Jump to content

Javanmardi-Sant/Sipahi-Spiritual Chivalry


Guest Javanmard

Recommended Posts

so. if i undertand it right... after the clonolism, the nihangs where not GONE, they were still there, but were goign throug a stagnation state, were they at a FLAT stage? meaning no action, no reation?

when you say stagnation, what actually do u mean by it? Do you say Stagnation, as in Parcharwise? "Shastar vidya" and other educationwise (for themself, not parchar)? ACTIONwise? or popularity wise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

princess sonia...

from the very beginning, the Gurus have promoted Dharam (righteousness) and awareness of Akaal Purakh by making people think and contemplate for themselves....

..rather than allow others to do this for them (ie, as in today's mainstream Sikhi). The Gurus did this by utilising logic and reason (tark and nijaj), gian and parrai (wisdom and teaching), and sachai (truth).

The 4 Sanatan Sampardas (Nihangs, Nirmala,s Udhasis, and Seva Panthis) continue to employ that philosophy in their own unique ways...the 4 corners of Sanatan Sikhi.

None of the Sampardas believe in emotional blackmail to convert people into their ideologies....none of them forcefully convert anyone into anything...indeed, all of them promote individuality and freedom to persue God in their own way according to one's destiny, be they Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Eskimo..etc etc...

Whether a person wishes to remain away from these Samparadas, join them, become Nihang/Nirmala/udhasi/Seva Panthi, or just a regular Sikh (who is neither higher or lower in the eyes of Akaal Purakh), or continue within their own faith is THEIR CHOICE....it is for THEM to persue their path...

..live and let live

(however some people consider Sanatan Sikhs as a threat because by our very nature we put the control in the PEOPLE'S hands as opposed to giving control to committes, jathas, political parties..)

With regards to Nihangs, Guru Maharaj blessed them with many forms of Vidiya (knowledge)...including Gurmat Sangeet, Shastar Vidiya, horseriding, Ayurveda, Dhai Phat Strategies, Abbeck/Bibeck di Katha, Santhia of Adi, Dasam and Sarbloh Guru Durbar, Katha vichar, etc....ad today Doctors, lawyers, IT experts, etc

All these forms of knowledge complement each other..and in the case of Nihangs...produces a Khalsa Nihang Dal (army)...with individuals in the Dal with specialisations in various subjects...and are aware of existance of other knowledge...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yaar!!! narsingha.... im talking to LALLESHVARI!!!! not you....

:cry:

i want HIS answer. thankx for answering but Let lalleshvari ji answer my questions. I think he is wiser. :wink:

hmm.... ok now let start a discussion with you.. and OTHER PEOPLE READING THIS TRY TO HOLD YOUR SELF FROM ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS ASKED TO NARSINGH VEERJI.!!!

you said this : "..rather than allow others to do this for them (ie, as in today's mainstream Sikhi). The Gurus did this by utilising logic and reason (tark and nijaj), gian and parrai (wisdom and teaching), and sachai (truth). "

According to YOUR logic, reason, wisdon, teasching and truth, do we wear 4 kikkars or 5?

(other people dont starting your arguments, this is kindda "personal" discussion betweek me and narsingh... ;-)

so narsingh ji, shoot. what is YOUR answer.

again, other poeple, DONT answer. i dont want to know what YOU think, need to know only WHAT narsingh thinks.

Narsingh ji, or have you discussed this issue before? send me a link to it then.

thank.

and let lalleshvaree ji answer tot he other thingy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never claimed to be more or less knowledgable than anyone. Wisdom is a relative concept. Considering someone wiser than another is just a product of perception....everyone is wise in their own way...(thats assuming the laws of nature are followed)

Surely you understood my posting and realise that Sikhi is individual pursuit of Dharam? As such, I dont take part in "personal discussions" princess_sonia....thats when you create concepts such as jathas, ego, subjectivity, and hate.

With regards to kakkars....that varies from 0 to as many as you like, depending on whom you speak to :wink:

Apologies for intervening into the discussion regarding Nihangs, please continue your debate with lalleshvari ji. Lalleshvari is an expert on Nihangs

I myself am hoping to learn a lot from this thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because PM it will be private.. i dont want ti to be private... ;-)

personnal and private is different!!! just i want people to read it, but abstain from commenting.... but i could do that... but can i bring the conversation public afterwards if i want to? no really.. it will be like being hypocrite... ;-)

hehehe...

anyways... what i meant was.... i want laalleès asnwer not narsingha's... no offense yaar.

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Chivalry - an interesting subject. But how true does it hold on the battlefield...

For instance, many people see Richard the Lion-heart (mentioned in this thread earlier) - as a legendary chivalrous character - a true leader of men...

Yet history tells us, that it was he who was brutal and cruel in war whilst his equally famous opponent, Saladin, has been recorded as being more morally upstanding and compassionate (in many more instances) than King Richard the 1st.

