# Johnnie Walker: Friend Or Foe?



## Sinister (Jan 5, 2008)

*Johnnie Walker and Jack Daniels: Friends or Foes?*​ 

_Kabeer Bhaang Maachhulee Sura Paan Jo Jo praanee Khaanhe. Teerath Barat Nem Keeye Te Sabhai Rasaatal Jaanhe. 233. SGGS pg.1377._

     To the displeasure of many, I will try to be fare and balanced on this subject and try to address the widely held drinking taboo within Sikhism (to the best of my understanding).

Is drinking allowed and if so why not?
            I have asked this question before to many people and these are the responses I usually get:
1) “Alcohol is ‘bad’ tasting and people only do it to ‘fit-in’” 
2) “it alters your ‘god given’ state of mind and impairs judgment.”
3) “It makes us unnatural”
4)  “The side-effects of drinking are not good”
5) “It is addictive and creates dependency”

The rebuttals followed soon after
1)Seems tasty to me. I enjoy the taste of a good dry beer, good whine, and other drinks with spirits in them just like you would enjoy a soda.
2)Depends on how much you consume.
3)Please define the ‘natural state’ of man
4)Again depends on how much you drink (whines and beers actually have anti-oxidant properties and are healthy beverages if consumed responsibly)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N7vgCzTPc0 (I could present more research articles if need be)
5)Certainly not in everyone and why should it be discriminated against other things that we cannot do without (chocolate and sugary treats, spices in our food, stimulants like tea and coffee, high caffeine drinks, internet…lol)

I have always imagined and thought to myself: What if science could produce a substance that was effective in achieving an altered state of behavioral patterns within an individual without serious side-effects (no addiction, and no health hazards)? Would this be tolerable within the Sikh framework?  

Where would such a substance leave us? 
Does the philosophy and manufactured taboo frown upon
1)The physical process of actually taking the substance? 
2)A specific state of mind that led you to resort to taking that substance?
3)The effects of the substance on consciouness and awareness?
4)The side-effects of the substance?
5)Or all of the above



In conclusion, 
I don’t see anything inherently wrong in drinking responsibly…AND THAT IS THE KEYWORD…RESPONSIBLE. When consumed in moderation the benefits seem to outweigh the costs. Now this is only true if you enjoy drinking…there is a large population both religious and irreligious that do not like taste of alcohol. Have a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYuIYNaKynI
These monkeys on the Caribbean island of St Kitts are very similar to humans…again some of them prefer alcohol while others prefer non-alcoholic drinks.

We also have to take alcohol in stride with other substances as well. How many times have we popped an Advil or Tylenol (ace*tyl*-para-aminoph*enol)* to quell a migraine, fever, flu or allergies? Or when we take opiate derivative pain-killers.

Some actually take substances such as THC (Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol) for spiritual experiences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdokVFdLTy0
a video of Nihangs mixing cannabis.



Where do we do draw this vague line between good and evil or the sacred and the profane? Or should we think on the basis of individual taste? on a level which is BEYOND good and evil.


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 5, 2008)

Sinister ji,
I am not to answer your question directly or indirectly but would like to add that Hindus do use Bhaang in milk on the various occassions linked with Lord Shiva. It is perfectly accepted in them.One can consume as much as one's capacity.It alters the stste of mind,yes, but for a short period. Hence it is not used frequently.There may be some who may be using it regularly.
Likewise alcohol alters the state of mind for a small period of time. The 'High' that one feels is also for hours and to attain that high one has to recoup and it may lead to addiction. Plus alcohol,I am told is a depressant.
cheers!


----------



## Sinister (Jan 6, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> Sinister ji,
> I am not to answer your question directly or indirectly but would like to add that Hindus do use Bhaang in milk on the various occassions linked with Lord Shiva. It is perfectly accepted in them.One can consume as much as one's capacity.It alters the stste of mind,yes, but for a short period. Hence it is not used frequently.There may be some who may be using it regularly.
> Likewise alcohol alters the state of mind for a small period of time. The 'High' that one feels is also for hours and to attain that high one has to recoup and it may lead to addiction. Plus alcohol,I am told is a depressant.
> cheers!


 
Hello,

yes, you are right, ethanol is a depressant in that it slows down synaptic activity in your central nervous system and also your heartbeat. If you drink alot, you start to depress the cerebellum (which is responsible for initiating and stopping coordination movements on time). 

so when you start feeling like this  , it's usually time to stop. 

I usually find that if a person drinks "only for the high" they usually end up an addict....because they are looking to become an addict to distance themselves from something.


that goes back to my questions
so does the taboo frown upon:
A specific state of mind that led you to resort to taking that substance?


cheers


----------



## drkhalsa (Jan 7, 2008)

> Where would such a substance leave us?
> Does the philosophy and manufactured taboo frown upon
> 1)The physical process of actually taking the substance?
> 2)A specific state of mind that led you to resort to taking that substance?
> ...




