The Khalsa as an enlightened mystic retains their consciousness and continues serving even after the physical body atrophies away. The unenlightened being has their consciousness extinguished. This is what the anti-imperial Sikh revolutionary Baba Wasakha Singh used to preach. The mystic is like the man outside the well throwing in a rope to the man still stuck within the well.
What resources do you recommend to learn Gurmukhi and understand the nuances? How can we verify and prove whose translations are correct?
Such as:
What about this shabad: ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ ||
They will pass through 8.4 millions species; this number does not decrease or rise.
I understand that "species" is wrongly defined but overall the meaning may still hold depending on the word ਮੇਦਨੀ maybe. Does this shabad throw a wrench in this debate? How do you decipher ਮੇਦਨੀ ?
Veer Ji Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh Ji. The jury is out on translations but it's better to learn Gurmukhi and Viakaran yourself to improve your own understanding directly from the source. Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha's encyclopedic Mahan Kosh will help you greatly in discovering the true definitions of terms used within the SGGS and other Sikh literature.
"Greater than Great, Great is this Creation (ਮੇਦਨੀ) in which the Ascendant (Vaheguru) fashions and assigns all worldly affairs."
As the Asa Di Vaar Shabad clarifies it means "creation." Hope that helps. So in the Shabad you quote it would be "8.4 million lives and even more in Creation" or alternatively "8.4 million lives and the rest of Creation."
It should be remembered that the preamble or introduction to the SGGS is the Japji Sahib which states,
ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਕਵਣ ਕਹਾ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
ਵਾਰਿਆ ਨ ਜਾਵਾ ਏਕ ਵਾਰ ॥
Breaking it down,
ਕੁਦਰਤਿ=Creation/World/Existence.
ਕਵਣ=Quantify/Count/Number.
ਕਹਾ=Converse/Speak/Talk.
ਵੀਚਾਰੁ=Contemplate/Describe/Consider.
In summary:
"How can I even begin to quantify your Creation to describe it?"
The meaning we derive here is that Creation is uncountable. It does not fit in any numerical parameters such as 8.4 millions lives etc. More and more Beings are forever coming in existence and dying. Creation is forever expanding and will continue expanding as the Creator wills it. To argue that there are set particulars in which the soul can fit post-death, in our opinion, is to ignore the Japji Sahib's injunction on the matter.
Expanding from Japji Sahib onwards we also enter the Asa Di Vaar in which Creation is described as Greater than Great and still more Great. These aren't adulations alone but also indications that Creation cannot be quantified or categorized on a numerical basis.
You should remember that the Japji Sahib is the most fundamental of keys to unlocking Gurbani. If you can comprehend it and consider it impartially then your overall comprehension of Gurbani will increase by leaps and bounds. This will allow you to live Gurbani, as it is, in your daily life rather than be spoon-fed someone else's perspective on it.
Vaheguru Ji ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji ki Fateh. Thank you for the response Ji. That makes so much sense. We should be analysing the rest from Gurbani keeping Japji sahib in mind since it is our first principles.
Do you recommend Prof Sahib Singh book on Viakaran also I appreciate the understanding you have given however can you just check my understanding on how to do this with aforementioned the line just to confirm the conclusion you go to?
ਲਖ = lakh
ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ = 84
ਮੇਦਨੀ = creation/world/existence
ਘਟੈ = increase
ਨ = nor
ਵਧੈ = decrease
ਉਤਾਹਿ = in addition/upwards?
I am unsure how this made into -> "8.4 million lives and even more in Creation" or alternatively "8.4 million lives and the rest of Creation." Maybe this is a lack of understanding of the grammar on my part?
The most similar I can get is:
"8.4 million lives in addition to the non-changing existence"
Is their an error or misunderstanding on my part? Why the difference?
The context to this Shabad is of a Manmukh. The preceding and succeeding lines deal with individuals who waste their lives.
ਜੋ ਆਵਹਿ ਸੇ ਜਾਹਿ ਫੁਨਿ ਆਇ ਗਏ ਪਛੁਤਾਹਿ ॥
Those who come also depart, the wasteful ones regret their ends.
ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ ॥
Stuck within the cycles of 8.4 million lives in addition to Creation, they (Manmukh) neither increase nor decrease what is already increasing.
ਸੇ ਜਨ ਉਬਰੇ ਜਿਨ ਹਰਿ ਭਾਇਆ ॥
Only that individual liberates themselves (from this stagnation) who find their Creator pleasing.
This verse uses an idiomatic expression for Reincarnation:
ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ
A million and 8.4.
It is not concerned with Reincarnation in the conventional sense. It explains that an individual who wastes their life is forever behaving like the countless beasts of Creation. They neither subtract from Creation and neither add anything to it. They stagnate, waste their lives and die adding nothing worthwhile to this world.
Creation is forever ਉਤਾਹਿ, going upwards or increasing.
Veer Bhupinder Singh Ji of the Living Treasure organization differs from us on many topics. But that said he's quite an expert on the structural ordering of Gurbani. We remember seeing one of his videos a long time ago where he describes how Gurbani is structured:
Specific 'starter' pages (i.e. where subjects are dealt with) are titled in bold; Mahallas, Bhagats, Bhatts and Gursikhs are mentioned at the top depending on authorship. Raags are specified and a numbering code established to ensure authenticity. Then we have the Rahaao line which is the gist or the Rahaao sans Rahaao line which is usually numbered at the end (i.e. Anand Sahib) where the last line with either Rahaao or numbers provides the key to interpreting the above unnumbered lines and/or pre-Rahaao lines.
At the same time the subject also should be remembered. The subject in the verse you provided is the Manmukh vs. the Gurmukh-the fundamental difference between both. So this subject matter will run for over several consecutive lines until a conclusion is specified.
-The subject is the difference between the human animal and the enlightened human.
-The first line of the verse describes how everyone is born and then dies but there is a difference between those who die.
-The difference is clarified in your verse which is the second line, the Manmukh remains a beast and traverse Creation as an animal. He does not detract from Creation but neither adds anything worthwhile to it. Creation is expanding. It is like an ocean, forever flowing. We cannot deplete an ocean with a bucket but at the same time if we learn how to use the ocean (ships etc) we can accomplish something productive. Otherwise with such an expanse opportunity at our doorstep, we still wallow in intellectual poverty.
