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



## Harry Haller (Sep 11, 2011)

Gurfateh, 

I am finding myself more and more endeared to the tenth master, his charisma, style, faith, perception, manner, humour and of course bravery and courage. 

I know many see the first and tenth Gurus as somewhat on different ends of the scale, but as my mother has often said to me, there were different actions for different times, put the tenth master in the shoes of the first one, he would have behaved as Guru Nanak, put Guru Nanak into the tenth masters shoes, he would have behaved as Guru Gobind Singh, some might say the sikh religion evolved into the Khalsa, my mother would say that Guru Nanak had the vision of the Khalsa as well as every other Guru, Guru Gobind Singh merely carried out a plan that was in the making since the start. 

I have never been a violent or angry man, but I do hate confrontation, it leaves me drained and depressed. Today I had to have a confrontation, I can be quite good at getting philosophy quite wrong, in the past I have become averse rather than be attached, unwashed and grubby, as opposed to proud and egoistical, so naturally, when confronted, I will do anything just not to have a confrontation, joke, laugh, apologise, I realised that I was in fact scared of confrontation, I feared it, which is strange, as I do not fear death, which is possibly the worst thing that can happen to you, but I do fear confrontation, spiders, snakes, small children with dirty fingers, and aggression. 

In an effort to address this, I have been thinking/meditating on the words of Guru Gobind Singh, and what they mean to me, 

To me, they mean that with truth on your side, and with honourable thoughts, you can conquer any situation with dignity and without fear, you may die, you may be hurt, but your soul will not be compromised, how many have compromised their soul for material or emotional gains, once that moment has passed, the gain is gone, but the damage to the soul stays forever,. 

Now, when I feel fear, I mentally remove my sword from its sheath, only a few inches, and that gives me the courage to do the right thing, to follow the truth, not to allow lies to be victorious, to stand for the truth, and be willing to die for it, in that context, all those brave martyrs who died for sikhi, can now be understood, they did it to maintain the perfection of their souls, 

As for todays confrontation, I was firm and polite, not aggressive or threatening, as each arrow came towards me, I cut it down with the Gurus sword, finally there were no arrows left, at this point I could have gone in for the kill, but I kept myself devoid of humour or sarcasm, and kept to being polite but firm, and with a 'mind how you go' from me, it was all over

I would be interested to hear others interpretation of the line

When all other means have failed, It is but lawful to take to the sword


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 11, 2011)

Henry Haller ji

It is my understanding that in Zafarnama, which you have quoted, http://www.searchgurbani.com/dasam_granth/page/1469

In Zafarnama, Guru Gobind Singh is evoking a concept of "Just War" or "jus bellum." This is normally taken to be a description of how states or political entities take action under provocation, according to ethical principles. It is not normally applied to the control of anger between and among individuals. Guru Gobind Singh wrote Zafarnama as an epistle, or letter, to the Persian emperor, as the leader of the Sikh quom. In it he indeed outlined the ethical principles that justified a military response to Persian political and religious  persecution. And the point of Zafarnama is that Aurangzeb violated principles of justice in his persecution of the peoples of India. Zafarnama means Epistle of Victory. What victory? Guru Gobind Singh had already won... a moral victory. 

In Zafarnama, this point comes through very clearly: Aurangzeb demonstrated indifference to symmetrical morality. And therefore Dasam Pita  denounced his actions. 