My Most preferred answer would be

* 3)The effects of the substance on consciouness and awareness? 

Although all other choices are also true 
and Alcohol is rated as number one in substance abuse and related health issueas and one of the major health issue in all developed countries .

But answer to question whether it is a SIN ?

My answer is No 

although people can call me bad /weak sikh for that but still in my understanding it cant be something like SIN

Best answer i got from one of the spirtual master was that 
Alcohol tends to give elation but also very Gross state of Mind as well , where as Spirtual seeker is Looking for very Subtle state of mind  so it does not seems to be good practice for a spirtual seeker 


Thanks

Jatinder Singh
*


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 7, 2008)

my interpretation is that intoxication is the sin.  now, if you can have a drink and not have it effect your ability to think clearly, then it's probably ok.  for people like me who get buzzed from one drink, we should not drink at all.

also, for amritdhari sikhs, consuming intoxicants (tobacco, alcohol, etc) is a bujjar kurehet, on par with cutting one's hair or committing adultry.  

consider the following:
     ਮਾਣਸੁ ਭਰਿਆ ਆਣਿਆ ਮਾਣਸੁ ਭਰਿਆ ਆਇ  ॥ 
Māṇas bẖari*ā āṇi*ā māṇas bẖari*ā ā*ė. 
One person brings a full bottle, and another fills his cup. 

ਜਿਤੁ  ਪੀਤੈ  ਮਤਿ  ਦੂਰਿ  ਹੋਇ  ਬਰਲੁ  ਪਵੈ  ਵਿਚਿ  ਆਇ  ॥ 
Jiṯ pīṯai maṯ ḏūr ho*ė baral pavai vicẖ ā*ė. 
Drinking the wine, his intelligence departs, and madness enters his mind; 

ਆਪਣਾ  ਪਰਾਇਆ  ਨ  ਪਛਾਣਈ  ਖਸਮਹੁ  ਧਕੇ  ਖਾਇ  ॥ 
Āpṇā parā*i*ā na pacẖẖāṇ*ī kẖasmahu ḏẖakė kẖā*ė. 
he cannot distinguish between his own and others, and he is struck down by his Lord and Master. 

ਜਿਤੁ  ਪੀਤੈ  ਖਸਮੁ  ਵਿਸਰੈ  ਦਰਗਹ  ਮਿਲੈ  ਸਜਾਇ  ॥ 
Jiṯ pīṯai kẖasam visrai ḏargeh milai sajā*ė. 
Drinking it, he forgets his Lord and Master, and he is punished in the Court of the Lord. 

ਝੂਠਾ  ਮਦੁ  ਮੂਲਿ  ਨ  ਪੀਚਈ  ਜੇ  ਕਾ  ਪਾਰਿ  ਵਸਾਇ  ॥ 
Jẖūṯẖā maḏ mūl na pīcẖ*ī jė kā pār vasā*ė. 
Do not drink the false wine at all, if it is in your power. 

ਨਾਨਕ  ਨਦਰੀ  ਸਚੁ  ਮਦੁ  ਪਾਈਐ  ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ  ਮਿਲੈ  ਜਿਸੁ  ਆਇ  ॥ 
Nānak naḏrī sacẖ maḏ pā*ī*ai saṯgur milai jis ā*ė. 
O Nanak, the True Guru comes and meets the mortal; by His Grace, one obtains the True Wine. 

ਸਦਾ  ਸਾਹਿਬ  ਕੈ  ਰੰਗਿ  ਰਹੈ  ਮਹਲੀ  ਪਾਵੈ  ਥਾਉ  ॥੧॥ 
Saḏā sāhib kai rang rahai mahlī pāvai thā*o. ||1|| 
He shall dwell forever in the Love of the Lord Master, and obtain a seat in the Mansion of His Presence. ||1|| 

this would seem to indicate that intoxication with alcohol (false wine) is unacceptable.  we should instead become intoxicated by the true wine (Naam).