-The third line ਸੇ ਜਨ ਉਬਰੇ ਜਿਨ ਹਰਿ ਭਾਇਆ ॥ describes how to reverse this process. One who finds the Creator's virtues at play in nature pleasing; accepts reality as their Creator's Hukam avoids this bestial stagnation and imparts a worthwhile legacy to this world which speaks long after they are gone.
The points mentioned about the structuring make complete sense as well and need to be remembered. I will make a note of Veer Bhupinder Singh's channel for understanding structuring.
This whole bani by Guru Nanak Dev Ji reading it is so deep and it really is valuable wow.
This is what I have gathered so far from this thread: learn how to analyse lines using mahankosh and have a base note of ideas from Japji sahib as the bedrock. Then understanding the subject of the whole Bani coupled with understanding the subject of the this particular verse opening/Rehaao and using it to understand the verse at hand. Combining all of this to draw the lessons from the verse.
A lot of gems on this thread and seems to cover everything, if you feel like their is anything more to add please do (like ideas, concepts or resources etc) or (if you feel their is loads that could be added) alternatively an in-depth guide on how to: approach, comprehend + draw (actively apply) lessons from Gurbani from a student perspective would be really fascinating for a reader/listener to start reading Gurbani themselves accurately, curating everything that should be understood together. Otherwise this thread is one to refer to and seems to cover everything.
Gurbani is not self-contradictory when it is read and understood in light of its own principles. The reader has defects but not the word of the Gurbani.
After having spent almost thirty years among traditional Hindu-Sikh sampradas I felt I had gained nothing. I discarded Sikhi and converted to Islam.
But during the lockdown I discovered your voice and then this site. It has slowly brought me back to Sikhi and I have stopped doing Namaz and now consume bacon without any superstition. To me this article and your episode on Reincarnation make perfect sense. Please keep up the good work and save the world from the malaise which is Hindu Mat and Islam Mat.
Not only does Reincarnation deaden one to their intellectual capacity (“its pointless as we are on repeat”), it also justifies apathy in the face of atrocity (“their past Karma must be bad that’s why they suffer today”).
The first point is not promoted though. What is preached is that you don’t want to enter the womb again, trying to make this one the very last janam.
Second is neither told nor was ever said by any prominent Parcharak, there’s numerous panktis that say we can’t calculate all our karams and therefore don’t know so we shouldn’t see others in a condescending way.
Like ajhu su nao samundr meh, kiaa jaana kiaa hoie
Regarding your first point of promotion, neither did we say it is promoted. It is a conclusion we provided. Gurbani is explicitly clear on Reincarnation being an adjective to differentiate between the enlightened human and the bestial Manmukh:
"Kabir, the human birth is a one-off. It does not transpire over and over again. Like a fruit fallen from the tree cannot be reattached, so too it cannot be reacquired."
The fact that Bhagat Kabir in his infinite wisdom elaborates the impossibility of reacquiring human life under any cycle negates the escaping the womb aim given that there is no second insertion into the womb.
Regarding your second point on apathy in face of atrocity, neither did we claim that any of your prominent Pracharaks claimed as such. If indeed we cannot calculate our Karams then the very concept of Reincarnation becomes shaky as it is based on the execution of past life and present life Karams.
As for the verse of Bhagat Kabir which you reference, here's the full form:
ਕਬੀਰ ਗਰਬੁ ਨ ਕੀਜੀਐ ਰੰਕੁ ਨ ਹਸੀਐ ਕੋਇ ॥
ਅਜਹੁ ਸੁ ਨਾਉ ਸਮੁੰਦ੍ਰ ਮਹਿ ਕਿਆ ਜਾਨਉ ਕਿਆ ਹੋਇ ॥੩੯॥
More or less, it does not propose that the poor are poor due to their past life Karma upon which the theory of Reincarnation is built. Rather, Bhagat Kabir is advising do not allow hubris to blind you
ਕਬੀਰ ਗਰਬੁ ਨ ਕੀਜੀਐ
To the degree that you end up laughing at another's misfortune. You yourself are still traversing this ocean of life who knows what will happen to you ahead? It is in the present tense and is directed to the reader's mind. Nowhere does Bhagat Kabir mention that the two parties in the debate (the poor and the rich) are at their current stage due to reincarnation and associative Karma.
The thought that this refers to mental states is the alternative arth, the regular arths don’t deny this.
I used the Kabir Pankti as an example, it’s not about past karams. The Sikh mentality was never like that unlike the vedic. Gurbani says you don’t have an idea what you did wrong knowingly or unknowingly as well as in past lives like:
ਕਿਰਤੁ ਪਇਆ ਨਹ ਮੇਟੈ ਕੋਇ ॥
Past actions cannot be erased.
ਕਿਆ ਜਾਣਾ ਕਿਆ ਆਗੈ ਹੋਇ ॥
What do we/I know of what will happen hereafter?
ਜੋ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਣਾ ਸੋਈ ਹੂਆ ॥
Whatever pleases Him shall come to pass.
ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕਰਣੈ ਵਾਲਾ ਦੂਆ ॥੧॥
There is no other Doer except Him. ||1||
ਨਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਕਰਮ ਕੇਵਡ ਤੇਰੀ ਦਾਤਿ ॥
I do not know about (my) karma, or how great Your gifts are.
ਕਰਮੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਤੇਰੇ ਨਾਮ ਕੀ ਜਾਤਿ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
The karma of actions, the Dharma of righteousness, social class and status, are contained within Your Name. ||1||Pause||
The Kabir Ji pankti you provided says it is rare dulambh, and not vaar vaar. It’s not explicit, if I would convey a message clearly I wouldn’t say baaran baar and dulambh.
A fallen fruit represents the lost life, once pak gya meaning your body expired, you won’t attach to the same twig, your life is over. The fruit has seeds that again give life. I’m pretty sure scientists can attach a fruit again. A fallen fruit is consumed by kaal time, doesn’t mean there’s not to be another again.
Can you elaborate how it becomes shaky? Gurbani says a jeev is incapable of counting all its auguns or faults.
As in my thinking, not believing in reincarnation opens up a whole pandora box.
What was the use of a birth that lasted 2 minutes? Or someone who dies at the age of 5? Or generations of Aad Vaasis that never came into contact of proper or even half good updesh? Different life situations by birth.