> _1. Introduction (from International Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> Historically, the just war tradition–a set of mutually agreed rules of combat—may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. That is, when an array of values are shared between two warring peoples, we often find that they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare. But when enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language, and as such they see each other as “less than human”, war conventions are rarely applied. It is only when the enemy is seen to be a people, sharing a moral identity with whom one will do business in the following peace, that tacit or explicit rules are formed for how wars should be fought and who they should involve and what kind of relations should apply in the aftermath of war. In part, the motivation for forming or agreeing to certain conventions, can be seen as mutually benefiting—preferable, for instance, to the deployment of any underhand tactics or weapons that may provoke an indefinite series of vengeance acts, or the kinds of action that have proved to be detrimental to the political or moral interests to both sides in the past.
> 
> Regardless of the conventions that have historically formed, it has been the concern of the majority of just war theorists that the lack of rules to war or any asymmetrical morality between belligerents should be denounced, and that the rules of war should apply to all equally. That is, just war theory should be universal, binding on all and capable in turn of appraising the actions of all parties over and above any historically formed conventions.
> ...


Read more about Jus Bellum
http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H2

Our anger as individuals, and how we manage that in our lives, has been discussed by all the Gurus beginning with Guru Nanak. Shabad Guru provides the way to moral accounting and ultimate ethical response to our anger in terms of acting from dharma. Acting in a way that reduces our ego, and enhances our compassion, which closes the gap between ourselves and our fellow man by control of ego and company of sandhsangat. Here are some words from Guru Ram Das. Ang 13

ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ ਪੂਰਬੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੪ ॥ 
रागु गउड़ी पूरबी महला ४ ॥ 
Rāg ga▫oṛī pūrbī mėhlā 4. 
Raag Gauree Poorbee, Fourth Mehl: 

ਕਾਮਿ ਕਰੋਧਿ ਨਗਰੁ ਬਹੁ ਭਰਿਆ ਮਿਲਿ ਸਾਧੂ ਖੰਡਲ ਖੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥ 
कामि करोधि नगरु बहु भरिआ मिलि साधू खंडल खंडा हे ॥ 
Kām karoḏẖ nagar baho bẖari▫ā mil sāḏẖū kẖandal kẖanda he. 
The body-village is filled to overflowing with anger and sexual desire; these were broken into bits when I met with the Holy Saint. 

ਪੂਰਬਿ ਲਿਖਤ ਲਿਖੇ ਗੁਰੁ ਪਾਇਆ ਮਨਿ ਹਰਿ ਲਿਵ ਮੰਡਲ ਮੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥੧॥ 
पूरबि लिखत लिखे गुरु पाइआ मनि हरि लिव मंडल मंडा हे ॥१॥ 
Pūrab likẖaṯ likẖe gur pā▫i▫ā man har liv mandal mandā he. ||1|| 
By pre-ordained destiny, I have met with the Guru. I have entered into the realm of the Lord's Love. ||1|| 

ਕਰਿ ਸਾਧੂ ਅੰਜੁਲੀ ਪੁਨੁ ਵਡਾ ਹੇ ॥ 
करि साधू अंजुली पुनु वडा हे ॥ 
Kar sāḏẖū anjulī pun vadā he. 
Greet the Holy Saint with your palms pressed together; this is an act of great merit. 

ਕਰਿ ਡੰਡਉਤ ਪੁਨੁ ਵਡਾ ਹੇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ 
करि डंडउत पुनु वडा हे ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥ 
Kar dand▫uṯ pun vadā he. ||1|| rahā▫o. 
Bow down before Him; this is a virtuous action indeed. ||1||Pause|| 

ਸਾਕਤ ਹਰਿ ਰਸ ਸਾਦੁ ਨ ਜਾਣਿਆ ਤਿਨ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਹਉਮੈ ਕੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥ 
साकत हरि रस सादु न जाणिआ तिन अंतरि हउमै कंडा हे ॥ 
Sākaṯ har ras sāḏ na jāṇi▫ā ṯin anṯar ha▫umai kandā he. 
The wicked shaaktas, the faithless cynics, do not know the Taste of the Lord's Sublime Essence. The thorn of egotism is embedded deep within them. 

