When All Other Means Have Failed, It Is But Lawful To Take To The Sword

[Satyaban]

Im sorry I disagree with this completely, it intimates the actions of a hothead, and it is this very attitude I find extremely distasteful in many of our brothers, some people say with pride, i have carried this gun but never drawn it in anger, my very point which you seem to have overlooked Satyabanji, is that at what point do you draw your sword, or at what point do you intimate you have a sword, your reply implies we should all be trigger happy, please clarify this for me in the context that you have quoted me

Hothead, are you calling me that if so you should know that is a personal demon I am rid of by detaching my self from its causes and practicing ahimsa. I told you I am a non-violent man and of course ahimsa is part of my credo.
I also gave my opinion in response to the topic that you should draw your sword in self defense which includes your loved ones when you perceive the threat. So I told you at what point to draw your sword. I also said you damned well be ready to use it. A person who draws it in self defense and will not use it is commiting suicide because your opponent will use his.
Did you use the word "intimate" when you meant "imitate" because I am having trouble understanding you. If you mean to say imply you have a weapon by reaching and not drawing often this leads to death when the opponent perceives the threat and nullifies it or removes it because he didn't play around.
Their is nothing in my response that implied being trigger happy that was your creation.
If you don't practice ahimsa that's your karma and you will have to deal with it. I am curious about you, you don't cut your because you would be altering God's creation of you, is that correct? If so how can you have no problem harming God's other creations?

I was invited to comment on this thread and the invite did not say "No Hindus" Ambarisaria.

 

[Harry Haller]

Thank you dear Satyaban,

let me be frank, I am not on this forum to increase my thank you ratio, nor am I here to have pointless arguments about concepts I do not hold dear, I am here, on this forum, to learn, if I am asking for clarification, it is because I feel you have something interesting that I may learn from.

I have never been in a do or die situation, well, I have, I have had a knife pulled on me twice, and each time it ended with the other party in tears, tears of laughter, that is how I deal with things, to have been in a situation like Maiji, No i have never been in that situation, but I would add that knowing what little I know, in my view, she behaved in complete accordance with sikhi.

For the purposes of clarity, a situation

A man comes in my shop, aggressive and with an intent to rob me, he has a knife, do I intimate that I am equally armed?
.
intimate - give to understand;
adumbrate, insinuate
hint, suggest - drop a hint; intimate by a hint

Or do I just go for it, draw, stab, disarm, and worry about the small details later?

I am also not a violent man, nor a coward, but neither do I think rushing in where angels fear to tread is the way forward.

So, again, to clarify, did Guru Gobind Singh ji mean try everything and when that fails, go for it, or try everything and when that fails, show your sword, that is the question, thank you

 

[spnadmin]

General warning: Discuss issues and not personal states and irritations. Otherwise the thread becomes a thread about Me or You and not a thread about the issue.

 

[Ambarsaria]

Hothead, are you calling me that if so you should know that is a personal demon I am rid of by detaching my self from its causes and practicing ahimsa. I told you I am a non-violent man and of course ahimsa is part of my credo.
I also gave my opinion in response to the topic that you should draw your sword in self defense which includes your loved ones when you perceive the threat. So I told you at what point to draw your sword. I also said you damned well be ready to use it. A person who draws it in self defense and will not use it is commiting suicide because your opponent will use his.
Did you use the word "intimate" when you meant "imitate" because I am having trouble understanding you. If you mean to say imply you have a weapon by reaching and not drawing often this leads to death when the opponent perceives the threat and nullifies it or removes it because he didn't play around.
Their is nothing in my response that implied being trigger happy that was your creation.
If you don't practice ahimsa that's your karma and you will have to deal with it. I am curious about you, you don't cut your because you would be altering God's creation of you, is that correct? If so how can you have no problem harming God's other creations?

I was invited to comment on this thread and the invite did not say "No Hindus" Ambarisaria.