----------



## Sinister (Jan 7, 2008)

So I am assuming the consensus (i should have made this into a poll)  is that drinking is not a sin if you drink so that you are not impaired in judgement and reason (i know its a very slippery slope). many call this the 4th round buzz (well at least where I'm from). But drinking itself is undesirable because it doesnt help on the spiritual path of enlightenment, its addictive and harmful (relatively)? (sound about right?)

i tend to agree jatinder ji .... you cannot classify it as a sin but the faith should frown on it (i know western faiths also do this) and not promote it. I know catholics and christians always have wine present at mass (to represent the blood of Christ)...in fact wine was a very popular drink back in the day...it was the Coca-Cola of ancient Rome. And who is to doubt that the last supper did not contain a nice cabernet for Jesus and his disciples?

i am also assuming now that people who enjoy Rum cake, Rum in chocolates or even non-alcholic beers that mimic taste are in the clear? ie: should not be worried about breaking any 'rules' (if such a thing does exist in this faith)

what about opiates used as pain killers? when you are under extreme pain can you take these? ... and who defines "extreme pain" (the physician or the patient?)
Another word: Medicinal Marijuana (THC)

these substances are all a reality and my question is how do we draw a straight line on the beach front with a thick fog covering it?

_*the do's and dont's get muffled and honesty, all of a sudden, starts to trump hardened resolve.*_

a conundrum if we make it so.

cheers


----------



## Sinister (Jan 7, 2008)

Painkillers are just a straight forward medication....Lets not forget a HUGE slew of medications that people take in order to alter there state of mind.

anti-depressant medications (Fluxetine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), riddilin (mehtylphenidate), Tranquilizers (diazepam, many more on the market), Viagra (and a huge amount of related  drugs), Acetylcholine supressing medication (trust me there is alot of them)

we are just skimming the surface... i think sikhi might need its own drug enforcement agency (like the FDA) just to keep up with the ney's and hey's of the medical pharmaceutical products. 

"head-on applied directly to the forehead!":{;o:


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 7, 2008)

Sinister said:


> So I am assuming the consensus (i should have made this into a poll)  is that drinking is not a sin if you drink so that you are not impaired in judgement and reason (i know its a very slippery slope). many call this the 4th round buzz (well at least where I'm from). But drinking itself is undesirable because it doesnt help on the spiritual path of enlightenment, its addictive and harmful (relatively)? (sound about right?)



sounds reasonable to me.  unless you're amritdhari, in which case you simply cannot drink. 




> i am also assuming now that people who enjoy Rum cake, Rum in chocolates or even non-alcholic beers that mimic taste are in the clear? ie: should not be worried about breaking any 'rules' (if such a thing does exist in this faith)



also sounds reasonable to me.  i cook stir fry with rice wine, the alcohol evaporates, making it completely harmless.  rum cake should be the same, right?



> what about opiates used as pain killers? when you are under extreme pain can you take these? ... and who defines "extreme pain" (the physician or the patient?)
> Another word: Medicinal Marijuana (THC)



that's more difficult.  some amritdharis do not take pain killers.  i've even heard of some who won't take anesthesia for surgery.  these people are stronger than i am.  personally, i suffer from a chronic pain disorder and i take painkillers as long as they don't impair my judgment (not opiates- they make me stupid).  it's a personal choice.



> these substances are all a reality and my question is how do we draw a straight line on the beach front with a thick fog covering it?
> 
> _*the do's and dont's get muffled and honesty, all of a sudden, starts to trump hardened resolve.*_
> 
> a conundrum if we make it so.


 
exactly.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 7, 2008)

Sinister said:


> Painkillers are just a straight forward medication....Lets not forget a HUGE slew of medications that people take in order to alter there state of mind.
> 
> anti-depressant medications (Fluxetine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), riddilin (mehtylphenidate), Tranquilizers (diazepam, many more on the market), Viagra (and a huge amount of related  drugs), Acetylcholine supressing medication (trust me there is alot of them)
> 
> ...



here's my theory.  if the medication is necessary in order for one to live a productive life, it's probably ok.  one can safely assume that intoxicating drugs would not allow one to live a productive life, so those are right out. 

this is my personal feeling though, i'm sure some sikhs don't take any medicines.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 7, 2008)

Johnnie Johnnie

yes papa


----------



## Sinister (Jan 8, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> here's my theory. if the medication is necessary in order for one to live a productive life, it's probably ok. one can safely assume that intoxicating drugs would not allow one to live a productive life, so those are right out.
> 
> this is my personal feeling though, i'm sure some sikhs don't take any medicines.


 
Interesting, I agree with what you are saying 

I had not heard of any sikh that rejected an anesthetic during surgery before... thats hardcore (to my knowledge)

rum cake actually has rum in it (you can taste it in the chocolate icing as well....small amounts...you'd need to eat like 5 full size party cakes in order to feel something...and after 5 cakes you'll be feeling more than just drunk:rofl!!

