# Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh



## Randip Singh (May 24, 2006)

*FOOLS WHO WRANGLE OVER FLESH *

*FOREWARD *

The authors of this paper (one a vegetarian and one meat eating Sikh) wrangled hard with their own common sense which told them, dont be a fool and start wrangling over an issue which our great Gurus dismissed as not worthy of discussion. We did however feel as amateur Sikh Historians and commentators on Sikh affairs that we should use our knowledge and experience to clarify what is such a controversial issue. This essay out to be objective as possible but we ourselves probably taking one side as we waded through the arguments and counter arguments produced by vegetarian and meat eating Sikhs. One thing that has incensed us is the use of incorrect History and mistranslation to back up arguments. It was these points that we felt needed clarification and we hope the reader will find that this essay does that. 

Mistranslation and Misrepresentation of The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

Some of the tukhs of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that are often mistranslated are as follows: 

_1. Those mortals who consume marijuana, flesh and wine - no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib p1377)_

_2. You kill living beings and worship lifeless things, at your very last moment, You will suffer terrible pain. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib p332)_

_3. Do not say that the Vedas are false, false are those who do not reflect. If in all is one god, then why does one kill the hen ? (Sri Guru Granth Sahib p1350)_

_4. Bhagat Kabir says, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils) where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is willing to have their head cut ? (Sri Guru Granth Sahib p1374)_

_5. In this dark age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; They eat rotting dead bodies for food. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib p1242)_

_6. Falsehood is my dagger and to eat by defrauding is meat._ (Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raaj p24)

_7. Avarice is a dog, falsehood the sweeper and cheating the eating of meat. _
(Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raag p15) 

Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Let us analyse each one of these one by one. ​ 

*1. Those mortals who consume marijuana, flesh and wine - no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib p1337)*

In this instance let us firstly add the Gurmukhi with the English: 

_mukat padaarath paa-ee-ai thaak na avghat ghaat._
231 
_kabeer ayk gharhee aaDhee gharee aaDhee hooN tay aaDh._
_bhagtan saytee gostay jo keenay so laabh._ 232 
_kabeer bhaaNg maachhulee suraa paan jo jo paraanee khaaNhi._
_tirath barat naym kee-ay tay sabhai rasaatal jaaNhi._ 233
_neechay lo-in kar raha-o lay saajan ghat maahi._
_sabh ras khayla-o pee-a sa-o kisee lakhaava-o naahi._ 234 
_aath jaam cha-usath gharee tu-a nirkhat rahai jee-o._
_neechay lo-in ki-o kara-o sabh ghat daykh-a-u pee-o._ 235 
_sun sakhee pee-a meh jee-o basai jee-a meh basai ke pee-o._
_jee-o pee-o boojha-o nahee ghat meh jee-o ke pee-o._ 236 
_kabeer baaman guroo hai jagat kaa bhagtan kaa gur naahi._
_arajh urajh kai pach moo-aa chaara-o baydahu maahi._237 
_har hai khaaNd rayt meh bikhree haathee chunee na jaa-ay._
_kahi kabeer gur bhalee bujhaa-ee keetee ho-ay kai khaa-ay._ 238 
_kabeer ja-o tuhi saaDh piramm kee sees kaat kar go-ay._
_khaylat khaylat haal kar jo kichh ho-ay ta ho-ay._ 239 
_kabeer ja-o tuhi saaDh piramm kee paakay saytee khayl._
_kaachee sarsa-uN payl kai naa khal bha-ee na tayl._240 
_dhooNdhat doleh anDh gat ar cheenat naahee sant._
_kahi naamaa ki-o paa-ee-ai bin bhagtahu bhagvant._ 241 
_har so heeraa chhaad kai karahi aan kee aas._
_tay nar dojak jaahigay sat bhaakhai ravidaas._ 242 
_kabeer ja-o garihu karahi ta Dharam kar naahee ta kar bairaag._
_bairaagee banDhan karai taa ko bado abhaag._ 243 

_He obtains the treasure of liberation, and the difficult road to the Lord is not blocked._
231
_Kabeer, whether is is for an hour, half an hour, or half of that,_
_whatever it is, it is worthwhile to speak with the Holy._ 232
_Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine -_
_no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell._ 233
_Kabeer, I keep my eyes lowered, and enshrine my Friend within my heart._
_I enjoy all pleasures with my Beloved, but I do not let anyone else know._234
_Twenty-four hours a day, every hour, my soul continues to look to You, O Lord._
_Why should I keep my eyes lowered? I see my Beloved in every heart._ 235
_Listen, O my companions: my soul dwells in my Beloved, and my Beloved dwells in my soul._
_I realize that there is no difference between my soul and my Beloved; I cannot tell whether my _soul or my Beloved dwells in my heart._ 236_
_Kabeer, the Brahmin may be the guru of the world, but he is not the Guru of the devotees._
_He rots and dies in the perplexities of the four Vedas._ 237
_The Lord is like sugar, scattered in the sand; the elephant cannot pick it up._
_Says Kabeer, the Guru has given me this sublime understanding: become an ant, and feed on it._ 238
_Kabeer, if you desire to play the game of love with the Lord, then cut off your head, and make it into a ball._
_Lose yourself in the play of it, and then whatever will be, will be._ 239
_Kabeer, if you desire to play the game of love with the Lord, play it with someone with committment._
_Pressing the unripe mustard seeds produces neither oil nor flour._ 240
_Searching, the mortal stumbles like a blind person, and does not recognize the Saint._
_Says Naam Dayv, how can one obtain the Lord God, without His devotee?_


Taking out the sentence we see ​ 

kabeer bhaaNg maachhulee suraa paan jo jo paraanee khaaNhi.
Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine – 

tirath barat naym kee-ay tay sabhai rasaatal jaaNhi. 233
no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. 233
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 


Firstly note that maachlee is not flesh, but is indeed fish. The word in Punjabi for flesh is maas. Then secondly one must ask, why is there a forbidding in the consumption of fish specifically. The answer lies in reading the entire paragraph and a picture emerges. In the last two lines the statement is made: 

kabeer ja-o garihu karahi ta Dharam kar naahee ta kar bairaag. 
Kabeer, if you live the householder's life, then practice righteousness; otherwise, you might as well retire from the world. 

bairaagee banDhan karai taa ko bado abhaag. 243 
If someone renounces the world, and then gets involved in worldly entanglements, he shall suffer terrible misfortune. 243
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 


Now putting this in its entire context what Bhagat Kabir is actually criticising in the rich and those in power. The thrill seekers, who are addicted to their senses and those addicted to the 5 thieves. Kabir was born around the area of Benares, and was brought up in a poor Muslim weavers family. He saw the excesses of the rich around him, while the poor starved. Foods like fish and wine were associated with the rich who had an excessive disposable income. Marijuana was associated with either idol people or those who had time and money to waste. Kabir abhorred this, and this statement is a social comment about the excesses of the rich. At the end he clearly states, that those people who do their duties as householders (i.e. work hard, care for other etc) are the ones who will be liberated, and those who live by excesses will suffer. One cantherefore clearly see that this is in no way a comment about eating meat (because of mistranslation) or about avoiding certain foods (as has been misrepresented). 

*2. You kill living beings and worship lifeless things, at your very last moment, You will suffer terrible pain. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib p332)*

Again let us put this into its correct context: 

_ik-oNkaar satgur parsaad._
_jeevat pitar na maanai ko-oo moo-ayN siraaDh karaahee._
_pitar bhee bapuray kaho ki-o paavahi ka-oo-aa kookar khaahee._
_mo ka-o kusal bataavhu ko-ee._
_kusal kusal kartay jag binsai kusal bhee kaisay ho-ee._ rahaa-o. 
_maatee kay kar dayvee dayvaa tis aagai jee-o dayhee._
_aisay pitar tumaaray kahee-ahi aapan kahi-aa na layhee._
_sarjee-o kaateh nirjee-o poojeh ant kaal ka-o bhaaree._
_raam naam kee gat nahee jaanee bhai doobay sansaaree._
_dayvee dayvaa poojeh doleh paarbarahm nahee jaanaa._
_kahat kabeer akul nahee chayti-aa bikhi-aa si-o laptaanaa._

_One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:_
_He does not honor his ancestors while they are alive, but he holds feasts in their honor after they have died._
_Tell me, how can his poor ancestors receive what the crows and the dogs have eaten up?_
_If only someone would tell me what real happiness is!_
_Speaking of happiness and joy, the world is perishing. How can happiness be found?_Pause 
_Making gods and goddesses out of clay, people sacrifice living beings to them._
_Such are your dead ancestors, who cannot ask for what they want._
_You murder living beings and worship lifeless things; at your very last moment, you shall suffer in terrible pain._
_You do not know the value of the Lord's Name; you shall drown in the terrifying world-ocean._
_You worship gods and goddesses, but you do not know the Supreme Lord God._
_Says Kabeer, you have not remembered the Lord who has no ancestors; you are clinging to your corrupt ways._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Quite clearly when put into context this is nothing to do with meat eating. What is being alluded to is Hindu sacrificial rituals (eg Anustarani http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Rites%20of%20Passage/ancestors2.html) where animals were sacrificed on the funeral pyre, ancestors or to deities. Yet the Brahmins who performed these rituals were themselves devout vegetarians. This is a comment about the futility of animal sacrifices to stone idols and dead ancestors. It is a comment on hypocrisy. 

*3. Do not say that the Vedas are false, false are those who do not reflect. If in all is one god, then why does one kill the hen ? (Sri Guru Granth Sahib p1350)*

Again, let us put this into context: 

_bayd katayb kahhu mat jhoothay jhoothaa jo na bichaarai._
_ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai._
_mulaaN kahhu ni-aa-o khudaa-ee._
_tayray man kaa bharam na jaa-ee._ rahaa-o.
_pakar jee-o aani-aa dayh binaasee maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa._
_jot saroop anaahat laagee kaho halaal ki-aa kee-aa._
_ki-aa ujoo paak kee-aa muhu Dho-i-aa ki-aa maseet sir laa-i-aa._
_ja-o dil meh kapat nivaaj gujaarahu ki-aa haj kaabai jaa-i-aa._
_tooN naapaak paak nahee soojhi-aa tis kaa maram na jaani-aa._
_kahi kabeer bhisat tay chookaa dojak si-o man maani-aa._

_Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false._
_You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?_
_O Mullah, tell me: is this God's Justice?_
_The doubts of your mind have not been dispelled._ Pause
_You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay._
_The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed?_
_And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?_
_Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca?_
_You are impure; you do not understand the Pure Lord. You do not know His Mystery._
_Says Kabeer, you have missed out on paradise; your mind is set on hell._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


First point to note is that halaal and bismil, does not mean kill but refers to a specific form of ritual slaughter. Put into context this is a comment on the Muslim sacrifice ritual where either a goat or a chicken is kept in the confines of the home and then ritually slaughtered as obeisance to Abraham. Kabeer is mocking the futility of this ritual and saying, that why are you doing this sacrifice just to emulate Gods asking of Abraham to kill his only son? It is a futile gesture that will not sway God. Abraham was sacrificing his son to God, however all the sacrifice in this instance has achieved is destruction of the outer shell of the chicken. The soul wont travel to God, but merely to another form. One can only understand this if one has a basic grasp of history. In this instance the person who tried to use this tukh as an anti-meat quotation was unaware of the Koranic context and had an extremely poor knowledge of Semitic history. 

*4. Bhagat Kabir says, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils) where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is willing to have their head cut ? (Sri Guru Granth Sahib p1374)*

Let us add this to the correct context: 

_oraa gar paanee bha-i-aa jaa-ay mili-o dhal kool._
_kabeeraa Dhoor sakayl kai puree-aa baaNDhee dayh._
_divas chaar ko paykhnaa ant khayh kee khayh._
_kabeer sooraj chaaNd kai udai bha-ee sabh dayh._
_gur gobind kay bin milay palat bha-ee sabh khayh._
_jah anbha-o tah bhai nahee jah bha-o tah har naahi._
_kahi-o kabeer bichaar kai sant sunhu man maahi._
_kabeer jinahu kichhoo jaani-aa nahee tin sukh need bihaa-ay._
_hamhu jo boojhaa boojhnaa pooree paree balaa-ay._
_laagee chot maramm kee rahi-o kabeeraa tha-ur._
_kabeer chot suhaylee sayl kee laagat lay-ay usaas._
_chot sahaarai sabad kee taas guroo mai daas._
_kabeer mulaaN munaaray ki-aa chadheh saaN-ee na bahraa ho-ay._
_jaa kaaran tooN baaNg deh dil hee bheetar jo-ay._
_saykh sabooree baahraa ki-aa haj kaabay jaa-ay._
_kabeer jaa kee dil saabat nahee taa ka-o kahaaN khudaa-ay._
_kabeer alah kee kar bandagee jih simrat dukh jaa-ay._
_dil meh saaN-ee pargatai bujhai balantee naaN-ay._
_kabeer joree kee-ay julam hai kahtaa naa-o halaal._
_daftar laykhaa maaNgee-ai tab ho-igo ka-un havaal._
_kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon._
_hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un._
_kabeer gur laagaa tab jaanee-ai mitai moh tan taap._
_harakh sog daajhai nahee tab har aapeh aap._
_kabeer raam kahan meh bhayd hai taa meh ayk bichaar._
_so-ee raam sabhai kaheh so-ee ka-utakhaar._
_kabeer raamai raam kaho kahibay maahi bibayk._
_ayk anaykeh mil ga-i-aa ayk samaanaa ayk._
_kab_eer jaa ghar saaDh na sayvee-ah har kee sayvaa naahi_._
_tay ghar marhat saarkhay bhoot baseh tin maahi._
_kabeer goongaa hoo-aa baavraa bahraa hoo-aa kaan._
_paavhu tay pingul bha-i-aa maari-aa satgur baan._
_kabeer satgur soormay baahi-aa baan jo ayk._
_laagat hee bhu-ay gir pari-aa paraa karayjay chhayk._
_kabeer nirmal boond akaas kee par ga-ee bhoom bikaar._

_The hail-stone has melted into water, and flowed into the ocean._
_Kabeer, the body is a pile of dust, collected and packed together._
_It is a show which lasts for only a few days, and then dust returns to dust._
_Kabeer, bodies are like the rising and setting of the sun and the moon._
_Without meeting the Guru, the Lord of the Universe, they are all reduced to dust again._
_Where the Fearless Lord is, there is no fear; where there is fear, the Lord is not there._
_Kabeer speaks after careful consideration; hear this, O Saints, in your minds._
_Kabeer, those who do not know anything, pass their lives in peaceful sleep._
_But I have understood the riddle; I am faced with all sorts of troubles._
_Struck by the Mystery of God, Kabeer remains silent._
_Kabeer, the stroke of a lance is easy to bear; it takes away the breath._
_But one who endures the stroke of the Word of the Shabad is the Guru, and I am his slave._
_Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing._
_Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers._
_Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself?_
_Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord?_
_Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart._
_The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name._
_Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal._
_When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?_
_Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt._
_Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread?_
_Kabeer, one is known to have been touched by the Guru, only when his emotional attachment and physical illnesses are eradicated._
_He is not burned by pleasure or pain, and so he becomes the Lord Himself._
_Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider._
_Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord._
_Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction._
_One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself._
_Kabeer, those houses in which neither the Holy nor the Lord are served â€"_
_those houses are like cremation grounds; demons dwell within them._
_Kabeer, I have become mute, insane and deaf._
_I am crippled - the True Guru has pierced me with His Arrow._
_Kabeer, the True Guru, the Spiritual Warrior, has shot me with His Arrow._
_As soon as it struck me, I fell to the ground, with a hole in my heart._
_Kabeer, the pure drop of water falls from the sky, onto the dirty ground._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



At one level this is a mistranslation and at another misrepresentation of the context within which this is written: ​ 

kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.
Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt. 
hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un. 
Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 

In the above Gurmukhi, there is no mention of meat in the context of dining habits whatsoever. _hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un_, means literally, who would cut their own throat to eat food, in this context. The person who has tried to translate this has added his/her own spin .What this is actually saying is that to the follower of the Guru or one who has been touched by God a simple dish of Kheechree (lentils and rice), flavoured with salt is enough. To have something more exotic to eat you would not cut your own throat (the western equivalent would be to cut your own nose off to spite your face). In no way is this tukh anything to do with meat eating but to do with tyrrany. If one looks at this shabad in the context of which it was written, i.e. the invasion of Timur the shabads true meaning becomes apparent. 

Kabir ji was a remarkable man and his shabads are probably the least understood in Bani, although most quoted.

If you look at the History of when he grew up, he witnessed like Guru Nanak (invasion by Babur) a Muslim invasion by Timur, and incredible death and destruction. 

Memoirs of an Islamist - Timur



> 125,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. *Maulana Nasiru-d din ‘Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.*


 

Massacres in Varnasi were on a Massive scale. He witnesses so called religious holymen/Mullahs and Shaykhs killing people in the name of God. When Kabir ji is saying this:



> Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing.
> Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers.
> Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself?
> Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord?
> ...


 
at the back of his mind is this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742629/posts





> Massacre of 125,000 Hindus At this Court Amir Jahan Shah and Amir Sulaiman Shah, and other amirs of experience, brought to my notice that, from the time of entering Hindustan up to the present time, we had taken more than 125,000 infidels and Hindus prisoners, and that they were all in my camp. On the previous day, when the enemy’s forces made the attack upon us, the prisoners made signs of rejoicing, uttered imprecations against us, and were ready, as soon as they heard of the enemy’s success, to form themselves into a body, break their bonds, plunder our tents, and then to go and join the enemy, and so increase his [p. 53] numbers and strength. I asked their advice about the prisoners, and they said that on the great day of battle these 125,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty. In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword. When I heard these words I found them in accord with the rules of war, and I directly gave my command for the Tawachis to proclaim throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 125,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain.* Maulana Nasiru-d din ‘Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.*


 
You can imagine this young devout Muslim, witnessing, so called fellow Muslims massacring his innocent Hindu neighbours. Probably people he knew. This must have had a profound effect on him. 

_Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord._
_Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction._
_One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself._

Here Kabir ji is clearly saying, look Oh Mullah we are all the same, whether we are Hindu or Muslim.

This shabad is in no way about dining habits.<!-- google_ad_section_end --> 

*5.In this dark age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; They eat rotting dead bodies for food. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib p1242)*

Again, let us put this into context: 

_salok mehlaa 1._
_kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar._
_koorh bol bol bha-ukanaa chookaa Dharam beechaar._
_jin jeevandi-aa pat nahee mu-i-aa mandee so-ay._
_likhi-aa hovai naankaa kartaa karay so ho-ay._
_Shalok, First Mehl:_
_In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; they eat rotting carcasses for food._
_They bark and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them._
_Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die._
_Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


At first glance one notices that this paragraph is clearly a metaphor for people who behave like dogs. The dog is a scavenger, hunts in packs, fights within its pack, eats practically anything it can find etc etc. This entire Ang talks about people greed and those that lack honour when they are alive. 
The second point to note is the mistranslation. Murdaar is not the word for meat. Murdaar is a reference to people who are dead. In other words people are acting so much like dogs that when people have died they gather round to get as much as they can. A good analogy would be inheritance, where is some instances people try and contest them or try and grab for themselves as much as they can. In India, it has not been unusual to murder siblings of inheritance disputes. In fact the word Murder in the English language has come from the word Murdaar. 

*6. Falsehood is my dagger and to eat by defrauding is meat.*
*(Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raaj p24 *

Let us again see this in context: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 1 ghar 4._
_ayk su-aan du-ay su-aanee naal._
_bhalkay bha-ukahi sadaa ba-i-aal._
_koorh chhuraa muthaa murdaar._
_Dhaanak roop rahaa kartaar._
_mai pat kee pand na karnee kee kaar._
_ha-o bigrhai roop rahaa bikraal._
_tayraa ayk naam taaray sansaar._
_mai ayhaa aas ayho aaDhaar._ rahaa-o. 
_mukh nindaa aakhaa din raat._
_par ghar johee neech sanaat._
_kaam kroDh tan vaseh chandaal_.
_Dhaanak roop rahaa kartaar._
_faahee surat malookee vays._
_ha-o thagvaarhaa thagee days._
_kharaa si-aanaa bahutaa bhaar._
_Dhaanak roop rahaa kartaar._
_mai keetaa na jaataa haraamkhor._
_ha-o ki-aa muhu daysaa dusat chor._
_naanak neech kahai beechaar._
_Dhaanak roop rahaa kartaar._

_Siree Raag, First Mehl, Fourth House:_
_The dogs of greed are with me._
_In the early morning, they continually bark at the wind._
_Falsehood is my dagger; through deception, I eat the carcasses of the dead._
_I live as a wild hunter, O Creator!_
_I have not followed good advice, nor have I done good deeds._
_I am deformed and horribly disfigured._
_Your Name alone, Lord, saves the world._
_This is my hope; this is my support._ Pause 
_With my mouth I speak slander, day and night._
_I spy on the houses of others-I am such a wretched low-life!_
_Unfulfilled sexual desire and unresolved anger dwell in my body, like the outcasts who cremate the dead._
_I live as a wild hunter, O Creator!_
_I make plans to trap others, although I appear gentle._
_I am a robber-I rob the world._
_I am very clever-I carry loads of sin._
_I live as a wild hunter, O Creator!_
_I have not appreciated what You have done for me, Lord; I take from others and exploit them._
_What face shall I show You, Lord? I am a sneak and a thief._
_Nanak describes the state of the lowly._
_I live as a wild hunter, O Creator!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Again this is similar to the above translated Shabad. The Guru is clearly making an analogy between people who are acting like dogs. He is even saying that they are barking like dogs. 

koorh chhuraa muthaa murdaar.
Falsehood is my dagger; through deception, I eat the carcasses of the dead.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Again Murdaar does not mean meat at all. Murdaar refers to dead people, and how people are literally fighting over one another to get what they think is theirs. They are so consumed with greed and selfishness that they care not for one another, clearly nothing to do with meat eating. 

*7. Avarice is a dog, falsehood the sweeper and cheating the eating of meat. (Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raag p15)*

Let us put this last shabad in context with its correct translation: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 1._
_lab kutaa koorh choohrhaa thag khaaDhaa murdaar._
_par nindaa par mal mukh suDhee agan kroDh chandaal._
_ras kas aap salaahnaa ay karam mayray kartaar._
_baabaa bolee-ai pat ho-ay._
_ootam say dar ootam kahee-ahi neech karam bahi ro-ay._ rahaa-o. 
_ras su-inaa ras rupaa kaaman ras parmal kee vaas._
_ras ghorhay ras sayjaa mandar ras meethaa ras maas._
_aytay ras sareer kay kai ghat naam nivaas._
_jit boli-ai pat paa-ee-ai so boli-aa parvaan._
_fikaa bol viguchnaa sun moorakh man ajaan._
_jo tis bhaaveh say bhalay hor ke kahan vakhaan._
_tin mat tin pat tin Dhan palai jin hirdai rahi-aa samaa-ay._
_tin kaa ki-aa salaahnaa avar su-aali-o kaa-ay._
_naanak nadree baahray raacheh daan na naa-ay._

_Siree Raag, First Mehl:_ _Greed is a dog; falsehood is a filthy street-sweeper. Cheating is eating a rotting carcass._ 
_Slandering others is putting the filth of others into your own mouth. The fire of anger is the outcaste who burns dead bodies at the crematorium._
_I am caught in these tastes and flavors, and in self-conceited praise. These are my actions, O my Creator!_
_O Baba, speak only that which will bring you honor._
_They alone are good, who are judged good at the Lord's Door. Those with bad karma can only sit and weep._
_The pleasures of gold and silver, the pleasures of women, the pleasure of the fragrance of sandalwood,_
_the pleasure of horses, the pleasure of a soft bed in a palace, the pleasure of sweet treats and the pleasure of hearty meals_ â€" 
_these pleasures of the human body are so numerous; how can the Naam, the Name of the Lord, find its dwelling in the heart?_
_Those words are acceptable, which, when spoken, bring honor._
_Harsh words bring only grief. Listen, O foolish and ignorant mind!_
_Those who are pleasing to Him are good. What else is there to be said?_
_Wisdom, honor and wealth are in the laps of those whose hearts remain permeated with the Lord._
_What praise can be offered to them? What other adornments can be bestowed upon them?_
_O Nanak, those who lack the Lord's Glance of Grace cherish neither charity nor the Lord's Name._
Sry Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Again clearly a mistranslation and mischief making on the part of someone who wishes to convey a certain message. 

lab kutaa koorh choohrhaa thag khaaDhaa murdaar. 
Greed is a dog; falsehood is a filthy street-sweeper. Cheating is eating a rotting carcass.
Sry Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Again Murdaar is not Meat but is dead people. The entire Ang is talking about people who fall prey to the 5 thieves, Kaam, Krodh, Moh, Lobh and Hankaar. 

MOTIVATIONS BEHIND MISTRANSLATION AND MISREPRESENTATION 

There are several reasons behind why these mistranslations and misrepresentations have occurred: 
· The publishers have a lack of education and do not understand the meaning of words in Gurmukhi and the correct translation into English. 
· In their eagerness to promote their own brand of Sikhism (Sant, Jatha etc) they have deliberately allowed mistranslation and misrepresentation. 
· Genuine abhorrence of killing animals can be a motivation too (eg those people that believe in Animal Rights), however Sikhism should not be used as a tool to promote such agendas. 
· Poor knowledge of history and the context in which the Gurus and Bhaghats wrotes these Angs is a factor too. This can lead to a misrepresentation. 
· In conclusion one can only say that it is very important that Sikh institution promote a clear and concise programme where only those with a certain amount of knowledge in Sikh History and the Sikh Language, should be officially sanctioned as being translators for the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. 

THE 84 MILLION INCARNATION ARGUMENT - ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, MINERAL. 

The other argument that has been made over this issue is that there is some sort of hierarchy of incarnations within Sikhism of incarnations. Life goes through many incarnations (up to 84 million) before becoming human. In other words, life takes the form of incarnation in plant form, then animal, and then human. The idea being that animal form spiritually is closer to man. Biologically this maybe true, however, spiritually within Sikhism, this could not be further from the truth. 

On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written: 

_ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5._
_ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa._
_ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa._
_ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o._
_ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o._
_mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa_. _chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa._ rahaa-o. 
_ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa._
_ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa._
_ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa._
_saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat._
_kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat._
_ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan._
_jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan._
_avar na doojaa karnai jog._
_taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay._
_kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay._

_Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl_: 
_In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;_
_in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer._
_In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake._
_In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse._
_Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him_.
_After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you._ Pause 
_In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;_
_in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;_
_in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;_
_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._
_Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life._
_Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har._
_Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance._
_Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord._
_Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord._
_No one else can do anything at all._
_We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself._
_Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



Reading this Shabad one can clearly see that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not attach any particular order to how life is incarnated. Infact it states: ​ 

ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa. 
In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains; 
ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa.
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb; 
ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa. 
in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves; 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


If you were to apply the logic of those that claim spiritually animal life is closer to human, then according to this a rock then becomes an aborted human foetus, then becomes a plant! It is only after this one becomes human. Surely then a plant is a closer form of life to human? 

The Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji only proclaims one life form as being so precious. On page 50 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji it states: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 5 ghar 2._
_go-il aa-i-aa go-ilee ki-aa tis damf pasaar._
_muhlat punnee chalnaa tooN sampal ghar baar._
_har gun gaa-o manaa satgur sayv pi-aar._
_ki-aa thorh-rhee baat gumaan._ rahaa-o. 
_jaisay rain paraahunay uth chalsahi parbhaat._
_ki-aa tooN rataa girsat si-o sabh fulaa kee baagaat._
_mayree mayree ki-aa karahi jin dee-aa so parabh lorh._
_sarpar uthee chalnaa chhad jaasee lakh karorh._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh bharmati-aa dulabh janam paa-i-o-ay._
_naanak naam samaal tooN so din nayrhaa aa-i-o-ay._

_Siree Raag, Fifth Mehl, Second House:_
_The herdsman comes to the pasture lands-what good are his ostentatious displays here?_
_When your allotted time is up, you must go. Take care of your real hearth and home._
_O mind, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, and serve the True Guru with love._
_Why do you take pride in trivial matters?_ Pause 
_Like an overnight guest, you shall arise and depart in the morning._
_Why are you so attached to your household? It is all like flowers in the garden._
_Why do you say, "Mine, mine?" Look to God, who has given it to you._
_It is certain that you must arise and depart, and leave behind your hundreds of thousands and millions._
_Through 8.4 million incarnations you have wandered, to obtain this rare and precious human life._
_O Nanak, remember the Naam, the Name of the Lord; the day of departure is drawing near!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


So clearly, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji sees plants, animals, and minerals, on one level in terms of life, and then human form on another. To take the life of a plant is the same as an animal in terms of spirituality. The following Shabad although a metaphor for how people who speak the truth are treated, clearly shows the mind of the Guru's when seeing life in all its form, be it plant, mineral or animal: 
Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._

_First Mehl:_
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


The folly of the argument that spiritually one is committing a bigger sin when killing an animal than a plant is a foolish one. The biological argument is a different one and is not tackled within the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, but that in itself shows, the choice of whether or not to eat meat is a personal one and has nothing to do with the Sikh religion. 

MEAT EATERS, ONLY EAT FOR TASTE OR DO VEGETARIANS AS WELL? 

The most absurd argument that has been come across is that meat eaters only eat for taste, and too satisfy their taste buds. It is a selfish desire in other words, based on Greed and Egotism. The basis of this argument falls down with the fact that Vegetarian dishes (particularly on the Indian Subcontinent), are the most varied and most tasty of all dishes. To say that a vegetarian hates every mouthful of eating an Aubergine and Potatoes Curry and a meat eater loves every mouthful of Liver is indeed the weakest of all arguments. In fact page 61 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji states: 

_jit tan naam na bhaav-ee *** tan ha-umai vaad._
_gur bin gi-aan na paa-ee-ai bikhi-aa doojaa saad._
_bin gun kaam na aavee maa-i-aa feekaa saad._
_aasaa andar jammi-aa aasaa ras kas khaa-ay._

_That body which does not appreciate the Naam-that body is infested with egotism and conflict._
_Without the Guru, spiritual wisdom is not obtained; other tastes are poison._
_Without virtue, nothing is of any use. The taste of Maya is bland and insipid._
_Through desire, people are cast into the womb and reborn. Through desire, they taste the sweet and sour flavors._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


MEAT EATING PROMOTES DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR OR DOES IT? 

There is a train of thought amongst certain Sikhs that meat eating promotes cruel, aggressive or lustful behaviour. There have been numerous examples to show that this is simply not true. For example Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, yet he was very cruel. In terms of aggressive behaviour, we have our own Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala, who was a staunch vegetarian, yet very aggressive. The Kukas (Namdharia’s), were very violent and aggressive yet were strict vegetarians. As for lustful behaviour, one only has too look at the list of A list celebrities who are vegetarians and note their lustful behaviour. 

This argument is a ridiculous one and is not mentioned anywhere within the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. It is true however, many vegetarians do suffer from anaemia (lack of iron), and this causes tiredness (and therefore probably more passive behaviour), however, this is again outside the scope of this essay. 

HUKAMNAMA ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY THE 6TH MASTER 

Some pro-vegetarian sections of the Sikh following have produced an alleged Hukamnama that states that the Sikhs of the East were not to go near meat. Unfortunately, the sources that have produced this Hukamnama, have not been able to back it up with any evidence of its genuineness, from any Sikh scholars of note. There have been statements to the effect that Ganda Singh found this document and indeed published it (Two collections of Hukamnamas are available in print form, one edited by Dr. Ganda Singh published in 1968 by Punjabi University and the S.G.P.C), but this has not been verified by any of his contemporaries or any other Sikh scholars.. 

Historical evidence, in fact contradicts what Guru Hargobind ji was actually like. He was an avid hunter and warrior. Again this fact some have tried to dismiss as Guruji giving Mukhti to animals souls. This, however, contradicts the Gurus own philosophy which clearly states that only God is capable of granting such things. 
Infact Bhai Gudas in his Vars States: 

_Just as one has to tie pail's neck while taking out water_, 
_Just as to get Mani, snake is to be killed_
_Just as to get Kasturi from deer's neck, deer is to be killed_
_Just as to get oil, oil seeds are to be crushed_
_To get kernel, pomegranate is to be broken_
_Similarly to correct senseless people, sword has to be taken up._
Bhai Gurdas, Var-34, pauri 13 


In fact such a hukamna would indeed contradict the one Guru Gobind Singh ji sent to his Sikhs in Kabul (ADVANCED STUDIES IN SIKHISM by Jasbir Singh and Harbans Singh.): 

_"Sarbat sangat Kabul Guru rakhe ga_
_Tusa ute asaadee bahut khusi hai_
_Tusi Khande da Amrit Panja to lena_
_Kes rakhne...ih asadee mohur hair;_
_Kachh, Kirpan da visah nahee karna_
_SARB LOH da kara hath rakhna_
_Dono vakat kesa dee palna karna_
Sarbat sangat abhakhia da kutha
_Khave naheen, Tamakoo na vartana_
_Bhadni tatha kanya-maran-vale so mel na rakhe_
_Meene, Massandei, Ramraiye ki sangat na baiso_
_Gurbani parhni...Waheguru, Waheguru japna_
_Guru kee rahat rakhnee_
_Sarbat sangat oopar meri khushi hai._
Patshahi Dasvi
Jeth 26, Samat 1756


_To the entire sangat at Kabul._
_The Guru will protect the Sangat,_
_I am pleased with you all._
_You should take baptism by the sword, from the Five Beloveds._
_Keep your hair uncut for this is a seal of the Guru,_
_Accept the use of shorts and a sword._
_Always wear IRON KARA on your wrist,_
_Keep your hair clean and comb it twice a day._
Do not eat Halal (Kosher) meat,
_Do not use tobacco in any form,_
_Have no connection with those who kill their daughters_
_Or permit the cutting of their children's hair._
_Do not associate with Meenas, Massands and Ram-raiyas (anti-Sikh cults)_
_Recite the Guru's hymns_
_Meditate on "The Name of our Wonderful Lord",_
_Follow the Sikh code of discipline_
_I give the entire sangat my blessing)_
Signature of 10th Guru 
Jeth 26, 1756 Bikrami 23rd May 1699 A.D 


As we know, there is no contradiction in the Guru’s message. 
It should be noted also that there are a number of Hukamnama’s that have been found that also purport Sikhs to adopt Brahmanical religious tenets. 

WHAT ARE THE VIEWS OF PROMINENT SIKH SCHOLARS ON THIS ISSUE? 

Misconceptions About Eating Meat - Comments of Sikh Scholars 

Throughout Sikh history, there have been movements or subsects of Sikhism which have espoused vegetarianism. I think there is no basis for such dogma or practice in Sikhism. Certainly Sikhs do not think that a vegetarian's achievements in spirituality are easier or higher. It is surprising to see that vegetarianism is such an important facet of Hindu practice in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was a significant and much valued Hindu Vedic ritual for ages. Guru Nanak in his writings clearly rejected both sides of the arguments - on the virtues of vegetarianism or meat eating - as banal and so much nonsense, nor did he accept the idea that a cow was somehow more sacred than a horse or a chicken. He also refused to be drawn into a contention on the differences between flesh and greens, for instance. History tells us that to impart this message, Nanak cooked meat at an important Hindu festival in Kurukshetra. Having cooked it he certainly did not waste it, but probably served it to his followers and ate himself. History is quite clear that Guru Hargobind and Guru Gobind Singh were accomplished and avid hunters. The game was cooked and put to good use, to throw it away would have been an awful waste. 
Sikhs and Sikhism by I.J. Singh, Manohar, Delhi 



The ideas of devotion and service in Vaishnavism have been accepted by Adi Granth, but the insistence of Vaishnavas on vegetarian diet has been rejected.
Guru Granth Sahib, An Analytical Study by Surindar Singh Kohli, Singh Bros. Amritsar 



Commenting on meat being served in the langar during the time of Guru Angad: However, it is strange that now-a-days in the Community-Kitchen attached to the Sikh temples, and called the Guru's Kitchen (or, Guru-ka-langar) meat-dishes are not served at all. May be, it is on account of its being, perhaps, expensive, or not easy to keep for long. Or, perhaps the Vaishnava tradition is too strong to be shaken off.
A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi 



As a true Vaisnavite Kabir remained a strict vegetarian. Kabir far from defying Brahmanical tradition as to the eating of meat, would not permit so much, as the plucking of a flower (G.G.S. pg 479), whereas Nanak deemed all such scruples to be superstitions, Kabir held the doctrine of Ahinsa or the non-destruction of life, which extended even to that of flowers. The Sikh Gurus, on the contrary, allowed and even encouraged, the use of animal flesh as food. Nanak has exposed this Ahinsa superstition in Asa Ki War (G.G.S. pg 472) and Malar Ke War (G.G.S. pg. 128). 
Philosophy of Sikhism by Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar 



The Gurus were loath to pronounce upon such matters as the eating of meat or ways of disposing of the dead because undue emphasis on them could detract from the main thrust of their message which had to do with spiritual liberation. However, Guru Nanak did reject by implication the practice of vegetarianism related to ideas of pollution when he said, 'All food is pure; for God has provided it for our sustenance' (AG 472). Many Sikhs are vegetarian and meat should never be served at langar. Those who do eat meat are unlikely to include beef in their diet, at least in India, because of their cultural proximity to Hindus. 
A Popular Dictionary of Sikhism, W.Owen Cole and Piara Singh Sambhi, England 



In general Sikhism has adopted an ambivalent attitude towards meat eating as against vegetarianism. But if meat is to be taken at all, Guru Gobind Singh enjoined on the Khalsa Panth not to take kosher meat ie. Halal meat slaughtered and prepared for eating according to the Islamic practice. In fact it is one of the kurahits for every amritdhari Sikh. One who infringes it becomes patit (apostate). 
Sikhism, A Complete Introduction by Dr. H.S. Singha and Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press, Delhi 



A close study of the above-mentioned hymns of Guru Nanak Dev clarifies the Sikh standpoint regarding meat-eating. The Guru has not fallen into the controversy of eating or not eating animal food. He has ridiculed the religious priests for raising their voice in favour of vegetarianism. He called them hypocrites and totally blind to the realities of life. They are unwise and thoughtless persons, who do not go into the root of the matter. According to him, the water is the source of all life whether vegetable or animal. Guru Nanak Dev said. "None of the grain of corn is without life. In the first place, there is life in water, by which all are made green" (Var Asa M.1, p. 472). Thus there is life in vegetation and life in all types of creatures.
Real Sikhism by Surinder Singh Kohli, Harman Publishing, New Delhi 



The Gurus neither advocate meat nor banned its use. They left it to the choice of the individual. There are passages against meat, in the Adi Granth. Guru Gobind Singh however prohibited for the Khalsa the use of Halal or Kutha meat prepared in the Muslim ritualistic way.
Introduction to Sikhism by Dr. Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Hemkunt Press, Delhi 



There are no restrictions for the Sikhs regarding food, except that the Sikhs are forbidden to eat meat prepared as a ritual slaughter. The Sikhs are asked to abstain from intoxicants.
Introduction to Sikhism by G.S. Sidhu, Shromini Sikh Sangat, Toronto 



According to the Maryada booklet 'Kutha', the meat prepared by the Muslim ritual, is prohibited for a Sikh. Regarding eating other meat, it is silent. From the prohibition of the Kutha meat, it is rightly presumed that non-Kutha meat is not prohibited for the Sikhs. Beef is prohibited to the Hindus and pork to the Muslims. Jews and Christians have their own taboos. They do not eat certain kinds of meat on certain days. Sikhs have no such instructions. If one thinks he needs to eat meat, it does not matter which meat it is, beef, poultry, fish, etc., or which day it is. One should, however, be careful not to eat any meat harmful for his health. Gurbani's instructions on this topic are very clear. "Only fools argue whether to eat meat or not. Who can define what is meat and what is not meat? Who knows where the sin lies, being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian?" (1289) The Brahmanical thought that a religious person should be a vegetarian is of recent origin. Earlier, Brahmans had been eating beef and horse meat. In conclusion, it is wrong to say that any person who eats meat (of course Kutha, because of the Muslim rituals is prohibited) loses his membership of the Khalsa and becomes an apostate.
The Sikh Faith by Gurbakhsh Singh, Canadian Sikh Study and Teaching Society, Vancouver 



The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the Sikh Gurus made people aware of the fact that it is very difficult to distinguish between a plant and an animal, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish between a vegetarian and a non-vegetarian diets and there is no sin of eating food originating from plants or animals.
Scientific Interpretation of Gurbani, Paper by Dr. Devinder Singh Chahal 



The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten venison or goat, depending upon different janamsakhi versions of a meal which he cooked at Kurukshetra which evoked the criticism of Brahmins. Guru Amardas ate only rice and lentils but this abstention cannot be regarded as evidence of vegetarianism, only of simple living. Guru Gobind Singh also permitted the eating of meat but he prescribed that it should be Jhatka meat and not Halal meat that is jagged in the Muslim fashion.
Mini Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by H.S. Singha, Hemkunt Press, Delhi. 


THE KUTTHA MEAT ARGUMENT - KUTTHA MEANS ALL MEAT OR DOES IT? 

What is Kuttha meat?

Punjabi-English Dictionary, Punjabi University, Dept. of Punjabi Lexicography, Published Dec. 1994. "Kuttha: meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law." 
Punjabi English Dictionary, Singh Bros., Amritsar "Kuttha: Tortured, killed according to Mohammedan law." 

In the Rehit Marayada (http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html), Section Six, it states: 
The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided 
1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way(Kutha); 
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse
4. Using tobacco.
Sikh Rehit Maryada 


There have been some quarters who have been at pains to create confusion over the word Kuttha. Some even defining it as all meat. There is no confusion over this word, and the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is proof of this. 
In the following Ang Guru Nanak condemns Brahmins, who serve their Muslim rulers stating they are acting like pseudo-Muslims. In this Ang there is a line which clearly refers to Kuttha as meat which has had Muslim prayers read over it. Kuttha, however, can meat any meat that is killed in a ritualistic manner. 

mehlaa 1. 
_maanas khaanay karahi nivaaj_.
_chhuree vagaa-in tin gal taag._
_tin ghar barahman pooreh naad._
_unHaa bhe aavahi o-ee saad._
_koorhee raas koorhaa vaapaar._
_koorh bol karahi aahaar._
_saram Dharam kaa dayraa door._
_naanak koorh rahi-aa bharpoor._
_mathai tikaa tayrh Dhotee kakhaa-ee._
_hath chhuree jagat kaasaa-ee._
_neel vastar pahir hoveh parvaan._
_malaychh Dhaan lay poojeh puraan._
abhaakhi-aa kaa kuthaa bakraa khaanaa. 
_cha-ukay upar kisai na jaanaa._
_day kai cha-ukaa kadhee kaar._
_upar aa-ay baithay koorhi-aar._
_mat bhitai vay mat bhitai._
_ih ann asaadaa fitai._
_tan fitai fayrh karayn._
_man joothai chulee bharayn._
_kaho naanak sach Dhi-aa-ee-ai._
_such hovai taa sach paa-ee-ai_. 

First Mehl: 
_The man-eaters say their prayers._
_Those who wield the knife wear the sacred thread around their necks._
_In their homes, the Brahmins sound the conch._
_They too have the same taste._
_False is their capital, and false is their trade._
_Speaking falsehood, they take their food_. 
_The home of modesty and Dharma is far from them._
_O Nanak, they are totally permeated with falsehood._ _The sacred marks are on their foreheads, and the saffron loin-cloths are around their waists;_
_in their hands they hold the knives - they are the butchers of the world!_
_Wearing blue robes, they seek the approval of the Muslim rulers._
_Accepting bread from the Muslim rulers, they still worship the Puraanas._
They eat the meat of the goats, killed after the Muslim prayers are read over them,
_but they do not allow anyone else to enter their kitchen areas._
_They draw lines around them, plastering the ground with cow-dung_. 
_The false come and sit within them._
_They cry out, "Do not touch our food,_
_this food of ours will be polluted!_
_But with their polluted bodies, they commit evil deeds._
_With filthy minds, they try to cleanse their mouths._
_Says Nanak, meditate on the True Lord._
_If you are pure, you will obtain the True Lord._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji

Hence, it is clear that Kutha does not mean all meat at all, it means specifically Halal Meat, but in the wider context it can mean meat that is ritually slaughtered. 


Also on Page 956 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji

Ŧis ḏā *kuṯẖā* hovai sekẖ.
If the Shaykh is *killed* with that,


Lohū lab nikthā vekẖ.
then the blood of greed will spill out.

Ho▫e *halāl* lagai hak jā▫e.
One who is slaughtered in this *ritualistic way*, will be attached to the Lord. 
Sru Guru Granth Sahib ji


Several points to note:

1) If we took the sentence where the word "Kutha" is we would say, that word just means "Killed", however if we read on we see _"One who is *slaughtered in this ritualistic way".*_ Meaning, that "Kutha" is seen as a form of ritualistic killing.

2) Note also "Halal" is defined as "_*slaughtered in this ritualistic way".*_ Meaning that where "Halal" is used it can be seen as defining "ritualistic" killing.

3) This is nothing to do with meat eating as some people would have us believe but rather to do with the 5 thieves, in this instance "Lobh" or "Greed".



AN AMRIT-DHARI DOES NOT EAT MEAT OR DOES HE? 

This clearly a falicy, since the rules that guide and Amritdhari are from the Rehit-Marayada, which places no taboo on meat eating. 

EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF EUROPEAN TRAVELLERS OF SIKH DIET DURING THE 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY 

There are a number of eyewitness accounts from European travellers as to the eating habits of Sikhs. Although there is no prohibition on Sikhs for eating beef, it is clear that Sikhs as a mark of respect for their Hindu neighbours did not partake in eating beef: 

_The Seiks receive Proselytes of almost every Cast, a point in which they differ most materially from the Hindoos. To initiate Mohammedans into their mysteries, they prepare a Dish of Hogs legs, which the Converts are obliged to partake of, previous to admission............They are not prohibited the use of Animal food of any kind, excepting Beef, which they are rigidly scrupulous in abstaining from._
John Griffiths writes in February 17th 1794 



_The seiks are remarkably fond of the flesh of the jungle hog, which they kill in chase: this food is allowable by their law. They likewise eat of mutton and fish; but these being unlawful the Brahmins will not partake, leaving those who chose to transgress their institutes to answer for themselves. _
_William Francklin in his writing about Mr George Thomas 1805_


It is clear from the above that there is a clear distinction between Sikhs (meat eaters), and those who chose to follow Brahmanical practices (Vegetarians), however there appears to be no dispute over this issue as people are allowed to decide for themselves. 
The following is an Extract from an officer in the Bengal Army and is taken from the Asiatic Annual Register 1809: 

_Now become a Singh, he is a heterodox, and distinct from the Hindoos by whom he is considered an apostate. He is not restricted in his diet, but is allowed, by the tenets of his new religion, to devour whatever food his appetite may prompt, excepting beef._
Asiatic Annual Register 1809 


Clearly, this gives us an idea that even independent observers of Sikhs who saw their eating habits. These Sikhs were around some 100 years after the demise of the last physical Sikh Guru and represented hardcore Sikh philosophy at that time. 

WHY MEAT IS NOT SERVED IN LANGAR 

The reason why meat is not served at langar in the Gurdwaras is because langar is supposed to be a symbol of equality of mankind where all people no matter what race, religion or caste can eat together in the atmosphere of brotherhood. Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, it does not matter who they are. Different religions have different dietary restrictions. Hindus cannot eat cow, muslims cannot eat pork and will only eat halal meat. Jews will only eat kosher meat, others cannot eat fish or eggs. But in a gurdwara langar, it does not matter what their dietary taboos or religious beliefs are, the food is designed so that all can eat together and no one will be offended or not be able to partake of the meal. 

WHY JHATKA MEAT? 

What is Jhatka Meat and Why? 

Jhatka meat is meat in which the animal has been killed quickly without suffering or religious ritual. 

We must give the rationale behind prescribing jhatka meat as the approved food for the Sikhs. According to the ancient Aryan Hindu tradition, only such meat as is obtained from an animal which is killed with one stroke of the weapon causing instantaneous death is fit for human consumption. However, with the coming of Islam into India and the Muslim political hegemony, it became a state policy not to permit slaughter of animals for food, in any other manner, except as laid down in the Quran - the kosher meat prepared by slowly severing the main blood artery of the throat of the animal while reciting verses from the Quran. It is done to make slaughter a sacrifice to God and to expiate the sins of the slaughter. Guru Gobind Singh took a rather serious view of this aspect of the whole matter. He, therefore, while permitting flesh to be taken as food repudiated the whole theory of this expiatory sacrifice and the right of ruling Muslims to impose iton the non-Muslims. Accordingly, he made jhatka meat obligatory for those Sikhs who may be interested in taking meat as a part of their food.
Sikhism, A Complete Introduction, Dr. H.S.Singha & Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press 



And one semitic practice clearly rejected in the Sikh code of conduct is eating flesh of an animal cooked in ritualistic manner; this would mean kosher and halal meat. The reason again does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to enoble the flesh. No ritual, whoever conducts it, is going to do any good either to the animal or to the diner. Let man do what he must to assuage his hunger. If what he gets, he puts to good use and shares with the needy, then it is well used and well spent, otherwise not.
Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers. 


THE FINAL AUTHORITY 

Guru Nanak Devji tackled this entire issue head on and rubbished the claims of so called spiritual people who thought themselves more pious and religious simply because they did not eat meat. 
Page 1289 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee jaanai._
_ka-un maas ka-un saag kahaavai kis meh paap samaanay._
_gaiNdaa maar hom jag kee-ay dayviti-aa kee baanay._
_maas chhod bais nak pakrheh raatee maanas khaanay._
_farh kar lokaaN no dikhlaavahi gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee soojhai._
_naanak anDhay si-o ki-aa kahee-ai kahai na kahi-aa boojhai._
_anDhaa so-ay je anDh kamaavai tis ridai se lochan naahee._
_maat pitaa kee rakat nipannay machhee maas na khaaNhee._

_First Mehl:_
_The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom._
_What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?_
_It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering._
_Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night._
_They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom._
_O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said._
_They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts._
_They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


This Shabad specifically deals with the arguments that rage today about spirituality and meat eating. The purpose of this essay, stated in the beginning is not to look at meat eatings pros and cons in terms of the wider biological debate, but to look at I terms of Sikhism and spirituality. As Sikh, one should be concerned with getting into the triviality of such worthless debates and certainly one should not mistranslate, or misrepresent the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji to back up a certain point of view. 

OTHER EVIDENCE 

There have always been vegetarian Sikhs, and there have always been Meat eating Sikhs and the two groups have happily sat together and consumed a mutually acceptable Vegetarian Langar side by side. So why in the 20th and 21st Century has this issue caused so much debate and controversy? 
This maybe traced back to the Times of the British Raj and encouragement of recruitment of Sikhs into the British Army. Many new converts to Sikhism came into the fold, many of whom still practiced Hindu Vaishnav practices of strict vegetarianism. 
This need to cause division amongst Sikhs may even be traced earlier. In Mobad Dabistan-I Mazahib 1645-46, the author states: 

_Many person became his disciples. Nanak believed in the Oneness of God and in the way that it is asserted in Muhammadan theology. He also believed in transmigration of souls. Holding wine and pork to be unlawful, he had [himself] abandoned eating meat. He decreed avoidance of causing harm to animals. It was after his time that meat-eating spread amongst his followers. Arjan Mal, who was on of his lineal succesors, found this to be evil. He prohibited people from eating meat, saying This is not in accordance with Nanaks wishes. Later, Hargobind, son of Arjan Mal, ate meat and took to hunting. Most of their [the Gurus] followers adopted his practice._
Mobad Dabistan-I Mazahib 1645-46 


Now clearly we know the message of the Guru’s was uniform. It was not that they contradicted each other on issues such as meat eating. If some of this authors writings are to be believed as factual, then one can only conclude that some of the Guru’s were indeed vegetarian and some meat eaters, but it was not an issue that mattered to them or which they attached importance to. The author in this instance has liberally applied his own thoughts in order to show a contradiction amongst the Sikh Guru’s teaching and possibly a mean to exploit division. There was no contradiction in Sikh thought from the First Master to the Last.


----------



## kds1980 (May 24, 2006)

very good article.why religious sikhs living in the western countries are
obsessed with vegetarianism.in india sikhs are always considered as non vegetarian community.many sikhs which came to india after partition
opened non vegetarian restaurents which become quite famous.some hindus  say that tasty non veg dishes are avialable in sikh restuarents
there are even keshdhari sikh butchers in india.
but on various discussion forums i have seen that even clean shaven sikhs also say that they don't eat meat because it is against sikhism
various sites like tapoban associate hair cutters with meat eaters.they always say that the the person is not religious because he eats meat.
can any sikh living in western country tell me how this fanatical vegetarianism entered west.


----------



## simpy (May 24, 2006)

Respected Veer Randip Singh Ji,

Very good article. Everything starts with one thing-EGO; when one thinks 'I am better than others'. A person misinterprets Bani for the same reason, just to prove himself/herself right. 

So many misconceptions have been raised in the Panth by this “I-ness” and are responsible for creating unnecessary controversies.

Sikhi, if followed sincerely and faithfully takes you to a point where you are able to see Guru/God everywhere. A real Gurmukh simply CANNOT hate others on any basis; be it a worldly behavior or appearance.

Guru Bhala karey


----------



## Randip Singh (May 24, 2006)

Thanks for the kind comments.........this is the 2nd draft.Any areas missed will be appreciated.

Verses from The Sikhism Home Page

*Food For Thought*

Meat classifed with good foods such as bread, not bad foods such as wine 

_The body is the bottle, self-conceit is the wine, and desire is the company of drinking companions. The glass of the mindâ€™s longing is filled to overflowing with falsehood; the Messenger of Death is the bartender. Drinking in this wine, O Nanak, one takes on countless vices and corruption. So make spiritual wisdom your molasses, and the Praise of God your bread; let the Fear of God be the dish of meat. O Nanak, this is the true food; let the True Name be your only Support._
Baba Mardana, Bihagara, pg. 553 

In the society of the times meat was avoided by Hindus and certain kinds by the Muslims. The Gurus tried to explain to these people that it was not eating meat was not the real sin but: 
Taking anothers right is the real thing to be avoided 

_"Nanak, another's right is swine for him (the Musalman) and cow for him (the Hindu)." _
(Guru Nanak, pg. 141) 



Falsehood is the real thing to avoid ​ 

_"By uttering falsehood, man eats meat, Yet, he goes to admonish others. Such appears to be the leader, O' Nanak! who himself is beguiled and beguiles his comrades." _
(Guru Nanak, Slok, pg. 140) 



_"Falsehood is my dagger and to eat by defrauding is meat." _
(Guru Nanak, Sri Rag, pg. 24) 



Evil intellect, heartlesness, slander and wrath are the real things to avoid ​ 

_Evil-intellect is the she drummer, heartlessness is the butcheress, others slander in the heart is a sweepress and deceitful wrath is a pariah-woman._

(Guru Nanak, Slok, pg. 91) 



Avarice, falsehood, cheatings and slander are the real things to avoid ​ 

_Avarice is a dog., falsehood the sweeper and cheating the eating of meat. Slandering others solely amounts to puting otherâ€™s filth in ones own mouth and fire of wrath is a pariah. _

(Guru Nanak, Sri Rag, pg.15) 


The Gurus clearly stated what are sins throughout the Guru Granth Sahib, nowhere is eating meat mentioned as being one of these sins. 

_"Taking halter, men go out at night to strangle others, but the Lord knows all, O mortal. Concealed in places they look at other women. They break into places, difficult to acceess and enjoy wine deeming it sweet. Over their respective misdeeds, they shall themselves afterwards regret. Azrail, the courier of death shall crush them like the mill full of sesame." _
(Guru Arjan Dev, Pauri, pg. 315) 



_"Renounce sexual pleasures, wrath, falsehood and calumny, forsake worldly valuables and dispel pride. Put aside the lust for belles and leave worldly love. Then shalt thou obtain the bright Lord amidst the dark world. Eschew self-adoration, egotism and affection for thy sons and wife. Shed thirst and desire for wealth and embrace love for the omnipresent Lord. Nanak, he, in whose mind the True One abides, through the True Gurbani gets absorbed in God's Name." _
(Guru Ram Das, pg. 141) 



_"Abandon lust, wrath, avarice and worldly love. Thus be rid of both birth and death. Distress and darkness shall depart from thy home, when, within thee, the Guru implants wisdom and lights the Divine lamp. He, who serves the Lord crosses the sea of life. Through the Guru, O slave Nanak, the entire world is saved." _
(Guru Arjan Dev, Gauri, pg. 241) 



_"In the fire of desire, avarice, arrogance and excessive egotism the man is burning. He repeatedly goes, comes and loses his honour. His life he wastes away in vain. Rare is the person who understands Gurbani." _
(Guru Amar Das, Majh, pg 120)

The superstitions of the impurity of certain foods such as meat exposed and the real emphasis revealed: 

_"If the principle of impurity be admitted, then there is impurity everywhere._
_In cow-dung and wood there are worms._
_As many as are the grains of corn, none is without life._
_In the first place there is life in water, by which, all are made green._
_How can impurity be warded off? It falls on our own kitchen._
_Nanak, impurity is not removed like this. It is washed away by Divine Knowledge._
_The mind's impurity is avarice and the tongue's impurity falsehood._
_The impurity of the eyes is to behold another's woman, another's wealth and beauty._
_The impurity of the ears is to hear the slander of others with ears,_
_Nanak, mortal's soul goes bout to the city of death._
_All impurity consists in doubt and attachment to duality._
_Birth and death are subject to Lord's command and through His will mortal comes and goes._
_Eating and drinking are pure, for the Lord has given sustenance to all._
_Nanak, the Gurmukh who know the Lord, to them impurity sticks not."_
(Guru Nanak, Slok, pg. 472) 



_"What can be achieved by eating and what by dressing, so long as that True Lord abides not in the man's mind? What is fruit, what clarified butter and sweet molasses, what fine flour and what meat? What is rainment and what comfortable couch to enjoy sexual intercourse and revelments? Of what use is an army and of what the mace-bearers, servants and coming and dwelling in mansions? Nanak, without the True Name, the entire paraphernalia is perishable." _
(Guru Nanak, pg. 142)



_"The True food is the Lord's love. So says the True Guru. With the True food I am appeased and with Truth I am delighted." _
(Guru Angad, Pauri, pg. 146)



_"The world-hardened men, who eat poison by repeatedly telling lies, the Lord Himself has led astray. They know not the ultimate reality of departure, and increase the poison of lust and wrath." _
(Guru Amar Das, Pauri, pg. 145) 



_"Without the Name all, which man wears and eats is poison. By praising the True Name one merges in the True Master." _
(Guru Nanak, Pauri, pg.144) 



_"By reading and reciting men grow weary but they obtain not peace. By desire they are consumed, and they have no knowledge of it. Poison they purchase and for the love of poison they are thirsty. By telling lies they eat poison." _
(Guru Amrar Das, Majh, pg. 120)



_"I have tasted and seen all other relishes but to my mind the God's dainty is the sweetest of all." _
(Guru Arjan Dev, Majh, pg.100)



_"Do thou only that by which filth may not attach to thee, and this soul of thine may remain awake in singing God's praises._
_Meditate on the One Lord, and think not duality._
_In the guild of saints repeat only the Name._
_Rituals, duty, religious rites, fasting and worship are all covered recognising none else in sans the Supreme Lord._
_Of him the toil is approved, whose affection is with his own Master._
_Infinitely invaluable is that vegetarian (Vishnavite), says Nanak; who renounced sins."_
( Guru Arjan Dev, Gauri, pg. 199) 



_"Let somone sing, someone hear, someone reflect on, someone preach the Name of God and somone fix it in his mind, he shall forthwith be saved. His sins shall be effaced, he shall become pure and his filth of many births shall be washed off. In this world and the next world, his countenance shall be bright, and mammon shall not affect him. He is the man of wisdom, he the vegetarian, he the divine and the man of wealth; He is the hero, and he is of high family, who has meditated on the Fortunate Lord." _
( Guru Arjan Dev, Pauri, pg. 300) 



_"Self-conceit and wealth are all poison. Attached therewith, man ever suffers loss in this world. By pondering on the Name, the Guru-ward earns the profit of God's wealth. By placing God and God's elixir in the mind, the poison of the filth of ego is removed." _
( Guru Ram Das, Slok, pg. 300)



_"The attachment of all the visible objects is all impurity. Due to this, the mortal dies and is reborn again and again. Impurity is in fire, air and water. Within all the food, which we eat, there is pollution. Defilement is in mans actions as he performs not God's worship." _
( Guru Amar Das, Gauri Guareri, pg. 229)



_"Without the Name all, which man wears and eats is poison. By praising the True Name one merges in the True Master." _
( Guru Nanak, Pauri, pg.144) 



"The True food is the Lord's love. So says the True Guru. With the True food I am appeased and with Truth I am delighted." 
( Guru Angad, Pauri, pg. 146) 


The vegetable feels pain just as the animal does, there is no difference. 

_"See, that the sugarcane is sheared. After cleansing and chopping off its plumes, its feet are bound to form it into bundles. Placing it in between the wooden rollers of the press, they crush and award it punishment. Extracting the juice, they put it in the cauldron and it groans as it burns. Even the empty crushed cane is collected and is burnt in the fire. Nanak, how the sweet-leaved sugar-cane is treated, come and see, Oâ€™ people!" _
( Guru Nanak, Slok, pg. 143)


Glorious God is compared not only to the fish and the net but also to a fisherman - a killer of fish for food. 

_"He Himself is the fisherman and the fish and Himself the water and the net. He Himself is the metal ball of the net and Himself the bait within." _
( Guru Nanak, Sri Rag, pg. 23)

There is no difference between plants and animals. God in his perfection has designed all living things to eat what they eat. We eat meat as part of the natural order of all living things designed by God. Man has been eating meat and vegetables for millions of years, God has not designed meat eating human beings in error. The only things banned for Sikhs are all unnatural manipulations of natural foods - tobacco, drugs, alcohol all unnatural manipulations of vegetation, and all banned for Sikhs. 

_"When Thou art true, then all, that flows from Thee is true. Absolutely nothing is false. Talking, seeing, uttering, living, walking and perishing are from Thee, O' Lord! Nanak, the True Lord Himself creates by His order, and in His order He keeps all the beings." _
(Guru Nanak, Slok, pg. 145)



_"The tigers, hawks, kites and falcons, them the Lord causes to eat grass. Who eats grass, them He causes to eat meat. This way of life He can set agoing." _
(Guru Nanak, Slok, pg. 144) 



_"God Himself has made the earth and Himself the sky. He of Himself created the beings therein, and of Himself puts morsels (food) in their mouths. All by Himself He pervades everywhere and Himself is the treasure of excellences. Remember Thou God's Name, O slave Nanak, and He shall efface all thine sins." _
(Guru Ram Das, Slok, pg. 302) 



_"They walk in a single file, brush the ground before they lay their foot on it all this they do to avoid killing life, but it is God who giveth and taketh life." _
(Guru Gobind Singh, 33 Swayyas, Dasam Granth)



_"There is but one breath, all are identical in matter and among all the entire light is the same. The One Light is contained among all the different and diverse things." _
(Guru Ram Das, Majh, pg. 96)



_"Many millions of beings, the Lord has made of good many descriptions. From the Lord they emanated and into the Lord shall they be absorbed."_
(Guru Arjan Dev, Ashtpadi, pg. 276)



_"In forests, grass blades and mountains, the Supreme Lord is contained. As is His will so are His creatures acts. The Lord is in wind, water and fire. He is permeating the four quarters and ten directions. There is no place without Him." _
(Guru Arjan Dev, Ashtpadi, pg. 294)



_Amongst all the forms, the Lord Himself is contained._
_Through all the eyes, He Himself is the beholder._
_The whole creation is His Body._
_His praises He Himself hears._
_He has made coming and going as a play._
_He has rendered mammon subservient to Him._
_Though amidst everything He remains unattached._
_Whatever is to be said, He Himself says._
_By His order man comes and by His order he goes._
_Nanak, when it pleases Him, He blends the mortal with Himself, than._
_Whatever comes from Him, that cannot be bad._
_.....All that He does must be accepted. Through Guru's grace, Nanak has come to know this._
(Guru Arjan Dev, Ashtpadi, pg. 294) 



_"I have heard the One Lord to be the treasure of imperishable peace. God is said to be fully filling the ocean, dry land, sky and every heart. He looks equally adorned amongst all the high and low, an ant and an elephant. The friends, comrades, sons and relatives are all created by Him." _
(Guru Arjan Dev, Slok, pg. 319) 



_"His plays, He Himself enacts. Coming and going, visible and invisible and the entire world, He has made obedient to Himself." _
(Guru Arjan Dev, Ashtpadi, pg. 281)


Meat prepared by the Muslim ritual slaughter is banned for Sikhs 

_"Yet holding the knife, the world they butcher. Wearing blue the rulers approval they seek; With money derived from mlechhas the Puranas they worship. Goats slaughtered over the unapproved Muslims texts they eat."_
(Guru Nanak, Raga Asa, pg. 472)


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (May 24, 2006)

Gurfateh

Mostly Mone people expect from das some ideotic gyani like things say do not tie beard or not to eat meat.

often they are mone due to thier being misguided about faith by psudo Sikhs.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 24, 2006)

vijaydeep Singh said:
			
		

> Gurfateh
> 
> Mostly Mone people expect from das some ideotic gyani like things say do not tie beard or not to eat meat.
> 
> often they are mone due to thier being misguided about faith by psudo Sikhs.


 
Unfortunately some get caught up in such foolishness.


----------



## kds1980 (May 25, 2006)

randip singh said:
			
		

> Thanks for the kind comments.........this is the 2nd draft.Any areas missed will be appreciated.



randip singh ji there is strong arguement in favour of non veg diet and that arguement is environment
god has not created fertile land everywhere.it is impossible for people living in coastal areas,icy regions to be vegetarians. so any body saying that non veg diet is wrong is directly pointing finger
toward god.if sikhs want to propagate sikhi in different areas of world then we have to accept different diets.any religion that says that its followers
cannot eat non veg diet is confined to fertile areas of
world and not a universal religion.

randip singh ji if you can ad above point then i will be thankful to you.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 25, 2006)

kds1980 said:
			
		

> randip singh ji there is strong arguement in favour of non veg diet and that arguement is environment
> god has not created fertile land everywhere.it is impossible for people living in coastal areas,icy regions to be vegetarians. so any body saying that non veg diet is wrong is directly pointing finger
> toward god.if sikhs want to propagate sikhi in different areas of world then we have to accept different diets.any religion that says that its followers
> cannot eat non veg diet is confined to fertile areas of
> ...


 
Hi KDS,

We toyed with idea of adding some biological, humane, and practical arguments (like yours), to the article, but what we wanted to do was focus on what Sikhism said and what Sikh-History said. We wanted analyse practices of Sikhs.

Let me give you an example.....Christianity like Sikhism does not specifiy any specific diet Vege or Non-Vege........however there are many Vegetarian Christians........they are Vegetarian because of what their conscience tells them. They do not use Christianity to back it up. In Sikhism, there seems to be a strange need to back up a particular viewpoint through Sikhism. We have sought to dispell this myth (and I think sucessfully), that meat eating or vegetarianism has nothing to do with Sikhism.

What do you think?


----------



## drkhalsa (May 25, 2006)

Dear Randip Singh Ji


Congratulations ! on the excellent article and it sums up all the arguments that usually we have to give again and again on this forum to some new member who is being confused on the meat issue. I think it will now serve as a reference article for me and also this website in future to advise somebody before starting an argument again 

i am astonished that it has everything I have ever read about this issue even Historical Witness topic . Here in london Recently I have read a Book on sikh history which clearly states the reference that Neo Converts from muslims use to eat Pork at least once at the time of initiation which marked there departure from previous community .

Anyways 
Thanks !


Dear kds1980


You asked why people leaving in western seems to be more obssesed with vegitarian food

Possible reason as I could understand 

1. Most of the parchar /preaching here is by Sants of various sampradas and sant samaj  even Taksal ( accepts it is allowed only as last resort)and they are the one propagating 

2.In the obsession to oppose / resist everything related to western culture people think themself more elevated or doing good by oppsoing everything incluiding meat eating also the idea supported by Sant jis



Jatinder Singh


----------



## Randip Singh (May 25, 2006)

drkhalsa said:
			
		

> Dear Randip Singh Ji
> 
> 
> Congratulations ! on the excellent article and it sums up all the arguments that usually we have to give again and again on this forum to some new member who is being confused on the meat issue. I think it will now serve as a reference article for me and also this website in future to advise somebody before starting an argument again
> ...


 
Thanks Jatinder Singh Veerji.....I think it has taken about 5 years to collate information for this.......and even longer for the people who we have refered to.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 26, 2006)

Waheguru ji ka khalsa waheguru ji ki fateh.

One of the best reference articles i have read for a long time. Congrats to Randip Singh, the Author. Sikhi needs to be distanced from this vegetarian-non vege debate as it is causing a serious divide where there is NONE.
All the Tuks are taken out of context and misinterpreted - sometimes intentionally.  Gurmatt doesnt have any restrictions on diet.

Jarnail Singh Gyani Arshi


----------



## Randip Singh (May 26, 2006)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:
			
		

> Waheguru ji ka khalsa waheguru ji ki fateh.
> 
> One of the best reference articles i have read for a long time. Congrats to Randip Singh, the Author. Sikhi needs to be distanced from this vegetarian-non vege debate as it is causing a serious divide where there is NONE.
> All the Tuks are taken out of context and misinterpreted - sometimes intentionally. Gurmatt doesnt have any restrictions on diet.
> ...


 
Thanks for the kind words and the constructive comments you have made. Hopefully this will sink into the brains of some of our Sikhs who have taken a very narrow view on this matter.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 27, 2006)

I would also encourage people to e-mail this to fellow Sikhs. Print it off to and distribute it.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 28, 2006)

Gurfateh. 
I have taken the liberty to post it on many Forums where i am a memeber.... SikhsSydney@Yahoogroups.com, ANZ-Sikhs@Yahoogroups.com, SikhYouth@Yahoogroups.com, Sikhnation@Yahoogroups.com....and many more  readers are encouraged to join some of these and post comments as well. We have to reach a wider audience to spread Genuine Sikhi/Gurmatt...instead of the Hotch potch Brahminism vedic philospohy being spread by the Derawallahs for their own benefit.

JSGyani


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (May 28, 2006)

Gurfateh

not just Dera Wallah but some people who want to bring thier jatt vegism into the faith.As in Haryana,UP etc Jaats are very stouch veggis and thier attitdude lead to elmination of Arya Samaj in those Areas.

Das would like to add another thing that Brahmins often are profound meat eaters more in North India and Pakistan.Thier books are ful of animal sacrifise.

and in south India also Brahmins eat all type of non veg ,more in Tamil and Kerala area.Vaishnavs or veggis Brahmins are more in Andhra,Gujrat,Assam etc.Again in Bengal they do not consider fish as non veg.

Brahmin Dharama is abased upon yagana and in that Violence or Hinsa is must and so they carry out sacrifises.Similar things are there in jews and Muslims and then came to tradtions of Nihungs and Hajur Sahib.Perhaps when Guru says that Meat is in Puranas and Kateebs(Var Malar),then he just wants to say that other faiths also endorse his views.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 28, 2006)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:
			
		

> Gurfateh.
> I have taken the liberty to post it on many Forums where i am a memeber.... SikhsSydney@Yahoogroups.com, ANZ-Sikhs@Yahoogroups.com, SikhYouth@Yahoogroups.com, Sikhnation@Yahoogroups.com....and many more readers are encouraged to join some of these and post comments as well. We have to reach a wider audience to spread Genuine Sikhi/Gurmatt...instead of the Hotch potch Brahminism vedic philospohy being spread by the Derawallahs for their own benefit.
> 
> JSGyani


 
Thanks.

The more forums the better.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (May 28, 2006)

Gurfateh
Das saw another shamefull thing.
Some guys were oppsed to say uasge of Sikh symbols in butcher shops or tape records in butcher Shops.

So das was only thinking that we had Sadhna verse onto whome came from akal and are recorded in Guru Granth Sahib.If Akal can send Bani to butcher so who are we to stop?


----------



## Randip Singh (May 28, 2006)

vijaydeep Singh said:
			
		

> Gurfateh
> 
> not just Dera Wallah but some people who want to bring thier jatt vegism into the faith.As in Haryana,UP etc Jaats are very stouch veggis and thier attitdude lead to elmination of Arya Samaj in those Areas.
> 
> ...


 
I don't think this work was designed as an attack on vegetarians. Infact it was prepared in consultation with vegetarian Sikhs.

Animal sacrifice, whether it be Hindu, Muslim or whatever religion is seen as a form of apeasement....an action a apologist would take. Sikhs are not apologists or appeasers but try and take the path of Justice, Truth and Freedom. They don't try and run other down, and neither do they allow themsekves to be run down.

We can blame external forces to an extent for dividing the Paanth, but we must get our own house in order first. This essay is one small step I hope in doing that.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (May 28, 2006)

Gurfateh

Dear bro,

soory for misinterpetations if any.Das never meant that you are attacking veggis rather deem das as your allie to attack vegtrianism.Das just wanted to say that in Genral not All Brahmins are veggis.In fact only Vaishnavites  one are only like that.

Das got habit to eat meat daily only after lving in a Tamil Brahmin family for two years.Else das use to eat meat once in a weak.And they did serve beef to das.With then only das first time ate non jhatka machine killed meat.

Das thinks that it is halal that is not allwed and all types of meat can be eatern otherwise.As per Kahan Singh Nabha Also shoked to kill or hunted one can be eaten.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (May 28, 2006)

Gurfateh

Arya Samaj is divided into two part,one which claims to be Hindu is pro veg while those who cal Arya Dharam greter then Hindus eat meat a lot.

Das thnks here you talk about Sant Nirnakaris,whhich are at loggerhead with Panth and not the true Nirnakaris(who still are there in few numbers in Chandigarh),Both are pro to jhatka meat but Sant Niranakris may eat Halal also.


Asutos Ji,preach that Islam,Hindusim,Sikhism,Christianity etc. all preach vegitarianism.For which they even tell lies also.They are vegis.

Das saw only one Baba with Ashram or Dera who supports non veg and that is Baba Virsa Singh Ji.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 28, 2006)

Here is an example of some of the most lamest responses I have had about this issue....baring LK:

http://forums.waheguroo.com/index.php?showtopic=14714

Just abuse...no counter argument.:whisling: :u):


----------



## kds1980 (May 29, 2006)

vijaydeep Singh said:
			
		

> Gurfateh
> 
> Arya Samaj is divided into two part,one which claims to be Hindu is pro veg while those who cal Arya Dharam greter then Hindus eat meat a lot.
> 
> ...



the anti hindu pro communist swami agnivesh belongs to which category meat eating or not meat eating.



			
				randip singh said:
			
		

> Here is an example of some of the most lamest responses I have had about this issue....baring LK:
> 
> http://forums.waheguroo.com/index.php?showtopic=14714
> 
> Just abuse...no counter argument.:whisling: :u):



i posted the article on sikhportal and responses started coming in without reading the article.the problem is not vegetarianism but obsession with it.
they don't want to study sikhism with open mind
what their jatha,sant,samprada says about meat they just accept that with closed eyes


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 29, 2006)

The Debate is NOT about encouraging or discouraging meat/vegetariansm. 
GURBANI warns about CHASKA....loosely translated as :ADDICTION: , "OVERindulgnece"..."cant live without it..type of thing. ON Page 15 of SGGS in Sri Raag Guru nanak LISTS 6 such CHASKAS we all have....
1. Chaska of Collecting GOLD, SILVER, WEALTH, 2. Chaska of Having the most beautiful WOMEN around us..3. Chaska of Perfumes and scents for our Body, 4. Chaska of having the best horse, elephant etc to ride - Modern equivalent - BMW/MERC/Ferari/Porsche in the driveway even though we may have to skip meals to pay the monthly installment, 5. Chaska of having the best MANSION palace to live in...how we love to renovate and renovate ourselves into debt !!..and LAST on the LIST is ..Chaska of SWEET FOODS..and MEAT.

YES......GURU JI LISTS the Chaska of MEAT LAST..after one for SWEETS- laddoos, jalebis, barfis, khoa,

IN WHAT WAY have our great SANTS and BRAHMGIANIS LEAPFROGGED GURU JIs LIST from 1 - 6....over everything incluidng the loads of laddoos and jalebis we eat daily...to hit the Brakes at MEAT..and choke on this. TO Guru Ji...meat is just one small CHASKA...the LEAST important of all. GO look at SRI RAAG Mahalla Pehla Page 15 SGGS. Are we Cleverer than GURU JI...

SHOW me ONE SANT who advises AGAINST GOLD COLLECTING...and I will show you HUNDREDS of such MANGTAH TOKREE DHOING SANTS..whose only mission in life is to Cover every Gurdawra done with GOLD, Plaki with GOLD..next will be GOLDEN Battas, GOLDEN Bhanddehs in Guru ka langgar...and GOLD SGGS
My advice..READ GURBANI yourself..veero ate bhenno...dont listen to half educated and uneducated people trying to push outdated and wrong beleifs down your throat...Maas Maas kar MOORAKH JHaggrreh..is GURU NANAK JI SPEAKING...not some half baked brahmgiani !!

Ask any medico..overindulgence in ANYTHING is bad...Maah dee daal gives soem bad knees...some foods give gas problesm to some...ghee is bad for heart patients...so and so on..GURU JI ADVISES..RESTRAINT..SEHAJ...GO SLOW....ON EVERYTHING..eating, sleeping...whatever we do. Even too much SAAG will KILL YOU..so use your god given brains..AAklle SAHIB SEviahn..says GURU NANAK JI again...

Jarnail Singh Gyani


----------



## kds1980 (May 29, 2006)

take a look at the following post from tapoban
http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=82234&t=82234
Author: in sochna mood 
Date:   05-29-06 08:34
bhupinder singh ji i too have a question for you my brother.
if a sikh eats meat they are bound by karma automatically to pay off the debt back in to charasi lakh joon. Such as a person eating a chicken will be born one in next life right? if muslims eat meat everyday, and even for days marked with observance for God how would they even advance up to any low form of heaven before paying the price of maas munching? 
heavens compared to sach khand are low form but how can meat eaters even spend the next life in a place where they will not pay back this price of consuming flesh of a being? surely maas munchers debt to karm would be heavier than any amount of praying they did. how could it balance off some good over bad? 
from what i have been informed on the laws after death, the amount of bodies we eat we will have to come back as each one. That would then cancel out any chance of having any heavenly pleasure if people have munched 10 000 animals in lifetime. or would charity and praying a bit make a difference?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now where it is written in gurmat that if a person eat meat then he is reborn into that joon.what philosophy these people are following.by that logic if a person eat human meat then he will reborn into human being.
these people are hopeless case they are what brahmins are to hinduism


----------



## Randip Singh (May 29, 2006)

kds1980 said:
			
		

> take a look at the following post from tapoban
> http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=82234&t=82234
> Author: in sochna mood
> Date: 05-29-06 08:34
> ...


 
I have a section in the article that tackles Chaurasi Lakh Joon head on.........copy and post it.

There is no difference in Joon between rock, plant, animal......only humans are different.


----------



## Amardeep (May 29, 2006)

nice essay. 

but if you look at it logically, dont you think that God will punish you for killing animals in order to eat them? 

i talked to an aunti, she said that the hukamnama from Guru Govind Singh Maharaj was that we arent allowed to eat meat, and not only "halal meat"... 
she says that it is those wicked shcholars that came up after 1984 that has been saying this in order to divide us bla bla...


----------



## Randip Singh (May 30, 2006)

Amardeep said:
			
		

> nice essay.
> 
> but if you look at it logically, dont you think that God will punish you for killing animals in order to eat them?
> 
> ...


 
There is no Hukamnama from Guru Gobind Singh ji saying this. Read the essay, because there is a section that deals with Hukamnama's of Guru Hargobind that allegedly state not eating meat. However, there is another by Guru Gobind Singh ji that says its ok to eat meat so long as it is not Halal.

Also there is a section that deal with the Chaurasi Lank joon argument....i.e. minerla, vegetable, animal then human..................however......Bani does not say this...............it says you have Human life at on level....then below that animal, plant....mineral at one level.

Read it in the essay rather than me explain it....its been kept short for ease of reading.


----------



## Amardeep (May 30, 2006)

sath shri akal.

i have read the article, and i am a meat eater myself,  but i keep thinking that it is wrong to kill just for pleasure of the tongue.

is there not bad karma attached to eating meat? i know that plants have a soul to, but i heard they dont give karma.

what are we suppose to eat if everything has life :S...


----------



## kds1980 (May 30, 2006)

Amardeep said:
			
		

> nice essay.
> 
> but if you look at it logically, dont you think that God will punish you for killing animals in order to eat them?
> 
> ...



if god is going to punish us for killing animals
then what about the use of pesticides . for growing non organic vegetarian food millions of insects are killed. isn,t god going to punish us
killing so many insects.is the life of insect less valuable than an animal.

vegetarianism as a theory invented by people living in fertile areas.but god has not created fertile area everywhere.what about the people living in coastal areas icy region .is god going to punish them for eating meat .if god wanted humans to be vegetarian
then he should have created fertile area everywhere.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 30, 2006)

Amardeep said:
			
		

> sath shri akal.
> 
> i have read the article, and i am a meat eater myself, but i keep thinking that it is wrong to kill just for pleasure of the tongue.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Amardeep,

Read the section in article about Joon (or Chaurasi Lakh Joon).........it will dismiss any notions of what gives bad Karma.

Also read the section on taste........in order for the taste argument to hold then Vegetarian food would have to taste awful...............I am a meat eater but the tastiest dish I like is White Channay (Chitay Chollay). This argument is invalid.

I stress again...read the sections in the article that relate to these things you have brought up.


----------



## Amardeep (May 30, 2006)

how do you explain this verse:

rojaa Dharai manaavai alhu su-aadat jee-a sanghaarai.
You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder other beings for pleasure.

ਆਪਾ  ਦੇਖਿ  ਅਵਰ  ਨਹੀ  ਦੇਖੈ  ਕਾਹੇ  ਕਉ  ਝਖ  ਮਾਰੈ  ॥੧॥
आपा देखि अवर नही देखै काहे कउ झख मारै ॥१॥
aapaa daykh avar nahee daykhai kaahay ka-o jhakh maarai. ||1||
You look after your own interests, and so not see the interests of others. What good is your word? ||1||

Page 483, Line 5 kabir


----------



## Randip Singh (May 30, 2006)

Amardeep said:
			
		

> how do you explain this verse:
> 
> rojaa Dharai manaavai alhu su-aadat jee-a sanghaarai.
> You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder other beings for pleasure.
> ...



What Bhagat Kabir is tackling here is the hypocrasy of the Mullahs. They sacrifice creatures (usually a chicken or goat), as a token of what Abraham was willing to do for God.............however the Mullahs themselves own hearst are not full of sacrifice for others....but only for themselves.......

Read all of the Tukh

Again we tackled something similar to this in the essay....read the essay before posting....it talks about this.. 

ਆਸਾ ॥
आसा ॥
aasaa.
Aasaa:

ਰੋਜਾ ਧਰੈ ਮਨਾਵੈ ਅਲਹੁ ਸੁਆਦਤਿ ਜੀਅ ਸੰਘਾਰੈ ॥
रोजा धरै मनावै अलहु सुआदति जीअ संघारै ॥
rojaa Dharai manaavai alhu su-aadat jee-a sanghaarai.
You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder other beings for pleasure.

ਆਪਾ ਦੇਖਿ ਅਵਰ ਨਹੀ ਦੇਖੈ ਕਾਹੇ ਕਉ ਝਖ ਮਾਰੈ ॥੧॥
आपा देखि अवर नही देखै काहे कउ झख मारै ॥१॥
aapaa daykh avar nahee daykhai kaahay ka-o jhakh maarai. ||1||
You look after your own interests, and so not see the interests of others. What good is your word? ||1||

ਕਾਜੀ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਏਕੁ ਤੋਹੀ ਮਹਿ ਤੇਰਾ ਸੋਚਿ ਬਿਚਾਰਿ ਨ ਦੇਖੈ ॥
काजी साहिबु एकु तोही महि तेरा सोचि बिचारि न देखै ॥
kaajee saahib ayk tohee meh tayraa soch bichaar na daykhai.
O Qazi, the One Lord is within you, but you do not behold Him by thought or contemplation.

ਖਬਰਿ ਨ ਕਰਹਿ ਦੀਨ ਕੇ ਬਉਰੇ ਤਾ ਤੇ ਜਨਮੁ ਅਲੇਖੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
खबरि न करहि दीन के बउरे ता ते जनमु अलेखै ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
khabar na karahi deen kay ba-uray taa tay janam alaykhai. ||1|| rahaa-o.
You do not care for others, you are a religious fanatic, and your life is of no account at all. ||1||Pause||

ਸਾਚੁ ਕਤੇਬ ਬਖਾਨੈ ਅਲਹੁ ਨਾਰਿ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਹੀ ਕੋਈ ॥
साचु कतेब बखानै अलहु नारि पुरखु नही कोई ॥
saach katayb bakhaanai alhu naar purakh nahee ko-ee.
Your holy scriptures say that Allah is True, and that he is neither male nor female.

ਪਢੇ ਗੁਨੇ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਛੁ ਬਉਰੇ ਜਉ ਦਿਲ ਮਹਿ ਖਬਰਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥੨॥
पढे गुने नाही कछु बउरे जउ दिल महि खबरि न होई ॥२॥
padhay gunay naahee kachh ba-uray ja-o dil meh khabar na ho-ee. ||2||
But you gain nothing by reading and studying, O mad-man, if you do not gain the understanding in your heart. ||2||

ਅਲਹੁ ਗੈਬੁ ਸਗਲ ਘਟ ਭੀਤਰਿ ਹਿਰਦੈ ਲੇਹੁ ਬਿਚਾਰੀ ॥
अलहु गैबु सगल घट भीतरि हिरदै लेहु बिचारी ॥
alhu gaib sagal ghat bheetar hirdai layho bichaaree.
Allah is hidden in every heart; reflect upon this in your mind.

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁਹੂੰ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੈ ਕਹੈ ਕਬੀਰ ਪੁਕਾਰੀ ॥੩॥੭॥੨੯॥
हिंदू तुरक दुहूं महि एकै कहै कबीर पुकारी ॥३॥७॥२९॥
hindoo turak duhoo-aN meh aikai kahai kabeer pukaaree. ||3||7||29||
The One Lord is within both Hindu and Muslim; Kabeer proclaims this out loud. ||3||7||29||


----------



## Amardeep (May 30, 2006)

the text talks about pleasure..Muslims dont halal slaughter animals because it is fun. they do it because they have to eat the meat, hence- Pleasure of the tongue..
SGGS condems this action..


----------



## Lionchild (May 30, 2006)

Well there seems to be confusion of the vegetarian stuff, persoannly, no oen should be pro-meat or pro-veggy. Cause both kill living creatures and have equal status. 

We use pesticides and clear rainforests to grow vegetabes that kills countless animals and in some situations, make certain speices extinct.

We drive cars that kill people that pollute, as well as build homes over habitat... we kill something everyday...

In some places of the world, meat is needed for survivla, i came from one of those places...


----------



## Randip Singh (May 30, 2006)

Amardeep said:
			
		

> the text talks about pleasure..Muslims dont halal slaughter animals because it is fun. they do it because they have to eat the meat, hence- Pleasure of the tongue..
> SGGS condems this action..


 
*This is nothing to do with the pleasure of the tongue whatsover. *

Where did you get that from? No mention of tongue. No mention of taste. Infact no mention of meat.

Also I was just reading the Gurmukhi and there is no mention of animals.

This is about murdering beings for pleasure......jee-aa is the living.

This may also be a reference to forcible conversion by the Maulvi's, who murdered many thousands of Hindu's who would not convert to Islam. I'd have to research the time frame of Kabir when he said this .

at the end Kabir proclaims 

hindoo turak duhoo-aN meh aikai kahai kabeer pukaaree. ||3||7||29|| 
The One Lord is within both Hindu and Muslim; Kabeer proclaims this out loud. ||3||7||29||

So in all probability it maybe about that.

One thing I am sure of this is nothing to do with pleasure and the tongue.

Either way.....the point is the same....it is tackling the hypocrasy and biggotry of the Mullahs.



			
				Lionchild said:
			
		

> Well there seems to be confusion of the vegetarian stuff, persoannly, no oen should be pro-meat or pro-veggy. Cause both kill living creatures and have equal status.
> 
> We use pesticides and clear rainforests to grow vegetabes that kills countless animals and in some situations, make certain speices extinct.
> 
> ...


 
I think as a Native Canadian you definitely have an advantage over understanding the ways of nature.........something most Sikhs from Punjab have problems getting to grips with.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 1, 2006)

Hi Amardeep,

I may be possibly correct in my assertion about Kabir refering to excesses commited against Hindu's. Apparently Timur invaded India in 1398, around the time when Kabir was around.

Apparently these biggoted Muslims sacked all major places of Hindu worship. They ravaged Banares (where Kabir stayed), and put thousands of Hindu's to the sword.

Again, this is nothing to do with tastes of the tongue and again refers to the assertion in the essay that Tukhs and Shaloks MUST be read in conjunction with the Historical context, otherwise misuderstanding will result.

In Dehli alone 100,000 Hindu's were put to the sword. Now considering probably the largest conubations in the world did not have more than 500,000 people..........that was genocide Kabir witnessed.....all in the name of Islamic fundamentalism...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742629/posts



> Massacre of 100,000 Hindus At this Court Amir Jahan Shah and Amir Sulaiman Shah, and other amirs of experience, brought to my notice that, from the time of entering Hindustan up to the present time, we had taken more than 100,000 infidels and Hindus prisoners, and that they were all in my camp. On the previous day, when the enemy’s forces made the attack upon us, the prisoners made signs of rejoicing, uttered imprecations against us, and were ready, as soon as they heard of the enemy’s success, to form themselves into a body, break their bonds, plunder our tents, and then to go and join the enemy, and so increase his [p. 53] numbers and strength. I asked their advice about the prisoners, and they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty. In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword. When I heard these words I found them in accord with the rules of war, and I directly gave my command for the Tawachis to proclaim throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain.* Maulana Nasiru-d din ‘Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.*


 
...and these are Timur's own records.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jun 1, 2006)

Gurfateh

Bro Amardeep,

Did you eat meat,do you find it tastier then veg food so that you say that we do it for pleause to kill animal?

Then why not we must stop taking veg food also which is tasty to us and needs more of killing of animal which compete with us.

Coming to Guru Gobind Singh ji's policy on meat.

hukkam namanh you talk is more to do with Six Master and it is at Patna Sahib and das finds it OK.But that was sent for the purpose of those who wanted to do meditations etc. as we had Udasis there and other converts preaching Gurmat(by some Swami with last Name Gir or Giri).And mayn not apply to Guru Panth.

Hukum Nammah say by Ninth Master askes for Sikhs to send him Cups and plateSo how can we follow that at present.

Then had it been relavent it may have been included in scriputre.

anyway at the end of Dasham Granth we have clearly writtan,Halal is forbiddan.Thatm means we can eat any meat non Halal leave aside Jhatka.

Then on the time of Tenth Master did decendant of Baba Budha worte Mangal Prakash ie Sau Sakhi by Baba Ram Kaur Gurbax Singh.

Guru invited Brahmins,said he will give silver coin to that who ate kheer(rice and milk sweet puiding) and gold one to that who ate meat.Some only resisted the greed and most ate meat.Guru gave gold coin to those who did not eat meat and it was reprimention on the greedy Brahmins.

Greedy Brahmins said,Why S. Alam Singh is then allowed to eat meat?(Alam Singh Ji had Brahmin ancestors and was a great Sikh.

Guru said and das gives you in the same language,

Mam Sikh Mas Khaye Dij Nahi
ie My Sikh eats meat and not the Brahamin .We can take it at present that Guru said that Brahmin should not eat meat but his Sikh should.Even the interpreter Pratap Singh Mehta Route that he is veggi but Guru Hukam(order) is Guru Hukam and has to be followed.

In the same book one Baniya from Ujjain says that as Guru eats meat ,he can not be a true Guru,but Guru does a miralce and his father is called and all doubt is removed(this is long story).

mostly in Samprdayas,meat is niot eaten as they have some preactical problelms in thier fied job.but we are not Sants only but Sant Sipahi.and Sipahi hhas to kill,even just to let habit of killing does not goes away.And killing can be chopping suger canes also.so we may be rebonr as Suger cane.

When same God let us kill another lving being then main reason for that act is God,then how should we be punished as God told us to do something and God self did that.No Duja bhav or dulity.


----------



## max314 (Jun 6, 2006)

Oh dear.

__________________
__________________


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jun 7, 2006)

Amardeep said:
			
		

> sath shri akal.
> 
> i have read the article, and i am a meat eater myself, but i keep thinking that it is wrong to kill just for pleasure of the tongue.
> 
> ...


 
"PLEASURE" of the Tongue....you have hit the nail right where Guru naanak ji Hit it on Page 17 SGGS...

People who have a "sweet tooth"....that is just cant resist that Chocolate..    or  ....Ice Cream..ooooooooohhhhh heavenly taste...or the Apple Pie..ladoos barfis..jalebis...also have "pleasure of the Tongue"..and ITS EQUALLY BAD as Pleasure of the tongue for Meat...READ GURBANI Sri raag Page 17...IF MEAT was VERY VERY VERY BAD....killing animals, paap cruel etc...Dont you think GURU JI would PUT IT UP at the TOP in CAPITAL LETTERS..or even REPEAT it about TEN TIMES in RAHAO TUK ??  NO WAY..Guur Ji PUT SWEET pleasure FIRST........... More Peopel Today are DYING of DIABETES..than Protein Posioning !!!but NO BODY..I REPEAT NOBODY..not Damdami taksaals SANTS and Brahmgianis...Not the rarewalla brahmgianis snats..not the Nanksari Sant Brahmgianis...even mentioned SWEETS once in any book/lecture/katha...Bhai Sahib Bahi randheer Singh ji also Forgot to mention it..HOW can all these Brahmgianais OVERLOOK the GURBANI staring them in the face ?? 65 million dollar question..

Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 12, 2006)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:
			
		

> "PLEASURE" of the Tongue....you have hit the nail right where Guru naanak ji Hit it on Page 17 SGGS...
> 
> People who have a "sweet tooth"....that is just cant resist that Chocolate.. or ....Ice Cream..ooooooooohhhhh heavenly taste...or the Apple Pie..ladoos barfis..jalebis...also have "pleasure of the Tongue"..and ITS EQUALLY BAD as Pleasure of the tongue for Meat...READ GURBANI Sri raag Page 17...IF MEAT was VERY VERY VERY BAD....killing animals, paap cruel etc...Dont you think GURU JI would PUT IT UP at the TOP in CAPITAL LETTERS..or even REPEAT it about TEN TIMES in RAHAO TUK ?? NO WAY..Guru Ji PUT SWEET pleasure FIRST........... More Peopel Today are DYING of DIABETES..than Protein Posioning !!!but NO BODY..I REPEAT NOBODY..not Damdami taksaals SANTS and Brahmgianis...Not the rarewalla brahmgianis snats..not the Nanksari Sant Brahmgianis...even mentioned SWEETS once in any book/lecture/katha...Bhai Sahib Bahi randheer Singh ji also Forgot to mention it..HOW can all these Brahmgianais OVERLOOK the GURBANI staring them in the face ?? 65 million dollar question..
> 
> Gyani jarnail Singh


 
You have made a very thought provoking post. I think I will raise this as a seperate topic.


----------



## drkhalsa (Jun 12, 2006)

Dear Gyani Jarnail Singh ji,

 Thanks a lot for this post!

It really made me think hard after long time after about biased nature of peopes
Especially the Sants of present and also Past who have always argued against the Meat are clearly biased on the issue,

Thanks for the post !!


Jatinder Singh


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jun 13, 2006)

Gurfateh

If we all started to work as per expirance of Sants and try to live like them,as they want us to folow thier persoanl expiriance,then leave aside Sikh life,we may find it difficult to live human life as well.

Sants are good to preach faith to non Sikhs or Sikhs moving away from Panths.Once we are in Panth,then Panth and Gurbani is our guide and no needs of Sant at that time but need of Akal.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 13, 2006)

vijaydeep Singh said:
			
		

> Gurfateh
> 
> If we all started to work as per expirance of Sants and try to live like them,as they want us to folow thier persoanl expiriance,then leave aside Sikh life,we may find it difficult to live human life as well.
> 
> Sants are good to preach faith to non Sikhs or Sikhs moving away from Panths.Once we are in Panth,then Panth and Gurbani is our guide and no needs of Sant at that time but need of Akal.


 
I think it is very interesting what you have said here. I have often debated on other sites that our Guru is the Guru Granth Sahib ji, so why do we bother with someone in between our Guru (Sants etc) to interpret it for us?


----------



## bopadum (Jun 13, 2006)

I eventually read your 30 page article! Though still in brief. Non Sikhs ask me what is the stance on meat eating and I have always told them (due to my fathers influence) We are not against meat eating (as per the Asa De Var - can't remember which exact bit. I am at work again!). 

It is sort of accepted as long as you kill the meat yourself. If you have the guts to kill (by Jhatka method), skin and cook an animal then eat it. But in this day and age where our meat buying habits are so 'sanatised' I won't get the option of killing an animal myself and cooking it - I don't think I could even do it, therefore the vegitarianism kicks in. So I try and be veggie as much as possible. I don't eat Beef as the paper points out - for respect of Hindusim (especially as my wife is Hindu).

And recently I, my dad, brother (my sister and Mom are veg anyway) and a few of my Sikh mates (and non sikhs once I explain it to them) have stopped eating Halaal meat. I never even considered it until I realised the impact of my actions and when you are out on the drink it is oh so easy to just grab a chiken kebab and not think this is Halal.

The whole langar thing - I was told because a meat eater will eat veg but a veg can't eat meat so its just simpler and no one is offended.


In a word - I have been brought up that Sikhism is not simply against it. Other factors play a part in why in general we try and be vegitarian.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 14, 2006)

bopadum said:
			
		

> I eventually read your 30 page article! Though still in brief. Non Sikhs ask me what is the stance on meat eating and I have always told them (due to my fathers influence) We are not against meat eating (as per the Asa De Var - can't remember which exact bit. I am at work again!).


 
The point is of the essay that your diet won’t make you any more spiritual. Guru Nanak Dev ji saw life at all levels. He saw it at the molecular level and did not differentiate between plant, animal, or mineral. The only form of life he saw as different was human life (read the 84 million incarnations bit).


			
				bopadum said:
			
		

> It is sort of accepted as long as you kill the meat yourself. If you have the guts to kill (by Jhatka method), skin and cook an animal then eat it. But in this day and age where our meat buying habits are so 'sanatised' I won't get the option of killing an animal myself and cooking it - I don't think I could even do it, therefore the vegitarianism kicks in. So I try and be veggie as much as possible. I don't eat Beef as the paper points out - for respect of Hindusim (especially as my wife is Hindu).


 
Not really. In the same token surely if we eat vegetable we would have to go out plant the seeds, water them, put fertiliser on them, put pesticides on them, etc etc. Guru Nanak Dev ji talks at length of the pain of plants:​_Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji​_​​

_mehlaa 1. _
_First Mehl: _

_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay. _
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles, _

_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay. _
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed. _

_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay. _
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out. _

_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay. _
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below. _

_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay. ||2|| _
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated! ||2|| _​_
_
I think vegetable buying is sanitised too. Because we don’t have to see the wildlife habitats destroyed for farming, the insects killed by pesticides, cows force fed to produce milk etc we become blinkered about the meat vegetable debate.





			
				bopadum said:
			
		

> And recently I, my dad, brother (my sister and Mom are veg anyway) and a few of my Sikh mates (and non sikhs once I explain it to them) have stopped eating Halaal meat. I never even considered it until I realised the impact of my actions and when you are out on the drink it is oh so easy to just grab a chiken kebab and not think this is Halal.


 
Drink? I would put that at a million times worse than any one eating meat, because you are ineefct destroying this precious human life with it.



			
				bopadum said:
			
		

> The whole langar thing - I was told because a meat eater will eat veg but a veg can't eat meat so its just simpler and no one is offended.


 
True.



			
				bopadum said:
			
		

> In a word - I have been brought up that Sikhism is not simply against it. Other factors play a part in why in general we try and be vegitarian.



That is the point. vegetarian diet is not necessarily the best, but a balanced diet most definitely is. To eat too much meat with give you problems. To have a diet based just on vegetarians, leave certain essential amino’s and vitamins lacking.

Vegetarianism is a personal choice, and the folly of thinking meat eating is better than vegetarianism, or vegetarianism is better that meat eating is a foolish train of thought.


So as Sikhs do we try to be vegetarians. NO


As Sikhs do we try to be healthy. YES


It is up to the individual to decide what is healthier for them.​


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jun 15, 2006)

Gurfateh

Sants are good to guide if they come to thnk the level of Sikh and then tell him/her to lie lfe accordingly and not by own life which may not be same as commoin Sikh.

So far das saw only one Baba who is not Anti to meat eating ie Baba Virsa Singh Ji.While some other Samprada peole do respect meat eating people as a Sikh but not as part of thier Samprda(order).But things get compliacted when we are told that meat eater is not a Sikh or does go agaonst code.It can be against bebcki code but not the Sikh code.


----------



## Qasim (Jun 30, 2006)

*Check out google video and type: Zakir Naik Is Non Vegetarian Food Permitted or Prohibited. have some honour and accept your wrong.*


----------



## ISDhillon (Jun 30, 2006)

Qasim said:
			
		

> *Check out google video and type: Zakir Naik Is Non Vegetarian Food Permitted or Prohibited. have some honour and accept your wrong.*


 

where do you get off telling us what is or is not permitted, this zakir and his views will have no bearing on our religion, if you wanna discuss sikhism then draw your references from sikh sources or raise a discussion on eating meat in a comparitive religion perspective.  I have already addressed zakirs views on the islamicboard website but they banned me because i exposed how crap of a scholar he really is, bring any topic here and we will discuss, i challenge you!!!

isdhillon:u):


----------



## drkhalsa (Jul 6, 2006)

Dear Friends 

Here is latest interesting stuff !

I came accross this online petetion 

Interesting thing about it is it says in sikhism 

1) Eating meat is equivalent to MURDER
2) It is Bajjer Kurehat 

)   

I dont know from where people get such stuffd and  als interesting thing is that nearly 800 people signed this petetion




> To:  Guru Panth
> 
> Petition to Boycott Meat served in GuruKaLangar in Sikh Camp
> 
> ...


 
JAtinder Singh


Jatinder Singh


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 6, 2006)

<<1) Eating meat is equivalent to MURDER>>

so all puratan sikhs who fought against oppression were murderers according to them because there is clear evidence that puratan sikhs ate meat


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jul 6, 2006)

Gurfateh

We can make petiton online to oppse guys who oppose Sikhs eating meat.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 7, 2006)

vijaydeep Singh said:
			
		

> Gurfateh
> 
> We can make petiton online to oppse guys who oppose Sikhs eating meat.


 
Yes,

Do it!!

But Make sure it is worded correctly.

Get someone like Dr Khalsa, IS Dhillon or Gyani Jarnail Singh to put it together.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 11, 2006)

This essay has been posted on many sites and I have yet to find any coherent arguments to dispute any of this essay.


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 25, 2006)

today i read the vangar the first sermon  of guru hargobind ji on tapoban.i found it really interesting guru hargobind ji ordered sikhs to go
to hunting.on the other hand these hardcore vegetarian sikhs says that
guru ji prohibited meat eating.isn't it a contradiction.
http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=45013&t=45013#reply_45013

Vangaar: The First Sermon of Guru Hargobind Sahib
Taken from "Gur Bhari" by Pr. Satbir Singh
Translated by Admin www.tapoban.org

Guru Hargobind Sahib's first sermon must be heard again today and applies just as much now as it did when he first gave it.

Guru Arjan Dev had been brutally tortured and embraced martyrdom, becoming an example for the Panth. The Sikhs were grief-struck and felt a sense of despair. The small Panth of Guru Nanak had been targeted by the mighty power of the Mughals.

Guru Hargobind Sahib, became the next Guru as per the orders of his father. In front of all the gathered Sikhs, Baba Buddha jee put the two swords of meeri and peeri on Guru Hargobind Sahib. Guru Sahib was dressed like and emperor and there was a kalgi (aigrette) on his dastaar.

The Dhadis, Bhai Abdullah and Bhai Nath Mal, at the hukam of Guru Hargobind Sahib sang a vaar filled with bir ras.

Then, Guru Hargobind Sahib rose and gave his first sermon to the Sikhs:

"Today the offerings that are beloved to me are good weapons and good youth. If you want my happiness, then exercise your bodies, wrestle, play gatka, go into the jungles to hunt and learn to ride horses. Weakness is now a crime to the Nation that cannot be forgiven for anyone. You will take up the sword and I now wear the sword so that the swords of tyranny and oppression will stop forever.

You have all come from far and wide today. The cool tranquillity has been stolen from not just your heart and my heart, but from the entire world. Our swords will not rest until we bring this oppression to an end.

Make day and night one. Go into the villages and light the inferno of revolution. Tell the people that we need their youth. Only that is a good youth that sacrifices itself for the cause of the Nation. We need sacred hearts and pure minds. Enshrine "pihlW mrn kbUl" in your hearts. We fear death because we have not experienced true life. We feel worry because we have not enjoyed a taste of life. We feel fear because our destination and goal seems so far off. But if you challenge death, death will flee from you. If you learn to walk with your heads held high then worry will depart. If you are determined to walk, the destination will not be so far away. Have faith in Vahiguru and all fears will vanish. If fear has left you then even death will seem like bliss."

Guru jee continued,

"Do not think that you are too few. You are all like springs. Oceans flow out of these very springs. There are hundreds of thousands of springs like you in our Nation. When you come together and flow forward, you will create a flood.

A small and insignificant piece of wood, when made into a match, can light the entire jungle on fire. But you are humans! And furthermore, those humans whose heart has just now been scorched on hot iron plates [reference to shahidi of Guru Arjan Dev jee]."

Addressing the poets in the Sangat, Guru Sahib said,

"See, God has given you the gift of poetry. When nations are built, you are the foundations. Stop all these other untimely songs and work to bring the Nation out of this deep dark pit. Tell those stories which will make the people willing to lose their skin like they would be willing to change their clothes. Fill the people of our Nation with the spirit and fervour to be like moths so they will sacrifice themselves in the flames of our cause.

Our blood has become cold. Tell us stories of Shahidi and become the furnaces that will boil our blood. Give us the passion to make the trampled Punjab and our crushed Nation rise to its feet once again."

Speaking to the Dhadis, Guru Sahib said,

"Now is the time that your instruments should call out a challenge. Your notes should stir the Nation. The beat of your dhads should awaken the people and the bells on your bows should make hearts fill with the zeal of sacrifice."


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jul 26, 2006)

Gurfateh

Anyway in Ganda Singh's Hukamanammah book we have one or two Hukamanaanh attributed to Sixth Master telling Sikhs to stay away frm fish and meat.That was sent to east India and was perhaps a way to teach them a type of Nam Abhyas.It may not mean general for all Sikhs or Man kind else it would have found place in Guru Granth Sahib Ji.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 30, 2006)

kds1980 said:
			
		

> today i read the vangar the first sermon of guru hargobind ji on tapoban.i found it really interesting guru hargobind ji ordered sikhs to go
> to hunting.on the other hand these hardcore vegetarian sikhs says that
> guru ji prohibited meat eating.isn't it a contradiction.
> http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=45013&t=45013#reply_45013
> ...


 
Hi KDS....my contention wouth be would Guru Hargobind ji and Guru Gobind Singh ji make Hukamna's to contradict each other. Either way we would obey the Tenth Masters Hukamanama.

From the essay above:



> *HUKAMNAMA ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY THE 6TH MASTER*​
> 
> Some pro-vegetarian sections of the Sikh following have produced an alleged Hukamnama that states that the Sikhs of the East were not to go near meat. Unfortunately, the sources that have produced this Hukamnama, have not been able to back it up with any evidence of its genuineness, from any Sikh scholars of note. There have been statements to the effect that Ganda Singh found this document and indeed published it (Two collections of _Hukamnama_s are available in print form, one edited by Dr. Ganda Singh published in 1968 by Punjabi University and the S.G.P.C), but this has not been verified by any of his contemporaries or any other Sikh scholars..
> 
> ...


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 30, 2006)

veer ji the problem  here is the word "kutha" many vegetarians sikh sites
are propagating that "kutha" means killed not halaal so hardcore vegetarian sikhs are not going to beleive that those hukamnama's
contradicts each other.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 31, 2006)

dear all,

You just cannot modify a wod to suit yourself.

IF "Kuthha" is KILLED..then what is the opposite.."unkilled" ?? Does anyone eat ALIVE Meat ??

The fact is that the words Kutha, Kosher, Hallal etc are accepted world over as Meat of animals killed in the JEWISH/MUSLIM way of SACRIFICE to their God. Jews also have the KOSHER tradition and they wont touch Non-Kosher meat or Pork products. The Muslims have Kuttha/Halla and wont even go near non-Hallal meat/pork products.

FORCING everyone to EAT only KUTHA hallal was Mughal govt Policy...Sikhs cannot accept such force...thats why KUTHA was BANNEd fro Sikhs.( Other slavery restrictions were NO weapons for non-Muslims, no riding horses by non Muslims, No dastaars for Non Muslims...GURU JI BROKE all these Rules as well and made it compulsory for SIKHS to have a Horse, weapons and wear dastaars. All thsi si well documented and not imaginary. As such the Vegetarian Sikh is...just that a vegetarian Sikh ( Personal choice)  but has no basis in GURMATT.

JSGyani


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 1, 2006)

kds1980 said:
			
		

> veer ji the problem here is the word "kutha" many vegetarians sikh sites
> are propagating that "kutha" means killed not halaal so hardcore vegetarian sikhs are not going to beleive that those hukamnama's
> contradicts each other.


 
Thanks for the reply Gyani Ji as well.

Hi KDS we have dealt with this topic in the above article too:



> *THE KUTTHA MEAT ARGUMENT – KUTTHA MEANS ALL MEAT OR DOES IT?*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gurpreet2006 (Oct 2, 2006)

sat sri akal

thanks for the wonderful article randip singh ji


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 4, 2006)

gurpreet2006 said:


> sat sri akal
> 
> thanks for the wonderful article randip singh ji


 
Thanks for your kind words.


----------



## learner (Oct 12, 2006)

Thanks 

Very informative.


----------



## hchohan (Dec 7, 2006)

*Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguu Ji Ki Fateh

*I read your article with great interest yesterday and I thought about posting a reply. It has served to firm up my belief even further.
Just for background - My family and I are all vegetarian and would never consider anything different. We are a simple Sikh family and do not follow any kind of Sikh or other movement or sect as you may call it.
I hope you don’t mind, but I humbly submit my personal comments concerning your article.

*Fools who wrangle over flesh.*
I am a fool for writing these comments, just as you are a fool for writing the original article. For I will not change your outlook on the issue just as though you will never change mine.
Just as your eyewitness accounts show there has been a division of veg and non-veg in the sangat for centuries and it shows no sign of changing.

*Mistranslation and Misrepresentation of The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 
*Which side of the sangat is doing this - can you or I, quoted scholars or giani's from either side of this issue claim you have complete understanding of the Guru, of Bani or of Waheguru..? Your analysis belongs to you and those who made it. However, if I were for a moment to take your analysis as correct then even then I see no justification for being non-veg just as you see no justification to be veg. 

*Spiritual Merit of Vegetarianism.*
I do not believe there is much spiritual merit in being vegetarian - this is where I agree with many of the examples you have given. Vegetarianism alone is not a path to God. It is ones actions, love and devotion etc that brings one into union.
For example: By my writing this response, to your writing your article and propagating our viewpoints to the community we have both forever committed something to the accounts of our life actions. 

*Meat*
For me meat is meat no matter how you obtain it, slaughter it, kill it, cook it, prepare it etc. For me there is a clear distinction between what is a living creature of the Lord's infinite creation and what the Lord created as vegetation. If there are areas of any doubt in between for me it is best to avoid than partake.
I know you have tried to tackle this subject in your essay and your interpretations - but for me none would convince me that I am not doing what is right.

So why not meat for me and many like me…?
I believe that you cannot have Righteousness (Dharm) without first having compassion (Daya). To kill, directly or indirectly any living creature merely for food would mean that I have lacked Daya. Killing is occasionally a necessary act, but I cannot condone it merely in order to eat. I would rather starve for the Datar will provide all I need.
I also believe in following the example our Guru's have shown us. They did not eat meat so I will not eat it.
How can one type of meat be permissible and another not? Surely the answer to that is within the essence of Sikhism.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 7, 2006)

Gurfateh



hchohan said:


> *Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguu Ji Ki Fateh
> 
> *I read your article with great interest yesterday and I thought about posting a reply. It has served to firm up my belief even further.
> Just for background - My family and I are all vegetarian and would never consider anything different. We are a simple Sikh family and do not follow any kind of Sikh or other movement or sect as you may call it.
> ...


Chohan Sahib,

yuor are great.

Das is realy an earthworm eating mud.We/I/me create Duja Bhav.We are no one to show compassion to anyone.If we think like that then our ego will increase manifold.Dharam or righthiousness is son of not our Daya or compassion or compassion of Akal unto us.Ie Faith or rightousness is gift to us by Akal.

We are not doer.If we be doer then to get retrun of that we may have to be reborn.Read Sukhmani Sahib.one who say I do again goes back to womb vagina(Garbh Jon)(to be reborn).

no one kills any one nor any one bring anyone to life.Akal gives life and Akal takes it back by which ever for Akal wants.In the form of Butcher Akal only kills another form of Akal ie goat.All is God.Same Akal as farmer kills plant another form of Akal.No other exists but Akal.Duja means any one second or other than Akal.Tujh bin Duja Nahi koi Tu Katar Kare So Hoyee.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 7, 2006)

> Mistranslation and Misrepresentation of The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji
> Which side of the sangat is doing this - can you or I, quoted scholars or giani's from either side of this issue claim you have complete understanding of the Guru, of Bani or of Waheguru..? Your analysis belongs to you and those who made it. However, if I were for a moment to take your analysis as correct then even then I see no justification for being non-veg just as you see no justification to be veg.



 this article  does not say that that all sikhs should eat meat.the main aim
of this is to counter extreme vegetarian propaganda that vegetarianism
is part of sikhism and those people who eat meat are not sikhs.this article gives information that on the issue of diet gurbani is silent.eat what is good for your health




> Meat
> For me meat is meat no matter how you obtain it, slaughter it, kill it, cook it, prepare it etc. For me there is a clear distinction between what is a living creature of the Lord's infinite creation and what the Lord created as vegetation



god has not created fertile land all over the world.there are coastal areas,icy regions,deserts.so please tell me what should people living there eat.a poor fisherman who earn his livelyhood by fishing is papi because he is killing animals,while a farmer who sprays pesticides on crops and kill millions of harmful as well as harmless insects is a good person.sorry to say but this type of theory needs a break.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 7, 2006)

hchohan said:


> So why not meat for me and many like me…?
> I believe that you cannot have Righteousness (Dharm) without first having compassion (Daya). To kill, directly or indirectly any living creature merely for food would mean that I have lacked Daya. Killing is occasionally a necessary act, but I cannot condone it merely in order to eat. I would rather starve for the Datar will provide all I need.
> I also believe in following the example our Guru's have shown us. They did not eat meat so I will not eat it.
> How can one type of meat be permissible and another not? Surely the answer to that is within the essence of Sikhism.


 
Interesting comments I I whole heartedly understand them..........and the key to what you have said is _"So why not meat for me and many like me…?" _.............this is the point of the essay..........it is a personal choice.

It is not true the Guru's did or did not eat meat.....there are many different accounts.

With regards to _"I believe that you cannot have Righteousness (Dharm) without first having compassion (Daya). To kill, directly or indirectly any living creature merely for food would mean that I have lacked Daya. Killing is occasionally a necessary act, but I cannot condone it merely in order to eat. I would rather starve for the Datar will provide all I need."_.

Guruji tells us that there is as much life in a plant, rock or an animal................only human life is higher..............so surely killing a plant and eating its flesh is as sinful as eating animals? Read below:

THE 84 MILLION INCARNATION ARGUMENT - ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, MINERAL. 

The other argument that has been made over this issue is that there is some sort of hierarchy of incarnations within Sikhism of incarnations. Life goes through many incarnations (up to 84 million) before becoming human. In other words, life takes the form of incarnation in plant form, then animal, and then human. The idea being that animal form spiritually is closer to man. Biologically this maybe true, however, spiritually within Sikhism, this could not be further from the truth. 
On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written: 

_ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5._
_ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa._
_ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa._
_ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o._
_ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o._
_mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa_. _chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa._ rahaa-o. 
_ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa._
_ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa._
_ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa._
_saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat._
_kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat._
_ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan._
_jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan._
_avar na doojaa karnai jog._
_taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay._
_kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay._

_Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl_: 
_In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;_
_in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer._
_In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake._
_In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse._
_Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him_.
_After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you._ Pause 
_In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;_
_in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;_
_in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;_
_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._
_Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life._
_Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har._
_Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance._
_Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord._
_Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord._
_No one else can do anything at all._
_We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself._
_Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



Reading this Shabad one can clearly see that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not attach any particular order to how life is incarnated. Infact it states: ​
ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa. 
In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains; 
ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa.
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb; 
ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa. 
in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves; 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


If you were to apply the logic of those that claim spiritually animal life is closer to human, then according to this a rock then becomes an aborted human foetus, then becomes a plant! It is only after this one becomes human. Surely then a plant is a closer form of life to human? 

The Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji only proclaims one life form as being so precious. On page 50 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji it states: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 5 ghar 2._
_go-il aa-i-aa go-ilee ki-aa tis damf pasaar._
_muhlat punnee chalnaa tooN sampal ghar baar._
_har gun gaa-o manaa satgur sayv pi-aar._
_ki-aa thorh-rhee baat gumaan._ rahaa-o. 
_jaisay rain paraahunay uth chalsahi parbhaat._
_ki-aa tooN rataa girsat si-o sabh fulaa kee baagaat._
_mayree mayree ki-aa karahi jin dee-aa so parabh lorh._
_sarpar uthee chalnaa chhad jaasee lakh karorh._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh bharmati-aa dulabh janam paa-i-o-ay._
_naanak naam samaal tooN so din nayrhaa aa-i-o-ay._

_Siree Raag, Fifth Mehl, Second House:_
_The herdsman comes to the pasture lands-what good are his ostentatious displays here?_
_When your allotted time is up, you must go. Take care of your real hearth and home._
_O mind, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, and serve the True Guru with love._
_Why do you take pride in trivial matters?_ Pause 
_Like an overnight guest, you shall arise and depart in the morning._
_Why are you so attached to your household? It is all like flowers in the garden._
_Why do you say, "Mine, mine?" Look to God, who has given it to you._
_It is certain that you must arise and depart, and leave behind your hundreds of thousands and millions._
_Through 8.4 million incarnations you have wandered, to obtain this rare and precious human life._
_O Nanak, remember the Naam, the Name of the Lord; the day of departure is drawing near!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


So clearly, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji sees plants, animals, and minerals, on one level in terms of life, and then human form on another. To take the life of a plant is the same as an animal in terms of spirituality. The following Shabad although a metaphor for how people who speak the truth are treated, clearly shows the mind of the Guruâ€™s when seeing life in all its form, be it plant, mineral or animal: 
Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._

_First Mehl:_
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


The folly of the argument that spiritually one is committing a bigger sin when killing an animal than a plant is a foolish one. The biological argument is a different one and is not tackled within the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, but that in itself shows, the choice of whether or not to eat meat is a personal one and has nothing to do with the Sikh religion.


----------



## hchohan (Dec 7, 2006)

vijaydeep Singh said:


> Gurfateh
> 
> 
> Chohan Sahib,
> ...


 


hello
I'm sorry but I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say.  I think you are trying to say that a the person has not part in the decision to kill an animal and it is completly the will of Akal.  

If I have understood you  correctly - then my reply to that would be if a person has no control over his actions then what would be the point of anything..?

if I have mis-understood then please restate.


----------



## hchohan (Dec 7, 2006)

kds1980 said:


> this article does not say that that all sikhs should eat meat.the main aim
> of this is to counter extreme vegetarian propaganda that vegetarianism
> is part of sikhism and those people who eat meat are not sikhs.this article gives information that on the issue of diet gurbani is silent.eat what is good for your health
> 
> ...


 

what people choose to believe is or is not part of Sikhi is up to them.  If what you are saying is true and Gurbani is silent on the issue then I can equally say where in Bani does it say go eat an animal.

I do not claim to understand God - or why he created such reasons on earth,  however what I am saying is that if I were to live in such a region and have the same limited understanding of Sikhi as I do now,  I would ask Datar to help me around that problem by whatever is his will.

Nor do I aim to condemn those that earn a living by killing God's creatures.  I did however state earlier that killing is sometimes necessary/unavoidable - but I would not do it in order to eat.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 7, 2006)

> what people choose to believe is or is not part of Sikhi is up to them. If what you are saying is true and Gurbani is silent on the issue then I can equally say where in Bani does it say go eat an animal.



agreed gurbani does not say go and kill animals.but please tell me where it says go and drink milk,eat paranthas,ice creams,halwa ,milk shake etc
but we not only eat them but also distribuite them in langar.then why this ho halla on the meat issue.


----------



## hchohan (Dec 7, 2006)

Randip Ji - I am replying to your post (but not using the quote option as is would be too big)

I do not (nor should anyone) claim to understand the order of things as that is for Akal alone.

I do not disagree with your point that joon includes in many things (animal & vegetable)
As a vegetarian I must eat vegetation in order to survive.  
However I choose not to kill (even indirectly) any of Akals' creatures that my own senses are telling me that they too have senses.  
i.e. although a plant may "feel" the blade that cuts it down Akal has made it in such a way that any person (not matter what faith) cannot understand, acknowledge or comprehend that suffering.
I can however see that an animal can certainly feel, see and sense the result of the blade.
Therefore to knowingly and willingly cause suffering like that - I would lack Daya.
Therefore as I can knowingly survive without causing willful suffering to Akal's creatures - I choose to be vegetarian.  To me, for Sikhi to have Dharam it must first have Daya.


----------



## ISDhillon (Dec 7, 2006)

When a new system of belief comes into the world we are always bogged down in reacting to contraversies because previous systems of belief took a position on such topics, when our religion did not take a position noone talked about it for years so it became a taboo, when it became a taboo busy-bodies who have too much time on their hands decided to debate about it, the answer is simple if it goes against your conscience then dont do it perhaps youre level of enlightenment surpasses that of others but dont infringe youre enlightened stae onto others cos they will never understand till they reach your level.  This can be said of all schisms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 7, 2006)

ISDhillon said:


> When a new system of belief comes into the world we are always bogged down in reacting to contraversies because previous systems of belief took a position on such topics, when our religion did not take a position noone talked about it for years so it became a taboo, when it became a taboo busy-bodies who have too much time on their hands decided to debate about it, the answer is simple if it goes against your conscience then dont do it perhaps youre level of enlightenment surpasses that of others but dont infringe youre enlightened stae onto others cos they will never understand till they reach your level. This can be said of all schisms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 
As always....a great reply from you!!


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 7, 2006)

hchohan said:


> Randip Ji - I am replying to your post (but not using the quote option as is would be too big)
> 
> I do not (nor should anyone) claim to understand the order of things as that is for Akal alone.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Chohan Ji....I understand your point on Daya.....and you are describing life and pain as our crude senses percieve them..........but look how Guruji see's life and pain even in a plant  (in this case sugar cane):

Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._

_First Mehl:_
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 

I am convinced our Guru's were so attuned with the Universe and beyond that they saw life at a molecular level and beyond. We *know *nothing of the true nature of pain.

Us crude human...see a cry and a bleat of a goat and we think that is pain.........we don't see that same plant cry and bleat so we assume we don't take a life.................my view is Guruji corrected us on this. Our sense's are crude because we are Munmukh....only true Gurmukh's have true perception....and in Bani we get a glimpse of this "true perception".

The Guru's saw good in their fellow man...whether vegetarian or meat eater.......and I think that is what Sikhism does.


----------



## hchohan (Dec 8, 2006)

I see your point also – and no I cannot claim to understand the ways of Akal.
However – I still cannot reconcile killing with my belief that Sikhi is a progressive, logical, forward thinking way of the future for mankind.

I do not claim to know much about history, what the situation was in the past or how things came to be the way they are. However, I believe the whole human race is progressing and becoming more aware of the concepts of animal cruelty (Daya) the benefits of vegetenarianism and even newer ideas like the benefits of organic farming etc.

Let me try and explain my view in another way:

If an apple ripens and falls from the tree – where was the life, in the apple or the tree? Does the life in the tree remain..?  Will a new apple emerge..?
When the wheat dries up and “dies” it is ready for harvest. Is there life in that wheat..?
When I mow my lawn to keep it tidy – does the blade of grass not grow tall again..?
I cannot comprehend God’s wonderful creation. As mankind is not as enlightened as our Guru Ji’s we cannot posses the wisdom to comprehend such things (do you..?).

However, do we still ignore the suffering that God has enabled us to perceive right in front of us..? Do he give us these senses for no reason..?
If I was to eat merely the liver of a cow – will the cow recover..?
If I eat the leg of a sheep – does the leg grow back?
If I bury the heart of a pig in the ground and water that ground – will a new pig appear..?
I think not – because I would be extinguishing the Jot of that creature completely and deliberately. What right do I have to do that for no reason other than to eat..?

Guru Ji made Amrit on Akal’s command. Mata Ji added sweetness to that Amrit so that the Khalsa would keep sweetness, love, caring and compassion (Daya) in our hearts. All of which are undeniably among the qualities of our True Lord.
How is the killing God’s creatures the way of the Khalsa and not an insult to the Amrit..? Without having that Daya when you kill do you become Dharmi by doing so..? By drawing blood so needlessly (as God has created the right food for us in vegetation) how is the Khalsa benefiting mankind – or is he merely satisfying his own thirst for blood..?


----------



## hchohan (Dec 8, 2006)

Sorry – I missed out some more of my thoughts.

Many say that eating Halal meat is a cardinal sin.  All identify it as meat that has been “sacrificed” in a slow way with the name of God said over it.

In saying this you have no difficulty in identifying that meat as the meat of an animal. 
To identify what is killed in a slow way or what is killed in a fast way would imply that you know what time is and how to deal less suffering. Time and suffering are things that only Akal knows – you are a fool if you think you know it.
When a Khalsa readies a meal he should offer that food for blessing to God (Bhog) or remember Waheguru or recite a prayer over it before eating. 

So I ask you – what is difference between that and Halal? 
To me either one is a cardinal sin against the Amrit.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 8, 2006)

good article Randip Singh ji

i am a vegetarian by choice... exactly as you mentioned..by conscience.. not by religion..

i strongly believe that using SGGS to justify out materialistic behaviour is wrong.. SGGS ji is a spiritual guide..and so should it be treated in referencing.

God bless and peace


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

Gurfateh


hchohan said:


> hello
> I'm sorry but I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say. I think you are trying to say that a the person has not part in the decision to kill an animal and it is completly the will of Akal.
> 
> If I have understood you correctly - then my reply to that would be if a person has no control over his actions then what would be the point of anything..?
> ...


Yes Dear Sir,


thats what is state of salvation while being alive.Vedanta stops with knowledge of the same but Gurmat is a step ahead as it tells about realising such state then just knowing about it.

Say in you and in das and in internet and in systems of both.All is Akal all else is false but Akal.So what das writes and what is transfered and what yourself read and precive is Maya or Mammon,when we see that all deeds do not actualy happen but tend to happen appreantly as actualy Akal is true.

When it is said that true is your universe,that means that due to Akal will it is true and Akal is one with that.

If we realise that by deeds we do nothing and all deeds are by Akal,we are one with Akal.such devote is one with Akal.Acts of that devotee are acts of Akal.

Ang 962

ਮਃ ੫ ॥
मः ५ ॥
mehlaa 5.
Fifth Mehl:

ਅਨਦ ਸੂਖ ਬਿਸ੍ਰਾਮ ਨਿਤ ਹਰਿ ਕਾ ਕੀਰਤਨੁ ਗਾਇ ॥
अनद सूख बिस्राम नित हरि का कीरतनु गाइ ॥
anad sookh bisraam nit har kaa keertan gaa-ay.
Singing the Kirtan of the Lord's Praises, bliss, peace and rest are obtained.

ਅਵਰ ਸਿਆਣਪ ਛਾਡਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਉਧਰਸਿ ਨਾਇ ॥੨॥
अवर सिआणप छाडि देहि नानक उधरसि नाइ ॥२॥
avar si-aanap chhaad deh naanak uDhras naa-ay. ||2||
Forsake other clever tricks, O Nanak; only through the Name will you be saved. ||2||

ਪਉੜੀ ॥
पउड़ी ॥
pa-orhee.
Pauree:

ਨਾ ਤੂ ਆਵਹਿ ਵਸਿ ਬਹੁਤੁ ਘਿਣਾਵਣੇ ॥
ना तू आवहि वसि बहुतु घिणावणे ॥
naa too aavahi vas bahut ghinaavanay.
No one can bring You under control, by despising the world.

ਨਾ ਤੂ ਆਵਹਿ ਵਸਿ ਬੇਦ ਪੜਾਵਣੇ ॥
ना तू आवहि वसि बेद पड़ावणे ॥
naa too aavahi vas bayd parhaavanay.
No one can bring You under control, by studying the Vedas.

ਨਾ ਤੂ ਆਵਹਿ ਵਸਿ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਨਾਈਐ ॥
ना तू आवहि वसि तीरथि नाईऐ ॥
naa too aavahi vas tirath naa-ee-ai.
No one can bring You under control, by bathing at the holy places.

ਨਾ ਤੂ ਆਵਹਿ ਵਸਿ ਧਰਤੀ ਧਾਈਐ ॥
ना तू आवहि वसि धरती धाईऐ ॥
naa too aavahi vas Dhartee Dhaa-ee-ai.
No one can bring You under control, by wandering all over the world.

ਨਾ ਤੂ ਆਵਹਿ ਵਸਿ ਕਿਤੈ ਸਿਆਣਪੈ ॥
ना तू आवहि वसि कितै सिआणपै ॥
naa too aavahi vas kitai si-aanpai.
No one can bring You under control, by any clever tricks.

ਨਾ ਤੂ ਆਵਹਿ ਵਸਿ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਦਾਨੁ ਦੇ ॥
ना तू आवहि वसि बहुता दानु दे ॥
naa too aavahi vas bahutaa daan day.
No one can bring You under control, by giving huge donations to charities.

ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਤੇਰੈ ਵਸਿ ਅਗਮ ਅਗੋਚਰਾ ॥
सभु को तेरै वसि अगम अगोचरा ॥
sabh ko tayrai vas agam agocharaa.
Everyone is under Your power, O inaccessible, unfathomable Lord.

ਤੂ ਭਗਤਾ ਕੈ ਵਸਿ ਭਗਤਾ ਤਾਣੁ ਤੇਰਾ ॥੧੦॥
तू भगता कै वसि भगता ताणु तेरा ॥१०॥
too bhagtaa kai vas bhagtaa taan tayraa. ||10||
You are under the control of Your devotees; You are the strength of Your devotees. ||10||


being Veggi,being Amritdhari,being with 5Ks,with Christain baptism,with circmucenstion,with Holy Thread(Janueu) no one can impress Akal with worldly symbol.Only chosen one by Akal surreneder self ego to Akal by mercy of the same.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 8, 2006)

<<Sorry – I missed out some more of my thoughts.

Many say that eating Halal meat is a cardinal sin. All identify it as meat that has been “sacrificed” in a slow way with the name of God said over it.

In saying this you have no difficulty in identifying that meat as the meat of an animal. 
To identify what is killed in a slow way or what is killed in a fast way would imply that you know what time is and how to deal less suffering. Time and suffering are things that only Akal knows – you are a fool if you think you know it.
When a Khalsa readies a meal he should offer that food for blessing to God (Bhog) or remember Waheguru or recite a prayer over it before eating. 

So I ask you – what is difference between that and Halal? 
To me either one is a cardinal sin against the Amrit. >>

good point Chohan ji

not eating halal is a ritual which has crept in....


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

Gurfateh

Das anyway repeats that if any one has to talk about Daya or compassion of self work being done by self then best way is Jainism or Budhism.Doing by self is Dwait or Duja bhav.

One thing about Jon.What is jon?

Jon is meant by Yoni or Vagina.so veggies can jump and say that plants may not be jon as thier is vagina in plant.

Well das would like to tell them they do not know what they eat.Plants also carry out sexual reproduction.Vegitrarian or asexual reproduction is been done by man and is more un natural.

Natrual in plants we have male part and female part(within same plant0 or can be two plants(Say Papya or Papitah).When due to air or insect of bird pollanisation occur then only germination perhaps take place and seed is formed.Some time as we mate two goats called Naya Karana,in the same way we can rub two male and female flowers togather for mating.

Nature itself is a miracle and our eating plant and meat both are miralce.

In Halal,we have blood beheld as something with life and flesh not with life(as per old Testment) so blood has to be drained out.But in gurmat Akal is same in Blood as in life so no Duja Bhav or differnatiation based upon faith are allowed.

why kill checken is behind this logic.


----------



## hchohan (Dec 8, 2006)

Dear Vijaydeep 

Ego and Self is in everyone. However it is our self restraint and self choice that lead us to action or inaction. (one reaps what one sows)
e.g. who decides if you will do naam simran at amrit vela this morning..?

Whatever the Datar gives me I accept willingly as His Will.

Being Veggie or being Khalsa is not a symbol as you put it. It is a that way of life. One cannot achieve salvation just by being veggie (I believe the Guru said this) and one who is non-veg is not automatically condemned. Without Naam we are nothing. However, being Khalsa means being veggie – so it is part of that way of life.

You go into the technicalities of Halal sacrifice and its absurdity. Any form of unnecessary killing or eating what is produced and at the same time taking Gods name is therefore an absurdity. If Halal is animal flesh banned to Sikhs then a Sikh by his nature and by his actions automatically bans themselves from any kind of flesh.

p.s. what is the discussion of reproduction about..? That is a scientific fact of nature that I am not going to dispute. What has that got to do with daya..?


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 8, 2006)

vijaydeep singh ji

you can give any logic or reason..

but to me one thing is sure..

spirituality has nothing to do with eating or not eating meat.

its a matter of conscience.

how do you kill the chicken is irrelevant, whether you kill it or not is relevant.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

Gurfateh



amarsanghera said:


> vijaydeep singh ji
> 
> you can give any logic or reason..
> 
> ...


 

Dear sir,

Das is aware that as per Sau Sakhi,by force if Sikh is compelled to eat Halal,Sikhi will not go.But nay Why kill chicken is verse unto St Kabir in Darbar Sahib.

Das eats any animal beef or pork but so far after becoing Sikh has not eaten Halal.Soory for misundrrstanding if any.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 8, 2006)

> One cannot achieve salvation just by being veggie (I believe the Guru said this) and one who is non-veg is not automatically condemned. Without Naam we are nothing. However, being Khalsa means being veggie – so it is part of that way of life.



being a khalsa has nothing to do with being veggie.go and read unbiased
history you will find plenty of evidence that puratan sikhs that were fighting with the invaders ate meat.this concept of khalsa being veggies only emerged in 20th century


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 8, 2006)

> vijaydeep singh ji
> 
> you can give any logic or reason..
> 
> ...



i agree with you that being a veg or non veg has nothing to do with spirituality.halal meat is something that guru gobind singh ji had prescribed not to eat.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 8, 2006)

> p.s. what is the discussion of reproduction about..? That is a scientific fact of nature that I am not going to dispute. What has that got to do with daya..?



one thing i totaly don't understand is why this concept of daya emerges for meat
eating only.the same logic is applicable for milk also as plenty of cows and buffaloes suffer in diaries for the production of milk.but 99.99% veggies take
u turn on the issue of milk.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

Gurfateh



hchohan said:


> Dear Vijaydeep
> 
> Ego and Self is in everyone. However it is our self restraint and self choice that lead us to action or inaction. (one reaps what one sows)
> e.g. who decides if you will do naam simran at amrit vela this morning..?
> ...



Respected sir,

Das will further try to elaborate.

Ego and self is everwhere is Akal wants it to happen and if Akal wants that is not anywhere.Akal only controls our sleep and time of waking up.When we say self chosie and self restarint that itself is endrosing of ego.as our Breaths are not ours.Akal is owner and controller of all.what thoughts are in your minds are not your but Akal let them come in there.Reply Das makes is not of das but Akal owns all.


Datar is in you and self content which yourself has put is created in us not due to our acts by by mercy akal does on us.

Then coming to Term Khalsa,Das finds it in Dasham Granth in Lakhi Jungle episode while Jagat Jot Jape nis Bassur has term Khalsa.Rest agaon it comes alot in Sarbloh Granth.As per Sant Singh Ji Maskeen,it is state of Sant.

Khalsa means who is purly one with Akal.Self mind does not exists.Rathr mind part of sprit is killed and only soul reamins in body and that is soul is Akal only.That Akal is not veggi,In form of lion that kills dear,in form of Muslim it may eat Halal.So as on way to Khalsa,when all is Akal is known then there should not be any reason that we find diffreance between existance of Akal in vegitalbes and Animals.Akal is as much in Vegitables as Akal is in Animals.


Halal is oppsed only for not seing Akal in all.Then say if this logic apply that due to Halal being Banned to Sikh make all fleshh tabbo for Sikh,then Sikhs should not marry also.As Adultray is a type of sex not allowed to us but that does not means that sex in marrided life is not allowed.Gurus never said that Halal eater will not be salvaged else Baba Farid and Bhagat Bhikhan Ji were Muslims,So was Peer Bhikhan Shah and Peer Budhu Shah.

trouble with Halal is even more to be seen due to three things being told there.Allah,Blood and Flesh,while Blood and Flesh are composed of Allah.Even in Holy Kuran Mohtaj(helpless) can eat pig,blood and animal killed without name of Allah being called.and Holy Kuran says that we are are helpless in front of Allah.so it is allowed.Then food does not effect for good doers.This also is there in Holy Kuran.

Then regarding reporduction part.Das though that there was some dispute about plants being non living.Even lants may have soul and they have life.so they do sex also and reporduce like that.We are not one to do Daya.Rather we recive Daya.We are not capable to breath even without daya/mercy of Akal .How can we be Daya wan?

Ang 4
ਤੀਰਥੁ ਤਪੁ ਦਇਆ ਦਤੁ ਦਾਨੁ ॥
तीरथु तपु दइआ दतु दानु ॥
tirath tap da-i-aa dat daan.
Pilgrimages, austere discipline, compassion and charity -

ਜੇ ਕੋ ਪਾਵੈ ਤਿਲ ਕਾ ਮਾਨੁ ॥
जे को पावै तिल का मानु ॥
jay ko paavai til kaa maan.
these, by themselves, bring only an iota of merit.

ਸੁਣਿਆ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਮਨਿ ਕੀਤਾ ਭਾਉ ॥
सुणिआ मंनिआ मनि कीता भाउ ॥
suni-aa mani-aa man keetaa bhaa-o.
Listening and believing with love and humility in your mind,

ਅੰਤਰਗਤਿ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਮਲਿ ਨਾਉ ॥
अंतरगति तीरथि मलि नाउ ॥
antargat tirath mal naa-o.
cleanse yourself with the Name, at the sacred shrine deep within.

ਸਭਿ ਗੁਣ ਤੇਰੇ ਮੈ ਨਾਹੀ ਕੋਇ ॥
सभि गुण तेरे मै नाही कोइ ॥
sabh gun tayray mai naahee ko-ay.
All virtues are Yours, Lord, I have none at all.

ਵਿਣੁ ਗੁਣ ਕੀਤੇ ਭਗਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਇ ॥
विणु गुण कीते भगति न होइ ॥
vin gun keetay bhagat na ho-ay.
Without virtue, there is no devotional worship.

Further at Ang 1

ਹੁਕਮੈ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਹੁਕਮ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥
हुकमै अंदरि सभु को बाहरि हुकम न कोइ ॥
hukmai andar sabh ko baahar hukam na ko-ay.
Everyone is subject to His Command; no one is beyond His Command.

ਨਾਨਕ ਹੁਕਮੈ ਜੇ ਬੁਝੈ ਤ ਹਉਮੈ ਕਹੈ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥੨॥
नानक हुकमै जे बुझै त हउमै कहै न कोइ ॥२॥
naanak hukmai jay bujhai ta ha-umai kahai na ko-ay. ||2||
O Nanak, one who understands His Command, does not speak in ego. ||2||

Akal Bless.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

Gurfateh

Das can say that only logic that Sant or Bebecki do not eat meat while doing Nam Abhyas is due to the fact that energy needs drop and food and sleep may not be needed much by body.But then eating oily or high proteen veg food is also not good.


----------



## hchohan (Dec 8, 2006)

kds1980 said:


> being a khalsa has nothing to do with being veggie.go and read unbiased
> history you will find plenty of evidence that puratan sikhs that were fighting with the invaders ate meat.this concept of khalsa being veggies only emerged in 20th century


 
who is to say it was right in those times..?  were you there..?
Sikhi is to learn - have we not learnt by now what it is that God meant us to eat..?


----------



## hchohan (Dec 8, 2006)

vijaydeep Singh said:


> Gurfateh
> 
> Das can say that only logic that Sant or Bebecki do not eat meat while doing Nam Abhyas is due to the fact that energy needs drop and food and sleep may not be needed much by body.But then eating oily or high proteen veg food is also not good.


 

your first point is absurd
your second point is a biological/chemical statement - nothing to do with Sikh's having Daya


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

Gurfateh



hchohan said:


> who is to say it was right in those times..? were you there..?
> Sikhi is to learn - have we not learnt by now what it is that God meant us to eat..?


We have text and scripture to tell about history and from that we get inspiration else someone can say that why should we have Amrit or 5ks.They can question about its validity at that time and can ask us that were we there at that time?

Sikh is state which is before Khalsa and via Singh state we be Khalsa.From comman man to Sikh,then to Singh and then to Khalsa.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

Gurfateh



hchohan said:


> your first point is absurd
> your second point is a biological/chemical statement - nothing to do with Sikh's having Daya


Well Dear Sir,

For that yuo need to carry out Naam Abhyas.You can verfy this from any physician that when we keep an eye on breath our energy needs go dowen.Sleep is done only to save enrgy and let body rest.Likewise if exhaling is slow we then also have tabb on enrgy as oxgen comes in us and makes energy production for us with other componats like what we eat and as result energy by internal combustion in us we get enrgy and by porduct in CO2.Likewise Gurbani also talkas about fire in human body.

to much enrgy if not utilised may casue anger or lust.But same things could do wel with veg thing.

Daya etc. has nothing to to do with Sikhs who is to get our of actions and results.It could be more to do with Vaishnavs or Budhists or Jains.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 8, 2006)

<Sikh is state which is before Khalsa and via Singh state we be Khalsa.From comman man to Sikh,then to Singh and then to Khalsa.>

can you elaborate please?


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 8, 2006)

hchohan said:


> who is to say it was right in those times..?  were you there..?
> Sikhi is to learn - have we not learnt by now what it is that God meant us to eat..?



 chohan ji please be careful while writing, the same logic could be used for
any 5k or 4 kurhits.were you there when guru gobind singh ji  was distribuiting amrit?the do's and don't's for khalsa are prescribed by guru gobind singh ji.if a person start searching logic behind these do's and don'ts
then that person cannot become khalsa.even there is no strong logic
behind keeping hair

as far as god is concerned humans are basically ominivorus.even the closest cousin of human' chimpanzee also eat meat
as i already said that god has not created fertile land everywhere if god wanted all human beings to be vegetarian then he should have created fertile land everywhere.by saying that khalsa should be veggie you are restricting khalsa for fertlie areas of the earth


----------



## hchohan (Dec 8, 2006)

of course we learn from history - but was what happened in history always the right thing..?  Who's to say..?

Comparing humans to animals is a non issue as God created humans with a certain degree of intelligence.

In terms of areas of the earth without fertile land that can be promlematic for Khalsa - however in this day and age there are many ways around that (that may even include Khalsa being restricted to certain lands)
That is still no justification for being non-veg


----------



## hchohan (Dec 8, 2006)

Vijaydeep - you make me laugh.. 
Khalsa should not have Daya..?  :crazy:


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 8, 2006)

kds1980 said:


> one thing i totaly don't understand is why this concept of daya emerges for meat
> eating only.the same logic is applicable for milk also as plenty of cows and buffaloes suffer in diaries for the production of milk.but 99.99% veggies take
> u turn on the issue of milk.



chohan ji you have not replied to my above post.tell me why the concept of daya vanishes when it comes to milk.we basically just steal milk from cows.
and they just suffer in the diaries.


----------



## hchohan (Dec 8, 2006)

kds1980 said:


> chohan ji you have not replied to my above post.tell me why the concept of daya vanishes when it comes to milk.we basically just steal milk from cows.
> and they just suffer in the diaries.


 

how does milking a cow extinguish its life..?


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 8, 2006)

hchohan said:


> how does milking a cow extinguish its life..?



so only extinguishing life is wrong.giving suffering to animals is not wrong
what a logic?

btw for growing vegetarian food pesticides are used from which millions
of harmful as well as harmless insects are killed.so how we are not taking life when we eat vegetarian food


----------



## hchohan (Dec 8, 2006)

welcome to the new world of organic farming (non organic is only a recent phenomena)
there are laws around the treatment of farm animals now in this country.  the buffalos on our farm back in India are all treated well also.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

hchohan said:


> However, being Khalsa means being veggie – so it is part of that way of life.


 
No it doesn't.

History and actual practice proves otherwise.

This belief is something that crept in at the end of the 19th Century from many Hindu converts to Sikhism. This is a hangover of Hindu Vaishnavism.

Also many Sant and Dera organisations who have had links to Hindu Vaishnavism have crept this into Sikhism.


----------



## hchohan (Dec 8, 2006)

randip singh said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> History and actual practice proves otherwise.
> 
> ...


 

The world according to those who cant survive without taking the lives of God's creatures.  
Whos to say non-veggies interperated that history...?  You can no more say that than I can say the opposite.

I am no more a sant than you are.....

If you say vaishavism or whatever (not that I know what that is in much detail) has crept into Sikhi's veggie philoshopy - I can as much say that non-veg practice has crept in from Islam.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

hchohan said:


> The world according to those who cant survive without taking the lives of God's creatures.
> Whos to say non-veggies interperated that history...? You can no more say that than I can say the opposite.
> 
> I am no more a sant than you are.....
> ...


 
You could say that but you would have no evidence wheras I have evidence to prove my point. One example:

_*The seiks are remarkably fond of the flesh of the jungle hog, which they kill in chase: this food is allowable by their law. They likewise eat of mutton and fish; but these being unlawful the Brahmins will not partake, leaving those who chose to transgress their institutes to answer for themselves. *_
_*William Francklin in his writing about Mr George Thomas 1805*_

Also there has NEVER been a mass influx of Muslim converts to Sikhism. Maybe a few hundred at best.............Hindu's have formed the bulk of Sikh converts by far. Unless you can prove otherwise....your comment is invalid.


Note also I have replied to your other posts but the moderators are looking at it.


----------



## hchohan (Dec 8, 2006)

Like I said previuosly - history is written how people want to write it.  Even if the above was true, it does not means Sikhs should be non-veg then as much as now.
What has converts in the past got to do with my beliefs of Sikhi today - I know next to nothing about Hinduism etc.

To stop this going round in circles:
Not being well versed in Gurbani - can anyone please show me 1 shabad in the SGGS that confirms Jee Hatia for comsumption is acceptable practice.


----------



## ISDhillon (Dec 8, 2006)

There are no definites or absolutes in life other than death in this sense shouldnt rehat maryada simply be just that, that we live in the constant memory of death it seems the most forward looking thing there can be, all rights and wrongs are subjective, i may not like pain but it is pleasurable to others, sikhism is not dualistic in its outlook it focusses on self-determination in life and self-determination in spirituality, what has lead us to believe that human constructs of logic and reason will effect us in the beyond?  are we still being effected by another common frame of reference, perhaps the grand narrative of the west still affects us even though we shrugged of our colonial invaders?


----------



## hchohan (Dec 8, 2006)

Good Comment Dhillon Ji

I believe Death is the ultimate and final truth - truthful living and the Name will save us.  
I am not looking to create a duality where none exists.  From my point of view - for part of that truthful living you must have Daya before you can have Dharm, and Jee Hatia is not approved.

p.s. i'll be busy for a sometime so may not be able to reply on this thread until after the weekend.


----------



## ISDhillon (Dec 8, 2006)

hchohan said:


> Good Comment Dhillon Ji
> 
> I believe Death is the ultimate and final truth - truthful living and the Name will save us.
> I am not looking to create a duality where none exists.  From my point of view - for part of that truthful living you must have Daya before you can have Dharm, and Jee Hatia is not approved.
> ...



Hc chohan ji,

Your giving truth a definition which is alien to sikhism, sikhism only calls god truth ie satnaam, truth in education system is described as all that is good, righteous, moral, reasonable and logical but this is not the sikh definition of truth.  You then give truth an attachment ie, daya.

lets replace truthfull living with conscious living from this day forth, remeber sant jarnail singh ji bhindranwale said "physical death i do not fear death of conscience is a sure death" does this not ring true with all our current squabbles.  

Indy


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

hchohan said:


> Good Comment Dhillon Ji
> 
> I believe Death is the ultimate and final truth - truthful living and the Name will save us.
> I am not looking to create a duality where none exists. From my point of view - for part of that truthful living you must have Daya before you can have Dharm, and Jee Hatia is not approved.
> ...


 
What is this Jee Hatia business....this is not a Sikh concept? This is Hindu Vaishnav.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

hchohan said:


> Like I said previuosly - history is written how people want to write it. Even if the above was true, it does not means Sikhs should be non-veg then as much as now.
> What has converts in the past got to do with my beliefs of Sikhi today - I know next to nothing about Hinduism etc..


 
If you do not understand Sikh history then you do not understand Sikhism...simple.....thats what it has to do with belief in Sikhi today.

You cannot build a house on no foundations.

You made a statement about Islamic influence on Sikhism.....I can prove the influx of Hindu Vaishnavs into Sikhims and Hindu influence.....you must make good your statement and demonstrate the Islamic influence and where it came from?

Was it converts? Sikh prechers who were Muslim? Something other. Don't dodge the question and give referenceses.

Read:

Sikh History From Persian Sources - Grewal and Habib

The Khalsa Over 300 Years - Grewal and Indu Banga....in particular The Census and the Sikhs Page 121



hchohan said:


> To stop this going round in circles:
> Not being well versed in Gurbani - can anyone please show me 1 shabad in the SGGS that confirms Jee Hatia for comsumption is acceptable practice.


 
No the glass is not half empty...it is half full!!!

The demostration is to show where Bani states one must eat a certain type of food.........it clearly does not!!

The vegetarians and meat eaters here apart from you are all agreed.....Bani has nothing to do with Vegetarianism or Meat eating...........it is not an a-la-carte menu. You have yet to demonstrate anything coming close to even saying that it does.

The point of the essay IS that fools wrangle over flesh.........be that from an animal or a plant!!! It use Bani and historical texts to illustrate that........so far you have not demostrated either.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

hchohan said:


> welcome to the new world of organic farming (non organic is only a recent phenomena)
> there are laws around the treatment of farm animals now in this country. the buffalos on our farm back in India are all treated well also.


 
Actually you need to understand Oraganic farming. It still involves pest eradication. Also breeding of some plants that insects won't eat.......this means birds do not have a food source and die.

Farming land destroys natural habitats for wild life and they die.

Ploughing soil kills many millions of insects and worms.

Saying that I am a great supporter of Organic Farming....and supported it when I first started Power Lifting and realised the importance of good nutrition.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 8, 2006)

hchohan said:


> I see your point also – and no I cannot claim to understand the ways of Akal.
> However – I still cannot reconcile killing with my belief that Sikhi is a progressive, logical, forward thinking way of the future for mankind.


 
In Sikhi you cannot avoid killing….that is the point. Matter cannot be destroyed or created but merely changes from one form to another.

Sikhi acknowledges that.

The fact you do not see plants as killing is neither here nor there…….because Guruji CLEARLY does. However, the killing of plants is acceptable for you.



hchohan said:


> I do not claim to know much about history, what the situation was in the past or how things came to be the way they are. However, I believe the whole human race is progressing and becoming more aware of the concepts of animal cruelty (Daya) the benefits of vegetenarianism and even newer ideas like the benefits of organic farming etc.


 
Organic farming does not mean Vegetarianism…..it also means livestock and poultry. It means rearing and growing in a natural way as possible. No use of insecticides, steroids etc.

Daya does not mean animal cruelty. That assumption on your part is wholly wrong. Daya is compassion. A meat eater can have compassion yet vegetarians can be the most cruel. Adolf Hitler example of the most cruellest Vegetarian ever.



hchohan said:


> Let me try and explain my view in another way:
> 
> If an apple ripens and falls from the tree – where was the life, in the apple or the tree? Does the life in the tree remain..? Will a new apple emerge..?


 
The apple is the fertilised egg of the tree…….it has potential to be life………..by eating it you deny it that life.



hchohan said:


> When the wheat dries up and “dies” it is ready for harvest. Is there life in that wheat..?


 
Wheat ripening is a man made process……….basically you are denying wheat water………and then harvesting the wheat eggs to be criushed and eaten in bread. Again you are denying those fertilised wheat eggs (grain) a chance for life.

*ਜੇਤੇ **ਦਾਣੇ **ਅੰਨ **ਕੇ **ਜੀਆ **ਬਾਝੁ **ਨ **ਕੋਇ **॥** 
जेते दाणे अंन के जीआ बाझु न कोइ ॥ 
jaytay daanay ann kay jee-aa baajh na ko-ay. 
As many as are the grains of corn, none is without life.* 

ਪਹਿਲਾ ਪਾਣੀ ਜੀਉ ਹੈ ਜਿਤੁ ਹਰਿਆ ਸਭੁ ਕੋਇ ॥ 
पहिला पाणी जीउ है जितु हरिआ सभु कोइ ॥ 
pahilaa paanee jee-o hai jit hari-aa sabh ko-ay. 
First, there is life in the water, by which everything else is made green. 




hchohan said:


> When I mow my lawn to keep it tidy – does the blade of grass not grow tall again..?


 
When the grass grows it is trying to get to the stage where it can release its seeds (eggs), to grow….by cutting the grass you are denying it a chance to do that…..hence prevent it from procreating.




hchohan said:


> I cannot comprehend God’s wonderful creation. As mankind is not as enlightened as our Guru Ji’s we cannot posses the wisdom to comprehend such things (do you..?).


I cannot, but in terms of Bani, this seems to be a denial that Plant has life and that we do not kill Plants or manipulate them and stop them from breeding for our own needs.



hchohan said:


> However, do we still ignore the suffering that God has enabled us to perceive right in front of us..? Do he give us these senses for no reason..?


 
Your senses will also take you to Kaam, Krodh, Moh, Lobh and Hankaar……….let us follow our senses to this too.

The comprehension of life in all its wonders is beyond our senses………..our senses can fool us.



hchohan said:


> If I was to eat merely the liver of a cow – will the cow recover..?


 
You would not slice part of apple from a tree, and throw the rest away………in the same way you would not do this to a cow. Sorry this is an absurd analogy.



hchohan said:


> If I eat the leg of a sheep – does the leg grow back?


 
Again the same applies as the apple analogy.



hchohan said:


> If I bury the heart of a pig in the ground and water that ground – will a new pig appear..?


 
That would be an attempt at unnatural manipulation………..

Pigs breed….that is the way God made them………in the same way plants breed………both in different ways. This is again an absurd analogy.



hchohan said:


> I think not – because I would be extinguishing the Jot of that creature completely and deliberately. What right do I have to do that for no reason other than to eat..?


 
Is not the potential Jot of the apple to become a tree extinguished for your apple pie? Is not the Jot of the wheat seed to become a plant extinguished for your bread?

You are applying the Jot concept to a narrow set of criteria, and not in the concept of Bani.



hchohan said:


> Guru Ji made Amrit on Akal’s command. Mata Ji added sweetness to that Amrit so that the Khalsa would keep sweetness, love, caring and compassion (Daya) in our hearts. All of which are undeniably among the qualities of our True Lord.
> How is the killing God’s creatures the way of the Khalsa and not an insult to the Amrit..?


 
Are you denying a plant is one of Gods creatures?

It breeds, it feeds, it breathes etc……….again a very narrow application of what is construed as having life.



hchohan said:


> Without having that Daya when you kill do you become Dharmi by doing so..?


 
So everytime you have a mouthful of cornflakes you are a Dharmi?.............I think not.




hchohan said:


> By drawing blood so needlessly (as God has created the right food for us in vegetation) how is the Khalsa benefiting mankind – or is he merely satisfying his own thirst for blood..?


 
This is YOUR view, and not the view of Bani.

A plant has blood, it has sap….because it is not red you have no Daya. Foe someone who is saying they have Daya this is a very narrow definition and only stretched to certain life forms.

Same thirst could be applied to thirst for plant blood (sap).


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 8, 2006)

hchohan said:


> welcome to the new world of organic farming (non organic is only a recent phenomena)
> there are laws around the treatment of farm animals now in this country.  the buffalos on our farm back in India are all treated well also.



organic food is only for rich people as it is 4 or 5 times costlier than non
organic food so does that mean a poor person is papi because he cannot
afford organic food

as far as milk is concerned milk and meat are totally associated with each other.for production of milk breeding of cows or buffaloes is necessary 1 cow become's 10 ,10 becomes 100 and so on.in the end there is only 1 solution left for them and that is to kill them to control their population.this is exactly happening in india.indians don't eat beef but they love to drink cow milk so population of cows is increasing day by day.so cows in india are dieing from
starvation,eating polythene bags or illegaly transported to bangladesh or pakistan.so who is responsible for this condition of cows obviously the milk drinkers.so if a person think that meat eating is wrong he cannot justify
milk drinking whether organic or non organic.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 9, 2006)

Gurfateh


hchohan said:


> Vijaydeep - you make me laugh..
> Khalsa should not have Daya..? :crazy:


 
Das is happy that he made a Mahpurush(Great Person) laugh.

Yes Khalsa does not ahev any emotion.Bramgyani Ka Sad Nirlep.Nirlep is from Nirlipta Bhav in Sanskrit.Like lotus is not touched by marsh.Khalsa has not self feeling or attachemtn towards any worldy thing.no love to biotic or abiotic things.

As in Body of that Khalsa.Instead of self mind,mind of Akal lives.In me nothing is mine and all is your(Mera Mujh Mein kichh Nahi,Jo Kichh Hai So Tera..(forgive das for wrong spelling if any)).

Daya or mercy as well as mercylessness(mentioned in Sukhmani Sahib and Dasham Granth Sahib Ji) are attribute of Akal.All feeelings are of Akal.And Akal onle feels them vide our bodies.Our bodies are not our rather apprantly ours.They are of Akal.Sat Sri Akal means that Truth is Eternal.Eternalo Akal is truth.Rest we run after our deeds good or bad while all are of Akal.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 9, 2006)

Gurfateh



hchohan said:


> of course we learn from history - but was what happened in history always the right thing..? Who's to say..?
> 
> Comparing humans to animals is a non issue as God created humans with a certain degree of intelligence.
> 
> ...


Respected Chauhan Sahib,

Akal is as in Human as in Animals and as in Plants.Humans as you say are aboe animals,so are they above plants.By nature spcie above in parmyd eats the speice below.

Khalsa is told to be in all world as Avtar of Kaliyuga(Sau Sakhi).so how can Avtar of Kaliyuga be limted to fertile Land only.Is rest of the Land not the part of the world.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 9, 2006)

Gurfateh



amarsanghera said:


> <Sikh is state which is before Khalsa and via Singh state we be Khalsa.From comman man to Sikh,then to Singh and then to Khalsa.>
> 
> can you elaborate please?


As per an audio cassate by Sant Singh Ji Maskeen Sadhu Sant.
Human being has four state.

Duniyadar,nothing to do with faith and in all wordly affaris.Sikh in such place is more a turbanned Hindu.

Jigyasu-here a person becomes interested to know something about God,gaining of knowledge is ore a work.Term Sikh goes over here.

Sadhu-Here person starts to move on the path of truth.Knwoledge gained in previous state is put to use.Term Singh(after Baptism perhaps) is used.

Sant-Sa Anant-(like limitless) at this state a person reaches the destination.It is state of Salvation of being Alive.Here person is one with God.God is felt all around.People may see individual body but God only rests there.That is Khalsa.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 9, 2006)

hchohan said:


> Sorry – I missed out some more of my thoughts.
> 
> Many say that eating Halal meat is a cardinal sin. All identify it as meat that has been “sacrificed” in a slow way with the name of God said over it.
> 
> ...


 
Read the folleing:

And one semitic practice clearly rejected in the Sikh code of conduct is eating flesh of an animal cooked in ritualistic manner; this would mean kosher and halal meat. The reason again does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to enoble the flesh. No ritual, whoever conducts it, is going to do any good either to the animal or to the diner. Let man do what he must to assuage his hunger. If what he gets, he puts to good use and shares with the needy, then it is well used and well spent, otherwise not.
Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers. 

The key here is *sacrifice.* Whether it be Bismil, Halal, or Anustrani............the point of sacrificing animals is pointless to the Sikh. Jhatka was introduced for several reasons. Not the quickness or slowness of killing (although that lies in logic - see point 2)

1) It gave Sikhs a prescribed way of killing animals that did not involve sacrifice.

2) It was logical, since crops to were harvested and severed in the exact same manner.

3) It stopped this notion that God needed appeasement through sacrifice. As Kabir ji points out to Mullahs who carry out their Halal sacrifice:

*(SGGS p1350)*
*You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay.*
_*The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed?*_
*And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?*
*Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca?*

4) If God has created everything then what is the point of sacrificing something he/she has created too him/her?. It is like me owning a choclate factory (and I make all the choclates in the world) and you giving me a choclate for a present. Makes no sense. The above shabad also highlights this point.

On a side note the essay highlights countless shabads that have words like Bismila, Halal etc thathave wrongly been misinterpretated by people as alluding to killing animal.........rather than alluding to meaningless sacrifice.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Dec 9, 2006)

The solid proof that all this "Meat-NonMeat" debate was SETTLED by Guru nanak ji Sahib..is the Complete "NON-touching of this issue by any other succeeding Guru sahibs" None of the other Gurus Sahibs wrote anything on this..after Guru nana K jI made the Final point - Maas maas kar MOORAKH Jhaggrreh.  Long after the  passing on of Guru Gobind Singh ji and round about middle of the 18th Century..this DEBATE was REVIVED - by the Udasis, Nirmalas, etc who were HINDUS/Brahminised saboteurs who had gained control of Sikh shrines and religious books..these same peopel revived the so called Bachittar natak granth (subtly renamed dasam guru da granth ) and anti gurmatt books like Gurbilas, sooraj parkash, etc etc ( sooraj parkash writer santokh singh was a drug user..so he wrote that Guru Gobind Singh Ji used Drugs..Rattan Singh Bhangu of Panth prkash was a Bhang user..so he made Guru nanak ji a user of BHANG..any writer who was  aDevi worshipper..made sure he wrote Guru ji worshipped Devis..and so on..this meat thingy is a link in thsi nefarious chain to dilute and defame Gurnmatt of SGGS.  Aakllen SAHIB seveahn..Sikho use your God givne Intellect to differentiate between Gurmatt and non-Gurmatt.
Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 10, 2006)

Gurfateh



Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> The solid proof that all this "Meat-NonMeat" debate was SETTLED by Guru nanak ji Sahib..is the Complete "NON-touching of this issue by any other succeeding Guru sahibs" None of the other Gurus Sahibs wrote anything on this..after Guru nana K jI made the Final point - Maas maas kar MOORAKH Jhaggrreh. Long after the passing on of Guru Gobind Singh ji and round about middle of the 18th Century..this DEBATE was REVIVED - by the Udasis, Nirmalas, etc who were HINDUS/Brahminised saboteurs who had gained control of Sikh shrines and religious books..these same peopel revived the so called Bachittar natak granth (subtly renamed dasam guru da granth ) and anti gurmatt books like Gurbilas, sooraj parkash, etc etc ( sooraj parkash writer santokh singh was a drug user..so he wrote that Guru Gobind Singh Ji used Drugs..Rattan Singh Bhangu of Panth prkash was a Bhang user..so he made Guru nanak ji a user of BHANG..any writer who was aDevi worshipper..made sure he wrote Guru ji worshipped Devis..and so on..this meat thingy is a link in thsi nefarious chain to dilute and defame Gurnmatt of SGGS. Aakllen SAHIB seveahn..Sikho use your God givne Intellect to differentiate between Gurmatt and non-Gurmatt.
> Gyani jarnail Singh


 

Respected Gyani sahib,if we read this verse of Aakllen Sahib Seveahn,and aakll not from Farsi but from Sanskrit/Hindi,then meaing is differnt,ie A(non)kal(movement).God has no moves or art or motions as singluar as all belong to that.As God is everywhere so God does not move from say from Kuala Lampur to Sarwak.God is everywhere.

Das was compelled to thing over this intperpetation as in Japu Ji Sahib we are told,Hundereds of cleverness can be there,but not a single move alongside. As our Body is of Akal and not ours so brain and intellect of all belong to Akal.

Das will discuse someother time that wheather interpretors of above texts who judge them Anti Gurmat,themsevles could understand Gurmat correctly but Udasis and Nirmalas are not Anit Meat.More they are anti many vegg food also which they find not OK for Brah Vidya or Naam Abhyas.In fact das did know some family members of Missioaries going to  Yoga class from Hindus and having simlar restriction for health.

Path of gurm,at is higher then that of Hindu yoga.Udasis and Nirmalas may behold meating Nihungs sometime higher then thier own self.That is Gurmat ie to respect each others views.

There are some other reformining Sikh gruops who are hystrically anti meat.They came to from much after Britishers came into India.

There have been instances of Nirmalas going to hunting and meat being allowed to those who are slioder by proffessions,Das could assume that some biased people spread rumours about Nirmalas and that false Data reached our Gyani Sahib,else there were Many Nirmalas only who intialy rose doubts about author of the Raagmala,Dasham Granth Sahib and Sarbloh Granth Sahib.

They are often refred by moderne day Missioanries.In past if they sing,tune of present day people,they are OK else not?


By numbers and by views Nirmalas and Udasis are as diverse as rest of Sikhs.So generalising them with some idelogy may not be OK as it may not be OK for all Sikhs.


----------



## hchohan (Dec 10, 2006)

Hello again
Sorry I have been off this thread for a while (busy weekend) – however I managed to grab two hours this evening. There seem to be an overwhelming number of replies that it would take me too long to reply to them all. Even if I did I feel we would be going round in circles as people are just intent to find the smallest faults and apply the maximum spin to the words of this simple Sikh.

Therefore I try my very hardest to make this my last post on this particular thread. However where previously I have only shared some of my own feelings on the issue – instead I humbly endeavour (with my limited knowledge) to reply directly to the issues raised by Randip Ji as the author of the original article. You can then make play of my words to your hearts content for after this you will have lost my attention.


Firstly to summarise the points Ranjit has made:

Mistranslation and Mis-interpretation of the SGGS.
Flesh of Animal is the same as the flesh from vegetation.
Approval from other authors 
Sikhs in History ate meat
The Gurus – approved of and ate meat
Hukamnama of 6th and 10th Masters.
Vegetarian Bhagats, Sadhu’s, Sant’s and Sangat are merely Vaishnav Hindu’s
Jhatka meat is approved
_Maas__ maas kar moorakh jhagrhay_
_Final Thoughts_
 
*1. Mistranslation and Misinterpretation of the SGGS.*
Firstly to save retyping everything please reference what Randip Ji has included on page1 (points 1 to 7 in red at the top).

Who is doing the Mistranslation or Misinterpretation – the people you refer to or you yourself. To me there is one clear message in there – do not kill to eat and being veggie alone will not bring union with Akal. Without Naam your being vegetarian will be no good.
You have explained your interpretation of those shabads – so obviously you must be right and everyone else must be wrong..?


2. *Flesh of Animal is the same as the flesh from vegetation*
I have touched on this in a previous post. I have not denied that there is life in vegetables as well as animals. Nor do I deny that killing life is sometimes necessary and/or unavoidable. Nor do I deny my own senses. Akal’s creation is limitless and in-describable.
The animals you choose to kill merely for food are undeniably created with senses similar to our own. Therefore we can understand to an extent the cruelty there is in slaughtering it (in whichever manner Halal, Jhatka etc). Just as we can understand how cruel some rulers in India were when they slaughtered the Guru’s Sikh’s.
Akal has made it known that there is life in all. However he has made us only able to comprehend (to our limited ability) the suffering of animals rather than vegetation (unless you claim to be able to see that Randip Ji,)
The Guru’s and Waheguru’s Bhagat’s were above us – they by the grace of God had that ability, not us mere men.
The Guru taught us to acknowledge many things of the Lords illusion – but when did he teach us to deny that part of the illusion that we can clearly see..? In fact, did they not teach us that to renounce that which the Lord put before us would be akin to renouncing the Lord..?
Thereby we must acknowledge that before us as well as accept the that things happen that we cannot see or comprehend but can do nothing about as I need vegetation to survive, I do not need animal meat to survive.

Alternatively if you are gifted enough to see that there is as much suffering when you kill vegetation for food as there is when you kill animals for food – perhaps you should not eat the flesh of plants or the flesh of animals.
OR, if all flesh is the same – please kill me and serve me up. However, don’t forget to do Bhog before digging in.


*3. Approval from other authors*
Apologies – but I have no interest in what your meat eating 2 a penny authors have to say in their 2 a penny books just to try and justify there own eating habbits.


*4. Sikhs in History ate meat*
The examples you cite are from after the human lives of our Gurus. However, I do not deny that some Sikhs ate meat during the Guru’s time as well as after it.

However a lot of the pro-meat group states that it occurred during the time of the Guru – and site specific examples in war times when other food had ran out. E.g. Most of this refers to the siege of Anandpur.
During this siege the Guru his Sikhs and his family were cut off from food for 9months. It was suggested that Sikh’s under this incredible hardship were forced to eat meat. I don’t necessarily agree that they did – but let us for a moment assume that they did (excluding Guru Ji). They went hungry for nine months and they were fighting for the very survival of Sikhi and were therefore forced to eat what they could in order to keep their strength in the face of the enemy.
Tell me – do you go without for even a day..? What war for mankind are you waging..?

It seems meat eating Sikhs thereafter have used that as justification for there habit. 



*5. The Gurus – approved of and ate meat*
The Gurus had previously merged with the Akal. They were one with the Akal when He sent them to teach us.
You cannot understand their actions any more than you can understand Akal (Sochi Soch na Hovai je Sohci Lakh War). It is people like you who think the Guru merely enacted a theatre play at the birth of the Khalsa by killing goats rather than taking the heads of the Panj Pyare.
Yes, the some of the Gurus did hunt – but don’t for one second bring the Guru down to your level and say they did it in order to eat (when was there ever a shortage in Guru Ka Langar). You cannot understand their reasons for they were one with Akal. 
They did it for a higher purpose under hukam from Akal. They did it to eliminate animals that were threatening Sangat or they did it (up-to-the point of the actual kill) for training.

Let us for one moment assume you are right and the Guru’s killed and then ate for food.
The Gurus were our teachers. They taught us many things but above all practised what they taught. Gurus taught us to be above this, to control our emotions and urges if we were to develop spiritually. Something we often find difficult.
For example. Kirt Karna, Naam Japna, Vand Shakna.
The Guru’s believed so greatly in Vand Shakna that they formalised it and institutionalised Langar in Sikhi. The Guru would therefore have had ALL of their meals as part of, or prepared from Guru ka Langar. Langar, even by your own admission has always and will always be vegetarian (and Guru Ji defined that vegetarianism as NOT the flesh of killed animals) – therefore the Guru’s *NEVER* ate meat.


*6. Hukamnama of 6th and 10th Masters.*
Why do you so easily readily dismiss the Hukamnama of 6th Master. Does it contradict your desires...? Are we above the consequences if you are wrong..?
If as I believe it is genuine - it would apply to all Sikh – then and now.
The Hukam of 10th master for Sikhs in a Muslim land where Kuttha would generally be the only meat available does NOT contradict this in any way. 
Note: The Shabad you quote does not clearly define Kuttha only as ritually slaughtered meat.


*7. Vegetarian Bhagats, Sadhu’s, Sant’s and Sangat are merely Vaishnav Hindu’s*
The Bhagats were great souls you were at one with the Akal. Why do you dismiss them so readily, is your gyan greater than theirs..? Has Waheguru communicated through them, or do you have that connection..? You are happy to misinterpret the Shabads of Kabir Ji – but you forget that after all is said and done (e.g not plucking flowers etc), he was a vegetarian. 
Why do you ignore the other Bhagats in the SGGS..? For example do you forget the reasons why Bhagat Sadhna became vegetarian and become Akal Bhagat..? What food did Bhagat Dhana ask Akal to provide him with..? etc etc

You accuse contemporary Khalsa Sadhu’s, Sants (not the type who write books etc) as being Hindu vaishnavs. I don’t know how many Sadhu’s & Sants you have met – but the majority I have met have had no agenda other than Waheguru Jaap and Sangat Seva. Some of these Sant Sadhus have performed maha tapasia and seva. They are Guru das – and a lot closer to Waheguru than I am. There are a few even, who our Guru’s still communicate through to Gurmukh Sangat today (although most manmukh will deny this).
Yet if these Guru sevadars say you should not kill animals for food – you much like other academic manmukhs say they must be Hindu Vaishavs..!


*8. Jhatka meat is approved*
Here none of you have a problem in identifying Jhatka meat as meat of an animal rather than vegetable. Your argument that vegetables are chopped quickly is irrelevant as that is not always the case. Nor are you enlightened enough to understand Time. Besides even you quote Shabad from p143 of the SGGS with regards to what the sugar cane experiences AFTER it is cut down.
You say Jhatka is approved over other meats as it is not sacrificial but killed in a certain way. Sacrificial e.g. Halal generally means that at kill time animal is offered to appease God before consumption. 
So what is the difference between that and offering meat to God for blessing after it is killed? A Sikh should offer all food for Bhog (or at least say a prayer over it) before consumption.


*9. Maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay.*
You have interpreted the Shabad in your way. I would offer my humble thoughts on that. However, I DO NOT like to do this for who am I to interpret Shabad for others – therefore I will offer an interpretation by another person which I agree with.

_deeper study of the whole hymn brings out:_

_Herein, Guru Sahib is addressing a Vaishnav Pandit who believes that he can achieve his spiritual goal only by avoiding meat as food and not trying to obtain the true wisdom through meditation. Guru Ji has stressed that only avoiding meat will not lead one to the achievement of Spiritual Bliss if one does not do Naam-Simran. This equally applies to all, including non-meat-eating Sikhs. _

_It relates to the flesh or meat in general and not to any particular type of flesh - whether prepared by Halaal or Jhatka method. The Sikh supporters of flesh eating do not accept at all the intake of all types of meat, but according to them, only Jhatka meat is permissible and Halaal is totally prohibited. In other words, what does the term "Kuthha" denote? _

_The flesh of the mother's womb wherein the human body is born, the flesh of the mother's breasts which feed the infant, the flesh of the tongue, ears, mouth, etc., used for perception of various senses of the body, the flesh in the form of wife and off-springs referred to in the Shabad, is flesh no doubt and one cannot escape it, but is it the flesh to be eaten as food by the humans? Does the love for this type of flesh involve any cruelty or slaughter of living bodies? Obviously, the Shabad has a deeper meaning telling Vaishnav pandits that merely escaping from the flesh does not take one anywhere. Nor can anyone get rid of the flesh (i.e., attainment of salvation from the cycle of birth and death) by his own futile efforts without the Grace of the True Guru._



*11. Final Thoughts*
My very first post on this thread stated. 
_I am a fool for writing these comments, just as you are a fool for writing the original article. For I will not change your outlook on the issue just as though you will never change mine._

Personally I don’t give a hoot if you eat non-veg food. If I wrote a list of a million things I care about, your diet would still not feature.
What I do care about though is when academic manmukhs like you try to propagate your personal brand of Sikhi to the sangat.

Have you given the smallest, slightest most miniscule passing thought to the possibility that you may be wrong..? Even if there was a 1 in 10billion chance that you may be mistaken about non-veg being acceptable – is that a risk you are willing to take..?
Surely as for the vast majority of us meat avoidance is viable and non-veg food is NOTHING BUT an option for you – would you not rather tread the line of caution..?


Anyway – like I said at the start, I will not be posting any more reply’s on this thread. Goodbye for now (until we meet on another thread).


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 11, 2006)

Gurfateh

Das awaits for Bhai Randeep Singh Ji to reply.Anyway das would like to add another thing of Nirmalas,they do not eat meat themsleves but in Sarbloh Granth someone did misinteretpain that meat is unedaible and Nirmalas proved that misinterpetaion as wrong.If das is allowed das will give more detail.Over to Randeep Singh Ji and KDSingh Ji.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 11, 2006)

<<Duniyadar,nothing to do with faith and in all wordly affaris.Sikh in such place is more a turbanned Hindu.
>>

Vijaydeep singh ji

thanks for the reply..

can you explain the line quoted above on following points -

How can you use the term "turbaned Hindu" ? do you mean to say that every sikh is a turbaned hindu ?

How can you assume that a Hindu is always in this state only ? Do you mean to say that being hindu means being in worldly state?

How can you assume that only a Turbaned person can follow the four steps? Do you assume that a sikh is always turbaned?


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 11, 2006)

Gurfateh




amarsanghera said:


> <<Duniyadar,nothing to do with faith and in all wordly affaris.Sikh in such place is more a turbanned Hindu.
> >>
> 
> Vijaydeep singh ji
> ...


 
Yes das got from where you are coming.

Anyway das should have writtan that a person with hairs and turban is still a turbaned Hindu.

why das use term Hindu has some other reason.

Hindu means Indian(das will not get into here that wheather it is due to indus or due to derogatory refreance by pagan farsis invaders) and being attached to national boundaris .So das wrote as such.

Soi when as person moves at higher state he/she may not belive in regeonal/racial boundaris and see God in all.so no longer Punjabi or Indian(Hindu),Black or white.Das hopes that that this doubt is cleared.

Yes a non Turban Person can move vide this way.

Sansari-Jigyasu-Sadhu-Sant

As Gyani Sant Singh Ji Maskeen Ji told.

But simlar way in Gurmat goes vide.

Duniyadar-Sikh-Singh-Khalsa.

So sikh can be without Turban but still Singh does undergo baptism.

anyway there are ways for those who do not want to undergo Amrit Sanakar or may not want to wear Turban as per Gurmat.

They are Udasi(in Hindus they are Udaseen),Nirmalas and Seva Panthis.

But in them in place of Singh there can be Sadhu.But when they make some one Singh,them Baptism is needed so Truban also.In Past Taksal also had provision of Sikhs wihtout all 5ks or baptism.

more info can be obtained from Sanatan Sikhi.


And das hoper doubts are cleared or das will again try to clarify.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 11, 2006)

hchohan said:


> Hello again
> Sorry I have been off this thread for a while (busy weekend) – however I managed to grab two hours this evening. There seem to be an overwhelming number of replies that it would take me too long to reply to them all. Even if I did I feel we would be going round in circles as people are just intent to find the smallest faults and apply the *maximum spin to the words of this simple Sikh.*


 
Spin or opinions you do not share? Everyone is entitled to an opinion as are you my friend.




hchohan said:


> Therefore I try my very hardest to make this my last post on this particular thread. However where previously I have only shared some of my own feelings on the issue – instead I humbly endeavour (with my limited knowledge) to reply directly to the issues raised by Randip Ji as the author of the original article. You can then make play of my words to your hearts content for after this you will have lost my attention.
> 
> 
> Firstly to summarise the points Ranjit has made:
> ...


No one is playing with any of your words, I am sorry you feel like that.



hchohan said:


> *1. Mistranslation and Misinterpretation of the SGGS.*
> Firstly to save retyping everything please reference what Randip Ji has included on page1 (points 1 to 7 in red at the top).
> 
> Who is doing the Mistranslation or Misinterpretation – the people you refer to or you yourself. To me there is one clear message in there – do not kill to eat and being veggie alone will not bring union with Akal. Without Naam your being vegetarian will be no good.


 
Again that is your opinion. The message to me is that your diet will not bring you closer to God, whether meat or Veggie. Each has exactly the same amount of life. No more no less.



hchohan said:


> You have explained your interpretation of those shabads – so obviously you must be right and everyone else must be wrong..?


 
Tell me, what is wrong with putting one line into an entire shabad and putting it in context?

Also tell me what is wrong with pointing out flaws in English translation? No matter how people try and spin it Halal and Bismil does not mean Kill, as has been written here. Even a 10 year old child knows that Bismil and Halal is something to do with Islamic ritual. Surely there is no harm in doing that?

Also for years sites like www.akg.org.......it's all in the name.q and Sikh Information Guru Nanak Gobind Singh have deliberately mistranslated and misrepresented the lines from Bani to promote their Vegetarian Agenda……………….what is wrong with redressing these sites?



hchohan said:


> 2. *Flesh of Animal is the same as the flesh from vegetation*
> I have touched on this in a previous post. I have not denied that there is life in vegetables as well as animals. Nor do I deny that killing life is sometimes necessary and/or unavoidable. Nor do I deny my own senses. Akal’s creation is limitless and in-describable.
> The animals you choose to kill merely for food are undeniably created with *senses similar to our own*.


 
Senses similar to our own is not a measure of life. Tommorow Aliens may land that may have sense totally different from us…………….would they not be a life form?

I disagree on this point………..this is not "undeniable"……………..plants have senses. For example…..I keep plants……….I play music to my plant it grows more……I talk to my plant and it grows more……..I groom my plant and it grows more.

Scientist and lay people (like me) have done experiments on this:

http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/plant_experiments.asp
http://www.yogamag.net/archives/2000/3may00/plants.shtml

Opinions on this vary, but my own observations have shown my plants thrive with certain music. This to me is proof enough that plants have senses.

In addition to this my plants, breath, they breed, they feed.

In my school days we connected a plant up to a micro meter which can pick up small currents, and found ripping leaves off plants caused massive hifts in current resembling some sort of trauma.

Also Bani tells me:

Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 



_mehlaa 1._​ 

_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._

_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._ 
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._ 
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._ 
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._​ 
_First Mehl:_ 
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_ 
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._ 
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._ 
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._ 
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
*Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji*​ 
​




​







hchohan said:


> Therefore we can understand to an extent the cruelty there is in slaughtering it (in whichever manner Halal, Jhatka etc).Just as we can understand how cruel some rulers in India were when they slaughtered the Guru’s Sikh’s.


 
Totally disagree.

According to Bani there is just as much cruelty in killing a Plant, or Mineral as killing an animal…………………….Human's are on a level above plant, minerals and animal.