Chivalry, in accordance with evolving medieval texts, can be understood to mean a moral, religious and social code of conduct for Warriors.

Yet, those that have studied battlefield chronicles, know that the reality of the battlefield, present a very different picture to the cool, calm, collective, smiling (disabling rather than killing) heroes we are many a time told of.

As a modern day example - Gurkhai are seen as the nobility of the British Forces - yet whilst they are great people culturally/socially etc generally, in war - they are brutality incarnate!! These fearsome Warriors were known to have prized their 'Khalsa' scalps during the Anglo Sikh Wars after leaving the 'Khalsa' army and joining the British.

Similarly - Nihangs also had a fearsome reputation - one only has to see an old print with a Nihang Babai weilding that most fearsome shastar - a Kora, to imagine what the picture would have been like on the battlefield!

I am talking about a fine line - we hear stories of duels, challenges, allowing 1st strikes by divine characters across the world - fair enough - but what were the realities for the armies on the battlefields... in terms of tactics, psychology, invoking fear etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality is, in combat only you and the enemy exist; no philosophy, dharma, politics, reliogion. No my side or your side. ONly the base of desire exists to annihilate the thing that stands in front of you.

If any emotion/thoughts do exists in your mind apart from self-preservation, it is to protect your comrades!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be fine in old world War, how about in new age war - where the real enemies are hidden/protected/beyond reach...

Here we see people attacking their 'clan' i.e. the infamous market bomb incident carried out by the Khalistanis, the Palestinian female Suicide Bombers in Israel etc... Cynthia Mahmoods books are great for understanding the core anthropological issues which many oppressed nations share, and which in turn can be seen to drive them to 'immoral' war..

Also, how about the realities of not attacking a fleeing enemy, allowing them to therefore regroup, analyse the incident, improve plans and re-attack.... compassion on a fleeing enemy is commonly recited 'maryada' in Khalsa circles etc.

I am not for or against here, simply playing DA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be fine in old world War, how about in new age war - where the real enemies are hidden/protected/beyond reach...

Here we see people attacking their 'clan' i.e. the infamous market bomb incident carried out by the Khalistanis, the Palestinian female Suicide Bombers in Israel etc... Cynthia Mahmoods books are great for understanding the core anthropological issues which many oppressed nations share, and which in turn can be seen to drive them to 'immoral' war..

Also, how about the realities of not attacking a fleeing enemy, allowing them to therefore regroup, analyse the incident, improve plans and re-attack.... compassion on a fleeing enemy is commonly recited 'maryada' in Khalsa circles etc.

I am not for or against here, simply playing DA.

It comes back to the "thing", that is your enemy - percieved or real. Your enemy is not a human. Whatever type of war you fight you must first de-humanise your enemy; or "objectify" them, as in making them out to be numbers/statistics in a strategic plan or a dot on your frigate boats radar . ONly then are you capable of inflicting pain on the others.

interesting psycology.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your enemy is not a human...

True. I once asked a Singh who knows about these things how we are expected to see God in everyone, have no enemies as such and yet fight in wars. They relpied that our battles are only with zhulum, not with individuals. This is why the Khalsa didn't chase after retreating forces and why they were so fierce if need be.

Some of the replies here are interesting. Traditionally, death is seen as inevitable - killing the enemy is merely sending him on to Dharamraja a bit quicker. Even today, in rural India, there is usually a very nonchalant attitude to death. The same Baba mentioned above told me that Gursikhs have a greater longing for death than manmukhs have for their wedding. "Kabir, Mohe Marne Ka Chau Hai.."

Edited by Matheen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Nihangs say of beloved departed - 'ChaRaee Hogayee'... not such a negative inclination... there is a whole concept - drilled into Singhs by Dasmesh Pita regarding the honour of dying in battle - even praying for that to happen...

ਜਬ ਆਵ ਕੀ ਅਉਧ ਨਿਦਾਨ ਬਨੈ ਅਤ ਹੀ ਰਨ ਮੈ ਤਬ ਜੂਝ ਮਰੋਂ ॥

The same is thought of regarding the enemy, even though it was zhulm which was being fought - the enemy was still admired and respected for having heart to fight face to face - it was the faith in 'our' cause which made the battle 'dharmic' hence the enemy was in a way being blessed to fall by a sword of dharma.

So in this case - the enemy was certainly human - for Khalsa at least, as the actions of the holy Bhai Ghanaiya show us, as well as incidents of when Guru Sahiban put turbans back on the Muslims head and even supported/encouraged them to recite their nimaaz with their final breaths...

In fact, as holds true today, the zhulm was not necessarily manifest in the enemy in the battlefield, they are simply soldiers as were the Singhs - the zhulm was in the thoughts and actions of their employers, and the deaths of their employees would be the message of righteousness sent to the evil doers.... the soldiers would be fought as a matter of consequence.

The amazing thing is that respect for and ferocity against - the opposing manukhs on the battlefield existed at once...

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...