ਜਿਉ ਜਿਉ ਚਲਹਿ ਚੁਭੈ ਦੁਖੁ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਜਮਕਾਲੁ ਸਹਹਿ ਸਿਰਿ ਡੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥੨॥ 
जिउ जिउ चलहि चुभै दुखु पावहि जमकालु सहहि सिरि डंडा हे ॥२॥ 
Ji▫o ji▫o cẖalėh cẖubẖai ḏukẖ pāvahi jamkāl sahėh sir dandā he. ||2|| 
The more they walk away, the deeper it pierces them, and the more they suffer in pain, until finally, the Messenger of Death smashes his club against their heads. ||2|| 

ਹਰਿ ਜਨ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮਿ ਸਮਾਣੇ ਦੁਖੁ ਜਨਮ ਮਰਣ ਭਵ ਖੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥ 
हरि जन हरि हरि नामि समाणे दुखु जनम मरण भव खंडा हे ॥ 
Har jan har har nām samāṇe ḏukẖ janam maraṇ bẖav kẖanda he. 
The humble servants of the Lord are absorbed in the Name of the Lord, Har, Har. The pain of birth and the fear of death are eradicated. 

ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਪਾਇਆ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਬਹੁ ਸੋਭ ਖੰਡ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥੩॥ 
अबिनासी पुरखु पाइआ परमेसरु बहु सोभ खंड ब्रहमंडा हे ॥३॥ 
Abẖināsī purakẖ pā▫i▫ā parmesar baho sobẖ kẖand barahmandā he. ||3|| 
They have found the Imperishable Supreme Being, the Transcendent Lord God, and they receive great honor throughout all the worlds and realms. ||3|| 

ਹਮ ਗਰੀਬ ਮਸਕੀਨ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤੇਰੇ ਹਰਿ ਰਾਖੁ ਰਾਖੁ ਵਡ ਵਡਾ ਹੇ ॥ 
हम गरीब मसकीन प्रभ तेरे हरि राखु राखु वड वडा हे ॥ 
Ham garīb maskīn parabẖ ṯere har rākẖ rākẖ vad vadā he. 
I am poor and meek, God, but I belong to You! Save me-please save me, O Greatest of the Great! 

ਜਨ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮੁ ਅਧਾਰੁ ਟੇਕ ਹੈ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੇ ਹੀ ਸੁਖੁ ਮੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥੪॥੪॥ 
जन नानक नामु अधारु टेक है हरि नामे ही सुखु मंडा हे ॥४॥४॥ 
Jan Nānak nām aḏẖār tek hai har nāme hī sukẖ mandā he. ||4||4|| 
Servant Nanak takes the Sustenance and Support of the Naam. In the Name of the Lord, he enjoys celestial peace. ||4||4||


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 11, 2011)

To me, this means exactly what it says:  if an unjust situation cannot be solved peacefully, it is right to use violence.

It is necessary to be very, very clear that this is not a carte blanche to go around being violent or even threatening violence.  Guru Gobind Singh ji would never have condoned his Khalsa or anyone else to be bullies.

For violence to be righteous, it must meet two very specific criteria.

First, all peaceful means must have been attempted, if that is possible.  Sometimes, such as in a direct attack, negotiation is impossible.  My former caregiver, Irene, a fundy Christian, insisted that we should have invited our attackers in Delhi to join us in prayer before fighting them.  Although it is always dangerous to try to speak for a Guru, I can only imagine him giving her a pitying look and moving on.  So, peaceful means, if possible, must be attempted.

What about a per-emptory strike?  If you are certain that you will be attacked, is it righteous to attack  first?  ?I think, yes, sometimes it is, but you must be very, very  careful of both your knowledge and your motives.  

Second, the cause must be righteous.  This, too, is not always easy to ascertain.  Self defence or the defence of an innocent person, of course, is righteous.  What about the lynching of a known murderer or child rapist? What about the legal execution of such? Is it righteous to use violence to protect them?

I must make one final point.  Anger and violence are very dangerous partners.  Even though the anger may be justified, at best, it will keep you from being clear-headed and the most effective warrior you could be.