I also cook my favourite pasta, or seafood dishes in some wine ... helps bring out the flavour. (cooks it better as well)

but where would do you stand on Medicinal Marijuana? (from the above comment im assuming against?)

cheers


----------



## Sinister (Jan 8, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> Johnnie Johnnie
> 
> yes papa


 
you missed Jack!

oh well

Jack be nimble 
Jack be Quick
jack jumped over the candle stick


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 8, 2008)

Sinister said:


> but where would do you stand on Medicinal Marijuana? (from the above comment im assuming against?)
> 
> cheers



i honestly do not know enough about it to make a comment either way.

but from what i know of cannabis, it seriously impairs ones ability to think, so i wouldn't use it.


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 8, 2008)

But Sir, if anything is medicinal, it is ok. with sikhi though it may not be inscripted in the Holy Book.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 8, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> But Sir, if anything is medicinal, it is ok. with sikhi though it may not be inscripted in the Holy Book.




some doctors say wine is healthy.  does that make it ok to drink?  even though according to rehet maryada it's a bujjar kurhet?


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 8, 2008)

Rehat should be applicable to one who is fit and fine and not to the one who is not and intend to be so.





cheers!


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 8, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> Rehat should be applicable to one who is fit and fine and not to the one who is not and intend to be so.




i'm confused...  so you're saying if i'm sick, i don't have to follow rehet?  what if i'm amritdhari?  do i have to retake amrit after recovering from an illness?

sorry, i don't understand your statement...


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 8, 2008)

:u):U get confused on petty issues. V R discussing if it is possible to take something [some drug/liquor] if one is not well. Yes, in that case we can irrespective of Rehat.

Amritdharis are also men or women. No.?
they shd . also be exempted from this.it is aplain common sense unless one have strong reason to go otherwise. :u):


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 8, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> :u):U get confused on petty issues. V R discussing if it is possible to take something [some drug/liquor] if one is not well. Yes, in that case we can irrespective of Rehat.
> 
> Amritdharis are also men or women. No.?
> they shd . also be exempted from this.it is aplain common sense unless one have strong reason to go otherwise. :u):




are you trying to make some sort of point by using so many animated smilies, after specifically asking me not to use them?  because in this case you're right, i do get confused easily.  i don't understand what you're trying to accomplish.

i don't think committing a bujjar kurehet is a "petty issue".  i don't think that being sick exempts one from being sikh. (i'd put a smily here, but you don't like them, so i won't).  i don't know how this is a "petty issue".   for amritdharis, it's a matter of breaking amrit.  taking intoxicants is a serious sin, as serious as cutting hair or comitting adultry.  do you propose that someone be able to cut their hair or sleep around if they're sick?  it's exactly the same thing.


----------



## clarkejoey (Jan 8, 2008)

Possibly not, jasleen ji; alcohol-based medicine could save your life, and i doubt that any sleeping-around situation can claim that. (imaginary smiley goes here)

All the same: a sikh might detest cutting of hair, and yet decide to do it - for head surgery, say - in order to stay alive. Would they be a hero if they decide to die rather than shave? Even if s/he has children to care?


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 8, 2008)

clarkejoey said:


> Possibly not, jasleen ji; alcohol-based medicine could save your life, and i doubt that any sleeping-around situation can claim that. (imaginary smiley goes here)
> 
> All the same: a sikh might detest cutting of hair, and yet decide to do it - for head surgery, say - in order to stay alive. Would they be a hero if they decide to die rather than shave? Even if s/he has children to care?



i think alcohol based medication is ok, as it doesn't get you intoxicated.  sinister was asking about medical marijuana...  i think i'd draw the line there, as the intoxication is great and it's not something that would save your life.

in my previous posts i said i agreed that alcohol for cooking, as a base in medications isn't a problem.  but sikh80 said that one need not follow rehet when one has an illness.  that is a much broader statement than "it's ok to take alcohol based cough syrup" or something similar.

regarding the shaving of the head for surgery...  i've discussed this a lot with people.  some sikhs will not do it, would rather die than loose their kes.  while i respect their strength, i do not know if i could do the same.  i know that if i need to have hair removed for an operation, i can go back before the panj piyare and ask forgiveness, and receive amrit again.  but if the situation was not life threatening, i don't think i'd do it.   that's a very personal issue.

but again, it doesn't nullify rehet completely, as sikh80 was suggesting.


----------



## clarkejoey (Jan 8, 2008)

Agreed. I also don't know what i would do in such a position.

Medical grass though: used as a concentrate, tablet or syrup, THC (the active ingredient) is very useful against glaucoma, asthma (is that spelled right?) and some other conditions. And, used like that, it has no mental effect at all (i hear).

