Jump to content

Peace Or Violence In Sikhi


Recommended Posts

Apologies for the long post, please take time to go through it and the references. Please accept my apologies for hurt sentiments and I would be grateful for your observations into my failings or misunderstandings of the teachings. And lastly, this is not about debating the Khalsa (it had to be included in this post for obvious reasons), but rather this is about Peace vs. Violence in Sikhi in a pure theological sense so let us keep comments to that.

I'm surprised that this topic has not been debated in greater detail by the Online Sangat. I appreciate that it may be a taboo subject as the Guru Gobind Singh ji has stipulated specific rules on the carrying of a kirpan and there is the long tradition of the Nihangs and violent acts by Guru's orders (therefore the inference that violence is not prohibited), but correct fundamental understanding is very important:

"Whoever does not realize the essence of the soul / all his religious actions are hollow and false"

The issue at the heart of the matter is not whether or not we should be carrying kirpans and whether this infers that violence is therefore acceptable, but rather, whether Waheguruji Himself condones violence- at all in the context of the perfect nature of his (formless) existence.

Now if we look at the only possible source of inspiration in the issue, which is Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji- the everlasting embodiment of the Gurus, there is no reference to condoning violence, indeed we have the contrary, speaking against violence.

"The heart is filled with anger and violence, which cause all sense to be forgotten."

Where people see weapons and violent actions being mentioned metaphorically, the context is always to highlight why it is wrong or that it is a metaphor for achieving right through spiritual wisdom.

The SGGSji is the truth, we cannot choose to ignore any of the specific lines because it conflicts with what we want to interpret. Specifically:

"The pursuit of virtue is my bow and arrow, my quiver, sword and scabbard."

"You hold in your hands the sword of the Guru's spiritual wisdom; with this destroyer of death, kill the Messenger of Death."

"The True Guru has placed the sword of spiritual wisdom in my hands; I have overcome and slain the Messenger of Death."

"In His Mercy, God has blessed me with the sword of spiritual wisdom; I have attacked and killed the demons."

"From the Guru, I have obtained the supremely powerful sword of spiritual wisdom."

And importantly: "Devotional worship of the Lord is the sword and armour of the True Guru; He has killed and cast out Death, the torturer."

Threfore a reference such as:

"When it pleases You, we wield the sword, and cut off the heads of our enemies" HAS TO BE consistent with what "sword" means as highlighted above. You cannot chose to turn a blind eye towards this.

A revealing reference:

"You pray for hours to God the Beautiful/ But your gaze is evil, and your nights are wasted in conflict. /You perform daily cleansing rituals, / wear two loin-cloths, perform religious rituals and put only milk in your mouth./ But in your heart, you have drawn out the sword..... You dance, but your consciousness is filled with evil....... You are lewd and depraved - this is such an unrighteous dance!" (abridged, pg 1351).

Sikhi is not an Abrahamic religion- A key distinction needs to be made with the fundamental understanding of the soul and Waheguruji's hukam; and practical methods to life in the physical realm.

Having established that God never condones violence (against a living being), we move onto the physical realm. We, ourselves create problems for humanity. Hatred, discrimination, slavery and all other causes of violence are entirely man-made. What is a man-made problem, caused by NOT living the way Waheguruji intended us to exist in the physical embodiment, is something Waheguruji will not actively engage in to change- as He does not engage (we strive to engage with him) and he is pure, true and beyond such frivolous material things. It is for man to solve problems by using the teachings of Saints, Gurus and Prophets. Unnerving faith in Waheguruji protects from evil. He creates and destroys (He has the power to do so). It is He alone who can take a life (indirectly). Waheguruji being the ultimate creator or destroyer is a description as to how vast his power is- it is beyond our knowledge or capabilities. Kabir's story of Prahlaad (SGGSji pg 1194) comes to mind in the context of the person who did not give up his devotion:

"The king became angry and drew his sword" "Show me your protector now!" "So God emerged out of the pillar, and assumed a mighty form." "He killed Harnaakhash, tearing him apart with his nails..He saves His devotees like Prahlaad over and over again. "

There are two significant points regarding this: a) ultimate devotion protects against tyranny b) Kabir's couplet is a story- not to be taken literally (God isn't about to emerge from a pillar in physical form, although He could if He chose to)- it's the moral story that is to be learnt i.e. point (a). © The story could have quite as easily had Prahlaad pull out his kirpan, but this would inconsistent with the message of Waheguruji.