Satyaban ji I have no issues with "Hindus". The issue I flagged was when attempts are made to mis-translate Sikh elements into Hindu adaptations. Ahimsa is always the preferred way and most of us are not violent. However Sikhs were made Sant-Sapahi's and many died protecting Hindus, Sikhs and others. But Sikhs will stand up and be counted for power and intellect and that is fundamental in Sikhism. No way in Sikhism there is a teaching or dictum to use force without suitable intellect linked to it.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Satyaban]

Harry ji

In the situation you described If the person brandishes a knife or weapan that is a real threat pull your gun out and let him run away. Of course one can't shoot him unless he presses the attack.

Peace always
Satyaban

 

[Ambarsaria]

Harry ji

In the situation you described If the person brandishes a knife or weapan that is a real threat pull your gun out and let him run away. Of course one can't shoot him unless he presses the attack.

Peace always
Satyaban

Satyaban ji I believe the rule should be "Hit First" if your intellect tells you so. Sometimes one may never get a chance to hit second.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Satyaban]

Ambarsaria ji

If it appeared like I was trying to translate Sikh elements I regret it very much because it was not my intention and apologize I was only trying to give my opinion. So I hope there are no hard feelings because I harbor none.

Always peace
Satyaban

 

[Ambarsaria]

Ambarsaria ji

If it appeared like I was trying to translate Sikh elements I regret it very much because it was not my intention and apologize I was only trying to give my opinion. So I hope there are no hard feelings because I harbor none.

Always peace
Satyaban

Satyaban ji it was not you but someone else but may be I generalized. I did not want to name names.

Take care as I can have healthy discourse in your style and content.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Harry Haller]

Satyaban ji I believe the rule should be "Hit First" if your intellect tells you so. Sometimes one may never get a chance to hit second.

Sat Sri Akal.

Ambarsariaji,

I thought quoting 'with great power comes great responsibility' would be apt, but then I noticed you had covered yourself with magic phrase, 'if your intellect tells you so'

at the end of the day, it is this intellect that needs to be honed and sharpened so that as sikhs we can harness the power we have physical and mental, and use it wisely as Guru intended, so the answer to the question, when all other means have failed, it is but lawful to take to the sword, is absolutely, provided you have the certificate to do so, and this licence, this certificate can only be granted to those with the correct intellect, otherwise you run the risk of not acting in accordance with truth

 

[rajneesh madhok]

Satyaban ji I have no issues with "Hindus". The issue I flagged was when attempts are made to mis-translate Sikh elements into Hindu adaptations. Ahimsa is always the preferred way and most of us are not violent. However Sikhs were made Sant-Sapahi's and many died protecting Hindus, Sikhs and others. But Sikhs will stand up and be counted for power and intellect and that is fundamental in Sikhism. No way in Sikhism there is a teaching or dictum to use force without suitable intellect linked to it.

Sat Sri Akal.

The Sikhs orginated in the 15th Century in Punjab. The Sikh word has its origin in Sanskrit word of "Shishya" meaning discipline, student or instruction. So meaning of Sikh is disciple of Guru.
Now we come to Article 1 of the Rehat Maryada and in elaborate the word of Sikh. Rehat Maryada is --- Sikh code of conduct and conventions, in the holy Rehat Maryada Sikh is defined as any human being who faithfully believes in one immortal being, ten Gurus from Guru Nanak Devji to Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji, Sri Guru Granth Sahibji, the teachings of the ten Gurus and batism bequeathed by the tenth Guru and who does not owe allegiance to any religion. Sikhs believe in the equality of humankind, the concept of universal brotherhood of man and One Supreme God---Ik Onkar.
I don't want to elaborate the subject that How the Sikhs came in to formation. Who are sikhs and why we are defining the Sikhs according to our own whim and fancy.

Just a note what Kirpan is called in this thread and Zafarnama,

So Guru ji did not invent a name or meaning of Kirpan or Shamsheer or created other modifications but guided on the proper time to draw it. Once drawn it cuts, ahimsa or no-ahimsa!

Sikhs are not Hindus! Give it up the distractors and stop trying to show that one Guru teaches one thing and another teaches something else!

Sat Sri Akal.

Kindly elaborate who are Sikhs. I admit that Sikhs are not Hindus!!!!!!! But there will be some sort of history of Sikhs.
Regards,
Rajneesh Madhok

 

[Harry Haller]

Rajneeshji

Balance is one of the hardest things to get right, but once you have it, you have it!

