Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chatanga1

What Classifies One As A "warrior"?

Recommended Posts

and is ready to fight in battles against tyranny

That's not true if we are talking about a definition of warriors per se, wider than a Sikh conceptualisation. Some of them can actually be the forces of tyranny.

PS - I'm surprised no on has dropped in the famous verses of Bhagat Kabir on the matter.

Edited by dalsingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dalsingh: I think the famous verse of Kabir talks primarily about an internal fight, not an external which is obvious considering that there is no emphasis on yudh in any of Kabirs bani.

I think this shabad is often taken out of context when put in videos of gatka etc. I think the Sahib Singh teeka also says its about an internal fight, though not entirely excluding the external

Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One who knows how to wield the sword and is ready to fight in battles against tyranny whatever form it might take (at local level etc.)

Why only a sword? in today's world, a gun would do more damage to the enemy. Today's Khalsa must know how to fire a gun and even have survivalist techniques when push comes to shove.

Edited by Mithar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about modern ashhters then? Like heat seeking missiles, armed jet fighters, helicopters, tanks etc. etc.

How do these fit into the framework of a modern warrior? Can we say that a true warrior keeps abreast of all developments and innovations of shasters/ashhters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about modern ashhters then? Like heat seeking missiles, armed jet fighters, helicopters, tanks etc. etc.

How do these fit into the framework of a modern warrior? Can we say that a true warrior keeps abreast of all developments and innovations of shasters/ashhters?

In terms of modern warfare, knowledge of how to use fire arms is a must. We can have all the knowledge we want about swords and sticks, but if the opponent has one rifle, he can kill 10 of us in less than 10 second. Just imagine if in 1984 the Singhs would have used swords and spears against the Indian army, the Indian army would have won within minutes. But the Singhs trained in modern techniques using the gun and look at the hard time they gave the enemy.

Just look at our traditional enemy, the Pathans. Long ago they were known to be great swordsman, but now they train in modern guerrilla warfare using the gun and no army can beat them. The gun is a shastar of our times and we need to realize that. How long are we going to ignore this this great shastar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a true warrior and a sant is exactly the same thing. To be a warrior and use weapons you have to first be able to control your arm consciously which controls the weapon. If you arm is moved to attack by an external force, lets say by someone swearing at you making you angry, then this is a mechanical automated response and is unconscious and robotic. A warrior means someone who has a skill and uses the skill consciously from internal direction and not from external influences. A Sant is the same because he is unaffected by external forces but his weapon is Bhagti. A person who knows how to fight but cannot control when and when not to get angry is just like a machine who has been programmed - a very dangerous machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mohsin Fani narrates a story of Guru Hargobind of how he was always in control of his emotions when he killed the enemy - He never reacted as a response to impulses but rather every action was directed by his mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a true warrior and a sant is exactly the same thing.

No it isn't.

Warrior implies being proficient in war, whatever its current form is. The wars need not be moral ones. Warriors do fight for selfish reasons, imperialism, money etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ਨਾਨਕ ਸੋ ਸੂਰਾ ਵਰੀਆਮੁ ਜਿਨਿ ਵਿਚਹੁ ਦੁਸਟੁ ਅਹੰਕਰਣੁ ਮਾਰਿਆ ॥

O Nanak, he is a brave warrior, who conquers and subdues his vicious inner ego.

ਸੋ ਸੂਰਾ ਪਰਧਾਨੁ ਸੋ ਮਸਤਕਿ ਜਿਸ ਦੈ ਭਾਗੁ ਜੀਉ ॥੫॥

He alone is a warrior, and he alone is the chosen one, upon whose forehead good destiny is recorded. ||5||

ਮਨ ਮੰਧੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਅਵਗਾਹੀਆ ॥

Within my mind, I meditate on God.

ਏਹਿ ਰਸ ਭੋਗਣ ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹੀਆ ॥

For me, this is like the enjoyment of princely pleasures.