There is general consensus in most circumstances where violence should not be used, but there are some who would justify violence under certain circumstances such as protecting the oppressed and innocent/ defending from tyranny and evil etc. Once again the SGGSji is consistent in this matter:

"Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal."

The bottomline is that violence simply cannot be justified.

With those unsatisfied with true devotion (including living as intended) as being sufficient and the only thing that ultimately matters and if you disagree with the line above, we need to address the man-made problem of conflict and violence and how to deal with it practically. This raises the following questions:

1) Are we, as mere mortals commanded by God to directly and physically be involved in the liberation of the oppressed etc?

2) If so, are we commanded to use force and violence to achieve these means

I am not aware of any reference in Waheguruji's Hukam (SGGSji) which supports either.

"He preserves our soul, our breath of life, body and wealth. By His Grace, He protects our soul."

Note the difference in words between preserve our body and protect our soul, which is key. We are but an insignificant speck in the history of the universe and entirely insignificant in the everlasting greater cosmos. Universes and existences have come and gone, that is said, we could be one of an infinite number of spacetime existence to have ever existed and which will exist. The body is preserved, but not protected by Him, and He is all powerful. He therefore is concerned with our souls, which may theoretically always exist as being part of Him.

We are concerned with protecting our bodies because of the overwhelming desire to protect Maya.

"You fool! Why are you so proud of Maya?"

"The animals and the birds frolic and play-they do not see death/ Mankind is also with them, trapped in the net of Maya."

"The enticing desire for Maya leads people to become emotionally attached to their children, relatives, households and spouses."

"Because of attachment to Maya, the world is bound by the Messenger of Death."

And critically: "please save me from Maya, the cause of death."

So, given that Maya is the cause of death, theolgically how does one escape from the clutches of Maya? (Rhetorical question)

Through more Maya or through remembering Him? (Rhetorical question)

Therefore theologically, belief that physical life is supreme is wrong.

This I'm afraid would appear to be the uncomfortable truth- Waheguruji does not take notice of what happens in the Maya state and the body does not matter to him to the extent that he will protect it- he will only seek to preserve it to give us an opportunity to release ourselves from the cycle of birth and death.

Propagating violence will not break the cycle of birth and death. Unlike in Abrahamic texts such as the Koran which promise rewards for fighting in the name of God for what it views as just actions, we have the benefit of knowing that the cycle of birth and death cannot be broken by these means.

The uncomfortable truth is that if a mortal had faith and acted in compliance with His hukam, but in doing so the world as we know it ended, then that is the intended outcome. Worlds and life will continue to be created (or not) as He desires.

The uncomfortable truth is that we want to preserve life (defence), and being virtuous, we find it difficult to tolerate oppression, discrimination etc to the point where we are willing to use violence to achieve these goals (even though as far as I'm aware Waheguruji does not command us to do so).

"One whose mind is pleased and appeased, has no egotistical pride. Violence and greed are forgotten."

Now this throws up some further questions:

1) Let's assume that this is true; that mere devotion and living life as intended is sufficient for our physical forms being preserved ; does this mean that I stand by whilst the innocent are slaughtered?

2) But hold on Veerji, you are forgetting about Guru Gobind Singh ji, he asked us to protect the innocent and weak and gave us the Kirpan and several Gurus engaged in battle and by all accounts, killed other people. Are you saying that that was not consistent with how we should be living our lives?

Both of these statements are the same argument essentially. Firstly, we ourselves are not Sat Gurus, we are their disciples (and ultimately of Waheguruji). Guru Nanak dev ji's guru was Waheguruji. He and the other Sat gurus were not necessarily subject to the the rules of Maya which entrap us. With regard to protecting the innocent, opposing tyranny, once again, being Sat gurus, I would say they were obliged to act as they were caught in Maya and therefore concerned with the it's preservation (not protection) whilst they were actively able to. If they used violence it does not mean we are authorised to do so. Their teachings are embodied in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, which are non-violent and will never be able to be violent. They had a specific plan for humanity and they attempted to deliver it on the ground. Instead of the whole human race readily accepting this, the inherent nature of how we exist in Maya meant that that was never to be. They had to go deliver us SGGSji by His command and if that meant by His grace and by His grace only lives had to perish then it was by His grace.