I remember some time ago, I was discussing this anger issue with a friend, who brought up how very angry I was with the dusht who killed my son.  Yes, I was seething with justified anger.  Yes, I took great pleasure in killing the perpetrator of the heinous act.  But...had I kept a cool head, I might have not concentrated so much on this one person, and I might have been able to kill at least one or two more.     

I will save how these principles apply to non-combat situations for another day.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Sep 11, 2011)

Mai Harinder Kaur ji so well stated and you executed the command of Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji in your actions.



> I remember some time ago, I was discussing this anger issue with a  friend, who brought up how very angry I was with the dusht who killed my  son.  Yes, I was seething with justified anger.  Yes, I took great  pleasure in killing the perpetrator of the heinous act.  But...had I  kept a cool head, I might have not concentrated so much on this one  person, and I might have been able to kill at least one or two more.
> _The above great thought as well.
> 
> Wisdom should also allow one to decide on first strike given situations.  There is nothing wrong with first strike._




Thanks.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## gurbanicd (Sep 12, 2011)

harry haller said:


> Gurfateh,
> 
> I am finding myself more and more endeared to the tenth master, his charisma, style, faith, perception, manner, humour and of course bravery and courage.
> 
> ...



gurfateh ji

Take to the sword or not take to the sword depends upon the will of the lord hukum and this will or Hukum is known to gurmukhs only.

The action may vary from time to time as  Guru Sahiban sometime sacrificed their lives inspite of injustice and sometime fought the wars.

"  hukum tera khra bhara gurmukh kisey bujhae"

Guru Arjun dev ji (5)sacrificed his life.

Guru Hargobing Sahib ji(6) fought the wars

again Guru Teg bahadur Sahib ji (9) sacrificed his life.

Guru Gobind Singh sahib  ji fought the war.(10)

5th and 9th guru sacrificed their lives but 6th and 10th guru sahib fought thewars.

gurfateh


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 12, 2011)

Spnadminji, 

Your post requires a timely study, thank you for your time, I will dissect it later, however judging by the email I got this morning from SPN, I am now not sure if I am Sinnerji or Henry lol


----------



## Lee (Sep 12, 2011)

Harry ji.

Dawin shows us that vilolence is inhenrant in nature, it is easy an natural to use viloence in order to get our own way.

Guru realsied this and asks us to first take any other ways, and then and only then if repression does not cease it is right to use violance in order to free people from repression.


----------



## Admin (Sep 12, 2011)

harry haller said:


> Spnadminji,
> 
> Your post requires a timely study, thank you for your time, I will dissect it later, however judging by the email I got this morning from SPN, I am now not sure if I am Sinnerji or Henry lol


:grinningsingh: All my fault. My apologies for the oversight... mundahug


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 12, 2011)

Actually, violence was least on my mind when I wrote this post, I am by nature extremely placid, too placid some might say, on the most, I spend my day in pleasant exchanges, but every now and then I come across someone with an aggressive nature, and that is what I find difficult to handle, is the aggression about to be backed up with violence, do I calm the aggression down so there is no violence, do I become equally as aggressive to force the other to back down, although this could equally force it up, I do not have enough experience around  people to know, although I am getting better and more perceptive, for me the above statement in this day and age, and in my circumstances is better read as

When all other means have failed, It is but lawful to unsheath the sword by a few inches, or at least show you are in possession of a sword


----------



## Ambarsaria (Sep 12, 2011)

harry haller said:


> Actually, violence was least on my mind when I wrote this post, I am by nature extremely placid, too placid some might say, on the most, I spend my day in pleasant exchanges, but every now and then I come across someone with an aggressive nature, and that is what I find difficult to handle, is the aggression about to be backed up with violence, do I calm the aggression down so there is no violence, do I become equally as aggressive to force the other to back down, although this could equally force it up, I do not have enough experience around  people to know, although I am getting better and more perceptive, for me the above statement in this day and age, and in my circumstances is better read as
> 
> When all other means have failed, It is but lawful to unsheath the sword by a few inches, or at least show you are in possession of a sword