On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji​ 


_ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5._


_ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa._

_ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa._ 
_ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o._ 
_ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o._
_mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa_. _chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa._ rahaa-o. 
_ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa._ 
_ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa._
_ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa._ 
_lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa._ 
_saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat._
_kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat._ 
_ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan._ 
_jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan._
_avar na doojaa karnai jog._ 
_taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay._ 
_kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay._ ​ 
_Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl_: 
_In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;_ 
_in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer._
_In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake._ 
_In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse._ 
_Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him_.
_After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you._ Pause 
_In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;_ 
_in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;_ 
_in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;_ 
_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._ 
_Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life._ 
_Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har._
_Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance._
_Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord._ 
_Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord._ 
_No one else can do anything at all._ 
_We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself._ 
_Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har._
*Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji*​ 
​




​





​





hchohan said:


> Akal has made it known that there is life in all. However he has made us only able to comprehend (to our limited ability) the suffering of animals rather than vegetation (unless you claim to be able to see that Randip Ji,)


 
I claim nothing. The message above is clear as daylight from Bani.

On one level you have plants, animal, and minerals, and on the next level you have humans. Bani is clear on this. Re-read the shabad above:

How else to you explain mving from plant incarnation to human next?

_in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;_
_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._ 
_Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life_



hchohan said:


> The Guru’s and Waheguru’s Bhagat’s were above us – they by the grace of God had that ability, not us mere men.
> The Guru taught us to acknowledge many things of the Lords illusion – but when did he teach us to deny that part of the illusion that we can clearly see..? In fact, did they not teach us that to renounce that which the Lord put before us would be akin to renouncing the Lord..?
> Thereby we must acknowledge that before us as well as accept the that things happen that we cannot see or comprehend but can do nothing about as I need vegetation to survive, I do not need animal meat to survive.


 
I disagree.

For human's to operate at optimum levels they mush have some meat. This I know from power lifting. It is not enough just to exist, but life must be about bettering ourselves. Animal's in the jungle merely "survive"…………..surviving is not the goal of humanity. Betterment and sarbat da bala is the goal of humans.

Bettering oneself mentally and physically is the goal of the Gurmukh. Vegeterians they can do it without meat.....then I say goodluck to them. My experience says otherwise.




hchohan said:


> Alternatively if you are gifted enough to see that there is as much suffering when you kill vegetation for food as there is when you kill animals for food – perhaps you should not eat the flesh of plants or the flesh of animals.


 
That is not the debate here at all. The debate is whether the life of a plant is equal to the life of an animal. In terms of Karma it clearly is according to Sikhi.



hchohan said:


> OR, if all flesh is the same – please kill me and serve me up. However, don’t forget to do Bhog before digging in.


 
Now you are being silly. Bani clearly states that human life is precious above all:

_Through 8.4 million incarnations you have wandered, to obtain this rare and precious human life._
_O Nanak, remember the Naam, the Name of the Lord; the day of departure is drawing near!_




hchohan said:


> *3. Approval from other authors*
> Apologies – but I have no interest in what your meat eating 2 a penny authors have to say in their 2 a penny books just to try and justify there own eating habbits.


 
To bad you have so much disdain for academics and men and women of spirituality who have dedicated their lives to Sikhism and Sikh History.

These people are far wiser and cleverer than you or me and have far greater knowledge about Sikhi than you or me.

Many of these authors are vegetarians………..and yet they agree that meat eating and vegetarianism has nothing to do with Sikhi. 



hchohan said:


> *4. Sikhs in History ate meat*
> The examples you cite are from after the human lives of our Gurus. However, I do not deny that some Sikhs ate meat during the Guru’s time as well as after it.
> 
> However a lot of the pro-meat group states that it occurred during the time of the Guru – and site specific examples in war times when other food had ran out. E.g. Most of this refers to the siege of Anandpur.


 
None of these references refer to the siege of Anandpur Sahib. We have been careful in making sure we didn't do that.



hchohan said:


> During this siege the Guru his Sikhs and his family were cut off from food for 9months. It was suggested that Sikh’s under this incredible hardship were forced to eat meat. I don’t necessarily agree that they did – but let us for a moment assume that they did (excluding Guru Ji). They went hungry for nine months and they were fighting for the very survival of Sikhi and were therefore forced to eat what they could in order to keep their strength in the face of the enemy.
> Tell me – do you go without for even a day..? What war for mankind are you waging..?


 
Like I said an irrelevant point, and none of these refrences are to do with Anandpur Sahib. Some are much later, and some at the time of Guru Hargobind ji.

On a side note, I prefer the taste of vegetarian food…..white channay a favourite. 



hchohan said:


> It seems meat eating Sikhs thereafter have used that as justification for there habit.


 
You are assuming too much. The input for this essay comes from vegetarians too. Don't let your ego feed your prejudices.




hchohan said:


> *5. The Gurus – approved of and ate meat*
> The Gurus had previously merged with the Akal. They were one with the Akal when He sent them to teach us.
> You cannot understand their actions any more than you can understand Akal (Sochi Soch na Hovai je Sohci Lakh War). It is people like you who think the Guru merely enacted a theatre play at the birth of the Khalsa by killing goats rather than taking the heads of the Panj Pyare.
> Yes, the some of the Gurus did hunt – but don’t for one second bring the Guru down to your level and say they did it in order to eat (when was there ever a shortage in Guru Ka Langar). You cannot understand their reasons for they were one with Akal.
> They did it for a higher purpose under hukam from Akal. They did it to eliminate animals that were threatening Sangat or they did it (up-to-the point of the actual kill) for training.


 
An incredible amount of finger waving and pontificating. Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and contemporary History texts are available to verify the Guru's actions.

They killed animals for:

· food
· training 
· and killing ferocious beasts.

The first you and your ilk seem to be in denial about. There was no shortage of Guru ka Langaar.



hchohan said:


> Let us for one moment assume you are right and the Guru’s killed and then ate for food.
> The Gurus were our teachers. They taught us many things but above all practised what they taught. Gurus taught us to be above this, to control our emotions and urges if we were to develop spiritually. Something we often find difficult.
> For example. Kirt Karna, Naam Japna, Vand Shakna.
> The Guru’s believed so greatly in Vand Shakna that they formalised it and institutionalised Langar in Sikhi. The Guru would therefore have had ALL of their meals as part of, or prepared from Guru ka Langar. Langar, even by your own admission has always and will always be vegetarian (and Guru Ji defined that vegetarianism as NOT the flesh of killed animals) – therefore the Guru’s *NEVER* ate meat.


 
A smokescreen and a common misconception. Langaar is vegetarian for the reason of Sarbat da Bala…..or everyone's benefit……………with this compromise is needed and vegetarian seemed to be a good compromise that would be acceptble to all faiths. Muslims eat Halal etc.

From the essay:

_The reason why meat is not served at langar in the Gurdwaras is because langar is supposed to be a symbol of equality of mankind where all people no matter what race, religion or caste can eat together in the atmosphere of brotherhood. Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, it does not matter who they are. Different religions have different dietary restrictions. Hindus cannot eat cow, muslims cannot eat pork and will only eat halal meat. Jews will only eat kosher meat, others cannot eat fish or eggs. But in a gurdwara langar, it does not matter what their dietary taboos or religious beliefs are, the food is designed so that all can eat together and no one will be offended or not be able to partake of the meal. _




hchohan said:


> *6. Hukamnama of 6th and 10th Masters.*
> Why do you so easily readily dismiss the Hukamnama of 6th Master. Does it contradict your desires...? Are we above the consequences if you are wrong..?
> If as I believe it is genuine - it would apply to all Sikh – then and now.
> The Hukam of 10th master for Sikhs in a Muslim land where Kuttha would generally be the only meat available does NOT contradict this in any way.
> Note: The Shabad you quote does not clearly define Kuttha only as ritually slaughtered meat.


 
I am inclined to dismiss both Hukamnama's as the message of the Guru's would not have deviated. The 6th Guru's Hukamnama is always used by pro-Veggie groups……………..what we demonstrated here is an alternative view.

The Shabad does confirm what Kuttha means actually totally. That’s why we published the entire shabad and not a snippet. You are spinning this point…..and just to confirm this point:

*Punjabi-English Dictionary, Punjabi University, Dept. of Punjabi Lexicography, Published Dec. 1994. "Kuttha: meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law." *

*Punjabi English Dictionary, Singh Bros., Amritsar "Kuttha: Tortured, killed according to Mohammedan law." *

This is a clasic tactic employed by AKJ type groups who wish to misinform people on this point.

Just to reaffirm the view of Bani on Kuthaa....note how this shabad refers to Kutthaa specifically as ritualistic of Halal:

page 956
ਮਃ ੧ ॥ 
मः १ ॥ 
mehlaa 1. 
First Mehl: 

ਸਚ ਕੀ ਕਾਤੀ ਸਚੁ ਸਭੁ ਸਾਰੁ ॥ 
सच की काती सचु सभु सारु ॥ 
sach kee kaatee sach sabh saar. 
The knife is Truth, and its steel is totally True. 

ਘਾੜਤ ਤਿਸ ਕੀ ਅਪਰ ਅਪਾਰ ॥ 
घाड़त तिस की अपर अपार ॥ 
ghaarhat tis kee apar apaar. 
Its workmanship is incomparably beautiful. 

ਸਬਦੇ ਸਾਣ ਰਖਾਈ ਲਾਇ ॥ 
सबदे साण रखाई लाइ ॥ 
sabday saan rakhaa-ee laa-ay. 
It is sharpened on the grindstone of the Shabad. 

ਗੁਣ ਕੀ ਥੇਕੈ ਵਿਚਿ ਸਮਾਇ ॥ 
गुण की थेकै विचि समाइ ॥ 
gun kee thaykai vich samaa-ay. 
It is placed in the scabbard of virtue. 

*ਤਿਸ **ਦਾ **ਕੁਠਾ **ਹੋਵੈ **ਸੇਖੁ **॥** 
तिस दा कुठा होवै सेखु ॥ 
tis daa kuthaa hovai saykh. 
If the Shaykh is killed with that, 

**ਲੋਹੂ **ਲਬੁ **ਨਿਕਥਾ **ਵੇਖੁ **॥** 
लोहू लबु निकथा वेखु ॥ 
lohoo lab nikthaa vaykh. 
then the blood of greed will spill out. 

**ਹੋਇ **ਹਲਾਲੁ **ਲਗੈ **ਹਕਿ **ਜਾਇ **॥** 
होइ हलालु लगै हकि जाइ ॥ 
ho-ay halaal lagai hak jaa-ay. 
**One who is slaughtered in this ritualistic way, will be attached to the Lord*. 

ਨਾਨਕ ਦਰਿ ਦੀਦਾਰਿ ਸਮਾਇ ॥੨॥ 
नानक दरि दीदारि समाइ ॥२॥ 
naanak dar deedaar samaa-ay. ||2|| 
O Nanak, at the Lord's door, he is absorbed into His Blessed Vision. ||2|| 




hchohan said:


> *7. Vegetarian Bhagats, Sadhu’s, Sant’s and Sangat are merely Vaishnav Hindu’s*
> The Bhagats were great souls you were at one with the Akal. Why do you dismiss them so readily, is your gyan greater than theirs..? Has Waheguru communicated through them, or do you have that connection..? You are happy to misinterpret the Shabads of Kabir Ji – but you forget that after all is said and done (e.g not plucking flowers etc), he was a vegetarian.
> Why do you ignore the other Bhagats in the SGGS..? For example do you forget the reasons why Bhagat Sadhna became vegetarian and become Akal Bhagat..? What food did Bhagat Dhana ask Akal to provide him with..? etc etc


 
We don't dismiss the Bhagats at all………for example Sheikh Farid was a Muslim………if you read his writings he talks about the way to God through Allah and Islam……….should we follow his example and become Muslims?

Clearly not……the Guru's were selective in what porions of the Bhagats teachings they incorporated the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji……and only that which showed a common belief.

Another example is Bhaghat Kabir stating it is sinful to sit in the company of women……………clearly against the teachings of Bani.

I suggest you read more about the Bhagats and find out what was actually left out.



hchohan said:


> You accuse contemporary Khalsa Sadhu’s, Sants (not the type who write books etc) as being Hindu vaishnavs. I don’t know how many Sadhu’s & Sants you have met – but the majority I have met have had no agenda other than Waheguru Jaap and Sangat Seva. Some of these Sant Sadhus have performed maha tapasia and seva. They are Guru das – and a lot closer to Waheguru than I am. There are a few even, who our Guru’s still communicate through to Gurmukh Sangat today (although most manmukh will deny this).
> Yet if these Guru sevadars say you should not kill animals for food – you much like other academic manmukhs say they must be Hindu Vaishavs..!


 
I think you need to learn where groups like GNNSJ, AKJ etc had their roots from. KDS knows more about this than me, but many definitely have or have had Hindu Vaishnav links.



hchohan said:


> *8. Jhatka meat is approved*
> Here none of you have a problem in identifying Jhatka meat as meat of an animal rather than vegetable. Your argument that vegetables are chopped quickly is irrelevant as that is not always the case. Nor are you enlightened enough to understand Time. Besides even you quote Shabad from p143 of the SGGS with regards to what the sugar cane experiences AFTER it is cut down.
> You say Jhatka is approved over other meats as it is not sacrificial but killed in a certain way. Sacrificial e.g. Halal generally means that at kill time animal is offered to appease God before consumption.
> So what is the difference between that and offering meat to God for blessing after it is killed? A Sikh should offer all food for Bhog (or at least say a prayer over it) before consumption.


 
You are confusing the issue.

Halal is an attempt to appease God……….Jhatka or Langar is of any kind, a prayer said afterwards is thanking God for the food. A massive difference. Too bad you cannot understand this.

The fact that the plant suffers still after being cut shows how humane Jhatka is………….because after Jhatka the animal is dead. Nowhere in Bani does it say the animal suffers for ages……but it dos so say about plants.



hchohan said:


> *9. Maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay.*
> You have interpreted the Shabad in your way. I would offer my humble thoughts on that. However, I DO NOT like to do this for who am I to interpret Shabad for others – therefore I will offer an interpretation by another person which I agree with.
> 
> _deeper study of the whole hymn brings out:_
> ...


 
I probably agree with a lot of this, but the shabad is all embracing…..it talks about flesh in all its uses and about consumption as well. This shabad is addressing people like you who seem to think they have the spiritual and moral higher ground because they don't eat meat. If Guruji thought so lowly of people who eat meat and work with meat he never would have included shabads from Sheikh Farid or Sadana.

Bhai Gurdas goes further and sings the praises of Goat Meat in particular:

*Pauri 13 (Bakari de alankar ton upades)*
Hasati akhaju guman kari sihu satana koi na khai
Hoi nimani bakari din duni vadiai pai
Maranai paranai maniai jag bhog paravanu karai
Masu pavitr grihast no andhahu tar vichari vajai
Chamare dian kari jutia sadhu charan saran liv lai
Tur pakhavaj maride kiratanu sadh sangati sukhadai
Sadh sangati satigur saranai
*Pauri 13 - (Lesson from goat)*
The proud elephant is inedible and none eats the mighty lion. Goat is humble and hence is is respected everywhere. On occaissions of death, joy, marriage, yajna, etc only its meat is accepted. Among the householders its meat is acknowledged as sacred and with its gut stringed instruments are made. From its leather the shoes are made to be used by the the saints merged in their meditation upon the Lord. Drums are mounted by its skin and then in the holy congregation the delight-giving kirtan, eulogy of the Lord is sung. In fact, going to the holy congregation is the same as going to the shelter of the true Guru.






hchohan said:


> *11. Final Thoughts*
> My very first post on this thread stated.
> _I am a fool for writing these comments, just as you are a fool for writing the original article. For I will not change your outlook on the issue just as though you will never change mine._
> 
> ...


 
Manmukh…….I have been civil till now with you and I suggest a civil tongue from you. You suffer from the malady that many vegetarians and meat eaters suffer from and that is Egotism………………..Hankaar clouds your judgement and when someone has an answer for your every question you resort to cheapshots?!!!

I won't play that game……………..If I am a Manmukh in your eyes, then I consider that a blessing……………..I must be telling the truth.




hchohan said:


> Have you given the smallest, slightest most miniscule passing thought to the possibility that you may be wrong..? Even if there was a 1 in 10billion chance that you may be mistaken about non-veg being acceptable – is that a risk you are willing to take..?


 
I maybe wrong, but you have not come out with a single coherent point to convince me otherwise. If anything you have reconfirmed my view and that of Bani that people who espouse a certain diet whether Vegetarian or meat eater are full of Egotism.

As for risk…..my conscience is clear…..I have no guilt…..I accept food in good faith…..meat or vegetarian. 




hchohan said:


> Surely as for the vast majority of us meat avoidance is viable and non-veg food is NOTHING BUT an option for you – would you not rather tread the line of caution..?


 
Who says you are the majority? Most Gursikh's I know don't quibble about diet. Some are Vegetarian and some are Meat eaters. All Amritdhari's and United Sikh brothers. Your statements I feel are nothing but divisive to that Union.

Why should I deny my body essential Amino's you only get from meat? Essential oil from fish that help my joint and brain? You don't want to eat meat……I respect that…………….so please respect my choice as a Sikh not to be vegetarian.



hchohan said:


> Anyway – like I said at the start, I will not be posting any more reply’s on this thread. Goodbye for now (until we meet on another thread).


 
I thought this thread was going to be constructive………..unfortunately you have ended it on a sour note with personal attacks. I hope and pray you do not carry on other debates like this.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 12, 2006)

Gurfateh

Huqamannamaha is from Ganda Singh Jis book and that is perhaps been preceded by Guru Guru Karo Janam Saverge and Masu Machchhi Ke Nera Na Jana.That is more to do with Nam Abhyas being told by Sixth Master.

And in fact it was not included by Tenth Master in Damdami Beerh.Yet it should be respected.

By the way if maas kar Murakh Jagre was addressed to only Vaishnav Pandit and not to all of of us then in Huqmanmaah attributed to Six Master clearly state adreesed to Sangat of east.And that also of that time.

Also if some Pandit is told to not to do Pakhand or Shamming,does it means that Sikh can do Pakhand as this is only for that Pandit.

Is this not twising the logic.

And do not bring Sants or Taksal in it as they may also tell us to stay away from some veggi things also.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 12, 2006)

vijaydeep Singh said:


> Gurfateh
> 
> Huqamannamaha is from Ganda Singh Jis book and that is perhaps been preceded by Guru Guru Karo Janam Saverge and Masu Machchhi Ke Nera Na Jana.That is more to do with Nam Abhyas being told by Sixth Master.
> 
> ...


 
Look.

Hukamana's were being issued left right and centre by Masands...........that is why Guru Gobind Singh ji got rid of them.............many were signing in the Guru's name. 

I would not pay too much heed to Hukamnama's from those times.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Dec 14, 2006)

Most of the Hukmanamas collected in Dr Ganda Singh's book are FALSE. What Randirp ji says si correct..anybody could falsify such hukmnamas.
2. Second reason to falsify "hukmnamas" was to justify the False bansi beign circulated..hence a FALSE letter from Bhai mani Singh to mata sunder Kaur ji that He is collecting the works of Guru Gobind Singh ji to compile the so called Dasam Granth. in this Letter Bhai mani Singh ji confesses that he has READ the TAAP Mantar to get rid of the Malaria fever. This action is HINDU ritual who beleive that Taap is a Being ( like Small pox is a DEVI Mata who needs to be appeased !!) Siksh know that fevers and small pox are VIRUS Caused diseases...not GODS. This one slip by the writer of this Letter masquarading as Bhai mani Singh reveals that he is a FRAUDSTER.
Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 18, 2006)

Gurfateh
Respect Gyani Sahib Ji,

virus can never be killed by medicine but in body by some stimulant we make anti bodis to over come that.

Then coming to Bhai Bani simngh Ji can not be takne well with Nam Abhyas.When low level breath controlike Vipysana of Budhists or Kapot Leshya of Jains can stop malfunctioning of Body then Nam abhyas of us is evoloved a lot.

So yoga is being talked over here.which only Missioanries do not know in Gurmat.and thier Singh Sabh Gurudwars and schools Call for Hindu Yoga teachers.

The chickned cooked in house is like lintells.(in yoga very light food is adivised and little sleep also).But in Raj yoga or Gurmat we are fre from such things.

to much control breathing,controls energy level in our body,which if we are tension while we are sick can otherwise make our probelm verse.In stable psycho semmatic condition,we are able to let our Body gain strenght and take on anti bodies to kill virus.More study is needed and at that time such imposter wil be a scintific hero.

why is Nam being told as Medicine of all unhappines(ailment is one of the gruop)?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Dec 19, 2006)

Sarab Rog ka Aukhad NAAM..is for SPIRITUAL....
Gurbani is NAAM..Food for the MIND/MANN/SOUL/AATMA....
That is why we EAT normal FOOD for the BODY...
From Guru nanak Ji we have had two Guru Ka Langgar..One SHABAD KA LANGGAR in the Darbar Sahib..and the Second Guru Ka Langgar of Kheer and such stuff in the Langgar hall
Scientists have discovered that MOST "diseases" of the BODY emanate from a SICK MIND?MANN....that is also why Sarab rog ka Aukhad Naam..yes we cna CURE most body diseases through GURBANI....BUT still there are soem things of teh BODY that we have to sercice OUTSIDE....such as we ahve to EAT to appease HUNGER..we have to Take Medicines to appease diseases..GURU HAR RAI JI had established and ran a very Large DWAKHANA - Pharmacy of Herbal Medicine.... WHY ??  WHY did Guru Ji....maintain a huge herbal stock..IF GURBANI dirtect from the GURU..could have cured every disease ?? The TRUTH is that GURBANI CANNOT Grow back a diabetic foot surgically removed....an arm cut off in an industrial accident....a tooth that has been pulled out by a dentist....and eye that has been blinded by glaucoma/cataract/burnt by acid..ALL these are NOT in the ambit of GURBANI and our Gurus are CLEAR about it... Small Pox/TB/Leprosy/ is NOT curable by doing paaths ONLY....lets not mislead people....GURBANI is the CURE for millions...mental as well as physical....BUT not all..its mainly for SPIRITUAL HEALTH.

Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 19, 2006)

Gurfateh
Das Agrees to Gyani Sahib Ji .

Anyway das has copy of letter now from Bhai Mani Singh Ji to Mata Ji.

Das will put contraversial part.

Thing here to rember that some great Sikh missionay teacher of das doubted about it said that it was writan in later Nintenth Centuuray and by Pen nib.While in that part of time no Sikh could have tried to talk illogical things else Prof Gurmukh Singh's Lahore Singh Sabha would have censured this.

But let us talk of text.

first in tranlitration.

Ek Oankar Akal Sahai
Pooj Mata Ji De Charana Par Mani Singh Ki Dandaut Bandana.
On the feet of worshipworhty/respected Mother postratte worship/bowing of Mani Singh.

Bahure Samachar Vachna Ki Idher Aun Par Sada Sarir Vayu Ka adhik Vikari  Vikair Hoi Gaiya Hai.
Other news (kindly/do) read that on coming here our(my) body has become Malfunctioning of air.(Gastric Trouble or Vai as per Ayur Veda).
Suasat Nahi Sahiaya.
No longer(remained) healthy.
Tap Ki Katha Do Bar Suni.
Twice heard the story of fever/heat.
Par Mandir Ki seva Mein Koi Alku Nahi.
But in service of Darbar Sahib,there has beeen no laziness.

Das will not talk about another work of Bhai Mani Singh Ji and copies of which as old as 1738 culd be still here with us(Bhaghat Mala realted to Gurmat)one at Darbar Sahib could be lost duing 1984.

But from this textg above Bhai Mani Singh did not say at all that story made him well while he still says that he is unwell yet one the service.

Then what could be tap/ailment/bad health about which he heard twice.

Just se the lines to come.
Des Vich Khalse da Bal Chhut Gaya Hai.
In Country the force of Khalsa has been lost/detached from them.

Singh Parbatan Babana vich Ja Jai Base Hain.
Singhs have settled in hills and Jungle after going in there.

Malechhon Ki Des Mein Dohi Hai.
Filthy people have power in country.

Basti Mein Balak Juva Istari Salamat Nahi.
In Habitation Childern,youht and ladies are not safe.

Muchh Muchh kar Marde Hain.
(they) kill after cuting into pieces.

Guru Darohi Bhi Uhanan De Sang Mil Gaye Hain.
Enimies of Guru have also joined them.

Hindaliye mil Kar mukbari Karde Han.
After joining Hindliyas act as informers.

Sabhi Chak Chhod Gaye Han.
All ahve left Chak(Guru Ki Chak or Amritsar Sahib).

Mutsadi Bhag Gaye Hain.
scribes have run away.

Sade Par abi Tom Akal Ki Rachha Hai.
So far We(I) have protection of eternal on me.

Kal Ki Khabar Nahi.
no News of tommorow/no gurante of future.

Sahiban De Huqam Atal Hain.
Lord(s) orders are inrevokable.

Binod Singh De Putrele Da Hukam Sat ho Gaya Hai.
Son of Binod Singh had made orders true(he has died).

Pothiyan Jo Jhanda Singh de Hath Bheji Thin.
Books which were sent with hands of/vide Jhanda Singh.

Uuna Vich Sahiban De 303 Charitra Upakhiyan Di Pothi Jo Hai so Sihan Singh Nu Mahak vich Dena Ji.
In  them Lord's 303 Charector subexplaning/Chairitra Upakhiyan's book ,which is, that should be givne to Sihan Singh in palace.

and it further continueee....


It is no where writtan that Bhai Sahib did got well after listening to any stroy or even if listening of story had anything to do with ailment of Bhai Sahib's Physical health.

Rather Taap may mean trouble over Singhs.There are three types of Tap anyway.

One more thing here could be that perhaps some Sakhi related to ailment(perhaps cure of Sixth Guru of small pox?) was listened by Bhai Sahib.That could have motivated him to take initiative.

Das hope that speell and magic issue related to this letter is sorted and if more info needed das will try to post more.But Vayu vikar is more to do with gastric trouble then say Maleriya and he did not say that he was OK but wrote that he is still unwell.There is no Tap Manter but stroy of Tap.


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 21, 2006)

I question to all.... now if we were really supposed to eat meat, which we are not and on request i will happily post u evidence from gurbani and interpret it for you, then WHY do we not eat it in the gurudwarra? because we do paath there n the guru granth sahib is there. any TRULY religious sikh or Saint will tell you that you should not eat meat. if we are not supposed to take our shoes into the gurudwarra or eat meat there mainly because of paath then what do all u MEAT EATERS do at home? do you do paath then EAT A MEAT DINNER then do KIRTAN SOHILA afterwards. meat eating sikhs are a bunch of hyporites, get ur vitamins n supplements from vege food like the gurus did and like is served in the GURUDWARRA instead of doing what u know is wrong but do just because meat TASTES GOOD. surely if it is even a potential issue you should not risk it cos uv always got that 50% chance you COULD BE WRONG.

 GODS WORTH MORE THAN THAT 50%.


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 21, 2006)

*ttha ? (Part 1)*

"Everything is life! Microorganisms are in water, air etc. When you drink water, cut vegetables, or chop down wheat, you are taking the lives of living things. Is it murder and killing? Who says there is difference in life... there is killing in cutting vegetables which have a souls as with an animal."




*(Left) A farmer cutting crops, (right) a butcher cutting the throat of sheep*​ Everyday we kill countless organisms just through breathing or stepping, but that is much different than Kuttha.  Kuttha is the meat of an animal that has been 'butchered' and then 'intentionally' eaten.  

The reason why a Sikh doesn't eat meat is not related to 'ahimsaa' or "respect for all life" like the Jains.  The reason is 'daya'.  Mercy evaporates when we butcher and eat meat.  A carrot may have life but it will never run away screaming when you go to the garden to get it.  Guru Sahib is clear in Gurbani that life must sustain itself on life.  There is no lack of mercy or daya (mercy) excercised when cutting a vegetable as it does not reacts to being cut.  Contrast that with animals.  These animals beg and cry and little calves cling to their mothers in terror when they sense they will be slaughtered.  The word "gardener" has no pejorative connotation.  The word "butcher" on the other hand stands for someone who has no mercy.  If one's heart doesn't melt at seeing the shrieks and anguish of animals, why would it matter when a human does the same?  Why is it Muslims can do Halal on humans?  It's because they have so much experience with animals that the jerking, gasping of dying animals and blood is something usual for them.  A butcher will have the heart of a butcher.  A butcher can never be a 'Dharmi' (spiritually pious) person.  

The concept of "Jhatka" as it is known today is a Hindu one borrowed from the Rajputs who still do it today and have done it for ages before the Sikhs. Proponents of this practice explain this concept as a "Singh" cutting the head of a goat with one blow while shouting a Jaikara (the cry of "Sat Sri Akal" (God is True)).  But in Gurbani we are faced with the question:  
ਜੀਅ ਬਧਹੁ ਸੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਅਧਰਮੁ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਤ ਭਾਈ ॥
ਆਪਸ ਕਉ ਮੁਨਿਵਰ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਕਾ ਕਉ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਸਾਈ ॥2॥

_"You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action? If you religious people are doing "religious" killing for meat, then what is A-dharam (atheism)?  If you are a religious person then whom will we call a butcher? ||2||" _
_(Ang 1103)_

"Doctors say eating meat is healthy - you get vitamins and good things - so there are benefits in eating meat, like with anything its about how much you eat."
The health aspect we all know and there are lots of resources on the Internet on this issue.  One site, which highlights the main risks of eating meat, is: 

http://www.healthandgoodness.com/nutritiondiet/health_risks_meat.html. 
Meat is disease-ridden and is a dirty thing to eat.  




*Dead rotten carcasses of pigs ready to processed as meat*​ Gurbani tells us:
ਬਾਬਾ ਹੋਰੁ ਖਾਣਾ ਖੁਸੀ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥
ਜਿਤੁ ਖਾਧੈ ਤਨੁ ਪੀੜੀਐ ਮਨ ਮਹਿ ਚਲਹਿ ਵਿਕਾਰ ॥1॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

_"O Baba, the pleasures of other foods are false. Eating which, the body is ruined (i.e. are unhealthy), and wickedness and corruption enter into the mind. ||1||Pause||"_
_(Ang 16)_

The fact is that a human's own flesh is exactly like that of meat.  Observing surgery or perusing internal medicine books, one notes that we are the same substance.  That's why Guru Nanak Sahib jee has said not to hate meat.  We are meat.  But at the same time we cannot eat it because it would be like eating a dead body.  It's foul and really unthinkable.


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 21, 2006)

now people will u read that n tell me that that within itslef does not make a killer argument!!! hehe. if anyone eats meat after that, ur just sick n like your KFC wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too much!!


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 21, 2006)

there is also a page one of this which i have not added, heres the link though Panthic Weekly: What is Kuttha? (Part 1)


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Dec 21, 2006)

This Article is a "Gem" whcih is being used by me on every Forum I write on..it says exactly what i have been propogating for decades - SIKHISM and GURMATT has nothing whatsoever to do with DIET. Guru nanak ji  used such "harsh" language as FOOLS - MOORAKH to drive home His point..we must be real hard-core FOOLS not to bother about what our Guru Nanak ji Says.
Eat or dotn eat--just dont bring in Gurmatt/gurbani to back YOU up.
Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## Lionchild (Dec 21, 2006)

sikh78910 said:


> *ttha ? (Part 1)*
> 
> "Everything is life! Microorganisms are in water, air etc. When you drink water, cut vegetables, or chop down wheat, you are taking the lives of living things. Is it murder and killing? Who says there is difference in life... there is killing in cutting vegetables which have a souls as with an animal."
> 
> ...



Cute. You failedto realize that not all placed in the world have the same access to vegatables or races that have different dietery needs. Not that it matters how one eats, have sex, and what color they are. Get over it,  if you don't want to eat meat, then don't, just don't cry wolf to everyone else about it.


----------



## Akashdeep Singh (Dec 22, 2006)

Khalsa Ji,

Some of the Gurbani has been misreprented by people at various forums by just picking a few incomplete lines and then doing word to word translation to English without explaining properly (thanks to a friend of mine for noting this and bring to notice). I keep re-iterating that without knowing the Gurbani related history and understanding the context in which it was said, to whom it was said and in what conditions it is not possible to understanding Gurbani.

At many places the following lines have been presented in the argument against meat eating. In reality, they are not refering to meat eating.
ਜੀਅ ਬਧਹੁ ਸੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਅਧਰਮੁ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਤ ਭਾਈ ॥ ਆਪਸ ਕਉ ਮੁਨਿਵਰ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਕਾ ਕਉ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਸਾਈ
ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥ ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਿਹ ਮਾਣਸਾ ਤਿਨ ਕਿਉਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਚੀਤੁ ॥ 
ਬੇਦੁ ਪੜੈ ਮੁਖਿ ਮੀਠੀ ਬਾਣੀ ॥ ਜੀਆਂ ਕੁਹਤ ਨ ਸੰਗੈ ਪਰਾਣੀ ॥
ਬਾਬਾ ਹੋਰੁ ਖਾਣਾ ਖੁਸੀ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥ ਜਿਤੁ ਖਾਧੈ ਤਨੁ ਪੀੜੀਐ ਮਨ ਮਿਹ ਚਲਿਹ ਵਿਕਾਰ ॥
Now please note where these lines were said and in what context. To get the whole picture yours truly is also including the lines adjacent to the above lines in Gurbani in the form of paragraphs rather than picking just a line or two.


The 1st line above has been taken from: -
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ ਬਾਣੀ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀਉ ਕੀ ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥ ਪਡੀਆ ਕਵਨ ਕੁਮਤਿ ਤੁਮ ਲਾਗੇ ॥ ਬੂਡਹੁਗੇ ਪਰਵਾਰ ਸਕਲ ਸਿਉ ਰਾਮੁ ਨ ਜਪਹੁ ਅਭਾਗੇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਬੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਪੜੇ ਕਾ ਕਿਆ ਗੁਨੁ ਖਰ ਚੰਦਨ ਜਸ ਭਾਰਾ ॥ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਕੀ ਗਤਿ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਨੀ ਕੈਸੇ ਉਤਰਸਿ ਪਾਰਾ ॥੧॥ ਜੀਅ ਬਧਹੁ ਸੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਅਧਰਮੁ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਤ ਭਾਈ ॥ ਆਪਸ ਕਉ ਮੁਨਿਵਰ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਕਾ ਕਉ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਸਾਈ ॥੨॥ਮਨ ਕੇ ਅੰਧੇ ਆਪਿ ਨ ਬੂਝਹੁ ਕਾਹਿ ਬੁਝਾਵਹੁ ਭਾਈ ॥ ਮਾਇਆ ਕਾਰਨ ਬਿਦਿਆ ਬੇਚਹੁ ਜਨਮੁ ਅਬਿਰਥਾ ਜਾਈ ॥੩॥ ਨਾਰਦ ਬਚਨ ਬਿਆਸੁ ਕਹਤ ਹੈ ਸੁਕ ਕਉ ਪੂਛਹੁ ਜਾਈ ॥ ਕਹਿ ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮੈ ਰਮਿ ਛੂਟਹੁ ਨਾਹਿ ਤ ਬੂਡੇ ਭਾਈ ॥੪॥੧॥ {ਪੰਨਾ 1102-1103}

At this place Bhagat Kabir was questioning the pandits at the place near Kashi where there was tradtion of performing the sacrifices of animals and also of humans at one point of time. In addition to challenging their shallow knowledge, Kabir is challenging the pandits here of their dual-policies as well. He is telling them _*"On one hand you people(the pandits) call the meat-sellers as sinnners and on the other hand you yourself are performing the "bali" (sacrifice of animal or human). How can you have such dual policies?. If you can perform the "bali and yet like to be called as best sages then how can the meat-sellers be sinners??"*_

To me this agrument of Bhagat Kabir ji seems more like ridiculing the hypocrisies of the pandits than ridiculing the meat eater. One has to also understand where,with whom and in what context the speaker was speaking. This talk from Kabir ji was related to the pandits of Kashi, their shallow knowledge, bali and hypocrisies. Not about eating or not-eating meat.​
The 2nd line above has been taken from: -
ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥ ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਿਹ ਮਾਣਸਾ ਤਿਨ ਕਿਉਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਚੀਤੁ ॥ 
 ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਉ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਕਾ ਦਿਲ ਹਛੈ ਮੁਖਿ ਲੇਹੁ ॥ ਅਵਿਰ ਦਿਵਾਜੇ ਦੁਨੀ ਕੇ ਝੂਠ ਅਮਲ ਕਰੇਹੁ ॥੧॥{ਪੰਨਾ 140}

These lines have been said in context to those who do "namaaj" but whose hearts are not clear and they trouble other humans. The meaning here is, 

*"Its believed that if the jama (worn clothes) get tarnished with blood one cannot do namaaj. How can be those people untarnished (pure) who earn by illegitimate means and oppress others humans?. O Nanak! remember the Almighty with a pure heart all other external showcasing is useless" *

In Punjabi, metaphorically speaking we say, _"Mera khoon na choos"_- it means "Do not irritate/trouble me". Similarly, the phrase in Gurbani above is a metaphorical use of the phrase _"jo ruth peevehi maanusaa"_​
The 3rd line above has been taken from:-
 ਗਉੜੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥ ਧੋਤੀ ਖੋਲਿ ਵਿਛਾਏ ਹੇਠਿ ॥ ਗਰਧਪ ਵਾਂਗੂ ਲਾਹੇ ਪੇਟਿ ॥੧॥ ਬਿਨੁ ਕਰਤੂਤੀ ਮੁਕਿਤ ਨ ਪਾਈਐ ॥ ਮੁਕਿਤ ਪਦਾਰਥੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਈਐ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਪੂਜਾ ਤਿਲਕ ਕਰਤ ਇਸਨਾਨ ॥ ਛੁਰੀ ਕਾਢਿ ਲੇਵੈ ਹਿਥ ਦਾਨਾ ॥੨॥ ਬੇਦੁ ਪੜੈ ਮੁਖਿ ਮੀਠੀ ਬਾਣੀ ॥ ਜੀਆਂ ਕੁਹਤ ਨ ਸੰਗੈ ਪਰਾਣੀ ॥੩॥ ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਸੁ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਧਾਰੈ ॥ ਹਿਰਦਾ ਸੁਧੁ ਬ ਹਮੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੈ ॥੪॥੧੦੭॥{ਪੰਨਾ 201} 

This talk is on the pandits who eat from their "yajmaan" (the host or the follower?). The meaning is -

*"The pandits go to the home of their followers/hosts and open half of their "dhoti" (cloth worn for lower half of body) and spread it on the ground and sit and eat there like a donkey. He applies "tilak" (mark on forehead) and takes bath and perform "pooja" (a form of worshipping where the idols etc. are worshipped). *

* He eats from his host but does not think once while betraying the same host by misguiding him by telling lies about heaven and hell and frightening them. From his mouth, the pandit pretends speaking very sweet and speaks of vedas, but from the inside he is a cheat and never feels ashamed of betraying his host. *

* O Nanak! the one who has been blessed by the Almighty that person remembers the Almighty from his heart" *​
The 4rth line above has been taken from:-
ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥ 
 ਸਿਭ ਰਸ ਮਿਠ ਮੰਨਿਐ ਸੁਣਿਐ ਸਾਲੋਣੇ ॥ ਖਟ ਤੁਰਸੀ ਮੁਖਿ ਬੋਲਣਾ ਮਾਰਣ ਨਾਦ ਕੀਏ ॥ 
 ਛਤੀਹ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਭਾਉ ਏਕੁ ਜਾ ਕਉ ਨਦਿਰ ਕਰੇਇ ॥੧॥ ਬਾਬਾ ਹੋਰੁ ਖਾਣਾ ਖੁਸੀ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥ 
 ਜਿਤੁ ਖਾਧੈ ਤਨੁ ਪੀੜੀਐ ਮਨ ਮਿਹ ਚਲਿਹ ਵਿਕਾਰ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ {ਪੰਨਾ 16-17}

This whole para is metaphorical and is telling what is the ideal food for thought. Here the remembrance of Almighty is compared with all the tastes of the world. Its mentioned that living life according to Gurus knowledge you feel like having all the dishes and then later it is mentioned that other "dishes" which case disease of the body and mind are bad. What could be other (antonym) of "Guru's Knowledge"? -clearly, "manmatt". I see no reference to meat eating here.

Translation :-
*"If mind gets involved in the remembrance of the Almighty, then it is like all the sweet dishes of the world. If the conscience becomes one with the Almighty, then it is like salty dish. Speaking of the knowledge of the Guru from mouth is like a sour dish. The appreciation of Almighty and singing of his orders is like spices. Uniform love for Almighty is like dishes of various tastes that you can think of. But this great gift is only won by those who get blessings of the Almighty. Oh Beloved! those feedings cause destruction whose eating causes diseases in the body and mind."

*​And now please note the lines from Gurbani that have been said various times and still people fail to understand

 ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੂ ਜਾਣੈ ਹੀ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਿਥਹੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਉਪੰਨਾ ॥
ਤੋਇਅਹੁ ਅੰਨੁ ਕਮਾਦੁ ਕਪਾਹਾਂ ਤੋਇਅਹੁ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣੁ ਗੰਨਾ ॥ 

_* O Pandit, you do not know where did flesh originate! It is water where life originated and it is water that sustains all life. It is water that produces grains, sugarcane, cotton and all forms of life.
AGGS, M 1, p 1289.**_

 ਮਾਸੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਕਰਿ ਮੂਰਖੁ ਝਗੜੇ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਣੈ ॥
ਕਉਣੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਕਉਣੁ ਸਾਗੁ ਕਹਾਵੈ ਕਿਸੁ ਮਹਿ ਪਾਪ ਸਮਾਣੇ ॥ 

*Only fools quarrel over the partaking of flesh, as they do not have knowledge and understanding of the subjectwhat is flesh and what is vegetable? Why the eating of one is sin, not the eating of the other as both are obtained from living things? * *

_*** These 2 translations are courtsey of Dr. Baldev Singh ji.

_ Why is it so hard to understand? Gurbani is very clear about this issue. Nobody will be a sinner just because he/she ate meat. Water is the source of life on this earth and you drink water everyday, it also has life. Vegetation also has life. If you are thinking one life is greater then other then you are wrong. Also, Gurbani does not tell you that by eating meat you will become a better Sikh. It clearly says that lust of anything is wrong. The summary is very simple - *meat eating is neither encouraged nor discouraged in Sikhism. If you need it, eat it.  If you feel bad eating it, just don't eat it but don't call others as less Sikhs. Just by eating or not-eating meat you cannot be one with the Akaal.*



Copyright: Please do not pick the translation lines from here and present them in distorted form on other forums. Feel free to use them if you keep the words intact, also drop me note where you will be using them.

Sat Shri Akaal,
-Akashdeep


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 22, 2006)

sikh78910 said:


> now people will u read that n tell me that that within itslef does not make a killer argument!!! hehe. if anyone eats meat after that, ur just sick n like your KFC wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too much!!



the article you have posted is from akj site who just present their own mat as gurmat.the article is saying that kutha means killed meat take a look what kutha really means
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE KUTTHA MEAT ARGUMENT â€" KUTTHA MEANS ALL MEAT OR DOES IT? 

What is Kuttha meat?

Punjabi-English Dictionary, Punjabi University, Dept. of Punjabi Lexicography, Published Dec. 1994. "Kuttha: meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law." 
Punjabi English Dictionary, Singh Bros., Amritsar "Kuttha: Tortured, killed according to Mohammedan law." 

In the Rehit Marayada ( http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html), Section Six, it states: 
The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided 
1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way(Kutha); 
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse
4. Using tobacco.
Sikh Rehit Maryada 


There have been some quarters who have been at pains to create confusion over the word Kuttha. There is no confusion over this word, and the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is proof of this. 
In the following Ang Guru Nanak condemns Brahmins, who serve their Muslim rulers stating they are acting like pseudo-Muslims. In this Ang there is a line which clearly refers to Kuttha as meat which has had Muslim prayers read over it. Kuttha, however, can meat any meat that is killed in a ritualistic manner. 

mehlaa 1. 
maanas khaanay karahi nivaaj
. 
chhuree vagaa-in tin gal taag.
tin ghar barahman pooreh naad.
unHaa bhe aavahi o-ee saad.
koorhee raas koorhaa vaapaar.
koorh bol karahi aahaar.
saram Dharam kaa dayraa door.
naanak koorh rahi-aa bharpoor.
mathai tikaa tayrh Dhotee kakhaa-ee.
hath chhuree jagat kaasaa-ee.
neel vastar pahir hoveh parvaan.
malaychh Dhaan lay poojeh puraan.
abhaakhi-aa kaa kuthaa bakraa khaanaa. 
cha-ukay upar kisai na jaanaa.
day kai cha-ukaa kadhee kaar.
upar aa-ay baithay koorhi-aar.
mat bhitai vay mat bhitai.
ih ann asaadaa fitai.
tan fitai fayrh karayn.
man joothai chulee bharayn.
kaho naanak sach Dhi-aa-ee-ai.
such hovai taa sach paa-ee-ai. 

First Mehl: 
The man-eaters say their prayers.
Those who wield the knife wear the sacred thread around their necks.
In their homes, the Brahmins sound the conch.
They too have the same taste.
False is their capital, and false is their trade.
Speaking falsehood, they take their food. 
The home of modesty and Dharma is far from them.
O Nanak, they are totally permeated with falsehood. The sacred marks are on their foreheads, and the saffron loin-cloths are around their waists;
in their hands they hold the knives - they are the butchers of the world!
Wearing blue robes, they seek the approval of the Muslim rulers.
Accepting bread from the Muslim rulers, they still worship the Puraanas.
They eat the meat of the goats, killed after the Muslim prayers are read over them,
but they do not allow anyone else to enter their kitchen areas.
They draw lines around them, plastering the ground with cow-dung. 
The false come and sit within them.
They cry out, "Do not touch our food,
this food of ours will be polluted!
But with their polluted bodies, they commit evil deeds.
With filthy minds, they try to cleanse their mouths.
Says Nanak, meditate on the True Lord.
If you are pure, you will obtain the True Lord.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Hence, it is clear that Kutha does not mean all meat at all, it me

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

also please tell me why the concept of daya vanishes when it comes to milk.
basically we just steal milk from animals.a cow is tied in shed for whole of its
life injected with hormones and forced to produce as much milk as she can
but 99% of veggies are are not not ready to give up milk and milk products.

if you want to show real daya towards animal then please be veggie like PETA
no meat,no milk,no wool.no leather,no honey and animal products.
or you are just a hypocrite.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 22, 2006)

Gurfateh



sikh78910 said:


> *ttha ? (Part 1)*
> 
> "Everything is life! Microorganisms are in water, air etc. When you drink water, cut vegetables, or chop down wheat, you are taking the lives of living things. Is it murder and killing? Who says there is difference in life... there is killing in cutting vegetables which have a souls as with an animal."
> 
> ...


Bhai Das has seen slughet houses and himslef has done Jhataka also.We can keep meat without refirgration in Indian summer for about a day and about 2 day in winter.

What all you ahve shown and misinterpreted does not make any sense.True Sikh is above emotions.do not try to make us Vaishanv who do Bhav Bhagti or emotional devotion.Das feels like to eat pigs in the picture.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 22, 2006)

_Sikh78910 this site is a site for grown ups, so please stop using teeny boppy language and debate like a civilised human being._

_Let us continue:_




sikh78910 said:


> I question to all.... now if we were really supposed to eat meat, which we are not and on request i will happily post u evidence from gurbani and interpret it for you, then WHY do we not eat it in the gurudwarra?.


 
You do not understand the basic's of Sikhism, read what the basics of langaar are about. Read below:

_The reason why meat is not served at langar in the Gurdwaras is because langar is supposed to be a symbol of equality of mankind where all people no matter what race, religion or caste can eat together in the atmosphere of brotherhood. Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, it does not matter who they are. Different religions have different dietary restrictions. Hindus cannot eat cow, muslims cannot eat pork and will only eat halal meat. Jews will only eat kosher meat, others cannot eat fish or eggs. But in a gurdwara langar, it does not matter what their dietary taboos or religious beliefs are, the food is designed so that all can eat together and no one will be offended or not be able to partake of the meal._



sikh78910 said:


> because we do paath there n the guru granth sahib is there. any TRULY religious sikh or Saint will tell you that you should not eat meat. if we are not supposed to take our shoes into the gurudwarra or eat meat there mainly because of paath then what do all u MEAT EATERS do at home?




What Saints? What Sikh? Some of the Guru's ate meat some did not. Even vegetarians agree that Guru Nanak ate meat at Kurukshetra, however they come up with a half backed concocted Hindu Vaishnav explanation for it.

The Saints you refer to usually AKJ, GNNSJ, Namdhari's have ties with Hindu Vaishnavism. Even the DT tell's people to respect the black cow (a Hindu Vaiashnav custom). There are links with these Sant Mat organisations and Vaishnav practices from the 1800's…..I can provide evidence. This Vaishnav practice as infected Sikhism………………where there was no division, people like you and your ilk who follow this practice have created it.



sikh78910 said:


> do you do paath then EAT A MEAT DINNER then do KIRTAN SOHILA afterwards. meat eating sikhs are a bunch of hyporites, get ur vitamins n supplements from vege food like the gurus did and




The Guru's were *not* vegetarians, this much we know is clear. Even their descendents today the Bedi's and Sodhi's are not vegetarian, so where you have got this information from is beyond me. Show me verifiable evidence the Guru's were vegetarian, then we will believe you.



sikh78910 said:


> like is served in the GURUDWARRA instead of doing what u know is wrong but do just because meat TASTES GOOD.




Taste argument is irrelevant. I love white channay and kheer and will eat that over any meat any day. I love the taste…………so maybe I should stop eating that vegetarian food?

Just as your argument is flawed from the beginning so is your statement.




sikh78910 said:


> surely if it is even a potential issue you should not risk it cos uv always got that 50% chance you COULD BE WRONG.
> 
> GODS WORTH MORE THAN THAT 50%




Another irrelevant point.

Bani tells us plants suffer from pain……so you must be 100% wrong compared to my 50%: Page 143

_mehlaa 1._​_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._ 
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._ 
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._ 
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._​
_First Mehl:_ 
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_ 
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._ 
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._ 
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._ 
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_​*Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji*​ 
Also we can be incarnated directly from plant to human: page 176

_In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;_ 
_in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;_ 
_in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;_ 
_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._ 
_Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life_


_So it must follow we are eating something (a plant) that is one incarnation away from human life?_

_Surely that is a massive sin?_

*People like you do not understand the basics of spirituality. Guruji travelled thousands of miles, fought many battles, discoursed with the wisest, sacrificed their live and that of their children, endured hardships, undersstood the nature of the Universe, showed us how to live our lives, uplifted the poor, created equality, freeed women from bondage................and for what purpose? According to you to tell us whether we could eat KFC or not?*

*Not is only what you say absured, but a slap in the face for Guruji!!! You denigrate the Sri Guru GRanth Sahib ji to a cheap restraunt menu. No wonder outsiders call us Sikh's think. We cannot even see the jewel in our midest without seeing it as a drumstick or a carrot!! Trully FOOLS!!!*


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 22, 2006)

Akashdeep Singh said:


> Khalsa Ji,
> 
> Some of the Gurbani has been misreprented by people at various forums by just picking a few incomplete lines and then doing word to word translation to English without explaining properly (thanks to a friend of mine for noting this and bring to notice). I keep re-iterating that without knowing the Gurbani related history and understanding the context in which it was said, to whom it was said and in what conditions it is not possible to understanding Gurbani.
> 
> ...


 
Excellent work brother................it is high time Sikh's (Vege or non vege) took back Bani from these distortionists who at every turn see a KFC sign.

These Moorakh's are distorting Bani for their own ends. How sad is that.

Keep up the good work and expose the distortionists.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 22, 2006)

sikh78910 said:


> *ttha ? (Part 1)*http://www.panthic.org/news/129/ARTICLE/2910/2006-11-22.html





sikh78910 said:


> "Everything is life! Microorganisms are in water, air etc. When you drink water, cut vegetables, or chop down wheat, you are taking the lives of living things. Is it murder and killing? Who says there is difference in life... there is killing in cutting vegetables which have a souls as with an animal."




Nonsense.

Bani tells us otherwise:

On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written: 
_ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5._​_ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa._
_ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa._ 
_ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o._ 
_ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o._
_mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa_. _chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa._ rahaa-o. 
_ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa._ 
_ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa._
_ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa._ 
_lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa._ 
_saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat._
_kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat._ 
_ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan._ 
_jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan._
_avar na doojaa karnai jog._ 
_taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay._ 
_kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay._ ​
_Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl_: 
_In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;_ 
_in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer._
_In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake._ 
_In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse._ 
_Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him_.
_After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you._ Pause 
*In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains; 
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb; 
in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves; 
you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations.* 
_Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life._ 
_Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har._
_Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance._
_Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord._ 
_Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord._ 
_No one else can do anything at all._ 
_We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself._ 
_Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har._ ​*Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji*​ 
So according to Bani we are one level away from a plant or rock or animal. Each carries exactly same amount of Karma when we kill it.

According to Bani plants suffer pain. Maybe you don't believe Bani?

Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._​_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._ 
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._ 
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._ 
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._​
_First Mehl:_ 
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_ 
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._ 
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._ 
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._ 
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_​*Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji*​ 


​


sikh78910 said:


> Everyday we kill countless organisms just through breathing or stepping, but that is much different than Kuttha. Kuttha is the meat of an animal that has been 'butchered' and then 'intentionally' eaten.




Nonsense.

Kutthaa is sacrificed meat.

*What is Kuttha meat?*

Punjabi-English Dictionary, Punjabi University, Dept. of Punjabi Lexicography, Published Dec. 1994. "Kuttha: meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law." 
Punjabi English Dictionary, Singh Bros., Amritsar "Kuttha: Tortured, killed according to Mohammedan law." 

In the Rehit Marayada (http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html), Section Six, it states: ​The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided 
1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way(Kutha); 
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse
4. Using tobacco.​*Sikh Rehit Maryada*​
There have been some quarters who have been at pains to create confusion over the word Kuttha. There is no confusion over this word, and the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is proof of this. 
In the following Ang Guru Nanak condemns Brahmins, who serve their Muslim rulers stating they are acting like pseudo-Muslims. In this Ang there is a line which clearly refers to Kuttha as meat which has had Muslim prayers read over it. Kuttha, however, can meat any meat that is killed in a ritualistic manner. 
mehlaa 1. ​_maanas khaanay karahi nivaaj_. 
_chhuree vagaa-in tin gal taag._ 
_tin ghar barahman pooreh naad._ 
_unHaa bhe aavahi o-ee saad._ 
_koorhee raas koorhaa vaapaar._ 
_koorh bol karahi aahaar._ 
_saram Dharam kaa dayraa door._ 
_naanak koorh rahi-aa bharpoor._
_mathai tikaa tayrh Dhotee kakhaa-ee._ 
_hath chhuree jagat kaasaa-ee._ 
_neel vastar pahir hoveh parvaan._ 
_malaychh Dhaan lay poojeh puraan._ 
*abhaakhi-aa kaa kuthaa bakraa khaanaa.* 
_cha-ukay upar kisai na jaanaa._ 
_day kai cha-ukaa kadhee kaar._ 
_upar aa-ay baithay koorhi-aar._ 
_mat bhitai vay mat bhitai._ 
_ih ann asaadaa fitai._ 
_tan fitai fayrh karayn._ 
_man joothai chulee bharayn._ 
_kaho naanak sach Dhi-aa-ee-ai._ 
_such hovai taa sach paa-ee-ai_. ​​First Mehl: 
_The man-eaters say their prayers._
_Those who wield the knife wear the sacred thread around their necks._
_In their homes, the Brahmins sound the conch._
_They too have the same taste._
_False is their capital, and false is their trade._ 
_Speaking falsehood, they take their food_. 
_The home of modesty and Dharma is far from them._
_O Nanak, they are totally permeated with falsehood._ _The sacred marks are on their foreheads, and the saffron loin-cloths are around their waists;_
_in their hands they hold the knives - they are the butchers of the world!_
_Wearing blue robes, they seek the approval of the Muslim rulers._
_Accepting bread from the Muslim rulers, they still worship the Puraanas._
*They eat the meat of the goats, killed after the Muslim prayers are read over them,*
_but they do not allow anyone else to enter their kitchen areas._
_They draw lines around them, plastering the ground with cow-dung_. 
_The false come and sit within them._ 
_They cry out, "Do not touch our food,_
_this food of ours will be polluted!_
_But with their polluted bodies, they commit evil deeds._
_With filthy minds, they try to cleanse their mouths._
_Says Nanak, meditate on the True Lord._ 
_If you are pure, you will obtain the True Lord._ ​*Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji*​
Hence, it is clear that Kutha does not mean all meat at all, it means specifically Halal Meat, but in the wider context it can mean meat that is ritually slaughtered. 


I can provide more quotes from Bani to back this up.



sikh78910 said:


> The reason why a Sikh doesn't eat meat is not related to 'ahimsaa' or "respect for all life" like the Jains. The reason is 'daya'. Mercy evaporates when we butcher and eat meat. A carrot may have life but it will never run away screaming when you go to the garden to get it. Guru Sahib is clear in Gurbani that life must sustain itself on life. There is no lack of mercy or daya (mercy) excercised when cutting a vegetable as it does not reacts to being cut. Contrast that with animals. These animals beg and cry and little calves cling to their mothers in terror when they sense they will be slaughtered. The word "gardener" has no pejorative connotation. The word "butcher" on the other hand stands for someone who has no mercy. ​


​​Nonsense….Bani above says:​​_After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_ 
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._ 
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out_​​​


sikh78910 said:


> ​ If one's heart doesn't melt at seeing the shrieks and anguish of animals, why would it matter when a human does the same? Why is it Muslims can do Halal on humans? It's because they have so much experience with animals that the jerking, gasping of dying animals and blood is something usual for them. A butcher will have the heart of a butcher. A butcher can never be a 'Dharmi' (spiritually pious) person. ​


​ 
Absolute and utter Rubbish!!

Sadana )A butcher) has shabads in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. You are contradicting Bani with this startement. Maybe you know better than Bani?

Maybe Sadana a BUTCHER's Bani should be removed. Maybe Sheikh Farid's Bani too……who ate meat?

Or Ravidas who killed animals for its hide?



sikh78910 said:


> The concept of "Jhatka" as it is known today is a Hindu one borrowed from the Rajputs who still do it today and have done it for ages before the Sikhs. Proponents of this practice explain this concept as a "Singh" cutting the head of a goat with one blow while shouting a Jaikara (the cry of "Sat Sri Akal" (God is True)). But in Gurbani we are faced with the question:





Nonsense.

The Cult of Hindu Vaishnavism that is infecting Sikhism is from Hinduism. In any case this is irrelevant.

1) The name Singh is borrowed from Rajputs.

2) Keeping of long hair borrowed from Rajputs.
3) Shastarvidya - Borrowed from Rajputs.

4) Keeping a Kirpan - Borrowed from Rajputs.

5) Being armed at all times - borrowed from Rajputs.

I suggest you drop the above 5 customs too.



sikh78910 said:


> _"You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action? If you religious people are doing "religious" killing for meat, then what is A-dharam (atheism)? If you are a religious person then whom will we call a butcher? ||2||" _
> _(Ang 1103)_




A Mistranslation and misrepresentation. Classically done by Sant Maat and distortionists to push a Hindu Vaishnav agenda:

Here is the entire shabad, Page 1102:

raag maaroo banee kabeer jee-o kee 
Raag Maaroo, The Word Of Kabeer Jee: 
ik-oNkaar satgur parsaad. 
One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru: 
padee-aa kavan kumat tum laagay. 
O Pandit, O religious scholar, in what foul thoughts are you engaged? 
bood-hugay parvaar sakal si-o raam na japahu abhaagay. ||1|| rahaa-o. 
You shall be drowned, along with your family, if you do not meditate on the Lord, you unfortunate person. ||1||Pause|| 
bayd puraan parhay kaa ki-aa gun khar chandan jas bhaaraa. 
What is the use of reading the Vedas and the Puraanas? It is like loading a donkey with sandalwood. 


raam naam kee gat nahee jaanee kaisay utras paaraa. ||1|| 
You do not know the exalted state of the Lord's Name; how will you ever cross over? ||1|| 
jee-a baDhahu so Dharam kar thaapahu aDhram kahhu kat bhaa-ee. 
You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action? 
aapas ka-o munivar kar thaapahu kaa ka-o kahhu kasaa-ee. ||2|| 
You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher? ||2|| 
man kay anDhay aap na boojhhu kaahi bujhaavahu bhaa-ee. 
You are blind in your mind, and do not understand your own self; how can you make others understand, O brother? 
maa-i-aa kaaran bidi-aa baychahu janam abirathaa jaa-ee. ||3|| 
For the sake of Maya and money, you sell knowledge; your life is totally worthless. ||3|| 
naarad bachan bi-aas kahat hai suk ka-o poochhahu jaa-ee. 
Naarad and Vyaasa say these things; go and ask Suk Dayv as well. 
kahi kabeer raamai ram chhootahu naahi ta booday bhaa-ee. ||4||1|| 
Says Kabeer, chanting the Lord's Name, you shall be saved; otherwise, you shall drown, brother. ||4||1|| 

baneh basay ki-o paa-ee-ai ja-o la-o manhu na tajeh bikaar. 
Living in the forest, how will you find Him? Not until you remove corruption from your mind. 
jih ghar ban samsar kee-aa tay pooray sansaar. ||1|| 
Those who look alike upon home and forest, are the most perfect people in the world. ||1|| 
saar sukh paa-ee-ai raamaa. 
You shall find real peace in the Lord, 
rang ravhu aatmai raam. ||1|| rahaa-o. 
if you lovingly dwell on the Lord within your being. ||1||Pause|| 
jataa bhasam laypan kee-aa kahaa gufaa meh baas. 
What is the use of wearing matted hair, smearing the body with ashes, and living in a cave? 
man jeetay jag jeeti-aa jaaN tay bikhi-aa tay ho-ay udaas. ||2|| 
Conquering the mind, one conquers the world, and then remains detached from corruption. ||2|| 
anjan day-ay sabhai ko-ee tuk chaahan maahi bidaan. 
They all apply make-up to their eyes; there is little difference between their objectives. 
gi-aan anjan jih paa-i-aa tay lo-in parvaan. ||3|| 
But those eyes, to which the ointment of spiritual wisdom is applied, are approved and supreme. ||3|| 
kahi kabeer ab jaani-aa gur gi-aan dee-aa samjhaa-ay. 
Says Kabeer, now I know my Lord; the Guru has blessed me with spiritual wisdom. 
antargat har bhayti-aa ab mayraa man kathoo na jaa-ay. ||4||2|| 
I have met the Lord, and I am emancipated within; now, my mind does not wander at all. ||4||2|| 
riDh siDh jaa ka-o furee tab kaahoo si-o ki-aa kaaj. 
You have riches and miraculous spiritual powers; so what business do you have with anyone else? 
tayray kahnay kee gat ki-aa kaha-o mai bolat hee bad laaj. ||1|| 
What should I say about the reality of your talk? I am embarrassed even to speak to you. ||1|| 
raam jih paa-i-aa raam. 
One who has found the Lord, 
tay bhaveh na baarai baar. ||1|| rahaa-o. 
does not wander from door to door. ||1||Pause|| 
jhoothaa jag dahkai ghanaa din du-ay bartan kee aas. 
The false world wanders all around, in hopes of finding wealth to use for a few days. 
raam udak jih jan pee-aa tihi bahur na bha-ee pi-aas. ||2|| 
That humble being, who drinks in the Lord's water, never becomes thirsty again. ||2|| 
gur parsaad jih boojhi-aa aasaa tay bha-i-aa niraas. 
Whoever understands, by Guru's Grace, becomes free of hope in the midst of hope. 
sabh sach nadree aa-i-aa ja-o aatam bha-i-aa udaas. ||3|| 
One comes to see the Lord everywhere, when the soul becomes detached. ||3|| 
raam naam ras chaakhi-aa har naamaa har taar. 
I have tasted the sublime essence of the Lord's Name; the Lord's Name carries everyone across. 
kaho kabeer kanchan bha-i-aa bharam ga-i-aa samudrai paar. ||4||3|| 
Says Kabeer, I have become like gold; doubt is dispelled, and I have crossed over the world-ocean. ||4||3|| 
udak samund salal kee saakhi-aa nadee tarang samaavhigay. 
Like drops of water in the water of the ocean, and like waves in the stream, I merge in the Lord. 
sunneh sunn mili-aa samadrasee pavan roop ho-ay jaavhigay. ||1|| 
Merging my being into the Absolute Being of God, I have become impartial and transparent, like the air. ||1|| 
bahur ham kaahay aavhigay. 
Why should I come into the world again? 
aavan jaanaa hukam tisai kaa hukmai bujh samaavhigay. ||1|| rahaa-o. 
Coming and going is by the Hukam of His Command; realizing His Hukam, I shall merge in Him. ||1||Pause|| 
jab chookai panch Dhaat kee rachnaa aisay bharam chukaavhigay. 
When the body, formed of the five elements, perishes, then any such doubts shall end. 
darsan chhod bha-ay samadrasee ayko naam Dhi-aavhigay. ||2|| 
Giving up the different schools of philosophy, I look upon all equally; I meditate only on the One Name. ||2|| 
jit ham laa-ay {censored} hee laagay taisay karam kamaavhigay. 
Whatever I am attached to, to that I am attached; such are the deeds I do. 
har jee kirpaa karay ja-o apnee tou gur kay sabad samaavhigay. ||3|| 
When the Dear Lord grants His Grace, then I am merged in the Word of the Guru's Shabad. ||3|| 
jeevat marahu marahu fun jeevhu punrap janam na ho-ee. 
Die while yet alive, and by so dying, be alive; thus you shall not be reborn again. 



This shabad has nothing to do with meat eating. It is a mistranslation and is mischief making by you "Sikh".

This shabad is concerning those Pandits that used to perform animal sacrifices on auspicious occasions, and yet were vegetarians? A bit like vegetarians who wear leather belts and shoes, and talk about animal cruelty.




sikh78910 said:


> "Doctors say eating meat is healthy - you get vitamins and good things - so there are benefits in eating meat, like with anything its about how much you eat."
> The health aspect we all know and there are lots of resources on the Internet on this issue. One site, which highlights the main risks of eating meat, is:
> 
> The Health Risks Of Eating Meat.
> Meat is disease-ridden and is a dirty thing to eat.




Pure opinion.

Beans release a toxin to prvent being eaten and digested….we humans drown that beans to remove that toxin.

Nuts release a chemical that is used in biologocal warfare.

The list goes on.

As an ex-powerlifetr, I would have to disagree.



sikh78910 said:


> Gurbani tells us:
> 
> _"O Baba, the pleasures of other foods are false. Eating which, the body is ruined (i.e. are unhealthy), and wickedness and corruption enter into the mind. ||1||Pause||"_
> _(Ang 16)_




I love the tase of keer and white channay………….I must give them up!!!


In anycase this line again is taken out of context and refers to mans state without the Guru. More mischief making on your part.




sikh78910 said:


> The fact is that a human's own flesh is exactly like that of meat. Observing surgery or perusing internal medicine books, one notes that we are the same substance. That's why Guru Nanak Sahib jee has said not to hate meat. We are meat. But at the same time we cannot eat it because it would be like eating a dead body. It's foul and really unthinkable.




The most foul thing here is twisting Bani to support the arguments of PETA.

Bani does not support any diet. It is not a menu…..it is not Sharia Law.

2 out of 10 for effort.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 22, 2006)

Gurfateh

There is an instance in Bhangus book that Tat Khalsa forced Bandais to eat meat after they became to much sticky with veggi issue and by this way they reconverted them to Tat Khalsa.

In present context this may not be OK at all.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Dec 23, 2006)

This "meat Thing" is the most successful SABOTAGE of GURMATT by the Bippar enemy.....only next to Raagmala adulteration of SGGs and the Bachittra natak granth chameleon morphing into Dasam granth..the SOONER we get rid of these KANDEHs in our flesh..the sooner we will be rid of this pain.... this utter RUBBISH ahs so much permeated into the Fabric of Sikhi that it is so difficult to remove it..but removal is going on..slowly but surely..as EDUCATION replaces Andha wishwaash !! Gurbani as it is UNDERSTOOD will remove all doubt...Mitee DHUND jagg channan hoya..will happen again....GURBANI will Never LOSE out to FRAUD and LIES

Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 30, 2006)

Alrighttt people, very sorry if i offended anyone! I am looking at these articles in a different way, u guys definitly put up a good argument! but at any rate i guess i was just trying to persude people against eating meat which was wrong of me, people should do it for their own reasons, i know.

id now like to eat my words and apologize.

but i do stick with the point that the butcher of an animal can adopt the mindset of a cold blooded killer because of the whole baby clinging to the mother thing, which ive seen happen in a farm a long time ago! i really do think thats cold.

i ate meat until a year ago- and i cant personally relate to butchering cos ive never done it- meat for me was ham in a packet, or sausages in a packet- quorn looks exactly the same to me.

My reasons for not eating meat are completely deifferent so im very sorry. im not going to share my reasons with u all though cos theyre very personal- to do with my own personal sikhi journey, but have almost nothing to do with the information ive given, even though those pictures made me queasy! lol.

sorry again if i came across as an rss agent or something! i hate them....


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 30, 2006)

And im sooo sorry if i came across to be twisting baniii! thats the last thing i would ever want to do- i just interpreted everything differently i guess. there should be no barriers between people that eat meat and those that dont- we are all sikh and on the journey and its about personal choice, just like cutting hair. everyone has their own different interpretations, and if you pray and truly love god, who am i to judge whether one eats meat or impose views that are probably those of corrupted individuals anyway, i ate it every day until a ear ago myself!

again i am sooo SORRY! and please ignore my first post a few pages back!

Sikh.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 30, 2006)

sikh78910 said:


> Alrighttt people, very sorry if i offended anyone! I am looking at these articles in a different way, u guys definitly put up a good argument! but at any rate i guess i was just trying to persude people against eating meat which was wrong of me, people should do it for their own reasons, i know.
> 
> id now like to eat my words and apologize.
> 
> ...


 
Brother I respect your personal reasons for not eating meat.....but as Guru Nanak says, that alone will not help your spiritual journey.

Adolf Hitler a vegetarian, butchered millions...........so diet really is not an idea of what cruelty a man can do.

Recently in the UK.....animal rights people sent out leaflets to neighbours of a scientist who worked at a lab that experimented on animals...........these leaflets stated this family man was a paedohile..............this was totally untrue.......this meant the man had to move from his area.....the people who sent them claimed to protect animals yet they were so cruel to their fellow man......

....also another incident where the people who owned a farm that reared animals for exepriments were terrorised.........they had the body of their Grandmother dug up from her grave and stolen......again by people who claimed to protect animal rights and were vegetarian......

I don't think cruelty is linked to profession or diet.............thats my opinion..........you may disagree.


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 30, 2006)

hello all, if anyone could please provide me with information on why meat is not served in the gurudwarra and whether this has always been the case, it woud be much appreciated!

and also articles on whether or not the stress of an animal can be tranferred to a human by consumption and may affect the effectiveness of meditation.

thankyou again.

Sikh.


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 30, 2006)

> Brother I respect your personal reasons for not eating meat.....but as Guru Nanak says, that alone will not help your spiritual journey.
> 
> Adolf Hitler a vegetarian, butchered millions...........so diet really is not an idea of what cruelty a man can do.
> 
> ...



thankyou, however i do believe 100% that it will help in my spiritual journey, i have had very different expereinces to most other sikh people i know my reasoning is very diefferent and predominantly to do with the spiritual side of things, not moral. it is just very difficult to explain my reasoning as it is not scientific.

i definitly understand that a meat diet is not linked to cruelty, however i do, as i stated before believe that in many cases, (mainly those of muslims who watch animals suffer as they kill them slowly) of animal slaughter, that mercy is indeed evaporated and cold blooded murder of any animal can seem like nothing in comparison. one that kills any large living animal without mercy can easily adopt a murderous mindset and capibility to kill ANY living being in cold blood!

hope to hear from anyone who can provide some of the information in my post above soon!

Sikh.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 30, 2006)

sikh78910 said:


> hello all, if anyone could please provide me with information on why meat is not served in the gurudwarra and whether this has always been the case, it woud be much appreciated!
> 
> and also articles on whether or not the stress of an animal can be tranferred to a human by consumption and may affect the effectiveness of meditation.
> 
> ...


 
the main reaoson why meat is not served is the following 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY MEAT IS NOT SERVED IN LANGAR 

The reason why meat is not served at langar in the Gurdwaras is because langar is supposed to be a symbol of equality of mankind where all people no matter what race, religion or caste can eat together in the atmosphere of brotherhood. Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, it does not matter who they are. Different religions have different dietary restrictions. Hindus cannot eat cow, muslims cannot eat pork and will only eat halal meat. Jews will only eat kosher meat, others cannot eat fish or eggs. But in a gurdwara langar, it does not matter what their dietary taboos or religious beliefs are, the food is designed so that all can eat together and no one will be offended or not be able to partake of the meal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
according to some sikh historians meat was served in langar at the  time of
guru angad dev ji

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenting on meat being served in the langar during the time of Guru Angad: However, it is strange that now-a-days in the Community-Kitchen attached to the Sikh temples, and called the Guru's Kitchen (or, Guru-ka-langar) meat-dishes are not served at all. May be, it is on account of its being, perhaps, expensive, or not easy to keep for long. Or, perhaps the Vaishnava tradition is too strong to be shaken off.
A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
anyway there are some gurudwaras that still serve meat.i want to show you one of the post of mr.vijaydeep singh who is one of the most knowledgeable
on this site.you can directly ask question regarding this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
vijaydeep Singh   
SPN Sewadaar
Enrollment No. 313	 			


	Location: world


Re: Meat and eggs. 
Gurfateh

Das recomends akamjbalar Ji to visit Hajur Sahib.

Or say in Gurudwaras associted by Nihungs,Afgahan Sikhs or say lower caste converts.

Das has taken Langer of meat and rice once in marraige of Sevadar of Gurudwara who was from Sindh,in west UP village.He offered das that Amrit Dharis sometimes are veggies so if Das could be served with Dal roti.Das told him to serve what is in Langer for all.

Next thing is that there is a concept of Dale Da Prasad (pork)or Mahaprasad (muttan)in Nihungs.

So it is a newr thing not much old that in general Gurudwaras meat is not served while as such in traditonal ones it is still served.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 1, 2007)

sikh78910 said:


> i definitly understand that a meat diet is not linked to cruelty, however i do, as i stated before believe that in many cases, (mainly those of muslims who watch animals suffer as they kill them slowly) of animal slaughter, that mercy is indeed evaporated and cold blooded murder of any animal can seem like nothing in comparison. one that kills any large living animal without mercy can easily adopt a murderous mindset and capibility to kill ANY living being in cold blood!


 
This mindset that a butcher must be muderous and have a murderous mindset is at odds with Sikhism. Here are 3 reasons why:

1) Bhagat Sadana - A Butcher - his Bani is included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji yet he killed animals for food for people as a job. His words and compassion are without equal.

2) Bhagar Ravidas - A Skinner by profession who would kill animals for their leather to make various implements. Again his words of wisdom are prfound and included in Bani.

3) Shaikh Farid - A Muslim who observed the Muslim rituals, including that of Eid where an animal would be sacrificed to Allah.......his Bani and words of wisdom are included in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.

There are others too - so to say one kills animals for profession or food does not have spiritual merit is a nonsense.

Regards


----------



## sikh78910 (Jan 2, 2007)

thankyou very much for the valuable information kds ji, i had no idea about any of that!

randip singh ji,

i understand where u are coming from, however if you re-read my post i think you'll find that i used the words "many"(not all) and "can"(as in could) regarding the issue. i am not saying that all butchers would adopt this mindset, im saying that it is definitly a posssibilty, especially in those that are not religious. i would never expect butchers that are religious, such as the ones you mentioned and especially those that held the company of the gurus, to  have this evil mindset because they were true believers and lovers of the Divine One and spread this love, not hatred and evil. just as you will find many sehjdharis (or moneh) who are widely discriminated against and people who do not appear to be religious or have previously committed bad deeds but who also hold much love in their hearts ready to  give their lives for religion. 


Just as alcohol can potentially corrupt the mind and sanity of almost any human being, cold blooded murder and especially the murder of animals in the muslim way-watching an animal suffer such a l*ong, painful and pointless* death, which was so frowned upon by our gurus and VERY much preached against, *can potentially* corrupt the mind and soul.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 3, 2007)

sikh78910 said:


> thankyou very much for the valuable information kds ji, i had no idea about any of that!
> 
> randip singh ji,
> 
> i understand where u are coming from, however if you re-read my post i think you'll find that i used the words "many"(not all) and "can"(as in could) regarding the issue. i am not saying that all butchers would adopt this mindset, im saying that it is definitly a posssibilty, especially in those that are not religious. i would never expect butchers that are religious, such as the ones you mentioned and especially those that held the company of the gurus, to have this evil mindset because they were true believers and lovers of the Divine One and spread this love, not hatred and evil. just as you will find many sehjdharis (or moneh) who are widely discriminated against and people who do not appear to be religious or have previously committed bad deeds but who also hold much love in their hearts ready to give their lives for religion.


 
I think what you are trying to say is that torturing of animals can make people corrupt....am I wrong or right?

This is the argument Vivisection people used against scientists who do experiments on animals  to develop new medicines. What these Vivisection people did ineffect was torture human beings in order to prevent what they saw as "torture" to animals.

I don't think what you are saying is as straight forward as that.



sikh78910 said:


> Just as alcohol can potentially corrupt the mind and sanity of almost any human being, cold blooded murder and especially the murder of animals in the muslim way-watching an animal suffer such a l*ong, painful and pointless* death, which was so frowned upon by our gurus and VERY much preached against, *can potentially* corrupt the mind and soul.


 
Alcohol is contained in most medicines....yet we drink them......surely they do not corrupt? Alcohol misuse is what our Guru's talked about. Those people who need to escape reality by using alcohol.....in the same way an ascetic withdraws from society and lives in the jungle...........escaping from society and hence reality.

I think someone who is sadistic does not need any particular profession.............people who are obsessed with Kaam, Krodh, Moh, Lobh and Hankaar are capable of incredible cruelty............i have witnessed fights between "Sikhs" in temples of uptmost savagery...............not one person is a butcher there.................these people are afflicted with the 5 thieves.

It is the 5 thieves you should be concerntrating on.....rather than any particular profession like butchery. The human being can be surrounded by corruption yet not corrupt himself/herself....so long as the 5 thieves are controlled.


----------



## sikh78910 (Jan 3, 2007)

> The human being can be surrounded by corruption yet not corrupt himself/herself....so long as the 5 thieves are controlled.



hi,

 i completely agree with this point, however there are also human beings that cannot control the 5 thieves. *some* are are strong enough, *some* are not....its life! thats all im trying to say....

there is so much in this world that can *potentially *turn a weak person to commit bad deeds, cold butchery, especially of halal meat, is just one of them....

true that someone who is sadistic does not need a paticular profession, but one who is not sadistic in the first place can easily turn that way due to external influences, again such is the nature of life. noone is born sadistic,  we are all god loving and pure in the womb.....its maya and external influences that makes people change and clouds the common sense and amazing love for waheguru that we are all born with...


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 5, 2007)

sikh78910 said:


> hi,
> 
> 
> 
> there is so much in this world that can *potentially *turn a weak person to commit bad deeds, cold butchery, especially of halal meat, is just one of them....


 
Hi Sikh,

The issue surrounding Halaal is often misinterpreted as that to do with cruelty. It is not.

The issue that the Guru's had with Halaal (and for that matter Bali [Hindu Sacrifice] and Kosher [Jewish sacrifice]) was that is was a sacrifice.

I think Bhagat Kabir says in one of verses about "Halal-ing" the chicken and only killing the clay. For Muslims the act of Halaal is a form of sacrifice to God........in this way you are making a sacrifice to God..........you are ineffect trying to appease God. 

What the Guru's say is that this is a futile gesture, of appeasement (Halaal/Bismil) because God created that animal so why are you offering it back to him. God controls the life in everything and gives and talkes it away.........so by sacrificing the chicken you are not offering God its life, but merely its shell.

Bali which is Hindu animal sacrifice to God and Kosher, which is Jewish animal sacrifice are the same.

Sikh's see such animal sacrifice as futile....they will achieve nothing. This is nothing to do with cruelty.

If you want to talk about cruelty, then riding horses in races from which they get injured exhausted, damage backs etc are far more cruel than any slaughter. Keeping birds caged or in zoo's is prolonged torture. Keeping cows to pull plough's and act as beasts of burden is tortous on animals. Man has forced his/her will on these animals in this way and gives them prolonged suffering.

So this issue is not about the actuall killing, but actually about the ritual and sacrifice.

PS on a side note, I find Hallal sacrifice distasteful and something that is very medieval in nature.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 5, 2007)

> If you want to talk about cruelty, then riding horses in races from which they get injured exhausted, damage backs etc are far more cruel than any slaughter. Keeping birds caged or in zoo's is prolonged torture. Keeping cows to pull plough's and act as beasts of burden is tortous on animals. Man has forced his/her will on these animals in this way and gives them prolonged suffering



very well said.using animals or animal products in any form is also very much cruel but majority of people have mentality that meat is the only thing that. is cruel
in india people who don't eat meat shift their demand to milk products .so one form of cruelity changes to another. they just fool themself.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 5, 2007)

kds1980 said:


> very well said.using animals or animal products in any form is also very much cruel but majority of people have mentality that meat is the only thing that. is cruel
> in india people who don't eat meat shift their demand to milk products .so one form of cruelity changes to another. they just fool themself.


 
We humans are great at practicing duality or hypocrasy (as we call it). We constantly try and fool ourselves into thinking because we are not doing such and such we are not cruel.

The Jain will go to the extreme length of tieing a cloth infront of the mouth and watching everywhere he she walks to avoid killing...............this in effect prevents them from living life........they get so caught up in this quest for unnecessary cruelty they forget their duty as a human being to fellow human beings.............and that is where the real cruelty lies......in the way we treat each other.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 5, 2007)

> We humans are great at practicing duality or hypocrasy (as we call it). We constantly try and fool ourselves into thinking because we are not doing such and such we are not cruel.



yeh its true .most people lack basic understanding on this subject.according to them a goat which is quickly slaughtered is cruel but a cow that is tied in tight shed forced to produce as much milk as she can and then thrown on road eating polythene bag dieing a slow painful death is sacred who is happily
giving her milk just like a disney cartoon.i found a great article on this subject by a hindu on net

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILOSOPHY OF GITA AND ECONOMICS OF COW AND OTHER DOMESTIC ANIMALS

This most controversial article challenges the common Hindu belief that considers cow as a holy animal. 




"For the death of him who is born is certain ; and the rebirth of him who is dead is inevitable. It does not, therefore, behove you to grieve over an inevitable event." (Verse 27, Chapter 2, Srimad Bhagavad-Gita)

Lord Krishna says that it is wrong to grieve about death since death is like a change of clothes. Soul gives up its old clothes and takes on new ones. Focussing on life and accepting death as an integral part of life - is the essence of Gita which applies to every aspect of human life. It is this philosophy that enabled Krishna to be an animal-lover and yet be a good hunter. Understanding the philosophy of Gita is necessary to comprehend animal-rearing.

In the field of animal rearing Consumption and Protection are two sides of the same coin. One who consumes is the one who protects and vice-versa. Muslims in India sacrifice goats at the time of Eid-ul-zuha and consume the meat. The other facet of this is that Muslims feed and take care of a goat for a full year or alternatively pay a big sum to one who has taken care of the sacrificial goat. On the other hand there are Jains who do not eat meat and do nothing to rear or take care of goats. India is the largest consumer of goat meat in the world and India has the largest goat population in the world. Pakistan does not consume pig-meat and it has almost no pigs. During the past thirty years the consumption of eggs and chicken in India has increased almost tenfold. This has led to the poultry industry getting a big boost and there has been an unprecedented increase in the population of hens. It will not be an exaggeration to say that if mankind stopped consuming eggs and chicken completely, hen as a species may vanish from the surface of earth.

Cow is considered sacred and is worshipped in India while in adjoining Pakistan there are no such beliefs. Yet, when a cow dies in India, its average carcass weight is just about 103 Kg and in Pakistan the average carcass weight is about 185 Kg. The figure for USA and Germany is about 315 Kg. In other words, cows in India are not butchered but are tortured to a slow and painful death by hunger. A foolish interpretation of DHARMA (loosely translated as duty or religion) has led some Indians to oppose cow slaughter leading to a situation where cows are neither cared for nor protected. A refusal to accept death of cow has made life hell for cow. Moving stray on roads Indian cow is forced to eat polythene bags and die a painful death. All talks of non-violence and pity by religious leaders sound nice but cannot give the essential ingredients of life to Indian cows.

Milk Production in India has increased considerably during the past three decades after National Dairy Development Board launched Operation Flood. Yet, the per capita availability of milk in India in 1997 was just about 58.5 Kg per annum. The corresponding figure for Pakistan is 116.3 Kg, Germany - 238.8 Kg, Russia - 145.1 Kg, USA - 251.3 Kg. Some persons may be surprised that the per capita availability of milk in India is just about half of that in Pakistan though economically Pakistan is almost in the same bracket as India. The misguided orthodox zealots who oppose all mechanized slaughter houses and meat exports often argue that continuous slaughtering of progeny of cows will lead to elimination of cows and bulls from the country causing a milk famine. The fact is just opposite - the countries that consume cow-meat have substantially higher milk availability.

The economics of animal rearing is based on milk as well as meat. Whenever any cow or buffalo gives birth, there is an almost equal probability of a male or female calf. A dairy farmer rears a female calf in expectation of milk, while a male is reared for either meat or for use as a draught animal. It is the combined economics of milk, meat and harness that makes investments possible in dairy industry. If any of the three pillars is disturbed, the economics of dairy industry is badly affected. In most developed countries, there is no use of animal in harness but demand for meat helps balance the economics of dairy industry. In ancient India, extensive use of bullocks as draught animals made dairy farming viable even without the use of meat. In modern India, on one hand, subsidies on electricity for farming, tractors, diesel etc. have eliminated the need to use animals for ploughing and carriage of goods. On the other hand, a plethora of restrictions on bovine meat have effectively prevented Indian dairy farmers from getting a reasonable price for bovine meat. This has rendered male bovine animals completely useless thereby affecting the economics and growth of the Indian dairy industry.

India exports almost ten million tonnes of de-oiled cakes every year to countries like Pakistan, Iran, Thailand, Korea, Japan etc. who have a better developed dairy industry. De-oiled cakes are rich in proteins and are primarily used as ingredient for animalfeed. In addition to causing protein deficiency in an impoverished country like India, export of de-oiled cakes disturbs the Nitrogen cycle of nature causing the soil to lose fertility. Animals perform a useful ecological function by consuming non-edible nitrogenous matter like cellulose and de-oiled cakes. Faecal matter of animals completes the nitrogen cycle and enriches the soil. In the absence of sufficiently large number of animals, agriculture starts losing its long term viability. Hence, it is necessary that the economics of Indian dairy farming is strengthened so that Indian de-oiled cakes can be fed to Indian animals which are essential pre-requisite for maintaining soil fertility over the long term.

Cowdung also plays a minor albeit important role in dairy economics. Heavy subsidies on chemical fertilizers have reduced the demand for cowdung. This has made it impossible for any dairy farmer to feed a non-milking cow.

Dairy industry plays a vital role in the agro-based economics of India. Strengthening dairy industry is essential for removing poverty of the large majority of Indian population which is living even today in rural areas. The three pillars of dairy farming economics - Milk, Meat and Use in Harness - need to be strengthened. Just as National Dairy Development Board has done commendable work in the field of milk, there is an urgent need for similar work in the field of meat. Government of India should set a target to eliminate exports of de-oiled cakes in the next five to ten years. Subsidies on tractors, diesel, farm-use-electricity, chemical fertilizers should be gradually eliminated. Use of mineral fuel based vehicles should be banned in certain dense areas of cities and in such areas only human and animal powered vehicles should be permitted. This will not only increase utility of animals in harness but will also help reduce pollution in Indian city centres that have become almost inhabitable. Use of modern technology should be promoted in animal powered vehicles.

Hindu religion is based on "SANATAN" truths - facts and principles that have always been true and shall always be. It was this understanding of SANATAN truth that led the Lord Shiva who is known as a God of destruction being also called Lord PASHUPATINATH, the deity that is the owner and protector of all animals. Shiva family caries with it a symbolism that illustrates the concept of mutual dependence of beings for food and other needs. The vehicle of Shiva is a bullock while his wife Parvati's vehicle is a lion who preys on bullock. Shiva's son Ganesha moves around on a rat while snakes (who eat rats) hang around the neck of Lord Shiva. On the other hand snakes are devoured by pea{censored} which is the vehicle of Shiva's other son Kartik. Cycle of nature is based on such mutual dependence and mutual checks & balances. One who understands this cycle and does not get disturbed by death is a wise man. He accepts death as a necessary routine. Commitments towards life rather than concerns about death are the guiding principles for all his actions. DHARMA (loosely translated as duty or religion) is not in avoiding death nor is it in fearing death nor is it in worrying about or grieving over death. Life and living life is DHARMA. If moved by the fears of death non-violence weakens life and if violence accepts death to eventually strengthen life, then violence is DHARMA and non-violence is ADHARMA (antonym or antitheses of DHARMA). This is the philosophy of Gita and this is the way of upliftment of any society.

Hindu religion takes a holistic view of life and Hindu vision is free of any pre-conceived biases. Weakening society in the name of mercy, pity or non-violence is ADHARMA and not DHARMA in the eyes of Hindu philosophy. Cow is sacred and has an important place in Indian social and economic life. Yet, no one is above the overall interests of society and DHARMA. Lord Krishna asked Arjuna to kill his own brethren and beloved because that was the DHARMA at that time. Similarly in today's situation giving up the opposition to cow slaughter is indeed in accordance with DHARMA. Hindus must realize that enriching the life of bovine and other useful animals is DHARMA. Making efforts to build a healthy and large population of cattle in India is DHRAMA. On the path of DHARMA, a wise man is not perturbed by death since he knows that soul is immortal - "Weapons cannot cut it nor can fire burn it ; water cannot drench it nor can wind make it dry." (Verse 23, Chapter 2, Srimad Bhagavad-Gita)

(Statistics quoted above are courtesy Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
so you see not allowing cow slaughter is not only hurting indian economy
but also hurting farmers and also giving cows slow and painful death.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 8, 2007)

kds1980 said:


> yeh its true .most people lack basic understanding on this subject.according to them a goat which is quickly slaughtered is cruel but a cow that is tied in tight shed forced to produce as much milk as she can and then thrown on road eating polythene bag dieing a slow painful death is sacred who is happily
> giving her milk just like a disney cartoon.i found a great article on this subject by a hindu on net
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


 
Interesting for a country that venerates the cow so highly.


----------



## sikh78910 (Jan 8, 2007)

> If you want to talk about cruelty, then riding horses in races from which they get injured exhausted, damage backs etc are far more cruel than any slaughter. Keeping birds caged or in zoo's is prolonged torture. Keeping cows to pull plough's and act as beasts of burden is tortous on animals. Man has forced his/her will on these animals in this way and gives them prolonged suffering.
> 
> So this issue is not about the actuall killing, but actually about the ritual and sacrifice.



god thats definitly cruelty, but im trying to stick with this issue. i realise the mainnn issue surrounding halal meat is the ritualistic side of it, just like hindu idol worship- but im sure our gurus would also have noted the "distasteful" aspect of it aswell. u never hear of any of them or even imagine any of them killing an animal so slowly and painfully....theres something very sadistic about it all....


----------



## sikh78910 (Jan 8, 2007)

oh and im sure guru gobind singh ji would never have killed his horse or eagle that was always by his side. he seemed to have great affection for them, even named his horse Dilbag. One of his sikhs went to great lengths to get Dilbag back for the guru and this sikh was rewarded with a state of chardi kala. what is the difference between these animals and any other? u liken meat to vegetables but dont liken meat with other meat ie. the Dilbag, the bird and a cow or pig? would u eat ur faithful pet dog if it was common place to eat dogs? my dog is like family to me, its so intellegent, sits at command, jumps at command and has kind and loving eyes when it sees me. i once had a pet chicken and i had the same feelings towards it, it follwed me around everywhere! i just dunno about this whole meat eating thing, i just personally dont agree with it n dont think i ever will. has anyone else got these same feelings or is it just me?? i really havent read into the whole hindu aspect of things so get thrown when ppl say i have a brammin outlook on this issue,  like i say in all other threads of this nature, its my concience and gut feelling, along with other very *unbrahmin* reasons which most narrow minded people would never accept so i wont post them......


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 8, 2007)

dear  sikh78910

if killing animals is such a wrong thing then why guru hargobind ji and guru gobind singh ji went on hunting along with the sikhs.guru gobind singh ji kept falcon and it is a deadly bird to whom feeding meat is must so it is quite clear that meat was not tabboo to them.let me show you first sermon of guru hargobind ji in which he ordered sikhs to go on hunting
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
phorum - message board
Then, Guru Hargobind Sahib rose and gave his first sermon to the Sikhs:

â€œToday the offerings that are beloved to me are good weapons and good youth. If you want my happiness, then exercise your bodies, wrestle, play gatka, go into the jungles to hunt and learn to ride horses. Weakness is now a crime to the Nation that cannot be forgiven for anyone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## sikh78910 (Jan 9, 2007)

> dear  sikh78910
> 
> if killing animals is such a wrong thing then why guru hargobind ji and guru gobind singh ji went on hunting along with the sikhs.guru gobind singh ji kept falcon and it is a deadly bird to whom feeding meat is must so it is quite clear that meat was not tabboo to them.let me show you first sermon of guru hargobind ji in which he ordered sikhs to go on hunting
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



hi kds ji,

 i understand where u are coming from, but where does it have guru Hargobind ji saying to eat the slaughtered animals? hunting, gatka, wrestling and working out help to mould a warrior proficient at fighting in warfare. hunting increases alertness, awareness and develops a good eye for detail. practice in hunting for these sikhs may have dertermined life and death for a sikh on the battlefield in these times. it was not to EAT the meat or the guru would not have included hunting in the same paragraph as the words gatka, riding horses, excercise and wrestling which are all associated with Battle!  it is also a known fact that Guru Gobind Singh Ji also went hunting as an act of compassion towards animals, relasing them from this stage of reincarnation. it does not again, say to eat them!!! the reasons for taking the life of one of gods creatures should be a valid one, as in an accident or like this one or hunting to improve vital and life saving battle skills. to me it is about compassion, to kill an animal without mercy and with a sadistic nature or just to feed on its flesh just doesnt seem right to me! that is my opinion!

Sikh


----------



## Lionchild (Jan 9, 2007)

sikh78910 said:


> hi kds ji,
> 
> i understand where u are coming from, but where does it have guru Hargobind ji saying to eat the slaughtered animals? hunting, gatka, wrestling and working out help to mould a warrior proficient at fighting in warfare. hunting increases alertness, awareness and develops a good eye for detail. practice in hunting for these sikhs may have dertermined life and death for a sikh on the battlefield in these times. it was not to EAT the meat or the guru would not have included hunting in the same paragraph as the words gatka, riding horses, excercise and wrestling which are all associated with Battle!  it is also a known fact that Guru Gobind Singh Ji also went hunting as an act of compassion towards animals, relasing them from this stage of reincarnation. it does not again, say to eat them!!! the reasons for taking the life of one of gods creatures should be a valid one, as in an accident or like this one or hunting to improve vital and life saving battle skills. to me it is about compassion, to kill an animal without mercy and with a sadistic nature or just to feed on its flesh just doesnt seem right to me! that is my opinion!
> 
> Sikh



That totally does not make any sense. So you are saying that killing an animal for sport or to "practise" is any better?

in my culture, we hunted the animal, and used all of it's parts to make food, cloths, tools, and live on. That is the good way to do things. That was all we had in norther alberta, of course, it's different today. We have all this man made processed food, probably why we have such a high rate of diebeties and malutrition.

Anyways, sikh78910 if really think that it's so unethical, perhaps next time you drink coffee, or eat your veggies, you will think that there are animals and even people who die to get that food too you. I would imagine all the forest land, and road kill from trucks is not "compassion"


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 9, 2007)

sikh78910 said:


> hi kds ji,
> 
> i understand where u are coming from, but where does it have guru Hargobind ji saying to eat the slaughtered animals? hunting, gatka, wrestling and working out help to mould a warrior proficient at fighting in warfare. hunting increases alertness, awareness and develops a good eye for detail. practice in hunting for these sikhs may have dertermined life and death for a sikh on the battlefield in these times. it was not to EAT the meat or the guru would not have included hunting in the same paragraph as the words gatka, riding horses, excercise and wrestling which are all associated with Battle!  it is also a known fact that Guru Gobind Singh Ji also went hunting as an act of compassion towards animals, relasing them from this stage of reincarnation. it does not again, say to eat them!!! the reasons for taking the life of one of gods creatures should be a valid one, as in an accident or like this one or hunting to improve vital and life saving battle skills. to me it is about compassion, to kill an animal without mercy and with a sadistic nature or just to feed on its flesh just doesnt seem right to me! that is my opinion!
> 
> Sikh



dear sikh ji

i agree with you that hunting was a war practice for sikhs.but do you want to say that there is nothing wrong in killing animals for war practice?
as far mukti arguemrent is concerned i don't beleive in it because nowhere guru ji mentioned that he is killing animals for mukti.even if i accept mukti 
arguement then what about the sikhs that were hunting along with the guru ji
were they also giving mukti to animals?anway i have a mini suraj prakash in which there are sakhis where meat is mentioned so if anybody want to say that vegetarianism is part of sikhism then that is false there some sakhis where meat is mentioned.even european travellers mentioned that meat was part of sikh diet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Seiks receive Proselytes of almost every Cast, a point in which they differ most materially from the Hindoos. To initiate Mohammedans into their mysteries, they prepare a Dish of Hogs legs, which the Converts are obliged to partake of, previous to admission............They are not prohibited the use of Animal food of any kind, excepting Beef, which they are rigidly scrupulous in abstaining from.
John Griffiths writes in February 17th 1794 



The seiks are remarkably fond of the flesh of the jungle hog, which they kill in chase: this food is allowable by their law. They likewise eat of mutton and fish; but these being unlawful the Brahmins will not partake, leaving those who chose to transgress their institutes to answer for themselves. 
William Francklin in his writing about Mr George Thomas 1805


It is clear from the above that there is a clear distinction between Sikhs (meat eaters), and those who chose to follow Brahmanical practices (Vegetarians), however there appears to be no dispute over this issue as people are allowed to decide for themselves. 
The following is an Extract from an officer in the Bengal Army and is taken from the Asiatic Annual Register 1809: 

Now become a Singh, he is a heterodox, and distinct from the Hindoos by whom he is considered an apostate. He is not restricted in his diet, but is allowed, by the tenets of his new religion, to devour whatever food his appetite may prompt, excepting beef.
Asiatic Annual Register 1809
------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the end i just want to say that if your conscience does not tell you to eat meat then don't eat.but please don't give it religious turn.


----------



## sikh78910 (Jan 10, 2007)

> That totally does not make any sense. So you are saying that killing an animal for sport or to "practise" is any better?


 NO thats not what im saying. read my post again plz. im sayin if ur fighting for the good of mankind and u need practice like guru gobind singh jis warriors did, THEN its ok! thats wat im sayinn, and it most certainly does make sense. only if ur fighting for the good of mankind and not evil. if the gurus said it was ok to kill animals to beconme a better warrior, and like i said if it meant the differemnce between life and death on the battle field for the gurus warriors, which it almost certainly did , then im completely ok. if u dont think it is and would rather have had a moghul victory in our history then disagree with me!



> in my culture, we hunted the animal, and used all of it's parts to make food, cloths, tools, and live on. That is the good way to do things. That was all we had in norther alberta, of course, it's different today. We have all this man made processed food, probably why we have such a high rate of diebeties and malutrition.



tools for livelihood n clothes are a necessity, even instruments for kirtan, but food? i think, and this is a wild guess, that there mayyyyyyyyyyy just be other sources of food other than animals!??? if there is no other then of course i condone the killing of meat for food for survival! 



> Anyways, sikh78910 if really think that it's so unethical, perhaps next time you drink coffee, or eat your veggies, you will think that there are animals and even people who die to get that food too you. I would imagine all the forest land, and road kill from trucks is not "compassion"


 yup i do all the time and feel very sad when i think of this. i do intend to campaign agaist this kinda stuff cuz i dont agree with it at alllllll!!! farming in punjab is the only right way to get "ethica"l veggie food in my book, but unfortunately i dont live there so i gotta put up with this kinda ****!! as for roadkill, theyre accidental, just like trucks and cars kill humans, roadkill is almost always accidental and when its not, which i have never heard of a case when it wasnt, its pretty messed up aswell.



> i agree with you that hunting was a war practice for sikhs.but do you want to say that there is nothing wrong in killing animals for war practice?


 yup, if its for the good and savior of mankind cos the intention is pure. just like moguls were killed for the good and defence of mankind.



> .even if i accept mukti
> arguement then what about the sikhs that were hunting along with the guru ji
> were they also giving mukti to animals?


 perhaps, if their intention was pure then why not?  or perhaps they were training for battle? lol.



> Seiks


 ok this dude cant even spell the word sikhs......hmmm...



> Mohammedans into their mysteries, they prepare a Dish of Hogs legs, which the Converts are obliged to partake of, previous to admission............


 so what? this is just a test of faith, not a pleasurable macdonalds big mac experience.......




> The seiks are remarkably fond of the flesh of the jungle hog, which they kill in chase: this food is allowable by their law. They likewise eat of mutton and fish; but these being unlawful the Brahmins will not partake, leaving those who chose to transgress their institutes to answer for themselves.


 did our gurus do this> and even if they did, i aint saying its against sikhi, im saying its wrong spiritually n pples conciousnces shuld tell them so.



> William Francklin in his writing about Mr George Thomas 1805


 is this dude sikh or is this just a made up quote by muslims or the british who have committed so many atrocities to sikhs over history , have stolen from sikh libraries, and therefore have absoluetely no reason  to undermine sikhi in any way possbile! lol this makes me laugh. if the hindus could bomb amritsar and change our history and alter or even conjure the dassam granth, then the british who also killed thousands upon thousands of our sikhs and committed jalianwalla bagh, waheguru ji, are capable of EXACTLY the same. why should i trust ANYTHING said to have been written by them? and even if this is a real account, so what, times have changed, we are in a deeper state of kaljug and evil will enter us using any means possible......................


----------



## sikh78910 (Jan 10, 2007)

oh and by the way i still think a spiritual sikh eating meat is a bad idea, unless like i said before hes already at a high stage and is bodybuilding and training.......- these two things together.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 11, 2007)

sikh78910 said:


> oh and by the way i still think a spiritual sikh eating meat is a bad idea, unless like i said before hes already at a high stage and is bodybuilding and training.......- these two things together.


 
If you think this then you are dwelling in duality.

In Sikhism does not perscribe a diet............it is left to the individual to make a choice.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 11, 2007)

sikh78910 said:


> oh and im sure guru gobind singh ji would never have killed his horse or eagle that was always by his side. he seemed to have great affection for them, even named his horse Dilbag. One of his sikhs went to great lengths to get Dilbag back for the guru and this sikh was rewarded with a state of chardi kala. what is the difference between these animals and any other? u liken meat to vegetables but dont liken meat with other meat ie.


 
I have plants around the house which I nurture and grow. I would never dream of eating them. Some even have names. Same principle with animals here…..sometimes we get an affinity to things and to give them a more human appearance……….however they will never be human.

As for naming things we do so, so we can differentiate from others. Can you imagine the entire Sikh cavalry with a horses all called horse….utter confusion. Horses and their riders often develop a bond because the rider chooses a horse because it has certain attributes….swiftness…can carry heavy loads etc. Each owner knows its horses characteristics.



sikh78910 said:


> the Dilbag, the bird and a cow or pig? would u eat ur faithful pet dog if it was common place to eat dogs? my dog is like family to me, its so intellegent, sits at command, jumps at command and has kind and loving eyes when it sees me. i once had a pet chicken and i had the same feelings towards it, it follwed me around everywhere! i just dunno about this whole meat eating thing, i just personally dont agree with it n dont think i ever will. has anyone else got these same feelings or is it just me??




That’s the point….thats your personal feeling………….and that is what the entire point of the essay is. It is a personal choice.

The bean (Rajma) releases a toxin to prevent us eating it….yet we soak it (ineffect drowning it), to remove this beans natural defence mechanism………it has a right not to be eaten surely?



sikh78910 said:


> i really havent read into the whole hindu aspect of things so get thrown when ppl say i have a brammin outlook on this issue, like i say in all other threads of this nature, its my concience and gut feelling, along with other very *unbrahmin* reasons which most narrow minded people would never accept so i wont post them......




The brahmin and Hindu dimension to this entered in around the 19th century….mass conversion of Hindu's to Sikhism.

This issue had raised itself during the time of Bandha Bahadhur when Sikhs split over this………..Bandha - a Bairagi advocated vegetarianism…………….he started taking Sikhism down an Alien route from what the 10th Master advocated………………he banned use of Onion etc too. A compromise was reached with Bandahi Sikh's being amalgamated into mainstream Sikhism. This issue was laid to rest……….until the 19th Century when Sant Mat groups influenced by Hindu converts resurrected it.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 11, 2007)

sikh78910 said:


> is this dude sikh or is this just a made up quote by muslims or the british who have committed so many atrocities to sikhs over history , have stolen from sikh libraries, and therefore have absoluetely no reason to undermine sikhi in any way possbile! lol this makes me laugh. if the hindus could bomb amritsar and change our history and alter or even conjure the dassam granth, then the british who also killed thousands upon thousands of our sikhs and committed jalianwalla bagh, waheguru ji, are capable of EXACTLY the same. why should i trust ANYTHING said to have been written by them? and even if this is a real account, so what, times have changed, we are in a deeper state of kaljug and evil will enter us using any means possible......................


 
_There are a number of eyewitness accounts from European travellers as to t the eating habits of Sikhs. Although there is no prohibition on Sikhs for eating beef, it is clear that Sikhs as a mark of respect for their Hindu neighbours did not partake in eating beef:_​ 

_The Seiks receive Proselytes of almost every Cast, a point in which they differ most materially from the Hindoos. To initiate Mohammedans into their mysteries, they prepare a Dish of Hogs legs, which the Converts are obliged to partake of, previous to admission………………..They are not prohibited the use of Animal food of any kind, excepting Beef, which they are rigidly scrupulous in abstaining from._
*John Griffiths writes in February 17th 1794*​ 



_The seiks are remarkably fond of the flesh of the jungle hog, which they kill in chase: this food is allowable by their law. They likewise eat of mutton and fish; but these being unlawful the Brahmins will not partake, leaving those who chose to transgress their institutes to answer for themselves. _
*William Francklin in his writing about Mr George Thomas 1805*​ 

_It is clear from the above that there is a clear distinction between Sikhs (meat eaters), and those who chose to follow Brahmanical practices (Vegetarians), however there appears to be no dispute over this issue as people are allowed to decide for themselves. _
_The following is an Extract from an officer in the Bengal Army and is taken from the Asiatic Annual Register 1809:_​ 
_Now become a Singh, he is a heterodox, and distinct from the Hindoos by whom he is considered an apostate. He is not restricted in his diet, but is allowed, by the tenets of his new religion, to devour whatever food his appetite may prompt, excepting beef._
*Asiatic Annual Register 1809*​ 

_Clearly, this gives us an idea that even independent observers of Sikhs who saw their eating habits. These Sikhs were around some 100 years after the demise of the last physical Sikh Guru and represented hardcore Sikh philosophy at that time_

From my years at University many years ago, I remeber that one had to rely on evidence when putting forward a point.

These eyewitness accounts are by observers who were infact tryig to gain an understanding into the Sikh faith and culture, with a view to one day subduing them.

So these reports would have been as accurate as possible.......to not do so would have compromised any inroads the Brits wished to make........so this pretty much contradicts what you are saying.

I've said this before and I'll say it again....read more Sikh History and Bani together, you will get some answers.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 11, 2007)

sikh78910 said:


> tools for livelihood n clothes are a necessity, even instruments for kirtan, but food? i think, and this is a wild guess, that there mayyyyyyyyyyy just be other sources of food other than animals!??? if there is no other then of course i condone the killing of meat for food for survival!


 
How do you reconcile this fact that people like this cannot achieve spiritual salvation?

So you are saying people who eat meat can achieve spiritual salvation?


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Jan 11, 2007)

*"IT IS FOOLS WHO WRANGLE OVER FLESH TO FEED THEIR ANIMAL INSTINCTS"*

This out to be the conclusion of this discussions.

Our Gurus never had to contend with this issue so strongly because either the question did not arise or they did not feel it was important enough at that time, for the spread of Sikh Faith. People joined the Sikh Religion from different backgrounds with different eating habits. It would have given a wrong message. I presume if this issue had been emphasized in the times of our Gurus, it would have deterred muslims or other meat eating communities from joining. Today the number of Sikhs in the world would have been far less or this faith would have collapsed like many others before it.

It is futile to keep arguing whether Sikhism allows eating meat or not. If the word “Meat” is not mentioned directly in Guru Granth Sahib then that does not mean that it is permitted.

Let us not split words here/lets us not probe into “Gurus Angs” here to justify our means. It should be concluded here that if your conscience allows you to eat meat then choice is yours and conversely if it does not then don’t. Why drag Guru Granth Sahib ji into this argument. There are other more pressing issue that need attention. If you consider yourself to be a Sikh then pray to the Gurus to give you the guidance. A wise person only needs a hint. How much of this message is received/absorbed by an individual, that is dependent on the mental and spiritual state of that person and his devotion to the Gurus. It is gross “MANMAT” trying to justify the need to satisfy ones “EGO”. 

Only the our Gurus know the true meanings of Gurbani. We can only still interpret it. Just because some individual has learned a few meanings that he keeps emphasising and arguingabout, that does not make him an authority. 

Let the Guru’s be the judges.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 11, 2007)

​

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> "IT IS FOOLS WHO WRANGLE OVER FLESH TO FEED THEIR ANIMAL INSTINCTS"
> This out to be the conclusion of this discussions.




This is your conclusion…..fair enough!!
However,
The only Animal Instinct displayed here is by those who wish to impose their will on others.

​


ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Our Gurus never had to contend with this issue so strongly because either the question did not arise or they did not feel it was important enough at that time, for the spread of Sikh Faith. People joined the Sikh Religion from different backgrounds with different eating habits. It would have given a wrong message. I presume if this issue had been emphasized in the times of our Gurus, it would have deterred muslims or other meat eating communities from joining. Today the number of Sikhs in the world would have been far less or this faith would have collapsed like many others before it.​​​




It was never an issue during the times of the Guru's and is not an issue now. Guru's did not bother about eating habits then, and they shouldn't matter now. The reason why they didn't bother with it was because it has nothing to do with spirituality.

​


ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> It is futile to keep arguing whether Sikhism allows eating meat or not. If the word "Meat" is not mentioned directly in Guru Granth Sahib then that does not mean that it is permitted.​​​



The Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not mention any diet whatsoever, but there are those who presume that Bani is a cheap menu that’s sole purpose is to recommend one diet over another. The work of Surinder Singh posted by you is an example of this. It is unacceptable because it not only dismembers Angs of Bani but mistranslates words.

​


ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Let us not split words here/lets us not probe into "Gurus Angs" here to justify our means.​​​




Ironic since your very essay by Surinder Singh splits shabads in order to promote a vegetarian diet. It makes Bani look like a cheap restaurant menu.

​


ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> It should be concluded here that if your conscience allows you to eat meat then choice is yours and conversely if it does not then don’t.​​​




Agreed. Eating meat or not eating meat is a personal choice, it has nothing to do with Sikhism.

​


ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Why drag Guru Granth Sahib ji into this argument.​​​



Again Ironic because you has done exactly that by posting your essay by Surinder Singh. 

This essay was an attempt by Vegetarian and Meat eating Sikhs to show how Bani is being twisted by quoting single lines rather than whole shabads.


​


ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> There are other more pressing issue that need attention. If you consider yourself to be a Sikh then pray to the Gurus to give you the guidance. A wise person only needs a hint. How much of this message is received/absorbed by an individual, that is dependent on the mental and spiritual state of that person and his devotion to the Gurus. It is gross "MANMAT" trying to justify the need to satisfy ones "EGO".​​​




Again, precisely the point of the essay. Vegetarians and some Meat eaters have been committing Manmat to justify their particular diet by using Bani to back it up. This essay proves that Bani has nothing to do with that.

​


ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Only the our Gurus know the true meanings of Gurbani. We can only still interpret it. Just because some individual has learned a few meanings that he keeps emphasising and arguingabout, that does not make him an authority.
> Let the Guru’s be the judges.​​​




Well the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is our Guru, and our remit as learners or Sikh's in to try and interpret and understand that Bani………….not to twist it because we have a Vegetarian or Meat eating agenda!!​


----------



## sikh78910 (Jan 11, 2007)

> How do you reconcile this fact that people like this cannot achieve spiritual salvation?
> 
> So you are saying people who eat meat can achieve spiritual salvation?


 probably, but it would prob take hundreds of year cos their body aint _cleansed, _so they may aswell be drinkin alcohol aswell.



> In Sikhism does not perscribe a diet............it is left to the individual to make a choice.


 yup and its only the INTELLIGENT individuals who realise that u can literally get no where spiritually if u eat meat! lol, just like i could not when i was eatin it!



> _There are a number of eyewitness accounts from European travellers as to t the eating habits of Sikhs. Although there is no prohibition on Sikhs for eating beef, it is clear that Sikhs as a mark of respect for their Hindu neighbours did not partake in eating beef:_​
> 
> _The Seiks receive Proselytes of almost every Cast, a point in which they differ most materially from the Hindoos. To initiate Mohammedans into their mysteries, they prepare a Dish of Hogs legs, which the Converts are obliged to partake of, previous to admission………………..They are not prohibited the use of Animal food of any kind, excepting Beef, which they are rigidly scrupulous in abstaining from._
> *John Griffiths writes in February 17th 1794*​
> ...


 man for someone whos always on about brahmins n hindus u sure seemn to love the europeans. LIKE I SAID, i dont TRUST or want to hear any "EYEWITNESS" accounts from european. they stoile from our libraries like the hindus, they massacred our sikhs, raped our women and DISRESPECTED sikhi as much as INDIRA GANDHI DID, n she tampered with ALOT of our history so hoW can u TRUST ANYTHING THEY'VE WRITTEN OR APPARENTLY "WITNESSED" when their prime aim when they took over rule was to CRUSH SIKHI????!!!!

im sorry mte but u sound like a MUSLIM to me cos ur trying to stray the people off the path to WAHEGURU using any means or FAKE evidence u can......plz remeber, u have alot to lose in the court of Dharam Raj if ur wrong,m and u definitly are- eating meat affects spirituality, n ur preventing anyone who may believe u from doing effective naam japp and acheiving this oneness. i really hope u know what kind of a crime ur committing by telling pple it doesnt, u have alotttt to lose...i have nothing, except the taste of meat, but im strong enough not to desire it....unlike some.....


----------



## sikh78910 (Jan 11, 2007)

Never forget 1984

and Jallianwala Bagh......


Waheguru ji.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 11, 2007)

> yup and its only the INTELLIGENT individuals who realise that u can literally get no where spiritually if u eat meat! lol, just like i could not when i was eatin it!



if meat is such bad thing for spirituality then guru ji should have clearly prescribed sikhs not to eat meat.guru ji is silent on this issue so it is clear that diet do not affect your spirituality.

i have a question to you if a person who is living in coastal area or in icy region want to be spritual then what should he/she do.there are many parts in this where eating meat is absolutely  neccessity.so does it mean that those people cannot become spiritual.

the reality is it is not meat that is harmful for spirituality.the main culprit is taste and addiction of tasty food which is harmful for spirituality.the taste
arguement is equally applicable on veggie food like halwa ,puri,dal makhani
gulab jamun etc.of course meat is harmful for those who are addicted to it
because of it taste.just like veggies are addicted to tasty vegetarian food.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 11, 2007)

sikh78910 said:


> probably, but it would prob take hundreds of year cos their body aint _cleansed, _so they may aswell be drinkin alcohol aswell.
> 
> yup and its only the INTELLIGENT individuals who realise that u can literally get no where spiritually if u eat meat! lol, just like i could not when i was eatin it!
> 
> man for someone whos always on about brahmins n hindus u sure seemn to love the europeans. LIKE I SAID, i dont TRUST or want to hear any "EYEWITNESS" accounts from european. they stoile from our libraries like the hindus, they massacred our sikhs, raped our women and DISRESPECTED sikhi as much as INDIRA GANDHI DID, n she tampered with ALOT of our history so hoW can u TRUST ANYTHING THEY'VE WRITTEN OR APPARENTLY "WITNESSED" when their prime aim when they took over rule was to CRUSH SIKHI????!!!!


 
Sorry to say this but now you sound like one of the illiterate paidoo's you meet and not a law student. A Law student gather's evidence to counter the oppositions evidence.....not resort to hearsay and inuendo.

Case Dismissed mr Sikh.....get out of court...you are disbarred.



sikh78910 said:


> im sorry mte but u sound like a MUSLIM to me cos ur trying to stray the people off the path to WAHEGURU using any means or FAKE evidence u can......plz remeber, u have alot to lose in the court of Dharam Raj if ur wrong,m and u definitly are- eating meat affects spirituality, n ur preventing anyone who may believe u from doing effective naam japp and acheiving this oneness. i really hope u know what kind of a crime ur committing by telling pple it doesnt, u have alotttt to lose...i have nothing, except the taste of meat, but im strong enough not to desire it....unlike some.....


 
Well well......now I am a Muslim.....you are showing your true colours now. Last refuge of a scoundrel hey? Debate lost so lets attack messenger. Sorry Sikh you fail. Everyone knows me here from Welcome to website about history of the sikhs ...........some know me personally.....however no one knows you? We have had plenty of RSS VHP people come here and other sites....maybe you are one of them?

Also I am a criminal now?......more blackmail and fear mongering.....is this what real "Sikhs" resort to when they lose a debate? Cheapshots and inuendo's. You have a long way to go my friend even before you can be called a Sikh.  

Damm Shame....I thought you may know how to debate...but clearly you do not.


----------



## sikh78910 (Jan 13, 2007)

> Case Dismissed mr Sikh.....get out of court...you are disbarred.



LOLLLL!!! errrrrrrrrrr...............NAH! lol ur a funny guy!  
blackmail, and fear mongering?! kindly point out to me where in my post i tried to blackmail u..lol ....... and if ur scared, thats your own fault, i only told u what uv got to lose if u happen to be wrong about all of this!! lol im sorry if my words had such an effect on you! 

n if u think ur meagre efforts to put people down as a way of making urself look big are gonna work, ur talking to the wrong person! u really seem to have an inferiority complex which needs immediate attention......!

 and when did i EVER call u a criminal! if u were able to interpret in context, u would realise i wrote crime as in *potential *misdeed or an immoral act. u need to take a chill pilllll yaarrr and relax abit! i bleieve in univeral love an harmony stemming from the love of Waheguru, not hate. i have nothing against u but was merely pointing out a few facts and *potential* consequences of ur *potential* miscalculations and *potential* misconceptions and the spreading of these misconceptions!

On top of this, i never called u a Muslim mateee...let me take u back right about nowwwwwwww....





> u sound like a MUSLIM



LOLL. you've literally called sooooooo many poeple on this forum BRAHMINS that ive lost count!! i really think u need a _serious_ reality check.

Ohhhhhh and _by_ the way, (i think ill say it again cos its so funny, haha)...i said u SOUNDDDDD like a muslim!!  hahahahaha. let me just point out what a COMPLETEEE HYPOCRITE u are, and mate i feel very sorry for u if poeple on here know u cos ur making a COMPLETE FOOL out of yourself!! lol 

 now seriously paaaaaaa leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesseeeeee  stop HATING ON THE LAW STUDENT ..and get ur either uneducated or un- legally informed (cos u obviously arent a law student if u hate on them so much!), insecure and hypocritical self some new reading glasses, cos it definitly aint me thats got the reading problem! 


Nice attempt at trying to twist my words mate, ill give u that  i still love u. 

love n light

Sikh.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 13, 2007)

sikh78910 said:


> LOLLLL!!! errrrrrrrrrr...............NAH! lol ur a funny guy!
> blackmail, and fear mongering?! kindly point out to me where in my post i tried to blackmail u..lol ....... and if ur scared, thats your own fault, i only told u what uv got to lose if u happen to be wrong about all of this!! lol im sorry if my words had such an effect on you!


 
In case you missed it....it was also pointed out by Giani Arshi too.....scroll up.

The fact you :

1) Imply that people who eat meat will be punished in some sort of Semitic judgement day is fear mongering.

2) Seem to imply that spirtuality cannot be reached by meat eaters is fear mongering.

Fear always leads to hatred and anger.....a very unstable state for a Sikh to be.

As for being scared young man, I really don't think so. I think your belief system is guided by fear rather than Love and compassion. My is guided by the Sikh never say die, Chardhikalan attitude. You are but one in a billion I meet on the journey for life.

Fear is when you are set upon by 20 skinheads who wish to curt your hair and cut NF into your skin to remind you of the encounter with them. Fear is when 3000 hindu's come to burn you to death and you overcome that fear and fight them (even though you know you will die), like my reltives back in 1984 in Delhi.

So you know nothing about real fear.



sikh78910 said:


> n if u think ur meagre efforts to put people down as a way of making urself look big are gonna work, ur talking to the wrong person! u really seem to have an inferiority complex which needs immediate attention......!


 
People who need to look big are those motivated by ego......they usually are people with self doubt and try to fear monger. I have no doubts in Waheguru and I fear nothing.



sikh78910 said:


> and when did i EVER call u a criminal! if u were able to interpret in context, u would realise i wrote crime as in *potential *misdeed or an immoral act. u need to take a chill pilllll yaarrr and relax abit! i bleieve in univeral love an harmony stemming from the love of Waheguru, not hate. i have nothing against u but was merely pointing out a few facts and *potential* consequences of ur *potential* miscalculations and *potential* misconceptions and the spreading of these misconceptions!


 
Poor Law student....let me refresh you:

_*i really hope u know what kind of a crime ur committing by telling pple it doesnt, u have alotttt to lose...i have nothing, except the taste of meat, but im strong enough not to desire it....unlike some.....*_

Your words....not mine....and more fear mongering.



sikh78910 said:


> On top of this, i never called u a Muslim mateee...let me take u back right about nowwwwwwww....


 
Let me refresh your memory again:

_*im sorry mte but u sound like a MUSLIM to me cos ur trying to stray*_ 

Sounds like you called me a Muslim?



sikh78910 said:


> LOLL. you've literally called sooooooo many poeple on this forum BRAHMINS that ive lost count!! i really think u need a _serious_ reality check.


 
I can prove that the present meat vege nonsense has its origins in Hindu Vaishnavism and Brahminism.........that is what I base this on.



sikh78910 said:


> Ohhhhhh and _by_ the way, (i think ill say it again cos its so funny, haha)...i said u SOUNDDDDD like a muslim!! hahahahaha. let me just point out what a COMPLETEEE HYPOCRITE u are, and mate i feel very sorry for u if poeple on here know u cos ur making a COMPLETE FOOL out of yourself!! lol


 
I don't really care if I look like a fool........if I am a fool then God be praised I am being called a fool by you. I would rather be a fool that have your wisdom.



sikh78910 said:


> now seriously paaaaaaa leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesseeeeee stop HATING ON THE LAW STUDENT ..and get ur either uneducated or un- legally informed (cos u obviously arent a law student if u hate on them so much!), insecure and hypocritical self some new reading glasses, cos it definitly aint me thats got the reading problem!


 
Actually I work with Barrister and Lawyer everday in my career....I act as a legal witness. I am pretty familiar with legal goins on.



sikh78910 said:


> Nice attempt at trying to twist my words mate, ill give u that  i still love u.
> 
> love n light
> 
> Sikh.


 
Word of advice.....think very clearly and concisely about what you are writing. The only person being twisted up here is you with your own words. Know what you mean and be clear that what you have written reflects what it means when you write it.

Best Wishes.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Jan 13, 2007)

*FOOLS WHO WRANGLE OVER FLESH 
*

*Manmat Explanation of the Originator of this Article:*

*Salok mehlaa 1.**
**kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar.**
**koorh bol bol bha-ukanaa chookaa Dharam beechaar.**
**jin jeevandi-aa pat nahee mu-i-aa mandee so-ay.**
**likhi-aa hovai naankaa kartaa karay so ho-ay.**

*
*Shalok, First Mehl:**
**In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; they eat rotting carcasses for food.**
**They bark and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them.**
**Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die.**
**Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass.**

*
*Rotting Carcasse – This is not the meaning of Murdaar.*

*Furthermore a very crucial word has been very cleverly omitted from the interpretation*
*“**khaaj” – *_*meaning favourite*_

*Let us see what Murdaar means:*

Ref: Encyclopedia of Sikh Literature - Mahankosh - Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha
defines Murdaar as follows:

Loth – Shav – Dead body
Svastkar te Soorveerta rehat - ……….and without bravery?
Pran rehet deh - Body without life
Apwitter cheez – Impure item
Dharam anusaar na khane yogya – Not worthy of eating according to Dharmic values
Haraam – Forbidden, Famous 
Vaddi – Money not earned by honest means 

There are many more……………

_*Shalok*_
ਸਲੋਕ ਮ ੧ ॥ ਕਲਿ ਹੋਈ ਕੁਤੇ ਮੁਹੀ ਖਾਜੁ ਹੋਆ ਮੁਰਦਾਰੁ ॥ ਕੂੜੁ ਬੋਲਿ ਬੋਲਿ ਭਉਕਣਾ ਚੂਕਾ ਧਰਮੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥ ਜਿਨ ਜੀਵੰਦਿਆ ਪਤਿ ਨਹੀ ਮੁਇਆ ਮੰਦੀ ਸੋਇ ॥ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਹੋਵੈ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਕਰਤਾ ਕਰੇ ਸੁ ਹੋਇ ॥੧॥ {ਪੰਨਾ 1242}

Meanings of words used:
Kal – Kalyug , Kutay muhee – faces like dogs , Murdaar – Dead bodies, Khaj – favourite Koorh – lies, Chooka – finished, passed away, Patt – respect, Soa – honour, Mandee soa – evil reputation, Likhaa hove – predestined, 

Now let us put this the translations together as per the Shalok

*Shalok, First Mehl:*
*kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar.**

**In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; their favourite food is a dead body*
*(What I  ask you is the favourite food of a dog. Is it Makki di roti and sarson da saag?, Is it another vegetarian dish?  or  Is a by dead body – meaning flesh- meaning MEAT)* 
*Is this not a mis-interpretation of the Verse. Important information left on purpose to mis-lead people to suit your agenda. Disgraceful. This cannot be the work of a sikh.*
*
**They bark repeatedly and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them.**
**Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die.**
**Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass.**

*
Translation in Gurmukhi
Meanings of words used:-  kil—kljugI isRStI, auh lukweI jo r`b qoN ivCuVI hoeI hY (gur AwSy Anuswr auhI smw ‘kiljug’ hY jdoN gurU-prmwqmw ivsr jwey; ijvyN, “iek GVI n imlqy qw kiljugu hoqw”) [ kuqy muhI—ku`qy dy mUMh vwlI, ku`qy vWg ijs ƒ Kwx dw hlk ku`idAw hovy [ murdwru—hrwm, v`FI Awidk hrwm cIz [ kUVu—JUT [ cUkw—mu`k igAw [ piq—ie`zq [ soie—soBw [ mMdI soie—bdnwmI, kusoBw [ iliKAw hovY—m`Qy qy iliKAw lyK hI au~GVdw hY [ Kwju—mn-BwauNdw Kwxw [
Meaning of entire verse:-  r`b qoN iv`CuVI hoeI lukweI ƒ ku`qy vWg Kwx dw hlk ku`idAw rihMdw hY qy v`FI Awidk hrwm cIz ies dw mn-BwauNdw Kwxw ho jWdw hY (ijvyN ku`qy dw mn-BwauNdw Kwxw murdwr hY); (ieh lukweI) sdw JUT boldI hY, (mwno, murdwr KWdy ku`qy vWg) BauNk rhI hY, (ies qrHW ies dy AMdroN) Drm (dI AMs) qy (r`b dy guxW dI) ivcwr mu`k jWdI hY; ijqnw icr Ajyhy lok (jgq ivc) jIauNdy hn iehnW dI (koeI bMdw) ie`zq nhIN (krdw), jdoN mr jWdy hn, (lok iehnW ƒ) BYiVEN Xwd krdy hn [
(pr) hy nwnk! (iehnW dy kIh v`s? ipCly krmW Anuswr) m`Qy auqy iliKAw lyK hI au~GVdw hY (qy aus lyK-Anuswr) jo kuJ krqwr krdw hY auhI huMdw hY [1[
As noted above, there are several meanings of the word Murdaar. The authour of this essay shows a distinct lack of knowledge of Gurbani and keeps trying to justify Murdaar as Meat is all the verses. This person or persons cannot be true Sikhs.

Now lets us examine take the following verses from Bhagat Kabir Page 1374 as used in the essay.

Manmat Explanation:
*kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.*
*hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un.*
*In the above Gurmukhi, there is no mention of meat whatsoever. hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un, means literally, who would cut their own throat to eat food. The person who has tried to translate this has added his/her own spin .What this is actually saying is that to the follower of the Guru or one who has been touched by God a simple dish of Kheechree (lentils and rice), flavoured with salt is enough. To have something more exotic to eat you would not cut your own throat (the western equivalent would be to cut your own nose off to spite your face). In no way is this tukh anything to do with meat eating and the person who has misrepresented and mistranslated it should be held to account for his/her actions. 

*
Before we proceed futher, let us see how our historical reference books interpret these verses:

*FARIDKOT WALA TEKA*
*Fridkot Wala Teeka is classical exegesis of Sri Guru Granth Sahid in “Brij Bhasha” by a team of scholars of Nirmala Sect. It was the first attempt in this field prompted by tRulers of Fridkot State in 19th Century. For all future attempts in this field, it became an ideal prototype. As it was patronized by the Rulers of Fridkot State, it came to be known as “Frdikot Wala Teeka”*
*kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.*
*hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un.*
Sri Kabir ji kehte hain, Hey bhai kicharee ka khanna khoob hai meaning asha hai, jis kichadee mein amrit ke saman loon padda hua hai.
Kion ke (hera) shikar mein jivon ko mar ke maas ke saath roti khane ke karan se pishey apne ko kon katave -  bhav -  jeev ko marne karke phir apna sheesh tis se katvana padta hai
*SRI GURU GRANTH DARPAN – by Professor Sahib Singh*
*kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.*
*hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un.*
Hey Kabir! (Mullan nu beshak aakh de ke kurbani ke bahane mass khan nallon) kichadee kha leni change hai jis vich sirf suaadla loon paya hoya hove. Main te iss gal lye tyaar nahi han ki maas roti khan dhi niyat meri apni hovey par (Kurbani da hoka de de ke kise pashoo nu) jabar karda phiran
From the later text it appears the Kabir ji has directed his remark towards the Mullans (Religious Muslim leaders)  of that time. This is what Kabir ji says in Guru Granth Sahib. This is a universal message for the sikh.
Now let us analyse this verse: 

*kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.*

*Meaning of words-*

*Khoob – plentiful*
*Kheechree - food prepared from lentils and rice*
*Jaa meh -  Jis wich – one that contains - for it is (flavoured)*
*Amrit lon - flavour equivalent of Amrit (refering here to the purity and simplicity) lon i.e. only with simple salt.*
 
*Kabeer, Eat plentiful of  Kheechree  , for it is flavored simply with salt.*

*hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un.*

*Meaning of words-*

*Hayraa – Shikar – hunt ( meaning killing animals – causing death of animals )*
*Roti – Bread – Food for eating*
*Karnay – For the reason of or for the sake of*
*Roti Karney – An activity done for the sake of eating*
*Galaa – Throat*
*Kataavai – to have it slit – to have it cut.*
*Kaun – Who should, Why Should.*
 
*Killing an animal  for the sake of eating it, Why should I have my throat slit in return.*

*Putting it together-*
*Kabir ji Says “I rather eat plentiful of Kheechree  for it is flavoured simply with salt.*
*Killing an animal  for the sake of eating it,  why should I wait to have my  throat slit in return.”*

_*What Kabir ji is telling us in this verse is that when ever you kill an animal ( here although Kabir ji only mention an animal killed in shikaar – the hunted – by what means it does not matter -  you are the cause of  the death of that animal),  time will come in the future where you will have to take turns i.e.  you will have to make the same sacrifice for this animal when it takes human form and you shall take  the animal form. Just as this animal has sacrificed itself for your sake (for the pleasure of your tongue ) you should be prepared for pay back. (This philosophy is widely accepted also in hindu scripturers. When ever hindus carry out sacrifices, they confess  in those verses that  they are accepting full liability that should this animal need our sacrifice in the future, we will be ready to make the sacrifice in retun.*_

*This clearly shows how this individual or this goup of individuals have manipulated the verses for the sole purpose of mis-leading the Sikh Youngsters and justify their eating habits.*

These manmati individuals have toppled the work of our Gurus up side down. There is a very strong relationship between "Diet and Spirituality" if you cannot see it it is your ill-fate. 

It is an insult to the memories of our Guru’s. If this is what Kabir says in Guru Granth Sahib then how can one even contemplate accusing out Guru’s for indulging in the consumption of meat. Are they then also insinuating that our Guru’s have lived double standards?

*It appears that Guru ji’s  following  Shalok is in reality directly towards these perpetrators and supporters of this topic.*

*Shalok mehlaa 1.**
**kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar.**
**koorh bol bol bha-ukanaa chookaa Dharam beechaar.**
**jin jeevandi-aa pat nahee mu-i-aa mandee so-ay.**
**likhi-aa hovai naankaa kartaa karay so ho-ay.**

*

*May our Gurus have mercy on your souls.*


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 14, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> FOOLS WHO WRANGLE OVER FLESH
> 
> 
> _Manmat Explanation of the Originator of this Article:_
> ...


 

*No a dead body is not meat.......it is a dead body. I see a dead body on the road I would not classify it as meat. In the same way I would not classify a blade of grass as bread*.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Is this not a mis-interpretation of the Verse. Important information left on purpose to mis-lead people to suit your agenda. Disgraceful. This cannot be the work of a sikh.


 
It is the work of several Sikhs actually. The work you have posted sounds tlike that of a Pandit! :rofl!!: 



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _They bark repeatedly and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them._
> _Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die._
> _Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass._


 
Yes the Pandits were good at doing this.!  



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Translation in Gurmukhi
> Meanings of words used:- kil—kljugI isRStI, auh lukweI jo r`b qoN ivCuVI hoeI hY (gur AwSy Anuswr auhI smw ‘kiljug’ hY jdoN gurU-prmwqmw ivsr jwey; ijvyN, “iek GVI n imlqy qw kiljugu hoqw”) [ kuqy muhI—ku`qy dy mUMh vwlI, ku`qy vWg ijs ƒ Kwx dw hlk ku`idAw hovy [ murdwru—hrwm, v`FI Awidk hrwm cIz [ kUVu—JUT [ cUkw—mu`k igAw [ piq—ie`zq [ soie—soBw [ mMdI soie—bdnwmI, kusoBw [ iliKAw hovY—m`Qy qy iliKAw lyK hI au~GVdw hY [ Kwju—mn-BwauNdw Kwxw [
> Meaning of entire verse:- r`b qoN iv`CuVI hoeI lukweI ƒ ku`qy vWg Kwx dw hlk ku`idAw rihMdw hY qy v`FI Awidk hrwm cIz ies dw mn-BwauNdw Kwxw ho jWdw hY (ijvyN ku`qy dw mn-BwauNdw Kwxw murdwr hY); (ieh lukweI) sdw JUT boldI hY, (mwno, murdwr KWdy ku`qy vWg) BauNk rhI hY, (ies qrHW ies dy AMdroN) Drm (dI AMs) qy (r`b dy guxW dI) ivcwr mu`k jWdI hY; ijqnw icr Ajyhy lok (jgq ivc) jIauNdy hn iehnW dI (koeI bMdw) ie`zq nhIN (krdw), jdoN mr jWdy hn, (lok iehnW ƒ) BYiVEN Xwd krdy hn [
> (pr) hy nwnk! (iehnW dy kIh v`s? ipCly krmW Anuswr) m`Qy auqy iliKAw lyK hI au~GVdw hY (qy aus lyK-Anuswr) jo kuJ krqwr krdw hY auhI huMdw hY [1[
> As noted above, there are several meanings of the word Murdaar. The authour of this essay shows a distinct lack of knowledge of Gurbani and keeps trying to justify Murdaar as Meat is all the verses. This person or persons cannot be true Sikhs.


 
Below is what the essay says:


5.In this dark age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; They eat rotting dead bodies for food. (SGGS p1242)
Again, let us put this into context: 

_salok mehlaa 1._
_kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar._
_koorh bol bol bha-ukanaa chookaa Dharam beechaar._
_jin jeevandi-aa pat nahee mu-i-aa mandee so-ay._
_likhi-aa hovai naankaa kartaa karay so ho-ay._
_Shalok, First Mehl:_
_In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; they eat rotting carcasses for food._
_They bark and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them._
_Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die._
_Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


At first glance one notices that this paragraph is clearly a metaphor for people who behave like dogs. The dog is a scavenger, hunts in packs, fights within its pack, eats practically anything it can find etc etc. This entire Ang talks about people greed and those that lack honour when they are alive. 
The second point to note is the mistranslation. Murdaar is not the word for meat. Murdaar is a reference to people who are dead. In other words people are acting so much like dogs that when people have died they gather round to get as much as they can. A good analogy would be inheritance, where is some instances people try and contest them or try and grab for themselves as much as they can. In India, it has not been unusual to murder siblings of inheritance disputes. In fact the word Murder in the English language has come from the word Murdaar. 


What you have stated above makes no differnce but clearly demonstrates to us that you are desperate to push forward something that is not there - Murdaar = Dead Bodies and NOT Meat. Maas = Meat. You are twisting Bani = That = pure Manmaat



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Now lets us examine take the following verses from Bhagat Kabir Page 1374 as used in the essay.
> 
> Manmat Explanation:


 
This sort od abusive tone from you must STOP NOW Ekh Musafir. I am going to report you to the moderator.

How DARE YOU ACCUSE me of Manmaat yet again.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon._
> _hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un._
> In the above Gurmukhi, there is no mention of meat whatsoever. _hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un_, means literally, who would cut their own throat to eat food. The person who has tried to translate this has added his/her own spin .What this is actually saying is that to the follower of the Guru or one who has been touched by God a simple dish of Kheechree (lentils and rice), flavoured with salt is enough. To have something more exotic to eat you would not cut your own throat (the western equivalent would be to cut your own nose off to spite your face). In no way is this tukh anything to do with meat eating and the person who has misrepresented and mistranslated it should be held to account for his/her actions.
> 
> ...


 
The above nonsense you have written makes no sense to the explanation. You have disproved nothing.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> This clearly shows how this individual or this goup of individuals have manipulated the verses for the sole purpose of mis-leading the Sikh Youngsters and justify their eating habits.
> 
> These manmati individuals have toppled the work of our Gurus up side down. There is a very strong relationship between "Diet and Spirituality" if you cannot see it it is your ill-fate.


 
You are pushing forward your Hindu Vaishnav virews forward. This has nothing to do with Sikhism.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> It is an insult to the memories of our Guru’s. If this is what Kabir says in Guru Granth Sahib then how can one even contemplate accusing out Guru’s for indulging in the consumption of meat. Are they then also insinuating that our Guru’s have lived double standards?


 
The only insult here is buy people like you who have made Gurbani into a cheap a-la-carte menu. That is what is so insulting.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> It appears that Guru ji’s following Shalok is in reality directly towards these perpetrators and supporters of this topic.
> 
> Shalok mehlaa 1.
> kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar.
> ...


 
Nonsense.....people like you are on the defnsive....you lack any argument so you perpertrate insult and inuedo to make your point. What a shame, this shows the total desperation you suffer from.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Jan 14, 2007)

*Randip Singh ji*

*I am again posting this article back on the board by removing unnecessary person comments in the hope that you will make a **constructive reply. Give me your reasons and Why. Which particular word or sentence do you not agree with in the translation.*

*FOOLS WHO WRANGLE OVER FLESH *

*Shalok, First Mehl:*
*In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; they eat rotting carcasses for food.*
*They bark and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them.*
*Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die.*
*Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass.*


*Rotting Carcasse – This is not the meaning of Murdaar.*

*Furthermore a very crucial word has been omitted from the interpretation.*
*“**khaaj” – *_*meaning favourite*_

*Let us see what Murdaar means:*

Ref: Encyclopedia of Sikh Literature - Mahankosh - Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha
defines Murdaar as follows:

Loth – Shav – Dead body
Svastkar te Soorveerta rehat - ……….and without bravery?
Pran rehet deh - Body without life
Apwitter cheez – Impure item
Dharam anusaar na khane yogya – Not worthy of eating according to Dharmic values
Haraam – Forbidden, Famous 
Vaddi – Money not earned by honest means 

There are many more……………

_*Shalok*_
ਸਲੋਕਮ੧॥ਕਲਿਹੋਈਕੁਤੇਮੁਹੀਖਾਜੁਹੋਆਮੁਰਦਾਰੁ॥ਕੂੜੁਬੋਲਿਬੋਲਿਭਉਕਣਾਚੂਕਾਧਰਮੁਬੀਚਾਰੁ॥ਜਿਨਜੀਵੰਦਿਆਪਤਿਨਹੀਮੁਇਆਮੰਦੀਸੋਇ॥ਲਿਖਿਆਹੋਵੈਨਾਨਕਾਕਰਤਾਕਰੇਸੁਹੋਇ॥੧॥{ਪੰਨਾ 1242}

Meanings of words used:
Kal – Kalyug , Kutay muhee – faces like dogs , Murdaar – Dead bodies, Khaj – favourite Koorh – lies, Chooka – finished, passed away, Patt – respect, Soa – honour, Mandee soa – evil reputation, Likhaa hove – predestined, 

Now let us put this the translations together as per the Shalok

*Shalok, First Mehl:*
*kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar.*

*In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; their favourite food is a dead body*
*(I ask you. What is the favourite food of a dog?. *
*Is it not  by dead body – meaning flesh- meaning MEAT)*

*They bark repeatedly and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them.*
*Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die.*
*Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass.*


Translation in Gurmukhi
Meanings of words used:- kil—kljugI isRStI, auh lukweI jo r`b qoN ivCuVI hoeI hY (gur AwSy Anuswr auhI smw ‘kiljug’ hY jdoN gurU-prmwqmw ivsr jwey; ijvyN, “iek GVI n imlqy qw kiljugu hoqw”) [ kuqy muhI—ku`qy dy mUMh vwlI, ku`qy vWg ijs ƒ Kwx dw hlk ku`idAw hovy [ murdwru—hrwm, v`FI Awidk hrwm cIz [ kUVu—JUT [ cUkw—mu`k igAw [ piq—ie`zq [ soie—soBw [ mMdI soie—bdnwmI, kusoBw [ iliKAw hovY—m`Qy qy iliKAw lyK hI au~GVdw hY [ Kwju—mn-BwauNdw Kwxw [
Meaning of entire verse:- r`b qoN iv`CuVI hoeI lukweI ƒ ku`qy vWg Kwx dw hlk ku`idAw rihMdw hY qy v`FI Awidk hrwm cIz ies dw mn-BwauNdw Kwxw ho jWdw hY (ijvyN ku`qy dw mn-BwauNdw Kwxw murdwr hY); (ieh lukweI) sdw JUT boldI hY, (mwno, murdwr KWdy ku`qy vWg) BauNk rhI hY, (ies qrHW ies dy AMdroN) Drm (dI AMs) qy (r`b dy guxW dI) ivcwr mu`k jWdI hY; ijqnw icr Ajyhy lok (jgq ivc) jIauNdy hn iehnW dI (koeI bMdw) ie`zq nhIN (krdw), jdoN mr jWdy hn, (lok iehnW ƒ) BYiVEN Xwd krdy hn [
(pr) hy nwnk! (iehnW dy kIh v`s? ipCly krmW Anuswr) m`Qy auqy iliKAw lyK hI au~GVdw hY (qy aus lyK-Anuswr) jo kuJ krqwr krdw hY auhI huMdw hY [1[

As noted above, there are several meanings of the word Murdaar. The authour is concentrating on one Word only and taking one meaning only. We ought to look at it in the right context. 



Now lets us examine take the following verses from Bhagat Kabir Page 1374 as used in the essay.

Before we proceed futher, let us see how our historical reference books interpret these verses:

*FARIDKOT WALA TEKA*
*Fridkot Wala Teeka is classical exegesis of Sri Guru Granth Sahid in “Brij Bhasha” by a team of scholars of Nirmala Sect. It was the first attempt in this field prompted by tRulers of Fridkot State in 19th Century. For all future attempts in this field, it became an ideal prototype. As it was patronized by the Rulers of Fridkot State, it came to be known as “Frdikot Wala Teeka”*
*kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.*
*hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un.*
Sri Kabir ji kehte hain, Hey bhai kicharee ka khanna khoob hai meaning asha hai, jis kichadee mein amrit ke saman loon padda hua hai.
Kion ke (hera) shikar mein jivon ko mar ke maas ke saath roti khane ke karan se pishey apne ko kon katave - bhav - jeev ko marne karke phir apna sheesh tis se katvana padta hai
*SRI GURU GRANTH DARPAN – by Professor Sahib Singh*
*kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.*
*hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un.*
Hey Kabir! (Mullan nu beshak aakh de ke kurbani ke bahane mass khan nallon) kichadee kha leni change hai jis vich sirf suaadla loon paya hoya hove. Main te iss gal lye tyaar nahi han ki maas roti khan dhi niyat meri apni hovey par (Kurbani da hoka de de ke kise pashoo nu) jabar karda phiran
From the later text it appears the Kabir ji has directed his remark towards the Mullans (Religious Muslim leaders) of that time. This is what Kabir ji says in Guru Granth Sahib. This is a universal message for the sikh.
Now let us analyse this verse:

*kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.*

*Meaning of words-* 

*Khoob – plentiful*
*Kheechree - food prepared from lentils and rice*
*Jaa meh - Jis wich – one that contains - for it is (flavoured)*
*Amrit lon - flavour equivalent of Amrit (refering here to the purity and simplicity) lon i.e. only with simple salt.*
*Kabeer, Eat plentiful of Kheechree , for it is flavored simply with salt.*

*hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un.*

*Meaning of words-* 

*Hayraa – Shikar – hunt ( meaning killing animals – causing death of animals )*
*Roti – Bread – Food for eating*
*Karnay – For the reason of or for the sake of*
*Roti Karney – An activity done for the sake of eating*
*Galaa – Throat*
*Kataavai – to have it slit – to have it cut.*
*Kaun – Who should, Why Should.*
*Killing an animal for the sake of eating it, Why should I have my throat slit in return.*

*Putting it together-*
*Kabir ji Says “I rather eat plentiful of Kheechree for it is flavoured simply with salt.*
*Killing an animal for the sake of eating it, why should I wait to have my throat slit in return.”*

_*What Kabir ji is telling us in this verse is that when ever you kill an animal ( here although Kabir ji only mentions an animal killed in shikaar – the hunted – by what means it does not matter - you are the cause of the death of that animal), time will come in the future where you will have to take turns i.e. you will have to make the same sacrifice for this animal when it takes human form and you shall take the animal form. Just as this animal has sacrificed itself for your sake (for the pleasure of your tongue ) you should be prepared for pay back. (This philosophy is widely accepted also in hindu scripturers. When ever hindus carry out sacrifices, they confess in those verses that they are accepting full liability that should this animal need our sacrifice in the future, we will be ready to make the sacrifice in retun.*_

_Please present your argument with shabad arth for comartive study so that we can come to a conclusion. _

_Also please tell me what is the source of your translation ?_

_Kind Regards_


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 14, 2007)

ek musafir ji it looks like what you say is gurmat and what other says is manmat
there are many scholars of gurbani on this site not even a single one has blamed this article of propagating manmat
akal takhat rehat maryada which was prepared after decades of research by sikh scholars says that only halaal
is banned.but people like you think that those scholars were wrong
 akal takhat issued hukamnama that amritdhari can eat jhatka meat.but people like don't have any respect for it
guru nanak dev ji wrote a full shabad that there is nothing wrong in meat but people like you just try to ignore
that shabad and search single lines from other shabads to prove that meat eating is wrong.and then you people talk of panthic unity.

if your conclusion that meat eating is objected in above lines is true
then what about the whole shabad that guru nanak dev ji dedicated to this
meat issue

मासु मासु करि मूरखु झगड़े गिआनु धिआनु नही जाणै ॥ 
maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee jaanai. 
The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. 


ਕਉਣੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਕਉਣੁ ਸਾਗੁ ਕਹਾਵੈ ਕਿਸੁ ਮਹਿ ਪਾਪ ਸਮਾਣੇ ॥ 
कउणु मासु कउणु सागु कहावै किसु महि पाप समाणे ॥ 
ka-un maas ka-un saag kahaavai kis meh paap samaanay. 
What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin? 


ਗੈਂਡਾ ਮਾਰਿ ਹੋਮ ਜਗ ਕੀਏ ਦੇਵਤਿਆ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੇ ॥ 
गैंडा मारि होम जग कीए देवतिआ की बाणे ॥ 
gaiNdaa maar hom jag kee-ay dayviti-aa kee baanay. 
It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering. 


ਮਾਸੁ ਛੋਡਿ ਬੈਸਿ ਨਕੁ ਪਕੜਹਿ ਰਾਤੀ ਮਾਣਸ ਖਾਣੇ ॥ 
मासु छोडि बैसि नकु पकड़हि राती माणस खाणे ॥ 
maas chhod bais nak pakrheh raatee maanas khaanay. 
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. 


ਫੜੁ ਕਰਿ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੋ ਦਿਖਲਾਵਹਿ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਨਹੀ ਸੂਝੈ ॥ 
फड़ु करि लोकां नो दिखलावहि गिआनु धिआनु नही सूझै ॥ 
farh kar lokaaN no dikhlaavahi gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee soojhai. 
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. 


ਨਾਨਕ ਅੰਧੇ ਸਿਉ ਕਿਆ ਕਹੀਐ ਕਹੈ ਨ ਕਹਿਆ ਬੂਝੈ ॥ 
नानक अंधे सिउ किआ कहीऐ कहै न कहिआ बूझै ॥ 
naanak anDhay si-o ki-aa kahee-ai kahai na kahi-aa boojhai. 
O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said. 


ਅੰਧਾ ਸੋਇ ਜਿ ਅੰਧੁ ਕਮਾਵੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਰਿਦੈ ਸਿ ਲੋਚਨ ਨਾਹੀ ॥ 
अंधा सोइ जि अंधु कमावै तिसु रिदै सि लोचन नाही ॥ 
anDhaa so-ay je anDh kamaavai tis ridai se lochan naahee. 
They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts. 


ਮਾਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਕੀ ਰਕਤੁ ਨਿਪੰਨੇ ਮਛੀ ਮਾਸੁ ਨ ਖਾਂਹੀ ॥ 
मात पिता की रकतु निपंने मछी मासु न खांही ॥ 
maat pitaa kee rakat nipannay machhee maas na khaaNhee. 
They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat. 

it looks like that you are completely ignoring this shabad.while you are picking quotes from other shabads to prove your point.

so does it mean that in 1 shabad it is written that there is nothing wrong in meat and in other shabad it is written meat eating is wrong. are  there contradictions in guru granth sahib.?


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 15, 2007)

Most of the comments above are constructive....you have not demonstrated one salient point, Ekh Musafir. In fact you seem to confirm the premise of the essay.

*Note to Mod.....where are my missing posts?*


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 15, 2007)

On* Murdaar *page 469

ਮਃ ੧ ॥
मः १ ॥
mehlaa 1.
First Mehl:

ਲਬੁ ਪਾਪੁ ਦੁਇ ਰਾਜਾ ਮਹਤਾ ਕੂੜੁ ਹੋਆ ਸਿਕਦਾਰੁ ॥
लबु पापु दुइ राजा महता कूड़ु होआ सिकदारु ॥
lab paap du-ay raajaa mahtaa koorh ho-aa sikdaar.
Greed and sin are the king and prime minister; falsehood is the treasurer.

ਕਾਮੁ ਨੇਬੁ ਸਦਿ ਪੁਛੀਐ ਬਹਿ ਬਹਿ ਕਰੇ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
कामु नेबु सदि पुछीऐ बहि बहि करे बीचारु ॥
kaam nayb sad puchhee-ai bahi bahi karay beechaar.
Sexual desire, the chief advisor, is summoned and consulted; they all sit together and contemplate their plans.

*ਅੰਧੀ **ਰਯਤਿ **ਗਿਆਨ **ਵਿਹੂਣੀ **ਭਾਹਿ **ਭਰੇ **ਮੁਰਦਾਰੁ **॥*
*अंधी रयति गिआन विहूणी भाहि भरे मुरदारु ॥
anDhee rayat gi-aan vihoonee bhaahi bharay murdaar.
Their subjects are blind, and without wisdom, they try to please the will of the dead.*

ਗਿਆਨੀ ਨਚਹਿ ਵਾਜੇ ਵਾਵਹਿ ਰੂਪ ਕਰਹਿ ਸੀਗਾਰੁ ॥
गिआनी नचहि वाजे वावहि रूप करहि सीगारु ॥
gi-aanee nacheh vaajay vaaveh roop karahi seegaar.
The spiritually wise dance and play their musical instruments, adorning themselves with beautiful decorations.

ਊਚੇ ਕੂਕਹਿ ਵਾਦਾ ਗਾਵਹਿ ਜੋਧਾ ਕਾ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
ऊचे कूकहि वादा गावहि जोधा का वीचारु ॥
oochay kookeh vaadaa gaavahi joDhaa kaa veechaar.
They shout out loud, and sing epic poems and heroic stories.

ਮੂਰਖ ਪੰਡਿਤ ਹਿਕਮਤਿ ਹੁਜਤਿ ਸੰਜੈ ਕਰਹਿ ਪਿਆਰੁ ॥
मूरख पंडित हिकमति हुजति संजै करहि पिआरु ॥
moorakh pandit hikmat hujat sanjai karahi pi-aar.
The fools call themselves spiritual scholars, and by their clever tricks, they love to gather wealth.

ਧਰਮੀ ਧਰਮੁ ਕਰਹਿ ਗਾਵਾਵਹਿ ਮੰਗਹਿ ਮੋਖ ਦੁਆਰੁ ॥
धरमी धरमु करहि गावावहि मंगहि मोख दुआरु ॥
Dharmee Dharam karahi gaavaaveh mangeh mokh du-aar.
The righteous waste their righteousness, by asking for the door of salvation.

ਜਤੀ ਸਦਾਵਹਿ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਨ ਜਾਣਹਿ ਛਡਿ ਬਹਹਿ ਘਰ ਬਾਰੁ ॥
जती सदावहि जुगति न जाणहि छडि बहहि घर बारु ॥
jatee sadaaveh jugat na jaaneh chhad baheh ghar baar.
They call themselves celibate, and abandon their homes, but they do not know the true way of life.

ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਪੂਰਾ ਆਪੇ ਹੋਵੈ ਘਟਿ ਨ ਕੋਈ ਆਖੈ ॥
सभु को पूरा आपे होवै घटि न कोई आखै ॥
sabh ko pooraa aapay hovai ghat na ko-ee aakhai.
Everyone calls himself perfect; none call themselves imperfect.

ਪਤਿ ਪਰਵਾਣਾ ਪਿਛੈ ਪਾਈਐ ਤਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਤੋਲਿਆ ਜਾਪੈ ॥੨॥
पति परवाणा पिछै पाईऐ ता नानक तोलिआ जापै ॥२॥
pat parvaanaa pichhai paa-ee-ai taa naanak toli-aa jaapai. ||2||
If the weight of honor is placed on the scale, then, O Nanak, one sees his true weight. ||2||

Her one can clearly see the word Mudaar is used to refer to the dead. It does not mean meat at all. Like I have stated previosly, it is the differnce between a blade of grass and a loaf of bread. The bread may have come from a form of grass whish is wheat but it is NOT grass. To imply so is wrong and gross misinterpretation of Bani.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 15, 2007)

Words used to describe fleah/meat in Bani:

Page 142, Line 12
ਕਿਆ ਮੇਵਾ ਕਿਆ ਘਿਉ ਗੁੜੁ ਮਿਠਾ ਕਿਆ ਮੈਦਾ ਕਿਆ ਮਾਸੁ ॥
किआ मेवा किआ घिउ गुड़ु मिठा किआ मैदा किआ मासु ॥
ki-aa mayvaa ki-aa ghi-o gurh mithaa ki-aa maidaa ki-aa *maas*.
What good are fruits, what good is ghee, sweet jaggery, what good is flour, and what good is meat?
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  

Page 144, Line 10
ਘਾਹੁ ਖਾਨਿ ਤਿਨਾ ਮਾਸੁ ਖਵਾਲੇ ਏਹਿ ਚਲਾਏ ਰਾਹ ॥
घाहु खानि तिना मासु खवाले एहि चलाए राह ॥
ghaahu khaan tinaa *maas* khavaalay ayhi chalaa-ay raah.
And those animals which eat grass-He could make them eat meat. He could make them follow this way of life.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  

Page 168, Line 6
ਜੈਸੇ ਕਾਤੀ ਤੀਸ ਬਤੀਸ ਹੈ ਵਿਚਿ ਰਾਖੈ ਰਸਨਾ ਮਾਸ ਰਤੁ ਕੇਰੀ ॥
जैसे काती तीस बतीस है विचि राखै रसना मास रतु केरी ॥
jaisay kaatee tees batees hai vich raakhai rasnaa *maas* rat kayree.
Just as the tongue, made of flesh and blood, is protected within the scissors of the thirty-two teeth -
*Guru Ram Das*   -  

Page 168, Line 6
ਕੋਈ ਜਾਣਹੁ ਮਾਸ ਕਾਤੀ ਕੈ ਕਿਛੁ ਹਾਥਿ ਹੈ ਸਭ ਵਸਗਤਿ ਹੈ ਹਰਿ ਕੇਰੀ ॥
कोई जाणहु मास काती कै किछु हाथि है सभ वसगति है हरि केरी ॥
ko-ee jaanhu *maas* kaatee kai kichh haath hai sabh vasgat hai har kayree.
who thinks that the power lies in the flesh or the scissors? Everything is in the Power of the Lord.
*Guru Ram Das*   -  

Page 553, Line 4
ਗੁਣ ਮੰਡੇ ਕਰਿ ਸੀਲੁ ਘਿਉ ਸਰਮੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਆਹਾਰੁ ॥
गुण मंडे करि सीलु घिउ सरमु मासु आहारु ॥
gun manday kar seel ghi-o saram *maas* aahaar.
Make virtue your bread, good conduct the ghee, and modesty the meat to eat.
*Mardana*   -  

Page 553, Line 6
ਗਿਆਨੁ ਗੁੜੁ ਸਾਲਾਹ ਮੰਡੇ ਭਉ ਮਾਸੁ ਆਹਾਰੁ ॥
गिआनु गुड़ु सालाह मंडे भउ मासु आहारु ॥
gi-aan gurh saalaah manday bha-o *maas* aahaar.
So make spiritual wisdom your molasses, the Praise of God your bread, and the Fear of God the meat you eat.
*Mardana*   -  

Page 659, Line 3
ਹਾਡ ਮਾਸ ਨਾੜਂ*ੀ ਕੋ ਪਿੰਜਰੁ ਪੰਖੀ ਬਸੈ ਬਿਚਾਰਾ ॥੧॥
हाड मास नाड़ीं को पिंजरु पंखी बसै बिचारा ॥१॥
haad *maas* naarheeN ko pinjar pankhee basai bichaaraa. ||1||
The framework is made up of bones, flesh and veins; the poor soul-bird dwells within it. ||1||
*Devotee Ravidas*   -  

Page 660, Line 12
ਸਾਸੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਸਭੁ ਜੀਉ ਤੁਮਾਰਾ ਤੂ ਮੈ ਖਰਾ ਪਿਆਰਾ ॥
सासु मासु सभु जीउ तुमारा तू मै खरा पिआरा ॥
saas *maas* sabh jee-o tumaaraa too mai kharaa pi-aaraa.
My breath, my flesh and my soul are all Yours, Lord; You are so very dear to me.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -

Page 898, Line 15
ਦੀਸਤ ਮਾਸੁ ਨ ਖਾਇ ਬਿਲਾਈ ॥
दीसत मासु न खाइ बिलाई ॥
deesat *maas* na khaa-ay bilaa-ee.
The cat sees the meat, but does not eat it,
*Guru Arjan Dev*   - 

Page 1180, Line 10
ਸਿੰਘ ਰੁਚੈ ਸਦ ਭੋਜਨੁ ਮਾਸ ॥
सिंघ रुचै सद भोजनु मास ॥
singh ruchai sad bhojan *maas*.
The tiger always wants to eat meat.
*Guru Arjan Dev*   -  

Page 1216, Line 7
ਊਹੀ ਤੇ ਹਰਿਓ ਊਹਾ ਲੇ ਧਰਿਓ ਜੈਸੇ ਬਾਸਾ ਮਾਸ ਦੇਤ ਝਾਟੁਲੀ ॥
ऊही ते हरिओ ऊहा ले धरिओ जैसे बासा मास देत झाटुली ॥
oohee tay hari-o oohaa lay Dhari-o jaisay baasaa *maas* dayt jhaatulee.
You move things from here to there, like the hawk swooping down on the flesh of its prey.
*Guru Arjan Dev*   -  

etc....point is Bani is specific when it wants to describe meat.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Jan 15, 2007)

KDS 1980,


> मासु मासु करि मूरखु झगड़े गिआनु धिआनु नही जाणै ॥
> maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee jaanai.
> The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom.
> 
> ...


 
KDS1980
I understand the text of this shabad. I will come back to this shabad in due course. Thank you very for its introduction.



> akal takhat rehat maryada which was prepared after decades of research by sikh scholars says that only halaal is banned.but people like you think that those scholars were wrong akal takhat issued hukamnama that amritdhari can eat jhatka meat.but people like don't have any respect for it


 
I accept I have used the word "Manmat" but let us not go astray from the main topic. I have agreed with Randip Singh to refrain from the use of these words. I hope you too will respect that.

"People like you" - Please do not jump to conclusions on my character. You may feel comfortable with a blind fold and follow the mainstream but I do not want to. 

As a sikh, I would like you also to come forth with an open mind and make a fruitful contribution. At the end of the day it may turn out that I am wrong. I will gladly accept that. At least it will not be on my conscience. I can rest in peace. But if I am proven right then............just imagine how many potential souls will be helped.

Short of the Gurus or interference by some devine authority coming down to resolve this matter this issue probably cannot not be resolved. People are set in their ways. My belief is that Sikhism is based on logic. Take any verse in SGGS and you will find a logic behind its existance. So I request you and all other members to join forces and with the blessings of our Gurus we will come to know the righteous path and avoid possible mis-interpretations in the future.

You may have come across many cases where the Courts of the law have come to wrong conclusions and sentenced the individual and after many years it is realised that the decision made at the time was wrong and the case re-opens. We are living in Kalyug under its rules. It is bound to put a blindfold over our eyes. Evil/negative thoughts shall only flourishes under its regime.

I accept your sentiments with regards to Akal Takhat, the final authority in making decisions for the Sikh Panth. Those people up there are still ordinary human beings. There is a lot of politics going on there. A Lot goes on behind the scenes that does not get to the likes of you and me.

My conscience does not accept this line of thought. And yes all those scholars can be wrong. In order to come to a conclusion we have to start somewhere. And yes I start with the assumtion that those scholars are wrong or mistaken. I do not wish to be sheep among the herd. If you can make a useful contribution to this subject then I would very much appreciate your assistance. Otherwise please watch this space.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Jan 15, 2007)

> Originally Posted by *randip singh*
> _*No a dead body is not meat.......it is a dead body. I see a dead body on the road I would not classify it as meat. In the same way I would not classify a blade of grass as bread*._



_Randip ji a dead body is a body without life whether it is lying in the street or a slaughter house. It can belong to human or for that matter to an animal. You may not see meat in it but for a hungry animal it is a source of food - it is flesh - it is meat._

_I am now getting the impression that you are denying the existance of the word meat. Are you ?_

_If it makes you happy to refer to me as a "Pandit" then that is fine. A Pandit is a person with knowledge. I will put my argument forward with a backing and you do the same._

_



The above nonsense you have written makes no sense to the explanation. You have disproved nothing.

Click to expand...

_
_I have given you a constructive response and had requested you to respond in a similar way. The information presented is very legible. I have broken it down as much as possible so evry one can understand it. As an authority on this subject please back your statements like a professional would do. _

_Allow me access to your research data on this topic so that I can satisfy for myself that all the t's have been crossed and i's dotted. _



> _You are pushing forward your Hindu Vaishnav virews forward. This has nothing to do with Sikhism._



_I am not pushing any views forward. I have presented your with my understanding of the translations. I have backed up the translations with references to data from our Sikh Encyclopedias without which your translation would have not have existed. What do you have to hide. Allow me access to your research. Please also do not jump to conclusions. _

_Be mature with your response. Tackle me with factual information which you should have._

_



			Nonsense.....people like you are on the defnsive....you lack any argument so you perpertrate insult and inuedo to make your point. What a shame, this shows the total desperation you suffer from.
		
Click to expand...

_
_It is sad to see such comments coming from a learned person like you. I will not stoop down to your level again. I did that in the past._

_If you do consider your self to be a historian/researcher on sikh philosophy then please behave accordingly and with honour. Present your aguments in a civilised manner._

_"Changa nao rakhie ke jas kirat jag le, Je TIS nazar na aavaee ta vaat na pushe ke" I have gone beyond that many lifes ago. I have the blessing of my gurus with me._

_Just give me a straight forward answer. Yes or No. 
Can you backup your research?
What is the source of your information?
Whose translations are you using and why?
Are the translations your interpretation?_

_If you are or consider yourself a follower of Guru Granth Sahib.Your reply would be "YES" and you will provide me your research information.
If you are an iimposter only set to gain fame by disgracing the memory of our Gurus. Then your answer will be "No".
Answers in between will mean "Malice" then May god have mercy on you._

_Dhan Guru Amar Das ji._


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 15, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Now lets us examine take the following verses from Bhagat Kabir Page 1374 as used in the essay.
> 
> Before we proceed futher, let us see how our historical reference books interpret these verses:
> 
> ...


 
In case people do not know who Nirmala's are:


_The members of the sect are called Nirmala Sikhs or simply Nirmalas. The sect arose during the time of Guru Gobind Singh (1666-1708). Guru wanted his followers not only to train in soldierly arts but also to have interests in letters. He had engaged a number of scholars to translate Sanskrit classics into Punjabi, in order to bring them within the easy reach of people._
_Guru Gobind Singh sent five of his Sikhs, namely Karam Singh, Vir Singh, Ganda Singh, Saina Singh, and Ram Singh, dressed as upper-class students, to Varanasi, the centre of Hindu learning. These Sikhs worked diligently for several years and returned to Anandpur as accomplished scholars of classical Indian theology and philosophy. In view of their piety and their sophisticated manner, they and their students came to be known as Nirmalas, and were later recognised as a separate sect._
_After the evacuation of Anandpur in 1705, the Nirmala preachers went to different places outside Punjab, particularly to Haridvar, Allahabad and Varanasi, where they established centres of learning that exist even today — Kankhal, near Haridwar; Pakki Sangat at Allahabad; and Chetan Math and Chhoti Sangat at Varanasi. When, during the second half of the eighteenth century, the Sikhs established their sway over the Punjab, some of the Nirmala saints came back here and founded centres at different places._
_It was customary for Nirmala scholars to attend, along with their disciples, religious fairs at prominent Hindu pilgrimage centres such as Haridwar, Allahabad and Gaya, where they, like other sadhus, took out shahis or processions and had philosophical debates with scholars of other religious denominations as a part of their preaching activity. During the Haridwar Kumbh in 1855, at a general meeting of the Nirmalas held in their principal dera at Kankhal, the first step was taken towards setting up a central body by electing Mahitab Singh of Rishikesh, reputed scholar of the sect, as their Sri Mahant or principal priest. This tradition is continuing and the present head in Sri Mahant Nam Dev Singh_.

This is one view point. In anycase, where and who made this analysis? Date, time's, author's name? In any case I have read criticism's that Nirmala's but too much of a Hindu bias in their works.

Also, this still does not mean one should not eat meat. It merely means one would not cut one's own throat to eat, which takes us back to the point the essay is making. How sects twist this Shabad to mean something does not.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _*SRI GURU GRANTH DARPAN – by Professor Sahib Singh*_
> _*kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.*_
> _*hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un.*_
> Hey Kabir! (Mullan nu beshak aakh de ke kurbani ke bahane mass khan nallon) kichadee kha leni change hai jis vich sirf suaadla loon paya hoya hove. Main te iss gal lye tyaar nahi han ki maas roti khan dhi niyat meri apni hovey par (Kurbani da hoka de de ke kise pashoo nu) jabar karda phiran
> ...


 

Again this does not mean that one form of dish is prevalent over another. Taking one sentence out of the shabad destroys the meaning of the shabad. The entire shabad reads from the article:


*4. Bhagat Kabir says, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils) where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is willing to have their head cut? (SGGS p1374)*
*Let us add this to the correct context: *


*oraa gar paanee bha-i-aa jaa-ay mili-o dhal kool.*

*kabeeraa Dhoor sakayl kai puree-aa baaNDhee dayh.*
*divas chaar ko paykhnaa ant khayh kee khayh. *
*kabeer sooraj chaaNd kai udai bha-ee sabh dayh. *
*gur gobind kay bin milay palat bha-ee sabh khayh. *
*jah anbha-o tah bhai nahee jah bha-o tah har naahi.*
*kahi-o kabeer bichaar kai sant sunhu man maahi. *
*kabeer jinahu kichhoo jaani-aa nahee tin sukh need bihaa-ay. *
*hamhu jo boojhaa boojhnaa pooree paree balaa-ay. *
*laagee chot maramm kee rahi-o kabeeraa tha-ur. *
*kabeer chot suhaylee sayl kee laagat lay-ay usaas.*
*chot sahaarai sabad kee taas guroo mai daas. *
*kabeer mulaaN munaaray ki-aa chadheh saaN-ee na bahraa ho-ay. *
*jaa kaaran tooN baaNg deh dil hee bheetar jo-ay.*
*saykh sabooree baahraa ki-aa haj kaabay jaa-ay. *
*kabeer jaa kee dil saabat nahee taa ka-o kahaaN khudaa-ay.*
*kabeer alah kee kar bandagee jih simrat dukh jaa-ay. *
*dil meh saaN-ee pargatai bujhai balantee naaN-ay. *
*kabeer joree kee-ay julam hai kahtaa naa-o halaal. *
*daftar laykhaa maaNgee-ai tab ho-igo ka-un havaal. *
*kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon. *
*hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un. *
*kabeer gur laagaa tab jaanee-ai mitai moh tan taap.*
*harakh sog daajhai nahee tab har aapeh aap. *
*kabeer raam kahan meh bhayd hai taa meh ayk bichaar. *
*so-ee raam sabhai kaheh so-ee ka-utakhaar. *
*kabeer raamai raam kaho kahibay maahi bibayk.*
*ayk anaykeh mil ga-i-aa ayk samaanaa ayk. *
*kabeer jaa ghar saaDh na sayvee-ah har kee sayvaa naahi.*
_*tay ghar marhat saarkhay bhoot baseh tin maahi.*_
*kabeer goongaa hoo-aa baavraa bahraa hoo-aa kaan. *
*paavhu tay pingul bha-i-aa maari-aa satgur baan. *
*kabeer satgur soormay baahi-aa baan jo ayk. *
*laagat hee bhu-ay gir pari-aa paraa karayjay chhayk. *
*kabeer nirmal boond akaas kee par ga-ee bhoom bikaar.*​ 
*The hail-stone has melted into water, and flowed into the ocean. *
*Kabeer, the body is a pile of dust, collected and packed together. *
*It is a show which lasts for only a few days, and then dust returns to dust. *
*Kabeer, bodies are like the rising and setting of the sun and the moon. *
*Without meeting the Guru, the Lord of the Universe, they are all reduced to dust again. *
*Where the Fearless Lord is, there is no fear; where there is fear, the Lord is not there. *
*Kabeer speaks after careful consideration; hear this, O Saints, in your minds.*
*Kabeer, those who do not know anything, pass their lives in peaceful sleep. *
*But I have understood the riddle; I am faced with all sorts of troubles. *
*Struck by the Mystery of God, Kabeer remains silent. *
*Kabeer, the stroke of a lance is easy to bear; it takes away the breath. *
*But one who endures the stroke of the Word of the Shabad is the Guru, and I am his slave. *
*Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing. *
*Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers.*
*Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself? *
*Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord? *
*Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart. *
*The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name. *
*Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal. *
*When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?*
*Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt. *
*Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? *
*Kabeer, one is known to have been touched by the Guru, only when his emotional attachment and physical illnesses are eradicated.*
*He is not burned by pleasure or pain, and so he becomes the Lord Himself.*
*Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider. *
*Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord. *
*Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction. *
*One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself. *
*Kabeer, those houses in which neither the Holy nor the Lord are served “ *
*those houses are like cremation grounds; demons dwell within them. *
*Kabeer, I have become mute, insane and deaf. *
*I am crippled - the True Guru has pierced me with His Arrow. *
*Kabeer, the True Guru, the Spiritual Warrior, has shot me with His Arrow. *
*As soon as it struck me, I fell to the ground, with a hole in my heart. *
*Kabeer, the pure drop of water falls from the sky, onto the dirty ground.*​​

*Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji *


*At one level this is a mistranslation and at another misrepresentation of the context within which this is written: *​*kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.*
*Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt. *
*hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un. *
*Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? *
*Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji *

​

*In the above Gurmukhi, there is no mention of meat whatsoever. hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un, means literally, who would cut their own throat to eat food. The person who has tried to translate this has added his/her own spin .What this is actually saying is that to the follower of the Guru or one who has been touched by God a simple dish of Kheechree (lentils and rice), flavoured with salt is enough. To have something more exotic to eat you would not cut your own throat (the western equivalent would be to cut your own nose off to spite your face). In no way is this tukh anything to do with meat eating and the person who has misrepresented and mistranslated it should be held to account for his/her actions. *

*in addition to this the line:*
_*Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing.*_
*Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers.*
*Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself? *
*Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord? *
*Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart. *
*The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name. *
*Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal. *
*When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?*
_*Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal.*_
*When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?*
*Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt. *
*Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread?*

*The mention of Mullahs here and the fact it is directed at Mullahs shows it is not directed at hunters hunting for meat.*

*So what is Bhagat Kabir referring too. Clues to this are easy to find when one analyses the time frame when Kabir ji lived. He lived at the time Timur?Tarmalane invaded India. He sacked Delhi killing 100, 000 innocent Hindu's. He also sacked Benares, his is an extract of his memoirs:*

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742629/posts
Quote:

_Massacre of 100,000 Hindus At this Court Amir Jahan Shah and Amir Sulaiman Shah, and other amirs of experience, brought to my notice that, from the time of entering Hindustan up to the present time, we had taken more than 100,000 infidels and Hindus prisoners, and that they were all in my camp. On the previous day, when the enemy’s forces made the attack upon us, the prisoners made signs of rejoicing, uttered imprecations against us, and were ready, as soon as they heard of the enemy’s success, to form themselves into a body, break their bonds, plunder our tents, and then to go and join the enemy, and so increase his [p. 53] numbers and strength. I asked their advice about the prisoners, and they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty. In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword. When I heard these words I found them in accord with the rules of war, and I directly gave my command for the Tawachis to proclaim throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain.* Maulana Nasiru-d din ‘Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.* _


*Now bare the above in mind when reading the shabad.*

*The Muslim invader and Mullahs, hunted these poor Hindu souls down, to steal their wealth, women and food.*





ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un._
> 
> _Meaning of words-_
> _Hayraa – Shikar – hunt ( meaning killing animals – causing death of animals )_


 
This is not the meaning "* meaning killing animals – causing death of" is spin added by the source.*

*Below are many examples of where hunter is used and no mention of meat.*

Page 143, Line 4

jamraajai nit nit manmukh *hayri-aa*.
The King of the Angels of Death *hunt*s down those self-willed manmukhs, over and over again.
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok

Page 432, Line 14

jam raajay kay *hayroo* aa-ay maa-i-aa kai sangal banDh la-i-aa. ||5||
The *hunt*ers of the King of Death come, and bind him in the chains of Maya. ||5||
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok

Page 1367, Line 6

laakh *ahayree* ayk jee-o kaytaa bancha-o kaal. ||53||
Thousands of *hunt*ers are chasing after the soul; how long can it escape death? ||53||
*Devotee Kabir* - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok

Page 1354, Line 8

marigee paykhant baDhik par-*haarayn* lakh-y aavDhah.
Seeing the deer, the *hunt*er aims his weapons.
*Guru Arjan Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok
This last example specifically mentions hunting an animal by name.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Roti – Bread – Food for eating_
> _Karnay – For the reason of or for the sake of_
> _Roti Karney – An activity done for the sake of eating_
> _Galaa – Throat_
> ...


 
*Sorry, no mention of animal or meat….this is an addition by someone mistranslating.*




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Putting it together-_
> _Kabir ji Says “I rather eat plentiful of Kheechree for it is flavoured simply with salt._
> _Killing an animal for the sake of eating it, why should I wait to have my throat slit in return.”_


 
*Ok apart from one FACT. No animal or mention of meat. There is no mention of "I"……it it a question "Kaun" or "who"………the question being asked is who would cut their throat just to eat?*

*Keeping in mind the Invasion of Timur, one ses a completely different picture emerging.*

*"Hey Mullahs, you do all these fasts and things, yet you commit tyranny…….tell me who would cut your own throat just to hunt for food……..so why are you commiting this tyrrany on others?"*

*or words to that effect….absolutely and nothing to do with meat eating.*




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _What Kabir ji is telling us in this verse is that when ever you kill an animal ( here although Kabir ji only mentions an animal killed in shikaar – the hunted – by what means it does not matter - you are the cause of the death of that animal), time will come in the future where you will have to take turns i.e. you will have to make the same sacrifice for this animal when it takes human form and you shall take the animal form. Just as this animal has sacrificed itself for your sake (for the pleasure of your tongue ) you should be prepared for pay back. (This philosophy is widely accepted also in hindu scripturers. When ever hindus carry out sacrifices, they confess in those verses that they are accepting full liability that should this animal need our sacrifice in the future, we will be ready to make the sacrifice in retun. _


 
*Falls down on several accounts:*

*1) No mention of animals or meat.*

*2) Pleasure of the tongue is a silly argument, that would imply meat food tastes the best. The fact is that in India especially, vegetarian food tastes the best.*

*3) No mention of sacrifice. Sacrifice = Halaal or Bismil according to Bani.*

*4) We are not Hindu's, so reference to Hindu philosophy is irrelevant. No where does Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji say we should use Hinduism as a template for Sikhi.*

*5) Sikhism accepts there is an much life in a plant as there is in an animal or mineral, so the same could be applied to a plant. *


*6) Does not take into account the reference to Mullahs.*

*7) Breaks shabad up into a few lines:*
*Here is another example:*

Page 1379, Line 7
॥२८॥
jinaa khaaDhee choprhee ghanay sehnigay dukh. ||28||
Those who eat *butter*ed bread, will suffer in terrible pain. ||28||
*Sekh Farid* -

Does this mean we avoid bread and butter? Of course not…….but taking one or two lines distorts the shabad. That is what has happened here.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Please present your argument with shabad arth for comartive study so that we can come to a conclusion. _
> 
> _Also please tell me what is the source of your translation ?_
> 
> _Kind Regards_


 
_See references of sources in the essay…….._

_Copies of Bani I think have been taken from www.srigranth.org and also from Pritam Singh Chahil's translation._


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 15, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Randip ji a dead body is a body without life whether it is lying in the street or a slaughter house. It can belong to human or for that matter to an animal. You may not see meat in it but for a hungry animal it is a source of food - it is flesh - it is meat._
> 
> _I am now getting the impression that you are denying the existance of the word meat. Are you ?_
> 
> ...


 
*Point 1* - That is not the reply I sent. That was my sarcastic response to the diatribe you posted before.

*Point 2*- I have posted 3 responses to your points and they have dissapeared I do not know why.

*Point 3* - Stop being such a drama queen. You are probably the nastiest person I have ever encountered on these forum's. The fact you are writing more politely is because I reported you to the moderator.

*Point 4* - Do not ever try and twist my words, if you do then you will be a mischief maker.

*Point 5* - The refrences are in the essay. The fact you cannot read them is not my fault. Everone else seems to read them OK.

*Point 6*- Stop praying for my soul. I do not wish people like you to pray for my soul, God knows what malice and bad intent there is in your mind.

*Point 7* - Reveal your sources. You are talking about other people revealing theirs, then reveal yours. You have reference to so and so said that, but what page, and what books?

*Point 8* - read the essay, make your criticisms, I really don't care. I am not going to waste time on a self righteous person like you.

PS

*Point 9*- I really feel sorry for the fact that you see a dead human being the same as a dead animal. How sad. :shock:


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Jan 15, 2007)

> *Point 1* - That is not the reply I sent. That was my sarcastic response to the diatribe you posted before


 
I had put my weapons down first and requested you to do the same. But you could not help it having a last punch.





> *Point 2*- I have posted 3 responses to your points and they have dissapeared I do not know why.


 
Now what can I say to that.



> *Point 3* - Stop being such a drama queen. You are probably the nastiest person I have ever encountered on these forum's. The fact you are writing more politely is because I reported you to the moderator.


 
I am a polite person. This is the real me. I am a calm and collective person. I respect people for their opinions. Every has an opinion that is based one what they have experienced in life. For them that is the truth. I was also giving my opinion from experience before you caused the chaos. 
Did you really report me uuuummmm!



> *Point 4* - Do not ever try and twist my words, if you do then you will be a mischief maker.


 
"Jabbi baan lagge , tabbhi ros jaggey". Hurts does it not. Incidently my quote was "I am now getting the impression that you are denying the existance of the word meat. Are you ?". There is not twist here. 



> *Point 5* - The refrences are in the essay. The fact you cannot read them is not my fault. Everone else seems to read them OK.


 
This shows your level of patience. How much you of a smaritan you are. You appear to be taking revenge here I feel. The war of the words is still going on with you.



> *Point 6*- Stop praying for my soul. I do not wish people like you to pray for my soul, God knows what malice and bad intent there is in your mind.


 
Only if I could show you the mirror. Consider it your good fortune. Goes to show I have no enmity with you.



> *Point 7* - Reveal your sources. You are talking about other people revealing theirs, then reveal yours. You have reference to so and so said that, but what page, and what books?
> 
> 
> > You being a historian and researcher in this field. I did not unnecessarily wanted to embarass you with petty references. You must be well conversant with them all. On the other hand you have written an Essay. It is our right as readers to enquire where this stuff is coming from. Incidently I did mention the names of the Encycloperdias in my interpretations.
> ...


