Souls?

Vaheguru Jee.

A non-Sikh was asking me about reincarnation. She asked whether there are a set amount of souls or new souls created? Where does a soul start from (i.e. which joon)?

Can the Sangat please give their learned views on the topic.

Thanks

Manvir Singh

If we are to believe the soul is immortal then how can souls be created or destroyed? The soul which is drop of the ocean ( GoD) has been in existence from the beginning of time. So because the soul comes from and is the essence of God it cannot be created or destroyed.

ਜੋ ਆਵਹਿ ਸੇ ਜਾਹਿ ਫੁਨਿ ਆਇ ਗਏ ਪਛੁਤਾਹਿ ॥
ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ ॥

Those who come, must go in the end; they come and go, regretting and repenting.
They will pass through 8.4 millions species; this number does not decrease or rise.

ਜੀਉ ਪ੍ਰਾਣ ਜਿਨਿ ਰਚਿਓ ਸਰੀਰ ॥
He created the soul, the breath of life and the body.

ਜਿਨਹਿ ਉਪਾਏ ਤਿਸ ਕਉ ਪੀਰ ॥੧॥
He created all beings, and knows their pains. ||1||

ਗੁਰੁ ਗੋਬਿੰਦੁ ਜੀਅ ਕੈ ਕਾਮ ॥
The Guru, the Lord of the Universe, is the Helper of the soul.

ਹਲਤਿ ਪਲਤਿ ਜਾ ਕੀ ਸਦ ਛਾਮ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Here and hereafter, He always provides shade. ||1||Pause||



ਦੇਹੀ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਨਿਵਾਸੀ ॥
The Naam, the Name of the Lord, abides deep within the body.

ਆਪੇ ਕਰਤਾ ਹੈ ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ॥
The Creator Lord is eternal and imperishable.

ਨਾ ਜੀਉ ਮਰੈ ਨ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਜਾਈ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖੈ ਸਬਦਿ ਰਜਾਈ ਹੇ ॥੧੩॥
The soul does not die, and it cannot be killed; God creates and watches over all. Through the Word of the Shabad, His Will is manifest. ||13||




ਭਾਣੈ ਜੋਨਿ ਭਵਾਈਐ ਭਾਣੈ ਬਖਸ ਕਰੇਇ ॥
In the Lord's Will, they are made to wander in reincarnation; in the Lord's Will, they are forgiven.


ਜੋ ਜੋ ਜੂਨੀ ਆਇਓ ਤਿਹ ਤਿਹ ਉਰਝਾਇਓ ਮਾਣਸ ਜਨਮੁ ਸੰਜੋਗਿ ਪਾਇਆ ॥
Whoever is born into the world, is entangled in it; human birth is obtained only by good destiny.



my take: once the soul is created, it's immortal. however, it was at some point created by waheguru, which implies of course that he may create more souls if he so wishes. he is god after all. as far as which joon we start with/wind up in, it's all up to waheguru's will (and of course our own karma). i don't think there is a set order to joons, because gurbani reminds us again and again that we only obtain human birth by rare good fortune, and we may never get it again. if joons were a set pattern, that wouldn't be the case.

Anything that has been created cannot be eternal. The Atma being part of Vaheguru has always been there as per the following Shabad that talks about Atma and Parmatma:

ਗੋਂਡ ਮਹਲਾ 5 ॥
ਅਚਰਜ ਕਥਾ ਮਹਾ ਅਨੂਪ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਾਤਮਾ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕਾ ਰੂਪੁ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਬੂਢਾ ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਬਾਲਾ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਸੁ ਦੂਖੁ ਨਹੀ ਜਮ ਜਾਲਾ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਬਿਨਸੈ ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਜਾਇ ॥
ਆਦਿ ਜੁਗਾਦੀ ਰਹਿਆ ਸਮਾਇ ॥1॥
ਨਾ ਇਸੁ ਉਸਨੁ ਨਹੀ ਇਸੁ ਸੀਤੁ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਸੁ ਦੁਸਮਨੁ ਨਾ ਇਸੁ ਮੀਤੁ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਸੁ ਹਰਖੁ ਨਹੀ ਇਸੁ ਸੋਗੁ ॥
ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਇਸ ਕਾ ਇਹੁ ਕਰਨੈ ਜੋਗੁ ॥2॥
ਨਾ ਇਸੁ ਬਾਪੁ ਨਹੀ ਇਸੁ ਮਾਇਆ ॥
ਇਹੁ ਅਪਰੰਪਰੁ ਹੋਤਾ ਆਇਆ ॥
ਪਾਪ ਪੁੰਨ ਕਾ ਇਸੁ ਲੇਪੁ ਨ ਲਾਗੈ ॥
ਘਟ ਘਟ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਸਦ ਹੀ ਜਾਗੈ ॥3॥
ਤੀਨਿ ਗੁਣਾ ਇਕ ਸਕਤਿ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥
ਮਹਾ ਮਾਇਆ ਤਾ ਕੀ ਹੈ ਛਾਇਆ ॥
ਅਛਲ ਅਛੇਦ ਅਭੇਦ ਦਇਆਲ ॥
ਦੀਨ ਦਇਆਲ ਸਦਾ ਕਿਰਪਾਲ ॥
ਤਾ ਕੀ ਗਤਿ ਮਿਤਿ ਕਛੂ ਨ ਪਾਇ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਤਾ ਕੈ ਬਲਿ ਬਲਿ ਜਾਇ ॥4॥19॥21॥

The first 3 stanzas talk about the Atma and the last stanza talks about Parmatma Vaheguru. Of special interest are the following Pankitis:

ਨਾ ਇਸੁ ਬਾਪੁ ਨਹੀ ਇਸੁ ਮਾਇਆ ॥
ਇਹੁ ਅਪਰੰਪਰੁ ਹੋਤਾ ਆਇਆ ॥
(Atma has no father and mother and it has always been in existence).

The proves that the Atma was always in existence.

Another Shabad in this Raag and that talks specifically of the Atma is authored by Bhagat Kabir jee:

ਗੋਂਡ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਮਾਨਸੁ ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਦੇਉ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਜਤੀ ਕਹਾਵੈ ਸੇਉ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਜੋਗੀ ਨਾ ਅਵਧੂਤਾ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਸੁ ਮਾਇ ਨ ਕਾਹੂ ਪੂਤਾ ॥1॥
ਇਆ ਮੰਦਰ ਮਹਿ ਕੌਨ ਬਸਾਈ ॥
ਤਾ ਕਾ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਕੋਊ ਪਾਈ ॥1॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਗਿਰਹੀ ਨਾ ਓਦਾਸੀ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਰਾਜ ਨ ਭੀਖ ਮੰਗਾਸੀ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਸੁ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਨ ਰਕਤੂ ਰਾਤੀ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਨੁ ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਖਾਤੀ ॥2॥
ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਤਪਾ ਕਹਾਵੈ ਸੇਖੁ ॥
ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਜੀਵੈ ਨ ਮਰਤਾ ਦੇਖੁ ॥
ਇਸੁ ਮਰਤੇ ਕਉ ਜੇ ਕੋਊ ਰੋਵੈ ॥
ਜੋ ਰੋਵੈ ਸੋਈ ਪਤਿ ਖੋਵੈ ॥3॥
ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ਮੈ ਡਗਰੋ ਪਾਇਆ ॥
ਜੀਵਨ ਮਰਨੁ ਦੋਊ ਮਿਟਵਾਇਆ ॥
ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਇਹੁ ਰਾਮ ਕੀ ਅੰਸੁ ॥
ਜਸ ਕਾਗਦ ਪਰ ਮਿਟੈ ਨ ਮੰਸੁ ॥4॥2॥5॥


Bhagat jee has made it clear that the Atma is eternal in the last two pankitis above.

Daas,
Kulbir Singh

so when guru sahib says ਜੀਉ ਪ੍ਰਾਣ ਜਿਨਿ ਰਚਿਓ ਸਰੀਰ ॥, then what does it mean? are you saying waheguru is not capable of creating souls? isn't that putting limits on god's power?
sorry for the questions, but this is really confusing to me.

1kaur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so when guru sahib says ਜੀਉ ਪ੍ਰਾਣ
> ਜਿਨਿ ਰਚਿਓ ਸਰੀਰ ॥, then
> what does it mean? are you saying waheguru is
> not capable of creating souls? isn't that putting
> limits on god's power?
> sorry for the questions, but this is really
> confusing to me.


