Be a Sikh of Dhann Dhann Sahib Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee Maharaj only

[singhnihk]

...

 

 

 

 

[MrDoaba]

Your immaturity shines through your post. Your childish frustration is made apparent. Especially since you removed the sh1te link you based your understanding of Ahimsa on in your OP then later reposted it when it suited your wishy washy interpretation of Sikhi.

I didn’t say SGGS/Gurmat prohibits “utilisation of too many capital letters or exclamation marks”, you did when you said Ahimsa is a part of Gurmat. I was pointing out your lack of understanding.

Stop quoting rubbish articles and show real evidence.

Stop basing your ridiculous interpretations of Ahimsa on that article.

The concept of Ahimsa rejects violence in its ENTIRETY. Whether towards innocents OR enemies. It is complete non-violence no matter what the situation.

Stop basing your interpretation of Ahimsa on an article by Wasp’s.

Think before you associate that term with Sikhi.

Your immaturity has kept you from differentiating between Daya, Sarbat da Bhala and Ahimsa and displays your pagal puna interpretation of Dharam and Sikhi.

Sikhi delivers Daya either by peaceful means or violence, which ever is necessary. Go and read Sikh itihaas to comprehend this.

Go and learn what real Ahimsa is and stop destroying the names of our Gurus and Shaheeds.

You have forgotten the beauty of Sikhi and the concept of Sant-Sipahi. Ahimsa is not a part of Sikhi and never will be.

You have stated English is your mother tongue so you need to realise that it was in fact you who couldn’t afford to be civil with your OP. In case you’ve forgotten capitals and exclamation marks imply you are shouting.

And the fact English is your mother tongue is exactly the reason you’re interpreting deep Indic concepts immensely wrong.

For the love of God stop quoting that gandh in huge letters.

I've already said that website and article is not the sole authority on Sikhi.

Bari muse di lagdi.

[singhnihk]

!

 

[muscleman]

Good article.  It proves Ghandi thoroughly exploited this concept to get what he wanted.  

[sikhni777]

The sacrifices of the sikhs and the sikh Gurus could correctly be described by the word kurbani. This word means sacrifice. The Gurus sacrificed their lives for the cause of the truth. 

However the word ahimsa means non violence which is much easily achieved than kurbani. Even in ardaas the word used in kurbani and not ahimsa. Kurbani only takes place when someone has a higher truth to stand for. Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji saved the Kashmiri pundits by taking it upon himself that if they manage to convert their Guru to Islam, they will comply too. He gave his life and thus saved their religion. 

Gandhi on the other hand made people sacrifice themselves for a cause in which he believed. His fasts are not real as he still maintained his fit body. He was still consuming some types of food to keep up his strength. He did not sacrifice himself for anyone else - it was just a play or a drama being conducted on his part. It was a false act which further got glorified by his followers - who were larger in number hence the greater publicity. 

Kurbani has its place in sikhism - not ahimsa. Kurbani has a greater divine purpose attached to it. Ahimsa is simply non-violence to make the enemy feel like a fool and to stop hitting or abusing you. I remember seeing a part in the film of Gandhi Ji where he was slapped on the face by the white man, he did not react at all and kept spinning his cloth himself. 

[MrDoaba]

5 hours ago, singhnihk said:

The article from the website mentioned below, clearly states that Gandhi was not responsible for the origination of this concept.  He learned it from  the Sikhs! 

It states, "As fate would have it, Mahatma Gandhi is credited with starting the non-violent movement to oust the British from India, which later was to inspire leaders all around the world, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. of the United States, in the liberation of other oppressed peoples. Gandhi deserves a little praise since he did have a later role in the implementation of non-violence, but he certainly was not the originator of that concept. He learnt that from the Sikhs. The Sikhs, in turn, drew their inspiration from their Gurus, two of whom had willingly and peacefully accepted execution when it was appropriate to make their point about the tyranny of the Islamic regime. Over time, when the situation deemed it necessary and appropriate, the Sikhs used the principle of non-violence again and again."

The same article further articulates in its concluding paragraph that non-violence originated with the Sikhs.  It states, "Gandhi's name has since been trumpeted throughout India and later throughout the world, yet the Sikhs have been virtually forgotten. Many people have never even heard of them. The time has come to give credit where it is due. The concept of nonviolence, which has led to extraordinary changes across the globe, originated with the Sikhs." *

* http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Origin_of_non_violence

And, of course the indispensable,  https://www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/philosophy/ahimsa

 

LOL you’re deluded. If you learn your history and get your facts from dubious websites like SikhiWiki that are filled will bakwaas edited by any Tom, D1ck or Harry then there is no hope for you.

Gandhi taking non-violence off the Sikhs???? LOL! Probably the most ridiculous baseless statement I’ve heard all year. It is well known that he lambasted Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji as well as other personalities from Indian history such as Marathi Maharaja Shivaji and Rana Pratap Singh for using violence. That was one of the reasons his own demise was a violent one.

That article is probably written by an id1ot like you.

The only story widely accepted is the one that Gandhi stole the idea of non-cooperation from the Namdhari Kuka Movement who were notoriously violent.