Now what of the Khalsa? That's a very interesting question and for me it is easily answered. The ultimate source of inspiration is SGGSji. Guru Gobind Singh ji did not compile his own banis into SGGSji and for very good reason. There is a distinction to be made with SGGSji and the Dasam Granth and ancillary texts, and actually it's in my view a very advanced system for this, compared to other religious texts, where the word of God is intermixed with stories, myths, untruths and Maya-ic elements.

SGGSji is purely related to the core theological belief of God realisation. It does not condone violence in any form and for any reason. Sri Dasam granth and ancillary texts have an inherent Maya-ic element and therefore these could not be incorporated into the SGGSji. Indeed Guru Nanak Dev ji and other Gurus were very particular as to which external Saints' and gurus' and historical verses should be accepted as the truth of relating to the core theology. Guru Gobind Singh ji, a Sat Guru in his own right, had every right to have his contribution added to SGGSji, but a lot of it is not purely theological and has Maya-ic elements. Guruji was concerned with the preservation of Sikhi.

Maya in Sikhi poses a great paradox; If the religion and the world are not preserved then they both may die out both in the short term and long-term; if Sikhi is not preserved it would die out and if the world is not preserved then fairness and justice will be overwhelmed over time by tyranny and oppression, thereby not allowing the opportunity of souls to escape Maya in this reincarnation of the universe. However Sikhi itself does not condone violence and is entirely free of Maya. Whilst it could be, it is not a perfect world and for the two to co-exist, there have to be rules relating to self-preservation which are inconsistent with what the theological and Ultimate ASPIRATIONS of God'd will is.

Well and good you may say, but where does leave me and where does it leave the Khalsa? This is my view on this:

1) The Khalsa was created by the order of the tenth Guru and therfore serves a purpose. Through Gurujis kirpa, the Khalsa is born and it belongs to Waheguru (as does everything).

"Waheguru ji ka Khalsa waheguru ji fateh"

(But also bear in mind the only mention of Khalsa itself means pure):

"Says Kabeer, those humble people become pure - they become Khalsa - who know the Lord's loving devotional worship."

Not everyone was intended to be a (warrior style) Khalsa Sikh, even among Sikhs. This again comes out of the fact the Khalsa was not incorporated into SGGSji and that anyone who follows SGGSji will be liberated; anyone is free to do so. Only the most pure can be Khalsa (and therefore Amritdhari as per varying rehats) and they have responsibilities which an ordinary Sikh need not undertake.

The Khalsa is a specific path which is a balance of God's true word and the fact that it has to be practiced in an imperfect world. SGGSji is available to one and all to follow and seek liberation. The Khalsa are special and they serve a purpose. Khalsa belongs to Waheguru and only though His kirpa can someone be a Khalsa Sikh (complete with kirpan and licence to kill). Whether the act of violence by a Khalsa Sikh in carrying out his duties as ordered by the tenth Guru will result in delayed liberation from the cycle of birth and death is a question solely for Waheguruji and Waheguruji alone (liberation is never assured- even if one does everything to the letter, it is permissible and probably almost always certain). In my personal view, a Khalsa Sikh, being the most pure and having to balance Guruji's orders of accepting Waheguru's command of peace whilst living preserving life in Maya; a paradoxical state; has a difficult internal battle and it is this internal battle which gives him righteousness. God preserves life, one of his methods may be through the Khalsa. He however protects souls and a true Khalsa should strive to have his soul protected by following Waheguruji's command whilst humbly serving Guruji's orders.