It is not putting a limit on Gods power to say Soul is not created instead it is undermining God to say souls are created. Soul is the pure jot (light) and the essence of God therefore we cannot associate this pure light with creation ( the created). Paramatma (God)is the ocean and atma is the drop of this ocean. The ocean does not create the drop instead the drop is simply part of the ocean.

Atma differs from Jeev-Atma and Atma cannot be created and categorized with the rest of creation. Only out of pure ignorance would we claim Atma is part of the creation. We can claim mind as part of physical creation( the created) but not Atma. Again atma is pure light and the essence of WaaheGuru.

yes sukhdeep singh, i am ignorant. that's why i'm here, asking stupid questions.

so back to my original question...

so when guru sahib says ਜੀਉ ਪ੍ਰਾਣ ਜਿਨਿ ਰਚਿਓ ਸਰੀਰ ॥, then what does it mean?

how can he create something he didn't create?

let me rephrase the question...


ਆਪਨ ਆਪੁ ਆਪਹਿ ਉਪਾਇਓ ॥
He Himself created Himself.

ਆਪਹਿ ਬਾਪ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਮਾਇਓ ॥
He is His Own Father, He is His Own Mother.

ਆਪਹਿ ਸੂਖਮ ਆਪਹਿ ਅਸਥੂਲਾ ॥
He Himself is subtle and etheric; He Himself is manifest and obvious.

ਲਖੀ ਨ ਜਾਈ ਨਾਨਕ ਲੀਲਾ ॥੧॥
O Nanak, His wondrous play cannot be understood. ||1||

if the soul part of god, and god created himself, then wouldn't that mean god also created the soul (part of himself)?


ਲਖੀ ਨ ਜਾਈ ਨਾਨਕ ਲੀਲਾ ॥੧॥
O Nanak, His wondrous play cannot be understood. ||1||

sometimes i think this is the only thing i do understand... that he can't be understood.

My understanding is that when Gurbani says God "created Himself" or "fashioned Himself" it refers to creation meaning He created His sargun saroop in which He manifested His light.

ਪ੍ਰਾਤਮਾ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕਾ ਰੂਪੁ ॥

But the entire creation is also His roop. If souls have always existed then what happens when maha parlo comes? When God was in "sunn" what happens to souls? Bhai Randhir Singh says that three khands get destroyed when maha parlo comes then what happens to souls residing in those khands? This to me meant that souls residing in Sachkhand and Karam Khand remain leen in Waheguru while all others get destroyed or merge back.

If we are ready to say that He Himself created Himself, then what is wrong with saying that He created souls (as well as bodies.) Now, because ATMA is ultimatey the main, primary and principal character of this creation, we could safely opt to say that this is not part of the creation.

As far as the original question goes; I think that in our faith there is little importance given, to such calculations. ਤਾ ਕੀ ਗਤਿ ਮਿਤਿ ਕਛੂ ਨ ਪਾਇ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਤਾ ਕੈ ਬਲਿ ਬਲਿ ਜਾਇ or ਲਖੀ ਨ ਜਾਈ ਨਾਨਕ ਲੀਲਾ could be the ultimate answers to such queries. We never say seven or 77 skies or universes or galaxies. It is always innumerable. Similar could be the answer to the present question.

VAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA, VAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

Quick, someone divide infinity by infinity...is the answer 1 or infinity or undefined?

Perhaps the Almighty created the drops from himself, the ocean and invested them into the Sargun universe? Would this mean that the Almighty's power or presence would be reduced? Are we not assuming that if the soul is created from the Almighty that it has somehow left the presence of the Almighty into a being separate from the Almighty, when in reality, the entire of creation (and then some) IS the Almighty. The Almighty encompasses it and yet is much more than the creation.

Stupid example time: A bottle of water is left in the sun and then cools down. Condensation occurs and drops of water form on its side. Has the total volume in the bottle changed? Nope. So if drops/souls were "created", they were still encompassed in the bottle/The Almighty. Here, the bottle encompasses all that we see, all that we don't see and beyond even that!

The main problem is that we are attempting to contemplate the Infinite with our finite brains. Science and math will only take us so far, so concepts of "creating" drops or not are attempts to make the concept palatable, but will fail due to our own limited capacity. Even the bottle/drops example above is subject to failure if it is grilled analytically - some genius will comment on how over time, water molecules will diffuse out of the walls of the bottle etc.