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 16, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> KDS 1980,
> 
> 
> KDS1980
> ...



ekmusafir ji

first of all i am really sorry to say word people like you.i am too here want constructive debate

from past 1.5 years i have participated in many debates including many on meat issue.i ahve mostly read  all the arguement from veggie camp,and non veg camp.honestly speaking mostly it is vegetarians that are misinterprettting gurbani ,changing history.there are many evidences in sikh history that puratan sikhs ate meat which very strict in following guru's order.
they would have preferred to die rather than disobeying guru's order.there are many evidences that preffered death rather than cutting hair but there is no evidence that puratean sikhs prefered death over not eating meat.even if you look at some of the families which are strictly following sikhi from  generations also eat meat.so it is quite clear that diet was not an issue
in sikhism.on internet i have found this obsession of vegetarianism mainly in sikhs living in western countries

now coming bcak on guru granth sahi.guru granth sahib is written in mystical metaphorical poetry with many examples of that time.it is better to understand the whole meaning of shabad rather than picking single line to to prove our point.
if we all start picking single lines then we will find too many contradictions in sggs.

Shalok, First Mehl:
In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; they eat rotting carcasses for food.
They bark and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them.
Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die.
Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass.

in the above shabad dogs eating rotten carcasses in just an example.obviously whenever an animal eat a carcass
people just don't like it .i think thats why this example is used.nowhere the shabad is dealing with whether someone should 
eat meat or not

similarly the shalok of kabir ji is mainly dealing with issue of hypocracy of mullahs and not whether meat eating is right or wrong

on the other hand if we analyse shabad maas maas kar moorakh jhagrey that shabad is totally dedicated to this issue
so it is quite clear that diet was not an issue in sikhism.if our guru's really wanted to promote vegetarianism they then they 
had clearly added shabads which directly says not to eat meat and shabad maas maas kar moorakkh jhagrey had not been in guru granth sahib.

even if we look at environment then it is clear that human always eat what is available in their environment.the people
living in coastal areas eating seafood from centuries because it is the only thing that is available in their environment
so it too indicate that our guru's were quite practical on this issue.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 16, 2007)

randip singh said:


> In case people do not know who Nirmala's are:
> 
> 
> _The members of the sect are called Nirmala Sikhs or simply Nirmalas. The sect arose during the time of Guru Gobind Singh (1666-1708). Guru wanted his followers not only to train in soldierly arts but also to have interests in letters. He had engaged a number of scholars to translate Sanskrit classics into Punjabi, in order to bring them within the easy reach of people._
> ...




I see one of my posts has appeared....now I wonder where the other is?


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Jan 16, 2007)

_KDS 1980,_

_Sikhi is a vast Ocean. It has the ability and space to absorb people from all walks of life.The teachings of the Gurus should not be just taken as words of a text. It is their soul, their life experiences for the benefits of us mortals so that we can follow it. It shows us a path to salvation. Unless you reach that stage of maturity of thinking you will not fully understand the word of our Gurus. _

_People enter sikhi from all walks of life. The four doors to Shri Hari Mandir Sahib (Our Gurus did not call it The Golden Temple) is a proof of it. It is also a proof of what the amateurs of sikh faith are capable of doing – they have put Gold on it and almost renamed it “The Golden Temple”. They name by which the whole world now knows it. If our Gurus wanted to do that then they themselves would have done it. This is only to highlight the attitudes of a vast majority of the Sikhs._

_Coming back to the topic, Some one has translated this text as follows:_

*Salok mehlaa 1.*
*kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar.*
*koorh bol bol bha-ukanaa chookaa Dharam beechaar.*
*jin jeevandi-aa pat nahee mu-i-aa mandee so-ay.*
*likhi-aa hovai naankaa kartaa karay so ho-ay.*


*Shalok, First Mehl:*
*In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; they eat rotting carcasses for food.*
*They bark and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them.*
*Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die.*
*Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass.*

Our Sikh literature translates Murdaaras follows:.

Ref: Encyclopedia of Sikh Literature - Mahankosh - Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha
defines Murdaar as follows:

Loth – Shav – Dead body
Svastkar te Soorveerta rehat - ……….and without bravery?
Pran rehet deh - Body without life
Apwitter cheez – Impure item
Dharam anusaar na khane yogya – Not worthy of eating according to Dharmic values
Haraam – Forbidden, Famous 
Vaddi – Money not earned by honest means

As you see there are several meanings to this word. The most appropriate in this text is “Dead body”. Now relate the dead body to the dog. How does a dog see this dead body. For the dog it is food and nothing else. By eating it he will satisfy its hunger. Now you can give a name to whatever he is eating. You can say that he is eating intestines, muscles, nerves. The argument is Mr Randip Singh refuses to accept that it is meat.

The meaning of Murdaar being *rotting carcasees*. I have not found any references to it. The following are two of the translatory book that are available on the net. Feel free to research for yourselves. In addition to that the translator has missed out the word Khaaj – meaning favourite from his summation. If we exclude words from translations then we will end up with inappropriate answers. Unless the original translator intended this In the first place.

You can solve a question in two ways:

By starting from the beginning and coming to an answer. Or
Deciding on the answer you want and then massaging the figures to fit the question.
Just as we are ready to pick holes in Gurbani – Our Gurus text( Which we should be ashamed of – due to lack of our understanding -especially when they are not physically present here to answer), I was only trying to do the same to the text of Randip Singh.

Just as I am giving you my explanation he should have done the same.

My translation of the tukh is in line with the Encyclopedias of Sikh Literature. And I checked that afterwards. Please look at them youself.

*FARIDKOT WALA TEKA (Now translated into English but not available on the net)*
*Fridkot Wala Teeka is classical exegesis of Sri Guru Granth Sahid in “Brij Bhasha” by a team of scholars of Nirmala Sect. It was the first attempt in this field prompted by tRulers of Fridkot State in 19th Century. For all future attempts in this field, it became an ideal prototype. As it was patronized by the Rulers of Fridkot State, it came to be known as “Frdikot Wala Teeka”*
*kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.*
*hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un.*

*SRI GURU GRANTH DARPAN – by Professor Sahib Singh*

In the light of Randip Singhs essay, are we now to accept that these volumes is wrong?

Yes the Shalok of Kabir ji is dealing with issue of hypocracy of mullahs. You are absolutely right. But What kabir ji is saying there, Is it untrue and that it has no value in Sikhism and should just treat it as a passing comment. Why did our Gurus include it in SGGS. If it is there then there is message in it for us. This is the feeling and experience of “Kabir ji”. It is his statement.

“Maas maas kar moorakh jhagrey” This shabad is again (In my opinion) being miscommunicated. Let me hypothesize here how this shabad may have come about.

Say for an example, The both of us were arguing over the topic of meat in the congregation at the times of our Guru’s. We had all gathered to listen to Guru ji and we were paying less attention to what Guru ji were telling us and more intresting on our argument. Naturally, this argument would have escalated. In order to diffuse this issue, I would have expected Guru ji to intervene and say those very words. 

Guru ji came here to deliver a message for humanity, give us naam, to show how we can escape from the clutches of Nature in this dark time period of Kalyug.

My grievence with Randip Singh was that I had made a statement that if you are following the path of “Enlightenment – Mukti” then one should refrain from eating meat as it becomes a hurdle in your path. And I also said that it is my personal experience and that our Gurus did not eat meat either.

Each of us are at a different level of spirituality. Some at the beginning and some intermediate and some very advanced. We should not compare everybody with ones own yard stick. Just because you cannot understand it, it does not mean that it is untrue. When one grows spiritually, you will automatically get the answers.

KDS1980. You make your own decisions come to your own conclusions. Develop your own awareness. Do your own research instead of being a sheep among the herd. At first I was fooled and started following the thought of Randip Singh. But I could not swallow his arguments and began to research. This is my conclusion and my opinion.

Now you can make yours.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 16, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> *Randip Singh ji*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ok lets take a look at what the essay says:



> *5.In this dark age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; They eat rotting dead bodies for food. (SGGS p1242)*
> *Again, let us put this into context: *
> _*salok mehlaa 1.*_​_*kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar.*_*
> koorh bol bol bha-ukanaa chookaa Dharam beechaar.
> ...




I don't think anything contentious has been said here. Pritam Singh Chahil's translation I think refers to Muder as Carrion.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> *Rotting Carcasse – This is not the meaning of Murdaar.*




You are incorrect - 


*ਅੰਧੀ **ਰਯਤਿ **ਗਿਆਨ **ਵਿਹੂਣੀ **ਭਾਹਿ **ਭਰੇ **ਮੁਰਦਾਰੁ **॥** 
अंधी रयति गिआन विहूणी भाहि भरे मुरदारु ॥ 
anDhee rayat gi-aan vihoonee bhaahi bharay murdaar. 
Their subjects are blind, and without wisdom, they try to please the will of the dead.* 

again refers to the dead. They may also be refered to as carrion.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> *Furthermore a very crucial word has been omitted from the interpretation.*
> *“**khaaj” – *_*meaning favourite *_




*It makes no difference to the meaning of the ang.*

*In anycase (I may be wrong) I though Khaaj was something uneatable or forbidden?*




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> *Let us see what Murdaar means:*
> 
> Ref: Encyclopedia of Sikh Literature - Mahankosh - Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha
> defines Murdaar as follows:
> ...




*Not at all. If* *people are behaving like dogs as this shabad states then their favourite past time is to eat dead bodies...........just like how some people behave when they want grab the rights of another person.*

*A clear metaphor.*

*In Bani....look how many times the metaphor for dogs is used:*


Page 21, Line 11
ਕੂਕਰ ਕੂੜੁ ਕਮਾਈਐ ਗੁਰ ਨਿੰਦਾ ਪਚੈ ਪਚਾਨੁ ॥
कूकर कूड़ु कमाईऐ गुर निंदा पचै पचानु ॥
kookar koorh kamaa-ee-ai gur nindaa pachai pachaan.
Those who practice falsehood are *dogs*; those who slander the Guru shall burn in their own fire.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 24, Line 13
ਏਕੁ ਸੁਆਨੁ ਦੁਇ ਸੁਆਨੀ ਨਾਲਿ ॥
एकु सुआनु दुइ सुआनी नालि ॥
ayk su-aan du-ay su-aanee naal.
The *dogs* of greed are with me.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 332, Line 11
ਪਿਤਰ ਭੀ ਬਪੁਰੇ ਕਹੁ ਕਿਉ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਕਊਆ ਕੂਕਰ ਖਾਹੀ ॥੧॥
पितर भी बपुरे कहु किउ पावहि कऊआ कूकर खाही ॥१॥
pitar bhee bapuray kaho ki-o paavahi ka-oo-aa kookar khaahee. ||1||
Tell me, how can his poor ancestors receive what the crows and the *dogs* have eaten up? ||1||
*Devotee Kabir*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 350, Line 3
ਕਰਣੀ ਕੁਤਾ ਦਰਿ ਫੁਰਮਾਨੁ ॥
करणी कुता दरि फुरमानु ॥
karnee kutaa dar furmaan.
by their deeds they are *dogs* - this is the Command of the Lord's Court.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 360, Line 14
ਰਤਨ ਵਿਗਾੜਿ ਵਿਗੋਏ ਕੁਤਂ​*ੀ ਮੁਇਆ ਸਾਰ ਨ ਕਾਈ ॥
रतन विगाड़ि विगोए कुतीं मुइआ सार न काई ॥
ratan vigaarh vigo-ay kuteeN mu-i-aa saar na kaa-ee.
This priceless country has been laid waste and defiled by *dogs*, and no one pays any attention to the dead.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 372, Line 15
ਅੰਤਰਿ ਲੋਭੁ ਫਿਰਹਿ ਹਲਕਾਏ ॥
अंतरि लोभु फिरहि हलकाए ॥
antar lobh fireh halkaa-ay.
Within them is greed, and they wander around like mad *dogs*.
*Guru Arjan Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 493, Line 8
ਸੇ ਕੂਕਰ ਸੂਕਰ ਗਰਧਭ ਪਵਹਿ ਗਰਭ ਜੋਨੀ ਦਯਿ ਮਾਰੇ ਮਹਾ ਹਤਿਆਰੇ ॥੩॥
से कूकर सूकर गरधभ पवहि गरभ जोनी दयि मारे महा हतिआरे ॥३॥
say kookar sookar garDhabh paveh garabh jonee da-yi maaray mahaa hati-aaray. ||3||
They are like *dogs*, pigs and jackasses; they are cast into the womb of reincarnation, and the Lord strikes them down as the worst of murderers. ||3||
*Guru Ram Das*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 609, Line 11
ਤੀਨਿ ਸੰਙਿਆ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਹੀ ਕੀਨੀ ਜਲ ਕੂਕਰ ਭਸਮੇਹੀ ॥
तीनि संङिआ करि देही कीनी जल कूकर भसमेही ॥
teen sanyi-aa kar dayhee keenee jal kookar bhasmayhee.
There are three ways in which the body can be consumed - it can be thrown into water, given to the *dogs*, or cremated to ashes.
*Guru Arjan Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 648, Line 12
ਇਕ ਦਝਹਿ ਇਕ ਦਬੀਅਹਿ ਇਕਨਾ ਕੁਤੇ ਖਾਹਿ ॥
इक दझहि इक दबीअहि इकना कुते खाहि ॥
ik dajheh ik dabee-ah iknaa kutay khaahi.
Some are cremated, and some are buried; some are eaten by *dogs*.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 692, Line 14
ਸੂਕਰ ਕੂਕਰ ਜੋਨਿ ਭ੍ਰਮੇ ਤਊ ਲਾਜ ਨ ਆਈ ॥
सूकर कूकर जोनि भ्रमे तऊ लाज न आई ॥
sookar kookar jon bharamay ta-oo laaj na aa-ee.
You have wandered in reincarnation, as pigs and *dogs* - did you feel no shame?
*Devotee Kabir*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 795, Line 7
ਏਤੇ ਕੂਕਰ ਹਉ ਬੇਗਾਨਾ ਭਉਕਾ ਇਸੁ ਤਨ ਤਾਈ ॥
एते कूकर हउ बेगाना भउका इसु तन ताई ॥
aytay kookar ha-o baygaanaa bha-ukaa is tan taa-ee.
Among so many *dogs*, I am an outcast; I bark for my body's belly.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 983, Line 17
ਲੋਭ ਲਹਰਿ ਸਭੁ ਸੁਆਨੁ ਹਲਕੁ ਹੈ ਹਲਕਿਓ ਸਭਹਿ ਬਿਗਾਰੇ ॥
लोभ लहरि सभु सुआनु हलकु है हलकिओ सभहि बिगारे ॥
lobh lahar sabh su-aan halak hai halki-o sabheh bigaaray.
The waves of greed are like mad *dogs* with rabies. Their madness ruins everything.
*Guru Ram Das*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1029, Line 17
ਕੂਕਰ ਸੂਕਰ ਕਹੀਅਹਿ ਕੂੜਿਆਰਾ ॥
कूकर सूकर कहीअहि कूड़िआरा ॥
kookar sookar kahee-ahi koorhi-aaraa.
The false are called pigs and *dogs*.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1124, Line 16
ਸੁਆਨ ਸਤ੍ਰੁ ਅਜਾਤੁ ਸਭ ਤੇ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ੍ਨ ਲਾਵੈ ਹੇਤੁ ॥
सुआन सत्रु अजातु सभ ते क्रिस्न लावै हेतु ॥
su-aan satar ajaat sabh tay krisan laavai hayt.
The killer of *dogs*, the lowest of all, was lovingly embraced by Krishna.
*Devotee Ravidas*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1160, Line 16
ਸੁਆਨ ਸਿਆਲ ਮਾਇਆ ਮਹਿ ਰਾਤਾ ॥
सुआन सिआल माइआ महि राता ॥
su-aan si-aal maa-i-aa meh raataa.
*Dogs* and jackals are imbued with Maya.
*Devotee Kabir*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1242, Line 18
ਕਲਿ ਹੋਈ ਕੁਤੇ ਮੁਹੀ ਖਾਜੁ ਹੋਆ ਮੁਰਦਾਰੁ ॥
कलि होई कुते मुही खाजु होआ मुरदारु ॥
kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar.
In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like *dogs*; they eat rotting carcasses for food.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1288, Line 7
ਰਾਜੇ ਸੀਹ ਮੁਕਦਮ ਕੁਤੇ ॥
राजे सीह मुकदम कुते ॥
raajay seeh mukdam kutay.
The kings are tigers, and their officials are *dogs*;
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1288, Line 8
ਰਤੁ ਪਿਤੁ ਕੁਤਿਹੋ ਚਟਿ ਜਾਹੁ ॥
रतु पितु कुतिहो चटि जाहु ॥
rat pit kutiho chat jaahu.
The *dogs* lick up the blood that is spilled.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1311, Line 17
ਲੋਭ ਲਹਰਿ ਸੁਆਨ ਕੀ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਬਿਖੁ ਮਾਇਆ ਕਰੰਗਿ ਲਗਾਵੈਗੋ ॥੭॥
लोभ लहरि सुआन की संगति बिखु माइआ करंगि लगावैगो ॥७॥
lobh lahar su-aan kee sangat bikh maa-i-aa karang lagaavaigo. ||7||
The waves of greed are like packs of *dogs*. The poison of Maya sticks to the body-skeleton. ||7||
*Guru Ram Das*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1359, Line 8
ਉਦਿਆਨ ਬਸਨੰ ਸੰਸਾਰੰ ਸਨਬੰਧੀ ਸ੍ਵਾਨ ਸਿਆਲ ਖਰਹ ॥
उदिआन बसनं संसारं सनबंधी स्वान सिआल खरह ॥
udi-aan basanaN saNsaaraN sanbanDhee savaan si-aal kharah.
Living in the world, it is like a wild jungle. One's relatives are like *dogs*, jackals and donkeys.
*Guru Arjan Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1413, Line 9
ਮਨਮੁਖ ਬੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਿ ਚਲਾਈਅਹਿ ਨਾ ਮਿਲਹੀ ਵਗਿ ਸਗਿ ॥
मनमुख बंन्हि चलाईअहि ना मिलही वगि सगि ॥
manmukh baneh chalaa-ee-ah naa milhee vag sag.
The self-willed manmukhs are bound and gagged and led away; the *dogs* do not join the herd of cows.
*Guru Amar Das*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> *They bark repeatedly and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them.*
> *Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die.*
> *Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass.*


 
*These lines confirm that Guruji is talking about the deceitful behaviour of people and has nothing to do with meat eating.*





ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> As noted above, there are several meanings of the word Murdaar. The authour is concentrating on one Word only and taking one meaning only. We ought to look at it in the right context.


 
*Point 1* - I edited this essay, some are my contributions. It is the collection of works by several Gursikhs, vegetarian and non-vegetarian. All have elected to stay nameless. Some portions have been borrowed from Sradar Sandeep Singh's The Sikhism Home Page.

*Point 2* - The essay is pointing out that to view this verse merely as a comment on eating behaviour is akin to some sort of Sharia Law. Bani is higher than that.

*Point 3* - It clearly an concisely points out the metaphor behind this shabad because it says "people like" etc.

Sources - Pritam Singh Chahil (Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji). Dr Kulbir Thind

Regards


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 16, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _People enter sikhi from all walks of life. The four doors to Shri Hari Mandir Sahib (Our Gurus did not call it The Golden Temple) is a proof of it. It is also a proof of what the amateurs of sikh faith are capable of doing – they have put Gold on it and almost renamed it “The Golden Temple”. They name by which the whole world now knows it. If our Gurus wanted to do that then they themselves would have done it. This is only to highlight the attitudes of a vast majority of the Sikhs._


 
Well I thought your extensive "research " would have recognised the fact that there was no Gold on Harmandir Sahib during the time of the Guru's.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> My grievence with Randip Singh was that I had made a statement that if you are following the path of “Enlightenment – Mukti” then one should refrain from eating meat as it becomes a hurdle in your path. And I also said that it is my personal experience and that our Gurus did not eat meat either.


 
That is your opinion. Why are you forcing your opinion on everyone else? What we are saying is eating meat and not eating meat has nothing to do with Bani.

How do you know that the Guru's did not eat meat. Show me proof? Were your there? Do you know exactly what they ate? What relevance is that of anyway, the Guru's were of such a heightened spiritual state it would not matter in anycase.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Each of us are at a different level of spirituality. Some at the beginning and some intermediate and some very advanced. We should not compare everybody with ones own yard stick. Just because you cannot understand it, it does not mean that it is untrue. When one grows spiritually, you will automatically get the answers.


 
Precisely….so why again are you claiming to know the mysteries of spirituality?



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> KDS1980. You make your own decisions come to your own conclusions. Develop your own awareness. Do your own research instead of being a sheep among the herd. At first I was fooled and started following the thought of Randip Singh. But I could not swallow his arguments and began to research. This is my conclusion and my opinion.


 
Nobody is asking you to swallow anything and if you read the posts above I have demonstrated clearly how I disagree from your "research".

Please cut out the weasel words, you are doing it again. Describing people who don't follow the Ekh Musafir line are not "fools" or "sheep".

One thing I would agree is do unbiased research, and not one based on a Sant-Mat premise.

Regards.

PS For some unknown reason my replies either keep getting held in a queue or apearing much later......I have reposted:



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> *Randip Singh ji*
> 
> 
> *FOOLS WHO WRANGLE OVER FLESH *
> ...


 
Ok lets take a look at what the essay says:



> *5.In this dark age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; They eat rotting dead bodies for food. (SGGS p1242)*
> *Again, let us put this into context: *
> 
> *salok mehlaa 1.*
> ...


 
I don't think anything contentious has been said here. Pritam Singh Chahil's translation I think refers to Muder as Carrion.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> *Rotting Carcasse – This is not the meaning of Murdaar.*


You are incorrect - 

*ਅੰਧੀ**ਰਯਤਿ**ਗਿਆਨ**ਵਿਹੂਣੀ**ਭਾਹਿ**ਭਰੇ**ਮੁਰਦਾਰੁ**॥*
*अंधी**रयति**गिआन**विहूणी**भाहि**भरे**मुरदारु**॥*
*anDhee rayat gi-aan vihoonee bhaahi bharay murdaar. *
*Their subjects are blind, and without wisdom, they try to please the will of the dead.*

again refers to the dead. They may also be refered to as carrion.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> *Furthermore a very crucial word has been omitted from the interpretation.*
> *“**khaaj” – meaning favourite *


*It makes no difference to the meaning of the ang.*
*In anycase (I may be wrong) I though Khaaj was something uneatable or forbidden?*




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> *Let us see what Murdaar means:*
> 
> Ref: Encyclopedia of Sikh Literature - Mahankosh - Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha
> defines Murdaar as follows:
> ...


*Not at all. If**people are behaving like dogs as this shabad states then their favourite past time is to eat dead bodies...........just like how some people behave when they want grab the rights of another person.*
*A clear metaphor.*
*In Bani....look how many times the metaphor for dogs is used:*

Page 21, Line 11
ਕੂਕਰਕੂੜੁਕਮਾਈਐਗੁਰਨਿੰਦਾਪਚੈਪਚਾਨੁ॥
कूकरकूड़ुकमाईऐगुरनिंदापचैपचानु॥
kookar koorh kamaa-ee-ai gur nindaa pachai pachaan.
Those who practice falsehood are *dogs*; those who slander the Guru shall burn in their own fire.
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 24, Line 13
ਏਕੁਸੁਆਨੁਦੁਇਸੁਆਨੀਨਾਲਿ॥
एकुसुआनुदुइसुआनीनालि॥
ayk su-aan du-ay su-aanee naal.
The *dogs* of greed are with me.
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 332, Line 11
ਪਿਤਰਭੀਬਪੁਰੇਕਹੁਕਿਉਪਾਵਹਿਕਊਆਕੂਕਰਖਾਹੀ॥੧॥
पितरभीबपुरेकहुकिउपावहिकऊआकूकरखाही॥१॥
pitar bhee bapuray kaho ki-o paavahi ka-oo-aa kookar khaahee. ||1||
Tell me, how can his poor ancestors receive what the crows and the *dogs* have eaten up? ||1||
*Devotee Kabir* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 350, Line 3
ਕਰਣੀਕੁਤਾਦਰਿਫੁਰਮਾਨੁ॥
करणीकुतादरिफुरमानु॥
karnee kutaa dar furmaan.
by their deeds they are *dogs* - this is the Command of the Lord's Court.
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 360, Line 14
ਰਤਨਵਿਗਾੜਿਵਿਗੋਏਕੁਤਂ​*ੀਮੁਇਆਸਾਰਨਕਾਈ॥
रतनविगाड़िविगोएकुतींमुइआसारनकाई॥
ratan vigaarh vigo-ay kuteeN mu-i-aa saar na kaa-ee.
This priceless country has been laid waste and defiled by *dogs*, and no one pays any attention to the dead.
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 372, Line 15
ਅੰਤਰਿਲੋਭੁਫਿਰਹਿਹਲਕਾਏ॥
अंतरिलोभुफिरहिहलकाए॥
antar lobh fireh halkaa-ay.
Within them is greed, and they wander around like mad *dogs*.
*Guru Arjan Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 493, Line 8
ਸੇਕੂਕਰਸੂਕਰਗਰਧਭਪਵਹਿਗਰਭਜੋਨੀਦਯਿਮਾਰੇਮਹਾਹਤਿਆਰੇ॥੩॥
सेकूकरसूकरगरधभपवहिगरभजोनीदयिमारेमहाहतिआरे॥३॥
say kookar sookar garDhabh paveh garabh jonee da-yi maaray mahaa hati-aaray. ||3||
They are like *dogs*, pigs and jackasses; they are cast into the womb of reincarnation, and the Lord strikes them down as the worst of murderers. ||3||
*Guru Ram Das* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 609, Line 11
ਤੀਨਿਸੰਙਿਆਕਰਿਦੇਹੀਕੀਨੀਜਲਕੂਕਰਭਸਮੇਹੀ॥
तीनिसंङिआकरिदेहीकीनीजलकूकरभसमेही॥
teen sanyi-aa kar dayhee keenee jal kookar bhasmayhee.
There are three ways in which the body can be consumed - it can be thrown into water, given to the *dogs*, or cremated to ashes.
*Guru Arjan Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 648, Line 12
ਇਕਦਝਹਿਇਕਦਬੀਅਹਿਇਕਨਾਕੁਤੇਖਾਹਿ॥
इकदझहिइकदबीअहिइकनाकुतेखाहि॥
ik dajheh ik dabee-ah iknaa kutay khaahi.
Some are cremated, and some are buried; some are eaten by *dogs*.
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 692, Line 14
ਸੂਕਰਕੂਕਰਜੋਨਿਭ੍ਰਮੇਤਊਲਾਜਨਆਈ॥
सूकरकूकरजोनिभ्रमेतऊलाजनआई॥
sookar kookar jon bharamay ta-oo laaj na aa-ee.
You have wandered in reincarnation, as pigs and *dogs* - did you feel no shame?
*Devotee Kabir* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 795, Line 7
ਏਤੇਕੂਕਰਹਉਬੇਗਾਨਾਭਉਕਾਇਸੁਤਨਤਾਈ॥
एतेकूकरहउबेगानाभउकाइसुतनताई॥
aytay kookar ha-o baygaanaa bha-ukaa is tan taa-ee.
Among so many *dogs*, I am an outcast; I bark for my body's belly.
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 983, Line 17
ਲੋਭਲਹਰਿਸਭੁਸੁਆਨੁਹਲਕੁਹੈਹਲਕਿਓਸਭਹਿਬਿਗਾਰੇ॥
लोभलहरिसभुसुआनुहलकुहैहलकिओसभहिबिगारे॥
lobh lahar sabh su-aan halak hai halki-o sabheh bigaaray.
The waves of greed are like mad *dogs* with rabies. Their madness ruins everything.
*Guru Ram Das* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1029, Line 17
ਕੂਕਰਸੂਕਰਕਹੀਅਹਿਕੂੜਿਆਰਾ॥
कूकरसूकरकहीअहिकूड़िआरा॥
kookar sookar kahee-ahi koorhi-aaraa.
The false are called pigs and *dogs*.
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1124, Line 16
ਸੁਆਨਸਤ੍ਰੁਅਜਾਤੁਸਭਤੇਕ੍ਰਿਸ੍ਨਲਾਵੈਹੇਤੁ॥
सुआनसत्रुअजातुसभतेक्रिस्नलावैहेतु॥
su-aan satar ajaat sabh tay krisan laavai hayt.
The killer of *dogs*, the lowest of all, was lovingly embraced by Krishna.
*Devotee Ravidas* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1160, Line 16
ਸੁਆਨਸਿਆਲਮਾਇਆਮਹਿਰਾਤਾ॥
सुआनसिआलमाइआमहिराता॥
su-aan si-aal maa-i-aa meh raataa.
*Dogs* and jackals are imbued with Maya.
*Devotee Kabir* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1242, Line 18
ਕਲਿਹੋਈਕੁਤੇਮੁਹੀਖਾਜੁਹੋਆਮੁਰਦਾਰੁ॥
कलिहोईकुतेमुहीखाजुहोआमुरदारु॥
kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar.
In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like *dogs*; they eat rotting carcasses for food.
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1288, Line 7
ਰਾਜੇਸੀਹਮੁਕਦਮਕੁਤੇ॥
राजेसीहमुकदमकुते॥
raajay seeh mukdam kutay.
The kings are tigers, and their officials are *dogs*;
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1288, Line 8
ਰਤੁਪਿਤੁਕੁਤਿਹੋਚਟਿਜਾਹੁ॥
रतुपितुकुतिहोचटिजाहु॥
rat pit kutiho chat jaahu.
The *dogs* lick up the blood that is spilled.
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1311, Line 17
ਲੋਭਲਹਰਿਸੁਆਨਕੀਸੰਗਤਿਬਿਖੁਮਾਇਆਕਰੰਗਿਲਗਾਵੈਗੋ॥੭॥
लोभलहरिसुआनकीसंगतिबिखुमाइआकरंगिलगावैगो॥७॥
lobh lahar su-aan kee sangat bikh maa-i-aa karang lagaavaigo. ||7||
The waves of greed are like packs of *dogs*. The poison of Maya sticks to the body-skeleton. ||7||
*Guru Ram Das* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1359, Line 8
ਉਦਿਆਨਬਸਨੰਸੰਸਾਰੰਸਨਬੰਧੀਸ੍ਵਾਨਸਿਆਲਖਰਹ॥
उदिआनबसनंसंसारंसनबंधीस्वानसिआलखरह॥
udi-aan basanaN saNsaaraN sanbanDhee savaan si-aal kharah.
Living in the world, it is like a wild jungle. One's relatives are like *dogs*, jackals and donkeys.
*Guru Arjan Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 1413, Line 9
ਮਨਮੁਖਬੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਿਚਲਾਈਅਹਿਨਾਮਿਲਹੀਵਗਿਸਗਿ॥
मनमुखबंन्हिचलाईअहिनामिलहीवगिसगि॥
manmukh baneh chalaa-ee-ah naa milhee vag sag.
The self-willed manmukhs are bound and gagged and led away; the *dogs* do not join the herd of cows.
*Guru Amar Das* - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> *They bark repeatedly and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them.*
> *Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die.*
> *Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass.*


 
*These lines confirm that Guruji is talking about the deceitful behaviour of people and has nothing to do with meat eating.*





ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> As noted above, there are several meanings of the word Murdaar. The authour is concentrating on one Word only and taking one meaning only. We ought to look at it in the right context.


 
*Point 1* - I edited this essay, some are my contributions. It is the collection of works by several Gursikhs, vegetarian and non-vegetarian. All have elected to stay nameless. Some portions have been borrowed from Sradar Sandeep Singh's The Sikhism Home Page.

*Point 2* - The essay is pointing out that to view this verse merely as a comment on eating behaviour is akin to some sort of Sharia Law. Bani is higher than that.

*Point 3* - It clearly an concisely points out the metaphor behind this shabad because it says "people like" etc.

Sources - Pritam Singh Chahil (Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji). Dr Kulbir Thind



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Now lets us examine take the following verses from Bhagat Kabir Page 1374 as used in the essay.
> 
> Before we proceed futher, let us see how our historical reference books interpret these verses:
> 
> ...




In case people do not know who Nirmala's are:


_The members of the sect are called Nirmala Sikhs or simply Nirmalas. The sect arose during the time of Guru Gobind Singh (1666-1708). Guru wanted his followers not only to train in soldierly arts but also to have interests in letters. He had engaged a number of scholars to translate Sanskrit classics into Punjabi, in order to bring them within the easy reach of people._
_Guru Gobind Singh sent five of his Sikhs, namely Karam Singh, Vir Singh, Ganda Singh, Saina Singh, and Ram Singh, dressed as upper-class students, to Varanasi, the centre of Hindu learning. These Sikhs worked diligently for several years and returned to Anandpur as accomplished scholars of classical Indian theology and philosophy. In view of their piety and their sophisticated manner, they and their students came to be known as Nirmalas, and were later recognised as a separate sect._
_After the evacuation of Anandpur in 1705, the Nirmala preachers went to different places outside Punjab, particularly to Haridvar, Allahabad and Varanasi, where they established centres of learning that exist even today — Kankhal, near Haridwar; Pakki Sangat at Allahabad; and Chetan Math and Chhoti Sangat at Varanasi. When, during the second half of the eighteenth century, the Sikhs established their sway over the Punjab, some of the Nirmala saints came back here and founded centres at different places._
_It was customary for Nirmala scholars to attend, along with their disciples, religious fairs at prominent Hindu pilgrimage centres such as Haridwar, Allahabad and Gaya, where they, like other sadhus, took out shahis or processions and had philosophical debates with scholars of other religious denominations as a part of their preaching activity. During the Haridwar Kumbh in 1855, at a general meeting of the Nirmalas held in their principal dera at Kankhal, the first step was taken towards setting up a central body by electing Mahitab Singh of Rishikesh, reputed scholar of the sect, as their Sri Mahant or principal priest. This tradition is continuing and the present head in Sri Mahant Nam Dev Singh_.

This is one view point. In anycase, where and who made this analysis? Date, time's, author's name? In any case I have read criticism's that Nirmala's but too much of a Hindu bias in their works.

Also, this still does not mean one should not eat meat. It merely means one would not cut one's own throat to eat, which takes us back to the point the essay is making. How sects twist this Shabad to mean something does not.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _*SRI GURU GRANTH DARPAN – by Professor Sahib Singh*_
> _*kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.*_
> _*hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un.*_
> Hey Kabir! (Mullan nu beshak aakh de ke kurbani ke bahane mass khan nallon) kichadee kha leni change hai jis vich sirf suaadla loon paya hoya hove. Main te iss gal lye tyaar nahi han ki maas roti khan dhi niyat meri apni hovey par (Kurbani da hoka de de ke kise pashoo nu) jabar karda phiran
> ...


 

Again this does not mean that one form of dish is prevalent over another. Taking one sentence out of the shabad destroys the meaning of the shabad. The entire shabad reads from the article:



> *4. Bhagat Kabir says, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils) where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is willing to have their head cut? (SGGS p1374)*
> *Let us add this to the correct context: *
> 
> 
> ...




*in addition to this the line:*
_*Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing.*_
*Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers.*
*Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself? *
*Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord? *
*Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart. *
*The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name. *
*Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal. *
*When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?*
_*Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal.*_
*When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?*
*Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt. *
*Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread?*

*The mention of Mullahs here and the fact it is directed at Mullahs shows it is not directed at hunters hunting for meat.*

*So what is Bhagat Kabir referring too. Clues to this are easy to find when one analyses the time frame when Kabir ji lived. He lived at the time Timur?Tarmalane invaded India. He sacked Delhi killing 100, 000 innocent Hindu's. He also sacked Benares, his is an extract of his memoirs:*

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742629/posts
Quote:

_Massacre of 100,000 Hindus At this Court Amir Jahan Shah and Amir Sulaiman Shah, and other amirs of experience, brought to my notice that, from the time of entering Hindustan up to the present time, we had taken more than 100,000 infidels and Hindus prisoners, and that they were all in my camp. On the previous day, when the enemy’s forces made the attack upon us, the prisoners made signs of rejoicing, uttered imprecations against us, and were ready, as soon as they heard of the enemy’s success, to form themselves into a body, break their bonds, plunder our tents, and then to go and join the enemy, and so increase his [p. 53] numbers and strength. I asked their advice about the prisoners, and they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty. In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword. When I heard these words I found them in accord with the rules of war, and I directly gave my command for the Tawachis to proclaim throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain.* Maulana Nasiru-d din ‘Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.* _


*Now bare the above in mind when reading the shabad.*

*The Muslim invader and Mullahs, hunted these poor Hindu souls down, to steal their wealth, women and food.*





ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un._
> 
> _Meaning of words-_
> _Hayraa – Shikar – hunt ( meaning killing animals – causing death of animals )_


 
This is not the meaning "* meaning killing animals – causing death of" is spin added by the source.*

*Below are many examples of where hunter is used and no mention of meat.*

Page 143, Line 4

jamraajai nit nit manmukh *hayri-aa*.
The King of the Angels of Death *hunt*s down those self-willed manmukhs, over and over again.
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok

Page 432, Line 14

jam raajay kay *hayroo* aa-ay maa-i-aa kai sangal banDh la-i-aa. ||5||
The *hunt*ers of the King of Death come, and bind him in the chains of Maya. ||5||
*Guru Nanak Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok

Page 1367, Line 6

laakh *ahayree* ayk jee-o kaytaa bancha-o kaal. ||53||
Thousands of *hunt*ers are chasing after the soul; how long can it escape death? ||53||
*Devotee Kabir* - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok

Page 1354, Line 8

marigee paykhant baDhik par-*haarayn* lakh-y aavDhah.
Seeing the deer, the *hunt*er aims his weapons.
*Guru Arjan Dev* - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok
This last example specifically mentions hunting an animal by name.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Roti – Bread – Food for eating_
> _Karnay – For the reason of or for the sake of_
> _Roti Karney – An activity done for the sake of eating_
> _Galaa – Throat_
> ...


 
*Sorry, no mention of animal or meat….this is an addition by someone mistranslating.*




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Putting it together-_
> _Kabir ji Says “I rather eat plentiful of Kheechree for it is flavoured simply with salt._
> _Killing an animal for the sake of eating it, why should I wait to have my throat slit in return.”_


 
*Ok apart from one FACT. No animal or mention of meat. There is no mention of "I"……it it a question "Kaun" or "who"………the question being asked is who would cut their throat just to eat?*

*Keeping in mind the Invasion of Timur, one ses a completely different picture emerging.*

*"Hey Mullahs, you do all these fasts and things, yet you commit tyranny…….tell me who would cut your own throat just to hunt for food……..so why are you commiting this tyrrany on others?"*

*or words to that effect….absolutely and nothing to do with meat eating.*




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _What Kabir ji is telling us in this verse is that when ever you kill an animal ( here although Kabir ji only mentions an animal killed in shikaar – the hunted – by what means it does not matter - you are the cause of the death of that animal), time will come in the future where you will have to take turns i.e. you will have to make the same sacrifice for this animal when it takes human form and you shall take the animal form. Just as this animal has sacrificed itself for your sake (for the pleasure of your tongue ) you should be prepared for pay back. (This philosophy is widely accepted also in hindu scripturers. When ever hindus carry out sacrifices, they confess in those verses that they are accepting full liability that should this animal need our sacrifice in the future, we will be ready to make the sacrifice in retun. _


 
*Falls down on several accounts:*

*1) No mention of animals or meat.*

*2) Pleasure of the tongue is a silly argument, that would imply meat food tastes the best. The fact is that in India especially, vegetarian food tastes the best.*

*3) No mention of sacrifice. Sacrifice = Halaal or Bismil according to Bani.*

*4) We are not Hindu's, so reference to Hindu philosophy is irrelevant. No where does Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji say we should use Hinduism as a template for Sikhi.*

*5) Sikhism accepts there is an much life in a plant as there is in an animal or mineral, so the same could be applied to a plant. *


*6) Does not take into account the reference to Mullahs.*

*7) Breaks shabad up into a few lines:*
*Here is another example:*

Page 1379, Line 7
॥२८॥
jinaa khaaDhee choprhee ghanay sehnigay dukh. ||28||
Those who eat *butter*ed bread, will suffer in terrible pain. ||28||
*Sekh Farid* -

Does this mean we avoid bread and butter? Of course not…….but taking one or two lines distorts the shabad. That is what has happened here.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Please present your argument with shabad arth for comartive study so that we can come to a conclusion. _
> 
> _Also please tell me what is the source of your translation ?_
> 
> _Kind Regards_


 
_See references of sources in the essay…….._

_Copies of Bani I think have been taken from Pritam Singh Chahil's translation._


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Jan 16, 2007)

This is a reply to the blog of KDS 1980. It is not directed towards you. I do not have anthing more to say to you on this topic. 

I do not need to explain to you or anyone else, the height of my spirituality. I do not want to dwell any further on this topic. We do not see eye to eye on this issue.

So plz let it go to rest.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 16, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> This is a reply to the blog of KDS 1980. It is not directed towards you. I do not have anthing more to say to you on this topic.
> 
> I do not need to explain to you or anyone else, the height of my spirituality. I do not want to dwell any further on this topic. We do not see eye to eye on this issue.
> 
> So plz let it go to rest.


 
You have directly refered to me and made comments to the effect that I am some sort of deciever or liar, am I not entitled to answer? or should I just lie down and take what you stated as gospel?

In anycase, I have answered your "research" above.

Your premise is that to be a Sikh you must be vegetarian, in order to reach hightened spirituality.

My premise is Sikhism does not make comments on diet one way or the other. On a personal level I am convinced spirituality has nothing to do with meat eating or vegetarianism.

If we take your premise then figures such as (let us put the Guru's to one side no one knows what they ate) Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus, Moses did not reach higher levels of spirituality. Simply is not true.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Jan 16, 2007)

You are not prepared to put things to rest.



> Your premise is that to be a Sikh you must be vegetarian, in order to reach hightened spirituality.


This is my experience and yes I am at that level and under the guidance of Guru Amar Das ji. My old friend and Guru. I am suffering with several skin problems because i began to enjoy meat in my last life whilst following spirituality. This is my last life. I have been blessed with the ultimate death. 

I do not expect you to understand. But remember now that you have told. Do not MOCK me. Read Sukhmani Sahib ji to see what can be the consequences of your actions. 

When you or if you ever reach this level you will understand and experience it. I am not going to answer any more questions now. Now that I have exposed my self. Thanks to you. I will not be making any further contributions to this forum. 

Be wise. Trust Gurus Message. Those who dis-believe in the Gurus message faces the curse of birth and re-birth. Do not ever make accusations about Our Gurus. It will be your worst misfortune. Do not mis-interpret Gurbani to satisfy your egos and points of views. It is the fruit of your past karmas that you have been warned.

Good bye to you and this Forum.

"Mera muj mein kuj nahi, jo kush hai so Tera"
Dhan Guru Amaradas ji.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 16, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> You are not prepared to put things to rest.
> 
> 
> This is my experience and yes I am at that level and under the guidance of Guru Amar Das ji. My old friend and Guru. I am suffering with several skin problems because i began to enjoy meat in my last life whilst following spirituality. This is my last life. I have been blessed with the ultimate death.


 
Sorry to hear to have a skin problem.

Maybe you have some sort of allergy to meat, or one of the Amino Acids found in meat.

I still cannot understand what this has to do with spirtuality.

What do you mean by old friend "Guru Amar Das ji"?......you have lost me?

Also what makes you think people on this forum are not at that level?



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> I do not expect you to understand. But remember now that you have told. Do not MOCK me. Read Sukhmani Sahib ji to see what can be the consequences of your actions.


 
I am not mocking you, but you have my sympathies about your condition of your skin....but this does not mean this skin condition is the same for everyone?



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> When you or if you ever reach this level you will understand and experience it. I am not going to answer any more questions now. Now that I have exposed my self. Thanks to you. I will not be making any further contributions to this forum.


 
Don't assume friend that people on this forum are not at a higher spritual level....I have spoken to some of the wisest souls here....Gyani Arshi, KDS, Dr Khalsa, Aman etc etc........the list goes on....each one I have learned from......

Believe it or not I have even learned something from you.........




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Be wise. Trust Gurus Message. Those who dis-believe in the Gurus message faces the curse of birth and re-birth. Do not ever make accusations about Our Gurus. It will be your worst misfortune. Do not mis-interpret Gurbani to satisfy your egos and points of views. It is the fruit of your past karmas that you have been warned.


 
No one is mocking the Guru's, no one is misinterpreting Bani and I think everyone here belives the Guru's message.

So thanks for the warning....and good bye!!:wink:


----------



## kaur-1 (Jan 16, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> You are not prepared to put things to rest.
> 
> 
> This is my experience and yes I am at that level and under the guidance of Guru Amar Das ji. My old friend and Guru. I am suffering with several skin problems because i began to enjoy meat in my last life whilst following spirituality. This is my last life. I have been blessed with the ultimate death.
> ...



Waheguroo Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguroo Ji Ki Fateh

Its a shame that you are thinking of leaving this forum. May I suggest leaving this topic rather then the forum. 


Subject such as this divide communities and I dont think Sir Guru Nanak Dev ji wanted this to happen. As the title state's "*Fools* Who Wrangle Over Flesh". Well then, lets not argue over this issue anymore.


----------



## Lionchild (Jan 17, 2007)

kaur-1 said:


> Waheguroo Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguroo Ji Ki Fateh
> 
> Its a shame that you are thinking of leaving this forum. May I suggest leaving this topic rather then the forum.
> 
> ...


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 17, 2007)

kaur-1 said:


> Waheguroo Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguroo Ji Ki Fateh
> 
> Its a shame that you are thinking of leaving this forum. May I suggest leaving this topic rather then the forum.
> 
> ...


 
I find it ironic...that when this essay was first compiled it may hopefully bridge the gap between those who wrangle over this stupid issue. 

I, however, find myself in the most unenvievable position of acting like a *fool *and wrangling over the issue everytime I am forced to clarify the content of the essay. I am scratching my head thinking how I got into such a position, when the idea behind this was the complete opposite. :8-


----------



## vaapaaraa (Jan 17, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> This is my experience and yes I am at that level and under the guidance of Guru Amar Das ji. My old friend and Guru..... This is my last life. I have been blessed with the ultimate death.
> ......
> 
> Good bye to you and this Forum.
> ...



Unfortunate that you got into useless arguments over this topic, and now leaving the forum... , If you do happen to read this sometime, can you please let us know what you meant by those words in Quote


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 21, 2007)

naam_jap said:


> Unfortunate that you got into useless arguments over this topic, and now leaving the forum... , If you do happen to read this sometime, can you please let us know what you meant by those words in Quote


 
Yes I would like to know too?


----------



## sikh78910 (Jan 21, 2007)

> I accept your sentiments with regards to Akal Takhat, the final authority in making decisions for the Sikh Panth. Those people up there are still ordinary human beings. There is a lot of politics going on there. A Lot goes on behind the scenes that does not get to the likes of you and me.



lol incluiding corruption and indian control, the only reason it is still allowed to stay in being...



> Council     of Khalistan,
> _Washington, DC_
> _ February 4, 2004._ *OPEN     LETTER TO THE KHALSA PANTH*
> *PARLIAMENT DISSOLVED; ELECTIONS COMING *
> ...



if you dont agree with this, google it and you'll find many more articles on this.....


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 22, 2007)

So are we saying that the Akal Takht as an institution should be abandoned?


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jan 23, 2007)

Gurfateh

Murdar is Farsi or Urdu thing and refers to dead body.Nihungs are not allowed to eat it as Muslims and only killed Animal is OK.Eating Murdar may be deemed as Anti Hindu or Anti Muslim thing.So crruopt acts are eqaul to eating dead.

No need to bring meat inside this.There is lower caste Rahiya in Hindu,who was forced to eat dead animals in past by upper castes.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jan 23, 2007)

Gurfateh


randip singh said:


> So are we saying that the Akal Takht as an institution should be abandoned?


It needs to be reformed.


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 8, 2007)

Interestingly, check out the link here:

Talkrohibitions in Sikhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is amazing hot the nuthugger brigade will go to even resort to slanderous remarks, downright lies, inuendo, and baseless accusations to put forward their point of view. There will be only one loser ultimately, and that will be Sikhism. That is why I have always said, that diet in Sikhism is a matter for individual conscience.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 8, 2007)

randip singh said:


> Interestingly, check out the link here:
> 
> Talkrohibitions in Sikhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It is amazing hot the nuthugger brigade will go to even resort to slanderous remarks, downright lies, inuendo, and baseless accusations to put forward their point of view. There will be only one loser ultimately, and that will be Sikhism. That is why I have always said, that diet in Sikhism is a matter for individual conscience.



extremist vegetarian sikhs on internet  are hopeless  case.no amount of
arguement,historical evidence is is going to convince them that diet is non issue in sikhism.when i was a teenager me and my family travelled from bhopal to hyderabad by road.we ate our lunch and dinner in roadside dhaba's
owned by sikhs.majority of them were quite strict in their sikhi.the dhaba's
regularly served non veg food mainly chicken and fish.my dad asked 
one of the dhaba owner what about mutton he replied all the mutton avalable is halaal that's why we don't serve it.despite the fact serving mutton could have boosted their business they were not ready to serve it.i was really
impressed by their sikhi.but these vegetarian internet sikhs in west are now so much brainwashed that they beleive that eating meat is cardinal sin.
if eating meat is cardinal sin in sikhi then majority of sikhs wrongly followed sikhi.


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 8, 2007)

kds1980 said:


> extremist vegetarian sikhs on internet are hopeless case.no amount of
> arguement,historical evidence is is going to convince them that diet is non issue in sikhism.when i was a teenager me and my family travelled from bhopal to hyderabad by road.we ate our lunch and dinner in roadside dhaba's
> owned by sikhs.majority of them were quite strict in their sikhi.the dhaba's
> regularly served non veg food mainly chicken and fish.my dad asked
> ...


 
If you read wikipedia, the only thing that is suffering is Sikhi. Apparently wikipedia only uses verifiable sources, but these fellows seem to be dismissing them.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 20, 2007)

while searching internet i found amarnamah.i was quite shocked too read that
banda bahadur was not submitting to guru gobind singh ji on single issue of vegetarianism that's why guru gobind singh ji ordered to slaughter his goats
so guru gobind singh ji was totaly against fanatic vegetarianism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to The Institute of Sikh Studies-->Publications

  It is clear from what transpired on September 03, 1708, the day of the solar eclipse, that, eventually Banda's objection to submitting to the Guru was on the single point of vegetarianism. The Guru decided to wait no longer. The master psychologist that he was, he forced the issue in such a manner that Banda would have to make the final choice in the matter of accepting him as the Guru. Anticipating what was to come he did not distribute any cattle to the Lombadas on that day.

         The Guru ordered his Sikhs to get ready to visit Banda's place. On reaching there they found him absent. The Guru gave instruction to slaughter Banda's goats, which was immediately complied with. The jungle-folk knew from experience that the meat was meant for them, and came immediately to wait upon the Guru in anticipation.

When the subject of Hindu resentment was brought up, the Guru explained that the outcastes had a right to be fed and comforted, and that there was nothing wrong with the slaughter of goats on the occasion of solar eclipse which was a natural phenomenon.

The obedient Sikhs, when asked by the Guru to kill the goats belonging to Banda,(ll)
Complied and slaughtered all the goats (12).
(On seeing this) tribal people (of the vicinity) rushed like wind, obviously eager to cook the meat (13).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
now i am wondering how many  historical evidences fanatic vegetarian sikhs are going to deny.randip singh ji you should also add this historical proof in the article.


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 21, 2007)

kds1980 said:


> while searching internet i found amarnamah.i was quite shocked too read that
> banda bahadur was not submitting to guru gobind singh ji on single issue of vegetarianism that's why guru gobind singh ji ordered to slaughter his goats
> so guru gobind singh ji was totaly against fanatic vegetarianism.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


 

Great research....thanks.


----------



## kds1980 (Jun 28, 2007)

On the issue of meat professor gyani surjit  singh has written excellent articles and exposed the so called fanatic vegetarianism in sikhism.if someone can read punjabi then he should read those articles.

the following are the links of the article

1)KAUN MAAS KAUN SAAG KHAVEY 01

2)KAUN MAAS KAUN SAAG KHAVEY 02

3)KAUN MAAS KAUN SAAG KHAVEY 03

4)KAUN MAAS KAUN SAAG KHAVEY 04

5)KAUN MAAS KAUN SAAG KHAVEY 05

6)KAUN MAAS KAUN SAAG KHAVEY 06


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 28, 2007)

kids1980

Would it be too much trouble for you to write a synopsis of what Professor ji is saying. This is an interesting subject. For those of us who don't read Punjabi or are not that good at it. People are always curious about the vegetarian way of eating, and there are degrees of fanaticism here as well--  some people even avoid refined sugar because the process can include the use of charcoal made from animal bones. 

I am a vegetarian, and sometimes it is really hard to get something to eat-- for example, a big party or reception. There is salad and bread. So many of us eat before we go out, and then eat the salad when we get to the party. Some of us have taken up Indian cooking so that there is more than a lettuce and tomato sandwich for lunch. And then of course there are friends who urge you to eat shrimp (they wanted to be really nice and spent a lot of $$$ on the shrimp) but you have to say No, and they don't understand. 

There is a lot to this topic.


----------



## kds1980 (Jun 28, 2007)

aad0002 said:


> kids1980
> 
> Would it be too much trouble for you to write a synopsis of what Professor ji is saying. This is an interesting subject. For those of us who don't read Punjabi or are not that good at it. People are always curious about the vegetarian way of eating, and there are degrees of fanaticism here as well--  some people even avoid refined sugar because the process can include the use of charcoal made from animal bones.
> 
> ...



dear aad002 ji

First of all i am not kids

Secondly my punjabi and english are not very good.but i will try.anyway i think that already much information is provided on this subject in the essay above and the entire
23 page debate here.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Jun 29, 2007)

_The Fools have Wrangled again and by the Grace of Guru Amar Das ji, I feel compelled to respond to this Blasphemious Essay._


_The authors of this essay have failed in their attempt to be impartial on the objective set out. These two unknown /unnamed individuals call themselves Sikhs and are self confessed Historians and Commentators on Sikh Affairs. Their background, experience and public standing is unknown other than their mouthing off ability. Their knowledge and experience is questionable as the information put forward is biased, borrowed (Mistranslations of Gurbani floating around on the net by various authors where vital text has been missed out of translations in order to engineer the meanings to their line of thoughts.)_

_This essay is in not objective as being claimed. The authors have played both the Devil and its Advocate. The counter arguments used by vegetarian and meat eating Sikhs is no more than a sleeping policemans statement. These people have had no input in the contents of this essay and thus their comments cannot be taken as valid. _

_“History” that does not back their arguments is deemed incorrect. “Mistranslation” that do not agree with their viewpoint is deemed incorrect. The Essay contains the ill-informed views of these two unknown individuals who have not a iota of the understanding of Bani and Spirituality and is no less than Blasphemy against SGGS and Ghor insult to our Gurus. There is a distinct lack of understanding of Sikhism on the part of the original poster of this concoction for it shows the level of his mindset for promoting this article. Gurbani has been manipulated and mistranslated throughout this essay._

_I would ask the authors of this essay to refer back to their essay and check their Gurbani translations for corrections._
_Consider all other tuk’s previousily avoided from SGGS that would weaken their arguments._
_Consider all Banis (Not selective) and lifestyles of all Bhagats as well as Gurus._
_Consider the title Diet & Spirituality and not concentrate on the single word “Mass” as has been focused on. The present title is inappropriate. _
_However the title does sum up the intelligence of the Authors and supporters of this Essay_

_Maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee jaanai._
_The fools argue over flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom._
_The second half of the “tuk”is Gurus reply to the essay._

_What makes these unknown authors an authority over the livestyles of Sikh Gurus and Bhagats. Why do they hide their names and faces if the believe so strongly about their Essay._
_Dhan Dhan Siri Guru Amar Daas Ji - Teri Upmaan Tohe Ban Aaye_


----------



## drkhalsa (Jun 29, 2007)

I agree that fools wrangle here 

But the thing i fail to see is how you stand different from fools when you selectively respond to meat issue posts bygoing out of the way 

I n short i can see you on the same poidium whether fool or not you decide


Jatinder Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 29, 2007)

drkhalsa

Diet tells a story always about the beliefs and passions of a people, because over time they forget history. It goes so deep that re-telling the facts simply doesn't sink in. This happens in every tradition -- and so we can look into the conversation almost like anthropologists. Once I learned that it was not necessary to be a vegetarian, even then I still could not go back to the old way.

Let me be the first to confess. I am a fool. No question. No debate.


----------



## drkhalsa (Jun 29, 2007)

Dear friend aad0002,

I responded in above post to ek musaafir

I agree with you view about diet although it is something new to me !
you rae really very original and creative thinker and i always appreciates that and it s true there is noneed to go to old ways 

Our friend  			 			 				 					 					ekmusafir_ajnabi  
is very great personality as apeear from his posts but due to my own shortcoming I could not understand why is he interested such a issue which has little relevance .that was the reason I responded and may be I was too Harsh 
So ask for Pardon from ekmusafir_ajnabi  ji
Ae kind enough to forgive m e



Jatinder singh


----------



## kds1980 (Jun 30, 2007)

drkhalsa said:


> I agree that fools wrangle here
> 
> But the thing i fail to see is how you stand different from fools when you selectively respond to meat issue posts bygoing out of the way
> 
> ...



dear jatinder singh ji

From past 5 months no one is debating on meat issue.i just found great articles on this issue by professor surjit singh on sikhmarg.com and  so i posted its link on spn.aad002
ji just ask me to post sypnosis in english of those articles.

As far as ekmusafir ji is concerned he already blamed this article as blasphemous and already had big debate with the poster of the article randip singh.
.And just because of this article he decided to leave this forum.Now he is back again attacking the writers of the article.


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 30, 2007)

kds and drkhalsa

Yes, I read the very first comments in the thread last night. Randip and an un-named friend wrote a very long article in which they found every verse in Guruji that pertained to meat or fish, and the slaughter of animals, etc. Then they demonstrated how by translating the entire poem containing the verse, the meaning of the verse can be understood more precisely because of its surrounding context. It took 5 years to do this systematically according to Randip ji. For example, a prohibition against eating fish turns out be instead a plea to shun the arrogance of the aristocracy. Fish symbolizing the aristocracy of the time. The essay is a scholarly effort. 

However, as several have commented earlier-- the topic of vegetarian diet strikes a cord that is not always cool, calm and collected, because the decision to be a vegetarian comes from the heart not the head. This is not always a bad thing. 

Articles by Sikh scholars are a personal interest for me and kds is going to summarize Professor Surjit's ideas because many of us can't read Punjabi that well. The professor takes a view that vegetarians go overboard. Rehit Maryada doesn't call for it. To conclude, Randip ji isn't an apostate, in case anyone thought he was.

That is where we stand so far. Told you all the topic is a lively one.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 9, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _The Fools have Wrangled again and by the Grace of Guru Amar Das ji, I feel compelled to respond to this Blasphemious Essay. _


 
S: (adj) *blasphemous*, profane, sacrilegious (grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred) _"blasphemous rites of a witches' Sabbath"; "profane utterances against the Church"; "it is sacrilegious to enter with shoes on"_ 
S: (adj) *blasphemous*, blue, profane (characterized by profanity or cursing) _"foul-mouthed and blasphemous"; "blue language"; "profane words"_


Looking at the definition of blasphemy or blasphemous I fail to find what is blasphemous in this essay? Maybe you would care to enlighten us?

Also, please do not use fanatical terminoligy such as "Blasphemous". Such terminoligy is more fitting with organisations such as Al-Qaeeda.

There is nothing Blasphemous about the truth. If the truth huirts you so much then please counter it. You have tried once before to "counter" it, but your arguments were defeated easil





ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _The authors of this essay have failed in their attempt to be impartial on the objective set out. _



How is this? There are more than 20 objective refrences to articles on this issue in the article so how how and what basis do you say the authors have failed?



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _These two unknown /unnamed individuals call themselves Sikhs and are self confessed Historians and Commentators on Sikh Affairs. Their background, experience and public standing is unknown other than their mouthing off ability. _



The refrences they use speak for themselves, so please counteract the refrences. As for personal and derogatory comments such as "mouthing off" that is irrelevant.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Their knowledge and experience is questionable as the information put forward is biased, borrowed (Mistranslations of Gurbani floating around on the net by various authors where vital text has been missed out of translations in order to engineer the meanings to their line of thoughts.) _


 
As far as I can see there are citations and named sources withis the essay, so how is this "biased" or "borrowed"? Please elaborate?




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _This essay is in not objective as being claimed. The authors have played both the Devil and its Advocate. The counter arguments used by vegetarian and meat eating Sikhs is no more than a sleeping policemans statement. These people have had no input in the contents of this essay and thus their comments cannot be taken as valid. _


 
Playing Devil and Advocate shows signs of being balanced surely? The Devil makes and Argumant and the Advocate counters. So you are saying in effect that this essay is balanced?



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _“History” that does not back their arguments is deemed incorrect. “Mistranslation” that do not agree with their viewpoint is deemed incorrect. The Essay contains the ill-informed views of these two unknown individuals who have not a iota of the understanding of Bani and Spirituality and is no less than Blasphemy against SGGS and Ghor insult to our Gurus. There is a distinct lack of understanding of Sikhism on the part of the original poster of this concoction for it shows the level of his mindset for promoting this article. Gurbani has been manipulated and mistranslated throughout this essay._


 
The only insult to Sikhism being made is making the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji into a vegetarian menu for Hindu Vashnavites. 

If you have actual proof that Historcal texts are incorrect in this essay then please counter it. Also please counter mistranslations with facts and not fiction. In fact I pointed out a mistranslation by you earlier this year and you have not counter acted it. Here is the link to the previous debate:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/essays-on-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh-20.html



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _I would ask the authors of this essay to refer back to their essay and check their Gurbani translations for corrections. _


 
As far as I can see the translations are correct.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Consider all other tuk’s previousily avoided from SGGS that would weaken their arguments. _


 
Please post other Tukhs. Those too will be looked at as they have been in this discussion thred.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Consider all Banis (Not selective) and lifestyles of all Bhagats as well as Gurus. _


 
There is only one Bani and that is Gurbani and that has been considered wholly here.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Consider the title Diet & Spirituality and not concentrate on the single word “Mass” as has been focused on. The present title is inappropriate. _
> _However the title does sum up the intelligence of the Authors and supporters of this Essay _


 
Maas is the word in the Punjabi dictionary for meat and flesh There are no other refrences to meat in Gurbani.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee jaanai._
> _The fools argue over flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom._
> _The second half of the “tuk”is Gurus reply to the essay._


 
and the Guru also says:

_ka-un maas ka-un saag kahaavai kis meh paap samaanay. _
_*What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?* _

_gaiNdaa maar hom jag kee-ay dayviti-aa kee baanay. _
_It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering. _

_maas chhod bais nak pakrheh raatee maanas khaanay. _
_*Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.*_

_farh kar lokaaN no dikhlaavahi gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee soojhai. _
_They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom._

I think people who hold their noses should not forget to breath at some point as oxygen depletion to the brain can lead to irrational thinking and even brain damage.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _What makes these unknown authors an authority over the livestyles of Sikh Gurus and Bhagats. Why do they hide their names and faces if the believe so strongly about their Essay._
> _Dhan Dhan Siri Guru Amar Daas Ji - Teri Upmaan Tohe Ban Aaye _


 
The authors have made a considered and fact based opinion on the issue. Rather than taking swipes and cheapshots, should you not try and make a considered counter argument?


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 10, 2007)

kds1980 said:


> As far as ekmusafir ji is concerned he already blamed this article as blasphemous and already had big debate with the poster of the article randip singh.
> .And just because of this article he decided to leave this forum.Now he is back again attacking the writers of the article.


 
Ekhmusafir sems to represent the ugly face of Sikhism and religion in general.The intolerant face that leaves no room for discussion or debate, and labels people as blasphemous. What next? Book burning and burning people at the stake?

It is true Ekh Musafir left this forum after losing the debate on this article. He used refrences that tied himself up. He was also unsure of the meaning of words.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 10, 2007)

For your enjoyment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sikhtoons - Sikh Cartoons with a Message


----------



## kaur-1 (Jul 10, 2007)

aad0002 said:


> For your enjoyment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Sikhtoons - Sikh Cartoons with a Message



Your Sikhtoon selection made me smile. :}{}{}:


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 10, 2007)

Hello, could someone kindly tell me which page veer Randip Singh Ji's article is on (sorry for being seemingly lazy, the number of pages on this thread is intimidating)!

Dhanvaad


----------



## hchohan (Jul 10, 2007)

are all of us fools still arguing about this issue...

all you need to answer this issue is to subdue the five thieves:
kam (desire), krodh (anger), lobh (Greed), moh (Attachment) and ahankar (ego) 

and embrace the five virtues:
Sat (Truth), Santokh (Contentment), *Daya* (Compassion), Nimrata (Humility) and Pyare (Love). 

once you understand that you have your answer to the issue there is no point in continuing this debate.


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 10, 2007)

Shaheediyan said:


> Hello, could someone kindly tell me which page veer Randip Singh Ji's article is on (sorry for being seemingly lazy, the number of pages on this thread is intimidating)!
> 
> Dhanvaad



veer ji it is on page no.1


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 10, 2007)

Doh!

Dhanvaad veer ji.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 10, 2007)

hchohan said:


> are all of us fools still arguing about this issue...
> 
> all you need to answer this issue is to subdue the five thieves:
> kam (desire), krodh (anger), lobh (Greed), moh (Attachment) and ahankar (ego)
> ...


 
Precisely the point of the essay.

Once you have consideration for the above it matters not what diet you take.......vegetarian or meat.


----------



## hchohan (Jul 11, 2007)

randip singh said:


> Precisely the point of the essay.
> 
> Once you have consideration for the above it matters not what diet you take.......vegetarian or meat.


 

erm no,
not quite - but I hope you get there some day paaji


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 11, 2007)

hchohan said:


> erm no,
> not quite - but I hope you get there some day paaji


 
Paaji,

If you mean by "_I hope you get there some day paaji", _you mean I adopt a narrow definition of Bani and adhere to viewpoints of Jatha's, Sant's and Dera's (who are inturn influenced by Vaishnavism) rather than the Universal message of Sikhi (which applies equally to people who live on the plains of Punjab , to the people of Alaska, to the Beduin's in the remote deserts), then I hope I never get it!!! :roll:

I used to share the narrow definition of Sikhi which comprised of certain diets but reading more into Bani one can clearly see, that Bani is not as a-la-carte menu of what to eat and not to but a spiritual guide that deals with much higher issues. If we were to follow such narrow definitions then your average Inuit, or Kalhari hunter would be an eternal sinner, something which is absolute nonsense.

Thanks


----------



## hchohan (Jul 11, 2007)

I really did not want to get drawn back into this {censored} for tat.

The Guru's & SGGS teach against "vaishnavsism" and similar beliefs. i.e. vegetarianism alone is NOT a path to salvation.  
YES, I agree with you 100%, I am not disputing this at all.  Meat eaters or Veggies have no monopoly on that.
I've said it before - Will you ever convince me that for me non-veg is "ideal" Sikhi I should strive for - no way.  Why..?
Well among my many reasons I'll give you three 
The Guru's were veggie - by fact of langar being the Guru's kitchen and before formal langar Guru Nanak Ji's vegetanarism evidenced during his udassi's.
The examples of the Bhagat's (Sadhana Ji, Kabir Ji, Ravi Dass Ji etc)
and my understanding of the Guru's and SGGS Ji teaching regarding Daya and the other 4 virtues etc.

I do however have great respect for you as you have highlighted (and educated me) the simple sillyness of some of the arguements used by "fanatical veggies".  Those who like you say behave more like "vaishnavs" than Sikhs.
anyone else think this thread should be closed..?


Similar to this issue one thing that still surprises me is the number of people who consumed products containing vinegar (principly certain types of processed food like baked beans/ketchup) as they vinegar is obtained from alcohol.
We dont really eat processed food but what are peoples opinion on this..?


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 11, 2007)

dear chohan ji

you are again and again mentioning word daya.may i ask you why the concept of daya vanishes when

1)when we castrate bulls and force them to plough our fields.

2)when we tie cows or buffaloes in tight shed and force them to produce as much milk as they can

3)when we force donkeys or mules to carry load

4)when we use leather

5)when we use pesticides and kill millions of harmful as well as harmless living beings.


here is the report from indian diary industry

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Egypt, for example, the severe mortality rate among buffalo calves is due in part to the sale of buffalo milk, which is in high demand, thus depriving calves of proper nourishment. This also occurs in India, where in the Bombay area alone an estimated 10,000 newborn calves starve to death each year through lack of milk.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i am sorry to say if one is against meat then he should be also against use of milk and milk products.no way a person can justify milk drinking.


----------



## hchohan (Jul 11, 2007)

good point my friend
and we must all do our part to help

if direct action is not possible - then their are orgs that exist to assist (my current preffered option).


although to be honest - i'm currently focusing my attentions on climate change and ways I can reduce my carbon footprint
we must all do our bit wherever we can


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 11, 2007)

Interesting article Randip veer ji, well done for the effort.I have often used the phrase "what are Eskimos supposed to eat, snow... and whar are Australian Aboriginals supposed to eat, sand.....", so it made smile when I read your post relating to Inuits!Although I am a vegetarian (though personal choice and later on, Guru Gobind Singh Jis hukummy in the form of panj pyare), I agree KDS, there is much hypocrisy in the panth esp with regards to the ignorence of world wide milk production, specifically Punjab, where Bulls no longer serve a purpose, have these people ever wondered where all the bull calfs disappear too....  and I don't see any Gurdwara using Organic milk, having seen the monstrous conditions factory production dairy cows live in....Sikhi is a universal and all encompassing faith, and practical.  I refuse to believe an Kalahari Bushman is going to be damned because of their diet.Although I do believe where possible we should simplify our lifestyle, including our diet.  Meat is traditionally classed as a luxury in all communities, as it is harder to come by than fruit or vegatable, hence why Semetic and Indic faiths sacrifice animals on special occassions.  Also, traditionally in many ancient communities, an animal is slaughtered when a guest visits, a sign of hospitality.  In addition, meat usually only makes up a special occassion or once weekly part of many poor commnuities diets in the world i.e. rural China and Middle Eastern tribes, those that are stereotyped to be voracious meat eaters.So simplicity usually consists of the more easily, economically viable, environmentally friendly and widely available grain foods.Looking at it from a scientific perspective, meat demand today is environmentally devastating and unsustainable, because of the change from meat being a luxury to a daily diet for an ever increasing population.Obviously those who are living responsibl in harmony with nature are not to blame, but the more wealthy need to take a more responsible attitude, as continually destroying already diminished rainforests to provide grazing for cattle is not good for the Earths health in many ways.Lastly, a lot of meat production in the west is produced in abattoirs which jointly produce halaal/kosher meat.  The west is indifferent, the semetics fulfill their sharia, everyone is happy.  Ignorent Sikhs break their rehit.Lastly, if we are to follow 10th Masters instructions, then the only way to know your meat isn't kutha, or hasn't been killed in the usual cruel manner in modern meat production, the only way to be sure, as per Nihang tradition, is to perform Jatka.I don't see anyone doing that in the west.Vaheguru


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 11, 2007)

hchohan said:


> I've said it before - Will you ever convince me that for me non-veg is "ideal" Sikhi I should strive for - no way. Why..?


 
No No NO and No again.

Non- Veg is not ideal for Sikhs. Vegetarian is not ideal for Sikhs. It is up to the individual Sikh to make his or her mind up.

I would never ever dream of making you a vegetarian into a meat eater....in the same breath I would never ever dream of making a meat eater into a vegetarian (but I once did....oh how egotistical and foolish and naive I was).




hchohan said:


> Well among my many reasons I'll give you three
> The Guru's were veggie - by fact of langar being the Guru's kitchen and before formal langar Guru Nanak Ji's vegetanarism evidenced during his udassi's.


 
There is eveidence to suggest that the Guru's were not veggie too.....this is a moot point and irrelevant.

Langaar is vegetarian so as to be acceptable to all. There are Gurudwara's such as Gwalior where they kill goats to commemorate the meeting of Guru Gobind Singh ji and Bandha Bahadhur and serve that as langar. You will be surprised how diverse Sikhi is.



hchohan said:


> The examples of the Bhagat's (Sadhana Ji, Kabir Ji, Ravi Dass Ji etc)
> and my understanding of the Guru's and SGGS Ji teaching regarding Daya and the other 4 virtues etc.


 
Interestingly Sadhana never gave up being a butcher yet was considered a Saint. Bhaghat Kabir was a Muslim weavers son and so was aware of muslim animal sacrifice.......Ravi Dass's profession was to kill animals and make leather.........

...as for Daya....if you are saying vegetarianism is a measure of Daya then tell me where was Adolf Hitler's Daya for the Jews? or the so called Animal Rights people who dig up human remains of loved ones in order to stop animal experiments?  All these people are vegetarians?

...what about Daya for plants....living breathing reproducing yet we kill them for gratification of our own tastebuds.......According to Bani being a plant is only one incarnation away from being a human being:

*On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written: *
_In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;_
*in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;
*_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._
_*Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life.*_

So should we not have Daya for the plant? Poor thing cannot run away? Cannot express its distress? 



hchohan said:


> I do however have great respect for you as you have highlighted (and educated me) the simple sillyness of some of the arguements used by "fanatical veggies". Those who like you say behave more like "vaishnavs" than Sikhs.
> anyone else think this thread should be closed..?


 
I see a trend developing amongst Sikh's.

We shun meat eaaters....then we shun people who don't cook in a certain way....then we shun people who eat plants grown in the eath (because they are in contact with earth)......etc etc....this is already happening with Sikhs and it troubles me.



hchohan said:


> Similar to this issue one thing that still surprises me is the number of people who consumed products containing vinegar (principly certain types of processed food like baked beans/ketchup) as they vinegar is obtained from alcohol.
> We dont really eat processed food but what are peoples opinion on this..?


 
Eat unprocessed food......beggie or meat eater go Organic...buy from farms...grow your own......etc.

Alcohol is the biggest problem of our time........I have no problem of alcoholo being used medicinally......even in cooking (as it can kill bacteria)..........but boozing is a no no........


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 11, 2007)

Shaheediyan said:


> Interesting article Randip veer ji, well done for the effort.I have often used the phrase "what are Eskimos supposed to eat, snow... and whar are Australian Aboriginals supposed to eat, sand.....", so it made smile when I read your post relating to Inuits!Although I am a vegetarian (though personal choice and later on, Guru Gobind Singh Jis hukummy in the form of panj pyare), I agree KDS, there is much hypocrisy in the panth esp with regards to the ignorence of world wide milk production, specifically Punjab, where Bulls no longer serve a purpose, have these people ever wondered where all the bull calfs disappear too.... and I don't see any Gurdwara using Organic milk, having seen the monstrous conditions factory production dairy cows live in....Sikhi is a universal and all encompassing faith, and practical. I refuse to believe an Kalahari Bushman is going to be damned because of their diet.Although I do believe where possible we should simplify our lifestyle, including our diet. Meat is traditionally classed as a luxury in all communities, as it is harder to come by than fruit or vegatable, hence why Semetic and Indic faiths sacrifice animals on special occassions. Also, traditionally in many ancient communities, an animal is slaughtered when a guest visits, a sign of hospitality. In addition, meat usually only makes up a special occassion or once weekly part of many poor commnuities diets in the world i.e. rural China and Middle Eastern tribes, those that are stereotyped to be voracious meat eaters.So simplicity usually consists of the more easily, economically viable, environmentally friendly and widely available grain foods.Looking at it from a scientific perspective, meat demand today is environmentally devastating and unsustainable, because of the change from meat being a luxury to a daily diet for an ever increasing population.Obviously those who are living responsibl in harmony with nature are not to blame, but the more wealthy need to take a more responsible attitude, as continually destroying already diminished rainforests to provide grazing for cattle is not good for the Earths health in many ways.Lastly, a lot of meat production in the west is produced in abattoirs which jointly produce halaal/kosher meat. The west is indifferent, the semetics fulfill their sharia, everyone is happy. Ignorent Sikhs break their rehit.Lastly, if we are to follow 10th Masters instructions, then the only way to know your meat isn't kutha, or hasn't been killed in the usual cruel manner in modern meat production, the only way to be sure, as per Nihang tradition, is to perform Jatka.I don't see anyone doing that in the west.Vaheguru


 
Go Organic if you buy veggies. Go organic if you buy meat.

Let you own conscience decide what is acceptable.

I don't think meat is a luxury in many cultures I have visited......infact beans, barley, wheat are seen as a luxury.

As for devistation....well the Egyptians farmed wheat in the fertile plains of Egypt some 2000 years ago.........it is desert apart from actually around the Nile Delta.

Whatever we do....we have to do it responsibly.


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 12, 2007)

shaheediyan wrote


> Meat is traditionally classed as a luxury in all communities, as it is harder to come by than fruit or vegatable, hence why Semetic and Indic faiths sacrifice animals on special occassions. Also, traditionally in many ancient communities, an animal is slaughtered when a guest visits, a sign of hospitality. In addition, meat usually only makes up a special occassion or once weekly part of many poor commnuities diets in the world i.e. rural China and Middle Eastern tribes, those that are stereotyped to be voracious meat eaters.



veer ji all meat is not the same some type of meat is considered as luxury while other is considered as ordinary food.if you visit coastal areas you will find majority of poor people
are non vegetarians because in those areas fish and other type of sea food is cheaper than vegetables.in india muslims are among the poorest people but still they are considered as voracious meat eaters because they every eat type of meat like buffaloe except pork.on the hand among hindu's dalit eat   pork which is also quite cheap.among the upper caste hindu's milk and milk products are considered as luxury along with mutton and chicken.




> Looking at it from a scientific perspective, meat demand today is environmentally devastating and unsustainable, because of the change from meat being a luxury to a daily diet for an ever increasing population.Obviously those who are living responsibl in harmony with nature are not to blame, but the more wealthy need to take a more responsible attitude, as continually destroying already diminished rainforests to provide grazing for cattle is not good for the Earths health in many ways.



Again this arguement is also applicable on milk and milk products.Just take a look at india
Majority of indians don't consume cow or buffaloe meat but due to demand of milk and milk products diary industry is growing so is the population of cows and buffaloes.the people who consume the meat of cows and buffaloes are doing a big favour on the environment of india by consuming useless cows and buffaloes.

Btw environmental issue is not only concerned with meat it is concerned with whole luxirious lifestyle of rich people.Using abandonce of electricity,using big cars which are less efficent,using plenty of water are disastrous etc.If someone is concerned environment then he has to adopt very simple lifestyle which is very difficuilt.


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 12, 2007)

Randip Singh Ji,

I am not talking about modern cultures where meat is avaiable for pennies, I am talking about societies before the onset of factory farming, as close as 40 years ago, things were a lot different.

By luxury, I am insinuating that meat was not part of the daily diet.  You can do some research to check this, prior to factory/mass farming, growing an animal was resource and time intensive, the animal had a value, unlike today.

Meat was therefore eaten consideratly i.e. once a week, this was true in most cultures.  Today is a different story, greed and demand are strife.

Kudos to KDS, the fishing commnities were an exception.

"the people who consume the meat of cows and buffaloes are doing a big favour on the environment of india by consuming useless cows and buffaloes."

However, that is a very poor justification arguement, the demand for meat eaters is not satisfied through consuming "useless" animals, rainforests, eco-systems etc are destroyed to satisfy the ever growing "daily" demand for meat.  The cattle population is only so stupidly huge because of mans monstrous greed.

I have no problem with people eating meat, but it should be done with consideration to our environment.

Andone point that wasn't address, and never is by Sikh meat eaters... where is the guarantee that meat isn't halaal or been killed in monstrous conditions, and what happened to Jatka???

There is no point mentioning cars etc, although true, this discussion is about meat.  In any case, you could use public transport like I do, switch to a green energy supplier, buy an electric car, or convert your diesel to bio-fuel and use vegetable oil for fuel, which competely reduces carbon emission.


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 12, 2007)

Sorry forgot to say, as per my veer Randip Singh, whatever you eat, eat organic - veg without 1000 dangerous chemicals and animals which have lived an humane life and been fed on natural food (not steroids and other animals).

Sikhs.... don't forget to buy a live organic animal though, so you can ensure 10th Masters Jatka tradition is observed...


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 12, 2007)

> However, that is a very poor justification arguement, the demand for meat eaters is not satisfied through consuming "useless" animals, rainforests, eco-systems etc are destroyed to satisfy the ever growing "daily" demand for meat. The cattle population is only so stupidly huge because of mans monstrous greed.



the reason i called those animals useless because in india cows,buffaloes, are not bred for meat.they are mainly bred for milk.so milk is equally destructive for environment.majority of vegetarians do shift their demand of tasty food to milk products.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 12, 2007)

Shaheediyan said:


> Randip Singh Ji,
> 
> I am not talking about modern cultures where meat is avaiable for pennies, I am talking about societies before the onset of factory farming, as close as 40 years ago, things were a lot different.
> 
> ...


 
I think it has to do with demographics and climate etc. Let me give you an example. The plains Native Americans Pawnee, Sioux etc had a staple diet of Bison. There culture depended on this. In order to wipe their culture out the white man slaughtered the Bison in their hundreds and thousands. (The herds of Bison numbered over 30 to 60 million  Attractions in Denver Mountains, Colorado - Buffalo Herd).

The Maori's New Zealand had a staple diet of the Jungle Hog.

Interestingly in "Sicques Tigers or Theives" talks of Sikhs in times of peace hunting the Jungle Hog and being fond of it.

If we want to talk about decimation of the planet, I would argue that one of the greenest cultures that has ever graced the planet has been the Native Americans, who were hunter gathers............the least green being the Egyptians who used factory farming methods to grow wheat and decimate the land (much like the dust bowls in the 1920's America).

It is true that meat is available in vast quantities but do not let us forget other luxury foods such as sugar, milk, cheese, butter also can be banded in this category. Also fruit like Banana's, Oranges etc are all luxury foods.


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 12, 2007)

Few quick points...

Wild Boar was introduced to New Zealand by the Europeans, so hardly a traditional Maori diet.

Native Indians, you will find that their were many tribes, all who lived in diverse environments and had diverse diets, depending on their locality.

Bison were not 365 days a year food, they are migratory animals.  Corn, fish, birds, lizards, herbs, berries, many types of indigineous vegetables also feature on the natives diets.

In any case, I am not talking about native tribes, they lived in complete harmony with their environment and consumed resources wisely, as proved by your note re the decimation of the Bison herds by the west, who now continue to decimate and encourage other to, what remains of the Earths health.

Your point re non-meat decimation is valid to.  I went to Borneo 4 years ago, the last largest tract of virgin rain forest in the world, and the Chinese are destrying it illegally for logging and palm oil plantations.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 12, 2007)

Veeren

The conversation has taken a different twist. It seems that the ethical issue associated with eating meat has shifted from "suffering" to the "health of the planet." We may still be talking about Sikhism, but we should explain why.

BTW;
Bison herds were not exterminated in order to destroy Native American cultures and peoples. They were exterminated to make way for the railroads - and to settle the American west. Yes this did have a negative impact on Native Americans but so did the Winchester rifle, small pox, veneral disease, and alcohol. Once again the 5 Thieves at work - and not necessarily the result of eating meat, keeping cows for milk, or shooting a goat or wild boar.


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 13, 2007)

Veer ji,

My point was simply to correct Randip Singhs re Natives lived purely off Bison, which was incorrect.  This thread is about meat, which is what I am trying to discuss, benefits and disadvantes, but you guys seem very defensive and keep shifting trajectory to other points (as mentioned above) which although correct, are not related.

In any case, another main reason for the slaughter was the hides.  Have a look at some of the beautiful old pics with 10,000's of skinned and wasted carcusses litttering the plains and natives crying at this demonic act of the new settlers.

And actually, part of teh reason was also to weaken and destroy the native threat to these peoples western migration, destroy their sustenance, destroy them.  As much as you may like to deny it, these are the sort of tactics Europeans (and their descendents) employed everywhere.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 13, 2007)

Dear brother

You have a tendency to criticize people and then correct them for things they never said in a comment, and probably never thought. Please try to stay a little closer to what is there. That would make it a friendlier discussion.

Thank you


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 13, 2007)

Dear sister,

Thanks for the kind observation, I will try and be more careful.  

And may humbly I suggest likewise.

Cheers.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 13, 2007)

Shaheediyan said:


> Few quick points...
> 
> Wild Boar was introduced to New Zealand by the Europeans, so hardly a traditional Maori diet.


 
You are right.

My mistake. Don't know what I was thinking about. I was thinking of Guranis.....and wrote Maoris.



Shaheediyan said:


> Native Indians, you will find that their were many tribes, all who lived in diverse environments and had diverse diets, depending on their locality.


 
Yes I am aware of the diverse diet but was focusing on the plains Native Americans. This article talks about their diet Guts and Grease: Diet of Native Americans. If you want to know more about native american diet I suggest to pm Bindy (who is a native American Sikh on this forum).



Shaheediyan said:


> Bison were not 365 days a year food, they are migratory animals. Corn, fish, birds, lizards, herbs, berries, many types of indigineous vegetables also feature on the natives diets.


 
I am aware of this too......however reliance on the Bison was heavy for a number of things.



Shaheediyan said:


> In any case, I am not talking about native tribes, they lived in complete harmony with their environment and consumed resources wisely, as proved by your note re the decimation of the Bison herds by the west, who now continue to decimate and encourage other to, what remains of the Earths health.


 
Interesting that herd of 40 to 60 million roamed America and the environment was not decimated? Yet a million live there now and the environment is now deemed as decimated. I would argue still that farming for crops has decimated environment far more than any herds of Bison. Dust Bowls in the 1920's in America being a case in point.

Buffalo eat the plants then produce manure. Their stampeding churns the ground and stops it hardening.



Shaheediyan said:


> Your point re non-meat decimation is valid to. I went to Borneo 4 years ago, the last largest tract of virgin rain forest in the world, and the Chinese are destrying it illegally for logging and palm oil plantations.


 
The point is factory farming for vegetables or animal can decimate the earth.


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 13, 2007)

I agree with all you have said brother. I have studied Native Ameircan history many years ago, Temcumseh being one of my favourite personalities, so got a grounding on how varied natives environment, diet, cultures and even languages used to be (most of which a lost today).

However, the Bison herds had evolved to live in perfect harmony with the plains, with the Natives replacing the original carnivores who used to control the Bison population.

My point was specifically refering to the decimation of raniforests, particlary the greatest, the Amazon Basin, which has mostly been cut down to feed Americas craving for beef, and destroyes the fragile soil which the tress hold together, and which is washed away once the soil is no longer afforded protection....

But I think we are pretty much singing off the same hymn sheet!

I would like to end quoting from Randip Singhs article on the point that if you are going to eat meat, then ensure it's Jhatka, and the only way of ensuring that is doing Jhatka yourself or witnessing it.  

Unfortunately, I see this point "always" conveniently being overlooked by meat eating Sikhs and most Muslims today, otherwise, there meat, would not be the staple/daily diet for anyone...

>WHY JHATKA MEAT?
>
>What is Jhatka Meat and Why?
>
>Jhatka meat is meat in which the animal has been killed quickly without
>suffering or religious ritual.
>
>We must give the rationale behind prescribing jhatka meat as the approved
>food for the Sikhs. According to the ancient Aryan Hindu tradition, only
>such meat as is obtained from an animal which is killed with one stroke of
>the weapon causing instantaneous death is fit for human consumption.
>However, with the coming of Islam into India and the Muslim political
>hegemony, it became a state policy not to permit slaughter of animals for
>food, in any other manner, except as laid down in the Quran - the kosher
>meat prepared by slowly severing the main blood artery of the throat of the
>animal while reciting verses from the Quran. It is done to make slaughter a
>sacrifice to God and to expiate the sins of the slaughter. Guru Gobind 
>Singh
>took a rather serious view of this aspect of the whole matter. He,
>therefore, while permitting flesh to be taken as food repudiated the whole
>theory of this expiatory sacrifice and the right of ruling Muslims to 
>impose
>iton the non-Muslims. Accordingly, he made jhatka meat obligatory for those
>Sikhs who may be interested in taking meat as a part of their food.
>Sikhism, A Complete Introduction, Dr. H.S.Singha & Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt
>Press

Nice talking to you.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 13, 2007)

Shaheediyan said:


> I agree with all you have said brother. I have studied Native Ameircan history many years ago, Temcumseh being one of my favourite personalities, so got a grounding on how varied natives environment, diet, cultures and even languages used to be (most of which a lost today).
> 
> However, the Bison herds had evolved to live in perfect harmony with the plains, with the Natives replacing the original carnivores who used to control the Bison population.


 
True. The same could be said of the Egyptians that cleared vast swathes of land to farm wheat on destroying natural environments and evetually creating desert.



Shaheediyan said:


> My point was specifically refering to the decimation of raniforests, particlary the greatest, the Amazon Basin, which has mostly been cut down to feed Americas craving for beef, and destroyes the fragile soil which the tress hold together, and which is washed away once the soil is no longer afforded protection....


 
Its not only for beef but for other things too: Rainforest Destruction



Shaheediyan said:


> But I think we are pretty much singing off the same hymn sheet!


 
True.



Shaheediyan said:


> I would like to end quoting from Randip Singhs article on the point that if you are going to eat meat, then ensure it's Jhatka, and the only way of ensuring that is doing Jhatka yourself or witnessing it.
> 
> Unfortunately, I see this point "always" conveniently being overlooked by meat eating Sikhs and most Muslims today, otherwise, there meat, would not be the staple/daily diet for anyone...
> 
> ...


 
Interestingly you point to Jhatka. Jhatka actually means "one blow". This blow can be delivered with a sword, a gun , a bolt.....or whatever modern means are to be used.

To impose a rule that a Sikh who eats meat must kill the animal himself should mean that the vegetarian should also gather and cut there food for their table themselves too. They should plough the field, grow it, cultivate it, cut it down a process it. It don't think either is practical. The assertion that somehow one rule should apply to the meat eater is an argument which I see time and again, and a hypocrital one at best.

Having witnessed ( and done) Jhatka myself it is very quick and fast. Most meat eaters when buying the meat do witness at least the carving up of the animal at the butchers. Many who go organic nowadays select the animal.

Also note the distress to plants Guruji describes in Bani:

*Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

mehlaa 1.
vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay.
khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay.
ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay.
bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay.
naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay.

First Mehl:
Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,
and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed.
What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out.
And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below.
Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji *

Although clearly a metaphor this shows how the Guru's saw life in everything.....something that is convieniently forgotten by many.


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 13, 2007)

Just out of interest, are you saying that a blade of grass has the same worth as an animal that shares over 99% of a Humans gene poo i.e. a Chimpanzee?


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 13, 2007)

Could I ask why the post for the completely relevant videos I had posted has been removed?

Not nice to "see" the truth hey?  The subject of modern meat production, greed, consumption can be spoken about all day long, but "seeing" is another issue.

Those who buy packeted meat, justify their ignorence from select posts on this thread and never see an animal killed, need to be aware of  where their meat comes from.

Anyone wants to know about the "modern" Jatka mentioned below, pm me, it couldn't be any further from the truth:

"Interestingly you point to Jhatka. Jhatka actually means "one blow". This blow can be delivered with a sword, a gun , a bolt.....or whatever modern means are to be used."


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 14, 2007)

Shaheediyan said:


> Just out of interest, are you saying that a blade of grass has the same worth as an animal that shares over 99% of a Humans gene poo i.e. a Chimpanzee?


 
*THE 84 MILLION INCARNATION ARGUMENT - ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, MINERAL. 

The other argument that has been made over this issue is that there is some sort of hierarchy of incarnations within Sikhism of incarnations. Life goes through many incarnations (up to 84 million) before becoming human. In other words, life takes the form of incarnation in plant form, then animal, and then human. The idea being that animal form spiritually is closer to man. Biologically this maybe true, however, spiritually within Sikhism, this could not be further from the truth. 
On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written: 

ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5.
ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa.
ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa.
ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o.
ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o.
mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa. chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa. rahaa-o. 
ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa.
ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa.
ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa.
lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa.
saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat.
kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat.
ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan.
jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan.
avar na doojaa karnai jog.
taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay.
kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay.

Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl: 
In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;
in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer.
In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake.
In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse.
Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him.
After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you. Pause 
In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;
in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;
you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations.
Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life.
Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har.
Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance.
Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord.
Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord.
No one else can do anything at all.
We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself.
Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



*
Reading this Shabad one can clearly see that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not attach any particular order to how life is incarnated. Infact it states: ​

ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa. 
In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains; 
ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa.
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb; 
ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa. 
in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves; 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


If you were to apply the logic of those that claim spiritually animal life is closer to human, then according to this a rock then becomes an aborted human foetus, then becomes a plant! It is only after this one becomes human. Surely then a plant is a closer form of life to human? 

The Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji only proclaims one life form as being so precious. On page 50 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji it states: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 5 ghar 2._
_go-il aa-i-aa go-ilee ki-aa tis damf pasaar._
_muhlat punnee chalnaa tooN sampal ghar baar._
_har gun gaa-o manaa satgur sayv pi-aar._
_ki-aa thorh-rhee baat gumaan._ rahaa-o. 
_jaisay rain paraahunay uth chalsahi parbhaat._
_ki-aa tooN rataa girsat si-o sabh fulaa kee baagaat._
_mayree mayree ki-aa karahi jin dee-aa so parabh lorh._
_sarpar uthee chalnaa chhad jaasee lakh karorh._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh bharmati-aa dulabh janam paa-i-o-ay._
_naanak naam samaal tooN so din nayrhaa aa-i-o-ay._

_Siree Raag, Fifth Mehl, Second House:_
_The herdsman comes to the pasture lands-what good are his ostentatious displays here?_
_When your allotted time is up, you must go. Take care of your real hearth and home._
_O mind, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, and serve the True Guru with love._
_Why do you take pride in trivial matters?_ Pause 
_Like an overnight guest, you shall arise and depart in the morning._
_Why are you so attached to your household? It is all like flowers in the garden._
_Why do you say, "Mine, mine?" Look to God, who has given it to you._
_It is certain that you must arise and depart, and leave behind your hundreds of thousands and millions._
_Through 8.4 million incarnations you have wandered, to obtain this rare and precious human life._
_O Nanak, remember the Naam, the Name of the Lord; the day of departure is drawing near!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


So clearly, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji sees plants, animals, and minerals, on one level in terms of life, and then human form on another. To take the life of a plant is the same as an animal in terms of spirituality. The following Shabad although a metaphor for how people who speak the truth are treated, clearly shows the mind of the Guruâ€™s when seeing life in all its form, be it plant, mineral or animal: 
Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._

_First Mehl:_
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


The folly of the argument that spiritually one is committing a bigger sin when killing an animal than a plant is a foolish one. The biological argument is a different one and is not tackled within the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, but that in itself shows, the choice of whether or not to eat meat is a personal one and has nothing to do with the Sikh religion.


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 14, 2007)

Veer Ji,

"*idea being that animal form spiritually is closer to man. Biologically this maybe true, however, spiritually within Sikhism, this could not be further from the truth."*

So you are at least admitting that biologically, animals have a closer form to humansthan animals.  Alongside this don't forget that socially, emotionally and politically, animals also have a closer form to humans.

The value of a Sikhs relationship with an animal is evidenced through the age old working and emotional relationship between man and dog (in some societies) and man and horse in others.

Nihang Singhs are the perfect exampe, calling their horses jaan bhai (life brothers), and historical eye witness accounts speak of the emotional attachment Singhs used to have to their horse... in terms of a travelling aid and battle partner (as the horse learns to think and move like it's master during battle).

Words are one thing, if you really want to know the worth of animals, I suggest you go and spend some time in an Orangutan sanctuary in Borneo, and then see if you hold the same views.

Your interpretations of the bani you have quotes are biased.  You say Satguru does not speak of heirarchies of life, therefore all life outside of human life has the same worth... this is pure conjecture. 

The point of the said tuks is not demonstrate the value of various life, that does not automatically mean that various life has no value.

I am not saying plant has no value, of course it does, all life depends on it.  But we should not discount evolution and the advancing journey of life, culminating in its it ultimate self-realising form, insaan.


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 14, 2007)

if i am not wrong chimpanzees and gorillas were part of diet of native africans.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 14, 2007)

Shaheediyan said:


> Could I ask why the post for the completely relevant videos I had posted has been removed?
> 
> Not nice to "see" the truth hey? The subject of modern meat production, greed, consumption can be spoken about all day long, but "seeing" is another issue.
> 
> ...


 
It is exactly this sort of attitude Bani seeks to redress. In India if someone kills a cow they are usually beaten or sometimes put to death. This sort of attitude where the "right" of an animal, which has no ability to function at a level of higher conscience, over a human being, which functions or has the potential to function at levels of higher conscience, is why our Guru's thought it only fools argue over it.

If you don't like the idea of eating meat then don't do it...there is no need to be a Peta-Nazi and ram your carrots and peas down the throat of someone who respects your right to be a vegetarian. Please respect the right of someone to be be a meat eater.

Thanks


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 14, 2007)

Shaheediyan said:


> Veer Ji,
> 
> "*idea being that animal form spiritually is closer to man. Biologically this maybe true, however, spiritually within Sikhism, this could not be further from the truth."*
> 
> ...


 
Bani speaks for itself.

It is not biased. If you do not like its meaning then so be it, but vegtarian spin is not the way to enter a sensible debate.

I am affraid you too like some of the defeated posters on this thread are entering the realm of emotional blackmail, followed with insinuation and insult.


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 14, 2007)

"It is exactly this sort of attitude Bani seeks to redress. In India if someone kills a cow they are usually beaten or sometimes put to death. This sort of attitude where the "right" of an animal, which has no ability to function at a level of higher conscience, over a human being, which functions or has the potential to function at levels of higher conscience, is why our Guru's thought it only fools argue over it.

If you don't like the idea of eating meat then don't do it...there is no need to be a Peta-Nazi and ram your carrots and peas down the throat of someone who respects your right to be a vegetarian. Please respect the right of someone to be be a meat eater."

My friend my post was just refering to the laughable suggestion of "modern" jatka that you made, which in no way resembles the ancient "clean kill" Rajput tradition. So by way of your overly defensive reaction, you my friend are the Nazi, as I have no problem with with sensible and responsible meat consumption, my problem is with ignorent people consuming kutha and cruelly killed animals without knowing it.

Not sure why yo uhad to sensationalise, where did I say an animals life is more or of equal value to a mans?

Like I said, ANYONE INTERESTED IN EVIDENCE, PM ME.


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 14, 2007)

Bani speaks for itself.

Then why continually interpet it how you see fit, just quote it and leave it at that.
It is not biased. If you do not like its meaning then so be it, but vegtarian spin is not the way to enter a sensible debate.

The root of the spin is self evident, you place little value on animal life or worth, where as puratan Singhs do, history speaks for itself.

I am affraid you too like some of the defeated posters on this thread are entering the realm of emotional blackmail, followed with insinuation and insult.

If I have insulted you, kindly point it out, and I will gladly apoogise, this is not my intention.

I am not trying to use emotional blackmail, just state and "SHOW" the facts, which if anyone wants to see, PM me.

Don't worry, I have no intention for competing for your prized position as king of this thread, I actually agreed with much of what you said if you bothered to read my posts, my only issue is with animal cruelty, which traditional Jatka overcomes, but which the very large majority of modern meat production does not, and which I can prove if the administrators let me post some videos.  

Like it or not, daya is a necessary gun for a Sikhs spiritual development, by this I am not saying everyone go veggie, I am saying don't be ignorent and create demand for monstrous cruelty in modern meat production, if you really want to eat meat sensibly, ensure it is Jatka - the tradition wasn't introduced and used for nothing.


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 14, 2007)

> Like it or not, daya is a necessary gun for a Sikhs spiritual development, by this I am not saying everyone go veggie, I am saying don't be ignorent and create demand for monstrous cruelty in modern meat production, if you really want to eat meat sensibly, ensure it is Jatka - the tradition wasn't introduced and used for nothing.



i am sure your this logic is also applicable for milk and milk products and you will also encourage everybody to stop consuming milk and milk products.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 14, 2007)

Shaheediyan said:


> My friend my post was just refering to the laughable suggestion of "modern" jatka that you made, which in no way resembles the ancient "clean kill" Rajput tradition.




What is laughable about using a gun instead of a sword? I fail to see what is laughable about that? Like I have said I have performed Jhatka myself. I do not see the difference between the bloww of a sword a gun or any other way that may be invented.

Incidently I hardly ever eat meat and get on fine without it....but I will defend the right of someone who does eat it to the end.




Shaheediyan said:


> So by way of your overly defensive reaction, you my friend are the Nazi, as I have no problem with with sensible and responsible meat consumption, my problem is with ignorent people consuming kutha and cruelly killed animals without knowing it.




I have already stated that we buy organic, so there is no need to educate me further thanks.

What defensive action is that? I merely replied to some very patronising statements.



Shaheediyan said:


> Not sure why yo uhad to sensationalise, where did I say an animals life is more or of equal value to a mans?




Is that not the next logical step? In India we have cows that are revered more than humans? In the UK we have people who dig up human remains in order to terrorise the relative of the people who are Guniea pig farmers.

You asked me whether I thought biologically animals or plants were closer......my rational says neither are because neither are capable of higher conscience.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 14, 2007)

Shaheediyan said:


> Then why continually interpet it how you see fit, just quote it and leave it at that.


 
Because time again on Sant Mat, Dera wala sites you see people interpreting that we go through incarnations of Rock to plant to animal to human. Bani does not actual say that. The actual paragraph stated in question shows how random the incarnations are before one reaches human form. One could ineffect be a plant in one life and the next be human. So in terms of Karma, the killing of a plant is the same and the killing of an animal or rock.




Shaheediyan said:


> The root of the spin is self evident, you place little value on animal life or worth, where as puratan Singhs do, history speaks for itself.


 
No. I place more value on human life than animal life. I refuse to join the brigade that sees animal life on par with human life. Bani clearly again and again values human life above all others.



Shaheediyan said:


> If I have insulted you, kindly point it out, and I will gladly apoogise, this is not my intention.


 
If you cannot see how patronising and therefore insulting how some of your statements are then I really do pity you. Along along I have stated I do not favour meat over vegetarianism and vice versa. You however seem hellbent on demonstarting how superior the vegetarian diet is and how immoral meat eaters are. Why can you not leave them alone?




Shaheediyan said:


> I am not trying to use emotional blackmail, just state and "SHOW" the facts, which if anyone wants to see, PM me.


 
Oh but you are my friend. You are trying to insult my intelligence. I have already told you I do not belive in factory farming methods be they vegetarian or non yet you persist on posting videos of factory farming methods.

It may come as a massive shock to you but I am aware of factory farming methods and don't approve. I pointed out that if by Jhatka you mean every Sikh shoudl koll their own animal the every vegetarian should grow their own food too and cultivate it. It is that I think you have a problem with I think.



Shaheediyan said:


> Don't worry, I have no intention for competing for your prized position as king of this thread, I actually agreed with much of what you said if you bothered to read my posts, my only issue is with animal cruelty, which traditional Jatka overcomes, but which the very large majority of modern meat production does not, and which I can prove if the administrators let me post some videos.


 
Ok but please post factory farm methods used to grow vegtables too in the same token too. Lets keep it balanced. You seem to be showing one aspect but not the other.

As for being King of the thread, that is to do with Egotism, and has no place here. Alll I ask is keep it clean and no cheap shots as some others have tried on this thread.



Shaheediyan said:


> Like it or not, daya is a necessary gun for a Sikhs spiritual development, by this I am not saying everyone go veggie, I am saying don't be ignorent and create demand for monstrous cruelty in modern meat production, if you really want to eat meat sensibly, ensure it is Jatka - the tradition wasn't introduced and used for nothing.


 
That interpretation of Daya is a very very narrow. One could argue that by killing an amimal you are freeing it to go on to its next life. Is that initself not Daya or kindness? Daya is about your Karma's, and in terms of Karma you could argue a plant has as much Karmic value as an animal.

Daya means whatever ever you do at every level make sure you are doing with an open heart and others in mind. Daya is the means to counter Greed, Materialism and Egotism to an extent.

The point of Jhatka on one level is to kill an animal swift as possible (just like one cuts a crop), but on another level to avoid ritualism (like Halal and Kosher), which is a form of appeasement to God. The Sikh has no need for appeasement if he is doing something with a clean heart.


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 14, 2007)

Ok, lets get to the crux of the matter, we seemed to be going around in circles, and I partially take blame for that.

To clarify, this is what I am "assuming" you are saying:

1 - You don't agree with factory farming and killing, good.

2 - You say meat and vegetable should be bought organic, if sangat is to consume responsibly, good, agreed.  I personally have been buying and consuming organic dairy and veg for over 4 years, and encourage others to do the same.

3 - We will have to agree to disagree about whether animal life is more valuable than a plants, but like I said, when you come face to face with an highly emotional, intelligent, social and political animal such as a great ape, it's a whole different matter.

4 - I have agreed with your from the start that bani is not specifying a vegi diet.

5 - Re daya, I sort of agree, it is meant to counter the 5 chor - my point for using daya as clearly mentioned, was to awaken people to their greed (demand) causing monstrous cruelty in modern meat production.


So hopefully that will clarify and conclude these points, sincere apologies if I have come across as patronising or abnoxious.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 14, 2007)

<<My point was specifically refering to the decimation of raniforests, particlary the greatest, the Amazon Basin, which has mostly been cut down to feed Americas craving for beef, and destroyes the fragile soil which the tress hold together, and which is washed away once the soil is no longer afforded protection....>>

Just an observation, no intentions of deviating from the original subject. The decimation of the Amazon basin started in the 1920’s when The Ford family bought millions of acres in the  basin to plant rubber and later for rice and wheat plantation. They named the place Fordlandia. The farms were surrounded by roads, schools, hospitals etc etc. They failed in all because of the fragile soil as Shaheedian mentioned. Eventually in the 70’s the land was donated to Brazilian govt by the family. Cattle raising came much later. The reason to post this is to emphasize the fact that Randip Singh mentioned. It was the crops that have devastated the forests much more than cattle breeding. One more blatant example is in the state of Mato Grosso (dense forest) which is also in Brazil where millions of acres have been decimated to grow Soya beans. Now the same farmers are invading the lands of Guaranis in Paraguay for the same purpose. Majority of the cattle breeding takes place in the Pampas- the plains- which border Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay.

Tejwant


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 15, 2007)

Shaheediyan said:


> 5 - Re daya, I sort of agree, it is meant to counter the 5 chor - my point for using daya as clearly mentioned, was to awaken people to their greed (demand) causing monstrous cruelty in modern meat production.
> 
> 
> .


 
lets not forget luxury goods such as sugar, cereal, choclate, milk, vegetable oils, palm oils....which cause monsterous cruelty to wildlife and natural habitatts.


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 15, 2007)

*THE DRIVING FORCES OF DESTRUCTION*

Commercial logging is the single largest cause of rainforest destruction, both directly and indirectly. Other activities destroying the rainforest, including clearing land for grazing animals and subsistence farming. The simple fact is that people are destroying the Amazon rainforest and the rest of the rainforests of the world because "they can't see the forest for the trees." 
*Logging for Tropical Hardwoods*

Logging tropical hardwoods like teak, mahogany, rosewood, and other timber for furniture, building materials, charcoal, and other wood products is big business and big profits. Several species of tropical hardwoods are imported by developed counties, including the United States, just to build coffins that are then buried or burned. The demand, extraction, and consumption of tropical hardwoods has been so massive that some countries that have been traditional exporters of tropical hardwoods are now importing them because they have already exhausted their supply by destroying their native rainforests in slash-and-burn operations. It is anticipated that the Philippines, Malaysia, the Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Thailand will soon follow, as all these countries will run out of rainforest hardwood timber for export within five years. Japan is the largest importer of tropical woods. Despite recent reductions, Japan's average tropical timber import of 11 million cubic meters annually is still gluttonous. The demand for tropical hardwood timber is damaging to the ecological, biological, and social fabric of tropical lands and is clearly unsustainable for any length of time.

Behind the hardwood logger come others down the same roads built to transport the timber. The cardboard packing and the wood chipboard industries use 15-ton machines that gobble up the rainforest with 8-foot cutting discs that have eight blades revolving 320 times a minute. These machines that cut entire trees into chips half the size of a matchbox can gobble up more than 200 species of trees in mere minutes. 

Logging rainforest timber is a large economic source, and in many cases, the main source of revenue for servicing the national debt of these developing countries. Logging profits are real to these countries that must service their debts, but they are fleeting. Governments are selling their assets too cheaply, and once the rainforest is gone, their source of income will also be gone. Sadly, most of the real profits of the timber trade are made not by the developing countries, but by multinational companies and industrialists of the Northern Hemisphere. These huge, profit-driven logging companies pay governments a fraction of the timber's worth for large logging concessions on immense tracts of rainforest land and reap huge profits by harvesting the timber in the most economical manner feasible with little regard to the destruction left in their wake.

Logging concessions in the Amazon are sold for as little as $2 per acre, with logging companies felling timber worth thousands of dollars per acre. Governments are selling their natural resources, hawking for pennies resources that soon will be worth billions of dollars. Some of these government concessions and land deals made with industrialists make the sale of Manhattan for $24 worth of trinkets look shrewd. In 1986 a huge industrial timber corporation bought thousands of acres in the Borneo rainforest by giving 2,000 Malaysian dollars to twelve longhouses of local tribes. This sum amounted to the price of two bottles of beer for each member of the community. Since then, this company and others have managed to extract and destroy about a third of the Borneo rainforest - about 6.9 million acres - and the local tribes have been evicted from the area or forced to work for the logging companies at slave wages. 
*Fuel Wood and the Paper Industry *

In addition to being logged for exportation, rainforest wood stays in developing countries for fuel wood and charcoal. One single steel plant in Brazil making steel for Japanese cars needs millions of tons of wood each year to produce charcoal that can be used in the manufacture of steel. Then, there is the paper industry. 

One pulpwood project in the Brazilian Amazon consists of a Japanese power plant and pulp mill. To set up this single plant operation, 5,600 square miles of Amazon rainforest were burned to the ground and replanted with pulpwood trees. This single manufacturing plant consumes 2,000 tons of surrounding rainforest wood every day to produce 55 megawatts of electricity to run the plant. The plant, which has been in operation since 1978, produces more than 750 tons of pulp for paper every 24 hours, worth approximately $500,000, and has built 2,800 miles of roads through the Amazon rainforest to be used by its 700 vehicles. In addition to this pulp mill, the world's biggest pulp mill is the Aracruz mill in Brazil. Its two units produce 1 million tons of pulp a year, harvesting the rainforest to keep the plant in business and displacing thousands of indigenous tribes. Where does all this pulp go? Aracruz's biggest customers are the United States, Belgium, Great Britain, and Japan. More and more rainforest is destroyed to meet the demands of the developed world's paper industry, which requires a staggering 200 million tons of wood each year simply to make paper. If the present rate continues, it is estimated that the paper industry alone will consume 4 billion tons of wood annually by the year 2020. 

Once an area of rainforest has been logged, even if it is given the rare chance to regrow, it can never become what it once was. The intricate ecosystem nature devised is lost forever. Only 1 to 2 percent of light at the top of a rainforest canopy manages to reach the forest floor below. Most times when timber is harvested, trees and other plants that have evolved over centuries to grow in the dark, humid environment below the canopy simply cannot live out in the open, and as a result, the plants and animals (that depend on the plants) of the original forest become extinct Even if only sections of land throughout an area are destroyed, these remnants change drastically. Birds and other animals cannot cross from one remnant of land to another in the canopy, so plants are not pollinated, seeds are not dispersed by the animals, and the plants around the edges are not surrounded by the high jungle humidity they need to grow properly. As a result, the remnants slowly become degraded and die. Rains come and wash away the thin topsoil that was previously protected by the canopy, and this barren, infertile land is vulnerable to erosion. Sometimes the land is replanted in African grasses for cattle operations; other times more virgin rainforest is destroyed for cattle operations because grass planted on recently burned land has a better chance to grow. 
*Grazing Land*

As the demand in the Western world for cheap meat increases, more and more rainforests are destroyed to provide grazing land for animals. In Brazil alone, there are an estimated 220 million head of cattle, 20 million goats, 60 million pigs, and 700 million chickens. Most of Central and Latin America's tropical and temperate rainforests have been lost to cattle operations to meet the world demand, and still the cattle operations continue to move southward into the heart of the South American rainforests. To graze one steer in Amazonia takes two full acres. Most of the ranchers in the Amazon operate at a loss, yielding only paper profits purely as tax shelters. Ranchers' fortunes are made only when ranching is supported by government giveaways. A banker or rich landowner in Brazil can slash and burn a huge tract of land in the Amazon rainforest, seed it with grass for cattle, and realize millions of dollars worth of government-subsidized loans, tax credits, and write-offs in return for developing the land. These government development schemes rarely make a profit, as they are actually selling cheap beef to industrialized nations. One single cattle operation in Brazil that was co-owned by British Barclays Bank and one of Brazil's wealthiest families was responsible for the destruction of almost 500,000 acres of virgin rainforest. The cattle operation never made a profit, but government write-offs sheltered huge logging profits earned off of logging other land in the Brazilian rainforest owned by the same investors. These generous tax and credit incentives have created more than 29 million acres of large cattle ranches in the Brazilian Amazon, even though the typical ranch could cover less than half its costs without these subsidies. Even these grazing lands don't last forever. Soon the lack of nutrients in the soil and overgrazing degrade them, and they are abandoned for newly cleared land. In Brazil alone, more than 63,000 square miles of land has reportedly been abandoned in this way. 
*Subsistence Farming*

This type of government-driven destruction of rainforest land is promoted by a common attitude among governments in rainforest regions, an attitude that the forest is an economic resource to be harnessed to aid in the development of their countries. The same attitudes that accompanied the colonization of our own frontier are found today in Brazil and other countries with wild and unharnessed rainforest wilderness. These beliefs are exemplified by one Brazilian official's public statement that "not until all Amazonas is colonized by real Brazilians, not Indians, can we truly say we own it." Were we Americans any different with our own colonization, decimating the North American Indian tribes? Like Brazil, we sent out a call to all the world that America had land for the landless in an effort to increase colonization of our country at the expense of our indigenous Indian tribes. And like the first American colonists, colonization in the rainforest really means subsistence farming. 

Subsistence farming has for centuries been a driving force in the loss of rainforest land. And as populations explode in Third-World countries in South America and the Far East, the impact has been profound. By tradition, wildlands and unsettled lands in the rainforest are free to those who clear the forest and till the soil. "Squatter's rights" still prevail, and poor, hungry people show little enthusiasm for arguments about the value of biodiversity or the plight of endangered species when they struggle daily to feed their families. These landless peasants and settlers follow the logging companies down the roads they've built to extract timber into untouched rainforest lands, burning off whatever the logging companies left behind. 

The present approach to rainforest cultivation produces wealth for a few, but only for a short time, because farming burned-off tracts of Amazon rainforest seldom works for long. Less than 10 percent of Amazonian soils are suitable for sustained conventional agriculture. However lush they look, rainforests often flourish on such nutrient-poor soils that they are essentially "wet deserts," easier to damage and harder to cultivate than any other soil. Most are exhausted by the time they have produced three or four crops. Many of the thousands of homesteaders who migrated from Brazil's cities to the wilds of the rainforest, responding to the government's call of "land without men for men without land," have already had to abandon their depleted farms and move on, leaving behind fields of baked clay dotted with stagnant pools of polluted water. Experts agree that the path to conservation begins with helping these local residents meet their own daily needs. Because of the infertility of the soil, and the lack of knowledge of sustainable cultivation practices, this type of agriculture strips the soil of nutrients within a few harvests, and the farmers continue to move ****her into the rainforest in search of new land. They must be helped and educated to break free of the need to continually clear rainforest in search of fresh, fertile land if the rainforest is to be saved.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 15, 2007)

Dear Friends,

Once again and with folded hands, I implore you to explain the relevance of the discussion in recent days to subjects pertinent to Sikhi. There are possible connections in this last post -- maybe the point is cruelty versus compassion, or perhaps the health of the planet. 

The pattern has been this. A comment that is hard to relate to the topic of the thread, which is then followed by an attempt to bring the discussion back (Thank you Randip Singh ji for this effort).

This last comment could be interpreted as spam or as an attempt to bring post counts up -- *please know that I am now giving an Official Warning - No SPAM - Next time --- Deletion. See SPN Forum Rules.

*Stay in Chardi Kala.


----------



## Shaheediyan (Jul 15, 2007)

The last 3 posts were discussing the affect of meat and veg demand on the environment. 

The last post simply follows on from that point, and provides researched facts regarding grazing and farming affects on the Earth, and provides a whole picture including other activities such as paper demand and logging.

It is completely relevant to the discussion, and in the nature oftrue discussions, sheds lights on areas related and connected to the topic.

I will provide some narrative next time, apologies for not doing so here, for anyone who read the article, it's relevance would have been self explanatory.

Dhanvaad.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 16, 2007)

Shaheediyan said:


> The last 3 posts were discussing the affect of meat and veg demand on the environment.
> 
> The last post simply follows on from that point, and provides researched facts regarding grazing and farming affects on the Earth, and provides a whole picture including other activities such as paper demand and logging.
> 
> ...


 
Here is the link you need to read:

Rainforest Destruction

_2 Agriculture - Shifted Cultivators
'Shifted cultivators' is the term used for people who have moved into rainforest areas and established small-scale farming operations. These are the landless peasants who have followed roads into already damaged rainforest areas. The additional damage they are causing is extensive. Shifted cultivators are currently being blamed for 60% of tropical forest loss (Colchester & Lohmann). 
The reason these people are referred to as 'shifted' cultivators is that most of them people have been forced off their own land. For example, in Guatemala, rainforest land was cleared for coffee and sugar plantations. The indigenous people had their land stolen by government and corporations. They became 'shifted cultivators', moving into rainforest areas of which they had no previous knowledge in order to sustain themselves and their families (Colchester & Lohmann). 
Large-scale agriculture, logging, hydroelectric dams, mining, and industrial development are all responsible for the dispossession of poor farmers. 
"One of the primary forces pushing landless migrants into the forests is the inequitable distribution of agricultural land" (WRI 1992, Colchester & Lohmann). In Brazil, approximately 42% of cultivated land is owned by a mere 1% of the population. Landless peasants make up half of Brazil's population (WRM). 
Once displaced, the 'shifted cultivators' move into forest areas, often with the encouragement of their government. In Brazil, a slogan was developed to help persuade the people to move into the forests. It read "Land without men for men without land" (WRM). 
After a time, these farmers encounter the same problems as the cash crop growers. The soil does not remain fertile for long. They are forced to move on, to shift again, going further into the rainforest and destroying more and more of it. 
It is evident that the shifted cultivators "have become the agents for destruction but not the cause" (Westoby 1987: Colchester). Shifted cultivators do not move into pristine areas of undisturbed rainforests. They follow roads made principally for logging operations. "Shifted cultivators are often used by the timber industry as scapegoats" (Orams and McQuire). Yet logging roads lead to an estimated 90% of the destruction caused by the slash-and-burn farmers (Martin 1991: Colchester). 
Solutions: Land reform is essential if this problem is to be addressed. However, according to Colchester and Lohmann, "an enduring shift of power in favour of the peasants" is also needed for such reforms to endure (Colchester &Lohmann).

3 Agriculture - Cash Crops and Cattle Ranching 
Undisturbed and logged rainforest areas are being totally cleared to provide land for food crops, tree plantations or for grazing cattle (Colchester & Lohmann). Much of this produce is exported to rich industrialised countries and in many cases, crops are grown for export while the local populace goes hungry. 
Due to the delicate nature of rainforest soil and the destructive nature of present day agricultural practices, the productivity of cash crops grown on rainforest soils declines rapidly after a few years. 
Monoculture plantations - those that produce only one species of tree or one type of food - on rainforest soil are examples of non-sustainable agriculture. 
They are referred to as cash crops because the main reason for their planting is to make money quickly, with little concern about the environmental damage that they are causing. 
Modern machinery, fertilisers and pesticides are used to maximise profits. The land is farmed intensively. In many cases, cattle damage the land to such an extent that it is of no use to cattle ranchers any more, and they move on, destroying more and more rainforest. Not only have the forests been destroyed but the land is exploited, stripped of nutrients and left barren, sustaining no-one. 
Solutions:"Reducing the demand for Southern-produced agribusiness crops and alleviating the pressure from externally-financed development projects and assistance is the essential first step" (Colchester and Lohmann)._

Like I said....lets keep it balanced.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 16, 2007)

Randip ji

So in brief you are identifying patterns that may even be geo-political in their scope. The disruption of cultures and indigenous economies, the rape of the environment. Market-place extortion when products that are grown at the expense of peoples and planet are then sold "outcomes of progress and technology" at exhoribtant prices and under false pretences. That those very dis-enfranchised people can no longer afford to live, eat support their families. And much more. 

I see these questions as consistent with the concern of Sikhism for Compassion, Justice, and Protection of the Weak -- historical sikh values. 

Please elaborate if necessary. What are the specific ideas that would take this discussion forward from the perspective of Sikh philosophy?

thanks once again


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 17, 2007)

aad0002 said:


> Randip ji
> 
> So in brief you are identifying patterns that may even be geo-political in their scope. The disruption of cultures and indigenous economies, the rape of the environment. Market-place extortion when products that are grown at the expense of peoples and planet are then sold "outcomes of progress and technology" at exhoribtant prices and under false pretences. That those very dis-enfranchised people can no longer afford to live, eat support their families. And much more.
> 
> ...


 
Yes....and note...

Interesting you say _I see these questions as consistent with the concern of Sikhism for *Compassion*, Justice, and Protection of the Weak -- historical sikh values._

We have had compassion or Daya mentioned several times in this discussion, but yet a very narrow defintion of it. What you have done is pointed out the Universal application of Daya.

Going back to the topic......Bani use metaphors to describe the lack of compassion we have for fellow human beings. It uses descriptions such as "dogs" and "murdar" to describe the state of man. How a man will literally devour another man in order to satisfy his 5 vices. Destruction of rainforests shows on a global scale how men are devouring men........yet we take these great lines of wisdom and apply them narrowly (and incorectly) to what our diet should consist of. When we do this we miss the Universal application of Bani totally.

If Bani had such a reverence of people of a certain diet then it would surely describe Jains (who are careful to avoid stepping on an ant) as superior in every way..............they are what you could say as even suparsing vegans in ensuring animal are not harmed...........yet page 1285 of Bani says

ਪਉੜੀ ॥ 
पउड़ी ॥ 
Pa&shy;oṛī. 
Pauree: 

ਇਕਿ ਜੈਨੀ ਉਝੜ ਪਾਇ ਧੁਰਹੁ ਖੁਆਇਆ ॥ 
इकि जैनी उझड़ पाइ धुरहु खुआइआ ॥ 
Ik jainī ujẖaṛ pā&shy;ė ḏẖarahu kẖu&shy;ā&shy;i&shy;ā. 
Some are Jains, wasting their time in the wilderness; by their pre-ordained destiny, they are ruined. 

ਤਿਨ ਮੁਖਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਨਾਮੁ ਨ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾਇਆ ॥ 
तिन मुखि नाही नामु न तीरथि न्हाइआ ॥ 
Ŧin mukẖ nāhī nām na ṯirath nĥā&shy;i&shy;ā. 
The Naam, the Name of the Lord, is not on their lips; they do not bathe at sacred shrines of pilgrimage. 

ਹਥੀ ਸਿਰ ਖੋਹਾਇ ਨ ਭਦੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ ॥ 
हथी सिर खोहाइ न भदु कराइआ ॥ 
Hathī sir kẖohā&shy;ė na bẖaḏ karā&shy;i&shy;ā. 
They pull out their hair with their hands, instead of shaving. 

ਕੁਚਿਲ ਰਹਹਿ ਦਿਨ ਰਾਤਿ ਸਬਦੁ ਨ ਭਾਇਆ ॥ 
कुचिल रहहि दिन राति सबदु न भाइआ ॥ 
Kucẖil raheh ḏin rāṯ sabaḏ na bẖā&shy;i&shy;ā. 
They remain unclean day and night; they do not love the Word of the Shabad. 

ਤਿਨ ਜਾਤਿ ਨ ਪਤਿ ਨ ਕਰਮੁ ਜਨਮੁ ਗਵਾਇਆ ॥ 
तिन जाति न पति न करमु जनमु गवाइआ ॥ 
Ŧin jāṯ na paṯ na karam janam gavā&shy;i&shy;ā. 
They have no status, no honor, and no good karma. They waste away their lives in vain. 

ਮਨਿ ਜੂਠੈ ਵੇਜਾਤਿ ਜੂਠਾ ਖਾਇਆ ॥ 
मनि जूठै वेजाति जूठा खाइआ ॥ 
Man jūṯẖai vėjāṯ jūṯẖā kẖā&shy;i&shy;ā. 
Their minds are false and impure; that which *they eat is impure and defiled.* 

ਬਿਨੁ ਸਬਦੈ ਆਚਾਰੁ ਨ ਕਿਨ ਹੀ ਪਾਇਆ ॥ 
बिनु सबदै आचारु न किन ही पाइआ ॥ 
Bin sabḏai ācẖār na kin hī pā&shy;i&shy;ā. 
Without the Shabad, no one achieves a lifestyle of good conduct. 

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਸਚਿ ਸਮਾਇਆ ॥੧੬॥ 
गुरमुखि ओअंकारि सचि समाइआ ॥१६॥ 
Gurmukẖ o&shy;ankār sacẖ samā&shy;i&shy;ā. ||16|| 
The Gurmukh is absorbed in the True Lord God, the Universal Creator. ||16|| 
Yet look at how Guruji describes Jains?

So the conclusions about Bani are there to be drawn by everyone themelves. One thing that shouldn't be done is that it be broken into sentences......it should be read in paragraphs. Words like "Murdar" should be translated for what they are. You have used words like "rape" to describe what is happening to the environment. Bani does likewise to describe the state of man.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 17, 2007)

I love this topic....slowly but surely it is revolving towards a clear understanding of Gurbani....which is Divine Message meant for all humanity and all time. It is becoming abundantly clear that monocled "Sikhs" are responsible for narrow minded one track interpretations of Universal truths of Gurbani...verily it has been said..Maas maas kar MOORAKH jhagrreh. I am most grateful to veer Randip Singh, Amar Parkash Singh Ji and many others for providing a host of correct responses. My Gurbani students and non-Sikh students really learn so much from SPN. Keep it up veero and bheno !! Gurbani insists on three "Ishnaans"....of the Body, the Mann..and Finally the Ishnaan of SHABAD through VICHAAR and following Gurbani. Most of us do the body ishnaan in sarovar..and then a little bit of mann ishnaan in kirtan/katha..but when it comes to the important ishnaan of SHABAD..we get up and leave for the langgar hall or go home...SPN is one important place for this Shaabd Ishnaan...

Gyani Jarnail Singh


----------



## Arvind (Jul 17, 2007)

Gyani ji,

What is Shabad Ishnaan? Please elaborate.

And nice to see you in your form again.

Regards, Arvind.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 17, 2007)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> I love this topic....slowly but surely it is revolving towards a clear understanding of Gurbani....which is Divine Message meant for all humanity and all time. It is becoming abundantly clear that monocled "Sikhs" are responsible for narrow minded one track interpretations of Universal truths of Gurbani...verily it has been said..Maas maas kar MOORAKH jhagrreh. I am most grateful to veer Randip Singh, Amar Parkash Singh Ji and many others for providing a host of correct responses. My Gurbani students and non-Sikh students really learn so much from SPN. Keep it up veero and bheno !! Gurbani insists on three "Ishnaans"....of the Body, the Mann..and Finally the Ishnaan of SHABAD through VICHAAR and following Gurbani. Most of us do the body ishnaan in sarovar..and then a little bit of mann ishnaan in kirtan/katha..but when it comes to the important ishnaan of SHABAD..we get up and leave for the langgar hall or go home...SPN is one important place for this Shaabd Ishnaan...
> 
> Gyani Jarnail Singh


 
Gret to see you here again Gyani ji.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 17, 2007)

Randip ji

It is hard to know which sentence to quote from your comments above as a starting point. Mostly I would like to remain on the periphery of this discussion asking a question or 2 or 3 from time to time. However, what is really nice about your response is the way you have broadened the metaphor so we are looking a vision of accountability that is comprehensive and is backed up by the vision of Guru Nanaak and throughout Bani. Don't we need to recognize this if we want everyone else to identify Sikhism with a moral perspective that was ahead of its time-- and to which the rest of the world is catching up perhaps only in the last 2 decades.

I want to go back and go over the historical reasons for the birth of Sikhism and mull over the fit between then and now.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 17, 2007)

Arvind said:


> Gyani ji,
> 
> What is Shabad Ishnaan? Please elaborate.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you veer ji....SPN is most dear to my heart and i enjoy the company immensely...its hard to be away..but duty calls once in a while. Needless to say i do keep in touch and am glad to be back.


ਜੇ ਵਡਭਾਗ ਹੋਵਹਿ ਵਡ ਮੇਰੇ ਜਨ ਮਿਲਦਿਆਂ ਢਿਲ ਨ ਲਾਈਐ॥
ਹਰਿ ਜਨ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਕੁੰਟ ਸਰ ਨੀਕੇ ਵਡਭਾਗੀ ਤਿਤੁ ਨਵਾਈਐ॥

ਹਰਿ ਜਨ ਵਡੇ ਵਡੇ ਵਡ ਊਚੇ ਜੋ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਮਲਿ ਮਿਲਾਈਐ॥
ਸਤਗੁਰ ਜੇਵਡ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਈ ਮਿਲਿ ਸਤਗੁਰ ਪੁਰਖ ਧਿਆਈਐ॥

ਸਤਗੁਰ ਸਰਣਿ ਪਰੇ ਤਿਨ ਪਾਇਆ ਮੇਰੇ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਲਾਜ ਰਖਾਈਐ॥
ਇਕਿ ਆਪਣੈ ਸੁਆਇ ਆਇ ਬਹਹਿ ਗੁਰ ਆਗੈ, ਜਿਉ ਬਗੁਲ ਸਮਾਧਿ ਲਗਾਈਐ॥

ਬਗੁਲਾ ਕਾਗ ਨੀਚ ਕੀ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਜਾਇ ਕਰੰਗ ਬਿਖੂ ਮੱਖਿ ਲਾਈਐ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਮੇਲਿ ਮੇਲਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਹੰਸੁ ਕਰਾਈਐ॥

ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਸਰੋਵਰਿ ਨਾਤੇ॥ ਸਭਿ ਉਤਰੇ ਪਾਪ ਕਮਾਤੇ॥
ਨਿਰਮਲ ਹੋਏ ਕਰਿ ਇਸਨਾਨਾ॥ ਗੁਰਿ ਪੂਰੈ ਕੀਨੈ ਦਾਨਾ॥ ੧॥
ਸਭਿ ਕੁਸਲ ਖੇਮ ਪ੍ਰਭਿ ਧਾਰੇ॥
ਸਹੀ ਸਲਾਮਤਿ ਸਭਿ ਥੋਕ ਉਬਾਰੇ, ਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਸਬਦੁ ਵੀਚਾਰੇ॥ ਰਹਾਉ॥ ੧॥
ਸਾਧਸੰਗਿ ਮਲੁ ਲਾਥੀ॥ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਭਇਓ ਸਾਥੀ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਇਆ॥ ਆਦਿ ਪੁਰਖ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਪਾਇਆ॥
ਸੋਰਠਿ ਮਹਲਾ ੫॥ ਪੰਨਾ ੬੨੫ --

Veer Ji, SHABAD ISHNAAN is cleansing of the AATMA..the Mann..our inner conscience. Body cleansing can be easily done with soap and water..or in the Sarovars that abound in our Gurdwaras...BUT only when we are in the SAADH SANGAT..in the presence of the Guru...imbibing the GYAN, Knowledge and Path set forward by Guru ji in Gurbani through VICHAAR..thoughtfully and consciously concentrating on what the SHABAD says..that our MANN is being washed (ishnaan)

Sadly even when we are in the Saadh Sangat..most of the time our mann is wondering miles away on different missions..and the Shabad just flows off our backs like water off a duck's back..we remain stones that never get wet inisde even after a million years immersed in water !! I have met Sikhs who have gone to Gurdawra daily...for Asa Di Vaar, Kirtan etc...and still as "dry" as the stones i mentioned above.

Based on our limited knowledge..we have even reduced the "shabd" to superficiality...like in one of the shabads above of Guru Arjun Ji..that says..RAAMDASS SAROVAR NAHTEH..sabh utreh paap kamateh. We have reduced this highly SPIRITUAL SHABAD to a "superficial dip in the sarovar". 
Ramdass sarovar is NOT the "Sarovar built by Guru ramdass at Amritsar"..the word RAMDASS is the SAADH SANGAT....the DASS (plural) of RAAM (Waheguru)....thus while Guru Arjun Ji is asking us to Bathe the MANN in the SANGAT of the Dass of Raam ( and THAT will remove all our Paaps !!)..we have taken it to mean (erroneously) that merely dipping our body in the Harmandar sarovar will wash our MANN of all the Paaps !! The Sarovar water is just to clean our outer body...next step is entering the Harmandar darbar Sahib to LISTEN to the Kirtan....and Third Vital Step is of SHABAD ISHNAAN...contemplate on the True Message of the Shaabd Kirtan so that we can APPLY this to our Daily LIVES...and thus begin the process of cleaning our MIND of the Evils that reside within. We have failed to realise that ONLY the SHABAD that we FOLLOW and put to work in our life can CHANGE US from WITHIN ( make the stone wet from within).

Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 19, 2007)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Thank you veer ji....SPN is most dear to my heart and i enjoy the company immensely...its hard to be away..but duty calls once in a while. Needless to say i do keep in touch and am glad to be back.
> 
> 
> ਜੇ ਵਡਭਾਗ ਹੋਵਹਿ ਵਡ ਮੇਰੇ ਜਨ ਮਿਲਦਿਆਂ ਢਿਲ ਨ ਲਾਈਐ॥
> ...


 
Thanks for the post.....it was very enlighteneing.


----------



## Arvind (Jul 19, 2007)

Thanks a lot Gyani ji... Just reading the first tuk (je wadbhag...) brought tears to my eyes. Shabad Ishnaan and its explanation makes a great sense. I am grateful to you for sparing time to get into its detail.

I feel like extending this to Keertan ishnaan, hukamnaama ishnaan, Baani ishnaan... anyway all these sound to be under the umbrella of Shabad ishnaan.

My apologies to the original poster for diverting from the topic. Please continue...

Sincerely, Arvind.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Jul 26, 2007)

randip singh said:


> Ekhmusafir sems to represent the ugly face of Sikhism and religion in general.The intolerant face that leaves no room for discussion or debate, and labels people as blasphemous. What next? Book burning and burning people at the stake?
> 
> It is true Ekh Musafir left this forum after losing the debate on this article. He used refrences that tied himself up. He was also unsure of the meaning of words.


 
Mr Randip Singh,

You are limited by your "Hukam" as everyone is too. I cannot teach you what you refuse to learn which is presently beyond your understanding.

Who is representing the "Ugly face of Sikhism" here, Future holds the secret to this or for that matter who face is going to be ugly.

There is no case of loosing debate. This debate is not on equal par. As per the second part of the verse says:

_Maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay __*gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee jaanai*._
_The fools argue over flesh and meat, __*but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom.*_

When you do gain some spiritual wisdom (if)one day, you will not feel the need for any discussion. I stand by all of my statements. Future shall reveal the results of your input in this topic. It is not part of my "Hukam" to educate you. If it is part of your "Hukam" to mislead people then you are part of the bigger plan.

I was bewildered the first time but then I spent some time and looked into you translations, They all have been originated by one Dr Sant Singh Khalsa. There are considerable errors in them. Just check them against those of Prof Sahib Singh (Punjabi) for yourself and see if justice has been done. I can understand that there are difficulties in translations, since you refer your self to be an authority over these matters then why not spend time on the task of correcting these translation. 

I have no enmity with you and hold no grudges. This musafir is in the Divine Protection of the Gurus, it will be your misfortune and your own fault to get punished. So do not let your tongue too loose again. 

I bid you farewell once again.

ekmusafir_ajnabi


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 26, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Mr Randip Singh,
> 
> You are limited by your "Hukam" as everyone is too. I cannot teach you what you refuse to learn which is presently beyond your understanding.


 
I take it you are limited by your "Hukam" too, if that is the case then you are by definition incapable of teaching anyone, therefore there is nothing to understand. You have cited your opinions (as well as some very unkind extreme comments), and I disagree.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Who is representing the "Ugly face of Sikhism" here, Future holds the secret to this or for that matter who face is going to be ugly.


 
Using statements such as Blasphemy to describe a piece of researched work is UGLY. Such usage of words on this forum are uncalled for. My experince of people who use such words are that they are usually quite intolerant people.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> There is no case of loosing debate. This debate is not on equal par. As per the second part of the verse says:
> 
> _Maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay __*gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee jaanai*._
> _The fools argue over flesh and meat, _*but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. *


 
The rest of this tukh states:

_*What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?
*It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering._
*Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom.
*_O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said._
_They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts._

Stating one line is a classsic ploy by those who seek to mistranslate and misrepresent is to quote one liners from Bani out of context.......what you have done is a good example of this.

What do you mean by equal par? If by this you mean we should take everything you say as truth then I will disagree again. Clearly quoting one liners from Bani is not the truth.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> When you do gain some spiritual wisdom (if)one day, you will not feel the need for any discussion. I stand by all of my statements. Future shall reveal the results of your input in this topic. It is not part of my "Hukam" to educate you. If it is part of your "Hukam" to mislead people then you are part of the bigger plan.


 
Who are you to state whether I have spiritual wisdom or not? We have discussed and you were proven wrong in all your assertions. My "Hukam" is not to mislead but to explore the truth and expose those who would define something by their own prejudices.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> I was bewildered the first time but then I spent some time and looked into you translations, They all have been originated by one Dr Sant Singh Khalsa. There are considerable errors in them. Just check them against those of Prof Sahib Singh (Punjabi) for yourself and see if justice has been done. I can understand that there are difficulties in translations, since you refer your self to be an authority over these matters then why not spend time on the task of correcting these translation. .


 
Actually if you bothered to read the essay it actually challenges these translations, and states they are inaccurate. You would know this if you had bothered to read the essay. It states at the begining:

*One thing that has incensed us is the use of incorrect History and mistranslation to back up arguments. It was these points that we felt needed clarification and we hope the reader will find that this essay does that. *

I consider myself no authority, but I am easily able to challenge your arguments and translations. Also there are many other translations. Devinder Chahil has done a good job too.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> I have no enmity with you and hold no grudges. This musafir is in the Divine Protection of the Gurus, it will be your misfortune and your own fault to get punished. So do not let your tongue too loose again.
> 
> I bid you farewell once again.
> 
> ekmusafir_ajnabi


 
Your virtriolic statements say otherwise, and using staements such "_as it will be your misfortune and your own fault to get punished. So do not let your tongue too loose again." and "If it is part of your "Hukam" to mislead people" say otherwise._ I will continue to speak my mind, and neither you or anyone else will not be able to stop me from speaking my mind. No threats of divine punishment by you will frighten me. You are not the only person under the protection of the Guru's, to assume so is just pure Hankaar. 

I will have to warn you to stop making statements of a personal nature and start debating the issues.

Thanks


----------



## Astroboy (Jul 26, 2007)

Surinder Kaur Cheema said:


> [Everything starts with one thing-EGO; when one thinks 'I am better than others'.]
> So many misconceptions have been raised in the Panth by this “I-ness” and are responsible for creating unnecessary controversies.]
> 
> I agree with you on the above matter. The cause of trouble in one's life is always the self-centred ego. But if this topic could really result in reduce animal suffering by making more people vegetarians then its all worth it. Animal's are being slaughtered every minute somewhere in the world and sometimes via methods beyond our wildest nightmares. Youtube is full of video clips. Need I say more?
> ...


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 26, 2007)

begum said:


> I agree with you on the above matter. The cause of trouble in one's life is always the self-centred ego. But if this topic could really result in reduce animal suffering by making more people vegetarians then its all worth it. Animal's are being slaughtered every minute somewhere in the world and sometimes via methods beyond our wildest nightmares. Youtube is full of video clips. Need I say more?




Ironic you recognise that egotism is the cause of the problem yet you state that the vegetarian diet is somehow better than a non-vegetarian one. That is pure egotism, and is something our Guru's addressed head on:

*Page 1289 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji *

_First Mehl:
The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom._
*What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?
*_It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering._
*Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom.
*_O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said._
_They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts._

Sadana was a butcher who slaughtered animals yet his philosophy was included within Bani. If Sikhism thought so lowly of those that killed animals their Bani would have been excluded. Bhagat Ravi Das too slaughtered animals for their leather? Should his Bani be excluded? According to your Youtube videos Bhagat Sadana and Bhagat Ravi Das would be eternal sinners.



begum said:


> So are you going to be the one who raises questions in forums but fail to act to save these innocent animals? If herbiverous animals end up like this, what would be the fate of the meat-eaters?


 
What makes these animals so innocent? What is your reason behind this?  In any case are plants not innocent?

What about plant eaters? According to Bani below one can be a plant in one life then human the next, surely you are commiting a sin by eating plants then....read on:

*On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written: 

*_ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5._
_ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa._
_ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa._
_ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o._
_ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o._
_mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa_. _chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa._ rahaa-o. 
_ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa._
_ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa._
_ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa._
_saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat._
_kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat._
_ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan._
_jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan._
_avar na doojaa karnai jog._
_taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay._
_kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay._

_Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl_: 
_In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;_
_in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer._
_In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake._
_In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse._
_Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him_.
_After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you._ Pause 
_In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;_
*in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;
in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;*
_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._
*Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life.
*_Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har._
_Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance._
_Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord._
_Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord._
_No one else can do anything at all._
_We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself._
_Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har._
*Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji *

In this case an aborted innocent baby becomes a plant in their next life and then become human. Are you not commiting a sin in killing that plant?

Guruji describes planst as feeling pain:

Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._

_First Mehl:_
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 

If poor plants end up like this then what of the fate of eaters of plant flesh? What will their fate be?


----------



## simpy (Jul 26, 2007)

*Respected and Righteous begum ji,*

your words-


> So are you going to be the one who raises questions in forums but fail to act to save these innocent animals?


 

*seems like you are posing a question for me neech....*

*if you think it is due to my lack of action, i accept it. tuhada keha sir mathe te dear begum ji......i really dont know why i am a failure in this case though. *

*can you please explain why it's my failure, just for THE SAKE OF INFORMATION.*

*thanks endlessly*




*TU KARTA SACHEYAAR MAINDA SAAEE*


*humbly asking for everybody's forgiveness*


----------



## Astroboy (Jul 26, 2007)

No this question was posed for the general public, not you, Surinder Jee. Sorry for not clarifying earlier. You're doing a good job, so don't be distracted. 

As for you Randip, I am out of words. No issues with you. Thank you for your reminder. But try not to jump into conclusions on whether I support vegetarianism over meat consumption. 

My issue was really about making a difference for the animals. Your statement about "making animals look innocent" is both educational and humiliating to my emotional make-up. Looks like the rug has been pulled from underneath my feet. During this emotional ordeal with I am made to feel now, not blaming you, memory files of images have started to run swiftly within me; making me think if I and some of us have let emotions grow to an un-checked size. 

Then the problems in the world are merely as one sees it. They have no objective reality. I know you could load me with another round of Gurbani verses, but it will not be of much help right now.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 26, 2007)

begum said:


> As for you Randip, I am out of words. No issues with you. Thank you for your reminder. But try not to jump into conclusions on whether I support vegetarianism over meat consumption.
> 
> My issue was really about making a difference for the animals. Your statement about "making animals look innocent" is both educational and humiliating to my emotional make-up. Looks like the rug has been pulled from underneath my feet. During this emotional ordeal with I am made to feel now, not blaming you, memory files of images have started to run swiftly within me; making me think if I and some of us have let emotions grow to an un-checked size.
> 
> Then the problems in the world are merely as one sees it. They have no objective reality. I know you could load me with another round of Gurbani verses, but it will not be of much help right now.


 
Sorry for coming accross very heavy handed, but I used to use the same points as you to promote vegetarianism..........Bani dispelled the idea that my idea of an ideal diet was purely my ideal........

I always have to seprate the me from the we!


----------



## Astroboy (Jul 26, 2007)

I can understand that you too are no exception as a truth seeker. You apparently are going through a phase right now. And in this phase you want everyone to see things your way. But let me tell you, Randip you are casting pearls before the swine. Not every seeker of truth who makes a comment needs the same dose of medicine that you happen to inject in everyone. You should realize that these forums and threads are visited by people with different levels of consciousness. You might have good intentions but newbies come here to get involved in sikhi in a light and casual manner. 

Let it be known that most people who are unhappy with their worldly lives come here to seek 'shelter' and participation just to be cheerful. 

This forum therefore needs to categorise the threads into possibly three levels. The advanced level guys who want to take 'pangga' can expect to get the 'shelling' from you. But exempt those who are new or middle level. 

I hope you take my comments in good faith.


----------



## drkhalsa (Jul 27, 2007)

Dear Friend 

I some what agree that there should be some distinction  with beiginers 

The worst thing I can imagine is scaring off the newbie on forum and sikhi with with our heavy guns 
I have taken your point for my future posting thanks for this general advise


----------



## Parma (Jul 27, 2007)

Good Debate. Like The Beginning Articale


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Jul 30, 2007)

Quote:
I take it you are limited by your "Hukam" too, if that is the case then you are by definition incapable of teaching anyone, therefore there is nothing to understand. You have cited your opinions (as well as some very unkind extreme comments), and I disagree.

Your comment is a vivid demonstration of your lack of understanding of spirituality. I too am under “Hukam” but everyones “Hukam” is different based on their spiritual awareness. Therefore you can be taught by your senior.

You feel very hurt by my comments. How about yours, you are almost saying that our Gurus are hypocrites. One set of rules for Sikhs and the other for Non-sikhs (other religions). 

Jabhi baan lagge, Tabhi rosse jagge.

Those comments I made are still valid and I still stand by them and will demonstrate them to you in due course. You need to re-boot your mindset. You are heavily influenced by the Maya virus and depict a personification of Kalyug. It is not your fault, you are bound by Kalyug. “Right will look wrong and wrong right.” Gurbani stands witness to this.

Quote:
Using statements such as Blasphemy to describe a piece of researched work is UGLY. Such usage of words on this forum are uncalled for. My experince of people who use such words are that they are usually quite intolerant people


Your research work is very deficient and is very damaging to the future generation of Sikhism. You are not qualified or experienced enough yet to do research work on Sikhism.
Intolerance?  Yes there is always intolerance between a bairagee(bhagat) and the  world he lives in. You work is an insult and demeaning to the Sacrifices of “Our Gurus”. 

Quote:
The rest of this tukh states:

*What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?
*_It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering._*Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.**They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom.*_O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said.__They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts._
Stating one line is a classsic ploy by those who seek to mistranslate and misrepresent is to quote one liners from Bani out of context.......what you have done is a good example of this.What do you mean by equal par? If by this you mean we should take everything you say as truth then I will disagree again. Clearly quoting one liners from Bani is not the truth.


I am fully aware of what the tukh states but It appears that you are missing the point. 
You accuse me for talking out of context. Well let us go right to the beginning and see what is Sikh Phillosophy  and what are the underlying values of Sikhism. You and your exteemed colleague appears to have totally misunderstood the philosophy of Sikhism and gone off-course to lay the foundations for yet another misleading religion.
I have taken the base information from Wikipedia as reference and made some important modifications. We will only move forward once we are in agreement. I will answer to all your allegations and prove what I say is right.
*Sikh religious philosophy*

*From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*


_Sikhism primary beliefs and principles_

*One God:* - There is only one God who has infinite qualities and names. S/He is the same for all religions. God is Creator and Sustainer and Destroyer - all that you see around you is His creation. S/He is everywhere, in everything. S/He is fearless and with no enemies. Only God is without birth or death and S/He has and will exist forever. 
*Reincarnation, karma and salvation:* – Every creature has a soul. On death, the soul is passed from one body to another until liberation. The journey of the soul is governed by the deeds and actions that we perform during our lives. *It is also influenced by the state of ones mind leading to the final breaths (Death).*
*Remember God:* Love God, but have fear of Him as well. Only by *keeping the Creator in your mind at all times *will you make progress in your spiritual evolution. 
*Humanity (brotherhood):* All human beings are equal. We are all sons and daughters of Waheguru, the Almighty. 
*Uphold moral values:* *Defend, protect and fight for the rights of all creatures*, in particular your fellow human beings. 
*Personal sacrifice:* Be prepared to give your life for all supreme principles. See the life of Guru Teg Bahadur. 
*Many paths lead to God:* – Sikhs are not special; they are not the only chosen people of God. *Simply calling yourself a Sikh does not bring you salvation. Sikhism however present you with a very simple sure and progressive path.*
*Positive attitude toward life:* "Chardi Kala" – Always have a positive, optimistic and buoyant view of life. God is always here is guise – He will be your help. 
*Disciplined life:* Upon baptism, a Sikh must wear the 5Ks and perform strict recital of the five prayers Banis, etc. Only get baptised when you have no doubts left. To get baptised and pursue a life doubtness of (life of a Bemukh) is treated harshly by our Gurus.
*No special worship days:* Sikhs do not believe that any particular day is holier than any other. 
*Conquer the five thieves:* It is every Sikh's duty to defeat these five thieves: Pride (a’Hankar), Anger (Kr’odh), Greed (Lob’H), Attachment (Mo’H), and Lust (K’haam). Known collectively as P.A.G.A.L. 
*Conquer the five sences:* It is every Sikh's duty to renounce these five senses: *T*ounge (Desire to eat Tasty foods), *H*ear (Habbit of listerning to Gossip), *S*peech ( Too much unnecessary Talking), *E*xternal visualisation (Desire to see everything externally), *T*ouch (To feel your and others presence) that a body takes pleasure from and confirms ones existance. (Known in Bani as Bairaganiaan)
*Attack with Five Weapons:* Contentment (Santokh), Charity (Dan), Kindness (Daya ), Positive Energy (Chardi Kala), Humility (Nimarta). 
_Sikhism underlying values_

*Equality:* All humans are equal before God – No discrimination is allowed on the basis of caste, race, gender, creed, origin, color, education, status, wealth, etc. The principles of universal equality and brotherhood are important pillars of Sikhism. 
*God’s spirit:* All creatures have God’s spirits and must be properly respected. Show love for all *living things*. Mistreatment or *harming of any living creature is tabooed and forbidden.* Remember, your next birth may be as a different animal. 
*Personal right:* Every person has a right to life but this right is restricted and has attached certain duties – simple living is essential. A Sikh is expected to rise early, meditate and pray, consume simple food, perform an honest day's work, carry out duties for your family, enjoy life and always be positive, be charitable and support the needy, etc. 
*Actions count:* Salvation is obtained by one’s actions – good deeds, remembrance of God – Naam Simran, Kirtan, etc. 
*Living a family life:* Encouraged to live as a family unit to provide and nurture children for the perpetual benefit of creation. 
*Sharing:* It is encouraged to share and give to charity 10 percent of one’s net earnings DASBAND. 
*Accept God’s will:* Develop your personality so that you recognize happy event and miserable events as one – the will of God causes them. 
I am sure even you will agree to all the above. If not then raise your concerns.
Quote:
Who are you to state whether I have spiritual wisdom or not? We have discussed and you were proven wrong in all your assertions. My "Hukam" is not to mislead but to explore the truth and expose those who would define something by their own prejudices.


Who am I to state whether I have spiritual wisdom or not? Well you have not earned enough brownie points yet to know who I am. You are not equipped yet to make decisions. However exploring is everyone’s right.


Quote:
Actually if you bothered to read the essay it actually challenges these translations, and states they are inaccurate. You would know this if you had bothered to read the essay. It states at the begining:*One thing that has incensed us is the use of incorrect History and mistranslation to back up arguments. It was these points that we felt needed clarification and we hope the reader will find that this essay does that. *I consider myself no authority, but I am easily able to challenge your arguments and translations. Also there are many other translations. Devinder Chahil has done a good job too.



Consider it courteous on my side that I chose to ignore your statement because you have almost re-written history by your comments. You can challenge as much as you like but that does not mean that you fully understand what I am saying.

Quote:
Your vitriolic statements say otherwise, and using staements such "_as it will be your misfortune and your own fault to get punished. So do not let your tongue too loose again." and "If it is part of your "Hukam" to mislead people" say otherwise._ I will continue to speak my mind, and neither you or anyone else will not be able to stop me from speaking my mind. No threats of divine punishment by you will frighten me. You are not the only person under the protection of the Guru's, to assume so is just pure Hankaar. 

I will have to warn you to stop making statements of a personal nature and start debating the issues.




“Khotey nu loon devo te oh aakhda hai ki mere kunn put kehe ne.” 

Those were not threats but mere advice. To advise someone from making a foolish mistake (intentional or un-intentional) is not considered to be Hankaar. And it is not Hankaar to be under Gurus protection, it is a blessing. If you too are also that close to Guru ji’s then you too are free to make a statement. I will be happy to be aquainted with you as a fellow traveller (Musafir).

Well if you want to debate then lets debate right from the beginning. 

Do you agree with the _ primary beliefs and principles of Sikhism and the underlying values as stated above._

Where does it say in the Bani that a Sikh has the right to take anyones life. Be it Human or an animal? And that such action has no consequences?


Based on your comments, Is it not then hypocrisy on part of our Gurus to Criticise Hindus and/or Muslims for killing animals? Wheras their own students are free to do so. In either case the animal looses its life for no reason, whether you read Quaranic verses or do jhattka whilst killing it.? Death is death = loss of life.

If you want to understand Bhagat Kabeer then you will need to spiritually elevate yourself to his level to comment on him. For that matter be it Bhagat Sadana ji or Bhagat Ravi Das ji. One should not make unqualified statement.

Bhagat Sadana and Bhagat Ravidass ji were spiritually elevated people. They were not slaves of their bodies. Their soul and body were two different entities. The actions of their bodies were mechanical and did not impact on their Karmas as “I” was not present. I suggest you only give examples on issues that are within your grasp.

Look forward to your comments.

Ekmusafir ajnabi


----------



## drkhalsa (Jul 30, 2007)

> Death is death = loss of life.



Are we in position control it whether it is of animal or may be insect ?
Or may be we are capable of wasting some animal life ?

please elaborate


----------



## Astroboy (Jul 30, 2007)

I wish to request the Moderators to consider shifting this topic to Hard Talk section so that it may continue its natural course. My apologies to all concerned, especially to Randip.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 30, 2007)

Begum ji

You idea is well expressed. The reason why this thread has stayed in essays-on-sikism is that it began in that part of the forum as a very long and detailed piece of research about the rehit and/or lack of rehit against eating meat. The very first posting is a lengthy and erudite analysis written in the form of an essay. So if it were to be moved based on current conversations, then everything that went on earlier would be moved too. Kind of like a forced migration to another country. 

So every now and then someone has to ask participants to re-focus their efforts back to the original intent of the thread. And they do.

SPN MEMBER, BEGUM,  HAS MADE A RELEVANT OBSERVATION. WE NEED TO RELATE OUR COMMENTS TO THE  SUBSTANCE OF THE THREAD. AND RANDIP JI, BACKING YOU UP HERE. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. A statement like,  "You are heavily influenced by the Maya virus and depict a personification of Kalyug. It is not your fault, you are bound by Kalyug" could be interpreted by some as flaming and is on the cusp of being a personal attack." THANK YOU.


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 30, 2007)

> Based on your comments, Is it not then hypocrisy on part of our Gurus to Criticise Hindus and/or Muslims for killing animals? Wheras their own students are free to do so. In either case the animal looses its life for no reason, whether you read Quaranic verses or do jhattka whilst killing it.? Death is death = loss of life.



Ek musafir ji you are talking about hypocracy.Just answer my simple question could you deny the fact that both guru hargobind ji and guru gobind singh ji hunted regularly Along with the sikhs.Now as you said that Death is death so if Ahimsa is such an important part of sikh philosophy then is it not hypocracy on part of guru's to hunt.How could you justify huntings by guru's and sikhs?


----------



## Lionchild (Jul 31, 2007)

drkhalsa said:


> Are we in position control it whether it is of animal or may be insect ?
> Or may be we are capable of wasting some animal life ?
> 
> please elaborate



*We already waste allot of time and life with the many activities we do everyday...*
Working to get cars and houses that won't be there when we die, we consume resources that destroy the earth as if there is no tomorrow. And we haven’t even scratched the surface of the many things we do on a regular basis, that are truly "a waste of time and life"

In regards to meat and diet - let people eat what they want to eat, and if you care what they are doing, then I say that you are wasting your time and life caring about others people’s matters that don't regard you.

IMHO: Don’t bother getting choked up over other peoples decisions!


Disclaimer: this is general reply, and not directed towards members that replied, or anyone on SPN in particular. i'm not responsible if take my words to personoly, nor gtets offended by the actually post that is in reponse to an answer.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 31, 2007)

Lionchild ji

I share your view that we should not 

*bother getting choked up over other peoples decisions!* An excess of emotion is always a sign that  Ego is playing games with Mind -- we want to be RIGHT and are upset when others disagree and say we are WRONG. 

What I would say however is that the thread is presumably a discussion about a moral question - a Rehit against meat-eating. So there is an educational theme in this. Having nothing to do with Ego and Mind.  It just gets lost every now and then.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 1, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Your comment is a vivid demonstration of your lack of understanding of spirituality. I too am under “Hukam” but everyones “Hukam” is different based on their spiritual awareness. Therefore you can be taught by your senior.




My friend you are in no position to judge spirituality, and if you think seniority in terms of age matters then you know nothing about Sikhism or what ages our Sikh Guru's were, stop making personal attacks.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> You feel very hurt by my comments. How about yours, you are almost saying that our Gurus are hypocrites. One set of rules for Sikhs and the other for Non-sikhs (other religions).
> 
> Jabhi baan lagge, Tabhi rosse jagge..




I feel nothing towards your comments, but as someone who belives in freedom of speech (as the Guru's did) I feel I must challenge you.

Stop right there. I have never implied the Guru's are hypocrits. Stop making personal attacks.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Those comments I made are still valid and I still stand by them and will demonstrate them to you in due course. You need to re-boot your mindset. You are heavily influenced by the Maya virus and depict a personification of Kalyug. It is not your fault, you are bound by Kalyug. “Right will look wrong and wrong right.” Gurbani stands witness to this.




Stick to chalenging the work rather than personal attacks.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Your research work is very deficient and is very damaging to the future generation of Sikhism. You are not qualified or experienced enough yet to do research work on Sikhism.
> Intolerance? Yes there is always intolerance between a bairagee(bhagat) and the world he lives in. You work is an insult and demeaning to the Sacrifices of “Our Gurus”.




Challenge the work then and stop making personal attacks.





ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> I am fully aware of what the tukh states but It appears that you are missing the point.
> You accuse me for talking out of context. Well let us go right to the beginning and see what is Sikh Phillosophy and what are the underlying values of Sikhism. You and your exteemed colleague appears to have totally misunderstood the philosophy of Sikhism and gone off-course to lay the foundations for yet another misleading religion.
> I have taken the base information from Wikipedia as reference and made some important modifications. We will only move forward once we are in agreement. I will answer to all your allegations and prove what I say is right.




Point 1 - If you are aware of the Tukh then quote it all. Don't take the quote out of context or you will be challenged like you were and defeated.

Point 2 - wikipedia is not a valid source for citing Sikhism it is a site that can be changed by anyone.

Point 3 - The Quote from wikipedia was made by Hari Singh who follows the GnnSJ cult, and not mainstream Sikhism, so it is irrelevant.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> *Sikh religious philosophy*
> 
> *From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> 
> ...




The above needs to be verified by scholars, some of the above is inaccurate as is much of wikipedia.






ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Who am I to state whether I have spiritual wisdom or not? Well you have not earned enough brownie points yet to know who I am. You are not equipped yet to make decisions. However exploring is everyone’s right..




Again stop perssonal attacks. You are in no position to judge another man's spiritualitiy. You are NOT a Guru. You are a mere man, like me.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Consider it courteous on my side that I chose to ignore your statement because you have almost re-written history by your comments. You can challenge as much as you like but that does not mean that you fully understand what I am saying...




Please enlighten me? Please challenge the essay with verifiable sources and accurate translations.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> “Khotey nu loon devo te oh aakhda hai ki mere kunn put kehe ne.”
> 
> Those were not threats but mere advice. To advise someone from making a foolish mistake (intentional or un-intentional) is not considered to be Hankaar. And it is not Hankaar to be under Gurus protection, it is a blessing. If you too are also that close to Guru ji’s then you too are free to make a statement. I will be happy to be aquainted with you as a fellow traveller (Musafir).




You are in no position to know what the Guru's are thinking or saying, or to whom they are meeting punishment.

Please keep you personal advice to yourself and debate the  issues.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Well if you want to debate then lets debate right from the beginning.
> 
> Do you agree with the _primary beliefs and principles of Sikhism and the underlying values as stated above._
> 
> Where does it say in the Bani that a Sikh has the right to take anyones life. Be it Human or an animal? And that such action has no consequences?




Point 1 - wikipedia is unverifiable.

Point 2 - where does it say in Bani you cannot take a life?

Point 3 - Are you saying the Guru's were pacifists?



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Based on your comments, Is it not then hypocrisy on part of our Gurus to Criticise Hindus and/or Muslims for killing animals? Wheras their own students are free to do so. In either case the animal looses its life for no reason, whether you read Quaranic verses or do jhattka whilst killing it.? Death is death = loss of life.




Guru's did not criticise Muslims and Hindu's for killing animals, they criticised sacrifice and its futility. A massive difference and one you cannot seem to grasp.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> If you want to understand Bhagat Kabeer then you will need to spiritually elevate yourself to his level to comment on him. For that matter be it Bhagat Sadana ji or Bhagat Ravi Das ji. One should not make unqualified statement.
> 
> Bhagat Sadana and Bhagat Ravidass ji were spiritually elevated people. They were not slaves of their bodies. Their soul and body were two different entities. The actions of their bodies were mechanical and did not impact on their Karmas as “I” was not present. I suggest you only give examples on issues that are within your grasp.
> 
> ...


 
Please enlighten me about these Bhagats, and why did Sadana and Ravi Das still continue with their so called "dirty" professions and yet still sen as Saints?

PS Last warning, anymore personal attacks and I will delete your posts.


----------



## Astroboy (Aug 1, 2007)

PS Last warning, anymore personal attacks and I will delete your posts.

Let the decision of deletion come from another moderator, not you Randip, because you are actively involved in this debate.


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 1, 2007)

*Warning to everyone.

Anymore ad hominem attacks, personal attacks, flaming, spamming, or similar violation of forum rules will lead to deletion, and it doesn't matter who  breaks the rules..* Or who the forum leader is.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 2, 2007)

begum said:


> PS Last warning, anymore personal attacks and I will delete your posts.
> 
> Let the decision of deletion come from another moderator, not you Randip, because you are actively involved in this debate.


 
Point noted my friend. Another moderator will take that decision. You will note that I have pleaded with Ekh Musafir throughout his postings here not to make personal attacks. Just scroll through them.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Aug 2, 2007)

drkhalsa said:


> Are we in position control it whether it is of animal or may be insect ?
> Or may be we are capable of wasting some animal life ?
> 
> please elaborate


 
We are responsible for our own individual actions. If one stays in the “Hukam” and obeys/lives the primary beliefs and principles of Sikhism then “Yes” premeditated murder/killing can be stopped. It is the premeditated killing that is the biggest sin of all. Life taken to satisfy ones taste buds can be controlled. Life taken under the influence of Ego can be stopped. Whenever we interfere with the Laws of Nature, we have to pay. Loss of life that is not premeditated is not fully accountable. But Guru ji says, 

Ga&shy;oṛī mehlā 9.
Nar acẖėṯ pāp ṯė dar rė.   Ḏīn ḏa&shy;i&shy;āl sagal bẖai bẖanjan saran ṯāhi ṯum par rė. ||1|| rahā&shy;o.   
O human, fear the sin that is done incautiously(in ignorance). Seek the Sanctuary of the Lord, Who is compassionate to the poor, the destroyer of all fear. |1||Pause||
Bėḏ purān jās gun gāvaṯṯā ko nām hī&shy;ai mo ḏẖar rė.   Pāvan nām jagaṯ mai har ko simar simar kasmal sabẖ har rė. ||1||   
He, whose praises are sung in the Vedas and puranas, enshrine His Naam within your heart. Pure and sublime is the Name of the Lord in this world, recite/remember him, and all sinful mistakes shall be washed away. ||1|| 
Mānas ḏėh bahur nah pāvai kacẖẖū upā&shy;o mukaṯ kā kar rė.   Nānak kahaṯ gā&shy;ė karunā mai bẖav sāgar kai pār uṯar rė. ||2||9||251||   
O man, you shall not, attain this human body again. Make some corrective effort towards you liberation. Says Nanak, sing the praise of The Compasionate to cross over the terrifying worldly-ocean. 


Nature keeps an account of all our actions, be it conscious or unconscious. To keep the balance of Nature, even the Divine does not directly interfere. Punishment is sanctioned. It is only the intensity (By the Grace of the Divine) that can be reduced unless the Guru takes it on to himself. Human life is the most precious of all living being. Thousands of bacteria sacrifice their lives to keep us alive so that we can pursue our journey back to our maker. This is why humans are severely punished for interfering with the Laws of nature. we share a common birth ground with animals. We are both born of the Womb. Our basic sensory perceptions are very similar. Therefore animal life should not be considered too inferior and be subjected to exploitation.

On this earth, we have all come to serve our judgement for mis-deeds. When we take any life, we are held responsible for it because we are denying that being the right to serve its judgement. This is our Dharamsaal, the place of karmic deliverance.


rwqI ruqI iQqI vwr ] pvx pwxI AgnI pwqwl ] iqsu ivic DrqI Qwip rKI Drm swl ]
iqsu ivic jIA jugiq ky rMg ] iqn ky nwm Anyk Anµq ] 

He created, nights, seasons, lunar days, week days; wind, water, fire and the nether regions. In amidst of all these, He established the Earth as a place of karmic deliverance. There-in, He placed the various species of beings(with means of living) of various types. Their names are innumerable and infinite.
krmI krmI hoie vIcwru ] scw Awip scw drbwru ] iqQY sohin pMc prvwxu ] 
ndrI krim pvY nIswxu ] kc pkweI EQY pwie ] nwnk gieAw jwpY jwie ]34] 

Based on their deeds and actions they are judged.   The Lord Himself is true and true is His Court.  There in the Lords Court, are graced realized-Saints (who have mastered the five evils) and by the grace of the merciful master they receive the Mark (the judgement based on their deeds). There, the realized and the unrealized are assessed. O Nanak, when you reach there, you will see this. ||34|| 
To safeguard us from the incautious sin, Guru ji guides us to stay absorbed in Naam Simran. In doing so our Gurus make up the shortfall and pull us out of the life cycle. So drkhalsa ji we have been given the choice. It is up to the individual to make the decision. Following the lost sheep will only lead you to the slaughter house. {censored} for Tat. 


Ekmusafir_ajnabi


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Aug 2, 2007)

kds1980 said:


> Ek musafir ji you are talking about hypocracy.Just answer my simple question could you deny the fact that both guru hargobind ji and guru gobind singh ji hunted regularly Along with the sikhs.Now as you said that Death is death so if Ahimsa is such an important part of sikh philosophy then is it not hypocracy on part of guru's to hunt.How could you justify huntings by guru's and sikhs?


 
KDS you have chosen two particular periods when Sikhism was in turmoil (almost annihilation) to justify as a universal message to kill animals under the umbrella of Sikhism. On both occasions what you see is the dominance of Miri. Gurus were at WAR. Sikhism was in Danger. 
*Guru Hargobind Ji succeeded his father, Guru Arjun Dev Ji, as the 6th Guru*. When Guru Arjun Dev was in captivity and under the cruelest torture, he concentrated on God and sought divine enlightenment *to save the nascent religion from annihilation.* The only solution revealed to him was to metamorphose the community into a determined and dedicated force. His last message to his son Hargobind was to "*sit fully armed on the throne and maintain an army to the best of your ability*." In the succession ceremony, Guru Hargobind was adored with two swords. The Guru declared that two swords signified *Miri and Piri*, *Shakti and Bhakti, Teg and Deg*. One symbolized temporal power, the other spiritual power; one to smite the oppressor, the other to protect the innocent. In the Guru’s house the mundane and spiritual powers stood mingled. He instructed the Sikhs to keep a sword and a horse. With an undaunted determination, the Guru organized his followers into a valiant and valorous army. Being witness to the brutal and barbaric torture of his father had steeled the heart Guru ji. Guru ji toughened his Sikhs against tyranny and oppression.
To participated in hunting in those times was deemed to be justified. The cause was to *infuse Martial Spirit in the Sikhs, Guru Hargobind ji taught the warriors to hunt ferocious animals such as lions. Wounded animals were cared for and after recover they were set free.*
Guru Gobind Singh ji was in a similar predicament after the Martyrdom of Guru Teg Bhadur ji . Now what happened in those very challenging and exceptional times, is not a reflection on the primary beliefs and principles and values of Sikhism and should not be confused. It is common sense.

Our Gurus, very highly spiritual souls who have attained oneness with the Lord. They held the power to give redemption in those circumstances. It is not for us to hold our Gurus accountable for those periods. People are people.

I suggest you also familiarise yourself with the events that took place and not rely on third party self-opinionated information.

Dabistan-i-Mazahib written by the Muslim Mohsin Fani
http://www.sikh.com.au/sikhgurus/hargobind.html



Ekmusafir_ajnabi


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 2, 2007)

> To participated in hunting in those times was deemed to be justified. The cause was to infuse Martial Spirit in the Sikhs, Guru Hargobind ji taught the warriors to hunt ferocious animals such as lions. Wounded animals were cared for and after recover they were set free.



ekmusafir ji i simply don't understand why do you people simply twist sikh history to suit
your beleif.No where it is written in sikh history that guru ji and sikhs hunted only ferocious animals

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle warefare training Guru Gobind Singh Ji


Large scale hunting expeditions were organised where soldiers obtained training to use their weapons on live and fast moving targets. The ranges around Paonta Sahib were full of deer and wild boar known for their swiftness and agility. Also, the expeditions lasted many days during which the soldiers were trained to live off the land with an aim to toughen them and acquaint them with battle-like stress and strains.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i also have a mini suraj prakash at home in which it is written that guru ji and sikhs regularly hunted deer,nilgai and wild boar

bTw your arguement is no different from people who says that rehat is presently not needed as it was need of that time.


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 2, 2007)

kds1980 said:


> while searching internet i found amarnamah.i was quite shocked too read that
> banda bahadur was not submitting to guru gobind singh ji on single issue of vegetarianism that's why guru gobind singh ji ordered to slaughter his goats
> so guru gobind singh ji was totaly against fanatic vegetarianism.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



ekmusafir ji i also want your views on amarnamah .Again i am asking if vegetarianism
is such an important concept in sikhism then why guru gobind singh ji slaughtered goats of banda bahadur and distribuited its meat to tribals.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Aug 3, 2007)

Gurfateh

Well distributing meat ot tribal is a cooked up one.In old texts like Panth PRakash of Bhangu Sikhs are said to be eating goats.

Banda when had bad terms with Punjabis/tat Khalasa Sikhs rember then as eater of his goat.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Aug 3, 2007)

KDS




> ekmusafir ji i simply don't understand why do you people simply twist sikh history to suit your beleif. No where it is written in sikh history that guru ji and sikhs hunted only ferocious animals.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Battle warefare training Guru Gobind Singh Ji
> 
> ...




I have come across this statement on the internet in one of the sites, but am unable to back track it. There is no intentional twisting of history as you are claiming.  

Do not take any historical book as gospel. Our Gurus had very many enemies who have written very damaging essays on Guru ji and most of them were from within his own family circles. Most of the history you read and that includes your mini suraj prakash interpretation, have been doctored by various people.



The following is an extract from your link and emphasises my viewpoint.




> It is a little known fact that Sikhs used to tend to their own battle injured, but more importantly that of the enemy. They would bring them back to base camp, caring and tending to their wounds and nursing them back to health. They were fed and kept safe ,once they were well enough Guru Gobind Singh Ji would ask his Sikhs to bring the enemy soldiers their horse, weapons and belongings. Guru Ji would tell them "Now go and we shall meet you again on the battlefield." For Guru ji there was no enemy, there was no foe, all were the same and Guru Ji looked upon everyone with the same benevelant gaze.


 
In line with the above statement, It is clear that Guru ji’s instructions were to nurse the wounded enemy soldiers as well. In the same spirit if any animals (non ferocious) that were part of the target training, were wounded then they were also nursed back to health. Hunting was not done out of pleasure but for a just cause in extremely difficult times directly by Divine himself. If such irregularities did take place then the divine was there for forgiveness or retribution. As I said before, do not use this as a norm for propagating killing animals for eating purposes. If you personally have the urge to eat meat then stand on your own feet and take responsibility and suffer the consequences. 




> bTw your arguement is no different from people who says that rehat is presently not needed as it was need of that time.


 
I think common sense should prevail here. You are unable to distinguish between the time of peace and war. 





> ekmusafir ji i also want your views on amarnamah .Again i am asking if vegetarianism is such an important concept in sikhism then why guru gobind singh ji slaughtered goats of banda bahadur and distribuited its meat to tribals.




Amarnamah is a FAKE.

Any one with a little common sense will tell you that. It is a show of frustration of a Ballad singer to justify his rank among the Kirtanayae . Ballard singers were not permitted (until recently) to take part in religious congregations due to their “Kachi Bani” content. Their singing was more appreciated in a battlefield situation to raise the moral of the soldier. 

Indeed some one has made a good attempt and succeeded to fool people and from the response on this topic in another thread one can visit them.

No goats were ever slaughtered. The storey of Guru ji’s meeting with Banda is false.

KDS this is twisting history in the true sense. Broaden you horizon.

ekmusafir_ajnabi


----------



## Astroboy (Aug 3, 2007)

You guys need to slow down and handle one issue at a time. Otherwise it will just seem like a war of words, defeating the actual purpose of the discussion. If you guys have a tendency of wanting to keep fighting rather than actually resolve issues, and feel afraid people will laugh at or ridicule U if U admit U made a mistake, or are looking at apology as a sign of weakness then I'm reminding you to snap out of it. Likewise, I will appreciate if you did the same for me. 

Thousand apologies.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 4, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> KDS
> 
> 
> Amarnamah is a FAKE.




Prove it!



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Any one with a little common sense will tell you that. It is a show of frustration of a Ballad singer to justify his rank among the Kirtanayae . Ballard singers were not permitted (until recently) to take part in religious congregations due to their “Kachi Bani” content. Their singing was more appreciated in a battlefield situation to raise the moral of the soldier.




Prove it!



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Indeed some one has made a good attempt and succeeded to fool people and from the response on this topic in another thread one can visit them.




What attempt how and by whom? ack up assertions with verifiable facts.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> No goats were ever slaughtered. The storey of Guru ji’s meeting with Banda is false.




Prove it!



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> KDS this is twisting history in the true sense. Broaden you horizon.
> 
> ekmusafir_ajnabi


 
No this is not twisting. KDS has provided verifiable sources I suggest you do the same, because until then we cannot take you seriously.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 4, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> We are responsible for our own individual actions. If one stays in the “Hukam” and obeys/lives the primary beliefs and principles of Sikhism then “Yes” premeditated murder/killing can be stopped. It is the premeditated killing that is the biggest sin of all. Life taken to satisfy ones taste buds can be controlled.


 
What do you mean by premeditated killing?

Is the killing of plants to satisfy your taste buds not premeditated?

I love to eat Cholaya dee Daal, my taste buds influence that, so should I give that up?

Is not Bhai Gurdas (in the Key to the Guru Granth Sahib ji) describing premeditated killing?

*Just as one has to tie pail's neck while taking out water, 
Just as to get Mani, snake is to be killed
Just as to get Kasturi from deer's neck, deer is to be killed
Just as to get oil, oil seeds are to be crushed
To get kernel, pomegranate is to be broken
Similarly to correct senseless people, sword has to be taken up.
Bhai Gurdas, Var-34, pauri 13 *

How do you reconcile that?





ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Life taken under the influence of Ego can be stopped. Whenever we interfere with the Laws of Nature, we have to pay. Loss of life that is not premeditated is not fully accountable.


 
A hunter does not kill an animal in Native American society because he/she has ego, it is because he she is hungry. Hunting is part of the laws of nature. One animal killing another is part of it, so how do you conclude that hunting and killing is not part of the laws of nature?



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> But Guru ji says,
> Ga&shy;oṛī mehlā 9.
> Nar acẖėṯ pāp ṯė dar rė. Ḏīn ḏa&shy;i&shy;āl sagal bẖai bẖanjan saran ṯāhi ṯum par rė. ||1|| rahā&shy;o.
> O human, fear the sin that is done incautiously(in ignorance). Seek the Sanctuary of the Lord, Who is compassionate to the poor, the destroyer of all fear. |1||Pause||
> ...


 
There is nothing in the above tukh that highlights anything to do with hunting, or killing. It talks about compassion, then surely you should have compassion for a plant which cannot speak, or even run away. Cannot show its distress?



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Nature keeps an account of all our actions, be it conscious or unconscious. To keep the balance of Nature, even the Divine does not directly interfere. Punishment is sanctioned. It is only the intensity (By the Grace of the Divine) that can be reduced unless the Guru takes it on to himself.


 
You talk about the balance of nature, but again you have not stated what that is? Hunting and killing animals is part of nature. How do you reconcile that?



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Human life is the most precious of all living being. Thousands of bacteria sacrifice their lives to keep us alive so that we can pursue our journey back to our maker. This is why humans are severely punished for interfering with the Laws of nature. we share a common birth ground with animals. We are both born of the Womb. Our basic sensory perceptions are very similar. Therefore animal life should not be considered too inferior and be subjected to exploitation.


 
Being born of the womb is not true. There are many animals born outside the womb, so this is not true. So we should have affinity with those animals born in the womb and those not born in the womb?


Where is Bani does it say that animalsare not to inferior to us. Infact Bani describes the pain of plants like that of a human being:
Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._

_First Mehl:_
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji
How do you reconcile that?

Bani contradicts this statement as states that in one life we could be a plant and the next a human being?
On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written: 

_ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5._
_ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa._
_ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa._
_ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o._
_ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o._
_mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa_. _chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa._ rahaa-o. 
_ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa._
_ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa._
_ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa._
_saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat._
_kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat._
_ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan._
_jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan._
_avar na doojaa karnai jog._
_taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay._
_kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay._

_Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl_: 
_In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;_
_in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer._
_In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake._
_In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse._
_Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him_.
_After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you._ Pause 
_*In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;*_
_*in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;*_
_*in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;*_
_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._
_*Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life.*_
_Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har._
_Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance._
_Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord._
_Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord._
_No one else can do anything at all._
_We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself._
_Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> On this earth, we have all come to serve our judgement for mis-deeds. When we take any life, we are held responsible for it because we are denying that being the right to serve its judgement. This is our Dharamsaal, the place of karmic deliverance.


What jud
gement is that? That sounds like a very Semitic concept? Where in Bani does it say this?

The following Tukh from Bani talks about the 5 thieves, not about animal killing or hunting? Where does the pain of plants feature here in anycase?



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> rwqI ruqI iQqI vwr ] pvx pwxI AgnI pwqwl ] iqsu ivic DrqI Qwip rKI Drm swl ]
> iqsu ivic jIA jugiq ky rMg ] iqn ky nwm Anyk Anµq ]
> He created, nights, seasons, lunar days, week days; wind, water, fire and the nether regions. In amidst of all these, He established the Earth as a place of karmic deliverance. There-in, He placed the various species of beings(with means of living) of various types. Their names are innumerable and infinite.
> krmI krmI hoie vIcwru ] scw Awip scw drbwru ] iqQY sohin pMc prvwxu ]
> ...





ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> To safeguard us from the incautious sin, Guru ji guides us to stay absorbed in Naam Simran. In doing so our Gurus make up the shortfall and pull us out of the life cycle. So drkhalsa ji we have been given the choice. It is up to the individual to make the decision. Following the lost sheep will only lead you to the slaughter house. {censored} for Tat.
> Ekmusafir_ajnabi



Spurious comments not backed up with evidence. Please back up statements with relevant shabads and Bani.


----------



## japjisahib04 (Aug 4, 2007)

Originally Posted by *ekmusafir_ajnabi* 
_Life taken under the influence of Ego can be stopped. Whenever we interfere with the Laws of Nature, we have to pay. Loss of life that is not premeditated is not fully accountable. _

_I wonder what is this interference with Laws of Nature. Take the example of fly. If you don't kill the fly she will keep on disturbing. Similar way if we let these animal astray, they will make our life miserable and that day will not be far when they will not only outnumber but make our movement difficult.
Regards Sahni  _


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Aug 4, 2007)

> My friend you are in no position to judge spirituality, and if you think seniority in terms of age matters then you know nothing about Sikhism or what ages our Sikh Guru's were, stop making personal attacks.


I shall never be your friend. As far as spirituality is concerned you do not know the ABC of it. 
Seniority ? This musafir is senior to you in every aspect. 
As far as Gurus are concerned, this musafir was a life long companion of Guru Amar Das ji. I witnessed the Guruship of Guru Amar Das ji.  I have lived and travellerd with my Gurus. I need not tell you anymore. 
Personal attacks?  What personal attacks? So you do have an EGO. An ENORMOUS ONE.  Just admit it and perhaps we will move forward.




> I feel nothing towards your comments, but as someone who belives in freedom of speech (as the Guru's did) I feel I must challenge you.
> 
> Stop right there. I have never implied the Guru's are hypocrits. Stop making personal attacks.



Yours is not freedom of speech but a display of lack of spiritual knowledge and a show of frustration and a burning desire for Recognition.




> Point 1 - If you are aware of the Tukh then quote it all. Don't take the quote out of context or you will be challenged like you were and defeated.
> 
> Point 2 - wikipedia is not a valid source for citing Sikhism it is a site that can be changed by anyone.
> 
> Point 3 - The Quote from wikipedia was made by Hari Singh who follows the GnnSJ cult, and not mainstream Sikhism, so it is irrelevant.


Point 1 – I will do that in good time. You are no match to challenge me. 
Point 2 – Ignore wikipedia and stick to what I have put forward.
Point 3 – I do not know of Hari Singh but if the contents were his then I must congratulate him he has the blessings of Our Gurus.

