kulbir Singh

If I remember correctly you were the first to bring up the the discussion of evolution referring to Gursikhs who believe in evolution as Darwin followers and atheists. There are plenty of faithful amritdhari Gursikhs who believe in principles of evolution and do not feel like it threatens their sense of Gurmat spirituality. As you mentioned the theory of evolution is just a theory its not a guidebook on how to live like a Gursikh. Just because its a theory it doesnt mean that it contains some concrete facts.

As previously mentioned Evolution doesnt start with Darwin nor does it end with him. Evolution is biology. Evolution is about governing principles of nature. Once again evolution does not teach monkeys or ancient monkeys are our ancestors it teaches based on DNA we have a common ancestor. Cat cannot come from dog and dog cannot come from cat neither one can be the ancestor or turn into the other one but both have a common ancestor. Based on Genetic mutations they branched into different species millions and millions of years ago.

Lakh Charsi Joon does not refer to species it refers to life forms. Species is a generic terms and no scientist can even give a number of species because some species are often labeled as variations instead of species. So these numbers dont contradict Gurbani because Gurbani is not talking about species its talking about life forms based on karma while science is talking about species based on physical distinctions.

In regards to water- life Bhai Kahn SIngh mentions the Puranas mention 900,000 , Gurbani mentions half life forms ( 4.2 million ) are present. We have no quarrels with this number. How does Evolution challenge this number? The number does not talk about species it talks about life forms. There is much life in water. Biological Life originates from water . Our furthest ancestor comes from water.

I would like to write some thoughts about this topic. Please forgive any shortcomings in my thinking.
I think that science and Sikhi are two separate things. To compare them is unfair; it’s like apples and oranges.
Sikhi is absolutely true. Everything written in Gurbani is absolutely true. However, we don’t know all of the details about every claim that Gurbani makes. We know it is true but we don’t know exactly how. Some of these details might even be outside of the realm of human understanding. After all, if Waheguru is capable of anything, then none of this is impossible.
Science, on the other hand, makes observations based on the best information available to it at this time. As this information and the means to find this information improves, its conclusions may change. It is a process of always learning more. It never claims to be the absolute truth. Science is simply the best conclusion that can be reached with the information we currently have.
We can see in this discussion that there are some discrepancies between what Gurbani says and what science claims. We know that what Gurbani says is absolutely true, whether it is about 4 khaanis or the number of species. I believe that it is not necessary to deny science at the same time, especially since Waheguru, being capable of anything can easily iron out the details without needing to explain to us.
It’s very possible that science comes to a different conclusion than Gurbani. As a Sikh, my personal belief will always be that Gurbani is true. But if I am a scientist as well, then when I do research, I can only rely on what I observe. If we recognise that science is a process of always finding new information, then finding discrepancies between Gurbani and science should not turn us away from science and neither should our faith in Guru Jee be shaken.
If we take the example of 8 400 000 species, I think the fact to keep in mind is that Waheguru is capable of anything and everything. It isn’t far-fetched to think that Guru sahib is capable of having a process like evolution going while also keeping that number constant. Guru sahib can do anything. We don’t know how. But that also doesn’t matter. So believing that everything Guru jee said is true does not mean that we have to reject any science. We just have to recognize that both things are different.
With species we have to keep in mind that the number of life forms is determined by the criteria used to define the species. In the past, an animal’s appearance was used to decide if it was the same species as another. Now, the DNA is analysed to decide that. Science discovered new information from DNA and changed what it needed to according to new information. That is how science works and I don’t see any conflict with Gurmat. If science says there is a different number of species, then we just have to realise that their criteria for taxonomy is different from the criteria that Gurbani uses. Therefore, neither is wrong. Bani’s criteria will never change but science will always try to improve. Nothing seems wrong with that.
So I don’t understand why some people need to try to prove Bani wrong to say that it’s all just a metaphor. That can’t be true.
I also don’t understand why some people try so hard to prove science wrong. Science is a different field of information, with different ways of working. If Waheguru is capable of anything, then there is no need to say that science is wrong. If Waheguru’s creation is endless, then its details are also endless. Science will always be discovering new things as a result.
I hope that makes sense.

Very good points Veer Ji.

I agree in everything you said except the metaphor apart. I think Gurbani has a poetic style which includes metaphors and certain things cant be taken as literal but the message is always intended as literal. For example, the story of Baba Adam which is an Islamic reference. I dont think the Torah or Quaran stories came down from Waaheguru I think they were invented by man. I think the characters they were used fictional characters. Just because I dont believe in Adam a person who supposedly came out of dirt as a non fictoinal character it doesnt make me less of a Gursikh. If I dont believe in Mannus philosophy on how life was originated it doesnt make me less of a Gursikh. To me Gurbani does not talk about Science it talks about spirituality. I see no point why Guru Sahib would want to talk about such a mundane subject. Guru sahib talks about the creator there is no stress on the creation. The creation is false how much faith can we put in it? Why would he want to explain how the creation came about? He doesnt care nor should we Sikhs care about how creation came about because ultimately its still part of Maya.