There’s also panktis like:
ਬਇਆਲੀਸ ਲਖ ਜੀ ਜਲ ਮਹਿ ਹੋਤੇ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਭੈਲਾ ਕਾਇ ਕਰਉ ॥੧॥
But 4.2 million species of beings are in the water - how can I use it for the Lord, O Siblings of Destiny? ||1|| (Ang 485)
ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀ ਰਿਜਕੁ ਆਪਿ ਅਪੜਾਏ ॥
He Himself gives sustenance to the 8.4 million species of beings. (Ang 111)
ਚਵਰਾਸੀਹ ਲਖ ਜੋਨਿ ਉਪਾਈ, ਰਿਜਕੁ ਦੀਆ ਸਭ ਹੂ ਕਉ ਤਦ ਕਾ ॥
You created the 8.4 million species of beings, and provide for their sustanance. (Ang 1403)
ਮਨ ਭੁਖਾ ਭੁਖਾ ਮਤ ਕਰਹਿ ਮਤ ਤੂ ਕਰਹਿ ਪੂਕਾਰ ॥
O mind, don't cry out that you are hungry, always hungry; stop complaining.
ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਜਿਨਿ ਸਿਰੀ ਸਭਸੈ ਦੇਇ ਅਧਾਰੁ ॥
The One who created the 8.4 million species of beings gives sustenance to all. (Ang 27)
"The thought that this refers to mental states is the alternative arth, the regular arths don’t deny this."
If the regular Arths don't deny the alternative Arths where exactly is the problem you are identifying?
ਕਿਰਤੁ ਪਇਆ ਨਹ ਮੇਟੈ ਕੋਇ ॥
Can you explicitly identify where exactly this verse mentions 'past' in the Gurmukhi that you acquire a translation of:
"Past actions cannot be erased."
There is no mention of 'past' within it.
"The Kabir Ji pankti you provided says it is rare dulambh, and not vaar vaar. It’s not explicit, if I would convey a message clearly I wouldn’t say baaran baar and dulambh."
That would be you structuring your own thoughts into words and not Bhagat Kabir.
"A fallen fruit represents the lost life, once pak gya meaning your body expired, you won’t attach to the same twig, your life is over."
Agreed. Once it's gone it's gone.
"The fruit has seeds that again give life."
But Bhagat Kabir isn't referring to progeny; their own actions and the results they acquire are their own.
"I’m pretty sure scientists can attach a fruit again."
But we are not talking about scientists. We are talking about Bhagat Kabir's message of the finality of human life.
"A fallen fruit is consumed by kaal time, doesn’t mean there’s not to be another again."
But Bhagat Kabir has already said:
ਹੋਇ ਨ ਬਾਰੈ ਬਾਰ ॥
Another fruit may grow on the tree but it won't be the same fruit which has departed. Life will continue after you are gone but you will not be back though countless more humans will come into existence.
"Can you elaborate how it becomes shaky? Gurbani says a jeev is incapable of counting all its auguns or faults."
By its own innate logic Reincarnation is a penalize-pleasure process and is rendered nullified without the capability to calculate Karam.
"As in my thinking, not believing in reincarnation opens up a whole pandora box."
Here is Guru Arjan's take on the matter:
ਜਬ ਕਛੁ ਨ ਸੀਓ ਤਬ ਕਿਆ ਕਰਤਾ ਕਵਨ ਕਰਮ ਕਰਿ ਆਇਆ ॥
"When there was nothing in existence then what Karams were done to incite man to arrive and go?"
The Guru is inquiring, by default, that did Vaheguru create early men and unmercifully cause them to go astray and start the cycle of Reincarnation? Because what other way could the whole process have commenced besides being merciless? These are realities all Sikhs should grapple with rather than shut away.
"What was the use of a birth that lasted 2 minutes?"
The onus isn't on the dead. The onus is on the living to rectify their own conduct by saving a life. Otherwise we might as well blame Vaheguru and perhaps the past Karma of the innocent victims for '84 and not the real culprits as an example.
"Or someone who dies at the age of 5?"
The value of life and how a 5 year old affects adults around them are disparate topics. For you to generalize like this ignores how that child could have changed their family for the better.
"Or generations of Aad Vaasis that never came into contact of proper or even half good updesh?"
Again, incentive is on the Updesh givers here. If Guru Nanak was willing to and able to travel among tribals converting them to Sikhi to further his mission then there is no reason for his Sikhs not to continue. The failings are ours.
"Different life situations by birth."
If you see humanity as a common whole you will realize the village is failing to raise the proverbial child.
"There’s also panktis like:
ਬਇਆਲੀਸ ਲਖ ਜੀ ਜਲ ਮਹਿ ਹੋਤੇ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਭੈਲਾ ਕਾਇ ਕਰਉ ॥੧॥
But 4.2 million species of beings are in the water - how can I use it for the Lord, O Siblings of Destiny? ||1|| (Ang 485)"
Let's look at the full verse by Bhagat Namdev:
ਆਨੀਲੇ ਕੁੰਭ ਭਰਾਈਲੇ ਊਦਕ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਕਉ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਕਰਉ ॥
"Filling my pitcher with water I prepare to bath my Lord."
ਬਇਆਲੀਸ ਲਖ ਜੀ ਜਲ ਮਹਿ ਹੋਤੇ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਭੈਲਾ ਕਾਇ ਕਰਉ ॥੧॥
"But if 4.2 million life forms are in the water then how can I serve my Lord?"
(The key here is ਹੋਤੇ. You are obviously citing Sant Singh Khalsa's erroneous translations).
ਜਤ੍ਰ ਜਾਉ ਤਤ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਭੈਲਾ ॥
"Wherever I go the Lord is already present."
On the same Ang as you traverse further Bhagat Namdev clarifies his stance further:
ਆਨੀਲੇ ਦੂਧੁ ਰੀਧਾਈਲੇ ਖੀਰੰ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਕਉ ਨੈਵੇਦੁ ਕਰਉ ॥
ਪਹਿਲੇ ਦੂਧੁ ਬਿਟਾਰਿਓ ਬਛਰੈ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਭੈਲਾ ਕਾਇ ਕਰਉ ॥੩॥
ਈਭੈ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਊਭੈ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਬੀਠਲ ਬਿਨੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ਨਹੀ ॥
"I acquire milk to feed my Lord but how can the milk be pure enough when the calf is always made the first recipient? The Lord is omnipresent, omniscient and all pervasive."