Also, cannabis-based unguents are very beneficial for the skin, and, again, don't even reach the brain.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 8, 2008)

clarkejoey said:


> Agreed. I also don't know what i would do in such a position.
> 
> Medical grass though: used as a concentrate, tablet or syrup, THC (the active ingredient) is very useful against glaucoma, asthma (is that spelled right?) and some other conditions. And, used like that, it has no mental effect at all (i hear).
> 
> Also, cannabis-based unguents are very beneficial for the skin, and, again, don't even reach the brain.



that sounds ok then.  but this is just my personal opinion, many will disagree.

as i said before, i'm not too familiar with medical marijuana...  here in the US it's usually smoked, which as we all know has pretty serious effects on one's ability to think clearly. 

if used in a way that did not intoxicate, it sounds ok.


my personal position is pretty simple. if the medication is necessary for one to function normally, and it ALLOWS one to function normally, i don't see a problem with it.


----------



## clarkejoey (Jan 8, 2008)

Sounds sound to me!


----------



## Sinister (Jan 8, 2008)

considering the anti-oxidant properties of red wine...why should an amritdhari refrain from drinking manageable portions when enjoying dinner with family or friends? Especially if it benefits health and well being?

Does this taboo coupled with dogma have more to do with control and obedience rather than honesty?

(control: foreign or self-control, the idea of "submission" pops up in my head) 

With this post I set out to challenge and question the flexibility of sensibilities.

Thanks everyone for your input. (its been a good logical discussion)


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 8, 2008)

Sinister said:


> considering the anti-oxidant properties of red wine...why should an amritdhari refrain from drinking manageable portions when enjoying dinner with family or friends? Especially if it benefits health and well being?
> 
> Does this taboo coupled with dogma have more to do with control and obedience rather than honesty?
> 
> ...



what is a "manageable" portion?   who decides?  for me, none is manageable.    with alcohol it is so easy to slip past manageable, at which point you're not thinking clearly and drink even more! 

isn't it easier to just say "no" across the board, than to say, "you can drink this much, but he can drink that much, and she can't drink any at all!"


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 8, 2008)

besides which, there are a LOT of ways to get antioxidants without drinking wine.


----------



## Sinister (Jan 8, 2008)

yes you can get anti-oxidants from a tablet....

i was just questioning the irony

an amritdhari would gasp at the idea of wine but gleefully accept a soda which is undoubtedly more harmful to a persons immediate health.

I just find it odd how a beverage can have such a strong emotional response from a community. Its the same in Islam as well (a little overboard in Islam)

this post was actually to a news I heard about muslim shopkeepers refusing to handle alcohol because it was "agianst the faith"

(the same way an amritdhari would most likely refuse to handle meat products or become a barber)

I find it intriguing how far a faith or ideology can change a persons life (for better or for worse).


----------



## Sinister (Jan 8, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> isn't it easier to just say "no" across the board, than to say, "you can drink this much, but he can drink that much, and she can't drink any at all!"


 
yes it is easier to say "no" ... but a response of this nature does not add to any intellectual honesty on behalf of dogma. banning something and repressing people and promoting complete absistenance is often hurtful to the psyche of many...an educational approach on boundaries is much more successfull (in my opinion) in preventing mental strains.


----------



## Sinister (Jan 8, 2008)

what the people deserve is an education on the substance...not an outright condemnation..it will be far more effective in reducing dependancy.
then the individual can make a conscious choice and not be dictated to by an institution. (in my opinion it cant fail)

Molecule of discussion: CH3CH2OH
A brief History (by me): 
Ethanol is made from fermentation, one of the earliest controlled chemical processes recorded by historians. Fermentation (scientifically called zymosis) is the process by which a living organism breaks-down a nutrient molecule, such as glucose, under anaerobic conditions without net oxidation. Some historians believe, ethanol’s first controlled synthesis was carried out in the Babylon circa around 5000 BCE. The crops used for creating the medium in which the bacteria or yeast proliferate can range in a large variety; anything from maize, sorghum, wheat, sugar-cane, cornstalks, barley and even crop wastes may be used to produce it.
Lois Pasteur, in 1857, first demonstrated that microorganisms when grown under particular conditions could produce alcohols. The discovery of the key agents of fermentation, bacteria and yeast, led to the commercialization and mass production of alcohol. With enhanced distillation techniques; higher concentrations and larger yields of ethanol can be extracted from fixed sugar sources. Technological improvements today have all led to the increase in the production of ethanol elevating it from a beverage additive to a FUEL (the irony of the word…it is a fuel to many metaphorically and literally)!

to be cont'd


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 8, 2008)

Sinister said:


> yes you can get anti-oxidants from a tablet....


 
or berries, garlic, spinach, tea, soy, carrots, tomatoes...  