I spent many many months teaching my younger brother to ride a bike, and then one day, he found his balance, I still remember the feeling of joy as I watched him ride away from me, Bhaji Bhaji, I can ride myself, on my own, he shouted gleefully as he looked around to wave at me, and then rode straight into a lampost.

A sikh, in my view, is someone who has the balance between Miri and Piri, between sant and sipahi, so from that perspective, one is as equally as far away from centre regardless what extreme you choose, Sikh is centred, balanced, not superstitious, not judgemental, understands and sees the global point of view, my opinion only

 

[rajneesh madhok]

http://www.jagbani.in/Punjab/fullstory/29167766_32952

 

[spnadmin]

A sikh, in my view, is someone who has the balance between Miri and Piri, between sant and sipahi, so from that perspective, one is as equally as far away from centre regardless what extreme you choose, Sikh is centred, balanced, not superstitious, not judgemental, understands and sees the global point of view, my opinion only

When centered one is not "between Miri and Piri" or "beween sant and sipahi." One is vested in mri and piri at the same time. Guru Hargobind named 2 swords Miri and Piri. He was not about a balancing act. He wore both at the same time. One is not caught between sant and sipahi, but strives to be both at the same time. That is why a simple message is hard to live out day by day.

 

[Harry Haller]

Spnadminji

many thanks for the clarification, at this exact moment, this concept is not sitting hugely well with me, but I intend to think about it while I walk the dogs.

Actually it is quite an exciting concept, for in the book, steppenwolf, Hesse talks of the bourgeois who walk the middle line in the centre, and ridicules them for not feeling the flames at each end, what you are saying is not about balance, but being both at the same time, yes, very exciting, thank you for opening my eyes to that concept

 

[Harry Haller]

I am going to have to read steppenwolf again, the concept of being all at the same time never ever occurred to me, and its so so obvious, in my head I see a line with sant on one side and sipahi on the other, same with miri and piri, and now all along it turns out it was a circle, I have to agree with you spnadminji, it is easy to view it as a line, not a circle, it is easy to be one or the other, but to be both, and to strive to be good at both, at the same time, thanks again, I do not think I will get much sleep tonight mundahug

 

[Ambarsaria]

The Sikhs orginated in the 15th Century in Punjab. The Sikh word has its origin in Sanskrit word of "Shishya" meaning discipline, student or instruction. So meaning of Sikh is disciple of Guru.
Now we come to Article 1 of the Rehat Maryada and in elaborate the word of Sikh. Rehat Maryada is --- Sikh code of conduct and conventions, in the holy Rehat Maryada Sikh is defined as any human being who faithfully believes in one immortal being, ten Gurus from Guru Nanak Devji to Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji, Sri Guru Granth Sahibji, the teachings of the ten Gurus and batism bequeathed by the tenth Guru and who does not owe allegiance to any religion. Sikhs believe in the equality of humankind, the concept of universal brotherhood of man and One Supreme God---Ik Onkar.
I don't want to elaborate the subject that How the Sikhs came in to formation.

Who are sikhs and why we are defining the Sikhs according to our own whim and fancy.
Please stop talking trash and stop demeaning Sikhs. There is no whim and fancy, that may be what it appears to the one that wants to see it so.

Kindly elaborate who are Sikhs.
I don't want to hijack this thread as it is about a specific subject. Please feel free to start another thread if you can quote from Sikh Rehat Maryada but are still confused! An example of Sikhs is in a picture below that I post which shows Sikhs dying for their persona and beliefs and sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

I admit that Sikhs are not Hindus!!!!!!! But there will be some sort of history of Sikhs.
Regards,
Rajneesh Madhok

Sat Sri Akal.

PS: Harry Haller ji I did not want to mention Miri - Piri fearing that our resident critic will then postulate that the Kirpan Siikhs wear today is just for Miri or a blunt instrument of Ahimsa. What turd but we tolerate!

 

[spnadmin]

Miri Piri has already been mentioned in this and related threads.