Gurbani, and particularly Jaap Sahib, is quite clear that the Almighty can do anything, everything and the in between. Create, destroy, sustain whatever. Ultimately, it is all forms of the Almighty changing. Munmukhs like me see creation, destruction and sustenance, but Gurmukhs see the Almighty's light in all that occurs. Sikhi teaches that God resides in each and every bit of creation and beyond, so overall, nothing is being created or destroyed - it is dancing to the Almighty's instructions. But it is our finite mind that sees the modes of creation, sustenance and destruction. Guru Sahib addresses both concepts in Gurbani. Yes, what WE perceive is that life-death cycle, but in the end, it is all the Almighty all the time, but merely changing its form or phase of existence per Akaal Purakh's mauj.

Answer to original posted question (from this finite being's view): God can do whatever God wants. More souls, sure. Kill all the souls, sure. It is all God. We see creation-destruction, but in reality, it is all God. God puts that soul at whatever position to start with and ends it with whatever position - God itself resides in the creation and puts itself through the incarnations itself as well (after all, if we are going through reincarnation and the atma/soul/GOD accompanies us, is the Almighty not the silent witness creating the play and taking a front row seat to it, feeling and perceiving everything we are? It is a "Starring In and Directed By" production!). We can only behold what we perceive and stand in awe and remember that Almighty in awe because whatever limitation we attempt to put on the Almighty will always be shattered sooner or later.

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

God is merciful ocean; the drop of the ocean ( atma) is his Kirpa. Yes, God can do as he wishes and has no limits, but what would be the reason to destroy himself/part of himself. Sri Akal Purakh is a loving God and has a deep and intimate relationship with his creation.

Atma is the essence of God. It is pure kirpa, in which God has given part of himself to beings.How can we offer this gift back to him if this gift is destroyed? What would be the purpose of life then if we cant worship him through his kirpa?

Kirpa cannot be destroyed or created it is simply the essence/quality of God. If God created beings ( jeevs) so that we would worship him then why would he destroy the soul? How can we worship him knowing that we are suppose to worship him with our soul?

Guru Sahib's Gurbani is Attal:

ਨਾ ਇਸੁ ਬਾਪੁ ਨਹੀ ਇਸੁ ਮਾਇਆ ॥
ਇਹੁ ਅਪਰੰਪਰੁ ਹੋਤਾ ਆਇਆ ॥
(Atma has no father and mother and it has always been in existence).

Atma is Abinaashi and cannot be destroyed nor was it created. The Shabads that talk about Vaheguru or his essence being created pertain to the establishment of the Sargun Saroop, not the Abinaashi Nirgun Saroop of Vaheguru. Vaheguru is Aad Sach and Hosi bhee Sach. He was never created nor can be destroyed. Atma too is Abinaashi as per the Gurbani Pankiti quoted above.

Kulbir Singh

VAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA, VAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

Perhaps the proper terminology is that the Almighty can impart the Atma to as many beings it chooses, be it more or less than the current. So "destroy" and "create" is not actually occurring - same Atma, but in more or less beings. More along the lines of what was meant in the post above - it was not meant to assume that the Infinite is creating or destroying parts of itself.

Sorry for any confusion.

I think God creates and then destroys. Although it would seem funny to destroy a soul along with it's outer shell, the body at it's death time only to create the soul again to put it into it's next joon..would seem like a waste of time.

Can't say for sure. God knows, He knows His own secrets. Why does it matter so much, our job is to lovingly remember God..so keep doing that.. not like we will ever know God's secrets any ways so just pray.

Guru Gobind singh ji about soul in Dasam Granth sahib

ਤ੍ਵ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
त्व प्रसादि ॥
BY THY GRACE

ਦਿਨ ਅਜਬ ਏਕ ਆਤਮਾ ਰਾਮ ॥ ਅਨਭਉ ਸਰੂਪ ਅਨਹਦ ਅਕਾਮ ॥
दिन अजब एक आतमा राम ॥ अनभउ सरूप अनहद अकाम ॥
On a day the curious soul (asked): The infinite and Desire less Lord, the Intuitive Entity.

ਅਨਛਿੱਜ ਤੇਜ ਆਜਾਨ ਬਾਹੁ ॥ ਰਾਜਾਨ ਰਾਜੁ ਸਾਹਾਨ ਸਾਹੁ ॥੧॥੧੨੬॥
अनछि्ज तेज आजान बाहु ॥ राजान राजु साहान साहु ॥१॥१२६॥
Of everlasting Glory and long-armed; the King of kings and Emperor of emperors.1.126.

