nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit

''There has been no great wisdom without an element of madness''



It has been a long time coming but I needed a good post to like increase the visitor count on my blog once again:)

Today, as almost every Wednesday I go to the temple. Well today's sermon was a tad bit different.
An interesting verse by Fareed was discussed.

ਫਰੀਦਾ ਜੋ ਤੈ ਮਾਰਨਿ ਮੁਕੀਆਂ ਤਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਨ ਮਾਰੇ ਘੁੰਮਿ ॥
Fareed, do not turn around and strike those who strike you with their fists.

ਆਪਨੜੈ ਘਰਿ ਜਾਈਐ ਪੈਰ ਤਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਦੇ ਚੁੰਮਿ ॥੭॥
Kiss their feet, and return to your own home. ||7||

and another verse

ਨਾ ਕੋ ਬੈਰੀ ਨਹੀ ਬਿਗਾਨਾ ਸਗਲ ਸੰਗਿ ਹਮ ਕਉ ਬਨਿ ਆਈ ॥
No one is my enemy, and no one is a stranger to me. I get along with everyone

Next we were told about the story of Bhai Ghanaiya.
Now my Punjabi history may be rusty to my years may be a little mingled up. But the story of Bhai (translation means brother) Ghanaiya (characters name) I fondly remember.

This was during the Punjabi-Mughal wars during the time of our tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh.
What happened was during the war many soldiers had fallen down due to the heatwave that day. Mind you soldiers back then carried nothing but solid iron in their vests, helmets, swords (i carried a sword myself and I can assure you it weighed around 15-20kgs easily) along with their footwear and others. So a heatstroke would be a commonplace. The Sikhs were defeating the Mughals as they had chosen the rugged heated terrain to their favour. However one man, called Bhai Ghanaiya was passing by. With him he carried a tank of water. And he poured water on the faces of both Mughals and Sikhs, quenching their thirst and many of them woke up to fight once more. Seeing that most men down were Mughals, the Sikh generals were quite puzzled. So Bhai Ghanaiya was summoned. And when summoned he said, Sir I do not see who is good or bad in thsi battlefield. But all I see is a Holy Spirit 'begging' for water. Sir tell me how do I resist when a Holy Spirit begs? On hearing this Guru Gobind sent him back into the battle field urging him to save more lives.

No this is not a religious sermon rather a stand I am taking for today. The path of righteousness. No I am not an agnostic or an atheistic person. I have my own religion and beliefs. But a strong part of me believes we live in a world today where there is little difference between right and wrong. I once questioned the hatred against the Jews to a Muslim friend of mine (mind you she's very articulate and intelligent so I do trust her) and she admits the Jews are intelligent but because of the Gulf War and her upbringing she says most Muslims see the Jews as evil. I do apologize for using your statement here if you do read this blog. I understand its not a direct quotation but rather a paraphrase and I hope it's an accurate one. I personally believe there is no good nor evil there. The Jews claim the 'Holy' Land is theirs and invaded it, but the Palestinians should've known better than to send rockets out on Christmas. So yes, both parties are technically right and wrong. The paths chosen if argued would be 3 different paths. The Jewish reasoning of 'we were here first', the Palestinian reasoning of 'we stayed here longer' or my favourite, both of you guys are wrong.

Do take notice i'm not being a diplomat. Diplomats would agree with both sides. What I am doing is putting them both in their place.

The Bible speaks of such people as shepherds.
Those who take the path of righteousness, those who choose to take that fine line between what is deemed good or bad are shepherds. (at this point if I am wrong do correct me)

Firstly for those who aren't familiar with the Bible I shall give you an introduction.

The first shepherd recorded in the Bible was Abel, the son of Adam.(i think)

"Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 2. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

So Cain and Abel each chose different methods for acquiring food. Cain, the elder brother, chose farming, while Abel raised sheep. Both are later asked to make sacrifices.

"Genesis 1:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell."

At this point both men are charged 'tax' as both are made to sacrifice out of their labours. In Sikhism we call this 'Daswandh'. In Islam they call is Zakat. - though it does not mean literal sacrifice- rather a donation in both cases as i mentioned. Do not take this literally, for you may misquote me and get me into trouble. So back to the story, as one was a shepherd he naturally sacrificed his sheep and the farmer sacrificed what he had, fruits.

Genesis 1:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7. If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. 8. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

So here, God provided a logical solution to Cain. While Cain had offered an unaccepible offering, this was not really a problem, as he had the opportunity to correct his actions. God asked “Why art thou wroth? and why is thy counenance fallen?” as if “what's the problem?” If God was saying that it was not a problem then obviously he didn't have a lot to be concerned about. At this point, he had not sinned or even necessarily done anything to be ashamed of. Furthermore, God then provided the solution to Cain, “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” Here he was basically saying that Cain didn't need to be the first to make the acceptable offering --- just that he had to do it. History, in verse 8, shows that Cain did not choose to follow the advice, and indeed the commandment of God, and instead killed Abel --- making the first shepherd the first murder victim.