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principles



Sikhism primary beliefs and principles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principles

*One God:* - There is only one God who has infinite qualities and names. S/He is the same for all religions. God is Creator and Sustainer and Destroyer - all that you see around you is His creation. S/He is everywhere, in everything. S/He is fearless and with no enemies. Only God is without birth or death and S/He has and will exist forever. 
*Reincarnation, karma and salvation:* – Every creature has a soul. On death, the soul is passed from one body to another until liberation. The journey of the soul is governed by the deeds and actions that we perform during our lives. *It is also influenced by the state of ones mind leading to the final breaths (Death).*
*Remember God:* Love God, but have fear of Him as well. Only by *keeping the Creator in your mind at all times *will you make progress in your spiritual evolution. 
*Humanity (brotherhood):* All human beings are equal. We are all sons and daughters of 

Waheguru, the Almighty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principles
[*]*Uphold moral values:* *Defend, protect and fight for the rights of all creatures*, in particular your fellow human beings. 
[*]*Personal sacrifice:* Be prepared to give your life for all supreme principles. See the life of Guru Teg Bahadur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principles
[*]*Many paths lead to God:* – Sikhs are not special; they are not the only chosen people of God. *Simply calling yourself a Sikh does not bring you salvation. Sikhism however present you with a very simple sure and progressive path.*
[*]*Positive attitude toward life:* " Chardi Kala" – Always have a positive, optimistic and buoyant view of life. God is always here is guise – He will be your help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principles
[*]*Disciplined life:* Upon baptism, a Sikh must wear the 5Ks and perform strict recital of the five prayers Banis, etc. Only get baptised when you have no doubts left. To get baptised and pursue a life doubtness of (life of a Bemukh) is treated harshly by our Gurus.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principles
[*]*No special worship days:* Sikhs do not believe that any particular day is holier than any other. 
[*]*Conquer the five thieves:* It is every Sikh's duty to defeat these five thieves: Pride (a’Hankar), Anger (Kr’odh), Greed (Lob’H), Attachment (Mo’H), and Lust (K’haam). Known collectively as P.A.G.A.L. 
[*]*Conquer the five sences:* It is every Sikh's duty to renounce these five senses: *T*ounge (Desire to eat Tasty foods), *H*ear (Habbit of listerning to Gossip), *S*peech ( Too much unnecessary Talking), *E*xternal visualisation (Desire to see everything externally), *T*ouch (To feel your and others presence) that a body takes pleasure from and confirms ones existance. (Known in Bani as Bairaganiaan)
[*]*Attack with Five Weapons:* Contentment (Santokh), Charity (Dan), Kindness (Daya ), Positive Energy (Chardi Kala), Humility (Nimarta). 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principlesSikhism underlying values http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principles

*Equality:* All humans are equal before God – No discrimination is allowed on the basis of caste, race, gender, creed, origin, color, education, status, wealth, etc. The principles of universal equality and brotherhood are important pillars of Sikhism. 
*God’s spirit:* All creatures have God’s spirits and must be properly respected. Show love for all *living things*. Mistreatment or *harming of any living creature is tabooed and forbidden.* Remember, your next birth may be as a different animal. 
*Personal right:* Every person has a right to life but this right is restricted and has attached certain duties – simple living is essential. A Sikh is expected to rise early, meditate and pray, consume simple food, perform an honest day's work, carry out duties for your family, enjoy life and always be positive, be charitable and support the needy, etc. 
*Actions count:* Salvation is obtained by one’s actions – good deeds, remembrance of God – 

NaamSimran, Kirtan, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principles
[*]*Living a family life:* Encouraged to live as a family unit to provide and nurture children for the perpetual benefit of creation. 
[*]*Sharing:* It is encouraged to share and give to charity 10 percent of one’s net earnings DASBAND. 
[*]*Accept God’s will:* Develop your personality so that you recognize happy event and miserable events as one – the will of God causes them. 
I am sure even you will agree to all the above. If not then raise your concerns.


Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_primary_beliefs_and_principles_




> The above needs to be verified by scholars, some of the above is inaccurate as is much of wikipedia.





This says all I need to know. *You are no scholar. *You have no right to enforce you Kalyugi views on people who are looking for a spiritual direction from Sikhism. What further can I discuss with you. You will not understand and I have no time for sceptics.




> Please enlighten me about these Bhagats, and why did Sadana and Ravi Das still continue with their so called "dirty" professions and yet still sen as Saints?


This is another example amplifying lack of spiritual knowledge. I have given you a hint which you have clearly missed. How can I discuss with one who is comparatively primitive.




> PS Last warning, anymore personal attacks and I will delete your posts.



These threats have no bearing on me. What is the matter? Lost for words or knowledge. 
You cannot even agree with me on the primary beliefs of Sikhism and are running off to ask you seniors for verifications and yet you want to discuss Sikhism with me. You want to discuss the meanings of Shabads with me. You have no credibility.





> Amarnamah is a FAKE.Any one with a little common sense will tell you that. It is a show of frustration of a Ballad singer to justify his rank among the Kirtanayae . Ballard singers were not permitted (until recently) to take part in religious congregations due to their “Kachi Bani” content. Their singing was more appreciated in a battlefield situation to raise the moral of the soldier. Indeed some one has made a good attempt and succeeded to fool people and from the response on this topic in another thread one can visit them.
> 
> No this is not twisting. KDS has provided verifiable sources I suggest you do the same, because until then we cannot take you seriously.
> 
> ...




Page 467  SGGS
Shalok, First Mehl:Men, trees, sacred shrines of pilgrimage, banks of sacred rivers, clouds, fields,islands, continents, worlds, solar systems, and universes;the four sources of creation - born of eggs, born of the womb, born of the earth and born of sweat;oceans, mountains, and all beings - O Nanak, He alone knows their condition.O Nanak, having created the living beings, He cherishes them all.The Creator who created the creation, takes care of it as well.He, the Creator who formed the world, cares for it.Unto Him I bow and offer my reverence; His Royal Court is eternal.O Nanak, without the True Name, of what use is the frontal mark of the Hindus, or their sacred thread? ||1||
And in Chopae Patshahi 10
pwÚ 10 kibXobwc bynqI ] cOpeI ]
AMfj jyrj syqj kInI ] auqBuj Kwin bhur ric dInI ]8]

Andaj (born of eggs – Bird life) 
Jaireg (born of Womb – Humans and Animals)
Utbhuj(born of earth  - Vegetation) and
Setej (born of sweat, Humidity – Lice, insects etc (spontaneous generation – insects after rainfalls)

Now perhaps you are unique and fall outside this creation?


*



We did however feel as amateur Sikh Historians and commentators on Sikh affairs that we should use our knowledge and experience to clarify what is such a controversial issue.

Click to expand...

* 
You consider yourself as the know all in this forum. 

YOU PROVE IT. 

You are the self confessed Sikh Historian , 

YOU PROOVE IT.


Out of sheer sympathy, I am leaving you some hints?

Check if Ballard Singers were allowed to sing in the Gurus Darbar ?
Why should a Ballard Singer be mediating between Guru ji and Banda ?
Does this Ballard singers name appear among the poets of Guru Gobind Singh ji as claimed. Quite conveniently his writing are completed one day after the Guru ji’ departure from us ?
Why should the whole flock of goats be slaughtered ?  To win the favours of Banda?
One who follows the doctrines of Guru Nanak will behave in this manner with Guru Gobind Singh?

Now you do the search and justify your “Sikh Historian” title.

_Sikhism primary beliefs and principles Sikhism underlying values  - Reply with reasons to this._

I do not intend to be personal with you but you are leaving me no choice due to your vile comments about Sikhism and Spirituality. Banning me from this forum would not achieve anything.  Be a man and say what you want to say in the forum and not through private messages. It will be a loss to the Forum. Besides I have no time for Hypocrites especially among the Moderators. 

My sincere apollogies to all those that have True faith in Our Gurus.

Ekmusafir_ajnabi


----------



## Parma (Aug 4, 2007)

What do I see. No understanding of life. No one is wright no one is wrong. Just be good people. In the end after all the thinking of life and questioning of faith and mind it falls down to something that simple. If I swear to someone I will only get a bad reply back. If I talk with politeness, If I dont make a negative view then why should there be confrontation. In life just agree to disagree and move on. Not to keep on being stuck on trying to prove the point. If people agree with you they will read and accept themselves. If they dont they see and read for themselves. No need to show someone there faults if the person is not willing to listen. You might aswell bang your head on a brick wall. Even the guru's could not change some peoples thinking. Just keep life simple. Be a good person. If someone else agrees fine if not let them make there own way. God is the ultimate teacher waheguru. Through life you they will learn there own mistakes and everyone will learn in there own way. In the end its by being pure you find total peace of mind. If thats what men want. Life to be peacefull.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 4, 2007)

quote from ajnabi musafir..I shall never be your friend. As far as spirituality is concerned you do not know the ABC of it. 
Seniority ? This musafir is senior to you in every aspect. 
As far as Gurus are concerned, this musafir was a life long companion of Guru Amar Das ji. I witnessed the Guruship of Guru Amar Das ji. I have lived and travellerd with my Gurus. I need not tell you anymore. 
Personal attacks? What personal attacks? So you do have an EGO. An ENORMOUS ONE. Just admit it and perhaps we will move forward.

WOW...lived and travelled with Guru Amardass Ji....WOW...WOW... what more can i say. But Guru Amardass Ji was everybodys FRIEND....we say in ardass NITHAVIAHN da THAAN..Nimannniah da MAAN..Nioatain dee OAAT..Niasriahn da AASRAA...while ajnabee ji declares..I WONT be your friend... ? I dont understand....an anomaly...something doesnt click....

Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Aug 4, 2007)

japjisahib04 said:


> Originally Posted by *ekmusafir_ajnabi*
> 
> 
> _Life taken under the influence of Ego can be stopped. Whenever we interfere with the Laws of Nature, we have to pay. Loss of life that is not premeditated is not fully accountable. _
> ...


 
The world is an illusion, also referred to as “Jagat Tamasha”, “Leela”.  One who gets absorbed in it shall keep visiting it life after life. Get detached and get out. What happens in the world is under his “Hukam”. You cannot change it or understand it. It is not for one to question it. If you were given the answer, you will fail to understand it. It may be over your head. Just enjoy the “Tamasha”.

Regards - stay true to your avtaar. Become it and all questions will cease.

Ekmusafir_ajnabi


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Aug 4, 2007)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> quote from ajnabi musafir..I shall never be your friend. As far as spirituality is concerned you do not know the ABC of it.
> Seniority ? This musafir is senior to you in every aspect.
> As far as Gurus are concerned, this musafir was a life long companion of Guru Amar Das ji. I witnessed the Guruship of Guru Amar Das ji. I have lived and travellerd with my Gurus. I need not tell you anymore.
> Personal attacks? What personal attacks? So you do have an EGO. An ENORMOUS ONE. Just admit it and perhaps we will move forward.
> ...


 

WOW……WOW ?? Do not expect sarcasm from a learned one (Gyaani). This is my journey.

Firstly, I am surprised that you should come forward with these comments.  If one clips ones ear who is going out of order, does it mean one has enmity with the one. I think not. How many times have you restrained your children or students when they have misbehaved and did you mean any of it ?? There is no need to reply to that. I am sure you understand my point of view.


Secondly

Page 47, Line10
mwq ipqw suq bMDpw kUVy sBy swk ]Māṯ piṯā suṯ banḏẖpā kūṛė sabẖė sāk.
Mother, father, children and relatives-all relations are false.

Page1028, Line 8mwq ipqw klqR suq bylI nwhI ibnu hir rs mukiq n kInw hy ]Māṯ piṯā kalṯar suṯ bėlī nāhī bin har ras mukaṯ na kīnā hė. ||10||

Mother, father, spouse and child - none is anyone's friend in the end. Without the Lord's Love, no one is liberated.

It is not my intention to make friends. 


Ekmusafir_ajnabi


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 4, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> I shall never be your friend. As far as spirituality is concerned you do not know the ABC of it.
> Seniority ? This musafir is senior to you in every aspect.



Ok you are my senior so please show some maturity in your posts.


ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> As far as Gurus are concerned, this musafir was a life long companion of Guru Amar Das ji. I witnessed the Guruship of Guru Amar Das ji. I have lived and travellerd with my Gurus. I need not tell you anymore.
> Personal attacks? What personal attacks? So you do have an EGO. An ENORMOUS ONE. Just admit it and perhaps we will move forward.




Phrases like _So you do have an EGO. An ENORMOUS ONE. Just admit it and perhaps we will move forward _are personal attacks. Like I say, debate the content, not the person. 

OK to make you happy, I have an enormouse ego....so big that my head cannot fit througgh my door.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Yours is not freedom of speech but a display of lack of spiritual knowledge and a show of frustration and a burning desire for Recognition.



Another personal attack, but lets move on.


ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Point 1 – I will do that in good time. You are no match to challenge me.
> Point 2 – Ignore wikipedia and stick to what I have put forward.
> Point 3 – I do not know of Hari Singh but if the contents were his then I must congratulate him he has the blessings of Our Gurus.




Post when you have evidence, otherwise it is a waste of bandwith.

You have used wikipedia to back up your assertions, sorry that is not a credible source.

Ok so you don’t know Hari Singh….lets move on.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> This says all I need to know. *You are no scholar. *You have no right to enforce you Kalyugi views on people who are looking for a spiritual direction from Sikhism. What further can I discuss with you. You will not understand and I have no time for sceptics.




You are correct, I am no scholar, but the people who wrote the essay are. Cut the personal remarks and get to the debate.
 


ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> This is another example amplifying lack of spiritual knowledge. I have given you a hint which you have clearly missed. *How can I discuss with one who is comparatively primitive*.




More personal remarks. Ok *I am primitive*, so please enlighten me.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> These threats have no bearing on me. What is the matter? Lost for words or knowledge.
> You cannot even agree with me on the primary beliefs of Sikhism and are running off to ask you seniors for verifications and yet you want to discuss Sikhism with me. You want to discuss the meanings of Shabads with me. You have no credibility..




Ok I have no credibility, but I do know one thing, Sikhism is NOT a pacifist religion as you have stated. That thinking is that of Vaishnavites, and Jains.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Page 467 SGGS
> Shalok, First Mehl:Men, trees, sacred shrines of pilgrimage, banks of sacred rivers, clouds, fields,islands, continents, worlds, solar systems, and universes;the four sources of creation - born of eggs, born of the womb, born of the earth and born of sweat;oceans, mountains, and all beings - O Nanak, He alone knows their condition.O Nanak, having created the living beings, He cherishes them all.The Creator who created the creation, takes care of it as well.He, the Creator who formed the world, cares for it.Unto Him I bow and offer my reverence; His Royal Court is eternal.O Nanak, without the True Name, of what use is the frontal mark of the Hindus, or their sacred thread? ||1||
> And in Chopae Patshahi 10
> pwÚ 10 kibXobwc bynqI ] cOpeI ]
> ...




This merely proves my point that animals are not all womb born. Thank you for proving my point. BTW crocodiles lay eggs too….a reptile…as do tortoise.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Now perhaps you are unique and fall outside this creation?



As you have stated, I am *primitive.*


ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> You consider yourself as the know all in this forum.
> YOU PROVE IT.
> You are the self confessed Sikh Historian ,
> YOU PROOVE IT.




Let me explain how debates work:
1 You make an assertion
2 You supply verifiable sources.
Also, yes I consider myself an AMATEUR Historian who is constantly learning under the tutelage of veer Sandeep Singh Bajwa ji.




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Out of sheer sympathy, I am leaving you some hints?
> Check if Ballard Singers were allowed to sing in the Gurus Darbar ?
> Why should a Ballard Singer be mediating between Guru ji and Banda ?
> Does this Ballard singers name appear among the poets of Guru Gobind Singh ji as claimed. Quite conveniently his writing are completed one day after the Guru ji’ departure from us ?
> ...




I am *primitive *so please explain to me in detail. Tell me what the background to this is and what sources you have used?




ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> _Sikhism primary beliefs and principles_ _Sikhism underlying values__ - Reply with reasons to this.
> _I do not intend to be personal with you but you are leaving me no choice due to your vile comments about Sikhism and Spirituality. Banning me from this forum would not achieve anything. Be a man and say what you want to say in the forum and not through private messages. It will be a loss to the Forum. Besides I have no time for Hypocrites especially among the Moderators.
> My sincere apollogies to all those that have True faith in Our Gurus.
> Ekmusafir_ajnabi




Please refrain from personal comments and let us learn from your wisdom.
Unless you back your assertions up with verifiable sources I will challenge you!

Who is talking about banning, I am talking about a civil tongue and Sarbat Da Bhalla…..surely you understand that?

I though a PM maybe less embarrassing for you, but if you want everything in the open then please continue.


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 4, 2007)

> I have come across this statement on the internet in one of the sites, but am unable to back track it. There is no intentional twisting of history as you are claiming.



There are some sikh websites which are intentionally twisting sikh history to prove their point of vegetarianism.Anyway here is quote from dasam granth which prove that blue bulls are hunted by guru gobind singh ji

When I obtained the position of responsibility, I performed the religious acts to the best of my ability.

ਭਾਂਤਿ ਭਾਂਤਿ ਬਨ ਖੇਲ ਸਿਕਾਰਾ ॥ ਮਾਰੇ ਰੀਛ ਰੋਝ ਝੰਖਾਰਾ ॥੧॥
भांति भांति बन खेल सिकारा ॥ मारे रीछ रोझ झंखारा ॥१॥
I went hunting various kinds of animals in the forest and killed bears, nilgais (blue bulls) and elks.1.

ਦੇਸ ਚਾਲ ਹਮ ਤੇ ਪੁਨਿ ਭਈ ॥ ਸਹਰ ਪਾਂਵਟਾ ਕੀ ਸੁਧਿ ਲਈ ॥
देस चाल हम ते पुनि भई ॥ सहर पांवटा की सुधि लई ॥
Then I left my home and went to place named Paonta.

ਕਾਲਿੰਦ੍ਰੀ ਤਟਿ ਕਰੇ ਬਿਲਾਸਾ ॥ ਅਨਿਕ ਭਾਂਤ ਕੇ ਪੇਖ ਤਮਾਮਾ ॥੨॥
कालिंद्री तटि करे बिलासा ॥ अनिक भांत के पेख तमामा ॥२॥
I enjoyed my stay on the banks of Kalindri (Yamuna) and saw amusement of various kind2.

ਤਹ ਕੇ ਸਿੰਘ ਘਨੇ ਚੁਨਿ ਮਾਰੇ ॥ ਰੋਝ ਰੀਛ ਬਹੁ ਭਾਂਤਿ ਬਿਦਾਰੇ ॥
तह के सिंघ घने चुनि मारे ॥ रोझ रीछ बहु भांति बिदारे ॥
There I killed may lions, nilgais and bears



> Do not take any historical book as gospel. Our Gurus had very many enemies who have written very damaging essays on Guru ji and most of them were from within his own family circles. Most of the history you read and that includes your mini suraj prakash interpretation, have been doctored by various people.



i agree with it that sikh history is not gospel but atleast it gives us an over view of lifestyles of guru's and sikhs of puratan times.



> In line with the above statement, It is clear that Guru ji’s instructions were to nurse the wounded enemy soldiers as well. In the same spirit if any animals (non ferocious) that were part of the target training, were wounded then they were also nursed back to health. Hunting was not done out of pleasure but for a just cause in extremely difficult times directly by Divine himself. If such irregularities did take place then the divine was there for forgiveness or retribution. As I said before, do not use this as a norm for propagating killing animals for eating purposes. If you personally have the urge to eat meat then stand on your own feet and take responsibility and suffer the consequences.



First of all i don't understand why are you differentiating between feroccious and non ferocious animals.a lion and tiger are god's creation and herbivorus are also god's creation.tigers and lion kill herbivorus because god created them like that.There is no difference between killing a carnivorus and herbivorus animal.

secondly i think you should watch national geographic channel.Injuring an herbivorous animal in jungle means its death.these animals face day and night threat from carnivorus
animals and there is absolutely no way of their survival in jungles.Anyway the quote i provided from dasam granth clearly says that guru gobind singh ji actually killed blue bulls which is actually a deer.



> Amarnamah is a FAKE.
> 
> Any one with a little common sense will tell you that. It is a show of frustration of a Ballad singer to justify his rank among the Kirtanayae . Ballard singers were not permitted (until recently) to take part in religious congregations due to their “Kachi Bani” content. Their singing was more appreciated in a battlefield situation to raise the moral of the soldier.



After reading your above statement i searched internet on the issue of amarnamah.i idid not find any sikh raising the doubt on the genuity of Amarnamah. I read debates on sikh 
sites where even word amarnamah was mentioned but i did not found anyone who raised doubts on its genuinity and surprisingly you are saying that anybody with little knowledge
can tell that amarnamah is fake


----------



## sahibr (Aug 4, 2007)

This is not so much a reply but a question. I think that rest/shops should have a sign indicating if they sell halal meat. There are many schools that have started serving halal meat and I for one dont want to eat the meat of an animal which has suffered such a death. I was wondering if any city in the world has laws which say that there must be a sign displayed if halal meat is being served?


----------



## japjisahib04 (Aug 5, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> The world is an illusion, also referred to as “Jagat Tamasha”, “Leela”. One who gets absorbed in it shall keep visiting it life after life. Get detached and get out. What happens in the world is under his “Hukam”. You cannot change it or understand it. It is not for one to question it. If you were given the answer, you will fail to understand it. It may be over your head. Just enjoy the “Tamasha”.
> Regards - stay true to your avtaar. Become it and all questions will cease.
> Ekmusafir_ajnabi


 
Dear Ek Musafir Ji
For Guru Nanak life was principle as well as play but with principle.That for the sake of principle justice is not compromised but to save one from injustice. Please note for Sri Ram, the God was not personified but Mariyaada is God for him, For Krishan it just leela and leela was truth for him. Guru Nanak brought them together and said God is mariyaada and Truth. Tenth Guru Nanak (Guru Gobind Singh) proved this by making battlefield as play but with principle by applauding Bhai Ghanneia who was serving water and applying bandage to the injured soldiers of the enemy in the battlefield.
Regards Sahni Mohinder


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 5, 2007)

sahibr said:


> This is not so much a reply but a question. I think that rest/shops should have a sign indicating if they sell halal meat. There are many schools that have started serving halal meat and I for one dont want to eat the meat of an animal which has suffered such a death. I was wondering if any city in the world has laws which say that there must be a sign displayed if halal meat is being served?


 
MALAYSIA is one such country. Here ALL Supermarkets, Hyper markets, restaurants, eating shops ( even Vegetarian ones), Five Star Hotels and lesser starred ones..etc etc ALL have to have the COMPULSORY "HALLAL" notice displayed. Any stuff that is NON-HALLAL is also displayed under the "NON-HALLAL" sign and SEGREGATED AWAY from hallal foods. Super markets have Different segregated counters and cashiers for Non-Hallal goods even in Tinned stuff. Muslim cashiers find it offensive to handle pork/ham etc even if it is tinned stuff.
Malaysia stations Mulsim staff in overseas abbatoirs ( like in Australia/NZ) to make sure the beef mutton etc from there exported to Malaysia is HALLAL.
Our National Airline and All Govt offices, schools, etc mostly only carry HALLAL certified foods. Non Muslims are very sensitive towards their Muslim colleagues neighbours etc and DONT bring in or consume nonhallal products

Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## Lionchild (Sep 21, 2007)

You guys still argueing over nothing? :rofl!!:

Man... time to close this topic, all you people do realize that its each individuals choice what they do with there lives and there path to god? I am continually mystified why people will go out of there way to correct other poeples ways, just because it doesnt flow with theres. Well clue in here people, its really non of your business /U] what other poeple do within the boundries of there personal lives.

This article was meant to clarify what has already been mentioned many times. Instead, people have turned it into thread of attacks and heated debate.

Nuff' said :whisling:


----------



## kds1980 (Sep 22, 2007)

Lionchild said:


> You guys still argueing over nothing? :rofl!!:
> 
> Man... time to close this topic, all you people do realize that its each individuals choice what they do with there lives and there path to god? I am continually mystified why people will go out of there way to correct other poeples ways, just because it doesnt flow with theres. Well clue in here people, its really non of your business /U] what other poeple do within the boundries of there personal lives.
> 
> ...




dear lionchild

there is no need to close this topic.its better if people who don't agree with this article should raise their questions here.


----------



## Randip Singh (Sep 24, 2007)

Lionchild said:


> You guys still argueing over nothing?





Lionchild said:


> Man... time to close this topic, all you people do realize that its each individuals choice what they do with there lives and there path to god?


 
So very true. This is the message of Sikhism, but some people seem determined to stamp their version of Sikhism on everyone.

For example, a Native American with a traditional hunter gatherer life style would be precluded from Sikhism according to some. Sikhism does not make such statements.

It requires control of the 5 theives not changes to your menu.




Lionchild said:


> I am continually mystified why people will go out of there way to correct other poeples ways, just because it doesnt flow with theres. Well clue in here people, its really non of your business what other poeple do within the boundries of there personal lives.


 
So very true.

I would add again, so long as you are not obsessed by the 5 thieves (which do affect others), your personal life is your own affair.



Lionchild said:


> This article was meant to clarify what has already been mentioned many times. Instead, people have turned it into thread of attacks and heated debate.
> 
> Nuff' said


 
I think when several of us put this article together we expected some flak. The reason why I Posted it under my name is because I am pretty resilient to personal attacks, whereas other contributors were not.

Some of the contributors (strict vegetarians), were afraid of being singled out by their own Jathas for their contribution to this essay and therefore left their names off. 

Saying this, personal attacks do still persist, but thank God it is on this website, because this is the few website where mature debate on Sikhism can take place……..compare it to waheguroo network or sikhsangat where the discussion is quite juvenile and the participants and moderators have little or no knowledge of Sikhism and Sikh history.

PS I don't belive it should be closed though.


----------



## japjisahib04 (Oct 2, 2007)

Randeep Ji
Following reply has been received by me from one of my friend who I forwarded your article. Would appreciate your comments.

1. There  is one almighty and we should all strive to unify with it.

2. Everything is HIS creation. Now the living creation of his is manifesting in many forms with different levels of expressions.

3. What we see in others is the expressions of the living being.

4. Level of expressions varies with evolution. We cannot see the expression of plant, insects and other lower forms of animal kingdom in terms of pain, cry, etc. Now how do we interpret the pain in our fellow human beings is through his fine expressions. so as we come down the evolution, we see that the expressions disappearing. Its good to have the theoritical knowledge that all is part of HIS family.  But its totally unjustified to give the same
logic(eating veg also leads to killing) to crucify the higher forms (just to satisfy ones taste buds).

A cow/goat/ chicken when being slaugtered cries with pain, shouts.... the beheaded head moves,still babbles  so that someone can save him. isn't the situation same as human being when crucified. why should we not see this and selectively erase all this when eating. But when we are eating grains, cereals or vegetables, we don't see the expressions though one can say that
they have life. At least lets start from the point when we can see the overt expression. We are the highest form of evolution so that we can
appreciate all these.

Well this only one aspect of my thinking. the others are 

1. medical- vegeterianism is the way of healthy living. researches have shown that it has crucial bearing on the heart and blood vessels.

2.  you may not agree with it.- our vedic literature says the non veg food items are 'tamasic' which means it can have a bearing on the anger, lust etc. it doesn't mean that the people who eat veg are free of the above. one can only see the change in terms of percentage. I was also a non veg. till 16 years back but its my personal experience that 'tamasic' gunas decreases to some extent after changing to veg way of living.

3. I  think why should one be a servant of food items. we have to overcome this barrier to achieve the higher goal.

Regards sahni mohinder


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 9, 2007)

japjisahib04 said:


> Randeep Ji





japjisahib04 said:


> Following reply has been received by me from one of my friend who I forwarded your article. Would appreciate your comments.
> 
> 1. There is one almighty and we should all strive to unify with it.


 

True. What is the relevance to the diet we eat?



japjisahib04 said:


> 2. Everything is HIS creation. Now the living creation of his is manifesting in many forms with different levels of expressions.


 
Everything is HIS creation, but there is only one conscious form who is aware of him and that is the human.



japjisahib04 said:


> 3. What we see in others is the expressions of the living being.


 
So do we see this in a plant too?



japjisahib04 said:


> 4. Level of expressions varies with evolution. We cannot see the expression of plant, insects and other lower forms of animal kingdom in terms of pain, cry, etc. Now how do we interpret the pain in our fellow human beings is through his fine expressions. so as we come down the evolution, we see that the expressions disappearing. Its good to have the theoritical knowledge that all is part of HIS family. But its totally unjustified to give the same
> logic(eating veg also leads to killing) to crucify the higher forms (just to satisfy ones taste buds).


 
I think this is pure egotism. Just because a plant cannot make a shrill cry we think it is OK to eat. The black bean is soaked before eaten? Why? To rid it of toxins it produces to prevent itself being eaten. Syrely this is and expression, albeit one we cannot hear? Yet we drown it to satify our own taste buds.

The is a prevalent myth that meat is tasty. It is not, yet people still eat it. I would say vegetarian food is far more tasty.



japjisahib04 said:


> A cow/goat/ chicken when being slaugtered cries with pain, shouts.... the beheaded head moves,still babbles so that someone can save him. isn't the situation same as human being when crucified. why should we not see this and selectively erase all this when eating. But when we are eating grains, cereals or vegetables, we don't see the expressions though one can say that
> they have life. At least lets start from the point when we can see the overt expression. We are the highest form of evolution so that we can
> appreciate all these.


 
Again pure egotism. Even Bani recognizes the pain of plants:

*Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji *

*mehlaa *
*1.**vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay.*
*khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay.*
*ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay.*
*bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay.*
*naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay.*

*First Mehl:*
*Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. *
*After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,**and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed.*
*What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out.*
*And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below.*
*Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!*
*Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji*

To make an argument that because one simply cannot see life in something and therefore it is OK to kill it is pure ignorance and hypocrisy.

In Sikhism the choice is purely personal.

If your friend is a vegetarian then I say good for him. If he is a meat eater then I say good for him*.*



japjisahib04 said:


> Well this only one aspect of my thinking. the others are
> 
> 1. medical- vegeterianism is the way of healthy living. researches have shown that it has crucial bearing on the heart and blood vessels.


 
Actually as an ex-bodybuilder and powerlifter I know about nutrition and a balanced diet including lean fish and meat is far better than any vegetarian one for maintaing a healthy body. I can provide medical articles to confirm this.



japjisahib04 said:


> 2. you may not agree with it.- our vedic literature says the non veg food items are 'tamasic' which means it can have a bearing on the anger, lust etc. it doesn't mean that the people who eat veg are free of the above. one can only see the change in terms of percentage. I was also a non veg. till 16 years back but its my personal experience that 'tamasic' gunas decreases to some extent after changing to veg way of living.


 

Food has no bearing on anger and lust. Look at Adolph Hitler, obsessed with his dog and animals and a vegetarian yet managed genocide on a scale the world has never seen since.

Also look at Hollywood where many have adopted the vegetarian lifestyle and look at their lustful behavior. 

Some food may change chemical balances within the body, but it is for the individual to deal with those imbalances. Such is tha path of the Sant Siphahi.

This has nothing to do with Sikhism in any case.



japjisahib04 said:


> 3. I think why should one be a servant of food items. we have to overcome this barrier to achieve the higher goal.
> 
> Regards sahni mohinder


 
I agree why should people be a servant of food, whether it be an OBSESSION with VEGETABLES or with MEAT.

Obsessing greedily (Lobh) about any food is bad for you.


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Nov 25, 2007)

They say eating eggs is a sin, but in USA, eggs are not fertilized, so there is no life to kill.  Also milk is not life.  Perhaps we should not eat fruits and vegetables, either, because it is destroying them.


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Nov 25, 2007)

Many vegetarian sikhs are not pure vegetarians here in USA.  Many foods and drinks contain food colorings derived from insects.  One product is Gatorade drink.  Sunny Delight is another problem.  Some products contain "natural flavor"  but that can also come from chicken broth.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Nov 25, 2007)

c'mon guys

eat what you like..

i thnk Lion Child put it perfectly


debating what "I" should eat or not is incredulously childish

this is a personal choice.

if someone cannot see pain of animals being killed - he/she is perfectly right in not eating it. but there is no point bragging its advantage - this is sheer haumai

ps: i am a veggie myself (sort of - no meats, eggs when "have to") and i am slowly learning to appreciate that what i donot like might be a yummy dish for someone else.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 26, 2007)

> if someone cannot see pain of animals being killed - he/she is perfectly right in not eating it. but there is no point bragging its advantage - this is sheer haumai



The same vegetarians should also see the pain of dairy cows and buffaloes.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Nov 26, 2007)

LOL

its relative

i knew this was coming 

as i pointed out before:

being sensitive/insensitive is fine, but bragging abt it is haumai.


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 26, 2007)

*Paul and Linda McCartney once wrote:

"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be
vegetarian."

*


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Nov 26, 2007)

have you ever been to a sushi bar?


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 26, 2007)

harsimiritkaur said:


> They say eating eggs is a sin, but in USA, eggs are not fertilized, so there is no life to kill. Also milk is not life. Perhaps we should not eat fruits and vegetables, either, because it is destroying them
> 
> 
> Many vegetarian sikhs are not pure vegetarians here in USA. Many foods and drinks contain food colorings derived from insects. One product is Gatorade drink. Sunny Delight is another problem. Some products contain "natural flavor" but that can also come from chicken broth.


 
Vegetarianism itself is a relative concept:

In the UK you have vegetarians who :

1) at eggs;

2) eat fish;

3) won't consume dairy products (known as vegans);

4) Won't eat a cut or living plant (Jains) etc

the sikh concept surrounding this issue is based on what YOU feel comfortable with.

We really shouldn't be judgemental towards vegetarians, likewise vegetarians shouldn't be judgemental to meat eaters.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 26, 2007)

begum said:


> Paul and Linda McCartney once wrote:
> 
> "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be
> vegetarian."


 


> have you ever been to a sushi bar?


 
Like I have said in the post above it is all relative.......

I don't think Paul and Linda Mcartney are in any position to preach to the fisherman who makes an honest living or the Inuit who hunts and gathers.........


----------



## drkhalsa (Nov 26, 2007)

> Originally Posted by *begum*
> 
> 
> Paul and Linda McCartney once wrote:
> ...



I think its totally oposite the case 

This is very clear example of being judgemental just due lack of knowledge and hand on experience 

Going by the theory all Butchers should be Vegatarians !!!  Is that the case  if this buturing cant change the butchers do you think it can change whole world 
Infact oppposite possibity is more feasible where everybody will be NON VEG watching all this

The people who dont eat Meat due to taste of it are very right in doing so because whats there on the plate is not some animal but piece of flesh , you like its taste you eat it , you dont like dont eat 

Dwelling into mental abstract jorney on how it reached your plate before is just your bias and that to is limited by the knowledge you have . If you want to try I can help  you 

example : Just before drinking a cup of coffe did you ever thought the journey from its production to the cup on your table - you might not know it due to bias or lack of information 

Africa is major producer of coffe and big companies like nescafe use afric for thier production using unfair trade practice they pay so less to wokers and earn millions from the develped nations .The misery involved in it includes all the misery of all the wokers suffering in poverty and this just one aspect of it . others are like killing of insect and Pests in the fields of coffee plantations and there would be many other aspects .....so why dont you make mental journey for all this products before you have them 


I know its difficult to get rid of this obseesion of doing GOOD IN WORLD with your actions and that to selective( only those which one thinks is right!) and take time to understand 

Take care 

Jatinder Singh


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 26, 2007)

Guru Nanak, in this stanza, gives the picture of those engaged in good deeds, those who seek to reach Him in diverse ways. 

STANZA XVII

Countless there are that remember Thee, and countless those 
that love Thee; 
Countless there are that worship Thee, and countless those 
that seek Thee in austerity and penance; 
Countless there are that recite from sacred books Thy praises; and 
Countless those that, absorbed in Yoga, stand indifferent to the world; 
Countless those Thy devotees who contemplate Thy attributes 
and wisdom; and 
Countless those that practice truth and charity; 
Countless are the heroes that boldly face the foeman's steel; and 
Countless those who have vowed silence, meditate on Thee 
with unceasing love. 
What power have I to conceive of Thy wonderful nature? 
Too poor, am I, to make an offering of my life to Thee. 
Whatever pleaseth Thee is good: 
Thou art forevermore; 
O, Formless One.
Having spoken of the pious, Nanak now lists the impious. 

STANZA XVIII

Innumerable are the fools, stark blind in ignorance; and 
Innumerable the thieves and crooks that thrive on ill-gotten gains; Innumerable those that exercise tyranny and oppression; and Innumerable the cut-throats living by heinous crimes; 
Innumerable those that revel in shameless sins; and 
Innumerable the liars that practise fraud and falsehood; 
Innumerable the impious that live on unwholesome(1) foods; and Innumerable the slanderers who add to their burden 
by calumniating others. 
Innumerable, the many for lowly Nanak to describe. 
What power have I to conceive of Thy wonderful nature? 
Too poor, am I, to make an offering of my life to Thee. 
Whatever pleaseth Thee is good; 
Thou art forevermore; O Formless One !
(1). The words used in the original are _Mal _and _Bhakh._ which mean eating unwholesome food and refer to non-vegetarian diet and intoxicants. Even vegetarian diet and otherwise harmless drinks, if procured by unfair means, are also classed as unwholesome and as such their use proves a positive hindrance on the Path. 


*If we closely look into the above two Stanzas of Japji Sahib, it would be clear that our discussion is grossly misleading and that we are twisting the meanings around to fulfill our own desires. *


----------



## Anoop (Nov 26, 2007)

drkhalsa said:


> I think its totally oposite the case
> 
> This is very clear example of being judgemental just due lack of knowledge and hand on experience
> 
> ...




To tell youthe truth, I beleive that meat shouldn't be eaten, because it is bascailly killing another creation of gods.  But I cant help myself, because sometimes i feel that, if i dont eat meat, then i wont get strength for sports, or the running acitivities. Ofcourse, its not about body, it should be about your spirit, and purity, but in a modern world liek this...everyone is eating meat, i feel disgusted, but i can't exactly leave it for some reason...

I admit, im not pure anc clean for the wonderful lord god!


----------



## drkhalsa (Nov 26, 2007)

> To tell youthe truth, I beleive that meat shouldn't be eaten, because it is bascailly killing another creation of gods.



Its Going on since the the creation came into being that is  it is being killed 

and dont delude yourself in thinking that you are tthe doer!


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Nov 27, 2007)

just by closing eyes it is tough to believe that we donot see it

i speak for myself and accept that personal choice should be honored

some despise meat, its fine, let us not despise the eater or non eater.


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 27, 2007)

Are you following Manmat or Gurmat ? 
If Gurmat, what is your definition of Gurmat ?

We all know that the Rehat Maryada is not an end to itself. It is supposed to be a guiding tool for those who need it. But one can't force it down another's throat. Because there are so many Do's and Dont's of each religion/sect/cult/group - so how can you say that Sikhism's Rehat is The Rehat. So I ask you guyz - where is your God-given sense of mercy ? Ask yourself this question - if the Guru's gave their lives for the sake of justice and righteousness, what did they eat (what constituted their diet) in their lifetime ?

Why even bother to read sakhis of the lives of the 10 gurus, if we're not going to learn to have compassion in our hearts ? 

Why even bother to be a Sikh when, all we want is to win an argument at the expense of truth. 

Why even care what happens to innocent animals when we know we have the ability and the chance to stand up against the injustice being done to the creatures of God ?

We're supposed to be the SPIRIT BORN PEOPLE wearing a physical body to make a difference in this world.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 27, 2007)

Veer ji, each of you in turn.

The most important thing for Sikhs in the context of this thread: We must not be cannibals. 

I smell the wood of an outdoor fire heating up, and hear the panga sauce bubbling on the stove. These are the signs of an ancient human ritual. Whatever we feel about meat as food, a meal of human flesh is not that satisfying. 

This thread started out perhaps two years ago as a systematic analysis of Guruji's apparent prohibitions against eating meat. The claim put forward by the authors -- Guruji was using meat and fish as metaphors for something else -- the arrogance of power. The essay was written by one herbivore and one carnivore. The scholarship is excellent. After thousands of views, the thread has been *more about wrangling* and *less about flesh.* Very few women chose to participate BTW. 

So far the ones ahead in this debate are the team of 5. But the thread has been a real draw for readership. Your devoted bhenji, :}8-:


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 27, 2007)

begum said:


> Guru Nanak, in this stanza, gives the picture of those engaged in good deeds, those who seek to reach Him in diverse ways.
> 
> STANZA XVII
> 
> ...


 
Totally disagree.

Please post the Gurmukhi version with the English. Mal and Bakh DONOT mean non-vegetarian.

I really am dumfounded at such claims. Please provide proof.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 27, 2007)

begum said:


> Are you following Manmat or Gurmat ?
> If Gurmat, what is your definition of Gurmat ?
> 
> We all know that the Rehat Maryada is not an end to itself. It is supposed to be a guiding tool for those who need it. But one can't force it down another's throat. Because there are so many Do's and Dont's of each religion/sect/cult/group - so how can you say that Sikhism's Rehat is The Rehat. So I ask you guyz - where is your God-given sense of mercy ? Ask yourself this question - if the Guru's gave their lives for the sake of justice and righteousness, what did they eat (what constituted their diet) in their lifetime ?
> ...


 

I'm sorry but this really is too much. This reads like a sermon.

What makes you think animals are innocent? Have you an insight into what an animal thinks? Guruji says when we are possed by Kaam, Krodh, Moh, Lobh and Haankaar we behave like Animal's (Dog's).........so if Guruji is describing everything that is inhuman in us in the guise of an animal then how can you say they are innocent?

What about injustice to plants? Are they not creatures of God? WE cannot see them scream or run away therefore they must not be innocent? Guruji describe's the sugar cane (a plant groaning) under rollers. Why would Guruji state this? surely a plant cannot groan? A Metaphor or an acknowledgement there is life in everything?

When you talk about truth what truth are you talking about? Are you talking about Sadana the Butcher who made a "Truthful living" from butchering animals? Or maybe Ravi Das who skinned animals for a living?

Please back up statements with Bani or we will get nowhere.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 27, 2007)

aad0002 said:


> Veer ji, each of you in turn.
> 
> The most important thing for Sikhs in the context of this thread: We must not be cannibals.
> 
> ...


 
*the thread has been more about wrangling and less about flesh*

Penji you have far more wisdom than I will ever have. Excellent observation!


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 27, 2007)

Anoop said:


> To tell youthe truth, I beleive that meat shouldn't be eaten, because it is bascailly killing another creation of gods. But I cant help myself, because sometimes i feel that, if i dont eat meat, then i wont get strength for sports, or the running acitivities. Ofcourse, its not about body, it should be about your spirit, and purity, but in a modern world liek this...everyone is eating meat, i feel disgusted, but i can't exactly leave it for some reason...
> 
> I admit, im not pure anc clean for the wonderful lord god!


 
My friend if you are attached to meat that is bad. If you are attactched to potatoes that is bad. If you are attached to sweets that is bad. Attachment to......insert here....is bad.

It is attachment and obsession that is bad, not you. If you feel disgusted then don't eat it, but DO NOT be put under pressure by Pakhandhi Baba's to give up under the pretence that it will make you purer.

The only thing that will make you a better person is control of the 5 thieves.

Also read the essay, it tackles these issues head on.


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 27, 2007)

randip singh said:


> What makes you think animals are innocent? Have you an insight into what an animal thinks?


 
Here's Varan Bhai Gurdas:

The butcher slaughters the goat; salts the meat and strings it on a skewer. 
While being killed the goat laughingly says: I have come to this condition for grazing only co{censored} leaves of arid wild plants. 
*What will be the plight of those who cutting the throat with a knife eat the flesh of animals?* 
The taste of the tongue is harmful for the teeth and damages the mouth. 
The one who eyes another’s wealth or body or slanders becomes a poisonous Amphisbaena. 
This snake is controlled by the Guru's mantra but the Guru-less manmukh never listens to this glorious mantra. 
*The Manmukh blindly moves ahead, never realizing the approaching deep pit ahead!*

(note: _Amphisbaena is a mythical serpent having a head at each end of its body._) 
Vaar 37 Pauri 21


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 27, 2007)

Here is another vaar of bhai gurdas ji

‘An elephant’s flesh is not edible for he is full of pride,
The lion is also full of pride of its strength so no one eats it either,
Humble is the goat it gains honor in the here after and this world,
In all celebrations is it [the meat], acknowledged, 
It [the meat], sanctifies religious gatherings and feasts,
*Its meat is ‘Pavitar’ [good/sacred] for the householder,*
From its entrails [tendons] is string for instruments made that when they play, attracts holy men in meditation
From it’s skin are shoes made, which holy feet wear as they go to seek holy protection [to Guru].
With its skin are bound drums with which ‘Kirtan’ [religious songs], are sung,
Hence, they [goat-skin bound drums] give great comfort. 
The holy gathering is coming into the Guru’s protection.’
(Bhai Gurdas Ji’s Varan, Bhai Gurdas, ‘Vaar 23, Pauri 16’)


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 27, 2007)

*SGGS Page 723* Full Shabad ਬੰਦੇ ਚਸਮ ਦੀਦੰ ਫਨਾਇ ॥ 
ਦੁਨਂ​*ੀਆ ਮੁਰਦਾਰ ਖੁਰਦਨੀ ਗਾਫਲ ਹਵਾਇ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ਗੈਬਾਨ ਹੈਵਾਨ ਹਰਾਮ ਕੁਸਤਨੀ ਮੁਰਦਾਰ ਬਖੋਰਾਇ ॥ 
ਦਿਲ ਕਬਜ ਕਬਜਾ ਕਾਦਰੋ ਦੋਜਕ ਸਜਾਇ ॥੨॥ 

banday chasam deedaN fanaa-ay. 
duneeN-aa murdaar khurdanee gaafal havaa-ay. rahaa-o. 
gaibaan haivaan haraam kustanee murdaar bakhoraa-ay. 
dil kabaj kabjaa kaadro dojak sajaa-ay. ((2)) 

O human being, whatever you can see with your eyes, shall perish. 
The world eats dead carcasses, living by neglect and greed. ((Pause)) 
Like a goblin, or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat. 
*So control your urges, or else you will be seized by the Lord, and thrown into the tortures of hell. *
((2))


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 27, 2007)

Santokh singh ji if you want to study deeper in meat issue then please read the article in punjabi of pro gyani surgjit singh (kaun maas kaun saag kahave)

KAUN MAAS KAUN SAAG KHAVEY 01

Its a series of 20 article may be it could help you


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 27, 2007)

It appears to me that the verses which I presented have no effect on you. Let's see what Randip's response will be. Randip wanted proof from SGGS - so I gave it. Of course, one can contradict it by saying that the translation isn't correct, etc. But this only proves that we are failing to acknowledge Guru's bani and only want to see our viewpoint.

The world has come to the point where the Guru's teachings must match their desires. I don't have to look into any other verse for proof. This is what the Guru says, this is what I follow.


----------



## drkhalsa (Nov 28, 2007)

> The world has come to the point where the Guru's teachings must match their desires. I don't have to look into any other verse for proof. This is what the Guru says, this is what I follow.



Dear Friend 

I am happy to see that atlast you are finding peace with your decision of being vegetarian and I fully agree that one should follow his own conclusions and this is what I call personal path on spirtuality

But plz dont forget to give the same right to others who have concluded that eating anything is ok .I Think this is what is called Sikh way to respects others belief

so take care 


Jatinder Singh


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 28, 2007)

drkhalsa said:


> Dear Friend
> 
> I am happy to see that atlast you are finding peace with your decision of being vegetarian and I fully agree that one should follow his own conclusions and this is what I call personal path on spirtuality
> 
> ...


 
Please accept my apologies for imposing my views too strongly on you guys. Peace to all. Randip gave me an opportunity to find the shabad which I am in harmony with, even he knows that we all visit this thread to gain something. And KD Singh also contributed to my gain. I was egotistic when I answered back rudely. I owe you one, kds1980.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 28, 2007)

begum said:


> Here's Varan Bhai Gurdas:
> 
> The butcher slaughters the goat; salts the meat and strings it on a skewer.
> While being killed the goat laughingly says: I have come to this condition for grazing only co{censored} leaves of arid wild plants.
> ...



I suggest you read all the Pauri's here. Read about the aakh plant. This is nothing to do with meat eating. There are Pauri's in Varan Bhia Gurdas (as KDS has pointed) that actually praise meat eating. What is your comment about that?

‘An elephant’s flesh is not edible for he is full of pride, *The lion is also full of pride of its strength so no one eats it either, Humble is the goat it gains honor in the here after and this world, In all celebrations is it [the meat], acknowledged,  It [the meat], sanctifies religious gatherings and feasts, Its meat is ‘Pavitar’ [good/sacred] for the householder*, From its entrails [tendons] is string for instruments made that when they play, attracts holy men in meditation From it’s skin are shoes made, which holy feet wear as they go to seek holy protection [to Guru]. With its skin are bound drums with which ‘Kirtan’ [religious songs], are sung, Hence, they [goat-skin bound drums] give great comfort.  The holy gathering is coming into the Guru’s protection.’ (Bhai Gurdas Ji’s Varan, Bhai Gurdas, ‘Vaar 23, Pauri 13’)


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 28, 2007)

begum said:


> *SGGS Page 723* Full Shabad ਬੰਦੇ ਚਸਮ ਦੀਦੰ ਫਨਾਇ ॥
> ਦੁਨਂ​*ੀਆ ਮੁਰਦਾਰ ਖੁਰਦਨੀ ਗਾਫਲ ਹਵਾਇ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
> ਗੈਬਾਨ ਹੈਵਾਨ ਹਰਾਮ ਕੁਸਤਨੀ ਮੁਰਦਾਰ ਬਖੋਰਾਇ ॥
> ਦਿਲ ਕਬਜ ਕਬਜਾ ਕਾਦਰੋ ਦੋਜਕ ਸਜਾਇ ॥੨॥
> ...



We tackled this shabad......somwere in this threed.....scroll up.

this shabad is talking about exploitation of others.......entire tukh:

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=AdvancedSearchGurbani

Page 723, Line 13
ਤਿਲੰਗ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ਘਰੁ ੧तिलंग महला ५ घरु १Ŧilang mehlā 5 gẖar 
1Tilang, Fifth Mehl, First House:
view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 723, Line 13

ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥ੴ सतिगुर प्रसादि ॥
Ik*oaŉkār saṯgur parsāḏ.One Universal Creator God. 
By The Grace Of The True Guru:
view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 723, Line 13

ਖਾਕ ਨੂਰ ਕਰਦੰ ਆਲਮ ਦੁਨੀਆਇ ॥खाक नूर करदं आलम दुनीआइ ॥Kẖāk nūr karḏaŉ ālam ḏunī*ā*ė.
The Lord infused His Light into the dust, and created the world, the universe.*
Guru Arjan Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 723, Line 14

ਅਸਮਾਨ ਜਿਮੀ ਦਰਖਤ ਆਬ ਪੈਦਾਇਸਿ ਖੁਦਾਇ ॥੧॥असमान जिमी दरखत आब पैदाइसि खुदाइ ॥१॥
Asmān jimī ḏarkẖaṯ āb paiḏā*is kẖuḏā*ė. ||1||
The sky, the earth, the trees, and the water - all are the Creation of the Lord. ||1|
|*Guru Arjan Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 723, Line 14

ਬੰਦੇ ਚਸਮ ਦੀਦੰ ਫਨਾਇ ॥बंदे चसम दीदं फनाइ ॥
Banḏė cẖasam ḏīḏaŉ fanā*ė.O human being, whatever you can see with your eyes, shall perish.*
Guru Arjan Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 723, Line 14

ਦੁਨੀਆ ਮੁਰਦਾਰ ਖੁਰਦਨੀ ਗਾਫਲ ਹਵਾਇ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥दुनींआ मुरदार खुरदनी गाफल हवाइ ॥ रहाउ ॥
Ḏunīŉ*ā murḏār kẖurḏanī gāfal havā*ė. Rahā*o.
The world eats dead carcasses, living by neglect and greed. 
||Pause||*Guru Arjan Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 723, Line 15

ਗੈਬਾਨ ਹੈਵਾਨ ਹਰਾਮ ਕੁਸਤਨੀ ਮੁਰਦਾਰ ਬਖੋਰਾਇ ॥गैबान हैवान हराम कुसतनी मुरदार बखोराइ ॥
Gaibān haivān harām kusṯanī murḏār bakẖorā*ė.
Like a goblin, or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat.
*Guru Arjan Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 723, Line 15

ਦਿਲ ਕਬਜ ਕਬਜਾ ਕਾਦਰੋ ਦੋਜਕ ਸਜਾਇ ॥੨॥दिल कबज कबजा कादरो दोजक सजाइ ॥२॥
Ḏil kabaj kabjā kāḏro ḏojak sajā*ė. ||2||
So control your urges, or else you will be seized by the Lord, and thrown into the tortures of hell. ||2||

Page 723, Line 16
ਵਲੀ ਨਿਆਮਤਿ ਬਿਰਾਦਰਾ ਦਰਬਾਰ ਮਿਲਕ ਖਾਨਾਇ ॥वली निआमति बिरादरा दरबार मिलक खानाइ ॥
valī ni*āmaṯ birāḏarā ḏarbār milak kẖānā*ė.
Your benefactors, presents, companions, courts, lands and homes -
*Guru Arjan Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 723, Line 16

ਜਬ ਅਜਰਾਈਲੁ ਬਸਤਨੀ ਤਬ ਚਿ ਕਾਰੇ ਬਿਦਾਇ ॥੩॥जब अजराईलु बसतनी तब चि कारे बिदाइ ॥३॥
Jab ajrā*īl basṯanī ṯab cẖė kārė biḏā*ė. ||3||
when Azraa-eel, the Messenger of Death seizes you, what good will these be to you then? ||3||
*Guru Arjan Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 723, Line 17

ਹਵਾਲ ਮਾਲੂਮੁ ਕਰਦੰ ਪਾਕ ਅਲਾਹ ॥हवाल मालूमु करदं पाक अलाह ॥
Havāl mālūm karḏaŉ pāk alāh.The Pure Lord God knows your condition.*
Guru Arjan Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 723, Line 17

ਬੁਗੋ ਨਾਨਕ ਅਰਦਾਸਿ ਪੇਸਿ ਦਰਵੇਸ ਬੰਦਾਹ ॥੪॥੧॥बुगो नानक अरदासि पेसि दरवेस बंदाह ॥४॥१॥
Bugo Nānak arḏās pės ḏarvės banḏāh. ||4||1||
O Nanak, recite your prayer to the holy people. ||4||1||
*Guru Arjan Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok

 .......also read Pritam Chails tranlation..........totally different...........

......the essay was specifaclly done to tackle such tukhs thatv are misrepresented as meaning a prefrence for one sort of diet.

also look into the translations or murdaar - the dead............ bakhoraay - bones..........haram - impure.


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 28, 2007)

Listen to Balbir Singh and have peace in your heart.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 28, 2007)

begum said:


> Please accept my apologies for imposing my views too strongly on you guys. Peace to all. Randip gave me an opportunity to find the shabad which I am in harmony with, even he knows that we all visit this thread to gain something. And KD Singh also contributed to my gain. I was egotistic when I answered back rudely. I owe you one, kds1980.



I don't think that you answered rudely.btw the answer of bhai gurdas ji's vaar lies in 
the following

KAUN MAAS KAUN SAAG KHAVEY 19


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 28, 2007)

begum said:


> Listen to Balbir Singh and have peace in your heart.



You are assuming people are not at peace?

If the vegetarian Sikh is at peace then good for him/her. If the meat eating Sikh is at peace then good for him/her. What they should not indulge is in fruitless efforts to disrupt each others peace.


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 28, 2007)

*SGGS Page 467* Full Shabad 
ਓਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਮੰਦੈ ਪੈਰੁ ਨ ਰਖਿਓ ਕਰਿ ਸੁਕ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਕਮਾਇਆ ॥ 
ਓਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਤੋੜੇ ਬੰਧਨਾ ਅੰਨੁ ਪਾਣੀ ਥੋੜਾ ਖਾਇਆ ॥ 
onHee mandai pair na rakhi-o kar sukarit Dharam kamaa-i-aa. 
onHee dunee-aa torhay banDhnaa ann paanee thorhaa khaa-i-aa. 

They do not place their feet in sin, but do good deeds and live righteously in Dharma. 
They burn away the bonds of the world, and eat a simple diet of grain and water.


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 28, 2007)

'Kabir, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish, and wine,' 

'will go to hell despite all pilgrimages, fasts, and rituals.' (Kabir, Adi Granth, p. 1377)

..............................................................................................


“Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false. You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens? ||1||”
http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=464&english=t&id=20831


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 28, 2007)

*Moral*

The pains and pleasures one gets in this life are heavily influenced by past actions, not just in this life but in countless previous lives. When people suffer at the hands of others it's because they made that person suffer in a previous life. Most people will take revenge and so the cycle of making each other suffer continues life after life. A mythical story to explain this is of a goat and a butcher. The butcher would kill the goat in one life, the goat's soul would be reborn as a butcher and the butcher's soul would be reborn as a goat. In the next life the butcher would kill the goat and so the cycle continued. Then in one life the butcher received a customer who only wanted a goat's leg. The butcher thought if I kill the goat and sell the leg the rest of the goat will rot away. So what he thought was I'll just chop the goat's leg off and bandage the wound, that way the goat will stay alive until the next customer. Just as he was about to cut the leg, the goat spoke, "O Butcher, what's this new bad action you're starting? Life after life we keep swapping roles to cancel our actions, but if you chop my leg now and make me suffer in the next life I'll do the same to you and you'll suffer too!"


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 28, 2007)

Since some Sikhs believe that it is against the basics of Sikhi to eat meat, fish or eggs, hence non-vegetarian foods of this sort is neither served nor brought onto the Gurdwara premises. Others believe that the reason vegetarian food is served in Gurdwaras is so that people of all backgrounds can consume the food without any anxiety about their particular dietary requirement and to promote complete equality among all the peoples of the world. Alcoholic and narcotic substances are stringently against the Sikh diet, hence these with any meat products are *strictly* not allowed on Gurdwara premises.


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 28, 2007)

Here the word "kuthaa" is in relation to meat of sheep/goat 


*Word by Word breakdown*

*Abhaakhi* means according to Reference 1 below: 1. (from Sanskrit Abhaksha) "uneatable" 2. (from Sanskrit A+Bhasha) bad language, language not to be uttered. Also *Abhakkhu* ( ਅਭਖੁ ) (from Sk. Abhaksha) uneatable, forbidden food.
*Kaa* means "of"
*bakraa* mean "sheep", *bakree* means "goat"
*khaanaa* mean "to eat"; "is eaten"
*SGGS Page 472* Full Shabad ਅਭਾਖਿਆ ਕਾ ਕੁਠਾ ਬਕਰਾ ਖਾਣਾ ॥ 
abhaakhi-aa kaa kuthaa bakraa khaanaa. 
They eat the forbidden "Kuthaa" sheep


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 28, 2007)

*Rojaa Dharey, Manaavey Mlah, Svaadat Jee Sanghaarey. Aapaa Dekh Avar Nahin Dekhey,Kaahey Kow Jhakh Maarey.* (http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/1375.html pg. 1375) 
*You keep fasts (i.e., religious acts) to appease God. At the same time you slay life for your relish. This utter selfishness is nothing but empty or nonsensical talk.*

*.........................................................................................................*

*Kabir Jee Jo Maareh Jor Kar,Kaahtey Heh Ju Halaal. Daftar Daee Jab Kaadh Hal, Hoegaa Kaun Havaal*(http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/1375.html pg. 1375) 
*Whosoever slays life by force and call it sanctified; What will be his fate when he will be called to account for it in His Court?*


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Nov 28, 2007)

> *SGGS Page 467 Full Shabad *
> *ਓਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਮੰਦੈ ਪੈਰੁ ਨ ਰਖਿਓ ਕਰਿ ਸੁਕ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਕਮਾਇਆ ॥ *
> *ਓਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਤੋੜੇ ਬੰਧਨਾ ਅੰਨੁ ਪਾਣੀ ਥੋੜਾ ਖਾਇਆ ॥ *
> *onHee mandai pair na rakhi-o kar sukarit Dharam kamaa-i-aa. *
> ...


 
*Bhai Sahib Begum ji,*

*Do you expect Randip Singh to understand the above. He will dismiss any sentence that does not say "MEAT" specifically. So do not waste time with him.*

*"ਓਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਤੋੜੇ ਬੰਧਨਾ ਅੰਨੁ ਪਾਣੀ ਥੋੜਾ ਖਾਇਆ ॥"*
*This is the life style of a Sadhu and not to be understood by a Wordly person. *

*bakraa means "he goat", bakree means "she goat" *
*Sheep - Bherd.*

*



			Kabir Jee Jo Maareh Jor Kar,Kaahtey Heh Ju Halaal. Daftar Daee Jab Kaadh Hal, Hoegaa Kaun Havaal
		
Click to expand...

*


> *Whosoever slays life by force and call it sanctified; What will be his fate when he will be called to account for it in His Court?*


 
*Do not expect him to understand this because animal life is of no value to him.*

*pauVI ]*
*scw swihbu eyku qUM ijin sco scu vrqwieAw ] *
*ijsu qUM dyih iqsu imlY scu qw iqn@I scu kmwieAw ] *
*siqguir imilAY scu pwieAw ijn@ kY ihrdY scu vswieAw ] *
*mUrK scu n jwxn@I mnmuKI jnmu gvwieAw ] *
*ivic dunIAw kwhy AwieAw ]8]*

*True path is bestowed only by His blessing.*

*Those that are destined will get the understanding and realisation. *

*“You can take a horse to water but cannot make him drink it.”*

Thoughts become the Words; Words become the Actions; Actions become the Habits; Habits becomes the Character; Charater becomes THE DESTINY.

Why meddle with his destiny.

*Regards*

*Ekmusafir_ajnabi*


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 28, 2007)

Ekmusafir Ji,

Since Randip Singh and others did not answer some of my questions, here is one for you:-

What constituted the diet of our 10 gurus in their lifetime ?

Akaal Sehai,

Santokh


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 28, 2007)

begum said:


> Ekmusafir Ji,
> 
> Since Randip Singh and others did not answer some of my questions, here is one for you:-
> 
> ...



Just read this may be it could help you and others.

Misconceptions About Eating Meat - The Times of the Gurus
by Sandeep Singh Brar		

Hunting Purely for Amusement & Sport - Not for Any Religious Reasons 

Guru Gobind Singh, Vachitra Natak, Chapter 8, Chaupai 1-3
"When I became a Spiritual Sovereign, I tried to spread Religion to the best of my ability. I hunted various games in the forest, including bears, nilgaus and elks. Then, I left my home and proceeded towards the city of Paunta. On the banks of the Kalindri, I refreshed and amused myself with many kinds of amusements. There, I killed many ferocious lions and also nilgaus and elks." 

Bhai Gurdas, Var 26 Pauri 24
"Earlier Gurus sat on the pontific throne, Leading a life of peace and contentment; Hargobind keeps dogs for sports, And goes out for hunting wild animals." 

Creation of the Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699

All of the Sikh cronicles record the fact that during the ceremony of initiating the first five Sikhs into the Khalsa brotherhood Guru Gobind Singh asked for volunteers who would be willing to give their heads. He took each volunteer into the tent and a loud thud was heard and blood trickled out of the tent. Guru Gobind Singh then emerged from the tent with his sword dripping with blood and asked for the next volunteer. Eventually Guru Gobind Singh emerged from the tent with the five beloved ones alive. He pulled back the covers of the tent and revealed to the thousands gathered that he had really slaughtered five goats with his sword and not the five beloved ones. 

Guru Nanak Eating Meat

Bhai Mani Singh, Gyan Ratnavali, pg. 123
At Kurukshetra, a great centre of Hindu pilgrimage, where a big fair was being held on the occasion of the solar eclipse. A follower of the Guru offered him deer meat to eat. The Guru who had never made any distinction between one kind of food and another and took whatever was offered to him, did not refuse the courtesies of his devotee. And he allowed him to roast it for his food. 

A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi
It first occurs in Bhai Mani Singh's Gyan Ratnavali (pg. 123) which mentions Nanak having been engaged in debate with a Pandit, called Nanau Chand. The deer-meat was, according to this version, brought to him as an offering by a Prince and his consort, who having been dispossessed of their realm, came to him for a blessing. In the dialogue that followed with the Pandit, he is not only convinced of Nanak's logic, but persuades also the fellow Brahmins, basing his argument on the Veda, the Puranas and even the Quran, saying that even the Hindu gods could be propieated since the earliest times only through yagnas in which meat was invariably served, and that it has been the dharma of the Kashatriya Kings since ages to hunt. 

Guru Angad and Guru Amar Das Eating Meat 

The Sikh Religion, Volume II by Max Arthur Macauliffe
One day the Guru had a meat dinner prepared. Amar Das said, "If the Guru is a searcher of hearts, he must know that I am a Vaishnav and do not touch flesh". The Guru (Guru Angad), knowing this, ordered that dal should be served him. Amar Das then reflected, "The Guru knoweth that meat is forbidden me, so he hath ordered that dal be served me instead." Amar Das then rapidly arrived at the conclusion that any disciple, whose practice differed from that of the Guru, must inevitably fail. He therefore told the cook that if the Guru were kind enough to give him meat, he would partake of it. The Guru, on hearing this, knew that superstition was departing from Amar Das's heart, and he handed him his own dish. When Amar Das had partaken of it, he for the first time felt peace of mind, and as he became further absorbed in his attentions and devotion to the Guru, celestial light dawned on his heart. Thus did he break with the strictest tenet of Vaishnavism and become a follower of the Guru. *One day the Guru, in order to further remove Amar Das's prejudices, thus began to instruct him: "The meats it is proper to abstain from are these - Other's wealth, other's wives, slander, envy, covetousness and pride. If any one abstaining from meat is proud on the subject and says, 'I never touch meat,' let him consider that the infant sucks nipples of flesh, that the married man takes home with him a vessel of flesh." Guru Angad then repeated and expounded Guru Nanak's sloks on the subject. He also related to Amar Das the story of Duni Chand and his father, giving in the Life of Guru Nanak. "If you think of it," continued the Guru, "there is life in everything, even in fruits and flowers, so say nothing of flesh; but whatever thou eatest, eat remembering God, and it shall be profitable to thee.* Whatever cometh to thee without hurting a fellow creature is nectar, and whatever thou recievest by giving pain is poison. To shatter another's hopes, to calumniate others, and to misappropriate their property is worse than to eat meat." 

Macauliffe collaborated with the most learned Sikhs of his time when he wrote this over 100 years ago. The exact written source of this account is unknown. 

Guru Hargobind Eating Meat 

Mohsin Fani, Dabistan-e-Mazahib
Mohsin Fani was a historian, traveller and mystic who was born around 1615 in Persia. During the lifetime of Guru Hargobind he migrated to India and studied the religions of India. He became very good friends with Guru Hargobind and spent a great deal of time with the Guru upto the Gurus death in 1644. In between 1645 and 1654 he produced his great work 'Dabistan-e-Mazahib' meaning 'the schools of thought of various religions'. This book provides the most accurate account of the life of Guru Hargobind and the Sikhs at that time. Mohsin Fani writes: 

"The Guru believes in one God. His followers put not their faith in idol-worship. They never pray or practice austerities like the Hindus. They believe not in their incarnations, or places of pilgrimage nor the Sanskrit language which the Hindus deem to be the language of gods. They believe that all the Gurus are the same as Nanak. The Sikhs are not restricted in the matter of eating or drinking. When Partap Mall Giani saw a Hindu boy who had a mind to embrace Islam, he said, 'Why do you become a Muhammadan? If you have an inclination to eat everything, you may become a Sikh of the Guru and eat whatever you like." 

Some use a quote from Mohsin Fani to prove that Guru Nanak and Guru Arjan Dev did not allow Sikhs to eat meat. Since he only emigrated to India during the lifetime of Guru Hargobind, his information about Guru Nanak and Guru Arjan Dev cannot be considered an eyewitness account of his. Also vegetarian proponents usually only give a partial quote, the full quote of his is: 

"Nanak himself abstained from animal food and the prudent Arjan endevoured to add to his saintly merit and influence by a similar moderation; but the adventurous Hargobind became a hunter and an eater of flesh, and his disciples imitated him in these robust practices." 

Gokul Chand Narang
Another contemporary of the Guru, Gokul Chand Narang provides the following eyewitness acount: 

"Hargobind began to devote most of his time to wrestling, riding, tent-pegging and hunting the tigers and the boars. With the change of aims the occupation changed, and with the change in the occupation came a change in tastes and even diet. Animal food was not only sanctioned but encouraged." 

The Khalsa Army Under Banda Singh Bahadur Eating Meat 

An eyewitness account of the siege of the Khalsa army at Gurdaspur and how the Khalsa soldiers and Banda Singh Bahadur bravely held out against the Mughal army for eight months is provided below: 

Khafi Khan, Muntakhabul-Lubab, pg. 723
"The Sikhs were not strict observers of cast, they slaughtered oxen and other animals and not having any firewood, ate the flesh raw. Many died of dysentry and privation... when all the grass was gone, they gathered leaves from trees. When these were consumed, they stripped the bark and broke off the small shoots, dried them, ground them down and used them instead of flour, thus keeping body and soul together. They also collected the bones of animals and used them in the same way. Some assert that they saw a few of the Sikhs cut flesh from their own thights, roast it, and eat it.

http://www.sherwoodhall.notts.sch.uk/re/sikhism/meat.htm


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anybody beleives that vegetarianism an essentialis a part of sikhism then he should create a new religion rather than following sikhism created by guru's.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 28, 2007)

03-05-02 OSU SCIENTIST QUESTIONS THE MORAL BASIS OF A VEGAN DIET


OSU SCIENTIST QUESTIONS THE MORAL BASIS OF A VEGAN DIET

03-05-02

By Peg Herring, 541-737-9180 
SOURCE: Steven Davis, 541-737-1892

CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow? 

Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to animals of the field.

In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower blades, and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams. 

"Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, would be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture," Davis said. 

*Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model.* This difference, according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Nov 28, 2007)

begum said:


> Ekmusafir Ji,
> 
> Since Randip Singh and others did not answer some of my questions, here is one for you:-
> 
> ...


 

Sorry Begum ji,

What I was about to say, I have been forbidden to do so.

It is not for me to make judgements on our Gurus.

This is my Gurus message that all Bhagat have followed to date.

*"ਓਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਤੋੜੇ ਬੰਧਨਾ ਅੰਨੁ ਪਾਣੀ ਥੋੜਾ ਖਾਇਆ ॥"*
This is enough for me.

I will let Randip Singh and KDS make judgement.

Ekmusafir_ajnabi


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 28, 2007)

begum said:


> *SGGS Page 467* Full Shabad
> ਓਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਮੰਦੈ ਪੈਰੁ ਨ ਰਖਿਓ ਕਰਿ ਸੁਕ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਕਮਾਇਆ ॥
> ਓਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਤੋੜੇ ਬੰਧਨਾ ਅੰਨੁ ਪਾਣੀ ਥੋੜਾ ਖਾਇਆ ॥
> onHee mandai pair na rakhi-o kar sukarit Dharam kamaa-i-aa.
> ...



Then take this literally as you have other shabads and ONLY eat grain and water.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 28, 2007)

begum said:


> 'Kabir, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish, and wine,'
> 
> 'will go to hell despite all pilgrimages, fasts, and rituals.' (Kabir, Adi Granth, p. 1377)
> 
> ...



*1. Those mortals who consume marijuana, flesh and wine - no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. (SGGS p1337)
In this instance let us firstly add the Gurmukhi with the English: 

mukat padaarath paa-ee-ai thaak na avghat ghaat.
231 
kabeer ayk gharhee aaDhee gharee aaDhee hooN tay aaDh.
bhagtan saytee gostay jo keenay so laabh. 232 
kabeer bhaaNg maachhulee suraa paan jo jo paraanee khaaNhi.
tirath barat naym kee-ay tay sabhai rasaatal jaaNhi. 233
neechay lo-in kar raha-o lay saajan ghat maahi.
sabh ras khayla-o pee-a sa-o kisee lakhaava-o naahi. 234 
aath jaam cha-usath gharee tu-a nirkhat rahai jee-o.
neechay lo-in ki-o kara-o sabh ghat daykh-a-u pee-o. 235 
sun sakhee pee-a meh jee-o basai jee-a meh basai ke pee-o.
jee-o pee-o boojha-o nahee ghat meh jee-o ke pee-o. 236 
kabeer baaman guroo hai jagat kaa bhagtan kaa gur naahi.
arajh urajh kai pach moo-aa chaara-o baydahu maahi.237 
har hai khaaNd rayt meh bikhree haathee chunee na jaa-ay.
kahi kabeer gur bhalee bujhaa-ee keetee ho-ay kai khaa-ay. 238 
kabeer ja-o tuhi saaDh piramm kee sees kaat kar go-ay.
khaylat khaylat haal kar jo kichh ho-ay ta ho-ay. 239 
kabeer ja-o tuhi saaDh piramm kee paakay saytee khayl.
kaachee sarsa-uN payl kai naa khal bha-ee na tayl.240 
dhooNdhat doleh anDh gat ar cheenat naahee sant.
kahi naamaa ki-o paa-ee-ai bin bhagtahu bhagvant. 241 
har so heeraa chhaad kai karahi aan kee aas.
tay nar dojak jaahigay sat bhaakhai ravidaas. 242 
kabeer ja-o garihu karahi ta Dharam kar naahee ta kar bairaag.
bairaagee banDhan karai taa ko bado abhaag. 243 

He obtains the treasure of liberation, and the difficult road to the Lord is not blocked.
231
Kabeer, whether is is for an hour, half an hour, or half of that,
whatever it is, it is worthwhile to speak with the Holy. 232
Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine -
no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. 233
Kabeer, I keep my eyes lowered, and enshrine my Friend within my heart.
I enjoy all pleasures with my Beloved, but I do not let anyone else know.234
Twenty-four hours a day, every hour, my soul continues to look to You, O Lord.
Why should I keep my eyes lowered? I see my Beloved in every heart. 235
Listen, O my companions: my soul dwells in my Beloved, and my Beloved dwells in my soul.
I realize that there is no difference between my soul and my Beloved; I cannot tell whether my soul or my Beloved dwells in my heart. 236
Kabeer, the Brahmin may be the guru of the world, but he is not the Guru of the devotees.
He rots and dies in the perplexities of the four Vedas. 237
The Lord is like sugar, scattered in the sand; the elephant cannot pick it up.
Says Kabeer, the Guru has given me this sublime understanding: become an ant, and feed on it. 238
Kabeer, if you desire to play the game of love with the Lord, then cut off your head, and make it into a ball.
Lose yourself in the play of it, and then whatever will be, will be. 239
Kabeer, if you desire to play the game of love with the Lord, play it with someone with committment.
Pressing the unripe mustard seeds produces neither oil nor flour. 240
Searching, the mortal stumbles like a blind person, and does not recognize the Saint.
Says Naam Dayv, how can one obtain the Lord God, without His devotee?


**Taking out the sentence we see *​* 

kabeer bhaaNg maachhulee suraa paan jo jo paraanee khaaNhi.
Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine – 

tirath barat naym kee-ay tay sabhai rasaatal jaaNhi. 233
no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. 233
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 


Firstly note that maachlee is not flesh, but is indeed fish. The word in Punjabi for flesh is maas. Then secondly one must ask, why is there a forbidding in the consumption of fish specifically. The answer lies in reading the entire paragraph and a picture emerges. In the last two lines the statement is made: 

kabeer ja-o garihu karahi ta Dharam kar naahee ta kar bairaag. 
Kabeer, if you live the householder's life, then practice righteousness; otherwise, you might as well retire from the world. 

bairaagee banDhan karai taa ko bado abhaag. 243 
If someone renounces the world, and then gets involved in worldly entanglements, he shall suffer terrible misfortune. 243
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 


Now putting this in its entire context what Bhagat Kabir is actually criticising in the rich and those in power. The thrill seekers, who are addicted to their senses and those addicted to the 5 thieves. Kabir was born around the area of Benares, and was brought up in a poor Muslim weavers family. He saw the excesses of the rich around him, while the poor starved. Foods like fish and wine were associated with the rich who had an excessive disposable income. Marijuana was associated with either idol people or those who had time and money to waste. Kabir abhorred this, and this statement is a social comment about the excesses of the rich. At the end he clearly states, that those people who do their duties as householders (i.e. work hard, care for other etc) are the ones who will be liberated, and those who live by excesses will suffer. One cantherefore clearly see that this is in no way a comment about eating meat (because of mistranslation) or about avoiding certain foods (as has been misrepresented). 

My friend you are making a brilliant case for this essay....i.e. quoting one liners and hence destroying the meaning of the shabad.  
*


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 28, 2007)

begum said:


> Here the word "kuthaa" is in relation to meat of sheep/goat
> 
> *Word by Word breakdown*
> 
> ...



Full Shabad:

ਮਃ  ੧  ॥
मः १ ॥
Mehlā 1.
First Mehl:

ਮਾਣਸ  ਖਾਣੇ  ਕਰਹਿ  ਨਿਵਾਜ  ॥
माणस खाणे करहि निवाज ॥
Māṇas kẖāṇė karahi nivāj.
The man-eaters say their prayers.

ਛੁਰੀ  ਵਗਾਇਨਿ  ਤਿਨ  ਗਲਿ  ਤਾਗ  ॥
छुरी वगाइनि तिन गलि ताग ॥
Cẖẖurī vagā*in ṯin gal ṯāg.
Those who wield the knife wear the sacred thread around their necks.

ਤਿਨ  ਘਰਿ  ਬ੍ਰਹਮਣ  ਪੂਰਹਿ  ਨਾਦ  ॥
तिन घरि ब्रहमण पूरहि नाद ॥
Ŧin gẖar barahmaṇ pūreh nāḏ.
In their homes, the Brahmins sound the conch.

ਉਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ  ਭਿ  ਆਵਹਿ  ਓਈ  ਸਾਦ  ॥
उन्हा भि आवहि ओई साद ॥
Unĥā bẖe āvahi o*ī sāḏ.
They too have the same taste.

ਕੂੜੀ  ਰਾਸਿ  ਕੂੜਾ  ਵਾਪਾਰੁ  ॥
कूड़ी रासि कूड़ा वापारु ॥
Kūṛī rās kūṛā vāpār.
False is their capital, and false is their trade.

ਕੂੜੁ  ਬੋਲਿ  ਕਰਹਿ  ਆਹਾਰੁ  ॥
कूड़ु बोलि करहि आहारु ॥
Kūṛ bol karahi āhār.
Speaking falsehood, they take their food.

ਸਰਮ  ਧਰਮ  ਕਾ  ਡੇਰਾ  ਦੂਰਿ  ॥
सरम धरम का डेरा दूरि ॥
Saram ḏẖaram kā dėrā ḏūr.
The home of modesty and Dharma is far from them.

ਨਾਨਕ  ਕੂੜੁ  ਰਹਿਆ  ਭਰਪੂਰਿ  ॥
नानक कूड़ु रहिआ भरपूरि ॥
Nānak kūṛ rahi*ā bẖarpūr.
O Nanak, they are totally permeated with falsehood.

ਮਥੈ  ਟਿਕਾ  ਤੇੜਿ  ਧੋਤੀ  ਕਖਾਈ  ॥
मथै टिका तेड़ि धोती कखाई ॥
Mathai tikā ṯėṛ ḏẖoṯī kakẖā*ī.
The sacred marks are on their foreheads, and the saffron loin-cloths are around their waists;

ਹਥਿ  ਛੁਰੀ  ਜਗਤ  ਕਾਸਾਈ  ॥
हथि छुरी जगत कासाई ॥
Hath cẖẖurī jagaṯ kāsā*ī.
in their hands they hold the knives - they are the butchers of the world!

ਨੀਲ  ਵਸਤ੍ਰ  ਪਹਿਰਿ  ਹੋਵਹਿ  ਪਰਵਾਣੁ  ॥
नील वसत्र पहिरि होवहि परवाणु ॥
Nīl vasṯar pahir hoveh parvāṇ.
Wearing blue robes, they seek the approval of the Muslim rulers.

ਮਲੇਛ  ਧਾਨੁ  ਲੇ  ਪੂਜਹਿ  ਪੁਰਾਣੁ  ॥
मलेछ धानु ले पूजहि पुराणु ॥
Malėcẖẖ ḏẖān lė pūjeh purāṇ.
Accepting bread from the Muslim rulers, they still worship the Puraanas.

ਅਭਾਖਿਆ  ਕਾ  ਕੁਠਾ  ਬਕਰਾ  ਖਾਣਾ  ॥
अभाखिआ का कुठा बकरा खाणा ॥
Abẖākẖi*ā kā kuṯẖā bakrā kẖāṇā.
They eat the meat of the goats, killed after the Muslim prayers are read over them,

ਚਉਕੇ  ਉਪਰਿ  ਕਿਸੈ  ਨ  ਜਾਣਾ  ॥
चउके उपरि किसै न जाणा ॥
Cẖa*ukė upar kisai na jāṇā.
but they do not allow anyone else to enter their kitchen areas.

ਦੇ  ਕੈ  ਚਉਕਾ  ਕਢੀ  ਕਾਰ  ॥
दे कै चउका कढी कार ॥
Ḏė kai cẖa*ukā kadẖī kār.
They draw lines around them, plastering the ground with cow-dung.

ਉਪਰਿ  ਆਇ  ਬੈਠੇ  ਕੂੜਿਆਰ  ॥
उपरि आइ बैठे कूड़िआर ॥
Upar ā*ė baiṯẖė kūṛi*ār.
The false come and sit within them.

ਮਤੁ  ਭਿਟੈ  ਵੇ  ਮਤੁ  ਭਿਟੈ  ॥
मतु भिटै वे मतु भिटै ॥
Maṯ bẖitai vė maṯ bẖitai.
They cry out, "Do not touch our food,

ਇਹੁ  ਅੰਨੁ  ਅਸਾਡਾ  ਫਿਟੈ  ॥
इहु अंनु असाडा फिटै ॥
Ih ann asādā fitai.
this food of ours will be polluted!

ਤਨਿ  ਫਿਟੈ  ਫੇੜ  ਕਰੇਨਿ  ॥
तनि फिटै फेड़ करेनि ॥
Ŧan fitai fėṛ karėn.
But with their polluted bodies, they commit evil deeds.

ਮਨਿ  ਜੂਠੈ  ਚੁਲੀ  ਭਰੇਨਿ  ॥
मनि जूठै चुली भरेनि ॥
Man jūṯẖai cẖulī bẖarėn.
With filthy minds, they try to cleanse their mouths.

ਕਹੁ  ਨਾਨਕ  ਸਚੁ  ਧਿਆਈਐ  ॥
कहु नानक सचु धिआईऐ ॥
Kaho Nānak sacẖ ḏẖi*ā*ī*ai.
Says Nanak, meditate on the True Lord.

ਸੁਚਿ  ਹੋਵੈ  ਤਾ  ਸਚੁ  ਪਾਈਐ  ॥੨॥
सुचि होवै ता सचु पाईऐ ॥२॥
Sucẖ hovai ṯā sacẖ pā*ī*ai. ||2||
If you are pure, you will obtain the True Lord. ||2||


* Nothing to do with meat eating but the Brahimns who licked the boots of the Mughal masters. They would even perform animal sacrifice. Again a brilliant example of how to quote one line of a shabad and distort the shabads meeaning.*

Key line's of shabad:

ਨੀਲ  ਵਸਤ੍ਰ  ਪਹਿਰਿ  ਹੋਵਹਿ  ਪਰਵਾਣੁ  ॥
नील वसत्र पहिरि होवहि परवाणु ॥
Nīl vasṯar pahir hoveh parvāṇ.
Wearing blue robes, they seek the approval of the Muslim rulers.

ਮਲੇਛ  ਧਾਨੁ  ਲੇ  ਪੂਜਹਿ  ਪੁਰਾਣੁ  ॥
मलेछ धानु ले पूजहि पुराणु ॥
Malėcẖẖ ḏẖān lė pūjeh purāṇ.
Accepting bread from the Muslim rulers, they still worship the Puraanas.

ਅਭਾਖਿਆ  ਕਾ  ਕੁਠਾ  ਬਕਰਾ  ਖਾਣਾ  ॥
अभाखिआ का कुठा बकरा खाणा ॥
Abẖākẖi*ā kā kuṯẖā bakrā kẖāṇā.
They eat the meat of the goats, killed after the Muslim prayers are read over them,

ਚਉਕੇ  ਉਪਰਿ  ਕਿਸੈ  ਨ  ਜਾਣਾ  ॥
चउके उपरि किसै न जाणा ॥
Cẖa*ukė upar kisai na jāṇā.
but they do not allow anyone else to enter their kitchen areas.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 28, 2007)

> “Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false. You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens? ||1||”



*3. Do not say that the Vedas are false, false are those who do not reflect. If in all is one god, then why does one kill the hen ? (SGGS p1350)
Again, let us put this into context: 

bayd katayb kahhu mat jhoothay jhoothaa jo na bichaarai.
ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai.
mulaaN kahhu ni-aa-o khudaa-ee.
tayray man kaa bharam na jaa-ee. rahaa-o.
pakar jee-o aani-aa dayh binaasee maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa.
jot saroop anaahat laagee kaho halaal ki-aa kee-aa.
ki-aa ujoo paak kee-aa muhu Dho-i-aa ki-aa maseet sir laa-i-aa.
ja-o dil meh kapat nivaaj gujaarahu ki-aa haj kaabai jaa-i-aa.
tooN naapaak paak nahee soojhi-aa tis kaa maram na jaani-aa.
kahi kabeer bhisat tay chookaa dojak si-o man maani-aa.

Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.
You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?
O Mullah, tell me: is this God's Justice?
The doubts of your mind have not been dispelled. Pause
You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay.
The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed?
And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?
Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca?
You are impure; you do not understand the Pure Lord. You do not know His Mystery.
Says Kabeer, you have missed out on paradise; your mind is set on hell.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


First point to note is that  halaal and  bismil, does not mean kill but refers to a specific form of ritual slaughter. Put into context this is a comment on the Muslim sacrifice ritual where either a goat or a chicken is kept in the confines of the home and then ritually slaughtered as obeisance to Abraham. Kabeer is mocking the futility of this ritual and saying, that why are you doing this sacrifice just to emulate Gods asking of Abraham to kill his only son? It is a futile gesture that will not sway God. Abraham was sacrificing his son to God, however all the sacrifice in this instance has achieved is destruction of the outer shell of the chicken. The soul wont travel to God, but merely to another form. One can only understand this if one has a basic grasp of history. In this instance the person who tried to use this tukh as an anti-meat quotation was unaware of the Koranic context and had an extremely poor knowledge of Semitic history. 

Again another example of one line quoting, shabad distotion and msitranslation of words in this case Halal and Bismil.
*


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 28, 2007)

begum said:


> Ekmusafir Ji,
> 
> Since Randip Singh and others did not answer some of my questions, here is one for you:-
> 
> ...



We answered the questions you chose to ignore the answer. That is you perogative.

You tell us what the Guru's ate. Give us eye witness accounts from contemporaries.

Infact you have not explained the following var from Bhai Gudas:



> ‘An elephant’s flesh is not edible for he is full of pride, *The lion is also full of pride of its strength so no one eats it either, Humble is the goat it gains honor in the here after and this world, In all celebrations is it [the meat], acknowledged, It [the meat], sanctifies religious gatherings and feasts, Its meat is ‘Pavitar’ [good/sacred] for the householder*, From its entrails [tendons] is string for instruments made that when they play, attracts holy men in meditation From it’s skin are shoes made, which holy feet wear as they go to seek holy protection [to Guru]. With its skin are bound drums with which ‘Kirtan’ [religious songs], are sung, Hence, they [goat-skin bound drums] give great comfort. The holy gathering is coming into the Guru’s protection.’
> 
> (Bhai Gurdas Ji’s Varan, Bhai Gurdas, ‘Vaar 23, Pauri 13’)



If you unnderstand this you will also understand the one you quoted which allegedly looked down on eating meat.

Why does Bhai Gurdas (the Guru's contemporary) state meat to be sacred? Please explain.


PS
Spamming the forum with quotes the Ekh Musafir ji already lost the debate on is no solution to a constructive discusion.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 28, 2007)

begum said:


> *Moral*
> 
> The pains and pleasures one gets in this life are heavily influenced by past actions, not just in this life but in countless previous lives. When people suffer at the hands of others it's because they made that person suffer in a previous life. Most people will take revenge and so the cycle of making each other suffer continues life after life. A mythical story to explain this is of a goat and a butcher. The butcher would kill the goat in one life, the goat's soul would be reborn as a butcher and the butcher's soul would be reborn as a goat. In the next life the butcher would kill the goat and so the cycle continued. Then in one life the butcher received a customer who only wanted a goat's leg. The butcher thought if I kill the goat and sell the leg the rest of the goat will rot away. So what he thought was I'll just chop the goat's leg off and bandage the wound, that way the goat will stay alive until the next customer. Just as he was about to cut the leg, the goat spoke, "O Butcher, what's this new bad action you're starting? Life after life we keep swapping roles to cancel our actions, but if you chop my leg now and make me suffer in the next life I'll do the same to you and you'll suffer too!"



Please back this up with proof from Bani. 

This sounds like a sermon!


----------



## Sinister (Nov 29, 2007)

well.... when in doubt bring in reason

stick your finger in your mouth and count two teeth down from your central incisors.... what do you reach?

answer:
your canines

designed by god or evolution (lets keep this open) to tear muscle tissues.

we are omnivorous for a reason... Sikhs usually advocate the "natural state of man" when it comes to perserving hair fibers on the dermal layers of the skin but then turn and do a complete 180 and advocate the unnatural practice of dietary exclusion because of taboo.

and then the religious right has the nerve to call our youth "confused"

now...if you wish to practice ahimsa by all means do so...but...your diet will give you absolutely no moral superiority over the person next to you. its simply a personal choice. 


I read most of Randip Singh's post and I was impressed with the amount of research and well thought out arguments.

and i generally agree with Lion Child... this is a rather fruitless debate that was opened again by people with ill developed ideas or interpretations.

cheers


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 29, 2007)

Sinister said:


> well.... when in doubt bring in reason
> 
> stick your finger in your mouth and count two teeth down from your central incisors.... what do you reach?
> 
> ...


 
Those teeth are for eating raw flesh not cooked meat. I suppose there is no where in the Rehat Maryada that states that cannibalism is forbidden:-

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Kauda_the_cannibal

On the contrary, Guru Nanak's sakhi has another moral phase to it.
Will you then choose wisely whom you want to follow ?
Your animal instincts or your Guru's guidance.
Need I say more ?


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 29, 2007)

Begum ji,

No, you are right. Rehat Maryada does not forbid cannibalism either. But there are those who find it hard to keep that instinct in check as well.

Māṇas kẖāṇė karahi nivāj.
The man-eaters say their prayers.
(from Randip ji's comments a few comments back) SGGS Ang 471

No telling how a thread will turn out or what twists and turns it will take. Nature of a forum.


----------



## Astroboy (Nov 29, 2007)

I'm through with this thread.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Nov 29, 2007)

Begum ji and Dr Khalsa ji



begum said:


> I'm through with this thread.


 
There are still some loyal servants of our Beloved Gurus in the world who can answer back. The victory will be os "SAT".

Here is a present for you and Dr Khalsa,

The best critics are those who themselves are failures in that field. During the life time of our Gurus members of their own families had enmity with Guru Nanak Dev ji’s panth. Considerable anti-panthic stories have been written by several writers who have used manmat to the nth degree. 

Guru Nanak Dev ji say in Japji Sahib.

eyvfu aUcw hovY koie ] iqsu aUcy kau jwxY soie ]
​The Hymns revealed through the first four Gurus were getting amalgamated and distorted by a few impostors. Guru Arjan had the ardent task to preserve the original treasure. In the second place he wanted to bestow the Panth with an ever-lasting guiding light, a physical and spiritual phenomenon. This is the reason why Aad Granth was written in a continuous prose. Our Gurus realised that their enemies were getting stronger day by day. Majority of them were from their very own families, Pandits who were were becoming the subject of embarrassement due to their weaknesses getting exposed and lastly the Hakumat of the time. Our Gurus did their best to preserve the jewel for the humanity sake. Alas they have departed physically from us but their enemies are still inflicting damage to date.​​Lets us look at the true message that Bhagat Kabir ji . You will notice that the salokas begin with Mehla 5. i.e. they have been edited by by Guru Arjan Dev ji. Verse 232 as a contribution from Guru ji is a answer to a question.  ​​kbIr swDU sMgu prwpqI iliKAw hoie illwt ] mukiq pdwrQu pweIAY Twk n AvGt Gwt ]231]​​swDU sMgu prwpqI – obtained from the company of the saints​iliKAw hoie – if it is written​illwt – on the forhead​mukiq pdwrQu    – gift of liberation / salvation​pweIAY – to receive, to attain​Twk – hinderance​AvGt Gwt– difficult journey (akin to that in a mountainous area)​Kabir says, one receives the gift if it is predestined (written on the forehead)
One recieves Salvation and all hindrances in this otherwise difficult journey are removed.
Q. How much time does one need to spend the sadhu ?​​kbIr eyk GVI AwDI GrI AwDI hUM qy AwD ] Bgqn syqI gosty jo kIny so lwB ]232] ​​eyk GVI  - Unit of time (we will assume here = 1 hour) ​AwDI GrI  - ½hour​AwDI hUM qy AwD – ½ of ½hour i.e. ¼ hour​​Kabir ji say, Say 1 hour, say  ½ hour , ok lets say half of that half.​It almost appears that Kabir ji is observing the expression of the querist and adjusting the time accordingly and finally settles on 15 minutes.​​Bgqn syqI – in the company of Saints​gosty – communication, dialogue, accompany​jo kIny – whoever does it​so lwB – gains the benefit​Whoever corresponds with the saint, will benefits.
kbIr BWg mwCulI surw pwin jo jo pRwnI KWih ] qIrQ brq nym kIey qy sBY rswqil jWih ]233]​BWg - *hemp*​mwCulI  - *fish*​surw pwin  - drinks *wine **/ liquor*​jo jo pRwnI – whom so ever​KWih - eats​qIrQ  - pilgrimage​brq  - fasting​nym - Naam​kIeyy  - having done​sBY – all of them​rswqil jWih  - goes to vain​​Whosoever consumes hemp, eats fish, drinks liquor, The benefits of visiting pilgrimages, fastings undertaken, time spent in Naam simran, all of them go to vain.​​In summary : In the first line Kabir ji tells us that Salvation is a predestined commodity and is bestowed on those who spend time in the company of saints. In the secon line Kabir ji tells us that even a very small unit of time is spent is beneficial. In the last vers Kabir ji is saying that those people who whilst doing the above also consumes hemp, eats fish, drinks liquor, they befits they have accrued in visiting pilgrimages, fastings undertaken, time spent in Naam simran, all of them go to vain.​​Now why did Kabir ji pick on hemp, eats fish, drinks liquor. Hemp is a drug. The one who consumes it will loose his mind/his ability to reason. Fish is an aphriodisiac (invites kam). Liquor is again an intoxicant. When any of these elements are mixed who are bound to indulge in bad karma.​​Now let us compare the above three verses with those of our Forum Lead Randip Singh Esquire​​*Now putting this in its entire context what Bhagat Kabir is actually criticising in the rich and those in power. The thrill seekers, who are addicted to their senses and those addicted to the 5 thieves. Kabir was born around the area of Benares, and was brought up in a poor Muslim weavers family. He saw the excesses of the rich around him, while the poor starved. Foods like fish and wine were associated with the rich who had an excessive disposable income. Marijuana was associated with either idol people or those who had time and money to waste. Kabir abhorred this, and this statement is a social comment about the excesses of the rich. At the end he clearly states, that those people who do their duties as householders (i.e. work hard, care for other etc) are the ones who will be liberated, and those who live by excesses will suffer. One cantherefore clearly see that this is in no way a comment about eating meat (because of mistranslation) or about avoiding certain foods (as has been misrepresented).*

Now I cannot help doing :u):.   Please feel free to join me if you wish.

This is the intelligence of our present leaders. Guru ji quite aptly said 

“Koor phirey pardhaan ve Laalo”

Sharam Hovege Tuhanu te you will quit.:down:

And Begum ji I can now state this now as an answer to your question that Our beloved Gurus were Vegetarians. All Ten of them.

Now who is misleading whom. Can we accept anything that Randip Singh and KDS say,  can we accept as GOSPEL. I do not and the rest of you are wise enough to make their own judgements. Wise people only need to be given a hint and they will understand.
I wonder how much Hemp these guys consume. ¼ killo ?, 1/2 killo ? or was it 1 Killo? 

Randip Singh and KDS – I can tear your Essay into pieces but do not wish to waste my valuable time. It will have no effect on your Conscience. All I can say is Wisen up, Cast your EGO and become students of Guru ji. Do some Naam Simran. Tusi kis janam da badla Guru Sahibaan ton Le rehe ho? OMG I just feel sorry for both of you.

Ekmusafir_ajnabi :hmm:


----------



## Sinister (Nov 29, 2007)

begum said:


> Those teeth are for eating raw flesh not cooked meat. I suppose there is no where in the Rehat Maryada that states that cannibalism is forbidden:-
> 
> http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Kauda_the_cannibal
> 
> ...


 

actually if youve ever eaten cooked meat you'll understand how useful your canines are. 

plus you just cherry picked my argument when the main point was:

*we are omnivorous for a reason... Sikhs usually advocate the "natural state of man" when it comes to perserving hair fibers on the dermal layers of the skin but then turn and do a complete 180 and advocate the unnatural practice of dietary exclusion because of taboo.*


*and food taboo's are not stated in gurbani anywhere*

*sakhi does not equal gurbani...sakhi's are works of fiction that are told as bedtime stories to children*


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 30, 2007)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Begum ji and Dr Khalsa ji
> 
> 
> 
> And Begum ji I can now state this now as an answer to your question that Our beloved Gurus were Vegetarians. All Ten of them.


 
I wn't even bother responding to the rest of the diatribe written by you as it is nothing but personal attacks.

Please provide proof that the Guru's were vegetarian. I want eye witness accounts from contemporaries. Not spin or speculative comment.



ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Randip Singh and KDS – I can tear your Essay into pieces but do not wish to waste my valuable time. It .


 
This is not my essay I am merely the editor.

You tried and failed earlier miserably to "tear (the) Essay into pieces". If you can do then please do so, I am willing to listen. What I will not do is take your words as gospel....................but beware I will challenge you at every turn. 

Remember ....last time you lost the debate you quit this site and now like a man of your word and your resolve you are still writing here.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 30, 2007)

begum said:


> Those teeth are for eating raw flesh not cooked meat. I suppose there is no where in the Rehat Maryada that states that cannibalism is forbidden:-
> 
> http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Kauda_the_cannibal
> 
> ...


 
Quoting from a site such as Sikiwiki which is backed by the 3HO and GnSSJ (Hari Singh from the GNSSJ is an editor there) tends to have openly Vanshnavite leanings.

I would not put one iota of faith in anything that is written on sikiwiki. When Hari Singh tried to publish content from Sikhiwiki on the real wilkipedia, it was shot to pieces by scholars there and had to be removed in the end. The editor of sikhiwiki then resorted to abuse and spamming wikipedia with friends. This is not the behaviour of a scholar and I for one never trust or use anything written in sikhiwiki. I suggest you do the same.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 30, 2007)

Randip ji

You know, I always was slightly put off by sikhiwiki and could never gather my thoughts together about this. The entries were so often childish, or simplistic, or they glossed over things I had read in other places that put a slightly different slant on the answer. So I concluded sikhiwiki was mostly for children. Now this is based on the fact that I am reading extensively about Sikhism for only 3 years, maybe less -- and even with my limited understanding -- sikhiwiki always bothered me for some reason. But what do I know in reality? So your comments are helpful in this regard. 

_PLEASE NO ONE TAKE MY COMMENTS AS CRITICISM OF 3HO -- my indebtedness to this branch of Sikhism is huge, and there is no way I can express gratitude for all that I have received from 3HO. There are truly inspired people among them. I am a member of the sikhnet sevadhars and do weekly seva for sikhnet, but am not a 3HO sikh._

My concerns are about sikhiwiki -- In using it as a resource, people should also use other sources to round out their understanding. I think Randip you have clarified a lot for me here.


----------



## jay (Nov 30, 2007)

Brilliant article,

I can now start to consume meat after 33 years of vegetarianism.  Only downside is that I feel as if theres no difference between myself and the animals.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 30, 2007)

Jay ji,

Cannot tell if you are being every so slightly facetious, and speaking tongue-in-cheek -- but that is OK. Because you raise an important issue whether you are serious - or whether you are kidding a little.

I have taken Randip's side consistently. Both Randip ji and I are vegetarians. Neither of us are contemplating eating meat as a result of Randip's research (right Randip?).

What has happened throughout the last months of this thread is actually unfortunate. The conclusion of Randip's research is not -- OK, now we can eat meat. The conclusion is more like this -- when we choose to be vegetarians, we should also understand that this choice is not about Gurmat. Our choice is coming from a more personal place within our soul. One is free to read SGGS as a prescription for how to live, what to eat, when to wake up, how to jap. But one is also free to understand the spiritual message of SGGS as having even more to say about living a life of virtue. Following a path away from arrogance, misuse of power, cruelty to other human beings, oppression of the weak. So much of this was going on in the times of Nanaak and the Gurus in the most unimaginable ways. 

And religious authorities of the time did little to guide people in another direction. Guruji is asking whether being a vegetarian is good enough?  Is meditation enough? Does self-denial of any kind fix things, reverse the course of hatred?

Guruji is also asking: In our zeal to engage in rituals, to avoid meat, and so forth, can we ignore the suffering around us and do nothing about it?  Should we not look in another direction -- toward the One who is without enmity and hatred? Should we not seek to find that divine nature within? Would finding that divine nature motivate us to be better while we are on the earth?

The sants of Sikhism were also activists throughout the history of Sikhi. Their lives teach us to ask-- after sehaj, then what? What are you going to do? We don't really answer by saying, Well first  tell me what I should eat.

This has been on my mind for a long time.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 1, 2007)

aad0002 said:


> Randip ji
> 
> You know, I always was slightly put off by sikhiwiki and could never gather my thoughts together about this. The entries were so often childish, or simplistic, or they glossed over things I had read in other places that put a slightly different slant on the answer. So I concluded sikhiwiki was mostly for children. Now this is based on the fact that I am reading extensively about Sikhism for only 3 years, maybe less -- and even with my limited understanding -- sikhiwiki always bothered me for some reason. But what do I know in reality? So your comments are helpful in this regard.
> 
> ...



I think 3HO have done a great job with aspects of Sikhi....Gurmustak Singh Khalsa is great........I am not impressed with Hari Singh from the GnSSJ who is editor there. The man is very biased.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 1, 2007)

jay said:


> Brilliant article,
> 
> I can now start to consume meat after 33 years of vegetarianism.  Only downside is that I feel as if theres no difference between myself and the animals.



Sarcasm noted and a good example of totally missing the point of the essay .........well done!


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 1, 2007)

aad0002 said:


> Jay ji,
> 
> Cannot tell if you are being every so slightly facetious, and speaking tongue-in-cheek -- but that is OK. Because you raise an important issue whether you are serious - or whether you are kidding a little.
> 
> ...



Pretty much what I think.

I have eaten meat in the past.......I may eat it tommorow......wheteher I do or do not will not be because someone has twisted a few lines of Bani in order to blackmail me or send me on a guilt trip about it. The bullying......the emotional blackmail and the one line quotations are out of hand in Sikhi in general. There is a systematic pattern of Bani distortion taking place whether it be meat eating, sexism, castism etc.

Our Guru's were operating on a far higher spiritual plain than that.......Fools wrangle over this issue (me included) and the posts on this thread confirm that.:whisling:


----------



## drkhalsa (Dec 2, 2007)

> Originally Posted by *jay*
> 
> 
> _Brilliant article,
> ...



Dear Friend 

Welcome to SPN 

I sincerely feel that your realisation that you are no different from Animal is really Great by Spirtual point of view .
Believe me this no Sarcasm this feeling of being special on the earth has carried  Human  being in a direction that he is standing on verge of its own extinction  and offcourse  we have messed up the nature  that a different story 

Believe me Once I happen to interact with an Enligtened soul and he said the day you realise that you are no different from the animals your spirtual progress will start till then you just pretend to be human .

One more thing that just came to my mind . I like watching Discovery and national geo in my free time and I believe that the joy and peace that i get watching animals  having a nice time in thier habitat is unmatchable . So I think if you have realised this point that we are no differnt from Animal than its just gods grace which I have yet to recieve as I still pretend to be Human 



Dear Aad ji

I really like your responses above , thy were very original ( havent read thenm before anywhere)
And I agree that how our mind mess up things and make us believe that by doing particular actions we are going to please the God 

thanks for your posts


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 2, 2007)

> One more thing that just came to my mind . I like watching Discovery and national geo in my free time and I believe that the joy and peace that i get watching animals having a nice time in thier habitat is unmatchable . So I think if you have realised this point that we are no differnt from Animal than its just gods grace which I have yet to recieve as I still pretend to be Human



Good to know that there is another wildlife watcher apart from me.At one point of time i was crazy about animals.


----------



## Astroboy (Dec 2, 2007)

In hukumnamas collected by Dr. Ganda Singh jee and published in his book "hukumnamas" each one of Satguru Hargobind Sahib's hukumnamas state "guru guru japna janam savar sangat dee kamnaa guru pooree karraygaa. Sangatee da ruzgaar hog, ik daasee rahinaa. Maas muchee day naray nahee avanaa." Please examine the last line. Clearly it says not to even go near meat or fish. This can't be just a hoax because all hukumnamas collected issued from Satguru jee bear this order.


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 2, 2007)

DrK -- Thank you! 

And, kds ji -- Animals are wonderful. 

It is hard to accept that Nihangs eat the goats they raise. It is hard to contemplate the mass slaughter of animals for human consumption. It is hard to contemplate the death of the rain forests and grasslands where magnificent creatures once had their abode. 

These are my feelings and emotions. Only my feelings and emotions. Only my choice. Not my seva.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 2, 2007)

namjap said:


> In hukumnamas collected by Dr. Ganda Singh jee and published in his book "hukumnamas" each one of Satguru Hargobind Sahib's hukumnamas state "guru guru japna janam savar sangat dee kamnaa guru pooree karraygaa. Sangatee da ruzgaar hog, ik daasee rahinaa. Maas muchee day naray nahee avanaa." Please examine the last line. Clearly it says not to even go near meat or fish. This can't be just a hoax because all hukumnamas collected issued from Satguru jee bear this order.



Here is jhatka maryada of nihangs

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the jhatka maryada as described in the old sarabloh.com website (pre-Nidarpanthi) from 2001: 
If people become aware of the Maryada behind Jhatka, then hopefully they will be able to understand that it is far more that just people quenching their thirst for meat. 
Please visit Image Library One "Jhatka : 'Death from a single blow'", to view a series of photos dealing with the process Jhatka. 
To Akali Nihang Singhs the Maryada of Jhatka is a gift from our beloved Satguru. To see Jhatka as the consumption of meat is comparable to seeing Gur Ka Langar as the consumption of food. 
Satguru Maharaajs Langar is far more than just the distribution of food, Gur Ka Langaar should be prepared with extreme Sucham (cleanliness), the Gursikhs involved should be reciting Gurbani or doing Naam Simran.. 
When the langar has been prepared it is then brought before Satguru Maharaaj and Ardas is offered. During the Ardas, the Gursikh will ask Satguru Jee to bless the Langar by touching it with a weapon, usually a small iron Kard (Blade). The Langar has now become Gur Ka Langar. It is much more than just food. 
The availability of Gur Ka Langar to people of all castes, creed and colour is a philosophical extension of Gursikhi, it demonstrates in a physical manner the spiritual concept of equality and the love of humanity. 
The Maryada of Jhatka, in the same vein is far more than just the consumption of meat. However many modern day Sikhs are unaware of the Maryada involved in Jhatka and the philosophical implications involved. 

Damdami Taksaals 11th Jathedar Sant Baba Gurbhachan Singh Jee Bhindranwale, has written that if the time arises when a Gursikh needs to eat meat to survive, he should kill the animal with his own Sri Sahib (Sword). So the knowledge of what Jhatka is and how it is performed is of use to those who do not consume flesh on a regular basis. 
The process of Jhatka begins with the appointment of a Nihang Singh that will take responsibility for this seva. The Nihang Singh is selected by the Jathedar (leader) of the Dal. The Jathedar will then perform Ardas in Satguru Granth Sahib Jees Hazoori, asking Satguru's agia (permission or blessing) to enroll this Nihang Singh onto this seva. After this process is complete the Nihang Singh in question will be referred to as an Ardasi Singh. 
In Akali Nihang Dals only Ardasi Singhs can take part in Satguru's seva. Only Ardasi Singhs can prepare and touch Gur Ka Langaar, only Ardasi Singhs can sit on Satguru Maharaajs Tabia (next to Satguru Jee on his Throne), only Ardasi Singhs can prepare Karah Prshaad, Shaheedi Degh and Mahaprashaad. 
The induction of Ardasi Singhs to do Satguru Jees seva ensures that no impostors or people of bad Rehit get anywhere near Satguru Jee Langar or Prshaad We must appreciate that many people use the Bana of the Satguru Khalsa Panth in order to scare people. These impostors are commonly referred to a 'admin-cut', or the naked ones. admin-cut are not a new phenomena, they have also been around for a very long time. Although they may look like Nihangs, the admin-cut have no love or understanding of the Dal Panths Maryada. When these fools are caught committing wrong deeds they are often seriously beaten, in some cases they may even be killed. The process of appointing Ardasi Singhs ensures that no 'admin-cut' get anywhere near Satguru Maharaajs Degh, Langar or Mahaprshaad. Only Nihang Singhs of good Rehit are given the honour of becoming an Ardasi Singh. 
This maryada also applies to Jhatka, only Ardasi Singhs can take part in this seva. Having been appointed to do the Seva, the Ardasi Singh will begin his preparation for Jhatka by having Ishnaan (Bath). He will wash his body and his hair, having done this he will put on a Sucha Chola (clean garment), Karmkassa and Dumalla. Finally he will clean his Karah with Sand. 
After having Ishnaan, the Ardasi Singh will commence his paath in Satguru Granth Sahib Jee Hazoori, Vaar Sri Bhagauti Jee Ki Patsahi 10 (also known as Chandi-di-Vaar). The Ardasi Nihang Singh must be able to recite this Shabad from memory. Var Sri Bhagauti Je Ki depicts the epic battle between the Goddess of War Chandi or Durga, and the egoistic rakhshas (evil demons). Satguru Gobind Singh Jee Maharaaj describes a battle of horrific magnitude, where Chandi, seated upon her tiger is dispatching the Evil Rakhshas. When he has completed the shabad, the Ardasi Singh does Namaskar and leaves Maharaajs Hazoori. 
Whilst the Nihang Singh that is going to perform Jhatka contemplates Chandi-di Vaar, another Ardasi Singh gives the Bakra (old goat) a full ishnaan (bath). Only goats are used within Akali Nihang Dals for Jhatka. When questioned about why Goats are used for Jhatka, the Chardi Kala Nihang Singhs replied "this is the Maryada started by Satguru Hargobind Sahib Jee, and we have no intention of changing it. After bathing the Goat, it is bought into the area in which Jhatka will be performed.. This designated area will have straw or hay put down on the floor. 
The Nihang Singh that is going to perform Jhatka calmly approaches the Goat. Some Nihang Singhs encircle the goat in Gatka Pentra (Movements associated with Shastr Vidia), this has the effect of calming the goat and making it feel comfortable seeing the Shastr (sword). 
The Tilk Laguan Vala Singh (The Singh who is going to anoint his weapon) then stands next to the Goat, at this stage some Akali Nihangs begin to recite Shastr Naam Mala, this is a Shabd in Sri Dasm Satguru Granth Sahib jee depicting the glossary of Weapons. 
Another Ardasi Singh will have splashed water on the neck of the Goat, this makes the cut much smoother. 
The Nihang Singh continues to move his Sword, very slowly above the head of the Goat. The goat at this stage will keep moving his head back and forth, because it finds itself in a new situation, it is unsure how to react. 
Again the Tilk Lagaun Vala Singh moves the Sword, who represents the Goddess Chandi above the head of the Goat, the Goat now begins to move less. The Nihang Singh waits for the right moment. 
The Goat drops his head slightly, then in a single shin (The same amount of time as it takes an eye to blink) the Nihang Singh focuses his mind on Maha Kaal (Great Death), and infuses the Sword with his Kamai (Spiritual Power achieved via meditations), the Sword severs the head of the Goat and the onlooking Nihang Singhs let off Jaikarey (Battle Cries). Click here to listen to an Akali Nihang Singh Jaikara. 
The blood that rushes out of the Goats body is collected in a Bata, this will be used to apply tilak to all of the Shastr in Satguru Granth Sahib Jee's Hazoori. This process also takes place at Sach Khand Sri Hazoor Sahib Jee, all of Satguru Gobind Singh Jee's weapons are anointed with blood. Some of the Purataan Akali Nihangs drink the blood neat, it is said to be a good source of iron. 
The goats head is placed on a Sarbloh Plate and then shown to the Sangat, the purpose of this is to show that it has been with one clean cut. The Bibeeki Singhs (Nihang Singhs of very Strict Rehit) will only eat flesh that has been killed in a single blow, Jhatka. They will refuse to eat flesh even if one little blood-vessel remains in contact with the head and body, this is called Patka. 
The Body of the Goat is now passed on to the Ardasi Nihang Singhs who are in control of the Langar. They will skin, chop and cook the flesh. Whilst cooking the flesh they will recite Gurbani of Dasm Sri Satguru Granth Sahib Jee Maharaaj. After the flesh is cooked, a small amount of it is taken into Satguru Granth Sahib Jee Maharaajs Hazoori. Ardas is performed and the tip of the sword is dipped into the cooked flesh. Having performed Ardas, the flesh has become 'Mahaprashaad', the great Prshaad. 
The 'Mahaprashaad' is then distributed to all of the Sangat, they must be seated in Pangat (rows on the floor). The brains of the Bakra (goat) are served to the Akali Nihang Singh that performed the Jhatka. 
*If a Nihang Singh consumes Mahaprashaad and believes it just to be meat, then he is committing a huge sin. Mahaprashaad is a gift from Satguru Hargobind Sahib Jee Maharaaj to his army. *
Just as the consumption of 'Gur ka Langaar' is more that just eating 'food', the consumption of 'Mahaprashaad' is far more than the consumption of 'meat'. The Sucham (cleanliness) kept whilst Mahaprashaad is prepared is of a very high level, no body except the Ardasi Singhs can touch anything. When Mahaprashaad is being prepared the Nihang Singh recite Gurbani and focuses on Mahakaal. 
The maryada of Jhatka has deep philosophical implications. The worship of weapons cannot be complete without worship of the Battle-field. The highest from of worship on the battle-field is the slaying of the Dusht (enemies).* To increase our control of weapons, Satguru Jee has started the Maryada of Shikaar (Hunting) and the son of Hunting is the consumption of flesh. *
So we hope that this brief introduction to the Maryada of Jhatka, helps the Sangat appreciate that Jhatka is much more than the craving to eat meat. Jhatka only takes place on special occasions such as Gurpurbs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Astroboy (Dec 2, 2007)

Panthic Weekly: Gurdwara Committee to allow Meat and Alcohol!!!


----------



## drkhalsa (Dec 2, 2007)

namjap said:


> Panthic Weekly: Gurdwara Committee to allow Meat and Alcohol!!!




Dear Naam Jap ji

 I Believe that this post has nothin to do with the thread , rather its misleading fueling something not nice!

So my request please move it to new thread if you want to discuss it as topic 


Jatinder Singh


----------



## Astroboy (Dec 2, 2007)

Drkhalsa Ji,

We are suppose to *Learn Think Discuss Share Evolve* from the happennings within the sikh panth. 

aad Ji 's opinion would be the final say for me. Let her speak with regards to this.

Akaal Sehai,

Santokh


----------



## Astroboy (Dec 2, 2007)

ਮਾਸੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਕਰਿ ਮੂਰਖੁ ਝਗੜੇ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਣੈ ॥
ਕਉਣੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਕਉਣੁ ਸਾਗੁ ਕਹਾਵੈ ਕਿਸੁ ਮਹਿ ਪਾਪ ਸਮਾਣੇ ॥
(Ang 1289-1290) Var of Raag Malhar
Only the fool quarrels over the question of eating or not eating of the meat. He does not have the True Wisdom. Without True Wisdom or Meditation, he harps on which is flesh and which is not flesh and which food is sinful and which is not. *A deeper study of the whole hymn brings out: *

i. Herein, Guru Sahib is addressing a Vaishnav Pandit who believes that he can achieve his spiritual goal only by avoiding meat as food and not trying to obtain the true wisdom through meditation. He has stressed that only avoiding meat will not lead one to the achievement of Spiritual Bliss if one does not do Naam-Simran. This equally applies to all, including non-meat-eating Sikhs. 
ii. It relates to the flesh or meat in general and not to any particular type of flesh - whether prepared by Halaal or Jhatka method. The supporters of flesh eating do not accept at all the intake of all types of meat, but according to them, only Jhatka meat is permissible and HaIaal is totally prohibited.
Supporters of the word Kuthha to mean Halaal meat very often reference the following cited couplet to support their contention.

ਅਭਾਖਿਆ ਕਾ ਕੁਠਾ ਬਕਰਾ ਖਾਣਾ ॥
ਚਉਕੇ ਉਪਰਿ ਕਿਸੈ ਨ ਜਾਣਾ ॥
(Ang 472) 

They eat the meat obtained while uttering the unspeakable word (referring to Qalima of the Muslims which the Hindus considered as unspeakable) and allow none to enter their kitchen square. 

They ascribe it to mean the meat obtained by slaying goats while uttering Qalima, which is the Muslim way of slaughtering animals. *If the word Kuthha were to mean HaIaai meat, the use of the word abhakhya is superfluous. The sentence should have been simply Kuthha Khaanaa to mean the eating of the HaIaaI meat.* The very fact that the word Kuthha has been qualified with the adjective abhakhya kaa means that Kuthha refers to simple meat of the killed animal, irrespective of the method of slaying the animal; and while qualifying meat to mean Haiaai, the words abhakhya kaa had to be particularly prefixed to convey that sense. *Almost all the renowned commentators and translators of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, e.g., Bhai Sahib Vir Singh, Professor Sahib Singh, S. Manmohan Singh, etc., have interpreted this couplet in this way. *
It is thus clear that the word Kuthha means simply meat of the killed animal and does not go into the detail of how the animal is killed. Like so many other adulterations committed by the anti-Sikhs in Gurmat Rahit Maryada, this interpretation of the word Kuthha to mean Halaal meat has also been initiated and popularized by those very anti- Sikhs. To some of our uninformed brothers and sisters this at first might seem like a trivial issue, but when taken into context of its importance with regard to our relation with Akaal Purakh Ji through rehit (discipline) it is indeed a very serious and vital issue towards being true to the Sikh discipline prescribed by Guru Sahib.
Note: References to various hukamname and Gurbani Pankthea from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji which prohibit the eating of animal flesh in clear-cut and unambiguous language provided below.
*Food for Thought*
When we are blessed with Khande Ki Pahul from Guru Sahib in the form of Panj Pyare we make a firm commitment to Guru Sahib to uphold the rehit (discipline) prescribed to us at all times as a show of our love for Him. Indeed the upkeep of rehit is of prime importance for a Sikh for without it, one cannot be called a Sikh:
Without the Code of Conduct, One can not be referred to as a Sikh. 
Without the Code of Conduct, One will suffer in the Lord's Court. 
(RahitNama Bhai Desa Singh Ji)
Subsequesntly if a Sikh is to commit one of the four bujjer kurehits (serious transgressions) they can no longer be called a Sikh and must beg forgiveness from the Panj Pyare and request to be blessed with Khande Ki Pahul once again so they can rejoin the Khalsa Panth. 
Among the four major transgressions is the consumption of meat/eggs, as is instructed at all amrit sanchars throughout the panth. In recent times this has become an issue for some uninformed and misguided individuals and many individuals have abused the ignorance of some of our Sikh brothers and sisters as a means to divide us. Others seek to brush the issue off as a trivial matter having nothing to do with Sikh discipline. Indeed this is not a trivial issue, as the aforementioned rehitnama indicates, for without discipline we cannot be called a Sikh, and we cannot obtain the Grace of the SatGuru Ji without which no progress can be made in achieving the bliss of Naam Simran.
*The Solution*
Everyday in our Ardas (Supplication) to Guru Sahib we ask Him to bless us with Bibek, literally meaning a sense of discernment/discrimination. Discrimination in the sense that we ask Him to guide us towards those things/individuals who incite God consciousness/Godlike qualities within us and to save us from those things/individuals which rob us from God consciousness/ Godlike qualities. Essentially at the root it is Maya (lust, anger, greed, attachment, ego), the five thieves which rob us of our innate Godlike qualities and keep us in separation from Akaal Purakh Ji. To fight off these five formidable thieves Guru Sahib gives us Naam and tells us to keep the sangat of Gursikhs. 

This includes eating from the hands of Gursikhs also as it is an established truth that the food one eats affects not only the body's health, but the state of the mind as well, as the old saying goes, 'you are what you eat.' That is why Guru Nanak Sahib refused to accept the most nourishing and dainty dishes prepared in the house of Malik Bhago who earned his wealth by dishonest means but preferred the simple dry food prepared by the so called low-caste carpenter, Bhai Lalo who earned an honest livelihood from his own hard labor. Similarly, Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji refused to drink water brought by a young man who had never done any service to anyone in his life, as service to humanity and honest living are fundamental pillars of the Sikh faith. Subsequently Guru Sahib commanded the recipients of the holy Amrit to share food amongst themselves in the same plate, but forbade them to do so with non-Amritdharis. One of the edicts given at the Amrit Sanchar ceremony is: 
ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਦੀ ਰੋਟੀ ਬੇਟੀ ਦੀ ਸਾਂਝ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਨਾਲ।
The Gursikhs have to share food and establish martial relationships with Gursikhs only.
This edict is enjoined upon all the Sikhs at the inititation ceremony at every Amrit Sanchar in the Panth irrespective of organizations or Jathas arranging it.
As with many Sikh traditions that are slowly being forgotten, so too is the tradition of keeping Bibek, discrimination towards God Consciousness in both the physical and mental realms of existence. Some say that this tradition does not seem to fit in line with Gurmat as it creates a sense of elitism and others go the extent of saying that the practice reeks of Brahminism. This assumption is clearly based on their own ignorance regarding Gurmat principles and traditions. Every human being regardless of their background is eligible to offer their head to Guru Sahib, and be blessed with Khande Ki Pahul to join the Khalsa Panth after which one can share food with them. This is diametrically opposed to the Brahminical system where one is confined to one particular cast for the duration of their lifetime, for instance an untouchable would remain and untouchable and nothing could change this. 

*Anyhow going back to how this relates to the current dilemma facing the SGPC and those Sikh brothers and sisters who have been led astray to believe that the consumption of meat is in line with Gurmat.* If these Sikhs were to adopt Tat Gurmat Maryada tradition as espoused by all the Guru Sahiban then they would not face this dilemma. If we were to all become true Bibeki's at both the physical and mental level then this would not be a problem for us. Who is a Bibeki you ask? A Bibeki is a person who whole heartedly adheres to and regulates their life in accordance with the Guru's teachings. 

Bhai Sahib Kahan Singh of Nabha, in his Encyclopedia of Sikh Literature on page 863 defines a Bibeki as "...a Sikh who is strict and steadfast in following the principles of Sikh Dharma." The terms Bibek and Vivek are synonymous and have the same meaning i.e. 'sense of discrimination; which implies the unquestionable adherence to the command of the Satguru. Our SatGuru has clearly commanded His Sikhs to be steadfast in Rehit and not to consume meat of any form as has been proven above. If we really love our Guru then we must be true to the discipline He has given us. *It is high time that the faulty Sikh leadership stop misleading our brothers and sisters into believing that Kuthha is synonymous with Halal meat.* Its high time that we as individuals make it our own responsibility to be true to rehit so that we can attain the blessings of Satguru Ji. Most of the books and today's pseudo scholars are out to divide the Sikhs by propagating this false information, what better way to do this then to have the Sikhs separated from their Guru; for without Guru Sahib, without his true rehit, we are nothing more than dead carcasses


----------



## Astroboy (Dec 2, 2007)

Panthic Weekly: Where does it say Alcohol is prohibited?


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 2, 2007)

> It is thus clear that the word Kuthha means simply meat of the killed animal and does not go into the detail of how the animal is killed. Like so many other adulterations committed by the anti-Sikhs in Gurmat Rahit Maryada, this interpretation of the word Kuthha to mean Halaal meat has also been initiated and popularized by those very anti- Sikhs. To some of our uninformed brothers and sisters this at first might seem like a trivial issue, but when taken into context of its importance with regard to our relation with Akaal Purakh Ji through rehit (discipline) it is indeed a very serious and vital issue towards being true to the Sikh discipline prescribed by Guru Sahib.
> Note: References to various hukamname and Gurbani Pankthea from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji which prohibit the eating of animal flesh in clear-cut and unambiguous language provided below.



Dear santokh singh ji

The article you have posted is pure AKJ propaganda.Before continuing this discussion
just answer my 1 simple question.It is unanimously accepted by sikh as well as non sikh historians that khalsa soldiers consumed meat.The same khalsa soldiers who preferred death rather than cutting their hair.Also sikhs were applying guerrilla warfare techniques
and they were living in jungles so it was impossible for them to practice vegetarianism

Now if meat was kurehit then it means that majority of khalsa's were kurehiti and they were not khalsa's.So we don't have any sikh history left.Do you beleve that 18th century khalsa soldiers were so weak in their rehat?


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 2, 2007)

aad0002 said:


> DrK -- Thank you!
> 
> And, kds ji -- Animals are wonderful.
> 
> ...



Antonia ji

Since the start the start of civilizations we humans have been giving suffering animals for our benefit and all usage of animals involve cruelity.Imagine if some aliens invade our planet take away with us.Castrate our men and the force them to plough their fields.They also impregnate women put then in tight shed then after giving birth take their babies and force them to produce as much milk for them as they can then what do we call these cruel aliens.But we are exactly doing same things on animals.

If anybody feels for animals then he/she should stop using any animal product.or decline in demand of 1 animal product give rise to another.India is the perfect example of this
India is perfect example of this Indians don't eat beef but they are fond of cow milk.
As a result  there is large scale diary farming of cows butwhen cows stop producing milk they throw them on roads beccause they are economically unviable for them.Thees cows suffer inhumane cruelities.So what should a naturalist suggest here,he will obviously suggest that these useless cows and oxen should be slaughtered.


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 2, 2007)

Good answer kds ji.


----------



## Astroboy (Dec 2, 2007)

What next? In the eighteenth century, Massa Rangar drank alcohol, ate meat and had prostitute-dancing girls in the premises of Harmandar Sahib. 
(Source: Panthic Weekly: SHAME ON GURDWARA COMMITTEE)

If one considers these articles as AKJ propaganda, then my answer to your question is - there is no Khalsa left - just cults or fake Sikhs. LOL


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 2, 2007)

namjap said:


> What next? In the eighteenth century, Massa Rangar drank alcohol, ate meat and had prostitute-dancing girls in the premises of Harmandar Sahib.
> (Source: Panthic Weekly: SHAME ON GURDWARA COMMITTEE)
> 
> If one considers these articles as AKJ propaganda, then my answer to your question is - there is no Khalsa left - just cults or fake Sikhs. LOL



I don't know whether true khalsa's exists or not.But i do beleive there are many khalsa's who despite of being vegetarian don't propagate myths about sikhism being vegetarian religion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is even mention of an incidence where the TAT Khalsa stuffed pork chops into the mouths of the "Bandai" Khalsa outside the Akal Thakt (Gurbilas P10).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is another example of sikh history for you


----------



## Astroboy (Dec 2, 2007)

kds1980 said:


> Dear santokh singh ji
> 
> The article you have posted is pure AKJ propaganda.
> Now if meat was kurehit then it means that majority of khalsa's were kurehiti and they were not khalsa's.So we don't have any sikh history left.Do you beleve that 18th century khalsa soldiers were so weak in their rehat?


 

Your remark suggests that the 18th century Sikh soldier is spiritually stronger than the present day's Sikh. And likewise, in time to come, there will be no Sikhs left.


----------



## drkhalsa (Dec 3, 2007)

Dear Nam jap ji 


Thanks for your response 

I should remind everybody that this topic is about Meat eating  and article in the topic in the start has been written for the purpose to keep us focused about various evidences  from various sikh sources 

Just pasting links from all over the web by googling meat and sikh is the not the disscusion expected from somebody really interested in disscusion 

the way to disscuss is 

Read the article and if you find anything written wrong , out of context , misleading  than disscuss here in thread 
Also if you think there is something missing like some other source from history or gubani then also we can disscuss and update the topic 

This unorganised disscuision just will fuel flames and egoism and not worth asI can see it 

Thanks for you time


Jatinder Singh


----------



## Astroboy (Dec 3, 2007)

Thank you, Khalsa Ji, for your rational thinking. It makes alot of sense to me.

Akaal Sehai,

Santokh


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 3, 2007)

namjap said:


> In hukumnamas collected by Dr. Ganda Singh jee and published in his book "hukumnamas" each one of Satguru Hargobind Sahib's hukumnamas state "guru guru japna janam savar sangat dee kamnaa guru pooree karraygaa. Sangatee da ruzgaar hog, ik daasee rahinaa. Maas muchee day naray nahee avanaa." Please examine the last line. Clearly it says not to even go near meat or fish. This can't be just a hoax because all hukumnamas collected issued from Satguru jee bear this order.


 
From the essay:

*HUKAMNAMA ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY THE 6TH MASTER* 

Some pro-vegetarian sections of the Sikh following have produced an alleged Hukamnama that states that the Sikhs of the East were not to go near meat. Unfortunately, the sources that have produced this Hukamnama, have not been able to back it up with any evidence of its genuineness, from any Sikh scholars of note. There have been statements to the effect that Ganda Singh found this document and indeed published it (Two collections of Hukamnamas are available in print form, one edited by Dr. Ganda Singh published in 1968 by Punjabi University and the S.G.P.C), but this has not been verified by any of his contemporaries or any other Sikh scholars.. 

Historical evidence, in fact contradicts what Guru Hargobind ji was actually like. He was an avid hunter and warrior. Again this fact some have tried to dismiss as Guruji giving Mukhti to animals souls. This, however, contradicts the Guruâ€™s own philosophy which clearly states that only God is capable of granting such things. 
Infact Bhai Gudas in his Vars States: 

_Just as one has to tie pail's neck while taking out water_, 
_Just as to get Mani, snake is to be killed_
_Just as to get Kasturi from deer's neck, deer is to be killed_
_Just as to get oil, oil seeds are to be crushed_
_To get kernel, pomegranate is to be broken_
_Similarly to correct senseless people, sword has to be taken up._
Bhai Gurdas, Var-34, pauri 13 


In fact such a hukamna would indeed contradict the one Guru Gobind Singh ji sent to his Sikhs in Kabul (ADVANCED STUDIES IN SIKHISM by Jasbir Singh and Harbans Singh.): 

_"Sarbat sangat Kabul Guru rakhe ga_
_Tusa ute asaadee bahut khusi hai_
_Tusi Khande da Amrit Panja to lena_
_Kes rakhne...ih asadee mohur hair;_
_Kachh, Kirpan da visah nahee karna_
_SARB LOH da kara hath rakhna_
_Dono vakat kesa dee palna karna_
Sarbat sangat abhakhia da kutha
_Khave naheen, Tamakoo na vartana_
_Bhadni tatha kanya-maran-vale so mel na rakhe_
_Meene, Massandei, Ramraiye ki sangat na baiso_
_Gurbani parhni...Waheguru, Waheguru japna_
_Guru kee rahat rakhnee_
_Sarbat sangat oopar meri khushi hai._
Patshahi Dasvi
Jeth 26, Samat 1756


_To the entire sangat at Kabul._
_The Guru will protect the Sangat,_
_I am pleased with you all._
_You should take baptism by the sword, from the Five Beloveds._
_Keep your hair uncut for this is a seal of the Guru,_
_Accept the use of shorts and a sword._
_Always wear IRON KARA on your wrist,_
_Keep your hair clean and comb it twice a day._
Do not eat Halal (Kosher) meat,
_Do not use tobacco in any form,_
_Have no connection with those who kill their daughters_
_Or permit the cutting of their children's hair._
_Do not associate with Meenas, Massands and Ram-raiyas (anti-Sikh cults)_
_Recite the Guru's hymns_
_Meditate on "The Name of our Wonderful Lord",_
_Follow the Sikh code of discipline_
_I give the entire sangat my blessing)_
Signature of 10th Guru 
Jeth 26, 1756 Bikrami 23rd May 1699 A.D 


As we know, there is no contradiction in the Guru’s message. 
It should be noted also that there are a number of Hukamnama’s that have been found that also purport Sikhs to adopt Brahmanical religious tenets.

So there are two questions here:

1) Why would a contemporary of Guru Hargobind state its OK to kill a Dear just to get "Kasturi". Scroll up and you see Bhai Gurdas prasing meat?

2) Why would Guru Gobind Singh ji say: Do not eat Halal (Kosher) meat, and not meat per say.
3) Note also Dr Ganda Singh stated he could not verify that Hukamnama.



*The Real Issues of this Essay are:*

*1) Is it OK to quote one or two lines from Bani without destroying the meaning of the shabad?*

*2) Are we taking metaphors literally? Varan Bhai Gurdas and Bani are full of metaphors?*

*3) Do some words in Gurmukhi accurately translate eg Murdaar = The dead/carrion ; it has been wrongly translated as meat. Halaal/Bismil = ritual sacrifice and has been wrongly translated as to mean Kill. There are other examples.*

*4) Is the real issue about meat or about our own perception and prejudice?*


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 4, 2007)

A short poem: " i wonder "


i wonder....

i wonder sometimes,

as i sit under the big apple tree,

i wonder...

why earth is round....

i wonder....

why sky is blue....

as i sit under the big apple tree.

i wonder still....

why people donot read the title of the post...

shut up and just go about eating what is in their plate..

and not peep into another person's plate..

and say, " i think ur low on proteins"

" i think u just became vampire"

" i think...."

"i think...."

and i wonder......

when will we stop saying "i think"

and really start "thinking"

and i wonder..

and i wonder.....wonder....wonder....


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 4, 2007)

amarsanghera said:


> A short poem: " i wonder "
> 
> 
> i wonder....
> ...


 
very nice ! :ice:


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Dec 13, 2007)

-------------PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED----------------


----------



## Astroboy (Dec 13, 2007)

*Aad Ji,*

*Please take charge of this thread. I will not be able to do it as I am also heavily involved in the posts myself.* 

Santokh


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 13, 2007)

Maybe it is better since I am a vegetarian.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Dec 14, 2007)

---------PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED--------------


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 14, 2007)

Brother,

The lion is not great for defeating the goat. You are remembered in Ardaas.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 14, 2007)

i feel like repeating my poem :wink:


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Dec 14, 2007)

> "Nanak taught that human beings are God's supreme creation. Thus Nanak rejected the teaching of Ahimsa, (Ahimsa is noninjury of living beings. This term, found in many Indian religions, was introduced by the jains. Followers of Ahimsa make every effort to care for all forms of life and seek to avoid injuring or kiling any creature.) which is so important to many Indian religions. Because people are the primary creation, they are free to kill and eat animals. SIKHS ARE AMONG THE FEW INDIANS WHO MAY LEGITIMATELY EAT MEAT."
> 
> It further says:
> "Gobind singh developed an elite class of sikhs who made unusually fine warriors. This corps was known as Singhs (lions). The members of this corps were not allowed the use of wine, tobacco, or any other form of stimulant. THEY WERE ENCOURAGED TO EAT MEAT."
> ...





>


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 14, 2007)

amarsanghera ji,

it was a fine poem.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 29, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> amarsanghera ji,
> 
> it was a fine poem.


 

Indeed it was a fine poem, which I think we should re-read.


----------



## mehar singh (Feb 10, 2008)

Just a small thought from me,
You talk of us sikh vegetarian not knowing anything and taking bani out of context.Could you tell me one tukh in the Guru Granth Sahib Ji which tell us that hurting or killing an living bein is right and schould be practiced one tukh which directly say sikho maas chakho.However on the opposite i will literally sit and go through the whole SGGS and show you the countless times our Gurus have written showing that it is a sin to hurt any living bein.You say the dont serve meat in gurudwaras the reason is so that eveyone can eat my dear sir then ask them to serve eggs beer .They do not serve because it is taboo it was never allowed and i pray to god will never be allowed in gurudwaras.Sooch or Sach rehat and maryada these thing are important in places of worship you do not eat or drink in front of Sggs there has to be sooch. Meat of anykind is considered not sooch in gurudwras that is the reason it is not allowed.The four entrances are the welcome to all races not the langar please dont change history and our gurus words for your good.if you eat meat you are hurting living bein and i am sorry*******************

*Personal attacks against a person's honor or character are not allowed. 
Also, please do not copy and paste large sections of prior commentary as these can be read in the original. Spam warning. 

Thank you, Mod.
*

 Regards 
Mehar Singh

FOREWARD 

The authors of this paper (one a vegetarian and one meat eating Sikh) wrangled hard with their own common sense which told them, dont be a fool and start wrangling over an issue which our great Gurus dismissed as not worthy of discussion. We did however feel as amateur Sikh Historians and commentators on Sikh affairs that we should use our knowledge and experience to clarify what is such a controversial issue. This essay out to be objective as possible but we ourselves probably taking one side as we waded through the arguments and counter arguments produced by vegetarian and meat eating Sikhs. One thing that has incensed us is the use of incorrect History and mistranslation to back up arguments. It was these points that we felt needed clarification and we hope the reader will find that this essay does that. 

Mistranslation and Misrepresentation of The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

Some of the tukhs of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that are often mistranslated are as follows: 

_1. Those mortals who consume marijuana, flesh and wine - no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. (SGGS p1377)_

_2. You kill living beings and worship lifeless things, at your very last moment, You will suffer terrible pain. (SGGS p332)_

_3. Do not say that the Vedas are false, false are those who do not reflect. If in all is one god, then why does one kill the hen ? (SGGS p1350)_

_4. Bhagat Kabir says, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils) where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is willing to have their head cut ? (SGGS p1374)_

_5. In this dark age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; They eat rotting dead bodies for food. (SGGS p1242)_

_6. Falsehood is my dagger and to eat by defrauding is meat._ (Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raaj p24)

_7. Avarice is a dog, falsehood the sweeper and cheating the eating of meat. _
(Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raag p15) 

Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Let us analyse each one of these one by one. ​ 

*1. Those mortals who consume marijuana, flesh and wine - no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. (SGGS p1337)*

In this instance let us firstly add the Gurmukhi with the English: 

_mukat padaarath paa-ee-ai thaak na avghat ghaat._
231 
_kabeer ayk gharhee aaDhee gharee aaDhee hooN tay aaDh._
_bhagtan saytee gostay jo keenay so laabh._ 232 
_kabeer bhaaNg maachhulee suraa paan jo jo paraanee khaaNhi._
_tirath barat naym kee-ay tay sabhai rasaatal jaaNhi._ 233
_neechay lo-in kar raha-o lay saajan ghat maahi._
_sabh ras khayla-o pee-a sa-o kisee lakhaava-o naahi._ 234 
_aath jaam cha-usath gharee tu-a nirkhat rahai jee-o._
_neechay lo-in ki-o kara-o sabh ghat daykh-a-u pee-o._ 235 
_sun sakhee pee-a meh jee-o basai jee-a meh basai ke pee-o._
_jee-o pee-o boojha-o nahee ghat meh jee-o ke pee-o._ 236 
_kabeer baaman guroo hai jagat kaa bhagtan kaa gur naahi._
_arajh urajh kai pach moo-aa chaara-o baydahu maahi._237 
_har hai khaaNd rayt meh bikhree haathee chunee na jaa-ay._
_kahi kabeer gur bhalee bujhaa-ee keetee ho-ay kai khaa-ay._ 238 
_kabeer ja-o tuhi saaDh piramm kee sees kaat kar go-ay._
_khaylat khaylat haal kar jo kichh ho-ay ta ho-ay._ 239 
_kabeer ja-o tuhi saaDh piramm kee paakay saytee khayl._
_kaachee sarsa-uN payl kai naa khal bha-ee na tayl._240 
_dhooNdhat doleh anDh gat ar cheenat naahee sant._
_kahi naamaa ki-o paa-ee-ai bin bhagtahu bhagvant._ 241 
_har so heeraa chhaad kai karahi aan kee aas._
_tay nar dojak jaahigay sat bhaakhai ravidaas._ 242 
_kabeer ja-o garihu karahi ta Dharam kar naahee ta kar bairaag._
_bairaagee banDhan karai taa ko bado abhaag._ 243 

_He obtains the treasure of liberation, and the difficult road to the Lord is not blocked._
231
_Kabeer, whether is is for an hour, half an hour, or half of that,_
_whatever it is, it is worthwhile to speak with the Holy._ 232
_Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine -_
_no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell._ 233
_Kabeer, I keep my eyes lowered, and enshrine my Friend within my heart._
_I enjoy all pleasures with my Beloved, but I do not let anyone else know._234
_Twenty-four hours a day, every hour, my soul continues to look to You, O Lord._
_Why should I keep my eyes lowered? I see my Beloved in every heart._ 235
_Listen, O my companions: my soul dwells in my Beloved, and my Beloved dwells in my soul._
_I realize that there is no difference between my soul and my Beloved; I cannot tell whether my _soul or my Beloved dwells in my heart._ 236_
_Kabeer, the Brahmin may be the guru of the world, but he is not the Guru of the devotees._
_He rots and dies in the perplexities of the four Vedas._ 237
_The Lord is like sugar, scattered in the sand; the elephant cannot pick it up._
_Says Kabeer, the Guru has given me this sublime understanding: become an ant, and feed on it._ 238
_Kabeer, if you desire to play the game of love with the Lord, then cut off your head, and make it into a ball._
_Lose yourself in the play of it, and then whatever will be, will be._ 239
_Kabeer, if you desire to play the game of love with the Lord, play it with someone with committment._
_Pressing the unripe mustard seeds produces neither oil nor flour._ 240
_Searching, the mortal stumbles like a blind person, and does not recognize the Saint._
_Says Naam Dayv, how can one obtain the Lord God, without His devotee?_


Taking out the sentence we see ​ 

kabeer bhaaNg maachhulee suraa paan jo jo paraanee khaaNhi.
Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine – 

tirath barat naym kee-ay tay sabhai rasaatal jaaNhi. 233
no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. 233
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 


Firstly note that maachlee is not flesh, but is indeed fish. The word in Punjabi for flesh is maas. Then secondly one must ask, why is there a forbidding in the consumption of fish specifically. The answer lies in reading the entire paragraph and a picture emerges. In the last two lines the statement is made: 

kabeer ja-o garihu karahi ta Dharam kar naahee ta kar bairaag. 
Kabeer, if you live the householder's life, then practice righteousness; otherwise, you might as well retire from the world. 

bairaagee banDhan karai taa ko bado abhaag. 243 
If someone renounces the world, and then gets involved in worldly entanglements, he shall suffer terrible misfortune. 243
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 


Now putting this in its entire context what Bhagat Kabir is actually criticising in the rich and those in power. The thrill seekers, who are addicted to their senses and those addicted to the 5 thieves. Kabir was born around the area of Benares, and was brought up in a poor Muslim weavers family. He saw the excesses of the rich around him, while the poor starved. Foods like fish and wine were associated with the rich who had an excessive disposable income. Marijuana was associated with either idol people or those who had time and money to waste. Kabir abhorred this, and this statement is a social comment about the excesses of the rich. At the end he clearly states, that those people who do their duties as householders (i.e. work hard, care for other etc) are the ones who will be liberated, and those who live by excesses will suffer. One cantherefore clearly see that this is in no way a comment about eating meat (because of mistranslation) or about avoiding certain foods (as has been misrepresented). 

*2. You kill living beings and worship lifeless things, at your very last moment, You will suffer terrible pain. (SGGS p332)*

Again let us put this into its correct context: 

_ik-oNkaar satgur parsaad._
_jeevat pitar na maanai ko-oo moo-ayN siraaDh karaahee._
_pitar bhee bapuray kaho ki-o paavahi ka-oo-aa kookar khaahee._
_mo ka-o kusal bataavhu ko-ee._
_kusal kusal kartay jag binsai kusal bhee kaisay ho-ee._ rahaa-o. 
_maatee kay kar dayvee dayvaa tis aagai jee-o dayhee._
_aisay pitar tumaaray kahee-ahi aapan kahi-aa na layhee._
_sarjee-o kaateh nirjee-o poojeh ant kaal ka-o bhaaree._
_raam naam kee gat nahee jaanee bhai doobay sansaaree._
_dayvee dayvaa poojeh doleh paarbarahm nahee jaanaa._
_kahat kabeer akul nahee chayti-aa bikhi-aa si-o laptaanaa._

_One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:_
_He does not honor his ancestors while they are alive, but he holds feasts in their honor after they have died._
_Tell me, how can his poor ancestors receive what the crows and the dogs have eaten up?_
_If only someone would tell me what real happiness is!_
_Speaking of happiness and joy, the world is perishing. How can happiness be found?_Pause 
_Making gods and goddesses out of clay, people sacrifice living beings to them._
_Such are your dead ancestors, who cannot ask for what they want._
_You murder living beings and worship lifeless things; at your very last moment, you shall suffer in terrible pain._
_You do not know the value of the Lord's Name; you shall drown in the terrifying world-ocean._
_You worship gods and goddesses, but you do not know the Supreme Lord God._
_Says Kabeer, you have not remembered the Lord who has no ancestors; you are clinging to your corrupt ways._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Quite clearly when put into context this is nothing to do with meat eating. What is being alluded to is Hindu sacrificial rituals (eg Anustarani http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Rites%20of%20Passage/ancestors2.html) where animals were sacrificed on the funeral pyre, ancestors or to deities. Yet the Brahmins who performed these rituals were themselves devout vegetarians. This is a comment about the futility of animal sacrifices to stone idols and dead ancestors. It is a comment on hypocrisy. 

*3. Do not say that the Vedas are false, false are those who do not reflect. If in all is one god, then why does one kill the hen ? (SGGS p1350)*

Again, let us put this into context: 

_bayd katayb kahhu mat jhoothay jhoothaa jo na bichaarai._
_ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai._
_mulaaN kahhu ni-aa-o khudaa-ee._
_tayray man kaa bharam na jaa-ee._ rahaa-o.
_pakar jee-o aani-aa dayh binaasee maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa._
_jot saroop anaahat laagee kaho halaal ki-aa kee-aa._
_ki-aa ujoo paak kee-aa muhu Dho-i-aa ki-aa maseet sir laa-i-aa._
_ja-o dil meh kapat nivaaj gujaarahu ki-aa haj kaabai jaa-i-aa._
_tooN naapaak paak nahee soojhi-aa tis kaa maram na jaani-aa._
_kahi kabeer bhisat tay chookaa dojak si-o man maani-aa._

_Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false._
_You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?_
_O Mullah, tell me: is this God's Justice?_
_The doubts of your mind have not been dispelled._ Pause
_You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay._
_The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed?_
_And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?_
_Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca?_
_You are impure; you do not understand the Pure Lord. You do not know His Mystery._
_Says Kabeer, you have missed out on paradise; your mind is set on hell._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


First point to note is that halaal and bismil, does not mean kill but refers to a specific form of ritual slaughter. Put into context this is a comment on the Muslim sacrifice ritual where either a goat or a chicken is kept in the confines of the home and then ritually slaughtered as obeisance to Abraham. Kabeer is mocking the futility of this ritual and saying, that why are you doing this sacrifice just to emulate Gods asking of Abraham to kill his only son? It is a futile gesture that will not sway God. Abraham was sacrificing his son to God, however all the sacrifice in this instance has achieved is destruction of the outer shell of the chicken. The soul wont travel to God, but merely to another form. One can only understand this if one has a basic grasp of history. In this instance the person who tried to use this tukh as an anti-meat quotation was unaware of the Koranic context and had an extremely poor knowledge of Semitic history. 

*4. Bhagat Kabir says, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils) where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is willing to have their head cut ? (SGGS p1374)*

Let us add this to the correct context: 

_oraa gar paanee bha-i-aa jaa-ay mili-o dhal kool._
_kabeeraa Dhoor sakayl kai puree-aa baaNDhee dayh._
_divas chaar ko paykhnaa ant khayh kee khayh._
_kabeer sooraj chaaNd kai udai bha-ee sabh dayh._
_gur gobind kay bin milay palat bha-ee sabh khayh._
_jah anbha-o tah bhai nahee jah bha-o tah har naahi._
_kahi-o kabeer bichaar kai sant sunhu man maahi._
_kabeer jinahu kichhoo jaani-aa nahee tin sukh need bihaa-ay._
_hamhu jo boojhaa boojhnaa pooree paree balaa-ay._
_laagee chot maramm kee rahi-o kabeeraa tha-ur._
_kabeer chot suhaylee sayl kee laagat lay-ay usaas._
_chot sahaarai sabad kee taas guroo mai daas._
_kabeer mulaaN munaaray ki-aa chadheh saaN-ee na bahraa ho-ay._
_jaa kaaran tooN baaNg deh dil hee bheetar jo-ay._
_saykh sabooree baahraa ki-aa haj kaabay jaa-ay._
_kabeer jaa kee dil saabat nahee taa ka-o kahaaN khudaa-ay._
_kabeer alah kee kar bandagee jih simrat dukh jaa-ay._
_dil meh saaN-ee pargatai bujhai balantee naaN-ay._
_kabeer joree kee-ay julam hai kahtaa naa-o halaal._
_daftar laykhaa maaNgee-ai tab ho-igo ka-un havaal._
_kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon._
_hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un._
_kabeer gur laagaa tab jaanee-ai mitai moh tan taap._
_harakh sog daajhai nahee tab har aapeh aap._
_kabeer raam kahan meh bhayd hai taa meh ayk bichaar._
_so-ee raam sabhai kaheh so-ee ka-utakhaar._
_kabeer raamai raam kaho kahibay maahi bibayk._
_ayk anaykeh mil ga-i-aa ayk samaanaa ayk._
_kab_eer jaa ghar saaDh na sayvee-ah har kee sayvaa naahi_._
_tay ghar marhat saarkhay bhoot baseh tin maahi._
_kabeer goongaa hoo-aa baavraa bahraa hoo-aa kaan._
_paavhu tay pingul bha-i-aa maari-aa satgur baan._
_kabeer satgur soormay baahi-aa baan jo ayk._
_laagat hee bhu-ay gir pari-aa paraa karayjay chhayk._
_kabeer nirmal boond akaas kee par ga-ee bhoom bikaar._

_The hail-stone has melted into water, and flowed into the ocean._
_Kabeer, the body is a pile of dust, collected and packed together._
_It is a show which lasts for only a few days, and then dust returns to dust._
_Kabeer, bodies are like the rising and setting of the sun and the moon._
_Without meeting the Guru, the Lord of the Universe, they are all reduced to dust again._
_Where the Fearless Lord is, there is no fear; where there is fear, the Lord is not there._
_Kabeer speaks after careful consideration; hear this, O Saints, in your minds._
_Kabeer, those who do not know anything, pass their lives in peaceful sleep._
_But I have understood the riddle; I am faced with all sorts of troubles._
_Struck by the Mystery of God, Kabeer remains silent._
_Kabeer, the stroke of a lance is easy to bear; it takes away the breath._
_But one who endures the stroke of the Word of the Shabad is the Guru, and I am his slave._
_Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing._
_Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers._
_Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself?_
_Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord?_
_Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart._
_The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name._
_Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal._
_When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?_
_Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt._
_Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread?_
_Kabeer, one is known to have been touched by the Guru, only when his emotional attachment and physical illnesses are eradicated._
_He is not burned by pleasure or pain, and so he becomes the Lord Himself._
_Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider._
_Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord._
_Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction._
_One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself._
_Kabeer, those houses in which neither the Holy nor the Lord are served â€"_
_those houses are like cremation grounds; demons dwell within them._
_Kabeer, I have become mute, insane and deaf._
_I am crippled - the True Guru has pierced me with His Arrow._
_Kabeer, the True Guru, the Spiritual Warrior, has shot me with His Arrow._
_As soon as it struck me, I fell to the ground, with a hole in my heart._
_Kabeer, the pure drop of water falls from the sky, onto the dirty ground._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



At one level this is a mistranslation and at another misrepresentation of the context within which this is written: ​ 

kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.
Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt. 
hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un. 
Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 

In the above Gurmukhi, there is no mention of meat whatsoever. _hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un_, means literally, who would cut their own throat to eat food. The person who has tried to translate this has added his/her own spin .What this is actually saying is that to the follower of the Guru or one who has been touched by God a simple dish of Kheechree (lentils and rice), flavoured with salt is enough. To have something more exotic to eat you would not cut your own throat (the western equivalent would be to cut your own nose off to spite your face). In no way is this tukh anything to do with meat eating and the person who has misrepresented and mistranslated it should be held to account for his/her actions. 

*5.In this dark age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; They eat rotting dead bodies for food. (SGGS p1242)*

Again, let us put this into context: 

_salok mehlaa 1._
_kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar._
_koorh bol bol bha-ukanaa chookaa Dharam beechaar._
_jin jeevandi-aa pat nahee mu-i-aa mandee so-ay._
_likhi-aa hovai naankaa kartaa karay so ho-ay._
_Shalok, First Mehl:_
_In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; they eat rotting carcasses for food._
_They bark and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them._
_Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die._
_Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


At first glance one notices that this paragraph is clearly a metaphor for people who behave like dogs. The dog is a scavenger, hunts in packs, fights within its pack, eats practically anything it can find etc etc. This entire Ang talks about people greed and those that lack honour when they are alive. 
The second point to note is the mistranslation. Murdaar is not the word for meat. Murdaar is a reference to people who are dead. In other words people are acting so much like dogs that when people have died they gather round to get as much as they can. A good analogy would be inheritance, where is some instances people try and contest them or try and grab for themselves as much as they can. In India, it has not been unusual to murder siblings of inheritance disputes. In fact the word Murder in the English language has come from the word Murdaar. 

*6. Falsehood is my dagger and to eat by defrauding is meat.*
*(Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raaj p24 *

Let us again see this in context: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 1 ghar 4._
_ayk su-aan du-ay su-aanee naal._
_bhalkay bha-ukahi sadaa ba-i-aal._
_koorh chhuraa muthaa murdaar._
_Dhaanak roop rahaa kartaar._
_mai pat kee pand na karnee kee kaar._
_ha-o bigrhai roop rahaa bikraal._
_tayraa ayk naam taaray sansaar._
_mai ayhaa aas ayho aaDhaar._ rahaa-o. 
_mukh nindaa aakhaa din raat._
_par ghar johee neech sanaat._
_kaam kroDh tan vaseh chandaal_.
_Dhaanak roop rahaa kartaar._
_faahee surat malookee vays._
_ha-o thagvaarhaa thagee days._
_kharaa si-aanaa bahutaa bhaar._
_Dhaanak roop rahaa kartaar._
_mai keetaa na jaataa haraamkhor._
_ha-o ki-aa muhu daysaa dusat chor._
_naanak neech kahai beechaar._
_Dhaanak roop rahaa kartaar._

_Siree Raag, First Mehl, Fourth House:_
_The dogs of greed are with me._
_In the early morning, they continually bark at the wind._
_Falsehood is my dagger; through deception, I eat the carcasses of the dead._
_I live as a wild hunter, O Creator!_
_I have not followed good advice, nor have I done good deeds._
_I am deformed and horribly disfigured._
_Your Name alone, Lord, saves the world._
_This is my hope; this is my support._ Pause 
_With my mouth I speak slander, day and night._
_I spy on the houses of others-I am such a wretched low-life!_
_Unfulfilled sexual desire and unresolved anger dwell in my body, like the outcasts who cremate the dead._
_I live as a wild hunter, O Creator!_
_I make plans to trap others, although I appear gentle._
_I am a robber-I rob the world._
_I am very clever-I carry loads of sin._
_I live as a wild hunter, O Creator!_
_I have not appreciated what You have done for me, Lord; I take from others and exploit them._
_What face shall I show You, Lord? I am a sneak and a thief._
_Nanak describes the state of the lowly._
_I live as a wild hunter, O Creator!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Again this is similar to the above translated Shabad. The Guru is clearly making an analogy between people who are acting like dogs. He is even saying that they are barking like dogs. 

koorh chhuraa muthaa murdaar.
Falsehood is my dagger; through deception, I eat the carcasses of the dead.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Again Murdaar does not mean meat at all. Murdaar refers to dead people, and how people are literally fighting over one another to get what they think is theirs. They are so consumed with greed and selfishness that they care not for one another, clearly nothing to do with meat eating. 

*7. Avarice is a dog, falsehood the sweeper and cheating the eating of meat. (Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raag p15)*

Let us put this last shabad in context with its correct translation: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 1._
_lab kutaa koorh choohrhaa thag khaaDhaa murdaar._
_par nindaa par mal mukh suDhee agan kroDh chandaal._
_ras kas aap salaahnaa ay karam mayray kartaar._
_baabaa bolee-ai pat ho-ay._
_ootam say dar ootam kahee-ahi neech karam bahi ro-ay._ rahaa-o. 
_ras su-inaa ras rupaa kaaman ras parmal kee vaas._
_ras ghorhay ras sayjaa mandar ras meethaa ras maas._
_aytay ras sareer kay kai ghat naam nivaas._
_jit boli-ai pat paa-ee-ai so boli-aa parvaan._
_fikaa bol viguchnaa sun moorakh man ajaan._
_jo tis bhaaveh say bhalay hor ke kahan vakhaan._
_tin mat tin pat tin Dhan palai jin hirdai rahi-aa samaa-ay._
_tin kaa ki-aa salaahnaa avar su-aali-o kaa-ay._
_naanak nadree baahray raacheh daan na naa-ay._

_Siree Raag, First Mehl:_ _Greed is a dog; falsehood is a filthy street-sweeper. Cheating is eating a rotting carcass._ 
_Slandering others is putting the filth of others into your own mouth. The fire of anger is the outcaste who burns dead bodies at the crematorium._
_I am caught in these tastes and flavors, and in self-conceited praise. These are my actions, O my Creator!_
_O Baba, speak only that which will bring you honor._
_They alone are good, who are judged good at the Lord's Door. Those with bad karma can only sit and weep._
_The pleasures of gold and silver, the pleasures of women, the pleasure of the fragrance of sandalwood,_
_the pleasure of horses, the pleasure of a soft bed in a palace, the pleasure of sweet treats and the pleasure of hearty meals_ â€" 
_these pleasures of the human body are so numerous; how can the Naam, the Name of the Lord, find its dwelling in the heart?_
_Those words are acceptable, which, when spoken, bring honor._
_Harsh words bring only grief. Listen, O foolish and ignorant mind!_
_Those who are pleasing to Him are good. What else is there to be said?_
_Wisdom, honor and wealth are in the laps of those whose hearts remain permeated with the Lord._
_What praise can be offered to them? What other adornments can be bestowed upon them?_
_O Nanak, those who lack the Lord's Glance of Grace cherish neither charity nor the Lord's Name._
Sry Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Again clearly a mistranslation and mischief making on the part of someone who wishes to convey a certain message. 

lab kutaa koorh choohrhaa thag khaaDhaa murdaar. 
Greed is a dog; falsehood is a filthy street-sweeper. Cheating is eating a rotting carcass.
Sry Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Again Murdaar is not Meat but is dead people. The entire Ang is talking about people who fall prey to the 5 thieves, Kaam, Krodh, Moh, Lobh and Hankaar. 

MOTIVATIONS BEHIND MISTRANSLATION AND MISREPRESENTATION 

There are several reasons behind why these mistranslations and misrepresentations have occurred: 
· The publishers have a lack of education and do not understand the meaning of words in Gurmukhi and the correct translation into English. 
· In their eagerness to promote their own brand of Sikhism (Sant, Jatha etc) they have deliberately allowed mistranslation and misrepresentation. 
· Genuine abhorrence of killing animals can be a motivation too (eg those people that believe in Animal Rights), however Sikhism should not be used as a tool to promote such agendas. 
· Poor knowledge of history and the context in which the Gurus and Bhaghats wrotes these Angs is a factor too. This can lead to a misrepresentation. 
· In conclusion one can only say that it is very important that Sikh institution promote a clear and concise programme where only those with a certain amount of knowledge in Sikh History and the Sikh Language, should be officially sanctioned as being translators for the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. 

THE 84 MILLION INCARNATION ARGUMENT - ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, MINERAL. 

The other argument that has been made over this issue is that there is some sort of hierarchy of incarnations within Sikhism of incarnations. Life goes through many incarnations (up to 84 million) before becoming human. In other words, life takes the form of incarnation in plant form, then animal, and then human. The idea being that animal form spiritually is closer to man. Biologically this maybe true, however, spiritually within Sikhism, this could not be further from the truth. 

On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written: 

_ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5._
_ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa._
_ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa._
_ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o._
_ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o._
_mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa_. _chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa._ rahaa-o. 
_ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa._
_ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa._
_ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa._
_saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat._
_kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat._
_ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan._
_jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan._
_avar na doojaa karnai jog._
_taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay._
_kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay._

_Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl_: 
_In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;_
_in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer._
_In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake._
_In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse._
_Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him_.
_After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you._ Pause 
_In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;_
_in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;_
_in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;_
_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._
_Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life._
_Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har._
_Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance._
_Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord._
_Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord._
_No one else can do anything at all._
_We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself._
_Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



Reading this Shabad one can clearly see that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not attach any particular order to how life is incarnated. Infact it states: ​ 

ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa. 
In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains; 
ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa.
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb; 
ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa. 
in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves; 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


If you were to apply the logic of those that claim spiritually animal life is closer to human, then according to this a rock then becomes an aborted human foetus, then becomes a plant! It is only after this one becomes human. Surely then a plant is a closer form of life to human? 

The Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji only proclaims one life form as being so precious. On page 50 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji it states: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 5 ghar 2._
_go-il aa-i-aa go-ilee ki-aa tis damf pasaar._
_muhlat punnee chalnaa tooN sampal ghar baar._
_har gun gaa-o manaa satgur sayv pi-aar._
_ki-aa thorh-rhee baat gumaan._ rahaa-o. 
_jaisay rain paraahunay uth chalsahi parbhaat._
_ki-aa tooN rataa girsat si-o sabh fulaa kee baagaat._
_mayree mayree ki-aa karahi jin dee-aa so parabh lorh._
_sarpar uthee chalnaa chhad jaasee lakh karorh._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh bharmati-aa dulabh janam paa-i-o-ay._
_naanak naam samaal tooN so din nayrhaa aa-i-o-ay._

_Siree Raag, Fifth Mehl, Second House:_
_The herdsman comes to the pasture lands-what good are his ostentatious displays here?_
_When your allotted time is up, you must go. Take care of your real hearth and home._
_O mind, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, and serve the True Guru with love._
_Why do you take pride in trivial matters?_ Pause 
_Like an overnight guest, you shall arise and depart in the morning._
_Why are you so attached to your household? It is all like flowers in the garden._
_Why do you say, "Mine, mine?" Look to God, who has given it to you._
_It is certain that you must arise and depart, and leave behind your hundreds of thousands and millions._
_Through 8.4 million incarnations you have wandered, to obtain this rare and precious human life._
_O Nanak, remember the Naam, the Name of the Lord; the day of departure is drawing near!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


So clearly, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji sees plants, animals, and minerals, on one level in terms of life, and then human form on another. To take the life of a plant is the same as an animal in terms of spirituality. The following Shabad although a metaphor for how people who speak the truth are treated, clearly shows the mind of the Guruâ€™s when seeing life in all its form, be it plant, mineral or animal: 
Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._

_First Mehl:_
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


The folly of the argument that spiritually one is committing a bigger sin when killing an animal than a plant is a foolish one. The biological argument is a different one and is not tackled within the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, but that in itself shows, the choice of whether or not to eat meat is a personal one and has nothing to do with the Sikh religion. 

MEAT EATERS, ONLY EAT FOR TASTE OR DO VEGETARIANS AS WELL? 

The most absurd argument that has been come across is that meat eaters only eat for taste, and too satisfy their taste buds. It is a selfish desire in other words, based on Greed and Egotism. The basis of this argument falls down with the fact that Vegetarian dishes (particularly on the Indian Subcontinent), are the most varied and most tasty of all dishes. To say that a vegetarian hates every mouthful of eating an Aubergine and Potatoes Curry and a meat eater loves every mouthful of Liver is indeed the weakest of all arguments. In fact page 61 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji states: 

_jit tan naam na bhaav-ee {censored} tan ha-umai vaad._
_gur bin gi-aan na paa-ee-ai bikhi-aa doojaa saad._
_bin gun kaam na aavee maa-i-aa feekaa saad._
_aasaa andar jammi-aa aasaa ras kas khaa-ay._

_That body which does not appreciate the Naam-that body is infested with egotism and conflict._
_Without the Guru, spiritual wisdom is not obtained; other tastes are poison._
_Without virtue, nothing is of any use. The taste of Maya is bland and insipid._
_Through desire, people are cast into the womb and reborn. Through desire, they taste the sweet and sour flavors._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


MEAT EATING PROMOTES DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR OR DOES IT? 

There is a train of thought amongst certain Sikhs that meat eating promotes cruel, aggressive or lustful behaviour. There have been numerous examples to show that this is simply not true. For example Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, yet he was very cruel. In terms of aggressive behaviour, we have our own Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala, who was a staunch vegetarian, yet very aggressive. The Kukas (Namdharia’s), were very violent and aggressive yet were strict vegetarians. As for lustful behaviour, one only has too look at the list of A list celebrities who are vegetarians and note their lustful behaviour. 

This argument is a ridiculous one and is not mentioned anywhere within the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. It is true however, many vegetarians do suffer from anaemia (lack of iron), and this causes tiredness (and therefore probably more passive behaviour), however, this is again outside the scope of this essay. 

HUKAMNAMA ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY THE 6TH MASTER 

Some pro-vegetarian sections of the Sikh following have produced an alleged Hukamnama that states that the Sikhs of the East were not to go near meat. Unfortunately, the sources that have produced this Hukamnama, have not been able to back it up with any evidence of its genuineness, from any Sikh scholars of note. There have been statements to the effect that Ganda Singh found this document and indeed published it (Two collections of Hukamnamas are available in print form, one edited by Dr. Ganda Singh published in 1968 by Punjabi University and the S.G.P.C), but this has not been verified by any of his contemporaries or any other Sikh scholars.. 

Historical evidence, in fact contradicts what Guru Hargobind ji was actually like. He was an avid hunter and warrior. Again this fact some have tried to dismiss as Guruji giving Mukhti to animals souls. This, however, contradicts the Guruâ€™s own philosophy which clearly states that only God is capable of granting such things. 
Infact Bhai Gudas in his Vars States: 

_Just as one has to tie pail's neck while taking out water_
, 
_Just as to get Mani, snake is to be killed_
_Just as to get Kasturi from deer's neck, deer is to be killed_
_Just as to get oil, oil seeds are to be crushed_
_To get kernel, pomegranate is to be broken_
_Similarly to correct senseless people, sword has to be taken up._
Bhai Gurdas, Var-34, pauri 13 


In fact such a hukamna would indeed contradict the one Guru Gobind Singh ji sent to his Sikhs in Kabul (ADVANCED STUDIES IN SIKHISM by Jasbir Singh and Harbans Singh.): 

_"Sarbat sangat Kabul Guru rakhe ga_
_Tusa ute asaadee bahut khusi hai_
_Tusi Khande da Amrit Panja to lena_
_Kes rakhne...ih asadee mohur hair;_
_Kachh, Kirpan da visah nahee karna_
_SARB LOH da kara hath rakhna_
_Dono vakat kesa dee palna karna_
Sarbat sangat abhakhia da kutha
_Khave naheen, Tamakoo na vartana_
_Bhadni tatha kanya-maran-vale so mel na rakhe_
_Meene, Massandei, Ramraiye ki sangat na baiso_
_Gurbani parhni...Waheguru, Waheguru japna_
_Guru kee rahat rakhnee_
_Sarbat sangat oopar meri khushi hai._
Patshahi Dasvi
Jeth 26, Samat 1756


_To the entire sangat at Kabul._
_The Guru will protect the Sangat,_
_I am pleased with you all._
_You should take baptism by the sword, from the Five Beloveds._
_Keep your hair uncut for this is a seal of the Guru,_
_Accept the use of shorts and a sword._
_Always wear IRON KARA on your wrist,_
_Keep your hair clean and comb it twice a day._
Do not eat Halal (Kosher) meat,
_Do not use tobacco in any form,_
_Have no connection with those who kill their daughters_
_Or permit the cutting of their children's hair._
_Do not associate with Meenas, Massands and Ram-raiyas (anti-Sikh cults)_
_Recite the Guru's hymns_
_Meditate on "The Name of our Wonderful Lord",_
_Follow the Sikh code of discipline_
_I give the entire sangat my blessing)_
Signature of 10th Guru 
Jeth 26, 1756 Bikrami 23rd May 1699 A.D 


As we know, there is no contradiction in the Guru’s message. 
It should be noted also that there are a number of Hukamnama’s that have been found that also purport Sikhs to adopt Brahmanical religious tenets. 

WHAT ARE THE VIEWS OF PROMINENT SIKH SCHOLARS ON THIS ISSUE? 

Misconceptions About Eating Meat - Comments of Sikh Scholars 

Throughout Sikh history, there have been movements or subsects of Sikhism which have espoused vegetarianism. I think there is no basis for such dogma or practice in Sikhism. Certainly Sikhs do not think that a vegetarian's achievements in spirituality are easier or higher. It is surprising to see that vegetarianism is such an important facet of Hindu practice in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was a significant and much valued Hindu Vedic ritual for ages. Guru Nanak in his writings clearly rejected both sides of the arguments - on the virtues of vegetarianism or meat eating - as banal and so much nonsense, nor did he accept the idea that a cow was somehow more sacred than a horse or a chicken. He also refused to be drawn into a contention on the differences between flesh and greens, for instance. History tells us that to impart this message, Nanak cooked meat at an important Hindu festival in Kurukshetra. Having cooked it he certainly did not waste it, but probably served it to his followers and ate himself. History is quite clear that Guru Hargobind and Guru Gobind Singh were accomplished and avid hunters. The game was cooked and put to good use, to throw it away would have been an awful waste. 
Sikhs and Sikhism by I.J. Singh, Manohar, Delhi 



The ideas of devotion and service in Vaishnavism have been accepted by Adi Granth, but the insistence of Vaishnavas on vegetarian diet has been rejected.
Guru Granth Sahib, An Analytical Study by Surindar Singh Kohli, Singh Bros. Amritsar 



Commenting on meat being served in the langar during the time of Guru Angad: However, it is strange that now-a-days in the Community-Kitchen attached to the Sikh temples, and called the Guru's Kitchen (or, Guru-ka-langar) meat-dishes are not served at all. May be, it is on account of its being, perhaps, expensive, or not easy to keep for long. Or, perhaps the Vaishnava tradition is too strong to be shaken off.
A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi 



As a true Vaisnavite Kabir remained a strict vegetarian. Kabir far from defying Brahmanical tradition as to the eating of meat, would not permit so much, as the plucking of a flower (G.G.S. pg 479), whereas Nanak deemed all such scruples to be superstitions, Kabir held the doctrine of Ahinsa or the non-destruction of life, which extended even to that of flowers. The Sikh Gurus, on the contrary, allowed and even encouraged, the use of animal flesh as food. Nanak has exposed this Ahinsa superstition in Asa Ki War (G.G.S. pg 472) and Malar Ke War (G.G.S. pg. 1288). 
Philosophy of Sikhism by Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar 



The Gurus were loath to pronounce upon such matters as the eating of meat or ways of disposing of the dead because undue emphasis on them could detract from the main thrust of their message which had to do with spiritual liberation. However, Guru Nanak did reject by implication the practice of vegetarianism related to ideas of pollution when he said, 'All food is pure; for God has provided it for our sustenance' (AG 472). Many Sikhs are vegetarian and meat should never be served at langar. Those who do eat meat are unlikely to include beef in their diet, at least in India, because of their cultural proximity to Hindus. 
A Popular Dictionary of Sikhism, W.Owen Cole and Piara Singh Sambhi, England 



In general Sikhism has adopted an ambivalent attitude towards meat eating as against vegetarianism. But if meat is to be taken at all, Guru Gobind Singh enjoined on the Khalsa Panth not to take kosher meat ie. Halal meat slaughtered and prepared for eating according to the Islamic practice. In fact it is one of the kurahits for every amritdhari Sikh. One who infringes it becomes patit (apostate). 
Sikhism, A Complete Introduction by Dr. H.S. Singha and Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press, Delhi 



A close study of the above-mentioned hymns of Guru Nanak Dev clarifies the Sikh standpoint regarding meat-eating. The Guru has not fallen into the controversy of eating or not eating animal food. He has ridiculed the religious priests for raising their voice in favour of vegetarianism. He called them hypocrites and totally blind to the realities of life. They are unwise and thoughtless persons, who do not go into the root of the matter. According to him, the water is the source of all life whether vegetable or animal. Guru Nanak Dev said. "None of the grain of corn is without life. In the first place, there is life in water, by which all are made green" (Var Asa M.1, p. 472). Thus there is life in vegetation and life in all types of creatures.
Real Sikhism by Surinder Singh Kohli, Harman Publishing, New Delhi 



The Gurus neither advocate meat nor banned its use. They left it to the choice of the individual. There are passages against meat, in the Adi Granth. Guru Gobind Singh however prohibited for the Khalsa the use of Halal or Kutha meat prepared in the Muslim ritualistic way.
Introduction to Sikhism by Dr. Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Hemkunt Press, Delhi 



There are no restrictions for the Sikhs regarding food, except that the Sikhs are forbidden to eat meat prepared as a ritual slaughter. The Sikhs are asked to abstain from intoxicants.
Introduction to Sikhism by G.S. Sidhu, Shromini Sikh Sangat, Toronto 



According to the Maryada booklet 'Kutha', the meat prepared by the Muslim ritual, is prohibited for a Sikh. Regarding eating other meat, it is silent. From the prohibition of the Kutha meat, it is rightly presumed that non-Kutha meat is not prohibited for the Sikhs. Beef is prohibited to the Hindus and pork to the Muslims. Jews and Christians have their own taboos. They do not eat certain kinds of meat on certain days. Sikhs have no such instructions. If one thinks he needs to eat meat, it does not matter which meat it is, beef, poultry, fish, etc., or which day it is. One should, however, be careful not to eat any meat harmful for his health. Gurbani's instructions on this topic are very clear. "Only fools argue whether to eat meat or not. Who can define what is meat and what is not meat? Who knows where the sin lies, being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian?" (1289) The Brahmanical thought that a religious person should be a vegetarian is of recent origin. Earlier, Brahmans had been eating beef and horse meat. In conclusion, it is wrong to say that any person who eats meat (of course Kutha, because of the Muslim rituals is prohibited) loses his membership of the Khalsa and becomes an apostate.
The Sikh Faith by Gurbakhsh Singh, Canadian Sikh Study and Teaching Society, Vancouver 



The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the Sikh Gurus made people aware of the fact that it is very difficult to distinguish between a plant and an animal, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish between a vegetarian and a non-vegetarian diets and there is no sin of eating food originating from plants or animals.
Scientific Interpretation of Gurbani, Paper by Dr. Devinder Singh Chahal 



The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten venison or goat, depending upon different janamsakhi versions of a meal which he cooked at Kurukshetra which evoked the criticism of Brahmins. Guru Amardas ate only rice and lentils but this abstention cannot be regarded as evidence of vegetarianism, only of simple living. Guru Gobind Singh also permitted the eating of meat but he prescribed that it should be Jhatka meat and not Halal meat that is jagged in the Muslim fashion.
Mini Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by H.S. Singha, Hemkunt Press, Delhi. 


THE KUTTHA MEAT ARGUMENT - KUTTHA MEANS ALL MEAT OR DOES IT? 

What is Kuttha meat?

Punjabi-English Dictionary, Punjabi University, Dept. of Punjabi Lexicography, Published Dec. 1994. "Kuttha: meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law." 
Punjabi English Dictionary, Singh Bros., Amritsar "Kuttha: Tortured, killed according to Mohammedan law." 

In the Rehit Marayada (http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html), Section Six, it states: 
The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided 
1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way(Kutha); 
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse
4. Using tobacco.
Sikh Rehit Maryada 


There have been some quarters who have been at pains to create confusion over the word Kuttha. There is no confusion over this word, and the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is proof of this. 
In the following Ang Guru Nanak condemns Brahmins, who serve their Muslim rulers stating they are acting like pseudo-Muslims. In this Ang there is a line which clearly refers to Kuttha as meat which has had Muslim prayers read over it. Kuttha, however, can meat any meat that is killed in a ritualistic manner. 

mehlaa 1. 
_maanas khaanay karahi nivaaj_
. 
_chhuree vagaa-in tin gal taag._
_tin ghar barahman pooreh naad._
_unHaa bhe aavahi o-ee saad._
_koorhee raas koorhaa vaapaar._
_koorh bol karahi aahaar._
_saram Dharam kaa dayraa door._
_naanak koorh rahi-aa bharpoor._
_mathai tikaa tayrh Dhotee kakhaa-ee._
_hath chhuree jagat kaasaa-ee._
_neel vastar pahir hoveh parvaan._
_malaychh Dhaan lay poojeh puraan._
abhaakhi-aa kaa kuthaa bakraa khaanaa. 
_cha-ukay upar kisai na jaanaa._
_day kai cha-ukaa kadhee kaar._
_upar aa-ay baithay koorhi-aar._
_mat bhitai vay mat bhitai._
_ih ann asaadaa fitai._
_tan fitai fayrh karayn._
_man joothai chulee bharayn._
_kaho naanak sach Dhi-aa-ee-ai._
_such hovai taa sach paa-ee-ai_. 

First Mehl: 
_The man-eaters say their prayers._
_Those who wield the knife wear the sacred thread around their necks._
_In their homes, the Brahmins sound the conch._
_They too have the same taste._
_False is their capital, and false is their trade._
_Speaking falsehood, they take their food_. 
_The home of modesty and Dharma is far from them._
_O Nanak, they are totally permeated with falsehood._ _The sacred marks are on their foreheads, and the saffron loin-cloths are around their waists;_
_in their hands they hold the knives - they are the butchers of the world!_
_Wearing blue robes, they seek the approval of the Muslim rulers._
_Accepting bread from the Muslim rulers, they still worship the Puraanas._
They eat the meat of the goats, killed after the Muslim prayers are read over them,
_but they do not allow anyone else to enter their kitchen areas._
_They draw lines around them, plastering the ground with cow-dung_. 
_The false come and sit within them._
_They cry out, "Do not touch our food,_
_this food of ours will be polluted!_
_But with their polluted bodies, they commit evil deeds._
_With filthy minds, they try to cleanse their mouths._
_Says Nanak, meditate on the True Lord._
_If you are pure, you will obtain the True Lord._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Hence, it is clear that Kutha does not mean all meat at all, it means specifically Halal Meat, but in the wider context it can mean meat that is ritually slaughtered. 

AN AMRIT-DHARI DOES NOT EAT MEAT OR DOES HE? 

This clearly a falicy, since the rules that guide and Amritdhari are from the Rehit-Marayada, which places no taboo on meat eating. 

EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF EUROPEAN TRAVELLERS OF SIKH DIET DURING THE 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY 

There are a number of eyewitness accounts from European travellers as to the eating habits of Sikhs. Although there is no prohibition on Sikhs for eating beef, it is clear that Sikhs as a mark of respect for their Hindu neighbours did not partake in eating beef: 

_The Seiks receive Proselytes of almost every Cast, a point in which they differ most materially from the Hindoos. To initiate Mohammedans into their mysteries, they prepare a Dish of Hogs legs, which the Converts are obliged to partake of, previous to admission............They are not prohibited the use of Animal food of any kind, excepting Beef, which they are rigidly scrupulous in abstaining from._
John Griffiths writes in February 17th 1794 



_The seiks are remarkably fond of the flesh of the jungle hog, which they kill in chase: this food is allowable by their law. They likewise eat of mutton and fish; but these being unlawful the Brahmins will not partake, leaving those who chose to transgress their institutes to answer for themselves. _
_William Francklin in his writing about Mr George Thomas 1805_


It is clear from the above that there is a clear distinction between Sikhs (meat eaters), and those who chose to follow Brahmanical practices (Vegetarians), however there appears to be no dispute over this issue as people are allowed to decide for themselves. 
The following is an Extract from an officer in the Bengal Army and is taken from the Asiatic Annual Register 1809: 

_Now become a Singh, he is a heterodox, and distinct from the Hindoos by whom he is considered an apostate. He is not restricted in his diet, but is allowed, by the tenets of his new religion, to devour whatever food his appetite may prompt, excepting beef._
Asiatic Annual Register 1809 


Clearly, this gives us an idea that even independent observers of Sikhs who saw their eating habits. These Sikhs were around some 100 years after the demise of the last physical Sikh Guru and represented hardcore Sikh philosophy at that time. 

WHY MEAT IS NOT SERVED IN LANGAR 

The reason why meat is not served at langar in the Gurdwaras is because langar is supposed to be a symbol of equality of mankind where all people no matter what race, religion or caste can eat together in the atmosphere of brotherhood. Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, it does not matter who they are. Different religions have different dietary restrictions. Hindus cannot eat cow, muslims cannot eat pork and will only eat halal meat. Jews will only eat kosher meat, others cannot eat fish or eggs. But in a gurdwara langar, it does not matter what their dietary taboos or religious beliefs are, the food is designed so that all can eat together and no one will be offended or not be able to partake of the meal. 

WHY JHATKA MEAT? 

What is Jhatka Meat and Why? 

Jhatka meat is meat in which the animal has been killed quickly without suffering or religious ritual. 

We must give the rationale behind prescribing jhatka meat as the approved food for the Sikhs. According to the ancient Aryan Hindu tradition, only such meat as is obtained from an animal which is killed with one stroke of the weapon causing instantaneous death is fit for human consumption. However, with the coming of Islam into India and the Muslim political hegemony, it became a state policy not to permit slaughter of animals for food, in any other manner, except as laid down in the Quran - the kosher meat prepared by slowly severing the main blood artery of the throat of the animal while reciting verses from the Quran. It is done to make slaughter a sacrifice to God and to expiate the sins of the slaughter. Guru Gobind Singh took a rather serious view of this aspect of the whole matter. He, therefore, while permitting flesh to be taken as food repudiated the whole theory of this expiatory sacrifice and the right of ruling Muslims to impose iton the non-Muslims. Accordingly, he made jhatka meat obligatory for those Sikhs who may be interested in taking meat as a part of their food.
Sikhism, A Complete Introduction, Dr. H.S.Singha & Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press 



And one semitic practice clearly rejected in the Sikh code of conduct is eating flesh of an animal cooked in ritualistic manner; this would mean kosher and halal meat. The reason again does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to enoble the flesh. No ritual, whoever conducts it, is going to do any good either to the animal or to the diner. Let man do what he must to assuage his hunger. If what he gets, he puts to good use and shares with the needy, then it is well used and well spent, otherwise not.
Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers. 


THE FINAL AUTHORITY 

Guru Nanak Devji tackled this entire issue head on and rubbished the claims of so called spiritual people who thought themselves more pious and religious simply because they did not eat meat. 
Page 1289 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee jaanai._
_ka-un maas ka-un saag kahaavai kis meh paap samaanay._
_gaiNdaa maar hom jag kee-ay dayviti-aa kee baanay._
_maas chhod bais nak pakrheh raatee maanas khaanay._
_farh kar lokaaN no dikhlaavahi gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee soojhai._
_naanak anDhay si-o ki-aa kahee-ai kahai na kahi-aa boojhai._
_anDhaa so-ay je anDh kamaavai tis ridai se lochan naahee._
_maat pitaa kee rakat nipannay machhee maas na khaaNhee._

_First Mehl:_
_The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom._
_What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?_
_It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering._
_Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night._
_They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom._
_O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said._
_They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts._
_They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


This Shabad specifically deals with the arguments that rage today about spirituality and meat eating. The purpose of this essay, stated in the beginning is not to look at meat eatings pros and cons in terms of the wider biological debate, but to look at I terms of Sikhism and spirituality. As Sikh, one should be concerned with getting into the triviality of such worthless debates and certainly one should not mistranslate, or misrepresent the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji to back up a certain point of view. 