ਉਚਰਿਓ ਆਤਮਾ ਪਰਾਤਮਾ ਸੰਗ ॥ ਉਤਭੁਜ ਸਰੂਪ ਅਬਿਗਤ ਅਭੰਗ ॥
उचरिओ आतमा परातमा संग ॥ उतभुज सरूप अबिगत अभंग ॥
The soul said to the Higher Soul; the Germinating Entity, Unmanifested and Invincible;

ਇਹ ਕਉਨ ਆਹਿ ਆਤਮਾ ਸਰੂਪ ॥ ਜਿਹ ਅਮਿਤ ਤੇਜ ਅਤਿਭੂਤਿ ਬਿਭੂਤਿ ॥੨॥੧੨੭॥
इह कउन आहि आतमा सरूप ॥ जिह अमित तेज अतिभूति बिभूति ॥२॥१२७॥
What is this Soul Entity? Which hath indelible glory and which is of queer substance."2.127.

ਪਰਾਤਮਾ ਬਾਚ ॥
परातमा बाच ॥
The Higher Soul said:

ਯਹਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਆਹਿ ਆਤਮਾ ਰਾਮ ॥ ਜਿਹ ਅਮਿਤ ਤੇਜਿ ਅਬਿਗਤ ਅਕਾਮ ॥
यहि ब्रहम आहि आतमा राम ॥ जिह अमित तेजि अबिगत अकाम ॥
This Soul is itself Brahman;" Who is of Everlasting Glory and is Unmanisfested and Desireless.

ਜਿਹ ਭੇਦ ਭਰਮ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਮ ਕਾਲ ॥ ਜਿਹ ਸਤ੍ਰ ਮਿਤ੍ਰ ਸਰਬਾ ਦਿਆਲ ॥੩॥੧੨੮॥
जिह भेद भरम नहीं करम काल ॥ जिह सत्र मित्र सरबा दिआल ॥३॥१२८॥
Who is indiscriminate, actionless and deathless; Who hath no enemy and friend and is Merciful towards all.3.1228.

ਡੋਬਿਓ ਨ ਡੁਬੈ ਸੋਖਿਓ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥ ਕਟਿਓ ਨ ਕਟੈ ਨ ਬਾਰਿਯੋ ਬਰਾਇ ॥
डोबिओ न डुबै सोखिओ न जाइ ॥ कटिओ न कटै न बारियो बराइ ॥
It is neither drowned nor soaked; It can neither be chopped nor burnt.

ਛਿਜੈ ਨ ਨੈਕ ਸਤ ਸਸਤ੍ਰ ਪਾਤ ॥ ਜਿਹ ਸਤ੍ਰ ਮਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾਤ ਪਾਤ ॥੪॥੧੨੯॥
छिजै न नैक सत ससत्र पात ॥ जिह सत्र मित्र नहीं जात पात ॥४॥१२९॥
It cannot be assailed by the blow of weapon; It hath neither an enemy nor a friend, neither caste not lineage.4.129.

ਸਤ੍ਰ ਸਹੰਸ ਸਤ ਸਤ ਪ੍ਰਘਾਇ ॥ ਛਿਜੈ ਨ ਨੈਕ ਖੰਡਿਓ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
सत्र सहंस सत सत प्रघाइ ॥ छिजै न नैक खंडिओ न जाइ ॥
By the blow of thousands of enemies, It is neither wasted away nor fragmented.

ਨਹੀ ਜਰੈ ਨੈਕ ਪਾਵਕ ਮੰਝਾਰ ॥ ਬੋਰੈ ਨ ਸਿੰਧ ਸੋਖੈ ਨ ਬਯਾਰ ॥੫॥੧੩੦॥
नही जरै नैक पावक मंझार ॥ बोरै न सिंध सोखै न बयार ॥५॥१३०॥
It is not burnt even in the fire. It is neither drowned in the sea nor soaked by the air.5.130.

Gyan parbodh, Dasam Granth sahib

Bhai Inder Singh jeeo,

Since you have done quite bit of research of Dasam Granth, with respect to Gyan Probodh, could you please provide answers to the following questions, that I have had in mind for sometime:

1. Some scholars say that Gyan Probodh as listed in Dasam Granth is not complete; some parts are missing. Is this true?

2. Is Gyan Probodh a translation of some ancient scripture like some other compositions or is it an independent Rachna of Guru Sahib?