Harry Haller ji if the non-physical aspects are of greater focus for you then I try to practice the following,



Barking dogs, seldom bite
Best way to treat a barking dog is, to ignore
Violence in the voice is, death rattle of reason in the throat
If all the world would collapse around one's two ears, all that happens is we will die
_This is the fearlessness of Sikh Lions and Lionesses_
_Let it be known to all_


Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 12, 2011)

aYou know this is funny. 




> Originally Posted by harry haller
> Spnadminji, A
> 
> Your post requires a timely study, thank you for your time, I will dissect it later, however judging by the email I got this morning from SPN, I am now not sure if I am Sinnerji or Hen






> All my fault. My apologies for the oversight.


..

It is so funny, because Aman Singh ji and spnadmin are not the same person. Neither are harry ji and sinner ji. A case of double identities, and it could turn into a mystery story. icecreamkudi


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 13, 2011)

so where does henry come into all this? icecreammunda


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 13, 2011)

The way I see the mystery story unfolding: Harry ji may be sinner ji and sinner ji may be Harry ji... Aman ji may be spnadmin ji and vice versa. So we have the problem of doubles, mistaken identities, and an apology from Aman to Harry. But can we be sure if Aman is Aman and Harry is Harry? Back to topic :grinningsingh:


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 13, 2011)

spnadmin said:


> The way I see the mystery story unfolding: Harry ji may be sinner ji and sinner ji may be Harry ji... Aman ji may be spnadmin ji and vice versa. So we have the problem of doubles, mistaken identities, and an apology from Aman to Harry. But can we be sure if Aman is Aman and Harry is Harry? Back to topic :grinningsingh:



Was Chuang Tzu the butterfly or was the butterfly Chuang Tzu?



oooooh


----------



## Satyaban (Sep 17, 2011)

harry haller said:


> Actually, violence was least on my mind when I wrote this post, I am by nature extremely placid, too placid some might say, on the most, I spend my day in pleasant exchanges, but every now and then I come across someone with an aggressive nature, and that is what I find difficult to handle, is the aggression about to be backed up with violence, do I calm the aggression down so there is no violence, do I become equally as aggressive to force the other to back down, although this could equally force it up, I do not have enough experience around people to know, although I am getting better and more perceptive, for me the above statement in this day and age, and in my circumstances is better read as
> 
> When all other means have failed, It is but lawful to unsheath the sword by a few inches, or at least show you are in possession of a sword


 
I am non-violent and have not struck another since I was around 12 yrs old. I believe violence should only employed in self defence.

"When all other means have failed, It is but lawful to unsheath the sword by a few inches, or at least show you are in possession of a sword"

In my opinion if you carry a weapon you damned well better be ready to use it


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 18, 2011)

Satyaban said:


> I am non-violent and have not struck another since I was around 12 yrs old. I believe violence should only employed in self defence.
> 
> "When all other means have failed, It is but lawful to unsheath the sword by a few inches, or at least show you are in possession of a sword"
> 
> In my opinion if you carry a weapon you damned well better be ready to use it



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


----------



## rajneesh madhok (Sep 18, 2011)

Sikhism is the word of God and faith is created by God but the religion is created by the people. Sikhism is the word of God, therefore it is a faith. 
*A sikh believes in Non-violence. "Those who beat you with fists, do not give them blows, Go to their homes yourself an kiss their feet.'---Guru Granth Sahib. 