> i was just questioning the irony
> 
> an amritdhari would gasp at the idea of wine but gleefully accept a soda which is undoubtedly more harmful to a persons immediate health.
> 
> I just find it odd how a beverage can have such a strong emotional response from a community. Its the same in Islam as well (a little overboard in Islam)



i don't think it's the beverage which is the problem, as i tried to emphasize before, it's the intoxicating effect.  BTW, many amritdharis abstain from caffeine (tea, coffee, sodas) too.  rehet doesn't say, "only drink healthy things", it says "don't take intoxicants".  comparing wine to soda doesn't make a lot of sense. 



> this post was actually to a news I heard about muslim shopkeepers refusing to handle alcohol because it was "agianst the faith"



i think that's a bit overboard.  if they don't want to handle alcohol, they should get a different job. 




> I find it intriguing how far a faith or ideology can change a persons life (for better or for worse).



well in my case, it was certainly for the better.   actually, i've never met anyone whose life got worse when they stopped drinking.  lol...


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 8, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> i don't think committing a bujjar kurehet is a "petty issue". i don't think that being sick exempts one from being sikh. (i'd put a smily here, but you don't like them, so i won't). i don't know how this is a "petty issue". for amritdharis, it's a matter of breaking amrit. taking intoxicants is a serious sin, as serious as cutting hair or comitting adultry. do you propose that someone be able to cut their hair or sleep around if they're sick? it's exactly the same thing.


 
Let us take the case of_ force majure ,1984 riots in India._Many sikhs/Amritdharis had to shred their hair. Would you suggest that he should have died instead of saving his skin? In case you have any answer; the same would be applicable to the case when one is unwell medically and is advised to take some medicine like cough syrup that also contains some sleep inducing agents.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 8, 2008)

> the same would be applicable to the case when one is unwell medically and is advised to take some medicine like cough syrup that also contains some sleep inducing agents.



do you even read my posts?


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 8, 2008)

Yes, I do read your posts quite seriously. What makes you feel otherwise.


----------



## Sinister (Jan 9, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> Let us take the case of_ force majure ,1984 riots in India._Many sikhs/Amritdharis had to shred their hair. Would you suggest that he should have died instead of saving his skin? In case you have any answer; the same would be applicable to the case when one is unwell medically and is advised to take some medicine like cough syrup that also contains some sleep inducing agents.


 

ouch!

that's a question for the history books eh? (i dont think a person could answer unless presented with such a scenario first hand)

the scary part is should a sikh be willing to kill for his religion and jeopardize his/her own life?
if we have a monolithic institution guiding our behaviour (an institution which dictates to us the morality of the group collective) then we will certainly have martyrs (both political and spiritual). 

cheers


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 9, 2008)

I lost my kesh in 84 riots and saved myself.I have them now. It is not a hypothetical question.There were two options that time:
a] run _or_
_b]_ get killed for nothing.

I survived. Maybe it was not correct but I did as per my instincts that were governed by the circumstances or the environment or may be something that was extraneous. In any case I should presume that I did everything with in Rehat though people may differ.REhat cannot be drafted taking all the eventualities in mind. One will have to be guided by commonsense than by fighting over as to what should be and what should have been as you said to be 'history'


Cheers!


----------



## Sinister (Jan 10, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> I lost my kesh in 84 riots and saved myself.I have them now. It is not a hypothetical question.There were two options that time:
> a] run _or_
> _b]_ get killed for nothing.
> 
> ...


 

I agree with you, Rehat should be something fluid and self defined with intellectual honesty. For the most part it already is.

personal question:
do you have more respect for those that chose path A or path B (above)? and why?


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 10, 2008)

There is no question of respect or disrespect ,it was a question of getting an oppurtunity or not that mattered. I would ,in that eventuality of option being given by the mob of 84, would always feel happy for those who would complete their alloted time on the earth.
Yes, it would be more interesting to have an objective view from a person who would be a distant watcher of the events. 

How would you rate the two i.e. a] or b] which is better as per your thinking pattern. 

Kindly let me know.Obviously the opinion now wuld be inconsequential.


----------



## Sinister (Jan 10, 2008)

It's very hard to say because I have not be predisposed to such  a stressful scenario. These are a series of events that have not occured in my lifetime...where my civil liberties and value system were under direct threat.

it's easy to be a lion from the comfort of your living room.

i know for sure I would not be a person that would be willing to die for sikhism. My religious ferver is weak+I dont really approve of dogma anyways. 

but would I submit to someone? Would I be willing to be coerced and forced to sacrifice my deeply held convictions
....something I cannot answer until the day comes. 

but my respect would lie with those who choose to die or defend their personal liberties. (on the basis of taste) rather than those who ran.

cheers


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 10, 2008)

"but my respect would lie with those who choose to die or defend their personal liberties. (on the basis of taste) rather than those who ran."

It is surprises me ,Sir.