Kulbir Singh

Gian parbodh is written by Guru Gobind singh ji.It is evident in the beginning of this composition wherein Guru sahib salutes Akal purakh who is supreme, infinite, formless etc.

Later part of gian parbodh talks about practical world wherein politics, charity, householders life and liberation questions are raised. Here Guru sahib has written mainly on the basis of contents of Bhagvad purana as stories about Yudhishtra, prakhisht,Janmeja and Rishi vyas are mentioned.

But Guru sahib's views on these figures are summed up in first part

ਛਪੈ ਛੰਦ ॥
छपै छंद ॥
CHAPAI STANZA

ਬੇਦ ਭੇਦ ਨਹੀਂ ਲਖੇ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਬੁਝੈ ॥
बेद भेद नहीं लखे ब्रहम ब्रहमा नहीं बुझै ॥
The Vedas and even Brahma do not know the secret of Brahman.

ਬਿਆਸ ਪਰਾਸੁਰ ਸੁਕ ਸਨਾਦਿ ਸਿਵ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਸੁਝੈ ॥
बिआस परासुर सुक सनादि सिव अंतु न सुझै ॥
Vyas, Parashar, Sukhedev, Sanak etc., and Shiva do not know His Limits.

ਸਨਤ ਕੁਮਾਰ ਸਨਕਾਦਿ ਸਰਬ ਜਉ ਸਮਾ ਨ ਪਾਵਹਿ ॥
सनत कुमार सनकादि सरब जउ समा न पावहि ॥
Sanat Kumar, Sanak etc., all of them do not comprehend the time.

ਲਖ ਲਖਮੀ ਲਖ ਬਿਸਨ ਕਿਸਨ ਕਈ ਨੇਤਿ ਬਤਾਵਹਿ ॥
लख लखमी लख बिसन किसन कई नेति बतावहि ॥
Lakhs of Lakshmis and Vishnus and many Krishnas call Him "NETI".

ਅਸੰਭ ਰੂਪ ਅਨਭੈ ਪ੍ਰਭਾ ਅਤਿ ਬਲਿਸਟ ਜਲਿ ਥਲਿ ਕਰਣ ॥
अस्मभ रूप अनभै प्रभा अति बलिसट जलि थलि करण ॥
He is an Unborn Entity, His Glory is manifested through knowledge, He is most powerful and cause of the creation of water and land.

ਅਚੁਤ ਅਨੰਤ ਅਦ੍ਵੈ ਅਮਿਤ ਨਾਥ ਨਿਰੰਜਨ ਤਵ ਸਰਣ ॥੧॥੩੨॥
अचुत अनंत अद्वै अमित नाथ निरंजन तव सरण ॥१॥३२॥
He is imperishable, boundless, Non-dual, Unlimited and the Transcendent Lord, I am in Thy Refuge. 1 .32

Gian parbodh, Dasam Granth

We can say this composition is more or less on the pattern of chaubis avtar where Guru sahib has detailed life stories of avtars of Hinduism but gave his views about these avtars in the beginning by writing as below

ਜੋ ਚਉਬੀਸ ਅਵਤਾਰ ਕਹਾਏ ॥
जो चउबीस अवतार कहाए ॥
Those who are called twenty-four incarnations;

ਤਿਨ ਭੀ ਤੁਮ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਨਿਕ ਨ ਪਾਏ ॥
तिन भी तुम प्रभ तनिक न पाए ॥
O Lord ! they even could not realise thee in a small measure;

Chaubis avtar

Guru sahib writes about various yagnas on the basis of Bhagvad purana but gives his opinion in the beginning about these rituals as of no merit.

Since only one kind of discipline (out of four)is mentioned some believe this composition is not complete.

Uncle Ji, you did not explain whether Gyan Parbodh is complete or not? Some compositions like Bachittar Natak and Akal Ustat are incomplete. Is Gian Parbodh also missing some parts? Are questions raised in this composition answered? From your reply it sounds like its mostly translation of a hindu text.

Uncle Ji, you did not explain whether Gyan Parbodh is complete or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i wrote in earlier post

Since only one kind of discipline (out of four)is mentioned some believe this composition is not complete.

question by Bijla Singh

From your reply it sounds like its mostly translation of a hindu text.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i wrote

Gian parbodh is written by Guru Gobind singh ji.It is evident in the beginning of this composition wherein Guru sahib salutes Akal purakh who is supreme, infinite, formless etc.