OTHER EVIDENCE 

There have always been vegetarian Sikhs, and there have always been Meat eating Sikhs and the two groups have happily sat together and consumed a mutually acceptable Vegetarian Langar side by side. So why in the 20th and 21st Century has this issue caused so much debate and controversy? 
This maybe traced back to the Times of the British Raj and encouragement of recruitment of Sikhs into the British Army. Many new converts to Sikhism came into the fold, many of whom still practiced Hindu Vaishnav practices of strict vegetarianism. 
This need to cause division amongst Sikhs may even be traced earlier. In Mobad Dabistan-I Mazahib 1645-46, the author states: 

_Many person became his disciples. Nanak believed in the Oneness of God and in the way that it is asserted in Muhammadan theology. He also believed in transmigration of souls. Holding wine and pork to be unlawful, he had [himself] abandoned eating meat. He decreed avoidance of causing harm to animals. It was after his time that meat-eating spread amongst his followers. Arjan Mal, who was on of his lineal succesors, found this to be evil. He prohibited people from eating meat, saying This is not in accordance with Nanaks wishes. Later, Hargobind, son of Arjan Mal, ate meat and took to hunting. Most of their [the Gurus] followers adopted his practice._
Mobad Dabistan-I Mazahib 1645-46 


Now clearly we know the message of the Guru’s was uniform. It was not that they contradicted each other on issues such as meat eating. If some of this authors writings are to be believed as factual, then one can only conclude that some of the Guru’s were indeed vegetarian and some meat eaters, but it was not an issue that mattered to them or which they attached importance to. The author in this instance has liberally applied his own thoughts in order to show a contradiction amongst the Sikh Guru’s teaching and possibly a mean to exploit division. There was no contradiction in Sikh thought from the First Master to the Last. 

[/quote]


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 15, 2008)

mehar singh said:


> Just a small thought from me,
> You talk of us sikh vegetarian not knowing anything and taking bani out of context.



Actually the essay has chosen a specific topic of meat but the point is a general one on how Bani is twisted and manipulated to suit personal agenda's. Most of the comments, quotes from Bani and quotes from other literature were compiled by a vegetarian Sikh.



mehar singh said:


> Could you tell me one tukh in the Guru Granth Sahib Ji which tell us that hurting or killing an living bein is right and schould be practiced one tukh which directly say sikho maas chakho.


 
Actually there are no Tukhs that say one should explicitly persue vegetarianism in Bani.



mehar singh said:


> However on the opposite i will literally sit and go through the whole SGGS and show you the countless times our Gurus have written showing that it is a sin to hurt any living bein.


 
Please quote Tukhs from Bani, and then reconcile " that it is a sin to hurt any living bein." with a Sikhs right to defend himself/herself even when it means killing a human being. This is a contradiction.



mehar singh said:


> You say the dont serve meat in gurudwaras the reason is so that eveyone can eat my dear sir then ask them to serve eggs beer .


 
What has alcohol got to do with food? Alcohol is an intoxicant. Last time I looked an egg was not an intoxicant.
The essay has stated that the reason for Langaar is that it is a meal acceptable to all, hence vegetarian. To an Indian vegetarian usually beer and egg is unacceptable.



mehar singh said:


> They do not serve because it is taboo it was never allowed and i pray to god will never be allowed in gurudwaras.


 
INCORRECT 
There are Gurudwara's in India eg Gwalior where meat is served (commemorates meating of Bandha Bahadhur and Guru Gobind Singh Ji). You must do more reading and research.



mehar singh said:


> Sooch or Sach rehat and maryada these thing are important in places of worship you do not eat or drink in front of Sggs there has to be sooch.


 
The Sikh Rehat Maryada does not ban meat. It in effect says you cannot eat Kuttha or ritually sacrificed meat in other wise so called purified meat.

_What is Kuttha meat?

Punjabi-English Dictionary, Punjabi University, Dept. of Punjabi Lexicography, Published Dec. 1994. "Kuttha: meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law." 
__Punjabi English Dictionary, Singh Bros., Amritsar "Kuttha: Tortured, killed according to Mohammedan law."_ 

_In the Rehit Marayada (http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html), Section Six, it states: 
The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided 
1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way(Kutha); 
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse
4. Using tobacco.
__Sikh Rehit Maryada_ 

Where is Bani does this concept of "Sooch" come from. Please quote me the chapter and verse?



mehar singh said:


> Meat of anykind is considered not sooch in gurudwras that is the reason it is not allowed.


 
Please elaborate on this concept of "sooch". I would like to to know where in Bani this comes from?



mehar singh said:


> The four entrances are the welcome to all races not the langar please dont change history and our gurus words for your good.


No one has changed history, infact the essay backs up points with clear facts. Please back your points up in this manner too.


mehar singh said:


> if you eat meat you are hurting living bein and i am sorry*******************
> Regards
> Mehar Singh


 
According to Bani a plant is a living breathing being.

Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 
_mehlaa 1.
vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay.
khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay.
ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay.
bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay.
naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._
_First Mehl:
Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,
and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed.
What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out.
And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below.
Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 

Please reconcile that with what you have said?


----------



## dalbirk (Jun 3, 2008)

Dear Randip Singh Ji ,
                    WJKK WJKF
                     This is an excellent article by you . A tremendous effort considering the pro - Veg Sikh lobby is trying to show as if being non- Veg is the utmost Anti - Sikh practice one can indulge in , a matter of life & death . Das came accross this book ' SIKH SIDHANT ' by Iqbal Singh Ji ( Baba )  of Gurudwara Baru Sahib , Kalgidhar Trust , H P . This book at first look seems to chart out clearly the principles of Sikhism in simple language & brief words . But actually , it is a out & out attempt to promote Vegetarianism in Sikhs , almost 50 % of this book is devoted to the cause of vegetarianism . It demonises Non - Veg food as if eating it would be the biggest BAJAR KURAHIT  according to Sikh principles . The very same examples r used to prove their point , but the extreme attitude & language used to shun Non - Veg food points to much more than meets the eye , some deeper motive at work . These self made scholars have started taking Gurbani & Sikhism principles for a ride  of lately with almost everybody jumping on to the bandwagon turning it into a free for all wrestling bout   . I feel this effort of urs is an excellent one & should be propagated
at almost all forums . Only then Sangat will stop entertaining & start exposing these self made scholars , maybe forcing them to mend their ways .
   Regards ,
 Dalbir Singh


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jun 3, 2008)

Gurfateh


dalbirk said:


> Dear Randip Singh Ji ,
> WJKK WJKF
> This is an excellent article by you . A tremendous effort considering the pro - Veg Sikh lobby is trying to show as if being non- Veg is the utmost Anti - Sikh practice one can indulge in , a matter of life & death . Das came accross this book ' SIKH SIDHANT ' by Iqbal Singh Ji ( Baba ) of Gurudwara Baru Sahib , Kalgidhar Trust , H P . This book at first look seems to chart out clearly the principles of Sikhism in simple language & brief words . But actually , it is a out & out attempt to promote Vegetarianism in Sikhs , almost 50 % of this book is devoted to the cause of vegetarianism . It demonises Non - Veg food as if eating it would be the biggest BAJAR KURAHIT according to Sikh principles . The very same examples r used to prove their point , but the extreme attitude & language used to shun Non - Veg food points to much more than meets the eye , some deeper motive at work . These self made scholars have started taking Gurbani & Sikhism principles for a ride of lately with almost everybody jumping on to the bandwagon turning it into a free for all wrestling bout . I feel this effort of urs is an excellent one & should be propagated
> at almost all forums . Only then Sangat will stop entertaining & start exposing these self made scholars , maybe forcing them to mend their ways .
> ...


Das saw one grave error in there when term masa was misused in that book.

Page 1073, Line 9
ਜਿਤਨੇ ਨਰਕ ਸੇ ਮਨਮੁਖਿ ਭੋਗੈ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਲੇਪੁ ਨ ਮਾਸਾ ਹੇ ॥੧੨॥
जितने नरक से मनमुखि भोगै गुरमुखि लेपु न मासा हे ॥१२॥
Jiṯnė narak sė manmukẖ bẖogai gurmukẖ lėp na māsā hė. ||12||
The manmukh endures as many hells as there are; the Gurmukh is not even touched by them. ||12||
*Guru Arjan Dev*   -  

here masa(read Masha) is meant by samll measuring unit while Baba Ji was trying to make meat.(Drkhalsa and Gurpreet Singh Ji did discussed this thing with das on thier way to Rajaji National Prak last year).

RSS people wanted to scan the book and put its Hindi version anline so that Hindus could understand the basic principles of Gurmat.Das did tell them exclude the meat part.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jun 3, 2008)

Gurfateh

Three other instance of the same term in Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Page 127, Line 2
ਘੜੀ ਮੁਹਤ ਕਾ ਲੇਖਾ ਲੇਵੈ ਰਤੀਅਹੁ ਮਾਸਾ ਤੋਲ ਕਢਾਵਣਿਆ ॥੫॥
घड़ी मुहत का लेखा लेवै रतीअहु मासा तोल कढावणिआ ॥५॥
Gẖaṛī muhaṯ kā lėkẖā lėvai raṯī&shy;ahu māsā ṯol kadẖāvaṇi&shy;ā. ||5||
They are called to account for each instant and each moment. Every grain, every particle, is weighed and counted. ||5||
*Guru Amar Das*   -  

Page 170, Line 12
ਜਨ ਨਾਨਕ ਹਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭਿ ਪੂਰੇ ਕੀਏ ਖਿਨੁ ਮਾਸਾ ਤੋਲੁ ਨ ਘਟੀਐ ॥੫॥੫॥੧੯॥੫੭॥
जन नानक हरि प्रभि पूरे कीए खिनु मासा तोलु न घटीऐ ॥५॥५॥१९॥५७॥
Jan Nānak har parabẖ pūrė kī&shy;ė kẖin māsā ṯol na gẖatī&shy;ai. ||5||5||19||57||
The Lord God has made servant Nanak perfect; he is not diminished by even the tiniest particle. ||5||5||19||57||
*Guru Ram Das*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok



Page 1239, Line 16
ਤੋਲਾ ਮਾਸਾ ਰਤਕ ਪਾਇ ॥
तोला मासा रतक पाइ ॥
Ŧolā māsā raṯak pā&shy;ė.
What weights can balance the scale?
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  [SIZE=-1]view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok[/SIZE]


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Jun 4, 2008)

Based on facts of history some say the Guru(s) ate meat and some say they did not.  Whatever the case, no one can be the judge on what the Gurus did as right or wrong.

The Sikhs are forbidden to eat ritual slaughtered meat (kutha, kosher, etc, etc).  Meat that can be eaten is Jhatka meat (meat in which the animal has been killed with one strike without suffering or religious rituals being performed).  In this case Jhatka meat is allowed.  Some Nihang Singhs eat Jhatka meat which is allowed.  Now to take Jhatka meat and compare it against how animals are being killed at slaughter houses are two different situations.  At slaughter houses some animals suffer at death and some do not suffer, they are killed without feeling any pain.  The certainty to know that no animal suffered at a slaughter house is highly unlikely.  Also to say that all animals suffer at slaughter houses cannot be true.  Therefore a Sikh cannot eat meat from a slaughter house.  To know if it is Jatka meat one has to say all animals killed at a slaughter house do not suffer when killed.

To determine if the meat is Jhatka meat one as two options:  Either raise the animal yourself and kill it with one strike or trust another that will follow the Jhatka way.

Eating at restaurants or buying meat from a market (grocery store, etc, etc) one cannot determine whether it is Jhatka meat.  Therefore the Sikh should not, must not, eat that meat.

This is the conclusion that I have come to after reading the article that started this thread.  I have taken into consideration that the sources given by this article are not biased one way or the other.

If one wants to challenge this article he/she must look at whether the sources given are credible and reliable to prove that meat is not completely forbidden in Sikhism. 


I for one do not eat flesh of an animal at all.  I have made this conscience choice for myself and will not force any one else to take the same position as I on this issue and if I have made the mistake to or my words have mislead anyone that eating Jhatka meat is wrong please forgive me.


----------



## lalihayer (Jun 4, 2008)

I have not read whole thread, but I always remember shabad from Guru Nanak on Panna 1289, line 15
ਮਾਸੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਕਰਿ ਮੂਰਖੁ ਝਗੜੇ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਣੈ ॥

I think this shabad supersede all the tuks presented by debaters. It does not matter if you eat meat or eggs or vegetables or if you are pescatarian, flexitarian, lacto-ovo-vegetarians or vegan. Our respected Sri Guru Granth Sahib is not some sharia book, but is path to spiritual salvation. So gurmukho, let's stop debating on this subject and move on.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jun 5, 2008)

Gurfateh

ussualy bloo dis clotted in Halal and a stench comes from it while same it not ture with Jhataka.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 9, 2008)

dalbirk said:


> Dear Randip Singh Ji ,





dalbirk said:


> WJKK WJKF
> This is an excellent article by you . A tremendous effort considering the pro - Veg Sikh lobby is trying to show as if being non- Veg is the utmost Anti - Sikh practice one can indulge in , a matter of life & death . Das came accross this book ' SIKH SIDHANT ' by Iqbal Singh Ji ( Baba ) of Gurudwara Baru Sahib , Kalgidhar Trust , H P . This book at first look seems to chart out clearly the principles of Sikhism in simple language & brief words . But actually , it is a out & out attempt to promote Vegetarianism in Sikhs , almost 50 % of this book is devoted to the cause of vegetarianism . It demonises Non - Veg food as if eating it would be the biggest BAJAR KURAHIT according to Sikh principles . The very same examples r used to prove their point , but the extreme attitude & language used to shun Non - Veg food points to much more than meets the eye , some deeper motive at work . These self made scholars have started taking Gurbani & Sikhism principles for a ride of lately with almost everybody jumping on to the bandwagon turning it into a free for all wrestling bout . I feel this effort of urs is an excellent one & should be propagated
> at almost all forums . Only then Sangat will stop entertaining & start exposing these self made scholars , maybe forcing them to mend their ways .
> Regards ,
> Dalbir Singh


 
Hi Dal ji,

This essay was not actually about meat eating ironically nor written by me. I just edited and put it together in a legible manner writings of two people (who wish not to be named , but one a very strict vegetarian and another a meat eater).

It is in effect about the use of Bani to push certain agenda's. Sikhism is being pushed an pulled by Sant Matt walay, Dera walay, Hinduvata, Extremists, various sects etc etc and the message of Sikhism is getting distorted (the Vashnavite views seem to be clouding the clear message of Sikhi). The most controversial issue in Sikhism, (Meat Eating), is a good place to see where this message is being clouded so starkly. To my mind this subject was chosen because it is so polar and views can be shown one way or another.

I think it is healthy to have debate, but when personal comments are made then debate and reason get lost. There is no point "arguing like fools". Look at History and see what actually happened. Read the writings of scholars on this issue. Understand metaphors. Understand the Universality of Sikhi.

I remember reading on one site (where there was quite an egotistical fellow from the GNNSJ, who claimed Varan Bhai Gurdas was the key to Bani and Bhai Gurdas had claimed meat eating was prohibited. Then someone posted this:





*Vaar 23 Pauri 13 Lesson from Goat*​


_hasati akhaaju gumaan kari seehu sataanaa koi n khaaee|_
_The proud elephant is inedible and none eats the mighty lion._​ 
_hoi nimaanee bakaree deen dunee vadiaaee paaee|_
_Goat is humble and hence it is respected everywhere._​ 
_maranai paranai manneeai jagi bhogi paravaanu karaaee|_
_On occasions of death, joy, marriage, yajna, etc only its meat is accepted._​ 
_maasu pavitr grihasat no aandahu taar veechaari vajaaee|_
_Among the householders its meat is acknowledged as sacred and with its gut stringed instruments are made._​ 
_chamarhay deeaan kari juteeaa saadhoo charan sarani|iv|aaee|_
_From its leather the shoes are made to be used by the saints merged in their meditation upon the Lord._​ 
_toor pakhaavaj marheeday keeratanu saadhasangati sukhadaaee|_
_Drums are mounted by its skin and then in the holy congregation the delight-giving kirtan, eulogy of the Lord, is sung._​ 
_saadhasangati satigur saranaaee __॥__13__॥_
_In fact, going to the holy congregation is the same as going to the shelter of the true Guru._​ 

What followed was one of the most amusing yet hate filled series of personal attacks between an egotistical meat eater and an egotistical vegetarian. Neither realised Bhai Gurdases Varan are the key to Bani because they are metaphors. Understand the metaphor, and then understand Bani. The reality being there is no view on diet in Sikhi. Sikhi says consume what's good for your mind and body. If YOUR conscience says don't eat meat, then don't, if your conscience says eat it, then carry on, but do not judge others!

Thanks


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jun 11, 2008)

Gurfateh

Das has seen three orders in Sikhs with hystriya and if they are not tamed timly then before their self destrcution due to illogical and inpractical ideolgy,they may casue some harm to Panthic welfare as they may make us waste time to answer thier childish things.Which sometimes exceeds the limit of lunatic jinigoism.
1.Anti meat.(with all type of useless ritualism and dreaming and act of some Sikhs superceding Gurbani)
2.Anti to any bani other then of Guru Granth Sahib Ji(with translation and explantion totaly latest resmebling that of leftist ideology).
3.Castists(to defend the income for thier family they run some places of worship and do not want people from weak section get thier due).


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Aug 17, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*

Gurfateh

Das wants to add a thing over here.By telling us to not to eat pork or eat halal or say come to mosque for Salat.Muslims brthern do a sort of Dava(invitation to join Islam).

Das find nothing wrong in them.We can also invite them to eat Jhataka,not to smoke and come to Gurudwara Sahib doing our Dava for 73rd Shara of Islam ie Gurmat.As we are the true hindu,True Muslim,Treu Christian as we are the treu Sikhs.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Aug 17, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*

Gurfateh


bade_ustaad said:


> SINGH SOORMEIN Chadde Shikaar, Makhi Gheri Wich Bazaar
> Mari Nahi par Langdi Keeni, SINGH SOORMEIN bahduri Kinni
> 
> Killing defenceless animals is COWARDICE and not Bravery. Killing another human in a battle is a different psychology and mindset, to killing defenceless animals as they do not strike back. How can killing animals for practice as suggested by some scholars be taken as an alternative to whom you will be facing in a battleground. In the battlefield ones opponent is equally intelligent and equipped as the other. This thought is absurd as used by some ignorant scholars.
> ...



Well Maneka Gandhi is distant relative of Das(she is maternal aunt).das find yourself fit to join her and kill das who eats meat.All meat eaters should be burnt alive.Let animals live.In Hindus sometime Animals are treated like Gods.Dalits in Jhajjer are killed just as they were taking hides of dead cow.

Sikhs are no where far behind.Taksali Kharkos killed butchers as they were killing cows in 1992.Very well done.


----------



## bade_ustaad (Aug 17, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*



vijaydeep Singh said:


> Gurfateh
> 
> Well Maneka Gandhi is distant relative of Das(she is maternal aunt).das find yourself fit to join her and kill das who eats meat.All meat eaters should be burnt alive.Let animals live.In Hindus sometime Animals are treated like Gods.Dalits in Jhajjer are killed just as they were taking hides of dead cow.
> 
> Sikhs are no where far behind.Taksali Kharkos killed butchers as they were killing cows in 1992.Very well done.



It does not matter who you are. You too are part of the creation. As per your Karmas your Vichaar shall be done.

ਅਸੰਖ  ਮੂਰਖ  ਅੰਧ  ਘੋਰ  ॥ Asaŉkẖ mūrakẖ anḏẖ gẖor. 
 Countless fools, blinded by ignorance. 
ਅਸੰਖ  ਚੋਰ  ਹਰਾਮਖੋਰ  ॥ Asaŉkẖ cẖor harāmkẖor. 
 Countless thieves and embezzlers. 
ਅਸੰਖ  ਅਮਰ  ਕਰਿ  ਜਾਹਿ  ਜੋਰ  ॥ Asaŉkẖ amar kar jāhi jor. 
 Countless impose their will by force. 
ਅਸੰਖ  ਗਲਵਢ  ਹਤਿਆ  ਕਮਾਹਿ  ॥ Asaŉkẖ galvadẖ haṯi*ā kamāhi. 
 Countless cut-throats and ruthless killers. 
 ਅਸੰਖ  ਪਾਪੀ  ਪਾਪੁ  ਕਰਿ  ਜਾਹਿ  ॥ Asaŉkẖ pāpī pāp kar jāhi. 
 Countless sinners who keep on sinning. 
ਅਸੰਖ  ਕੂੜਿਆਰ  ਕੂੜੇ  ਫਿਰਾਹਿ  ॥ Asaŉkẖ kūṛi*ār kūṛė firāhi. 
 Countless liars, wandering lost in their lies. 
ਅਸੰਖ  ਮਲੇਛ  ਮਲੁ  ਭਖਿ  ਖਾਹਿ  ॥ Asaŉkẖ malėcẖẖ mal bẖakẖ kẖāhi. 
 Countless wretches, eating filth as their ration. 
 ਅਸੰਖ  ਨਿੰਦਕ  ਸਿਰਿ  ਕਰਹਿ  ਭਾਰੁ  ॥ Asaŉkẖ ninḏak sir karahi bẖār. 
 Countless slanderers, carrying the weight of their stupid mistakes on their heads. ਨਾਨਕੁ  ਨੀਚੁ  ਕਹੈ  ਵੀਚਾਰੁ  ॥ Nānak nīcẖ kahai vīcẖār. 
 Nanak describes the state of the lowly. 
ਵਾਰਿਆ  ਨ  ਜਾਵਾ  ਏਕ  ਵਾਰ  ॥ vāri*ā na jāvā ėk vār. 
 I cannot even once be a sacrifice to You. 
 ਜੋ  ਤੁਧੁ  ਭਾਵੈ  ਸਾਈ  ਭਲੀ  ਕਾਰ  ॥ Jo ṯuḏẖ bẖāvai sā*ī bẖalī kār. 
 Whatever pleases You is the only good done, 

 ਤੂ  ਸਦਾ  ਸਲਾਮਤਿ  ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ  ॥੧੮॥ Ŧū saḏā salāmaṯ nirankār. ||18|| 
 You, Eternal and Formless One. ||18|| 
This is not my problem but of the individual that needs growing up. Your lack of understanding of Gurmat is not my problem and Gurmat is categorically not any part of Shara of Islaam. This is your misconception.

Try to understand Gurbani and put you mind at rest.

I need not read "here is a 43 page discussion on Meat issue with inputs from many people.If you have any arguement then put it in that discussion after reading the discussion"

Common sense and Gurus Blessings are my guide and not comments of 
ਅਸੰਖ  ਮੂਰਖ  ਅੰਧ  ਘੋਰ  ॥ Asaŉkẖ mūrakẖ anḏẖ gẖor. 
 Countless fools, blinded by ignorance. 
There are many who are like minded and may share your views. These are your worldly views and i have not intension to cart rubbish along with me. If it fits your palette you live by it.


----------



## Archived_member7 (Aug 17, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*

Again this discussion seems to part ways from the issue..what my point Bhai amar is ..our choice ...nobody can enforce their opinion ..which islam has been doing ..if sikhs and hindus do not want halal ..they should be strong enough to make their opinion strong..atleast in Hindustan ...

I respect vegeterianism.however bade ustaad ji ..we r not discussing pros and cons of vegeterianism..

i make my point clear again..OUR CHOICE ..THE AVAILABILITY TO OUR CHOICE ...

Raaj Karega Khalsa


----------



## bade_ustaad (Aug 17, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*



rajkhalsa said:


> Again this discussion seems to part ways from the issue..what my point Bhai amar is ..our choice ...nobody can enforce their opinion ..which islam has been doing ..if sikhs and hindus do not want halal ..they should be strong enough to make their opinion strong..atleast in Hindustan ...
> 
> I respect vegeterianism.however bade ustaad ji ..we r not discussing pros and cons of vegeterianism..
> 
> ...




Your choice is there as a Non-Sikh but not as a Sikh. Do not bend rules of sikhism to suit you.

 ॥ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ  ਧਰਤੀ  ਧਰਮ  ਹੈ  ਤਿਸੁ  ਵਿਚਿ  ਜੇਹਾ  ਕੋ  ਬੀਜੇ  ਤੇਹਾ  ਫਲੁ  ਪਾਏ  ॥ਗੁਰਸਿਖੀ  ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ  ਬੀਜਿਆ  ਤਿਨ  ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ  ਫਲੁ  ਹਰਿ  ਪਾਏ  ॥ਓਨਾ  ਹਲਤਿ  ਪਲਤਿ  ਮੁਖ  ਉਜਲੇ  ਓਇ  ਹਰਿ  ਦਰਗਹ  ਸਚੀ  ਪੈਨਾਏ  ॥ਇਕਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ  ਅੰਦਰਿ  ਖੋਟੁ  ਨਿਤ  ਖੋਟੁ  ਕਮਾਵਹਿ  ਓਹੁ  ਜੇਹਾ  ਬੀਜੇ  ਤੇਹਾ  ਫਲੁ  ਖਾਏ  ॥ਜਾ  ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ  ਸਰਾਫੁ  ਨਦਰਿ  ਕਰਿ  ਦੇਖੈ  ਸੁਆਵਗੀਰ  ਸਭਿ  ਉਘੜਿ  ਆਏ  ॥ਓਇ  ਜੇਹਾ  ਚਿਤਵਹਿ  ਨਿਤ  ਤੇਹਾ  ਪਾਇਨਿ  ਓਇ  ਤੇਹੋ  ਜੇਹੇ  ਦਯਿ  ਵਜਾਏ  ॥ਨਾਨਕ  ਦੁਹੀ  ਸਿਰੀ  ਖਸਮੁ  ਆਪੇ  ਵਰਤੈ  ਨਿਤ  ਕਰਿ  ਕਰਿ  ਦੇਖੈ  ਚਲਤ  ਸਬਾਏ  ॥੧॥ Shalok, Fourth Mehl:The True Guru is the field of Dharma; as one plants the seeds there, so are the fruits obtained.The GurSikhs plant ambrosial nectar, and obtain the Lord as their ambrosial fruit.Their faces are radiant in this world and the next; in the Court of the Lord, they are robed with honor.Some have cruelty in their hearts - they constantly act in cruelty; as they plant, so are the fruits which they eat.When the True Guru, the Tester, observes with His Glance, the selfish ones are all exposed.As one thinks, so does he receive, and so does the Lord make him known.O Nanak, the Lord and Master is pervading at both ends; He continually acts, and beholds His own play. ||1|| 

The choice is this: either you follow Sikhism and abide by the Gurbani or You feel free and follow your mind. Here as you sow so shall you reap. Guru will expose those that have cruelty in their hearts. With a certain lower conscious one can neither participate in ritual killing nor jhatka. When Jhatka is prformed why do they say "Boley So nihaal, Sat sri akaal"  Does that not make this Jhatka killing Halaal. 

As a Sikh you DO NOT have a choice. One that has these thought when they reside deep down in ones conscious, they will become action. Pure thoughts leads to Higher Conscious and cruel thoughts lead to Lower Conscious. This is the choice you have. This is your choice.

Khalsa means Pure. One of a Higher conscious. Unfortunately your thoughts are not in line with your Name. A good name brings good qualities in a person. Here a Khalsa thinks Nakhalas. Great contradiction!!! Enough is said here. The choice is indeed yours.

Whether Jhatka or Halal the end result is the same. The animal dies. You sown the seeds. You reep the results. These are the pros and cons of being a sikh.


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Aug 17, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*



> Then on what basis fanatic vegetarian sikhs blame that meat eating sikhs are bending rule of Sikhism?


 
As i was one of those fanatics vegetarians Sikhs and its simply because when some Sikhs took amrit they were and still can be adviced by the panj pyare not to eat meat and the vegetarian Sikhs stick to this and will due whatever it takes to defend it.  It shows they stick to what the Panj Pyare told them so in a sense they really are just sticking to their Sikhi.


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*



> Since you are in a position of authority, Tell the forum how you have mastered the five vices to be able to command authority. Tell the forum how you would go about conquering each of them.



Who is dictating Here me or you.You are here trying to be guru of sikhs not me.Did I said that all sikhs shoukld eat meat?



> Do you not understand "As you sow so shall you reap" as per SGGS. If you cannot reply to the above then i suggest you shut up and keep your ideas to yourself.



Yes I do try to understand this tuk with the intellect waheguru has blessed me.There are places in world like coastal areas where human survive by eating seafood .also millions of insects small animals are killed in harvestation what about them

Also I want to tell you that milk is also obtained cruelly from animals but still it is served in langar.Get
out of your imaginery world that cows and buffaloes happily give humans their milk.So many calves die because of lack of milk

I am sure after reading this you will never touch any milk or milk product.If you still do then stop preaching others about days


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*



Singh said:


> As i was one of those fanatics vegetarians Sikhs and its simply because when some Sikhs took amrit they were and still can be adviced by the panj pyare not to eat meat and the vegetarian Sikhs stick to this and will due whatever it takes to defend it. It shows they stick to what the Panj Pyare told them so in a sense they really are just sticking to their Sikhi.


 
Keep meat deabtes here:

http://www.sikhism.us/essays-on-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html

As you  know and I know it very well depends on who gives you Amrit. I took Amrit in India, in Punjab and meat eating was never mentioned or an issue (from the Panj Pyarey). Nihang groups do especially make an issue of it, and they are the oldest warrior group amongst Sikhs.

Why has Vege vs Meat become and issue in Sikhi when it has been ruled on?

So let us reflect on this in a cool calm manner. Sikhism has the ability to absorb many and varied people.

I repeat again meat and vege discussion areto be confined on the above link.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*



bade_ustaad said:


> I am glad to note that you understand the tuk. Therefore you should have no regrets for your state of health. You preceding statement however casts doubt on your understanding. Those people living in the costal areas eating seafood are no different to those eating meat products on land. They are have fallen in a life cycle where they are trapped and devoid of the understanding of their actions. They too are subjected to “Karmi avey kapda, Nadri mokh duwar” As they sow, so do they reap. One is usually born in the vicinity of ones previous life so that you can pay your dues to those souls around you that you owe due to your deeds . You can decide to go to the costal areas if you find that life appealing or you could go and live among the Holy where your karmas will be transformed to something better and a state of higher consciousness.


The inability of a poor student cannot be compensated.
I always thought coastal regions would have holy people but NOW I know they don't! I thought holy people were found all over the place but NOW I know they are only found among the vegetarians!
Thanks for enlightening us!
 :ice:


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*



bade_ustaad said:


> Animals and humans have a bond. Humans look after animals and in turn they share their milk. It is give and take with a balanced understanding. Those that become greedy and torture animals are again answerable for their acts. You are a human being with a superior understanding to the animals. You should know better.


http://k53.pbase.com/o4/49/607449/1/56083744.IMG_2136e_web.jpgvery special bond indeed! :yes:

DAMN! what should I eat? I have bonded with those darn plants!!! :hmm:


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*



> Animals and humans have a bond. Humans look after animals and in turn they share their milk. It is give and take with a balanced understanding. Those that become greedy and torture animals are again answerable for their acts. You are a human being with a superior understanding to the animals. You should know better.



In which imaginery world you are living.Animals sharing their milk 

Humans simply steal it they tie cows in tied shed.Inject them with hormones.Do not allow their calves
to fill their stomachs and you are calling it bond.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*



bade_ustaad said:


> Mindless Post Deleted





kds1980 said:


> In which imaginery world you are living.Animals sharing their milk
> 
> Humans simply steal it they tie cows in tied shed.Inject them with hormones.Do not allow their calves
> to fill their stomachs and you are calling it bond.


I've said it once and i won't say it again!!

http://k53.pbase.com/o4/49/607449/1/56083744.IMG_2136e_web.jpg It's a very special bond kds ji! :yes:


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Aug 18, 2008)

> Keep meat deabtes here:
> 
> http://www.sikhism.us/essays-on-sikh...ver-flesh.html
> 
> ...


 
I didnt bring up the meat issue.  I just responded back to one of dks 1980 questions that was concering with vegetarian fanatics.  If anything my response should be put in a new discussion called vegetarian fanatics.



> I repeat again meat and vege discussion areto be confined on the above link.


 
Just relax man. No need to repeat things that are already understood.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Promoting JHATKA*

<<i will repeat myself...till the 5th PAATSHAAHI we would have been strict vegeterians however after Bir Ras was influenced during the 6thPaatshaahi...we could not remain strict vegeterians..>>

veerji do you have any documentary proof of the same?


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 18, 2008)

Singh said:


> I didnt bring up the meat issue.  I just responded back to one of dks 1980 questions that was concering with vegetarian fanatics.  If anything my response should be put in a new discussion called vegetarian fanatics.
> 
> 
> 
> Just relax man. No need to repeat things that are already understood.



And Now let me reply to your question .I never said that if panj pyare instruct you not to eat meat then you should eat meat.Infact One of my best chat friend is among them But on other sites I have always seen her debating with fanatic vegetarians that diet is not an issue in sikhism.So many vegetarian sikhs also beleive this that Diet was not at all matter in sikhism.Infact there is no whole shabad in Guru granth sahib which says Not eat meat
So No shabad is dedicated by Guru's on this issue.


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Aug 18, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *Singh*
> _I didnt bring up the meat issue. I just responded back to one of dks 1980 questions that was concering with vegetarian fanatics. If anything my response should be put in a new discussion called vegetarian fanatics.
> 
> 
> ...






kds1980 said:


> And Now let me reply to your question .I never said that if panj pyare instruct you not to eat meat then you should eat meat.Infact One of my best chat friend is among them But on other sites I have always seen her debating with fanatic vegetarians that diet is not an issue in sikhism.So many vegetarian sikhs also beleive this that Diet was not at all matter in sikhism.Infact there is no whole shabad in Guru granth sahib which says Not eat meat
> So No shabad is dedicated by Guru's on this issue.



I didn't ask you a question just gave you a response. Kds1980 and the above is for Randip Singh


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Aug 18, 2008)

why don't people simply accept that the find meat tasty and that's why they eat it or they dislike the idea dn don't it it.

For Veggies: why all fuss about getting God's approval and stuff?

Non Veggies: Why all fuss about giving the logic of "not forbidden" etc etc.

For Veggies: Why all the fuss about being answerable to God, and taking a morally higher stand. They find it tasty, let them enjoy !!

Non veggies: You like it, you eat it, just own it up !!


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 18, 2008)

> why don't people simply accept that the find meat tasty and that's why they eat it or they dislike the idea dn don't it it.



Do you really think that all meat is tasty? :hmm::hmm:


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 18, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> Do you really think that all meat is tasty? :hmm::hmm:


Chicken, pork and beef is tasty. It actually depends on how its cooked. Like you wouldn't eat raw dal. 
Meat is tasty and so are vegetables, I don't know why vegetarians say non-veg only eat meat because its tasty. I eat vegetables because vegetables are tasty. Heck, everyone eats what they find tasty. If you don't find anything tasty and you eat because you have to then either you're eating the wrong food or something is wrong with your taste buds or nervous system.


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 18, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> Do you really think that all meat is tasty? :hmm::hmm:



Asking for the patience of forum participants -- but when you don't eat meat of any kind, after a while the smell of meat becomes terrible. :shock: Taste is linked to the sense of smell -- so for example, a hamburger that smells rotten :shock: (even if it isn't), would not be something I would want to test :shock: to see if it were "tasty." :whisling:


----------



## unbiasedview (Aug 19, 2008)

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
Randeep Singh Ji I Would First Of All Say Thank You Very Much For Bringing These Lines From Ggsji To My Knowledge.though I Had Never Read These Lines Before But What I Could Extrapolate From Whatever  I Know Abt Sikhism Is That Religion Like Sikhism Which Is Very Intellectually Liberated Could Never Allow To Kill An Animal Just For Taste Of Tongue,because To Take Somebodies Life And Inflict Him Pain U Have To Be Cruel And Sikh Religion Can Never Ever Preach Cruelty.so Fool Are Those Who Are Fighting Over Eating Jhatka And Halal.but What I Personally Believe And What I Have Heard,that In Case Of Absolute Compulsion ,like When It Is A Matter Of Life And Death And We Have No Access To Vegeterian Food,man Being A Higher Animal Has The Right To Take Life Of Lower Being Just To Survive And In That Case It Should Only Be Jhatka To Minimise The Pain Inflicted To The Lower Being.and Same May Hold True At The Time Of War.


----------



## unbiasedview (Aug 19, 2008)

WJKK WJKF
listen brother.rules of sikhism are meant for good of humanity.ppl say its abt taking someones life and inflicting pain on him,ppl say its about taste of tongue.but reality is much more deeper than this.To   kill someone u have to be cruel.BUT nonvegeterians argue that even plants have life and they feel pain like animals do then how can u say vegeterianism is not cruel but flesh eating is.i being a medico will like to use my medical knowledge to throw some light on this issue.
1.first plants may bear pain but they dont have emotions associated with pain as that requires a higher centre like brain.there response to painful stimuli is just a reflex.
2.animals have emotions ,they resemble us much more than plants ,plants can regenerate fully but animals cant beyond certain extent.
3.animals have social structure very much like humans.again emotions have role in this.
4.there makeup is much more closer to human beings than plants.
so it is these  emotions which makes human more closer to animals than plants.so to kill an animal u have to kill ur sensiblities to much greater extent than to kill a plant.and more u lose ur sensiblities the more distant  u get from god.A person who can kill an animal,should have much less inner resistance in killing a fellow human being.so eating flesh is like impediment to  ur sensiblities.plants can be used without killing them.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 19, 2008)

unbiasedview said:


> Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
> Randeep Singh Ji I Would First Of All Say Thank You Very Much For Bringing These Lines From Ggsji To My Knowledge.though I Had Never Read These Lines Before But What I Could Extrapolate From Whatever  I Know Abt Sikhism Is That Religion Like Sikhism Which Is Very Intellectually Liberated Could Never Allow To Kill An Animal Just For Taste Of Tongue*,*




so you are saying we eat vegetables because they taste bad?

Also people who are intellectually inferior eat meat?

Where is you evidence that meat tastes better that vegetables?



unbiasedview said:


> because To Take Somebodies Life And Inflict Him Pain U Have To Be Cruel And Sikh Religion Can Never Ever Preach Cruelty.



Is not killing plants cruel....look how Guruji describes surgane being crushes:

Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._

_First Mehl:_
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



unbiasedview said:


> so Fool Are Those Who Are Fighting Over Eating Jhatka And Halal.



NO

Fools are those that think Sikhism is an a la carte menu where one diet is better over another.

To think that a vegetarian diet will bring you closer to God is Hankaar!





unbiasedview said:


> but What I Personally Believe And What I Have Heard,that In Case Of Absolute Compulsion ,like When It Is A Matter Of Life And Death And We Have No Access To Vegeterian Food,man Being A Higher Animal Has The Right To Take Life Of Lower Being Just To Survive And In That Case It Should Only Be Jhatka To Minimise The Pain Inflicted To The Lower Being.and Same May Hold True At The Time Of War.



Please do not post what you have heard but fact from Bani!

This matter has been ruled on by the Akaal Takht. Read your own Rehat Maryada and accept it. Do not force other people to your lifestyle:

What is Kuttha meat?

Punjabi-English Dictionary, Punjabi University, Dept. of Punjabi Lexicography, Published Dec. 1994. "Kuttha: meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law." 
Punjabi English Dictionary, Singh Bros., Amritsar "Kuttha: Tortured, killed according to Mohammedan law." 

In the Rehit Marayada (http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html), Section Six, it states: 
The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided 
1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way(Kutha); 
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse
4. Using tobacco.
Sikh Rehit Maryada


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 19, 2008)

unbiasedview said:


> WJKK WJKF
> listen brother.rules of sikhism are meant for good of humanity.ppl say its abt taking someones life and inflicting pain on him,ppl say its about taste of tongue.but reality is much more deeper than this.To   kill someone u have to be cruel.BUT nonvegeterians argue that even plants have life and they feel pain like animals do then how can u say vegeterianism is not cruel but flesh eating is.i being a medico will like to use my medical knowledge to throw some light on this issue.
> 1.first plants may bear pain but they dont have emotions associated with pain as that requires a higher centre like brain.there response to painful stimuli is just a reflex.
> 2.animals have emotions ,they resemble us much more than plants ,plants can regenerate fully but animals cant beyond certain extent.
> ...




Pure conjecture.I go by what Bani says. Bani see's human life as precious only:

The other argument that has been made over this issue is that there is some sort of hierarchy of incarnations within Sikhism of incarnations. Life goes through many incarnations (up to 84 million) before becoming human. In other words, life takes the form of incarnation in plant form, then animal, and then human. The idea being that animal form spiritually is closer to man. Biologically this maybe true, however, spiritually within Sikhism, this could not be further from the truth. 

 On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written: 

_ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5._
_ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa._
_ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa._
_ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o._
_ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o._
_mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa_. _chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa._ rahaa-o. 
_ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa._
_ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa._
_ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa._
_saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat._
_kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat._
_ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan._
_jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan._
_avar na doojaa karnai jog._
_taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay._
_kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay._

_Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl_: 
_In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;_
_in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer._
_In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake._
_In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse._
_Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him_.
_After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you._ Pause 
_In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;_
_in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;_
_in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;_
_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._
_Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life._
_Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har._
_Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance._
_Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord._
_Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord._
_No one else can do anything at all._
_We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself._
_Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



Reading this Shabad one can clearly see that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not attach any particular order to how life is incarnated. Infact it states: ​ 

ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa. 
In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains; 
ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa.
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb; 
ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa. 
in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves; 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


If you were to apply the logic of those that claim spiritually animal life is closer to human, then according to this a rock then becomes an aborted human foetus, then becomes a plant! It is only after this one becomes human. Surely then a plant is a closer form of life to human? 

The Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji only proclaims one life form as being so precious. On page 50 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji it states: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 5 ghar 2._
_go-il aa-i-aa go-ilee ki-aa tis damf pasaar._
_muhlat punnee chalnaa tooN sampal ghar baar._
_har gun gaa-o manaa satgur sayv pi-aar._
_ki-aa thorh-rhee baat gumaan._ rahaa-o. 
_jaisay rain paraahunay uth chalsahi parbhaat._
_ki-aa tooN rataa girsat si-o sabh fulaa kee baagaat._
_mayree mayree ki-aa karahi jin dee-aa so parabh lorh._
_sarpar uthee chalnaa chhad jaasee lakh karorh._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh bharmati-aa dulabh janam paa-i-o-ay._
_naanak naam samaal tooN so din nayrhaa aa-i-o-ay._

_Siree Raag, Fifth Mehl, Second House:_
_The herdsman comes to the pasture lands-what good are his ostentatious displays here?_
_When your allotted time is up, you must go. Take care of your real hearth and home._
_O mind, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, and serve the True Guru with love._
_Why do you take pride in trivial matters?_ Pause 
_Like an overnight guest, you shall arise and depart in the morning._
_Why are you so attached to your household? It is all like flowers in the garden._
_Why do you say, "Mine, mine?" Look to God, who has given it to you._
_It is certain that you must arise and depart, and leave behind your hundreds of thousands and millions._
_Through 8.4 million incarnations you have wandered, to obtain this rare and precious human life._
_O Nanak, remember the Naam, the Name of the Lord; the day of departure is drawing near!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


So clearly, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji sees plants, animals, and minerals, on one level in terms of life, and then human form on another. To take the life of a plant is the same as an animal in terms of spirituality. The following Shabad although a metaphor for how people who speak the truth are treated, clearly shows the mind of the Guru's when seeing life in all its form, be it plant, mineral or animal:


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 19, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> Asking for the patience of forum participants -- but when you don't eat meat of any kind, after a while the smell of meat becomes terrible. :shock: Taste is linked to the sense of smell -- so for example, a hamburger that smells rotten :shock: (even if it isn't), would not be something I would want to test :shock: to see if it were "tasty." :whisling:



I wouldn't classify myself as a vegetarian, but I prefer the taste of vegetarian food over meat any day. There is such a variety in vegetable food...especially Indian food.

With meat its, pork, lamb, chicken, beef....yawn....how boring.

I agree with your taste point.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Aug 19, 2008)

<<
_Do you really think that all meat is tasty? :hmm::hmm:>>_

_i never said all meat is tasty_

_its basic human nature_

_a person eats something if he/she find it tasty or is addicted to it_

_i could not understand ur point._

_still i know no body will fess up that they eat because they like the taste, or don't as they dislike taste/idea, but will go great lengths to prove or disapprove using bani._


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 19, 2008)

> a person eats something if he/she find it tasty or is addicted to it
> 
> i could not understand ur point.
> 
> still i know no body will fess up that they eat because they like the taste, or don't as they dislike taste/idea, but will go great lengths to prove or disapprove using bani.



People also meat because of health reason.Coaches specially recommend sportsperson to eat non veg diet in sports


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Aug 19, 2008)

you can't eat something continuously as diet unless u like the taste, else it is medicine and not FOOD


btw the example you are giving is fringe behaviour and not the aam "murge-shurge" wala guy


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 19, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> you can't eat something continuously as diet unless u like the taste, else it is medicine and not FOOD
> 
> 
> btw the example you are giving is fringe behaviour and not the aam "murge-shurge" wala guy



Majority of people have to eat what is available. Taste is something which is related to economic status.

Do you really think that millions of people of world which are below poverty line have choice of taste?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 19, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> Majority of people have to eat what is available. Taste is something which is related to economic status.
> 
> Do you really think that millions of people of world which are below poverty line have choice of taste?


if something tastes bad, they might not have a choice but they would eat it like medicine, jus to keep themselves alive. AmarSAnghera ji has a point.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Aug 19, 2008)

<<Majority of people have to eat what is available. Taste is something which is related to economic status.

Do you really think that millions of people of world which are below poverty line have choice of taste?>>

i beg to disagree

unless someone is dying of starvation and is bound by no choice, one prefers to eat what one likes.

a forced, non choice food is a medicine as you eat it because you find it beneficial.


status might have a say in menu but what is not tasty is rarely eaten 

i haven't seen anyone eat poorly cooked meat to prove their status symbol.


----------



## Sinister (Aug 19, 2008)

unbiasedview said:


> WJKK WJKF
> listen brother.rules of sikhism are meant for good of humanity.ppl say its abt taking someones life and inflicting pain on him,ppl say its about taste of tongue.but reality is much more deeper than this.To kill someone u have to be cruel.BUT nonvegeterians argue that even plants have life and they feel pain like animals do then how can u say vegeterianism is not cruel but flesh eating is.i being a medico will like to use my medical knowledge to throw some light on this issue.


 
_medical knowledge is nutrition based and it is UNBIASED (irony)…NOT emotion based!_

Let me add with my medical knowledge:

See your teeth! See your Canines! What are they for (evolutionarily speaking)?

Name me the essential amino acids…and tell me from what foodstuff can they be READILY attained?
Omega-3 fatty acids?
Vitamin B12?
B6? Pyridoxine?
Niacin?
Thiamin?
Zinc?

Note: medically/biochemically speaking it makes complete sense to consume meat in moderation…it is rich in essential nutrients. Yes you can find these nutrients in supplements and other plant matter but not in the same readily available quantities. Vegans often run a danger of being deficient in B12.

There are downsides to eating meat as well…it is usually higher in calories because of the high quantities of saturated fats, salts, nitrites … should be consumed in moderation.

but this can be offset with an active lifestyle. And high protein diets are often beneficial to diabetics. which in 2008 is 25 million people in the US alone.


Max Weber (a renowed sociologist) emphasized the basic fact that people are not satisfied to just engage in behaviour but also need to believe that what they do is good or right. Thus some people, Both meat-eater and vegetarian alike, will respond with defensiveness, intolerance, or hostility towards the other, interpreting the other's behaviour as calling their own into question.

For A die hard Meat eater there is nothing more irritating than a smug vegetarian who nags about morality all day long. Medically, this should not be about “owning up”, it should not about what tastes good or what doesn’t and it certainly shouldn't be about morality. 

If you want to be honest and speak “medically” then you should be objective rather than biased (live up to your name).

It should be a matter of health if you speak on the basis of medical knowledge.






unbiasedview said:


> 1.first plants may bear pain but they dont have emotions associated with pain as that requires a higher centre like brain.there response to painful stimuli is just a reflex.
> 2.animals have emotions ,they resemble us much more than plants ,plants can regenerate fully but animals cant beyond certain extent.
> 3.animals have social structure very much like humans.again emotions have role in this.
> 4.there makeup is much more closer to human beings than plants.
> so it is these emotions which makes human more closer to animals than plants.so to kill an animal u have to kill ur sensiblities to much greater extent than to kill a plant.and more u lose ur sensiblities the more distant u get from god.A person who can kill an animal,should have much less inner resistance in killing a fellow human being.so eating flesh is like impediment to ur sensiblities.plants can be used without killing them.


 

this is not medical knowledge...because it is personal interpretation.



PS: you learn to love foods that you once despised as a child…so taste has a habit of readily changing and is fluid rather than fixed (eg; food aversion can occur, even from what use to be you favourite dishes)

cheers


----------



## unbiasedview (Aug 20, 2008)

WJKK WJKF
well responding to ur above said points,i would like to correct u that i never categorically said that non veg is more palatable ,infact what i mean there is  MOST people who  eat flesh usually do it because they like its taste ,its a relative thing and  u cant deny it.there are lesser number of ppl who take it for health purpose.Infact the only absolute truth in this world is god. And in the second part where u think that i meant that meat eaters are unintellectual ,i would like to tell u that there is no grading system to measure intellect,what i meant to say is that if u see cruelty regularly your emotional responsiveness to it gets obtunded,as is true with many other things in life.as u see with islamists,they halal the animals and look at there punishments,they even halal humans as a punishment,and dont seem to mind it.but it is so cruel when seen with eyes of ppl from other religion who are not exposed to all this.thirdly u cant compare an  ordinary human being to guru nanak ,that is just unthinkable,guru nanak was completely emancipated ,if u(take u as imperson here) could foresee things to certain extent he could foresee it to millions of times  beyond that.what brings us closer to animals is emotions,do plants have emotion,the answer is they dont have,because for that u require a higher centre like brain where summation could take place.so if u kill an animal u r killing ur emotional responsiveness more than when u kill a plant,although i agree  that to kill  any living being u have to kill your emotions.but since we are emotionally more close to animals it causes greater emotional desensitisation in killing an animal then a plant.and also we have to eat somethiong to survive.GURU NANAK was supremely evolved soul,what he meant to understand that in totality we have to raise our intellect to that level and we are as u know  distantly far off from that level.anyone can have his /her own interpretation depending upon his intellect.like there are so many interpretations of japji sahib,u cant say one is wrong other is right,every one has tried to explain japji sahib according to his or her intellect.do u think guru nanak is trying to say that one should not  eat sugarcane.no i dont think so.by that token u can eating nothing in this world.but at the same time gurunanak categorically prohibits u from eating flesh in the lines from ggsji which u brought to light earlier.guru nanak must have said those lines in certain context,and if u just bring out these lines and dont try to understand the situation in which guru nanak would have said these lines then u r not doing justice to it.like nanak has so many times tried to explain realities to ppl using there mythlogical tales,this doesnt means that he believed in there mythology. when i said i have heard,i was just asking a question and was asking u are there some corresponding lines from ggsji which endorse it.i was never trying to spread the message as u pointed out.and i think point of coming here is to know more about sikhism.and get rid of ur misinformations abt religion.if u think here that guru nanak doesnt know that once a tree is separated from its root it is dead ,then u are grossly mistaken then.he has been trying to impress upon people with all the intensity some point which is not explained by the literal meaning of these lines. i would request u to bring out the context in which guru nanak said these lines.

well all my thoughts here are i know just my opinions ,and never say they r  absolutely right,it is just an ongoing struggle for greater intellectual liberation so that we could find the true meaning of sikhism and try to live according to it.your opinions will be of great help for me and maybe some of my opinions could turn out to be useful.
bhul chuk maaf karni.
wjkkwjkf.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 20, 2008)

unbiasedview said:


> WJKK WJKF





unbiasedview said:


> well responding to ur above said points,i would like to correct u that i never categorically said that non veg is more palatable ,infact what i mean there is MOST people who eat flesh usually do it because they like its taste




People who eat food per se do it for taste…..why should meat eaters be singled out?



unbiasedview said:


> ,its a relative thing and u cant deny it




I just denied it. For you to make your point stick you would have to prove vegetable dishes are not tasty.




unbiasedview said:


> .there are lesser number of ppl who take it for health purpose.




Have you seen the number of unfit fatso at your local Gurudwara, or those that look yellow and like garden rakes? I bet you 99% of those guys are vegetarian.



unbiasedview said:


> Infact the only absolute truth in this world is god.





According to Guru Nanak, Higher than Truth is Truthful Living.



unbiasedview said:


> And in the second part where u think that i meant that meat eaters are unintellectual ,i would like to tell u that there is no grading system to measure intellect,what i meant to say is that if u see cruelty regularly your emotional responsiveness to it gets obtunded,as is true with many other things in life.as u see with islamists,they halal the animals and look at there punishments,they even halal humans as a punishment,and dont seem to mind it.but it is so cruel when seen with eyes of ppl from other religion who are not exposed to all this.




Sikhs do not Halal, they jhatka. Same method is used when killing a plant by a farmer.

Please define cruelty?




unbiasedview said:


> thirdly u cant compare an ordinary human being to guru nanak ,that is just unthinkable,guru nanak was completely emancipated ,if u(take u as imperson here) could foresee things to certain extent he could foresee it to millions of times beyond that.what brings us closer to animals is emotions,do plants have emotion,the answer is they dont have,because for that u require a higher centre like brain where summation could take place.




Ok lets take what you say to be true then why did Guruji state the following?


*Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji *
_*mehlaa 1.*_ 
_*vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay.*_*
khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay. 
ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay. 
bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay. 
naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay.*
*
First Mehl: 
Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles, 
and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed. 
What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out. 
And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below. 
Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!*
*Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji *​ 
Guruji says it groans and cries out? Why would he say this if he did not think plants had life?




unbiasedview said:


> so if u kill an animal u r killing ur emotional responsiveness more than when u kill a plant,although i agree that to kill any living being u have to kill your emotions.but since we are emotionally more close to animals it causes greater emotional desensitisation in killing an animal then a plant.and also we have to eat somethiong to survive.GURU NANAK was supremely evolved soul,what he meant to understand that in totality we have to raise our intellect to that level and we are as u know distantly far off from that level.




So because we cannot se an emotional reponse from a plant in a way we understand, it is OK? You realise to kill a living plant is seen as barbaric by Jains? A vegetarian is seen by Jains as Barbaric?




unbiasedview said:


> anyone can have his /her own interpretation depending upon his intellect.like there are so many interpretations of japji sahib,u cant say one is wrong other is right,every one has tried to explain japji sahib according to his or her intellect.do u think guru nanak is trying to say that one should not eat sugarcane.no i dont think so.




No you have missed the point. 

Guruji is describing an emotional responcse of a living entity dieing, in this case a plant, in this case a sugar cane.




unbiasedview said:


> by that token u can eating nothing in this world.




So why are you judging people on what they can and cannot eat?




unbiasedview said:


> but at the same time gurunanak categorically prohibits u from eating flesh in the lines from ggsji which u brought to light earlier.




Prove it!

Where does Guru Nanak say this?

Guru Nanak only talks about meat once in Bani:

*Page 1289 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji *
_*mehlaa 1.*_​_*maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee jaanai.*_* 
ka-un maas ka-un saag kahaavai kis meh paap samaanay. 
gaiNdaa maar hom jag kee-ay dayviti-aa kee baanay. 
maas chhod bais nak pakrheh raatee maanas khaanay. 
farh kar lokaaN no dikhlaavahi gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee soojhai. 
naanak anDhay si-o ki-aa kahee-ai kahai na kahi-aa boojhai. 
anDhaa so-ay je anDh kamaavai tis ridai se lochan naahee. 
maat pitaa kee rakat nipannay machhee maas na khaaNhee.*​*
First Mehl: 
The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. 
What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin? 
It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering. 
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. 
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. 
O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said. 
They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts. 
They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.*​*Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji *​ 



unbiasedview said:


> guru nanak must have said those lines in certain context,and if u just bring out these lines and dont try to understand the situation in which guru nanak would have said these lines then u r not doing justice to it.like nanak has so many times tried to explain realities to ppl using there mythlogical tales,this doesnt means that he believed in there mythology. when i said i have heard,i was just asking a question and was asking u are there some corresponding lines from ggsji which endorse it.i was never trying to spread the message as u pointed out.and i think point of coming here is to know more about sikhism.and get rid of ur misinformations abt religion.if u think here that guru nanak doesnt know that once a tree is separated from its root it is dead ,then u are grossly mistaken then.he has been trying to impress upon people with all the intensity some point which is not explained by the literal meaning of these lines. i would request u to bring out the context in which guru nanak said these lines.





What context?

Enlighten us with quotes from Bani?

Prove to us your point?




unbiasedview said:


> well all my thoughts here are i know just my opinions ,and never say they r absolutely right,it is just an ongoing struggle for greater intellectual liberation so that we could find the true meaning of sikhism and try to live according to it.your opinions will be of great help for me and maybe some of my opinions could turn out to be useful.
> bhul chuk maaf karni.
> wjkkwjkf.




Opinions are like heads, everyone has one. The proof behind the opinion is where it matter. Please prove your points.

All these scholars of Sikhi disagree with you:



_*Throughout Sikh history, there have been movements or subsects of Sikhism which have espoused vegetarianism. I think there is no basis for such dogma or practice in Sikhism. Certainly Sikhs do not think that a vegetarian's achievements in spirituality are easier or higher. It is surprising to see that vegetarianism is such an important facet of Hindu practice in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was a significant and much valued Hindu Vedic ritual for ages. Guru Nanak in his writings clearly rejected both sides of the arguments - on the virtues of vegetarianism or meat eating - as banal and so much nonsense, nor did he accept the idea that a cow was somehow more sacred than a horse or a chicken. He also refused to be drawn into a contention on the differences between flesh and greens, for instance. History tells us that to impart this message, Nanak cooked meat at an important Hindu festival in Kurukshetra. Having cooked it he certainly did not waste it, but probably served it to his followers and ate himself. History is quite clear that Guru Hargobind and Guru Gobind Singh were accomplished and avid hunters. The game was cooked and put to good use, to throw it away would have been an awful waste. *_
*Sikhs and Sikhism by I.J. Singh, Manohar, Delhi *

​_*The ideas of devotion and service in Vaishnavism have been accepted by Adi Granth, but the insistence of Vaishnavas on vegetarian diet has been rejected.*_
*Guru Granth Sahib, An Analytical Study by Surindar Singh Kohli, Singh Bros. Amritsar *

​_*Commenting on meat being served in the langar during the time of Guru Angad: However, it is strange that now-a-days in the Community-Kitchen attached to the Sikh temples, and called the Guru's Kitchen (or, Guru-ka-langar) meat-dishes are not served at all. May be, it is on account of its being, perhaps, expensive, or not easy to keep for long. Or, perhaps the Vaishnava tradition is too strong to be shaken off.*_
*A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi *

​_*As a true Vaisnavite Kabir remained a strict vegetarian. Kabir far from defying Brahmanical tradition as to the eating of meat, would not permit so much, as the plucking of a flower (G.G.S. pg 479), whereas Nanak deemed all such scruples to be superstitions, Kabir held the doctrine of Ahinsa or the non-destruction of life, which extended even to that of flowers. The Sikh Gurus, on the contrary, allowed and even encouraged, the use of animal flesh as food. Nanak has exposed this Ahinsa superstition in Asa Ki War (G.G.S. pg 472) and Malar Ke War (G.G.S. pg. 1288). *_
*Philosophy of Sikhism by Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar *

​_*The Gurus were loath to pronounce upon such matters as the eating of meat or ways of disposing of the dead because undue emphasis on them could detract from the main thrust of their message which had to do with spiritual liberation. However, Guru Nanak did reject by implication the practice of vegetarianism related to ideas of pollution when he said, 'All food is pure; for God has provided it for our sustenance' (AG 472). Many Sikhs are vegetarian and meat should never be served at langar. Those who do eat meat are unlikely to include beef in their diet, at least in India, because of their cultural proximity to Hindus. *_
*A Popular Dictionary of Sikhism, W.Owen Cole and Piara Singh Sambhi, England *

​_*In general Sikhism has adopted an ambivalent attitude towards meat eating as against vegetarianism. But if meat is to be taken at all, Guru Gobind Singh enjoined on the Khalsa Panth not to take kosher meat ie. Halal meat slaughtered and prepared for eating according to the Islamic practice. In fact it is one of the kurahits for every amritdhari Sikh. One who infringes it becomes patit (apostate). *_
*Sikhism, A Complete Introduction by Dr. H.S. Singha and Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press, Delhi *

​_*A close study of the above-mentioned hymns of Guru Nanak Dev clarifies the Sikh standpoint regarding meat-eating. The Guru has not fallen into the controversy of eating or not eating animal food. He has ridiculed the religious priests for raising their voice in favour of vegetarianism. He called them hypocrites and totally blind to the realities of life. They are unwise and thoughtless persons, who do not go into the root of the matter. According to him, the water is the source of all life whether vegetable or animal. Guru Nanak Dev said. "None of the grain of corn is without life. In the first place, there is life in water, by which all are made green" (Var Asa M.1, p. 472). Thus there is life in vegetation and life in all types of creatures.*_
*Real Sikhism by Surinder Singh Kohli, Harman Publishing, New Delhi *

​_*The Gurus neither advocate meat nor banned its use. They left it to the choice of the individual. There are passages against meat, in the Adi Granth. Guru Gobind Singh however prohibited for the Khalsa the use of Halal or Kutha meat prepared in the Muslim ritualistic way*_*.*
*Introduction to Sikhism by Dr. Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Hemkunt Press, Delhi *

​_*There are no restrictions for the Sikhs regarding food, except that the Sikhs are forbidden to eat meat prepared as a ritual slaughter. The Sikhs are asked to abstain from intoxicants.*_
*Introduction to Sikhism by G.S. Sidhu, Shromini Sikh Sangat, Toronto *

​_*According to the Maryada booklet 'Kutha', the meat prepared by the Muslim ritual, is prohibited for a Sikh. Regarding eating other meat, it is silent. From the prohibition of the Kutha meat, it is rightly presumed that non-Kutha meat is not prohibited for the Sikhs. Beef is prohibited to the Hindus and pork to the Muslims. Jews and Christians have their own taboos. They do not eat certain kinds of meat on certain days. Sikhs have no such instructions. If one thinks he needs to eat meat, it does not matter which meat it is, beef, poultry, fish, etc., or which day it is. One should, however, be careful not to eat any meat harmful for his health. Gurbani's instructions on this topic are very clear. "Only fools argue whether to eat meat or not. Who can define what is meat and what is not meat? Who knows where the sin lies, being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian?" (1289) The Brahmanical thought that a religious person should be a vegetarian is of recent origin. Earlier, Brahmans had been eating beef and horse meat. In conclusion, it is wrong to say that any person who eats meat (of course Kutha, because of the Muslim rituals is prohibited) loses his membership of the Khalsa and becomes an apostate*_*.*
*The Sikh Faith by Gurbakhsh Singh, Canadian Sikh Study and Teaching Society,* *Vancouver* 

​_*The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the Sikh Gurus made people aware of the fact that it is very difficult to distinguish between a plant and an animal, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish between a vegetarian and a non-vegetarian diets and there is no sin of eating food originating from plants or animals.*_
*Scientific Interpretation of Gurbani, Paper by Dr. Devinder Singh Chahal *

​_*The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten venison or goat, depending upon different janamsakhi versions of a meal which he cooked at Kurukshetra which evoked the criticism of Brahmins. Guru Amardas ate only rice and lentils but this abstention cannot be regarded as evidence of vegetarianism, only of simple living. Guru Gobind Singh also permitted the eating of meat but he prescribed that it should be Jhatka meat and not Halal meat that is jagged in the Muslim fashion.*_
*Mini Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by H.S. Singha, Hemkunt Press, Delhi. *​


----------



## unbiasedview (Aug 21, 2008)

wjkk wjkf
well if human canines were meant for eating flesh then why are they smaller in size compared to  carnivores.they barely project beyond the level of other teeth,and in some ppl not even to that extent(compare them with that of carnivores who have much bigger and more pointed out canines.)secondly do u think that u always have to kill  animals to get all of your above mentioned nutrients.well to bring to your knowledge ,milk  is rich in all of your above mentioned nutrients and in terms of digestiblity coefficient milk protein is miles ahead of flesh.


----------



## Sinister (Aug 21, 2008)

unbiasedview said:


> wjkk wjkf
> well if human canines were meant for eating flesh then why are they smaller in size compared to carnivores.they barely project beyond the level of other teeth,and in some ppl not even to that extent(compare them with that of carnivores who have much bigger and more pointed out canines.)


 
BIASED! 

Because we are not carnivores we are omnivorous.

We never hunted with our teeth...we hunted with spears and our minds which is the reason our Canines are not the same size as other predators...we just need them for tearing ...plants or flesh.
Thus smaller pointed canines 

Evolutionarily humans were HUNTERS and GATHERERS…scavenging for food or actively pursuing it. Domestication of plants/animals came about only 15000 years B.P

When humans started eating meat eons ago, the extra energy enabled their brain size to increase, allowing for improved intelligence, and facilitating the hunting. (the reason your so clever today and can come up with elaborate arguments is because your ancestors were hunters...all development of communication was born around this central trait...hunting)

If you look at various characteristics of carnivores versus herbivores, it doesn't take a genius to see where humans compare ...smack in the middle

note: humans cannot digest Cellulose and Chitin...many herbivores can.
all the great apes are also omnivorous in their eating behaviour.



unbiasedview said:


> secondly do u think that u always have to kill animals to get all of your above mentioned nutrients.


 
*YES, you always have to kill animals! (to get "nutrients")*
*YOU the CONSUMER! continue to fund people that kill animals on a daily basis!  (eg: buying gasoline, electricity, any plastic products, wood products...you are at the mercy of capitlist marketplace...a market whose sole existence is dependant upon the complete control and manipulation of all fauna and flaura) 
*
The computer you are using to type this message on is made of many materials...which had to mined...which destroyed habitat...which caused animal suffering and death

do you see the hypocrisy (dont worry every human exhibits this trait...including myself)





unbiasedview said:


> well to bring to your knowledge ,milk is rich in all of your above mentioned nutrients and in terms of digestiblity coefficient milk protein is miles ahead of flesh.


 
Yes milk has these proteins and minerals, i admit it…

 Question: 
What about if your lactose intolerant? (30-50 million people in the US alone are lactose intolerant) 

cheers
looking forward to a medical opinion :wink:


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 21, 2008)

Sinister said:


> Yes milk has these proteins and minerals, i admit it…
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually I disagree on this point. As an ex-powerlifter you cannot get the full chain of Amino's from Milk. It is impossible. 

You would have to include some eggs. Also Creatine (a supplement I do not like but most effective), is found in the right quantities in red meat.

Also Milk is obtained from animals in the cruellest manner, but because many people cannot see where there milk comes from they turn a blind eye to it.
*
However, this debate is not on the pro's and cons of eating meat,* but what Sikhism says about it, and from what I have read and studied I am of the firm conclusion that *vegetarianism and meat eating was seen by the Guru's as purely a personal choice. *

There is a confusion by many Sikh families who have only been converted 3 generations ago from Hindu's that Sikhism is the same as Vaishnavism. It is not. Also because Kabir Ji shaloks are in Bani Sikhi must be Vaishnav? Well 2 and 2 does not equal 5, as many many of Kabir ji's shloks where the Guru's disagreed with his point of view are left out.

There is not one action by the Guru's, or phrase in Bani that states a preference in a certain diet. Only one part where Guruji talks about meat and Guruji categorically states,*Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. (* *maas chhod bais nak pakrheh raatee maanas khaanay.). *

The message is clear. Let us not concern ourselves with whether our fellow Sikh's have the occasional chicken biriyani, or another Sikh prefers to eat saag. This is irrelevant to Sikhi. Sikhi is more concerned about Kaam, Krodh, Moh, Lobh and Haankaar.


----------



## Sinister (Aug 21, 2008)

Randip singh,



randip singh said:


> Actually I disagree on this point. As an ex-powerlifter you cannot get the full chain of Amino's from Milk. It is impossible.


 
let me look into this.
I know milk is very nutritous...has a large variety of Amino's (8 essentials I think)

But yea you are right...IT would be extremely UNCOMFORTABLE if you were vegetarian and were trying to get the required number calories in a day to perform strenous excercise (just look at what professional athletes have to consume on a regiment diet) ...they cant gulp down milk all day long.



randip singh said:


> You would have to include some eggs. Also Creatine (a supplement I do not like but most effective), is found in the right quantities in red meat.


 
Creatine supplements can also do you harm...you dont want too much protein...it overstress your kidney's

let me look into this further... the only limiting amino acid that vegetarians lack is usually Lysine.

maybe we can have a thread in the "Health" section that explains the benefits/drawbacks of eating meet (feel free to move my post there if you decide to create it)

cheers


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 21, 2008)

Sinister Ji and Randip Singh ji, I think we should have a thread on diet. 
For vegetarians and non vegetarians who want to get in shape/work out.
A meal plan we can follow.
Let's keep the meals punjabi so people like me know exactly what to eat.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 21, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> Sinister Ji and Randip Singh ji, I think we should have a thread on diet.
> For vegetarians and non vegetarians who want to get in shape/work out.
> A meal plan we can follow.
> Let's keep the meals punjabi so people like me know exactly what to eat.



Great idea. Maybe you can kick them off.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 21, 2008)

randip singh said:


> Great idea. Maybe you can kick them off.


Do your thing Randip Singh JI! http://www.sikhism.us/sikh-youth/22776-diet-and-nutrition.html#post85753


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 28, 2008)

Harsimran Singh said:


> Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh,
> 
> I agree with everything that is said about the arugument between vegetarianism and meat eating, but one question still comes to mind, and that is, *Would Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji allow his sikhs to eat meat in the way it is slaughtered today?, Just ask yourself this question.*
> Unless your a hunter or a butcher who kills the animal using the sikh method of *"Jhakta",* the fact is that the meat we buy from stores is clearly what Guru Gobind Singh would have prohibited. Animals suffer in inhumane conditions, and are brutily tortured in slaughterhouses today. The method of killing in slaughterhouses is far worse than Halaal or Kosher meat. For example, ear's, tails, horn's are removed using no aneasthetic way(proper way) while the animal is *conscious*(link to Halaal), animal's are caged up their whole life unitl the day they can finally be free, but that day is usually their last, when they are tortured in the most inhumane way. The method of slaughter is just terrifying, and their are many videos that show this tragedy,
> ...



Good point, but this is the same that can be applied to every concievable factory farming method.

For example Milk - cows being pumped full of hormones, the way it is kept is terrible.

MilkSucks.com: Scary Dairy Tales - Animal Suffering

Vegetables growing unnaturally covered in pesticides.

I think the answer is to go Organic, either that, or rear you own animals and grow your own veggies.


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Nov 2, 2008)

randip singh said:


> *No I am not.*
> 
> If we are forbidden from eating todays meat then we are forbidden from eating todays vegetables too.
> 
> ...


 
Randip singh

I think you did not get Harsimran Singh point in his post. He exposed how animals are brutally being treated before they are killed and the method they use to kill animals is also horrific. A Sikh is to eat Jhatka meat and to say the meat coming from slaughter house is Jhatka would be ignoring the facts. And the fact that cows are being treated badly for maximum milk production from each cow. Also like you have said vegetable farms apply chemicals to there field to kill insects. The meat production plants and the farming methods are both wrong. Just by saying this is what happens to vegetables means I can eat meat that I don't know if its jtakha is being stubborn to the facts. Both methods of producing food are wrong. The reason why all of this is happening in both industries is because of maximizing profits and global efficiency. The world is trying to be more efficient, but not realizing what we are doing is harming the environment. To say both industries are hurting the environment the same would be also ignoring the facts. The meat industry is much worse than the produce industry. A person does not need meat to survive or even be healthy. 

At the end it comes down to this TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT, Both industries are doing wrong. Best way to go is organic or grow or raise animals by yourself and then consume them. If you think this is 18 century living then you are avoiding the facts and avoiding truthful living.


----------



## Harsimran Singh (Nov 2, 2008)

WaheGuru ji Ka Khalsa, WaheGuru ji ki Fateh, 

Mr. Singh ji thank you for pointed out some important points, for example, "harm being done to the environment" and " ignoring the type of meat being consumed"

I always have a picture in my mind, it is of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji during the creation of Khalsa, and i ask myself why the Guru put in such restrictions, for example not allowing his Sikhs to cut hair, commit adultery, restrictions on alcohol, tabocco, and Halal(kosher) meat. Then when i consider all of the restrictions, they seem to make sense, but the restriction on meat was a little harder to understand. I asked myself why specifically Halaal or kosher, why not all types? Now that i understand, Halaal is restricted for two reasons, one being the method of killing, and two the singing of godly hymms along with the slaughter. But i ask myself, what's wrong with singing god's hyms, when we are getting food to eat, afterall most of us say "Waheguru" before we eat a meal to thank the provider. Then i finally came to realize the it was the suffering the animal gets that Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji wants us to avoid. For that reason Jhatka meat was recommended for those who preferred it. My point is that the *suffering of the animal* is what holds significance for the restriction of Halaal Meat, for example in India, I've heard that people say "Sat Sri Akal' while slaughtering with the method of Jhatka, that shows that lord's hymms were not necessary the restriction, it was the suffering the animal witnessed and continues to witness today. 

Randip Singh Ji, a fact is a fact and if want to argue it then all you are doing is what Sikhism defines as unworthy, I can see you feel "distastful" and i am not asking you to go Vegetarian. The environmental problems are hurtful, and meat is a big part of that whether you want to agree with me or not. 

_"Add a small amount of meat and you become a power individual like me"_
_-Randip Singh_

Wow, you must be powerful! , i am an ex-meat eater, based my decision on number of important details and situations going on(mentioned earlier), and i can say one thing for sure, and that is I have not gone any weaker and in fact i feel stronger and healthier, the fact is the type of foods you eat(almonds, nuts, legumes). You can be a lazy, unhealthy and weak person whether you are vegetarian or a meat eater, it is all about eating the right stuff, but if your worried and feared about getting about weak, then it does not show the *spirit of Khalsa,* 

Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Khalsa survived in the jungles of Punjab while consuming Shoolay(a great source of protein) and digested tree bark while not having anything to eat, and the fact is that they took on the meat-eating moghuls and *succeeded*. So if you believe your going to feel weak without one meal of flesh, then i can ask you where is your* spirit of Khalsa*?

The points about the environment i mentioned in my eariler post have everything to do with Sikhism, after all Sikhism is a Universal loving faith. 

Just to help you define "Sarbat tha Bhalla" - *Blessings for all. *
The significance of Sarbat tha Bhalla is consideration for all, if your saying that we need to share with the needy, I can ask you how are you really sharing with the needy when you are not only consuming millions of indirect grains, and pounds of inefficient flesh. 
You have mentioned that people living in poverty is an economical issue, and that is true but meat is part of that. With the current economic crisis happening right now and increases in world prices of grains, oil and what not, many third world countries are in fact shipping out their grains to wealthy nations like ours, while their people are not being feed. *Why is this happening?* so that we can feed these grains to farm animals and go to sleep with "extra full" tummies. Speaking of nourishment, not everyone in the third world want to be heavy weight wrestlers, they just want to go to sleep without hunger, so these simple grains would have a significant positive impact on them.
My point is that, this is the whole concept of *"Sarbat tha Bhalla",* 
If meat was sustainable for the universe, produced as Jhatka, then their wouldn't be any reason to not consume it, but the fact is that, it is not sustainble and difinetely doesn't fall under the concept of "Sarbat tha Bhalla" 

Another point is that Sikhism as you must already is based on* Karma*, whatever you take from this world, their will be a higher price to pay for it after. So think about what takes up more resources? hint hint, that's pretty self-explanatory. 

Consider a scale, of sustainability for this planet. Do you really think everyone on this planet can get Organic meat to their dinner table(if they have one!), the answer is* no*. It is believed that if the grains feed to farm animals were to be used as food for humans, then we would have enough food in *stock for 3 years without production*, and no one would go hungury. Think about it, over 6 billion (approx population of this planet) farm animals are slaughtered each year in the US alone, and if they are feed all those grains, that food would be more than enough for the world population. In fact more farmers would choose to go Organic in a sense because they won't have to apply heavy fertilizer currently used to feed both humans and farm animals. 
By the way i am not saying milk or veggie production is the best, but on a scale, it is much more sustainable than meat. The bad practises of the milk industry are linked to the meat industry, due to such high demand for meat, cows are continually milked so that they can be slaughtered as soon as possible. 

Randip Singh Ji, I believe i have got enough across and if you still don't what to admit that today's methods are not acceptable just for Sikhs but for all of humanity, and changes need to be done, then please Rethink, Reconsider and hopefully react. Think environmentally, socially and morally the right thing. 

WaheGuru ji Ka Khalsa, WaheGuru ji ki Fateh, 
Harsimran Singh Khalsa


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 2, 2008)

Dear Harsimran singh ji

I am reading your arguements But I have found double standard on milk from you



> Consider a scale, of sustainability for this planet. Do you really think everyone on this planet can get Organic meat to their dinner table(if they have one!), the answer is* no*.



The same arguement is applicable on milk too Do you think that poor milkmen could take care of cows after they stop producing milk The answer is no



> The bad practises of the milk industry are linked to the meat industry, due to such high demand for meat, cows are continually milked so that they can be slaughtered as soon as possible.



Totally wrong Just see the plight of cows in India beef is mostly prohibited But as soon as cows stop producing milk they are thrown on roads result is Dieing a slow and painful death due to consuming polythene,illegal transportation of cattle to neighbouring country
Please remember cows are not bred in India for meat.Infact cost of keeping useless cattle in India is 18,000 crores per annum.As long as human use animals whether it is
for milk or for labour slaughter is neccessarry.Because No  person can afford  to keep useless animals.

Also You are forgetting that seafood provide so much of food to humans.without putting any resources

As far as your other arguements about environment is concerned It is applicable to each and every luxury we use From Driving SUVs to living in big houses to using Airconditioners etc But I have never seen any sikh bringing these issues,infact luxuries are even introduced to gurdwara's


----------



## Sinister (Nov 3, 2008)

Harsimran Singh said:


> If meat was sustainable for the universe, produced as Jhatka, then their wouldn't be any reason to not consume it, but the fact is that, it is not sustainble and difinetely doesn't fall under the concept of "Sarbat tha Bhalla"


 
Actually eating meat for the majority of humanity has and always will fall under the concept of “sarbat tha Bhalla”: some things that you do not understand.

“Sustainable for the universe”; This is an interesting concept…the “sustainability” argument that you posit is both ethically and rationally bankrupt.

Every activity and every industry that humanity participates in is currently “unsustainable". In order to understand this with more depth, a person must be familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. In order to recognize the importance of the livestock industry people must develop an intimate understanding of theories explaining reality, like; the 'Onsager reciprocal relations' or the 'Maximum Power Principle' theories.









Most people are woefully ignorant of the role that ‘meat eating’ has played in the development of modern day society and general human anatomical features (expansion of the brain):

Expanding on the Maximum Power Principle we come to the conclusion that energy storage is crucial to the survival of our species and it is our mastering of energy storage that has led humanity to dominate all fauna and flora. Humanity, even till today, utilizes livestock as a reservoir of our ‘hard earned energy’ (similar to a currency or any useful commodity). In times of extreme environmental conditions, sturdy livestock acted as the primary energy source to improve societies chances of survival...so that populations could move and penetrate all corners of the globe. The reason why livestock was developed is because it is a mobile energy storage unit (Q), which dramatically increased the survival capacity of semi-nomadic human groups (proto-agriculturalists). Granted, it can be deemed an inefficient storage unit, its existence is nonetheless mandatory (even today). The stability of this energy reservoir is a trade off of the energy losses.

Consumption of Livestock is partly and directly/indirectly responsible for all modern developments in agriculture and other industries. It was livestock that helped plough/till/harvest fields, transport humans/grains and it was livestock that fed hungry families during times of shortages. It was the expanse of livestock that provided fertilization to exhausted soils (read up on the nitrogen cycle). In the past, farmers could restore the fertility of their land by letting it lie fallow for several years or longer. But as population pressures increased, fallow periods declined or even disappeared and different ways of maintaining food production were needed: enter the animal. The organic fertilizer industry played a massive role in sustaining fields and in many poor areas it still does. 

The by-products of Livestock (leather, dung-cakes, wool, bones, hair, etc.) were of great importance to the development of industry and humanity. Whale oil helped light the streets of London for decades. Animal fat was used to make wax candles; the source of artificial light for much of human history. The dependence on a diminishing supply of whale oil eventually led to the discovery of substitute sources of hydrocarbons (paraffin, crude oil, natural gas, vegetable waxes, etc)…(necessity breeds innovation) The domestication of animals led to the study of animals and this has directly and indirectly made humanity into a super species…yet here we are thinking that the roll of consumable livestock has come or should come to an end?…when the true potential of this vital resource still lies mostly untapped by humans.  

The environmentalist arguments seem to stem from pessimism rather than optimism. They usually have a hyperactive tendency towards creating taboos in the name of false-altruism; it is insincere, at best. I view Altruism as an act of sharing innovation and information, which paves the way for increased efficiency and productivity. Enforcing conservation and harsh social engineering with the excuses of trying to construct an ethos of moral bravado has been proven fatal and unsustainble.

Thanks but no thanks…to the kitchen police  (I deny this fatalism). 

As a sikh; I will continue to eat meat for the good of humanity and for my health...so long as i can find it in the supermarket.

c h e e r s


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 3, 2008)

Singh said:


> Randip singh
> 
> I think you did not get Harsimran Singh point in his post. He exposed how animals are brutally being treated before they are killed and the method they use to kill animals is also horrific. A Sikh is to eat Jhatka meat and to say the meat coming from slaughter house is Jhatka would be ignoring the facts. And the fact that cows are being treated badly for maximum milk production from each cow. Also like you have said vegetable farms apply chemicals to there field to kill insects. The meat production plants and the farming methods are both wrong. Just by saying this is what happens to vegetables means I can eat meat that I don't know if its jtakha is being stubborn to the facts. Both methods of producing food are wrong. The reason why all of this is happening in both industries is because of maximizing profits and global efficiency. The world is trying to be more efficient, but not realizing what we are doing is harming the environment. To say both industries are hurting the environment the same would be also ignoring the facts. The meat industry is much worse than the produce industry. A person does not need meat to survive or even be healthy.
> 
> At the end it comes down to this TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT, Both industries are doing wrong. Best way to go is organic or grow or raise animals by yourself and then consume them. If you think this is 18 century living then you are avoiding the facts and avoiding truthful living.



I think I fully understand the issues.

As for double standards, the crux of the matter is vegetarian hypocrisy.

Why don't you grow your own crops and cultivate them yourself?
Why don't you rear your own animals and milk your own cows?
Why don't you syop wearing leather?
Why don't you ban dholkee's and tabla's (skin covered instruments) from Gurudwara's?

As I have stated, Organic for Meat, Vegetables and Milk is perfectly acceptable for a Sikh. 

I think you have not understood what the concept behind Kuttha is. It is about ritual slaying, nothing to do with humane or inhumane killing.. Jhatka is a response to that.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 3, 2008)

Harsimran Singh said:


> WaheGuru ji Ka Khalsa, WaheGuru ji ki Fateh,
> 
> Mr. Singh ji thank you for pointed out some important points, for example, "harm being done to the environment" and " ignoring the type of meat being consumed"


 
  Harsimran Ji

  Mr Singh is inherently wrong.

  A Humble request Harsimran ji. Note, the discussion here should be the Fools Wrangle Over Flesh essay. No Pro- Vegetarian or Pro-Meat propaganda will be tolerated.




Harsimran Singh said:


> I always have a picture in my mind, it is of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji during the creation of Khalsa, and i ask myself why the Guru put in such restrictions, for example not allowing his Sikhs to cut hair, commit adultery, restrictions on alcohol, tabocco, and Halal(kosher) meat. Then when i consider all of the restrictions, they seem to make sense, but the restriction on meat was a little harder to understand. I asked myself why specifically Halaal or kosher, why not all types? Now that i understand, Halaal is restricted for two reasons, one being the method of killing, and two the singing of godly hymms along with the slaughter. But i ask myself, what's wrong with singing god's hyms, when we are getting food to eat, afterall most of us say "Waheguru" before we eat a meal to thank the provider. Then i finally came to realize the it was the suffering the animal gets that Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji wants us to avoid. For that reason Jhatka meat was recommended for those who preferred it. My point is that the *suffering of the animal* is what holds significance for the restriction of Halaal Meat, for example in India, I've heard that people say "Sat Sri Akal' while slaughtering with the method of Jhatka, that shows that lord's hymms were not necessary the restriction, it was the suffering the animal witnessed and continues to witness today.


 
  Sorry, you have not understood the thoughts behind Jhatka at all.

  A Sikh must avoid ALL *ritually* slaughtered meat. This would include any meat (or vegetables for that matter), that have had prayers to ennoble them. This would include, Halaal, Kosher, and even Hindu Bali. For a Sikh it is not the issue about suffering because even a plant suffers when it dies and is cut as Guru ji points out in this metaphor:

Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._

_First Mehl:_
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji



  Things like Anustrani etc were frowned upon by the Guru’s, why? 
  Why ritualism? 


  Do you know that ritually prepared vegetables are forbidden for Sikh’s? Do you know why?



Harsimran Singh said:


> Randip Singh Ji, a fact is a fact and if want to argue it then all you are doing is what Sikhism defines as unworthy, I can see you feel "distastful" and i am not asking you to go Vegetarian. The environmental problems are hurtful, and meat is a big part of that whether you want to agree with me or not.


 
  Actually you ARE asking people to be a vegetarian. 

  Tactics being used are :

  1)Frighten people – i.e. planet is destroyed by meat eaters.
  2)Sikhism says yes to vegetarianism and no to meat – *not true*.
  3)Pain and Suffering argument – i.e. meat eating is only causing suffering to beings and not vegetarianism.
  4)Half Truths – animals are only used for meat, and not for leather, medicine, milk, wool etc etc.

  If you care so much for the environment I suggest you adopt a Hunter gather lifestyle, which by ALL measures is the Greenest way to live.




Harsimran Singh said:


> _"Add a small amount of meat and you become a power individual like me"_
> _-Randip Singh_
> 
> Wow, you must be powerful! , i am an ex-meat eater, based my decision on number of important details and situations going on(mentioned earlier), and i can say one thing for sure, and that is I have not gone any weaker and in fact i feel stronger and healthier, the fact is the type of foods you eat(almonds, nuts, legumes). You can be a lazy, unhealthy and weak person whether you are vegetarian or a meat eater, it is all about eating the right stuff, but if your worried and feared about getting about weak, then it does not show the *spirit of Khalsa,*


 
  Point 1 – This comment was meant to be tonge and cheek J
  Point 2 – As a powerlifter, I do not know of even one individual who is vegetarian ( who does not at least eat eggs) who can compete at the highest level.
  Point 3 – Many vegetarians take Creatine supplement (which is harmful), and is only found in meat sources.

  As for the spirit of the Khalsa, you should remember that the Spiritual and the Temporal go hand in hand. No point in shutting your eyes to the realities of the world, and one of those realities is that people who have a balanced diet which includes some steamed meat and fish are far healthier. Vegetarians have to supplement (this in itself is problematic).




Harsimran Singh said:


> Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Khalsa survived in the jungles of Punjab while consuming Shoolay(a great source of protein) and digested tree bark while not having anything to eat, and the fact is that they took on the meat-eating moghuls and *succeeded*. So if you believe your going to feel weak without one meal of flesh, then i can ask you where is your* spirit of Khalsa*?


 
  Nonsense.

  Prove the 10th Master was vegetarian. There is NO evidence to support these fantastical claims. This is sheer fantasy. By all accounts some of the Guru’s ate meat and some didn’t. The Guru’s were from Kshatriya clan’s and meat eating would not have been alien to them.

There are eyewitness accounts of Sikhs of the time hunting and eating meat.

  The vegetarian meat split occurred when Bandahi Sikh’s started advocating vegetarianism due to Bandha’s Bairagi background.




Harsimran Singh said:


> The points about the environment i mentioned in my eariler post have everything to do with Sikhism, after all Sikhism is a Universal loving faith.


 
  But you have HUGE holes in your argument about environment.

  What about leather?
  What about wool?
  What about milk?
  What about medicines made from animals?
  Leather skins for tabla and other instruments?

  Have you heard about the phasing out of Cows from America and reintroducing Buffalo into America for meat? Do you know why? Do you know why Buffalo are better for the environment?




Harsimran Singh said:


> Just to help you define "Sarbat tha Bhalla" - *Blessings for all. *
> The significance of Sarbat tha Bhalla is consideration for all, if your saying that we need to share with the needy, I can ask you how are you really sharing with the needy when you are not only consuming millions of indirect grains, and pounds of inefficient flesh.


 
  You have not defined Sarbat Dha Bhalla, and Sinister has destroyed your points.



Harsimran Singh said:


> You have mentioned that people living in poverty is an economical issue, and that is true but meat is part of that. With the current economic crisis happening right now and increases in world prices of grains, oil and what not, many third world countries are in fact shipping out their grains to wealthy nations like ours, while their people are not being feed. *Why is this happening?* so that we can feed these grains to farm animals and go to sleep with "extra full" tummies. Speaking of nourishment, not everyone in the third world want to be heavy weight wrestlers, they just want to go to sleep without hunger, so these simple grains would have a significant positive impact on them.


 
  This is nothing to do with meat. Please address points about MILK, leather wool etc before you talk about meat.
  Also study the Buffalo effect.



Harsimran Singh said:


> My point is that, this is the whole concept of *"Sarbat tha Bhalla",*
> If meat was sustainable for the universe, produced as Jhatka, then their wouldn't be any reason to not consume it, but the fact is that, it is not sustainble and difinetely doesn't fall under the concept of "Sarbat tha Bhalla" .


 

  No you have not proved it is not Sustainable. Your arguments are based on conjecture.

  You have not addressed, milk, leather, wool etc.




Harsimran Singh said:


> Another point is that Sikhism as you must already is based on* Karma*, whatever you take from this world, their will be a higher price to pay for it after. So think about what takes up more resources? hint hint, that's pretty self-explanatory.


 
  Your argument on Sustainability fails so this fails.




Harsimran Singh said:


> Consider a scale, of sustainability for this planet. Do you really think everyone on this planet can get Organic meat to their dinner table(if they have one!), the answer is* no*. It is believed that if the grains feed to farm animals were to be used as food for humans, then we would have enough food in *stock for 3 years without production*, and no one would go hungury. Think about it, over 6 billion (approx population of this planet) farm animals are slaughtered each year in the US alone, and if they are feed all those grains, that food would be more than enough for the world population. In fact more farmers would choose to go Organic in a sense because they won't have to apply heavy fertilizer currently used to feed both humans and farm animals.
> By the way i am not saying milk or veggie production is the best, but on a scale, it is much more sustainable than meat. The bad practises of the milk industry are linked to the meat industry, due to such high demand for meat, cows are continually milked so that they can be slaughtered as soon as possible.


 
  Do you think everyone on the planet can get Organic vegetables or organic milk? Do you think they can obtain these without harming insects, birds or the environment.? Have you any idea about the amount of methane produced by dairy cows? 

  Where is your evidence that milk production is more sustainable than meat?

  Your argument fails.




Harsimran Singh said:


> Randip Singh Ji, I believe i have got enough across and if you still don't what to admit that today's methods are not acceptable just for Sikhs but for all of humanity, and changes need to be done, then please Rethink, Reconsider and hopefully react. Think environmentally, socially and morally the right thing.
> 
> WaheGuru ji Ka Khalsa, WaheGuru ji ki Fateh,
> Harsimran Singh Khalsa


  Fact of the matter is you will not admit that vegetable and milk production methods are not acceptable today. In order to live the life you are advocating for meat eaters YOU must do the same for your vegetarian lifestyle. 

  Grow your own. 
  Don’t harm the Eco-System.
  Don’t harm insects or birds.
  Don’t harm natural habitats.
  Don’t harm natural species.

  Get the picture.

  Sikhism’s message is clear. If your conscience does not allow you to eat meat then don’t . If it does, then it is fine.

  On a side note, you have picked a debate on the environment who actually does work on the environment in real life, so before making points please present facts and not conjecture. The Eco-System and its survival is far more complex than a bunch of meat eaters. One can have whatever diet one chooses, so long as it is Sustainable, and there are some excellent examples of booth Sustainable meat and vegetable production around the world.


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Nov 3, 2008)

randip singh said:


> I think I fully understand the issues.
> 
> As for double standards, the crux of the matter is vegetarian hypocrisy.
> 
> ...


 
Randip Singh ji 

I have made it clear in my last post I am not against meat or pro meat or against vegetarians or pro vegetarians.  When it comes down to meat and vegetarians I am neutral.

What Sikhi condemn's is ritually slaughter meat.  First lets establish what is ritual meat. 

Kuttha is a ritual meat and the meaning of kuttha is meat prepared according to the Muslim ritual.

Kuttha: meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law.

Now lets establish what jhatka meat is:  the meat in which the animal has been killed quickly without suffering or religious ritual. 

What jhatka is a response to is the slow killing of animals and done to make slaughter a sacrifice to God and to expiate the sins of the slaughter. 

Since we have both meanings of kuttha and jhatka now lets look at the proccess which animals are slaughtered in animal slaughtering plants for there meat.

Animals at a slaughter house are not all slaughter slowly or quickly.  A Sikh cannot determine whether an ainmals is slaughter the jhatka way.  Reason why they cannot determine this is because some animals are still alive when they are being killed and suffer in pain while the blood is being removed from there body.  There is an uncertainity here and when one goes to buy meat at the store they cannot be sure it is jhatka or not and its meat should not be consumed by a Sikh.  Now to determine where this meat is being sold is difficult to pin point. So a Sikh should not consume meat from a store that sells it, unless it says this is jhatka meat.


A response to this uncertainity would be for Sikhs to run there own animal slaughter houses plants where the animal is killed the jhatka way and its skin can be used for clothing or other uses.

Also to comment on your power lifting assumptions.  I worked out for many years as a teen and my ability to lift more was astonishing to people.  For I did not take no supplements whatsoever.  I had a strict diet of roti, with on occastion eating out with still no meat.  The ones that used to work out with me ate meat and took supplements and still there ability to lift more and develop faster was slower than mine or just the same.  What you hold to is a misconception, sure meat might help, but the same results can be attained without eating meat as I am a walking proof of this.  Hard work, dedication, meditation, can lead to the same results with Guru jis kirpa.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 3, 2008)

Singh said:


> Randip Singh ji
> 
> I have made it clear in my last post I am not against meat or pro meat or against vegetarians or pro vegetarians. When it comes down to meat and vegetarians I am neutral.
> 
> ...





Singh said:


> Kuttha: meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law.


 
Singh ji

Actually this is a very narrow definition and is incorrect (we are actually discussing problems with translations on another thread, please participate).

Kuttha means ALL ritually slaughtered meat. Sikhi condemns rituals that somehow ennoble the flesh.

And one semitic practice clearly rejected in the Sikh code of conduct is eating flesh of an animal cooked in ritualistic manner; this would mean kosher and halal meat. *The reason again does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to enoble the flesh*. *No ritual, whoever conducts it, is going to do any good either to the animal or to the diner. Let man do what he must to assuage his hunger. If what he gets, he puts to good use and shares with the needy, then it is well used and well spent, otherwise not.*
Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers.




Singh said:


> Now lets establish what jhatka meat is: the meat in which the animal has been killed quickly without suffering or religious ritual.
> 
> What jhatka is a response to is the slow killing of animals and done to make slaughter a sacrifice to God and to expiate the sins of the slaughter.


 
No.

Jhatka is not a response to slow killing or pain. It is a response to ritualism. A subtle point.

If one analyses our Guru’s behaviour, be it rejection of Janeo to rejection of Anustrani, to rejection of Sati, to rejection of Haalal, Bali and Kosher, one can see the motivation behind Jhatka or one blow is a ritual-less method of killing an animal.





Singh said:


> Since we have both meanings of kuttha and jhatka now lets look at the proccess which animals are slaughtered in animal slaughtering plants for there meat.


 
No. Those are not the definitions.





Singh said:


> Animals at a slaughter house are not all slaughter slowly or quickly. A Sikh cannot determine whether an ainmals is slaughter the jhatka way. Reason why they cannot determine this is because some animals are still alive when they are being killed and suffer in pain while the blood is being removed from there body. There is an uncertainity here and when one goes to buy meat at the store they cannot be sure it is jhatka or not and its meat should not be consumed by a Sikh. Now to determine where this meat is being sold is difficult to pin point. So a Sikh should not consume meat from a store that sells it, unless it says this is jhatka meat.


 
Not True.

One can by meat that is Organic and has been certified as killed humanely.

In anycase Jhatka is about avoiding ritual. Muslims argue that severing of arteries is a less painful way.

The who argument of pain, trauma, suffering is another debate, but that is NOT what Jhatka is about.



Singh said:


> A response to this uncertainity would be for Sikhs to run there own animal slaughter houses plants where the animal is killed the jhatka way and its skin can be used for clothing or other uses.


 
There is no uncertainty as your definitions are incorrect.





Singh said:


> Also to comment on your power lifting assumptions.


 
They are not assumptions, they are observations and fact.

Name one pure vegetarian Powerlifter in the top rankings (i.e. no eggs either as westerners describe eating eggs as vegetarian)



Singh said:


> I worked out for many years as a teen and my ability to lift more was astonishing to people. For I did not take no supplements whatsoever. I had a strict diet of roti, with on occastion eating out with still no meat. The ones that used to work out with me ate meat and took supplements and still there ability to lift more and develop faster was slower than mine or just the same. What you hold to is a misconception, sure meat might help, but the same results can be attained without eating meat as I am a walking proof of this. Hard work, dedication, meditation, can lead to the same results with Guru jis kirpa.


 
I am sorry but your experience as a teen does not cut it amongst Powerlifting champions such as these. I deal with facts and until you can show me a Powerlifter (who does not even eat eggs) at the top level I do not believe you:

WorldPowerlifting.org


----------



## ax0547 (Nov 8, 2008)

*Vitamin B12 : What is it?**
*Vitamin B12, also called cobalamin, is important to good health. It helps maintain healthy nerve cells and red blood cells, and is also needed to make DNA, the genetic material in all cells (1-4). Vitamin B12 is bound to the protein in food. Hydrochloric acid in the stomach releases B12 from protein during digestion. Once released, B12 combines with a substance called intrinsic factor (IF) before it is absorbed into the bloodstream.
*What foods provide vitamin B12? **
*Vitamin B12 is naturally found in animal foods including fish, milk and milk products, eggs, meat, and poultry. Fortified breakfast cereals are an excellent source of vitamin B12 and a particularly valuable source for vegetarians (5, 6, 7). The table of selected food sources of vitamin B12 suggests dietary sources of vitamin B12. 
*What is the Recommended Dietary Allowance for vitamin B12 for adults?**
*The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) is the average daily dietary intake level that is sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97 to 98 percent) healthy individuals in each life-stage and gender group (7). The 1998 RDAs for vitamin B12 (in micrograms) for adults (7) are: 
*Life-Stage*
 *Men*
 *Women*
 *Pregnancy*
 *Lactation*
Ages 19+
2.4 mcg
2.4 mcg


All ages


2.6 mcg  
2.8 mcg
Results of two national surveys, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III-1988-91) (8) and the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII 1994-96) (7) found that most adult men and women consume recommended amounts of vitamin B12 (6-8). ​*When is a deficiency of vitamin B12 likely to occur? **
*Diets of most adult Americans provide recommended intakes of vitamin B12, but deficiency may still occur as a result of an inability to absorb B12 from food. It can also occur in individuals with dietary patterns that exclude animal or fortified foods (9). As a general rule, most individuals who develop a vitamin B12 deficiency have an underlying stomach or intestinal disorder that limits the absorption of vitamin B12 (10). Sometimes the only symptom of these intestinal disorders is anemia resulting from B12 deficiency.
Characteristic signs of B12 deficiency include fatigue, weakness, nausea, constipation, flatulence (gas), loss of appetite, and weight loss (1, 3, 11). Deficiency also can lead to neurological changes such as numbness and tingling in the hands and feet (7, 12). Additional symptoms of B12 deficiency are difficulty in maintaining balance, depression, confusion, poor memory, and soreness of the mouth or tongue (13). Some of these symptoms can also result from a variety of medical conditions other than vitamin B12 deficiency. It is important to have a physician evaluate these symptoms so that appropriate medical care can be given. 
*Who may need a vitamin B12 supplement to prevent a deficiency?**

Individuals with pernicious anemia*_
_Pernicious anemia is a form of anemia that occurs when there is an absence of intrinsic factor, a substance normally present in the stomach. Vitamin B12 binds with intrinsic factor before it is absorbed and used by your body (7,14,15). An absence of intrinsic factor prevents normal absorption of B12 and results in pernicious anemia. 
Anyone with pernicious anemia usually needs intramuscular (IM) injections (shots) of vitamin B12. It is very important to remember that pernicious anemia is a chronic condition that should be monitored by a physician. Anyone with pernicious anemia has to take lifelong supplemental vitamin B12.
*Individuals with gastrointestinal disorders*_
_Individuals with stomach and small intestinal disorders may not absorb enough vitamin B12 from food to maintain healthy body stores (16). Sprue and celiac disease are intestinal disorders caused by intolerance to protein in wheat and wheat products. Regional enteritis, localized inflammation of the stomach or small intestine, also results in generalized malabsorption of vitamin B12 (7). Excess bacteria in the stomach and small intestine also can decrease vitamin B12 absorption. 
Surgical procedures of the gastrointestinal tract such as surgery to remove all or part of the stomach often result in a loss of cells that secrete stomach acid and intrinsic factor (7, 17, 18). Surgical removal of the distal ileum, a section of the intestines, also can result in the inability to absorb B12. Anyone who has had either of these surgeries usually requires lifelong supplemental B12 to prevent a deficiency.
*Older Adults** 
*Vitamin B12 must be separated from protein in food before it can bind with intrinsic factor and be absorbed by your body. Bacterial overgrowth in the stomach and/or atrophic gastritis, an inflammation of the stomach, contribute to vitamin B12 deficiency in adults by limiting secretions of stomach acid needed to separate vitamin B12 from protein in food (10, 20-24). Adults 50 years of age and older with these conditions are able to absorb the B12 in fortified foods and dietary supplements. Health care professionals may advise adults over the age of 50 to get their vitamin B12 from a dietary supplement or from foods fortified with vitamin B12 because 10 to 30 percent of older people may be unable to absorb vitamin B12 in food (7, 19). 
*Vegetarians*_
_Vegetarians who do not eat meats, fish, eggs, milk or milk products, or B12 fortified foods consume no vitamin B12 and are at high risk of developing a deficiency of vitamin B12 (9, 25). When adults adopt a vegetarian diet, deficiency symptoms can be slow to appear because it usually takes years to deplete normal body stores of B12. However, severe symptoms of B12 deficiency, most often featuring poor neurological development, can show up quickly in children and breast-fed infants of women who follow a strict vegetarian diet (26). 
Fortified cereals are one of the few plant food sources of vitamin B12, and are an important dietary source of B12 for vegetarians who consume no eggs, milk or milk products. Vegetarian adults who do not consume plant foods fortified with vitamin B12 need to consider taking a B12-containing supplement. Vegetarian mothers should consult with a pediatrician regarding appropriate vitamin B12 supplementation for their infants and children. 
*Caution: Folic acid may mask signs of vitamin B12 deficiency**
*Folic acid can correct the anemia that is caused by vitamin B12 deficiency. Unfortunately, folic acid will not correct the underlying B12 deficiency (1, 27, 28). Permanent nerve damage can occur if vitamin B12 deficiency is not treated. Folic acid intake from food and supplements should not exceed 1,000 micrograms (mcg) daily because large amounts of folic acid can hide the damaging effects of vitamin B12 deficiency (7). Adults older than 50 years are advised to consult with their physician about the advisability of taking folic acid without also taking a vitamin B12 supplement. 
*What is the relationship between vitamin B12, homocysteine, and heart disease?**
*A deficiency of vitamin B12, folate, or vitamin B6 may increase your blood level of homocysteine, an amino acid normally found in your blood. There is evidence that an elevated blood level of homocysteine is an independent risk factor for heart disease and stroke (29-38). The evidence suggests that high levels of homocysteine may damage coronary arteries (34) or make it easier for blood clotting cells called platelets to clump together and form a clot. However, there is currently no evidence available to suggest that lowering homocysteine level with vitamins will actually reduce your risk of heart disease. Clinical intervention trials are needed to determine whether supplementation with vitamin B12, folic acid, or vitamin B6 can help protect you against developing coronary heart disease. 
*What is the health risk of too much vitamin B12?**
*Vitamin B12 has a very low potential for toxicity. The Institute of Medicine states that "no adverse effects have been associated with excess vitamin B12 intake from food and supplements in healthy individuals (7)." The Institute recommends that adults over 50 years of age get most of their vitamin B12 from supplements or fortified food because of the high incidence of impaired absorption of B12 from unfortified foods in this population (7). 
*Selected Food Sources of Vitamin B**12** 
*As the 2000 Dietary Guidelines for Americans state, "Different foods contain different nutrients and other healthful substances. No single food can supply all the nutrients in the amounts you need" (39). As the following table indicates, vitamin B12 is found naturally in animal foods. It is also found in fortified foods such as fortified breakfast cereals. 
*Table of Food Sources of Vitamin B12 (5)*​* Food*

* Micrograms*​ 
*%DV**​Beef liver, cooked, 3 oz
60.0​1000​Fortified breakfast cereals, (100%) fortified), 
3/4 c
6.0​100​Trout, rainbow, cooked, 3 oz
5.3​90​Salmon, sockeye, cooked, 3 oz
4.9​80​Beef, cooked, 3 oz
2.1​35​Fortified breakfast cereals (25% fortified), 
3/4 c
1.5​25​Haddock, cooked, 3 oz
1.2​20​Clams, breaded and fried, 3/4 c
1.1​20​Oysters, breaded and fried, 6 pieces
1.0​15​Tuna, white, canned in water, 3 oz
0.9​15​*Milk, 1 cup*
*0.9*​*15*​Yogurt, 8 oz
0.9​15​Pork, cooked, 3 oz
0.6 ​10​Egg, 1 large
0.5​8​American Cheese, 1 oz 
0.4 ​6​Chicken, cooked, 3 oz 
0.3 ​6​Cheddar cheese, 1 oz
0.2​4​Mozzarella cheese, 1 oz
0.2​4​* DV = Daily Value. DVs are reference numbers based on the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA). They were developed to help consumers determine if a food contains a lot or a little of a specific nutrient. The DV for vitamin B12 is 6.0 micrograms (mcg). The percent DV (%DV) listed on the nutrition facts panel of food labels tells adults what percentage of the DV is provided by one serving. Percent DVs are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your Daily Values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs. Foods that provide lower percentages of the DV also contribute to a healthful diet.​


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 8, 2008)

Factoids: Which I researched by consulting with a local rabbinical college.

Kosher slaughter of meat is not slow but quick. There is no prayer or incantation. The knife must be without blemish so the animal does not suffer. The person who butchers the animal must have been trained and certified.


----------



## ax0547 (Nov 8, 2008)

Not that anything wrong with your question to randip singh but out of curioslity " the shoes and leather belts/walets - would Guru Gobind Singh ji allow to use that/ all most of the drugs you use are found through research on rats etc would it be ethical for you to use and in effect be part of that - or simply put would Guru Sahib allow that" ?


----------



## Harsimran Singh (Nov 8, 2008)

WaheGuru Ji ka Khalsa, WaheGuru ji ki Fateh, 

Yes you are right, Guru Gobind Singh Ji wouldn't allow any of that either, and therefore I don't buy or use any products or clothing made from leather, wool, fur etc. WE can only be so perfect and I am not saying that just by not eating meat that i am doing the greatest thing, but i do believe that it is a big step in solving the many other issues, and I am only saying it in the perspective of Guru Sahib because the restriction was spefically said by Guru Sahib himself about meat, and not of other things, and that is why i used such words. Again i am specifically talking about the meat issue in the eariler reply, afterall that is what the discussion was about. 

WaheGuru Ji Ka Khalsa, WaheGuru Ji ki Fateh!
Harsimran Singh Khalsa


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 9, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> Factoids: Which I researched by consulting with a local rabbinical college.
> 
> Kosher slaughter of meat is not slow but quick. There is no prayer or incantation. The knife must be without blemish so the animal does not suffer. The person who butchers the animal must have been trained and certified.



It is however defined as a ritual slaughter is it not, and confirms my point on the issue is not about pain but about ritualism and ritual slaughter.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 9, 2008)

ax0547 said:


> Not that anything wrong with your question to randip singh but out of curioslity " the shoes and leather belts/walets - would Guru Gobind Singh ji allow to use that/ all most of the drugs you use are found through research on rats etc would it be ethical for you to use and in effect be part of that - or simply put would Guru Sahib allow that" ?


 

Hi Ax0547,


The arguments are being "fudged" here by some people. There is one constant in Sikhism, whether it be rejection of Janeo, rejection of giving water to anscestors, rejection of Anustrani (food to ancestor on funeral piles), or ritually prepared food.

Sikhism rejects ritualism.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 9, 2008)

> Again, there were only restrictions put on the type of *meat* to be consumed, not *veggies* or *milk*, so speaking of *Sikhism by itself*, all you need to respond with is a *"Yes"* or* "No",* have a wonderful day,


Harsimran singh ji

You are forgetting one thing that both 6th guru and 10th guru were avid hunters.And Hunting is Not so Humane way of killing an animal.Sikhs along with the guru's hunted animals No where restriction is put by guru's  Not to Eat Hunted meat


----------



## Harsimran Singh (Nov 9, 2008)

WaheGuru Ji ka Khalsa, WaheGuru Ji Ki Fateh!

Dear kds1980 Ji, 
Sure, maybe the two Gurus were hunters, but if your saying that hunting is not so humane, are you saying that the Gurus liked to see the animals suffer to death? I hope thats not what your trying to say. If however your saying hunting is infact inhumane, and by comparing that to chickens getting their beeks removed while still concious(halaal), cows getting horns removed while still conscious(halaal), and pigs being burned alive to remove the their hair while still conscious(halaal), ask yourself what would be inhumane. If we are talking about today, how many people actually hunt for their meat? 

OFF TOPIC DELETED


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 9, 2008)

randip singh said:


> It is however defined as a ritual slaughter is it not, and confirms my point on the issue is not about pain but about ritualism and ritual slaughter.




It does confirm your point about ritualism and ritual slaughter. I was addressing the factual inaccuracy in the cited paragraph by Dr. I. J. Singh. At least to my mind, he seems to be going beyond ritual and making a factually inaccurate generalization about "one semitic practice." The "semitic" practices are not the same. There is no prayer associated with "kosher" slaughter. I know I must sound like a nit-picker but this misunderstanding occurs time and again. Observant Jews are not permitted to eat halal meat anymore than are Sikhs.

And one *semitic practice* clearly rejected in the Sikh code of conduct is eating flesh of an animal cooked in ritualistic manner; this would mean kosher and halal meat. *The reason again does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to enoble the flesh*. *No ritual, whoever conducts it, is going to do any good either to the animal or to the diner. Let man do what he must to assuage his hunger. If what he gets, he puts to good use and shares with the needy, then it is well used and well spent, otherwise not.*
Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers.


----------



## ax0547 (Nov 9, 2008)

What is Halal?

In Islam, _Halal_ is an Arabic term meaning “lawful or permissible” and not only encompasses food and drink, but all matters of daily life. 

The following is a partial list of Halal non-meat products:





Bread products 

Cereals – breakfast, natural and organic 

Cheese and cheese products and coatings 

Coffee mixes 

Dairy Products – whipped toppings and drink mixes 

Desserts – cakes and pastries 

Eggs – powdered, frozen, and processed 

Fish and Seafood 

French fries and Processed Potatoes 

Fruits – fresh and/or dried 

Grains 

Honey 

Ice Cream / Ice Cream Toppings 

Jams and Jellies

 




Legumes and Nuts 

Milk (from species considered Halal) 

Pastry Items – frostings and coatings 

Pastas 

Peanut Butter 

Pizzas 

Plants (which are non-intoxicating) 

Sauces and dressings 

Seasonings 

Soup and Soup Base 

Syrups – table and flavored 

Tea Blends 

Vegetables – fresh and frozen

 Non "Food" items which may also be Halal certified are:





Capsules - Pharmaceutical and Vitamin

Cosmetics

Nutritional supplements

Protein powders

Vitamins and minerals

In the meat, poultry and food industry, animals such as cows, veal, lamb, sheep, goats, turkeys, chickens, ducks, game birds, bison, venison, etc., are considered Halal, but they must be slaughtered according to Islamic laws in order for their meat to be suitable for consumption.  
*The Social Context of Halal*

Halal applies not only to food products but to all aspects of life and social context.  One may hear mention of, "Halal money."  What does this mean?  For example, if a new religious center, school, hospital or any facility for social benefit is to be built, the funding must come from "clean" money or what is known as "Halal income."  For example, money derived from gambling, the selling of alcohol, drug trafficking, illicit social vices, or any illegal activity is considered Haram or detrimental to society and therefore not acceptable or considered a Halal income. 

This is but one brief example of Halal in a social context.  Therefore, when one hears the word Halal outside the food industry, one must think of it as a way in conduct of all aspects of life and betterment of society.  Halal certification of food also means a pure and more wholesome nourishment for mankind.   


*What is Haram?*

The opposite of Halal is _Haram_, which means “unlawful, not permissible or prohibited.”

They may also be summarized as: *A. B. C. I. S.*

*A:*  Alcohol
*B:*  Blood
*C:*  Carniverous animals or carriers of disease
*I:*   Idolartry (any animals or poultry sacrificed for voodoo, witchcraft or anything 
     denying the existance of the the Deity is the same as paganism or atheism.)
*S:*  Swine and all pork by-products and/or derivatives

The following products are Haram and negate the Halal status:

Swine/pork and all of its by-products
Animals improperly slaughtered or dead before slaughtering
Animals killed or falsely sacrificed in any name other than God, the Merciful such as slaughter of "false sacrifice" to witchcraft, paganism, voodoo or idolatry are forbidden.
Alcohol, intoxicants and narcotic drugs
Carniverous animals, birds of prey and scavenger animals or foul
Blood and blood by-products (blood is the circulatory cleansing fluid of the body and is not to be consumed)
Foods contaminated with any of the above products or contaminated with "_impurities"_ (in Arabic, "_najis") _from processing, such as manure, urine, rodent droppings, infectous fluids, pus, etc are considered Haram.  
The following list of ingredients is a partial list of examples of what should be avoided and are considered non-Halal as well:
 





Alcohol

Non-Halal Animal Fat

Enzymes *Microbial Enzymes are permissible 

Gelatin *- from non-Halal source (fish gelatin is Halal)

 




L-cysteine (if from human hair)

Lard

Lipase*  only animal lipase need be avoided

Non-Halal Animal Shortening

Pork Bacon

Pork Ham

Unspecified Meat Broth 

Rennet* All forms should be avoided except for plant/microbial/synthetic.

Rum

Stock* - a blend of mix species broth or meat stock

Tallow* - non-Halal species

Wine

*May be consumed if derived from Halal animals

*Halal Education*
Many people assume that Halal and Kosher are the same thing. They are mistaken! If a product is Kosher certified, it does not mean the product is automatically Halal.  The Kosher process differs from what is allowable by the Islamic _Shari'a._  For example, there are Kosher wines and alcohol but this is not permissible or acceptable for Halal foods. Another example of the difference between Halal and Kosher are slaughter procedures.  For Halal meat and poultry processing, the Muslim slaughterman is required to acknowledge God's Creation and to thank God for providing sustenance by stating a prayer before each and every slaughter.  Muslim slaughtermen invoke God's name before each and every slaughter with the statement, “In the name of God – God is the Greatest/_Bismillahi Allahu Akbar_.”  The _Shochet,_ or Jewish slaughterman_,_ does not and is not required to invoke God's name on each animal before each slaughter.  With Halal slaughtering, the entire carcas is utilized.  With Kosher slaughtering, only the front four-quarter of the beef carcass is utilized.  The Kosher hind quarters cannot be considered Halal as the _Shochet_ does not adhere to Islamic Law and Halal guidelines and does not pronounce the name of God before each slaughter.  Within the meat industry, some companies and distributors attempt to claim or purport Kosher hind quarters to be sold as "Halal" beef.  Within Islam, Kosher slaughtering and handling is respected and industry is responsible to understand the guidelines and differences between Halal slaughter, invoking God's name before each slaughter, and traditional Kosher slaughter rites and not mislead consumers.  

Simply put, Halal and Kosher are similar but yet as different as "vegetarian" and "vegan." However, it is a fact in some situations and circumstances, Kosher consumers accept Halal and some Halal consumers may accept Kosher.   

  ISA offers educational seminars on topics such as:

Halal requirements
The difference between Halal and Kosher
The Halal industry
Ingredient Analysis
*Islamic Slaughter and Supervision*
ISA employs the largest well-trained group of highly qualified Islamic slaughtermen for the meat and poultry industry. Our slaughtermen travel throughout the United States to various U.S.D.A./F.D.A. plants to perform Islamic supervision, inspection, and Halal slaughtering. 

Halal products are derived from animals and/or poultry that have been slaughtered according to Islamic law under the following statement,* “In the name of God – God is the Greatest/Bismillahi Allahu Akbar.” * The animals and/or poultry are slaughtered by means of a sharp knife, cutting through the skin, jugular vein, and trachea to result in thorough bleeding of the carcass in preparation for dressing and evisceration in accordance with Islamic guidelines.  Halal products and production are properly separated and properly identified.   

*Ingredient Analysis of Non-Meat Items*
ISA has a team of food analysts that analyze ingredients to qualify what can be produced and sold to consumers as Halal. Just as with meat and poultry there are ingredients that are Haram and should be avoided. The most common types of ingredients that are most notably Haram are gelatin (excluding fish gelatin), lard and alcohol. 

ISA staff has done extensive work and cooperation within the potato industry, cheese manufacturing, and the ice cream ingredient manufacturing sector.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 9, 2008)

> Dear kds1980 Ji,
> Sure, maybe the two Gurus were hunters, but if your saying that hunting is not so humane, are you saying that the Gurus liked to see the animals suffer to death? I hope thats not what your trying to say.



I am not trying to say that Guru's liked to see animal suffer to death But If we compare cruelity of halal with hunting I don't think we will find much difference.Then the question is why was halal banned and hunting was not?



> If however your saying hunting is infact inhumane, and by comparing that to chickens getting their beeks removed while still concious(halaal), cows getting horns removed while still conscious(halaal), and pigs being burned alive to remove the their hair while still conscious(halaal), ask yourself what would be inhumane. If we are talking about today, how many people actually hunt for their meat?



I don't know whether you live in India or not But I am still saying just see the plight of useless cows and oxen in India and tell whether they should be killed for meat or not.
They are not born or raised for meat But they suffer much more as they become useless for humans

As far cruelities you mentioned they mostly happen in USA or europe.In India their are other types of cruelities  which are related to meat industry or some other industry.

The fact is as long as we use animals for any purpose cruelity is invloved whether it is obtaining meat,milk or castrating them and Forcing them to pull load.But In this way human civilisation is developed.So I don't find any special cruelity involved with only meat industry.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 9, 2008)

The main culprit here is not meat But it is Hi fi life style and over consumption of anything
whether it is Meat,milk,sugar and tasty foods, over Consumption of electricity,Gasoline and list goes on

And solution is simple lifestyle.But instead of this people prefer to target only and only meat


----------



## Harsimran Singh (Nov 9, 2008)

WaheGuru Ji ka Khalsa, WaheGuru Ji Ki Fateh! 

Dear KDS 1980, 
"Then the question is why was halal banned and hunting was not?" - KDS 1980

I am not a hunter, but from my best guess, I think hunting was not banned and halaal was banned on the basis of cruelty. You are right, hunting can be creul, it depends on how you kill the animal. If the Guru ever hunted then I am sure they killed the animal with the "Jhatka" method which we know is not considered creul, and that is why the Gurus did not ban hunting versus Halaal. 

I live in Canada, but I have been to India, and it is very sad to see the animals once they become useless. Now please remember, I am not against eating meat, I am against eating meat slaughtered in creulty. Now your asking, "whether useless animals should be killed for meat or not?". Again, this is where creutly versus Jhakta comes in, if you can know that the meat was not killed in a creul manner and the method of Jhatka was applied, then sure, why not, they can be used as meat, so that is totally up to local people to decide. 

Yes you are right, cruelty occurs not just in the meat industry, but what i am trying to apply is what was considered wrong by Guru Sahib and the basic principles of Sikhism. Again, if you want to continue to eat meat, then go ahead, it is an individual choice, but I do believe it is a big step in fighting all of the other issues. 

WaheGuru Ji Ka Khalsa, WaheGuru Ji Ki Fateh!
Harsimran Singh Khalsa


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 9, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> It does confirm your point about ritualism and ritual slaughter. I was addressing the factual inaccuracy in the cited paragraph by Dr. I. J. Singh. At least to my mind, he seems to be going beyond ritual and making a factually inaccurate generalization about "one semitic practice." The "semitic" practices are not the same. There is no prayer associated with "kosher" slaughter. I know I must sound like a nit-picker but this misunderstanding occurs time and again. Observant Jews are not permitted to eat halal meat anymore than are Sikhs.
> 
> And one *semitic practice* clearly rejected in the Sikh code of conduct is eating flesh of an animal cooked in ritualistic manner; this would mean kosher and halal meat. *The reason again does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to enoble the flesh*. *No ritual, whoever conducts it, is going to do any good either to the animal or to the diner. Let man do what he must to assuage his hunger. If what he gets, he puts to good use and shares with the needy, then it is well used and well spent, otherwise not.*
> Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers.




I see what you mean. One form of ennobling the flesh is not as good as the other . 

I think our Guru's saw the divisive nature of such ritual practice and therefore brushed it aside once and for all. Incredibly far sighted thinking.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 9, 2008)

Harsimran Singh said:


> Again, this is where creutly versus Jhakta comes in, if you can know that the meat was not killed in a creul manner and the method of Jhatka was applied, then sure, why not, they can be used as meat, so that is totally up to local people to decide.


I don't think its possible to do jhatka with a bow and an arrow.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 9, 2008)

Harsimran Singh said:


> WaheGuru Ji ka Khalsa, WaheGuru Ji Ki Fateh!
> 
> I am not a hunter, but from my best guess, I think hunting was not banned and halaal was banned on the basis of cruelty.
> Harsimran Singh Khalsa




Your argument fails because MUslims claim Halal to be humane too?

Halal Food Authority :: Definition of Halal

Our Guru's never got themselves embroiled in this "Humane" killing business, because humane killing in itself is an Oxy{censored}.

The key to understanding the Sikh belief is the abhorrence to ritualism.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 9, 2008)

randip singh said:


> I see what you mean. One form of ennobling the flesh is not as good as the other .
> 
> I think our Guru's saw the divisive nature of such ritual practice and therefore brushed it aside once and for all. Incredibly far sighted thinking.



Randip ji

Yes


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Nov 9, 2008)

The Gurus did not kill in a cruel way.  They did it in the proper way Jhatka, one blow and the animal is dead.:yes:


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 9, 2008)

Singh said:


> The Gurus did not kill in a cruel way.  They did it in the proper way Jhatka, one blow and the animal is dead.:yes:


How does one perform jhatka with a bow and arrows?


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Nov 9, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> How does one perform jhatka with a bow and arrows?


 
With this questions of yours are you questioning Guru ji ability or the bow and arrow, which is shot with Guru ji ability?


----------



## Suntink (Nov 9, 2008)

*The Sikh Religon And Eating Meat*

The Sikh Religon And Eating Meat

Sat Sri Akal, 

In Canada 97% percent of Canadians purchase chicken every weak. I do not think that there are medical facts which prove that meat makes the body overly acidic. The Canadian Food Guide Recommends 3 servings of Meat and Alternative a day for a Male ages 19-50. (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/food-guide-aliment/index-eng.php) and the American My Pyramid Food Guide suggests that for a 2000 calorie diet 5 ½ ounces of meat and alternatives everyday. The Canadain Food Guide also recommends that you should have atleast 2 servings of fish a week. In terms of meditation some of the best Tai Chi and Yoga instructors in the world eat meat every day. In terms of morally, killing an animal for eating purposes in a non-cruel way to eat is completely justifiable in my view. The real Sikh belief is that we do not accept eating Halaal meat as the animals are tortured before they are killed. 

What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?
ਗੈਂਡਾਮਾਰਿਹੋਮਜਗਕੀਏਦੇਵਤਿਆਕੀਬਾਣੇ॥
गैंडामारिहोमजगकीएदेवतिआकीबाणे॥
Gaiŉdā mār hom jag kī▫e ḏeviṯi▫ā kī bāṇe.
It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering.

ਮਾਸੁਛੋਡਿਬੈਸਿਨਕੁਪਕੜਹਿਰਾਤੀਮਾਣਸਖਾਣੇ॥
मासुछोडिबैसिनकुपकड़हिरातीमाणसखाणे॥
Mās cẖẖod bais nak pakṛėh rāṯī māṇas kẖāṇe.
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.

ਫੜੁਕਰਿਲੋਕਾਂਨੋਦਿਖਲਾਵਹਿਗਿਆਨੁਧਿਆਨੁਨਹੀਸੂਝੈ॥
फड़ुकरिलोकांनोदिखलावहिगिआनुधिआनुनहीसूझै॥
Faṛ kar lokāŉ no ḏikẖlāvahi gi▫ān ḏẖi▫ān nahī sūjẖai.
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. Guru Nanak Dev Ji

“
ਬਹੁਦੁਖੁਪਾਇਆਦੂਜਾਭਾਇਆ॥
बहुदुखुपाइआदूजाभाइआ॥
Baho ḏukẖ pā▫i▫ā ḏūjā bẖā▫i▫ā.duality. “
First Mehl:
ਲਿਖਿਲਿਖਿਪੜਿਆ॥
लिखिलिखिपड़िआ॥
Likẖ likẖ paṛi▫ā.
The more one write and reads,

ਤੇਤਾਕੜਿਆ॥
तेताकड़िआ॥
Ŧeṯā kaṛi▫ā.
the more one burns.

ਬਹੁਤੀਰਥਭਵਿਆ॥
बहुतीरथभविआ॥
Baho ṯirath bẖavi▫ā.
The more one wanders at sacred shrines of pilgrimage,

ਤੇਤੋਲਵਿਆ॥
तेतोलविआ॥
Ŧeṯo lavi▫ā.
the more one talks uselessly.

ਬਹੁਭੇਖਕੀਆਦੇਹੀਦੁਖੁਦੀਆ॥
बहुभेखकीआदेहीदुखुदीआ॥
Baho bẖekẖ kī▫ā ḏehī ḏukẖḏī▫ā.
The more one wears religious robes, the more pain he causes his body.

ਸਹੁਵੇਜੀਆਅਪਣਾਕੀਆ॥
सहुवेजीआअपणाकीआ॥
Saho ve jī▫ā apṇā kī▫ā.
O my soul, you must endure the consequences of your own actions.

*ਅੰਨੁਨਖਾਇਆਸਾਦੁਗਵਾਇਆ॥*
*अंनुनखाइआसादुगवाइआ॥*
*Ann na kẖā▫i▫ā sāḏ gavā▫i▫ā.*
*One who does not eat the corn, misses out on the taste.*

ਬਹੁਦੁਖੁਪਾਇਆਦੂਜਾਭਾਇਆ॥
बहुदुखुपाइआदूजाभाइआ॥
Baho ḏukẖ pā▫i▫ā ḏūjā bẖā▫i▫ā.
One obtains great pain, in the love of duality.

ਬਸਤ੍ਰਨਪਹਿਰੈ॥
बसत्रनपहिरै॥
Basṯar na pahirai.
One who does not wear any clothes,

ਅਹਿਨਿਸਿਕਹਰੈ॥
अहिनिसिकहरै॥
Ahinis kahrai.
suffers night and day.

ਮੋਨਿਵਿਗੂਤਾ॥
मोनिविगूता॥
Mon vigūṯā.
Through silence, he is ruined.

ਕਿਉਜਾਗੈਗੁਰਬਿਨੁਸੂਤਾ॥
किउजागैगुरबिनुसूता॥
Ki▫o jāgai gur bin sūṯā.
How can the sleeping one be awakened without the Guru?

ਪਗਉਪੇਤਾਣਾ॥
पगउपेताणा॥
Pag upeṯāṇā.
One who goes barefoot

ਅਪਣਾਕੀਆਕਮਾਣਾ॥
अपणाकीआकमाणा॥
Apṇā kī▫ā kamāṇā.
suffers by his own actions.

ਅਲੁਮਲੁਖਾਈਸਿਰਿਛਾਈਪਾਈ॥
अलुमलुखाईसिरिछाईपाई॥
Al mal kẖā▫ī sir cẖẖā▫ī pā▫ī.
One who eats filth and throws ashes on his head -

ਮੂਰਖਿਅੰਧੈਪਤਿਗਵਾਈ॥
मूरखिअंधैपतिगवाई॥
Mūrakẖ anḏẖai paṯ gavā▫ī.
the blind fool loses his honor.

ਵਿਣੁਨਾਵੈਕਿਛੁਥਾਇਨਪਾਈ॥
विणुनावैकिछुथाइनपाई॥
viṇ nāvai kicẖẖ thā▫e na pā▫ī.
Without the Name, nothing is of any use.

ਰਹੈਬੇਬਾਣੀਮੜੀਮਸਾਣੀ॥
रहैबेबाणीमड़ीमसाणी॥
Rahai bebāṇī maṛī masāṇī.
One who lives in the wilderness, in cemetaries and cremation grounds -

ਅੰਧੁਨਜਾਣੈਫਿਰਿਪਛੁਤਾਣੀ॥
अंधुनजाणैफिरिपछुताणी॥
Anḏẖ na jāṇai fir pacẖẖuṯāṇī.
that blind man does not know the Lord; he regrets and repents in the end.” 
Page 467, Guru Nanak Dev Ji

So there is another aspect in Sikhism as well, “One who does not eat the corn, misses out on the taste.” (page 467). If we do not take the opportunity to be healthy then we miss out. For example meat has the protein our bodies needs and fish has the omega oils and many minerals which our bodies need to be healthy as well. I remember a lecture by Yogi Bhajan where he claimed with no medical facts that fish drains the water from our body. For a short while I listened to him on that point and when my Mother would spend so much time and put so much love into making a meal with fish I would not want to take much of it. Now I am much more sensible and I strongly feel that the Gurus wanted us to be practical people. My opinion is look “God wouldn’t give out bad karmas to someone who eats meat, instead to the caring, loving mother who cooks a good meal with meat which is often much harder to prepare he would reward her in whatever way he could.”


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 9, 2008)

Singh said:


> With this questions of yours are you questioning Guru ji ability or the bow and arrow, which is shot with Guru ji ability?


No, I am asking, "How does one perform jhatka with a bow and arrows?"


----------



## Harsimran Singh (Nov 10, 2008)

WaheGuru Ji Ka Khalsa, WaheGuru Ji Ki Fateh! 

_"No, I am asking, "How does one perform jhatka with a bow and arrows?"_ - Bhagat Singh 

*As far as I know,  Guru Ji also kept swords(shastar vidya), by which Jhatka can be easily applied. *

WaheGuru Ji Ka Khalsa, WaheGuru Ji Ki Fateh!
Harsimran Singh Khalsa


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 10, 2008)

Harsimran Singh said:


> WaheGuru Ji Ka Khalsa, WaheGuru Ji Ki Fateh!
> 
> _"No, I am asking, "How does one perform jhatka with a bow and arrows?"_ - Bhagat Singh
> 
> ...



But how do you do Jkatka on an animal running away with an arrow?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 10, 2008)

*Re: The Sikh Religon And Eating Meat*

Sikh religion and meating eating eh? hmm... 
*evil music - dun dun dun*

Meat is bad, vegetables are bad because we are killing living things! SO we must survive by eating AIR! :yes:
NOW THAT is the Sikh way of life.

NO WAIT... by eating air we kill stuff... NOOOOOO...

we must survive by eating nothing and holding our breath!!
NOW *THAT* is the SIKH way of life. :happy:

wait a second.... wait just a darn second here... by doing that we kill *ourselves*! NOOOO....
NOW *THAT* is the SIKH way of life! or should I say death...

*evil music - dun dun dun climax point*
no comments!! NO QUESTIONS!! :}--}:
NOW *THAT* is the *REAL* Sikh way of life!  Case closed.

*evil music stops - dun dun dun*

Brought to you by the Sikh Way of Life deciders. Our motto: we make rules you FOLLOW THEM!!:yes:


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Nov 10, 2008)

randip singh said:


> But how do you do Jkatka on an animal running away with an arrow?


 
The Gurus, if they killed an animal with an arrow then it was done the jhatka way, there is no doubt here. To answer yours and BhagatSingh question how its done in general sense, well ask someone who as done it, go to a hunting site do some research; thats what i recommend. The way the Gurus did it is with there ability to shot an arrow.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 10, 2008)

singh said:


> the gurus, if they killed an animal with an arrow then it was done the jhatka way, there is no doubt here. To answer yours and bhagatsingh question how its done in general sense, well ask someone who as done it, go to a hunting site do some research; thats what i recommend. The way the gurus did it is with there ability to shot an arrow.


hahaha :happy:

you cracked me up!


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Nov 11, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> hahaha :happy:
> 
> you cracked me up!


 
Whats so funny about my post????


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 11, 2008)

> Dear KDS 1980,
> "Then the question is why was halal banned and hunting was not?" - KDS 1980
> 
> I am not a hunter, but from my best guess, I think hunting was not banned and halaal was banned on the basis of cruelty. You are right, hunting can be creul, it depends on how you kill the animal. If the Guru ever hunted then I am sure they killed the animal with the "Jhatka" method which we know is not considered creul, and that is why the Gurus did not ban hunting versus Halaal.



My mother's family live in Assam and Hunting was quite reguler in their house.I too in my teens shot some birds and read plenty about hunting.Hunting cannot be compared to jhatka from any  point It involves cruelity even without any intention

Also What about Fish.Taking her out of water and killing it is also not humane.In terms of cruelity Killing fish or Hunting is worse than halal .Then why these things are not banned?

In mY views there several Things that could be behind this ban of halal

1) It is sacrifice

2) It is intentionally Giving animal suffering in the name of god

3)Muslims were forcing each and everybody to consume halal meat


----------



## ekonkar89 (Nov 11, 2008)

Just earlier I've read some interesting information posted by Singh Ji, why is it not visible to viewers anymore?. 

Other than that, there were also other replies, which are not visible anymore?
- Why have these posts been deleted?


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 11, 2008)

ekonkar89 said:


> Just earlier I've read some interesting information posted by Singh Ji, why is it not visible to viewers anymore?.
> 
> Other than that, there were also other replies, which are not visible anymore?
> - Why have these posts been deleted?



All off topic posts, including my replies have been deleted.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 11, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> Randip ji
> 
> Yes



Too bad we Punjabi's are not that far sighted!


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: The Sikh Religon And Eating Meat*



Suntink said:


> My opinion is look “God wouldn’t give out bad karmas to someone who eats meat, instead to the caring, loving mother who cooks a good meal with meat which is often much harder to prepare he would reward her in whatever way he could.”


 
I love the way you have put that!


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: The Sikh Religon And Eating Meat*



BhagatSingh said:


> Sikh religion and meating eating eh? hmm...
> *evil music - dun dun dun*
> 
> Meat is bad, vegetables are bad because we are killing living things! SO we must survive by eating AIR! :yes:
> ...


 
Hahah!


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 13, 2008)

Singh said:


> Whats so funny about my post????


lol, here's why...


> the gurus, if they killed an animal with an arrow then it was done the jhatka way, there is no doubt here.


Jhatka is decapitating the animal in one swift blow. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do jhatka with an arrow!! An arrow usually bleeds the animal to death.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: The Sikh Religon And Eating Meat*



randip singh said:


> Hahah!


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Nov 13, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> lol, here's why...
> 
> Jhatka is decapitating the animal in one swift blow. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do jhatka with an arrow!! An arrow usually bleeds the animal to death.


 
Here's the part you didnt get Bhagatsingh. Guru ji is the shooter of the arrow. :yes:


----------



## Sinister (Nov 13, 2008)

Singh said:


> Here's the part you didnt get Bhagatsingh. Guru ji is the shooter of the arrow. :yes:


 

In translation; "you dont need logic and reason when the 'paramatma' is on your side".

c h e e r s


----------



## pk70 (Nov 13, 2008)

Sinister said:


> In translation; "you dont need logic and reason when the 'paramatma' is on your side".
> 
> c h e e r s




*Sinister ji, with all due respect to your rationality, you haven’t understood Mr. Singh Ji’s statement, a little hint I can give here to understand him, it is about Guru’s having extreme accuracy in archery, that kind of accuracy even today is also witnessed. Hitting on some parts of the body, death occurs instantly. If still you want to drag it, enjoy*


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 13, 2008)

Sinister said:


> In translation; "you dont need logic and reason when the 'paramatma' is on your side".
> 
> c h e e r s


*sigh*


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 13, 2008)

pk70 said:


> *Sinister ji, with all due respect to your rationality, you haven’t understood Mr. Singh Ji’s statement, a little hint I can give here to understand him, it is about Guru’s having extreme accuracy in archery, that kind of accuracy even today is also witnessed. Hitting on some parts of the body, death occurs instantly. If still you want to drag it, enjoy*


On what parts exactly? Maybe we can tell our muslim brothers to shove the knife in that part and kill the animal outright...


----------



## pk70 (Nov 13, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> On what parts exactly? Maybe we can tell our muslim brothers to shove the knife in that part and kill the animal outright...




*Muslim brothers are the last ones to listen to us*


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 13, 2008)

pk70 said:


> *Muslim brothers are the last ones to listen to us*


So what parts?  I am waiting...


----------



## pk70 (Nov 14, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> So what parts?  I am waiting...


 *A well-placed shot, by an expert, from a good bow firing a good broad- head will kill a deer just as quickly as a modern rifle bullet. “ By a professional Hunter:yes:*

*Hunting also was used as Military exercise and Royal sport in the past.*
* If our ancestors didn’t hunt, we wouldn’t be here. *
*How long” Fools will wrangle over meat without the true divine knowledge”, is it self amusing*


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 14, 2008)

pk70 said:


> *Sinister ji, with all due respect to your rationality, you haven’t understood Mr. Singh Ji’s statement, a little hint I can give here to understand him, it is about Guru’s having extreme accuracy in archery, that kind of accuracy even today is also witnessed. Hitting on some parts of the body, death occurs instantly. If still you want to drag it, enjoy*



I think Sinister is being Sarcastic!


----------



## Sinister (Nov 14, 2008)

pk70 said:


> *Sinister ji, with all due respect to your rationality, you haven’t understood Mr. Singh Ji’s statement, a little hint I can give here to understand him, it is about Guru’s having extreme accuracy in archery, that kind of accuracy even today is also witnessed. Hitting on some parts of the body, death occurs instantly. If still you want to drag it, enjoy*


 

Bruddah please, why u be trippin?

Dem hunting skillz dun come cheap…u needs dem bling bling 9mm arrows…pop pop…bustin sum deer in the face is like shootin dice dawg...you murk a deer in da wrong and u know u got fount
Datz how clicks roll in da day brethren…dem all be shinin up horses instead of dem Caddies ridin on 22’s. 

n Like fity said;
"shoot or get shot...
Its hard to live, but its easy to die
So I'm goin through life lookin death in the eye" 

pho shizzle my nizzle 

S h a . M o n e y


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 14, 2008)

The official language of the forum is English. Is that correct?


----------



## pk70 (Nov 14, 2008)

Sinister said:


> Bruddah please, why u be trippin?
> 
> Dem hunting skillz dun come cheap…u needs dem bling bling 9mm arrows…pop pop…bustin sum deer in the face is like shootin dice dawg...you murk a deer in da wrong and u know u got fount
> Datz how clicks roll in da day brethren…dem all be shinin up horses instead of dem Caddies ridin on 22’s.
> ...



*I knew you would, you will go to Sha- Money, that I never thought about in my dreams.*:ice:


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 15, 2008)

Sinister said:


> Bruddah please, why u be trippin?
> 
> Dem hunting skillz dun come cheap…u needs dem bling bling 9mm arrows…pop pop…bustin sum deer in the face is like shootin dice dawg...you murk a deer in da wrong and u know u got fount
> Datz how clicks roll in da day brethren…dem all be shinin up horses instead of dem Caddies ridin on 22’s.
> ...



:happy: answer of the year nomination.


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Nov 21, 2008)

Here's Katha by Giani Thakur Singh ji on this topic :happy:

http://www.gurmatveechar.org/audio/katha/0...hya.Part.25.mp3


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 22, 2008)

Singh said:


> Here's Katha by Giani Thakur Singh ji on this topic :happy:
> 
> http://www.gurmatveechar.org/audio/katha/0...hya.Part.25.mp3



I think this essay may have been based on errors in his Katha!


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Nov 22, 2008)

randip singh said:


> I think this essay may have been based on errors in his Katha!


 
Well you thought wrong. Giani Thakur Singh ji katha is right on this issue.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 22, 2008)

Singh said:


> Well you thought wrong. Giani Thakur Singh ji katha is right on this issue.



That's your opinion!

You really expect a site that supports the DDT to be unbiased? Why not just say that a Namdharia or Radhaswami site is correct? Even better a Vaishnav site?

Please stay on topic or like previous posts they will be deleted.


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Nov 22, 2008)

randip singh said:


> That's your opinion!
> 
> You really expect a site that supports the DDT to be unbiased? Why not just say that a Namdharia or Radhaswami site is correct? Even better a Vaishnav site?
> 
> Please stay on topic or like previous posts they will be deleted.


 
its on topic, if anything your going off topic with this post of yours.

Sant Baba Jarnail Singh ji was from Dam Dam Taksal.  What do you say about him??????

So you say Sant Baba Jarnail Singh ji and Radhaswami are the same?????


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 23, 2008)

Singh said:


> its on topic, if anything your going off topic with this post of yours.
> 
> Sant Baba Jarnail Singh ji was from Dam Dam Taksal.  What do you say about him??????
> 
> So you say Sant Baba Jarnail Singh ji and Radhaswami are the same?????



No by posting that propaganda you are going off topic. It has been allowed for now but please stay on topic. Its my duty to point out what is posted from Sikh sects and what is not.

Jarnail Singh ji belonged to a sect. I agreed with him on many points, but on some issues in Sikhism I did not. For example he sat and ate langaar with Nihungs at Darbar Sahib even though they disagreed on many aspects of Sikhism.

For example the Rehat Maryada of the DDT states that you should not harm a black cow? How is that reconciled with Sikhism. 

DDT, Namdhari, Radhaswmi are all sects.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 23, 2008)

lol at "Guru Gobind singh ji gave jhatka to this army not to a civil person."


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Nov 23, 2008)

randip singh said:


> No by posting that propaganda you are going off topic. It has been allowed for now but please stay on topic. Its my duty to point out what is posted from Sikh sects and what is not.
> 
> Jarnail Singh ji belonged to a sect. I agreed with him on many points, but on some issues in Sikhism I did not. For example he sat and ate langaar with Nihungs at Darbar Sahib even though they disagreed on many aspects of Sikhism.
> 
> ...


 
I looked through Dam Dami Taksals Rehat and I couldn't find anything that says we shouldn't harm a black cow.

So point this out for us Randip Singh, it would be much appreciated.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 23, 2008)

Singh said:


> I looked through Dam Dami Taksals Rehat and I couldn't find anything that says we shouldn't harm a black cow.
> 
> So point this out for us Randip Singh, it would be much appreciated.



It looks like they have updated their rehat

Earlier killing a black cow was written as sin but now it is not

In the 4 kurhits

Halaal was written

Now all meat is a cardinal sin

To prove their point they are intentionally misinterpretting gurbani and putting their own
words in it

"If blood has stained your clothing you say your clothes have become impure.
How can the mind of those who eat meat, drink blood and suck bones become pure?" (SGGSJ Ang 140)

Damdami Taksaal Online Website - Rehat Maryada

while the original quote is
If one's clothes are stained with blood, the garment becomes polluted.

ਜੋ  ਰਤੁ  ਪੀਵਹਿ  ਮਾਣਸਾ  ਤਿਨ  ਕਿਉ  ਨਿਰਮਲੁ  ਚੀਤੁ  ॥
जो रतु पीवहि माणसा तिन किउ निरमलु चीतु ॥
Jo raṯ pīvėh māṇsā ṯin ki▫o nirmal cẖīṯ.
Those who suck the blood of human beings-how can their consciousness be pure?

ਨਾਨਕ  ਨਾਉ  ਖੁਦਾਇ  ਕਾ  ਦਿਲਿ  ਹਛੈ  ਮੁਖਿ  ਲੇਹੁ  ॥
नानक नाउ खुदाइ का दिलि हछै मुखि लेहु ॥
Nānak nā▫o kẖuḏā▫e kā ḏil hacẖẖai mukẖ leho.
O Nanak, chant the Name of God, with heart-felt devotion.

ਅਵਰਿ  ਦਿਵਾਜੇ  ਦੁਨੀ  ਕੇ  ਝੂਠੇ  ਅਮਲ  ਕਰੇਹੁ  ॥੧॥
अवरि दिवाजे दुनी के झूठे अमल करेहु ॥१॥
Avar ḏivāje ḏunī ke jẖūṯẖe amal karehu. ||1||
Everything else is just a pompous worldly show, and the practice of false deeds. ||1||

I still remember that couple of years back I have debate with taksali singh on sikhsangat and he himself admitted that it could be a mistake.But Not It is clear that they are intentionally misusing gurbani to prove their point

Btw I don't agree with Randip singh's point that taksali's are like radhaswami's because we should put all those sects in one bracket who beleive Guru granth sahib as its guru while others should put in another bracket

But still In My eyes taksal is just an another sect with its own agenda


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 23, 2008)

Btw here is quote from old rehat

*The Voice of Sikh Youth > Rehat

1. Tobacco users
People who smoke or use any form of tobacco (or drugs) are not to be associated with.

2. Female Infanticide
Those who kill their daughters at birth:

bRhmx kYlI Gwqu kM\kw AxcwrI kw Dwnu ]
iPtk iPtkw koVu bdIAw sdw sdw ABmwnu ]
“The following are all major sins:
a) Killing a Brahmgyani,
b) Killing a black cow
c) Killing or selling your daughter, 
d) Eating from a person who has no moral discipline. Anyone who commits any of these has committed thousands of sins and this egotistical individual will be reprimanded thousands of times."
(SGGSJ Ang 1413)*


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 23, 2008)

Singh said:


> I looked through Dam Dami Taksals Rehat and I couldn't find anything that says we shouldn't harm a black cow.
> 
> So point this out for us Randip Singh, it would be much appreciated.



Here:

Damdami Taksaal Online Website - Rehat Maryada

and on top of that they have MIS-translated Bani and misunderstood it. They have tried  to twist Bani by saying:

Killing a Brahmgyani, killing a cow46, killing or selling your daughter,
And eating from a person who has no moral discipline.
Anyone who commits any of these sins has committed thousands of sins,
This egotistical individual will be reprimanded thousands of times."
(SGGSJ Ang 1413)

Here is what Bani actually says:

ਸਲੋਕ  ਮਹਲਾ  ੩ 
 सलोक महला ३ 
 Salok mėhlā 3 
 Shalok, Third Mehl: 

 ੴ  ਸਤਿਗੁਰ  ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ  ॥ 
 ੴ सतिगुर प्रसादि ॥ 
 Ik▫oaŉkār saṯgur parsāḏ. 
 One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru: 

 ਅਭਿਆਗਤ  ਏਹ  ਨ  ਆਖੀਅਹਿ  ਜਿਨ  ਕੈ  ਮਨ  ਮਹਿ  ਭਰਮੁ  ॥ 
 अभिआगत एह न आखीअहि जिन कै मन महि भरमु ॥ 
 Abẖi▫āgaṯ eh na ākẖī▫ahi jin kai man mėh bẖaram. 
 Do not call the wandering beggars holy men, if their minds are filled with doubt. 

 ਤਿਨ  ਕੇ  ਦਿਤੇ  ਨਾਨਕਾ  ਤੇਹੋ  ਜੇਹਾ  ਧਰਮੁ  ॥੧॥ 
 तिन के दिते नानका तेहो जेहा धरमु ॥१॥ 
 Ŧin ke ḏiṯe nānkā ṯeho jehā ḏẖaram. ||1|| 
 Whoever gives to them, O Nanak, earns the same sort of merit. ||1|| 

 ਅਭੈ  ਨਿਰੰਜਨ  ਪਰਮ  ਪਦੁ  ਤਾ  ਕਾ  ਭੀਖਕੁ  ਹੋਇ  ॥ 
 अभै निरंजन परम पदु ता का भीखकु होइ ॥ 
 Abẖai niranjan param paḏ ṯā kā bẖīkẖak ho▫e. 
 One who begs for the supreme status of the Fearless and Immaculate Lord - 

 ਤਿਸ  ਕਾ  ਭੋਜਨੁ  ਨਾਨਕਾ  ਵਿਰਲਾ  ਪਾਏ  ਕੋਇ  ॥੨॥ 
 तिस का भोजनु नानका विरला पाए कोइ ॥२॥ 
 Ŧis kā bẖojan nānkā virlā pā▫e ko▫e. ||2|| 
 how rare are those who have the opportunity, O Nanak, to give food to such a person. ||2|| 

 ਹੋਵਾ  ਪੰਡਿਤੁ  ਜੋਤਕੀ  ਵੇਦ  ਪੜਾ  ਮੁਖਿ  ਚਾਰਿ  ॥ 
 होवा पंडितु जोतकी वेद पड़ा मुखि चारि ॥ 
 Hovā pandiṯ joṯkī veḏ paṛā mukẖ cẖār. 
 If I were a religious scholar, an astrologer, or one who could recite the four Vedas, 

 ਨਵਾ  ਖੰਡਾ  ਵਿਚਿ  ਜਾਣੀਆ  ਅਪਨੇ  ਚਜ  ਵੀਚਾਰ  ॥੩॥ 
 नवा खंडा विचि जाणीआ अपने चज वीचार ॥३॥ 
 Navā kẖanda vicẖ jāṇī▫ā apne cẖaj vīcẖār. ||3|| 
 I could be famous throughout the nine regions of the earth, for my wisdom and thoughtful contemplation. ||3|| 

 *ਬ੍ਰਹਮਣ  ਕੈਲੀ  ਘਾਤੁ  ਕੰਞਕਾ  ਅਣਚਾਰੀ  ਕਾ  ਧਾਨੁ  ॥
ब्रहमण कैली घातु कंञका अणचारी का धानु ॥
Barahmaṇ kailī gẖāṯ kañkā aṇcẖārī kā ḏẖān.
If a Brahmin kills a cow or a female infant, and accepts the offerings of an evil person,

* *ਫਿਟਕ  ਫਿਟਕਾ  ਕੋੜੁ  ਬਦੀਆ  ਸਦਾ  ਸਦਾ  ਅਭਿਮਾਨੁ  ॥
फिटक फिटका कोड़ु बदीआ सदा सदा अभिमानु ॥
Fitak fitkā koṛ baḏī▫ā saḏā saḏā abẖimān.
he is cursed with the leprosy of curses and criticism; he is forever and ever filled with egotistical pride.

* ਪਾਹਿ  ਏਤੇ  ਜਾਹਿ  ਵੀਸਰਿ  ਨਾਨਕਾ  ਇਕੁ  ਨਾਮੁ  ॥ 
 पाहि एते जाहि वीसरि नानका इकु नामु ॥ 
 Pāhi eṯe jāhi vīsar nānkā ik nām. 
 One who forgets the Naam, O Nanak, is covered by countless sins. 

 ਸਭ  ਬੁਧੀ  ਜਾਲੀਅਹਿ  ਇਕੁ  ਰਹੈ  ਤਤੁ  ਗਿਆਨੁ  ॥੪॥ 
 सभ बुधी जालीअहि इकु रहै ततु गिआनु ॥४॥ 
 Sabẖ buḏẖī jālī▫ah ik rahai ṯaṯ gi▫ān. ||4|| 
 Let all wisdom be burnt away, except for the essence of spiritual wisdom. ||4|| 

 ਮਾਥੈ  ਜੋ  ਧੁਰਿ  ਲਿਖਿਆ  ਸੁ  ਮੇਟਿ  ਨ  ਸਕੈ  ਕੋਇ  ॥ 
 माथै जो धुरि लिखिआ सु मेटि न सकै कोइ ॥ 
 Māthai jo ḏẖur likẖi▫ā so met na sakai ko▫e. 
 No one can erase that primal destiny written upon one's forehead. 

 ਨਾਨਕ  ਜੋ  ਲਿਖਿਆ  ਸੋ  ਵਰਤਦਾ  ਸੋ  ਬੂਝੈ  ਜਿਸ  ਨੋ  ਨਦਰਿ  ਹੋਇ  ॥੫॥ 
 नानक जो लिखिआ सो वरतदा सो बूझै जिस नो नदरि होइ ॥५॥ 
 Nānak jo likẖi▫ā so varaṯḏā so būjẖai jis no naḏar ho▫e. ||5|| 
 O Nanak, whatever is written there, comes to pass. He alone understands, who is blessed by God's Grace. ||5|| 

 ਜਿਨੀ  ਨਾਮੁ  ਵਿਸਾਰਿਆ  ਕੂੜੈ  ਲਾਲਚਿ  ਲਗਿ  ॥ 
 जिनी नामु विसारिआ कूड़ै लालचि लगि ॥ 
 Jinī nām visāri▫ā kūrhai lālacẖ lag. 
 Those who forget the Naam, the Name of the Lord, and become attached to greed and fraud, 

 ਧੰਧਾ  ਮਾਇਆ  ਮੋਹਣੀ  ਅੰਤਰਿ  ਤਿਸਨਾ  ਅਗਿ  ॥ 
 धंधा माइआ मोहणी अंतरि तिसना अगि ॥ 
 Ḏẖanḏẖā mā▫i▫ā mohṇī anṯar ṯisnā ag. 
 are engrossed in the entanglements of Maya the enticer, with the fire of desire within them. 

 ਜਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ  ਵੇਲਿ  ਨ  ਤੂੰਬੜੀ  ਮਾਇਆ  ਠਗੇ  ਠਗਿ  ॥ 
 जिन्हा वेलि न तू्मबड़ी माइआ ठगे ठगि ॥ 
 Jinĥā vel na ṯūmbṛī mā▫i▫ā ṯẖage ṯẖag. 
 Those who, like the pumpkin vine, are too stubborn climb the trellis, are cheated by Maya the cheater. 

 ਮਨਮੁਖ  ਬੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਿ  ਚਲਾਈਅਹਿ  ਨਾ  ਮਿਲਹੀ  ਵਗਿ  ਸਗਿ  ॥ 
 मनमुख बंन्हि चलाईअहि ना मिलही वगि सगि ॥ 
 Manmukẖ banėh cẖalā▫ī▫ah nā milhī vag sag. 
 The self-willed manmukhs are bound and gagged and led away; the dogs do not join the herd of cows. 

 ਆਪਿ  ਭੁਲਾਏ  ਭੁਲੀਐ  ਆਪੇ  ਮੇਲਿ  ਮਿਲਾਇ  ॥ 
 आपि भुलाए भुलीऐ आपे मेलि मिलाइ ॥ 
 Āp bẖulā▫e bẖulī▫ai āpe mel milā▫e. 
 The Lord Himself misleads the misguided ones, and He Himself unites them in His Union. 

 ਨਾਨਕ  ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ  ਛੁਟੀਐ  ਜੇ  ਚਲੈ  ਸਤਿਗੁਰ  ਭਾਇ  ॥੬॥ 
 नानक गुरमुखि छुटीऐ जे चलै सतिगुर भाइ ॥६॥ 
 Nānak gurmukẖ cẖẖutī▫ai je cẖalai saṯgur bẖā▫e. ||6|| 
 O Nanak, the Gurmukhs are saved; they walk in harmony with the Will of the True Guru. ||6|| 

 ਸਾਲਾਹੀ  ਸਾਲਾਹਣਾ  ਭੀ  ਸਚਾ  ਸਾਲਾਹਿ  ॥ 
 सालाही सालाहणा भी सचा सालाहि ॥ 
 Sālāhī salāhṇā bẖī sacẖā sālāhi. 
 I praise the Praiseworthy Lord, and sing the Praises of the True Lord. 

 ਨਾਨਕ  ਸਚਾ  ਏਕੁ  ਦਰੁ  ਬੀਭਾ  ਪਰਹਰਿ  ਆਹਿ  ॥੭॥ 
 नानक सचा एकु दरु बीभा परहरि आहि ॥७॥ 
 Nānak sacẖā ek ḏar bībẖā parhar āhi. ||7|| 
 O Nanak, the One Lord alone is True; stay away from all other doors. ||7|| 

 ਨਾਨਕ  ਜਹ  ਜਹ  ਮੈ  ਫਿਰਉ  ਤਹ  ਤਹ  ਸਾਚਾ  ਸੋਇ  ॥ 
 नानक जह जह मै फिरउ तह तह साचा सोइ ॥ 
 Nānak jah jah mai fira▫o ṯah ṯah sācẖā so▫e. 
 O Nanak, wherever I go, I find the True Lord. 

 ਜਹ  ਦੇਖਾ  ਤਹ  ਏਕੁ  ਹੈ  ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ  ਪਰਗਟੁ  ਹੋਇ  ॥੮॥ 
 जह देखा तह एकु है गुरमुखि परगटु होइ ॥८॥ 
 Jah ḏekẖā ṯah ek hai gurmukẖ pargat ho▫e. ||8|| 
 Wherever I look, I see the One Lord. He reveals Himself to the Gurmukh. ||8|| 

 ਦੂਖ  ਵਿਸਾਰਣੁ  ਸਬਦੁ  ਹੈ  ਜੇ  ਮੰਨਿ  ਵਸਾਏ  ਕੋਇ  ॥ 
 दूख विसारणु सबदु है जे मंनि वसाए कोइ ॥ 
 Ḏūkẖ visāraṇ sabaḏ hai je man vasā▫e ko▫e. 
 The Word of the Shabad is the Dispeller of sorrow, if one enshrines it in the mind. 

 ਗੁਰ  ਕਿਰਪਾ  ਤੇ  ਮਨਿ  ਵਸੈ  ਕਰਮ  ਪਰਾਪਤਿ  ਹੋਇ  ॥੯॥ 
 गुर किरपा ते मनि वसै करम परापति होइ ॥९॥ 
 Gur kirpā ṯe man vasai karam parāpaṯ ho▫e. ||9|| 
 By Guru's Grace, it dwells in the mind; by God's Mercy, it is obtained. ||9|| 

 ਨਾਨਕ  ਹਉ  ਹਉ  ਕਰਤੇ  ਖਪਿ  ਮੁਏ  ਖੂਹਣਿ  ਲਖ  ਅਸੰਖ  ॥ 
 नानक हउ हउ करते खपि मुए खूहणि लख असंख ॥ 
 Nānak ha▫o ha▫o karṯe kẖap mu▫e kẖūhaṇ lakẖ asaŉkẖ. 
 O Nanak, acting in egotism, countless thousands have wasted away to death. 

 ਸਤਿਗੁਰ  ਮਿਲੇ  ਸੁ  ਉਬਰੇ  ਸਾਚੈ  ਸਬਦਿ  ਅਲੰਖ  ॥੧੦॥ 
 सतिगुर मिले सु उबरे साचै सबदि अलंख ॥१०॥ 
 Saṯgur mile so ubre sācẖai sabaḏ alankẖ. ||10|| 
 Those who meet with the True Guru are saved, through the Shabad, the True Word of the Inscrutable Lord. ||10|| 

 ਜਿਨਾ  ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ  ਇਕ  ਮਨਿ  ਸੇਵਿਆ  ਤਿਨ  ਜਨ  ਲਾਗਉ  ਪਾਇ  ॥ 
 जिना सतिगुरु इक मनि सेविआ तिन जन लागउ पाइ ॥ 
 Jinā saṯgur ik man sevi▫ā ṯin jan lāga▫o pā▫e. 
 Those who serve the True Guru single-mindedly - I fall at the feet of those humble beings. 

 ਗੁਰ  ਸਬਦੀ  ਹਰਿ  ਮਨਿ  ਵਸੈ  ਮਾਇਆ  ਕੀ  ਭੁਖ  ਜਾਇ  ॥ 
 गुर सबदी हरि मनि वसै माइआ की भुख जाइ ॥ 
 Gur sabḏī har man vasai mā▫i▫ā kī bẖukẖ jā▫e. 
 Through the Word of the Guru's Shabad, the Lord abides in the mind, and the hunger for Maya departs. 

 ਸੇ  ਜਨ  ਨਿਰਮਲ  ਊਜਲੇ  ਜਿ  ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ  ਨਾਮਿ  ਸਮਾਇ  ॥ 
 से जन निरमल ऊजले जि गुरमुखि नामि समाइ ॥ 
 Se jan nirmal ūjle jė gurmukẖ nām samā▫e. 
 Immaculate and pure are those humble beings, who, as Gurmukh, merge in the Naam. 

 ਨਾਨਕ  ਹੋਰਿ  ਪਤਿਸਾਹੀਆ  ਕੂੜੀਆ  ਨਾਮਿ  ਰਤੇ  ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹ  ॥੧੧॥ 
 नानक होरि पतिसाहीआ कूड़ीआ नामि रते पातिसाह ॥११॥ 
 Nānak hor paṯisāhī▫ā kūṛī▫ā nām raṯe pāṯisāh. ||11|| 
 O Nanak, other empires are false; they alone are true emperors, who are imbued with the Naam. ||11|| 

 ਜਿਉ  ਪੁਰਖੈ  ਘਰਿ  ਭਗਤੀ  ਨਾਰਿ  ਹੈ  ਅਤਿ  ਲੋਚੈ  ਭਗਤੀ  ਭਾਇ  ॥ 
 जिउ पुरखै घरि भगती नारि है अति लोचै भगती भाइ ॥ 
 Ji▫o purkẖai gẖar bẖagṯī nār hai aṯ locẖai bẖagṯī bẖā▫e. 
 The devoted wife in her husband's home has a great longing to perform loving devotional service to him; 

 ਬਹੁ  ਰਸ  ਸਾਲਣੇ  ਸਵਾਰਦੀ  ਖਟ  ਰਸ  ਮੀਠੇ  ਪਾਇ  ॥ 
 बहु रस सालणे सवारदी खट रस मीठे पाइ ॥ 
 Baho ras sālṇe savārḏī kẖat ras mīṯẖe pā▫e. 
 she prepares and offers to him all sorts of sweet delicacies and dishes of all flavors. 

 ਤਿਉ  ਬਾਣੀ  ਭਗਤ  ਸਲਾਹਦੇ  ਹਰਿ  ਨਾਮੈ  ਚਿਤੁ  ਲਾਇ  ॥ 
 तिउ बाणी भगत सलाहदे हरि नामै चितु लाइ ॥ 
 Ŧi▫o baṇī bẖagaṯ salāhḏe har nāmai cẖiṯ lā▫e. 
 In the same way, the devotees praise the Word of the Guru's Bani, and focus their consciousness on the Lord's Name. 

 ਮਨੁ  ਤਨੁ  ਧਨੁ  ਆਗੈ  ਰਾਖਿਆ  ਸਿਰੁ  ਵੇਚਿਆ  ਗੁਰ  ਆਗੈ  ਜਾਇ  ॥ 
 मनु तनु धनु आगै राखिआ सिरु वेचिआ गुर आगै जाइ ॥ 
 Man ṯan ḏẖan āgai rākẖi▫ā sir vecẖi▫ā gur āgai jā▫e. 
 They place mind, body and wealth in offering before the Guru, and sell their heads to Him. 

 ਭੈ  ਭਗਤੀ  ਭਗਤ  ਬਹੁ  ਲੋਚਦੇ  ਪ੍ਰਭ  ਲੋਚਾ  ਪੂਰਿ  ਮਿਲਾਇ  ॥ 
 भै भगती भगत बहु लोचदे प्रभ लोचा पूरि मिलाइ ॥ 
 Bẖai bẖagṯī bẖagaṯ baho locẖḏe parabẖ locẖā pūr milā▫e. 
 In the Fear of God, His devotees yearn for His devotional worship; God fulfills their desires, and merges them with Himself.


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Nov 23, 2008)

randip singh said:


> Here:
> 
> Damdami Taksaal Online Website - Rehat Maryada
> 
> ...


 
Wow, never knew they considered it a sin to kill a cow, thanks for this information.

I have listened to Sant Baba Jarnails Singh jis Katha and he never mentions anything of the sort. I guess his view was different from these even though he was from Dam Dami Taksal. Sant Baba Jarnail Singh ji is a well respected Sant that always told the sagant to take amrit. He had nothing but purity in heart for the Sikh religion.

Dam Dami Taksal has different view points on some matters, but that does not make them Radhaswamis at all or even close to it.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 24, 2008)

Singh said:


> Wow, never knew they considered it a sin to kill a cow, thanks for this information.
> 
> I have listened to Sant Baba Jarnails Singh jis Katha and he never mentions anything of the sort. I guess his view was different from these even though he was from Dam Dami Taksal. Sant Baba Jarnail Singh ji is a well respected Sant that always told the sagant to take amrit. He had nothing but purity in heart for the Sikh religion.
> 
> Dam Dami Taksal has different view points on some matters, but that does not make them Radhaswamis at all or even close to it.



Hi I think, my comparison of DDT to Radhaoswami was a bit Off. I apologise. Nevertheless as KDS has pointed out they are a sect.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 24, 2008)

Singh ji,

One further point maybe that this Rehat Maryada may have been a remnant of the Bandahi Sikhs. Can anyone shed any further light on that?


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 10, 2008)

Some one asked me today, what was Bhai Maskeen ji's view on this?

Anyone know?


----------



## japjisahib04 (Dec 10, 2008)

I posed this question directly to Maskin ji when he came to Kuwait. He said you can eat, gurbani does not stop us. He himself used to eat, but 2/3 years before his death he stop eating.
Regards sahni


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 11, 2008)

japjisahib04 said:


> I posed this question directly to Maskin ji when he came to Kuwait. He said you can eat, gurbani does not stop us. He himself used to eat, but 2/3 years before his death he stop eating.
> Regards sahni



Thanks for the answer. I just found out last night myself from my Mum. She knows people who were his neighbours and friends and can confirm what you said. I don't know whether he stopped eating though.:happy:


----------



## mein murakh (Dec 19, 2008)

sad:shock: only for the sake of taste  u r :advocate:advocating. don`t take the meaning of gurbani in lightly. "log jaane eh geet hai eh to barahm bichaar" the first lesson for the lokaaee from the GOD BY THE WAY OF G.NANAK JI was "daeyaa kapah santokh soot........sat watt" think without mercy how one can become the part of GOD" its the first step of humanity and without the base whole concept will colapse which is showing.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Dec 19, 2008)

Mein Murakh ji,
Taste governs what we eat whether its vegetables or meat.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Dec 20, 2008)

People swear by "Amrtisari Daal"..Makhni Daal..Mahan dee daal of Guru Ka Langgar Harmandir Sahib Amritsar..sarson da saag makee dee roti...kapurthala de channeh/samosa....etc etc etc etc...places all over the world are FAMOUS for certain culinary "specials"........ all due to "TASTE" and TASTE ONLY.
The "anti-meat" lobby always lumps it all on "Jeebh da swaad"/taste etc..as IF the Daal eaters eat daal simply because it tastes AWFUL ( that would be punishing the body ??? just like the "brahmgianis" standing on one leg...standing in freezing waters in the depth of winter...simply to prove their devotion to God ??. Dont they add salt/spices/onions and stuff to their DAAL to make it TASTE better/palatable ?? Dont they eat tarrka daal ?? Why Tarrka the Saag/Daal ? IF NOT for TASTE ??
Height of absurdity/hypocracy !!
Gyani jarnail Singh:inca:


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 20, 2008)

Gianni ji

It is too early in the morning over here for me to be laughing as hard as I am  Nonetheless, laughter is good for the soul.


----------



## pk70 (Dec 20, 2008)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> People swear by "Amrtisari Daal"..Makhni Daal..Mahan dee daal of Guru Ka Langgar Harmandir Sahib Amritsar..sarson da saag makee dee roti...kapurthala de channeh/samosa....etc etc etc etc...places all over the world are FAMOUS for certain culinary "specials"........ all due to "TASTE" and TASTE ONLY.
> The "anti-meat" lobby always lumps it all on "Jeebh da swaad"/taste etc..as IF the Daal eaters eat daal simply because it tastes AWFUL ( that would be punishing the body ??? just like the "brahmgianis" standing on one leg...standing in freezing waters in the depth of winter...simply to prove their devotion to God ??. Dont they add salt/spices/onions and stuff to their DAAL to make it TASTE better/palatable ?? Dont they eat tarrka daal ?? Why Tarrka the Saag/Daal ? IF NOT for TASTE ??
> Height of absurdity/hypocracy !!
> Gyani jarnail Singh:inca:



*Gyani ji welcome back again !
If I listen to you, what I will do with the following Guru Vakas where Guru ji himself calls meat"a chaska" why he doesn't call "daal" a chaska, reasonable answer will be appreciated. Mind it, I feel, if some eat meat, it doesn't make them sinners, it is a choice of food. So dont think for a second that I am promoting any thing, just questioning your anology in context of hypocrisy
* *ਰਸੁ ਸੁਇਨਾ ਰਸੁ ਰੁਪਾ ਕਾਮਣਿ ਰਸੁ ਪਰਮਲ ਕੀ ਵਾਸੁ **॥ 
**Ras su▫inā ras rupā kāmaṇ ras parmal kī vās. 
**The pleasure of gold, pleasure of silvers and damsels, pleasure of fragrance of sandal, 

**ਰਸੁ ਘੋੜੇ ਰਸੁ ਸੇਜਾ ਮੰਦਰ **ਰਸੁਮੀਠਾਰਸੁਮਾਸੁ**॥ 
**Ras gẖoṛe ras sejā manḏar ras mīṯẖā ras mās. 
**pleasure of horses, pleasure of common cushion with a houri and a palace, pleasure of **sweets and pleasure of meats, 
( ARENT they special and not common as  availability of “tarke dee daal?)
**ਏਤੇ ਰਸ ਸਰੀਰ ਕੇ ਕੈ ਘਟਿ ਨਾਮ ਨਿਵਾਸੁ **॥**੨**॥ 
**Ėṯe ras sarīr ke kai gẖat nām nivās. ||2|| 
**So many are the relishes of the human body. How can then God's Name secure an abode within the heart?
Isn't it all about going out of track while going deep into mind fulfilling tastes regardless how these tastes are taken on as priority? I feel both sides in favor of meat or apposing it, often miss the point Guru ji expressing it.
*


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 20, 2008)

mein murakh said:


> sad:shock: only for the sake of taste  u r :advocate:advocating. don`t take the meaning of gurbani in lightly. "log jaane eh geet hai eh to barahm bichaar" the first lesson for the lokaaee from the GOD BY THE WAY OF G.NANAK JI was "daeyaa kapah santokh soot........sat watt" think without mercy how one can become the part of GOD" its the first step of humanity and without the base whole concept will colapse which is showing.



Here we go again *Yawn*


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 20, 2008)

pk70 said:


> *Gyani ji welcome back again !
> If I listen to you, what I will do with the following Guru Vakas where Guru ji himself calls meat"a chaska" why he doesn't call "daal" a chaska, reasonable answer will be appreciated. Mind it, I feel, if some eat meat, it doesn't make them sinners, it is a choice of food. So dont think for a second that I am promoting any thing, just questioning your anology in context of hypocrisy
> * *ਰਸੁ ਸੁਇਨਾ ਰਸੁ ਰੁਪਾ ਕਾਮਣਿ ਰਸੁ ਪਰਮਲ ਕੀ ਵਾਸੁ **॥
> **Ras su▫inā ras rupā kāmaṇ ras parmal kī vās.
> ...




Depends where you live. If you are an Eskimo or are a hunter gatherer, then daal would be worth it's weight in gold and the taste of it heavenly (which it is).

The shabad you have picked out is a metaphor about attachment. I for example am attached to "white channay" (just cannot stop eating them), and they make me very windy 

Also please share page numbers with us so we may examine entire shabads.


----------



## pk70 (Dec 20, 2008)

*Randip Singh ji*
*Question was asked to Gyani ji particularly, not in context of a debate about meat at all, I wonder what you want to say or prove*
*The quote is on 15 SGGS Ji*
*The metaphorical approach here is not applicable in context of the stuff that is pointed out by Guru ji. The people who are non Vegetarian and who are Vegetarian have a problem, they just jump on thins without even thinking that question is not even asked about meat eating or not eating. To be honest with you, personally I didn’t expect it from you. Thanks for trying, my question still remains unanswered.*


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 21, 2008)

pk70 said:


> *Randip Singh ji*
> *Question was asked to Gyani ji particularly, not in context of a debate about meat at all, I wonder what you want to say or prove*
> *The quote is on 15 SGGS Ji*
> *The metaphorical approach here is not applicable in context of the stuff that is pointed out by Guru ji. The people who are non Vegetarian and who are Vegetarian have a problem, they just jump on thins without even thinking that question is not even asked about meat eating or not eating. To be honest with you, personally I didn’t expect it from you. Thanks for trying, my question still remains unanswered.*



Can you put the page number for the shabad you posted please.

Look, all I am saying is, that is the Land of Sugar, where only sugar is available, sugar would be seen as a worthless commodity, and the taste would lose its appeal. The man who sold salt in the land of sugar would surely be king?

In other words, regardless of what food we eat, we are a slave to taste.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 21, 2008)

pk70 said:


> *Randip Singh ji*
> *Question was asked to Gyani ji particularly, not in context of a debate about meat at all, I wonder what you want to say or prove*
> *The quote is on 15 SGGS Ji*
> *The metaphorical approach here is not applicable in context of the stuff that is pointed out by Guru ji. The people who are non Vegetarian and who are Vegetarian have a problem, they just jump on thins without even thinking that question is not even asked about meat eating or not eating. To be honest with you, personally I didn’t expect it from you. Thanks for trying, my question still remains unanswered.*





Look, all I am saying is, that is the Land of Sugar, where only sugar is available, sugar would be seen as a worthless commodity, and the taste would lose its appeal. The man who sold salt in the land of sugar would surely be king?

In other words, regardless of what food we eat, we are a slave to taste.

Lets put the entire shabad up:

Page 15, Line 9
ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥
सिरीरागु महला १ ॥
Sirīrāg mėhlā 1.
Siree Raag, First Mehl:
view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 9
ਲਬੁ ਕੁਤਾ ਕੂੜੁ ਚੂਹੜਾ ਠਗਿ ਖਾਧਾ ਮੁਰਦਾਰੁ ॥
लबु कुता कूड़ु चूहड़ा ठगि खाधा मुरदारु ॥
Lab kuṯā kūṛ cẖūhṛā ṯẖag kẖāḏẖā murḏār.
Greed is a dog; falsehood is a filthy street-sweeper. Cheating is eating a rotting carcass.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 10
ਪਰ ਨਿੰਦਾ ਪਰ ਮਲੁ ਮੁਖ ਸੁਧੀ ਅਗਨਿ ਕ੍ਰੋਧੁ ਚੰਡਾਲੁ ॥
पर निंदा पर मलु मुख सुधी अगनि क्रोधु चंडालु ॥
Par ninḏā par mal mukẖ suḏẖī agan kroḏẖ cẖandāl.
Slandering others is putting the filth of others into your own mouth. The fire of anger is the outcaste who burns dead bodies at the crematorium.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 10
ਰਸ ਕਸ ਆਪੁ ਸਲਾਹਣਾ ਏ ਕਰਮ ਮੇਰੇ ਕਰਤਾਰ ॥੧॥
रस कस आपु सलाहणा ए करम मेरे करतार ॥१॥
Ras kas āp salāhṇā e karam mere karṯār. ||1||
I am caught in these tastes and flavors, and in self-conceited praise. These are my actions, O my Creator! ||1||
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 11
ਬਾਬਾ ਬੋਲੀਐ ਪਤਿ ਹੋਇ ॥
बाबा बोलीऐ पति होइ ॥
Bābā bolī▫ai paṯ ho▫e.
O Baba, speak only that which will bring you honor.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 11
ਊਤਮ ਸੇ ਦਰਿ ਊਤਮ ਕਹੀਅਹਿ ਨੀਚ ਕਰਮ ਬਹਿ ਰੋਇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ऊतम से दरि ऊतम कहीअहि नीच करम बहि रोइ ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Ūṯam se ḏar ūṯam kahī▫ahi nīcẖ karam bahi ro▫e. ||1|| rahā▫o.
They alone are good, who are judged good at the Lord's Door. Those with bad karma can only sit and weep. ||1||Pause||
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 12
ਰਸੁ ਸੁਇਨਾ ਰਸੁ ਰੁਪਾ ਕਾਮਣਿ ਰਸੁ ਪਰਮਲ ਕੀ ਵਾਸੁ ॥
रसु सुइना रसु रुपा कामणि रसु परमल की वासु ॥
Ras su▫inā ras rupā kāmaṇ ras parmal kī vās.
The pleasures of gold and silver, the pleasures of women, the pleasure of the fragrance of sandalwood,
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 12
ਰਸੁ ਘੋੜੇ ਰਸੁ ਸੇਜਾ ਮੰਦਰ ਰਸੁ ਮੀਠਾ ਰਸੁ ਮਾਸੁ ॥
रसु घोड़े रसु सेजा मंदर रसु मीठा रसु मासु ॥
Ras gẖoṛe ras sejā manḏar ras mīṯẖā ras mās.
the pleasure of horses, the pleasure of a soft bed in a palace, the pleasure of sweet treats and the pleasure of hearty meals -
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 13
ਏਤੇ ਰਸ ਸਰੀਰ ਕੇ ਕੈ ਘਟਿ ਨਾਮ ਨਿਵਾਸੁ ॥੨॥
एते रस सरीर के कै घटि नाम निवासु ॥२॥
Ėṯe ras sarīr ke kai gẖat nām nivās. ||2||
these pleasures of the human body are so numerous; how can the Naam, the Name of the Lord, find its dwelling in the heart? ||2||
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 13
ਜਿਤੁ ਬੋਲਿਐ ਪਤਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਸੋ ਬੋਲਿਆ ਪਰਵਾਣੁ ॥
जितु बोलिऐ पति पाईऐ सो बोलिआ परवाणु ॥
Jiṯ boli▫ai paṯ pā▫ī▫ai so boli▫ā parvāṇ.
Those words are acceptable, which, when spoken, bring honor.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 14
ਫਿਕਾ ਬੋਲਿ ਵਿਗੁਚਣਾ ਸੁਣਿ ਮੂਰਖ ਮਨ ਅਜਾਣ ॥
फिका बोलि विगुचणा सुणि मूरख मन अजाण ॥
Fikā bol vigucẖṇā suṇ mūrakẖ man ajāṇ.
Harsh words bring only grief. Listen, O foolish and ignorant mind!
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 14
ਜੋ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵਹਿ ਸੇ ਭਲੇ ਹੋਰਿ ਕਿ ਕਹਣ ਵਖਾਣ ॥੩॥
जो तिसु भावहि से भले होरि कि कहण वखाण ॥३॥
Jo ṯis bẖāvėh se bẖale hor kė kahaṇ vakẖāṇ. ||3||
Those who are pleasing to Him are good. What else is there to be said? ||3||
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 15
ਤਿਨ ਮਤਿ ਤਿਨ ਪਤਿ ਤਿਨ ਧਨੁ ਪਲੈ ਜਿਨ ਹਿਰਦੈ ਰਹਿਆ ਸਮਾਇ ॥
तिन मति तिन पति तिन धनु पलै जिन हिरदै रहिआ समाइ ॥
Ŧin maṯ ṯin paṯ ṯin ḏẖan palai jin hirḏai rahi▫ā samā▫e.
Wisdom, honor and wealth are in the laps of those whose hearts remain permeated with the Lord.
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 16
ਤਿਨ ਕਾ ਕਿਆ ਸਾਲਾਹਣਾ ਅਵਰ ਸੁਆਲਿਉ ਕਾਇ ॥
तिन का किआ सालाहणा अवर सुआलिउ काइ ॥
Ŧin kā ki▫ā salāhṇā avar su▫āli▫o kā▫e.
What praise can be offered to them? What other adornments can be bestowed upon them?
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/SalokPage 15, Line 16
ਨਾਨਕ ਨਦਰੀ ਬਾਹਰੇ ਰਾਚਹਿ ਦਾਨਿ ਨ ਨਾਇ ॥੪॥੪॥
नानक नदरी बाहरे राचहि दानि न नाइ ॥४॥४॥
Nānak naḏrī bāhre rācẖėh ḏān na nā▫e. ||4||4||
O Nanak, those who lack the Lord's Glance of Grace cherish neither charity nor the Lord's Name. ||4||4||
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok



Is it me or does this shabad not read a little differently now? Reads to me about attachment and greed?


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 6, 2009)

I found this excellent essay, by Gurbaksh Singh ji (who is not one of the authors for this essay here) :

http://www.sikhs.wellington.net.nz/meat.pdf

http://www.sikhstudies.org/Periodicals.asp?TtlCod=214

*Page 1*[/FONT] MEAT EATING AND REHIT MARYADA
GURBAKHSH SINGH
 *
 Meat eating has unnecessarily become a controversial topic among the
Sikhs. The usual question asked is, —Is eating of meat permitted for a Sikh ?“
The expected answer is —yes“ or —no“. Unless explained properly, each answer,
whether —yes“ or —no“, can cause a problem. Both answers have, therefore,
been analysed in the light of Gurbani.
 Interpretation of the Rehit Maryada Instructions
 The decision of the Panth on the issue of meat eating, according to the
Rehit Maryada Bulletin, is : —Eating kuthha is prohibited for a Sikh. Kuthha
is meat of animals slaughtered in the Muslim way.“
There are no instructions in the booklet regarding eating or not eating
of other meat. Unfortunately, there are very strong and opposing opinions
about eating non-kuthha meat.

Some Sikhs, in view of the prohibition of kuthha, assume that eating
non-kuthha meat (which is usually called jhatka) is not prohibited.
Accordingly, they conclude that Sikhs are permitted to eat any meat,
beef, pork, poultry, etc., provided the animals have not been slaughtered
in the Muslim way.

Other Sikhs do not agree with the above interpretation. They say kuthha
means a dead animal, hence Sikhs are not allowed to eat any kind of
meat. They argue that both methods, kuthha and jhatka, involve taking
away the life of an animal, which according to them is a sin. Therefore,
all kinds of meat are prohibited for a Sikh.