The idea that Sikhs are somehow reconstituted Hindus is intolerant to many but not all Sikhs. At SPN it is considered a no go. And that is pretty much the position of all the mods and admin. Let's keep this in mind. So far moderation of these statements has been fairly lenient. Reactions from admin, mods and other members has been to point out errors by giving counter arguments. However, status may change.

Let's try to be more civilized in our speech as well so that I do not have to start in line editing.

Thank you

 

[Harry Haller]

I have no objection at all to this thread being used to discuss a variety of topics, subject to SPNadminji, as they tend to be all interlinked anyway. In Hinduism, you have a warrior class, I understand, whose job is to make war, a priestly class, whose job is make prayer, a ruling class, etc etc etc,. This actually sits extremely well with my argument, and also SPNadminji's very kind nudge regarding extremes of behaviour.

All my life, I have had to put up with being something, or something else, clown, wolf, man, khalsa, this forum achieved something for me that no therapist, or anti depressant had managed to do, it made me realise I was just me, all the time, but with different extremes, and that sat pretty well, my wife had become used to me being one extreme or another, if I was hungry, all I would do is go home and eat, and I would eat till I fell asleep, if I wanted to take the dogs for a walk, we would go on 4 mile treks, and that is all we would do, my behaviour is very like the Hindu classes, each distinct and separate from the others, to be a circle, and not a line, to be devoid of balance, and be everything at the same time is what sikhism is all about to me, otherwise you are fragmented as a person and not able to realise the warrior, the poet, the saint, the lover, in you to full potential.

So, If there was one reason I would say sikhs are not Hindus, it would be that we strive to be soldier and saint, to be miri and piri, all at the same time, in fact, we must be all at the same time, for a soldier without the saint, and a saint without the soldier, would make us single minded, small minded people. I am not suggesting Hindus are, this is not about what Hindus are, within Hinduism, there is a road for everyone to find enlightenment, no matter what your place in earth is, (ok maybe not for untouchables, but then I do not know enough about Hinduism), this is about Sikhs, and how to act like a sikh, which from what I know and understand seems to be quite unique

 

[Satyaban]

Harry ji

"In Hinduism, you have a warrior class, I understand, whose job is to make war, a priestly class, whose job is make prayer, a ruling class, etc etc etc,. This actually sits extremely well with my argument, and also SPNadminji's very kind nudge regarding extremes of behaviour."

You are talking about a system called Varna and back in antiquity it was a big part of how a village functioned. The idea was that each individual used his talent to serve the community not doing what he wanted to do. A totally Eastern concept as opposed to individualism. I think the system eventually was perverted possibly into the caste system. It became more a case of what you were born into as opposed to talents. The son of the ruler became ruler by birth, and sons of Priests became Priests etc etc.

I am sure there are members who may know more about this than me.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Harry ji

"In Hinduism, you have a warrior class, I understand, whose job is to make war, a priestly class, whose job is make prayer, a ruling class, etc etc etc,. This actually sits extremely well with my argument, and also SPNadminji's very kind nudge regarding extremes of behaviour."

You are talking about a system called Varna and back in antiquity it was a big part of how a village functioned. The idea was that each individual used his talent to serve the community not doing what he wanted to do. A totally Eastern concept as opposed to individualism. I think the system eventually was perverted possibly into the caste system. It became more a case of what you were born into as opposed to talents. The son of the ruler became ruler by birth, and sons of Priests became Priests etc etc.

I am sure there are members who may know more about this than me.

Satyaban ji,

Guru Fateh.

You are right in your observation but can you also see the pitfalls in this kind of religion?

The system was not perverted but abused by those in the religion who gained power unto others which was the whole intention of it to begin with. This apartheid was meant to be as it was originally designed and unfortunately it is still very prevalent, which is sad.

A religion is meant to help people evolve in a positive sense so that goodness can become prevalent in all. Unfortunately, Hinduism has failed to do that, to the contrary.

One more interesting thing to notice is that a Punjabi Hindu would rarely marry a Southern Hindu for example or vice versa.

You being a convert to Hinduism is not able to see how the majority lives and treats others. It is like no one notices what is underneath the Manhattan-New York. One can only see and admire the pristine skyscrapers on the top.

Tejwant Singh