He's not providing any comments on the veracity of 4.2 million lives in water. Rather he's saying that life exists in each and every facet of Creation by Vaheguru's intent. Vaheguru is in water, Vaheguru is on land. Why then do ritualistic pakhands when Vaheguru is in the washable as well as the washed?
Regarding the other panktis you cut and paste, the key to comprehending them commences from within Japji Sahib itself:
ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਕਵਣ ਕਹਾ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
"Your Creation can not be accounted for nor summarized."
This allows us to comprehend that 8.4 million lives is being referred to in context of the times as it was an epithet to refer to Creation. On it's own it does not verify reincarnation nor the Karam affecting it. What's more, seeing you refer to scientists: the current count is 8.7 million species of life and growing.
ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਕਵਣ ਕਹਾ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
The white clothed thugs prancing about Sikh Saints are only misleading people. You, yourself, are providing run of the mill translations which Sant Singh confessed to having plagiarized.
We suggest rather than continue this further you take the time out to read Gurbani for yourself and comprehend it's nuances. Then we can resume this.
The intriguing thing is that, in our opinion, Gurbani does not comprehensively focus on the after life. It focuses entirely on living. After death, the soul is either extinguished or granted immortality so it can continue to influence and inspire depending on one's conduct. Otherwise yes, why even try comprehending that which our intellect will never be able to fathom?
They have their own interpretations based on the usual run-of-the-mill Mahapurakhs; allegedly purataan hagiographies and what not. One needs to read Gurbani in Gurmukhi by themselves to deduce the truth rather than rely on others.
What can you say about Santanist Hindus when they claim Sikhi is a part of Santana Dharma? Is there an article I can read that y’all have about this? Thank you 🙏
The issue with Sirdar Kapur Singh was that on the philosophical front he believed the Sikhs to be some successors to a long-lost pan-Indian culturalism. This colored his perspective of Sikhi, Sikh history and even Sikh politics. Now of course he was an intellectual powerhouse, but he never added any dimensions to comprehending Sikh philosophy.
Professor Sahib Singh, grammarian, was no philosopher. Yes, he resurrected the grammarian tradition of the Gurus but his magnum opus-simplification of the SGGS-was more or less copy and pasted from Sampradaic sources by its conclusion. Foremost reason being that he was treading unbroken ground and that too by the end of his life. His main achievement though was rebutting the canards of Kavi Santokh Singh, Giani Gian Singh, Trumpp and the McLeod gang in his 'About The Compilation Of The Guru Granth.'
Regarding the Singh-Sabha Lahore, Bhai Vir Singh was the foremost reason it finally regressed. He was heir to its intellectual tradition and he devolved it with his pseudo-mythical tales and mental gymnastics which he passed off as mysticism. Unfortunately, we do not have access to Professor Gurmukh Singh's library. It would be interesting to see his views on the matter given he was the foremost establisher of the Lahore Sabha.
Much closer to our times, several prominent preachers and scholars have exposed the 8.4 million canard through Gurbani itself.
(a) We have the Missionary Colleges which you mention.
(b) Daljeet Singh of IOSS (Institute of Sikh Studies Chandigarh).
(c) T. Singh of Gurbani Blog (USA).
(d) Dr. Karminder Singh Dhillon (Ek Panth, Ek Granth, Ek Marayada-Malaysia).
Unfortunately, in the post-Bhindranwale period particularly, anti-Sikhi i.e. what Sikhi is not has become more predominant than Sikhi i.e. what Sikhi is. Giani Ditt Singh was after all raised in an ambivalent Sanataan tradition and this would have had some bearing on his outlook. We ourselves have not read any of his multitudinous texts beyond 'Dayanand Ate Mera Samvad," so cannot comment on what he deduced Reincarnation to be.
Kahn Singh Nabha seemingly accepted the Dasam Granth, but towards the end of his life revealed in his publications that this was done during a period of passion and intense study showed to him that baring a few compositions-DG was as fallacious as the Demi Gods it praised.
Sadly, you make a valid point regarding the obviation of Reincarnation in the Sikh psyche. Today's Sikhi is nothing more than Advait Vedanta intermixed with elements of Vaisnavism. However, we will keep up the good fight and if we don't succeed then others will.
What do you think about Dasam Granth?
What do you think about the concepts in this book:
https://www.sikhreligion.net/Books_eng/essentials_of_sikhism.pdf
about how Sikhi differs from Vaisnavism, Vedanata, and Nathism.
Pretty accurate. Any particular reason you are inquiring?
Hi,
A friendly question from a curious non-Sikh:
If the correct answer as to what happens to the person after death is not reincarnation, what is it?
The Khalsa as an enlightened mystic retains their consciousness and continues serving even after the physical body atrophies away. The unenlightened being has their consciousness extinguished. This is what the anti-imperial Sikh revolutionary Baba Wasakha Singh used to preach. The mystic is like the man outside the well throwing in a rope to the man still stuck within the well.
What resources do you recommend to learn Gurmukhi and understand the nuances? How can we verify and prove whose translations are correct?
Such as:
What about this shabad: ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ ||
They will pass through 8.4 millions species; this number does not decrease or rise.
I understand that "species" is wrongly defined but overall the meaning may still hold depending on the word ਮੇਦਨੀ maybe. Does this shabad throw a wrench in this debate? How do you decipher ਮੇਦਨੀ ?
Veer Ji Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh Ji. The jury is out on translations but it's better to learn Gurmukhi and Viakaran yourself to improve your own understanding directly from the source. Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha's encyclopedic Mahan Kosh will help you greatly in discovering the true definitions of terms used within the SGGS and other Sikh literature.
Regarding ਮੇਦਨੀ II The Mahan Kosh defines it as
Meḏnī. ਪ੍ਰਿਥਵੀ, ਸ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟੀ। world. ਉਦਾਹਰਨ: ਵਡਹੁ ਵਡਾ ਵਡ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਸਿਰੇ ਸਿਰਿ ਧੰਧੈ ਲਾਇਦਾ ॥ Raga Aaasaa 1, Vaar 16:3 (P: 472).