A few Sikhs have a third view. They say being vegetarian is a Hindu
Vaishanav philosophy. To break away from that and to become a Sikh,
one must eat jhatka meat.
Many articles and even books have been written by each side to justify
their opinion and to prove the other side to be wrong. Of course, both sides
support their view by quoting Gurbani. This issue has, thus, divided Sikhs
regarding the interpretation of Gurbani. Supporters of each view pick up a
few hymns and interpret them out of context to authenticate their own opinion.
 * Gurdwara Sahib, Kanthala, Opp. Tribune Chowk, Chandigarh,
*
Page 2*
 They translate hymns literally and ignore the real meaning. The present attempt
is to understand the correct message of the hymns related to the subject, and
discuss the meat issue under a wider perspective of Gurmat philosophy, with
Gurbani as the guiding light.
 Literal Translation Misleading
 Different meanings obtained from the same hymn are the result of
interpreting it literally and ignoring the context in which a word or a phrase
has been used. Here are a couple of examples.
i.
 s? ;kfjp eh pks fi nky? ej[ BkBe fenk dhi? ..
;h;[ tY/ efo p?;D[ dhi? ftD[ f;o ;/t eohi? ..
 Guru Granth Sahib, p. 558
If someone speaks to you about the Lord, chop off your head and request
him to sit on it. Then serve him without the head on your body.
ii.
 ib e? wifB i/ rfs j't? fBs fBs w/Iv[e Bktfj ..
i?;/ w/Iv[e s?;/ UfJ Bo fcfo fcfo i'Bh nktfj ..
 p. 484
If bathing could save a person, the frog bathes a lot. Anyone, who, like
a frog, takes bath again and again, will be reborn again and again.
iii.
 ......
 rktfj ykDh uko/ ..
 Jap Pauri 27
The four khanis (categories of living beings) sing (His praises).
 e/shnk ykDh e/shnk pkDh
 ......
 Jap Pauri 35

The khani and bani (kinds of speech) number is beyond count.
Obviously, the above literal translations either do not make sense or
convey a wrong message, which does not agree with Gurmat. However, if
we study words and phrases according to the context of the hymn, there is no
problem of understanding the correct message. The message of the above
three hymns is clear and all of us agree with it when we do not stick to their
literal translation :
i. A Sikh should show maximum respect and make highest sacrifice to
serve the person, who speaks about the virtues of God. (The hymn does
not ask a Sikh to literally chop off his head. It is a phrase to express
complete submission and highest sacrifice.)
ii. The hymn does not mean that bathing makes one to be reborn again and
again. Actually it tells that repeated physical bathing has no spiritual
benefit (bathing does not clean the mind). Those, who believe that just
bathing at sacred places will benefit them, are ignorant and, therefore,
they remain in the cycle of birth and death.
iii. The numbers of khanis mentioned in the two pauris do not agree. In
pauri 27, Guru Nanak does not mean to say that only four khanis of
living beings sing His praises. The mention of the number four means all
the khanis (which according to the Guru are innumerable as stated in
pauri 35.) The Guru here is using the old Indian terminology (the whole
*
Page 3*
 ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES
 –JANUARY - MARCH 2000 

16 hymn refers to the Hindu mythology related to creation) which classifies
all life into four khanis.
 What is Meat Eating ?
 Guru Nanak has given a very unique definition of —meat eating“. He
says that taking away the rights of others is the worst kind of sin, because it
is like sucking the blood of human beings.
i.
 je[ gokfJnk BkBek T[;[ ;{no T[;[ rkfJ ..
 p. 141
Any person who takes away the rights of others is extremely sinful, like
a Muslim who eats pork or like a Hindu who eats beef.
 i/ os[ br? egV? ikwk j'fJ gbhs[ ..
i' os[ ghtfj wkD;k fsB feT[ fBowb[ uhs[ ..
 p. 140
A dress stained with blood is considered polluted. How can the mind of
those who suck the blood of human beings (make dishonest earnings, it
does not mean literally drinking of actual blood of people) be pure ?
 e{V[ p'fb w[odko[ ykfJ ..
 p. 139
Telling lies (cheating people and taking the rights of others) is eating a
corpse.

The message of Gurbani, thus, is that taking the rights of others is
—sucking their blood“, that is —eating their meat“. Hence, it is sinful to take
away the rights of other people.
ii. Other hymns, which endorse the above statement, i.e., to take away the
rights of the weak or helpless by the misuse of authority (religious or
political) is un-pious and sinful, are given below :
 wkD; ykD/ eofj fBtki .. S[oh trkfJfB fsB rfb skr ..
 p. 471

Literally, the hymn says that a Mullah, though performs Nimaz, (an
essential religious act for a Muslim), but devours human beings. A
Brahmin wears a holy thread (to show himself to be a religious person),
but carries a dagger (to get blood of the people).
Neither a Mullah devours human beings nor is a Brahmin going around
killing people with a dagger. These words

 wkD; ykD/
and
 S[oh

 are phrases, and both mean to take away the rights of the weak. The Guru used strong words
to severely criticise religious hypocrites, because they perform rituals only to
maintain their credibility among their followers. Actually, such persons are
most sinful, because they extract donations from the naive believers and make
false promises of assuring them heaven after their death. Guru Nanak says
that extracting donations from the people is —eating meat of the people“ and
declares it to be a most sinful act.
Another hymn of the Guru repeats the same message for the leaders of
the three major religions, Kazi, Brahmin, and Yogi :
 ekdh e{V[ p'fb wb[ ykfJ .. pqkjwD Bkt?  ihnk xkfJ ..
i'rh i[[rfs B ikD? nzX[ .. shB/ UikV/ ek pzX[ ..
 p. 662
*
Page 4*
 17 MEAT EATING AND REHIT MARYADA
 iii. The Guru also protested against the unjust and tyrannical rulers by calling
them blood-sucking beasts (they were drinking the blood of the poor by
taking away their rights).
 oki/ ;hj w[edw e[s/ ..
 p. 1288

These hymns give a clear message of Gurmat, that taking away the
rights of others is a most sinful act, it is —eating flesh of human beings“. This
—meat eating“ is unambiguously and strictly prohibited for a Sikh. However,
we rarely talk about it. There is no organization which campaigns against this
kind of —meat eating“, that is, taking away the rights of the weak.
The sakhi of Bhai Lalo and Malik Bhago is told to show the greatness
of Guru Nanak; he squeezed milk from the bread of Bhai Lalo, an honest
worker, and blood from the delicious food of Malik Bhago, a corrupt official.
We miss the lesson to be learnt from this sakhi, that honest earnings are the
path of a Sikh. One should enjoy the earnings of hard labour and avoid dishonest
earnings, which is like sucking the blood of innocent people. Therefore, we
should give priority to preach and practise honest living, that is, —not eating
human meat“ or not usurping the rights of others.

 Meat Eating – A Non-Issue
 According to Gurbani, one can lead a pious life without getting involved
in the controversy over meat eating.
 wk;[ wk;[ efo w{oy[ MrV/, frnkB[ fXnkB[ Bjh ikD? ..
eT[D[ wk;[ eT[D[ ;kr[ ejkt?, fe;[ wfj gkg ;wkD/ ..
 p. 1289
A fool, without knowing the truth, unnecessarily quarrels (argues) about
eating or not eating meat. Who knows what is
 wk;
 (meat) and what is
 ;kr
 (vegetarian food)* ? Further, who can say where does the sin lie, in
eating meat or in eating vegetarian food ?

 Attachment Prohibited
 Gurbani says attachment (addiction, weakness for anything) is wrong.
Here is the hymn which explains that attachment not only to meat, but also to
many other things of daily use is wrong.
 bp[ e[sk, e{V[ u{jVk mfr ykXk w[odko[ ..
go fBzdk go wb[ w[fy ;[Xh nrfB eq'X[ uzvkb[ ..
o; e; nkg[ ;bkjDk, J/ eow w/o/ eosko ..1..
pkpk p'bhn? gfs j'fJ ..
T{sw ;/ dfo T{sw ejhnfj Bhu eow pfj o'fJ ..1.. ojkT[ ..
o;[ ;[fJBk o;[ o[gk ekwfD o;[ gowb eh tk;[ ..
 * Milk is the changed form of the blood of the cow. Is it meat or not ? We cannot
decide, we can only argue about it. Those who are vegetarian and drink milk give
101 arguments to justify drinking milk, but the fact remains that milk is a changed
form of cow‘s blood, red cells are sieved out and fat is added to it.
*
Page 5*
 ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES
 –JANUARY - MARCH 2000

18 o;[ x'V/ o;[ ;/ik wzdo o;[ whmk o;[ wk;[ ..
J/s/ o; ;oho e/ e? xfN Bkw fBtk;[ ..2..
 p. 15
Essence : Holy people are honoured in His court. They, who commit
vices, have to repent there. O man, therefore, speak those words (perform
those actions), which will bring honour to you (in His court).
In the first part of the hymn, the Guru names some common vices
(greed, cheating, anger, etc.) in society and tells us how they hurt people.
In the second part, he mentions some routine human needs (wealth,
spouse, meat eating, etc.), which also become vices, if one gets attached to
them. In the last line, the message is clear. How can a mind attached to
(addicted to) so many worldly pleasures (eating meat is only one of them)
enjoy the taste of Naam ?

The theme of the hymn is that God provides human beings with the
necessities of life. However, if one gets attached to them (i.e., gets addicted
to them, uses them not for need, but suffers from a weakness for them), they
become vices. Addiction to anything, including meat, therefore, is wrong.
We know that earning money honestly is not prohibited for a Sikh.

Love of wealth (addiction to wealth) is, however, prohibited, because the
mind devoted to wealth cannot be devoted to God. Further, addiction to
wealth leads one to collecting it even through dishonest means.

No one disagrees with this interpretation. The whole hymn needs to be
interpreted in the same spirit. Some other aspects of life, riding horses,
marrying, living in palaces, eating tasty foods, meat, etc., have also been
mentioned in the hymn. Obviously, not their use, but addiction to them is
prohibited in this hymn. We should have no difficulty to conclude from this
hymn that not eating meat, but craving for meat (addiction to eating meat) is
prohibited for a Sikh.

Keeping in view the above message of Gurmat, we can say that those,
who crave meat and eat it to calm the craving for it, commit a sin. However,
if a person eats meat as just another food, (because he is hungry), he does not
do anything against the Rehit.

This explains why Rehit Maryada does not say whether one should or
should not eat meat. It is not the meat which matters, it is the reason for
eating meat which matters.

 Message of the —Meat Prohibiting“ Hymns
 The following hymn is often quoted to support the view that a Sikh
should not consume meat.
 epho GKr wkS[bh ;[ok gkfB i' i' gqkBh yKfj ..
shoE pos B/w ehJ/ s/ ;G? o;ksfb iKfj ..233..
 p. 1377
Bhagat Kabir says that those who consume bhang (marijuana), fish
(machhali is also a name given to a kind of drug), or alcohol, will lose the
*
Page 6*
 19 MEAT EATING AND REHIT MARYADA

 benefit of practising shoE pos B/w, the holy rituals.
However, Gurbani repeatedly says there is no benefit at all of
 shoE pos B/w like actions.
 pos B/w ;ziw wfj ojsk fsB ek nkY[ B gkfJnk ..
nkr? ubD[ nT[o[ j? GkJh T{Ijk ekfw B nkfJnk ..
 p. 216
 pos B/w shoE ;fjs rzrk ..
 p. 1305

Should we, therefore, conclude that one loses nothing by eating fish
and drinking alcohol ? This interpretation, of course, does not agree with the
message of Gurmat.

In this hymn, the words, GKr wkS[bh ;[okgkfB are used as a phrase (which
does not mean these three specific things, but it means all vices), and refer to
a vicious life in which people do not restrain themselves. Today, such persons
are mentioned as shrabi-kababi, i.e., living a vicious life.

Similarly, in the second line, shoE, B/w, pos, do not mean just these three
rituals, i.e., visiting holy places, daily rituals, and fasting, but refer to all kinds
of rituals.

The meaning of the hymn, therefore, is that one does not benefit at all
by performing holy rituals or doing religious deeds, if one continues to lead a
vicious life (sinful life). The message is that one must give up vices to benefit
from religious practices. This hymn, thus, prohibits a vicious life, which has
been explained in the hymn above, it does not say anything for or against
eating meat.

 Why Prohibition of Kuthha ?
 Some argue that kuthha is prohibited because the animal suffers a lot
during slow killing. This is not the reason. We know that birds and animals,
when shot by a gun, may not die immediately. They do suffer pain after being
hit by a bullet till they breathe their last. Even by jhatka method, the animal
does not die immediately, it does suffer pain for some time. In some cases,
the animal may walk a few steps (as a reflex) even after losing its head.
Kuthha (halal, sanctified meat according to the Muslims) is prohibited
for a Sikh, because it is fed to non-Muslims to convert them to Islam, as it is
sanctified by Muslim ritual.

 Conclusion
 In the end, for the information of the readers, it may be stated that
eating or not eating meat has a religious sanction in all major faiths; for example,
Kosher is allowed for Jews, Halal for Muslims, Bali for Hindus (killed in the
name of the goddess). Secondly, some religions prohibit meat of certain
animals; pork is prohibited for Muslims and Jews, and beef for Hindus. Some
prohibit eating meat, or a particular kind of meat, on some days.
Sikh faith is unique in not prescribing any such condition for eating
*
Page 7*
 ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES
 –JANUARY - MARCH 2000
20 

meat, if it is needed to meet the hunger of a Sikh. Addiction (u;ek,o, not
only to meat, but even to ”things‘ of daily use (spouse, wealth, affluent life,
etc.), is prohibited.

The purpose of this article is to explain, in the light of Gurbani, the
correctness of the injunction of the Rehit Maryada, prohibiting only kuthha
meat (meat of animals slaughtered in the Muslim way) and not saying anything
about other meat. I do not eat meat, not even eggs, but I feel hurt when some
Sikh preachers declare that meat eating (actually a non-issue) is a cardinal sin
(pio e[ofjs) by misinterpreting the meaning of Gurbani. This creates
unnecessary and undesirable divisions and bitterness among Sikhs. These
preachers are requested to preach, with the same enthusiasm, Guru Nanak‘s
message

 je[ gokfJnk BkBek, T[;[ ;{no T[;[ rkfJ
 (taking away the rights of others
is as sinful as eating beef by a Hindu and pork by a Muslim.)

If a Sikh lives an honest life and is known not to take away the rights of
others (is not corrupt, is not a liar), people will hold such a Sikh in high
esteem, and the community will be respected by everyone. Let, therefore, all
the sants and preachers vigorously advise Sikhs not to take — je[ gokfJnk
 “, itbeing the greatest sin; it is —os[ ghtfj wkD;k“, drinking human blood. The
unnecessary controversy about eating meat may be avoided, and preference
be given to the preaching of truthful living (T[gfo ;u[ nkuko[).


----------



## pk70 (Jan 6, 2009)

Is it me or does this shabad not read a little differently now? Reads to me about attachment and greed?(quote Randip Singh Ji)
 *Randip Singh ji*
*I thought I made it clear in my PM. I feel eating or not eating meat is one’s own choice; it is not a sin to eat it and by not eating it one doesn’t become pious. This shabad though deals with greed and attachment but very clearly it addresses what special things are that keep us involved in this mess. Again what you are pointing has nothing to do with what I pointed out. Guru ji picked up “meat” as special one like gold, show off, power etc and didn’t pick up an ordinary dish of Daal as a part of this. So promoting both sides to use this Shabad is an error.My question started there and ended there. Even though I cannot swallow it but I do not advocate vegetarianism. As a matter of fact, I am the last person to get involved in "eating or not eating meat debate” Thanks.*


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jan 7, 2009)

Guru Piayere Jio...
Waheguru ji ka khalsa waheguru ji ki Fateh.

Although i feel personally that enough ( more than enough actually) has been said on the subject....and Dr Gurbaksh Singh Ji's articles in the Abstracts of Sikh Studies IOSS make things even clearer....Gurbani is about Attachment..Moh..Lobh...addiction of all kinds.
Now Guru Ji picked "meat" ( and not daal..tandoori roti...Hokkien Mee..Pizza...dahi..lassi..??)..He picked "Gold/Silver" ( and NOT diamonds..rubies..USD..British Pounds.. Euros...Russian Roubles..) ????
I absolutely used to CRAVE..dahi/lassii..mahan dee daal _ i could have these 24/7 for a decade and still not tire or get bored....but just one meal of Fried chicken...and it felt like i have  been having chicken for  a year.... THAT IS ADDICTION...ATTACHMENT..( i think....and I have worked at it to get rid of it.....and i have finally succeeded....Now i eat what i get..and it could be just behi rootis ( day old rotis) with chah/achaar..or the latest promotion of newest Pizza..BOTH "excite" me as much as a ???? words fail me...
I think I have got the truth in Guru jis Message !!! through personal experiencing of the Truth of Gurbani. DONT BE ATTACHED TO ANYTHING..EXCESSIVELY..EAT TO LIVE AND NOT LIVE TO EAT.
Sikhs today arent much interested in the Truth of Gurbani....see how so many of us are attached to GOLUCK...when Guru Gobind Singh ji has specifically called this POOJA DA DHAAN and ZEHR POISON.....all the fights in Gurdwaras are 100% about GOLUCK/Pooja da dhaan..yet one sees the most "Amrtidharees" in Gurdwaras (SGPC is a point)..All the Medical Jounals scream day and night about the WHITE POISON (SUGAR)..yet most humans happily consume tons of it..and our Gurdwara langgars use tons as well..that is also ADDICTION and is against the teachings of GURU JI..but who cares...??? Moohn Mittha karlo ji....is our culture !!! even though we may become obese//get diabetes..and get our ankles cut off..again i beleive GURBANI should be our GUIDE...even in staying away from SUGAR...
Randip Singh Ji is absolutley right regarding Haak paraya Nanaka us soor us gayeh...THAT is the REAL NO NO NO Sikhs should be preaching agianst. MEAT-VEGE IS A NON-ISSUE. Sadly Haak Praya hardly gets mention...meat seems to excite each and every so called sant/gyani/brahmgyani/raagi.

Sorry for rambling....
Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 7, 2009)

pk70 said:


> Is it me or does this shabad not read a little differently now? Reads to me about attachment and greed?(quote Randip Singh Ji)
> *Randip Singh ji*
> *I thought I made it clear in my PM. I feel eating or not eating meat is one’s own choice; it is not a sin to eat it and by not eating it one doesn’t become pious. This shabad though deals with greed and attachment but very clearly it addresses what special things are that keep us involved in this mess. Again what you are pointing has nothing to do with what I pointed out. Guru ji picked up “meat” as special one like gold, show off, power etc and didn’t pick up an ordinary dish of Daal as a part of this. So promoting both sides to use this Shabad is an error.My question started there and ended there. Even though I cannot swallow it but I do not advocate vegetarianism. As a matter of fact, I am the last person to get involved in "eating or not eating meat debate” Thanks.*



Brother this was not meant to be a swipe at you but I wanted to share this essay and its conciseness on this forum.


----------



## pk70 (Jan 7, 2009)

randip singh said:


> Brother this was not meant to be a swipe at you but I wanted to share this essay and its conciseness on this forum.




*Oops, forgive me for misunderstanding the purpose of your post,You see, brothers are brothers!*


----------



## vsgrewal48895 (Apr 7, 2009)

*Meat in sikhism*

*MEAT IN SIKHISM*​ 

*ABSTRACT*​ 

Whether to consume any kind of meat should be a matter of personal preference on the basis of taste etc. It is foolhardy to bring religion into this issue. Guru Nanak has explained it very well: Only God knows what is good and what is bad. Meat has been eaten in all the four ages and has been referred in all religious books. Guru Angad in Raag Ramkali ponders on the life in ocean;

ਜੀਆ ਕਾ ਆਹਾਰੁ ਜੀਅ ਖਾਣਾ ਏਹੁ ਕਰੇਇ ॥ 

_Jī▫ā kā āhār jī▫a kẖāṇā ehu kare▫i._ 

Animals eat other animals; this is what the Akal Purkh has given them as food. -----Guru Angad, Raag Ramkali, AGGS, Page, 955-11

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water is the source of every thing in creation whether vegetation or meat. It quenches thirst and cleanses the body but not consciousness says Guru Nanak in Raag Sarang;

ਪਾਣੀ ਚਿਤੁ ਨ ਧੋਪਈ ਮੁਖਿ ਪੀਤੈ ਤਿਖ ਜਾਇ ॥ਪਾਣੀ ਪਿਤਾ ਜਗਤ ਕਾ ਫਿਰਿ ਪਾਣੀ ਸਭੁ ਖਾਇ ॥

_paanee chit na Dhop-ee mukh peetai tikh jaa-ay, Paanee Pitaa Jagat Kaa Fir Paanee Sabh Khaa-ay._

The consciousness is not washed with water. You drink it to quench your thirst. Water is the father of the world. In the end water destroys it all.-----Guru Nanak Dev, Raag Sarang, AGGS, Page, 1240-9

The goodness of food or clothes depends on the purity of heart, as explained by Guru Nanak in Raag Majh and Siri Raag; 

ਕਿਆ ਖਾਧੈ ਕਿਆ ਪੈਧੈ ਹੋਇ ॥ਜਾ ਮਨਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਸਚਾ ਸੋਇ ॥ਕਿਆ ਮੇਵਾ ਕਿਆ ਘਿਉ ਗੁੜੁ ਮਿਠਾ ਕਿਆ ਮੈਦਾ ਕਿਆ ਮਾਸੁ ॥

_Ki-aa KhaaDhai Ki-aa PaiDhai Ho-ay, Jaa Man Naahee Sachaa So-ay,Kiaa Mayvaa Kiaa Gheo Gurh Mithaa Kiaa Maidaa Kiaa Maas._

What good is consuming delicacies and wearing fine clothes, if the True Akal Purkh does not abide within the mind? What good are fruits, butter, sugar, sweets, flour and meat? -----Guru Nanak, Vaar Raag Majh, AGGS, Page, 142-12

ਪਹਿਲਾ ਸਚੁ ਹਲਾਲ ਦੁਇ ਤੀਜਾ ਖੈਰ ਖੁਦਾਇ ॥

_Pahilā sacẖ halāl ḏu¬ė ṯījā kẖair kẖuḏā¬ė._

Let the first be truthfulness, the second honest living, and the third charity in the Name of God. -----Guru Nanak, Raag Majh, AGGS, Page, 141- 4

Sabd Guru categorically forbids mind altering substances that have immoral consequences as indicated by Guru Nanak in Siri Raag;

ਬਾਬਾ ਹੋਰੁ ਖਾਣਾ ਖੁਸੀ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥ ਜਿਤੁ ਖਾਧੈ ਤਨੁ ਪੀੜੀਐ ਮਨ ਮਹਿ ਚਲਹਿ ਵਿਕਾਰ ॥

_Baabaa Hor Khaanaa Khusee Khu-aar, Jit Khadhai Tan Peerhai Man Meh Chaleh Vikaar._

O Baba, the pleasures of other foods are false. Eating them, the body is ruined, and wickedness and corruption enter into the mind.-----Guru Nanak, Siri Raag, AGGS, Page, 16-14 

Sikh thought is more concerned with the ethical side of the life rather than physical or material things or Maya. Food of any type makes little difference. What is important is the spiritual part of remembering God, since it enhances spiritual growth. Those not remembering God are heading toward delusion, as described by Guru Nanak in Raag Majh: 

ਇਕਿ ਮਾਸਹਾਰੀ ਇਕਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਣੁ ਖਾਹਿ ॥ਇਕਨਾ ਛਤੀਹ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਪਾਹਿ ॥ਇਕਿ ਮਿਟੀਆ ਮਹਿ ਮਿਟੀਆ ਖਾਹਿ ॥ਨਾਨਕ ਮੁਠੇ ਜਾਹਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਮਨਿ ਸੋਇ ॥ _Ik Masaharee Ik TriN Khaaeh, Ikna Chateeh Amnrit Paaeh, Ik MiTee-aa Meh MiTee-aa Khaaeh, Nanak Muthay Jaahi Naahee Man So-ay._

Some eat meat, while others eat grass. Some have all the thirty-six varieties of delicacies, while others live in the dirt and eat mud. O Nanak, those who do not enshrine the Akal Purkh within their minds is deluded. -----Guru Nanak, Raag Majh, AGGS, Page, 144

Here is another Sloke of Mardana in Raag Bihaagrha stressing the spiritual side of life:

ਗੁਣ ਮੰਡੇ ਕਰਿ ਸੀਲੁ ਘਿਉ ਸਰਮੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਆਹਾਰੁ ॥ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਗੁੜੁ ਸਾਲਾਹ ਮੰਡੇ ਭਉ ਮਾਸੁ ਆਹਾਰੁ ॥ਨਾਨਕ ਇਹੁ ਭੋਜਨੁ ਸਚੁ ਹੈ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਆਧਾਰੁ ॥

_GouN ManDay Kar Seel Gheo Saram Maas Aahaar, Giaan Gourh Salaah ManDay Bhou Maas Aahaar, Nanak Ih Bhojan Sach Hai Sach Naam AaDhaar._

Make virtue your bread, good conduct the ghee, and modesty the meat to eat. So make spiritual wisdom your molasses, the Praise of God your bread, and the Fear of God the meat you eat. O Nanak, this is the true food; let the True Name be your only Support. -----Mardana, Raag Bihaagrha, AGGS, Page, 553-6

Kabir originally was idolater and follower of Ramanand and later became monotheistic and believed in contemplation of Naam. He being under the influence of Vedanta states about 3 things to refrain from including fish;

ਕਬੀਰ ਭਾਂਗ ਮਾਛੁਲੀ ਸੁਰਾ ਪਾਨਿ ਜੋ ਜੋ ਪ੍ਰਾਨੀ ਖਾਂਹਿ ॥ਤੀਰਥ ਬਰਤ ਨੇਮ ਕੀਏ ਤੇ ਸਭੈ ਰਸਾਤਲਿ ਜਾਂਹਿ ॥ 

_Kabir Bhaang Maachulee Sura Paan Jo Jo Praanee Khaaneh, Teerath Barat Naym Keeay Tay Sabhay Rasaatal Jaaneh._

Kabir, the mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, will all go to hell.-----Bhagat Kabir Slokes # 233, AGGS, Page, 1377-2 & 3

There have been references to the Hukamnama of Guru Har Gobind from the book of Hukamnamas by Dr. Ganda Singh to the effect that the Gurus forbid the eating of meat. This Hukamnama have been annulled by the above references and he him self being a good hunter makes the document erroneous. 

Guru Nanak’s Raag Malar is devoted to meat eating. He recited it at Kurkchetar at the festival of solar eclipse while cooking the deer meat, to remove doubts and superstitions about its eating;

ਮਾਸਹੁ ਨਿੰਮੇ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਜੰਮੇ ਹਮ ਮਾਸੈ ਕੇ ਭਾਂਡੇ ॥ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਕਛੁ ਸੂਝੈ ਨਾਹੀ ਚਤੁਰੁ ਕਹਾਵੈ ਪਾਂਡੇ ॥ 

_Maasahu Nimmay Maasahu Janmay Ham Maasai Kay Bhaanday, Gi-aan Dhi-aan Kachh Soojhai Naahee Chatur Kahaavai PaaNday._

In the flesh we are conceived and in the flesh we are born -- we are vessels of the flesh. You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar.

ਮਾਸੁ ਪੁਰਾਣੀ ਮਾਸੁ ਕਤੇਬਂ*ੀ ਚਹੁ ਜੁਗਿ ਮਾਸੁ ਕਮਾਣਾ ॥ ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੂ ਜਾਣੈ ਹੀ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਿਥਹੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਉਪੰਨਾ ॥ਤੋਇਅਹੁ ਅੰਨੁ ਕਮਾਦੁ ਕਪਾਹਾਂ ਤੋਇਅਹੁ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣੁ ਗੰਨਾ ॥ਮਾਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਕੀ ਰਕਤੁ ਨਿਪੰਨੇ ਮਛੀ ਮਾਸੁ ਨ ਖਾਂਹੀ ॥ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਪੁਰਖੈ ਜਾਂ ਨਿਸਿ ਮੇਲਾ ਓਥੈ ਮੰਧੁ ਕਮਾਹੀ ॥ 

_Maas PuraaNee Maas Kataybeen Chaoh Jug Maas KamaaNaa, PaanDay Too JaaNai Hee Naahee Kithoh Maas Upunnaa, To-i-ahu Ann Kamaad KapaahaaN To-i-ahu Taribhavan Gannaa, Maat Pitaa Kee Rakat Nipannay Machhee Maas Na KhaaNhee, Istaree Purkhai JaaN Nis Maylaa Othai ManDh Kamaahee._

Meat is allowed in the Puraanas and in other Holy books. Throughout the four ages, meat has been used. O Pundit, you do not know where meat originated. Corn, sugar cane and cotton are produced from water. The three worlds came from water. They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers who do not eat fish or meat. But when men and women meet in the night, they come together in the flesh. -----Guru Nanak, Raag Malaar, AGGS, Page, 1290

*The complete Sabd translated;*

First, the mortal is conceived in the flesh, and then he dwells in the flesh. When he comes alive, his mouth takes flesh; his bones, skin and body are flesh. He comes out of the womb of flesh, and takes a mouthful of flesh at the breast. His mouth is flesh, his tongue is flesh; his breath is in the flesh. He grows up and is married, and brings his wife of flesh into his home. Flesh is produced from flesh; all relatives are made of flesh. When the mortal meets the True Guru, and realizes the Akal Purkh's Command, then he comes to be reformed. Releasing himself, the mortal does not find release; O, Nanak through empty words, one is ruined.

The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. What is called meat, and what is called a green vegetable? What leads to sin? It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering. Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? 

They cannot answer, or even understand what is said. They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts. They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat. But when men and women meet in the night, they come together in the flesh. In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh. You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar. O master, you believe that flesh on the outside is bad, but the flesh of those in your own home is good. 

All beings and creatures are flesh; the soul has taken up its home in the flesh. They eat the uneatable; they reject and abandon what they could eat. They have a teacher who is blind. In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh. You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar. Meat is allowed in the Puraanas, meat is allowed in other religious scriptures and the Quran. Throughout the four ages, meat has been used. It is featured in sacred feasts and marriage festivities; meat is used in them.

Women, men, kings and emperors originate from meat. If you see them going to hell, then do not accept charitable gifts from them. The giver goes to hell, while the receiver goes to heaven -- look at this injustice. You do not understand your own self, but you preach to other people. O Pundit, you are very wise indeed. O Pundit, you do not know where meat originated. Corn, sugar cane and cotton are produced from water. The three worlds came from water. Water says, "I am good in many ways." But water takes many forms. Forsaking these delicacies, one becomes a true Sannyaasee, a detached hermit. Nanak reflects and speaks.

*Conclusion:*

Every material thing develops from water whether meat or vegetable. It is the remembering of God which is important rather than debating unnecessarily the merits of vegetables or of meat. Personal considerations must determine what is good or bad for a person. In AGGS there is no prohibition about eating or cooking meat. Guru Nanak cooked deer meat at the festival of the solar eclipse at Kurchetar to remove doubt and superstition. According to Vedanta philosophy called ahimsa, it is advised to refrain from injuring - physically, mentally or emotionally - anyone or any living creature, which has creped in to Sikh Faith. Guru Arjan in Raag Maru ponders;

ਹਕੁ ਹਲਾਲੁ ਬਖੋਰਹੁ ਖਾਣਾ ॥

_Hak halāl bakẖorahu kẖāṇā._

Let what is earned righteously be your blessed food.-----Guru Arjan, Raag Maru, AGGS, Page, 1084-7


Virinder S. Grewal


----------



## pk70 (Apr 7, 2009)

*Re: Meat in sikhism*

*Respected VSGREWAL Ji*
*With all due respect let me point out something in your post that is unacceptable as it is tainted with your own point of views which, not necessarily, be a part of Guru Message. Let me make clear right here to you and  non vegetarians SPN members that I am not speaking against meat eating as I believe it is up to the person who wants to be vegetarian or non vegetarian( So keep the swords in the sheaths). My comments and questions are all about the correct usage of Gurbani without inserting our own influenced ideology in it and to see if it really belongs where it is used. By the way I applaud your hard work though.*



			
				vsgrewal Ji said:
			
		

> “Sabd Guru categorically forbids mind altering substances that have immoral consequences as indicated by Guru Nanak in Siri Raag;
> ਬਾਬਾ ਹੋਰੁ ਖਾਣਾ ਖੁਸੀ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥ ਜਿਤੁ ਖਾਧੈ ਤਨੁ ਪੀੜੀਐ ਮਨ ਮਹਿ ਚਲਹਿ ਵਿਕਾਰ ॥
> _Baabaa Hor Khaanaa Khusee Khu-aar, Jit Khadhai Tan Peerhai Man Meh Chaleh Vikaar._
> O Baba, the pleasures of other foods are false. Eating them, the body is ruined, and wickedness and corruption enter into the mind.-----Guru Nanak, Siri Raag, AGGS, Page, 16-14



*What is the kind of food that makes mind wicked (as per your translation), and what is the food that can cause negativity in the body? Kindly elaborate on that with examples so that Sangat should be aware of that food?
*


			
				vsgrewal Ji said:
			
		

> “Here is another Sloke of Mardana in Raag Bihaagrha stressing the spiritual side of life:
> ਗੁਣ ਮੰਡੇ ਕਰਿ ਸੀਲੁ ਘਿਉ ਸਰਮੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਆਹਾਰੁ ॥ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਗੁੜੁ ਸਾਲਾਹ ਮੰਡੇ ਭਉ ਮਾਸੁ ਆਹਾਰੁ ॥ਨਾਨਕ ਇਹੁ ਭੋਜਨੁ ਸਚੁ ਹੈ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਆਧਾਰੁ ॥
> _GouN ManDay Kar Seel Gheo Saram Maas Aahaar, Giaan Gourh Salaah ManDay Bhou Maas Aahaar, Nanak Ih Bhojan Sach Hai Sach Naam AaDhaar._
> Make virtue your bread, good conduct the ghee, and modesty the meat to eat. So make spiritual wisdom your molasses, the Praise of God your bread, and the Fear of God the meat you eat. O Nanak, this is the true food; let the True Name be your only Support. -----Mardana, Raag Bihaagrha, AGGS, Page, 553-6”



*First of all, this Slok is not written by Mardana, how Mardana could could use “Nanak” word with him, he was never authorized to be “Nanak”, it is addressed to Mardana, secondly it addresses the favorites ( ghee and meat) of people  and asking to have virtues like modesty,  to gain spiritual wisdom, praise and fear of God, be their  real favorites.*



			
				vsgrewal Ji said:
			
		

> Kabir originally was idolater and follower of Ramanand and later became monotheistic and believed in contemplation of Naam. He being under the influence of Vedanta states about 3 things to refrain from including fish;
> ਕਬੀਰ ਭਾਂਗ ਮਾਛੁਲੀ ਸੁਰਾ ਪਾਨਿ ਜੋ ਜੋ ਪ੍ਰਾਨੀ ਖਾਂਹਿ ॥ ਤੀਰਥ ਬਰਤ ਨੇਮ ਕੀਏ ਤੇ ਸਭੈ ਰਸਾਤਲਿ ਜਾਂਹਿ ॥
> _Kabir Bhaang Maachulee Sura Paan Jo Jo Praanee Khaaneh, Teerath Barat Naym Keeay Tay Sabhay Rasaatal Jaaneh._
> Kabir, the mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, will all go to hell.-----Bhagat Kabir Slokes # 233, AGGS, Page, 1377-2 & 3



*  Respected VSGREWAL JI, these are your own views and kindly do not accuse Kabir ji of that what you think. Let’s look at your assumption*. *Well, if Gurus* *were not aligned with him, why didn’t they say anything in context of  above Vakas  of Kabir Ji as they did in other instances to insert their views in case of Kabir ji and Baba Freed Ji(M-3, M-4), who are we to accuse Kabir ji of having  influence of Vidanta?* *Kabir Ji is known to Sikhs as a devotee of one all pervading Almighty  and a contributor to SGGS and his past has nothing to do with his bani accepted in SGGS*. *Guru ji selected this to be a part of SGGS. Are you asking Sikhs to ignore this Vaak? There is no difference or contradiction between Guru Ji and Bhagatas in context of all subject addressed by them. In SGGS.  So let some have their choice about eating or not eating meat on Kabir Ji’s Vaak  too,  haven’t you said in your beginning of the post that it is a personal choice. Do we really need to say what you have said to negate Kabir Ji’s thought? Obviously Guru Ji didn’t feel that way! Guru ji asked Bhai Gurdas to keep it there intact. Are you getting me? Kindly don’t get influenced by essays written on Kabir Ji to know him, use the real source to know him and that is SGGS.*
*Thanks.*
*Regards*
*G Singh*


----------



## vsgrewal48895 (Apr 7, 2009)

*Re: Meat in sikhism*

Dear G Singh Ji,

The first sloke is meant for those who take foods containing intoxicants whiuch affect the mind should not be used.

Regarding Mardana I agree with you that it is addressed to Mardana.

Thirdly regarding Kabir it is as I understand it. We can agree to disagree on this reference.

Cordially,

Virinder


----------



## pk70 (Apr 7, 2009)

*Re: Meat in sikhism*



vsgrewal48895 said:


> Dear G Singh Ji,
> 
> The first sloke is meant for those who take foods containing intoxicants whiuch affect the mind should not be used.
> 
> ...



*Respected VSGREWAL Ji

I agree, we can agree or disagree. Here what you understand is  just what you understand period. I don't think to agree or disagree here but am trying to tell the sangat that you have no support to negate Kabir Ji's thought from Guru Sahib who honored this Vaak to be part of Sree Guru Granth Sahib Ji 
Obviously what you understand is not Guru Message.*

*Regards
G Singh*


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 7, 2009)

ਕਬੀਰ ਭਾਂਗ ਮਾਛੁਲੀ ਸੁਰਾ ਪਾਨਿ ਜੋ ਜੋ ਪ੍ਰਾਨੀ ਖਾਂਹਿ ॥ ਤੀਰਥ ਬਰਤ ਨੇਮ ਕੀਏ ਤੇ ਸਭੈ ਰਸਾਤਲਿ ਜਾਂਹਿ ॥[/FONT]
_Kabir Bhaang Maachulee Sura Paan Jo Jo Praanee Khaaneh, Teerath Barat Naym Keeay Tay Sabhay Rasaatal Jaaneh._

PK70 ji,

Guru Fateh.

Can you please explain the above salok in english in your own words? What do you understand what Kabir ji is talking about?

Is a Sikh forbidden to do drugs,eat fish and drink alcohol? 

Are all 3 things  forbidden in Sikhi according to the above Salok?

Shine some Gurmat light on it.

Thanks

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 7, 2009)

1. The First thing to be stressed is that GURBANI in SGGS is chosen by Guru Ji and has His stamp of approval. Thus there is NO SCOPE whatsoever for us sikhs to "reject/doubt/cast any sort of aspersion" on any Bani....that is in SGGS...or "double guess" intentions of the Bhagats/ doubt their beleifs.
I apologise in advance if i have misunderstood/misread anything.

2. "PAST LIFE" has got absolutley NOTHING to do in this aspect and has been REJECTED. Proof of this is
BHAI LEHNNA JI..Devi Bhagt for DECADES....becomes GURU ANGAD.
Bhai Amardass Ji... a REGULAR HINDU who viisted Hindu teeraths for most of his life..Became GURU AMARDASS JI. No one brings up this subject of their "Past Lives" or what they used to be...simply becasue it is Irrelevant. Same goes for the BHAGATS. We are only concerned with the GURBANI that they contributed to SGGS. Period.

3. This same "Past Life" ghost has been ressurected to "haunt" us in the case of Guru Gobind Singh Ji/Dushtdaman/etc. We must apply the same Standard. IF the Past Lives of Bhai lehnna Ji and Bhai Amardass Ji, Bhai Jetha Ji are IRRELEVANT ...even while in HUMAN FORM...there is no reason to bother about the "past life" that DIDNT even happen in this WORLD..and Goes against all Gurmatt Norms.
PLease DONT DIGRESS into this as this is just used as an example to illustrate point No. 2 above and no intention to begin discussing dsm garnth etc. Thanks to all.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 7, 2009)

VaheguruSeekr said:


> ਕਬੀਰ ਭਾਂਗ ਮਾਛੁਲੀ ਸੁਰਾ ਪਾਨਿ ਜੋ ਜੋ ਪ੍ਰਾਨੀ ਖਾਂਹਿ ॥ ਤੀਰਥ ਬਰਤ ਨੇਮ ਕੀਏ ਤੇ ਸਭੈ ਰਸਾਤਲਿ ਜਾਂਹਿ ॥
> _Kabir Bhaang Maachulee Sura Paan Jo Jo Praanee Khaaneh, Teerath Barat Naym Keeay Tay Sabhay Rasaatal Jaaneh._
> 
> PK70 ji,
> ...



Tejwant Ji,
Gurfateh.

IMHO..the Salok must be read in context of the preceeding sloks. Here Kabeer Ji is talking about the "TIME" spent in the remembrance of the Creator...even a mere half blink of eye is enough..to merge with Him...Ek Gharree aadhee Gharee adhee...

Now what do Most persons do...Most spend majority of their "TIME" in Khao Peeoh ate Mauj Karo....in Kabeer Jis time..and Now adays..and will also in the Future.
These people are known as the "Khaan peen waleh"...and they spend their time at Fish andChips shops...drinking alcohol..enjoying their roasts ( Alcohol is NEVER drunk without the accompanying Roasted Meats/nuts/etc....99.9% of sherab shops have Chicken shops nearby..and rost chicken/roasted fish are always sold nearby)....and those into DRUGS..amoking POT marijuana..paan suparee kahyeh..etc...

NOW what happens later... Almost CERTAINLY these people will WITHOUT FAIL attend Mandir/Gurdwara on SUNDAY...and they will go to TEERATHS..to ask forgiveness...wash away their sins...etc etc..and then BACK to the Khaan Peen Walleh Company.

THIS is what Kabeer Ji is trying to TARGET. This is the ENVIRONMENT....endless ENJOYMENT in Food/DRINK.... and wilfull NEGLECT of TIME SPENT IN CREATORS NAAM MEDITATION....central thought that Kabir ji projecting.

The Following Sloks..Keso Keso kookeah...hair burning away like ghaas..grass..etc etc are all WARNING AGAINST WASTING TIME !!! LOOTna hai to Lot lai...etc etc...

IMHO Kabir Ji si trying to Give us two styles of living....
ONE is the Khaan Peen walleh..who devote entire day/weeks/months/years... to khanna peena mauj karo lifestyles....and once in a  while visit Gurdawras teeraths...hoping to wash off their sins...
*AND the second type who KESO KESO KOOKEAH....naam japan walleh....*

DIET/MEAT/FISH/DAALs/vegetables/sarsohn da saag and ATTA etc is NOT the Central Subject of the Sloks..either in front of this line or those sloks following it. The Entire Group of Sloks muts be read in ONE GROUP...to see what Kabir Ji is trying to tell us so forcefully.

PS> I have put the KESO KESO KOOKEAH..  TUK of Kabir Ji in BOLD as the Clean Shavens NEVER quote/or even "look" at SUCH....simply because these types of TUKS DONT FIT in with their Anti-KESH viewpoint.....simply IGNORED. This is called SELECTIVE choice of TUKS. My view.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 7, 2009)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Tejwant Ji,
> Gurfateh.
> 
> IMHO..the Salok must be read in context of the preceeding sloks. Here Kabeer Ji is talking about the "TIME" spent in the remembrance of the Creator...even a mere half blink of eye is enough..to merge with Him...Ek Gharree aadhee Gharee adhee...
> ...



Gyani ji,

Guru Fateh.

Exactly my thought. But the post by Pk70 ji's in response to Virinder Singh ji does not indicate that.  That is the reason I asked.

One other example like the above can be given with the following on  sggs 726:

ਪਾਨ ਸੁਪਾਰੀ ਖਾਤੀਆ ਮੁਖਿ ਬੀੜੀਆ ਲਾਈਆ ॥ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਕਦੇ ਨ ਚੇਤਿਓ ਜਮਿ ਪਕੜਿ ਚਲਾਈਆ ॥੧੩॥
Pān supārī kẖāṯī▫ā mukẖ bīṛī▫ā lā▫ī▫ā.  Har har kaḏe na cẖeṯi▫o jam pakaṛ cẖalā▫ī▫ā. ||13||

Thanks for the clarification.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 7, 2009)

Tejwant Ji,
Gurfateh.
Then we will wait for PK70s clarifications of his views if any.

And yes i agree with  the Tuk from "babarvani". This tuk is a "physical description" of the brides of the Lodhis who were living LAVISHLY. The stress is on LAVISH living and the way the rich lived lavishly was through endless smoking/and reddning their lips to look seductish/beautiful physically. It si NOT an edict agaisnt "smoking/eating paan/suparee/etc". I read soemwhere that the word "Beerree" is NOT what it means today.
Thank you.


----------



## pk70 (Apr 7, 2009)

Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> ਕਬੀਰਭਾਂਗਮਾਛੁਲੀਸੁਰਾਪਾਨਿਜੋਜੋਪ੍ਰਾਨੀਖਾਂਹਿ





			
				Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> ॥ਤੀਰਥਬਰਤਨੇਮਕੀਏਤੇਸਭੈਰਸਾਤਲਿਜਾਂਹਿ॥
> _Kabir Bhaang Maachulee Sura Paan Jo Jo Praanee Khaaneh, Teerath Barat Naym Keeay Tay Sabhay Rasaatal Jaaneh._
> 
> PK70 ji,
> ...



2.


			
				Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> Gyani ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> Exactly my thought. But the post by Pk70 ji's in response to Virinder Singh ji does not indicate that. That is the reason I asked.
> ...



*Respected Gyani ji please accept my sincere thanks  for to understanding the point I rose in my post(in which  I didn’t address meat issue)*

*Vaheguru Seekr Ji,*
*First of all let me comment on your comment, “ shine some Gurmat light on it”*
*Gurmat is not in what you or I say, it is what Gurbani says, I pointed out to VSGREWAL ji that Bhagat Kabir Ji’s bani is honored by Guru ji and it has Guru ji’s backing, that’s all, Sikhs should believe in that Guru= support  Kabir Ji has, instead of going back into his life as well expressed by Gyani ji in his post about the past. Literally I didn’t address the content of the Sloka because I was not into debating “meat Issue” but integrity of Bhagat Bani in context of SGGS Ji. Gyani ji understood that well.

If you allow, let me say that to understand Kabir Ji’s meaning of the sloka quoted above, one must start to read the previous Sloka by Kabir ji . Let’s contemplate on this

ਕਬੀਰ ਏਕ ਘੜੀ ਆਧੀ ਘਰੀ ਆਧੀ ਹੂੰ ਤੇ ਆਧ ॥ ਭਗਤਨ ਸੇਤੀ ਗੋਸਟੇ ਜੋ ਕੀਨੇ ਸੋ ਲਾਭ ॥੨੩੨॥
Kabīr ek gẖaṛī āḏẖī gẖarī āḏẖī hūŉ ṯe āḏẖ.nnBẖagṯan seṯī goste jo kīne so lābẖ. ||232||

In essence; company/talk with the devotees of the Creator for a moment or less is useful ( in context of realizing Him because in their company His praise will be the subject of the talk, it will inspire love for Him  in the hearts contrary to  the company of others who do not praise Him or contemplate on Him)

What Kabir ji is saying here  is that to be in the company of His devotees is very useful for the soul to tread on His path even if it’s for a short time because it inspires the mind to turn towards Him. Question here is how we meet the devotees and how they accept us. They have their goal, they have purpose and they have their environment. In the following Sloka, Kabir Ji is pointing out those who go to the devotees but are more into their own pleasures as well.  That won’t help, it is also important to change to be worthy of Him. The pleasures they are into, negate the good effect  of company of the devotees and eventually effects of intoxication, fish will take over. 
Dr Sahib Singh
ਹੇਕਬੀਰ ਚੂੰਕਿਦੁਨੀਆਦੇ "ਬਾਦਬਿਬਾਦ" 
ਤੋਂਖ਼ਲਾਸੀਸਾਧੂਦੀਸੰਗਤਿਕੀਤਿਆਂਹੀਮਿਲਦੀਹੈ,  ਇਸਵਾਸਤੇ ਇੱਕਘੜੀ, ਅੱਧੀਘੜੀ, ਘੜੀਦਾਚੌਥਾਹਿੱਸਾ-ਜਿਤਨਾਚਿਰਭੀਗੁਰਮੁਖਾਂਦੀਸੰਗਤਿਕੀਤੀਜਾਏ, ਇਸਤੋਂ ਆਤਮਕਜੀਵਨਵਿਚ ਨਫ਼ਾਹੀਨਫ਼ਾਹੈ।੨੩੨।

(Dr Sahib Singh Translation: Kabir (since only way to get out of  affairs  of arguments is through the company of His devotees), whatever time is available, a moment or half of it or less than should be spent in the Company of Gurmukh because it is useful for spiritually gain.)*

*Now lets look at that very Sloka under discussion
ਕਬੀਰਭਾਂਗਮਾਛੁਲੀਸੁਰਾਪਾਨਿਜੋਜੋਪ੍ਰਾਨੀਖਾਂਹਿ॥
ਤੀਰਥਬਰਤਨੇਮਕੀਏਤੇਸਭੈਰਸਾਤਲਿਜਾਂਹਿ॥੨੩੩॥
Kabīr bẖāŉg mācẖẖulī surā pān jo jo parānī kẖāŉhi.
Ŧirath baraṯ nem kī▫e ṯe sabẖai rasāṯal jāŉhi. ||233||

In essence “There are prople who take Bhang, eat Fish and drink, even if they do pilgrimage, fasting and daily rites, they will go into miseries (Hell, concept of Hell is to be in miseries)

This Slok is addressed to the people who are into lustrous habits and seek pleasures in eating fish, having bhang and alcohol; however, their acts of doing pilgrimages, fasting and other religious rites will not save them. Dr Sahib Singh further illustrates that Kabir ji is hinting at those people who remain into lustrous life style and are into intoxications, even if they go to the company of devotees, when they return, they again get into it and result of it they cannot have eternal peace as Devotees of Him have.

Dr Sahib Singh
ਹੇਕਬੀਰ ਜੇਲੋਕ 'ਭਗਤਨਸੇਤੀਗੋਸਟੇ]' ਕਰਕੇਤੀਰਥ-ਜਾਤ੍ਰਾਵਰਤ]-ਨੇਮਆਦਿਕਭੀਕਰਦੇਹਨਤੇਉਹਸ਼ਰਾਬੀਲੋਕਭੰਗਮੱਛੀਭੀਖਾਂਦੇਹਨ (ਭਾਵ, ਸਤਸੰਗਵਿਚਭੀਜਾਂਦੇਹਨਤੇਸ਼ਰਾਬ-ਕਬਾਬਭੀਖਾਂਦੇਪੀਂਦੇਹਨ,  ਵਿਕਾਰਭੀਕਰਦੇਹਨ[) ਉਹਨਾਂਦੇਉਹਤੀਰਥਵਰਤਆਦਿਕਵਾਲੇਸਾਰੇਕਰਮਬਿਲਕੁਲਵਿਅਰਥਜਾਂਦੇਹਨ।੨੩੩ਮੱਛੀਦਾਮਾਸਚੂੰਕਿਕਾਮ-ਰੁਚੀਵਧੀਕਪੈਦਾਕਰਨਵਿਚਪ੍ਰਸਿਧਹੈ, ਇਸਵਾਸਤੇਕਬੀਰਜੀਨੇਸ਼ਰਾਬਭੰਗਮੱਛੀਲਫ਼ਜ਼ਵਰਤੇਹਨ। 
(Oh Kabir the people who after having sit with devotees of Him, go on pilgrimage, perform religious rites, and those drunkard also eat fish( means go to Sattsangat and drink and eat fish and indulge into vices) their going to pilgrimage and other religious rites are useless… Since fish is known to boost sexual desire that is why Kabir ji has used the words Bhang , alcohol and fish)  

Your questions are answered in the elaboration.
Thanks.*


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 7, 2009)

PK 70 Ji,
Gurfateh.

Thanks for reinforcing my lifelong mission to assert that the Sikh GURUS and the other contributors of the SGGS share an unbreakable BOND.- Nuhn Maas da Rishta   Nail and Finger relationship. The entire 1429 angs of SGGS are ONE PHILOSOPHY/ONE THOUGHT...all the various shbads..the various authors all on ONE WAVELENGTH..one MAALA.

Any and all attempts at separation of the Gurus from the Bhagats/Bhatts/Sunder Ji etc MUST be resisted as these attempt to cause cracks in the INTEGRITY of the SGGS. Guru Arjun Ji must have gone through all the materilas with a very very fine toothed comb and His Final Choice is unassailable - unquestionable under any circumstances by anyone. The Hindalis tried to do thsi by adulterating hand written SGGS Birs...the Bhasaurrias tried it by simply REMOVING all Bhagat bani under the pretext of Separating "GENUINE GURUBANI" from "Bhagt bani -sunder jis bani- bhatt swaiyahs" Their pretext was that ONLY the SIKH GURU..could write GURBANI ( which they invented a new word called GUR*U*BANI")
while it is clear that the SGGS being GURU..all the Bani in it is GURBANI. This argument is also faulty because FOUR GURUS never wrote any Bani...and thus their compositions are not in SGGS - YET the SGGS is OUR GURU NOW and it is the *JYOT of ALL TEN GURUS.* Thus we BOW to ALL GURBANI in SGGS irregardeless of who the author is. WE do not discrminate or treat the authors differently .:yes:


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 8, 2009)

Gyani ji and Pk 70 ji,

Guru Fateh.

I totally agree with you that SGGS is from page 1 to 1430 and it is a whole. It should neither be separated nor contested in anyway. It is all one thought process. That is why our Gurus selected other people as contributors in the SGGS because they were all in tune with the same thought process. Hence, there must be some reason only known to our Gurus why they did not add Bhai Gurdas ji's poetry in SGGS.

Pk70 ji,

You write:



> *Vaheguru Seekr Ji,
> First of all let me comment on your comment, “ shine some Gurmat light on it”
> Gurmat is not in what you or I say, it is what Gurbani says,*



I beg to differ with you. The opposite of Gurmat is Manmat, hence we can only shine what ours Gurus have bestowed upon us as their Gurmat not Manmat. Allow me to take your reasoning a bit further, then we can not say Gurmukh either and we know the opposite is Manmukh. Perhaps we have the same intentions but express it using different wordings which is ok with me.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 8, 2009)

> Dr Sahib Singh
> ਹੇਕਬੀਰ! ਜੇਲੋਕ 'ਭਗਤਨਸੇਤੀਗੋਸਟੇ' ਕਰਕੇਤੀਰਥ-ਜਾਤ੍ਰਾਵਰਤ-ਨੇਮਆਦਿਕਭੀਕਰਦੇਹਨਤੇਉਹਸ਼ਰਾਬੀਲੋਕਭੰਗਮੱਛੀਭੀਖਾਂਦੇਹਨ (ਭਾਵ, ਸਤਸੰਗਵਿਚਭੀਜਾਂਦੇਹਨਤੇਸ਼ਰਾਬ-ਕਬਾਬਭੀਖਾਂਦੇਪੀਂਦੇਹਨ, ਵਿਕਾਰਭੀਕਰਦੇਹਨ) ਉਹਨਾਂਦੇਉਹਤੀਰਥਵਰਤਆਦਿਕਵਾਲੇਸਾਰੇਕਰਮਬਿਲਕੁਲਵਿਅਰਥਜਾਂਦੇਹਨ।੨੩੩ਮੱਛੀਦਾਮਾਸਚੂੰਕਿਕਾਮ-ਰੁਚੀਵਧੀਕਪੈਦਾਕਰਨਵਿਚਪ੍ਰਸਿਧਹੈ, ਇਸਵਾਸਤੇਕਬੀਰਜੀਨੇਸ਼ਰਾਬਭੰਗਮੱਛੀਲਫ਼ਜ਼ਵਰਤੇਹਨ। (Oh Kabir the people who after having sit with devotees of Him, go on pilgrimage, perform religious rites, and those drunkard also eat fish( means go to Sattsangat and drink and eat fish and indulge into vices) their going to pilgrimage and other religious rites are useless… Since fish is known to boost sexual desire that is why Kabir ji has used the words Bhang , alcohol and fish)
> Your questions are answered in the elaboration.
> Thanks.



Gyani surjit singh has written in an essay that maachchuli is word used for a type of Alchol and  not for fish which was used at that time as the shabad is dealin with intoxicants.As far as fish is concerned For people that are living in coastal area or area with lot of ponds it is their primary source of food like a vegetable and there is no study that those people have more sexual desire than people living in other parts of world


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 8, 2009)

Yes I have read that article by Gyani Surjit Singh Ji. I beleive its available on the Sikh Marg ???? ???? webiste - in Punjabi only. But even if its another word for a drug ( I doubt Kabeer ji woull then repeat the same word  by using "Bhang"...- anyway the Main CENTRAL THEME of the two sloks is about Company/time/spent in variosu pursuits..one in Good Company..other in Bad Company...Environment !!


----------



## pk70 (Apr 8, 2009)

kds1980 said:


> Gyani surjit singh has written in an essay that maachchuli is word used for a type of Alchol and  not for fish which was used at that time as the shabad is dealin with intoxicants.As far as fish is concerned For people that are living in coastal area or area with lot of ponds it is their primary source of food like a vegetable and there is no study that those people have more sexual desire than people living in other parts of world




*People have a tendency to come up with new ideas about words. .  99% people wouldn’t   have heard the name of that intoxicant the gentleman is talking about.*
*Try to understand what Dr Sahib Singh says. He is not talking about medical research based -facts but about commonplace assumption turned into  a belief. Why Kabir ji would use all words for intoxicants only, Bhang and sura both represent  usable and drinkable intoxicants and with it eating of fish is popular just as in many areas with meat alcohol goes., this word is “mashli means fish.*


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 8, 2009)

*Re: Meat in sikhism*



vsgrewal48895 said:


> There have been references to the Hukamnama of Guru Har Gobind from the book of Hukamnamas by Dr. Ganda Singh to the effect that the Gurus forbid the eating of meat. This Hukamnama have been annulled by the above references and he him self being a good hunter makes the document erroneous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I would go further and state the following facts:

1) Bhai Randhir Singh leader of the AKJ seems to have found this alleged hukamnama. As everyone knows he has an inherent bias on this subject. So I would question this miraculous finding of this hukamnama.

2) THe hukamnama to date has never been verified or accepted as factual by any Historians of note, infact any Historians.

3) It contradicts the Hukamnama's by Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the Sikhs of Kabul.

4) Dr Ganda Singh ji himself states it cannot be verified.

5) From recent readings I have ascertained something like 6 to 7 % of all Hukamnama's found have been verified and seen as genuine.

6) This goes against the character of Guru Hargobind Singh ji. I also don't buy this nonsense about giving Mukhti to animals. This Mukhti business contradicts Sikh teaching.


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm sorry friends, *you **have all fallen for the classic pitfall that 99% of Sikhs * suffer from, and that is taking one line of shabad and trying to analyse it. Here is an extract from the fools who wrangle over flesh essay:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_mukat padaarath paa-ee-ai thaak na avghat ghaat.
231 
kabeer ayk gharhee aaDhee gharee aaDhee hooN tay aaDh.
bhagtan saytee gostay jo keenay so laabh. 232 
kabeer bhaaNg maachhulee suraa paan jo jo paraanee khaaNhi.
tirath barat naym kee-ay tay sabhai rasaatal jaaNhi. 233
neechay lo-in kar raha-o lay saajan ghat maahi.
sabh ras khayla-o pee-a sa-o kisee lakhaava-o naahi. 234 
aath jaam cha-usath gharee tu-a nirkhat rahai jee-o.
neechay lo-in ki-o kara-o sabh ghat daykh-a-u pee-o. 235 
sun sakhee pee-a meh jee-o basai jee-a meh basai ke pee-o.
jee-o pee-o boojha-o nahee ghat meh jee-o ke pee-o. 236 
kabeer baaman guroo hai jagat kaa bhagtan kaa gur naahi.
arajh urajh kai pach moo-aa chaara-o baydahu maahi.237 
har hai khaaNd rayt meh bikhree haathee chunee na jaa-ay.
kahi kabeer gur bhalee bujhaa-ee keetee ho-ay kai khaa-ay. 238 
kabeer ja-o tuhi saaDh piramm kee sees kaat kar go-ay.
khaylat khaylat haal kar jo kichh ho-ay ta ho-ay. 239 
kabeer ja-o tuhi saaDh piramm kee paakay saytee khayl.
kaachee sarsa-uN payl kai naa khal bha-ee na tayl.240 
dhooNdhat doleh anDh gat ar cheenat naahee sant.
kahi naamaa ki-o paa-ee-ai bin bhagtahu bhagvant. 241 
har so heeraa chhaad kai karahi aan kee aas.
tay nar dojak jaahigay sat bhaakhai ravidaas. 242 
kabeer ja-o garihu karahi ta Dharam kar naahee ta kar bairaag.
bairaagee banDhan karai taa ko bado abhaag. 243 

He obtains the treasure of liberation, and the difficult road to the Lord is not blocked.
231
Kabeer, whether is is for an hour, half an hour, or half of that,
whatever it is, it is worthwhile to speak with the Holy. 232
Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine -
no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. 233
Kabeer, I keep my eyes lowered, and enshrine my Friend within my heart.
I enjoy all pleasures with my Beloved, but I do not let anyone else know.234
Twenty-four hours a day, every hour, my soul continues to look to You, O Lord.
Why should I keep my eyes lowered? I see my Beloved in every heart. 235
Listen, O my companions: my soul dwells in my Beloved, and my Beloved dwells in my soul.
I realize that there is no difference between my soul and my Beloved; I cannot tell whether my soul or my Beloved dwells in my heart. 236
Kabeer, the Brahmin may be the guru of the world, but he is not the Guru of the devotees.
He rots and dies in the perplexities of the four Vedas. 237
The Lord is like sugar, scattered in the sand; the elephant cannot pick it up.
Says Kabeer, the Guru has given me this sublime understanding: become an ant, and feed on it. 238
Kabeer, if you desire to play the game of love with the Lord, then cut off your head, and make it into a ball.
Lose yourself in the play of it, and then whatever will be, will be. 239
Kabeer, if you desire to play the game of love with the Lord, play it with someone with committment.
Pressing the unripe mustard seeds produces neither oil nor flour. 240
Searching, the mortal stumbles like a blind person, and does not recognize the Saint.
Says Naam Dayv, how can one obtain the Lord God, without His devotee?


__Taking out the sentence we see _​_ 

kabeer bhaaNg maachhulee suraa paan jo jo paraanee khaaNhi.
Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine – 

tirath barat naym kee-ay tay sabhai rasaatal jaaNhi. 233
no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. 233
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 


Firstly note that maachlee is not flesh, but is indeed fish. The word in Punjabi for flesh is maas. Then secondly one must ask, why is there a forbidding in the consumption of fish specifically. The answer lies in reading the entire paragraph and a picture emerges. In the last two lines the statement is made: 

kabeer ja-o garihu karahi ta Dharam kar naahee ta kar bairaag. 
Kabeer, if you live the householder's life, then practice righteousness; otherwise, you might as well retire from the world. 

bairaagee banDhan karai taa ko bado abhaag. 243 
If someone renounces the world, and then gets involved in worldly entanglements, he shall suffer terrible misfortune. 243
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 


Now putting this in its entire context what Bhagat Kabir is actually criticising in the rich and those in power. The thrill seekers, who are addicted to their senses and those addicted to the 5 thieves. Kabir was born around the area of Benares, and was brought up in a poor Muslim weavers family. He saw the excesses of the rich around him, while the poor starved. Foods like fish and wine were associated with the rich who had an excessive disposable income. Marijuana was associated with either idol people or those who had time and money to waste. Kabir abhorred this, and this statement is a social comment about the excesses of the rich. At the end he clearly states, that those people who do their duties as householders (i.e. work hard, care for other etc) are the ones who will be liberated, and those who live by excesses will suffer. *One can therefore clearly see that this is in no way a comment about eating meat (because of mistranslation) or about avoiding certain foods (as has been misrepresented). *_
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What is being stated here is basically, do not take one line out of a shabad like this. This shabad is clearly about humility. Avoiding excess. I often use the word "Sharabi-Kababi" to describe my drinking relatives, who have over inflated ego's and show off with the amounts of alcohol they consume (not the amounts of Kebab's they eat), and varieties of food they have (including expensive vegetarian ones). It is just a phrase. Kabir ji clearly associated foods associated with rich, egotistical and idol people such as wine, bhang, fish. It is a metaphor. Kabir ji could easily have inserted Khohee dheee Barfee, but it would have been difficult to include it in the verse. It would not have been however, out of turn with this shabad.

There is ONLY one place where maas or meat is specifically refered to in Bani and there Guruji clearly states, do not argue about it.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 8, 2009)

Randip Ji,

PK 70 ji  and myself have been saying that exactly. We are in no pitfall. And we didnt take the one liner approach at all. What you are saying is the Right explanation...and thanks for reinforcing it once more. Only the those who go for "superficial  word for word translations and one liner appraoch" fall by the way.
Kabir Ji is indeed talking about the Life Style of the Rich and Famous..the Khaan peen waleh the indulging kind.//and  contrasting with those who keep in the company of sadh sangat. I think we just said it in different words...


----------



## lionheart (Apr 9, 2009)

Randip Singh jio... i read this post today... all of ur article is very well written and backed up with baanee... i just had a question about one of the excerpts...

HUKAMNAMA ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY THE 6TH MASTER 

Some pro-vegetarian sections of the Sikh following have produced an alleged Hukamnama that states that the Sikhs of the East were not to go near meat. Unfortunately, the sources that have produced this Hukamnama, have not been able to back it up with any evidence of its genuineness, from any Sikh scholars of note. There have been statements to the effect that Ganda Singh found this document and indeed published it (Two collections of Hukamnamas are available in print form, one edited by Dr. Ganda Singh published in 1968 by Punjabi University and the S.G.P.C), but this has not been verified by any of his contemporaries or any other Sikh scholars.. 

_*Historical evidence, in fact contradicts what Guru Hargobind ji was actually like. He was an avid hunter and warrior. Again this fact some have tried to dismiss as Guruji giving Mukhti to animals souls. This, however, contradicts the Guruâ€™s own philosophy which clearly states that only God is capable of granting such things. *_
Infact Bhai Gudas in his Vars States: 

_Just as one has to tie pail's neck while taking out water_
, 
_Just as to get Mani, snake is to be killed_
_Just as to get Kasturi from deer's neck, deer is to be killed_
_Just as to get oil, oil seeds are to be crushed_
_To get kernel, pomegranate is to be broken_
_Similarly to correct senseless people, sword has to be taken up._
Bhai Gurdas, Var-34, pauri 13 


First, I'm not attacking you in anyway... i just don't understand what you are trying to say and how the vaar that is mentioned relates to what you are saying in the highlighted paragraph. Also, I could be mistaken but I'm sure everyones heard of saakhees such as Mulla Khatri and others who were "liberated" by Guru Sahibaan but I do understand what you're saying that Guru Sahib says numerous times in Gurbanee that only Akaal Purkh has the power to do so. Are you saying that Akaal Purkh is acting through Guru Sahibaan? I was under the impression that we believe.. "gur parmesar eko jaan"..sorry for taking the one-liner approach but i'm sure u can look the shabad or must already know it...

again im not trynna disrespect u in anyway.. i actually appreciate wt u've done here... i think ppl need to come out of ther boxes n discover sikhi for wt it really is... im just trynna clarify this for myself... if u could help me out brother... also u may hav already clarified this in the 58 pages of this discussion but frankly i refuse to read all 58 pages of sometimes useless discussion..lol.. so i apologize in advance if thats the case... thanks


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 9, 2009)

lionheart said:


> Randip Singh jio... i read this post today... all of ur article is very well written and backed up with baanee... i just had a question about one of the excerpts...
> 
> HUKAMNAMA ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY THE 6TH MASTER
> 
> ...




Firstly I cannot take the credit for the essay for it was a collaboration.

I think in Bani it says time and again that God is the creator and destroyer, we just watch the drama unfold.

Although our Guru's no doubt were one with God, I do not think they would ever try and do God like actions. I am from the group that thinks the Guru's did not do or perform miracles.


----------



## lionheart (Apr 9, 2009)

randip singh said:


> Firstly I cannot take the credit for the essay for it was a collaboration.
> 
> I think in Bani it says time and again that God is the creator and destroyer, we just watch the drama unfold.
> 
> Although our Guru's no doubt were one with God, I do not think they would ever try and do God like actions. I am from the group that thinks the Guru's did not do or perform miracles.



thanks for the reply veer... but that still didn't answer my question abt the vaar and how its related to the portion highlighted in blue.. ?


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 10, 2009)

lionheart said:


> thanks for the reply veer... but that still didn't answer my question abt the vaar and how its related to the portion highlighted in blue.. ?



You would have to ask the author about this but my take on below is:

_*Historical evidence, in fact contradicts what Guru Hargobind ji was actually like. He was an avid hunter and warrior. Again this fact some have tried to dismiss as Guruji giving Mukhti to animals souls. This, however, contradicts the Guru's own philosophy which clearly states that only God is capable of granting such things.

*_ Infact Bhai Gudas in his Vars States: 

_Just as one has to tie pail's neck while taking out water_, 
_Just as to get Mani, snake is to be killed_
_Just as to get Kasturi from deer's neck, deer is to be killed_
_Just as to get oil, oil seeds are to be crushed_
_To get kernel, pomegranate is to be broken_
_Similarly to correct senseless people, sword has to be taken up._
Bhai Gurdas, Var-34, pauri 13 


We know Bhai Gurdas Ji was a contemporary of Guru Hargobind ji and in the above he records hunting metaphors to describe the actions of the Guru. We aso know from Dabistan e Mazhib he was an avid hunter. So we know these facts yes?

I think the author is showing that Guruji was a hunter and also used force when need be.

On the second point of Mukhti, I too don't believe that Guru's went around killing animals so that there souls could be free'd. In that case all that eat meat could claim that.


----------



## lionheart (Apr 10, 2009)

randip singh said:


> You would have to ask the author about this but my take on below is:
> 
> _*Historical evidence, in fact contradicts what Guru Hargobind ji was actually like. He was an avid hunter and warrior. Again this fact some have tried to dismiss as Guruji giving Mukhti to animals souls. This, however, contradicts the Guru's own philosophy which clearly states that only God is capable of granting such things.
> 
> ...



o ok i gotcha now... i guess that would b a question for the author cuz obviously thers no question that Guru Sahib did use force when necessary... i mean he won wars.. im sure they weren't all diplomatic so anyone who says that Guru Sahib din use force... well chalo they can keep believing w/e they want then... 

but I think the baanee has lil relevance in the case we're discussing.. again i guess thats something I should ask the author.. i assumed that u would know y it was included as u were a part of the team of authors that came up with this... my bad

The second point of Muktee, we can't really claim that our killing of animals can lead to ther Muktee..that would b plain foolish lol... we do not hav the same drishtee as Guru Sahib...

Anyways, I guess I will have to do with your replies...thank you..


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 10, 2009)

lionheart said:


> but I think the baanee has lil relevance in the case we're discussing.. again i guess thats something I should ask the author.. i assumed that u would know y it was included as u were a part of the team of authors that came up with this... my bad



Which banee are you talking about? I really do not understand what you are saying?



lionheart said:


> The second point of Muktee, we can't really claim that our killing of animals can lead to ther Muktee..that would b plain foolish lol... we do not hav the same drishtee as Guru Sahib...



Even if Guru's had Grishti, why would they interfere with what God had intended?

They never resurrected people, or saved themselves from death. They never resurrected after death. So why would they interfere in this way? I don't buy the Mukhti argument.


----------



## lionheart (Apr 10, 2009)

randip singh said:


> Which banee are you talking about? I really do not understand what you are saying?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ooo that was my bad.. i meant to say vaar not baanee..

from some saakhees that i've heard.. they did actually "resurrect" after death... n yes ur rite y would they interfere... unless they weren't interfering and that is just how God intended it to be? A thought... 

u seem to b getting a lil annoyed with me... or i duno may b its just how i feel from the way ur saying things.. the limitations of a forum to convey emotions.. but o well...


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 11, 2009)

lionheart said:


> ooo that was my bad.. i meant to say vaar not baanee..



Ok I understand



lionheart said:


> from some saakhees that i've heard.. they did actually "resurrect" after death... n yes ur rite y would they interfere... unless they weren't interfering and that is just how God intended it to be? A thought...



Sakhee's are probably the most unreliable sources of info we have on our Guru's they often contradict and were usually written some 100 years after the demise of the last Guru.

I see what you are saying. They were an instrument of God's will. They knew such a such animal had such a such soul and therefore sought to liberate it. So was God using the Guru's to correct mistakes he/she had made? Is this your take?



lionheart said:


> u seem to b getting a lil annoyed with me... or i duno may b its just how i feel from the way ur saying things.. the limitations of a forum to convey emotions.. but o well...



No I am not annoyed at all.

I am just curious and trying to get as much information out of you in order to answer your question.

Can I ask why you use "coloquialisms" like "lil" etc when you write. The reason why I say this is that it is difficult for all our members to follow. Even me.


----------



## lionheart (Apr 11, 2009)

randip singh said:


> Ok I understand
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, Saakhees are a bad source. Me and You both know that we believe that God does not make any mistakes. My take was that its God's play, and if God so wishes he can get Guru Sahib to resurrect someone from the dead... why not?

I'm sorry about using colloquialism, I'm a North American, its a habit we all have (I'm studying in the UK). I guess it saves time.. haha.. I don't know? I'll make sure my posts are proper from now on.


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 11, 2009)

lionheart said:


> I agree, Saakhees are a bad source. Me and You both know that we believe that God does not make any mistakes. My take was that its God's play, and if God so wishes he can get Guru Sahib to resurrect someone from the dead... why not?



Yes, agree 100% that God does not make any mistake. That is why I do not believe Guru's killed animals for Mukhti.

Resurrection from the dead is an interesting one. On the one hand, you could argue that in  Sikhi we are governed by God's laws, that being the laws of "nature" . The Guru's were instruments of God and hence operated within those laws.

On the other hand one could argue ifthey were at one with God the creator, they could easily break those rules in this instance resurrect the dead.

My personal take is that they would not do the latter.




lionheart said:


> I'm sorry about using colloquialism, I'm a North American, its a habit we all have (I'm studying in the UK). I guess it saves time.. haha.. I don't know? I'll make sure my posts are proper from now on.



It's OK, it ios just that I want to make sure as many people as possible can read your questions because they are very interesting and get the grey matter working.:welcome:


----------



## lionheart (Apr 11, 2009)

randip singh said:


> Yes, agree 100% that God does not make any mistake. That is why I do not believe Guru's killed animals for Mukhti.
> 
> Resurrection from the dead is an interesting one. On the one hand, you could argue that in  Sikhi we are governed by God's laws, that being the laws of "nature" . The Guru's were instruments of God and hence operated within those laws.
> 
> ...



Alright, then I guess we will agree to disagree. I believe that the so called laws of nature are made by God and since its his show, at any point if he wishes he could make new ones or break the old.


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 11, 2009)

lionheart said:


> Alright, then I guess we will agree to disagree. I believe that the so called laws of nature are made by God and since its his show, at any point if he wishes he could make new ones or break the old.



Again, why would God do that? The implication being that what he/she created (in this case the laws of "nature" he/she created) not being perfect. I cannot get my head around this. If he she is breaking his her own laws then he she cannot be perfect, because those laws created in the first place would be created as perfect.


----------



## vsgrewal48895 (May 9, 2009)

Dear Randip Ji,

I enjoyed the above elaborate debate on wrangling over eating meat. Here are my two cents on it;
Whether to consume any kind of meat should be a matter of personal preference on the basis of taste etc, but it is foolhardy to bring religion into this issue. Guru Nanak has explained it very well in Raag Majh that only God knows what is good and what is bad to eat but those who forget the Creator are deluded;

_ਇਕਿ ਮਾਸਹਾਰੀ ਇਕਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਣੁ ਖਾਹਿ ॥ ਇਕਨਾ ਛਤੀਹ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਪਾਹਿ ॥ ਇਕਿ ਮਿਟੀਆ ਮਹਿ ਮਿਟੀਆ ਖਾਹਿ ॥ ਇਕਿ ਪਉਣ ਸੁਮਾਰੀ ਪਉਣ ਸੁਮਾਰਿ ॥ ਇਕਿ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੀ ਨਾਮ ਆਧਾਰਿ ॥ ਜੀਵੈ ਦਾਤਾ ਮਰੈ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਮੁਠੇ ਜਾਹਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਮਨਿ ਸੋਇ ॥_ 

Ik māshārī ik ṯariṇ kẖāhi. Iknā cẖẖaṯīh amriṯ pāhi. Ik mitī▫ā mėh mitī▫ā kẖāhi. Ik pa▫uṇ sumārī pa▫uṇ sumār. Ik nirankārī nām āḏẖār. Jīvai ḏāṯā marai na ko▫e. Nānak muṯẖe jāhi nāhī man so▫e.

Some eat meat, while others eat grass. Some have all the thirty-six varieties of delicacies, while others live in the dirt and eat mud. Some control the breath, and regulate their breathing. Some live by the Support of the Name of the Formless Akal Purkh. The Great Giver lives; no one dies. O Nanak, those who do not enshrine the God within their minds is deluded. -----Guru Nanak, Raag Majh, AGGS, Page, 144-13

Meat has been eaten in all the four ages and has been referred to in all religious scriptures. Guru Angad in Raag Ramkali ponders on the life in ocean;

ਜੀਆ ਕਾ ਆਹਾਰੁ ਜੀਅ ਖਾਣਾ ਏਹੁ ਕਰੇਇ ॥ ਵਿਚਿ ਉਪਾਏ ਸਾਇਰਾ ਤਿਨਾ ਭਿ ਸਾਰ ਕਰੇਇ ॥ 

_Jī▫ā kā āhār jī▫a kẖāṇā ehu kare▫i. vicẖ upā▫e sā▫irā ṯinā bẖė sār kare▫i._

Animals eat other animals; this is what the Akal Purkh has given them as food. God created them in the oceans, and provides for them as well.-----Guru Angad, Raag Ramkali, AGGS, Page, 955-11

Every material thing develops from water whether meat or vegetable. In AGGS there is no prohibition about eating or cooking meat. Guru Nanak cooked deer meat at the festival of the solar eclipse at Kurchetar to remove doubt and superstition. He elaborately writes about meat in Raag Malar. Guru Arjan writes about it spiritulistically in an indirect way in Raag Maru;

ਹਕੁ ਹਲਾਲੁ ਬਖੋਰਹੁ ਖਾਣਾ ॥ ਦਿਲ ਦਰੀਆਉ ਧੋਵਹੁ ਮੈਲਾਣਾ ॥

_Hak halāl bakẖorahu kẖāṇā. Ḏil ḏarī▫ā▫o ḏẖovahu mailāṇā._

Let what is earned righteously be your blessed food. Wash away pollution with the river of your heart. -----Guru Arjan, Raag Maru, AGGS, Page, 1084-7

Cordially,

Virinder


----------



## Randip Singh (May 16, 2009)

vsgrewal48895 said:


> Dear Randip Ji,
> 
> I enjoyed the above elaborate debate on wrangling over eating meat. Here are my two cents on it;
> Whether to consume any kind of meat should be a matter of personal preference on the basis of taste etc, but it is foolhardy to bring religion into this issue. Guru Nanak has explained it very well in Raag Majh that only God knows what is good and what is bad to eat but those who forget the Creator are deluded;
> ...



Thanks for your input.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 19, 2009)

benjamin_chaudry said:


> I dont think anyone has a right to stop others from eating meat, i'll back it up with a biological/dental statement,
> 
> herbivors (grass eating animals) all have flat teeth to help grind and digest the vegetables.
> carnivors (meat eating animals) all have sharp teeth, for grip and chewing power.
> ...



I think the biological argument is straight forward. I don't think anyone can deny humans are omnivores, although there are fringe groups that try and do this too.

The debate is about the Sikh view. In Sikhism, there have always been groups that espoused vegetarianism, but the thinking behind the essay is not to use *one liners* and *selective quotes *to try and prove Sikhism supports vegetarianism (or even meat eating).

The reality is that the Sikh Guru's saw the argument of one diet over another and spiritual arguments around this as a folly.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 19, 2009)

benjamin_chaudry said:


> 'to use *one liners* and *selective quotes'
> *
> Its not the Sikh view, its just a scientific observation. (does Sikhism agree, or take into account science?) from a purely physical biological view, y would God bless humans with both types of teeth? I think it would be wrong to say He made an error...! n e ways it was just a point i found worth mentioning. not spiritual, but scientific.




The Sikh view supports the scientific view. If you read this:

ਮਃ  ੧  ॥
मः १ ॥
Mėhlā 1.
First Mehl:

ਮਾਸੁ  ਮਾਸੁ  ਕਰਿ  ਮੂਰਖੁ  ਝਗੜੇ  ਗਿਆਨੁ  ਧਿਆਨੁ  ਨਹੀ  ਜਾਣੈ  ॥
मासु मासु करि मूरखु झगड़े गिआनु धिआनु नही जाणै ॥
Mās mās kar mūrakẖ jẖagṛe gi▫ān ḏẖi▫ān nahī jāṇai.
The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom.

ਕਉਣੁ  ਮਾਸੁ  ਕਉਣੁ  ਸਾਗੁ  ਕਹਾਵੈ  ਕਿਸੁ  ਮਹਿ  ਪਾਪ  ਸਮਾਣੇ  ॥
कउणु मासु कउणु सागु कहावै किसु महि पाप समाणे ॥
Ka▫uṇ mās ka▫uṇ sāg kahāvai kis mėh pāp samāṇe.
What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?

ਗੈਂਡਾ  ਮਾਰਿ  ਹੋਮ  ਜਗ  ਕੀਏ  ਦੇਵਤਿਆ  ਕੀ  ਬਾਣੇ  ॥
गैंडा मारि होम जग कीए देवतिआ की बाणे ॥
Gaiŉdā mār hom jag kī▫e ḏeviṯi▫ā kī bāṇe.
It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering.

ਮਾਸੁ  ਛੋਡਿ  ਬੈਸਿ  ਨਕੁ  ਪਕੜਹਿ  ਰਾਤੀ  ਮਾਣਸ  ਖਾਣੇ  ॥
मासु छोडि बैसि नकु पकड़हि राती माणस खाणे ॥
Mās cẖẖod bais nak pakṛėh rāṯī māṇas kẖāṇe.
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.

ਫੜੁ  ਕਰਿ  ਲੋਕਾਂ  ਨੋ  ਦਿਖਲਾਵਹਿ  ਗਿਆਨੁ  ਧਿਆਨੁ  ਨਹੀ  ਸੂਝੈ  ॥
फड़ु करि लोकां नो दिखलावहि गिआनु धिआनु नही सूझै ॥
Faṛ kar lokāŉ no ḏikẖlāvahi gi▫ān ḏẖi▫ān nahī sūjẖai.
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom.

ਨਾਨਕ  ਅੰਧੇ  ਸਿਉ  ਕਿਆ  ਕਹੀਐ  ਕਹੈ  ਨ  ਕਹਿਆ  ਬੂਝੈ  ॥
नानक अंधे सिउ किआ कहीऐ कहै न कहिआ बूझै ॥
Nānak anḏẖe si▫o ki▫ā kahī▫ai kahai na kahi▫ā būjẖai.
O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said.

ਅੰਧਾ  ਸੋਇ  ਜਿ  ਅੰਧੁ  ਕਮਾਵੈ  ਤਿਸੁ  ਰਿਦੈ  ਸਿ  ਲੋਚਨ  ਨਾਹੀ  ॥
अंधा सोइ जि अंधु कमावै तिसु रिदै सि लोचन नाही ॥
Anḏẖā so▫e jė anḏẖ kamāvai ṯis riḏai sė locẖan nāhī.
They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts.

ਮਾਤ  ਪਿਤਾ  ਕੀ  ਰਕਤੁ  ਨਿਪੰਨੇ  ਮਛੀ  ਮਾਸੁ  ਨ  ਖਾਂਹੀ  ॥
मात पिता की रकतु निपंने मछी मासु न खांही ॥
Māṯ piṯā kī rakaṯ nipanne macẖẖī mās na kẖāŉhī.
They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.

ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ  ਪੁਰਖੈ  ਜਾਂ  ਨਿਸਿ  ਮੇਲਾ  ਓਥੈ  ਮੰਧੁ  ਕਮਾਹੀ  ॥
इसत्री पुरखै जां निसि मेला ओथै मंधु कमाही ॥
Isṯarī purkẖai jāŉ nis melā othai manḏẖ kamāhī.
But when men and women meet in the night, they come together in the flesh.

ਮਾਸਹੁ  ਨਿੰਮੇ  ਮਾਸਹੁ  ਜੰਮੇ  ਹਮ  ਮਾਸੈ  ਕੇ  ਭਾਂਡੇ  ॥
मासहु निमे मासहु जमे हम मासै के भांडे ॥
Māsahu nimme māsahu jamme ham māsai ke bẖāŉde.
In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh.

ਗਿਆਨੁ  ਧਿਆਨੁ  ਕਛੁ  ਸੂਝੈ  ਨਾਹੀ  ਚਤੁਰੁ  ਕਹਾਵੈ  ਪਾਂਡੇ  ॥
गिआनु धिआनु कछु सूझै नाही चतुरु कहावै पांडे ॥
Gi▫ān ḏẖi▫ān kacẖẖ sūjẖai nāhī cẖaṯur kahāvai pāŉde.
You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar.

ਬਾਹਰ  ਕਾ  ਮਾਸੁ  ਮੰਦਾ  ਸੁਆਮੀ  ਘਰ  ਕਾ  ਮਾਸੁ  ਚੰਗੇਰਾ  ॥
बाहर का मासु मंदा सुआमी घर का मासु चंगेरा ॥
Bāhar kā mās manḏā su▫āmī gẖar kā mās cẖangerā.
O master, you believe that flesh on the outside is bad, but the flesh of those in your own home is good.

ਜੀਅ  ਜੰਤ  ਸਭਿ  ਮਾਸਹੁ  ਹੋਏ  ਜੀਇ  ਲਇਆ  ਵਾਸੇਰਾ  ॥
जीअ जंत सभि मासहु होए जीइ लइआ वासेरा ॥
Jī▫a janṯ sabẖ māsahu ho▫e jī▫e la▫i▫ā vāserā.
All beings and creatures are flesh; the soul has taken up its home in the flesh.

ਅਭਖੁ  ਭਖਹਿ  ਭਖੁ  ਤਜਿ  ਛੋਡਹਿ  ਅੰਧੁ  ਗੁਰੂ  ਜਿਨ  ਕੇਰਾ  ॥
अभखु भखहि भखु तजि छोडहि अंधु गुरू जिन केरा ॥
Abẖakẖ bẖakẖėh bẖakẖ ṯaj cẖẖodėh anḏẖ gurū jin kerā.
They eat the uneatable; they reject and abandon what they could eat. They have a teacher who is blind.

ਮਾਸਹੁ  ਨਿੰਮੇ  ਮਾਸਹੁ  ਜੰਮੇ  ਹਮ  ਮਾਸੈ  ਕੇ  ਭਾਂਡੇ  ॥
मासहु निमे मासहु जमे हम मासै के भांडे ॥
Māsahu nimme māsahu jamme ham māsai ke bẖāŉde.
In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh.

ਗਿਆਨੁ  ਧਿਆਨੁ  ਕਛੁ  ਸੂਝੈ  ਨਾਹੀ  ਚਤੁਰੁ  ਕਹਾਵੈ  ਪਾਂਡੇ  ॥
गिआनु धिआनु कछु सूझै नाही चतुरु कहावै पांडे ॥
Gi▫ān ḏẖi▫ān kacẖẖ sūjẖai nāhī cẖaṯur kahāvai pāŉde.
You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar.

ਮਾਸੁ  ਪੁਰਾਣੀ  ਮਾਸੁ  ਕਤੇਬੀ  ਚਹੁ  ਜੁਗਿ  ਮਾਸੁ  ਕਮਾਣਾ  ॥
मासु पुराणी मासु कतेबीं चहु जुगि मासु कमाणा ॥
Mās purāṇī mās ketābīŉ cẖahu jug mās kamāṇā.
Meat is allowed in the Puraanas, meat is allowed in the Bible and the Koran. Throughout the four ages, meat has been used.

ਜਜਿ  ਕਾਜਿ  ਵੀਆਹਿ  ਸੁਹਾਵੈ  ਓਥੈ  ਮਾਸੁ  ਸਮਾਣਾ  ॥
जजि काजि वीआहि सुहावै ओथै मासु समाणा ॥
Jaj kāj vī▫āhi suhāvai othai mās samāṇā.
It is featured in sacred feasts and marriage festivities; meat is used in them.

ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ  ਪੁਰਖ  ਨਿਪਜਹਿ  ਮਾਸਹੁ  ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹ  ਸੁਲਤਾਨਾਂ  ॥
इसत्री पुरख निपजहि मासहु पातिसाह सुलतानां ॥
Isṯarī purakẖ nipjahi māsahu pāṯisāh sulṯānāŉ.
Women, men, kings and emperors originate from meat.

ਜੇ  ਓਇ  ਦਿਸਹਿ  ਨਰਕਿ  ਜਾਂਦੇ  ਤਾਂ  ਉਨ੍ਹ੍ਹ  ਕਾ  ਦਾਨੁ  ਨ  ਲੈਣਾ  ॥
जे ओइ दिसहि नरकि जांदे तां उन्ह का दानु न लैणा ॥
Je o▫e ḏisėh narak jāŉḏe ṯāŉ unĥ kā ḏān na laiṇā.
If you see them going to hell, then do not accept charitable gifts from them.

ਦੇਂਦਾ  ਨਰਕਿ  ਸੁਰਗਿ  ਲੈਦੇ  ਦੇਖਹੁ  ਏਹੁ  ਧਿਙਾਣਾ  ॥
देंदा नरकि सुरगि लैदे देखहु एहु धिङाणा ॥
Ḏeŉḏā narak surag laiḏe ḏekẖhu ehu ḏẖińāṇā.
The giver goes to hell, while the receiver goes to heaven - look at this injustice.

ਆਪਿ  ਨ  ਬੂਝੈ  ਲੋਕ  ਬੁਝਾਏ  ਪਾਂਡੇ  ਖਰਾ  ਸਿਆਣਾ  ॥
आपि न बूझै लोक बुझाए पांडे खरा सिआणा ॥
Āp na būjẖai lok bujẖā▫e pāŉde kẖarā si▫āṇā.
You do not understand your own self, but you preach to other people. O Pandit, you are very wise indeed.

ਪਾਂਡੇ  ਤੂ  ਜਾਣੈ  ਹੀ  ਨਾਹੀ  ਕਿਥਹੁ  ਮਾਸੁ  ਉਪੰਨਾ  ॥
पांडे तू जाणै ही नाही किथहु मासु उपंना ॥
Pāŉde ṯū jāṇai hī nāhī kithhu mās upannā.
O Pandit, you do not know where meat originated.

ਤੋਇਅਹੁ  ਅੰਨੁ  ਕਮਾਦੁ  ਕਪਾਹਾਂ  ਤੋਇਅਹੁ  ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣੁ  ਗੰਨਾ  ॥
तोइअहु अंनु कमादु कपाहां तोइअहु त्रिभवणु गंना ॥
Ŧo▫i▫ahu ann kamāḏ kapāhāŉ ṯo▫i▫ahu ṯaribẖavaṇ gannā.
Corn, sugar cane and cotton are produced from water. The three worlds came from water.

ਤੋਆ  ਆਖੈ  ਹਉ  ਬਹੁ  ਬਿਧਿ  ਹਛਾ  ਤੋਐ  ਬਹੁਤੁ  ਬਿਕਾਰਾ  ॥
तोआ आखै हउ बहु बिधि हछा तोऐ बहुतु बिकारा ॥
Ŧo▫ā ākẖai ha▫o baho biḏẖ hacẖẖā ṯoai bahuṯ bikārā.
Water says, "I am good in many ways." But water takes many forms.

ਏਤੇ  ਰਸ  ਛੋਡਿ  ਹੋਵੈ  ਸੰਨਿਆਸੀ  ਨਾਨਕੁ  ਕਹੈ  ਵਿਚਾਰਾ  ॥੨॥
एते रस छोडि होवै संनिआसी नानकु कहै विचारा ॥२॥
Ėṯe ras cẖẖod hovai sani▫āsī Nānak kahai vicẖārā. ||2||
Forsaking these delicacies, one becomes a true Sannyaasee, a detached hermit. Nanak reflects and speaks. ||2||

Here Guru Nanak tackles flesh/meat etc from all angles.


----------



## globalcool2009 (May 22, 2009)

I personally feel that there is no harm in having "non veg diet" .. and what does one means by veg diet ? The milk which veg people consumes, scientifically that is also Non-Veg, but it counts as Veg...Just proof mee why milk is Veg ???? The plants, trees etc even they too have life in some manner...  God has given us life eat what ever you like, just have full faith in god.. enjoy life... never hurt anyones feelings   

Hey look what i have found the real cool website : Global Ongoings ---- Detailed portal for current happenings in whole world


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 22, 2009)

Globalcool2009 ji,
Thanks..i agree great site.


----------



## Rajinder Kanda (May 24, 2009)

Very knowlegeable article. Rather this should be preached in a big manner so that two sects of sikh one those who eat meat and the second who do not eat meat should not indulge in war for justification of there own way. Guru Nanak ji have written .. Baba Hore Khanaa Khushee Gawar, Jit Khadei Tan Peeria Man Mei Chalei Vikaar. Guru ji has explained in this shabad " That food is bad which makes you sick physically and mentally. So hei man you decide which food suits you or not". 
So keep it up and spread more knowlege.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 24, 2009)

Rajinder Kanda said:


> Very knowlegeable article. Rather this should be preached in a big manner so that two sects of sikh one those who eat meat and the second who do not eat meat should not indulge in war for justification of there own way. Guru Nanak ji have written .. Baba Hore Khanaa Khushee Gawar, Jit Khadei Tan Peeria Man Mei Chalei Vikaar. Guru ji has explained in this shabad " That food is bad which makes you sick physically and mentally. So hei man you decide which food suits you or not".
> So keep it up and spread more knowlege.



Exactly!

Many people have thought this essay to be pro-meat and anti-vegetarian. It is anti- nothing but pro-Sikh.

When our Guru's decided they were going to civilise Punjabi's they must have despaired and some of the shenanigans they must have pulled. I am surprised they didn't uproot and take their message to another state altogether.

I sometimes despair at the destruction of the simple message of Sikhi by people who have their own agendas.

Eat what is good for YOU, do not look at what YOUR neighbour is eating......so simple yet so complicate by the Punjabi brain.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 24, 2009)

benjamin_chaudry said:


> Grief is half of old age.




_Be very cautious of cold in the beginning of winter          and welcome it at the close of the season because cold          season effects your bodies exactly as it effects the trees; in          the early season its severity makes them shrivel and shed          their leaves and at the end it helps them to revive. _


:welcome:


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jun 26, 2009)

This came in the Mail today..Read on...

Sahel is the transition region of grassland and shrubland between wooded Africa to its South and Sahara to its north.

This is the where the modern humans evolved, after chimps from the wooded south travelled northwards and started bi-pedalism and hunting for small prey and developed the first tools for cooking and hunting. Jaw size became smaller as the cooked food became available. And brain size and processing increased due to additional proteins available from hunted food. Anthropologists are unanimous in view after studying dietary habits and tools made by first humans in the region that modern humans may not have evolved without change in dietary habits.

Read articles below from Berkeley and National Geographic.

Sahel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

06.14.99 - Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet "Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies
--
Rgds
Amandeep Singh


*Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet
By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs*
BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.

Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.

Her thesis complements the discovery last month by UC Berkeley professor Tim White and others that early human species were butchering and eating animal meat as long ago as 2.5 million years. Milton's article integrates dietary strategy with the evolution of human physiology to argue that meat eating was routine. It is published this month in the journal "Evolutionary Anthropology" (Vol.8, #1).

Milton said that her theories do not reflect on today's vegetarian diets, which can be completely adequate, given modern knowledge of nutrition. 

"We know a lot about nutrition now and can design a very satisfactory vegetarian diet," said Milton, a professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management.

But she added that the adequacy of a vegetarian diet depends either on modern scientific knowledge or on traditional food habits, developed over many generations, in which people have worked out a complete diet by putting different foods together.

In many parts of the world where people have little access to meat, they have run the risk of malnutrition, said Milton. This happened, for instance, in Southeast Asia where people relied heavily on a single plant food, polished rice, and developed the nutritional disease, beriberi. Closer to home, in the Southern United States, many people dependent largely on corn meal developed the nutritional disease, pellagra.

Milton argues that meat supplied early humans not only with all the essential amino acids, but also with many vitamins, minerals and other nutrients they required, allowing them to exploit marginal, low quality plant foods, like roots - foods that have few nutrients but lots of calories. These calories, or energy, fueled the expansion of the human brain and, in addition, permitted human ancestors to increase in body size while remaining active and social.

"Once animal matter entered the human diet as a dependable staple, the overall nutrient content of plant foods could drop drastically, if need be, so long as the plants supplied plenty of calories for energy," said Milton.

The brain is a relentless consumer of calories, said Milton. It needs glucose 24 hours a day. Animal protein probably did not provide many of those calories, which were more likely to come from carbohydrates, she said.

Buffered against nutritional deficiency by meat, human ancestors also could intensify their use of plant foods with toxic compounds such as cyanogenic glycosides, foods other primates would have avoided, said Milton. These compounds can produce deadly cyanide in the body, but are neutralized by methionine and cystine, sulfur-containing amino acids present in meat.  Sufficient methionine is difficult to find in plants. Most domesticated grains - wheat, rice, maize, barley, rye and millet - contain this cyanogenic compound as do many beans and widely-eaten root crops such as taro and manioc.

Since plant foods available in the dry and deforested early human environment had become less nutritious, meat was critical for weaned infants, said Milton.  She explained that small infants could not have processed enough bulky plant material to get both nutrients for growth and energy for brain development.

"I disagree with those who say meat may have been only a marginal food for early humans," said Milton. "I have come to believe that the incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an absolutely essential role in human evolution."

Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have developed a more elongated small intestine rather than retaining the huge colon of apes - a change in the human lineage which indicates a diet of more concentrated nutrients.
###

*"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies*
Hillary Mayell, for National Geographic News February 18, 2005

Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.

Our taste for meat has also led us into some trouble—our teeth are too big for our downsized jaws and most of us need dental work.

"It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives:

*• * How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans?
*• * What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape? 

Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago.
*
How Did Meat-Eating Start?* 
Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche. 

Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC).

Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees.

"It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationship—do they compete for food, for nesting sites?"

The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets.

When humans switched to meat-eating, they triggered a genetic change that enabled better processing of fats, said Stanford, who has worked extensively with gerontologist Caleb Finch of USC.
"We have an obsession today with fat and cholesterol because we can go to the market and stuff ourselves with it," Stanford said. "But as a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. Compared to the great apes, we can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot.

"Even though we have all these problems in terms of heart disease as we get older, if you give a gorilla a diet that a meat-loving man might eat in Western society, that gorilla will die when it's in its twenties; a normal life span might be 50. They just can't handle that kind of diet."
*
Diet and Teeth* 
Tool-use no doubt helped early humans in butchering their dinners. But there is evidence that the advance to cooking and using knives and forks is leading to crooked teeth and facial dwarfing in humans.

Today it's relatively rare for someone to have perfectly straight teeth (without having been to the orthodontist). Our wisdom teeth don't have room to fit in the jaw and sometimes don't form at all, and the propensity to develop gum disease is on the increase.

"Virtually any mammalian jaw in the wild that you look at will be a perfect occlusion—a very nice Hollywood-style dentition," said Peter Lucas, the author of _Dental Functional Morphology_ and a visiting professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "But when it comes to humans, the ideal occlusion [the way teeth fit together] is virtually never seen. It's really the only body part that regularly needs attention and surgery."

Lucas argues that the mechanical process of chewing, combined with the physical properties of foods in the diet, will drive tooth, jaw, and body size, particularly in human evolution.

Essentially, by cooking our food, thereby making it softer, we no longer need teeth big enough to chow down on really tough particles. By using knives and forks to cut food into smaller pieces, we no longer need a large enough jaw to cram in big hunks of food.

"We're evolving to eat mush," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University.


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 27, 2009)

Should also be posted in the Health and Nutrition forum :happy:


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jun 27, 2009)

aad ji,
sure why not. Please do that.
I posted it just for information purposes..as this Thread is read by many visitors.


----------



## har13 (Jul 22, 2009)

*Re: Why Not Halal Meat?*



randip singh said:


> WRONG.
> 
> That is your view and a Vashnavite view. Not the Sikh view. Read
> 
> ...


 
Randip Singh Ji,
Sat sri Akal.
I have written in the starting of my reply "according to my point of view".
Obviously, everyone has their own point of view about different issues. 
I think, you have much deeper understanding of gurbani. May be I do not have. 
It is  true that I am vegetarian and  Sikh girl. Not Brahmin. I am proud to be a sikh. 
Please explain to me the meaning of  the following lines from Jap ji sahib...
"Asankh gal vadd hatteya kamaei".
Actually I think hatteya is killing of others (human or animal). 
And at the end of pauri Guru ji says,
"Jo tud bhave saai bhali kar"
Whatever you(God) like, that is good.

May be I am wrong here also.
We can recite gurbani and be vegetarians only with Vaheguru blessings. I feel myself very lucky to be vegetarian because my soul do not allow me to eat egg and flesh.


Sadana was a butcher yet his Bani is included in the Guru Granth Sahib ji. Maybe that should be excluded according to your view.

I am nothing to say baani of someone should be excluded from Guru granth Sahib ji.  Are you sure he ate meat?
Why our foundation is on Daya? Is khalsa is only for poor human beings not for poor animals like goat?  According to my understanding we should not kill anybody (human or animal) who is not harmfull for us. But should speak against killers of innocents ( Delhi, 1984).

Please advice me accordingly. 
Thanks,
Har13


----------



## har13 (Jul 22, 2009)

*Re: Why Not Halal Meat?*



randip singh said:


> Thanks for sharing this.
> 
> Interestingly Muslims say theirs is the way that is most humane of slaughtering.
> 
> ...


 
Sat sri Akal Randip Singh Ji,
Can you please suggest any site for sakhi of Sadana ji.
I read from some sites, it is written there that he was Butcher by his profession and he was thinking that his profession was according to God will.
But when he decided to meet God he left. And at one site it was written that when he went to kill goat, goat laughed at him and he couldn't kill him. Is this really true?

And we have bani of sufi muslim saints. I think they all follow daya not as rituel but as their soul was not allowing them. But other muslims eat halal. What is your point here that Sadna belongs to a butcher caste???? Did he eat meat then what about Muslim saints? Were they against our Guru's?


 I am very younger than you in age and in thoughts.
Regards,
Har.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 23, 2009)

*Re: Why Not Halal Meat?*



har13 said:


> Randip Singh Ji,
> Sat sri Akal.
> I have written in the starting of my reply "according to my point of view".
> Obviously, everyone has their own point of view about different issues.
> ...



Please cite the exact page number from Bani when you make a quotation and then we can discuss.



har13 said:


> May be I am wrong here also.
> We can recite gurbani and be vegetarians only with Vaheguru blessings. I feel myself very lucky to be vegetarian because my soul do not allow me to eat egg and flesh.



Well if you do not wish to eat meat and egg, that is your choice. Sikhi gives tou the freedom.

Great souls like Bhai Maskeen and Avtar Singh Brahman ate meat. It did not make them any less.




har13 said:


> Sadana was a butcher yet his Bani is included in the Guru Granth Sahib ji. Maybe that should be excluded according to your view.



No if we logically follow your view that would be the conclusion. So should Bhaghat Farid who ate meat, Bhaghat Ravidas who killed animal and used their leather. Their are many more.




har13 said:


> I am nothing to say baani of someone should be excluded from Guru granth Sahib ji.  Are you sure he ate meat?



Would it matter if they did?

Many Sakhi's state that Guru Nank ate meat and fools wrangle over flesh was his response to Vege Vaishnav Bahmins. So does it matter?



har13 said:


> Why our foundation is on Daya? Is khalsa is only for poor human beings not for poor animals like goat?  According to my understanding we should not kill anybody (human or animal) who is not harmfull for us. But should speak against killers of innocents ( Delhi, 1984).



Do not confuse Daya for Ahimsa. If we had followed the principle of Ahimsa, we would all be facing Mecca now.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 23, 2009)

*Re: Why Not Halal Meat?*



har13 said:


> Sat sri Akal Randip Singh Ji,
> Can you please suggest any site for sakhi of Sadana ji.
> I read from some sites, it is written there that he was Butcher by his profession and he was thinking that his profession was according to God will.



Antonia ji has added this but Sakhi's are unreliable.



har13 said:


> But when he decided to meet God he left. And at one site it was written that when he went to kill goat, goat laughed at him and he couldn't kill him. Is this really true?



You are talking about the Vaar by Bhai Gurdas.



har13 said:


> And we have bani of sufi muslim saints. I think they all follow daya not as rituel but as their soul was not allowing them. But other muslims eat halal. What is your point here that Sadna belongs to a butcher caste???? Did he eat meat then what about Muslim saints? Were they against our Guru's?



Kabir was a Muslim who followed the Vaishnav path and was vegetarian

Bhaghat Fareed a devout Muslim who ate Halal meat.

Sadana a Hindu butcher who slaughtered animals.

Bhaghat Ravidas a tanner who slaughtered animals for leather.

All their Shabads are in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. What does that say to you? We follow the vaishno Vege path? The Muslim Halal path? or maybe the Dalit Hindu Path?

What is exactly Bani saying?



har13 said:


> I am very younger than you in age and in thoughts.
> Regards,
> Har.



Guru Harkrishan was but a child, but he possesed the wisdom of Solomon, so age is not an issue.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 11, 2009)

Sorry just a shabad I have been reading, I thought is best fitted here:

page 956 

]ਮਃ ੧ ॥
मः १ ॥
Mėhlā 1.
First Mehl:

ਸਚ ਕੀ ਕਾਤੀ ਸਚੁ ਸਭੁ ਸਾਰੁ ॥
सच की काती सचु सभु सारु ॥
Sacẖ kī kāṯī sacẖ sabẖ sār.
The knife is Truth, and its steel is totally True.

ਘਾੜਤ ਤਿਸ ਕੀ ਅਪਰ ਅਪਾਰ ॥
घाड़त तिस की अपर अपार ॥
Gẖāṛaṯ ṯis kī apar apār.
Its workmanship is incomparably beautiful.

ਸਬਦੇ ਸਾਣ ਰਖਾਈ ਲਾਇ ॥
सबदे साण रखाई लाइ ॥
Sabḏe sāṇ rakẖā▫ī lā▫e.
It is sharpened on the grindstone of the Shabad.

ਗੁਣ ਕੀ ਥੇਕੈ ਵਿਚਿ ਸਮਾਇ ॥
गुण की थेकै विचि समाइ ॥
Guṇ kī thekai vicẖ samā▫e.
It is placed in the scabbard of virtue.

ਤਿਸ ਦਾ ਕੁਠਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਸੇਖੁ ॥
तिस दा कुठा होवै सेखु ॥
Ŧis ḏā kuṯẖā hovai sekẖ.
If the Shaykh is killed with that,

ਲੋਹੂ ਲਬੁ ਨਿਕਥਾ ਵੇਖੁ ॥
लोहू लबु निकथा वेखु ॥
Lohū lab nikthā vekẖ.
then the blood of greed will spill out.

ਹੋਇ ਹਲਾਲੁ ਲਗੈ ਹਕਿ ਜਾਇ ॥
होइ हलालु लगै हकि जाइ ॥
Ho▫e halāl lagai hak jā▫e.
One who is slaughtered in this ritualistic way, will be attached to the Lord.

ਨਾਨਕ ਦਰਿ ਦੀਦਾਰਿ ਸਮਾਇ ॥੨॥
नानक दरि दीदारि समाइ ॥२॥
Nānak ḏar ḏīḏār samā▫e. ||2||
O Nanak, at the Lord's door, he is absorbed into His Blessed Vision. ||2||


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 11, 2009)

Randip ji

Doesn't this shabad take us back to the core of the argument about "eating meat." The shabad is the explanation of the problem -- which has nothing to do with eating meat. The problem, that has confused people for a few centuries, has to do with overweening pride and self importance in the absence of empathy for one's fellow humans. The connections that are made between tuks here and words there and the forbidding of meat are far-fetched and outlandish but the music continues. Thanks for the shabad.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 11, 2009)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Randip ji
> 
> Doesn't this shabad take us back to the core of the argument about "eating meat." The shabad is the explanation of the problem -- which has nothing to do with eating meat. The problem, that has confused people for a few centuries, has to do with overweening pride and self importance in the absence of empathy for one's fellow humans. The connections that are made between tuks here and words there and the forbidding of meat are far-fetched and outlandish but the music continues. Thanks for the shabad.




Indeed yes. I just realised why this shabad fascinated me. It actually defines the word "Kutha" which is a bone of contention for some sects too:

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=956&english=t&id=41038#l41038

Page 956

ਤਿਸ ਦਾ ਕੁਠਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਸੇਖੁ ॥
तिस दा कुठा होवै सेखु ॥
Ŧis ḏā *kuṯẖā* hovai sekẖ.
If the Shaykh is *killed* with that,

ਲੋਹੂ ਲਬੁ ਨਿਕਥਾ ਵੇਖੁ ॥
लोहू लबु निकथा वेखु ॥
Lohū lab nikthā vekẖ.
then the blood of greed will spill out.

ਹੋਇ ਹਲਾਲੁ ਲਗੈ ਹਕਿ ਜਾਇ ॥
होइ हलालु लगै हकि जाइ ॥
Ho▫e *halāl* lagai hak jā▫e.
One who is *slaughtered in this ritualistic way*, will be attached to the Lord.


Several points to note:

1) If we took the sentence where the word "Kutha" is we would say, that word just means "Killed", however if we read on we see _"One who is *slaughtered in this ritualistic way".*_ Meaning, that "Kutha" is seen as a form of ritualistic killing.

2) Note also "Halal" is defined as "_*slaughtered in this ritualistic way".*_ Meaning that where "Halal" is used it can be seen as defining "ritualistic" killing.

3) This is nothing to do with meat eating as some people would have us believe but rather to do with the 5 thieves, in this instance "Lobh" or "Greed".


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 11, 2009)

FOOLS...usually AVOID such "Clear cut Shabads"....because they cut rather deep into their falsehood/foolish arguments....thats is why such shabads never come up in such debates/exchanges...
GURBANI has ALL the ANSWERS. Its we who fail to look/find/ask/query...
:whisling:


----------



## Manisha (Aug 17, 2009)

The very first comment by Randip Ji is very educational, even to me as I was once a fool who wrangled over flesh.. For me, the reason behind my "wrangling" was definitely a lack of knowledge, so when I sought supposedly factual answers from others, even they had a lack of knowledge caused by misinterpretation (to the exact quotes of bani n the first comment). This had been passed on and on by others, and so had eventually become a false fact.. It's just one or few persons "opinion" which becomes developed as a false fact and goes around through hearsay..
Even though, I've only learned today what the real explanations are, I've never used any quotes for evidence as to whether meat should be eaten or not.. Because later, I had discovered (as I'm sure I've mentioned before) the answers in Guru Granth Sahib Ji aren't simple, aren't black and white - if people have a lack of knowledge of Gurbani to begin with.. And that's how such misinterpretation through hearsay spreads..

Also, I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned, but I do know of another aspect which people misinterpret; an event where Guru Gobind Singh Ji used to go hunting.. I can only remember one incident when Guru Ji spotted a rabbit and instantly killed it. People tend to just think that's all there is to it, that Guru Ji's killed animals themselves and ate their meat. But with the incident of the rabbit, I remember that the soul in the rabbit was a man who had betrayed Guru Nanak Dev Ji in the earlier years. He used to do seva with Guru Nanak Dev Ji when they'd just met, much to his wife's dismay because Guru Ji and the man would go and do seva for years on, which the wife didn't like. I think she tried to stop him from going but he still wanted to but then she convinced him and then when Guru Ji came to his house to get him, his wife told him to hide in the back (where unkowingly a snake was present) and the wife told Guru Ji that he had gone.. During their conversation where the wife had lied to Guru Ji and the man was in the back, the snake had fatally bit him and I think he died. The wife suddenly knew why that'd happened and begged Guru Ji to forgive him and Guru Ji said he had to learn his mistake but he will come in his tenth form (as Guru Gobind Singh Ji) and will give him peace.
So the soul in the rabbit was that same man which betrayed Guru Nanak Dev Ji and so like He had said, this is why Guru Gobind Singh Ji killed the rabbit instantly to release his soul..

Oh and I've just found a site stating how people misinterpret Guru Ji's hunting and the fourth incident on there is the short yet more precise version of what I've just explained above..

http://www.panthkhalsa.org/rahit/rahit_hunt.php


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 18, 2009)

Mishi said:


> The very first comment by Randip Ji is very educational, even to me as I was once a fool who wrangled over flesh.. For me, the reason behind my "wrangling" was definitely a lack of knowledge, so when I sought supposedly factual answers from others, even they had a lack of knowledge caused by misinterpretation (to the exact quotes of bani n the first comment). This had been passed on and on by others, and so had eventually become a false fact.. It's just one or few persons "opinion" which becomes developed as a false fact and goes around through hearsay..
> Even though, I've only learned today what the real explanations are, I've never used any quotes for evidence as to whether meat should be eaten or not.. Because later, I had discovered (as I'm sure I've mentioned before) the answers in Guru Granth Sahib Ji aren't simple, aren't black and white - if people have a lack of knowledge of Gurbani to begin with.. And that's how such misinterpretation through hearsay spreads..
> 
> Also, I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned, but I do know of another aspect which people misinterpret; an event where Guru Gobind Singh Ji used to go hunting.. I can only remember one incident when Guru Ji spotted a rabbit and instantly killed it. People tend to just think that's all there is to it, that Guru Ji's killed animals themselves and ate their meat. But with the incident of the rabbit, I remember that the soul in the rabbit was a man who had betrayed Guru Nanak Dev Ji in the earlier years. He used to do seva with Guru Nanak Dev Ji when they'd just met, much to his wife's dismay because Guru Ji and the man would go and do seva for years on, which the wife didn't like. I think she tried to stop him from going but he still wanted to but then she convinced him and then when Guru Ji came to his house to get him, his wife told him to hide in the back (where unkowingly a snake was present) and the wife told Guru Ji that he had gone.. During their conversation where the wife had lied to Guru Ji and the man was in the back, the snake had fatally bit him and I think he died. The wife suddenly knew why that'd happened and begged Guru Ji to forgive him and Guru Ji said he had to learn his mistake but he will come in his tenth form (as Guru Gobind Singh Ji) and will give him peace.
> ...



Hmmm.

panthkhalsa.org is a biased site. They are fanatically anti-meat and are run by the AKJ.

I don't buy this releasing of souls, and I will tell you why. The Guru's never interfered with God's will. They never brought people back to life, the never did miracles, and never released souls. 

This rabbit story would imply that the Guru's were vengeful too, i.e. they took people lives for betraying them? I say NEVER! 

Guru's did not even take vengeance on those that killed their family members, so why would they do this to a follower. When Guru Gobind Singh ji sent Bandha Bahadhur to punish Wazir Khan, he did not send him in revenge for what happened to the Sahibzadhey but for the depredations he was committing while the Emperor was stalling in negotiations. So I firmly believe it was not for releasing souls.

In any case who is to say that a person who is killing animal for food is not releasing the soul for a better life? This way at least the flesh is not wasted.

In Dasam Granth Guruji states:

_ਚੌਪਈ ॥
चौपई ॥
CHAUPAI

ਰਾਜ ਸਾਜ ਹਮ ਪਰ ਜਬ ਆਯੋ ॥ ਜਥਾ ਸਕਤਿ ਤਬ ਧਰਮ ਚਲਾਯੋ ॥
राज साज हम पर जब आयो ॥ जथा सकति तब धरम चलायो ॥
When I obtained the position of responsibility, I performed the religious acts to the best of my ability.

ਭਾਂਤਿ ਭਾਂਤਿ ਬਨਿ ਖੇਲ ਸਿਕਾਰਾ ॥ ਮਾਰੇ ਰੀਛ ਰੋਝ ਝੰਖਾਰਾ ॥੧॥
भांति भांति बनि खेल सिकारा ॥ मारे रीछ रोझ झंखारा ॥१॥
I went hunting various kinds of animals in the forest and killed bears, nilgais (blue bulls) and elks.1.

ਦੇਸ ਚਾਲ ਹਮ ਤੇ ਪੁਨਿ ਭਈ ॥ ਸਹਰ ਪਾਂਵਟਾ ਕੀ ਸੁਧਿ ਲਈ ॥
देस चाल हम ते पुनि भई ॥ सहर पांवटा की सुधि लई ॥
Then I left my home and went to place named Paonta.

ਕਾਲਿੰਦ੍ਰੀ ਤਟਿ ਕਰੇ ਬਿਲਾਸਾ ॥ ਅਨਿਕ ਭਾਂਤ ਕੇ ਪੇਖਿ ਤਮਾਸਾ ॥੨॥
कालिंद्री तटि करे बिलासा ॥ अनिक भांत के पेखि तमासा ॥२॥
I enjoyed my stay on the banks of Kalindri (Yamuna) and saw amusement of various kind2.

ਤਹ ਕੇ ਸਿੰਘ ਘਨੇ ਚੁਨਿ ਮਾਰੇ ॥ ਰੋਝ ਰੀਛ ਬਹੁ ਭਾਂਤਿ ਬਿਦਾਰੇ ॥
तह के सिंघ घने चुनि मारे ॥ रोझ रीछ बहु भांति बिदारे ॥
There I killed may lions, nilgais and bears.

ਫਤੇਸਾਹ ਕੋਪਾ ਤਬਿ ਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਲੋਹ ਪਰਾ ਹਮ ਸੋ ਬਿਨੁ ਕਾਜਾ ॥੩॥
फतेसाह कोपा तबि राजा ॥ लोह परा हम सो बिनु काजा ॥३॥
On this the king Fateh Shah become angry and fought with me without any reason.3._

Guruji and his Sikhs killed these animals for the following reason:

1) Fierce animals that terrorised locals
2) Food
3) Train his Sikhs (hunting was used as a sport to train warriors)

AKJ (and other sects) always have to make spurious reasons up, when the obvious is staring them in the face.:whisling:


----------



## Manisha (Aug 18, 2009)

Randip Ji



randip singh said:


> panthkhalsa.org is a biased site. They are fanatically anti-meat and are run by the AKJ.


 
I didn't know that, but I heard that story first off my brother, so then I tried to find a website stating that incident.



> This rabbit story would imply that the Guru's were vengeful too, i.e. they took people lives for betraying them? I say NEVER!


 
Randip Ji, I too say never. I didn't say or mean to portray that Guru Ji's were vengeful, as when I said the snake had bit the man, I didn't mean that Guru Ji ordered the snake to kill him or wanted to kill him. I thought it was more of.. God's will, let's say? So therefore, I agree that Guru Ji's didn't cause the death of the man, I'm merely pointing out that he had betaryed Guru Ji and the man had died.. I'm saying that was meant to happen, not that Guru Ji's killed people who betrayed them ect because what sort of Guru would encourage that behaviour for the future people; the future Sikhs.. Of course not our Gurus..



> AKJ (and other sects) always have to make spurious reasons up, when the obvious is staring them in the face.:whisling:


 
Apologies but I'm getting a bit confused here.. Before I continue, you're saying that you don't believe in this 'releasing of souls' so does that mean this rabbit incident is not true or it isn't true in relation to the fact that Guru Gobind Singh Ji killed the rabbit to release it's soul?



> In any case who is to say that a person who is killing animal for food is not releasing the soul for a better life? This way at least the flesh is not wasted.


 
I agree with you, however, (and this is just a thought) isn't it wrong for people to kill an animal to 'release' it's soul for a better life, as that'd mean they are interfering in God's will - because it's upto God to reincarnate a person as something (be it animal or human) depending on what good or bad deeds the person had done before he died?




> Guruji and his Sikhs killed these animals for the following reason:
> 
> 1) Fierce animals that terrorised locals
> 2) Food
> 3) Train his Sikhs (hunting was used as a sport to train warriors)


 
I understand points 1 and 3 but point 2 means Guru Ji's ate the meat then? (I'm just enquiring.. I don't really read sites (apart from the one I included because it related to what I was saying) because I already made my decision based on my opinion of how I feel about this topic, a long time ago).


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 19, 2009)

Mishi said:


> Randip Ji
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have made some very intelligent responses, and seem open minded.

I will tell you what was told to me when 25 years ago I used pose such questions.

1) Get some good Sikh books by noted scholars and intellectuals. I started with A History of the Sikh People by Dr Gopal Singh.

2) Have a look at sites like The Sikhism Home Page and Welcome to website about history of the sikhs .

3) Don't worry too much about what the Guru's ate or not. It will not make them any better or worse. Focus on their deeds and actions.

4) Try not to focus on Sakhi's too much. Most if not all were written around the late 18th and 19th century.

5) Also remember that about 60% of Sikh related sites on the internet are Jatha run. 

best wishes:happy:


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 19, 2009)

This is excellent information randip singh ji and you are giving me some advice that I myself intend to follow up on. Thanks:}{}{}:


----------



## Manisha (Aug 19, 2009)

I agree, thank you for that, Randip Ji. By the way, so would you say books are more reliable than internet sites (which I find hard to figure out whether they are biased towards one view or not)?

And I strongly agree with all your points but mostly point 3 as, Guru Ji's were there to be our role model, our teacher, so it is important that we concentrate on their deeds and actions and try to follow those in our own lives.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 20, 2009)

Mishi said:


> I agree, thank you for that, Randip Ji. By the way, so would you say books are more reliable than internet sites (which I find hard to figure out whether they are biased towards one view or not)?



Start off with a good grounding with Dr Gopal Singh's book.......you will be able to spot which maybe biased.

3 main areas or views:

1) The Mcleodian's - they seem to ignore important documents like Varan Bhai Gurdas. Mcleod tends to be very pro-Jatt. His followers too.

2) Jatha followers - I have come across a few like Bhai Randhir Singh's book, which make some strange claims.

3) Genuine Sikh Scholars - Chandigarh University, Guru Nanak University etc. www.global*sikhs*tudies.net is a decent place.





Mishi said:


> And I strongly agree with all your points but mostly point 3 as, Guru Ji's were there to be our role model, our teacher, so it is important that we concentrate on their deeds and actions and try to follow those in our own lives.



Own role models, also realise the unimportance of both vegetarianism and meat eating in relation to Sikhi.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 21, 2009)

From wikipedia, quite interesting and relevant.



> In Sikhism, only vegetarian food is served in the Gurdwara, but Sikhs are not totally bound to be meat-free. The general consensus is that Sikhs are free to choose whether to adopt the vegetarian or meat diet,[1] although once baptized by taking Amrit, some minority sects of Sikhs (Damdami Taksal, Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Namdharis, Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha[2] and the 3HO[3]), believe that a Sikh should be meat free,[4] however this is not a Universally held belief amongst Sikhs. Orthodox Sikhs[5] believe that once Amrit is taken, Sikh's are only prohibited from eating Kuttha or ritually slaughtered (Halal, Kosher) meat.
> Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the holiest book talks about vegetarianism and spirituality in the following couplet:
> — _First Mehl:_
> _The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom._
> ...


----------



## Binwant (Aug 27, 2009)

*Re: Meat and Eggs*

I want to reply on the following comment:

_*"Meat and Eggs* _
_Except my father, we as a family don't eat meat or eggs. I know that the Guru Granth doesn't talk much about meat/eggs. If anyone can express there Philosopy on it, I would appericiate it."_

I guess you are not aware that Guru Granth Sahib Ji talks about not eating meat and alcohol. Sri Guru Granth Sahib prohibits eating animal flesh in clear-cut and unambiguous language in a number of places.

Please read the following shabads and the panna and its meaning is also given along with them...

*"Jee Badhoh So Dharam Kar Thaapoh, Adharam Kaho Kat Bhai.**
Anpas Ko Munwar Kar Thaapoh, Kaa Ko Kaho Kasaaee."* *(Panna 1103)*
You kill animals and call it religion (Rahit); then what indeed is irreligion (Kurahit)? Even then you
consider yourself as a sage of sages; then whom to call a butcher?

*"Bed Parhey Mukh Mitthee Baani.**
**Jeeaan KUHAT Na Sangey Paraanee" (Panna 201)**
**He (Pandit) recites the Vedas very sweetly, but he does not hesitate to kill life.*

*"Abhakhya Ka Kuthha Bakra Khanaa.**
**Choukay Upar Kisey Na Jaanaa" (Panna 472)**
**They eat the meat obtained while uttering the unspeakable word (referring to Qalima of the Muslims which the hindus considered as unspeakable) and allow none to enter their kitchen square.*

*"Bed Kateb Kaho Mat Jhoothhay, jhoothhaa jo Na Bichaarey. **
**Jo Sabh Meh Ek Khudai Kahat Ho, Tio Kio Murghi Maarey" (Panna 1350)**
**Do not call various religious texts false. False is one who gives no thought to their contents. If you consider God is in all, then why you slaughter the chicken (i.e. life?)*

*"Rojaa Dharey, Manaavey Mlah, Svaadat Jee Sanghaarey.**
**Aapaa Deldi Avar Nahin Dekhey, Kaahey Kow Jhakh Maarey" (Panna 1375)**
**You keep fasts (i.e. religious acts) to appease God. At the same time you slay life for your relish. This utter selfishness is nothing but empty or nonsensical talk.*

*"Kabir Jee Jo Maareh Jor Kar, Kaahtey Heh Ju Halaal.**
**Dafter Daee Jab Kaadh Hai, Hoegaa Kaun Havaal" (Panna 1375)**
**Whosoever slays life by force and call it sanctified; What will be his fate when he will be called to account for it in His Court?*

*"Kabir Khoob Khanna Khichri, Ja Meh Amrit Lon Heraa**
**rotee Kaarney Galaa Kataavey Kon" (Panna 1374)**
**Blessed is the simple of food of rice mixed with salt; Who would risk his head to be slain hereafter, for the meat one eats here?*

*"Kabir Bhaang, Mach Iiii Surapaan Jo Jo Praanee Khahey.**
**Tirath, Barat, Nem Kiaye Te Sabhay Rasaatal Jahey" (Panna 1377)**
**Whosoever eats flesh, fish, etc. and takes wine and hemp, all his religious acts will go to waste.*

*I hope the above shabads will answer your question.*

*Gur Fateh!*
*Binwant*


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 27, 2009)

*Re: Meat and Eggs*



Binwant said:


> I want to reply on the following comment:
> 
> _*"Meat and Eggs* _
> _Except my father, we as a family don't eat meat or eggs. I know that the Guru Granth doesn't talk much about meat/eggs. If anyone can express there Philosopy on it, I would appericiate it."_
> ...



No it does not!



Binwant said:


> *"Jee Badhoh So Dharam Kar Thaapoh, Adharam Kaho Kat Bhai.**
> Anpas Ko Munwar Kar Thaapoh, Kaa Ko Kaho Kasaaee."**(Panna 1103)*
> You kill animals and call it religion (Rahit); then what indeed is irreligion (Kurahit)? Even then you
> consider yourself as a sage of sages; then whom to call a butcher?
> ...



Wrong on all accounts.

Typical one liners and mistranslations. See this:

FOREWARD 

The authors of this paper (one a vegetarian and one meat eating Sikh) wrangled hard with their own common sense which told them, dont be a fool and start wrangling over an issue which our great Gurus dismissed as not worthy of discussion. We did however feel as amateur Sikh Historians and commentators on Sikh affairs that we should use our knowledge and experience to clarify what is such a controversial issue. This essay out to be objective as possible but we ourselves probably taking one side as we waded through the arguments and counter arguments produced by vegetarian and meat eating Sikhs. One thing that has incensed us is the use of incorrect History and mistranslation to back up arguments. It was these points that we felt needed clarification and we hope the reader will find that this essay does that. 

Mistranslation and Misrepresentation of The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

Some of the tukhs of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that are often mistranslated are as follows: 

_1. Those mortals who consume marijuana, flesh and wine - no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. (SGGS p1377)

_ _2. You kill living beings and worship lifeless things, at your very last moment, You will suffer terrible pain. (SGGS p332)

_ _3. Do not say that the Vedas are false, false are those who do not reflect. If in all is one god, then why does one kill the hen ? (SGGS p1350)

_ _4. Bhagat Kabir says, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils) where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is willing to have their head cut ? (SGGS p1374)

_ _5. In this dark age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; They eat rotting dead bodies for food. (SGGS p1242)

_ _6. Falsehood is my dagger and to eat by defrauding is meat._ (Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raaj p24)

 _7. Avarice is a dog, falsehood the sweeper and cheating the eating of meat. _
(Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raag p15) 

 Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Let us analyse each one of these one by one. ​ 

*1. Those mortals who consume marijuana, flesh and wine - no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. (SGGS p1337)*

 In this instance let us firstly add the Gurmukhi with the English: 

_mukat padaarath paa-ee-ai thaak na avghat ghaat._
231 
_kabeer ayk gharhee aaDhee gharee aaDhee hooN tay aaDh._
_bhagtan saytee gostay jo keenay so laabh._ 232 
_kabeer bhaaNg maachhulee suraa paan jo jo paraanee khaaNhi._
_tirath barat naym kee-ay tay sabhai rasaatal jaaNhi._ 233
_neechay lo-in kar raha-o lay saajan ghat maahi._
_sabh ras khayla-o pee-a sa-o kisee lakhaava-o naahi._ 234 
_aath jaam cha-usath gharee tu-a nirkhat rahai jee-o._
_neechay lo-in ki-o kara-o sabh ghat daykh-a-u pee-o._ 235 
_sun sakhee pee-a meh jee-o basai jee-a meh basai ke pee-o._
_jee-o pee-o boojha-o nahee ghat meh jee-o ke pee-o._ 236 
_kabeer baaman guroo hai jagat kaa bhagtan kaa gur naahi._
_arajh urajh kai pach moo-aa chaara-o baydahu maahi._237 
_har hai khaaNd rayt meh bikhree haathee chunee na jaa-ay._
_kahi kabeer gur bhalee bujhaa-ee keetee ho-ay kai khaa-ay._ 238 
_kabeer ja-o tuhi saaDh piramm kee sees kaat kar go-ay._
_khaylat khaylat haal kar jo kichh ho-ay ta ho-ay._ 239 
_kabeer ja-o tuhi saaDh piramm kee paakay saytee khayl._
_kaachee sarsa-uN payl kai naa khal bha-ee na tayl._240 
_dhooNdhat doleh anDh gat ar cheenat naahee sant._
_kahi naamaa ki-o paa-ee-ai bin bhagtahu bhagvant._ 241 
_har so heeraa chhaad kai karahi aan kee aas._
_tay nar dojak jaahigay sat bhaakhai ravidaas._ 242 
_kabeer ja-o garihu karahi ta Dharam kar naahee ta kar bairaag._
_bairaagee banDhan karai taa ko bado abhaag._ 243 

_He obtains the treasure of liberation, and the difficult road to the Lord is not blocked._
231
_Kabeer, whether is is for an hour, half an hour, or half of that,_
_whatever it is, it is worthwhile to speak with the Holy._ 232
_Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine -_
_no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell._ 233
_Kabeer, I keep my eyes lowered, and enshrine my Friend within my heart._
_I enjoy all pleasures with my Beloved, but I do not let anyone else know._234
_Twenty-four hours a day, every hour, my soul continues to look to You, O Lord._
_Why should I keep my eyes lowered? I see my Beloved in every heart._ 235
_Listen, O my companions: my soul dwells in my Beloved, and my Beloved dwells in my soul._
_I realize that there is no difference between my soul and my Beloved; I cannot tell whether my _soul or my Beloved dwells in my heart._ 236_
_Kabeer, the Brahmin may be the guru of the world, but he is not the Guru of the devotees._
_He rots and dies in the perplexities of the four Vedas._ 237
_The Lord is like sugar, scattered in the sand; the elephant cannot pick it up._
_Says Kabeer, the Guru has given me this sublime understanding: become an ant, and feed on it._ 238
_Kabeer, if you desire to play the game of love with the Lord, then cut off your head, and make it into a ball._
_Lose yourself in the play of it, and then whatever will be, will be._ 239
_Kabeer, if you desire to play the game of love with the Lord, play it with someone with committment._
_Pressing the unripe mustard seeds produces neither oil nor flour._ 240
_Searching, the mortal stumbles like a blind person, and does not recognize the Saint._
_Says Naam Dayv, how can one obtain the Lord God, without His devotee?_


Taking out the sentence we see ​ 

kabeer bhaaNg maachhulee suraa paan jo jo paraanee khaaNhi.
Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine – 

tirath barat naym kee-ay tay sabhai rasaatal jaaNhi. 233
no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. 233
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 


Firstly note that maachlee is not flesh, but is indeed fish. The word in Punjabi for flesh is maas. Then secondly one must ask, why is there a forbidding in the consumption of fish specifically. The answer lies in reading the entire paragraph and a picture emerges. In the last two lines the statement is made: 

kabeer ja-o garihu karahi ta Dharam kar naahee ta kar bairaag. 
Kabeer, if you live the householder's life, then practice righteousness; otherwise, you might as well retire from the world. 

bairaagee banDhan karai taa ko bado abhaag. 243 
If someone renounces the world, and then gets involved in worldly entanglements, he shall suffer terrible misfortune. 243
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 


Now putting this in its entire context what Bhagat Kabir is actually criticising in the rich and those in power. The thrill seekers, who are addicted to their senses and those addicted to the 5 thieves. Kabir was born around the area of Benares, and was brought up in a poor Muslim weavers family. He saw the excesses of the rich around him, while the poor starved. Foods like fish and wine were associated with the rich who had an excessive disposable income. Marijuana was associated with either idol people or those who had time and money to waste. Kabir abhorred this, and this statement is a social comment about the excesses of the rich. At the end he clearly states, that those people who do their duties as householders (i.e. work hard, care for other etc) are the ones who will be liberated, and those who live by excesses will suffer. One cantherefore clearly see that this is in no way a comment about eating meat (because of mistranslation) or about avoiding certain foods (as has been misrepresented). 

*2. You kill living beings and worship lifeless things, at your very last moment, You will suffer terrible pain. (SGGS p332)*

 Again let us put this into its correct context: 

_ik-oNkaar satgur parsaad._
_jeevat pitar na maanai ko-oo moo-ayN siraaDh karaahee._
_pitar bhee bapuray kaho ki-o paavahi ka-oo-aa kookar khaahee._
Source:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8828 (Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh)
_mo ka-o kusal bataavhu ko-ee._
_kusal kusal kartay jag binsai kusal bhee kaisay ho-ee._ rahaa-o. 
_maatee kay kar dayvee dayvaa tis aagai jee-o dayhee._
_aisay pitar tumaaray kahee-ahi aapan kahi-aa na layhee._
_sarjee-o kaateh nirjee-o poojeh ant kaal ka-o bhaaree._
_raam naam kee gat nahee jaanee bhai doobay sansaaree._
_dayvee dayvaa poojeh doleh paarbarahm nahee jaanaa._
_kahat kabeer akul nahee chayti-aa bikhi-aa si-o laptaanaa._

_One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:_
_He does not honor his ancestors while they are alive, but he holds feasts in their honor after they have died._
_Tell me, how can his poor ancestors receive what the crows and the dogs have eaten up?_
_If only someone would tell me what real happiness is!_
_Speaking of happiness and joy, the world is perishing. How can happiness be found?_Pause 
_Making gods and goddesses out of clay, people sacrifice living beings to them._
_Such are your dead ancestors, who cannot ask for what they want._
_You murder living beings and worship lifeless things; at your very last moment, you shall suffer in terrible pain._
_You do not know the value of the Lord's Name; you shall drown in the terrifying world-ocean._
_You worship gods and goddesses, but you do not know the Supreme Lord God._
_Says Kabeer, you have not remembered the Lord who has no ancestors; you are clinging to your corrupt ways._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Quite clearly when put into context this is nothing to do with meat eating. What is being alluded to is Hindu sacrificial rituals (eg Anustarani http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Rites%20of%20Passage/ancestors2.html) where animals were sacrificed on the funeral pyre, ancestors or to deities. Yet the Brahmins who performed these rituals were themselves devout vegetarians. This is a comment about the futility of animal sacrifices to stone idols and dead ancestors. It is a comment on hypocrisy. 

*3. Do not say that the Vedas are false, false are those who do not reflect. If in all is one god, then why does one kill the hen ? (SGGS p1350)*

 Again, let us put this into context: 

_bayd katayb kahhu mat jhoothay jhoothaa jo na bichaarai._
_ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai._
_mulaaN kahhu ni-aa-o khudaa-ee._
_tayray man kaa bharam na jaa-ee._ rahaa-o.
_pakar jee-o aani-aa dayh binaasee maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa._
_jot saroop anaahat laagee kaho halaal ki-aa kee-aa._
_ki-aa ujoo paak kee-aa muhu Dho-i-aa ki-aa maseet sir laa-i-aa._
_ja-o dil meh kapat nivaaj gujaarahu ki-aa haj kaabai jaa-i-aa._
_tooN naapaak paak nahee soojhi-aa tis kaa maram na jaani-aa._
_kahi kabeer bhisat tay chookaa dojak si-o man maani-aa._

_Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false._
_You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?_
_O Mullah, tell me: is this God's Justice?_
_The doubts of your mind have not been dispelled._ Pause
_You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay._
_The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed?_
_And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?_
_Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca?_
_You are impure; you do not understand the Pure Lord. You do not know His Mystery._
_Says Kabeer, you have missed out on paradise; your mind is set on hell._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


First point to note is that halaal and bismil, does not mean kill but refers to a specific form of ritual slaughter. Put into context this is a comment on the Muslim sacrifice ritual where either a goat or a chicken is kept in the confines of the home and then ritually slaughtered as obeisance to Abraham. Kabeer is mocking the futility of this ritual and saying, that why are you doing this sacrifice just to emulate Gods asking of Abraham to kill his only son? It is a futile gesture that will not sway God. Abraham was sacrificing his son to God, however all the sacrifice in this instance has achieved is destruction of the outer shell of the chicken. The soul wont travel to God, but merely to another form. One can only understand this if one has a basic grasp of history. In this instance the person who tried to use this tukh as an anti-meat quotation was unaware of the Koranic context and had an extremely poor knowledge of Semitic history. 

*4. Bhagat Kabir says, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils) where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is willing to have their head cut ? (SGGS p1374)*

 Let us add this to the correct context: 

_oraa gar paanee bha-i-aa jaa-ay mili-o dhal kool._
_kabeeraa Dhoor sakayl kai puree-aa baaNDhee dayh._
_divas chaar ko paykhnaa ant khayh kee khayh._
_kabeer sooraj chaaNd kai udai bha-ee sabh dayh._
_gur gobind kay bin milay palat bha-ee sabh khayh._
_jah anbha-o tah bhai nahee jah bha-o tah har naahi._
_kahi-o kabeer bichaar kai sant sunhu man maahi._
_kabeer jinahu kichhoo jaani-aa nahee tin sukh need bihaa-ay._
_hamhu jo boojhaa boojhnaa pooree paree balaa-ay._
_laagee chot maramm kee rahi-o kabeeraa tha-ur._
_kabeer chot suhaylee sayl kee laagat lay-ay usaas._
_chot sahaarai sabad kee taas guroo mai daas._
_kabeer mulaaN munaaray ki-aa chadheh saaN-ee na bahraa ho-ay._
_jaa kaaran tooN baaNg deh dil hee bheetar jo-ay._
_saykh sabooree baahraa ki-aa haj kaabay jaa-ay._
_kabeer jaa kee dil saabat nahee taa ka-o kahaaN khudaa-ay._
_kabeer alah kee kar bandagee jih simrat dukh jaa-ay._
_dil meh saaN-ee pargatai bujhai balantee naaN-ay._
_kabeer joree kee-ay julam hai kahtaa naa-o halaal._
_daftar laykhaa maaNgee-ai tab ho-igo ka-un havaal._
_kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon._
_hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un._
_kabeer gur laagaa tab jaanee-ai mitai moh tan taap._
_harakh sog daajhai nahee tab har aapeh aap._
_kabeer raam kahan meh bhayd hai taa meh ayk bichaar._
_so-ee raam sabhai kaheh so-ee ka-utakhaar._
_kabeer raamai raam kaho kahibay maahi bibayk._
_ayk anaykeh mil ga-i-aa ayk samaanaa ayk._
_kab_eer jaa ghar saaDh na sayvee-ah har kee sayvaa naahi_._
_tay ghar marhat saarkhay bhoot baseh tin maahi._
_kabeer goongaa hoo-aa baavraa bahraa hoo-aa kaan._
_paavhu tay pingul bha-i-aa maari-aa satgur baan._
_kabeer satgur soormay baahi-aa baan jo ayk._
_laagat hee bhu-ay gir pari-aa paraa karayjay chhayk._
_kabeer nirmal boond akaas kee par ga-ee bhoom bikaar._

_The hail-stone has melted into water, and flowed into the ocean._
_Kabeer, the body is a pile of dust, collected and packed together._
_It is a show which lasts for only a few days, and then dust returns to dust._
_Kabeer, bodies are like the rising and setting of the sun and the moon._
_Without meeting the Guru, the Lord of the Universe, they are all reduced to dust again._
_Where the Fearless Lord is, there is no fear; where there is fear, the Lord is not there._
_Kabeer speaks after careful consideration; hear this, O Saints, in your minds._
_Kabeer, those who do not know anything, pass their lives in peaceful sleep._
_But I have understood the riddle; I am faced with all sorts of troubles._
_Struck by the Mystery of God, Kabeer remains silent._
_Kabeer, the stroke of a lance is easy to bear; it takes away the breath._
_But one who endures the stroke of the Word of the Shabad is the Guru, and I am his slave._
_Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing._
_Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers._
_Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself?_
_Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord?_
_Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart._
_The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name._
_Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal._
_When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?_
_Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt._
_Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread?_
_Kabeer, one is known to have been touched by the Guru, only when his emotional attachment and physical illnesses are eradicated._
_He is not burned by pleasure or pain, and so he becomes the Lord Himself._
_Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider._
_Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord._
_Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction._
_One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself._
_Kabeer, those houses in which neither the Holy nor the Lord are served â€"_
_those houses are like cremation grounds; demons dwell within them._
_Kabeer, I have become mute, insane and deaf._
_I am crippled - the True Guru has pierced me with His Arrow._
_Kabeer, the True Guru, the Spiritual Warrior, has shot me with His Arrow._
_As soon as it struck me, I fell to the ground, with a hole in my heart._
_Kabeer, the pure drop of water falls from the sky, onto the dirty ground._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



At one level this is a mistranslation and at another misrepresentation of the context within which this is written: ​ 

kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.
Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt. 
hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un. 
Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 

In the above Gurmukhi, there is no mention of meat whatsoever. _hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un_, means literally, who would cut their own throat to eat food. The person who has tried to translate this has added his/her own spin .What this is actually saying is that to the follower of the Guru or one who has been touched by God a simple dish of Kheechree (lentils and rice), flavoured with salt is enough. To have something more exotic to eat you would not cut your own throat (the western equivalent would be to cut your own nose off to spite your face). In no way is this tukh anything to do with meat eating and the person who has misrepresented and mistranslated it should be held to account for his/her actions. 

*5.In this dark age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; They eat rotting dead bodies for food. (SGGS p1242)*

 Again, let us put this into context: 

_salok mehlaa 1._
_kal ho-ee kutay muhee khaaj ho-aa murdaar._
_koorh bol bol bha-ukanaa chookaa Dharam beechaar._
_jin jeevandi-aa pat nahee mu-i-aa mandee so-ay._
_likhi-aa hovai naankaa kartaa karay so ho-ay._
_Shalok, First Mehl:_
_In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; they eat rotting carcasses for food._
_They bark and speak, telling only lies; all thought of righteousness has left them._
_Those who have no honor while alive, will have an evil reputation after they die._
_Whatever is predestined, happens, O Nanak; whatever the Creator does, comes to pass._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


At first glance one notices that this paragraph is clearly a metaphor for people who behave like dogs. The dog is a scavenger, hunts in packs, fights within its pack, eats practically anything it can find etc etc. This entire Ang talks about people greed and those that lack honour when they are alive. 
The second point to note is the mistranslation. Murdaar is not the word for meat. Murdaar is a reference to people who are dead. In other words people are acting so much like dogs that when people have died they gather round to get as much as they can. A good analogy would be inheritance, where is some instances people try and contest them or try and grab for themselves as much as they can. In India, it has not been unusual to murder siblings of inheritance disputes. In fact the word Murder in the English language has come from the word Murdaar. 

*6. Falsehood is my dagger and to eat by defrauding is meat.
* *(Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raaj p24 *

 Let us again see this in context: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 1 ghar 4._
_ayk su-aan du-ay su-aanee naal._
_bhalkay bha-ukahi sadaa ba-i-aal._
_koorh chhuraa muthaa murdaar._
_Dhaanak roop rahaa kartaar._
_mai pat kee pand na karnee kee kaar._
_ha-o bigrhai roop rahaa bikraal._
_tayraa ayk naam taaray sansaar._
_mai ayhaa aas ayho aaDhaar._ rahaa-o. 
_mukh nindaa aakhaa din raat._
_par ghar johee neech sanaat._
_kaam kroDh tan vaseh chandaal_.
_Dhaanak roop rahaa kartaar._
_faahee surat malookee vays._
_ha-o thagvaarhaa thagee days._
_kharaa si-aanaa bahutaa bhaar._
_Dhaanak roop rahaa kartaar._
_mai keetaa na jaataa haraamkhor._
_ha-o ki-aa muhu daysaa dusat chor._
_naanak neech kahai beechaar._
_Dhaanak roop rahaa kartaar._

_Siree Raag, First Mehl, Fourth House:_
_The dogs of greed are with me._
_In the early morning, they continually bark at the wind._
_Falsehood is my dagger; through deception, I eat the carcasses of the dead._
_I live as a wild hunter, O Creator!_
_I have not followed good advice, nor have I done good deeds._
_I am deformed and horribly disfigured._
_Your Name alone, Lord, saves the world._
_This is my hope; this is my support._ Pause 
_With my mouth I speak slander, day and night._
_I spy on the houses of others-I am such a wretched low-life!_
_Unfulfilled sexual desire and unresolved anger dwell in my body, like the outcasts who cremate the dead._
_I live as a wild hunter, O Creator!_
_I make plans to trap others, although I appear gentle._
_I am a robber-I rob the world._
_I am very clever-I carry loads of sin._
_I live as a wild hunter, O Creator!_
_I have not appreciated what You have done for me, Lord; I take from others and exploit them._
_What face shall I show You, Lord? I am a sneak and a thief._
_Nanak describes the state of the lowly._
_I live as a wild hunter, O Creator!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Again this is similar to the above translated Shabad. The Guru is clearly making an analogy between people who are acting like dogs. He is even saying that they are barking like dogs. 

koorh chhuraa muthaa murdaar.
Falsehood is my dagger; through deception, I eat the carcasses of the dead.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Again Murdaar does not mean meat at all. Murdaar refers to dead people, and how people are literally fighting over one another to get what they think is theirs. They are so consumed with greed and selfishness that they care not for one another, clearly nothing to do with meat eating. 

*7. Avarice is a dog, falsehood the sweeper and cheating the eating of meat. (Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raag p15)*

 Let us put this last shabad in context with its correct translation: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 1._
_lab kutaa koorh choohrhaa thag khaaDhaa murdaar._
_par nindaa par mal mukh suDhee agan kroDh chandaal._
_ras kas aap salaahnaa ay karam mayray kartaar._
_baabaa bolee-ai pat ho-ay._
_ootam say dar ootam kahee-ahi neech karam bahi ro-ay._ rahaa-o. 
_ras su-inaa ras rupaa kaaman ras parmal kee vaas._
_ras ghorhay ras sayjaa mandar ras meethaa ras maas._
_aytay ras sareer kay kai ghat naam nivaas._
_jit boli-ai pat paa-ee-ai so boli-aa parvaan._
_fikaa bol viguchnaa sun moorakh man ajaan._
_jo tis bhaaveh say bhalay hor ke kahan vakhaan._
_tin mat tin pat tin Dhan palai jin hirdai rahi-aa samaa-ay._
_tin kaa ki-aa salaahnaa avar su-aali-o kaa-ay._
_naanak nadree baahray raacheh daan na naa-ay._

_Siree Raag, First Mehl:_ _Greed is a dog; falsehood is a filthy street-sweeper. Cheating is eating a rotting carcass._ 
_Slandering others is putting the filth of others into your own mouth. The fire of anger is the outcaste who burns dead bodies at the crematorium._
_I am caught in these tastes and flavors, and in self-conceited praise. These are my actions, O my Creator!_
_O Baba, speak only that which will bring you honor._
_They alone are good, who are judged good at the Lord's Door. Those with bad karma can only sit and weep._
_The pleasures of gold and silver, the pleasures of women, the pleasure of the fragrance of sandalwood,_
_the pleasure of horses, the pleasure of a soft bed in a palace, the pleasure of sweet treats and the pleasure of hearty meals_ â€" 
_these pleasures of the human body are so numerous; how can the Naam, the Name of the Lord, find its dwelling in the heart?_
_Those words are acceptable, which, when spoken, bring honor._
_Harsh words bring only grief. Listen, O foolish and ignorant mind!_
_Those who are pleasing to Him are good. What else is there to be said?_
_Wisdom, honor and wealth are in the laps of those whose hearts remain permeated with the Lord._
_What praise can be offered to them? What other adornments can be bestowed upon them?_
_O Nanak, those who lack the Lord's Glance of Grace cherish neither charity nor the Lord's Name._
Sry Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Again clearly a mistranslation and mischief making on the part of someone who wishes to convey a certain message. 

lab kutaa koorh choohrhaa thag khaaDhaa murdaar. 
Greed is a dog; falsehood is a filthy street-sweeper. Cheating is eating a rotting carcass.
Sry Guru Granth Sahib ji 


Again Murdaar is not Meat but is dead people. The entire Ang is talking about people who fall prey to the 5 thieves, Kaam, Krodh, Moh, Lobh and Hankaar. 

MOTIVATIONS BEHIND MISTRANSLATION AND MISREPRESENTATION 

There are several reasons behind why these mistranslations and misrepresentations have occurred: 
· The publishers have a lack of education and do not understand the meaning of words in Gurmukhi and the correct translation into English. 
· In their eagerness to promote their own brand of Sikhism (Sant, Jatha etc) they have deliberately allowed mistranslation and misrepresentation. 
· Genuine abhorrence of killing animals can be a motivation too (eg those people that believe in Animal Rights), however Sikhism should not be used as a tool to promote such agendas. 
· Poor knowledge of history and the context in which the Gurus and Bhaghats wrotes these Angs is a factor too. This can lead to a misrepresentation. 
· In conclusion one can only say that it is very important that Sikh institution promote a clear and concise programme where only those with a certain amount of knowledge in Sikh History and the Sikh Language, should be officially sanctioned as being translators for the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. 

THE 84 MILLION INCARNATION ARGUMENT - ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, MINERAL. 

The other argument that has been made over this issue is that there is some sort of hierarchy of incarnations within Sikhism of incarnations. Life goes through many incarnations (up to 84 million) before becoming human. In other words, life takes the form of incarnation in plant form, then animal, and then human. The idea being that animal form spiritually is closer to man. Biologically this maybe true, however, spiritually within Sikhism, this could not be further from the truth. 

 On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written: 

_ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5._
_ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa._
_ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa._
_ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o._
_ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o._
_mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa_. _chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa._ rahaa-o. 
_ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa._
_ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa._
_ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa._
_saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat._
_kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat._
_ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan._
_jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan._
_avar na doojaa karnai jog._
_taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay._
_kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay._

_Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl_: 
_In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;_
_in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer._
_In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake._
_In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse._
_Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him_.
_After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you._ Pause 
_In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;_
_in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;_
_in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;_
_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._
_Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life._
_Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har._
_Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance._
_Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord._
_Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord._
_No one else can do anything at all._
_We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself._
_Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



Reading this Shabad one can clearly see that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not attach any particular order to how life is incarnated. Infact it states: ​ 

ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa. 
In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains; 
ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa.
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb; 
ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa. 
in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves; 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


If you were to apply the logic of those that claim spiritually animal life is closer to human, then according to this a rock then becomes an aborted human foetus, then becomes a plant! It is only after this one becomes human. Surely then a plant is a closer form of life to human? 

The Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji only proclaims one life form as being so precious. On page 50 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji it states: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 5 ghar 2._
_go-il aa-i-aa go-ilee ki-aa tis damf pasaar._
_muhlat punnee chalnaa tooN sampal ghar baar._
_har gun gaa-o manaa satgur sayv pi-aar._
_ki-aa thorh-rhee baat gumaan._ rahaa-o. 
_jaisay rain paraahunay uth chalsahi parbhaat._
_ki-aa tooN rataa girsat si-o sabh fulaa kee baagaat._
_mayree mayree ki-aa karahi jin dee-aa so parabh lorh._
_sarpar uthee chalnaa chhad jaasee lakh karorh._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh bharmati-aa dulabh janam paa-i-o-ay._
_naanak naam samaal tooN so din nayrhaa aa-i-o-ay._

_Siree Raag, Fifth Mehl, Second House:_
_The herdsman comes to the pasture lands-what good are his ostentatious displays here?_
_When your allotted time is up, you must go. Take care of your real hearth and home._
_O mind, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, and serve the True Guru with love._
_Why do you take pride in trivial matters?_ Pause 
_Like an overnight guest, you shall arise and depart in the morning._
_Why are you so attached to your household? It is all like flowers in the garden._
_Why do you say, "Mine, mine?" Look to God, who has given it to you._
_It is certain that you must arise and depart, and leave behind your hundreds of thousands and millions._
_Through 8.4 million incarnations you have wandered, to obtain this rare and precious human life._
_O Nanak, remember the Naam, the Name of the Lord; the day of departure is drawing near!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


So clearly, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji sees plants, animals, and minerals, on one level in terms of life, and then human form on another. To take the life of a plant is the same as an animal in terms of spirituality. The following Shabad although a metaphor for how people who speak the truth are treated, clearly shows the mind of the Guruâ€™s when seeing life in all its form, be it plant, mineral or animal: 
Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._

_First Mehl:_
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,_
_and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._
_What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


The folly of the argument that spiritually one is committing a bigger sin when killing an animal than a plant is a foolish one. The biological argument is a different one and is not tackled within the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, but that in itself shows, the choice of whether or not to eat meat is a personal one and has nothing to do with the Sikh religion.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Aug 27, 2009)

<< the choice of whether or not to eat meat is a personal one and has nothing to do with the Sikh religion.>>

Spot on Randip ji

same question arises...

what would an Inuit Sikh eat ?


----------



## Sinister (Aug 27, 2009)

Huck_Finn said:


> same question arises...
> 
> detwhat would an Inuit Sikh eat ?


 
anything but* deleted *snow. :ice:


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 27, 2009)

IMPORTED SAAG ??:happy:


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Aug 28, 2009)

<<IMPORTED SAAG ??>>

lol

for sure

if the standard bearers of Punjabisation of Sikhi have their way.

i am sure a few years from now that might be made the "sikh" food... lol


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 28, 2009)

Huck_Finn said:


> << the choice of whether or not to eat meat is a personal one and has nothing to do with the Sikh religion.>>
> 
> Spot on Randip ji
> 
> ...



Snow 

It is sad that one of the most logical (if not the most religions), in the world is denigrated to an a la carte menu.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 28, 2009)

This book here:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/books-on-sikhism/26134-philosophy-of-guru-granth-sahib.html

There is a chapter on Gurmat and Meat and clarifies this issue once and for all in a direct and concise way, and puts the Bhai's and Sant's to bed who make vegetarianism as issue.

One gets the impression that in Hindu Society, Vaishnavism is the dominant cult, and in order o capture Vaishno type followers into Sant/Bhai cults one has to say yes to this issue, even though Sikhism states the complete opposite.

I would seriously recommend buying it.


----------



## vsgrewal48895 (Aug 28, 2009)

Not that which goes in to the mouth defileth an individual (Except substances affecting the mind-Guru Nanak-Siri Raag) but that comes out of the mouth does defileth him/her.

Virinder


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 28, 2009)

vsgrewal48895 said:


> Not that which goes in to the mouth defileth an individual (Except substances affecting the mind-Guru Nanak-Siri Raag) but that comes out of the mouth does defileth him/her.
> 
> Virinder


 
Nice point Virinder ji,

and apologies if anything untoward has come out of my mouth.


----------



## vsgrewal48895 (Aug 28, 2009)

Dear Randip Ji,

It was a point which I learnt when Bhagat Ramanand switched from an idolater to monotheistic. He was 4rth in succession of Ramanuj and just want to share with the members.

Cordially,

Virinder


----------



## Randip Singh (Sep 2, 2009)

> *1. Those mortals who consume marijuana, flesh and wine - no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. (SGGS p1337)
> 
> In this instance let us firstly add the Gurmukhi with the English:
> 
> ...




Hi all,

I think from the above shabad it is pretty well established that this shabad is about "pleasure and excess" and not meat, but from the above mentioned book it states, that the reason for this line:

*kabeer bhaaNg maachhulee suraa paan jo jo paraanee khaaNhi.
Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine – 

*is that Bhang, alcohol and fish are sexual stimulants. That is why Kabir ji states:

*kabeer ja-o garihu karahi ta Dharam kar naahee ta kar bairaag. 
Kabeer, if you live the householder's life, then practice righteousness; otherwise, you might as well retire from the world. 

bairaagee banDhan karai taa ko bado abhaag. 243 
If someone renounces the world, and then gets involved in worldly entanglements, he shall suffer terrible misfortune. 243*

In effect this shabad is about "Kaam". 

I knew Bhaang and Alcohol were used as sexual stimulants, but I have just done a Google search and found several links to fish being a sexual stimulant too. I never realised this before.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 25, 2010)

I think Sant Maskeen ji's view on this :

YouTube - Maas Maas kar moorakh jhagre - Giani Sant Singh Ji Maskeen 03/08


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 25, 2010)

Randip ji

Yes! Si! Biensure! 

It is moments like this which make the entire debate on this matter seem as if several centuries of confusion have tangled many brains. Tangle to rhyme with Wrangle.

Do you realize that there is a thread in this forum describing how a Sikh of some fame had to explain to his critics that it is OK to eat an egg. In order to pacify them, tongue in cheek of course, he pointed out that every egg that was ever eaten --- well you have to "jatka" an egg to eat it. That is how bad this can get.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 25, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Randip ji
> 
> Yes! Si! Biensure!
> 
> ...



Penji,

These are the same lunatics who think that an egg (unfertilised) can become a chicken!! LOL cheerleader


----------



## PapaDan (Jun 26, 2010)

Hello , Greetings , Sat Sri Akaal , Namaste 

It's All About Love ......Period . please let me explain : 

Food wonderful food , vegetable, animal and mineral are all gifts of the divine , just as you are .

First things First .

Everything and i mean Everything is a part of Creation and thus part of the Divine .
everything you see and everything you cant see is all creation  and part of the divine .

Everything in this multiverse and everything inside the 13 known dimentions , including this one (3rd) is alive , meaning it has a spirit , a soul  , it is living consciousness , every being and entity is spiritual consciousness and part of the divine , a piece of love and respect .
It is important to remember this in all things , that everything is spiritually alive and deserves our respect and gratitude , especially food and where it comes from .

before we manifested into these physical bodies, we were all part of a spiritual collective of beings inside a portion of creation .
Not all the beings in this collective have chosen to incarnate at this time along with us, some have stayed back to help guide us and provide things for us while we are here on our physical journey .

One of the ways these fellow beings of love provide for us is my manifesting themselves into vegetation and animals that sacrifice themselves for our wellbeing by the way of donating their physical bodies for us to consume .
Every bite of any form of food is a gift to you from the divine provided for you by your fellow spiritual beings and others to help sustain you in this physical journey .
They have agreed to do this prior to you manifesting onto the planet just as you have agreed to be the entity that manifests here in their place . 

i know its an odd thought to get used to when you consider that you may have eaten the donated physical remains of spiritual friends and guides more times than you can count and the only reason they do it is because they love you and support you .
but once you get used to the idea, its really rather liberating and exciting to see all those extra ways in which love is shown to you and provided to you that you hadn't seen in that way before .

They are there in love to help you and support you , guide you , love you and learn from your experiences as you travel this cycle of incarnation .

The Earth is a huge entity that also helps provide for the beings that are trying to provide for you as well .
The Earth provides water for them to drink and other foods as they grow for your benefit , the earth provides the soil that the vegetation uses to grow the crops that help sustain you as well .

It's all a huge cycle of love from all of Creation that sustains you .
Every water drop , Every air particle, Every particle of dust or dirt and every light particle serves its purpose .
Every vegetable, animal , fish , mineral(vitamins) etc... ITS ALL FOR YOU !

High level spiritual beings suggest you can eat anything that brings your body energy , healing and joy , or all the above .
they also suggest the following as well .

Oxygen : oxygenate yourselves when you can , breathe correctly , some suggest breathing exercises ,  don't breathe toxins 

Hydration : keep yourself hydrated , you are mostly made of water so drink it often , as pure as you can get it , be it filtered, ozonated or natural filtering like springs etc...

Food : small portions , several times a day , as toxin free as possible , not just chemical toxins but free of harmful ingredients as well .such as sugar , you may want to try stevia or truvia instead . try to eat natural foods and as few processed foods as possible .

other tips include : reduce stress , exercise , rest often and allow expression .


These anonymous and not so anonymous spiritual beings are all here and in action to show their love and support for you .
Please say thank you often .
Please show gratitude often .

If you can , please get into a meditative state and send these beings of love some love of your own and show them how much you appreciate all creation has done for you even if some of that creation was done one bite at a time .

You all are wonderful Spiritual beings , and so are they and they love you !

As i said at the beginning of my post , its all about love , thats all its ever been about , in a variety of different aspects , since the dawn of time , but all true true love .

Sat Sri Akaal , Namaste , Bye 

PapaDan


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 26, 2010)

PapaDan said:


> Hello , Greetings , Sat Sri Akaal , Namaste
> 
> It's All About Love ......Period . please let me explain :
> 
> ...




Thanks for sharing some profound thoughts welcomemunda


----------



## be_still (Nov 11, 2010)

I really enjoyed this post, but to agrue about the veggie vs. meat... if all humans were vegetarians, and animals were not killed for their meat, wouldn't that be a terrible inbalance for the earth?? Also, wouldn't the animal population continue to expand and overun areas? It isn't like they have birth control, lol... Would there be enough resources for everyone to eat from the earth? 
I don't eat that much meat, and when I tried the vegetarian thing, I felt very weak since I cannot eat spicy foods or beans because of my sensitive stomach. So, I believe that eating meat is a human thing for consuming protein and amino acids....


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 12, 2010)

be_still said:


> I really enjoyed this post, but to agrue about the veggie vs. meat... if all humans were vegetarians, and animals were not killed for their meat, wouldn't that be a terrible inbalance for the earth?? Also, wouldn't the animal population continue to expand and overun areas? It isn't like they have birth control, lol... Would there be enough resources for everyone to eat from the earth?
> I don't eat that much meat, and when I tried the vegetarian thing, I felt very weak since I cannot eat spicy foods or beans because of my sensitive stomach. So, I believe that eating meat is a human thing for consuming protein and amino acids....



Actually this is not very good argument for eating meat.Majority of animals 
that are specially bred for meat are artificially bred so once the consumption stop breeding and raising animals for meat will also stop

But yes if human consume milk or use animals for other purpose like ploughing then killing useless animals is must because these animals would overrun area's


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Nov 12, 2010)

Hinduism allows eating meat.  If you search for Aghori on Youtube, you will see they are sanyasis at the riverside living humble lives and eating anything coming their way, including floating dead carcasses in the river.

Vegetarianism is healthier, but if so called Amritdhari Sikhs are making vegeterianism an issue to be a Sikh, then they are putting themselves higher than Guru Nanak who teaches in Raag Malaar on pages 1289 and 1290 how the sanyasees criticize people for eating meat and that should not be an issue to hurt people or to disuade people away from Sikhism.

Guru Gobind Singh never prohibited eating meat, and if you think he did, then he would be claiming to be higher than Guru Nanak.

People should be more concerned with stealing kirtan time and akhand paath duties from the poor ones.  If a raagi is given time then he should not go overtime like a thug.

In the Fremont Gurdwara I used to do kirtan and paath recitation, but the other freedy raagis and paathis lied about me saying I never take a bath, and they make up excuses so that the committee punishes me for no reason, forbidden me from doing this sewa, even when sangat requests to book me.  Not all raagis and greedy, just the bad ones that are poojarees.  Many of them sleep on their paath duties and eat meat anyway.  I have seen them.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 13, 2010)

harisimratkaur ji

This is a bit off topic. But it is not the first time a forum member has reported that when someone doing seva does not agree with the ruling "elite" clique of the sangat, that person is accused of not taking a bath. Then the seva is taken away. This is remarkable. You may be the 5th or 6th person reporting this. It is wicked to do this to people. The motivation is very plain, and these people have no problems stooping so low. I am sorry this happened to you.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 13, 2010)

> Hinduism allows eating meat. If you search for Aghori on Youtube, you will see they are sanyasis at the riverside living humble lives and eating anything coming their way, including floating dead carcasses in the river.



Harsimrat ji

Let me correct you vaishnav Hinduism don't allow Eating meat.You can hear pravachans of any of their sadhu's  and all of them are hard core vegetarians.Aghori sadhu 's are different
they live their secret lives in cramtoriams.One cannot take them as barometer what hinduism allows and what hinduism not O/W we also have to believe that hinduism allow consumption of human fleash as they also eat meat from dead bodies.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 13, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Harsimrat ji
> 
> Let me correct you vaishnav Hinduism don't allow Eating meat.You can hear pravachans of any of their sadhu's  and all of them are hard core vegetarians.Aghori sadhu 's are different
> they live their secret lives in cramtoriams.One cannot take them as barometer what hinduism allows and what hinduism not O/W we also have to believe that hinduism allow consumption of human fleash as they also eat meat from dead bodies.



Correct.

The major paths of Hinduism are Vaisnavism (Vegetarian and the majority), Shivitism (some veg some non veg and next biggest), Shaktism (non-veg and smallest sect).

Fascinating, that you are talking about this today. I was having a discussion today and he informs me, that vegetarianism (lacto-veg) was used as a form of control by Brahmisns over the nasses. Apparently so the argument goes, being vege makes you less aggresive and therefore more prone to suggestions and controls.

Anyone else heard this?


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 13, 2010)

Randip Singh said:


> Fascinating, that you are talking about this today. I was having a discussion today and he informs me, that vegetarianism (lacto-veg) was used as a form of control by Brahmisns over the nasses. Apparently so the argument goes, being vege makes you less aggresive and therefore more prone to suggestions and controls.
> 
> Anyone else heard this?



This is the same argument used for banning the use of onion and garlic. Apparently they stimulate a person to be more angry and aggressive! 

Panjabi food without onion....yuck!!


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 13, 2010)

Randip Singh said:


> Correct.
> 
> The major paths of Hinduism are Vaisnavism (Vegetarian and the majority), Shivitism (some veg some non veg and next biggest), Shaktism (non-veg and smallest sect).
> 
> ...



Well It is known fact that animal sacrifice was part of ancient Hindu Religion
but later own they borrowed vegetarianism from Budhism and Jainism ,and Brahmins started feeling superior though kshatriya were always allowed to Hunt and Eat meat.

As far meat making you aggressive is concerned ,well One can say about it.
The golden age of hinduism was when they use to eat meat and Hindu kings like asoka were very powerful,similarly muslims and christians were quite powerful and aggressive.On the other hand vegetarian Budhist ,Jains or even later hindu's were never known for their martial skills


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 13, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> As far meat making you aggressive is concerned ,well One can say about it.
> The golden age of hinduism was when they use to eat meat and Hindu kings like asoka were very powerful,similarly muslims and christians were quite powerful and aggressive.On the other hand vegetarian Budhist ,Jains or even later hindu's were never known for their martial skills



Vegetarianism is most likely a result rather than a cause of this. Warriors will be less squeamish and not think twice about killing animals for food. Peace lovers on the other hand wouldn't want to do the killing themself, especially if the animal was raised by them.

Most animal rights activists are vegetarian and they are often very violent!


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 14, 2010)

The reference to the past also begs another question. There was 1 group  of people (I forget who exactly) that didn't want to harm anything even  by mistake. They would walk around with cloths round their mouths so  they didn't accidentally swallow airborne bugs that were alive. They  would only eat fruit that dropped to the floor naturally. I think we'll agree that this all seems extreme but how far can  you take things? By only restricting what we can eat by what our senses can tell is hurt seems very egotistical. Gurbani singles humans out from other life forms due to consciousness not due to our senses. Our senses are actually quite weak compared to other animals so just because we can't detect a plant experiencing pain doesn't mean that it doesn't. It also has life so why discriminate against it!


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 14, 2010)

findingmyway said:


> Vegetarianism is most likely a result rather than a cause of this. Warriors will be less squeamish and not think twice about killing animals for food. Peace lovers on the other hand wouldn't want to do the killing themself, especially if the animal was raised by them.
> 
> Most animal rights activists are vegetarian and they are often very violent!



Let me add some points,

Vegetarianism or being Vegan is ne phenomina in west.How many Animal right
activists who are vegetarian are vegetarian from Birth.There is very good chance that mostly were raised as non veg

2) When soemone says that meat eating makes you aggressive or vegetarian food makes you less aggressive then it does not mean By eating meat you will automatically become agressive or by becoming vegetarian you will become saint and all your aggression will be gone.We always have to take average for example If we compare Jains with muslims then we will find that muslims are more aggressive than Jains but then it does not mean That No Jain could be aggressive or all muslims have voilent temprament


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 14, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> 2) When soemone says that meat eating makes you aggressive or vegetarian food makes you less aggressive then it does not mean By eating meat you will automatically become agressive or by becoming vegetarian you will become saint and all your aggression will be gone.We always have to take average for example If we compare Jains with muslims then we will find that muslims are more aggressive than Jains but then it does not mean That No Jain could be aggressive or all muslims have voilent temprament



Actually again diet is the effect rather than cause. Different personality types will be attracted to different paths. Peaceful personality types will be attracted to peace loving religions and vegetarianism and fearless types will be attracted to the opposite. Upbringing impacts on personality types therefore the relationship is not directly related. The real test would be to see if people change personalities when they change diets and I don't see this happening unless there is a big event causing the change. Therefore, diet is not the cause of change in personality-the event is. Gurbani encourages us to control our minds, diet therefore does not play in this. I'm sure I read more about this in a previous thread but cannot find it right now. If your theory holds true then there should be  alot more anger in the world as according to Hindu theory onion and garlic also causes these problems and most of the world eats onion and garlic in abundance!




Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Vegetarianism or being Vegan is ne phenomina in west.How many Animal right
> activists who are vegetarian are vegetarian from Birth.There is very good chance that mostly were raised as non veg



Not at all, vegetarianism has been around here for a few generations. Enough that many veggies are born here!


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 14, 2010)

Page 426

ਇਹੁ ਮਨੂਆ ਕਿਉ ਕਰਿ ਵਸਿ ਆਵੈ ॥How can this mind come under control?
ਗੁਰ ਪਰਸਾਦੀ ਠਾਕੀਐ ਗਿਆਨ ਮਤੀ ਘਰਿ ਆਵੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥By Guru's Grace, it is held in check; instructed in spiritual wisdom, it returns to its home. ||1||Pause||

No reference to food in the other tuks about controlling mind either


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 14, 2010)

> I'm sure I read more about this in a previous thread but cannot find it right now. If your theory holds true then there should be alot more anger in the world as according to Hindu theory onion and garlic also causes these problems and most of the world eats onion and garlic in abundance!



According to theory of Ayurveda Onion and Garlic are considered as Rajsic/Tamsic food and these type of food increase sexual desire,That is why many Hindu's avoid onion and Garlic.


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 14, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> According to theory of Ayurveda Onion and Garlic are considered as Rajsic/Tamsic food and these type of food increase sexual desire,That is why many Hindu's avoid onion and Garlic.



Exactly, this is a Hindu concept and has no relevance in Sikhism. Please see Gurbani tuk posted above and http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/29251-how-control-mind-beautiful-camel-like.html


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 14, 2010)

findingmyway said:


> Exactly, this is a Hindu concept and has no relevance in Sikhism. Please see Gurbani tuk posted above and http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/29251-how-control-mind-beautiful-camel-like.html



Well I don't think we should brand Ayurveda as Hindu,just Like Unani is not muslim.but I do agree that we should not mix food with sikhism.Whether these type of foods have negative or positive effect is different subject
and One should eat what suits him/her


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 14, 2010)

As a point of information only. Aryuveda does have its origin in ancient Sanskrit scriptures, particularly the Artharaveda, but also its principles and practice that are said to be described in later books. It goes back to around 2000 to 1500 BC. Its founder is considered to be Dhavanatari who received his instructions from the brahm. Whether it is Hindu or not depends on when one starts the count for Hinduism as a religion distinct from earlier vedic practices. The best way to describe it is "traditional Indian" as the practice of Aryuveda cuts across many Indian religions, including the Jain. Looking at this from a western vantage point, the Jains are more associated with Aryuveda more than others, but perhaps this is so only because they have spread this ancient tradition actively in the west. 

Onions are said to stimulate aggression and anger. Garlic also. This is the first I have heard they stimulate sexuality. But will check as my sister is an aryuvedic practitioner.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 14, 2010)

Who stole my fillet Mignon topped with roasted onions and garlic?


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 14, 2010)

Sounds like your doshas are letting you down veer ji.


----------



## Shanger (Nov 14, 2010)

I have read the article in the first post, I think it is great.

I have a few questions regarding verses which were not included, please address, as I cannot read punjabi/gurmukhi


1]
http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&Param=1103

"You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action? 

You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher?"


2]
http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&Param=723

"The world eats dead carcasses, living by neglect and greed. 

Like a goblin, or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat. 

So control your urges, or else you will be seized by the Lord, and thrown into the tortures of hell."


3]
http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&Param=483

"You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder other beings for pleasure. 

You look after your own interests, and so not see the interests of others. What good is your word?"


thanks


----------



## Shanger (Nov 14, 2010)

I've just realised after posting that this thread is 66 pages, I guess I'm going to have to read through to see if what I mentioned has been discussed, if it has and anyone wants to answer again please do.


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 14, 2010)

Shanger said:


> I've just realised after posting that this thread is 66 pages, I guess I'm going to have to read through to see if what I mentioned has been discussed, if it has and anyone wants to answer again please do.



Your questions have been answered more fully earlier in the thread. Quickly, you need to look at the shabads as a whole and take into account the history of the times. The shabads are primarily a comment on greed and hypocrisy. Read through the thread to get fuller answers


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 16, 2010)

findingmyway said:


> The reference to the past also begs another question. There was 1 group  of people (I forget who exactly) that didn't want to harm anything even  by mistake. They would walk around with cloths round their mouths so  they didn't accidentally swallow airborne bugs that were alive. They  would only eat fruit that dropped to the floor naturally. I think we'll agree that this all seems extreme but how far can  you take things? By only restricting what we can eat by what our senses can tell is hurt seems very egotistical. Gurbani singles humans out from other life forms due to consciousness not due to our senses. Our senses are actually quite weak compared to other animals so just because we can't detect a plant experiencing pain doesn't mean that it doesn't. It also has life so why discriminate against it!




Jains do that.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 16, 2010)

Shanger said:


> I have read the article in the first post, I think it is great.
> 
> I have a few questions regarding verses which were not included, please address, as I cannot read punjabi/gurmukhi
> 
> ...



All these are addressed here:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html

These Shabads are always misquoted by Sikhs with Vashnavite tenancies.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 16, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Let me add some points,
> 
> Vegetarianism or being Vegan is ne phenomina in west.How many Animal right
> activists who are vegetarian are vegetarian from Birth.There is very good chance that mostly were raised as non veg
> ...



Note

Vegetarians in the West eat eggs

Vegans do not! They do not even drink animal milk.


----------



## Shanger (Nov 17, 2010)

Ok I have read through the whole thread, and here was my post of questions-



Shanger said:


> I have read the article in the first post, I think it is great.
> 
> I have a few questions regarding verses which were not included, please address, as I cannot read punjabi/gurmukhi
> 
> ...



Am I right in saying that

quote 2-
"Ḏunīŉ▫ā *murḏār* kẖurḏanī gāfal havā▫e. Rahā▫o. 
The world eats dead carcasses, living by neglect and greed. ||Pause|| 

Gaibān haivān *harām* kusṯanī murḏār bakẖorā▫e. 
Like a goblin, or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat. "

murdar = corpse/dead body
haram = the "forbidden corpse"

= the world eats humans (metaphor?) + like a beast they eat meat killed in a ritualistic manner?

is that correct?

with regards to the first quote
"You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action? 

You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher?"

i saw this quote was discussed, but all that was said was that it was taken out of context from the entire verse, but i still don't understand how?


quote 3-
Rojā ḏẖarai manāvai alhu su▫āḏaṯ jī▫a sangẖārai. 
You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder other beings for pleasure. 

Āpā ḏekẖ avar nahī ḏekẖai kāhe ka▫o jẖakẖ mārai. ||1|| 
You look after your own interests, and so not see the interests of others. What good is your word? ||1|| 

= you keep your fasts to please allah, while you murder other creatures for pleasure?

i dont see how that can just be referrin to ritualistic/sacrificed meat? 

unless you say that pleasure does not include for the purpose of eating?


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 17, 2010)

Shanger said:


> Ok I have read through the whole thread, and here was my post of questions-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The reason why you don't understand it is.

Because you are:

1) Not understanding what the words mean
2) Reading 1 or 2 lines out of context from the shabad. The shabad must be read in its entirety.
3) Not reading the Gurumukhi script ( the translations are incredibly poor)


----------



## Shanger (Nov 17, 2010)

I can't read gurumukhi or punjabi

and I'm not trying to read things out of context, I eat meat every day i am playin devils advocate for the sake of understanding this topic. 

and I've read the full verses on each of the quotes and i've told you i dont see how theyre taken out of context, unless you are suggesting I can only ever understand them if i learn gurumukhi?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 17, 2010)

Shanger ji,

Guru Fateh.

I know you have participated in many threads quite actively, which is good. Let me ask you a couple of questions before I can give me 2 cent worth in the various threads you have asked questions in.

1. What is your religion?
2. Why do you feel insecure to share your faith as you are participating in a religious forum?
3. What is your agenda and why is your religion as" Undisclosed"?
4. What is there to hide about one's faith?
5. Are you ashamed about sharing your faith? If You are then please give us the reasons why?

Only knowing about your own faith and sharing it with us, we can all learn from each other.

Thanks and will wait for your interaction.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Shanger (Nov 17, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Shanger ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


Hello.
Ok

1. Right now I'm not sure what my beliefs would fall under. I believe the universe is governed by a set of rules (such as laws of physics etc), I suppose you could call that God, but I don't think there is a God who cares (or experiences any kind of emotion) or reacts to humans/life in any way. 

2. I'm not insecure, if what I wrote just now to your first question was available as an Adherent tag I would have chosen that. 


3. Agenda- Here to learn, parts of sikhism I like, such as it promotes good morals, equality, standing up to tyranny etc. It seems very ahead of its time. Parts I have trouble accepting, such as the concept of God (I try to explain what exactly in my q & a thread I made).

Also other parts I am not sure of, such as keeping hair (which has no direct benefit for humanity in my opinion). Also meat, surely a book inspired by God should have been much more clearer on the issue? You might say that it wasn't known at the time it would be such a big issue know, but surely God/the Gurus should have known and therefore made it black and white that we have a choice, or are forbidden.

I am trying to read the Guru Granth Sahib Ji, I don't know if I will become convinced, but I am expecting some very profound logic/science if I am to believe anything so who knows. 

As of right now I think most religions were made up by very clever people in olden times as a way of controlling people. Some religions promote peace so it could have been for a good cause, but with good morals I'm not sure we need religion in this day and age. 

4. Nothing see above
5. No I'm not ashamed, if I was I would have said I am an atheist or agnostic.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 17, 2010)

Shanger said:


> Hello.
> Ok
> 
> 1. Right now I'm not sure what my beliefs would fall under. I believe the universe is governed by a set of rules (such as laws of physics etc), I suppose you could call that God, but I don't think there is a God who cares (or experiences any kind of emotion) or reacts to humans/life in any way.
> ...



Shanger ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the response.The reason about my question of why being insecure is because you decided to use" undisclosed" which means hidden rather than "undecided" that what it seems like from your above explanation.I may be wrong about that. So, it leaves one confused.It is important to clarify things especially in a faceless forum. Why hide when one can be honest?

My last question.

What faith does your family/ancestors belong to?

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Shanger (Nov 17, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Shanger ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



Well in this point of time I believe in what I wrote above (universe governed by set of rules etc) so I wouldn't say that I am undecided, just that I am learning and open-minded. 

I'm from a Sikh family. 

Though I'm not sure how this is relevant, I don't think it matters if anyone here is a devout sikh or an extremist muslim with  hidden agenda etc it is the merit of their posts (reasoning etc) which matters no?


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 17, 2010)

Shanger said:


> I can't read gurumukhi or punjabi
> 
> and I'm not trying to read things out of context, I eat meat every day i am playin devils advocate for the sake of understanding this topic.
> 
> and I've read the full verses on each of the quotes and i've told you i dont see how theyre taken out of context, unless you are suggesting I can only ever understand them if i learn gurumukhi?





Shanger ji

My reply is based on a fair amount of appreciation for your predicament. I do think it is unhelpful to tell someone to read the Gurmukhi to get at the deeper meanings. It supposes a linguistic elite who have the answers, leaving others to struggle until they get it. In the time spent learning, you must patiently wait to take your turn to drink the amrit. And that is not fair. Even in translation an entire shabad will provide some clues into the larger context for the tuks that are often misread as forbidding meat. 


Many Sikhs do eat meat, and have done so historically. Many Sikhs do not eat meat - I don't eat meat - and the reasons are many and can be religious in nature or even the result of long family traditions influenced by Indic culture.  The culture and history of Guru Nanak's times are important.

You want to scope out the historical framework for the shabads themselves. In many different ways, in these shabads, Guru Nanak was using the "metaphor" of "feeding" on the flesh of others. He used analogies and metaphors that compared  the slaughter of animals to the slaughter of humans, though sometimes the slaughter took the form of mistreatment, immorality, hypocrisy and greed. He was speaking to those who claimed the moral high ground, the "pious" who did not eat meat, but would betray their countrymen in order to curry favor with the powerful.  

In essence he is asking in many different ways, "How can you call yourself pious and moral, because you do not eat meat. Is that not hypocrisy, when you act in cruelty to the poor and powerless, and are driven by greed, driven by ego, and driven to save our own hide.

Try to read a shabad in this light and let us know what you think.


----------



## Shanger (Nov 17, 2010)

spnadmin said:


> Shanger ji
> 
> My reply is based on a fair amount of appreciation for your predicament. I do think it is unhelpful to tell someone to read the Gurmukhi to get at the deeper meanings. It supposes a linguistic elite who have the answers, leaving others to struggle until they get it. In the time spent learning, you must patiently wait to take your turn to drink the amrit. And that is not fair. Even in translation an entire shabad will provide some clues into the larger context for the tuks that are often misread as forbidding meat.
> 
> ...



Thanks for reply. 

I'll enquire about one point at a time to make discussion easier. 

I tried reading the shabad in that light, but 

in Ang 1103 http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1103&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0

You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action? 

You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher? ||2|| 

the text seems pretty clear and literal. that killing living beings/creatures is wrong, and that would make someone a butcher. Unless the entire quote has been mistranslated by the translator? 
also nothing I read before/after those lines in the shabad lead me to think im taking it out of context.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 17, 2010)

Shanger said:


> Thanks for reply.
> 
> I'll enquire about one point at a time to make discussion easier.
> 
> ...



Shanger ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have a suggestion to make. As your parents are Sikhs. It would be a wonderful idea to show them this Shabad and ask for their opinion. You can also ask your other Sikh relatives about it and share their thoughts with us.