Later part of gian parbodh talks about practical world wherein politics, charity, householders life and liberation questions are raised. Here Guru sahib has written mainly on the basis of contents of Bhagvad purana as stories about Yudhishtra, prakhisht,Janmeja and Rishi vyas are mentioned.

unquote

In simple language it says that

1 beginning part of gian parbodh is not from hindu texts. It is composed by Guru sahib wherein akal purakh is praised.

2 Concluding part seems to be written with knowledge from bhagvad purana though unlike chaubis avtar it is not mentioned
in the composition that it is a translation.

Bijla singh ji wrote

Some compositions like Bachittar Natak and Akal Ustat are incomplete

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bijla singh ji

Bachitra natak has three sections. What section you think is not complete?

Quote

Later part of gian parbodh talks about practical world wherein politics, charity, householders life and liberation questions are raised.

Can you provide some examples? Only questions are raised or answers are provided as well? Can you also provide names of some scholars and their works who think Gian Parbodh is not complete as well as of those who think it is?

Bachittar Natak is not a complete autobiography of Guru Sahib which means that had it been a poet’s composition he would’ve written a complete biography. I thought it was a well known fact.

ਬੇਦ ਭੇਦ ਨਹੀਂ ਲਖੇ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਬੁਝੈ ॥
This seems like rejection of Vedas and their alleged writer Brahma. If they do not know the secrets of God, is it of any benefit for anyone to have faith in them? What is your opinion?

Bijla singh wrote

Can you provide some examples? Only questions are raised or answers are provided as well?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please refer to my earlier post of Oct 28. The relevant part is given below

Later part of gian parbodh talks about practical world wherein politics, charity, householders life and liberation questions are raised. Here Guru sahib has written mainly on the basis of contents of Bhagvad purana as stories about Yudhishtra, prakhisht,Janmeja and Rishi vyas are mentioned.

unquote

The above means that questions on four categories are asked. And then see last part of same post that says

Since only one kind of discipline (out of four)is mentioned some believe this composition is not complete.

Bijla singh wrote

Bachittar Natak is not a complete autobiography of Guru Sahib which means that had it been a poet’s composition he would’ve written a complete biography. I thought it was a well known fact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bachitra natak has three parts. Are you telling that only one is incomplete.

This is the first time i am hearing that one part is incomplete. please support your assertion with
references.

Uncle ji, you rewrote your old post. Are only questions raised or answers are provided as well? You did not provide any example either. Who are "some people" who think it is incomplete? Bachittar Natak is not a complete biography of Guru Sahib. If that is not true then can you provide what it says about 1699?

Bijla singh ji wrote

Bachittar Natak is not a complete biography of Guru Sahib. If that is not true then can you provide what it says about 1699?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So there is no reference to support that Bachitra natak is incomplete.

Bachitra Natak is complete . It was written before 1699 and that is the extent Guru sahib wanted to write.

It has three sections and fourteen chapters. At the end of each chapter Guru sahib writes that this is the end of chapter no so and so.

In concluding chapter Guru sahib writes that he is writing about chaubis avtar.

ਜਿਹ ਜਿਹ ਬਿਧ ਜਨਮਨ ਸੁਧਿ ਆਈ ॥ ਤਿਮ ਤਿਮ ਕਹੇ ਗਿਰੰਥ ਬਨਾਈ ॥
जिह जिह बिध जनमन सुधि आई ॥ तिम तिम कहे गिरंथ बनाई ॥
The way in which I came to know about the births of incarnations, in the same manner, I have rendered them in books.


Then Guru sahib writes that he was going to write Chandi Charitra now.

ਪਹਿਲੇ ਚੰਡੀ ਚਰਿਤ੍ਰ ਬਨਾਯੋ ॥ ਨਖ ਸਿਖ ਤੇ ਕ੍ਰਮ ਭਾਖ ਸੁਨਾਯੋ ॥
पहिले चंडी चरित्र बनायो ॥ नख सिख ते क्रम भाख सुनायो ॥
The charitras of Chandi have been composed earlier,but I have composed (the same) in strict order from top to toe.