ਮੰਦਾ ਮੂਲਿ ਨ ਉਪਜਿਓ ਤਰੇ ਸਚੀ ਕਾਰੈ ਲਾਗਿ ਜੀਉ ॥੬॥

Evil does not well up within me, since I am saved, and dedicated to truthful actions. ||6||

ਬੀਰਾ ਆਪਨ ਬੁਰਾ ਮਿਟਾਵੈ ॥

One who eradicates his own evil is a brave warrior;

ਤਾਹੂ ਬੁਰਾ ਨਿਕਟਿ ਨਹੀ ਆਵੈ ॥

no evil even approaches him.

ਬਾਧਿਓ ਆਪਨ ਹਉ ਹਉ ਬੰਧਾ ॥

Man is bound by the chains of his own egotism, selfishness and conceit.

ਦੋਸੁ ਦੇਤ ਆਗਹ ਕਉ ਅੰਧਾ ॥

The spiritually blind place the blame on others.

ਬਾਤ ਚੀਤ ਸਭ ਰਹੀ ਸਿਆਨਪ ॥

But all debates and clever tricks are of no use at all.

ਜਿਸਹਿ ਜਨਾਵਹੁ ਸੋ ਜਾਨੈ ਨਾਨਕ ॥੩੯॥

O Nanak, he alone comes to know, whom the Lord inspires to know. ||39||

ਣਾਣਾ ਰਣਿ ਰੂਤਉ ਨਰ ਨੇਹੀ ਕਰੈ ॥

NANNA: The warrior who fights on the battle-field should keep up and press on.

ਨਾ ਨਿਵੈ ਨਾ ਫੁਨਿ ਸੰਚਰੈ ॥

He should not yield, and he should not retreat.

ਧੰਨਿ ਜਨਮੁ ਤਾਹੀ ਕੋ ਗਣੈ ॥

Blessed is the coming of one

ਮਾਰੈ ਏਕਹਿ ਤਜਿ ਜਾਇ ਘਣੈ ॥੨੧॥

who conquers the one and renounces the many. ||21||

Please add.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Giani Thakur Singh Ji was doing katha of Japji Sahib..he was explaining jodh mahabal soor

Yodha = one who commits sin through mind but does not act through body , so I guess even if you happen to have a bad furna but control your body you are still a yodha, thats a great motivation still

Mahabali = doesnt commit paap both through mind and body

Soorma = if i rem correctly, one has won over 5 vikaars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't.

Warrior implies being proficient in war, whatever its current form is. The wars need not be moral ones. Warriors do fight for selfish reasons, imperialism, money etc. etc.

True, warrior is one who is proficient in war. You don't have to be a Sant to be a warrior. Pathans, Turks, Mongols Asiatic warrior races were not exactly saints especially when it came to erecting huge towers made of human skulls, yet they were the most efficient warriors of the steppes.

In Gurmat however, the concept of Sant-Sipahi is different. Ideally a Sikh should be a Sant who is proficient in war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ਸੂਰੇ ਸੇਈ ਆਗੈ ਆਖੀਅਹਿ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਸਾਚੀ ਮਾਣੋ ॥

They alone are acclaimed as brave warriors in the world hereafter, who receive true honor in the Court of the Lord.

ਦਰਗਹ ਮਾਣੁ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਪਤਿ ਸਿਉ ਜਾਵਹਿ ਆਗੈ ਦੂਖੁ ਨ ਲਾਗੈ ॥

They are honored in the Court of the Lord; they depart with honor, and they do not suffer pain in the world hereafter.

ਕਰਿ ਏਕੁ ਧਿਆਵਹਿ ਤਾਂ ਫਲੁ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਜਿਤੁ ਸੇਵਿਐ ਭਉ ਭਾਗੈ ॥

They meditate on the One Lord, and obtain the fruits of their rewards. Serving the Lord, their fear is dispelled.

ਊਚਾ ਨਹੀ ਕਹਣਾ ਮਨ ਮਹਿ ਰਹਣਾ ਆਪੇ ਜਾਣੈ ਜਾਣੋ ॥

Do not indulge in egotism, and dwell within your own mind; the Knower Himself knows everything.