ਵਡਹੁ=Bigger than/Greater than.
ਵਡਾ=Big/Great.
ਵਡ=Big/Great.
ਮੇਦਨੀ=Creation/Existence/World.
ਸਿਰੇ=Create/Fashion.
ਸਿਰਿ=Ascendant/On Head/Supreme (Noun).
ਧੰਧੈ=Worldly affairs/ Worldly Purposes/Worldly Doings.
ਲਾਇਦਾ=Assign.
"Greater than Great, Great is this Creation (ਮੇਦਨੀ) in which the Ascendant (Vaheguru) fashions and assigns all worldly affairs."
As the Asa Di Vaar Shabad clarifies it means "creation." Hope that helps. So in the Shabad you quote it would be "8.4 million lives and even more in Creation" or alternatively "8.4 million lives and the rest of Creation."
It should be remembered that the preamble or introduction to the SGGS is the Japji Sahib which states,
ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਕਵਣ ਕਹਾ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
ਵਾਰਿਆ ਨ ਜਾਵਾ ਏਕ ਵਾਰ ॥
Breaking it down,
ਕੁਦਰਤਿ=Creation/World/Existence.
ਕਵਣ=Quantify/Count/Number.
ਕਹਾ=Converse/Speak/Talk.
ਵੀਚਾਰੁ=Contemplate/Describe/Consider.
In summary:
"How can I even begin to quantify your Creation to describe it?"
The meaning we derive here is that Creation is uncountable. It does not fit in any numerical parameters such as 8.4 millions lives etc. More and more Beings are forever coming in existence and dying. Creation is forever expanding and will continue expanding as the Creator wills it. To argue that there are set particulars in which the soul can fit post-death, in our opinion, is to ignore the Japji Sahib's injunction on the matter.
Expanding from Japji Sahib onwards we also enter the Asa Di Vaar in which Creation is described as Greater than Great and still more Great. These aren't adulations alone but also indications that Creation cannot be quantified or categorized on a numerical basis.
You should remember that the Japji Sahib is the most fundamental of keys to unlocking Gurbani. If you can comprehend it and consider it impartially then your overall comprehension of Gurbani will increase by leaps and bounds. This will allow you to live Gurbani, as it is, in your daily life rather than be spoon-fed someone else's perspective on it.
Vaheguru Ji ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji ki Fateh. Thank you for the response Ji. That makes so much sense. We should be analysing the rest from Gurbani keeping Japji sahib in mind since it is our first principles.
Do you recommend Prof Sahib Singh book on Viakaran also I appreciate the understanding you have given however can you just check my understanding on how to do this with aforementioned the line just to confirm the conclusion you go to?
ਲਖ = lakh
ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ = 84
ਮੇਦਨੀ = creation/world/existence
ਘਟੈ = increase
ਨ = nor
ਵਧੈ = decrease
ਉਤਾਹਿ = in addition/upwards?
I am unsure how this made into -> "8.4 million lives and even more in Creation" or alternatively "8.4 million lives and the rest of Creation." Maybe this is a lack of understanding of the grammar on my part?
The most similar I can get is:
"8.4 million lives in addition to the non-changing existence"
Is their an error or misunderstanding on my part? Why the difference?
The context to this Shabad is of a Manmukh. The preceding and succeeding lines deal with individuals who waste their lives.
ਜੋ ਆਵਹਿ ਸੇ ਜਾਹਿ ਫੁਨਿ ਆਇ ਗਏ ਪਛੁਤਾਹਿ ॥
Those who come also depart, the wasteful ones regret their ends.
ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਘਟੈ ਨ ਵਧੈ ਉਤਾਹਿ ॥
Stuck within the cycles of 8.4 million lives in addition to Creation, they (Manmukh) neither increase nor decrease what is already increasing.
ਸੇ ਜਨ ਉਬਰੇ ਜਿਨ ਹਰਿ ਭਾਇਆ ॥
Only that individual liberates themselves (from this stagnation) who find their Creator pleasing.
This verse uses an idiomatic expression for Reincarnation:
ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ
A million and 8.4.
It is not concerned with Reincarnation in the conventional sense. It explains that an individual who wastes their life is forever behaving like the countless beasts of Creation. They neither subtract from Creation and neither add anything to it. They stagnate, waste their lives and die adding nothing worthwhile to this world.
Creation is forever ਉਤਾਹਿ, going upwards or increasing.
Ahh that makes sense thank you for the clarification 🙏
Veer Bhupinder Singh Ji of the Living Treasure organization differs from us on many topics. But that said he's quite an expert on the structural ordering of Gurbani. We remember seeing one of his videos a long time ago where he describes how Gurbani is structured:
Specific 'starter' pages (i.e. where subjects are dealt with) are titled in bold; Mahallas, Bhagats, Bhatts and Gursikhs are mentioned at the top depending on authorship. Raags are specified and a numbering code established to ensure authenticity. Then we have the Rahaao line which is the gist or the Rahaao sans Rahaao line which is usually numbered at the end (i.e. Anand Sahib) where the last line with either Rahaao or numbers provides the key to interpreting the above unnumbered lines and/or pre-Rahaao lines.
At the same time the subject also should be remembered. The subject in the verse you provided is the Manmukh vs. the Gurmukh-the fundamental difference between both. So this subject matter will run for over several consecutive lines until a conclusion is specified.
-The subject is the difference between the human animal and the enlightened human.
-The first line of the verse describes how everyone is born and then dies but there is a difference between those who die.
-The difference is clarified in your verse which is the second line, the Manmukh remains a beast and traverse Creation as an animal. He does not detract from Creation but neither adds anything worthwhile to it. Creation is expanding. It is like an ocean, forever flowing. We cannot deplete an ocean with a bucket but at the same time if we learn how to use the ocean (ships etc) we can accomplish something productive. Otherwise with such an expanse opportunity at our doorstep, we still wallow in intellectual poverty.
-The third line ਸੇ ਜਨ ਉਬਰੇ ਜਿਨ ਹਰਿ ਭਾਇਆ ॥ describes how to reverse this process. One who finds the Creator's virtues at play in nature pleasing; accepts reality as their Creator's Hukam avoids this bestial stagnation and imparts a worthwhile legacy to this world which speaks long after they are gone.