ਛੋਰ ਕਥਾ ਤਬ ਪ੍ਰਥਮ ਸੁਨਾਈ ॥ ਅਬ ਚਾਹਤ ਫਿਰਿ ਕਰੋਂ ਬਡਾਈ ॥੧੧॥
छोर कथा तब प्रथम सुनाई ॥ अब चाहत फिरि करों बडाई ॥११॥
In the beginning I composed a comprehensive discourse, but now I want again to compose an Eulogy.11.

Then Guru sahib writes in the end of this composition

ਇਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਗ੍ਰੰਥੇ ਸਰਬ ਕਾਲ ਕੀ ਬੇਨਤੀ ਬਰਨਨੰ ਨਾਮ ਚੌਦਸਮੋ ਧਿਆਇ ਸਮਾਪਤਮ ਸਤੁ ਸੁਭਮ ਸਤੁ ॥੧੪॥ਅਫਜੂ॥੪੭੧॥
इति स्री बचित्र नाटक ग्रंथे सरब काल की बेनती बरननं नाम चौदसमो धिआइ समापतम सतु सुभम सतु ॥१४॥अफजू॥४७१॥
End of Fourteenth Chapter of BACHITTAR NATAK entitled `Description of the Supplication to the Lord, Destroyer of All`.14.471.

From Bachitra Natak , Dasam Granth

The above extracts from Bachitra Natak show that this was the extent what Guru Sahib wanted in this composition..

Uncle ji, you are not answering my questions and instead deviating from the topic. It sounds like you have not read Gian Parbodh yourself. Bachittar Natak is not a complete autobiography of Guru Sahib. Hence, incomplete. I don't think this is rocket science.

ਬੇਦ ਭੇਦ ਨਹੀਂ ਲਖੇ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਬੁਝੈ ॥
This seems like rejection of Vedas and their alleged writer Brahma. If they do not know the secrets of God, is it of any benefit for anyone to have faith in them? What is your opinion?

Bijla singh ji

I have answered all your questions. What makes you to write that bachitra Natak is not complete when internal evidence
shows that Guru sahib has written a concluding prayer to Akal purakh for having blessed Him for writing this.

Detractors of Dasam Granth write that Dasam Granth is not composition of Guru sahib as Amrit sanchar of 1699 is not mentioned in it.

You are telling the same thing when you write in your earlier post

quote

If that is not true then can you provide what it says about 1699?

unquote

1)Can you quote from Bachitra Natak what makes you to conclude that it is incomplete.

2) You have not been able to provide any reference also to support your argument.

Mere making statements is your personal opinion.

Very typical uncle ji, someone who doesn’t hold the same opinion as you has to be “anti-Dasam Granth/guru nindak/agent blah blah blah”. There is a big difference between not believing in Dasam Granth and asking questions. You have not answered any of my questions and instead took the topic in a different direction so you can write long irrelevant posts full of quotes taken from websites. Here are my questions again:

1) Provide example of questions raised in Gian Parbodh. Are answers provided or not?

2) Who in pro-Dasam Granth team believes Gian Parbodh is not complete and who believes it is?

3) If Bachittar Natak is complete then why is there not anything about 1699 or Pir Buddhu Shah in Bhanghani battle? It is laughable for you to ask quote from Bachittar Natak to show that it is incomplete. What exactly do you want? A direct quote that says “it is incomplete”? I am not saying it is not written by Guru Sahib. It is missing a lot of details which is why I called it incomplete. I have also written that had it been a poet’s composition it would have been complete which means I believe it is the work of Guru Sahib but you failed to read that statement. The question is not about its authenticity but completeness. Stay on topic.

4) ਬੇਦ ਭੇਦ ਨਹੀਂ ਲਖੇ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਬੁਝੈ ॥
This seems like rejection of Vedas and their alleged writer Brahma. If they do not know the secrets of God, is it of any benefit for anyone to have faith in them? What is your opinion?

Sure, I am making statements and never said I am stating facts because I am asking questions. But if you claim to be a scholar of Dasam Granth then it shouldn’t be hard for you to provide some answers.

Bijla singh ji

Let me addrees your points again on gian parbodh separately

1) Regarding Gian parbodh it has been stated that four questions were raised. One discipline was addressed to.
Hence some writers believe that it is not complete.

Did you not read this earlier? If so why same questions again and again?

2) Academics have their own opinions. It is not essential their opinions are correct. Only Guru sahib knows best
who wrote the composition.

This is what is stated earlier. If you do not understand this please seek alternative sources to match your scholarly
expectations.