dalsingh101

That is also a very convenient argument to do sod all and not even try.

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'.

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.

Please add.

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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/seeing-as-one-why-has-the-british-establishment-never-quite-accepted-the-singh-twins-1654135.html

I like Invictus, it portrays that internal struggle many of us go through very well. It's very empowering.

Thank you PJS veer ji: I've adapted the passage under scrutiny inline with the information you provided. I must confess I'm still not fully satisfied with the translation of the challenging line. ....jarh padarath wangu? Unless I'm wrong this translates as follows 'like base element'??? I would like to try and use like word for word as much as possible. "When He has become accepted to be true, consciousness and then love (blissful) then surely He must have His own action/purpose of which we are ignorant. How can that which is pure consciousness, at it's primal source, at it's base element be inactive like? Yes, His activity and our activities are not at all similar. Whatever they may be, they will be true, as He is. Meaning that Guru ji has spoken of his Akal Purakh as being the formless, almighty creator and then untainted, referring to him as the creator of the world, he is also spoken of as residing within it. He is told to exist within the confines of this world as well as within eternal truth ‘I am a sacrifice to Your almighty creative power which is pervading everywhere’ (xiii) we are informed. None of His powers are separated from Him (ivx). No powers are related to Him in a husband and wife relationship. He is all-powerful and whatever He does, he does through the divine writ;"

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?

Life Without Emotion By Ashley Adamson Cones without ice cream Sleep without sweet dreams Beginning without end Email without send Stars without night Wrong without right A watch without time Punishment without crime Sports without competition Practice without repetition Studying without learning Separation without yearning Color without eyes Graduation without good-byes Birds without calls Triumphs without falls Sand without an ocean Kids without commotion Marriage without devotion Life without emotion Life without emotion?!? Then you realize; Dying is only one of many ways You can lose your life.

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.

What do you mean by not personified?

Finally! An English translation.... http://www.ramayana.pushpak.de/pdf/markandeya_en.pdf Go to page 140 (chapter 82)

I'm still intrigued with the nature of the original source of the Chandi poetry in Dasam Granth. I found this on http://www.devshoppe.com/MarkandeyaPurana.html When you look at the break down of the contents it appears as if the Devi material is an actual interpolation to the rest of the Markandey Puranas?

I've come across a difficult paragraph and translated it as follows. Any constructive criticism is more than appreciated. One stumbling block was the 2nd sentence (in the original Panjabi text) starting half way along the 3rd line (Jo chetan hai...). The word akray is one that people seemed most baffled on. Any help appreciated. Preliminary translation: "When He has become accepted to be true, consciousness and then love (blissful) then surely He must have His own action/purpose of which we are ignorant. How can that which is consciousness, at its primal source, in its foundational substance be separated? Yes, His activity and our activities are not at all similar. Whatever they may be, they will be true, as He is. Meaning that Guru ji has spoken of his Akal Purakh as being the formless, almighty creator and then untainted, referring to him as the creator of the world, he is also spoken of as residing within it. He is told to exist within the confines of this world as well as within eternal truth ‘I am a sacrifice to Your almighty creative power which is pervading everywhere’ (xiii) we are told. None of His powers are separated from Him (ivx). No powers are related to Him in a husband and wife relationship. He is all-powerful and whatever He does, he does through the divine writ;" PS - I don't have the skills or knowhow to translate in a gender free form yet, so I've stuck to the convention of using 'Him' in reference to Waheguru. I'm well aware of the inaccuracy of this in terms of the Sikhi conceptualisation of God.

If they had just left the sullay to themselves, they would've bickered and killed each other most likely. But no, interfering with fancy pants schemes has come back to bite them in the chittor..... I think they have a phrase for it....blowback

I just hope he doesn't succumb to the penduness of a Put Jatt de balaunday bukray cover anytime soon and totally destroy the good impression he has made. lol

That's what a lot of apnay are these days. Other people's pet dogs or attack dogs.

I want resurrect this thread. I read the original post and what I really want to know is - exactly where do these esoteric interpretations come from? Do they have any ancient provenance? Or are they later interpretations of the myths?

My expectations from apnay 'leaders' must have bottomed out because none of this surprises me one bit any more. No, it's reached the point where it is hard not to hear of such things and think 'typical'.

Neo, I hope I don't eat too much diminishing server space with this! Here are a few images of paintings by Jarnail Singh, who is the son of the heavily influential artist Kirpal Singh. They cover the later period of the Sikh empire going through to the Anglo-Sikh wars. Note: The images are quite big so you might have to wait a few seconds for them to open up after clicking. Hope you enjoy!

Nice to see them pinned down like this. They can't be scheming and plotting against some other simple, third world quom or oil rich Arabs for a while. Watch God's wonder!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/head-of-armed-forces-says-victory-over-alqaida-is-not-possible-2134190.html