Having said that I think Science is important to understand not for spiritual reasons but for worldly reasons. Its not necessary but its still a good subject to know. My sikhi is not so weak that I feel threatened by subjects like Science or Math or anything else. I only commented about Evolution because there is alot of misinformation about it especially from some posters on this from. Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji had no issues with it as some are claiming. He had issues with a popular athiest writer who was pushing the youth away with his diabolical thoughts. This athiest was making claims that there is no believer in this world that can be placed in the same categories as non believers such as Darwin and Buddha. He probably also wrongly claimed that evolution teaches there is no God or creator.

Firstly, the writer got it wrong . Darwin was no Atheist. Some hollywood charlatan pseduo-scientist athiest like Richard Dawkins claim so but we can only go by Darwins own writings. In his famous book " Origin of Species" he gives many references to God, and mentioned God created the process of evolution. So the evolution being taught in British India was misleading they also taught that evolution teaches that some races are more superior races than other races. Evolution does not teach this. People can twist science the way people twist religion. I dont think Bhai Sahib would have a problem with the evolution taught today. The evolution taught today simply talks about biological processes that occur in the natural world it has no political agenda as it did during British imperialism. Therefore, I think if someone is going to make a video against evolution and claim it goes against Sikhi they should first understand it

@Suthra Singh

Veer Jee, you have mentioned various points that doesn't stand correct from Gurmat point of view. I will keep it brief and to the point.

1. Four Khaanis

Your stand on this is that, it has to be taken as reference and not literally. As per Gurmat the "Jeev-Aatma" can enter Maatlok via Four Khaanis. Hence, in this case it has to be taken literally.

Just because Scientific community has it's own dictionary and they call certain entity as Bacteria or Prokaryotic Cell, does not necessarily mean it has Jeev-Aatma. So there is no question of categorizing such entity in Four Khaanis. This debate itself becomes a fallacy in such scenario.

Certain entities may show characteristic which according to Scientific community may be a living being. But from Gurmat perspective the definition of living or dead is not what Scientific community claims or other religions for that matter.

2. Evolution & Darwin

Jeev-Aatma does not evolve. Jeev-Aatma is Jyot that has got separated and has to go back to it's source. It's like saying that droplet of water got separated from Sea and it has to dissolve again into that. Droplet can transform to Gas, Liquid, Ice etc... but it does not evolve into Dust etc... That is one thing.

The other things is that according to Jeev-Aatma's deeds it does a "Geda" of "Chaurasi". Among this Chaurasi the Human form is the one which is "Aakhri Paudi". And "Is Paudi Te Jo Nar Chuke" that Nar has to again do Geda of Chaurasi. If Paudi of "Human" keeps evolving then how the Jeev-Aatma will do "Nij Ghar Vasa".

So neither Jeev-Aatma evolve and nor does Chaurasi. If someone claims of evolution then they have to forgo Nabh-Kamal, Dasam-Duar and Hirda. And this is an Anti-Gurmat stance. The color, height, weight, shape etc... may change or differ but that is also not evolution. It is variation. For example the various flavors of Mango. Some flavors may become extinct and some new flavors may come in next billion years.

3. Science

Quote
Suthra Singh
To me Gurbani does not talk about Science it talks about spirituality. I see no point why Guru Sahib would want to talk about such a mundane subject. Guru sahib talks about the creator there is no stress on the creation. The creation is false how much faith can we put in it? Why would he want to explain how the creation came about? He doesnt care nor should we Sikhs care about how creation came about because ultimately its still part of Maya.

You have said that Gurbani does not talk about Science or Creation and only talk about Creator. In the same paragraph you agree that Science & Creation is Maya. On one hand you believe something and on other hand you disagree with your own beliefs.

Gurbani very much talk about Creation & Maya and that too in very detail. Just because Gurbani does not use lingo of Scientific community such as Proton, Neutron, Photon, Quantum, Electromagnetism, Radio Waves etc... does not necessarily means that Gurbani is not saying anything about that. Jeev-Aatma can travel to different "Khands" and scientist may want to call it Time-Travel or Teleportation. Jeev-Aatma can remotely listen to other one and scientist may want to call it Telepathy.

You have said that Creation is a Mundane Subject and why would Creator talk about it. Indirectly you are saying that Maya is a Mundane Subject. Maya is the very disease which Jeev-Aatma has to come out of. If Maya is Mundane Subject then whose treatment the Gurbani has suggested ?

According to it's deed the Jeev-Aatma does "Aawa-Gaman" in various "Loks". In this case it is "Maatlok". If Gurbani is not saying anything about Creation and Maya then what is Gurbani giving "Jugati" for ?

Until you understand the game and it's rule, how are you going to win ? Gurbani very well explain the Game of Maya and the "Panj Chor" as your opponent players. At the same time Gurbani very well explain the Jugati of Naam to win this game.

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa,
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

Topic closed. Thanks for your contribution to this debate.

Admin