The conclusion is thus: Theologically, from the core fundamental principles, Wareguruji does not condone violence; one must always speak out against violence whatever the justification. Violence is a product of Maya. Khalsa is a product of Sikhi and Maya needing to co-exist; a paradoxical state; Khalsa Sikhs may, by Guruji's kirpa be ordered to assist in the preservation of human life for it's continued survival but must always be aware of the eternal word of Waheguruji as per SGGSji. However the entire human race need not be Khalsa, a 'Sikh' (in the literal sense of the word); a truth seeker, can be non-violent person and this will be in accordance with Waheguruji's wishes. Please do not scorn those who reject violence, they are as pure as those following any other path can be. Equally do not scorn the Khalsa, they are truly noble for undertaking the difficult responsibility of supporting a paradoxical state of existence.

Apologies for the long post, please take time to go through it and the references. Please accept my apologies for hurt sentiments and I would be grateful for your observations into my failings or misunderstandings of the teachings. And lastly, this is not about debating the Khalsa (it had to be included in this post for obvious reasons), but rather this is about Peace vs. Violence in Sikhi in a pure theological sense so let us keep comments to that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, u managed to explain a very complicated topic very simply. And with new insights and everything. I really liked your view about why Dasam Granth was not added into Guru Granth sahib Ji, it has been implied before, but not so clearly articulated.

Your view about the khalsa being a 'difficult responsiblitity of supporting a paradocical state of existence' seems supported by the fact that a khalsa is a saint-soldier, which is a contradiction of sorts.

Also non-violence vs. violence has been debated here before. I tried looking for the thread for the past hour, but couldn't find it.

It was about what are Sikhs supposed to follow when they get hit:

PrIdw jo qY mwrin mukIAW iqn@w n mwry GuMim ]

fareedhaa jo thai maaran mukeeaaa(n) thinhaa n maarae ghu(n)m ||

Fareed, do not turn around and strike those who strike you with their fists.

AwpnVY Gir jweIAY pYr iqn@w dy cuMim ]7]

aapanarrai ghar jaaeeai pair thinhaa dhae chu(n)m ||7||

Kiss their feet, and return to your own home. ||7||

or

When

all else fails, it is permitted to take the sword in to ones hand .

As far as I remember, they reached the conclusion that for personal matters, the above should be the case, and for matters that have greater consequences the bottom should be.

There is also history. I forget, but a girl was forcibly picked up by Mughals ( I think) and Singhs took a hukamnama at Akaal Takhat and it was Basant Ki Vaar. the singhs took the pangtis (lines) "Panjay badhe mahabali kar sacha dhooa" or "i bound the five strong ones by support of the true one" as permission to go to her rescue.

Also I found another thread that states: in the modern world - where the spreading of peace & democracy through warfare seem to be the exclusive preserve of the United States and it's allies - does glorifying violent causes and wars (even if they ARE permissable from a moral and religious (Sikhi) standpoint) and in-fact approving of it's methods and ends - be something Sikhs should not be ashamed to do?

Should we compromise our core beliefs and remain anonymous in order not to be tarred with the "extremist brush" OR should we say "To hell with that! I'm not distorting my faith and it's ideals because it makes a few hypocritical politicians and arm-chair pundits feel uncomfortable"?

the thread link:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the point to remember is Khalsa Panth never do any violence. Defending the weak from slaughter isn't violence. But yeah if some fools think terrorism against innocent people is justified like the Muslims, then they obviously can't be Sikh. Because remember all the terrorism in Punjab back in the day was by the Army Black Cats + criminals just like the Air India bombing over Canada by Indira Gandhi in which most of the victims were Sikh

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thread. I asked a similar question earlier in the year but the discussion descended into the usual "You're disrespecting Maharaj" (I was not), so I let it slide.

The conclusion is thus: Theologically, from the core fundamental principles, Wareguruji does not condone violence; one must always speak out against violence whatever the justification. Violence is a product of Maya. Khalsa is a product of Sikhi and Maya needing to co-exist; a paradoxical state; Khalsa Sikhs may, by Guruji's kirpa be ordered to assist in the preservation of human life for it's continued survival but must always be aware of the eternal word of Waheguruji as per SGGSji. However the entire human race need not be Khalsa, a 'Sikh' (in the literal sense of the word); a truth seeker, can be non-violent person and this will be in accordance with Waheguruji's wishes. Please do not scorn those who reject violence, they are as pure as those following any other path can be. Equally do not scorn the Khalsa, they are truly noble for undertaking the difficult responsibility of supporting a paradoxical state of existence.