Will be waiting for you to share what is the input from your own family about the Shabad.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 17, 2010)

Shanger said:


> Thanks for reply.
> 
> I'll enquire about one point at a time to make discussion easier.
> 
> ...




Shanger ji 

It may be that someone needs to go through the entire shabad, and study its poetic structure with you. It might help  to see how the line "you call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would call you a butcher"  and the line "You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?" is giving you a big hint that Guru Nanak is not taking a literal stand on eating meat.

I also agree with Tejwant Singh ji.  Make an inquiry into the shabad and gathering opinions from family and friend. This just might trigger some thoughts about the context in which the shabad was written. Place the lines into a bigger picture.


----------



## Ishna (Nov 18, 2010)

... I thought the shabad was by Kabeer Ji?


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 18, 2010)

Ishna said:


> ... I thought the shabad was by Kabeer Ji?



This fact all the more suuports the fact that the shabad is not condemning meat eating itself but the greed and emptiness of rituals

For the sake of Maya and money, you sell knowledge; your life is totally worthless. ||3||

Only fools wrangle over flesh!!


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 18, 2010)

Ishna ji

You are correct. It is by Kabeer ji. My mistake. However, the entire banee of Guru Granth Sahib is consistent in one voice, so that in the end the author of any particular shabad is less important than the message, which is the same throughout. Thanks again


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 18, 2010)

Shanger said:


> I can't read gurumukhi or punjabi
> 
> and I'm not trying to read things out of context, I eat meat every day i am playin devils advocate for the sake of understanding this topic.
> 
> and I've read the full verses on each of the quotes and i've told you i dont see how theyre taken out of context, unless you are suggesting I can only ever understand them if i learn gurumukhi?




Ok, let me break this one down for you:

_quote 2-
*"Ḏunīŉ▫ā murḏār kẖurḏanī gāfal havā▫e. Rahā▫o. *
The world eats dead carcasses, living by neglect and greed. ||Pause|| 
*
Gaibān haivān **harām kusṯanī murḏār bakẖorā▫e. *
Like a goblin, or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat. _" 

_*"Ḏunīŉ▫ā murḏār kẖurḏanī gāfal havā▫e. Rahā▫o.* *

Literally means

*The world lives of the the dead i.e. those that have passed away who have been neglected and exploited, that is what the world lives off.

__*Gaibān haivān **harām kusṯanī murḏār bakẖorā▫e. *_

_They are like Goblins who gnaw at the bones of these dead people._

Basically the two lines starkly point out that people exploit others for greed. People are like blood suckers. They cheat. They lie. They exploit for greed.

In no place does this mention meat, or is this about diet. It relates to human nature and is a great metaphor for exploitative human behaviour.

In this case even a limited amount of Gurmukhi would be useful, or alternatively a good translation. I recommend the version by Pritam Singh Chahil

http://www.jsks.co.in/sggs_guru_granth_sahib_pritam_singh_chahil.htm


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 18, 2010)

Shanger said:


> Thanks for reply.
> 
> I'll enquire about one point at a time to make discussion easier.
> 
> ...




ਜੀਅ  ਬਧਹੁ  ਸੁ  ਧਰਮੁ  ਕਰਿ  ਥਾਪਹੁ  ਅਧਰਮੁ  ਕਹਹੁ  ਕਤ  ਭਾਈ  ॥ 
 जीअ बधहु सु धरमु करि थापहु अधरमु कहहु कत भाई ॥ 
 Jī▫a baḏẖahu so ḏẖaram kar thāpahu aḏẖram kahhu kaṯ bẖā▫ī. 
 You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action? 

 ਆਪਸ  ਕਉ  ਮੁਨਿਵਰ  ਕਰਿ  ਥਾਪਹੁ  ਕਾ  ਕਉ  ਕਹਹੁ  ਕਸਾਈ  ॥੨॥ 
 आपस कउ मुनिवर करि थापहु का कउ कहहु कसाई ॥२॥ 
 Āpas ka▫o munivar kar thāpahu kā ka▫o kahhu kasā▫ī. ||2|| 
 You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher? ||2|| 

*Lets analyse*

_Jī▫a baḏẖahu so ḏẖaram kar thāpahu aḏẖram kahhu kaṯ bẖā▫ī.

You kill people in the name of your religion, then tell me what do you call someone without religion?

Āpas ka▫o munivar kar thāpahu kā ka▫o kahhu kasā▫ī. ||2||_ _

And you call yourself a brilliant priest then whats the difference between you and butcher._


This is a slap in the face from Kabeer to those who call themselves religious yet kill people in its name. You could be lynched if you were low caste and your shadow touched a Brahmin in those days.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 18, 2010)

Shanger

Here is one for you!

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&Param=1379

1379

ਫਰੀਦਾ  ਰੋਟੀ  ਮੇਰੀ  ਕਾਠ  ਕੀ  ਲਾਵਣੁ  ਮੇਰੀ  ਭੁਖ  ॥ 
 फरीदा रोटी मेरी काठ की लावणु मेरी भुख ॥ 
 Farīḏā rotī merī kāṯẖ kī lāvaṇ merī bẖukẖ. 
 Fareed, my bread is made of wood, and hunger is my appetizer. 

 ਜਿਨਾ  ਖਾਧੀ  ਚੋਪੜੀ  ਘਣੇ  ਸਹਨਿਗੇ  ਦੁਖ  ॥੨੮॥ 
 जिना खाधी चोपड़ी घणे सहनिगे दुख ॥२८॥ 
 Jinā kẖāḏẖī cẖopṛī gẖaṇe sėhnige ḏukẖ. ||28|| 
 *Those who eat buttered bread, will suffer in terrible pain. ||28||* 

Does this mean you should give up buttered bread?


----------



## Shanger (Nov 18, 2010)

Thanks for replies, reading through them. 



Tejwant Singh said:


> Shanger ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...





I showed my parents and asked them what they thought it meant (I didn't show the english translation given)

My mum can read/write punjabi fine but she said this gurumukhi was too difficult to translate properly as she could only understand parts of it. Same with my dad. 

I'm not close enough with any other relatives. I guess I could print the shabad and take it down to the local gurdwara.


----------



## Shanger (Nov 18, 2010)

spnadmin said:


> Shanger ji
> 
> It may be that someone needs to go through the entire shabad, and study its poetic structure with you. It might help  to see how the line "you call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would call you a butcher"  and the line "You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?" is giving you a big hint that Guru Nanak is not taking a literal stand on eating meat.
> 
> I also agree with Tejwant Singh ji.  Make an inquiry into the shabad and gathering opinions from family and friend. This just might trigger some thoughts about the context in which the shabad was written. Place the lines into a bigger picture.



from that in my opinion it seems to be saying


"you call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would call you a butcher" 
self-explanatory, if you're not a butcher for killing living beings, then who is?

"You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?" 

You kill living beings, and say it is right. Well if that is right, then what is wrong (rhetorical question)
kind of like saying
"if you terrorise people and are not a bully, then tell me what is a bully?"


----------



## Shanger (Nov 18, 2010)

Randip Singh said:


> Ok, let me break this one down for you:
> 
> _quote 2-
> *"Ḏunīŉ▫ā murḏār kẖurḏanī gāfal havā▫e. Rahā▫o. *
> ...



Thanks, see now this makes a HUGE difference.

"gnaw at the bones of these dead people." does not in any way appear to refer to meat compared to "kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat." 

if that is the case I am surprised there is not a huge uproar over such a mistranslation which must have been done on purpose (since you cant confuse something so different) if translators know gurumuki. 

Thanks for link will read.


----------



## Shanger (Nov 18, 2010)

Randip Singh said:


> ਜੀਅ  ਬਧਹੁ  ਸੁ  ਧਰਮੁ  ਕਰਿ  ਥਾਪਹੁ  ਅਧਰਮੁ  ਕਹਹੁ  ਕਤ  ਭਾਈ  ॥
> जीअ बधहु सु धरमु करि थापहु अधरमु कहहु कत भाई ॥
> Jī▫a baḏẖahu so ḏẖaram kar thāpahu aḏẖram kahhu kaṯ bẖā▫ī.
> You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?
> ...



Again "You kill people" vs "you kill living beings" makes an enormous difference

This again makes sense put this way, and I understand the metaphor *but *why do you think so many others have given it a different meaning? Surely to distort the words of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a serious misconduct?

I'm also confused as to how someone can mistake 

"then tell me what do you call someone without religion?"
for
"Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?"



are the definitions you have given the general consensus here? 


Also if you don't mind me asking why did you not include these quotes and their analysis in your original article?


----------



## Shanger (Nov 18, 2010)

Randip Singh said:


> Shanger
> 
> Here is one for you!
> 
> ...



Only if it's made from wood winkingmunda

That is a good example if taking things too literally. Not to go too off-topic but I do wonder why the Guru Granth Sahib Ji was not written in more simple language, surely the poetic verses, metaphors etc will prove to be a very difficult challenge for people of low intelligence?


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 18, 2010)

Just a point of information Shanger ji,

Randip Singh ji did not author the original article. He posted it. The recent examples he gave were his personal way of explaining the predicament.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 18, 2010)

Shanger ji,

Guru Fateh.

By now, I assume you must have asked your Sikh parents or relatives about the same Shabads.

Can you share their opinions with us and enlighten us with their wisdom? In this collective way we can all learn from each other.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 18, 2010)

Shanger ji,

Guru Fateh.

You mentioned that you are studying SGGS now. Can you share with us which other scriptures from other religions you have already studied and if there is something comparative to the Shabads above from the SGGS?

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 19, 2010)

Shanger said:


> Thanks, see now this makes a HUGE difference.
> 
> "gnaw at the bones of these dead people." does not in any way appear to refer to meat compared to "kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat."
> 
> ...


 
Well, there are many different versions of the translations and translators DO confuse words because of their command of English is poor.

Pritam Singh Chahil, probably comes close. Mcleods translations are not bad either.

The word for "meat" is "maas". Even someone with linited Gurumukhi can look at the transliteration and clearly see there is no mention of maas.

The Shabads are metaphorical, and need to be read in the sociological, historical, and economic context they were written it.

A Sikh means "to learn". If one wishes to be a parrot and recite all day then one can at the local Madrasa. Sikhs should activively learn, Bani and the meanings, and not recite one or two lines parrot fashion.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 19, 2010)

Shanger said:


> Again "You kill people" vs "you kill living beings" makes an enormous difference
> 
> This again makes sense put this way, and I understand the metaphor *but *why do you think so many others have given it a different meaning? Surely to distort the words of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a serious misconduct?
> 
> ...


 
People misrepresent and mistranslate because:

1) Poor knowledge and command of the English language
2) They have Vashnavite tendancies, and translate with an Agenda. RSS, VHP,, Radaoswami etc etc all do this as well.
3) They actual do not understand Bani and the Metaphors. Many so called "Gyani's" are poorly educated.
4) They take one or two lines out of context.
5) The "so many you claim" are a few, however, this few have managed to spread their mis-information very widely.

So basically it a combination of ignorance, and deliberate misinformation.

...and really, there is not much of a difference between "living people" and "the living beings" if read in context. Especially if the trust of the shabad in the previous lines draws your attention to particular bahaviour. I don't this this shabad in anway shape or form, which ever way translated draws attention to eating habits.


----------



## Shanger (Nov 19, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Shanger ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


Hello, I asked them and wrote about it on the previous page-


Shanger said:


> I showed my parents and asked them what they thought it meant (I didn't show the english translation given)
> 
> My mum can read/write punjabi fine but she said this gurumukhi was too difficult to translate properly as she could only understand parts of it. Same with my dad.
> 
> I'm not close enough with any other relatives. I guess I could print the shabad and take it down to the local gurdwara.



So my parents were unable to give me their thoughts really since they couldn't understand it. I will like I said attempt to get the views of some gyanis possibly.


----------



## Shanger (Nov 19, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Shanger ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



I can't honestly say that I've studied any religion in its entirety, but I've read parts from Islam & Christianity (only parts because a lot of the time, once I read a few errors I believe it renders the entire holy book void since it's a book from god which should at least be flawless etc), and I'm generally not impressed by either. 

So far I haven't read enough of Sikhi to give you a proper answer. I'm also concerned with the translated version I'm reading since there are a few mistranslations which have already been highlighted in this thread.

Randip the site you gave for your recommended version does not work I think there might be a problem in the link?

Thanks


----------



## Shanger (Nov 19, 2010)

Randip Singh said:


> People misrepresent and mistranslate because:
> 
> 1) Poor knowledge and command of the English language
> 2) They have Vashnavite tendancies, and translate with an Agenda. RSS, VHP,, Radaoswami etc etc all do this as well.
> ...



That explanation is fair enough. 

I will see what translation whoever I manage to ask to translate, reaches and come back to this thread.

thanks


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 20, 2010)

Shanger said:


> I can't honestly say that I've studied any religion in its entirety, but I've read parts from Islam & Christianity (only parts because a lot of the time, once I read a few errors I believe it renders the entire holy book void since it's a book from god which should at least be flawless etc), and I'm generally not impressed by either.
> 
> So far I haven't read enough of Sikhi to give you a proper answer. I'm also concerned with the translated version I'm reading since there are a few mistranslations which have already been highlighted in this thread.
> 
> ...



Try this:

http://www.jsks.co.in/sggs_guru_granth_sahib_pritam_singh_chahil.htm


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 20, 2010)

Randip Singhji

The link is returning the message Page Not Found. Shanger why don't you google: Sri Guru Granth Sahib Pritam Singh Chahil. That way you can even find different vendors and compare prices. This translation is not cheap.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 21, 2010)

spnadmin said:


> Randip Singhji
> 
> The link is returning the message Page Not Found. Shanger why don't you google: Sri Guru Granth Sahib Pritam Singh Chahil. That way you can even find different vendors and compare prices. This translation is not cheap.



Singh Bros Amritsar sell it for a reasonable price.


----------



## Rajwinder (Nov 28, 2010)

Very nice article. i think by the time I will know what is correct and what not as per Sikhism, my life will be over. Already spent 30 years under impression that meat is not allowed under my religion and then came this article followed by my search on youtube 

YouTube        - Hazur sahib jhatka for tilak part1

What was written as per the last Rehat Maryada discussed by all scholars about meat and Sikhs ?

Unfortunately i think we have so many pracharak's all around and tons of followers who are not even willing to discuss about any change in what is been followed till now.

So i wish ( if not more ) Waheguru should give atleast patience and unbiased mind to people to discuss on topics like this.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 28, 2010)

Rajwinder said:


> Very nice article. i think by the time I will know what is correct and what not as per Sikhism, my life will be over. Already spent 30 years under impression that meat is not allowed under my religion and then came this article followed by my search on youtube
> 
> What was written as per the last Rehat Maryada discussed by all scholars about meat and Sikhs ?
> 
> ...



I think Rajwinder ji for me the answer is this and it is the only logical one. Sikhism does not forbid the consumption of meat, it does not allow the consumption of meat. For that matter, Sikhism does not forbid the consumption of vegetables and it also does not allow it......and so we can go on.

These matters are for individual conscience.

Even vegetarians have debates too. For instance some vegetarianism eat eggs because it is a waste product. Some vegetarians will drink milk products and not eat eggs. Some vegetarians will not drink or eat eggs (since milk in effect is cows blood cells or liquefied flesh).

Eat what ever you want and if you consume meat all agree that if you are baptised you cannot eat  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutha_meat or Halal (Kosher or sacrificed) meat as per our Sikh Rehat Maryada.

Here is our Rehat Maryada:

http://www.sgpc.net/index-nm.html


----------



## Rajwinder (Nov 28, 2010)

Dhanwaad Randip Singh Ji


----------



## Shanger (Nov 28, 2010)

Can someone please explain what is happening in the above video please? 



Thanks


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 28, 2010)

Shanger said:


> Can someone please explain what is happening in the above video please?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks



Something completely against gurmat


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 28, 2010)

Shanger said:


> Can someone please explain what is happening in the above video please?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks



They are chatkaing a Goat and putting its blood on the shastars


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 28, 2010)

findingmyway said:


> Something completely against gurmat



I think they are just following a tradition which was developed in wartime


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 29, 2010)

findingmyway said:


> Something completely against gurmat



I think you will find this practice actually occurred within the precincts of the Golden Temple until the 1920's.

This is actually a Kshatriya tradition that spans the time of Guru Gobind Singh ji.

Hazoori Sikhs who still do this are said to be unpolluted from the Vashnavite influences on Punjabi Sikhs. So they would argue that it is us who have forgotten Gurmat!

Jhatka itself is not anti-Gurmat, but I think the Shastar Tilak or Shastar Puja is.


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 29, 2010)

Randip Singh said:


> I think you will find this practice actually occurred within the precincts of the Golden Temple until the 1920's.
> 
> This is actually a Kshatriya tradition that spans the time of Guru Gobind Singh ji.
> 
> ...



Apologies Randip Ji,
Please can you explain the rationale behind this ritual to me? I may be missing something? As far as I can see;

Ritual slaughter is against the Guru's teachings
Worship objects including shastar is against the Guru's teachings.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji had good reason for everything he did, so how does this fit in?
Thanks,
Jasleen


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 30, 2010)

findingmyway said:


> Apologies Randip Ji,
> Please can you explain the rationale behind this ritual to me? I may be missing something? As far as I can see;
> 
> Ritual slaughter is against the Guru's teachings
> ...



I don't think its has much to do with the Guru's teaching but more of a cultural practice around when he was alive by Kshatriyas.

Jhatka itself is not a ceremony, all it means is one blow. However, Jhatka can be used in a ritual, or part of one. Herre there are two parts. The Jhatka or blessing, an the Shastar Tilak.

Shastar Tilak or blood anointment of weapons is a Kshatriya practice, nothing to do with Sikhism so it could be viewed as anti-Gurmat.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randip Singh said:


> I don't think its has much to do with the Guru's teaching but more of a cultural practice around when he was alive by Kshatriyas.
> 
> Jhatka itself is not a ceremony, all it means is one blow. However, Jhatka can be used in a ritual, or part of one. Herre there are two parts. The Jhatka or blessing, an the Shastar Tilak.
> 
> Shastar Tilak or blood anointment of weapons is a Kshatriya practice, nothing to do with Sikhism so it could be viewed as anti-Gurmat.



The rituals like chatka or putting blood on weapons developed so an average warrior could develop strong heart so he can see bloodshed in battlefield.I can bet that these days if you put an average sikh in ancient type of battle then more than 90% will faint ,when they see the bloodshed and destruction in battlefield.


----------



## Admin (Nov 30, 2010)

I read somewhere that history of Nihungs predates the formal creation of Khalsa and they joined Khalsa forces after submitting to Guru Gobind Singh Ji a bit latter on... 

If that was case then it is but obvious that Nihungs brought alongwith them some of their own traditions which had enormous Hindu traditional influence and these traditions with the passage of time became part of Sikh traditions eventually. If we closely study the dress code of nihungs, even today they have an enormous influence of warrior traditions of Hindus. 

The amalgamation of Sikh - Hindu traditions today has come out to be known as Sanatan Sikhism... 

Thank you for a fascinating discussion on this topic.


----------



## max314 (Nov 30, 2010)

Excellent thread.

Thank you very much for your valuable insights.


----------



## findingmyway (Dec 7, 2010)

Just to clarify:
Whats shown in the video is a cultural thing rather than a religious thing? 
I have no problems with the jhatka, but the fact it is done for sacrificial reasons (shastar tilak) does bother me. Also, it being carried out in the Gurdwara and the blood being taken into the darbar hall seems to endorse the procedure as a Sikh thing. Surely if its only cultural, it should be done elsewhere?


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 8, 2010)

findingmyway said:


> Just to clarify:
> Whats shown in the video is a cultural thing rather than a religious thing?
> I have no problems with the jhatka, but the fact it is done for sacrificial reasons (shastar tilak) does bother me. Also, it being carried out in the Gurdwara and the blood being taken into the darbar hall seems to endorse the procedure as a Sikh thing. Surely if its only cultural, it should be done elsewhere?


 

Unfortunately there are a lot of cultural influences on stuff that happens in Gurudwara today.

I mean why do people circum navigate the Golak? Need to purify things? Read non-stop prayers etc?

I bet if you put your mind to it, you could find hundreds of Cultural things that happen in Gurudwaras!


----------



## Shanger (Dec 8, 2010)

Does this mean that Sikh's cannot eat meat killed in a ritualistic manner unless it is killed with one blow?


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 8, 2010)

Shanger said:


> Does this mean that Sikh's cannot eat meat killed in a ritualistic manner unless it is killed with one blow?



at present the restriction is only on halal


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 8, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> at present the restriction is only on halal



Yes! Literally the phrase is "killed in the Muslim way," or halal. Thanks


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 9, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> at present the restriction is only on halal


 

I would argue that the SGPC translation of the word "Kuttha" is wrong. It broadly means that which is "ritually purified", or "sacrificed to God".


----------



## mannii (Feb 25, 2011)

I have read that article before but I am still stuck on whether we can eat meat or not. I am a vegetarian but try to stop my dad and brother eating meat. But then the line, '*FOOLS WHO WRANGLE OVER FLESH ' and something along the lines of ' they argue about eating meat and not eating meat.......everything is meat' (something like that*)-  it stops me from telling them to not eat it. I have also heard of amritdhari Sikhs who eat meat and the nihang singhs who do JHATKA and loads of people have arguments of the hazoor sahib incident. I have visited a lot of Sikh websites and all of them have different views, some of them are for and some of them are against. so I get confused! I decide to leave it to god and if it is his choice they will eventually stop eating it.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Feb 25, 2011)

1. Points to note:
This "debate" was RAGING just as FIERCLY when GURU Nanak ji decided to settle it once and for all for Sikhs...hence this and other shabads.
2. STRONG and hARSH Language..FOOLS...WRANGLING..arguments..almost coming to Blows..Violence against the "opponents"....GURU JI also uses STRONG LANGUGE because this subject and its context and OVERBEARING on "religion" demands such.
3. Efforts at "duplicity..Holier than THOU attitudes, superior attitudes...THEN and EVEN TODAY....
4. Efforts to IMPOSE ones own Views on the OTHER side...then and even Today ( ..."try and STOP my brothers and Dad from eating meat....).

A careful reading of Gurbani will reveal numerous instances where Guur Ji has simialrly tackled issues of "dress"...wearing double dhotis, outer garb, religious symbols marks etc etc to show the exact same issues as in eating/not eating meat...BUT these Shabads dont excite as much..simply becasue..."dress" is an accepted and settled issue..the Saffron robed dont go about ....trying to STOP others form wearing suits/patiala salwars/pants....although a FEW such are slowly gaining ground against wearing ..Jeans..tight clothing..revealing styles etc etc UNDER GARB of Holier than Thou..I ma more religious than YOU types who try to IMPOSE their own narrow views on others..BUT GENERALLY "dress" has been left alone...BUT Not..."DIET" ?? Begs the question why ??..Also NOTICE..ALL DERAS/DEHDHAREE GURUDOMS..Radha Soamis, Namdharees, Nirankarees (fake), Sauda saadh, Noormehal, Ashutosh....110% are ANTI_MEAT !! Have these Dehdharees and FAKES understood GURU NANAK JI Better than Mainstream SIKHS who still support Jhatka/and Ban Hallal ?? ALL THESE DERAWADEES and Human GURUS also SUPPORT anti-SIKH forces, are totally AGAINST SGGS, Panj Piayaras concept, Sikh Khandeh batte dee Pahul, etc etc..Kakaars etc etc...

5. DIET is NOT ..."gods choice..his choice..etc etc.." ITS YOUR CHOICE. period. He has provided all and every type of FOOD..its up to YOU to choose. Dont use a LOOPHOLE and blame HIM..or abdicate your own responsibility to read and understand the GURBANI and hope it will all be all right..as its "his" choice..he will handle it..blah blah blah..READ SGGS with OPEN MIND< OPEN EYES, OPEN HEART...and make your own DECISION.japposatnamwaheguru:


----------



## singh is king (Mar 27, 2011)

*Re: Is halal meat scientifically proven right?*

Eating meat means you are killing (or somebody else for you) an innocant animal for your taste, So doesn't matter Jhatka or Halal. I think only difference is poor animal is killed with cruilty in term of Halal but killed anyway.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 1, 2011)

*Re: Is halal meat scientifically proven right?*



singh is king said:


> Eating meat means you are killing (or somebody else for you) an innocant animal for your taste, So doesn't matter Jhatka or Halal. I think only difference is poor animal is killed with cruilty in term of Halal but killed anyway.



GURU NANAK JI settled that debate with this...500 years ago..

QUOTE:...OH Pandit..YOU dont even KNOW the difference between "meat"..and "saag"....What is Saag ?? What is MEAT ?... ALL LIFE BEGINS WITH WATER !!! the Very First building block of LIFE is WATER.....

BUT still we never accept GURU JI..and keep on WRANGLING like MOORAKHS.

GURBANI is ONE. No two ways about any gurbani....no Contradictions no confusion...what use if Guru ji left us with CONFUSION ?? we INSULT GURU JI when we say..we are CONFUSED..Gurbani says.."Black"..and then it says "WHITE"...Is that so ?? NO GURBANI ONLY SAYS ONE THING....ALL LIFE IS from the same CREATOR..all plants, all bacteria..all cows and all pigs. Period. ITS HUMANS who misinterpret..and confuse themselves...HUMANS who say that GURU JI DID NOT SETTLE THIS DEBATE with FINALITY. GURU JI DID. period. we dont accept.period too.


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Apr 2, 2011)

*Confused about the non - veg thread*

WJK WJkF,

I have read the "I am Confused Whether Allowed to Eat Non-Veg"  
thread, but now i´m confused, Can someone give me please, the clear answer? Is there something written in GGS/gurbani? Can i eat meat or not?
My parents raised me saying that i am not allowed the eat meat, especially cow- meat, because we take everything from the cow, milk, goa as manuer. So I´ve never eat cow -meat only sometimes chicken... What is with the babes`who don´t eat meet and eggs etc?? Please, help me!!
Can a amritdhari sikh eat meet or not?  I need a clearly answer please.


----------



## Archived_Member16 (Apr 2, 2011)

*Re: Confused about the non - veg thread*

Please review the following link for the information you are seaking: 

*Misconceptions About Eating Meat
by Sandeep Singh Brar*

*Link:* http://www.sikhs.org/meat.htm

( NOTE: Click on  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 for each item )


----------



## findingmyway (Apr 2, 2011)

*Re: Confused about the non - veg thread*

The only restriction is ritually slaughtered meat. This thread will answer all your questions. It is long but please take the time to go through it as it will clear all doubts
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html

Your diet is your own choice.


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Apr 2, 2011)

*Re: Confused about the non - veg thread*

Thanks, i will read it clearly!


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Apr 2, 2011)

*Re: Confused about the non - veg thread*

Wow... I can´t really  believe this anyway that, amritdhari Sikhs can eat meat... Im confused is this forum true?  So, I can eat meat .. What if someone ask me about it, when I eat meat?


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 2, 2011)

*Re: Confused about the non - veg thread*

TigerStyleZ ji

Get some 3x5 cards. On one of them write out the section in the Sikh Rehat Maryada that talks about meat. Keep it handy in your wallet or pocket. Pull it out and show it to anyone who may need information.


     The undermentioned four  transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided

1. Dishonouring the hair;
*2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way;* (that means ritually slaughtered)
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse;
4. Using tobacco.

http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html

Keep several of these handy on different topics. Don't get into arguments with most people on most of these subjects. Meat is the type of subject where changing minds is not likely to happen soon. Make your case and move on.


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Apr 2, 2011)

*Re: Confused about the non - veg thread*

But now I´ve found a link that says the opposite... 

http://www.sikhism101.com/node/77


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 2, 2011)

*Re: Confused about the non - veg thread*



TigerStyleZ said:


> But now I´ve found a link that says the opposite...
> 
> http://www.sikhism101.com/node/77



I am aware of this web site. There are many many many many web sites on the Internet where Sikhs either as individuals or as sects re-interpret the tenets of Sikhism to suit their sectarian purposes, religious beliefs, and even political agendas. 

So the question for you my friend is which road will you take? Sikhi demystified as Guru Nanak intended, or Sikhi made complicated according to dozens of different agendas? 

That is why I said above - we are not going to change minds any time soon. The choice is to accept what is in Gurbani and the SRM - which is Sikhi demystified - or wallow in controversy - which is Sikhi made complicated. The choice is yours.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 2, 2011)

*Re: Confused about the non - veg thread*

*Forum members, respected all. Be on notice to the possibility of trolling on this threat, on the subject of meat. But also other threads related to meat, hair, sex, and tobacco. These discussions can go in circles and inflame passions. If decorum unwinds I will take the necessary action.  Thank you.*


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Apr 2, 2011)

*Re: Confused about the non - veg thread*

Mhh, I think it is indifferent which way i choose, the main point is that i will choose one. But thanks for your help.

*That is your choice. This thread, "Confused about non veg, etc."  is now merged with Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh. *


----------



## Harwinder (Apr 9, 2011)

*can a sikh eat meat?*

Doese it say in the shri Guru Granth Saib if a Sikh Is or Is not allowed to eat meat?


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: can a sikh eat meat?*

Harwinder ji

Thanks for your question. We have several threads on eating meat and Sikhi. I am going to merge this question with the thread Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh. You can get a lot for your answer there too.  spnadmin


----------



## barusaby (Apr 22, 2011)

*Re: Consumption of Alcohol Amongst Sikhs*



Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Barusby Ji,
> 
> The "TEETH" argument doesnt stand at all.
> Human Teeth are NOT exactly like those of the cow, horse, elephant, buffalo, sheep - purely vegetarians. They have NO TEARING TEETH..mostly GRINDERS ONLY.
> ...



*Man is not designed to eat meat*
This can be confirmed by comparing the physiology and anatomy of vegetarians and meat eaters.

A piece of meat is just part of a corpse, and its putrifaction creates poisonous wastes within the body. Therefore meat must be quickly eliminated. For this purpose, carnivores possess alimentary canals only three times the length of their bodies. Since man, like other vegetarian animals, has an alimentary canal twelve times his body length, the rapidly decaying flesh is retained for a much longer time producing a number of undesirable toxic effects.

Vegetarian diets are bulkier than those containing animal products, because they are relatively high in carbohydrates and fiber. Overeating, obesity and constipation are generally not seen in vegetarian. It can take up to 5 days i.e. 120 hours for meat to be digested and eliminated. Putrifactions is the prime source of growth of undesirable bacteria, which is the common cause to disease in flesh food. A plant-based diet is eliminated from the body within a period of 24-hours, thereby preventing any potential accumulation of toxins.  

If the vegetarian diet has less fat it takes less than 24 hours to be digested and eliminated. Higher the fat in vegetarian diet longer is the period that is more then 24 hours for digestion and elimination. If the diet of juices of fruits and vegetables is taken, it takes 12 to 15 hours for digestion and elimination. If solid fruit and vegetables are eaten it takes more hours for similar function. Every body knows this fact in his daily life. While eating different types of diets, constipation and loose-motions (dioherrya) are correlated with the type of food consumed.  

*Factual Indicaters of Vegetarianism*​*Prof. W.C. Rose* of University of Illinois and authority on protein diet, says,  “About 23 gms. Protein in a day is all one needs.”  Persons eating meat get on the average of 83 gms. of protein a day which cause many diseases. It is well known fact that people may go for a number of days without protein yet suffer no bad result. The fruit alone, if amply supplied in sufficient variety, would provide people with enough protein to meet the actual body demand of about 23 gms. Mrs. Ellen G. White, the leading Writer on health, wrote in the book “Meat is the greatest disease breeder that can be introduced into the human system” *Denmark* during the First World War in 1918 remained on vegetarian diet for one year and established world record for lowered death rate-34% due to marked decrease in the illness rate. Eating meat by the whole nation the next year sent the death rate back to its pre war level.

Dr. E. V. Mc Collum, the leading nutritionist of John Hopkins University gives his opinion that any one who chooses to eliminate flesh food from his diet is better off.

People who consume animal products are 10 times more susceptible to heart diseases, 40% more susceptible to cancers and at increased risk for many other illnesses, including stroke, tuberculosis, obesity, appendicitis, osteoporosis, arthritis, diabetes and food poisoning. Meat contains accumulation of pesticides and other toxic chemicals up to 14 times more concentrated than those found in plant food. Dr. Carrel Alesus, noble prize winner in 1912, proved that length of life depends largely on eliminating waste and adding nutrition to the cell. Aging and fatigue are hastened by flesh food which increases wastes of various poisons that the animals would have eliminated. The urea and the uric acid, which would have been eliminated by animals from their body, remain in the slaughtered flesh consumed by the person who takes meat.  These poisons cause many disorders in the body.  Another damage facing the meat-eater is the diseases in animals that get propagated through meat-eating. The rapid rise of Leukosis in Cattle induced blood cancer or Leukemia among the children in USA. Meat is the most putrefactive of all foods. When it spoils in intestines, it can make the persons more violently ill than any other food.

*Dr. Wendell Stanley, *Noble prize winner in 1957, confirms that cancer germs are communicative. People are continuously eating flesh that is filled with tuberculosis, cancerous germs and other fatal diseases. Saturated fatty acids in the flesh food cause many diseases like heart diseases, atherosclerosis and many forms of cancer, stroke and degenerative diseases.  A high intake of animal protein causes an excessive excretion of calcium, thereby causing loss of calcium from bones, which in turn increase the risk of developing osteoprosis, kidney and gall bladder stones.  Excess protein from meat diet has been linked to kidney stone, osteoporosis and heart disease and some cancers. Any normal variety of plant foods provides more than enough protein for the need of body. Large amount of antibiotics are being fed to livestock to control bacterial diseases which are becoming immune to these drugs at an alarming rate. Of all antibiotics used in USA 55% are fed to live stock. These are passed on to those persons who eat flesh.
*
John Robin’s book ‘Diet For New America’ *says that it is strange but true that U.S physicians are as a rule ill-educated in the single most important factor of health, namely diet and nutrition. Out of 125 medical schools in U.S. only 30 require their students to take a course in nutrition. The average U.S. physician is exposed to only 2.5 hours of study on nutrition. These doctors in U.S. are ill equipped to advice their patients to minimize foods, such as meat, that contain excessive amounts of cholesterol and are known causes of heart attack, cancer, strokes, diabetes and brain diseases, alzhemere, Parkinson's disease and other fatal diseases.  
*
Food consists of 2 components:*
1.   Essential nutrients.
2.   Bioactive compounds for health promotion and disease prevention. 

Plant based diets or chemical power houses are rich in these bioactive compounds - phytochemicals.These phytochemicals include indoles, thiocyanates, coumarins, phenols, flavonoids, terpenes, protease inhibitores and plant sterols that may protect humans from many cancers and other diseases. 

The National Academy of Sciences USA has recently suggested an increased intake of fruits and vegetables in the diet.

Protective effect of a vegetarian diet is believed to be due to the following values:
a).  *Mono and poly unsaturated fatty acids* are better for overall health as compared to saturated fatty acids in flesh food.
b).  *The essential fatty acids like Omega 3*, are found in green vegetables and linseed (Flaxseed) whereas Omega 6 fatty acids are abundantly found in fresh food as well as plant food rich in saturated fatty acids. The best ratio for healthy brain & vitality is less than 3:1 (Omega 6 and Omega 3). Higher ratio of Omega 6 to Omega 3 causes many fatal diseases as mentioned above.
c).  *Anti-oxidant vitamins,* which are very essentials for protection from heart, cancer and other diseases, are very rarely found in flesh food but available in abundance in plant food.
d).  *Minerals like potassium, sodium and other micro nutrients* are abundantly available in plant food.
e).  *Phytochemicals* which are very essential for prevention of diseases are only available in plant food.
f).   *Fiber* being very rich in Plants is very conducive for protection from many diseases like constipation, intestinal colon cancer and diabetes. Flesh food has very little fiber contents.
g).  *Plant protein* is better than flesh food protein for avoiding the occurrence of many diseases.
*Effect on our organs* 

Kidney is the organ that is adversely affected by various toxins. This vital organ, which extracts waste from the blood, is strained by the overload of poisons introduced by meat consumption. 

Non-vegetarian animals can metabolize almost unlimited amounts of cholesterol and fats without any adverse effects. On the other hand, the   vegetarian species have a very limited ability to deal with any level of   cholesterol or saturated fats beyond the amount required by the body. When, over  a period of many years an excess is consumed, fatty deposits (plaque) accumulate on the inner walls of the arteries, producing a condition known as   arteriosclerosis i.e. hardening of the arteries. Because the plaque deposits constrict the flow of blood to the heart, the potential for heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots is tremendously increased. 

A high intake of animal protein causes an excessive excretion of calcium, thereby encouraging the loss of calcium from bones, which in turn increases the risk of developing osteoporosis, kidney and gall-bladder stones.

*Prevention of Disease *
Ø Diets rich in plant foods – whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, and seeds – are associated with reduced risk for cardiovascular disease and cancer. 
Ø Nuts (eg. almonds, groundnuts) are rich in mono- and poly- unsaturated fatty acids.They decrease the levels of LDL cholesterol (“bad cholesterol”) and also decrease the ratio of total HDL to cholesterol. 
Ø Fruitarians have the highest proportion of Vitamin C in their diet. It has been found that fruitarian biochemicals are similar to the neuromolecules in the electrical synapses of the brain. It is believed that perception of the senses is more sharp when there is less animal fat shrouding the nerves.
Ø A new modality for treatment of hypertension is based on dietary changes. This is known as DASH - “dietary approach to stop hypertension”. This approach uses natural foods that are rich in potassium and low in saturated and total fat. 
Ø In the US and other developed countries cardiovascular diseases, cancer and strokes are the three leading causes of death in addition to diabetes and brain diseases. Vegetarian diets protect against all of these.
Ø Gall stones are also less frequent in vegetarians.
Ø Increased intake of fruits and vegetables is associated with reduced risks of Alzheimer disease, cataracts and some of the functional decline associated with ageing.
Ø Food sources rich in dietary fiber, folate and Vitamin C (such as fruits and vegetables) protect against gout.
*
Probability of Diseases in Non-vegetarian:-  *
Over a thousand diseases could be contacted by humans while eating the flesh and products of animals. Ex: Brucellosis, trichinosis, toxopl, asmosis, ptomaine, Histoplasmosis, Salmonella infection (prevalent in canned food)
*
Production of biochemical equivalent to anger & fright:-*
Research has indicated a relationship between the adrenal poisons secreted by frightened, terrified animals during slaughter and aggressive behaviours. Adrenalin is a long protein chain enzyme; persons who eat the animals flesh are eating the biochemical equivalent to fright and anger.

*Nutritional Reasons* 
The main protein foods in a vegetarian diet are the soya beans, pulses (peas, beans and lentils), nuts, seeds and grains, all of which are relatively energy dense. As the average protein level in pulses is 27% of calories; in nuts and seeds 13%; and in grains 12%, it is easy to see that plant foods can supply the recommended amount of protein as long as the energy requirements are met.

High concentrated protein in flesh food is not conducive for the health of mankind.  The natural source of protein from vegetation is far better for health purposes. Besides, there is plenty of protein in soyabean, pulses, nuts and other seeds and is easy to digest.
*
Longevity*
The Bible indicates that for ten generations before the flood, when the people were vegetarian, they lived an average of 912 years. After the flood they began eating flesh food and their life of next ten generations was shortened to an average of 317 years. A government study comparing the non drinking, non smoking Mormons Christians to non drinking, non smoking vegetarian, Adventist Christians confirm that Adventists lived an average seven years longer. The National Geographic reported that three longest lived tribes in the world were Centenarian Vegetarians. They are the Hunzas of Tibet; the Azerbaijaines of the Caucuses and the Villcabamba of Ecuador. The Eskimos of North Pole live on mainly flesh food. Their average life span studied by the experts is hardly 30-40 yrs. The following persons who lived longer life in the world were vegetarians. They were Camele Toza of America, 187 yrs., Peters Jortan of Hungary 185 yrs., Henry Jonkin of Park Shire 161 yrs. Joseph Regton of Italy 160 yrs., Thomspor of England 152 yrs., Lady Cantarine of Counton Desmais 146 yrs. and Jonathan of Harport 136 yrs.

Bishnoi (Vishnoi)is a sect of Hinduism started by their Guru Jambeshwar in Rajasthan who belonged to _Kashatriya_ (Rajput clan) around 1500 AD.  They follow 20+9 principles of humanity. They are strict vegetarian and do not take any intoxicants, drugs, alcohols and cigarette etc.  They do not take even cereals.  Their diet consists of millets, grams, lentils, vegetables, green mustard, gram, spinach and other traditional old vegetables.  They eat water melon and its seeds which are dried and mixed in the millet flour.  They consume liberal quantity of curd and butter milk from camels and sheep.  They strictly follow “_Ahinsa_” i.e. they do not kill animals, birds or even perennial plant for keeping the ecological balance. In Bishnoi villages, the wild animals and birds like deer, nilgai, rabbits, pea{censored}s and other birds roam and flutter very close to the Bishnoi’s houses because these wild animals and birds perceive that they would not be harmed. In adjoining villages, where other communities kill and eat their flesh, not a single trace of these wild animals and birds is found. There are rare and unbelievable examples where the Bishnoi ladies brought up deer babies by feeding them on their breast milk and feeding their own kids on sheep milk.  There are also exemplary deeds of the Bishnois who sacrificed their lives for defending the wild animals and birds against the hunters like princes of the royal families. About 30 years back, the average lifespan of the Bishnoi clan was more than 100 years and there were many examples in the past where more than 50 percent crossed the age of 125 years.  Even now, when the western diet and culture has invaded this clan they are still vegetarian and their average lifespan is still more than 90 years which is 20 years more than the average lifespan of other communities of that area who take flesh food.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 22, 2011)

*Re: Consumption of Alcohol Amongst Sikhs*

How about this?

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/is-meat-good-for-you.html

There are people who cannot even imagine 'meal without meat'. But it has been observed that more and more people are choosing vegetarian diet. So the question is whether it is essential to include meat in your diet or you can well do without it? Is meat good for you? If it is good, then how much meat is enough and when it gets too much? Let us sort out all these questions to keep your diet healthy and balanced. 

Is Meat Good for You

The simple and plain answer to the question 'is meat good for you' is 'yes'. Let us find out why is meat good for you. 

Meat is packed with proteins, vitamins and minerals. We all know that protein is necessary for efficient metabolism and good functioning of all organs and so we cannot underestimate the value of meat as a source of protein. Scarcity of protein can badly affect your vital organs, like heart and liver. Meat contains almost all amino acids.

Meat is rich in vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6 and B12, which enhance the functioning of the nervous system and liver. These vitamins are useful for healthy eyes, skin and hair. Anemia, memory loss and weaker immune system can be experienced if there is scarcity of B vitamins. Meat and some dairy products are considered as the main source of vitamin B12. Vitamin A and D are also present in meat. Vitamin A is required for good vision. It also supports bone and teeth development and offers you healthy skin. Vitamin D promotes calcium and phosphorus absorption, which in necessary to maintain healthy bones and teeth.

Minerals such as iron, zinc, potassium and selenium are present in meat. Iron strengthens your immune system, while zinc controls the process of regeneration and maintains the optimal balance in organism. Selenium is required for easy breakdown of fat and other chemicals in the body. 

Meat contains fats named linoleic acid and palmiotelic acid which play an important role in preventing your body from cancer and harmful viruses. Good fat can offer you more energy and can help improve your body's resistance to surrounding environment and unfavorable conditions. Good fat enhances the development of brain. Thus meat is needed to have intelligent brains as well. These were the main benefits of eating meat. 

Eating Meat: Bad Effects on Health

Thus the answer to the question 'is meat good for your health' is 'yes', but there are also good evidences which suggest that eating too much of the wrong types of meat can be problematic for some. For example, over 100 epidemiological studies have proved that there’s a relationship between cancer and meats. 

The question 'is meat good or bad for you' cannot be answered in one word. It needs explanation. Yes, meat is good for you but it is good when you 'cook it right and cut the fat'. Doctors say that red meat should be eaten occasionally and it would be better if you don't eat red meat at all. According to the American Dietetic Association, lean beef is as good as skinless chicken when it comes to lowering cholesterol. But according to study reports, too many antibiotics, hormones and other drugs are given to animals raised in mass factory farms and they are fed an unhealthy mix of pesticide-laden grains. Eating meat of animals raised on corporate factory farms is thus unhealthy for human beings. Animals should be raised in humane and natural (raised on pastures or grass fed) conditions. Studies have shown that grass fed beef contains less fat and more omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and other beneficial nutrients compared to grain-fed beef. Frying, searing, grilling, broiling or cooking red meat at high temperatures triggers the production of heterocyclic amines, chemicals that may cause cancer.

There are various types of meat and eating too much of the wrong types of meat can increase the disease risk for most people. Meat eaters should not avoid other healthy foods mentioned in the food guide. It is possible that most meat eater's diet tends to be high in calories, high in saturated fat, and low in fiber, antioxidants, vitamins and minerals, etc. Meat eaters should include both meat and high fiber foods, fruits, and veggies in their diet. A balanced diet is a key to healthy life. 

Processed meats and blackened or charred heavily grilled meats are the most problematic meats. Diarrhea after eating red meat can be easily prevented. Red meat should be cooked well enough so as to destroy the harmful effects of E.coli bacteria. The minimum temperature to cook red meat is 160°F. Remember, you should not put the cooked meat in the same container where the uncooked meat was kept. Avoid eating any meat that has been kept in refrigerator in the raw state for more than two days. 

Similarly, including lean cuts of meat is essential to avoid unwanted fat that increases the risk of obesity and the consequent health hazards. You should read more on effects of too much protein and recommended protein intake which will help you know in detail, how much meat should be included in your diet.

Raw meat diet is sometimes suggested since over-cooking destroys some necessary enzymes and proteins. But eating raw meat can cause food poisoning and may increase the risk of salmonella infection, resulting in a severe stomach upset, diarrhea and nausea. Tapeworm infection, abdominal pain can also be experienced after eating raw meat.

'Is eating meat good for you' should no more be a confusing question. You may eat the right kind of meat in the right amounts and thus meat can definitely fit in to an overall healthy diet. Besides health, meat is a solid part of a muscle-building or muscle-preserving diet. The high protein, B-vitamin, iron and zinc content is definitely important. I hope the article has answered the question 'is meat good for you' and you will follow the above instructions religiously. 
By Leena Palande
Published: 7/5/2010

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway leave this and give some practical examples.Koreans very high IQ,Meat eaters.Blacks best athletes, Meat eaters ,Whites quite strong  powerful and tall.meat eaters.Indians vegetarians hardly any acheivement In physically demanding sports ,more prone to heart disease and Diabetes.

The point is if meat is very bad as pointed by you then communitties like Brahimins,Jains etc should have been the healthiest people on Earth compared to muslims ,whites and blacks which are ravenous meat eaters


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 22, 2011)

*Re: Consumption of Alcohol Amongst Sikhs*

*The most recent 2 comments have been moved to this thread. *


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 22, 2011)

One of the ways to make the warrior Sikhs sisiies is to make them vegetarians similar to Brahmins Jains etc......meat eating Sikhs as big as Hari Singh nalwa scare the living daylights out of Pathans and brahmins ruling delhi...our langauge.our culture..our religion...our lands..everything is under attack..why not diet too ???


----------



## GurjitJ (Apr 24, 2011)

*Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*

So I woke up today at 2 am and went to get some juice. When I went to go get the juice, I swallowed some meat that I had stuck in my teeth or something. It was really tiny. So should I go to the gurdwara?


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 24, 2011)

*re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*



GurjitJ said:


> So I woke up today at 2 am and went to get some juice. When I went to go get the juice, I swallowed some meat that I had stuck in my teeth or something. It was really tiny. So should I go to the gurdwara?


I will first and foremost suggest brush and floss regularly.

If you are going to go to the Gurdwara follow simple level of cleanliness like going to school, meeting your girlfriend, etc.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## asking (Apr 24, 2011)

*re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*

Sat Shri Akal Ji
See Gurjit Ji first of all being a Sadhak you should not consume it as satwik food is very excellent for Dhyan .If you are going to Gurudwara you should definately wash your mouth properly . Because meat has so unpleasent smell which only vegeterian can feel . So by your smell other persons mind may deviate which is very very bad no need to say . Considering Guru Ji to be symbol of Guru Granth Sahib Ji he will also not like it . So avoid and go clean in terms of alcohol and non veg atleast .


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 24, 2011)

*re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*



GurjitJ said:


> So I woke up today at 2 am and went to get some juice. When I went to go get the juice, I swallowed some meat that I had stuck in my teeth or something. It was really tiny. So should I go to the gurdwara?



Your body is made up of meat. What will you do with that?

It makes no difference whatso ever. It's all about how you feel about it.

There are no rules about eating meat and going to the Gurudwara. It will not make you less spiritual.


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 24, 2011)

*re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*



asking said:


> Sat Shri Akal Ji
> See Gurjit Ji first of all being a Sadhak you should not consume it as satwik food is very excellent for Dhyan .If you are going to Gurudwara you should definately wash your mouth properly . Because meat has so unpleasent smell which only vegeterian can feel . So by your smell other persons mind may deviate which is very very bad no need to say . Considering Guru Ji to be symbol of Guru Granth Sahib Ji he will also not like it . So avoid and go clean in terms of alcohol and non veg atleast .



Please can we stop such whem.

It makes no difference what you eat before you go Gurudwara.

There is no smell from meat. 

I would agree that people should not consume alcohol before going Gurudwara, as you will have difficulty in understand what is being said.


----------



## bawaj (Apr 24, 2011)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*

there is a reason for not eating meat before going to the gurdwara and it is as much spiritual as it is scientific. Meat take a lot of time and energy to digest. As such if you have a stomach full of meat before going to the gurudwara you will feel lethargic/ lazy and tired when sitting and trying to meditate or concentrate. So you should only avoid meat before you go to the gurudwara or pray at home if you have the intention to concentrate and meditate.


----------



## findingmyway (Apr 24, 2011)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*

For some people not eating meat impedes their attention as they suffer from anaemia or B12 deficiency which stops them functioning normally. We are all different so what works for some will not for others. Everyone has to find what works for them


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 24, 2011)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*

When Guru nanka ji went on and on in such a LONG shabad about..we are born of meat - word used is Clear and unequivocal MAAS - we are made of meat..we marry meat, and when that meat dies we marry another meat, we have a tongue of MEAT ...(...and that same tongue is used to recite Naam !!!)...means Guur Ji is all for getting OUT of the RUT we all were placed in by the previous religious authirites....so lets follwo Gurbani and Guru Ji and get out of the RUT. Leave this issue BEHIND US where it really belongs..NOT at the forefront of our daily lives.
The last time I was on a Tapoban Forum somebody was very disturbed when during a typical AKJ Kirtan session, in the darbar sahib he accidentally swallowed a mosquito...and THAT tiny piece of "meat" cuased this person no end of distress..all the pleasure of the kirtan disappeared and he had to return home..and was contemplating PESH before the PANJ. So YES as Findingmyway has said ...we are all different...lets all be individuals and find our own way.


----------



## Seeker9 (Apr 24, 2011)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*

Anyone who knows me will know I am not a Christian! But seeing it is Easter, I thought I would answer the question with a quote from their Scripture! This is an edited version from Matthew  15:1-18:

_"Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." _

Jesus replies:

_"And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person." Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" He answered, "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person."_

So, just a long-winded way of saying what Randip Ji has posted already!


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Apr 24, 2011)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*



> Your body is made up of meat



ya but it is not dead meat like one stuck in teeth. So it could smell. Better rinse and brush teeth.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 24, 2011)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*



Kanwaljit.Singh said:


> ya but it is not dead meat like one stuck in teeth. So it could smell. Better rinse and brush teeth.


It may come as shock to people that there are far more temporary living organisms in your mouth than a piece of dead meat just swallowed or stuck carries.  Most smell from mouth comes from two sources,


Infection of the teeth and rest of the mouth or general bad hygiene due to lack of brushing and cleaning
Majority comes from, after effects of dehydration and smells from your lungs due to bad health habits or disease.
A bit of a morcel of meat is irrelevant.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 24, 2011)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*

Seeker9 ji

What a great quote from the testament. What a profound message that one is. I never though of it that way.


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 25, 2011)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*



bawaj said:


> there is a reason for not eating meat before going to the gurdwara and it is as much spiritual as it is scientific. Meat take a lot of time and energy to digest. As such if you have a stomach full of meat before going to the gurudwara you will feel lethargic/ lazy and tired when sitting and trying to meditate or concentrate. So you should only avoid meat before you go to the gurudwara or pray at home if you have the intention to concentrate and meditate.



Sheer nonsense. 

The same could be said about heavy foods like Paneer.


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 25, 2011)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*



Kanwaljit.Singh said:


> ya but it is not dead meat like one stuck in teeth. So it could smell. Better rinse and brush teeth.



I think you should rinse and brush regardless. I don't want smelly breathed people breathing on me :grinningkudi:

I don't think the food you consumes make a difference otherwise what use is the Shabad Guru Nanak Dev ji wrote?? Remember the chastisement the Brahmins gave Guruji for accepting meat from hunters on hi s way to a religious festival? We are no better than the Brahmins.:angryadminkaur:


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 25, 2011)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*

Chick peas and MOST Daals produce a huge  a mount of GAS...and its so difficult not to let go....even while seated in meditation..so ?? make a LIST of do eats and dont eats...???


----------



## Seeker9 (Apr 25, 2011)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*



Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Chick peas and MOST Daals produce a huge  a mount of GAS...and its so difficult not to let go....even while seated in meditation..so ?? make a LIST of do eats and dont eats...???



HAH HAH HAH that made me laugh out loud!

Yes, absolutely we must take care..any excess methane in the immediate vicinity may ruin the taste of the Parshad....


----------



## Harry Haller (May 13, 2011)

crumbs I have enough to worry about, what with finding the truth, keeping my thoughts clean and honourable, conducting in myself in a manner acceptable to the global truth, and now I have to worry about the contents of my lunch too?:interestedmunda:


----------



## Randip Singh (May 13, 2011)

*Re: Confused about the non - veg thread*



TigerStyleZ said:


> But now I´ve found a link that says the opposite...
> 
> http://www.sikhism101.com/node/77


 
Sikhism 101 is run by a Sikh sect that does not believe in the Sikh Rehat Maryada. This essay is about people like Sikhism101 that twist and manipulate Guru Nanak's message for their own ends.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 13, 2011)

harry haller said:


> crumbs I have enough to worry about, what with finding the truth, keeping my thoughts clean and honourable, conducting in myself in a manner acceptable to the global truth, and now I have to worry about the contents of my lunch too?:interestedmunda:


 
Exactly thepoint Guru Nanak made. People who dwell over such an idiotic issue as diet are Fools!!


----------



## Randip Singh (May 13, 2011)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> One of the ways to make the warrior Sikhs sisiies is to make them vegetarians similar to Brahmins Jains etc......meat eating Sikhs as big as Hari Singh nalwa scare the living daylights out of Pathans and brahmins ruling delhi...our langauge.our culture..our religion...our lands..everything is under attack..why not diet too ???


 
Well the Brahmins used to control people mentall and spiritually, so why not physically by making them more passive with a vegetarian diet....unless ofcourse you were to protect Brahmins like a Kshatriya, in which case you could eat meat.

A real crafty bunch, and we have our very own Sant Mat people trying to do the same.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 13, 2011)

Gyani ji and Randip Singh ji,
If it really does then why not eat according to the environment. If there are no Mughals walking about looking for Sikh heads , would it be better to switch to a vegetarian diet?

It it does it would stop any wrangling over anything.


----------



## Harry Haller (May 14, 2011)

True, but its a third off pork bellies today at Asda-wallmart, I think that balances out the lack of Mughals. 

As for wrangling, I take my hat off to anyone wrangling here, as clearly, you have overcome all the other obstacles in the search for the almighty, to be left wrangling on this one

Maybe we should add vegetarian sikhs as a seperate ethnic group, like nirankaris, it would be great at dinner parties, well, yes I am a sikh, but I am of a small sect that believes in the divine will of god towards pork bellies, We are allowed lust filled thoughts, the odd affair, a little drink, but we will raise our sword on anyone that harbours thoughts of eating meat!


----------



## findingmyway (May 14, 2011)

BhagatSingh said:


> Gyani ji and Randip Singh ji,
> If it really does then why not eat according to the environment. If there are no Mughals walking about looking for Sikh heads , would it be better to switch to a vegetarian diet?
> 
> It it does it would stop any wrangling over anything.



Promote something as official Sikhi when it is not written in SGGS just to keep the peace? Since when is that part of being Sikh? No-one is advocating becoming a meat eater but teh freedom of choice. What gives us the right to control other's diet? Do you really want to exclude those that eat meat for health reasons (I can name several of my patients in this situation) or people who live in environments (I have travelled a lot and it is often very difficult to stick to a vegetarian diet in some remote places) making it very difficult to remain vegetarian? Do you think the Guru's made concessions to keep the peace or did they stick to what they believe in? Do you think compromising on the Guru's teachings to avoid conflict is the right thing to do? 

Where do the concessions then stop? It is human nature to always wrangle over something. As a Sikh, we should always stand for the truth and not be swayed by the wrangling :swordfight-kudiyan:swordfight


----------



## Randip Singh (May 14, 2011)

BhagatSingh said:


> Gyani ji and Randip Singh ji,
> If it really does then why not eat according to the environment. If there are no Mughals walking about looking for Sikh heads , would it be better to switch to a vegetarian diet?
> 
> It it does it would stop any wrangling over anything.



I think Bhagat Singh ji, the issue is not about diet at all, it is about freedom. People miss that point time and time again!!

We are Warrior Saints and therfore me must eat to keep our minds and bodies strong!!


----------



## Randip Singh (May 14, 2011)

harry haller said:


> True, but its a third off pork bellies today at Asda-wallmart, I think that balances out the lack of Mughals.
> 
> As for wrangling, I take my hat off to anyone wrangling here, as clearly, you have overcome all the other obstacles in the search for the almighty, to be left wrangling on this one
> 
> Maybe we should add vegetarian sikhs as a seperate ethnic group, like nirankaris, it would be great at dinner parties, well, yes I am a sikh, but I am of a small sect that believes in the divine will of god towards pork bellies, We are allowed lust filled thoughts, the odd affair, a little drink, but we will raise our sword on anyone that harbours thoughts of eating meat!



If the Guru's were around today, they would probably say something about keep a balance and that would probably mean diet.

My personal view is we eat far too much meat. We need some but not as much as we eat. We should eat food to keep our mind and body healthy.

These people who shirk at the thought of shedding an animals blood, how the hell are they supposed to stand up for injustice (which may involve shedding human blood). I keep reiterating it, we are Saint Soldiers.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 15, 2011)

Randip Singh ji, 
Ok in that case my comment was off-topic. My concern is with diet and well-being alone, that is, eating certain diets to increase individual and communal well-being.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 15, 2011)

BhagatSingh said:


> Randip Singh ji,
> Ok in that case my comment was off-topic. My concern is with diet and well-being alone, that is, eating certain diets to increase individual and communal well-being.



If we want total communual well being, then lets go back to basics. The most greenest diet on this planet is that of the hunter gatherer, which would involved vegetables and a bit of meat. 

A truly balanced diet


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 15, 2011)

Randip ji,



Randip Singh said:


> I think Bhagat Singh ji, the issue is not about diet at all, it is about freedom. People miss that point time and time again!!



If this is the point of your original essay, then it looks like that I made a mistake citing it in another discussion forum. There, some members were suggesting that it was morally wrong to eat meat. I in response, tried to point out that eating is eating and that it is driven by plain desire no matter the food is fruit and vegetables or meat. To associate becoming a vegetarian with moral purity must be the result of some kind of wrong understanding and leads to many problems, most notably the increased inability to give due consideration to what should be considered while being driven by a false sense of morality. Indeed this is a great evil, one which is hard to detect, given especially that for the person who is under its influence, it is perceived as a kind of good standing against some perceived evil.

But you are saying now, that this issue is actually about "freedom". I have my doubts, but I will not get into a debate. However I would like to ask you the following questions:

If "freedom" is such an important point in the teachings, what is your opinion with regard to the general Sikh practice of keeping one's hair and never cutting it?
Should those who make "hair" an issue be considered fools?


----------



## spnadmin (May 15, 2011)

> If ˜freedom" is such an important point in the teachings, what is your opinion with regard to the general Sikh practice of keeping one's hair and never cutting it?



Confused ji


Freedom to decide meat or veg without having one's morality judged in an overweening way by someone who has made a different decision. Freedom to decide for kesh, and knowing why one has done that, without being judged by someone who has made a different decision. Freedom to decide against keeping kesh, without being judged on a harsh moral plane by someone who has made a different decision. Freedom to give oneself freedom to decide. Freedom to consider deeply the reasons for those decisions. Freedom to change one's mind.

How is one moral without freedom? 

We of course can pursue a philosophical debate about the meaning of freedom. Let's not for the sake of thread relevance, and take that elsewhere. I am of course in my remarks assuming that this sense of freedom to decide is coming from a place in dharma and is not merely wanton willfulness.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 16, 2011)

HA..KESH !! This had to drop in to this thread...and so i digress out of necessity..apologies in advance..Jios...

Many shaven heads never forget to cite Bhagat Kabir Jis Tuks on .."..IT doesnt really matter whether one has a long matted hair..or a shaved head...BOTH dont matter in religiousity/morality...." And of course Kabir Ji is Absolutley Right. In his time ( and today as well) many SADHUS cultivated MATTED HAIR on their heads...rubbing the sap of the Boharr or Pipall tree into the scalp to make hair grow luxuriously, then matting it all up in one huge mess on the head..as a SIGN OF RELIGIOUS HOLIER THAN THOU moral HIGH GROUND !!
The Second group of SIMILAR SADHUS..took the exact opposite stand...they rubbed ashes into their scalps..and PULLED OUT all hair by the roots..this group felt Holier than Thou and on High Moral Ground via their shaved shining heads !!.............Leading Kabir Ji to further ask..OH Shaven heads..WHY are you so proud of your shaved heads when you HAVE NOT SHAVED YOUR MIND/MANN..of all its evil habits/thoughts etc ?? How can shaving the ehad make one HOLY ?? and neither can keeping Goldilocks or hair that reach to the ground from the highest tower...

SO YES ...IF any Amrtidharee feels he is Holier than thou/and on High Moral Ground just by keeping uncut hair/beard..he is seriously mistaken..Bhagat kabir Ji has already made that clear..LONG before 1699....The INNER GLOW of GURBANI and NAAM RASS must shine out to make any meaning out of the Kesh Kirpan Karra kachh and Kangha....or we will look and feel like donkeys wearing lion skins. Simialrly GURBANI GLOWS from within..BEFORE any external "DIET" can take effect..GURBANI MUST GLOW long before merley eating/abstaining form meat or milk can be of any use...


----------



## findingmyway (May 16, 2011)

BhagatSingh said:


> Randip Singh ji,
> Ok in that case my comment was off-topic. My concern is with diet and well-being alone, that is, eating certain diets to increase individual and communal well-being.



We are all individuals with different lifestyles, environment, physiques, digestive systems and metabolism. What works for 1 person won't necessarily work for the next. Neither meat should be mandated, nor forbidden. A balanced diet should be determined by each of us for ourselves.


----------



## Harry Haller (May 16, 2011)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> HA..KESH !! This had to drop in to this thread...and so i digress out of necessity..apologies in advance..Jios...
> 
> Many shaven heads never forget to cite Bhagat Kabir Jis Tuks on .."..IT doesnt really matter whether one has a long matted hair..or a shaved head...BOTH dont matter in religiousity/morality...." And of course Kabir Ji is Absolutley Right. In his time ( and today as well) many SADHUS cultivated MATTED HAIR on their heads...rubbing the sap of the Boharr or Pipall tree into the scalp to make hair grow luxuriously, then matting it all up in one huge mess on the head..as a SIGN OF RELIGIOUS HOLIER THAN THOU moral HIGH GROUND !!
> The Second group of SIMILAR SADHUS..took the exact opposite stand...they rubbed ashes into their scalps..and PULLED OUT all hair by the roots..this group felt Holier than Thou and on High Moral Ground via their shaved shining heads !!.............Leading Kabir Ji to further ask..OH Shaven heads..WHY are you so proud of your shaved heads when you HAVE NOT SHAVED YOUR MIND/MANN..of all its evil habits/thoughts etc ?? How can shaving the ehad make one HOLY ?? and neither can keeping Goldilocks or hair that reach to the ground from the highest tower...
> ...



I have made this argument a few times now, but I will put it forward again, if only to ensure I am on the right track here, I am a mona, and have only just recently decided to renew my faith, as I understand it, being a mona does not allow me to enjoy the fruits of sikhism to the complete, but no more than not being a mona, and say, sleeping with *****s. I would never argue the point that you can be complete without hair, but no more than I would argue that you could be complete with a mind like a cess pit, both are just states to be in, however on reflection, I would prefer a clean mind, and no hair to the opposite.


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 16, 2011)

Spnadmin ji,

Thanks for your response. However, I can't really make out from your remarks how much we agree and what the disagreements are, if any. I am going to respond to some of your comments, but they are more like random thoughts.

You remarked:




> Freedom to decide meat or veg without having one's morality judged in an overweening way by someone who has made a different decision.



Yes, it is not right to judge. But to point out what is right and what is wrong is what religion does.
Eating is eating, and no harm is done to others when we eat what we like. If we steal, kill or lie in order to get what we wish to have, these are evil actions, but the eating itself isn't. However, there is also the question of wrong attitude towards one's choice of food which can lead to other kinds of wrong, including judging others and trying to convince them to believe similarly. So should we not point to such errors in thinking?

But why the need to refer to the idea of freedom of choice?
Indeed such an idea must include and mostly is, about following one's desire isn't it? And where would this lead to? Would not the ideal (of not imposing our values upon others) likely draw the attention away from seeing harm in desire and inadvertently encourage following its dictates? One may factor in the idea of not hurting others as way to control one's actions. But when desire and its harm is not acknowledge, what do you think wins in the end? Do the moral laws not exist in reality? Would desire not lead to more desire? Can we say that it depend on each individual to decide what is right and what is wrong? If so, what about the ideal of "not imposing" itself, is this not also up to the individual?



> Freedom to decide for kesh, and knowing why one has done that, without being judged by someone who has made a different decision. Freedom to decide against keeping kesh, without being judged on a harsh moral plane by someone who has made a different decision. Freedom to give oneself freedom to decide. Freedom to consider deeply the reasons for those decisions. Freedom to change one's mind.



And freedom to judge and impose?
This is the problem isn't it, to tie morality with the idea of individual freedom? While a person of moral integrity will allow for others to develop at their own pace, hence no mind to force anything onto anyone, he will however take care not to encourage others to follow their desires, which as he knows, is the cause for immorality and can lead to many other problems.

More importantly however, there is in fact no such thing as "freedom of choice". This is only an abstraction created by those who do not understand the truth. Keeping kesh and not keeping kesh, thinking this and thinking that, all this is conditioned. The imperative then is to develop understanding of one's own mind and in the process come to know that others are no different from us. So it is not like we have to allow them to do what they wish, but to understand that they can't help doing what they do and think what they think. In this way, wrong and right remains in focus and while one tries to help others, it does not end up catering to desire.



> How is one moral without freedom?
> 
> We of course can pursue a philosophical debate about the meaning of freedom. Let's not for the sake of thread relevance, and take that elsewhere. I am of course in my remarks assuming that this sense of freedom to decide is coming from a place in dharma and is not merely wanton willfulness.



And I could ask, "how can there be morality if one insists on the idea of individual freedom"?!
And to keep all this in-topic, I'd like to suggest that Guru Nanak in pointing out to the brahmin priests, the wrongness of judging those who eat meat, was not making a statement about "individual freedom", but rather addressing the mistaken belief that becoming a vegetarian makes one morally pure and eating meat the opposite. In the end of course, we eat what we like, and no one should make a moral judgement in this regard. But the judgement happens, and this comes from those who believe that they have made a correct moral decision by their choice of food. After all the act of eating food is seen by them as a moral act, when in fact morality must be a reference to particular mental states from which actions flow and affect other beings. And in pointing out their mistake, this is not judging nor expecting that anyone change their choice of food, but only an attempt at correcting the mistaken belief.

Perhaps we should take care not to bring social considerations in to interpret religious principles. The idea about "freedom of choice" should in my opinion, not come into the picture as it distorts the perception. Dharma / Dharam is aimed at the individual and not the group. No doubt it leads to and even gives some guidance with regard to living with other people. But the basis for this is each individual's own development in morality and wisdom, which can happen only when the reference point is his own mind and not ideas such as equal rights and freedom of choice etc. these being result of the perception of "self and the world out there". Rather it seems that those who fail at understanding the point of religion are in need of some outside governing principle to control the behaviour.

And talking about freedom, who in fact is more free, the person who forever follows his desires or the person with moral integrity? Desire leads to anger, such as when we don't get what we want or we get what we don't want. On the other hand, a person who knows the value of moral restraint, friendliness, truthfulness, compassion etc, when he is faced with a difficult situation, what do you think his reaction will be like?

So should we encourage freedom of choice or should we be talking about how morality and wisdom can be developed?

Regarding the question about kesh, I wanted also to find out how far this ideal about "freedom of choice" is taken by those who have a strong belief in it.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 16, 2011)

Confused said:


> Randip ji,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is about morals as well. It works on many different levels.

The essay is about:

1) Freedom
2) One groups superiority over another (morally through diet or otherwise)
3) Mistranslations
4) Lack of understanding

etc

Many issues....and I Have seen it being used in ways I had not even considered.


----------



## spnadmin (May 16, 2011)

confused ji

I think my main question was whether it makes any sense at all to think morality possible without freedom to decide or make choices.

As for your comment 





> So should we encourage freedom of choice or should we be talking about how morality and wisdom can be developed?



1. I am not certain that any one person or group can resolve the "should" part of your question. Either it is encouraged or it is not encouraged, which in turn has impact on whether there can be any morality absent freedom to make choices.

2. The second part of your comment "should we be talking about how morality  and wisdom can be developed?" is a philosophical question that has engaged philosophers from pre-Socratic times, east and west. Certainly I believe it is worth discussion. It is an excellent question but the discussion would take the thread off topic.


----------



## kds1980 (May 16, 2011)

An interesting read

http://neo-sikhism.blogspot.com/search/label/jhatka

Saints and vegetarianism 
The word Sant means a seeker of the Truth, or one who has merged into the Truth. The word Sadhu means a renunicate from the world. Over the years many Sikhs have called Sadhus, Sants and vice-versa. The Nirmala Panth was of Sants, and Sadhus, some being gristi and others being celibate. The Udasi Panth was mainly Sadhus.
In the last 150 years in Punjab the Sadhu-Sant movement has been huge. Kahn Singh Nabha writes " the Sants are preaching eating meat is wrong, this is against Gurmat". The passive, Sadhu-Sant movement was patronised by the British rulers and Royal family. Many of the "great" Saints of the last 150 years were regularly visited by the British regency. Most Sants never wore a Kirpan, and were into Ahinsa, complete non-violence. This served the interests of the colonial rulers very well.
Today all over Punjab, there are an unknown number of white clad, vegetarian, passive, cultish Sants. The Sant movement originated in some respects out of the scholaristic movement of the Nirmala Sikhs, and aseceticism of Udasi's. These Sikhs wore Salmon Pink, orange, or white, and were scholars of Sanskrit. Mostly Sadhus, who were unmarried, they wrote books to defend the ideas of Gurmat, via giving "proof" from Vedant, or other Indian philosophies.

Most Sants today are unaware of their origins, and have been "reformed". As they follow the Sikh Rahit Maryada, and wear a Kirpan. Although it is fair to say, whether the Kirpan is sharp or usable, or if they know how to use it, is questionable. They prefer to stay Shant and in general keep away from the Bir Ras spirit. It is common in Sant deras to tell people not to read Chandi Di Var, or other Dasam Granth bani. However they do still believe it is Guru's bani. There are exceptions here like the Dam Dami Taksal who keep armed. While on the other hand Namdhari's read Dasam bani, but do not keep armed.
The old tradition was that a Sadhu could not keep worldy items, as a Sadhu was separate from maya. However the Sadhus of today put the Gangster rappers to shame, with the bling bling they have. 




Nihang Sant Soorma Sahid Avatar Singh Brahma, who single handedly killed thousands of rapists, murders, and paedophiles in the Punjab police. For many years he practiced Jhatka, in the Baba Biddhi Chand Nihang Dal.



Some Nirmala scholars, paid off by their British masters, condemed the practices of the Khalsa in some texts. At one point they even attempted to create the Nirmala-Buddha Dal, but lost their battle in the British court. All of these were attempts to dissolve the Saint-Soldier ideal of the Khalsa created by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Guru Gobind Singh told the Khalsa to be armed at all times, it is our right as a Sovereign Nation. " Saif Sarohi Saythee, Yahai Hamarey Pir". Shastar Nam Mala Puran. Dasam Granth Sahib Ji.



Nirmala Sant Giani's in the passive traditional Nirmal Bhek/dress.





However the Nirmala Sants kept the Sikh tradition alive when the Christians nearly converted all of Punjab to Christianity. This was a great service performed by them, for the Khalsa Panth. There also have been examples of Nirmala Saints like Bhai Maharaj Singh who fought against the British. In the next few weeks, there will be a post about the life of this great Brahmgiani.


The True Nirmala Sadhus like Baba Nand Singh were not gristi, never took money, and spent their whole life in meditation on Akal Purukh. Most of the Sants today are a mismatch, of Singh Sabha reform, Sikh Rahit Maryada, Vedant Hindu thought, Gristi Jivan, Nirmala Bhekh, etc. Brahmgianis like Baba Nand Singh Ji spent YEARS in unbroken meditation and gurbani, and YEARS in seva. Vegetarianism was originally linked to the idea of renunication, and those not living a gristi jivan, and spending literally hours in constant simran. See the Shabad at the end of the post:
"Forsaking these delicacies, one becomes a true Sannyaasee, a detached hermit. Nanak reflects and speaks. 2"
This was a sattvic lifestyle, and puritanical. For the Khalsa, Rajas Gun was needed, to fight in war, and to have energy to live in gristi. Strict vegetarians can often feel cold, withdrawn, and having low physical energy levels, depending on their strictness of diet. Ascetic vegetarian Sadhus used to meditate in the Indian Sun to keep warm, as well as infront of fires (dhuni). Whereas these feelings can help meditation, it can be detrimental to the body. Therefore the maryada of Jhatka existed in the Panth from the very beginning. As the Khalsa is a Karma-Yogi.



Baba Nand Singh Ji, on his Bairangam. In complete union with Akal Purukh.
Hindu and Jain Gujarati's are strict vegetarians, to make heat in their bodies, they add in lots of spices. In the UK many of them suffer from high blood pressure, strokes, diabetes, heart attacks etc. This could be due to their strict vegetarian, high carbohydrate, high fat, low protein diet. It could increase fat and decrease lean muscle. 
In Gristi ashram meat is allowed. This was even written by the vegetarian Nirmala Sikhs. In the Prem Sumarag Granth, Guru Gobind Singh writes about Jhatka, and what types of meat to eat, as well as the methods of slaughter. In worldy life, physical energy is required. In spiritual life, mental energy is required. The Khalsa is the middle, therefore the Khalsa eats a balanced diet. Just eating meat, kills the energy of the mind. To just eat fruits, seeds, nuts and vegetables, eventually kills the energy of the body.
As soon as it is possible, on this blog will be a step by step guide of how to do Jhatka, with the various bani's from the Adi Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Dasam Granth Sahib Ji.
At Kurekshetra at a Hindu festival, Guru Nanak was brought as a gift a Deer, that had been hunted. It was being cooked, the Brahmins found and protested. See Janamsakhis of Guru Nanak, the Guru replied to the insulted Brahmins:

Salok, First Mehla:

First, the mortal is conceived in the flesh, and then he dwells in the flesh.
When he comes alive, his mouth takes flesh; his bones, skin and body are flesh.
He comes out of the womb of flesh, and takes a mouthful of flesh at the breast.
His mouth is flesh, his tongue is flesh; his breath is in the flesh.
He grows up and is married, and brings his wife of flesh into his home.
Flesh is produced from flesh; all relatives are made of flesh.
When the mortal meets the True Guru, and realizes the Hukam of the Lord's Command, then he comes to be reformed.
Releasing himself, the mortal does not find release; O Nanak, through empty words, one is ruined. 1

First Mehla:

The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom.
What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?
It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering.
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom.
O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said.
They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts.
They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.
But when men and women meet in the night, they come together in the flesh.
In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh.
You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar.
O master, you believe that flesh on the outside is bad, but the flesh of those in your own home is good.
All beings and creatures are flesh; the soul has taken up its home in the flesh.
They eat the uneatable; they reject and abandon what they could eat. They have a teacher who is blind.
In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh.
You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar.
Meat is allowed in the Puraanas, meat is allowed in the Bible and the Koran. Throughout the four ages, meat has been used.
It is featured in sacred feasts and marriage festivities; meat is used in them.
Women, men, kings and emperors originate from meat.
If you see them going to hell, then do not accept charitable gifts from them.
The giver goes to hell, while the receiver goes to heaven - look at this injustice.
You do not understand your own self, but you preach to other people. O Pandit, you are very wise indeed.
O Pandit, you do not know where meat originated.
Corn, sugar cane and cotton are produced from water. The three worlds came from water.
Water says, ""I am good in many ways."" But water takes many forms.
Forsaking these delicacies, one becomes a true Sannyaasee, a detached hermit. Nanak reflects and speaks. 2
Adi Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1289-90. Rag Malar: Guru Nanak Dev Ji.
Guru Gobind Singh:

If the Khalsa is independant. I bestow all power to it.
If they follow the way of the Brahmins, I have no faith in them.
Sri Sarbloh Granth Sahib Ji


The Marayada of Jhatka at Sachkhand Hazur Sahib:

1. The Sri Sahib is not just a symbol it has usage. The best way to train, to get the feel of any weapon, is to use it. Decapitating humans is simply out of the question, the Samurai used to practice on murders and rapists. To perfom Jhatka on a male goat is not against Sikh practices. In fact the Sikh Rahit Maryada allows this practice.

2. To apply ceremonial marks of Bhog on Shastar is also not against Sikh practices. As Karah Parshad has bhog, (ceremonial meeting between the Parshad and the Kirpan) called Kirpan Bhet. Jhakta is also another form of Kirpan Bhet. The flour was also alive at some point just like the goat:

Guru Nanak asks in Rag Malar "what is vegetable, what is meat?"

Guru Ji states:

Meat is allowed in the Puraanas, meat is allowed in the Bible and the Koran. Throughout the four ages, meat has been used.
Guru Ji said this is response to a vegetarian pandit , protesting at the Guru cooking a deer for the langar, at Kurekshetra. See Bhai Bala Janam Sakhi, and Gian Ratnawali Bhai Mani Singh Ji. Also see the shabads in Guru Granth Sahib Ji angs 1289-90.

Conclusion: Jhatka is scaremental food for langar. Known as Mahaprashad see Bhai Gurdas Vara. If rituals are a problem, we should not have chaur, sukhasan parkash, bhog, etc.


----------



## spnadmin (May 16, 2011)

Very interesting read. Though it does repeat shabads already quoted many times already in the thread, this information also includes some new material that was informative to say the least.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 16, 2011)

Harry Haller ji,
You are spot on.
When Guru nanak ji was asked..Who is better - Hindu or Muslim..? Guru Ji replied..SHUBH AMLAAN BAJHON..dovehn roiee..WITHOUT Shubh Amals..Good habits, discipline etc..BOTH are a "Crying Shame". If Today Guru ji were asked..who is Better..Hindu...Mulsim..Christian..Amrtidahree Singh....the Answer would be the EXACT SAME !! Sans SHUBH AMALS..all are a crying shame !! For US..Sikhs..the Pahul Ceremony (Khandeh batte da Pahul mistakenly known as Amrit) the Baana endorsed as mandatory Kesh, Kangha, Kirpan, Karraand  kachha,and the Nitnem are just the STARTING POINT..First day in Khalsa School !! Just the Introduction..ALL the Hard Work comes later....till DEATH..only at DEATH cna someone possibly claim he has done his best.
Most "Instant Amrtidharees" mistakenly think that the very act of Pahul means INSTANT GRATIFICATION and conferment of Holier than All THOUS !! Haumaii Hankaar form Day ONE !! This attitude is the cause of much heartache to Monas and all...


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 17, 2011)

Randip ji,




Randip Singh said:


> It is about morals as well. It works on many different levels.
> 
> The essay is about:
> 
> ...




You are the author of the article and I accept what you say about it. As I said, I have used it to support my own arguments elsewhere, so I should feel grateful to you.

Thank you.


----------



## findingmyway (May 17, 2011)

_*Admin request. Please stick to main topic. To share other thoughts, you are welcome to start a new thread. Any further comments off topic will be removed. Thanks.*_


----------



## spnadmin (May 17, 2011)

Thanks findingmyway ji for the warning. Twice I have suggested that another thread can be started on the topic of freedom and choice. Therefore I won't be replying to the previous comments.


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 17, 2011)

Spnadmin ji,




spnadmin said:


> Thanks findingmyway ji for the warning. Twice I have suggested that another thread can be started on the topic of freedom and choice. Therefore I won't be replying to the previous comments.



I did not wish to start a new thread, and was trying not to stray too far from what I felt was related to the topic of discussion. What gave me the impression was Randip ji's own remark re:

"I think Bhagat Singh ji, the issue is not about diet at all, it is about freedom. People miss that point time and time again!!"

Anyway, I have decided to move my last message to a new thread as you requested, however I can't find it now. Perhaps you have taken the initiative to do this yourself and are in the process of doing it. If not, can you help me locate the post I am referring to?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 17, 2011)

Spnadmin ji,

OK I found it. I was looking in the wrong place. :-/
Thanks.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 17, 2011)

Confused said:


> Randip ji,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wish I scould take credit for it, but I merely edited it and offered constructive criticism.


----------



## harsimiritkaur (May 24, 2011)

Singh means "Lion" in Gurmukhi.

A Singh does not eat vegetables: it eats meat.  If it eats only vegetables, it will get weak.  Brahmans want Sikhs to get weak so they can continue to brainwash them with the pakandi Brahmans wearing amritdhari Sikh costumes and some of their followers look and act like Taliban.

Since an animal has no shame for eating you, then why would you feel ashamed to eat it ?  Do not kill slowly, only jhatka, as Sikh Rehat Meryada says.

I promote vegeterianism for health purposes, but I do not exlude Sikhs because of being omnivorous.  Many of those who hate sikhs that eat meat actually it it in secret.

Hindus permit milk consumption because they consider milk as the cow idol's amrit.

This universe is a play of huqam.  things constantly eat each other.  The universe constantly regenerates itself, janam maran, janam maran.  Not just living and dying, but molecules and infinite pixels of particles constantly borrow from each other. It is the perfection of the universe.  Created and operating as it should.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 24, 2011)

harsimiritkaur said:


> Singh means "Lion" in Gurmukhi.
> 
> A Singh does not eat vegetables: it eats meat.  If it eats only vegetables, it will get weak.  Brahmans want Sikhs to get weak so they can continue to brainwash them with the pakandi Brahmans wearing amritdhari Sikh costumes and some of their followers look and act like Taliban.
> 
> ...



Spoken like a true Kaur!

Excellent post. A vegetarian yet does not judge meat eaters. Excellent!!icecreamkaur


----------



## harsimiritkaur (May 24, 2011)

None of us are vegeterians. 

A microscopic insect could fly into my drink or food, and I might not even notice it.

For all people who wish to guarantee are vegetarians, this tips will help:

Sunny Delight Orange drink contains food coloring derived from a special beetle or moth (titlee)  This drink is served in every gurdwara I know in USA.

If you find any food substances that contain food coloring or mono/dy glycerides, they are not necessarily vegetarian.

Natural flavor does not mean vegeterian.  Beef or chicken soup stock could be added.

Powdered garlic in USA sometimes is imported from Asian garlic which is too pungent to use, so many companies add chicken soup stock to it to enhance the flavor. The same is also true of mixed ground spices.

If you look for kosher symbols, it will help you to identify the details of ingredients.  Such as a circle with a "k" in it, a u with a circle around it, and others.

Kosher does not mean vegeterian, but will let you know that vegeterian products that contain chemicals are from animals or not.

Cheeses contain renet from animals to help curdle the milk.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (May 25, 2011)

But let me add one point, the meat one gets in US or UK (sorry for pointing out) is not Jhatka. One should personally visit the slaughter house and see for yourself that death of animals there is traumatic and not swift. One Muslim guy I met on flight (in India) told me that many joints like Mc Donalds get Halal meat only because it is available in abundance and is cheap. Hotels do the same because many rich Arabs come and they want that kind of meat, so it is kind of the norm. I cannot verify his claim, but it is always better to have food which has been prepared by your own hands or some Gursikh. It is not easy to trust what you eat outside. Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 25, 2011)

Kanwaljit Singh Ji you are 100% RIGHT....

THE "meat".....THE "milk"...the Cheese..whatever we get in the Supermarkets, MCDonalds, KFC s and all that.......is the Product of GREED...PROFIT....its neither Halllal Nor is it Jhatka.
Vegetables produced by INJECTIONS of various growth inducers..to make them grow phenomenally almost overnight...milk produced from cows shackled in confined places all their life, injected with milk inducers, impregnated immediately after giving birth and having that newborn calf taken away immediately for veal products...overcrowded and unhygenic farms, slaughterhouses filled with inhuman satanic butchers who show not an iota of mercy..is the NORM rather than the EXCEPTION.

The FOOD we have to eat is the Milk of CRUELTY and not the Milk of Kindness...its PRAYA HAKK and therefore HARAM .............but we have to be realsitic....or we will starve....what to make of the farmer who gets 4967 KILOS of wheat form planting just 7 Kilos....and then spraying tons of pesticides, that kills all worms, bugs, insects, even BIRDS....is the ATTA/BREAD form that field HARAM ? you bet it is !! But we have to be relaistic..ha ha


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 25, 2011)

Anybody anywhere who can send us a "Kauli of Atta"  (small bowl of wheat flour) that they bought at a store and such flour is guranteed to have no insect or other microscopic parts of the same, I will really appreciate it lol  mundahug


> http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/IOM/ucm127499​



No dis-respect intended or implied as I have taken the water from the temple pools all my life on visits:  Oh please if someone can send us a little bottle of srowar water (water from the pool around central complexes of say from Harmandir Sahib, other Gurdwaras, etc.)  that has no living organisms in it, I will appreciate it too  lol  mundahug



> Choice is ours.  We can live and marvel at Creator's universe and the rules of survival, defence, killing, birth, death, sickness or just stay stuck in the weeds for ever and little thoughts.


Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Harry Haller (May 26, 2011)

It is my ambition, to one day be able to retire to a smallholding, where I can grow my own veg and raise a few pigs and chickens. My wife enquired as to whether we would eat the animals. Of course I replied! I especially want a pig, whom I intend to call Mr Porky whom I intend to feed garlic truffles, apples and figs. I intend to rub Mr Porky every day, especially on his belly, with Olive oil infused with ginger, so that one day, We can Jhatka Mr Porky and eat him. 

My argument is that Mr Porky will have a better life and death with us, than if he had been raised on a farm and ended up in a slaughterhouse. My wifes argument, although not a vegan, but an animal lover, is that once you have looked into an animals eyes and loved it, you should not eat it, actually she goes one step further, according to her, it would be impossible, having watched her own parents back in Aberporth, kill the family chicken, and then cook it, and then sit at the dinner table and then spend the next hour crying. The chicken ended up uneaten..

No point to be made, just another lighthearted story


----------



## findingmyway (May 26, 2011)

There is a tribe in the rainforest (I forget where-it was in the BBC series Human Planet), they breastfeed orphan monkeys but kill them an eat them when they are adults. They see nothiung contradictory about it as it is life supporting life!

We love to grow flowers and admire them yet don't hesitate plucking them out of the ground. I hate watching cut flowers slowly wither away and die and much prefer to leave them in the ground where others (eg bees) can enjoy them and use them too for longer. Its all about perception  :40:


----------



## Randip Singh (May 26, 2011)

Kanwaljit.Singh said:


> But let me add one point, the meat one gets in US or UK (sorry for pointing out) is not Jhatka. One should personally visit the slaughter house and see for yourself that death of animals there is traumatic and not swift. One Muslim guy I met on flight (in India) told me that many joints like Mc Donalds get Halal meat only because it is available in abundance and is cheap. Hotels do the same because many rich Arabs come and they want that kind of meat, so it is kind of the norm. I cannot verify his claim, but it is always better to have food which has been prepared by your own hands or some Gursikh. It is not easy to trust what you eat outside. Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh


 
Guru Nanak applied the same test to plants (and other forms of life).

Because a plants does not run away, cry, or do anything it is fine to kill it. It suffers no trauma.

I could drug an animal and kill it and assure you it will face no trauma.

The act of trauma initself cuts off all feeling to minimise pain.

Eating from a Gursikh will make as much difference to me as eating froma Brahmin.

I would rather eat from somone who genuinly wants the best for my welfare.

As a Sikh we accept life and death and get on with it.


----------



## Kamala (May 27, 2011)

*Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?*

Okay so I saw a video of why to become vegetarian (and vegen) in the video I witnessed about how inhumane they treat cows and they're offspring as an example of what I saw was when the cow wouldn't let the machine suck milk out of the cow's utter the cow was poked with pitchforks and they also zap the female cows to death when they stop giving milk due to old age. They also beat the cow's offspring when it begs for milk because the owners beleive the milk is not for the cow's offspring it is for the consumers (Buyers), but didn't god create the utter for the cow's offspring to suck off? You may argue the Guru ji didn't tell us to not be vegen but back then they're aren't any machines capable of this and that would sound as crazy talk if you make rules for something not even existing yet. So is being vegen worth it? I know it sounds silly but the point of it is that when you die you can say you weren't a part of this or get a cow and milk it by hand 
Honestly if I did not tell you about this you wouldn't have gotten the paap when you die because you wouldn't have known, but now you know you are at fault.


----------



## spnadmin (May 27, 2011)

*Re: Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?*

*The above post has been merged with Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh.*


----------



## Kamala (May 29, 2011)

No reply?


----------



## jasbirkaleka (May 29, 2011)

Randip Singh said:


> Hi KDS,
> 
> We toyed with idea of adding some biological, humane, and practical arguments (like yours), to the article, but what we wanted to do was focus on what Sikhism said and what Sikh-History said. We wanted analyse practices of Sikhs.
> 
> ...


 Randip Sngh Ji,
I have printed many copies of your vey important post"Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh" and have ddistributed them to a large no. of people.
Thanks again.:singhsippingcoffee:


----------



## Randip Singh (May 29, 2011)

*Re: Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?*



13800038 said:


> Okay so I saw a video of why to become vegetarian (and vegen) in the video I witnessed about how inhumane they treat cows and they're offspring as an example of what I saw was when the cow wouldn't let the machine suck milk out of the cow's utter the cow was poked with pitchforks and they also zap the female cows to death when they stop giving milk due to old age. They also beat the cow's offspring when it begs for milk because the owners beleive the milk is not for the cow's offspring it is for the consumers (Buyers), but didn't god create the utter for the cow's offspring to suck off? You may argue the Guru ji didn't tell us to not be vegen but back then they're aren't any machines capable of this and that would sound as crazy talk if you make rules for something not even existing yet. So is being vegen worth it? I know it sounds silly but the point of it is that when you die you can say you weren't a part of this or get a cow and milk it by hand
> Honestly if I did not tell you about this you wouldn't have gotten the paap when you die because you wouldn't have known, but now you know you are at fault.




What is this Paap you are talking about?

Is drinking milk a Paap?

Is eating plants a a Paap?

Is eating eggs a Paap?

Is eating meat a Paap?

Is wearng leather a Paap?

Is playing tabla (with goat skin on it), and playing shabads with it a Paap?

The question is what is Paap, and what authority are you using to define this Paap?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 29, 2011)

In the "olden days"..they had no machines to suck ??? ha ha
Just watch how the GUJJARS in India..even TODAY..insert..YES JI INSERT huge DANDAS made of wood into the Cow's Private Parts and nudge that danda to FORCE out every last drop of MILK the poor cow has inside of her !! I didnt beleive it until i saw it myself..and found its COMMON PRACTISE all over India's dairy farmers ...so who needs a machine when a danda will do ??? Its the GREED !!! HAAK PRAYA NANAKA..us soor us gayeh..in this case the MILK is the Haak of the calf..and the ROBBER is MAN....who could SHARE it with the calf..BUT his GREED stands in the way !!! So when we Take away the Paraya Haak of the calf we are in fact EATING COW !! GET IT ?? sheer HYPOCRACY all over.


----------



## Kamala (May 29, 2011)

*Re: Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?*



Randip Singh said:


> What is this Paap you are talking about?
> 
> Is drinking milk a Paap?
> 
> ...




FIRST OFF THIS IS UNBELIEVABLY DUMB WHAT YOU JUST POSTED (sorry I had to get it out).  Drinking milk is a paap if the cow was horribly treated while the milk was taken out of her. Eating eggs is a paap, not only does giving birth to a few eggs hurt but you are taking advantage of god's chicken. It's like if some raksha trap's you're mother and then forcefully tries to make her give birth so the raksha can eat the offspring. As for leather, I make sure I buy polyester x). The true tabla's skin is made from a goat that has died of old age. If that's not the case yes it is paap. Paap is something unjust to one being or taking advantage. Even in mandir's its a paap to take cow's milk which is from a cow that's horribly treated. & as for people horribly treating cow's, as long as you are not doing it or drinking it's milk its fine but remember that store bought milk's cows are not treated right.


----------



## Kamala (May 29, 2011)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> In the "olden days"..they had no machines to suck ??? ha ha
> Just watch how the GUJJARS in India..even TODAY..insert..YES JI INSERT huge DANDAS made of wood into the Cow's Private Parts and nudge that danda to FORCE out every last drop of MILK the poor cow has inside of her !! I didnt beleive it until i saw it myself..and found its COMMON PRACTISE all over India's dairy farmers ...so who needs a machine when a danda will do ??? Its the GREED !!! HAAK PRAYA NANAKA..us soor us gayeh..in this case the MILK is the Haak of the calf..and the ROBBER is MAN....who could SHARE it with the calf..BUT his GREED stands in the way !!! So when we Take away the Paraya Haak of the calf we are in fact EATING COW !! GET IT ?? sheer HYPOCRACY all over.




I have no clue on if you are backing me up on this BUT firstly are the gujjar's Sikh?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 30, 2011)

IF the contention is that "being Sikh" is the issue..then are all those diary farms in the West supplying milk to hypermarkets across the Globe all SIKH ?? Where do the Milk drinking SIKHS in the WEST..and even INDIA..or PUNJAB get their milk from ?? is every milk supplier to every halwaii, restaurant, hotel,roadside dhabbas...even gurdwara ? a SIKH ?? How do we check the authenticity of Sikh milk  and non-sikh milk ??
I am sorry...this is the world where NO GOAT ever dies form "old age"....and even IF one or two do die...their number is NOT ENOUGH to cover ALL the MILLIONS of Tablas, Dholkis, Drums, nagaras etc sold in the world...

we need to get real...IF we have Principles and need to stick to them..be like the BHAI SAHIB BHAI RANDHIR SINGH..who demanded and got a cow to personally milk... even in JAIL...the jailor tried to overpower Bhai sahib with the help of 5 or six wardens and force the "forbidden milk" into Bhai sahib jis mouth..NOT a drop went in even though they BROKE his TEETH to insert a hose !!..but sadly 99.9% of Sikhs today are NOT even close to bhai sahib..but we can certianly try..and be real at the same time...???


----------



## Randip Singh (May 30, 2011)

*Re: Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?*



13800038 said:


> FIRST OFF THIS IS UNBELIEVABLY DUMB WHAT YOU JUST POSTED (sorry I had to get it out).  Drinking milk is a paap if the cow was horribly treated while the milk was taken out of her. Eating eggs is a paap, not only does giving birth to a few eggs hurt but you are taking advantage of god's chicken. It's like if some raksha trap's you're mother and then forcefully tries to make her give birth so the raksha can eat the offspring. As for leather, I make sure I buy polyester x). The true tabla's skin is made from a goat that has died of old age. If that's not the case yes it is paap. Paap is something unjust to one being or taking advantage. Even in mandir's its a paap to take cow's milk which is from a cow that's horribly treated. & as for people horribly treating cow's, as long as you are not doing it or drinking it's milk its fine but remember that store bought milk's cows are not treated right.



*Firstly do not use abusive laguage on this forum. You have been warned.*

Please define Paap? Use Sikhism to back up your argument that whatever YOU are defining as Paap is in effect Paap in Sikhism.

You cannot avoid taking milk from a cow without denying a calf. Cow's only give milk when they give birth. So all milk is Paap (according to your definition).Yes?

Are you saying an unfertilised egg can become a chicken?

You buy Polyester? Are you sayig every piece of clothing you wear has no animal derivative? Are you sure?

True Table? What evidence are you basing this on? What evidence have you that tabla skin is taken from a dead animal in any cases?

What evidence have you that anything you are saying applies to Sikhism?


----------



## Harry Haller (May 30, 2011)

*Re: Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?*



13800038 said:


> FIRST OFF THIS IS UNBELIEVABLY DUMB WHAT YOU JUST POSTED (sorry I had to get it out).  Drinking milk is a paap if the cow was horribly treated while the milk was taken out of her. Eating eggs is a paap, not only does giving birth to a few eggs hurt but you are taking advantage of god's chicken. It's like if some raksha trap's you're mother and then forcefully tries to make her give birth so the raksha can eat the offspring. As for leather, I make sure I buy polyester x). The true tabla's skin is made from a goat that has died of old age. If that's not the case yes it is paap. Paap is something unjust to one being or taking advantage. Even in mandir's its a paap to take cow's milk which is from a cow that's horribly treated. & as for people horribly treating cow's, as long as you are not doing it or drinking it's milk its fine but remember that store bought milk's cows are not treated right.



13800038ji

You make some excellent and hugely valid points, for any religion that accepts the notion of paap and rakshas. 

When humankind can give the same consideration to its human citizens, as you want for animals,  and there are no starving children in Africa, when everything is perfect, I intend to give due consideration to your concerns. Until then, I am sure I am carrying out, in your eyes, much larger paaps than the ones you have outlined, best I tackle them first


----------



## Randip Singh (May 30, 2011)

*Re: Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?*



harry haller said:


> 13800038ji
> 
> You make some excellent and hugely valid points, for any religion that accepts the notion of paap and rakshas.
> 
> When humankind can give the same consideration to its human citizens, as you want for animals,  and there are no starving children in Africa, when everything is perfect, I intend to give due consideration to your concerns. Until then, I am sure I am carrying out, in your eyes, much larger paaps than the ones you have outlined, best I tackle them first




Sorry Haller,

I have to disagree.

They are not excellent or valid to Sikhism. As Guru Nanak says:

Page 1290
_
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they  do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom._

Nanak recognised that those who profess kindness to animals are just as capable (if not more) nasty and evil to human. Fat Brahmins who were vegetarians would watch low caste children starve to death, because according to them, that was their "Karma" and they had done "Paap" in a former life.


----------



## Harry Haller (May 30, 2011)

sorry, that was sarcasm brother, as sikhism does not accept the notion of paap and rakshas


----------



## Randip Singh (May 30, 2011)

harry haller said:


> sorry, that was sarcasm brother, as sikhism does not accept the notion of paap and rakshas



Lol.

You got me there my friend 

Keep it up!!


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 30, 2011)

And YES Guru ji caught that one too..In Asa kee Vaar Brahman Gaoo ko kar lavoh gobar taran na jaii...says it all....the Brahmin working at the River Toll collection to ferry across the river.... INSISTED the FARE to be paid by the Cow herd and his COW. The Cowherd had only enough to pay for himself..but the Brahmin insisted..NOTHING DOING. The Cow died in the freezing Cold night but before it breathed its last..it DUMPED a load of GOHA (BS)..and the Brahmin used that to "PURIFY" his cooking place !! Guru Ji saw this Hypocracy...Brahmin insisting on the cow paying tax..or die in the event of non-compliance..and yet thinking the GOHA )BS) will save his soul and purify his cooking place !!


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 30, 2011)

> FIRST OFF THIS IS UNBELIEVABLY DUMB WHAT YOU JUST POSTED (sorry I had to  get it out).  Drinking milk is a paap if the cow was horribly treated  while the milk was taken out of her. Eating eggs is a paap, not only  does giving birth to a few eggs hurt but you are taking advantage of  god's chicken. It's like if some raksha trap's you're mother and then  forcefully tries to make her give birth so the raksha can eat the  offspring. As for leather, I make sure I buy polyester x). The true  tabla's skin is made from a goat that has died of old age. If that's not  the case yes it is paap. Paap is something unjust to one being or  taking advantage. Even in mandir's its a paap to take cow's milk which  is from a cow that's horribly treated. & as for people horribly  treating cow's, as long as you are not doing it or drinking it's milk  its fine but remember that store bought milk's cows are not treated  right.


In  a way you are right. There needs to be a constant sense of reverence towards nature and everything in it. There needs to be love as well.

In the end, it all comes down to the state of consciousness in which you do something. If such a state is polluted with the 5 Vices, with ego, then anything you do, consider that paap. But if your state of consciousness is God-oriented then anything you do will be God's work. 

Of course, the mind, the ego will think that it's God-oriented consciousness and it's doing God's work. That is the real Rakshas's trap.


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 30, 2011)

*Re: Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?*

13800038 ji,




> FIRST OFF THIS IS UNBELIEVABLY DUMB WHAT YOU JUST POSTED (sorry I had to get it out).



I thought Randip ji's response was good, although that was before I read his comments in later messages.....

But now I would like to talk with you. 




> Drinking milk is a paap if the cow was horribly treated while the milk was taken out of her.



What you have been suggesting is that the moral quality of an action changes with change in background information. For example in this particular case of "drinking milk", the rightness and wrongness of the act is different in each of the following cases:

1.    Not knowing what it is (as in the case of an infant).
2.    Knowing that it is milk, but no knowledge about where it comes from (a child).
3.    Knowing that it is from a cow but with no idea about the fact that it was meant for the calf.
4.    Knowing that it is intended for the calf, but thinking that what you got is what is "extra".
5.    Knowing that the calf was deprived of milk just so that you could drink it.
6.    Knowing that the cow and the calf were subject to bad conditions in the process of getting the milk for you.
7.    Knowing that these things generally happen, but no way of knowing for sure whether the milk you are drinking has the same history.
8.    Getting to drink the milk you believe has gone through the correct procedure.

But really, does anyone ever think beyond "milk", plain, sweet, chocolate flavour etc. or perhaps compare with tea, coffee and so on, whether one likes it or not and whether it is good or bad for health?

And why should they?
Eating food is eating food, and although this is mostly done with greed, it however is a necessary activity for maintenance and continuance of life, in which case there can in fact be understanding about it. But although it can't be expected that anyone today will have such level of understanding where food is then seen as a kind of medicine, still it must be an innocent activity for everyone is it not? After all, drinking milk is neither killing, lying nor stealing, or do you think that it is?

You make a link between one person's evil actions with another's innocent one. But know that this very activity of yours is itself wrong, and how so? This is because you are in effect encouraging wrong understanding and wrong thinking about one's experience. Instead of leading someone to understand what the reality is there and then, in placing value in thoughts about the past, projecting this into the present with an implication of what the future may bring, is leading others in the wrong direction. And this is a form of evil of a high category.

After watching the video, instead of trying to show what is right and what is wrong to those who consume milk, why not the urgency to try and talk sense into those other people who were involved directly, with the bad treatment of the cows? Of course, I wouldn't encourage you to do this, since I'm quite sure that they wouldn't listen to you. However, I believe that your mistake is that although you do have some idea that causing distress to animals is morally wrong, the understanding is only very vague.

Had your understanding been deeper and the reference was to the quality of mind itself and the associated intention, you'd know to separate the act of drinking and eating food from that of moral / immoral actions performed at other times. Let alone linking one person's actions with that of another, you'd know not to link the two kinds of actions even with reference to one individual alone. If I kill to eat, the killing is no doubt wrong, however even this won't make my eating on a later occasion any different from say, my eating the same meat in a restaurant. In short, beef is not cow and eating is not killing.

I'll leave the rest of your message without commenting except that what you've written is what I consider "thought proliferation" conditioned by attachment and wrong understanding. And this is yet more evidence as to to the greater evil of "wrong understanding", namely that it leads to much perversion of perception and wrong thinking which then conditions accordingly, the behaviour through body, speech and mind.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 1, 2011)

*Re: Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?*



Confused said:


> 13800038 ji,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where exactly is my comment "Dumb" in later messages? Please enlighten me Confused ji?

When someone has to resort to personal abuse they have lost the argument. 

That is the case with 138000038. She has been warned about this kind of behaviour.


----------



## KulwantK (Jun 1, 2011)

Thank you for this article! It clears up much mis-understandings!


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jun 1, 2011)

*Re: Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?*

Randip ji,



Randip Singh said:


> Where exactly is my comment "Dumb" in later messages? Please enlighten me Confused ji?
> 
> When someone has to resort to personal abuse they have lost the argument.
> 
> That is the case with 138000038. She has been warned about this kind of behaviour.



Or perhaps it is you who is taking it personally?
My comment was about the value of the message, one as interpreted before your later comments, and the other after those comments were made. But I wonder whether you would have judged my response as being â€˜personalâ€™ had I expressed only praise for your comments? 

Secondly, you used the word â€œdumbâ€ which is not what came to my own mind as opposite to â€œgoodâ€.

But now let me explain why I changed my mind about your comment,

You had written:



> What is this Paap you are talking about?
> 
> Is drinking milk a Paap?
> 
> ...



What I took the above to suggest was that these, unlike such actions as killing, lying and stealing, were morally neutral actions. And I thought that this was more than enough to give anyone pause for thought. And although 13800038 did not appreciate it, what may be needed is more discussion along this same line. However when in a following post you suggested:



> Page 1290
> 
> Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.
> They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom.
> ...



This apparently, did not follow the line of argument which I thought you were making. And what I can see here, is that 138000038 ji can easily respond by saying that her showing kindness to animals also includes showing the same towards human beings. In fact she could even argue that her kindness towards animals is consequence of what she feels for humans. 

I myself would have used the same quote that you have given, to point out the wrongness of belief that refraining from eating meat and being a vegetarian leads to moral purity. And this would be more in line with the argument which I originally thought you were making. 

Also, your comment about karma and paap in former lives, appear to downplay the significance of these, if not in fact an indirect rejection. And this goes against what I have been trying to encourage here for so long.


----------



## Kamala (Jun 1, 2011)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> IF the contention is that "being Sikh" is the issue..then are all those diary farms in the West supplying milk to hypermarkets across the Globe all SIKH ?? Where do the Milk drinking SIKHS in the WEST..and even INDIA..or PUNJAB get their milk from ?? is every milk supplier to every halwaii, restaurant, hotel,roadside dhabbas...even gurdwara ? a SIKH ?? How do we check the authenticity of Sikh milk  and non-sikh milk ??
> I am sorry...this is the world where NO GOAT ever dies form "old age"....and even IF one or two do die...their number is NOT ENOUGH to cover ALL the MILLIONS of Tablas, Dholkis, Drums, nagaras etc sold in the world...
> 
> we need to get real...IF we have Principles and need to stick to them..be like the BHAI SAHIB BHAI RANDHIR SINGH..who demanded and got a cow to personally milk... even in JAIL...the jailor tried to overpower Bhai sahib with the help of 5 or six wardens and force the "forbidden milk" into Bhai sahib jis mouth..NOT a drop went in even though they BROKE his TEETH to insert a hose !!..but sadly 99.9% of Sikhs today are NOT even close to bhai sahib..but we can certianly try..and be real at the same time...???




Okay all I am trying to say is that Sikh's should become vegen because  everything that is in the stores which is dairy most likely didn't treat  the animal rightfully and gave them a bad life as well. It is fine if  you keep you're own cow and milk it by hand but just simply buying milk  from people's businesses where they treat the cow wrongfully is wrong  because you are making their business go and also you are supporting  them. By not buying dairy products you are not supporting them and when  you die you can rightfully say you did not support this. Oh yeah and the  goat thing right? I forgot to mention that it's okay to use the skin if  the goat died when it got sick.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jun 1, 2011)

old goats..and now sick goats....the fact is there simply arent enough of those to make all the tablas the ever increasing ragi jathas are whacking away at all over !! Most of those tabla skins came from goats slaughtered while healthy and full of life !! Who would support a Goat till he is old ?? whats the economic benefit in that ?? I have personally seen THOUSANDS of "HOLY COWS" roaming the streets of Punjab..driven OUT by Hindus and SIKHS..simply becasue they are OLD...unable to give milk any more..or MALES ( Buffaloes and Bulls, camels, donkeys, horses etc also included)  which are of no economic use !! IF a "HOLY COW" can get thrown out on its ear..who will be keeping  and feeding an old goat/sick goat for years and years just so its skin can be used to make a "HOLY TABLA"..? doesnt sync.
Take a look at this link...this is what JHATKA is all about..RESPONSIBILITY for ones actions..what Gurbani teaches us..and SRM emphasises...why Jhatka is allowed and Hallal is NOT....        http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...2011/may/27/mark-zuckerberg-kill-animals-meat


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jun 2, 2011)

138000038 ji


If I may come in with some comments.




> Okay all I am trying to say is that Sikh's should become vegan because everything that is in the stores which is dairy most likely didn't treat the animal rightfully and gave them a bad life as well. It is fine if you keep you're own cow and milk it by hand




If the latter position is a reaction to the former, then both are just two sides of the same coin. Both involve the same misperceptions and thought proliferation, leading to courses of action which have nothing to do with morality whatsoever.

Examples of wrong / evil actions are killing, stealing, false speech, sexual misconduct, slander, harsh speech, covetousness, idle chatter, ill will and wrong understanding. Right / good actions on the other hand, include moments of restraint from these above actions. So are you saying that the decision to become a vegan or milking your own cow, are actions of moral restraint?

If a bee stings me, and I have the impulse to kill it, but then shame and fear of wrongdoing arises and I refrain from the action, this is moral restraint. Or if I see a diamond ring on the floor and I know that the owner must be around here somewhere, and feel the urge to pocket it, but refrain, this too is moral restraint. How is the situation that you have described above, moral restraint? It sounds more to me like a case of following a course of action judged as good and right just so as to make one feel that one is getting somewhere and good about it.

The hallmark of all those religions out there that teach vegetarianism (and now veganism) as a way to moral purity is that the followers are happy just to follow these rules and no attention is paid to the state of mind. Indeed being a vegetarian is more, if not all important as compared to other considerations, such as speaking the truth, showing kindness, giving and moral restraint.

And how can you expect morality to grow when what should be considered is not given any consideration, namely kindness, giving, moral restraint and most importantly, wisdom, while that which is the product of misperception is given so much attention? And if it is a case of mistaking what is not good moral conduct for good moral conduct, how can it be expected that there will be understanding about anything at all?

One thing I've noticed is that followers of certain religious sects that teach their followers to become vegetarians, these people when it comes to their dealings with other people, for example in business, not only are they ruthless, but also very easily will they lie and cheat in their dealings. But of course  this is not unexpected.

The reason is that with a distorted sense of morality but believing otherwise, people get the impression that they are doing the right thing by following them. This not only takes the attention away from other considerations, but also the thought that they are already being 'good and pure' to some extent. And this is exactly the danger of "rules and rituals". And the more one latches on to this impression, the further one goes from ever acting rightly when the situation demands it. And all this gets worse in that new ideas about what is good and right are created to justify those wrong actions, such as, "I do it for my family" or that "this is business" etc.

Perhaps here the quote that Randip ji gave is pertinent:

Quote:
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.

They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom.




> but just simply buying milk from people's businesses where they treat the cow wrongfully is wrong because you are making their business go and also you are supporting them. By not buying dairy products you are not supporting them and when you die you can rightfully say you did not support this. Oh yeah and the goat thing right? I forgot to mention that it's okay to use the skin if the goat died when it got sick.



Veganism is vegetarianism gone wild, so I'll stick with the latter. It is clear that your concern is towards "your" religion, so what does this say? That you are not really concerned about whether the people involved in killing and torturing cattle will correct their behaviour. That this is just an extension of what at the root is attachment to 'self'/ self-concern.  If any degree of concern exists towards those other people, given that your course of action does not directly address the problem, plus the fact that you want "Sikhs" as a whole to also follow you, this appears as arrogant and conceited.

What after all comes across to other people when you and the rest of the Sikhs are known to not eat meat? Do you think that this addresses their problem of having the tendency to kill, one bit? If you stopped and others didn't, do you think that the butcher is going to pay attention to you or would he just ignore you? Indeed if you come across as standing against his values, not only will he not listen to you, but he'd react with ever more vigour in continuing to do what he does? And what if the whole world did stop eating meat, how would this have touched upon the individual's inherent tendency to ignorance, greed and hatred? Killing for the sake of business may cease if no market exists, but would this stop someone from killing for his own consumption as well?

The Christian missionaries were arrogant to have gone out and try to convert people of other beliefs to their own. However they did provide with some direct teachings about morality. But you don't do this, instead you make a statement reflecting a "preference" and not any "Truth". So is this not in a way worse? You don't draw the attention to the question of morality so how can you expect anyone to change? If these people while killing and torturing animals are not moved by the cry of pain and realize their mistakes, how can you expect a vegetarian's behaviour to trigger any moral shame in them?

On the question of what happens when death approaches, what goes on "now" can give a clue as to what will happen then. If our life now is that of greed, hatred, delusion and wrong understanding, so will it be at the time of death, unless we have begun to take steps to change all that. And I don't think that your decision to become a vegan is reflection of anything positive in this regard.

Just random thoughts for you to consider 138000038 ji. Please don't mind the directness of my comments.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 2, 2011)

*Re: Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?*



Confused said:


> Randip ji,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well being called Dumb, is pretty personal, don't you think? There is no other way to take it.

...and if I misinterpreted what you were saying then I apologise.



Confused said:


> But now let me explain why I changed my mind about your comment,
> 
> You had written:
> 
> ...



I think the Nanakian question was, does one necessarily follow the other, and his conclusiojn was a firm no. These so called protectors of animals were incredibly cruel people to humans.



Confused said:


> I myself would have used the same quote that you have given, to point out the wrongness of belief that refraining from eating meat and being a vegetarian leads to moral purity. And this would be more in line with the argument which I originally thought you were making.
> 
> Also, your comment about karma and paap in former lives, appear to downplay the significance of these, if not in fact an indirect rejection. And this goes against what I have been trying to encourage here for so long.



Well Karma and former lives has no significance in Sikhism, otherwise we would believe in the caste system if we did.

Nanak says there are Humans, and then other life falls below this.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 2, 2011)

13800038 said:


> Okay all I am trying to say is that Sikh's should become vegen because  everything that is in the stores which is dairy most likely didn't treat  the animal rightfully and gave them a bad life as well.



Firstly could you back up where in Sikhism it encourages Sikhs to be vegan or vegetarian?

Secondly, I think you need to read the essay at the begining of this. 

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html

*Sikhs should  definitely not become vegan* and *I definitely would not encourage it.
* 
..but at the end of the day that is their choice. Just as our Guru's stated their was nothing wrong with eating meat there is nothing wrong with being vegan.




13800038 said:


> It is fine if  you keep you're own cow and milk it by hand but just simply buying milk  from people's businesses where they treat the cow wrongfully is wrong  because you are making their business go and also you are supporting  them. By not buying dairy products you are not supporting them and when  you die you can rightfully say you did not support this.



Could you elaborate on this with the Sikh view on this?



13800038 said:


> Oh yeah and the  goat thing right? I forgot to mention that it's okay to use the skin if  the goat died when it got sick.



..as Giani ji said, this is not what actually happens. Healthy goats are killed for making tablas:

 Vaar 23 Pauri 13 of 21 of Vaaran Bhai Gurdas

_The proud elephant is inedible and none eats the mighty lion._
_Goat is humble and hence it is respected everywhere._
_On occasions of death, joy, marriage, yajna, etc only its meat is accepted._
_Among the householders its meat is acknowledged as sacred and with its gut stringed instruments are made._
_From its leather the shoes are made to be used by the saints merged in their meditation upon the Lord._
_Drums are mounted by its skin and then in the holy congregation the delight-giving kirtan, eulogy of the Lord, is sung._
_In fact, going to the holy congregation is the same as going to the shelter of the true Guru._​


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jun 4, 2011)

*Re: Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?*

Randip ji,




Randip Singh said:


> Well being called Dumb, is pretty personal, don't you think? There is no other way to take it.
> 
> ...and if I misinterpreted what you were saying then I apologise.



I am still puzzled about this, but it does not matter. 

I've commented on another part of your response, but have moved that to the "Karma - Birth, Life and Death" thread.


----------



## findingmyway (Jun 4, 2011)

13800038 ji and others who follow this line of argument:

If you turn vegetarian due to cruelty of animals then you should also not wear clothes you buy in the shops due to the cruelty involved in making those. Cotton involves slave labour and many chemicals. Other fabrics are often created in countries where they do not care about poisoning people, disrupting water supplies or ruining environments. Then the clothes are stitched together in sweat shops which use slave labour, often children. Even organic and fair trade do not guarantee the entire process is without exploitation and "paap". These people suffer for their entire lives, including children. However, making our own clothes is not practical.

Pearls are living creatures and are killed to make jewels. Diamond and other precious jewel mining destroys the countries where they are and often uses the local population as slaves. So many industries involving "paap". 

So many Sikhs clamour for vegetarianism but I never hear Sikhs speaking out against
* the sweatshops that make our clothes 
* the jewellery industry which is founded completely on exploitation
* non-fairtrade fruit/vegetables/coffee etc which is based on exploitation fo farmers
And so many more.....

Are these causes not worthy of our indignation and action? Does consumption or use of these things not involve "paap" accroding to your way of thinking?  How many things can we abstain from? Surely we ahve more power as consumers. If we collectively clamoured for better treatment for people and animals, fairer treatment in all industries and ethical standards, would the world not be a better place? It's very easy to abstain from meat, not so easy to deal with other issues that are at least as worthy if not more so!!! So lets leave these double standards behind and start trying to truly be better people by caring for the rest of the world too.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jun 4, 2011)

BEAUTIFULLY PUT findingmyway JI...HYPOCRACY is what its all about. Target the easy part...and ignore the hard parts...GURU Ji voiced out on ALL those EXPLOITATIONS...soemtimes bluntly and harshly...went to PRISON...sat on Hot Plates..for their conviction...we merely go about eating cucumbers and think we are holy.KHOOB Khanna KHEECHHRREE we declare..see ?? but then who/which SIKH OBEYS Bhagat Kabir Ji and EATS KHICCHHRREE in the "KHOOB" way ?? I bet 99.9% of these vegetarian Sikhs barely cook kicchhrree once ina Blue Moon..when they are SICK..most likely !! why ?? becasue its tasteless thats why !! Kabir Ji wnats us to be Humble...charitable...eat to LIVE...thats why he asks us to eat khicchhrree..(rice+daal)...and Farid Ji advises us to eat Bread that is NOT CHOPPARRED..i.e. without butter/ghee etc....sukee roti..dry bread..Hiw many OBEY that faithfully ??? Which Sant baba eats khicchrree and suki rotis ONLY...NONE !! BUt they ALL preach against meat and its swaad !!!   HYPOCRITES with a Capital H.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Jun 4, 2011)

> If you turn vegetarian due to cruelty of animals then you should also not wear clothes you buy in the shops due to the cruelty involved in making those. Cotton involves slave labour and many chemicals. Other fabrics are often created in countries where they do not care about poisoning people, disrupting water supplies or ruining environments. Then the clothes are stitched together in sweat shops which use slave labour, often children. Even organic and fair trade do not guarantee the entire process is without exploitation and "paap". These people suffer for their entire lives, including children. However, making our own clothes is not practical



Well Gandhi used homespun Khadi. We can do for the same purpose.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jun 4, 2011)

Kanwaljit.Singh said:


> Well Gandhi used homespun Khadi. We can do for the same purpose.



GANDHI was an even bigger HYPOCRITE than nay ever born on this earth. But lets not discuss him.....i digress..apologies. He cna be the subject of a new thread..
Js


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 5, 2011)

findingmyway said:


> 13800038 ji and others who follow this line of argument:
> 
> If you turn vegetarian due to cruelty of animals then you should also not wear clothes you buy in the shops due to the cruelty involved in making those. Cotton involves slave labour and many chemicals. Other fabrics are often created in countries where they do not care about poisoning people, disrupting water supplies or ruining environments. Then the clothes are stitched together in sweat shops which use slave labour, often children. Even organic and fair trade do not guarantee the entire process is without exploitation and "paap". These people suffer for their entire lives, including children. However, making our own clothes is not practical.
> 
> ...



Excellent point and the Nanakian point!!

We put animals on some kind of pedalstal and our fellow humans in the gutter!!:whatzpointsing:


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Jun 7, 2011)

They prohibit eating meat and force the same on others, but rob the golak to buy a new home.  They do not allow women to read akhand paath or read Shlok M 9.  They lie to win gurdwara elections.  They commit murder in India and smuggle drugs, then run to America and start or coup overthrow leaderships in big sangat gurdwaras.  They kiss asses with the RSS.  They wear Amditrdhai costumes parading like on Haloween, looking and like Taliban.  If you do not believe like they do, they do not book you to preach in their sangat.  They pay money to pressure gurdwara secretaries to prevent parcharaks, real gianis from preaching.  They only book Brahmans raagis and katavachaks who disguise themselves as Sikhs and their blind faith zealous followers.


----------



## findingmyway (Jun 15, 2011)

Kanwaljit.Singh said:


> Well Gandhi used homespun Khadi. We can do for the same purpose.



Sure, go ahead!! Will the material be grown at home or come from exploited labour? But what about every non-fairtrade vegetable you eat or non-fairtrade cup of coffee/tea you drink? Or will you live secluded and completely self sufficient? Why not become a yogi-as long as you're ok and you're karma is ok why should the rest of the world matter? 

What is better-a banana grown by slave labour or free range chicken which are given full freedom in life and a humane deatrh?

Forgive my harsh words. I consider the concept or shielding ourselves only quite narrow minded. Personally I put my money in fairtrade to help whole communities (not just farmers) and other responsible choices so other people will benefit. I also join campaigns for workers rights etc. Karma does not relate just to actions but also to decisions. We have a responsiblity to others but that seems to involve more thinking and money that turning vegetarian so its easy to take the moral high road and look the other way!

When I was in Malawi, Africa, I was lucky enough to work on a fair trade plantation as see what a difference it made. I saw firsthand how much people are exploited. As Randip ji says, humans seem to put animals on a pedestal while other humans can go in the gutter. Here's some food for thought (excuse the pun)
*http://www.blackgoldmovie.com/story.php
YouTube        - ‪Black Gold Trailer‬&rlm;
*


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Jun 15, 2011)

Cheap labor, cheap humans, cheap parcharaks.

Many rich gurdwaras hire poojaris desparate for money at very low salaries in USA.

The churches and synagogues give their priest, clergy a professional salary plus medical benefits.  

Our gurdwaras bring shame on us for hiring granthis, mostly incompetant with no knowlege of Gurbani philosophy, only Brahmanism, and then pay them so little salary and no benefits.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jun 25, 2011)

I thought I would add my wife's opinion to this, I have decided my wife is actually more enlightened than me, which is strange as a) she is not looking for enlightenment and b) she actually has no idea how enlightened she is!

We went to the tip last week, we had garden waste to throw away, and it gets all chewed up by the machine. I was just about to put a bin full of grass into the machine feeder,when my wife noticed three snails stuck to the top. Gently she removed each one and placed each snail in the boot of our car. When we got home they were released into the garden. My wife is at her sweetest with animals rather than people, it is her dream to have a dog rescue home in India. That is not to say she does not love people, she works with mostly terminally ill old people in her nursing job, but I digress.,I asked her this morning why she was not a vegetarian. She replied that she had thought about it in her youth, but she did not see any problem with eating meat at all. She reminded me of the Native Americans who used to kill a beast and then worship it to thank it for the meal it would provide, but would then use and eat every scrap for the carcass. This shows respect to the animal. 

Her other point was the circle of life, and that perhaps it is because we eat animals that more have not died of extinction. Who knows if the cow or the pig would not be here today if we did take the time to breed and farm them. Her last point was that she could not eat an animal that died a slow death, or was in any unnecessary pain, ideally death with a single blow. I have never mentioned jhatka to my wife, yet she seems to encapsulate the mood of sikhi so easily, she does not drink, smoke, has an abundance of love for everyone she meets. I have been trying to get her to enjoy life more lately, as I do, I love my food, I love the odd drink, whereas my wife actually ate mashed potato and peas the other day, out of choice, whilst I ate steak. I have mentioned to her that she seems to have lost her lust for life, whereas now I think maybe she knows something I do not.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Jun 25, 2011)

Harry Ji 

Generally if we don't eat'em the wolves will ! oh and snails should be eaten too like in france!


----------



## Kamala (Jul 17, 2011)

The animal loves its life as much as you. You seem to bring the wrong idea out of this. Who cares about the benefit? It's the life that counts.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 17, 2011)

13800038 said:


> The animal loves its life as much as you. You seem to bring the wrong idea out of this. Who cares about the benefit? It's the life that counts.



But the CREATOR made it all this way..JEEAN ka AHAAR JEE..LIFE feeds LIFE !!

when a virus or bacteria INVADE a human body...and cause sickness and eventual DEATH....whose "Life" counts ??..Mosquito bites MAN...man slaps mosquito to DEATH..the MALARIA injected by the Mosquito ( now dead) soon brings DEATH to the MAN !!  Whose life counts..who is to blame..isnt it His HUKM..KUDRAT at work here.
He gave Humans a BRAIN..SARDAREE of this EARTH over all other Life forms...FOOD is FOOD...deliberate cruelty, absence of compassion, etc etc are Man's FAILINGS of CHARACTER.....Man is at the TOP of the Food Chain.....and given the brains to defend his life against all lowly lifes...its the HUMAN LIFE that COUNTS MOST....the SGGS is written for HUMAN LIFE....Kutta Raaj bahalleah fir chakkee chatteh..a DOG kept 24/7 at Harmandar Sahib listening to Kirtan/katha 24/7 of its life will NOT BENEFIT one iota..a HUMAN can and SHOULD....becasue the Kirtan is in HUMAN VOICE human langauge for Humans.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 17, 2011)

13800038 said:


> The animal loves its life as much as you. You seem to bring the wrong idea out of this. Who cares about the benefit? It's the life that counts.


13800038 ji creation has very simple rules that can be complicated for pleasure, to fleece crowds of their money, to create sects of followers, to create classes of good people versus bad people, etc.

Rules are as the creation will state to a member of the species or the species like humans:


Once you are created live as long as you can
Live in consonance with creation,
You are free to destroy if something is destroying you
Enjoy as long as the one you use in enjoyment is not made extinct, i.e. animals, vegetables, etc., if they live in consonance as a whole
 
Pretty straightforward.

Meat is no different a food than vegetables.  You can use either or both without being a devil or pious.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jul 17, 2011)

13800038 ji, Gyani ji and Ambarsaria ji,

This is not going to make me popular, but I should not care about this.



> Quote: 13800038
> The animal loves its life as much as you. You seem to bring the wrong idea out of this. Who cares about the benefit? It's the life that counts.




13800038 ji, I very much liked your message given especially that you state your point so succinctly. Yes, I do have the impression that people here keep side-tracking and confusing the issue. It is almost as if there is unwillingness to keep the real question in mind because we know at the back of our minds, that we do not really have a good answer for it.

Ambarsaria ji, your conclusion in the end, namely:



> Quote:
> Meat is no different a food than vegetables. You can use either or both without being a devil or pious.



Although it is a valid one in a particular context, here however, it can be used to divert the attention from the real issue. Why I say this is because, what 13800038 ji is highlighting is the fact of the wrongness of killing being covered up by the idea that an animal corpse has its industrial uses, and here the same is happening when you bring in the idea of animals and plants being used for food.

What I got from this discussion is that meat is meat and not a live animal, and so no one should feel guilty for ordering meat dish in a restaurant or buying raw meat from a supermarket to cook and eat. If we stop eating meat with the idea that it will reduce killing, this is not only being deluded, but is an action not aimed at helping the persons involved in the killing to realize their mistakes, and is in fact all about me and my own values and akin to sitting on a high horse.

So while my aim is to encouraging people to discriminate between moral and immoral actions and to not be fooled by wrong thinking into adopting a false sense of morality, and thereby ending up being in fact immoral, yours Ambarsaria ji, does not seem to be pointing to the same direction.

The idea that 13800038 ji brings is one which many would use to teach a child in order to encourage some idea about what is morally good and what is bad. If you don't wish your property to be stolen, do not take other people's property without permission. If you wish others to be honest with you, do not lie to them. If you do not want to be killed, do not kill any living being. If you do not wish other people to have sex with your spouse, you should take care not to do the same with others.

Now the above are reminders that have positive effect on the social level. But they can also work to aid in developing morality for those who have begun to actually differentiate between a wholesome and unwholesome state of mind and good intentions from bad intentions. Your statement quote below, Ambarsaria ji, seem to be an encouragement to take what is *not* wholesome for wholesome and overlooking what must necessarily involve bad intentions.



> Quote:
> You are free to destroy if something is destroying you
> Enjoy as long as the one you use in enjoyment is not made extinct, i.e. animals, vegetables, etc., if they live in consonance as a whole
> Pretty straightforward.



You can't swat a fly without some good deal of aversion and a degree of callousness. What amounts to less than a pinprick when a mosquito bites you, is reacted to with a taking of its life can only be the result of great attachment to me and my feelings. When food is available in so many forms, killing some animal in order to get the food must involve quite a perversion of perception and of consciousness, an attachment to one's own happiness and indifference to the feelings of that other living creature. What is good in any of this?!!

13800038 ji, although I consider the Christian conception of God to be extremely silly and childish, however your post has given rise to the following thoughts:

A personal God with very human attributes can allow for particular human values to remain in focus. "Do unto others what you would like others to do unto you" when stated by such a God is something that will be accepted and encouraged. If God destroys life, it is something he has to do but this does not translate as meaning that I can also do it too. This is because I am not God and God's intentions will never be of the same level as that of mine. Unlike me, his purpose is not aimed at personal interest, or to a group of people, or to particular range of beings, but to all of creation. Mine on the other hand, is focused on me and mine. Indeed if I were to do wrong such as killing some other of God's creation, I'd be doing what only He has the right basis for doing.

Although like I said, I find the particular God concept to be silly, something which must in the long run be very harmful, on the other hand, the thoughts and behavior of many Christians have on many occasions been quite inspiring to me. I found them to be often much more scrupulous than I am when it comes to moral actions.

Now I am not saying that the Sikh conception of God is bad when compared the Christian one. What I'd like to point out is that when interpreted a certain way as it appears to have been done here, this apparently has led to discouraging moral scrupulousness. A disinterested and impersonal God has given rise to indifference and lack of moral shame on the part of some people who have wrongly conceived, or perhaps forgotten to take into account certain other attributes.

I don't think it follows that belief in a disinterested God will lead necessarily to becoming indifferent. However I do think given the level of ignorance and attachment to self, that this can and does happen.

I remember that at one time many years ago, I too believed in some kind of impersonal force driving the cosmos. In looking back I remember also, to having ended up being somewhat indifferent to what goes on in the world and bending towards not accepting the idea of good vs. evil. There was associated with this, a sense not only of something directing the whole show, but also that *I had the power* to watch from a distance and not be moved by all that goes on. And I think that perhaps there is a similar motivation behind some of the ideas expressed here.

Gyani ji, what have you observed about the behavior of viruses and bacteria which has led you to the conclusion that these are sentient beings? They have "form" and appear to move around and multiply, but do they have consciousness, perception, feeling, volition, attachment, aversion and do they think?

And when you talk about humans being at the top of the evolutionary ladder, rather than think that all below him must then exist only to serve his purpose, has it not occurred to you that perhaps he could help them? I find what Uncle Ben said to Spiderman quite inspiring in this regard:

"With great power comes great responsibility."

Again, I apologize if this has offended anyone. There was no intention to show any disrespect, but I do take it that I am limited in my own capacity to wisdom and kindness to express myself in the best way.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 18, 2011)

Its quite a tall order.........if carried to " full term"...man would be barred from using any a nd all pesticides on farms..allow all insects and pests to multiply at will....let the birds and others like rats, etc eat their fill and multiply at will...end of the day MAN woudnt have any "grains/daals" for his own feeding....thats WHY Guru ji in His INFINITE WISDOM RUBBISHED this dea in Maas Maas akr Moorakh jhaggrrey from DAY ONE..a Non-issue. Guur ji delcared openly that Each GRAIN has a JEEA..LIFE..and there are many other lives living inside..weevils, susree, sundee etc...inside the Grains !!..on Vegetable leaves..on their roots..etc etc..a never ending discussion..."responsibilty"has a limit..its responsibility to HUMAN LIFE first and foremost. No need for apologies as no offense is ever taken by me from any poster Jios..all welcome.


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 18, 2011)

> The idea that 13800038 ji brings is one which many would use to teach a child in order to encourage some idea about what is morally good and what is bad. If you don't wish your property to be stolen, do not take other people's property without permission. If you wish others to be honest with you, do not lie to them. If you do not want to be killed, do not kill any living being. If you do not wish other people to have sex with your spouse, you should take care not to do the same with others.



I am sorry confused ji but in order to live humans have to kill pests and other animals which are menace to Human beings so arguement that if you want to live don't kill anyone is not valid.Even from the times of 6th Guru Sikhs hunted in Jungles


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 18, 2011)

confused ji thanks for your post.  No offense in dialog.



> Gyani ji, what have you observed about the behavior of viruses and  bacteria which has led you to the conclusion that these are sentient  beings?
> 
> _I am not aware of the concept of sentient in Sikhism, it rather treats all life as life._


Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jul 18, 2011)

Gyani ji,




> Its quite a tall order.........if carried to " full term"...man would be barred from using any a nd all pesticides on farms..allow all insects and pests to multiply at will....let the birds and others like rats, etc eat their fill and multiply at will...end of the day MAN woudnt have any "grains/daals" for his own feeding....




And so comes in man to play his part in the scheme of things. He'd be silly to show kindness and compassion towards animals, lest they will destroy man's crops and he will then become extinct and God be seen as having failed in carrying out his project. But look, he has in fact been doing God's work in this regard without even having to *know God* since prehistoric times. This can't be right however can it, since religions teaching means to connect with God came in much later on? And besides, these same religions also teach about the undesirability of greed, and what else but greed could be behind man's drive for survival? And agriculture, this came in long after man killed for food, so is it not that he 'evolved' during that time? Why the sudden need to go back to the old primitive ways?

Doesn't it make sense to conclude that man in fact evolved such that he can now do better than be driven by self-seeking impulses which causes harm to other creatures and in moral terms, to himself as well?  Isn't religion a reflection of man's finally coming to know to distinguish between impulses that are base and knowing the qualities which lead to rising above them?  And when you state that it is vital that man survive since only he can taste the nectar of Truth, how could you expect this to happen if at the same time you insist that he survive any which way he can, including killing for food? Can the road to Truth be paved with killing and death?

But why even talk in such terms? It appears that we get lost in "stories" about the world out there in terms of past, present and future, precisely because there is no urgency to understand what is "NOW". Assumptions are made and taken so seriously and defended, such that whatever is the driving force, these are never known, let alone addressed. 

It is said that when a person has lost morality, he begins to talk about justice. I say also that if his focus is on humans, be it at the expense of animals or not, that this indicates his sense of morality must be questionable. This is the reason why I find the concept "humanism" very repulsive. 

And don't get me wrong and think that I'm an animal lover or something, because I am not. I do not even have a pet and would never think of getting one. I don't like being near animals. When people go all emotional about their pets, this puts me off completely. My concern is with man, but this is because I only know how to communicate with him and believe that, unlike animals, he has some capacity to develop goodness and wisdom. I am not here to protect animals, but in fact to encourage people to not waste this precious life away in wrong kinds of thinking and accumulating tendencies towards bad even more. 



> thats WHY Guru ji in His INFINITE WISDOM RUBBISHED this dea in Maas Maas akr Moorakh jhaggrrey from DAY ONE..a Non-issue.




I still think the non-issue has its basis in the fact that both the raw vegetable and raw meat and cooked vegetable and cooked meat, are just food to be consumed and therefore no different from each other. 




> Guru ji delcared openly that Each GRAIN has a JEEA..LIFE..and there are many other lives living inside..weevils, susree, sundee etc...inside the Grains !!..on Vegetable leaves..on their roots..etc etc..a never ending discussion...



Plants can be said to have life, but not in the sense that a sentient being does. Personally, I think it foolish to mindlessly destroy plants, not because it is in fact "killing", but because it is cutting short a process of growth and also interfere with the environment. When I take a bite of a fruit and suddenly discover that it is infested with insects, I do not eat it not because I do not wish to kill those insects, but because I don't want to get sick. But I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume some form of life existing in each apple that I pick up or a cabbage that I buy. 

And if somehow I do become convinced by the knowledge that insects exist in every fruit and vegetable out there, I will admit to and take responsibility for the killing as being for the sake of survival. Perhaps I will start to only eat meat and ready-made food. But if for some reason I have to eat a fruit and believe that some insect has been killed in the process, I will *not* think it right to have done so. 

But of course there is a difference in such a case as compared to any deliberate killing. Here I won't be perceiving the insect and would probably even hope that there isn't one, in fact. We all know that we need to sort the grains and daal out to remove any insects that are there. And the situation you draw is correct or not, who knows. And again, why even be drawn in by such thinking? After all, it all comes down to intention and this means that when eating fruit, it is eating fruit and not killing. Indeed as I've indicated above, the imperative is to know what is it that is behind such thinking and note the tendency to keeping away from attending to the present moment.

Regarding eating vegetables, yes, buying vegetables in the market is no different from buying meat when it comes to considering its history. I do believe that many more number of insects die during the whole process of getting one rice plant to bear rice grain and then to cutting and processing it. I am fortunate that I do not have to grow my own food. But if I do and end up having to kill, again I will not think it justified to having done it. And hopefully I'd continue to be inspired by what the Buddha once said:

"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will .'abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."

Getting off the cycle of existence is the goal, not survival, where one ends up only to perpetuate the madness.




> "responsibilty"has a limit..its responsibility to HUMAN LIFE first and foremost.



To go by the "survival" mentality would be quite irresponsible in my opinion. To not be concerned about one's own happiness sounds more like the responsible thing to do and teach to other people. Faith is faith in goodness. Aiming at survival is to rely on attachment and this shows lack of faith.




> No need for apologies as no offense is ever taken by me from any poster Jios..all welcome.



Thanks, but it was aimed more at other members, particularly those who respect your opinions.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jul 18, 2011)

Kanwardeep ji,




kds1980 said:


> I am sorry confused ji but in order to live humans have to kill pests and other animals which are menace to Human beings so arguement that if you want to live don't kill anyone is not valid.Even from the times of 6th Guru Sikhs hunted in Jungles




When did the argument evolve to "if you want to live don't kill"? Has survival somehow become a virtue in your eyes? Do you believe that some people talk about the value of kindness and morality because they think that this is the best means to survive? If anything, there are those who won't ever kill even if this means that they will have to die as a consequence. This is from seeing fault in killing and the value in good deeds. Survival is never the question for them.

The picture people paint with regard to the situation out there and as you do above, this is almost like an excuse to give vent to the underlying aversion, which one would do well to realize. Nothing is ever as we *think* it is, and the truth is right in front of us, but we don't see it.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jul 18, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji,




> I am not aware of the concept of sentient in Sikhism, it rather treats all life as life.



You are going by the particular concept "life" that you have. Plants are different from rocks in that of all the Natural Orders existing, a rock follows only the Caloric Order whereas plants follow this as well as what is called the Germinal Order. So you observe that plants evolve from seed to stem, branches, leaves and bear fruit, which does not happen in the case of rocks. We infer then that plants have life, which is OK as long as we learn to differentiate this from that which happens in the case of human beings and animals. Human beings and animals follow the Caloric Order, the Moral Order and the Psychical Order but not the Germinal Order. This latter has nothing to do with consciousness and volition whereas human beings and animals are from birth to death driven by these and is what makes them sentient beings.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 19, 2011)

Confused said:


> Ambarsaria ji,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But Confused ji, I am not aware that the Caloric Order and Germinal Order or Psychical Order are part and parcel of fundamentals of SGGS, nor in the Rehat Maryada which contradicts the requirement of no meat, nor in the janamsakhi where Guru Nanak himself ate killed, roasted and offered meat to his fellows. So the concept of Orders would not be relevant within Sikhism.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jul 19, 2011)

Spnadmin ji,




spnadmin said:


> But Confused ji, I am not aware that the Caloric Order and Germinal Order or Psychical Order are part and parcel of fundamentals of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, nor in the Rehat Maryada which contradicts the requirement of no meat, nor in the janamsakhi where Guru Nanak himself ate killed, roasted and offered meat to his fellows. So the concept of Orders would not be relevant within Sikhism.




I had the impression that Guru Nanak cooked and ate meat, but did not know that he also killed. I should have taken into account my lack of information and been more careful about commenting. So I think I will now not say any more on this topic.
Thanks.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 19, 2011)

Confused ji Take heart. We know he cooked a reindeer from the Janamsakhi. I was not implying that he personally killed it. Maybe he did or maybe not. Someone did and he did not refuse it.  But it was dead when it reached the fire.

The title of the thread,Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh, are the words of Guru Nanak. It would appear he did not himself wrangle.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jul 19, 2011)

Spnadmin ji,




spnadmin said:


> Confused ji Take heart. We know he cooked a reindeer from the Janamsakhi. I was not implying that he personally killed it. Maybe he did or maybe not. Someone did and he did not refuse it.  But it was dead when it reached the fire.
> 
> The title of the thread,Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh, are the words of Guru Nanak. It would appear he did not himself wrangle.



Yes, what I heard was that he was once seen carrying venison into a market place and cooking and eating it. And I wonder if as you express, “Someone did and he did not refuse it”, that this is the basis for why some people conclude that Guru Nanak allowed killing for food? But unless there were other incidents in which this issue was addressed, I think that this is a wrong conclusion to draw.

His own words point to the fact of eating or not eating “flesh” and not to killing or not to killing an animal for food. It would have been unarguable had he said instead, “fools who wrangle over killing / not killing animals” or something to the effect. Besides, I’d expect that if the issue was about killing and not killing animals, there would have been many occasions, such as getting rid of pests, where this would have come up.

In my argument with the vegetarian, I have tried to show that there is no link between one person killing an animal and selling its meat and another person buying that meat. And I believe the same applies here as well.

If someone has killed something just to serve me and I know it, my eating that meat would be in effect condoning killing. (This is why I stopped going to sea food restaurants where they take the fish out from the fish tank and kill it to cook for you.) If I pick out a chicken, in a place where they have just killed them, then I am blameless, because my buying or not buying that chicken has no effect on their decision to do what they do. 

Indeed if a friend has just hunted a rabbit and decided to offer it to me, it would be unkind of me not to accept it. And surely, I’d likely advise him against killing and tell him that I’d be happy with any food he gave me. This could make him realize that whatever the food, meat or vegetables, is not important, but attachment to the one and ending up having to take a life in order to consume it must surely be bad.

Perhaps Guru Nanak did similarly after being offered the deer saying, “Hey buddy, you know that I’m happy with simple food like kitcheree or daal and roti. So next time, don’t bother getting me anything special. But killing is no good friend, so try avoiding it.”  Or maybe he didn’t, because in fact he bought it from some seller in another part of that same market. However I think that it is a big mistake to conclude from what has been recorded of the incident, that he in effect did condone killing.

But like I said, there may be other things that Guru Nanak said on other occasions which have formed the basis for why some people believe that according to him, it was alright to kill for food…..


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 20, 2011)

Confused piaare jio!

You always are so meticulous in your analysis and I am not in your league. But my point was very simple. Someone had to kill the deer before it was cooked an eaten, unless we are entertaining a scenario where it was cooked alive. I cannot walk in the shadow of Guru Nanak. But if someone offered m e a carcass, and said, "Cut it up, freeze it, you have meat for a  year. All you have to do is light the grill" ... as a vegetarian I would say, "No. Does it matter who killed it, me or you" In fact that is a governing principle in my life... I don't eat meat or fish. So I can only conclude that Guru Nanak had a different take on this issue. He was willing to offer the deer's meat to his sangat for food.

I need to add two things. 

1. The discussion of meat in this thread continually shifts away from the point of the shabad from which the words, Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh, is but one part of a single verse. The shabad is a serious exploration of the crookedness of the rich and powerful. Flesh is but a symbol of their rotten influence and the corruption of power. Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh digs to a deeper meaning than these 4 words suggest. Sometimes it is necessary to go back to the moral lessons of the shabad as they are actually given. 

2. How did we get started talking about a reindeer in the janamsakhi? I am curious about that. Reindeer inhabit the Arctic, not India. It had to be some other kind of deer.  I am a guilty party.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 20, 2011)

Spnadmin Ji wrote:*<<<<<1*. _*The discussion of meat in this thread continually shifts away from  the point of the shabad from which the words, Fools Who Wrangle over  Flesh, is but one part of a single verse. The shabad is a serious  exploration of the crookedness of the rich and powerful. Flesh is but a  symbol of their rotten influence and the corruption of power. Fools Who  Wrangle over Flesh digs to a deeper meaning than these 4 words suggest.  Sometimes it is necessary to go back to the moral lessons of the shabad  as they are actually given.<<<<<<<<<

I would go as  far to say that Bhagat kabir Jis shabads ref bhaang surapaan machhlee sherab, meat etc are also more concerned with the "LIFESTYLES of the Rich and the  Powerful..the Tyrants, the rulers, rather than the oppressed poor kirtees/working classes."...than with the Bhanng meat fish as "food/diets" per say.

Today also a person who frequents such places is known as a "KHAANN PEENN Wallah type..." which is NOT a compliment and doesnt relate to Khaan( eating) or "Peenn( drinking) as normal people who eat daal roti and drink water..BUT to those who indulge in such food at places of ill repute....pubs, grills, hotels etc ( and in Todays context pubs grills, clubs hotels etc are all very reputable becasue its so common but in the 15th century it was NOT the place to visit for a fmaily man and who certainly couldnt afford to frequent them too !! Certain Strict families frown on their teenagers going clubbing/pubbing/hoteling/snookering etc too..even today..as these places have reputations of their own !! Since no one goes to a Pub to drink MILK..no one would go to a Grill and order Daal Roti...thats where the "maas/machhi" thing comes in..they GO hand in hand with teh reputation of the places the lifestyles are related to...and its the LIFESTYLE that will lead to "NARAK" ( Either  on earth - seen plenty of such in families that belong to gamblers and runkards..or the one that jamdoots rule ??) and NOT the act of eating a hamburger.
*_


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 20, 2011)

Confused said:


> Kanwardeep ji,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Survival is the utmost priority in the world ,from a beggar to the millionares all are trying to survive in this world.As far the argument is concerned that if you want to live then don't kill ,this argument  has two meaning 1)If you want to live then don't kill other Humans 2) If you want to kill then don't kill others including animals.The later argument was evolved mainly by Some Indian saints,Pandits ,Jains and Rich people.In no other part of world this argument is evolved because all humans were killing and using animals for survival

Anyway just because this argument is evolved then it does not mean it is true.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jul 20, 2011)

Kanwardeep ji,

I am not getting some of what you are saying; perhaps you need to explain further. In the meantime I would like to make some general comment based on what I think I understand you to be saying.




> Survival is the utmost priority in the world ,from a beggar to the millionares all are trying to survive in this world.



At the root is attachment. And what is this attachment aimed at? The eye and the ability to see different colours, the ear and to hear different sounds, the tongue and to tasting different flavours, the nose and to smelling different aromas, the body and to touching different sensations, and the mind and to be able to think different thoughts. In other words, we are most attached to me, mine and I. Ironically however, once we begin to understand (and not just assume) that the person we love most in the world is "me", in understanding that everyone else is also like this, we begin to be more sympathetic and kind towards other people. 

So although it is a rule that we are all selfish and self-centred and do things all day often at the expense of others, our thoughts may begin to gradually incline towards the opposite direction, namely, the benefit of other people. Furthermore on seeing the difference in the quality of mind necessarily involved in these two states, the one would be perceived as desirable and the other not so. 

This is of course not easy, and not only because we have accumulated so much of the tendency to attachment, but because of what in fact is the real problem, namely ignorance.  It is because of ignorance that all kinds of evil arise. To know ignorance as ignorance and to know attachment as attachment is wisdom. 

When we know that attachment to self, (which is the driving force for survival) comes down to the fundamental experiences such as seeing, hearing and so on, and that these are extremely fleeting and rise and fall away not in anyone's control, there is no reason to then struggle so much in order to get what we want. If we realize that whatever it is that we aim for in our struggle for survival can't ever satisfy except momentarily, is there any sense in continuing mindlessly pursuing those things?  If we actually begin to see that the attachment itself is a state of agitation and that the detachment which comes with understanding is of the opposing quality, do we still wish to rely on attachment as means to happiness? 




> As far the argument is concerned that if you want to live then don't kill ,this argument  has two meaning 1)If you want to live then don't kill other Humans 2) If you want to kill then don't kill others including animals.The later argument was evolved mainly by Some Indian saints,Pandits ,Jains and Rich people.



You may have dropped some word out in the above or I am just too dense right now. But I am very curious to know what is behind the second meaning you mention above and how some Indian saints, Jains and rich people are the same in this regard. So please elaborate.




> In no other part of world this argument is evolved because all humans were killing and using animals for survival



Are you saying here that those saints and rich people were wrong due to some perversion of thought and that the normal and sensible thing to do is to aim at survival?




> Anyway just because this argument is evolved then it does not mean it is true.



Again, I don't understand your meaning here....


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 21, 2011)

13800038 said:


> The animal loves its life as much as you. You seem to bring the wrong idea out of this. Who cares about the benefit? It's the life that counts.



I sincerely do not mean offence to you of Confused, but what has this got to do with Sikhism?

What do you understand as the Sikh view on meat. I say the same thing to Confused.

Please back up with shabads. No straying into Peta, and what an animal feels etc. *What is the SIKH view*?

I await your answer.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 21, 2011)

Confused said:


> Kanwardeep ji,
> 
> I am not getting some of what you are saying; perhaps you need to explain further. In the meantime I would like to make some general comment based on what I think I understand you to be saying.
> 
> ...



Forget explanations and the rights and wrongs , but what is the SIKH view?
*
This thread is about the SIKH view*. Please stick to that. I await your response.


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 21, 2011)

> At the root is attachment. And what is this attachment aimed at? The eye and the ability to see different colours, the ear and to hear different sounds, the tongue and to tasting different flavours, the nose and to smelling different aromas, the body and to touching different sensations, and the mind and to be able to think different thoughts. In other words, we are most attached to me, mine and I. Ironically however, once we begin to understand (and not just assume) that the person we love most in the world is "me"�, in understanding that everyone else is also like this, we begin to be more sympathetic and kind towards other people.
> 
> So although it is a rule that we are all selfish and self-centred and do things all day often at the expense of others, our thoughts may begin to gradually incline towards the opposite direction, namely, the benefit of other people. Furthermore on seeing the difference in the quality of mind necessarily involved in these two states, the one would be perceived as desirable and the other not so.
> 
> ...



It all depend on interpretation if you are saying that root of survival is attachment then one can also say that even desire to live is attachment . If One old man who is suffering from terminally ill disease is trying to survive then one can say he is brave man fighting the illness ,the other may say that he is so much attached to life.



> You may have dropped some word out in the above or I am just too dense right now. But I am very curious to know what is behind the second meaning you mention above and how some Indian saints, Jains and rich people are the same in this regard. So please elaborate.


I don't understand what you don't understand in my argument .I don't think any abrahamic religion recommended vegetarianism yet they have concept of daya ,let other people live 
But Some form, of Hinduism and jainism took this concept further too animals too.



> Are you saying here that those saints and rich people were wrong due to some perversion of thought and that the normal and sensible thing to do is to aim at survival?



Yes in my eyes they were wrong because they had limited view of world which they saw around them.None of the abrahamic prophet advocated vegetarianism because in their surrounding vegetarianism was impossible to apply


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Jul 22, 2011)

Some people argue that we should not eat meat because animals are lower than us, eating each other animals.

Then perhaps we should not drink water because animals drink water.  Should we drink air?

I heard that many years ago, Brahmans forbad other people to eat meat, and they engored it themselves which made them a stronger race.  I also heard that Brahmans did not come from India, but from the Aryan race which infiltrated the Hindu communities, imposing the caste system.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 23, 2011)

Why is a Khalsa here? to convert the masses? to spread the word of god to the unenlightened? 

I do not think so, not to the degree that is present in other faiths anyway.

Khalsa is here to serve, to fight for injustice, to be a friend to the poor and needy, to bring peace to those that fear, feed the starving, and all in the name of the creator. 

For a Khalsa to do this properly, Khalsa has to be strong and fit, so that they have the energy, both spiritual and physical to carry out these tasks, The creator has provided an abundance of food for the Khalsa, provided it is killed by way of jhatka, provided that respect is shown to the animal that gave its life so that khalsa can carry on with the creators work. 

In the absence of jhatka, I think that being fit and able to carry out the hukam of the creator is more important than the transgression of the principle of jhatka, 

be vegetarian by all means, meditate, judge, think, but only a khalsa will see the bigger picture, and not only his role in that, but the role of others around him, be they animal or human.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 23, 2011)

The Modern day Brahmans" that have INFILTRATED the KHALSA via the back-door of the Nirmala/udasi/sanatan dharma/bhagwa coloured BABAS of the various DERAS and CULTS- Radha Soamis, Narakdharees, Namdharees, nanaksarees, GHAGREEWALLHS (aka dhadreewallah)...are doing the exact same thing the Aryan Brahmans did to the Indian population 3000 years ago.....CURB the DIET that makes strong and robust race and that will make it easier to SUBJUGATe and CONQUER them..as is already happening..in PUNJAB, the Khalsa is the most SUBSERVIENT...moral-less, now drowning in Nasha, drugs, prostitution, vehlarrbazee gangster bazee etc etc..NO work no Play..all day HIGH !! THIS is the DIRECT RESULT of the HUNDRED THOUSAND DERAS IN PUNJAB !! Only a FOOL will DENY the fact. Each DERA claims to be making THOUSANDS of "amrtidharees"..on a "Daily"  Basis..ghagreewallah is the current champion.....YET we see less and less DERAWALLAHS celebrating GURPURABS of the GURUS..and More and More B{censored}ES of their own DEAD BABAS !! Does any Baba...GhaGhreewallah ?? go to pakistan..in spite of hundred over Gurdwaras there..for parchaar..?? NO NEVER..not even malaysia..( our currency is too small compared to USD EUROS POUNDS )...currently 3 Major Babas are in line for a California TOUR...and many more at the American Visa office...These DERAWALLAHS have Manufactured hundreds of thosuands of SEVADAARS...wanna be granthis pathis for hire etc...all bred to live OFF the Hardworking populace....and be collection agents for their Baba Ji...


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 23, 2011)

Gyani Jarnail Singh ji, Randip Singh ji, Harry Haller ji, Harsimritkaur ji you collectively have in the latest posts hit the nail on the head.  Specially the following per Gyani Jarnail Singh ji,



> The Modern day Brahmans" that have INFILTRATED the KHALSA via the  back-door of the Nirmala/udasi/sanatan dharma/bhagwa coloured BABAS of  the various DERAS and CULTS- Radha Soamis, Narakdharees, Namdharees,  nanaksarees, GHAGREEWALLHS (aka dhadreewallah)...are doing the exact  same thing the Aryan Brahmans did to the Indian population 3000 years  ago



This is the exact reason that I keep referring to Babeys/Sants in my posts even on other subjects or threads.



> Let it be resolved that,
> 
> 
> eating meat is allowed in Sikhism and the only restriction per SRM is eating meat prepared the Islamic way, sacrificial and slow killing of animals.



Nobody is forced to eat meat.  So vegans are allowed but let there be no reference to Gurbani and Gurus in this respect as a basis of doing so versus non-vegans.

Thank you all.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jul 23, 2011)

Randip ji,



> Quote: Originally Posted by 13800038
> The animal loves its life as much as you. You seem to bring the wrong idea out of this. Who cares about the benefit? It's the life that counts.
> 
> I sincerely do not mean offence to you of Confused, but what has this got to do with Sikhism?



And why do you say that it has nothing to do with Sikhism?
Does Sikhism not talk about non-harming? Does it not teach about empathy? Does it not talk about the fact that living things have a craving for continued existence and this means that no human nor animal would like to be killed?



> What do you understand as the Sikh view on meat. I say the same thing to Confused.



Well, 13800038 ji is talking about killing / not killing and not about consuming meat. Do you not see these two as being separate issues?



> Please back up with shabads. No straying into Peta, and what an animal feels etc. What is the SIKH view?



Back up which point, eating / not eating meat or killing / not killing beings? If you are asserting that it is OK to kill animals according to Sikhism, can you back this up with some direct quote?


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jul 23, 2011)

Randip ji,




> Forget explanations and the rights and wrongs , but what is the SIKH view?



You mean you read the scriptures without any understanding as to what is being proposed as right is right and what is said to be wrong is wrong? When you express the Sikh view, are you involved simply in parroting, or do you come in with your own particular interpretation?



> This thread is about the SIKH view. Please stick to that. I await your response.




Sometime ago, on feeling frustrated by the views expressed here with regard to Karma, I asked my wife about it on our way back in the car. She said something like, "If you don't believe in Karma, what then is the basis for morality?" I thought to myself, "Bravo, I'm sure many Sikhs will agree with that". Besides, some Sikhs have also said to me that I'm more Sikh than most ......

My point here Randip ji, is that you have your own Sikh view, but you should know that there are other Sikhs who will not agree with your interpretation. And based on my wife's reaction I believe that I've been more or less in line with some of what is actually taught in Sikhism. What I speak against then is not Sikh, but your and some other people's interpretation of Sikhism. You therefore need to refrain from making the kind of assertion which in the end only reflects *your interpretation* but claimed to be the definitive Sikh view. Besides given the meaning of "Sikh", you appear to actually go against this because the attitude expressed sounds almost as if you are done learning.....


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Jul 23, 2011)

"Awal Allah nuur upaya
Qudrat ke sabh bande
Ek noor te sabh jag upjeya
Kaon bhale ko mande" ang 1349


Also

"Khak noor kardang duniayey
Asmaan zamin drakh pedaish Khudaye"... ang 723

They say we should not eat meat because we would be destroying the animals.

Perhaps we should not even drink water or eat food, because we would be destroying the tiny particles that God created.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 23, 2011)

harsimiritkaur said:


> "Awal Allah nuur upaya
> Qudrat ke sabh bande
> Ek noor te sabh jag upjeya
> Kaon bhale ko mande" ang 1349
> ...


Harsimiratkaur ji you are confusing me.  Can you please post the complete shabads and then make your point.

Sat Sri AAkal.


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Jul 23, 2011)

We cannot even destroy anything.  It the laws of physics, nothing gets destroyed.  Things only convert to a different composition of molecules.  The word ghatant to mean refers to change, not complete destruction.  We cannot make anything completely be outside of God's huqam.  Everything converts to a differing state of existence in the patalan patal, lakh agasa agas.

Ghatant ruupang, ghatant dipang, ghatan rav sasiry nekyetr gaganang 

Beauty fades away, islands fade away, the sun, moon, stars and sky fade away.​
Ghatant basuda gir tar sukhandang

The earth, mountains, forests and lands fade away.​
Ghatant lalna sut brat hitang​
One's spouse, children, siblings and loved friends fade away.
Ghatant kanik, manik, maya swaroopang​
Gold and jewels and the incomparable beauty of Maya fade away.
Ne ghatant keval Gopal achut​
Only the Eternal, Unchanging Lord does not fade away.
Astrirang Nanak sadh jan ]9]

O Nanak, only the humble Saints are steady and stable forever. ||9||​
Shlok Seheskriti M 5 ang 1354


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Jul 23, 2011)

We cannot even destroy anything. It the laws of physics, nothing gets destroyed. Things only convert to a different composition of molecules. The word ghatant to mean refers to change, not complete destruction. We cannot make anything completely be outside of God's huqam. Everything converts to a differing state of existence in the patalan patal, lakh agasan agas.

Ghatant ruupang, ghatant dipang, ghatan rav sasiry nekyetr gaganang 
Beauty fades away, islands fade away, the sun, moon, stars and sky fade away.
Ghatant basuda gir tar sukhandang
The earth, mountains, forests and lands fade away.
Ghatant lalna sut brat hitang
One's spouse, children, siblings and loved friends fade away.
Ghatant kanik, manik, maya swaroopang
Gold and jewels and the incomparable beauty of Maya fade away.
Ne ghatant keval Gopal achut
Only the Eternal, Unchanging Lord does not fade away.
Astrirang Nanak sadh jan ]9]
O Nanak, only the humble Saints are steady and stable forever. ||9||​ 
Shlok Seheskriti M 5 ang 1354


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jul 23, 2011)

Kanwardeep ji,




> It all depend on interpretation if you are saying that root of survival is attachment then one can also say that even desire to live is attachment . If One old man who is suffering from terminally ill disease is trying to survive then one can say he is brave man fighting the illness ,the other may say that he is so much attached to life.



Or you may yourself say on another occasion, that he is afraid to die. Bravery then would be, not being so afraid because one understands the way things are and accepts it. Facing the pain with understanding is being brave, fighting the illness in order to escape from the pain is natural, but let us not call this brave.



> Quote: You may have dropped some word out in the above or I am just too dense right now. But I am very curious to know what is behind the second meaning you mention above and how some Indian saints, Jains and rich people are the same in this regard. So please elaborate.
> 
> I don't understand what you don't understand in my argument .I don't think any abrahamic religion recommended vegetarianism yet they have concept of daya ,let other people live



You appear to be linking the idea of vegetarianism with that of killing / non-killing. If you are in fact saying that Abrahamic religions encourage killing and yet they can have compassion, you are correct. But this will be in spite of the human-cantered values and not because of it. But if you think that it comes from seeing man as the only worthy object of daya, this is quite a perversion of thought. Any supposed compassion arising must surely then be something else mistaken for the real thing, perhaps it is only pity. And pity is in fact a form of aversion, and aversion being conditioned by attachment, indicates that the relationship towards other human beings must be that of attachment. And taking this further, because in fact the attachment comes down to 'me' and 'mine', other people must then only be extensions of our own self. And so it becomes just a game of delusion.



> But Some form, of Hinduism and jainism took this concept further too animals too.



So you are in fact saying that compassion can arise only with the perception of this particular hairless animal with two legs and two feet, (with or without clothes). And if someone felt something positive for hairy quadrupeds, feathered bipeds, scaly creatures swimming in the water or those crawling without any limbs, and thought that that was compassion, they are in fact fooled by a projected ideal.

Please tell me then, what is it about the image of "man" that qualifies him as worthy recipient for compassion and what is there in an animal which makes it impossible as object of compassion? Is it because you can relate to human beings and can't feel the same about some furry animal that can't speak but only know to make strange sounds? Is it because you can use "thy" and "thou" with regard to human beings whereas the animal will always remain an "it" to you?

Well if this is along the lines of what you really think, as far as I'm concerned, you have never known any compassion, not for any human being even. Because if you did, you'd know that compassion is aimed at the suffering of others and must in fact be preceded by kindness. If you have never experienced any kindness towards animals and if you have never perceived them as suffering beings, then you must be quite dead to anyone else's feelings. You only react to your own pleasant and unpleasant feelings. A human being is favored because he gives you pleasure and when something happens to him, it is not he that you care about, but the loss of your own pleasant feelings. What comes across as concern for the other is in fact the agitation which comes with aversion towards the new situation.  In other words, it is all about YOU from beginning to end.



> Quote: Are you saying here that those saints and rich people were wrong due to some perversion of thought and that the normal and sensible thing to do is to aim at survival?
> 
> Yes in my eyes they were wrong because they had limited view of world which they saw around them.None of the abrahamic prophet advocated vegetarianism because in their surrounding vegetarianism was impossible to apply



While vegetarianism in these cases is result of wrong understanding, however at some point there may actually have been genuine compassion towards animals. Advocating killing of animals on the other hand, can at no point ever be right! It can be made to appear justified through holding a particular view about things, one which is opposed to the limited view which those saints and rich people held, namely a comprehensive and all-encompassing view of the world.

And by this comprehensive view do you mean, thinking about plants, animals, humans, the environment, the earth through the eye of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, and going further to relate this to the earth's place in the solar system, galaxy, universe and the cosmos? And what is man's place in relation all of this and how everything might be interconnected like a net of jewels? Or is it something even more? But let me ask you this:

When a mosquito bites you and you swat it, is this not because of aversion and not because you are thinking in terms of your and the mosquito's place in the scheme of things?  When you chop off the chicken's head in order cook it for dinner, is it because you think in terms of natural selection, that you are motivated to do it, or is it that you think only about eating a tasty dish of chicken? It takes quite a bit of bullheadedness to deny what the real motivation for the killing is, and it takes a good deal of living in one's own head to then refer to an abstract idea such as 'the natural scheme of things', in order that the killing appear justified.

So thanks but no thanks for the kind of view which you think is superior.

If the Abrahamic prophets are claiming that killing for food is justified because the environment does not allow for vegetation, this is plain silliness on their part and foolish of you to agree with them. Animals kill for food but do so only enough to fill their bellies. They however do not entertain such silliness of view, one which makes man much more dangerous than any animal can ever be.


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Jul 23, 2011)

Why post an entire shabbad, because some of them are several pages long.  Shlok Seheskrit M 5 is too much to read to make a small comment.  I am trying to save time for all readers as the panktis I use are famous, anyway.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 23, 2011)

Harisimratkaur ji

The posting of an entire shabad is a forum Term of Service. There is only good reason for it. Saving time is laudable, true. However, the tendency to throw out a tuk here and pangatee there to prove a point is so tempting for so many who wish to discuss tenets of Sikhi. The result is that of posting the tuk that "proves" one's point, often missing the point of the tuk. Even worse is the tendency to search on a single word or term, and then to stack tuks and pangatees up in an article, 4 or 5 or even 20 to make a case. The cumulative effect is very impressive. The posters seems to know his/her stuff. But there again, the same idea expressed in Gurbani in one pangatee contributes a different meaning depending on the context of the shabad that surrounds it.

We are here to promote understanding of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and discussion of shabads is the ideal way. Per Professor Sahib Singh, the meanings of words and pangatees, even of shabads, requires a wholistic reading of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. As we gather the big encompassing ideas, then the particulars of word and phrase begin to fall into place. 

By posting from http://www.srigranth.org the posting of long shabad goes much faster. 

Thanks for your question.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 23, 2011)

Confused said:


> Randip ji,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:sippingcoffee:

NO

You back it up with a quote that say's it is NOT ok (whatever you are saying)!!


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 23, 2011)

Confused said:


> Randip ji,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NO

Please quote a shabad with an explanation. No one words replies. No one liners!

It is very simple. motherlylove


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 23, 2011)

harsimiritkaur said:


> "Awal Allah nuur upaya
> Qudrat ke sabh bande
> Ek noor te sabh jag upjeya
> Kaon bhale ko mande" ang 1349
> ...


I hope this shows the value of quoting full shabads as otherwise people could and would be misled to mis-quote lines as you have done.  Sorry for my directness.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 23, 2011)

Ambarsaria said:


> I hope this shows the value of quoting full shabads as otherwise people could and would be misled to mis-quote lines as you have done.  Sorry for my directness.
> 
> Sat Sri Akal.



Interestingly the essay is not only about meat but about misquoting, misunderstanding shabads.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 23, 2011)

harsimiritkaur said:


> We cannot even destroy anything. It the laws of physics, nothing gets destroyed. Things only convert to a different composition of molecules. The word ghatant to mean refers to change, not complete destruction. We cannot make anything completely be outside of God's huqam. Everything converts to a differing state of existence in the patalan patal, lakh agasan agas.
> 
> Ghatant ruupang, ghatant dipang, ghatan rav sasiry nekyetr gaganang
> Beauty fades away, islands fade away, the sun, moon, stars and sky fade away.
> ...


Harsimirat Kaur ji the above as I quoted is perhaps even more helpful to understand with Prof. Sahib Singh ji's Teeka embedded.

This is a great shabad and your statements for this shabad are valid.

However I don't understand how it relates to eating meat.  Unless you are implying that there is no difference between vegetables, meats and alcohol so we can have any or all of these.  I added alcohol to just verify the rigor of your statement in terms of eating meat.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## findingmyway (Aug 2, 2011)

Confused ji,
 I find your comments confusing in this case and I do see a strong Buddhist way of thinking. Every form of life is naturally geared for survival-thats why all biological processes have evolved the way they have. A spinach plant or potato plant wants to survive as much as a cow or dog or human. Just because humans do not have the capacity to perceive this with their own senses does not make it untrue and I think it is a very egotistical attitude to take – similar to the attitude of Romans who thought the Earth was the centre of the universe. Killing is killing whether it is a plant or animal, and is unavoidable in life. I don't see the difference in killing a plant and an animal as I am not bigheaded enough to limit my understanding of the world to my own senses and this is how Gurbani sees things too (as detailed earlier in the thread). Animal products (often byproduct from meat industry but not always) appear in the most unlikeliest places including our clothes, shoes, soaps, shampoos, cleaning products, hardback books, sports gear, cars, firefighting equipment, medical equipment and a thousand other things (including alcoholic drinks!). Sometimes these products are safer for the environment and for people than the synthetic alternatives. Indirectly the synthetic alternatives kill more life. So if you promote not killing on moral grounds then you should not be using any of these products either. Your stance on not killing yourself but not having problems with meat if it has already been killed confuses me as it seems a selfish way to behave showing concern for your own actions only (and hence attachment to self). If you were not consuming there would be no need for the killing to occur in the 1<sup>st</sup> place to it is an indirect way of supporting the action. Forgive my directness but your posts make no sense to me or maybe I've misunderstood.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 2, 2011)

JEEAAN KA AHAAR JEEA...declares GURBANI. ALL LIVING THINGS SURVIVE BY CONSUMING OTHER LIVING THINGS.

You are eating "my cow" screamed the Hindu....

"OH Yes..BUT your cow ate my grass" screamed back the Muslim....

and the GRASS grew on what ?? Earth made from Manure..made from the DEAD COW that the Hindu buried last year ???? Ha Ha 

GURU NANAK JI took us by the finger..and climbed the highest Mt everest..so we could LOOK DOWN and get a *Bird's eye view of everything*...then He took us by the finger again..and took us to greater heights..Gagan mehn Thaal rav Chand sooraj..Universes, Black holes and Blazing exploding Quasars.........BUT we came back down..stood with our NOSES pressed against a six foot high WALL....and declared..AH...THIS is the whole UNIVERSE..the Almighty BRICK pressing on our nose is SO *HUGE.*.we cant see anything else..IT Has to be the UNIVERSE !! WAH WAH WAHGURU !!....and GURU NANAK is just a tiny speck of a star billions of light years away....practically INVISIBLE compared to the *HUGE BRICK* 0.1 mm away from our nose....WAH WAH WAH WAHGURU.period.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 3, 2011)

Findingmyway ji,

Thanks for your response.



> I find your comments confusing in this case and I do see a strong Buddhist way of thinking. Every form of life is naturally geared for survival-thats why all biological processes have evolved the way they have.



You appeal to the concepts of "form of life" and "Biological process" where both plants and animals are grouped under. This is the result of worldly education, particularly that of biological science and which we so readily carried over and applied to general observations in daily life. I of course have come to question this and begun to note certain things about them that make plants and animals so different to each other, that the concept of "life" has now a very different meaning. 




> A spinach plant or potato plant wants to survive as much as a cow or dog or human. Just because humans do not have the capacity to perceive this with their own senses does not make it untrue and I think it is a very egotistical attitude to take â€“ similar to the attitude of Romans who thought the Earth was the centre of the universe.



And just because you say that plants are the same as animals does not make it true. ;-) And you are clearly projecting attributes that are human onto plants. 

Do you really think that a spinach plant has "desire"? And yes, we humans have the capacity to "perceive", and "be conscious", and "feel", and "think", which lead us to all having so many different inclinations, for example, to greed, to aversion, to kindness, to wisdom, to ignorance, to compassion, to jealousy, to miserliness, to faith etc. It is these and other such mental attributes which distinguish sentient beings (which include animals and humans) from plants, is it not?

And should such kind of distinction lead to an egotistical attitude? In breaking the "human" into being nothing more than a confluence of "elements", rather I think, that this leads to not having pride in being who we are. Indeed in this thread I've argued against human-centric attitudes and also encouraging more consideration for animals, have I not...?    




> Killing is killing whether it is a plant or animal, and is unavoidable in life. I don't see the difference in killing a plant and an animal as I am not bigheaded enough to limit my understanding of the world to my own sensesâ€¦â€¦..




It is good to keep in mind that we are limited by what we can perceive through the senses. This helps to not think that what we "experience" and think about, decides what actually exists and doesn't exists. But for an act to constitute "killing" according to my understanding, the following factors must be in place:

1. There is life
2. There is knowledge of life
3. There is intention to kill
4. There is effort to kill
5. There is consequent death

As you can now see, according to me, unlike animals and humans which are breathing creatures, plants are not living beings. So I wouldn't say that in plucking an apple out of a tree, I unavoidably am engaged in killing. On the other hand if I am lost in a forest and end up killing some small creature for food, I will not however feel justified in doing this but instead admit to being so much attached to dear life and to committing an evil act. 




> and this is how Gurbani sees things too (as detailed earlier in the thread).




And I'll be happy to make this my last response if this is what you insist on. ;-)




> Animal products (often byproduct from meat industry but not always) appear in the most unlikeliest places including our clothes, shoes, soaps, shampoos, cleaning products, hardback books, sports gear, cars, firefighting equipment, medical equipment and a thousand other things (including alcoholic drinks!).



The products are products; they are there for anyone to use or not use. I do not see any need to be concerned about what and where the different parts came from because this does nothing to change people's attitudes towards killing / not killing. If I know that some product had animal parts in it, I'd buy and use it if I think that it is of better quality than another one which does not have any animal parts. However, if no such product is available, I'd be happy with whatever is. I will not insist on having only the one whereby indirectly asking someone to kill in order that I have my preferred item.




> Sometimes these products are safer for the environment and for people than the synthetic alternatives. Indirectly the synthetic alternatives kill more life. So if you promote not killing on moral grounds then you should not be using any of these products either.



No, I'd be proliferating and doing just what you fear, namely making myself the center of the universe. Instead, my attention is drawn rightly to the only reasonable reference point, namely my own mind and the actions through speech and body coming from this. 

Man in trying to patch up his own mistakes will forever be involved in a losing battle. This is because he does not know that ignorance and greed is the cause of all the problems in the world and so will be caught up in the exact same mechanism in trying to fix things.




> Your stance on not killing yourself but not having problems with meat if it has already been killed confuses me as it seems a selfish way to behave showing concern for your own actions only (and hence attachment to self).



This is a common mis-perception. In turning the attention to one's own actions is akin to wearing sandals instead of trying to cover the earth with leather. This is the result of an understanding which includes seeing that all our concern for the other, because of this very lack of understanding about one's own mind, is more often than not, in fact aimed at serving one's own attachments to ideals. And idealism has been compared to a {censored}, a symbol of stupidity.  

Indeed it is because we lack understanding about our motives, that all our actions causes more problems than any good.  Our minds are scattered and we get caught up in a struggle to do good deeds. We are never sure of our actions and often feel guilty and then try again to do things in order to set things right. And we have no clue when what otherwise is seen in other people as clearly wrong, is motivating our own deeds. 

On the other hand, when we begin to pay attention to the "now", which must in the end be our own experience in the moment, we gradually become freed from such kind of senseless activities. This then opens the way for good qualities such as kindness, compassion, morality, giving etc. to manifest and grow. So is it not then that in fact, the self-centered activity is in the case of those people who do not take into account the state of their own minds, whereas those you judge as being so, is actually encouraging of real concern for other beings?

Besides, in my separating the issue of eating meat from that of killing, what is being done is putting the spotlight on what should be considered, instead of being murky and caught up in wrong ways of thinking about things. Killing is killing and we need to avoid confusing the issue by tying this up with the fact of eating / not eating meat. How can morality grow if we interpret actions that have nothing to do with morality and think that it does? 

Understanding is understanding, it is not attachment to self, but in fact a process of detachment. It is when there is no understanding but instead an involvement in the "world", that attachment to self manifests and thrives.




> If you were not consuming there would be no need for the killing to occur in the 1st place to it is an indirect way of supporting the action. Forgive my directness but your posts make no sense to me or maybe I've misunderstood.



The only way to encourage other people not to kill is to address the problem directly. 

If I were at a fish seller where they killed the fish when someone orders, I'd not buy from there. This may or may not indicate to the seller that I have issues with killing but not to eating meat. If I cared about his wellbeing and saw signs that he'd listen, perhaps I'd start a conversation with him about the matter. But if I simply avoid buying meat from the supermarket or even a butcher, how is the message going to get to anyone that killing is wrong? To think along the lines that enough number of people stop eating meat is going to stop killing is not an expression of any real concern, but a self-centered activity. And the act of avoiding buying and eating meat not only will not get the right message across, but in fact likely cause derision to arise in the other person. After all you'd likely come across as not having his interests in mind, but only to your own ideas. It is like someone trying to make a statement by wearing a T-shirt with a slogan and willfully unconcerned about what other people think.

But even if the whole world did stop buying meat, this may stop killing from happening because there is no market. But does this in anyway address the fact of each person's inherent tendency to attachment and aversion which is the root of the problem? Would not the tendency to kill be fully intact and readily manifest when the market opens / outside circumstances change? 

The only way I can help anyone is to first be clear in my own thinking about such issues. If I confuse and muddle matters, wouldn't I in fact cause for confusion in others as well?


----------



## findingmyway (Aug 3, 2011)

I have a few comments:
1) I am not giving plants human characteristics but accepting that they have a different form of life which is no less important than that of a dog or cow. Just because you can see human characteristics in animals, in their personalities you rate their life higher and deny the spinach plant having life at all!!!! You do preach against being egocentric but this is exactly what this attitude is. How do you classify carnivorous plants such as the venus fly trap? How can you deny anything life? The desire to live is demonstrated by behaviour. Who knows what our senses are missing!
2) It is wrong to ignore science and judge the world based only on experience. Humans don't even have the best senses in the animal kingdom so why should the world be based on our senses? Because we can communicate and make decisions? Again very egotistical.
3) A also find your assertion of the meat in a supermarket being diferent from the meat from a butcher direct hypocritical.
Our understanding will not align here quite clearly so I do no think it fruitful to continue this dialogue further.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 3, 2011)

I think what will simplify this problem is if we figured out who knows the Truth and listen to that person.

So if I may...

Jasleen ji,
When you go deep inside yourself, do you think you know the Truth?

Confused ji,
When you go deep inside yourself, do you think you know the Truth?

My guess is that you both will say that you know the Truth. (but correct me if I am wrong, I maybe wrong.)

Then if both of you know the Truth, what is the meaning of calling each other false? 

If I could understand this, I think I would understand "Fools who wrangle over flesh" better, which is what the thread is about. So help me out here guys.


----------



## Lee (Aug 3, 2011)

BhagatSingh said:


> I think what will simplify this problem is if we figured out who knows the Truth and listen to that person.
> 
> So if I may...
> 
> ...


 
Hahah Bhagat ji,

Wise words indeed!

I know next to nothing, I mean of course I think I know quite a lot and in truth I guess I do, but this is mostly subjective knowledge.

There is only one objective truth that I can be certian of and it is this:

Ik onkar!

There is soooooooo much knowledge in these few words, so much so that God caused to be created 1400 or so other pages of Guru ji to explain this.

My take and yes I belive there is some truth in it is this.

God has made the world so that most things kill to survive.
We humans have teeth that tear flesh and vegatable matter and our digestion is such that it copes with both.

There is no problem then eating meat, although perhaps as one gets closer to God, becomes more and more Gurmukh the desire for meat lessens, yes I think there is some truth in this.

So fools who wrangle over flesh are indeed foolish, as a human on the path to Gurmukh soon discoveres that they have stopped eating meat.

You see what I'm saying here?  It is indeed foolish to argue thusly, as a consequense of walking the path of Sikhi means that meat becomes less desirable for you.


Do those enlightned souls wrangle over eating flesh?  If so then perhaps they are not as enlightend as they thought?

So then those in the 'do not eat meat' camp, are they ridiculeing those who are less enlightned?  Is this the Sikh way?


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 3, 2011)

Problems are when people tell others what to do rather than describe what they do!

Equivalently problems are when people justify their actions or wisdom higher than others.  

We all have similar computers in our heads some keep them busy in small stuff, some on big stuff and some decide to not use these a lot.  Each has a reason but no one has a higher purpose as of such.

The following gentleman perhaps has lot to teach us with simplicity and heart/soul in his voice while the sound seems to come from his soul,

‪sufiana kalam,  faqeer, Allah wala, Sialkot, Sain‬‏      - YouTube

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 3, 2011)

Findingmyway ji,

You may not wish to continue with this discussion, but I do not like to be misrepresented.



> I have a few comments:
> 1) I am not giving plants human characteristics but accepting that they have a different form of life which is no less important than that of a dog or cow.



You had said:
"A spinach plant or potato plant *wants* to survive as much as a cow or dog or human."

And I asked you:
"Do you really think that a spinach plant has "desire"?"

So according to you "wanting" is a mental reality which plants also have? And you know this, how?
And please take care not to bring the idea of something being less or more important into the picture. I wasn't thinking in these terms at all, and have no need to. 



> Just because you can see human characteristics in animals, in their personalities you rate their life higher and deny the spinach plant having life at all!!!!



And what have you observed that makes you think that plants and animals are on the same level? Or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
And btw, it is not "human" characteristics that I use as deciding factor whether something has "life" or not. Indeed it is from considering such things as consciousness, perception, feeling and characteristic traits as conditioned mental realities separate from any association with "human", that I conclude that these are marks of sentience and then use as reference point for judging what in fact is living and what is not. 

And again, I am not thinking in terms of higher or lower at all. Why should I even think to compare plants with animals in this particular context given that plants are not sentient beings to begin with? 




> You do preach against being egocentric but this is exactly what this attitude is.



So you are saying that it is alright for a Sikh to proclaim that human beings are highest and therefore he has the right to kill any animal in order that he can continue to live, but when someone else points out the fact of difference in the capacity to develop moral and other mental qualities between an animal and a human, he is being egoistical?

Well haven't all my arguments been to show that animals deserve consideration as much as human beings? And if I do state that the human being is higher, this is nothing to be proud of, as it is only the result of one particular karma arisen just before the death of the previous life (and btw, I've heard a well know Sikh teacher express more or less the same idea as well). The attitude that comes from this kind of understanding is that, it is so very hard to be born a human and so easy as some kind of animal. Is this a basis for being egoistical or in fact just the opposite? 

So if I do not think to group plants with animals and human beings, why must you think that this will condition pride? 




> How do you classify carnivorous plants such as the venus fly trap?



I have seen a close-up in a documentary on Blu-ray. What I observed is that the fly can be on the surface of the venus fly trap for quite a long time and nothing happens. It is only when one of its legs touches particular sensors that the lips (?) of the fly trap close. There was absolutely no sign of any kind of "knowing" on the part of the fly trap. Like so many other plants, I believe that such things come down to being just the action of material phenomena, like chemical reactions.




> How can you deny anything life? The desire to live is demonstrated by behaviour. Who knows what our senses are missing!