This in a nutshell is what this verse discusses.
The points mentioned about the structuring make complete sense as well and need to be remembered. I will make a note of Veer Bhupinder Singh's channel for understanding structuring.
This whole bani by Guru Nanak Dev Ji reading it is so deep and it really is valuable wow.
This is what I have gathered so far from this thread: learn how to analyse lines using mahankosh and have a base note of ideas from Japji sahib as the bedrock. Then understanding the subject of the whole Bani coupled with understanding the subject of the this particular verse opening/Rehaao and using it to understand the verse at hand. Combining all of this to draw the lessons from the verse.
A lot of gems on this thread and seems to cover everything, if you feel like their is anything more to add please do (like ideas, concepts or resources etc) or (if you feel their is loads that could be added) alternatively an in-depth guide on how to: approach, comprehend + draw (actively apply) lessons from Gurbani from a student perspective would be really fascinating for a reader/listener to start reading Gurbani themselves accurately, curating everything that should be understood together. Otherwise this thread is one to refer to and seems to cover everything.
I wouldn't know how the Sikh Renaissance does it but ਉਤਾਹਿ is the dead giveaway.
"8.4 million lives in addition to the non-changing existence"
But then where is ਉਤਾਹਿ in this?
If Creation is ਉਤਾਹਿ it can't be static non-changing. It is increasing, going upwards.
ye basically I translated ਉਤਾਹਿ = in addition but ye I am looking at it now it doesnt make sense.
Gurbani is not self-contradictory when it is read and understood in light of its own principles. The reader has defects but not the word of the Gurbani.
After having spent almost thirty years among traditional Hindu-Sikh sampradas I felt I had gained nothing. I discarded Sikhi and converted to Islam.
But during the lockdown I discovered your voice and then this site. It has slowly brought me back to Sikhi and I have stopped doing Namaz and now consume bacon without any superstition. To me this article and your episode on Reincarnation make perfect sense. Please keep up the good work and save the world from the malaise which is Hindu Mat and Islam Mat.
Not only does Reincarnation deaden one to their intellectual capacity (“its pointless as we are on repeat”), it also justifies apathy in the face of atrocity (“their past Karma must be bad that’s why they suffer today”).
The first point is not promoted though. What is preached is that you don’t want to enter the womb again, trying to make this one the very last janam.
Second is neither told nor was ever said by any prominent Parcharak, there’s numerous panktis that say we can’t calculate all our karams and therefore don’t know so we shouldn’t see others in a condescending way.
Like ajhu su nao samundr meh, kiaa jaana kiaa hoie
Kiaa jaana kiaa aagai hoie etc
Regarding your first point of promotion, neither did we say it is promoted. It is a conclusion we provided. Gurbani is explicitly clear on Reincarnation being an adjective to differentiate between the enlightened human and the bestial Manmukh:
ਮਨਮੁਖ ਵਿਣੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਕੂੜਿਆਰ ਫਿਰਹਿ ਬੇਤਾਲਿਆ ॥ ਪਸੂ ਮਾਣਸ ਚੰਮਿ ਪਲੇਟੇ ਅੰਦਰਹੁ ਕਾਲਿਆ ॥:
"Manmukhs are devoid of the Naam and wander hither thither mired in falsehoods. They are only beasts cloaked in human skin."
Bhagat Kabir is more explicit:
ਕਬੀਰ ਮਾਨਸ ਜਨਮੁ ਦੁਲੰਭੁ ਹੈ ਹੋਇ ਨ ਬਾਰੈ ਬਾਰ ॥ ਜਿਉ ਬਨ ਫਲ ਪਾਕੇ ਭੁਇ ਗਿਰਹਿ ਬਹੁਰਿ ਨ ਲਾਗਹਿ ਡਾਰ ॥੩੦॥
"Kabir, the human birth is a one-off. It does not transpire over and over again. Like a fruit fallen from the tree cannot be reattached, so too it cannot be reacquired."
The fact that Bhagat Kabir in his infinite wisdom elaborates the impossibility of reacquiring human life under any cycle negates the escaping the womb aim given that there is no second insertion into the womb.
Regarding your second point on apathy in face of atrocity, neither did we claim that any of your prominent Pracharaks claimed as such. If indeed we cannot calculate our Karams then the very concept of Reincarnation becomes shaky as it is based on the execution of past life and present life Karams.
As for the verse of Bhagat Kabir which you reference, here's the full form:
ਕਬੀਰ ਗਰਬੁ ਨ ਕੀਜੀਐ ਰੰਕੁ ਨ ਹਸੀਐ ਕੋਇ ॥
ਅਜਹੁ ਸੁ ਨਾਉ ਸਮੁੰਦ੍ਰ ਮਹਿ ਕਿਆ ਜਾਨਉ ਕਿਆ ਹੋਇ ॥੩੯॥
More or less, it does not propose that the poor are poor due to their past life Karma upon which the theory of Reincarnation is built. Rather, Bhagat Kabir is advising do not allow hubris to blind you
ਕਬੀਰ ਗਰਬੁ ਨ ਕੀਜੀਐ
To the degree that you end up laughing at another's misfortune. You yourself are still traversing this ocean of life who knows what will happen to you ahead? It is in the present tense and is directed to the reader's mind. Nowhere does Bhagat Kabir mention that the two parties in the debate (the poor and the rich) are at their current stage due to reincarnation and associative Karma.
What’s your opinion on Bhai Gurdas Ji diyan Vaaran btw? Do you regard them as valid?
The thought that this refers to mental states is the alternative arth, the regular arths don’t deny this.
I used the Kabir Pankti as an example, it’s not about past karams. The Sikh mentality was never like that unlike the vedic. Gurbani says you don’t have an idea what you did wrong knowingly or unknowingly as well as in past lives like:
ਕਿਰਤੁ ਪਇਆ ਨਹ ਮੇਟੈ ਕੋਇ ॥
Past actions cannot be erased.
ਕਿਆ ਜਾਣਾ ਕਿਆ ਆਗੈ ਹੋਇ ॥
What do we/I know of what will happen hereafter?
ਜੋ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਣਾ ਸੋਈ ਹੂਆ ॥
Whatever pleases Him shall come to pass.
ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕਰਣੈ ਵਾਲਾ ਦੂਆ ॥੧॥
There is no other Doer except Him. ||1||
ਨਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਕਰਮ ਕੇਵਡ ਤੇਰੀ ਦਾਤਿ ॥
I do not know about (my) karma, or how great Your gifts are.
ਕਰਮੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਤੇਰੇ ਨਾਮ ਕੀ ਜਾਤਿ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
The karma of actions, the Dharma of righteousness, social class and status, are contained within Your Name. ||1||Pause||
The Kabir Ji pankti you provided says it is rare dulambh, and not vaar vaar. It’s not explicit, if I would convey a message clearly I wouldn’t say baaran baar and dulambh.
A fallen fruit represents the lost life, once pak gya meaning your body expired, you won’t attach to the same twig, your life is over. The fruit has seeds that again give life. I’m pretty sure scientists can attach a fruit again. A fallen fruit is consumed by kaal time, doesn’t mean there’s not to be another again.
Can you elaborate how it becomes shaky? Gurbani says a jeev is incapable of counting all its auguns or faults.
As in my thinking, not believing in reincarnation opens up a whole pandora box.
What was the use of a birth that lasted 2 minutes? Or someone who dies at the age of 5? Or generations of Aad Vaasis that never came into contact of proper or even half good updesh? Different life situations by birth.
There’s also panktis like:
ਬਇਆਲੀਸ ਲਖ ਜੀ ਜਲ ਮਹਿ ਹੋਤੇ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਭੈਲਾ ਕਾਇ ਕਰਉ ॥੧॥
But 4.2 million species of beings are in the water - how can I use it for the Lord, O Siblings of Destiny? ||1|| (Ang 485)
ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀ ਰਿਜਕੁ ਆਪਿ ਅਪੜਾਏ ॥
He Himself gives sustenance to the 8.4 million species of beings. (Ang 111)
ਚਵਰਾਸੀਹ ਲਖ ਜੋਨਿ ਉਪਾਈ, ਰਿਜਕੁ ਦੀਆ ਸਭ ਹੂ ਕਉ ਤਦ ਕਾ ॥
You created the 8.4 million species of beings, and provide for their sustanance. (Ang 1403)
ਮਨ ਭੁਖਾ ਭੁਖਾ ਮਤ ਕਰਹਿ ਮਤ ਤੂ ਕਰਹਿ ਪੂਕਾਰ ॥
O mind, don't cry out that you are hungry, always hungry; stop complaining.
ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਜਿਨਿ ਸਿਰੀ ਸਭਸੈ ਦੇਇ ਅਧਾਰੁ ॥
The One who created the 8.4 million species of beings gives sustenance to all. (Ang 27)
"The thought that this refers to mental states is the alternative arth, the regular arths don’t deny this."
If the regular Arths don't deny the alternative Arths where exactly is the problem you are identifying?
ਕਿਰਤੁ ਪਇਆ ਨਹ ਮੇਟੈ ਕੋਇ ॥
Can you explicitly identify where exactly this verse mentions 'past' in the Gurmukhi that you acquire a translation of:
"Past actions cannot be erased."
There is no mention of 'past' within it.
"The Kabir Ji pankti you provided says it is rare dulambh, and not vaar vaar. It’s not explicit, if I would convey a message clearly I wouldn’t say baaran baar and dulambh."
That would be you structuring your own thoughts into words and not Bhagat Kabir.
"A fallen fruit represents the lost life, once pak gya meaning your body expired, you won’t attach to the same twig, your life is over."
Agreed. Once it's gone it's gone.
"The fruit has seeds that again give life."
But Bhagat Kabir isn't referring to progeny; their own actions and the results they acquire are their own.
"I’m pretty sure scientists can attach a fruit again."
But we are not talking about scientists. We are talking about Bhagat Kabir's message of the finality of human life.
"A fallen fruit is consumed by kaal time, doesn’t mean there’s not to be another again."
But Bhagat Kabir has already said:
ਹੋਇ ਨ ਬਾਰੈ ਬਾਰ ॥
Another fruit may grow on the tree but it won't be the same fruit which has departed. Life will continue after you are gone but you will not be back though countless more humans will come into existence.
"Can you elaborate how it becomes shaky? Gurbani says a jeev is incapable of counting all its auguns or faults."
By its own innate logic Reincarnation is a penalize-pleasure process and is rendered nullified without the capability to calculate Karam.
"As in my thinking, not believing in reincarnation opens up a whole pandora box."
Here is Guru Arjan's take on the matter:
ਜਬ ਕਛੁ ਨ ਸੀਓ ਤਬ ਕਿਆ ਕਰਤਾ ਕਵਨ ਕਰਮ ਕਰਿ ਆਇਆ ॥
"When there was nothing in existence then what Karams were done to incite man to arrive and go?"
The Guru is inquiring, by default, that did Vaheguru create early men and unmercifully cause them to go astray and start the cycle of Reincarnation? Because what other way could the whole process have commenced besides being merciless? These are realities all Sikhs should grapple with rather than shut away.
"What was the use of a birth that lasted 2 minutes?"
The onus isn't on the dead. The onus is on the living to rectify their own conduct by saving a life. Otherwise we might as well blame Vaheguru and perhaps the past Karma of the innocent victims for '84 and not the real culprits as an example.
"Or someone who dies at the age of 5?"
The value of life and how a 5 year old affects adults around them are disparate topics. For you to generalize like this ignores how that child could have changed their family for the better.
"Or generations of Aad Vaasis that never came into contact of proper or even half good updesh?"
Again, incentive is on the Updesh givers here. If Guru Nanak was willing to and able to travel among tribals converting them to Sikhi to further his mission then there is no reason for his Sikhs not to continue. The failings are ours.
"Different life situations by birth."
If you see humanity as a common whole you will realize the village is failing to raise the proverbial child.
"There’s also panktis like:
ਬਇਆਲੀਸ ਲਖ ਜੀ ਜਲ ਮਹਿ ਹੋਤੇ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਭੈਲਾ ਕਾਇ ਕਰਉ ॥੧॥
But 4.2 million species of beings are in the water - how can I use it for the Lord, O Siblings of Destiny? ||1|| (Ang 485)"
Let's look at the full verse by Bhagat Namdev:
ਆਨੀਲੇ ਕੁੰਭ ਭਰਾਈਲੇ ਊਦਕ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਕਉ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਕਰਉ ॥
"Filling my pitcher with water I prepare to bath my Lord."