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 10, 2008)

Sinister said:


> but my respect would lie with those who choose to die or defend their personal liberties. (on the basis of taste) rather than those who ran.
> 
> cheers


 
Those who chose to die against a mob who was on plunder and killing and nothing else. Police had clear instructions to not to listen to anyone and not to lodge FIR. But then you have a brave  opinion.


----------



## Sinister (Jan 10, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> Those who chose to die against a mob who was on plunder and killing and nothing else. Police had clear instructions to not to listen to anyone and not to lodge FIR. But then you have a brave opinion.


 
its not a brave opinion...its an empty opinion if anything


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 10, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> I lost my kesh in 84 riots and saved myself.I have them now. It is not a hypothetical question.There were two options that time:
> a] run _or_
> _b]_ get killed for nothing.
> 
> ...



you had pretty good instincts for a four year old...  

so what you really meant is that your PARENTS cut your kes for you in '84 because they thought you'd be safer.   couldn't they have dressed you as a girl and kept the kes?  i've heard that happened a lot...    

where was your family during the riots?  just curious.  i'm talking to a lot of sikhs about their experiences.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 10, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> Those who chose to die against a mob who was on plunder and killing and nothing else. Police had clear instructions to not to listen to anyone and not to lodge FIR. But then you have a brave  opinion.




i don't think the only options were cut your kes or die...   some chose to fight.


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 10, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> i don't think the only options were cut your kes or die... some chose to fight.


http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/18581-who-is-really-a-sikh.html


----------



## Sinister (Jan 10, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> i'm talking to a lot of sikhs about their experiences.


 
why?


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 10, 2008)

Sinister said:


> why?



curiosity.  i have several friends who were directly effected, not to mention my husband and in-laws.  i'm trying to understand how such a massive tragedy could happen.  and i'm more interested in hearing personal opinions than reading propagandized reports from the media.


----------



## Sinister (Jan 10, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> curiosity. i have several friends who were directly effected, not to mention my husband and in-laws. i'm trying to understand how such a massive tragedy could happen. and i'm more interested in hearing personal opinions than reading propagandized reports from the media.


 
do you talk to non-sikhs and their experiences during the riots, or just sikhs?


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 10, 2008)

Sinister said:


> do you talk to non-sikhs and their experiences during the riots, or just sikhs?



since i'm not doing any sort of scientific study or official project, i'm talking to sikhs.  i'm specifically  interested in the experience of sikhs.   

i have talked to some hindus in passing...  every hindu i've ever met from delhi claims someone in their family "helped" sikhs.  no one ever admits to knowing anyone who harmed sikhs.  i find that difficult to believe, just based on the numbers...   there were obviously more people in mobs than sheltering sikhs.    but as i said, nothing i'm doing is scientific, it's just curiosity on my part.


----------



## Sinister (Jan 10, 2008)

but you also wish to avoid internalizing propaganda? im just having difficulty assessing your situation.

it's hard for me to wrap my head around what you are trying to say:

hindu experiences are most likely lies (in all likelyhood should not be trusted) and sikh experiences must be taken as absolute truths?

i think you are unconsciously searching for propaganda and looking to fill the little crevices and spaces of your deepest sentiments (pre-determined sentiments). 

how can you understand something from litsening to one side of the story and not have a biased opinion?

objectivity seems impossible but it lurks in the shadows...it is the route to peace


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 10, 2008)

Sinister said:


> but you also wish to avoid internalizing propaganda? im just having difficulty assessing your situation.
> 
> it's hard for me to wrap my head around what you are trying to say:
> 
> ...



what exactly are you trying to accomplish by badgering me so much?  i told you it was simple curiosity, not scientific method.  why can't you just accept that i want to hear stories from survivors?  why must you twist everything i say and dig for inconsistencies?  

i never said hindus are most likely lying.  i never said sikhs tell absolute truths.  i never said i wished to "avoid internalizing propaganda".  i just want to hear real stories from real people, not newspapers or books.  

if you have a problem with this, too bad.  i'm not interested in your pathetic attempts to turn every statement i make into a debate.  

i suppose i should simply stop responding to your questions, but i stupidly thought you were actually curious.  i should have known you were only looking for an argument.

sorry, you'll have none from me.