I like this conclusion. The Khalsa is, to my mind, a finely nuanced state of existence in addition to its other features. I guess this debate ties into the whole "How do you differentiate between anger and Bir Rass and then use it accordingly?" and vice versa.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

SGGSji is purely related to the core theological belief of God realisation. It does not condone violence in any form and for any reason. Sri Dasam granth and ancillary texts have an inherent Maya-ic element and therefore these could not be incorporated into the SGGSji. Indeed Guru Nanak Dev ji and other Gurus were very particular as to which external Saints' and gurus' and historical verses should be accepted as the truth of relating to the core theology. Guru Gobind Singh ji, a Sat Guru in his own right, had every right to have his contribution added to SGGSji, but a lot of it is not purely theological and has Maya-ic elements. Guruji was concerned with the preservation of Sikhi

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj surely does tell us to use physical force in self-defense. Violence (depending how one defines it) used to oppress is what Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not condone. According to you is the story of Narsingh mythical or a true event in history? Also point out which parts of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji Maharaj has mythical or maya-ic elements.

Not everyone was intended to be a (warrior style) Khalsa Sikh, even among Sikhs. This again comes out of the fact the Khalsa was not incorporated into SGGSji and that anyone who follows SGGSji will be liberated; anyone is free to do so. Only the most pure can be Khalsa (and therefore Amritdhari as per varying rehats) and they have responsibilities which an ordinary Sikh need not undertake.

Are the Guru's separate from each other or are they one and the same? Also can you do veechar on what without fear and without hatred means in Sri Mool Mantar Sahib. Name one Sikh that was not a warrior in history (were the Bhagats warriors?). Was Bhai Mati Das ji not a warrior? Does a person need to do bhagti before becoming a warrior? If so, who is a ordinary Sikh and if not, then who is an ordinary Sikh?

Define warrior for us in the western sense and then define warrior for us in Gurmat way. Is there a difference or are they the same?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is meant to be an intellectual debate. If you have no references to support your viewpoints and don't take the time to read my post then it's not worth posting. Please take the time to read, find reference and form a rebuttal.

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj surely does tell us to use physical force in self-defense.

Not to my knowledge. Please state the reference if you know it.

Violence (depending how one defines it) used to oppress is what Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not condone. According to you is the story of Narsingh mythical or a true event in history? Also point out which parts of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji Maharaj has mythical or maya-ic elements.

I kindly request you to re-read my post, I have covered this in some detail, including explaining the Nihangs and the Gurus' actions. Clearly you did not read my post- I have said unlike texts from other religions which have become one big book with stories, myths etc, SGGSji is PURE and about GOD realisation theology only. No unneccary stories and religious practice related matters which other sikh texts contain.

Regarding the definition of violence, again, I have clearly articulated that this debate is about peace vs violence in the respect of using force in defence and protecting against tyranny etc. I have explained in terms of Sikh Theology how violence itself is maya and that all causes of violence are a man-made creation.

Please contemplate on what I have written about the SGGSji being based purely on the core theological construct of God Realisation. Everything it talks about has to do with God realisation. I have explained that other texts contain refernces to the practice of religion rather than the core THEOLOGY.

Please search Sri Dasam Granth ji yourself, yo will find many various references to weaponary, swords being used for physical violence (compared to 'sword' being the power of gurbani in SGGSji):

When all other methods fail, it is proper to hold the sword in hand.

Covered with blood, the sword in the hand of the demon is vibrating, what comparison the poet can give except;

O Lord ! Protect us by smashing the armour with the blows of Thy hands with the help of As, Kripaan (sword), Khanda, Kharag, Saif, Tegh, and Talwaar (sword).10.

I also made reference to Ancillary texts, including 5 kakkar orders, which are THEOLOGICALLY ritualstic objects and therefore don't fit in with God Realisation. Wearing a kara for example does not deliver God realisation. It in itself is maya. It has no basis in SGGSji. However we wear it by Gurujis hukam because it serves a practical purpose in religious practice.

Are the Guru's separate from each other or are they one and the same? Also can you do veechar on what without fear and without hatred means in Sri Mool Mantar Sahib. Name one Sikh that was not a warrior in history (were the Bhagats warriors?). Was Bhai Mati Das ji not a warrior? Does a person need to do bhagti before becoming a warrior? If so, who is a ordinary Sikh and if not, then who is an ordinary Sikh?