ਮਰਣੁ ਮੁਣਸਾਂ ਸੂਰਿਆ ਹਕੁ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਹੋਇ ਮਰਹਿ ਪਰਵਾਣੋ ॥੩॥

The death of brave heroes is blessed, if it is approved by God. ||3||

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dalsingh101, I agree with Mekhane'ch Jannat. External enemies are the same as internal. Havent you heard the term "You are your own worse enemy". When you know how to deal with theses forces you become the best swordsman. Internally knowledge is your sword and one day you become so sharp that you cut your verses. Having too much ego means a person can become arrogant, there by their learning process can stop.

Edited by Mystical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear that Mystical. But it is fallacy to think that purely internal spiritual control automatically leads to proficiency in whatever type of combat is current at the time. Coming from Indian backgrounds we should know this more than any other!!

I think someone put it aptly by saying words to effect of: Bhagti won't teach you how too fight, but it will teach you what to fight for.

External enemies are very different to internal one in my eyes. We have a LOT more personal sway in controlling the latter (with grace of course) whilst the former are frequently not so directly within our spheres of control or influence.

Dare I say it, it is pretty well encapsulated with the theory of internal and external jihad in Islam.

But take everything I say with the full understanding that I too am a child in all this too. I think any smart society makes sure it takes advantage (in a positive way) of its gubroo jawans and makes sure they have enough ready to combat any threats. How well or not we are doing this right now as a quom is a debate in itself. I myself am sick of hearing about Sikhs getting beaten up and bullied though.

Edited by dalsingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear that Mystical. But it is fallacy to think that purely internal spiritual control automatically leads to proficiency in whatever type of combat is current at the time. Coming from Indian backgrounds we should know this more than any other!!

I think someone put it aptly by saying words to effect of: Bhagti won't teach you how too fight, but it will teach you what to fight for.

External enemies are very different to internal one in my eyes. We have a LOT more personal sway in controlling the latter (with grace of course) whilst the former are frequently not so directly within our spheres of control or influence.

Dare I say it, it is pretty well encapsulated with the theory of internal and external jihad in Islam.

But take everything I say with the full understanding that I too am a child in all this too. I think any smart society makes sure it takes advantage (in a positive way) of its gubroo jawans and makes sure they have enough ready to combat any threats. How well or not we are doing this right now as a quom is a debate in itself. I myself am sick of hearing about Sikhs getting beaten up and bullied though.

I agree with the jihad theory but in the context of dharam.

Edited by Mystical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the jihad theory but in the context of dharam.

I'm with you 100%.

Would be good if we could actually nail a definition of dharam between us. I heard a katha by GTS recently that defined it as 'duty'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

External enemies are very different to internal one in my eyes. We have a LOT more personal sway in controlling the latter

I would like to comment and say that this is a fallacy. There is a mistaken assumption that spiritual control is seperate from real life. That the spiritual is some realm of goodness that is untouched by the world. Everything in the world including manufacturing technologies is the result of spiritual sadhana. To do anything you need shakti which can only be got through sadhana. A Warrior is a career choice, if you choose to be a warrior, how much of a good warrior you can be depends on how much internal energy and control you can generate and then this internal power is objectified. The internal is always 'higher' than the external it controls and rules it. To act and to DO anything in the world means possessing an internal Shakti, which is normally pre given by God for a person to do a particular work or job. The sad fact of todays world is people are in 'rebellion' against this fact and try to DO things which they have been given no Shakti to do and therefore their work becomes empty and devoid of life, no matter how much it may be dressed up.

Also the supposed control of external things is an illusion. It seems as though we can effect things as we see a physical result. But if we are devoid of internal awareness then these things are done through us and our false 'I' sense makes a good job of covering up things, while other forces push us hither and thither. Like the story of the King who ruled a wasteland but because he was surrounded by ministers who told him comforting lies as to his power and glory was content in this fiction and made no attempt to improve his Raj.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×