Guru Nanak devji's teachings: 
Do not wish evil for anyone, 
Do not speak harshly of anyone, 
Do not obstruct anyone's work. 
If a man speaks ill of you, forgive him. 
Practice physical, mental and spiritual endurance. 
Help the suffering, even at the cost of your life. 
*


----------



## Searching (Sep 18, 2011)

ਚੁ ਕਾਰ ਅਜ਼ ਹਮਹ ਹੀਲਤੇ ਦਰ ਗੁਜ਼ਸ਼ਤ ॥
ਹਲਾਲ ਅਸਤ ਬੁਰਦਨ ਬ ਸ਼ਮਸ਼ੀਰ ਦਸਤ ॥

चु कार अज़ हमह हीलते दर गुज़शत ॥
हलाल असत बुरदन ब शमशीर दसत ॥


When all other methods are exhausted,

It is just and pious to hold the sword in hand.


Guru Gobind Singh ji in Zafar Nama.{Letter to Aurangzeb}.


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 18, 2011)

There is no point in continuing with this thread, and one other today, if the conversation is like throwing brick-bats. 

I say X and You say Y. And you say Y and I say X. And back and forth again.

Most scholars agree that ahimsa is not part of Sikhi. But to simply keep up the Yes it is, No it is not, line of conversation sheds no new iinsight on the issues.

So unless there are other developments helping us to broaden and learn, this thread will have to be closed. Unfortunate.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Sep 18, 2011)

spnadmin said:


> There is no point in continuing with this thread, and one other today, if the conversation is like throwing brick-bats.
> 
> I say X and You say Y. And you say Y and I say X. And back and forth again.
> 
> ...


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



> ਹਲਾਲ ਅਸਤ ਬੁਰਦਨ ਬ *ਸ਼ਮਸ਼ੀਰ (Shamsheer) *ਦਸਤ ॥


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.


----------



## Satyaban (Sep 20, 2011)

harry haller said:


> 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 (Sep 20, 2011)

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 (Sep 20, 2011)

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 (Sep 20, 2011)

Satyaban said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Sep 20, 2011)

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 (Sep 20, 2011)

Satyaban said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 20, 2011)

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 (Sep 20, 2011)

Satyaban said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 21, 2011)

Ambarsaria said:


> 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 (Sep 21, 2011)

Ambarsaria said:


> 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. 



Ambarsaria said:


> 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!
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 21, 2011)

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 (Sep 21, 2011)

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


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 21, 2011)

> 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 (Sep 21, 2011)

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 (Sep 21, 2011)

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 (Sep 21, 2011)

rajneesh madhok said:


> 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.
> 
> ...








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 (Sep 23, 2011)

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 (Sep 23, 2011)

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 (Sep 24, 2011)

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 (Sep 24, 2011)

Satyaban said:


> 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."
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Satyaban (Sep 24, 2011)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Satyaban ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


 
I am not going to get into some useless religious argument. No doubt you are like a Christian or Muslim who mistakenly believe their faith has an exclusivity of The Truth. Take your grudge to a Hindu web site.
I don't come here to argue with Sikhs but when I encounter you I wonder why I come here at all.
BTW your comparison with viewing New York is how I choose to view Sikhi.


----------



## thinkforyourself (Sep 24, 2011)

Yes. Metaphorically speaking, in everyday life. I am normally a very placid person also, but there is a limit, and no one wants to be a doormat. A sharp word or curt reply would be in order. 
In matters of self defense, such as war, etc. definitely so. Even if you are peaceful, you have to be a realist, and realize everyone in the world isn't. You may wish it to be true, but wishing it isn't reality. Sad but true. Too much passivity gets you stepped on.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Sep 24, 2011)

Satyaban ji just some comments on your post,


Satyaban said:


> 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."
> _Satyaban ji isn't this a form of discrimination when people get boxed by birth?  How can it ever pass the test of fairness of equity of all to be born free and clear?_
> ...


I believe we should move part of this thread into "Interfaith" section as we are going on a tangent a bit.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 24, 2011)

Satyaban said:


> I am not going to get into some useless religious argument. No doubt you are like a Christian or Muslim who mistakenly believe their faith has an exclusivity of The Truth. Take your grudge to a Hindu web site.
> I don't come here to argue with Sikhs but when I encounter you I wonder why I come here at all.
> BTW your comparison with viewing New York is how I choose to view Sikhi.