Define warrior for us in the western sense and then define warrior for us in Gurmat way. Is there a difference or are they the same?

My guru is Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, the living embodiment of all Gurus, what Guruji commands me to do I will do. I have fully explained my rationale behind why I believe Guru Gobind Singh ji did not compile Dasam Granth and his hukkamas into SGGSji, when he has told us to treat SGGSji as the only guru and to refer to SGGSji in case of doubt. I noted that the Gurus were very careful at chosing what went into SGGSji, including from their own writings.

I have also explained that a Khalsa Sikh is a one of many paths to God realisation, as Guru Nanak ji himself says, there are many paths. Guruji established the Khalsa and I have explained that only the purest can be Khalsa and anyone can be a Sikh of the Guru without being Khalsa.

I'm afraid that to me it appears that you have not taken the time to formulate a comprehensive rebuttal with references and are merely engaging in argument. Do you know whether or not I am personally a Khalsa Sikh? I did not state this. I have put forward a balanced argument which concludes that violence is theologically not condoned but the Khalsa has to deal with maya in a paradoxical state. This is the intellectual section of the forum, please I request you kindly to re-read my post thoroughly and contemplate on it and if unclear about anything please ask and if you disagree, please state the opposing view backed up with references.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thread. I asked a similar question earlier in the year but the discussion descended into the usual "You're disrespecting Maharaj" (I was not), so I let it slide.

I like this conclusion. The Khalsa is, to my mind, a finely nuanced state of existence in addition to its other features. I guess this debate ties into the whole "How do you differentiate between anger and Bir Rass and then use it accordingly?" and vice versa.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post! That is what I feel, that the Khalsa is indeed a special state of existence.

Of course some people will not read it and jump straight to the "You're disrespecting Maharaj" conclusion!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, u managed to explain a very complicated topic very simply. And with new insights and everything. I really liked your view about why Dasam Granth was not added into Guru Granth sahib Ji, it has been implied before, but not so clearly articulated.

Your view about the khalsa being a 'difficult responsiblitity of supporting a paradocical state of existence' seems supported by the fact that a khalsa is a saint-soldier, which is a contradiction of sorts.

Also non-violence vs. violence has been debated here before. I tried looking for the thread for the past hour, but couldn't find it.

It was about what are Sikhs supposed to follow when they get hit:

PrIdw jo qY mwrin mukIAW iqn@w n mwry GuMim ]

fareedhaa jo thai maaran mukeeaaa(n) thinhaa n maarae ghu(n)m ||

Fareed, do not turn around and strike those who strike you with their fists.

AwpnVY Gir jweIAY pYr iqn@w dy cuMim ]7]

aapanarrai ghar jaaeeai pair thinhaa dhae chu(n)m ||7||

Kiss their feet, and return to your own home. ||7||

or

When

all else fails, it is permitted to take the sword in to ones hand .

As far as I remember, they reached the conclusion that for personal matters, the above should be the case, and for matters that have greater consequences the bottom should be.

There is also history. I forget, but a girl was forcibly picked up by Mughals ( I think) and Singhs took a hukamnama at Akaal Takhat and it was Basant Ki Vaar. the singhs took the pangtis (lines) "Panjay badhe mahabali kar sacha dhooa" or "i bound the five strong ones by support of the true one" as permission to go to her rescue.

Also I found another thread that states: in the modern world - where the spreading of peace & democracy through warfare seem to be the exclusive preserve of the United States and it's allies - does glorifying violent causes and wars (even if they ARE permissable from a moral and religious (Sikhi) standpoint) and in-fact approving of it's methods and ends - be something Sikhs should not be ashamed to do?

Should we compromise our core beliefs and remain anonymous in order not to be tarred with the "extremist brush" OR should we say "To hell with that! I'm not distorting my faith and it's ideals because it makes a few hypocritical politicians and arm-chair pundits feel uncomfortable"?

the thread link: http://www.sikhsanga...%20%20righteous

Thanks ji for reading, I appreciate it. I am happy that you can take something from it.