ਬਇਆਲੀਸ ਲਖ ਜੀ ਜਲ ਮਹਿ ਹੋਤੇ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਭੈਲਾ ਕਾਇ ਕਰਉ ॥੧॥
"But if 4.2 million life forms are in the water then how can I serve my Lord?"
(The key here is ਹੋਤੇ. You are obviously citing Sant Singh Khalsa's erroneous translations).
ਜਤ੍ਰ ਜਾਉ ਤਤ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਭੈਲਾ ॥
"Wherever I go the Lord is already present."
On the same Ang as you traverse further Bhagat Namdev clarifies his stance further:
ਆਨੀਲੇ ਦੂਧੁ ਰੀਧਾਈਲੇ ਖੀਰੰ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਕਉ ਨੈਵੇਦੁ ਕਰਉ ॥
ਪਹਿਲੇ ਦੂਧੁ ਬਿਟਾਰਿਓ ਬਛਰੈ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਭੈਲਾ ਕਾਇ ਕਰਉ ॥੩॥
ਈਭੈ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਊਭੈ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਬੀਠਲ ਬਿਨੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ਨਹੀ ॥
"I acquire milk to feed my Lord but how can the milk be pure enough when the calf is always made the first recipient? The Lord is omnipresent, omniscient and all pervasive."
He's not providing any comments on the veracity of 4.2 million lives in water. Rather he's saying that life exists in each and every facet of Creation by Vaheguru's intent. Vaheguru is in water, Vaheguru is on land. Why then do ritualistic pakhands when Vaheguru is in the washable as well as the washed?
Regarding the other panktis you cut and paste, the key to comprehending them commences from within Japji Sahib itself:
ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਕਵਣ ਕਹਾ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
"Your Creation can not be accounted for nor summarized."
This allows us to comprehend that 8.4 million lives is being referred to in context of the times as it was an epithet to refer to Creation. On it's own it does not verify reincarnation nor the Karam affecting it. What's more, seeing you refer to scientists: the current count is 8.7 million species of life and growing.
ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਕਵਣ ਕਹਾ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
The white clothed thugs prancing about Sikh Saints are only misleading people. You, yourself, are providing run of the mill translations which Sant Singh confessed to having plagiarized.
We suggest rather than continue this further you take the time out to read Gurbani for yourself and comprehend it's nuances. Then we can resume this.
I would like to have a healthy discussion on this topic
Vaheguru ji ka khalsa Vaheguru ji ki fateh,
I agree with the assessment made, but now it leads me to another question of what happens after death?
From the beginning of the article I assume that it's a waste of time to even try to comprehend the divine justice, right?
The intriguing thing is that, in our opinion, Gurbani does not comprehensively focus on the after life. It focuses entirely on living. After death, the soul is either extinguished or granted immortality so it can continue to influence and inspire depending on one's conduct. Otherwise yes, why even try comprehending that which our intellect will never be able to fathom?
So is Basics of Sikhi wrong when they say reincarnation happens in Sikhi?
They have their own interpretations based on the usual run-of-the-mill Mahapurakhs; allegedly purataan hagiographies and what not. One needs to read Gurbani in Gurmukhi by themselves to deduce the truth rather than rely on others.
What can you say about Santanist Hindus when they claim Sikhi is a part of Santana Dharma? Is there an article I can read that y’all have about this? Thank you 🙏
Actually, we have a whole audio episode on it:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4LBg2cviPGqCh6zDw7SYeV?si=98ac0e938b994a73
The issue with Sirdar Kapur Singh was that on the philosophical front he believed the Sikhs to be some successors to a long-lost pan-Indian culturalism. This colored his perspective of Sikhi, Sikh history and even Sikh politics. Now of course he was an intellectual powerhouse, but he never added any dimensions to comprehending Sikh philosophy.
Professor Sahib Singh, grammarian, was no philosopher. Yes, he resurrected the grammarian tradition of the Gurus but his magnum opus-simplification of the SGGS-was more or less copy and pasted from Sampradaic sources by its conclusion. Foremost reason being that he was treading unbroken ground and that too by the end of his life. His main achievement though was rebutting the canards of Kavi Santokh Singh, Giani Gian Singh, Trumpp and the McLeod gang in his 'About The Compilation Of The Guru Granth.'
Regarding the Singh-Sabha Lahore, Bhai Vir Singh was the foremost reason it finally regressed. He was heir to its intellectual tradition and he devolved it with his pseudo-mythical tales and mental gymnastics which he passed off as mysticism. Unfortunately, we do not have access to Professor Gurmukh Singh's library. It would be interesting to see his views on the matter given he was the foremost establisher of the Lahore Sabha.
Much closer to our times, several prominent preachers and scholars have exposed the 8.4 million canard through Gurbani itself.
(a) We have the Missionary Colleges which you mention.
(b) Daljeet Singh of IOSS (Institute of Sikh Studies Chandigarh).
(c) T. Singh of Gurbani Blog (USA).
(d) Dr. Karminder Singh Dhillon (Ek Panth, Ek Granth, Ek Marayada-Malaysia).
(e) Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwale.
(f) Pal Singh Purewal.
(g) S. Jagjit Singh (IOSS, Ghadr Movement).
Unfortunately, in the post-Bhindranwale period particularly, anti-Sikhi i.e. what Sikhi is not has become more predominant than Sikhi i.e. what Sikhi is. Giani Ditt Singh was after all raised in an ambivalent Sanataan tradition and this would have had some bearing on his outlook. We ourselves have not read any of his multitudinous texts beyond 'Dayanand Ate Mera Samvad," so cannot comment on what he deduced Reincarnation to be.
Kahn Singh Nabha seemingly accepted the Dasam Granth, but towards the end of his life revealed in his publications that this was done during a period of passion and intense study showed to him that baring a few compositions-DG was as fallacious as the Demi Gods it praised.
Sadly, you make a valid point regarding the obviation of Reincarnation in the Sikh psyche. Today's Sikhi is nothing more than Advait Vedanta intermixed with elements of Vaisnavism. However, we will keep up the good fight and if we don't succeed then others will.