Satyaban ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have no idea why you are so angry and upset. I apologise if my explanation of what Hinduism, the religion you adhere to is so upsetting. It should be because it is the fact. Where did "Om Shanti Om", the meaning of which I am sure you know go?

Now, let's try to be honest here. In which line of my this post or other posts did I ever mention Sikhi has the exclusivity on the truth? I have always advocated the opposite. Where did I show grudge against Hinduism? I hope you are truthful enough to answer these questions.

Next time please try to be honest, no matter what religion you adhere to. If you want to deny the fact of the existence of caste system which is still very prevalent  in Hinduism and it is the worst kind of apartheid ever existed, then, please do not blame others for that.

A seeker of Truth, no matter what hue, creed or faith he/she belongs to will never deny that and any religion one belongs to gives him/her the tools to get rid of the anger,hatred and disdain provided he/she is honest to the self.

Enjoy your journey.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Satyaban (Sep 25, 2011)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Satyaban ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


 
Forget your "angry and upset ploy". I prefer to have conversations where something good can come of them and from prior experience that dosen't happen with you.


----------



## Satyaban (Sep 25, 2011)

Ambarsaria said:


> Satyaban ji just some comments on your post,
> 
> I believe we should move part of this thread into "Interfaith" section as we are going on a tangent a bit.
> 
> Sat Sri Akal.


 
Agreed!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 25, 2011)

Satyaban said:


> Forget your "angry and upset ploy". I prefer to have conversations where something good can come of them and from prior experience that dosen't happen with you.



Om shanti shanti Om


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 25, 2011)

I don't think this past episode merits a thread move at all. There are simply different facets of understanding the varna system at play. Satyaban ji you are indeed understanding the varna system according to its historical and economic logic.

However there has always been a different perspective.

The Gurus had definitive arguments against it because the varna system sustained social, political and economical corruption, the currying of favor with Muslim overlords to maintain status on the part of the upper castes, the terrorizing of women and of the lower castes, Brahmin abuse and use of the khatri to do their dirty work. Many of the "hindu" holy men of the Shabad Guru shared these views and preached against it. Mohatma Gandhi continued to the lot of sudras in the 20th Century. Varna was a way to maintain social order and equilibrium in a disequilbrated time for political reasons. He kept the entire matter within the framework of reincarnation. Shudras would do well to pass through the 84 lakh joons in order to purify the soul and get the work of the masses done at the same time. Shudras he felt should be proud of their role as the humble. That is why he fought for proportional representation for voters and went on one of his many hunger strikes in order to cow Ambardek, a political scientist and Shudra (first to gain a doctorate), who actually penned the Indian constitution, into submission.

Guru Nanak  said through Shabad Guru we would be freed from reincarnation, from passing through the 84 lakh joons. And he meant that quite literally. The passage through lifetimes occurs until one varna is accomplished and one 's next life starts with the next varna, purifying the soul as one takes one's interminable journey. Cast aside varna, Guru Nanak said, because it is only there to keep the masses subdued. Cast aside varna and the entire proposition of reincarnation made no sense in traditional Indian society.

The varna system was a legacy of ancient tyranny of indigenous peoples of India by Aryan invaders. If they had  a spiritual message to go along, it has faded in the fog of time. What is certainly clear is that it lasted centuries and kept India so locked into rigid patterns of belief and behavior that its peoples could not successfully unite in a way that would help them prevail against the invasions from the north and the incursions of the British. Today the sorrows of being trapped in a colonial consciousness, the remnants of defeat and humiliation, still plague the peoples of the subcontinent.

Don't fight. Discuss issues. thanks. And we should leave the varna system now and move back to the "just war" concept that is the basis of this thread.


----------