Thanks for the additional sources you provide, they are useful. The quote of "all else fails, it is permitted to take the sword in to ones hand" is from the Sri Dasam Granth, which also has several other references to physical violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A reference from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji on violence

It could mean that violence isn't bad as long as it's not tyranny(strong against the weak):

: jy skqw skqy kau mwry qw min rosu n hoeI ]1] rhwau ] jae sakathaa sakathae ko maarae thaa man ros n hoee ||1|| rehaao || If some powerful man strikes out against another man, then no one feels any grief in their mind. ||1||Pause|| skqw sIhu mwry pY vgY KsmY sw pursweI ] sakathaa seehu maarae pai vagai khasamai saa purasaaee || But if a powerful tiger attacks a flock of sheep and kills them, then its master must answer for it.

This Shabad is by Guru Nanak Dev Ji in Raag Aasaa on Pannaa 360

The whole shabad: http://www.sikhitothemax.com/page.asp?ShabadID=1408

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ji for reading, I appreciate it. I am happy that you can take something from it.

Thanks for the additional sources you provide, they are useful. The quote of "all else fails, it is permitted to take the sword in to ones hand" is from the Sri Dasam Granth, which also has several other reference to physical violence.

Waheguru is Creator, Preserver and Destroyer....Waheguru not only creates and preserves his creation but also destroys his creation...at times this destruction comes through the sword..and that is hukam...when you begin stating somthing is right or wrong...you begin bringing in abhrahamic uderstanding of dharam in...where either something is godly or somethig is from the devil(evil)...

The issue is not with use of force..but when force is used when their is no need...when we use the means of destruction when there is no need for it...the issue is not aout violence but more to do with imbalance of these three qualities..

There are times where you need to create and preserve and then times when you need to destroy...to say destruction is evil..is to state waheguru is also evil

Link to post
Share on other sites

A reference from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji on violence

It could mean that violence isn't bad as long as it's not tyranny(strong against the weak):

: jy skqw skqy kau mwry qw min rosu n hoeI ]1] rhwau ] jae sakathaa sakathae ko maarae thaa man ros n hoee ||1|| rehaao || If some powerful man strikes out against another man, then no one feels any grief in their mind. ||1||Pause|| skqw sIhu mwry pY vgY KsmY sw pursweI ] sakathaa seehu maarae pai vagai khasamai saa purasaaee || But if a powerful tiger attacks a flock of sheep and kills them, then its master must answer for it.

This Shabad is by Guru Nanak Dev Ji in Raag Aasaa on Pannaa 360

The whole shabad: http://www.sikhitoth...p?ShabadID=1408

Not2cool2argueji, thanks for the reference, much appreciated.

My understanding of this does not concur with yours. You have to read the whole Shabad and take the 2 lines in context of what is being said:

There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord?

O Creator Lord, You are the Master of all.

If some powerful man strikes out against another man, then no one feels any grief in their mind.

But if a powerful tiger attacks a flock of sheep and kills them, then its master must answer for it.

This priceless country has been laid waste and defiled by dogs, and no one pays any attention to the dead.

This is about people not being held to account for their violent actions. It shows hypocrisy in human society, which is still relevant today.

When (powerful) men kill and slaugher innocents, they are not held to account, people accept it "no one pays attention to the dead (people)", however when a tiger kills sheep (quite literally), people will demand to ask for action to be taken against the owner.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is meant to be an intellectual debate. If you have no references to support your viewpoints and don't take the time to read my post then it's not worth posting. Please take the time to read, find reference and form a rebuttal.

My questions were asked purely to clarify your positions on many topics that Sikhs believe are very easily to understand and which are very much related to your post. If you want to clarify then that is fine, but it seems you don't want to clarify what you have wrote.

So do answer the questions i asked and most importantly tell us whether you thinking Narsinghs story is myth or a true event?

If you are content with your understanding of Gurbani, then you should have no problem answering my questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

soora so pechaniye so lade deen ke het.. "DEEN" here is always taken as religion but it actually is "POOR AND DEPRIEVED". This world is tricky if you need to protect an ideology that to of religion u need to be armed. There are many religions and community vanished with rise of ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY. Relgion is the generator of most violent thougts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use