Non-cooperation and non-violence are two different things.

Why don’t you go and read about Gandhi first. He was heavily influenced by Jains. Jainism developed the concept of Ahimsa.

You need to take a basic History class and a basic Religious Studies class.

This is my last post to you. It's senseless telling you anything when you clearly have no idea about any of these subjects and use extremely questionable sources.

Probably a troll.

[jkvlondon]

On 23/08/2016 at 3:01 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

What about the Bhagats disciples? Daas doesn't really think or believe the followers of Ravidas or Kabir or any of the 15 Bhagats disciples will grow spiritually much, we can learn from Mahapurukhs; however, even Mahapurukhs think of Vaheguru differently from each other; which is why if they don't connect us to Vaheguru, but rather themselves it won't help much.

why not Bro ? the ravidasia lot have to read Guru ji to access Ravidas' s words same with Kabir Panthis  so they via their mahapurakh's good actions have unlocked access to the Treasure of Dhan Dhan Guru Granth Sahib ji.

[Markgateshead]

On 26 August 2016 at 10:26 AM, singhnihk said:

The article from the website mentioned below, clearly states that Gandhi was not responsible for the origination of this concept.  He learned it from  the Sikhs! 

It states, "As fate would have it, Mahatma Gandhi is credited with starting the non-violent movement to oust the British from India, which later was to inspire leaders all around the world, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. of the United States, in the liberation of other oppressed peoples. Gandhi deserves a little praise since he did have a later role in the implementation of non-violence, but he certainly was not the originator of that concept. He learnt that from the Sikhs. The Sikhs, in turn, drew their inspiration from their Gurus, two of whom had willingly and peacefully accepted execution when it was appropriate to make their point about the tyranny of the Islamic regime. Over time, when the situation deemed it necessary and appropriate, the Sikhs used the principle of non-violence again and again."

The same article further articulates in its concluding paragraph that non-violence originated with the Sikhs.  It states, "Gandhi's name has since been trumpeted throughout India and later throughout the world, yet the Sikhs have been virtually forgotten. Many people have never even heard of them. The time has come to give credit where it is due. The concept of nonviolence, which has led to extraordinary changes across the globe, originated with the Sikhs." *

* http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Origin_of_non_violence

And, of course the indispensable,  https://www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/philosophy/ahimsa

 

Absolutely, ahimsa is defined as non violence in word, speech or action towards any sentient being.  I learnt this when  I read Buddhism.  I don't see any problems with this definition. This is how the Buddhist monks defined ahimsa too in their daily discourses which I attended during my univarsity days.

Sikhism also believes in non violence up to a certain point. This is what is so appealing to most atheists like myself.  The first 5 Gurus also taught non-violence.  Having said that, the 10th Guru said, when all efforts to fight injustices by peaceful means or principles of ahimsa have failed, it is acceptable to resort to weapons. 

India was under Mughal rulers throughout the Sikh history.  The first five gurus resisted the rulers' evil wickedness or injustices without reciprocating their voilence or violent ways. They must have resorted to some methods other than weapons/violence to placate their evil rulers? It is very confusing for someone who comes from an atheist background.

From what I have learnt so far about Siekh religion is that the gurus taught non-violence towards everyone and everything and voilence only in self defence or in defence of others who could not defend themselves.  

 

 

[muscleman]

The Guru Granth sahib is replete with shabads that tell us not to think of injurious thoughts about others. Not to kill.  Speak sweetly, 'Mith Bolna' and so forth.  The first one teaches us not to have violent thoughts towards other living creatures which is equivalent to ahimsa in thought. The second one is ahimsa in action and third one is ahimsa in words. It is a very high and noble concept only understood by those that  possess the refinement of the educated few. As far as the thick skinned uneducated pendu fudhu pappu masses are concerned, they have never heard of the concept or if they have, they misinterpret it. It is a very sacred and spiritual principle only meant to be understood by the few gifted elevated souls. You won't expect some one with a gross mind to comprehend it.   So, no need to get confused.  Be happy and read the banis of the Dasam Patshah and the Guru Granth Sahib .  You will be fine.  The very concept of Langar is to teach effing compassion to the so called Sikh people.  The very concept of not slaughtering cows or other animals to satisfy your pathetic desire to consume flesh is to teach Sikhs not to kill the innocent, the helpless and the weak.  Do you know back biting and character or reputation assassination of others is also not allowed in Sikhism?  This is to stop himsa as opposed to ahimsa in words. 

Just be happy you have found the True Guru and learn from what the Guru says.  Don't let anyone confuse you, don't ever forget that the Guru is the real remover of all confusion.

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, Markgateshead said:

We observe weapons emerging in Sikhism for the first time, with Guru Hargobind, the 6th Guru. There is no evidence if weapons were ever used before or by the 7th, 8th or the 9th Guru that followed until, the 10th Guru.

Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji (formerly Bhai Teg Mal) partook in the Battle of Kartarpur, and most likely other undocumented skirmishes as a youngster. He was a trained warrior. There are sources available that prove they fought.