----------



## 84steeljatti (Jan 11, 2008)

Moderator note

Inappropriate language against SPn member


----------



## Sinister (Jan 12, 2008)

_Blood Alcohol Content Calculator - The Police Notebook (source)_

important information:
Blood Alcohol Content:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]*0.02 — 0.03 BAC:* No loss of coordination, slight euphoria and loss of shyness. Depressant effects are not apparent. Mildly relaxed and maybe a little lightheaded. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]




[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana][/FONT]*[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]0.04 — 0.06 BAC:[/FONT]* Feeling of well-being, relaxation, lower inhibitions, sensation of warmth. Euphoria. Some minor impairment of reasoning and memory, lowering of caution. Your behavior may become exaggerated and emotions intensified _(Good emotions are better, bad emotions are w_[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]_orse)_[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana] 




*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana][/FONT]* 
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]0.07 — 0.09 BAC:[/FONT]* Slight impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing. Euphoria. Judgment and self-control are reduced, and caution, reason and memory are impaired _(in some* states .08 is legally impaired and it is illegal to drive at this level)_. You will probably believe that you are functioning better than you really are.






*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]0.10 — 0.125 BAC:[/FONT]* Significant impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgment. Speech may be slurred; balance, vision, reaction time and hearing will be impaired. Euphoria. It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle at this level of intoxication in *all* states.





*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana][/FONT]* 
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]0.13 — 0.15 BAC:[/FONT]* Gross motor impairment and lack of physical control. Blurred vision and major loss of balance. Euphoria is reduced and dysphoria* is beginning to appear. Judgment and perception are severely impaired.
_( * —Dysphoria: An emotional state of anxiety, depression, or unease.)_ 





*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]0.16 — 0.19 BAC:[/FONT]* Dysphoria predominates, nausea may appear. The drinker has the appearance of a "sloppy drunk." 





*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]0.20 BAC:[/FONT]* Feeling dazed/confused or otherwise disoriented. May need help to stand/walk. If you injure yourself you may not feel the pain. Some people have nausea and vomiting at this level. The gag reflex is impaired and you can choke if you do vomit. Blackouts are likely at this level so you may not remember what has happened. 





*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]0.25 BAC:[/FONT]* All mental, physical and sensory functions are severely impaired. Increased risk of asphyxiation from choking on vomit and of seriously injuring yourself by falls or other accidents. 





*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]0.30 BAC:[/FONT]* STUPOR. You have little comprehension of where you are. You may pass out suddenly and be difficult to awaken. 





*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]0.35 BAC:[/FONT]* Coma is possible. This is the level of surgical anesthesia. 





*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]0.40 BAC and up:[/FONT]* Onset of coma, and possible death due to respiratory arrest. [/FONT]


----------



## Sinister (Jan 12, 2008)

84steeljatti said:


> Moderator note
> 
> Inappropriate language against SPn member


 
 i dont see any?


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 12, 2008)

Sinister said:


> i dont see any?




probably because the moderator deleted it?


----------



## Sinister (Jan 12, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> probably because the moderator deleted it?


 
my posts and your posts are all present 

im confused

who is steeljatti? and what is she referring to?


----------



## Ishna (Jan 13, 2008)

Do you think the reason intoxicants are banned for Khalsa is because they are supposed to be ready for trouble at any moment?

If I am a soldier-saint, and I'm tipsy or drunk, I'm probably not going to be much help when that dude attacks that other dude over there, right?

Wouldn't that be the logical reason why intoxicants are frowned upon?  A Khalsa is meant to be ready nearly 100% of the time.  Being drunk = not ready.

And since the line between having a drink and being tipsy is blurry, it would seem best practice to not drink at all.

I think the natural human state is to become intoxicated very quickly.  You have to drink and become tipsy to build up a resistance to the effect.  That's why I can drink one glass of red wine and feel okay, one and a half and I am tipsy, and my partner can drink a deal more (he's been drinking a lot longer than me).

At least, that's my theory on alcohol.

I guess it can be applied to anything that alters the state of mind.  Sleeping pills, medicinal marijuana...  Pain killers don't really impair your functionality...  You have a migraine that is affecting your ability to see... someone breaks into your house, you are at a disadvantage.  Alternatively, you have a migraine, you take some pain killers, they might make you feel pretty good but when that bad dude comes through your window I'm sure you'll have better aim with the golf club.

Now, the question is, if you're incapacitated (is that spelt right??) anyway, is there any harm in taking something mind-altering that will make you feel more at rest in your already-incapacitated state?

Shouldn't it all come down to logic, and the logical reason why we should or shouldn't do things?


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 13, 2008)

Sinister said:


> i dont see any?



Someone is spamming SPN by writing inappropriate language for jasleen.He /she is joining Spn by different name's. 84steeljatti is another fake name of that troll


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 13, 2008)

The best thing is to immediately delete the message.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 13, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> The best thing is to immediately delete the message.



That's what all moderators do


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 13, 2008)

Usually you can see the deletion history signed by the moderator who deleted the post. The signature is not there, but it was definitely deleted. A member can also delete his/her own post. I haven't visited this thread, but all is well that ends well. It is definitely gone.


----------