The shepherd here was an innocent bystander who perished. But one who did not choose or favour any side. I'm not raising anti-God statements here mind you. Its just that the name of God has been taken in vain these days especially in Holy wars and such. I mean the idea of war itself is a sin, slewing of men and pillaging of homes and stuff, is that the true path to righteousness?

Anyway back to the shepherd and his journeys.

The next time it appears in the Bible is Mark 15:19 as seen in Passion of the Christ where the high priests choose to release the murderer Barrabas to have Jesus crucified. The shepherd here was sacrificed in envy as the Jews at this point in time saw Jesus as a threat to their superiority and rule. The Shepherd here was sacrificed - righteous (ok at this point i realise righteous people keep dying but hang in there) the high priests (apparently good at that time), Barrabas (definitely bad). And the Path between both paths is the path of righteousness.

Psalms 23:1 (A Psalm of David.) The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

In this chapter, David is likening God to a shepherd. Indeed, he is saying that God is his shepherd, He makes him lie down in green pastures. Green pastures, of course, are rich in food and save from starvation. He also leads him beside the still waters. Sheep don't like drinking from any fast-flowing watercourses, and instead need still ponds or pools of water. So, here the shepherd is supplying the basic needs of the sheep.

At this point the Lord is chosen as the Shepherd, and as the Bible goes you shall realise that the Shepherd is one that picked no sides, nor did he point out which was good nor bad. He only speaks of the path of righteousness. One that trancends good or bad. Good or bad is only a matter of perception. But Righteousness is a stand. A human suicide bomber may be good or bad, but definitely not righteous.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

A shepherd is not one who is a diplomat- that is to say something to please some one - a hireling, a yes man. Rather one who stands up to be counted and stands out, one who chooses the path that cannot be argued right or wrong.

Such is the path of Bhai Ghanaiya. And possibly many other Characters and scholars from the past.

I just read a book by Malcolm Gladwell called The Tipping Point. It is about the law of capitalism and how certain things happen overnight. The first example is about how Hush Puppies which almost became bankrupt finally became a household name in shoeware. He talks about how something can tip and loose its balance and just cause a total makeover in seconds. Like the Starbucks phenomenon. It defies the laws of evolution, progression. it happens like geometric progression. How high would a large piece of paper (A3) be if it were folded 50 times?


the answer is peculiar- to the sun and back mind you. it is only in theory but its quite fascinating right?

anyway my point about the book was that the hardline it is trying to drill is to be a shepherd, the one that walks the path in between good and bad. I tend to take sides myself very often. Often supporting a friend in need. Recently on a trip with some friends, I was bestowed the role of the shepherd, in which I was made a human being, and I had voices and whispers surround me. 2 or more different stands and I was to take one, and for once I took the hardline stand of being a shepherd. And true to its word, it got me no where. To some, I'm seen as a softie, one that would be bent over easily, to another, as one who had no stand, no stance, but personally I felt, I was neither right nor wrong. And only when another person I call my conscience assured me of my stand, i felt better. At this moment those of you who're reading this may question the characters, but I assure you, it is not that I was afraid to take a stand. Rather I chose not to. And i did not give an implication that i was taking sides, i shunned all sides. I chose to be a non aligned person, totally. and that to me was the shepherd's path.

You see I personally feel we're all monkeying around. I mean can there really be a good deed? the concept of heaven and hell lay testament that there can never be a true good deed. For whenever something good is done, i can relate it to dangling a carrot in front of someone. To buy your way back into heaven as Constantine was told by Gabriel. So long as that lingers, there is no true good deed. Which makes hell that much more likely. But a bad thing, lets say a war, a holy war, lets take sides A and B ( to avoid offending anyone). If A were to win, did they condemn all of those from B to heaven or hell? B died in a holy war, technically they're all shahids. and A killed more than B, which makes them murderers, sinners, killers. But the argument continues A claims their sovereign Lord shall save them in battle and B claims likewise. So can there be a wrong Lord?
the path of righteousness is never wrong. It says, if in war you help the victims, you haven't taken any side. And trust me this is the hardest stand to take.

Bhai Ghanaiya you can say did what the Red Cross is doing now many years back. Isn't it a wonder that the red cross flag is an exact fit of the puzzle to the swiss flag. The Swiss, the only true non aligned country in the world. Yes I said it. Because the others claim to be NAM but they just shoot off when things go bad. The Swiss arrange for 'tabletalks' between world leaders.
Isn't it ironic that a piece of their flag is cut out into a cross and you get the red cross - the non aligned members of a warzone.

Ok at this point someone is going to ask me but what's the point of this post. My answer is simple. In every argument, in every fight, there will always be a good and bad one. If we can choose to be a Shepherd just once, there shall be a true winner. And you will have my respect.
And if I step over the line, do shepherd me back to my path for I am a sheep at heart as well.