Human beings so readily project onto everything else their own reactions to sense perceptions. As I said above, my judgement is in part the result taking into consideration the different mental phenomena without a need to associate these with the idea of "human". But I wonder if you are not projecting when you say, "The desire to live is demonstrated by behaviour"? What is your reference point when you say this? 




> 2) It is wrong to ignore science and judge the world based only on experience.



If by experience you mean what I have perceived and concluded in the past, I am not judging from this at all. What I state is the result of studying the Buddha's teachings and understanding it as applied to my own experiences "now" and not some past memory or some such. What I do know about the senses in fact, is that these experience only 7 of the total of 28 physical phenomena. I also take it that not all mental realities can be known through the mind even by some enlightened individuals. It is not really therefore about "experience", but understanding and its development beginning with the intellectual level. And it is at this level that I make the most important distinction, namely that of reality vs. concept. It is this which has led me to conclude that science has not made any statement about reality ever, and will never do so. And if you are interested, we can discuss this in an old thread that I initiated sometime back in the Buddhism section....?




> Humans don't even have the best senses in the animal kingdom so why should the world be based on our senses?



It is not about being able to see or hear above or below a particular range of light and sound waves. It is not about having an electronic microscope or a powerful telescope to see what the naked eye can't. The Truth that I refer to is here and now and we all experience it!!! 

To illustrate, three scientists, one looking down a microscope, one up a telescope and one at a chart. For all three are the experiences through the eye, of seeing experiencing the reality of visible object, and of thinking experiencing concepts. Also associated with these there would be the realities of feeling, perception, attention, concentration, attachment, ignorance and so on. It is these that all of them would do well to have direct understanding of, but instead because of ignorance and craving, it is microscopic particles, celestial objects and mathematical data that are taken seriously as pointing to the truth. But the fact is that these are in fact only concepts based on memory and thinking which do not have any intrinsic nature.    

So again, it is not about experiences but understanding, and this does not depend on where we are or what we are doing. The Buddha for example insighted into the nature of physical phenomena such that the concept of fundamental particles more basic than quarks or anything science has come upon was referred to without the need for any microscope or mathematical data. Likewise he talked about world systems and the birth and death (metaphorically speaking) of stars without the need to look up to the sky. 

Concepts are inconsequential when it comes to understanding of the Truth. Only with the arising of the mental factor of "wisdom" is the Truth known to any extent, and the object of such wisdom is characteristic of realities. Failing this we remain lost in the ocean of concepts and continue to be deluded. 




> Because we can communicate and make decisions? Again very egotistical.




Not because this happens, but coming to understand that which makes this happen amongst other things.
But even if I were wrong about this, how does this make it egotistical? If I am highlighting understanding and taking this to be all important, and which would no doubt imply that animals do not have such capacity, why draw the particular conclusion from this? And again I'd like to ask why no objection when a Sikh insists on the superiority of humans at the expense of all other living creatures, but when I point simply to the difference and not think that I have the right to kill them, you consider this egoistical?

Ego is when one compares oneself with someone else as higher, lower or same, which is not what I was doing. To state that a human is superior does not imply that "I" feel superior because I am a human being. And I wasn't making the particular distinction to justify courses of action aimed at my own interest, unlike some people here who want to be able to kill animals and not be blamed for it and therefore have recourse to the particular theories that they hold and hide behind.  




> 3) A also find your assertion of the meat in a supermarket being diferent from the meat from a butcher direct hypocritical.




I don't think all butchers kill, so it is not the general butcher that I was referring to, but the particular ones which would kill just for me when I make an order. This is equivalent to my ordering the killing. That which is available in the supermarket is only meat, which is something that is there regardless of whether I buy it or not. So these two are very different situations hence not hypocritical of me to choose one and not the other. 

But what do you think about this particular attitude, "not wanting to be killed but feeling justified in killing other creatures", does this not appear hypocritical to you?




> Our understanding will not align here quite clearly so I do no think it fruitful to continue this dialogue further.




One thing we agree on at least. ;-)


----------



## findingmyway (Aug 3, 2011)

Much of  what you are saying is purely semantics. The processes shown by a plant  is indicative of its 'desire' to survive. All biological processes have  developed to survive whether that be respiration or photosynthesis,  growth and reproduction in all its forms, movement in all its forms  whether vertical or longitudinal. The word desire can have a very broad  meaning.

 Humans are separate to all other life forms due to our  consciousness. Saying animals are on the same plane but plants are not  worthy of that status is the egotistical attitude and arises from the  oevr reliance on our senses-we can see and experience animal life more  easily, we can hear animal screams more easily so this leads to the  premise that animals are more important.

 All of life is just  chemical reactions! Our ability to see is due to dozens of reactions,  our ability todigest food is a load of chemical reactions etc. Research  shows that plants react to a lot more in the environment than we  realise. Assuming a plant cannot sense just because we are unable to  perceive it is the egotistical attitude.

 As far as the  difference between supermarket meat and butcher meat goes, the  distinction drawn between them still seems a little selfish and immature  to me as if there was no demand the supermarkets would not stock meat.  By buying supermarket meat or products containing meat related products,  one is still supporting the killing-allowing and encouraging it to  happen. Market forces dictate only those things will be prodiced that  can sell!! To ignore this is living in a cocoon world.

  BhagatSingh, no I do not know the whole truth-I never can as I am merely  human. I will never have such a high opinion of myself. However, I  strongly believe that the SGGS tells me the truth. As much as I respect  the Buddha's words or any other wise person, it comes down to the Guru's  words being my guide as that means more to me than anything else as it  makes more sense to me than anything else. My Guru tells me that  abstainign from meat alone will not make me more spiritual. My Guru  tells me there is life in everything and this matches with what I know  as a scientist so I feel pain in seeing cut flowers merely for  decoration as it seems a waste of life. When being eaten, at least that  life had meaning. My Guru's words and guidance are enough for me to  accept diet is individual choice. My Guru tells me not to take the high  road based on diet and therefore I refuse to accept a higher morality in  vegetaranism alone. My Guru tells me the truth, not me. That is the point of this thread.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 3, 2011)

findingmyway said:


> Much of  what you are saying is purely semantics. The processes shown by a plant  is indicative of its 'desire' to survive. All biological processes have  developed to survive whether that be respiration or photosynthesis,  growth and reproduction in all its forms, movement in all its forms  whether vertical or longitudinal. The word desire can have a very broad  meaning.
> 
> Humans are separate to all other life forms due to our  consciousness. Saying animals are on the same plane but plants are not  worthy of that status is the egotistical attitude and arises from the  oevr reliance on our senses-we can see and experience animal life more  easily, we can hear animal screams more easily so this leads to the  premise that animals are more important.
> 
> ...


Findingmyway ji there is nothing wrong with your beliefs.  I saved plants where someone else would let them die for winter in Canada.

Your logic has several failings and goes down to "What the creator" and associated "Creation does".

*Esxamples:  *


Big fish eat small fish
Lions eat Zebras
Hyenas eat zebras
Weeds destroy grass
Aphids destroy roses
Ladybugs eat Aphids
At every situation there is a possible hurt.  You are the last enemy as for vegetative and other life is concerned.  Creation has set rules for the circle of life.  By possibly violating the rules you perhaps are bad in creator's eyes (let us say "Good" bad  mundahug).

From dust to much back to dust and back to much and so on ...........

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 3, 2011)

One of the ways, only one of several, where the thread takes off on into a blind alley, instead of open highway. First query: Why do we conflate "pain" with "suffering?" Are they really the same thing? Second query: Is suffering optional and reserved for only those sentient beings who have the ability to observe and evaluate their pain, and later to call it suffering?


----------



## Lee (Aug 4, 2011)

spnadmin said:


> One of the ways, only one of several, where the thread takes off on into a blind alley, instead of open highway. First query: Why do we conflate "pain" with "suffering?" Are they really the same thing? Second query: Is suffering optional and reserved for only those sentient beings who have the ability to observe and evaluate their pain, and later to call it suffering?


 
Pain and suffering are offten equated, yet it is not always true that pain is suffering.


When I was little I went down a wooden slide and managed to get a massive splinter in my butt cheeck.  My father having me bare {censored}d over his lap whilst getting rid of the splinter is a memory that will be forever with me.  That pain was incredible, but my father was doing it to relive my suffering.  Is giving birth suffering?

Suffering too comes in many forms, do the undereducated suffer?


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 4, 2011)

Lee ji

We are resonating. Do plants suffer? If they do, what is our ethical obligation to them when we kill them for food? Does coal suffer? If it does, what is our ethical obligation when we use it for electricity generation? 

What is the difference between pain and suffering? Is any special awareness or evolutionary level of brain functioning required before suffering rears its ugly head?


----------



## Lee (Aug 4, 2011)

spnadmin said:


> Lee ji
> 
> We are resonating. Do plants suffer? If they do, what is our ethical obligation to them when we kill them for food? Does coal suffer? If it does, what is our ethical obligation when we use it for electricity generation?
> 
> What is the difference between pain and suffering? Is any special awareness or evolutionary level of brain functioning required before suffering rears its ugly head?


 

Good questions all.

Do plants suffer?  Well plants are alive I guess we cannot doubt that, but suffering means a certian level of sentiance does it not?

My childhood was not a good one, as I grew though I had no comprehension of how badly treated I was.  I had thought my experiances normal and in line with every other child.  It was only when I reached a certian age and had experianced the way other children grew up that i realised how bad my childhood had been.

So did I suffer as child? Well yes and no.  When I was a child I had no idea that I was indeed suffering, only when I was out of that situation did hindsigth kick in.

So suffering is consequnces of self knowledge.  No self knowldege no suffering, so although I of course cannot say for sure, I do not belive that plants suffer.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 4, 2011)

Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

_mehlaa 1._
_vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
_khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay._
_ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay._
_bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay._
_naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay._

_First Mehl:_
_Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,__ and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed._
_What  punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in  the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out._
_And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below._
_Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji


----------



## findingmyway (Aug 4, 2011)

Ambarsaria said:


> Findingmyway ji there is nothing wrong with your beliefs.  I saved plants where someone else would let them die for winter in Canada.
> 
> Your logic has several failings and goes down to "What the creator" and associated "Creation does".
> 
> ...



Ambarsaria ji,
 You have not pointed out a failing in my logic but simply validated it.  It is impossible to avoid inflciting pain, suffering and killing due to  the nature of the circle of life. Therefore, using vegetarianism as a  higer moral ground and saying it is the way forwards not to cause pain  is a fallacy. Vegetarianism alone does not promote morality. Vegetarians  are no more empathetic than meat eaters are any worse or more immoral.  That is the point.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 4, 2011)

Randip Singh said:


> Page 143 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji
> 
> _mehlaa 1._
> _vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay._
> ...



Nearly everyone..Buddhist to a kindergarten kid can see a "Goat" suffering/bleating/struggling/groaning/pleading/bleeding/whatever.......

BUT ONLY GURU NANAK JI could see the SUGAR CANE !!!

MILLIONS were sending water to their ancestors in the SUN...
BUT ONLY Guur nanak Ji saw that this was NOT what it looked like...

ONLY GURU NANAK JI had the COMPLETE BIRDS EYE VIEW of things..and whats more even MODERN SCIENCE has nothing to say against it....cannot refute it an iota....

WE are the luckiest persons on Earth that GURU NANAK JI GAVE us a LEG UP on this and simialr "problems"....confusions..
LETS follow our GURU..and leave the rest to flounder and sink in thier own self made quick sands of confusion..wanderings...short-sightedness...


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 4, 2011)

Sorry findingmyway ji I perhaps went on extended tangent based on the following line in your post,



> ……  so I feel pain in seeing cut flowers merely for decoration as it seems a waste of life. When being eaten, at least that life had meaning.
> 
> _Are you saying beautiful cut flowers do nothing for living humans in terms of chemical positive reactions for most!_ _I know I like them give fragrance in the house versus using chemical sprays.  This is uplifting._



Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 4, 2011)

Sorry findingmyway ji I perhaps went on extended tangent based on the following line in your post,

 Sat Sri Akal[/quote]


ambarsariah ji..
true..
BUT all those garlands sent to funeral homes during wakes...and to weddings etc are more for decoration/obligation more than fragrance...those are a WASTE...similar to having tiger/bear skin rugs in the living room....or elephnat tusks ...12 singeh heads on walls...


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 5, 2011)

Findingmyway ji,




> Much of what you are saying is purely semantics.



Not semantics, but seeing difference in terms of characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause between two very different phenomena.

If plants had desire, there would also be clinging and taking things as me and mine. Also there would be aversion when that which is desired is unavailable or fades away or some undesirable object comes into contact. Furthermore, desire never stops at one object, but forever seeks new experiences as can easily be seen in one's own experience and inferred from observing the behaviours of animals and other humans but not that of plants. 

And if you have really considered the nature of desire, you'd understand what it means when it is said that desire leads to being born in order to experience pleasant and unpleasant objects through the different senses. From this it can be deduced that if plants also had desire and sentience, their very nature contradicts this particular aspect of desire. In other words given the nature of desire, this could never result in what we know plants to be.

Furthermore, plants are totally dependent on the environment (and man's desire ;-)) to thrive, but an animal can move around to change its particular circumstance. And this reflects yet another reality namely 'will' or 'intention', which you'd not think plants to possess, or do you?

But you say:



> The processes shown by a plant is indicative of its 'desire' to survive. All biological processes have developed to survive whether that be respiration or photosynthesis, growth and reproduction in all its forms, movement in all its forms whether vertical or longitudinal. The word desire can have a very broad meaning.



Broad meaning if you wish to use it metaphorically, but as I said, my reference point is actual characteristic, functions etc. of a particular kind of "reality". So when you say that plants respire, I don't think that you'd be talking about the same reality that which is behind "breathing" in the case of animals. When you talk about photosynthesis, again this would not be something that is associated with any mental phenomena. Growth, yes, humans grow too, but this *is* in fact physical phenomena. Reproduction; let us not be fooled by this concept just because science uses it indiscriminately with regard to both plants and animals. Firstly, no doubt this requires the coming together of two different kinds of matter, but that's where the similarity between plants and animals stops. In the case of humans, birth happens at the point of conception and involves the arising of a mental phenomenon, namely birth consciousness, which is immediately followed by a never ending chain of other kinds of consciousness to constitute "life". This does not happen in the case of plants where all that really happens is change of physical phenomena. And movement, are you referring to such things as the sunflower turning to face the sun and the creeper crawling up the wall? Do you really believe these to be the same as say a spider spinning a web and then waiting for a fly to get caught in it?




> Humans are separate to all other life forms due to our consciousness. Saying animals are on the same plane but plants are not worthy of that status is the egotistical attitudeâ€¦â€¦.



I don't understand this. You say that humans are distinguished from other forms of life *due to consciousness*, but then go on to deny that this also distinguishes other animals from plants? Please explain.

And again, you refer to egoistical attitude. But conceit like attachment, is also a reality with a particular characteristic, function and cause. We can discuss this if you like and then see whether what you say is true. As of now however it appears as though you are only throwing the particular label at me. I don't see how it can be conceit if my perception is that plants are not living beings. In other words, why would I want to compare myself with plants? Perhaps it is because you are convinced that plants are living beings and that I am willfully denying this, and that this is because I'd like to feel superior? In any case, do you not see this as quite unnecessary to factor into the discussion?

I mean, I too could say things such as that, you are denying the truth of what I am saying because to accept it would be to put the whole idea about God to question. Indeed I could also suggest that the belief in God is the ultimate form of self-identification whereby someone can feel equal, as well as inferior and superior, all at the same time and thereby encouraging conceit. But would doing this be helpful? 




> Humans are separate to all other life forms due to our consciousness. Saying animals are on the same plane but plants are not worthy of that status is the egotistical attitude and arises from the oevr reliance on our senses-we can see and experience animal life more easily, we can hear animal screams more easily so this leads to the premise that animals are more important.



Instead of concluding that it is a result of 'over reliance of the senses', you could think instead, that it is from *understanding* the senses and mind that the conclusions are drawn. 

Understanding the senses would mean automatically, that one knows exactly its limitations. But this would be due to the mental reality of "wisdom" which than takes on the position of the 'leader'. Would you now think to question wisdom as well and perhaps that this is also "limited"? If so, pray tell, by virtue of which mental faculty you would know that!!?




> All of life is just chemical reactions! Our ability to see is due to dozens of reactions, our ability to digest food is a load of chemical reactions etc.




And if you are implying further, that consciousness is the result of chemical reaction in the brain, know that this is a materialistic view coming to the fore, one which clearly reflects the influence of science on one's world view. 

It is understandable that science would arrive at such kind of conclusion, given that it at no point studied mental phenomena as it arises and manifests. From beginning to end it is involved only in "concepts", which means that even physical phenomena has never been touched upon. It works only with shadows and is like the seven blind men holding the different parts of the elephant who will never ever come to know what the elephant really looks like.

For someone who has taken the step in the direction of studying mind as it arises to experience an object, it will be understood that the conditions for the arising of mind are not how the scientific materialist thinks. He'd know amongst other things that greed for example, arises immediately following the experience of particular objects, not because some chemical reaction took place somewhere in the brain, but clearly because of the nature of greed itself. He'd know also that the tendency to this goes back to the past and accumulates every time that it arises such that it will arise again in the future when the conditions are right. 

If you are suggesting that in fact one of the conditions for attachment must be some chemical reaction in the brain, know that the speed at which attachment arises and performs its function and falls away is much, much faster than for example, the taste that is experienced. And taste itself is a material reality so fleeting that in one second, there are countless instances of this. Where then is there room for the idea of chemical reaction being cause for sentience, let alone originating in the brain!!? That you think this appears to be is because you are caught up in the world of concepts and have no clue about reality / Truth.

That you even conceive of the idea of 'chemical reaction' requires trillions of mind moments including, seeing and thinking to perform their functions before even a sense of something going on, not to mention what it takes for the concept to form. 

From one perspective it actually sounds very silly that that by which one knows anything at all, namely consciousness, is judged as being a by-product of its own creation, namely concept. Wisdom on the other hand will actually come in from the other direction and see the urgency to study consciousness itself and not be drawn by ideas conceived of by ignorance.

Science can be excused for falling back on a materialist view. However for someone who has expressed an interest in a religion where it is taught that mental states such as greed, aversion, ego etc. are to be overcome and that good qualities are to be developed, to still think that these come down to mere chemical reactions, is a shame. Has it by any chance been suggested in Sikh teachings that if one somehow caused a change in chemical process in the brain, that this then could lead to the unwanted qualities to be replaced by the good ones? Would you think perhaps that science could one day come up with the "enlightenment pill" or something? Ridiculous is't it to follow that line of thought?




> Research shows that plants react to a lot more in the environment than we realise. Assuming a plant cannot sense just because we are unable to perceive it is the egotistical attitude.




If it were ego that is the driving force, what would stop me from going on to talk about how superior humans are to animals, for which I'm sure I'd get approval from several members here given so much pride in stating how superior human beings are? And don't forget that my conclusion regarding plants not being sentient does not come from the kind of observation that you are suggesting, but more than that.




> As far as the difference between supermarket meat and butcher meat goes, the distinction drawn between them still seems a little selfish and immature to me as if there was no demand the supermarkets would not stock meat. By buying supermarket meat or products containing meat related products, one is still supporting the killing-allowing and encouraging it to happen. Market forces dictate only those things will be prodiced that can sell!! To ignore this is living in a cocoon world.




Sure if no one buys meat, no one would stock them for sale and that would automatically mean less killing. But has the tendency to kill been addressed or is this mainly about economics? And with regard to those who simply don't buy, do they really see the harm of killing or is there some other motivating factor?

My attempt at separating the issue of eating meat from killing has been to encourage focusing rightly on what really constitutes an immoral act. Eating is eating and is attachment of course but harmless, however killing is killing no matter what reason we give ourselves. To mix the two is to take the attention away from what should be considered on to what is in fact the result of a proliferation of view. How can morality grow if one mistakes what is simply an act of ordinary attachment and think this to be an evil act. Indeed to do so must be the result of the worse of evil acts, namely wrong understanding. After all to mistake what is not evil for evil likely leads to also taking what *is* evil for not being so! And this is exactly what has happened here as when you and others come out and give justification for killing animals!!

So really, when I buy meat from the supermarket but at the same time do not condone killing, and you do not buy meat but think it is alright to kill for food, it is really you who is encouraging killing. 

And the effect of wrong understanding does not stop here. In taking your decision of not buying meat as effecting the larger population can only come from having put yourself at the center of action, and this is arrogance and conceit. After all, you do not even see any need to go up to some individual and talk sense into him, yet you believe that your 'silent protest' is going to cause a ripple effect.  Indeed this is all a game that you are playing with yourself, one foot is on the side where you like to think that you are doing a good deed, and the other is on the side where you protect a cherished set of beliefs. Is this not hypocrisy? 

And let us talk now a bit about what constitutes a cocoon world. 
But first, what is the "world"?
Because there is only one moment of consciousness through one of the five senses and the mind at a time, the world  must come down to what it is that is arising and manifesting *now*. If there is hearing; it is the world of hearing, if it is thinking; it is the world of thinking. These are ephemeral and their nature is to disintegrate and fall away. And so the world must actually come down to being 'that which is of the nature to disintegrate' or in Buddhist terms, that which is "dukkha".   

That we conceive of the conventional world populated with people, animals, plants and things, this is the result of the thinking process and based on memory gathered from the experience of one or more of the five senses. This is natural and even necessary; else we wouldn't be able to function at all. However the problem comes when we take such perceptions as representing "reality", which would then make them appear to last in time, have individual existence and being inherently desirable. And this goes against the truth of impermanence, suffering and non-self. 

It is this that I consider the process of building a cocoon around oneself, which I must admit to doing as well from time to time. But this is not what goes on when I insist on separating the issue of eating meat and that of killing. After all, the direction taken is one which leads to considering the 'one moment one world' Truth. Rather it is you who appears to have wrapped yourself up with "ideals" after having conflated all those experiences and take the end product so seriously. So much so that instead of being aware of what is right here and now, you rely on a set of beliefs to motivate your decision to act. This is living in the head. And what you perceive of me is from within this cocoon of yours, after all my position if seen correctly, can be read as an encouragement to live "one moment at a time"â€¦..

All that said I'd like you to know that although I have been direct and used strong expressions, my perception of you is not how this may impress. I do believe that you have something positive otherwise I wouldn't bother sweating it out so much.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 5, 2011)

Gyani ji,




> Nearly everyone..Buddhist to a kindergarten kid can see a "Goat" suffering/bleating/struggling/groaning/pleading/bleeding/whatever.......




This is what the Buddhist has to say about "suffering" or Dukkha:

Quote:
Dukkhata: (abstr. noun fr. dukkha): 'the state of suffering', painfulness, unpleasantness, the unsatisfactoriness of existence. "There are three kinds of suffering: 
(1) suffering as pain (dukkha-dukkhata), 
(2) the suffering inherent in the formations (saá¹…khara-dukkhata), 
(3) the suffering in change (vipariá¹‡Äma-dukkhatÄ)" (S. XLV, 165; D. 33).

(1) is the bodily or mental feeling of pain as actual]y felt. 
(2) refers to the oppressive nature of all formations of existence (i.e. all conditioned phenomena), due to their continual arising and passing away; this includes also experiences associated with neutral feeling. 
(3) refers to bodily and mental pleasant feelings, "because they are the cause for the arising of pain when they change" (Vis.M. XIV, 34f).<end quote>

So really what you are referring to is no. 1 in the above, and yes everyone knows this. It is no. 2 which is what only a Buddha can teach about. And yes, you could say that a sugar cane is dukkha, provided that you keep in mind that it is the ephemeral material phenomena that are the basis for the particular concept which is being referred to. But if you think that the sugar cane "experiences" dukkha as in the first meaning, then you are asserting what even some fools who wrangle over flesh will not. This is because even they would know that the sound of sugar cane crushing is due to the earth element striking against earth element.

I believe that Guru Nanak was using the example only as a metaphor to express a different point from what you and others here make. But don't ask me what that point is and I do not wish to get into a discussion about it. 




> ONLY GURU NANAK JI had the COMPLETE BIRDS EYE VIEW of things..and whats more even MODERN SCIENCE has nothing to say against it....cannot refute it an iota....




Aw come on. You are not praising Guru Nanak when you state this, but in fact making him appear possibly misguided as far as I'm concerned. You are only projecting your own misperceptions onto him. Science knows nothing but shadows, so how can it be used to judge what is and what is not the Truth?


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 5, 2011)

Lee said:


> Good questions all.
> 
> Do plants suffer?  Well plants are alive I guess we cannot doubt that, but suffering means a certian level of sentiance does it not?
> 
> ...



Interesting point Leeji, if we do not know we are suffering, then are we suffering, does a plant have knowledge?, and if it does have knowledge, does it have memory? some very quick research points to the goldfish having the shortest memory, at around 3 months, as far as  I know, plants have no brain, and actions are chemically induced, or by tripping sensors. 

HMm, Lee, now that you know you suffered in the past tense, and bearing in mind you did not suffer then, what suffering does it cause you now, bearing in mind that time has passed?. In essence, does suffering without knowledge mean that when you have that knowledge, you will suffer?, as clearly you cannot suffer in hindsight, or can you?


----------



## Lee (Aug 5, 2011)

harry haller said:


> Interesting point Leeji, if we do not know we are suffering, then are we suffering, does a plant have knowledge?, and if it does have knowledge, does it have memory? some very quick research points to the goldfish having the shortest memory, at around 3 months, as far as I know, plants have no brain, and actions are chemically induced, or by tripping sensors.
> 
> HMm, Lee, now that you know you suffered in the past tense, and bearing in mind you did not suffer then, what suffering does it cause you now, bearing in mind that time has passed?. In essence, does suffering without knowledge mean that when you have that knowledge, you will suffer?, as clearly you cannot suffer in hindsight, or can you?


 
Harry ji,

I guess there is some truth in the sayin 'ignorance is bliss'.

Yes of course my childhood has effeted me, in all sorts of ways, for good and for ill, I am like the rest of us a product of my enviroment.

Am I suffering now?  Well yes and no again, I think we all suffer from time to time.  I'm a dad myself now and when my 15 year old boy comes home late at night I can't help but worry about him, this is suffering. Do I still suffer for my past, well yes and no again.

Does a plant have knowledge?

That is agreat question and I would have to say yes.

Let me explain that.  There is something in a plants dna that makes it seek the sun, you can see if you have any potted plants in your house, say on your window sills that the plants move, the flowers follow the sun around the sky.  The seed grows up towards the sun not down, the roots though go down to seek for water and nutriates.

On the surface of it these things are no more than chemical signals, and the biology of the plant in action.  But I belive we can eqaute such things with an animals instincts.  The baby bird is born with the instinctual knowledge to open it's mouth when the parents comes back to the nest with the worm.

Our own brains are no more than a chemial electrical soup, yet this soup grants us a sense of self.

So I can say yes a plant has knowledge, encoded knowledge.  Haha perhaps a better question would be, is the plant aware of it's knowledge?


----------



## findingmyway (Aug 5, 2011)

Confused ji,
You miss my point again and again. I am not asking you to compare  yourself to a plant but I will not consider the life of a plant less  important than the life of an animal. See the shabad posted by Randip  ji. Understanding of the senses includes appreciating their shortcomings  and accepting the limitaitons of human senses. That is what I mean by  avoiding over reliance in senses.

Here's some more info about the senses of plants:
http://www.brianjford.com/soulsa.htm
http://www.ehow.com/about_5367378_plant-reaction-music.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320720.800-stressed-plants-cry-for-help.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=1&em

Many fish and animals also do not have a reproductive process that is  involved. Does that make them any less animal? Processes may be  different but the basic biological premise is the same-combining of  parts from male and female to produce a brand new organism with no  mixing between species. Finally, do you really think a butcher or farmer  is a more 'evil' being and is less able to behave in a noble way  compared to a person who consumes meat from the supermarket or from a  person who is vegetarian?!!

Once again, the SIKH (not Buddhist) perspective is that abstaining from  meat eating does not make a person more noble. Life is present in both  plants and animals so we are always killing for food. Go back and read  the shabads in this thread to demonstrate both points. I rest my case :book1:


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 5, 2011)

Bhagat Sadhna Ji whose shabads are in SGGS was a BUTCHER. The false tales about him becoming a "ex-butcher" to be acceptable as Bhagat are without basis because there are NO "EX" in SGGS. Kabir didnt become an "EX-weaver" in order to become Bhagat..Bhagat ravidass ji didnt become "EX-Leather worker" to become acceptable as Bhagat.Dhanna ji didnt have to be "EX-Jatt farmer" to become Bhagat... So Sadhana was no more /less "evil? than Kabir Ji ro ravidass Ji or Dhanna ji,,,butcher is just a normal line of work..perfectly acceptable. (Talking Goats are Fantasy tales ...a Talking Goat is said to have convinced Sadhana ji to leave butchering and turn bhagat as the Goat told him..you ahve killed me and i have killed you many times already..so why not YOU end it now.....??? ..a talking COW didnt come and tell Ravidass ji to stop working on her skin or his skin would be worked on by her and so on... !! ha Ha )


----------



## Lee (Aug 5, 2011)

Confused said:


> Science knows nothing but shadows, so how can it be used to judge what is and what is not the Truth?


 

Confused ji,

Is this correct?  Using science you and I are able to communicate in this fashion.  Using science we know how old the Earth is, how fare away from us the sun is, your house has energy so that you can clean and cook, you have a TV I assume, a radio, a computer, perhaps a car.  All of this comes from Science, it is a great tool for us. Indeed if it was not for Science I would not have discovered Sikhi.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 5, 2011)

Going back to the original essay it states:

_MOTIVATIONS BEHIND MISTRANSLATION AND MISREPRESENTATION 

There are several reasons behind why these mistranslations and misrepresentations have occurred: 
· The publishers have a lack of education and do not understand the meaning of words in Gurmukhi and the correct translation into English. 
· In their eagerness to promote their own brand of Sikhism (Sant, Jatha etc) they have deliberately allowed mistranslation and misrepresentation. 
· Genuine abhorrence of killing animals can be a motivation too (eg those people that believe in Animal Rights), however Sikhism should not be used as a tool to promote such agendas. 
· Poor knowledge of history and the context in which the Gurus and Bhaghats wrotes these Angs is a factor too. This can lead to a misrepresentation. 
· In conclusion one can only say that it is very important that Sikh institution promote a clear and concise programme where only those with a certain amount of knowledge in Sikh History and the Sikh Language, should be officially sanctioned as being translators for the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. 

_Now what we have to ask oursleves is what are our motivations?

Forget what we think or what view points we have but what is the Sikh point?

If one trully searches for objective truths, then a meat eating Sikh is no different from one who is Vegetarian. This IS the conclusion the Guru's have come up with, and if people cannot be happy with that then they must ask how objective are they being?japposatnamwaheguru:


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 8, 2011)

Bhagat ji,


I was going to respond to another post and just remembered this one.

You wrote:




> Confused ji,
> When you go deep inside yourself, do you think you know the Truth?
> 
> My guess is that you both will say that you know the Truth. (but correct me if I am wrong, I maybe wrong.)
> ...




Frankly I do not understand your second question and do not have a clue as to what you mean by the sentence following from that. I would like to discuss your first question, but first seek some clarification.

"When you go deep inside yourself, do you think you know the Truth?"

What is the reference point when you distinguish between inside vs. outside of yourself. And what is deep as against shallow? And after you have answered this, please say a little about what you mean by Truth.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 8, 2011)

Findingmyway ji,




> You miss my point again and again. I am not asking you to compare yourself to a plant but I will not consider the life of a plant less important than the life of an animal.




First of all, you are again bringing in the idea of utility and this confuses the issue. I was not talking in terms of whether plants were less or more important, only that they are not sentient beings.

I do get a feeling sometimes, of perhaps missing your point, but then I read some statement you made and think that I'm on the right track. But I apologize if it in fact happens that I take your comment out of context. 

In this particular case, you kept on mentioning that believing plants to be lower than animals and humans was egoistic, and my understanding of ego is that it arises when someone compares oneself (or one's qualities) with another. So my objection was that since I do not even think that plants are sentient, how could I be comparing myself with plants? And besides, although I do consider animals lower to human beings, when taking into account the role of karma in determining the kind of birth, there is reason in fact, *not* to be egoistical. 

Of course no doubt, I do have an infinite supply of conceit which otherwise raises its head throughout the day, and often in very gross and ugly forms. However I think it is wrong to make an association between conceit and some particular belief like the one we are discussing. After all there can be conceit with the very perception of an "I" and nothing to do with any kind of beliefâ€¦




> See the shabad posted by Randip ji. Understanding of the senses includes appreciating their shortcomings and accepting the limitaitons of human senses. That is what I mean by avoiding over reliance in senses.



And I responded to this by suggesting that it was the "understanding" or "wisdom" which is key. Understanding the senses and the experience through them, is understanding what is *not* of the nature of sense and sense-consciousness, and it is from this that I conclude that plants are not sentient. But of course we do rely on the senses, otherwise how would we even be able to identify and communicate about plants, animals and other human beings. But this is only in the context of living in the conventional world. When it comes to what reality or Truth is and what possibly exists beyond that which is perceived through the senses, this becomes a matter then, of understanding the nature of mental and physical phenomena. Or in other words, it is wisdom rather than what can be perceived through the senses that is the source for the kind of knowledge.




> Here's some more info about the senses of plants:
> http://www.brianjford.com/soulsa.htm
> http://www.ehow.com/about_5367378_pl...ion-music.html
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-for-help.html
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/sc...i.html?_r=1&em



I only read bits and pieces and the overall impression is of 'projections galore'. So much so that I believe many of the more serious scientists would also object to the spirit with which some of these people approach the subject. But then even these scientists would fail to recognize the fact of the scientific materialist view which is the basis for their understanding about humans and animals, now being uses as measure for judging what plants are. That is, having reduced human behavior in terms of electric impulses and chemical reactions, the same is being observed in plants and used as reason to draw the particular conclusion. This I believe is The Big Mistake.

Indeed so ridiculous the position and line of thought is that some of what has been attributed to plants makes them appear to be in fact superior in some ways, to human beings, which I'm sure many Sikhs will object to. The part about music actually made me laugh out loud, and I thought that given that I hardly ever listen to classical music now but have gone back to enjoying Rock music (when exercising), I must be becoming progressively less sensitive and more stupid than those plants! ;-)




> Many fish and animals also do not have a reproductive process that is involved. Does that make them any less animal?



But was I ever using the idea of reproduction as measure for what are and not sentient beings? When I compared the reproduction between plants and animals, I was pointing to the arising of consciousness at conception, as determining which of the two is a sentient being and which is not.




> Processes may be different but the basic biological premise is the same-combining of parts from male and female to produce a brand new organism with no mixing between species.




All within the criterion set by the biological sciences, not by Truth and reality.




> Finally, do you really think a butcher or farmer is a more 'evil' being and is less able to behave in a noble way compared to a person who consumes meat from the supermarket or from a person who is vegetarian?!!




I was never talking about "persons", but moral / immoral actions. Yes a butcher may be involved in killing at some point during his work hours, however at other times he may be performing good deeds more than the average person, such as showing generosity in selling his products. Although I would think that this likely won't go on for long if he actually *believed* that it was alright to kill. If he can't see the wrongness of killing, what are the chances of him seeing the wrong in other less obvious kinds of evil deeds? Indeed he would need to question the motives behind those apparent good acts. It could be that he is motivated to those deeds out of guilt and attachment to 'self' or worse, a wrong belief that in doing so, it would balance the books. 

In the end however, even this is OK so long as one has begun to patiently develop understanding. 
We all have a great tendency to evil and should not expect that to diminish just because we think we are now on the right track. The first step is not in the direction of an attempt at reducing these tendencies, but understanding what they are or in other words, who we are. This means that if any evil deed through body, speech and mind arises, in seeing it for what it is, there is acceptance as a result of 'detachment'. Indeed to think that we must be without certain qualities and going about trying so hard to get rid of them,  points to exactly the opposite direction. This is because it is 'attachment' to self which is the driving force at those times, whereas it is detachment which is sign of being on the right track.

So as far as I'm concerned, the butcher, the average consumer of meat and the vegetarian, all are same insofar as all three either know who they are or they do not. 




> Once again, the SIKH (not Buddhist) perspective is that abstaining from meat eating does not make a person more noble. Life is present in both plants and animals so we are always killing for food. Go back and read the shabads in this thread to demonstrate both points. I rest my case




So you are saying that although the Buddhist too does not make an association between choice of food and that of morality and mental purity, but that killing *is* a matter of morality. The Sikh reason for not making the kind of association on the other hand, is that plants being equally alive, killing is unavoidable and so one might just as well kill some animal for food? Are you really convinced that this is the Sikh position?!! 

Given the great emphasis on the five evils and the need to overcome these by the development of such qualities as patience, wisdom and contentment, I don't see that this could lead to what you suggest. Killing can only be motivated by attachment and done with aversion, and we are advised to have patience and contentment.  I think therefore that there must be some misinterpretation and taking certain statements out of context. But this is only for you to consider and not to start a debate. And if you still think that you are correct, I will bow out of this discussion.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 8, 2011)

Lee ji,




> Quote: Originally Posted by Confused
> Science knows nothing but shadows, so how can it be used to judge what is and what is not the Truth?
> 
> 
> Is this correct? Using science you and I are able to communicate in this fashion.



;-) In this fashion, but not in being able to communicate at all.




> Using science we know how old the Earth is, how fare away from us the sun is,



And how does this relate to the Truth such as that of ignorance, craving, seeing, thinking, perception, feeling and so on? 
When ancient man looked up to the sky and saw what was conceived of as the sun and because he lacked a particular set of knowledge, proliferated into ideas about sun-god and so on, or that of the earth being the center of the universe etc. Is this what science "saved" us from and you consider worthy of gratitude? 

Science is just a way of observation and thinking about the object of one's experiences, which no doubt is useful in terms of predicting certain events in the conventional world and creating new things in order to serve man's desire for security and comfort. But does it touch upon the Truth even one iota, absolutely not. The man of science is as ignorant of mental and physical phenomena which make up our lives as is the man who refer to sun-god and rain-god etc. In proving wrong the latter, it has only given us a set of concepts to work with in conventional living, but nothing for the development of wisdom which knows the Truth. 

Indeed, while the world view of ancient man can be seen as wrong even in the eyes of someone with no scientific background, science in being more logical and founded on premises that can't easily be refuted, is to that extent much more misleading. For those who have never made the reality and concept distinction, science impresses as being one means by which the Truth can be arrived at. 




> your house has energy so that you can clean and cook, you have a TV I assume, a radio, a computer, perhaps a car. All of this comes from Science, it is a great tool for us.




Science has offered me medicine and all that you have pointed out. But all this caters only to my desires, as it was the case with the fellow caveman showing me how to make a spear. Should I be more grateful to science than that caveman friend of mine? But here we are talking about that which points to the Truth, and science being incapable of doing this, should I then have any regard for it? It's a tool, perhaps, but for what, for getting what I desire, but not for attaining wisdom. 




> Indeed if it was not for Science I would not have discovered Sikhi.




Nah, this is just your particular story woven in hindsight. It is made up of images patched up together to form a particular script that you feel satisfied with. It is not based on any understanding about conditionality and the fact of experiences, some being resultant and some being cause. In other words, it is what ignorance and craving has spun out.


----------



## Lee (Aug 8, 2011)

Confused said:


> And how does this relate to the Truth such as that of ignorance, craving, seeing, thinking, perception, feeling and so on?
> When ancient man looked up to the sky and saw what was conceived of as the sun and because he lacked a particular set of knowledge, proliferated into ideas about sun-god and so on, or that of the earth being the center of the universe etc. Is this what science "saved" us from and you consider worthy of gratitude?


 
Umm this is a complex question.  It assumes a lot.

You used the word truth, you did not prefix the word truth with spiritual truth and so I must assume by you use of the word you meant all truth, and did not wish to compartmentalise truth into say spirtual and temporal, yet your words here make me belive differantly.  In short sir if you are talking  purely about spirtual truth, then you should say so.

Taking that into account, then it is clear that science deals with scientific truth an so to answer your question, there is no relation.

Do I consider science as worthy of gratitude?  Well yes of course, do you not?



Confused said:


> Science is just a way of observation and thinking about the object of one's experiences, which no doubt is useful in terms of predicting certain events in the conventional world and creating new things in order to serve man's desire for security and comfort. But does it touch upon the Truth even one iota, absolutely not. The man of science is as ignorant of mental and physical phenomena which make up our lives as is the man who refer to sun-god and rain-god etc. In proving wrong the latter, it has only given us a set of concepts to work with in conventional living, but nothing for the development of wisdom which knows the Truth.


 
So now I assume here you must be talking about spirtual truth?

Science is that what you have described it as, but you make a mistake when you say it is 'just' this.  It is far far far more, and effects all of our lives daily.  So you claim that the brain specialist is ignorant of mental phenomena which makes up our lives?

Do you truely belive this to be so?





Confused said:


> Science has offered me medicine and all that you have pointed out. But all this caters only to my desires, as it was the case with the fellow caveman showing me how to make a spear. Should I be more grateful to science than that caveman friend of mine? But here we are talking about that which points to the Truth, and science being incapable of doing this, should I then have any regard for it? It's a tool, perhaps, but for what, for getting what I desire, but not for attaining wisdom.


 
Again I must ask if you truely belive this?  Science has not taught you anything, you have gained no knowledge because of science?

I note however that your spelling of English is sound, I assume that you can count also?

Have you got children?  Have you taught them how to cross the road?  If you have no wisdom from science why have you even bothered?  You cannot know about forces, and speed nor the biology of a child. 





Confused said:


> Nah, this is just your particular story woven in hindsight. It is made up of images patched up together to form a particular script that you feel satisfied with. It is not based on any understanding about conditionality and the fact of experiences, some being resultant and some being cause. In other words, it is what ignorance and craving has spun out.


 

Heheh no my friend in this you are wrong.

I work in IT and have done so now for 20 odd years, I am well used to using the internet as a resource, and indeed when I decided I wanted to know about Sikhi, it wasthe internet that brought me into contact with real Sikhs, took me to Gurdwara and onto Sikh summer camp.  All of which would not be here if we had no science.  Although you choice of some of the words here, have me thinking that you may be a little deterministic, how does that sit with your Sikhi?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 8, 2011)

Confused ji and Lee ji as well, 
Scientific truth and spiritual truth are both expressions of one could say the Ultimate Truth, the reality that underlies our sense perceptions.

As soon as we start talking about it, we have expressed it in one particular manner. We have chosen one perspective, and elaborated on that... but the Truth can never be elaborated in its totality. It is too vast and deep to captured by any particular field. When Science talks about it, it has expressed it in scientific terms. When an artist does a painting, he has expressed the Truth in artistic terms. When a seeker has a particular experience, he has experienced the Truth in spiritualistic terms. Science is just as close to the Truth as Art is, or Spirituality is.  --> probably needs a new thread.

By 'terms' (as in scientific theories, artistic works, spiritual teachings), I also mean language. The language used is different, not what is expressed. They cover different aspects of the Truth. Or one could say they have expressed the Truth in those aspects.

Just as humans do. Confused ji has expressed the Truth and so has Lee ji. Jasleen ji and others as well.

When one says the Sun goes around the Earth, this is the same as saying the Earth goes around the Sun. They are two different reference points in the field of Truth. One takes the Sun to be the center, the other takes Earth. But neither is at the center of anything. To say center again implies taking on a particular reference point. There is only the universe, existence itself.

One finds that when one gives up the taking of reference points, one cannot speak of the Truth. But it's in this moment that we are in touch with it in its deepest sense. 

The artist when he gazes deeply at an object, is in touch with the Truth. When he begins to paint, he has captured only a small "flesh" of the Truth. The way it looks, the way a fruit would taste or the majestic posture of the mountains. The artist captures this and when you look at his work, you see the Truth expressed there. You can almost taste the fruit or feel the cold air of the mountains. Science on the other hand, when it sees that object tries to solve out how it is the way it is. And in doing so it captures a small "bone" of the object, it's molecular structure. In terms of quantification, mostly. But realize that none of the fields that exist today, have the whole Truth. And yet they do, which is why we are attracted to them. ---> this is a whole discussion in itself (Spirituality is a little harder for me to go into at the moment. But similar idea is present there.)

This is what you guys have been doing as well. Expressing different aspects of the Truth. This is what everyone does. 

Those who come to realize that everyone has the light of Truth 'noor' in them, come to have peace of mind. However, when we shine with that 'noor', it may not appear to the other to be 'noor' at all. Because the other knows it by a different name.

Arguments about what is a plant/animal. What is this, what is that, are of this nature. It is as if there is an elephant amongst us and one person grabs the trunk, another it's tail and both claim they have the elephant. You can only hold one limb at a tmie but every time you hold it, touch it you ARE holding, touching the elephant. What is the trunk? What is the tail? There is only the elephant. 

Like the elephant appears as trunk or tail, it is in the nature of the Truth (waheguru, reality) to appear False (maya, perception of reality).

PS I hope I have not created yet another 'side' but brought everyone together.


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 8, 2011)

Bhagatsinghji

Why is it that when there is a decent debate going on, where I can appreciate both sides of the argument, and there is a slight hint of tamasha, you have to ruin it!

You are indeed a most enlightened fellow and I enjoy the way you reduce complex arguments to simple basics. 

The trouble is, when you post, I know I am going to have to read it several times before it makes sense, and even then not as much sense as the 8th or 9th. 

But where does that leave us, everyone is right? everyone is wrong? everyone is right in their own way? 

The truth is (haha) that the only way we will ever know for sure, the true truth is by asking a plant if it is in pain, and getting an answer back, otherwise, lets face it, any theory is possible, backed up by the right data.

I would like to point out that if only fools wrangle over flesh, then I am not sure of the correct terminology for one who wrangles over plants :interestedkudi:

Sat Sri Akal animatedkhanda1


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 8, 2011)

Harry Haller ji just one comment,



> I would like to point out that if only fools wrangle over flesh, then
> 
> I  am not sure of the correct terminology for one who wrangles over plants
> _Fools who wrangle over what they don't fully understand peacesign_


I will delete this post just penning thoughts between us.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 9, 2011)

Lee ji,

I have just moved my response to you to a new thread titled : 'Truth and Concepts' in the Interfaith section. This is because our discussion has started to go on to a different topic from what is here.

Bhagat ji,

I do not have time at the moment to respond to your post, but will try to do so as soon as possible.


----------



## Lee (Aug 9, 2011)

BhagatSingh said:


> Just as humans do. Confused ji has expressed the Truth and so has Lee ji. Jasleen ji and others as well.
> 
> 
> The artist when he gazes deeply at an object, is in touch with the Truth.
> ...


 
Bhagat ji,

Yes exactly I totaly agree with this.  Miri Piri.  Temproral and spirtual life, both are important and neither one nor the other shold be denied.


----------



## findingmyway (Aug 9, 2011)

Bhagat Singh ji,
 The earth going round the sun and the sun going round the earth are not  the same! You cannot be serious! The truth is the earth travels around  the sun-this is the truth and this is the fact that has proof. The earth  being the centre was debunked a long time ago.

 I believe plants  are sentient beings albeit in a different way to animals, but our senses are not sensitive enough to perceive  this. Confused ji insists that plants are not sentient and therefore their life does not matter. We cannot both  be speaking the truth as these statements are opposites. I say plants  and animals are equivalent, only humans are different. Confused  continually keeps on disregarding this aspect of my posts and insists on  comparing plants to humans to draw his conclusions. Who's telling the  truth? How can you compare when Confused doggedly insists on using a  different comparison to me?

 Confused says eating meat and  killing are 2 different things. I don't understand how you can separate  them as they go hand in hand. Again only one of these ideas can be truth  as the concepts are opposites.

 If you are so keen on the truth  please stop talking in riddles and try and relate to the real world. You  posts are so abstract that they no longer make sense. Considering your  previous writing, this is such a shame.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 9, 2011)

> I believe plants  are sentient beings albeit in a  different way to animals, but our senses are not sensitive enough to  perceive  this.



I believe we are continuously sliding from the ridiculous to the sublime in some of the posts of late.  Who believes that "the Creator" made any of us the classifiers of sentience?  This is just human ego.  Has someone talked to a hungry lion and asked if he thinks we are sentient?  He will see anything which has meat in it as fair game.  Survival of self before others is a fundamental trait in creation. 

 Or better still all of us smarty pants (including your truly :interestedmunda don't realize that in this universe, about which we know little (basically zero), there may be infinite other forms of intelligence that see us as not sentient at all.

Creator and creation has checks and balances.  You feel hungry you go get food.  If food does not want you to eat it, it will either poison you or make you sick or fight back to survive.  Everything follows from that, whether it translates into eating habits, gluttony, obesity, diets, etc.  Creation is not complex we make it so!

Sat Sri Akal.​


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 9, 2011)

Bhagat ji,




BhagatSingh said:


> Confused ji and Lee ji as well,
> Scientific truth and spiritual truth are both expressions of one could say the Ultimate Truth, the reality that underlies our sense perceptions.....



I have just posted my response to this message in the Truth and Concepts thread. We can continue our discussion there.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 9, 2011)

Findingmyway ji,


I know that this is not addressed to me and I believe that you must be tired of having to respond to someone who appears to constantly miss your point and as you say, dodge the issue. But please allow me to clarify.

You said:



> I believe plants are sentient beings albeit in a different way to animals, but our senses are not sensitive enough to perceive this. Confused ji insists that plants are not sentient and therefore their life does not matter.




To be more precise, that it would not constitute killing or hurting to uproot a tree or pluck a flower. As for other considerations, yes plants do matter, not only when thinking in terms of being potential food, but also when taking into account the environment.




> I say plants and animals are equivalent, only humans are different. Confused continually keeps on disregarding this aspect of my posts and insists on comparing plants to humans to draw his conclusions. Who's telling the truth? How can you compare when Confused doggedly insists on using a different comparison to me?




Although I do not recall avoiding making the comparison between plants and animals, I understand that this is what you perceive. Perhaps this is because you have grouped plants and animals together whereas I group animals with human beings in the particular context. What do you think? If you wish you can go back and read some of those statements in which I've compared plants to humans and replace the latter with animals. I think my arguments would not change....?




> Confused says eating meat and killing are 2 different things. I don't understand how you can separate them as they go hand in hand.




The reason that it appears to you to go hand in hand is because you are thinking in terms of "situations", where in order that one person gets to eat meat requires another person to have killed some animal. I on the other hand, focus on the state of mind, particularly that of "intention" in each individual.  For you cause and effect exists within the realm of conventional world consisting of people and things where the action of one person is then seen as cause for the action of another. This to me is delusion. Because what I understand is that there exists particular kinds of mental realities some being of the nature of cause and some being resultant.  And the causes and conditions which affect these can be seen within the experience of the moment itself and has nothing to do with what goes on in another stream of consciousness. 

There is so much more to say and we can discuss this further if you like.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Sep 1, 2011)

Great Video Uk only 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b0133r58/


----------



## P0TTER (Sep 25, 2011)

Randip Singh ji
What an amazing answer. 
Thank You so much for all the time and effort you have put into explaining clearly how these contradictions have arisen.
The answer you have given is truly excellent.
Thank You.


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 11, 2011)

P0TTER said:


> Randip Singh ji
> What an amazing answer.
> Thank You so much for all the time and effort you have put into explaining clearly how these contradictions have arisen.
> The answer you have given is truly excellent.
> Thank You.



Many thanks but this was a collaborative effort by many people, I just edited it and acted as a critical friend putting the alternative view forward at every step.


----------



## ravneet_sb (Oct 24, 2011)

SAT SRI AKAAL.

To be Flesh Eaters and Vegeterian Eatr is decided as law of nature. One can shift his thought process before invention of wheel

And imagine life in desert or clod desert

How human life could have sustained, where there is no crop or only one seasonal crop with yield of 70%.

The wise decision to sustain life was to give food grain to animal and eat animal when theiesre is no crop.

Religious cultures formed there have no such issues.

Person living in the nature's food grain basket, one may think of being vegie

But give a thought to human life sustainability in those times and areas.

Mind boundaries or human learning create bounds and bondage creates ego 

results in "Duality" od "Dubidha" whch results in "Vikar" or "Problems".



Leave boundary and experience life to realise

Kudrat Ke Sab Bandhe

Man belongs to nature and has to follow "Law of Nature"

Ek Noor te Sab Jag Upjaya, Kaun Bhale Kaun Mande


Wahegur Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 25, 2011)

ravneet_sb said:


> SAT SRI AKAAL.
> 
> To be Flesh Eaters and Vegeterian Eatr is decided as law of nature. One can shift his thought process before invention of wheel
> 
> ...




I think Nanak talked about this. It matters not what you eat for even a grain of corn has life. It's our Hankaar to think that we know better than God.


----------



## Tammy1949 (Nov 6, 2011)

Congratulations ! on the excellent article and it sums up all the arguments that usually we have to give again and again on this forum to some new member who is being confused on the meat issue. I think it will now serve as a reference article for me and also this website in future to advise somebody before starting an argument again


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 21, 2011)

Tammy1949 said:


> Congratulations ! on the excellent article and it sums up all the arguments that usually we have to give again and again on this forum to some new member who is being confused on the meat issue. I think it will now serve as a reference article for me and also this website in future to advise somebody before starting an argument again




Many thanks.kudihug

But remember, this really is not a subject worth fighting about.


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Feb 8, 2012)

I dont care if someone eats meat or not. But somehow we need to get to know in which way the animals are slaughterd. You even can´t call that "Jhatka" . I think Many fast food chains exploit this animals like this. So the question rises, can we eat in Mcdonalds, KFC etc, how does we know that the animal is killed painlessly and without any antibiotics?


http://www.meatvideo.com/


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Feb 8, 2012)

Tigerstylez ji..i dont think one needs "anti-biotics" in slaughtering an animal...anti-biotics keep animals and humans healthy but they wont reduce pain...

But you do make a perfectly valid point...we NEED to KNOW hwere our meat came from...and BOYCOTT the wrong type. THAT is what all the Animal Rights PETA etc are all about....cruelty and torture of animals even in the DAIRY industry !!


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Feb 8, 2012)

Dear Gyani ji, 

antibiotics are harmful for the human and the animal body. It is given to animals to survive longer, so that they can gain more weight. But the problem is , that the antibiotics can get resistent - that means they can get resistent against humans as well. Furthermore the resistent germs can infect plants etc, and it would be difficult to find any remedy


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 12, 2012)

TigerStyleZ said:


> I dont care if someone eats meat or not. But somehow we need to get to know in which way the animals are slaughterd. You even can´t call that "Jhatka" . I think Many fast food chains exploit this animals like this. So the question rises, can we eat in Mcdonalds, KFC etc, how does we know that the animal is killed painlessly and without any antibiotics?
> 
> 
> http://www.meatvideo.com/




Good point, but the same can be said of vegetarian food and dairy products. GM, etc where does it come from.

Nothing can be killed painlessly. That is not the point of Jhatka. There is trauma, however at the point of killing where the body goes into shock and the nervous system shuts down.

Always eat organic, wherever you can.

Milk production is particulalrly, cruel.


----------



## amarjit singh bamrah (Feb 12, 2012)

Its not for me to judge why you eat meat or don't eat meat.

If you have compassion and a longing for God our creator you would see that Animals
have the same organs as Humans.

If you had compassion for animals you would hear their cries when they are taken to the slaughter house.

When we work on our inner self by raising our vibration we are then able to see the AURAS of others.
We notice that the Aura of many meat eating people are sickly and send off a vibration to the Other dimensions. Come feed of me I have eaten meat.

We are Vibration
Animals and vegetables are vibration.

The other Dimensions are Vibration
where many millions of predators await to come into our dimension to feed off
what we eat and through our Kam Krodh Lobh Moh Hankar.

This is what our Gurbani and all scripture  teach us.

Be pure Eat pure



When an animal is killed the cries of its salaughter permeates into the very core of their being into their organs and the flesh.

However its only when your inner concience awakes - is when you
realise this.

So until then its futile to bring in arguments that killing and eating animals is Humane.


----------



## amarjit singh bamrah (Feb 12, 2012)

This is the *Punjabi version* of the tract entitled _Tau Kio Murgi Mdrai, _which was originally published in Punjabi in April 1995 and reprinted in January 1998. The booklet was well received in India as well as abroad. The readers from abroad expressed a keen desire to get it translated in English and hence this English translation of the original Punjabi booklet.
Download the book for free


This is the *English version* of the tract entitled _Tau Kio Murgi Mdrai, _which was originally published in Punjabi in April 1995 and reprinted in January 1998. The booklet was well received in India as well as abroad. The readers from abroad expressed a keen desire to get it translated in English and hence this English translation of the original Punjabi booklet.
Download the book for free

Mod Note July 2015:  Download links are old and broken, however you may be able to search on the file name in Google.
Ishna


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Feb 12, 2012)

bamrah Ji..Guru nanak ji CHOSE to write a Graphic detailed "slaughter" of the SUGAR CANE. Read for yourslef how the Sugar cane Cries out.....as its head is cut off, its bound and its feet are cut off..its body is squeezed for its fluids to flow out and its body is BURNT to boil its juice.......GURU NANAK JI chose a VEGETABLE..precisely becasue every Tom-****-harry tau kio murgee maireh type almopst 100% and invariably picked on "animals" ...IGNORING the VEGETABLES !!! Guru ji ALWAYS chose the side of the IGNORED..the downtrodden..the victimised...so YES..I agree with you about FUTILE arguments which Guur ji alsready called as Fools wrangling...much more stronger thna "futile"...Guru Ji wrote.. TAU KIO GANNAH NICHORREH..long before already..but no one seesm to bother...ha ha..becasue without SUGAR..life would be TASTELESS..and TASTE is the real BOTTOM LINE..even for so called vegeis...:redturban:


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Feb 12, 2012)

TigerStyleZ said:


> Dear Gyani ji,
> 
> antibiotics are harmful for the human and the animal body. It is given to animals to survive longer, so that they can gain more weight. But the problem is , that the antibiotics can get resistent - that means they can get resistent against humans as well. Furthermore the resistent germs can infect plants etc, and it would be difficult to find any remedy




AGREE 110% ji.
Slaughtered animal carcasses are artificially pumped full of anti-biotics which enter our bodies and casue us HARM. YES. 
At the same time Vegetables, Farm produce, milk dairy products are also FULL of pesticides, artificial vitamins etc etc...
BOTTOM LINE..we better eat what we grow....or we eat POISON.


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Feb 12, 2012)

Ask the Akal Takht if eating meat is allowed.  Read the Sikh Rehat Maryada, oops, there are over 100, so look at the one from Shromeni Committee Akal Takht, something like that.

Why are people so worried about eating meat, but not worried about educating others about Guru Granth Sahib.  We are acting like a closted PUnjai clique, excluding outsiders by not informing them of Guru Ji's message.  Explaining about meat and 5 kakar is not the introduction for them, but teaching general Gurmat wisdom is.  We are focusing on sewa good works like bribing God.  First we must change on the inside.  I am not against sewa, but we ned to promote understanding in Guru Granth Sahib, not rituals.  They call us Hindus because so many of us worship pakandi baba ji sants and the women drink the water from their feet and get raped.  They also promote other granths as Gurbani.  Making meat an issue is a tactic to weaken them to be more easily brainwashed.  It is not my business what people prefer to eat, but please balance your diet and DO include more vegetables in your diet.


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Feb 12, 2012)

everything is poison if too much consumption.

But there is never too much Gurmat education.


----------



## harsimiritkaur (Feb 12, 2012)

Look at the ingredients, if you cannot pronounce it, it is chemical junk.

And tell the Gurdwara's to cut some of the salt in the food.  Many Sikhs now have high blood pressure due to too much salt intake.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Feb 12, 2012)

Harsimrat ji,
The GURU talks too much TRUTH..we feel very uncomfortable...very touchy..The GURU Speaks too forthrightly...too plainly...we DONT LIKE Such forthrightedness..such clarity..such transparency....so we feel very uncomfortable if anyone wants to EXPLAIN the GURU to us in Plain language..we would very much like fairy tales, tall tales of waddeh babajis feeding rotis to dogs who then go to heaven, or baba ji sitting in a flood doing simran..or baba ji sitting in bhoras / dungeons doing simran for ages and ages (HA HA)...we would arther hear about diets and meat and all that MINOR ISSUES get blown up..and sing along Baba jis huge kirtan groups on stage bang away at chamtas and dholkis..AA Gaya Baba Wanjara choorrrian da..le lo choorrian..palo choorrian..Bolo Satnam Waheguru...THEY NEVER say a SINGLE WORD from SGGS becasue THEY KNOW we DONT LIKE THAT...it makes us uncomfortable....and fidgety...and we get up and walk off...so THEY ENTERTAIN US...in return for Pounds/Dollars piled up in front of them...


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Feb 12, 2012)

Randip Singh said:


> Good point, but the same can be said of vegetarian food and dairy products. GM, etc where does it come from.
> 
> Nothing can be killed painlessly. That is not the point of Jhatka. There is trauma, however at the point of killing where the body goes into shock and the nervous system shuts down.
> 
> ...


 
Yes veer ji , you are right.  But what should we eat then? I live in a City , so i can´t buy a cow or something else, lol!


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Feb 12, 2012)

amarjit singh bamrah said:


> Its not for me to judge why you eat meat or don't eat meat.
> 
> If you have compassion and a longing for God our creator you would see that Animals
> have the same organs as Humans.
> ...



Uncle ji,
i know you are from a older generation and you were teached not to eat meat. The reasons why,  I dont know, maybe you never asked why or replied to anyone. But the main point is you are talking like a uneducated muslim, who is talking superstitious and clueless( I Dont want offend any muslim!!). Many  Muslims argue that every person has an aura, thats why they cover their women. But question rises now WHY they don´t cover themself? Obviously the reason why they cover they women is : that they cant control themselfs and want to supress their women. If you are talking about aura, then plants got a aura as well. That makes no sense, I hope you see the point of what I am saying. Futhermore I want to say, WHY DID GOD created animals who(can) consume flesh? This is a deep topic. And I dont really get what you meant by "eat pure". Are you going to create a new "sect"? (irony) What is pure and what isnt pure, you are talking like a brahman... IF you drink milk, you are stealing the cows power/milk. THe milk the cow produces is for their kittens, but you fool the cow , and take milk - Isnt that worse ? 

pRBwqI ]
Prabhaatee:
Avil Alh nUru aupwieAw kudriq ky sB bMdy ]
First, Allah created the Light; then, by His Creative Power, He made all mortal beings.
eyk nUr qy sBu jgu aupijAw kaun Bly ko mMdy ]1]
From the One Light, the entire universe welled up. So who is good, and who is bad? ||1||
logw Brim n BUlhu BweI ]
O people, O Siblings of Destiny, do not wander deluded by doubt.
Kwilku Klk Klk mih Kwilku pUir rihE sRb TWeI ]1] rhwau ]
The Creation is in the Creator, and the Creator is in the Creation, totally pervading and permeating all places. ||1||Pause||
mwtI eyk Anyk BWiq kir swjI swjnhwrY ]
The clay is the same, but the Fashioner has 
fashioned it in various ways.
nw kCu poc mwtI ky BWfy nw kCu poc kuMBwrY ]2]
There is nothing wrong with the pot of clay - there is nothing wrong with the Potter. ||2||
sB mih scw eyko soeI iqs kw kIAw sBu kCu hoeI ]
The One True Lord abides in all; by His making, everything is made.

Think over this - we are all from the one light, our live is given a meaning. 
If all is from the ONE and SAME, then you are doing hypocrisy by eating plants- I dont want to sound disrespectful ... But please think over it uncle ji.

Pls apologize my bad exprssion


BTW: We are going to reach the 100 page of useless argumentation , why we eat and why dont we eat meat. Lets celebrate! japposatnamwaheguru:


----------



## Ambarsaria (Feb 12, 2012)

TigerStyleZ said:


> Yes veer ji , you are right.  But what should we eat then? I live in a City , so i can´t buy a cow or something else, lol!


Just cook it well body will do wonders.  It adapts but sometimes slowly.

Take care and don't get trapped by mis-information clutter.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## amarjit singh bamrah (Feb 13, 2012)

TigerStyleZ said:


> Uncle ji,
> i know you are from a older generation and you were teached not to eat meat. The reasons why, I dont know, maybe you never asked why or replied to anyone. But the main point is you are talking like a uneducated muslim, who is talking superstitious and clueless( I Dont want offend any created animals who(can) consume flesh? This is a deep topic. )
> 
> Veerji
> ...


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 13, 2012)

Amarjit ji,

You may have not read the views that I’ve expressed in this matter, so I’ll repeat them here.




> Its not for me to judge why you eat meat or don't eat meat.



But we do need to send out a message that is in line with the truth. If we want to make a statement about the wrongness of killing, we should not bring eating and not eating meat into the picture, otherwise it confuses the issue. And when the other person hears this, he reacts by making a similar mistake of associating the morally neutral act of eating meat with condoning killing animals for food.  The result is both parties has found an excuse to continue with their own ignorance and attachments. 




> If you have compassion and a longing for God our creator you would see that Animals
> have the same organs as Humans.
> 
> If you had compassion for animals you would hear their cries when they are taken to the slaughter house.



So compassion arises with the perception of a ‘suffering being’. And this does not have to come from hearing any cry, but one can see that like us, even an ant has volition and reacts with attachment to pleasant experiences and with aversion to unpleasant ones. The result of this is disinclination to harming any animal, not to speak of killing them for food. And if and when you see someone else killing some animal, you will act accordingly. 

To decide to become a vegetarian however, this does not involve the perception of any suffering being, except in one’s own proliferated thoughts. One’s mind goes off into stories about someone else having killed the animal and that by not eating meat; one is indirectly stopping those people from killing in the future. This is being lost in the past and future as against understanding the truth now. Indeed it is just a game one plays with oneself one evidence of which is the fact that no attempt is ever made to educate those other people about the harm of killing. So really, all this is just about the “me” and its ideals. 

What might also be noted is that rather than any real compassion towards the animal, it is in fact aversion or pity that we have, and this is why we end up usually having aversion towards those who kill, instead of kindness or compassion.  Watching a YouTube video showing these acts by other people then becomes just more fuel for ego which thinks how good “I” am and how bad “they” are.  

It takes discriminative wisdom to think correctly about such things.




> When we work on our inner self by raising our vibration we are then able to see the AURAS of others.
> We notice that the Aura of many meat eating people are sickly and send off a vibration to the Other dimensions. Come feed of me I have eaten meat.



Again this is very unhelpful, in fact misleading. 

While thinking in terms of intentions, feelings, perception etc. is based on one’s own everyday experiences, aura and vibrations on the other hand are ideas we hear about and believe in, but which is and will remain only as abstractions. Talking about them as though they are real and form part of experience will therefore only lead to more ignorance instead of any understanding. Indeed it is because of the ignorance and attachment to such ideas that thoughts such as you express above and below come to be entertained.




> We are Vibration
> Animals and vegetables are vibration.
> 
> The other Dimensions are Vibration
> ...



Yes, Kaam, Krodh, Lobh, Moh and Ahankar, *these* are the realities of our lives and this is what you should be talking in terms of and not choice of food!!

We can see for example, that lobh can arise towards any object at all. We can also see that when it does, the tendency to lobh increases. So really it is lobh towards the taste which is what we should note and not the food itself. 

Do you think a vegetarian has less attachment to the taste of his food than a non-vegetarian? Of course not! In my experience I see equal fussiness if not more in a vegetarian with regard to what he gets to eat when compared to a meat eater. And while the latter can begin to see that indeed he is attached to food, what chance is there for the former to acknowledge his attachments when he is in fact blinded by the belief that in the very act of being a vegetarian, he is developing purity of mind? Very little, I’d think. Indeed the vegetarian is paving the way for ever more delusion given his mistaken sense of morality. And in expressing his ideas he is encouraging in the other person, what should not be considered while taking him further away from what should be given due consideration. And this is like the blind leading the blind, which is very bad karma indeed. (I point this out only to remind you, since you say that you do believe in karma.)




> This is what our Gurbani and all scripture teach us.
> 
> Be pure Eat pure



Sorry to disappoint, but this is nonsense.
Purity has nothing to do with our physical body and it has nothing to do with the food we eat. Purity of mind has to do with developing *mental* qualities such as kindness, giving, moral restraint, compassion, detachment and wisdom. If you believe that one becomes pure by virtue of what is eaten, then this must be the function of ignorance and wrong understanding and it is these that you get more and more of along with any lobh and ahankar that must necessarily also be involved. 




> When an animal is killed the cries of its salaughter permeates into the very core of their being into their organs and the flesh.



You mean right now when there is lobh, it is permeating my body, and when I have krodh, the same also happens? And if I ate meat of a dead lion I’d become aggressive by virtue of meat more than any aversion that I have accumulated from the past? What if I ate the meat of an enlightened person who dies with equanimity, would that not make me receive the good qualities that formed part of his experiences? And if I receive the “bad” from meat because this came from a sentient being, how does eating a vegetable make me pure when plants are not sentient beings?

Do you see where all this is going?




> However its only when your inner concience awakes - is when you realise this.



The mistake is in your own appeal to such kind of experiences. It neither adds nor clarifies anything, but in fact muddles and misleads.




> So until then its futile to bring in arguments that killing and eating animals is Humane.



Killing can be humane, but this is because “humane or not” are values put forward by those who lack any understanding about morality. Wrong is wrong by virtue of the very nature of the mental state involved and not because it is placed against some arbitrary set of values. Killing is wrong period, because there can never be kindness or any other good quality involved in the act. 

Eating on the other hand however, is motivated at most by attachment to taste. How is this morally wrong? How is eating meat in the the same category as killing, lying, stealing and adultery?


----------



## Harry Haller (Feb 13, 2012)

snap

Excellent post dear Confusedji, a pleasure to read, on that note I intend to eat nothing but rabbit for the next month, just in case it is possible to take on its attributes


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Feb 13, 2012)

Confused ji..
To me you are not at all "confused"..!! quite the opposite.
Thank you for the excellent posts...keep it up.
Satgur nanak pargitayah..Mitte DHUNDH jagg channan hoyah..when Guur nanak ji came..it was the DHUNDH ..FOG ..that dissipated....not "darkness" per se becasue Darkness CANNOT disappear...its just an absence of light...not soemthing by itself...but DHUNDH fog of ritualism, blindness of shrdha faith, etc etc as oppsoed to GYAAN..Light of Knowledge..in GURBANI is dissipated ...and thats what Satgur nanak ji accomplish by His arrival...and thats what we are trying to put forward here...but some like the FOG so much..they keep on manufacturing artificial Fog..something like what the Stage Admins manufacture during song/dance performances on Stage....well done as fog killer...:sippingcoffee:


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Feb 13, 2012)

amarjit singh bamrah said:


> TigerStyleZ said:
> 
> 
> > Uncle ji,
> ...


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Feb 13, 2012)

Tiger stylez wrote.."WHY DID GOD created animals who(can) consume flesh? This is a deep topic........
SGGS gives the answer..Jeean ka adhaar jeev........Living Animals (bodies) are  are FOOD for other Living Animals (bodies)............and a Human Body is also a Living Body and it does become FOOD for other Living animals (when buried by the Billion Christians/Muslims etc) and when drowned in the seas, rivers, get lost in the jungles, air crashes etc etc etc..as is perfectly Natural law of the Creator.


----------



## amarjit singh bamrah (Feb 13, 2012)

harry haller said:


> snap
> 
> Excellent post dear Confusedji, a pleasure to read, on that note I intend to eat nothing but rabbit for the next month, just in case it is possible to take on its attributes


 

To be born on Mother earth is a birth even the Gods hunger for!

Its because here on Mother earth are all the temptations one has to face.

Every birth is a learning curve .
We before birth meet with our soul committee and decide what experiences, what tribulations we want to experience.

On birth this Soul contract is faded.


All the time in every birth we strive to be purer and purer and eventually merge with our Godhead.
This is enlightenment.
It may take many births to achieve this.

Many people throughout the world who have experienced awakening of inner concience have realized this too about our soul contracts.

Its like the Amrit or nectar of life
If one has not tasted it
How does one know the taste and the satnaam within it?

amarjit

Satnaam

Amarjit 
we want to face.


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Feb 13, 2012)

Dear gyani ji,
my understanding of Siri Guru granth sahib ji on this point are same like yours. So thank you for your posting.

I hope I didnt offendend uncle amarjit singh ji, I know sometimes my sentences are bad couched


The only question which rises up is , Where is the border to Canibalism, if we consume meat? This needs to be solved. I myself try to eat less meat, because climate change, etc.. and I don´t really see the necessary in eating meat. But for Gur Sikhs it is open to eat or  not, god has given us the decision.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 13, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh ji



Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Confused ji..
> To me you are not at all "confused"..!! quite the opposite.
> Thank you for the excellent posts...keep it up.
> Satgur nanak pargitayah..Mitte DHUNDH jagg channan hoyah..when Guru nanak ji came..it was the DHUNDH ..FOG ..that dissipated....not "darkness" per se becasue Darkness CANNOT disappear...its just an absence of light...not soemthing by itself...but DHUNDH fog of ritualism, blindness of shrdha faith, etc etc as oppsoed to GYAAN..Light of Knowledge..in GURBANI is dissipated ...and thats what Satgur nanak ji accomplish by His arrival...and thats what we are trying to put forward here...but some like the FOG so much..they keep on manufacturing artificial Fog..something like what the Stage Admins manufacture during song/dance performances on Stage....well done as fog killer...:sippingcoffee:




Thank you very much.

There are times when there is disagreement. However I'd like it to be known that my intention is to correct any misunderstandings that is perceived and not to put anyone down. And you can be sure that "confused" I still remain. ;-) Expressing myself is part of what is called "straightening of view" and so in the end, I do it for myself if not anyone else.

On the point of rules and rituals, I think it is good to realize that unless we are enlightened, the tendency towards this exists in all of us, only we need to have wisdom arise to notice it. Expressions of this tendency comes in many shades and forms and what appears subtle to us now will as time passes impress as having been quite gross. Indeed much of what we manage to avoid is not really based on any real understanding, but more as a result of certain theories as to what constitutes rites and rituals. 

Therefore the next time that we perceive others as being caught in ritualistic practice, let us remind ourselves that given just a slight change of circumstance, we'd likely be doing the same. The reason is that at the root of such practice is attachment to 'self' and desire for results.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 14, 2012)

Harry ji,



harry haller said:


> snap
> 
> Excellent post dear Confusedji, a pleasure to read, on that note I intend to eat nothing but rabbit for the next month, just in case it is possible to take on its attributes




Thank you. 
Immediately after I sent off my post I got up to ask my wife if she wanted me to cut the lamb leg she took out to cook for dinner. And I ended up that evening, overeating as always. ;-)


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 14, 2012)

Amarjit ji,




> To be born on Mother earth is a birth even the Gods hunger for!



You mean they hunger to be humans? 
First, gods (with a small ‘g’) I refer to are not to be confused with those conceived of by the Hindus. They have no special powers, but like humans, generally go about their day to day existence motivated by desire for pleasure. Second, they surely do not have the form that we humans have, so let’s not take our own imaginations too seriously in this regard.  

Would these gods hunger to be humans? I don’t think so. Ask an average human being where he would like to be and which country/ city he thinks is best and the answer will be, the one he is living in. Like us the gods would be motivated by not only desire for pleasure, which there is unlimited potential for, where they are, but also craving for existence. This means that they will not wish to leave what they already have. I say therefore that this idea about gods desiring human birth is nothing more than a projection by human beings.




> Its because here on Mother earth are all the temptations one has to face.



What's with this romantic notion, “Mother earth”?
It is about human existence and not the concept of place we call “earth”. The advantage of human birth is in that it consists of results both good and bad. And given the great tendency to attachment all beings have, in a heavenly realm one would simply be swept by desire for the pleasant experiences and therefore the probability of waking up is minimal. So the potential for temptation is in fact far greater in heaven than here.

But really, why would a god who understands the concept of ‘awakening’ enough to see that it is possible as a human, think to change his circumstance? Would he not instead think to develop the understanding regardless of where he is? Would not the desire for a more favorable existence be exactly the stuff of the cycle of birth and death and antithesis to the idea of awakening / liberation?




> Every birth is a learning curve .


.

For most it is creating the conditions for more strongly being caught in the cycle of existence. Birth as an animal is a situation in which the chance of rebirth as a human is exponentially lessened. As in the simile of the blind turtle swimming in the vast ocean and coming up to the surface every one hundred years. What are the chances that his head will come out through one floating tire in that ocean? Indeed I see that 99% of humans are in more or less similar situation, including you and myself. :-/




> We before birth meet with our soul committee and decide what experiences, what tribulations we want to experience.
> 
> On birth this Soul contract is faded.



You mean it is not karma which conditions birth as this or that being? 
What is your understanding about karma and why do you talk about morality?
One reason why some people end up dismissing karma is the apparent inconsistency of thought on the part of those who propose the idea. The reason why many Sikhs dismiss the Hindu notion of karma is because in observing their general behavior and practices, they see so much contradiction. 

To talk about moral good and bad actions and their corresponding fruits, but often mistaking cause for results comes across as insincere. To say that what we receive is the result of what we sow but at the same time pray to different Gods for blessing shows lack of any real understanding about karma. To appeal to higher birth (caste) and claim moral superiority by virtue of this reflects no understanding with regard to what constitutes true objects of reverence and is hypocritical. 

Karma *is* moral good and bad action, through body, speech or mind, but more precisely, it is “intention”. And we should not confuse the “cause” with results. Intention to good and bad actions are “cause”, the result of which are the pleasant and unpleasant experiences through the five senses or birth as this or that being.      

The ideas such as “praying to the Gods for blessing” or that a “soul committee decides our fate” has therefore no place in the scheme of things. Having these ideas and trying to convince others about the reality of karma is therefore not going to bear any positive fruit either for oneself nor the other person. Given that karma is synonymous with moral good and bad actions, misunderstanding this can only lead to greater ignorance and decreased confidence in the value of goodness.




> All the time in every birth we strive to be purer and purer and eventually merge with our Godhead.
> This is enlightenment.
> It may take many births to achieve this.



So you think that the situation about the blind turtle is not true? 
As a human being with an interest in gaining knowledge and wisdom, I see that more than 90% of my volitional actions are the stuff of continued existence, bad ones at that. An animal has absolutely no clue as to what the truth is. In its case it is 100 % being swept by the waves of ignorance and craving.

This view that we are getting closer to enlightenment as time passes and with each new birth is a very foolish one. The picture is of a ball of string rolling across the floor which comes to its end by unwinding without the need for any special effort. This actually shows lack of confidence in karma and can lead to belief in moral inefficacy and therefore very dangerous to go by. 

I am not surprised though why you appear to move in all directions. It is the case of a man lost in a dark jungle with no sense of direction, one moment going this and another that way and ending up going nowhere. Sorry to be so blunt, but know that my intention is only to correct the misunderstanding that is perceived.




> Many people throughout the world who have experienced awakening of inner concience have realized this too about our soul contracts.



My impression is that you have absolutely no clue as to what enlightenment is about. Sorry.


----------



## BaljinderS (Feb 14, 2012)

Excellent veer ji!!! very well said... you don't seem to be confused to me :redturban:


----------



## Harry Haller (Feb 14, 2012)

Confusedji,

Reading your posts used to be extremely rewarding but sometimes extremely hard work, either my understanding in your concepts and theories has increased, or your writing has reached new heights, easy to read, easy to understand, excellent post Veer.


----------



## Harry Haller (Feb 14, 2012)

Amarjitji

Your post, instead of answering questions, raises more:-




amarjit singh bamrah said:


> To be born on Mother earth is a birth even the Gods hunger for! How many Gods are there, you make it sound like quite a few, could you explain?
> 
> Its because here on Mother earth are all the temptations one has to face. As Confusedji has said, if these people are Gods, surely they would be above temptation, if they are not on earth, where are they? Heaven? another planet?
> 
> ...


----------



## Luckysingh (Feb 15, 2012)

WOW!!, this may be the longest ongoing debate as it's nearly reached a 100 pages!!!!

I've been to frightened to read through all the posts as I'm afraid I may get even more confused and end up making the wrong decision!!!!!:grinningkaur:lol



BTW Has anyone mentioned Vitamin B12 deficiency?????

I heard that increased intake of B12 can reduce your brain from shrinking and minimize Alzheimers!!! 
Perhaps, this could be the root of the reason for the long unconcluded argument!!!!

As maybe the increased intake with the meat eaters has resulted in them posessing much larger brains than their vegetarian colleagues!!!lol


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Feb 15, 2012)

Lucky singh Ji,
The INCREASED BRAIN SIZE is proven by scienists over past few hundred thousand years..so its a Fact.
Secondly you dont have to read all the 100 pages..just the ARTICLE has everything you need. The 100 pages are simply arguments being senselessly repeated over and over again...by the Vegetarian group insisting they are right. period. The non-vegies keep saying diet etc is NOT an importnat criteria in Sikhism..but.....???/teh water keeps on being churned...of course since its water..no butter is going to emerge even after 1000 pages...


----------



## BaljinderS (Feb 16, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Lucky singh Ji,
> The INCREASED BRAIN SIZE is proven by scienists over past few hundred thousand years..so its a Fact.
> Secondly you dont have to read all the 100 pages..just the ARTICLE has everything you need. The 100 pages are simply arguments being senselessly repeated over and over again...by the Vegetarian group insisting they are right. period. The non-vegies keep saying diet etc is NOT an importnat criteria in Sikhism..but.....???/teh water keeps on being churned...of course since its water..no butter is going to emerge even after 1000 pages...



This is going to sound rude and bitter truth for some.  I think the people making this argument, have their loyalties and trust misplaced.  They are not interested in what Gurbani says in Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji so technically their argument is outside of Sikhi.
Their trust is in the pakhandi baabe and other ideologies (propogated by various groups) which is misguided.


----------



## Harry Haller (Feb 16, 2012)

BaljinderS said:


> This is going to sound rude and bitter truth for some.  I think the people making this argument, have their loyalties and trust misplaced.  They are not interested in what Gurbani says in Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji so technically their argument is outside of Sikhi.
> Their trust is in the pakhandi baabe and other ideologies (propogated by various groups) which is misguided.



and judging by the thread today regarding the Sri Akal Takhat Sahib, We can now put them in that camp. 

As a Sikh wishing to reconnect with his/her faith, I would have thought one of the first port of calls would be the SGPC. If this body is also happy to push forward the myth that good Sikhs should abstain from meat, I guess that makes us renegades!

If you have a problem, If no one else cam help, and if you can find them, call the SPN Team

All we need now is a black van with a big red Khanda full of Jhatka


----------



## Luckysingh (Feb 17, 2012)

Well, this ongoing debate keeps raising more and more questions.
I have read through many of the posts and checked the references quoted....(I thought that advanced physics was mind bogglingly tough)

....well, I can in all honesty say that prior to gaining this knowledge, I had the false misconception that meat is totally forbidden in sikhism like intoxicants.

Thanks to SPN, that the misty haze before my eyes has somewhat cleared up.

 Although I had sometimes queried if it was just the ritualistically prepared (halal), and I'm sure that many more have done exactly this.

I don't wish to raise any more questions (as we will just keep going in circles), but I realise very clearly that there are many many people out there, especially here in the west that have the same misconceptions as I did.

I'm not trying to say- thank you for the non-veggie arguments, so that I can go enjoy a 12oz sirloin, or pull out those burger king coupons/vouchers that I threw in the trash.......No,no.. I'm not going to use the arguments as an excuse by any means. But the arguments containing comprehensive info and facts will help me conjure my own answer.

I realise it's more of a decision based on factors outside the scope of sikhism- correct me if I'm wrong..
...........This is the conclusion that I have come up with.....again, correct me if i'm wrong.
I think any corrections I will get are going to stem from personal viewpoints, which I now realise is the answer..( ie... here's the facts and info..- go make up your own mind). 


Before I got into this topic, I had a simple definite answer.
After going through the information, my answer now is a big question mark!!!

My concern is how to get the many others to realise these misconceptions??

As we have seen from these posts since 2006 and nearly 100 pages, it can and will take a very very long time to get a correct justified answer (if one would ever exist)


Many of the posts have been well documented with relevant points.
Maybe if we just gave some simple, straightforward personal viewpoints without trying to justify ourselves it may give a more realistic perpective and approach.
ie.  something like the voting polls we have, but without the last explanation option..


Waheguru
Sat Kartar

Lucky Singh


----------



## Ambarsaria (Feb 17, 2012)

harry haller said:


> _All we need now is a black van with a big red Khanda full of Jhatka_


Harry veer ji I will be happy to drive the said van in Canada on the RIGHT side of the road.  You can be the driver in UK driving on the LEFT side (wrong side of the road  lol) of the road.

I will even dare to drive it near some Radhaswami temples in Canada if you return the favor in UK. mundahug

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 17, 2012)

amarjit singh bamrah said:


> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16437">
> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="11%" align="left">
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry, I haven't got time to repond to the Vashnavite gibberish that is disguised as Sikhism. This mumbo jumbo is advocating Ahimsa, something the Guru's strongly rejected. The fool that wrote that leaflet thinks he is higher than the Akal Takht.Here is the Shabad from where he got the quote from. 

_bayd katayb kahhu mat jhoothay jhoothaa jo na bichaarai.
ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai.
mulaaN kahhu ni-aa-o khudaa-ee.
tayray man kaa bharam na jaa-ee. rahaa-o.
pakar jee-o aani-aa dayh binaasee maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa.
jot saroop anaahat laagee kaho halaal ki-aa kee-aa.
ki-aa ujoo paak kee-aa muhu Dho-i-aa ki-aa maseet sir laa-i-aa.
ja-o dil meh kapat nivaaj gujaarahu ki-aa haj kaabai jaa-i-aa.
tooN naapaak paak nahee soojhi-aa tis kaa maram na jaani-aa.
kahi kabeer bhisat tay chookaa dojak si-o man maani-aa.

Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.
You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?
O Mullah, tell me: is this God's Justice?
The doubts of your mind have not been dispelled. Pause
You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay.
The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed?
And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?
Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca?
You are impure; you do not understand the Pure Lord. You do not know His Mystery.
Says Kabeer, you have missed out on paradise; your mind is set on hell.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


First point to note is that halaal and bismil,  does not mean kill but refers to a specific form of ritual slaughter.  Put into context this is a comment on the Muslim sacrifice ritual where  either a goat or a chicken is kept in the confines of the home and then  ritually slaughtered as obeisance to Abraham. Kabeer is mocking the  futility of this ritual and saying, that why are you doing this  sacrifice just to emulate Gods asking of Abraham to kill his only son?  It is a futile gesture that will not sway God. Abraham was sacrificing  his son to God, however all the sacrifice in this instance has achieved  is destruction of the outer shell of the chicken. The soul wont travel  to God, but merely to another form. One can only understand this if one  has a basic grasp of history. In this instance the person who tried to  use this tukh as an anti-meat quotation was unaware of the Koranic  context and had an extremely poor knowledge of Semitic history. _

So you can see he even got the shabad wrong.


 If you have any queries read this link:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 17, 2012)

amarjit singh bamrah said:


> Its not for me to judge why you eat meat or don't eat meat.
> 
> If you have compassion and a longing for God our creator you would see that Animals
> have the same organs as Humans.
> ...



You start by saying you are not judging but your entire post is judgemental. How would you like it if a I called you a turbaned vegatarian Brahmin? Would you not be insulted?

So why are you judging what is pure and not pure. Muslims say Halal is pure, so is that pure for a Sikh?

You talk about cries of the animal but try listening to the cries of your fellow man and help them before you contemplate helping animals. Otherwise we Sikhs are nothing but cow worshipping Brahmins!!!!

Sorry to be so blunt but your posts are the most condascending I have ever read on this forum.


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 17, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> Well, this ongoing debate keeps raising more and more questions.
> I have read through many of the posts and checked the references quoted....(I thought that advanced physics was mind bogglingly tough)
> 
> ....well, I can in all honesty say that prior to gaining this knowledge, I had the false misconception that meat is totally forbidden in sikhism like intoxicants.
> ...



All you have to do is read page 1. Forget the rest of the debate. Basically note the following points:

1) Akal Takht has ruled a Gursikh cannot be excommunicated for eating meat.
2) Gurbani quotes for pro-veggie arguments are all misquotes. Bani does not say either way
3) Bani basically states its up to you. Forget arguments of pain etc. If YOUR conscience says NO then don't eat. If it says yes than eat. Do not think either position is superior.


----------



## Luckysingh (Feb 17, 2012)

Randip Singh said:


> All you have to do is read page 1. Forget the rest of the debate. Basically note the following points:
> 
> 1) Akal Takht has ruled a Gursikh cannot be excommunicated for eating meat.
> 2) Gurbani quotes for pro-veggie arguments are all misquotes. Bani does not say either way
> 3) Bani basically states its up to you. Forget arguments of pain etc. If YOUR conscience says NO then don't eat. If it says yes than eat. Do not think either position is superior.


 
Randip Singh ji.

Thanks. This is the exact same conclusion I have come to.

I'm glad that most of us are thinking alike, this is a sound reason for me to be coming to spn.
I'm also glad that this subject was was raised in the first instance...Many Thanks.


Sat Kartar
LuckySingh


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 17, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> Randip Singh ji.
> 
> Thanks. This is the exact same conclusion I have come to.
> 
> ...



I was priveledged enough to be asked to edit the original essay and verifiy the sources. I used to flip flop about veggie and non veggie. Now I do not. There have always been veggie and non veggie Sikhs. Accept it. Respect each other. No one Sikh is better than the other. Keep Sikhs unified.


----------



## amarjit singh bamrah (Feb 17, 2012)

Randip Singh said:


> All you have to do is read page 1. Forget the rest of the debate. Basically note the following points:
> 
> 1) Akal Takht has ruled a Gursikh cannot be excommunicated for eating meat.
> .


 
*Veerji*

*Satnaam waheguru
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*

I presume the Akal Takat makes the rules for others to follow.
Just wondered how they came about the answers?
Did they achieve them through meditation or through the Holy Scriptures.
Did they consult a body of people to come to their decisions?

Its not for me to judge who eats what, I say again, you are welcome to eat what you want.

I speak from my personal experiences through meditation and
practical experiences which the divine has bestowed on me.

To me EGO means Edging God outwards.

I try my best to write with the awareness that the same who God resides in you and others
also resides within myself. Its not for me to criticize any one one.

I still remember the Lesson I was taught about Not judging others lest I be judged.

It appears there a shift of conciousness going on in this thread as it has reached nearly a hundred pages.

This is good its getting everyone thinking, questioning and supporting their own attachments.
We all have attachments some to eating some to gambling some to smoking etc etc.

Many of us have Karmic attachments like anger or love which are downloaded into our conciousness at birth, dependant on our stage of evolution!

*Ours is the cycle of Lives, the ''Wheel of Eighty Four'' , the ''Wheel of Births and Deaths''*
*in which all living beings have been imprisoned for countless ages.*

I have no desire to patronize in a superior manner which is what the dictionary states is the meaning of Condescending.
I do not need this Karma.

Satnaam Waheguru

amarjit

(con·de·scend(k
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




n
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




d
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




-s
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




nd
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) 
_intr.v._ *con·de·scend·ed*, *con·de·scend·ing*, *con·de·scends* *1. *To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself. See Synonyms at stoop<SUP>1</SUP>.
*2. *To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.)


----------



## Ambarsaria (Feb 17, 2012)

amarjit singh bamrah said:


> *Ours is the cycle of Lives, the ''Wheel of Eighty Four'' , the ''Wheel of Births and Deaths''*
> *in which all living beings have been imprisoned for countless ages.*


Amarjit Singh Bamrah ji there is only one issue with your approach.  When you state things as being Sikhism and hence to be consistent with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji by corollary.  For example the wheel that you refer to above.  I have no idea who you have followed in your understanding or learning of Sikhism, the above is not supported by Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and hence you are making false statements as a Sikh about Sikhism.  That is where the issue is.  You can believe or do what you want at a personal level.  When you project these to be Sikhism then their is stronger validation and judgement needed in stating things.

Now it goes without saying that you are a good person at heart and a compassionate one too.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Feb 17, 2012)

Pyario Jios,
Lets not forget that there can be and really is.."Attachment to FALSE and Fake teachings/meditations/teachers/masters/babas/hallucinations/" etc etc..and a person is perfectly entitled to his "Attachment" and should be left to deal with it as best as he can/cannot. This type of Attachment is really hard to recognise esp if it afflicts Ones self....


----------



## Luckysingh (Feb 17, 2012)

amarjit singh bamrah said:


> *Veerji*
> 
> 
> This is good its getting everyone thinking, questioning and supporting their own attachments.
> ...


 
Amarjit ji
I'm not entirely sure that everyone suppports or encourages attachments that seem more like vices. A compulsive gambler or smoker is not likely to encourage the practice to those around him.

I can't see how eating is an attachment, I feel it is an essential need for survival.

Anger and love- I would never have thought that a new born baby has these embedded in it's conscious. I have always thought that a new born  is at its most complete innocence and has the physical needs for survival.

_All _the things that everyone of us has _difficulty _in _detaching_- I class these as _attachments_.
 Even the love for mother,brother, wife, kids etc.. these have elements of attachment.
Consumption of certain foods can also be an attachment as a lot of people would experience difficulty in detaching from chocolate, pies, meat etc...etc. whereas there will be a few that can detach with ease.
It is these few who have a state of mind that we should aim for. 
To them detaching is just like removing and disregarding an item of clothing for good.

The more we can detach with ease, the easier it becomes to attach with the divine, and vica versa.


Sat kartar
Lucky Singh


----------



## amarjit singh bamrah (Feb 18, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> Amarjit ji
> I'm not entirely sure that everyone suppports or encourages attachments
> 
> Anger and love- I would never have thought that a new born baby has these embedded in it's conscious. I have always thought that a new born is at its most complete innocence and has the physical needs for survival.
> ...




*Veerji Satnaam WahegurU ji*

*The Incarnational Personality, Incarnational BODY & Karma Knots*

Before Birth

Once the Core Veil and our first karma knot are created ), we have become an individual being, an incarnational personality. Now, experiences become ‘my history’, and that history conditions ‘my’ consciousness. This is the beginning of our karma and our incarnational journey. 
Our incarnational journey occurs through our incarnational body—it is our incarnational _vehicle_, our vehicle for moving from life to life. But the key is not the vehicle, it is the consciousness of the incarnational personality itself—its ‘karmic mind’—which holds our karmic issues, positions, attitudes, and all our past-life history, and generates personal life experiences from that. It is one of the two major keys to our conditioning. (The other is our genetics, our ancestral history.) 
When the incarnational personality incarnates, it comes into the spine and aligns itself with the karmic body (an energetic body in the spine that arises with the physical body and other energetic bodies), once the fetus is developed enough to have a spine. 

Although the incarnational personality’s consciousness must be present at conception, it cannot really “embody” until there is a spine.

The spine holds these personalities.

Once embodied, although the incarnational personality looks like a bubble that sits around the body, its core is aligned with the karmic body and all of its history and issues are deeply imprinted there, creating a very thin but very dense line, the length of the spine, extended within the vertical center of the spine. (This is not the kundalini, which is a dense physical energy and is comparatively quite a wide channel.) Our most fundamental karmic issues are held as little “knots” on this line, so we call these knots ’karma knots’. 

I can write more of this if its of interest

amarjit

* There is only one God, He is Omnipresent. *
*he is the same who exists in you and me and every particle of creation.*


----------



## Ambarsaria (Feb 18, 2012)

amarjit singh bamrah said:


> *The Incarnational Personality, Incarnational BODY & Karma Knots*


Veer Amarjit singh bamrah ji do you actually care to note the topic of  the thread, how others have responded and then post or you post sundry  irrespectively!  It is quite insulting and counter-productive for the  focus of dialog on thread subject.  It may be interesting stuff but you  need to post it in right threads or start a new thread.

Please be considerate.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 18, 2012)

amarjit singh bamrah said:


> *Veerji*
> 
> *Satnaam waheguru
> 
> ...



Amarjit ji You are doing it again!!! Please stop. We're not children here.

Look basically there are two issues here:
1) One about Sikhis and Bani.
2) One about personal ethics.

The two are not necessarily the same.

If you believe 1) (Bani) says you cannot eat meat then you are plain wrong. Please post the quote from Bani (nowhere else) here that states Sikhs must be vegetarian beyond reproach. Please note do not post that leaflet as it has even got the meaning of basic shabads wrong.

If you are saying you have a 2) personal ethical issue with eating meat then that is a seperate issue.

Furthermore, the argument you are using is one based on Ahimsa and Vashnavite Hinduism is rejected by Sikhi. In fact your average Vashnavite Brahmin actually allows Kshatriyas to eat meat, because they must fight. We Sikhs are Sant and Siphahi i.e. Brahmgyanis and Kshatriya, so again even by Hindu Vashnavite standards the vegetarianism does not apply.

If you still cannot reconcile this I suggest you research your own esteemed ancestor Jassa Singh Ramgaria (Bamrah), who was a devout Amritdhari Sikh who ate meat and fought like a LION!!! What you are saying is actually a slap in the face of your great ancestor.:noticemunda:


----------



## unbiasedview (Mar 23, 2012)

emotions are a componenent of higher beings,are  present in animals and  human beings not in plants!if u overlook feelings and emotions ,you are  becoming insensitive!if u overlook the cry of an animal when it is being  killed,you already suppressed a part of spirituality in you!i would ask  why not to eat humans!u would say that would eliminate species!ok  agreed,but suppose someone recently died of an accident ,he is still  fresh,why to burn or bury him,why not to eat him!i tell you why,because  we are sensitive to our species,because we have feelings ,emotions!!next  thing which resembles you is an animal!it has emotions like you!when  you cut a goat and you find a foetus in its womb,if u can overlook  that,then i would say you  already have hurdle in your spiritual path! !but  jus  being veggie doesnt gives u spiritual superiority,there is lot more aspects of it!thats why guru nanak  said fools who wrangle over flesh!my take is i would eat flesh only when  i dont get anything to eat,because humans being higher species have  right to sacrifice lower species for its on survival,!but jus for sake  of taste of tongue!im not doing it!so only god knows what is real  truth,but one shld follow his heart on this subject and not fight over  it!if ur convinced you shld,if not u shldnt!if u keep your sensitivity  to an emotion expressing non human species,there are better chances you will remain  sensitive to your species.baaki guru nanak di awastha was supreme!ordinary human beings like us are at the first stage of spirituality are affected by such things!after eating heavy meal ppl like us who are so senses driven struggle to concentrate and meat is a heavy meal no doubt!it may not matter at higher awastha but for beginners it does matters!but it is too complex a matter to get to the root of!i think ppl should follow their heart!if u dont have any question marks,you should eat it,if you have ,then you shldnt?


----------



## unbiasedview (Mar 23, 2012)

its funny when name of the thread is fool who wrangle over flesh,we still are wrangling over it!guru nanak declared it non issue,we shld not be even discussing it!follow ur heart on it!baaki sikhism is not a religion of rules ,its a relligion of principles!because rules become hackeneyed and outdated from time to time,but principles always hold true!


----------



## unbiasedview (Mar 23, 2012)

baaki spirituality is something to be experienced not argued!baaki gurbanis take on meat eating is ,jus overlook this question?its not important!there can be many arguments in its favour or against it,but tht would be just waste of time,because there is no clearcut  answer to it!


----------



## Randip Singh (Mar 23, 2012)

unbiasedview said:


> emotions are a componenent of higher beings,are  present in animals and  human beings not in plants!if u overlook feelings and emotions ,you are  becoming insensitive!if u overlook the cry of an animal when it is being  killed,you already suppressed a part of spirituality in you!i would ask  why not to eat humans!u would say that would eliminate species!ok  agreed,but suppose someone recently died of an accident ,he is still  fresh,why to burn or bury him,why not to eat him!i tell you why,because  we are sensitive to our species,because we have feelings ,emotions!!next  thing which resembles you is an animal!it has emotions like you!when  you cut a goat and you find a foetus in its womb,if u can overlook  that,then i would say you  already have hurdle in your spiritual path! !but  jus  being veggie doesnt gives u spiritual superiority,there is lot more aspects of it!thats why guru nanak  said fools who wrangle over flesh!my take is i would eat flesh only when  i dont get anything to eat,because humans being higher species have  right to sacrifice lower species for its on survival,!but jus for sake  of taste of tongue!im not doing it!so only god knows what is real  truth,but one shld follow his heart on this subject and not fight over  it!if ur convinced you shld,if not u shldnt!if u keep your sensitivity  to an emotion expressing non human species,there are better chances you will remain  sensitive to your species.baaki guru nanak di awastha was supreme!ordinary human beings like us are at the first stage of spirituality are affected by such things!after eating heavy meal ppl like us who are so senses driven struggle to concentrate and meat is a heavy meal no doubt!it may not matter at higher awastha but for beginners it does matters!but it is too complex a matter to get to the root of!i think ppl should follow their heart!if u dont have any question marks,you should eat it,if you have ,then you shldnt?



I've never been convinced by the taste of tongue argument, or the spirituality one.

Bani clearly stats (read the very first post) that only human in human life do we truly attain consciousness, and it is that which is precious.

Also, I eat meat occaisionaly to help my training. I don't particularly like the taste. I love my vegetarian food. In fact Indian vegetarian food tastes far better than Indian meat foods.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Mar 23, 2012)

IN ACTUAL FACT..all this JEEBH DA SWAAD... Taste..slavery of tonngue..blah blah blah...is all MUMBO JUMBO the FAKE Brahmgyanis. sri 1008's, swamis and rishis etc snats, mahapurashs etc love to ramble on and on about...........GURBANI tells us what the TONGUE should AVOID....and thats...CHUGGHLEE NINDIA..BAD MOUTHING....Thats the "Taste" the Human Tongue absolutely LOVES and is a SLAVE to....another Taste the Tongue loves is LIES...telling LIES...making up fake tales and SWEET TALKING to cheat, defraud.....BLOWING ones OWN TRUMPET is alos another beloved Taste of our TONGUE...Kainchee waang chaldee jabaan...a tongue that WAGS and CUTS like a Sharp KNIFE/SCISSORS....  THIS is the REAL VICE of the TONGUE....and GURBANI has so many examples of these that its UNCOUNTABLE....BUT no one "says" a single word against this VICE..because we ALL LOVE the TASTE....Now who or which baba Ji or sant ji is going to throw the Firts Stone since we all live in GLASS HOUSES....so we throw stones at the poor Goat..the Chicken (Taan kion MURGHHE Mareh..ha ha )..etc etc etc...while TRULY RELISHING in the VICES of the TONGUE....ha ha. ( TRUTH IS A BITTER KAURRA "TASTE"...as everyone knows very well..and the TONGUE *HATES* BITTER....so why Talk about that..eh ??? better to drag in the Chicken..or the goat and the fish..they cannot SPEAK for themselves..so we speak for them...how spiritual...wah wah.. and Since GURU JI CONDEMNED OPENLY the SWEET TASTE..( which all our tongues LOVE)...we IGNORE That VICE as well....who wouldnt love a barfee melting in his mouth..or  amouth watering moto choor laddoo...even iof the nett result is DIABETES...and BP..and Kidney transplant,...and maputations...blindness..who cares..TASTE MATTERS (highly selective )


----------



## unbiasedview (Mar 24, 2012)

yes no doubt that it is only  human form which can attain complete consciousness!but my point above was as guru nanak has said you cant get to root of this topic,so stop arguing over it!its waste of time!like the argument which i presented above in favour of not eating meat is something i have not found a perfect answer to refute it!but i also know it is not imperative to find answer to it too!but till i dont find a convincing answer to it,iam holding on to my principle!and again its not against guru nanaks bani!it is consistent with it!you just cant get to the root of this question and it is not an important determining factor in your spiritual quest,so just overlook it!but everything god does has scientific explanation to it!i mean nothing is random in gods plan!there is always a sequence in everything that happens in this universe!like body is body is vehicle for souls progression means as our hormonal alignment gets better we tend to use our body more efficiently and our consciousness progresses and we come to know about more spiritual secrets and ultimate stage would be when our bodies hormonal milieu will be in perfect state we will be at supreme consciousness!thats how god is inside us and not in seventh heaven!science jus unreveals mechanisms of god,it is not god!so my question is ,is eating certain kind of food good enough to disturb this hormonal milieu!a spiritually evolved person is too strong to overcome these small hormonal milieu disturbances,but are we who are at the first step of spirituality strong enough to overcome these influences!so thats  scientific basis for my apprehension in not eating meat!as long as iam not getting my answer iam holding to my take of not eating meat routinely!and i know iam not disobeying bani in this regard!baaki sikhi is a religion of principles not rules!thats why its has universal appeal!baaki people who present the arguments of fatty acids and multivitamins are being way off track!all the multivitamins and amino acids and fatty acids can be gotton without killing an animal!you have milk and egg for that!the point is there can be umpteenth of arguments in favour and against eating meat!follow ur heart!


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 11, 2012)

unbiasedview said:


> baaki people who present the arguments of fatty acids and multivitamins are being way off track!all the multivitamins and amino acids and fatty acids can be gotton without killing an animal!you have milk and egg for that!the point is there can be umpteenth of arguments in favour and against eating meat!follow ur heart!



Slightly off topic, but an amino acid essential for body building Creatine only exists in red meat, as well as large amounts of B12.

You can however supplement on this, but I don't this your body assimilates as well unatural products.

http://www.myfit.ca/foods_high_in_creatine.asp


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 12, 2012)

unbiasedview ji mentioned the non meat sources for all nutrients and supplements but this is not always the case.
2 reasons- 1stly we live in an age where we have fast paced lifestyles that are high in nutritional demands. Wether one is doing 12-14hr work shifts or a couple of days of intensive 2hr sessions at the gym- all this gives rise to increased demands.
2ndly- the natural sources or veg and plants cannot always supply sufficient supplies as they are basically not as natural, due to artificial growth and fertilisers...etc..etc..
-Both reasons give reasons to supplement our increased demands.

Taking creatine as Randip ji mentions above. This is a a very valid example of an amino acid that our kidneys and liver produce naturally. It is required in the cycle of energy utilsation by our muscles and it has an added benefit of increasing muscle mass.
Having a few intensive sessions at the gym is going to require more than our body produces and this is available in many forms ie... shakes, drinks, choc bars, soluble powders., tabs...etc...etc..So many to choose from. HOWEVER, all of these come with cautions and warnings mostly due to the other chemicals that they are bound with in these formulas.-WHAT DOES ONE TAKE SAFELY ??
Not that easy to answer by anyone, ask a specialist or an expert and they will tell you the best way is the most natural obtainable- thus RED MEAT- they will say.
That's way I said this was a valid example and there are many many more.

So I don't think Randip ji is going off topic here, but it's actually another valid eye opener that most experts would agree with.

Thanks
Lucky Singh


----------



## BaljinderS (Apr 12, 2012)

I have personally tried using supplements and no meat, this simply does not work.  I see others in the gym who are veggies, they simply cannot compete with the non-veggies.  I have ready many articles, claiming that you can get all you need from vegetables, nuts etc etc.  I have personally tried and find them to be not true.

Your protein and other vitamins should not just come from meat, they should be supplemented with vegetables,fruits and nuts.  Meat is acidic and its not good to just eat for protein.


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Apr 13, 2012)

BaljinderS said:


> I have personally tried using supplements and no meat, this simply does not work.  I see others in the gym who are veggies, they simply cannot compete with the non-veggies.  I have ready many articles, claiming that you can get all you need from vegetables, nuts etc etc.  I have personally tried and find them to be not true.
> 
> Your protein and other vitamins should not just come from meat, they should be supplemented with vegetables,fruits and nuts.  Meat is acidic and its not good to just eat for protein.




Paji, sorry t´here I must renounce my training is very good without meat, and I know a few who only eat haver and protein 5 x times a day and they are bodybuilders!! they eat vegan!! So it is possible..
Where is the border to Canibalism(Kauda Raksh)?

But I have some questions: Why akal takht now decided that people cane at meat? Why not earlier, like in times of gurus...?
Why there is a forbade in Halal(kosher), this is against muslims, jews etc......?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 14, 2012)

Halllal is forbidden to Sikhs not because its "Muslim".... ( Its NOT GREEN but red and bloody just as nay other meat  ha ha )..BUT because Halall is SACRIFICIAL in Nature. The SIKH is follower of ONLY AKAL PURAKH and will NOT accept any Sacrificial food for any other diety/god/etc.

Thus the Bananas from a Hanuman mandir..the Bakra slaughtered by JHATKA in a KALI MANDIR..etc are BOTH OUT....even if the banana is Vegetarian..and bakra is JHATKA !! A SIKH CANNOT eat them both.....( Even if HINDU....not that the Bakra will be Bhagwa !!
Placed side by side the Hallal Lamb and the Kali mandir Lamb meat will be INDISTINGUISHABLE..Both will be red and bloody. BOTH Forbidden to a SIKH.


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Apr 14, 2012)

Very well put Gyaniji.


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Apr 15, 2012)

Thanks for the inwight gyqni ji but this was just a side question this answer is my as well. Main questions are why akal tkht now decided that we can eat meat why Not earoier like in times of our beloved gurus?
Second question is where is the border to canibalism? Example; i am making pakora (jhatka) of a human? It is jhatka so i can eat him if i have no food supplies(i dont want it is just a question) humans are very selfish


----------



## unbiasedview (Apr 15, 2012)

Randip Singh said:


> Slightly off topic, but an amino acid essential for body building Creatine only exists in red meat, as well as large amounts of B12.
> 
> You can however supplement on this, but I don't this your body assimilates as well unatural products.
> 
> http://www.myfit.ca/foods_high_in_creatine.asp


randeep ji creatine is not an amino acid,its synthesised from amino acids in body!muscles use there food as creatine and glucose!


----------



## unbiasedview (Apr 15, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> unbiasedview ji mentioned the non meat sources for all nutrients and supplements but this is not always the case.
> 2 reasons- 1stly we live in an age where we have fast paced lifestyles that are high in nutritional demands. Wether one is doing 12-14hr work shifts or a couple of days of intensive 2hr sessions at the gym- all this gives rise to increased demands.
> 2ndly- the natural sources or veg and plants cannot always supply sufficient supplies as they are basically not as natural, due to artificial growth and fertilisers...etc..etc..
> -Both reasons give reasons to supplement our increased demands.
> ...


well in my argument i was trying to suggest something which is very different from what you people are trying to point out.randeep ji understood it thats why while making his point about creatine he started with line"slightly off topic" because he knew the gist of my writing was something more deep than my last comment about fatty acids and amino acids !my argument is not aimed to convince people to eat or not to eat.i just pointed out i dont eat flesh because of this reason!gurujis comments on eating and not eating meat were always directed towards spiritual aspects and not about nutrient aspect of it..my reasoning behind me not eating meat had spiritual apprehensions as its basis.


----------



## unbiasedview (Apr 15, 2012)

unbiasedview said:


> well in my argument i was trying to suggest something which is very different from what you people are trying to point out.randeep ji understood it thats why while making his point about creatine he started with line"slightly off topic" because he knew the gist of my writing was something more deep than my last comment about fatty acids and amino acids !my argument is not aimed to convince people to eat or not to eat.i just pointed out i dont eat flesh because of this reason!gurujis comments on eating and not eating meat were always directed towards spiritual aspects and not about nutrient aspect of it..my reasoning behind me not eating meat had spiritual apprehensions as its basis.


i can tell you,the meat you eat is more chemical ridden than the vegetables!


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 17, 2012)

unbiasedview said:


> randeep ji creatine is not an amino acid,its synthesised from amino acids in body!muscles use there food as creatine and glucose!



It comes from meat in essence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 17, 2012)

unbiasedview said:


> i can tell you,the meat you eat is more chemical ridden than the vegetables!




Well I could tell you the world is flat, but that isn't true either. 

It depends where you source food from. Grass fed, Organic etc.

Best is to grow, rear yourself.


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 17, 2012)

TigerStyleZ said:


> Paji, sorry t´here I must renounce my training is very good without meat, and I know a few who only eat haver and protein 5 x times a day and they are bodybuilders!! they eat vegan!! So it is possible..
> Where is the border to Canibalism(Kauda Raksh)?
> 
> But I have some questions: Why akal takht now decided that people cane at meat? Why not earlier, like in times of gurus...?
> Why there is a forbade in Halal(kosher), this is against muslims, jews etc......?



who says Guru's forbade meat? Clearly not true. There are eye witness accounts of the Guru's Sikh's being voracious hunters and meat eaters.

EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF EUROPEAN TRAVELLERS OF SIKH DIET DURING THE 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY 

There  are a number of eyewitness accounts from European travellers as to the  eating habits of Sikhs. Although there is no prohibition on Sikhs for  eating beef, it is clear that Sikhs as a mark of respect for their Hindu  neighbours did not partake in eating beef: 

_The  Seiks receive Proselytes of almost every Cast, a point in which they  differ most materially from the Hindoos. To initiate Mohammedans into  their mysteries, they prepare a Dish of Hogs legs, which the Converts  are obliged to partake of, previous to admission............They are not  prohibited the use of Animal food of any kind, excepting Beef, which  they are rigidly scrupulous in abstaining from._
John Griffiths writes in February 17th 1794 



_The  seiks are remarkably fond of the flesh of the jungle hog, which they  kill in chase: this food is allowable by their law. They likewise eat of  mutton and fish; but these being unlawful the Brahmins will not  partake, leaving those who chose to transgress their institutes to  answer for themselves. _
_William Francklin in his writing about Mr George Thomas 1805_


It  is clear from the above that there is a clear distinction between Sikhs  (meat eaters), and those who chose to follow Brahmanical practices  (Vegetarians), however there appears to be no dispute over this issue as  people are allowed to decide for themselves. 
The following is an Extract from an officer in the Bengal Army and is taken from the Asiatic Annual Register 1809: 

_Now  become a Singh, he is a heterodox, and distinct from the Hindoos by  whom he is considered an apostate. He is not restricted in his diet, but  is allowed, by the tenets of his new religion, to devour whatever food  his appetite may prompt, excepting beef._
Asiatic Annual Register 1809


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Apr 17, 2012)

Randip Singh said:


> who says Guru's forbade meat? Clearly not true. There are eye witness accounts of the Guru's Sikh's being voracious hunters and meat eaters.
> 
> EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF EUROPEAN TRAVELLERS OF SIKH DIET DURING THE 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY
> 
> ...




Paji, thanks for reply. I never said Sikhs can´t eat meat, I myself don´t believe in things like brahmatical practices etc.. I just wanted to know WHY Akal Takht NOW decided , that Sikhs can eat meat or not ? Why not earlier? Is it due to hugh influence of Hindoos? Or is it because, earlier we hadn´t such "problems" like this, that we need to make a "rule"? I want different views, and facts --- thanks
Second question:
Where is the border to Canibalism(exp: Kauda Raksh, who was a canibalist=?


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 20, 2012)

TigerStyleZ said:


> Paji, thanks for reply. I never said Sikhs can´t eat meat, I myself don´t believe in things like brahmatical practices etc.. I just wanted to know WHY Akal Takht NOW decided , that Sikhs can eat meat or not ? Why not earlier? Is it due to hugh influence of Hindoos? Or is it because, earlier we hadn´t such "problems" like this, that we need to make a "rule"? I want different views, and facts --- thanks
> Second question:
> Where is the border to Canibalism(exp: Kauda Raksh, who was a canibalist=?



This has been confirmed by the Akal Takht and our Guru's several times. I think evrtime the Panth starts getting split on this issue it gets reafirmed.

As for Cannabalism, why would we want to eat another human being? What purpose would it serve? How would it be different from eating an animal? Many questions.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Apr 29, 2012)

In days before import your choices depend on location,you eat what is available around you,if you were born in a land locked desert you would not envisage eating fish,if you were an Eskimo you would not envisage eating lamb or chicken.

When one gives up a certain meat for ones Religion that is just to get the person used to adherence,it is the principle behind it that is being taught, namely that one has to comply with certain principles or behave with propriety ,simply some things we do, somethings we don't do, taught by simple day to day practice in diet,so first the easy stuff like Dietary Control,then the harder stuff like Self Control. 
Now go enjoy your burger,but don't touch anyone elses burger!


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 29, 2012)

remember folks...Guru Ji wrote:..MAAS Maas kar MOORAKH jhaggrrey....He DID NOT WRITE:..SAAG SAAG kar moorakh jhaggrrey.....There is a significance to this.... whoever BRINGS up the MAAS thingy..FIRST..is a Mxxxxxxxxxx.???? Guru Ji said it..not me.

EAT what is HEALTHY...says GURU NANAK JI..whats so difficult to understand about that ?? If its  a free range chicken/goat/lamb.......compared to a Pesticide/insecticde/urea loaded CARROT/SAAG/CABBAGE etc.....i think we all know which is "HEALTHY"...

:singhsippingcoffee: btw coffee is not "healthy" to SOME..not ALL...same thing...


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 29, 2012)

Very well said brother Scarlet Pimpernel ji.





Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> In days before import your choices depend on location,you eat what is available around you,if you were born in a land locked desert you would not envisage eating fish,if you were an Eskimo you would not envisage eat lamb or chicken.
> 
> When one gives up a certain meat for ones Religion that is just to get the person used to adherence,it is the principle behind it that is being taught, namely that one has to comply with certain principles or behave with propriety ,simply some things we do, somethings we don't do, taught by simple day to day practice in diet,_so first the easy stuff like Dietary Control,then the harder stuff like Self Control._
> Now go enjoy your burger,but don't touch anyone elses burger!


_Let us apply it to a Dehra on the other side of Beas, Punjab.  So called Vegetarian, Sikh persona, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji degraders.  Let us check the formula,_

_*Food Control (no Egg no meat movement) ---> mind control (no Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji at the Dehra) ---> Flock is ready to be Ruled and Exploited  :angryyoungsingh::angryyoungkaur:*_

_Foolish Sikhs, don't wrangle as Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and our Guru ji took you away from this darkness that others are pulling you back into!  Don't dictate, use common sense for such simple dietary choices, there is nothing spiritual about it.  Eat what goes with your body and keeps it healthy.  Leave the marketing of Veg versus non-Veg to the stores and shops._

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Apr 29, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> Very well said brother Scarlet Pimpernel ji.
> 
> Sat Sri Akal.


 
Thank You Master


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Apr 29, 2012)

Originally Posted by *Scarlet Pimpernel* 

 
_



			When one gives up a certain meat for ones Religion that is just to get the person used to adherence,it is the principle behind it that is being taught, namely that one has to comply with certain principles or behave with propriety ,simply some things we do, somethings we don't do, taught by simple day to day practice in diet,so first the easy stuff like Dietary Control,then the harder stuff like Self Control.

Click to expand...

_ 
Veer Ji
I'm not sure what dehra does but they should teach that the Adherence of Truth principle is what is important and not the mechanism by which we remember it.

Anyway I would give up meat in an instant for just one date with the bulgarian beauty from the Apprentice,so what merit would my meat giving up really have in my case,just about anyone can control themselves from some Pork chops or some Burgers but to avert ones minds eye from an enticing beauty is another thing altogether,

As our Guru said _where are those beauties now seeing whom one would get no sleep,no one loses sleep over food choices ,let Sikhs control the 'hard' things_,let others control the easy things.


----------



## PunjabiEspada (May 3, 2012)

I'll make this short and sweet

I won't even try to debate you guys on the message that Bani has obviously delivered; since some people twist it to bend to their own beliefs and neither of us will bend to the other's opinion

I'll talk about minimizing suffering


----------



## Luckysingh (May 3, 2012)

PunjabiEspada ji.
Don't think that no ones taking any notice of what you say or trying to ignore your comments.
This  thread has been going for a very long time, it is the longest one on SPN, I think!
Throughout the thread, the same arguments that you put forward have been raised many times. The result is that wether you argue for or against veggie or non veggie, -a single truthful statement won't be concluded.

You can look and see in the posts that many times the same arguments of pain and cruelty to animals have been put forward.
You need to read the 1st essay/post and maybe a few of them later on, and you should get the idea that for every argument there will be a strong opposing argument and comment.

In terms of sikhism, the main points to note are-
That Gurbani quotes for pro-veggie arguments are wrongly presented and interpreted.
The Guru Granth Sahib ji does not directly state either way if one should or should not eat meat.
It is a choice of the individual and what their conscious tells them.
The rehat maryada does not specify and Akal Takht have ruled that it doesn't make a sikh eating meat not welcome.
It leaves the choice to one self.

All the arguments are then, outside of the scope for sikhi.
I myself used to be convinced that eating meat is prohibited, but now I realise that it's a personal choice and how you feel about it.
If your conscious tells you no,no, then don't do it. But if ones conscious is not affected or it doesn't matter wether they do or not, then fine, go ahead.
The arguments for pain and suffering are all very well. BUT, these won't stop if consumption of meat was prohibited throughout the world.
There is a lot of cruelty, pain and suffering in production of dairy products.
Lots of chemicals have been used that have wiped out certain colonies of insects.. etc in mass production of fruit and veg.
So, we can't just see it as clear as black and white if we use pain and suffering as a basis.

As a sikh, one that eats meat or not doesn't make either of them any better.
Meat consumption is not in any way used to define a sikh.

We shouldn't divide between ourselves any sikhs that eat to ones that don't, this further dilutes sikhism.
We should also not judge other's in relation to their attitude on meat consumption.

I think you should get the idea.

Sat Kartar
Lucky Singh


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 3, 2012)

Lucky Singh ji,



> In terms of sikhism, the main points to note are-
> That Gurbani quotes for pro-veggie arguments are wrongly presented and interpreted.


Are you coming to this conclusion after having gone through the shabads yourself (as you do Ambarsaria ji's Sukhmani series) or are you taking the author's word for it?


----------



## Luckysingh (May 4, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Lucky Singh ji,
> 
> 
> Are you coming to this conclusion after having gone through the shabads yourself (as you do Ambarsaria ji's Sukhmani series) or are you taking the author's word for it?


 
I went through most of the posts a while back including the gurbani quotes. I think 'misquote' would probably be a better term to apply above instead of 'wrongly presented'.
The conclusion I came to was very neutral in terms of sikhism.
The view is a strong matter of personal feeling and consciousness.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

Lucky Singh ji,
Now this issue of meat eating is actually not THAT important. If I agreed to anything in the article, it would be this. But that should not prevent discussion. Maintaining detachment is key.

I did not find the article so conclusive. In fact, where the author says Gurbani is being mistranslated, it is not. For example, the salok's of Bhagat Kabir ji were already accurate and consistent with his beliefs. He was a vegetarian and is against the eating of meat. He says that very clearly here. 

In this order: Gurmukhi, Word for Word translation, Sant Singh Khalsa, Freed Kote wala Teeka and Prof Sahib Singh

ਕਬੀਰ ਜੋਰੀ ਕੀਏ ਜੁਲਮੁ ਹੈ ਕਹਤਾ ਨਾਉ ਹਲਾਲੁ ॥
ਕਬੀਰ - Kabir,  ਜੋਰੀ- force, ਕੀਏ- use thereof, ਜੁਲਮੁ ਹੈ - is tyranny, ਕਹਤਾ ਨਾਉ ਹਲਾਲੁ - which you call permissible

Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal.
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀ ਕਹਿਤੇ ਹੈਂ ਜੋਰਾ ਜੋਰੀ ਕਰ ਬੱਕਰਾ ਆਦੀ ਮਾਰਨੇ ਸੇ ਹੈ ਤੋ ਜੁਲਮ ਔ ਤਿਸ ਕੋ ਮਾਰ ਕੇ ਨਾਮ ਹਲਾਲ ਕੀਆ ਕਹਿਤੇ ਹੈਂ॥
ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! (ਮੁੱਲਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਦੱਸ ਕਿ) ਕਿਸੇ ਉਤੇ ਧੱਕਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਜ਼ੁਲਮ ਹੈ, (ਤੂੰ ਜਾਨਵਰ ਨੂੰ ਫੜ ਕੇ ਬਿਸਮਿੱਲਾ ਆਖ ਕੇ ਜ਼ਬਹ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈਂ ਅਤੇ) ਤੂੰ ਆਖਦਾ ਹੈਂ ਕਿ ਇਹ (ਜ਼ਬਹ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਨਵਰ) ਰੱਬ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਤੇ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇਣ ਦੇ ਲਾਇਕ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ (ਅਤੇ ਇਸ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਨਾਲ ਖ਼ੁਦਾ ਤੇਰੇ ਉਤੇ ਖ਼ੁਸ਼ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ); (ਪਰ ਇਹ ਮਾਸ ਤੂੰ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਖਾ ਲੈਂਦਾ ਹੈਂ। ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਪਾਪ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ੀਂਦੇ, ਕਦੇ ਸੋਚ ਕਿ)


ਦਫਤਰਿ ਲੇਖਾ ਮਾਂਗੀਐ ਤਬ ਹੋਇਗੋ ਕਉਨੁ ਹਵਾਲੁ ॥੧੮੭॥
ਦਫਤਰਿ - office of Dharam Raj, ਲੇਖਾ - account, ਮਾਂਗੀਐ - calls for, ਤਬ - then, ਹੋਇਗੋ ਕਉਨੁ ਹਵਾਲੁ - what will be your condition? (rhetorical for "You will be in trouble.")

When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then? ||187||
ਜਬ ਧਰਮਰਾਇ ਕੇ ਦਫਤਰ ਮੈਂ ਤੇਰੇ ਸੇ ਲੇਖਾ ਮਾਂਗੀਐ ਗਾ ਤਬ ਤੇਰਾ ਕੌਨ ਸਾ ਹਵਾਲ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ ਅਰਥਾਤ ਬੁਰਾ ਹਾਲ ਹੀ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ॥੧੮੭॥
ਜਦੋਂ ਰੱਬ ਦੀ ਦਰਗਾਹ ਵਿਚ ਤੇਰੇ ਅਮਲਾਂ ਦਾ ਹਿਸਾਬ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ ਤਾਂ ਤੇਰਾ ਕੀਹ ਹਾਲ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ ॥੧੮੭॥


ਕਬੀਰ ਖੂਬੁ ਖਾਨਾ ਖੀਚਰੀ ਜਾ ਮਹਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਲੋਨੁ ॥
ਕਬੀਰ - Kabir, ਖੂਬੁ - excellent, ਖਾਨਾ - eating,  ਖੀਚਰੀ - dish made from rice and beans, ਜਾ ਮਹਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਲੋਨੁ - if amrit-like salt is added
Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt.
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀ ਕਹਿਤੇ ਹੈਂ ਹੇ ਭਾਈ ਇਹ ਖਿਚੜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਣਾ ਹੀ ਖੂਬ ਹੈ ਭਾਵ ਅਛਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਖਿਚੜੀ ਮੈਂ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਤ ਕੇ ਸਮਾਨ ਘ੍ਰਿਤ ਔ ਲੂਣ ਪੜਾ ਹੂਆ ਹੈ॥
ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! (ਮੁੱਲਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਬੇਸ਼ੱਕ ਆਖ ਕਿ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇ ਬਹਾਨੇ ਮਾਸ ਖਾਣ ਨਾਲੋਂ) ਖਿਚੜੀ ਖਾ ਲੈਣੀ ਚੰਗੀ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਸੁਆਦਲਾ ਲੂਣ ਹੀ ਪਾਇਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੋਵੇ।

ਹੇਰਾ ਰੋਟੀ ਕਾਰਨੇ ਗਲਾ ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ ॥੧੮੮॥
ਹੇਰਾ - meat (from hunting), ਰੋਟੀ - roti/bread, ਕਾਰਨੇ, with the intent, ਗਲਾ - neck, throat, ਕਟਾਵੈ - cut, ਕਉਨੁ - who
Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? ||188||
ਕਿਉਂਕਿ (ਹੇਰਾ) ਸ਼ਿਕਾਰ ਮੈਂ ਜੀਵੋਂ ਕੋ ਮਾਰ ਕਰਕੇ ਮਾਸ ਕੇ ਸਾਥ ਰੋਟੀ ਖਾਨੇ ਕੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਸੇ ਪੀਛੇ ਅਪਨੇ ਕੋ ਕੌਨ ਕਟਾਵੇ ਭਾਵ ਜੀਵ ਕੇ ਮਾਰਨੇ ਕਰਕੇ ਫੇਰ ਅਪਨਾ ਸੀਸ ਤਿਸ ਸੇ ਕਟਵਾਵਨਾ ਪੜਤਾ ਹੈ॥੧੮੮॥ 
ਮੈਂ ਤਾਂ ਇਸ ਗੱਲ ਲਈ ਤਿਆਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਮਾਸ ਰੋਟੀ ਖਾਣ ਦੀ ਨਿਯਤ ਮੇਰੀ ਆਪਣੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਪਰ (ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦਾ ਹੋਕਾ ਦੇ ਦੇ ਕੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਪਸ਼ੂ ਨੂੰ) ਜ਼ਬਹ ਕਰਦਾ ਫਿਰਾਂ ॥੧੮੮॥


I have come across mistranslations (e.g. the saloks that come right after are mistranslated by Prof Sahib Singh and Sant Singh Khalsa, which are inconsistent with Sant Kabir's beliefs). But here all translations and teekas align and their translations align with Sant Kabir ji's beliefs. Read other shabads by Kabir ji and his anti-meat (to be very precise, he is against killing to obtain meat) views will become quite clear.


PunjabiEspada ji,


> Minimize worldwide meat consumption and minimize suffering


It could also be the other way around.


----------



## Luckysingh (May 4, 2012)

PunjabiEspada said:


> I'm pretty sure all the vegetarians worldwide combined have had some impact on reducing the production of meat
> 
> which in turn reduces suffering


 
Yes, I'm sure that all the meat eaters live in the greener parts of the world as the vegetation is probably untouched.
I wonder where these green is ?


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

Punjabi Espada ji,
The view on the other thread (vegetarian consciousness...) was that meat had a negative affect on spirituality, hinders spiritual growth and thus would increase the suffering of the human being.

What do you think about this? It has little to do with animal suffering, which is an important topic but irrelevant to the article.


----------



## PunjabiEspada (May 4, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Punjabi Espada ji,
> The view on the other thread (vegetarian consciousness...) was that meat had a negative affect on spirituality, hinders spiritual growth and thus would increase the suffering of the human being.
> 
> What do you think about this? It has little to do with animal suffering, which is an important topic but irrelevant to the article.



my view is that eating meat nowadays is needless killing done solely for taste

not only that; but during the process of slaughter; there is much suffering

therefore yeah, it probably does


----------



## Randip Singh (May 4, 2012)

PunjabiEspada said:


> I'll make this short and sweet
> 
> I won't even try to debate you guys on the message that Bani has obviously delivered; since some people twist it to bend to their own beliefs and neither of us will bend to the other's opinion



NO

This is a Sikh forum so please furnish full shabads that directly discourage or encourage meat eating. Not one liners but full shabads.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 4, 2012)

PunjabiEspada said:


> my view is that eating meat nowadays is needless killing done solely for taste
> 
> not only that; but during the process of slaughter; there is much suffering
> 
> therefore yeah, it probably does



Your view. No offence we are not interested in YOUR view, just like people aren't interested in my view.

What you should do is furnish the Sikh view.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 4, 2012)

*this is the last time i will post this. We are talking about diet in the context of sikhim. We are not interested in peta. We are not interested in the meat industry. We are interested in what bani and guruji says about diet only. 


Stay on topic
*


----------



## Randip Singh (May 4, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Lucky Singh ji,
> Now this issue of meat eating is actually not THAT important. If I agreed to anything in the article, it would be this. But that should not prevent discussion. Maintaining detachment is key.
> 
> I did not find the article so conclusive. In fact, where the author says Gurbani is being mistranslated, it is not. For example, the salok's of Bhagat Kabir ji were already accurate and consistent with his beliefs. He was a vegetarian and is against the eating of meat. He says that very clearly here.
> ...



Kabir ji also stated:

http://singhsabha.com/bhagat_kabir.htm

 _Kabir  does not think well of women. there is almost a tirade against them in  the hymns of Kabir. Woman is characterised as "a black cobra', the pit  of hell and the refuse of the world." She is considered to be a hurdle  in the path of the spiritual progress of man. He spoke, "woman ruins  everything when she comes near a man; devotion, salvation and divine  knowledge no longer enter his soul." His views, about woman are also  evident from all his vehement attacks against maya. Almost everywhere he  links maya to a woman who is out to entice and entrap man, and destroy  his spiritual life. Such views about woman from a married person are,  indeed, quite uncommon. The cosmological views of Kabir give a clear  clue to his worldview. He finds Niranjana to be the creator of the  world; maya or woman. And this woman stands between man and God. She is  there to entice him away from Him. _

Should we follow that as Sikhs?

Also the point about mistranslation is irrelevant is one line is taken out of a shabad. It then becomes a misquote surely?

Don't eat buttered bread either?

*Page 1379*
Those who eat buttered bread, will suffer in         terrible pain.  || 28 |

Look at this thread on Bani Manipulation:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/38139-a-question-to-gurujee-bani-manipulation.html


----------



## Luckysingh (May 4, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Punjabi Espada ji,
> The view on the other thread (vegetarian consciousness...) was that meat had a negative affect on spirituality, hinders spiritual growth and thus would increase the suffering of the human being.
> 
> What do you think about this? It has little to do with animal suffering, which is an important topic but irrelevant to the article.


 
I'm not sure if the other thread is now closed ?
It won't allow me to post, I was trying to post the important question by Bhagat ji above.
It would be a good discussion as I'm sure many will have views of diet and spirituality.


----------



## PunjabiEspada (May 4, 2012)

Despite me believing Sri Guru Grant Sahib Ji preaches to minimize  suffering and both of those videos were actually not from PETA; which  does not even matter since the truth is still the truth and those videos were vital in sharing knowledge and showing meat eaters where their food comes from and to know the amount of suffering

regardless, I'll play by the rules

If Bhagat Kabeer Ji was truly a vegetarian and he held those beliefs as you said; and Sri Guru Grant Sahib Ji shared these beliefs; does it not mean that we should follow them?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 4, 2012)

The GURU is NEUTRAL.....RAS *MEETHA*...RAS..*MAAS*...Page 15

SABH ...RAS...*MITHEH*...IF *Menniah*....BUT NOT IF just paying Lip Service..(Sunneha SALLONNEH)  Page 16

36 types of Food..are AMRIT...IF BHAO..is EK..(Love for EK..the creator creates the Level Playing Field and makes every FOOD "good"....BUT SANS that BHAO for EK...no matter daal or maas..both are no good.

Page 16 Guru nanak ji warns us about this "MISSING LINK of BHAO-EK....and one can argue that Riding a BMW is banned..Sleeping on a soft silk mattress is Banned..Having a beautiful woman for company is Banned. Using perfumes is banned...Consuming 36 foods is Banned..having an army is banned..having a Mansion is banned.... BECAUSE IF ANY THING >>"interferes with your BHAO-EK...and Creates TENSION/VIKAARS/nightmares/churns yiur mind..makes your body sick and incapable of nitnem/rehat/discipline..etc etc" THEN THAT is BANNED.
This is the ESSENCE GURU JI tackles so early in SGGS..sri raag Pages 13 ONWARDS...please read carefully what GURU JI "SANCTIONS" and what GURU JI DISCOURAGES.

People have a tendency to ..."HIJACK" the GURUS position  and assume they know MORE than what the GURU says...."meat in diet" is a TINY tiny .00000000000001 ISSUE...whereas the GURU Tackled the VITAL ISSUES.....but we in our infinite wisdom..feel we need to go on and on about the TINY SPECK of an issue while IGNORING the MOUNT EVEREST before us as insignificant...


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 4, 2012)

PRAYA HAAK..( haak praya Nanaka us SOOR us GAYEH )..is a MOUNT EVEREST sized ISSUE....and it Happens DAILY in front of our EYES....all over the world...BUT Hardly a WORD on nay SIKH FORUM about this....all we see are meat..meat..meat..blah blah blah..
A BILLION People CONSUME "Gayeh" but *abhor* the SOOR....another billion consume "SOOR" and "GAYEH".....another Billion or so say SOOR is OK BUT NOT "Gayeh"..and a couple of billion consume anything  and everything....BUT HARDLY ANYONE EVEN MENTIONS..PRAYA HAAK...Human Rights, Freedom of Religion...economic slavery, land grab, forst grab etc etc etc...ALL of WHICH..create More tensions, more VIKAARS...more MURDERS/KIDNAPPINGS/THUGGHERY ( Guru ji calls THUGGHEE as Consuming DEAD BODY)..and Millions of Sikhs are among those who Commit THUGGHHE daily.. happen due to this "Haak praya" ..even the Ten commandments address this issue of PRAYA HAKK but virtually IGNORED by the Christian nations !!


----------



## PunjabiEspada (May 4, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> The GURU is NEUTRAL.....RAS *MEETHA*...RAS..*MAAS*...Page 15
> 
> SABH ...RAS...*MITHEH*...IF *Menniah*....BUT NOT IF just paying Lip Service..(Sunneha SALLONNEH)  Page 16
> 
> ...


are there issues more significant? 

yes

does that mean we should ignore this issue?

no

does it really need to be as big of a deal as it is?

personally no, I felt the answer was pretty obvious

Simply analyze this issue, read my post as well, and you can see Sri Guru Grant Sahib Ji clearly commands for us not to eat meat

there, make that change and move on; case closed

then we can focus on other issues


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 5, 2012)

Case was already CLOSED 550 years ago..BY GURU NANAK JI SAHIB....MAAS MAAS kar moorakh jhaggrrey.....BUT his SIKHS disregarded that advice.....and keep on REOPENING the case....Even the "sarcastic" title Guru Ji attached to the arguers of this.."MOORAKHS..FOOLS.." didnt stop them because one side thinks the title is addressed to the opposite side only.
Whats even stranger is that Guru ji terms..thugghee, cheating, lying, praya hakk grabbing/suppression as *MURDAAR*..eating CARRION..dead animals..BUT people continue to devour CARRION like VULTURES and still remain "holy"..no where is Murdaar used to describe MAAS. I hold the opinion that "EATING MURDAAR" as described by GURU Ji is way MORE destructive to human Morality and spirituality than a kilo of meat daily. This is why INDIA is morally bankrupt..way way more than say USA..becasue the Hundreds of Thousands of Holy BABAS..derawadees, dehdharee Gurus, even Yoga masters like baba RAMDEV have Amassed BILLIONS by lying/cheating/grabbing paraya hakk etc etc...no matter if they eat khichree or daal only ( which i think is highly unlikely as Guru nanak ji already described in Asa dee vaar as "Naak pakkrreh in PUBLIC and meat devouvers at NIGHt in private/ or worse carrion consumers)). The WEST is more "moral" than India any day..just look at the corruption and all that..vegetariansim didnt help one bit...I beleive the RSS and Congress i Goondas who killed sikhs with impunity in 1984 streets of delhi were all strict vegetarians who wouldnt harm a hair on a cows tail...BUT SIKH lives didnt matter one bit..such a massacre has never happened in USA..or canada..even though they consume beef by the billion tons yearly.... so DIET is not a factor in Morality/spirituality..and the Case will never be closed..becasue IF Guur ji couldnt close it..who are we to close it ?? Futile exercise.
My benti..just Carry ON...


----------



## PunjabiEspada (May 5, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Case was already CLOSED 550 years ago..BY GURU NANAK JI SAHIB....MAAS MAAS kar moorakh jhaggrrey.....BUT his SIKHS disregarded that advice.....and keep on REOPENING the case....Even the "sarcastic" title Guru Ji attached to the arguers of this.."MOORAKHS..FOOLS.." didnt stop them because one side thinks the title is addressed to the opposite side only.
> Whats even stranger is that Guru ji terms..thugghee, cheating, lying, praya hakk grabbing/suppression as *MURDAAR*..eating CARRION..dead animals..BUT people continue to devour CARRION like VULTURES and still remain "holy"..no where is Murdaar used to describe MAAS. I hold the opinion that "EATING MURDAAR" as described by GURU Ji is way MORE destructive to human Morality and spirituality than a kilo of meat daily. This is why INDIA is morally bankrupt..way way more than say USA..becasue the Hundreds of Thousands of Holy BABAS..derawadees, dehdharee Gurus, even Yoga masters like baba RAMDEV have Amassed BILLIONS by lying/cheating/grabbing paraya hakk etc etc...no matter if they eat khichree or daal only ( which i think is highly unlikely as Guru nanak ji already described in Asa dee vaar as "Naak pakkrreh in PUBLIC and meat devouvers at NIGHt in private/ or worse carrion consumers)). The WEST is more "moral" than India any day..just look at the corruption and all that..vegetariansim didnt help one bit...I beleive the RSS and Congress i Goondas who killed sikhs with impunity in 1984 streets of delhi were all strict vegetarians who wouldnt harm a hair on a cows tail...BUT SIKH lives didnt matter one bit..such a massacre has never happened in USA..or canada..even though they consume beef by the billion tons yearly.... so DIET is not a factor in Morality/spirituality..and the Case will never be closed..becasue IF Guru ji couldnt close it..who are we to close it ?? Futile exercise.
> My benti..just Carry ON...


Sri Guru Grant Sahib Ji clearly said it's wrong

Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji said it's foolish to argue about it


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 5, 2012)

SGGS came AFTER Guru nanak ji had *CLOSED* the subject. So theres NO WAY to claim that SGGS says it differently because NO AUTHOR in SGGS contradicts GURU NANAK JI. NO GURU wrote anything about this after Guru nanak ji closed the subject.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 5, 2012)

PunjabiEspada said:


> Simply analyze this issue, read my post as well, and you can see Sri Guru Grant Sahib Ji clearly commands for us not to eat meat



Where? which Shabad? Post it in its entirety!!winkingmunda


----------



## Randip Singh (May 5, 2012)

PunjabiEspada said:


> Sri Guru Grant Sahib Ji clearly said it's wrong
> 
> Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji said it's foolish to argue about it




Where which Shabad? Post the shabad that says this in it's entirety?


----------



## PunjabiEspada (May 5, 2012)

you can agree with me that Bhagat Kabeer Ji was a vegetarian and held vegetarian beliefs right?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 5, 2012)

Bhagat Kabir Ji's Bani is written in the Islamic Context...he talks about Zor, Hallal, Sacrifice, etc which are ALL Abrahamic/Islamic religious traditions and beleifs. GURMATT has no such concepts except "SELF SACRIFICE as GREATEST SACRIFICE..aapa vaarna/shaheedee/Je tau prem khelan ka chao..sir dhar gali meri ao concept. IF you want to PLEASE ME..Give ME YOUR OWN HEAD...NOT a goat or lamb or chicken and its in this concept that the Infamous Talwara Book Tau KION MURGEE MAREH is a hot bed of creating confusion and misconcstruing bani of kabir ji to twist his concept around. ( Also please note that the Abrahmic God had demanded a Human Sacrifice of one of his prophets..a SON of the prophet..the prophet did bring along his son..BUT also took along a Lamb just in case God relented...( Because he certainly DIDNT want to sacrifice his SON much less HIMSELF even for His GOD )..and viola..GOD did agree to have the poor LAMB instead of the SON. Compare this to how GURU GOBIND SINGH JI SACRIFICED WILLINGLY his two sons in battlefield right before his eyes..and his family elsewhere..."God" in this case didnt appear and decline the sacrifices !! ) SO SIKHS need not go around asking..W*HY KILL THE CHICKEN..because WE DONT DO THAT.*..of KILLING. we kill for OUR OWN FOOD.

GURU NANAK JI chose these Banis by various Bhagats to "COMPARE and provide us with different viewpoints"....and these are SACRED to us..BUT the BOTTOM LINE is the BANI that is written by GURU NANAK JI HIMSELF. You will NOT FAIL TO NOTICE..that GURU NANAK JI not only travelled the world, HE went to each and every Famous RELIGIOUS PLACE, teeraths, headquarters of islam.hinduism.yogis/siddhs etc etc..and He also has TACKLED EACH and EVERY "Beleif" of these and WRITTEB Bani on these. This is becaseu *GURU NANAK JI came to deliver a BRAND NEW GYAAN.*.a PATH well away from the beaten paaths, the threadbare philosophies ..shastras, vedas, mahabhartas,Raam of Ramayanas, Cows and  holy dung.. kalyugs and aquarious..teerath baths, fasts, pilgrimages, etc etc etc..traditions etc etc...GURU NANAK JI DEMOLISHED EACH and EVERY such beleifs and tradition. ON the HINDU side GURU NANAK ji wrote all the bani himself..on the Abrahamic side He chose banis of adherents that came from such backgrounds such as Bhagat Kabir ji to ILLUSTRATE and SHOW GURMATT..

This is NOT to say that those Bhagat Banis are any less sacred to us..since they were chosen by Guru nanak ji and are in the SGGS we hold them equally sacred...so theres no argument there...but the facts of "Background" cannot be denied...and thats called CONTEXT. GURU NANAK JI is solid 100& GURMATT as He is the FOUNTAIN HEAD of GURMATT which the following NINE NANAKS EXPOUNDED in FULL. GURU NANAK JI gave His FINAL JUDGEMENT.."Maas maas kar moorakh jhaggrrey"..and NONE of the  NINE NANAKS even wrote a single SHABAD mentioning "diet" after that verdict. *Case CLOSED.*


----------



## PunjabiEspada (May 6, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Bhagat Kabir Ji's Bani is written in the Islamic Context...he talks about Zor, Hallal, Sacrifice, etc which are ALL Abrahamic/Islamic religious traditions and beleifs. GURMATT has no such concepts except "SELF SACRIFICE as GREATEST SACRIFICE..aapa vaarna/shaheedee/Je tau prem khelan ka chao..sir dhar gali meri ao concept. IF you want to PLEASE ME..Give ME YOUR OWN HEAD...NOT a goat or lamb or chicken and its in this concept that the Infamous Talwara Book Tau KION MURGEE MAREH is a hot bed of creating confusion and misconcstruing bani of kabir ji to twist his concept around. ( Also please note that the Abrahmic God had demanded a Human Sacrifice of one of his prophets..a SON of the prophet..the prophet did bring along his son..BUT also took along a Lamb just in case God relented...( Because he certainly DIDNT want to sacrifice his SON much less HIMSELF even for His GOD )..and viola..GOD did agree to have the poor LAMB instead of the SON. Compare this to how GURU GOBIND SINGH JI SACRIFICED WILLINGLY his two sons in battlefield right before his eyes..and his family elsewhere..."God" in this case didnt appear and decline the sacrifices !! ) SO SIKHS need not go around asking..W*HY KILL THE CHICKEN..because WE DONT DO THAT.*..of KILLING. we kill for OUR OWN FOOD.
> 
> GURU NANAK JI chose these Banis by various Bhagats to "COMPARE and provide us with different viewpoints"....and these are SACRED to us..BUT the BOTTOM LINE is the BANI that is written by GURU NANAK JI HIMSELF. You will NOT FAIL TO NOTICE..that GURU NANAK JI not only travelled the world, HE went to each and every Famous RELIGIOUS PLACE, teeraths, headquarters of islam.hinduism.yogis/siddhs etc etc..and He also has TACKLED EACH and EVERY "Beleif" of these and WRITTEB Bani on these. This is becaseu *GURU NANAK JI came to deliver a BRAND NEW GYAAN.*.a PATH well away from the beaten paaths, the threadbare philosophies ..shastras, vedas, mahabhartas,Raam of Ramayanas, Cows and  holy dung.. kalyugs and aquarious..teerath baths, fasts, pilgrimages, etc etc etc..traditions etc etc...GURU NANAK JI DEMOLISHED EACH and EVERY such beleifs and tradition. ON the HINDU side GURU NANAK ji wrote all the bani himself..on the Abrahamic side He chose banis of adherents that came from such backgrounds such as Bhagat Kabir ji to ILLUSTRATE and SHOW GURMATT..
> 
> This is NOT to say that those Bhagat Banis are any less sacred to us..since they were chosen by Guru nanak ji and are in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji we hold them equally sacred...so theres no argument there...but the facts of "Background" cannot be denied...and thats called CONTEXT. GURU NANAK JI is solid 100& GURMATT as He is the FOUNTAIN HEAD of GURMATT which the following NINE NANAKS EXPOUNDED in FULL. GURU NANAK JI gave His FINAL JUDGEMENT.."Maas maas kar moorakh jhaggrrey"..and NONE of the  NINE NANAKS even wrote a single SHABAD mentioning "diet" after that verdict. *Case CLOSED.*


Once again, he said it is foolish to argue about it

Sri Guru Grant Sahib Ji commands us and we follow

Sri Guru Grant Sahib Ji contains the order that eating meat is wrong

That much should be more than enough


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 6, 2012)

NO JIOS..SGGS does NO such command. Please post the relevant shabd in context and supporting shabads form Guru nanak ji sahib.

2. There is NO SUCH ORDER. Please post the relevant shabad   in context  and supporting shbad from GURU Nanak Ji.

3. NONE of the 5 SIKH GURUS  even touched the subject of Meat/Diet as necessary for spiritual purposes. PLEASE post a shabd if you have come across and by which Mahalla.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 6, 2012)

> GURU NANAK JI chose these Banis by various Bhagats to "COMPARE and provide us with different viewpoints"


Sounds sketchy. I have found the bani of Bhagats, Bards and Gurus to be quite consistent. Their views align. Guru Arjan Dev ji collected and presented similar views in SGGS. 

Do you have any examples of where we see misalignment? (contrast, contradiction, differing views, etc)


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 6, 2012)

Bhagat kabir Ji writes about Zor, Hallal, Sacrifice which makes meat Hallal..etc..all "concepts" which have absolutely NO Locus standi in Gurmatt. They are ISLAMIC CONCEPTS. Sheikh farid ji too mentions Namaaz, five prayers etc etc which are again islamic concepts. Sheikh farid ji says a Head that doesnt bow in namaaz should be CUT OFF...again this is NOT a Gurmatt concept...No GURU ever advocated cutting any head that doesnt bow to the Guru or to Akal Purakh.
The SIKH GURUS wrote about these "concepts" and gave their own interpretation...thus we have Guru nanak ji explaining what the namaaz, what the musallah, what the five prayers etc etc "mean" in Gurmatt..Mussalmaan MOM dil Hoveh...an example that a Muslim shoudl be having a heart made of wax..full of dya and compassion.
The Gurus never did Namaaz, never fasted, never did the five prayers, never kept the rozeh..BUT they chose the Banis that speak about all these and give their own interpretations..thats what i mean by "comparing..taking concepts and giving our very own meaning.
Thus a Sikh would NEVER claim the Chicken hes killing to cook is a "sacrifice" to God..its simply food...BUT a Muslim on the other hand would NEVER eat a chicken NOT "sacrificed..made Hallal". Kabir Ji questions the reasoning/logic behind this concept..hence TAU KION MURGEE MAREH ?? is a question put to a Muslim and NOT a SIKH. SGGS doesnt CONDONE any such "sacrifice"...as a GURMATT PRINCIPLE....so this question is invalid in the Gurmatt context even though it appears in SGGS.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 6, 2012)

PunjabiEspada said:


> Sri Guru Grant Sahib Ji contains the order that eating meat is wrong
> 
> That much should be more than enough



Where? You have not presented one iota of proof? Where does Guru Grath Sahib say this?


----------



## Randip Singh (May 6, 2012)

PunjabiEspada said:


> you can agree with me that Bhagat Kabeer Ji was a vegetarian and held vegetarian beliefs right?



Kabir Ji also said a woman was a Black Cobra not to be trusted. Do you agree with that?

*“a black  cobra’, the pit of hell and the refuse of the world. woman ruins everything when she comes near a man; Devotion, salvation  and divine knowledge no longer enter his soul.”*

We are not Kabir Panthi's but Sikh's of Nanak!!


----------



## Randip Singh (May 6, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Sounds sketchy. I have found the bani of Bhagats, Bards and Gurus to be quite consistent. Their views align. Guru Arjan Dev ji collected and presented similar views in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
> 
> Do you have any examples of where we see misalignment? (contrast, contradiction, differing views, etc)



Sheik Farid was a devout Muslim, and contributed to the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. Should we follow his path? 

Kabir ji says the following about women:


http://singhsabha.com/bhagat_kabir.htm

 _Kabir   does not think well of women. there is almost a tirade against them in   the hymns of Kabir. Woman is characterised as *"a black cobra', the pit   of hell and the refuse of the world."* She is considered to be a hurdle   in the path of the spiritual progress of man. He spoke, *"woman ruins   everything when she comes near a man; devotion, salvation and divine   knowledge no longer enter his soul."* His views, about woman are also   evident from all his vehement attacks against maya. Almost everywhere he   links maya to a woman who is out to entice and entrap man, and destroy   his spiritual life. Such views about woman from a married person are,   indeed, quite uncommon. The cosmological views of Kabir give a clear   clue to his worldview. He finds Niranjana to be the creator of the   world; maya or woman. And this woman stands between man and God. She is   there to entice him away from Him. _


Nanak in contrast says:

From woman, man is born;
within woman, man is conceived; to woman he is engaged and married.
Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come.
When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound.
So why call her bad? From her, kings are born.
From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all.
— <cite>Guru Nanak, Raag Aasaa Mehal 1, Page 473</cite>​


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 6, 2012)

Gyani ji,
The shabad here is s quite clear, Kabir ji says the use of force is tyranny but you (Mullah) have called it permissible. How will your accounts go with Dharam Raj if you do this? Eat Kichree with salt instead. Then he says
ਮੈਂ ਤਾਂ ਇਸ ਗੱਲ ਲਈ ਤਿਆਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਮਾਸ ਰੋਟੀ ਖਾਣ ਦੀ ਨਿਯਤ ਮੇਰੀ ਆਪਣੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਪਰ (ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦਾ ਹੋਕਾ ਦੇ ਦੇ ਕੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਪਸ਼ੂ ਨੂੰ) ਜ਼ਬਹ ਕਰਦਾ ਫਿਰਾਂ ॥੧੮੮॥
According to Kabir ji's saloks, it is tyranny to kill animals to have meat with your bread.

I am not too worried about Sheikh Faird ji, he has a very strong way of talking.

Back to Kabir ji, here again he asks why you (Mullah) are killing a chicken?
(ਭਲਾ, ਹੇ ਮੁੱਲਾਂ!) ਜੇ ਤੂੰ ਇਹ ਆਖਦਾ ਹੈਂ ਕਿ ਖ਼ੁਦਾ ਸਭ ਜੀਵਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਮੌਜੂਦ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ (ਉਸ ਖ਼ੁਦਾ ਅੱਗੇ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇਣ ਲਈ) ਮੁਰਗ਼ੀ ਕਿਉਂ ਮਾਰਦਾ ਹੈਂ? (ਕੀ ਉਸ ਮੁਰਗ਼ੀ ਵਿਚ ਉਹ ਆਪ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ? ਮੁਰਗ਼ੀ ਵਿਚ ਬੈਠੇ ਖ਼ੁਦਾ ਦੀ ਅੰਸ਼ ਨੂੰ ਮਾਰ ਕੇ ਖ਼ੁਦਾ ਦੇ ਅੱਗੇ ਹੀ ਭੇਟਾ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਕੀਹ ਭਾਵ ਹੈ? ॥੧॥
Here is not prohibiting the eating of meat but pointing out the hypocrisy of killing animals by those who believe that God is present in all life.

Kabir ji is against the killing of animals whether for food or for sacrifice.


Randip ji,
For a mod you are not staying on topic at all.
There is no contrast there. You have not understood what they are saying. We can discuss this on another thread. Remember to bring the actual saloks of Sant Kabir ji so we can study from the original source.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 6, 2012)

PunjabiEspada said:


> Simply analyze this issue, read my post as well, and you can see Sri Guru Grant Sahib Ji clearly commands for us not to eat meat



Which shabad says this? Please enlighten us? You have repeated this several times and yet not backed it up.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 6, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Gyani ji,
> The shabad here is s quite clear, Kabir ji says the use of force is tyranny but you (Mullah) have called it permissible. How will your accounts go with Dharam Raj if you do this? Eat Kichree with salt instead. Then he says
> ਮੈਂ ਤਾਂ ਇਸ ਗੱਲ ਲਈ ਤਿਆਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਮਾਸ ਰੋਟੀ ਖਾਣ ਦੀ ਨਿਯਤ ਮੇਰੀ ਆਪਣੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਪਰ (ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦਾ ਹੋਕਾ ਦੇ ਦੇ ਕੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਪਸ਼ੂ ਨੂੰ) ਜ਼ਬਹ ਕਰਦਾ ਫਿਰਾਂ ॥੧੮੮॥
> According to Kabir ji's saloks, it is tyranny to kill animals to have meat with your bread.
> ...



*Point 1 *- You raised the point about Bhaghat Bani. I clarified it. Nanak Sahib has only taken those shaloks from Bhaghats that fit in with hi schoool of thought so I am very much on topic thanks. No need to get personal. I have added a link above with refers to the study and the actual book:


http://singhsabha.com/bhagat_kabir.htm

Page 174 from this source:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qw7-kUkHA_0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=History+of+the+sikh+guru%27s+retold&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M1mmT5-0JePJ0QXU_aWoCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=History%20of%20the%20sikh%20guru%27s%20retold&f=false

*
Point 2 - I disagree fundementally with your interpretation:*

Do not say that the Vedas are false, false are those who do not  reflect. If in all is one god, then why does one kill the hen ? (Sri  Guru Granth Sahib p1350)

 Again, let us put this into context: 

_bayd katayb kahhu mat jhoothay jhoothaa jo na bichaarai._
_ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai._
_mulaaN kahhu ni-aa-o khudaa-ee._
_tayray man kaa bharam na jaa-ee._ rahaa-o.
_pakar jee-o aani-aa dayh binaasee maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa._
_jot saroop anaahat laagee kaho halaal ki-aa kee-aa._
_ki-aa ujoo paak kee-aa muhu Dho-i-aa ki-aa maseet sir laa-i-aa._
_ja-o dil meh kapat nivaaj gujaarahu ki-aa haj kaabai jaa-i-aa._
_tooN naapaak paak nahee soojhi-aa tis kaa maram na jaani-aa._
_kahi kabeer bhisat tay chookaa dojak si-o man maani-aa._

_Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false._
_You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?_
_O Mullah, tell me: is this God's Justice?_
_The doubts of your mind have not been dispelled._ Pause
_You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay._
_The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed?_
_And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?_
_Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca?_
_You are impure; you do not understand the Pure Lord. You do not know His Mystery._
_Says Kabeer, you have missed out on paradise; your mind is set on hell._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


First point to note is that halaal and bismil,  does not mean kill but refers to a specific form of ritual slaughter.  Put into context this is a comment on the Muslim sacrifice ritual where  either a goat or a chicken is kept in the confines of the home and then  ritually slaughtered as obeisance to Abraham. Kabeer is mocking the  futility of this ritual and saying, that why are you doing this  sacrifice just to emulate Gods asking of Abraham to kill his only son?  It is a futile gesture that will not sway God. Abraham was sacrificing  his son to God, however all the sacrifice in this instance has achieved  is destruction of the outer shell of the chicken. The soul wont travel  to God, but merely to another form. One can only understand this if one  has a basic grasp of history. In this instance the person who tried to  use this tukh as an anti-meat quotation was unaware of the Koranic  context and had an extremely poor knowledge of Semitic history. 

*Bhagat  Kabir says, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils) where  nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is  willing to have their head cut ? (Sri Guru Granth Sahib p1374)*

 Let us add this to the correct context: 

_oraa gar paanee bha-i-aa jaa-ay mili-o dhal kool._
_kabeeraa Dhoor sakayl kai puree-aa baaNDhee dayh._
_divas chaar ko paykhnaa ant khayh kee khayh._
_kabeer sooraj chaaNd kai udai bha-ee sabh dayh._
_gur gobind kay bin milay palat bha-ee sabh khayh._
_jah anbha-o tah bhai nahee jah bha-o tah har naahi._
_kahi-o kabeer bichaar kai sant sunhu man maahi._
_kabeer jinahu kichhoo jaani-aa nahee tin sukh need bihaa-ay._
_hamhu jo boojhaa boojhnaa pooree paree balaa-ay._
_laagee chot maramm kee rahi-o kabeeraa tha-ur._
_kabeer chot suhaylee sayl kee laagat lay-ay usaas._
_chot sahaarai sabad kee taas guroo mai daas._
_kabeer mulaaN munaaray ki-aa chadheh saaN-ee na bahraa ho-ay._
_jaa kaaran tooN baaNg deh dil hee bheetar jo-ay._
_saykh sabooree baahraa ki-aa haj kaabay jaa-ay._
_kabeer jaa kee dil saabat nahee taa ka-o kahaaN khudaa-ay._
_kabeer alah kee kar bandagee jih simrat dukh jaa-ay._
_dil meh saaN-ee pargatai bujhai balantee naaN-ay._
_kabeer joree kee-ay julam hai kahtaa naa-o halaal._
_daftar laykhaa maaNgee-ai tab ho-igo ka-un havaal._
_kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon._
_hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un._
_kabeer gur laagaa tab jaanee-ai mitai moh tan taap._
_harakh sog daajhai nahee tab har aapeh aap._
_kabeer raam kahan meh bhayd hai taa meh ayk bichaar._
_so-ee raam sabhai kaheh so-ee ka-utakhaar._
_kabeer raamai raam kaho kahibay maahi bibayk._
_ayk anaykeh mil ga-i-aa ayk samaanaa ayk._
_kab_eer jaa ghar saaDh na sayvee-ah har kee sayvaa naahi_._
_tay ghar marhat saarkhay bhoot baseh tin maahi._
_kabeer goongaa hoo-aa baavraa bahraa hoo-aa kaan._
_paavhu tay pingul bha-i-aa maari-aa satgur baan._
_kabeer satgur soormay baahi-aa baan jo ayk._
_laagat hee bhu-ay gir pari-aa paraa karayjay chhayk._
_kabeer nirmal boond akaas kee par ga-ee bhoom bikaar._

_The hail-stone has melted into water, and flowed into the ocean._
_Kabeer, the body is a pile of dust, collected and packed together._
_It is a show which lasts for only a few days, and then dust returns to dust._
_Kabeer, bodies are like the rising and setting of the sun and the moon._
_Without meeting the Guru, the Lord of the Universe, they are all reduced to dust again._
_Where the Fearless Lord is, there is no fear; where there is fear, the Lord is not there._
_Kabeer speaks after careful consideration; hear this, O Saints, in your minds._
_Kabeer, those who do not know anything, pass their lives in peaceful sleep._
_But I have understood the riddle; I am faced with all sorts of troubles._
_Struck by the Mystery of God, Kabeer remains silent._
_Kabeer, the stroke of a lance is easy to bear; it takes away the breath._
_But one who endures the stroke of the Word of the Shabad is the Guru, and I am his slave._
_Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing._
_Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers._
_Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself?_
_Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord?_
_Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart._
_The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name._
_Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal._
_When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?_
_Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt._
_Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread?_
_Kabeer, one is known to have been touched by the Guru, only when his emotional attachment and physical illnesses are eradicated._
_He is not burned by pleasure or pain, and so he becomes the Lord Himself._
_Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider._
_Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord._
_Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction._
_One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself._
_Kabeer, those houses in which neither the Holy nor the Lord are served â€"_
_those houses are like cremation grounds; demons dwell within them._
_Kabeer, I have become mute, insane and deaf._
_I am crippled - the True Guru has pierced me with His Arrow._
_Kabeer, the True Guru, the Spiritual Warrior, has shot me with His Arrow._
_As soon as it struck me, I fell to the ground, with a hole in my heart._
_Kabeer, the pure drop of water falls from the sky, onto the dirty ground._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



At one level this is a mistranslation and at another misrepresentation of the context within which this is written: ​ 

kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.
Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt. 
hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un. 
Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 

In the above Gurmukhi, there is no mention of meat whatsoever. _hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un_,  means literally, who would cut their own throat to eat food. The person  who has tried to translate this has added his/her own spin .What this  is actually saying is that to the follower of the Guru or one who has  been touched by God a simple dish of Kheechree (lentils and rice),  flavoured with salt is enough. To have something more exotic to eat you  would not cut your own throat (the western equivalent would be to cut  your own nose off to spite your face). In no way is this tukh anything  to do with meat eating and the person who has misrepresented and  mistranslated it should be held to account for his/her actions. 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are doing exactly what the essay is about, pulling one liners from shabads and quoting them out of context. Now that is misrepresentation.japposatnamwaheguru:


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 6, 2012)

> Point 1 - You raised the point about Bhaghat Bani.


Oh right, sorry.

No I did not use that as an anti-meat quotation, I said Kabir ji is against the killing of animals, whether it is for meat or sacrifice. On page 1103 Kabir ji clarifies this for us.

ਜੀਅ ਬਧਹੁ ਸੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਅਧਰਮੁ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਤ ਭਾਈ ॥
जीअ बधहु सु धरमु करि थापहु अधरमु कहहु कत भाई ॥
Jī▫a baḏẖahu so ḏẖaram kar thāpahu aḏẖram kahhu kaṯ bẖā▫ī.
You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?

ਆਪਸ ਕਉ ਮੁਨਿਵਰ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਕਾ ਕਉ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਸਾਈ ॥੨॥
आपस कउ मुनिवर करि थापहु का कउ कहहु कसाई ॥२॥
Āpas ka▫o munivar kar thāpahu kā ka▫o kahhu kasā▫ī. ||2||
You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher? ||2||


EDIT: In the shabad mentioning Kichree. ਹੇਰਾ means meat obtained form a kill.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Gurmukhi-Gurmukhi Dictionary
*ਮਾਸ ਵਾਲੀ*, ਵੇਖਿਆ ਹੈ, ਜਦੋਂ ਬੂੰਦ ਸਾਗਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਿਲ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ ਤਾ ਉਸਦੀ ਭਿੰਨਤਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਦੇਖੀ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ, ਵੇਖਦਾ ਹਾਂ, ਮੈਂ ਵੇਖਾਂ। ਉਦਾਹਰਣ: ਸਾਧ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਗੁਰੁ ਭੇਟਿਓ ਨਾਨਕ ਮਿਲਿ ਸਾਗਰ ਬੂੰਦ ਨਹੀ ਅਨ ਹੇਰਾ॥ {ਬਿਲਾ ੫, ੧੧੭, ੨:੨ (827)}। ਹੇਰਾ ਰੋਟੀ ਕਾਰਨੇ ਗਲਾ ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ॥ {ਸਲੋ ਕਬ, ੧੮੮:੨ (1374)}। ਮੇ 

Hera roti = mas vali roti, roti with meat

Freed Kote Wala Teeka translates as following: ਕਿਉਂਕਿ *(ਹੇਰਾ) ਸ਼ਿਕਾਰ ਮੈਂ ਜੀਵੋਂ ਕੋ ਮਾਰ ਕਰਕੇ ਮਾਸ* ਕੇ ਸਾਥ ਰੋਟੀ...

Those shabads have been translated quite accurately. It's the author's lack of understanding of Gurmukhi that is the issue here.

EDIT2: Awesome I am the #1000 poster!


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 6, 2012)

IN Islam..the Sacrificial animal is TIED UP and Ritually Slaughtered in GOD'S NAME...thats why ONLY such an animal provides hallal meat. This is DHARAMIC ACTION as far as the Muslims are concerned. ( IN ALL the Graphic Videos put up here and elsewhere by variosu posters one can see how the Hallal/Kosher animals are  RESTRAINED while being ALIVE and KICKING...*THIS is strictly DHARMIC ACTION which CANNOT be interefered with* *an IOTA*..something which the others argue till the cows come home BUT the Islamic/jewish religious authorities DONT MOVE an INCH...its DHARAM..exactly what Kabir ji QUESTIONING here. *IF this action is DHARAM  ?? religious ?? than whats NOT Dharmic ??*

2. Second point..in Islam/Jewish religion there is NO OTHER WAY..except the hallal/kosher "dharmic" slaughter..so its *FOOD+RELIGIOUS=HALAL/KOSHER.* PERIOD. So its fruitless claiming..food..killing..dharmic blah blah blah because these differences/fine lines *DONT EXIST.*..No Colours/shades.... *JUST* *BLACK ONLY.*

3. Becasue of no. 2 above..Kabir has absolutely NO alternative...except to defend the poor cow/goat/chicken which is being RELIGIOUSLY KILLED (food is incidental and merely so as to NOT WASTE the meat...because the PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IS RELIGIOUS SACRIFICE to which the cow/goat/chicken never gave permission/consent....and since EACH "Halal/Kosher" practitioner is a RELIGIOUS PERSON..Mullah/Rabbi/Kazi....there is NO "BUTCHER" ?? *Hence kabir ji is SARCASTICALLY asking..Who is the BUTCHER ?? There is NONE.*..a question which has NO ANSWER really becasue its un-answerable !! Like asking what "COLOUR" besides BLACK..when its ALL BLACK ONLY. The KAZI/Rabbi is the SAGE..hes the "halal/kosher" provider..hes the one who ties up the animal and slits its throat..wheres the "BUTCHER" ??   *Which Muslim/Jew would accept "meat" from a BUTCHER ??*  Again same answer..NONE. There is NO BUTCHER to a Muslim/jew...they are all rabis/kazis, mullahs...dharmic slaughterers....ALL BLACK..not even a slightly "grey'" acceptable ( grey would be a Muslim who only knows the kalma/or knows how to play the Kalma TAPE RECORDER so the dying chickens cna hear the kalma and transform form ordinary meat into Halal meat....Now a days due to the SHEER huge numbers of slaughtered animals..Malaysia alone eats many MILLION chickens daily...what more the one Billion Muslims worldwide...so its mainly the "GREY" type....simply not enough BLACK INK to paint every "butcher" BLACK. ha ha !!


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 6, 2012)

Context context CONTEXT...context and background...is everything...just as in property..its location..location and LOCATION.

1. Note how the Mulsim Bhagts all speak about Islamic practises...ONLY. halal, etc..
2. the Hidnu bahgats speak about Hindu concepts..reincarnation, joons, rebirths, pilgrimages, fasts etc..not a single Hidnu bahgat even wrote a single line about this Maas maas clamour...

3. GURU NANAK JI "accepts" BOTH and Gives us the DEFINITIVE GURMATT VIEWPOINT TO FOLLOW. That is the New Gyaan of Gurmatt.

4. Can anyone please provide GurBani of Mahlla 2, 3 4, 5 9...which orders us to eat khichhrrree..or daal..or carrots...ONLY and clearly say NO MEAT.period. As far as I know there is NONE. and this is simply because in Gurmatt this is a NON-ISSUE.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 6, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Oh right, sorry.
> 
> No I did not use that as an anti-meat quotation, I said Kabir ji is against the killing of animals, whether it is for meat or sacrifice. On page 1103 Kabir ji clarifies this for us.
> 
> ...



You've done it again!

You pulled out one liners out of the shabad. I think the authors are 100% correct in their translations and the fact that when one liners are pulled out, this distorts shabads.

Kabir may have been a vegetarian, this does not mean Sheikh Farid was? Guru Nanak ate meat on his way to Kurukshetra? Sadana was a butcher who killed animals yet his shloks are in Bani? Surely Sadana should be condemened to hell? What about Ravi Das. he killed animals and also ate meat?

Like I said before, we are not Kabir Panthi's and focusing on one Bhaghat or a one liner distorts Bani.

Here is the entire shabad complete with translitration:

_oraa gar paanee bha-i-aa jaa-ay mili-o dhal kool._
_kabeeraa Dhoor sakayl kai puree-aa baaNDhee dayh._
_divas chaar ko paykhnaa ant khayh kee khayh._
_kabeer sooraj chaaNd kai udai bha-ee sabh dayh._
_gur gobind kay bin milay palat bha-ee sabh khayh._
_jah anbha-o tah bhai nahee jah bha-o tah har naahi._
_kahi-o kabeer bichaar kai sant sunhu man maahi._
_kabeer jinahu kichhoo jaani-aa nahee tin sukh need bihaa-ay._
_hamhu jo boojhaa boojhnaa pooree paree balaa-ay._
_laagee chot maramm kee rahi-o kabeeraa tha-ur._
_kabeer chot suhaylee sayl kee laagat lay-ay usaas._
_chot sahaarai sabad kee taas guroo mai daas._
_kabeer mulaaN munaaray ki-aa chadheh saaN-ee na bahraa ho-ay._
_jaa kaaran tooN baaNg deh dil hee bheetar jo-ay._
_saykh sabooree baahraa ki-aa haj kaabay jaa-ay._
_kabeer jaa kee dil saabat nahee taa ka-o kahaaN khudaa-ay._
_kabeer alah kee kar bandagee jih simrat dukh jaa-ay._
_dil meh saaN-ee pargatai bujhai balantee naaN-ay._
_kabeer joree kee-ay julam hai kahtaa naa-o halaal._
_daftar laykhaa maaNgee-ai tab ho-igo ka-un havaal._
_kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon._
_hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un._
_kabeer gur laagaa tab jaanee-ai mitai moh tan taap._
_harakh sog daajhai nahee tab har aapeh aap._
_kabeer raam kahan meh bhayd hai taa meh ayk bichaar._
_so-ee raam sabhai kaheh so-ee ka-utakhaar._
_kabeer raamai raam kaho kahibay maahi bibayk._
_ayk anaykeh mil ga-i-aa ayk samaanaa ayk._
_kab_eer jaa ghar saaDh na sayvee-ah har kee sayvaa naahi_._
_tay ghar marhat saarkhay bhoot baseh tin maahi._
_kabeer goongaa hoo-aa baavraa bahraa hoo-aa kaan._
_paavhu tay pingul bha-i-aa maari-aa satgur baan._
_kabeer satgur soormay baahi-aa baan jo ayk._
_laagat hee bhu-ay gir pari-aa paraa karayjay chhayk._
_kabeer nirmal boond akaas kee par ga-ee bhoom bikaar._

_The hail-stone has melted into water, and flowed into the ocean._
_Kabeer, the body is a pile of dust, collected and packed together._
_It is a show which lasts for only a few days, and then dust returns to dust._
_Kabeer, bodies are like the rising and setting of the sun and the moon._
_Without meeting the Guru, the Lord of the Universe, they are all reduced to dust again._
_Where the Fearless Lord is, there is no fear; where there is fear, the Lord is not there._
_Kabeer speaks after careful consideration; hear this, O Saints, in your minds._
_Kabeer, those who do not know anything, pass their lives in peaceful sleep._
_But I have understood the riddle; I am faced with all sorts of troubles._
_Struck by the Mystery of God, Kabeer remains silent._
_Kabeer, the stroke of a lance is easy to bear; it takes away the breath._
_But one who endures the stroke of the Word of the Shabad is the Guru, and I am his slave._
_Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing._
_Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers._
_Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself?_
_Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord?_
_Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart._
_The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name._
_Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal._
_When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?_
_Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt._
_Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread?_
_Kabeer, one is known to have been touched by the Guru, only when his emotional attachment and physical illnesses are eradicated._
_He is not burned by pleasure or pain, and so he becomes the Lord Himself._
_Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider._
_Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord._
_Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction._
_One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself._
_Kabeer, those houses in which neither the Holy nor the Lord are served â€"_
_those houses are like cremation grounds; demons dwell within them._
_Kabeer, I have become mute, insane and deaf._
_I am crippled - the True Guru has pierced me with His Arrow._
_Kabeer, the True Guru, the Spiritual Warrior, has shot me with His Arrow._
_As soon as it struck me, I fell to the ground, with a hole in my heart._
_Kabeer, the pure drop of water falls from the sky, onto the dirty ground._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 

I really can't see how or why this shabad relates to meat?


----------



## mandemeet (May 6, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh ji,
  Eating meat or not eating it is one’s own choice; it is also our own choice to follow the spiritual path the Guru has introduced to us or to follow the world; however, kindly keep your support of Gurbani genuine and purely based on Gurbani. There is no author in Sri Guru Granth Sahib who doesn’t align with Guru Nanak’s views. I mean none; if Freed says “cut off that head that doesn’t bow to Akalpurakh”, no Guru gives comments on that sloka as they have done with many slokas of other authors; obviously its meaning is not beheading as it has been taken; verse is addressed to “self” and it is addressed to self conceit that doesn’t allow to bow before the Creator; Freed is the same person who asks us to be utterly humble and makes us aware that in all Allah exists (contrary to Islam theory). Gyani jio, please don’t think they, Baba Freed and other Bhagatas, represent any religion particularly in any way; none of them had faith in any established religion; the Gurus have also addressed the same issues what they have addressed; spiritually enlightened ones rise above such small closets. only we need is to understand the context they are talking about.
  With regards
  mandemeet


----------



## mandemeet (May 6, 2012)

Randip Singh ji,
  What is being quoted (including recent quotes by you), are slokas of Bhagat Kabir ji, they are not shabda; every sloka stands at its own; they are not linked always or depended on each other; they cover various issues.
I request you to post Bhagat Kabir’s bani in which he criticizes “woman”  as black cobra because the article you referred*, just says* *so* without giving any reference of Sri Guru Granth Sahib; as you have referred Bhagat Kabir’s being anti woman, I am curious about this; I think it is misunderstanding about Bhagat Kabir, or out there Kabir panthies are doing such propaganda;  in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, he doesn’t say such things and outside  Sri Guru Granth Sahib , who knows what other people had done to his bani as Pirthya and other people did in the name of Guru Nanak. In Sri Guru Granth Sahib, all is said in context of lust not sex or gender. On 329 and 480 Sri Guru Granth Sahib, sarpani is used for Maya; I wonder where Bhagat Kabir calls a woman black cobra!
  On 1379, Roti with butter is referred to luxurious viands by Baba Freed, it is not literally about roti and butter and see the context where it is said. I just feel we should not do injustice to Baba Freed or  Bhagat Kabir if they say something about hypocrisy or exploitation done by some people in their times. 
  With Regards
  mandemeet


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 6, 2012)

Mandemeet Jio,
I personally dont beleive that any of the authors of SGGS are not " as per GURMATT/SIKHS" ( by virtue of their BELIEFS). The "Hindu" bahgats condemn everything that is Hindu..the "Muslim" bhagats would be declared murtaad/Kafirs by the Muslim world because they clearly criticize the rituals of islam...so deep down each contributor of sggs is indeed Gurmatt oriented...and thats the reason why their banis are chosen by Guru Ji.
Secondly what i am mentioning is BACKGROUND...and Kabir Jis background and Namdev jis background can be clearly established - kabir ji mentions subjects which namdev doesnt - and this is due to their background. This is what all have to understand.
Thirdly i never fail to stress that no matter what a shabad begins to say..the BOTTOM LINE/RAHAO will always give the GURMATT perpesctive. For example in one shabad namdev Ji talks about a person who is too much into "mansions" will be reborn a bhoot..a man too much into welath will be reborn a snake etc etc..BUT the BOTTOM LINE at the END states the Gurmatt Viewpoint..and that is DONT BE WORRIED..NAAM will SAVE YOU.
Now..what i always notice is most sikhs simply leave the BOTTOM LINE out and begin to argue..OH..will i really become a snake in my next life ? oh will i be reborn a prostitute ? oh..will i be  a bhoot ? And then begin to argue about whether Bhoots exist..( because namdev ji mentioned bhoots) or is SGGS is sexist because it mentions prostitute ?? Is it TRUE that all these prostitutes we see today were in their previous joon too much into sex/kaam ?? etc etc etc..ALL of which are NON-ISSUES...and the *GOLDEN LINE is about GURMATT..and NAAM BEING THE SAVIOUR. The GURUS also SAY THIS...NAAM NAAM NAAM...and if we listen..then we have no fear of reincarnations, joons, rebirths, heavens, hells, whatever..BUT most IGNORE this all important vital teaching..and argue endlessly about whether there is reincarnation in sikhism..whether the gurus believed in joons or if there are really 84 lakh joons or less or more..etc etc etc.. and if we really "argue" and leave no time for Naam in our lives..then we will become the self fulfilling prophesy..and be reborn/rebirthed/etc etc..???? we could AVOID that..and GURU NANAK JI came to make sure we do...

*I am a teacher by profession..and my job is to ensure my students "Pass" their exams and be empoyable/educated persons...I can "frighten" them by saying all sorts of things..IF you dont study and FAIL..you will end up being a scavenger..a garbage man..or a beggar...etc etc etc..all of which may be "true"...and IF my studnets take this to heart and daily begin to think..oh..i may be beggar only..or oh i may be unemployed..etc etc and thus NEGLECT to STUDY HARD..which is actually the BOTTOM LINE..my efforts are at making sure they all STUDY....not argue endlessly about becoming beggars etc leaving no time for studying...and then becoming a self fulfilling prophesy..

Thank you Ji.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 7, 2012)

mandemeet said:


> Randip Singh ji,
> What is being quoted (including recent quotes by you), are slokas of Bhagat Kabir ji, they are not shabda; every sloka stands at its own; they are not linked always or depended on each other; they cover various issues.
> I request you to post Bhagat Kabir’s bani in which he criticizes “woman”  as black cobra because the article you referred*, just says* *so* without giving any reference of Sri Guru Granth Sahib; as you have referred Bhagat Kabir’s being anti woman, I am curious about this; I think it is misunderstanding about Bhagat Kabir, or out there Kabir panthies are doing such propaganda;  in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, he doesn’t say such things and outside  Sri Guru Granth Sahib , who knows what other people had done to his bani as Pirthya and other people did in the name of Guru Nanak. In Sri Guru Granth Sahib, all is said in context of lust not sex or gender. On 329 and 480 Sri Guru Granth Sahib, sarpani is used for Maya; I wonder where Bhagat Kabir calls a woman black cobra!



Try clicking on the links . Not only are the sloka's there but commentary from intellectuals:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eUJICz55HFMC&pg=PA114&dq=kabir+woman+cobra&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lpenT4XCBsnk8QOfoLHhBA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=kabir%20woman%20cobra&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=kabir woman cobra&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=kabir woman cobra&f=false

Nanak only icluded Bani's of Bhaghats that were compatible with the Sikh view, or we may as well call our selves Kabir Panthi's. Infact why don't we call ourselves Kabir Panthis?

Previous discussion link:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/bhagats/18645-kabir-dohay-2.html





mandemeet said:


> On 1379, Roti with butter is referred to luxurious viands by Baba Freed, it is not literally about roti and butter and see the context where it is said. I just feel we should not do injustice to Baba Freed or  Bhagat Kabir if they say something about hypocrisy or exploitation done by some people in their times.
> With Regards
> mandemeet



Indeed we shouldn't and my illustration here shows why you should never quote one line out of a shabad, because it distorts the shabad.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 7, 2012)

Chhopprre roti...kaath ki roti..etc are to be considered as Parts of the Complete shabad..once they are taken out and used as one liners..the meaning...gets DISTORTED..which may be an agenda of some..but not  allowed here at SPN.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 7, 2012)

Gyani ji,
That shabad is not directed at Mullah rather it is addressed to a Pandit. Read the verses before that one. But the principle it is asking one to contemplate applies to everyone. 
Kabir ji says:
If using force and killing dharmic, then what is adharmic? (Rhetorical for Killing is not dharma at all). If a you call yourself a sage (for killing animals for your fire rituals) then who would you call a butcher? (Rhetorical for you are not a sage, you are a butcher. You are following adharam.)

Now this isn't talking about eating meat, it's talking about killing animals as an adharmic action.

Randip Ji,


> You pulled out one liners out of the shabad.


Are you reading the teekas? The English translation does appear to look like a misquotation. Read the teekas instead, they are in fact taking the entire bani into account.  The Freed Kote wala teeka does this really well, but it's also more difficult to understand of the two teekas.



> Kabir may have been a vegetarian, this does not mean...


Now you are jumping ahead of the discussion. You still don't agree with what I presented so how can you go ahead and start comparing this bani with the Gurus, etc? You cannot do that. The better way would be to look at each thing carefully with sehaj before moving to the next.



> I really can't see how or why this shabad relates to meat?


The shabad is addressed to a Mullah, talking about halal and killing animals for meat and yet you cannot see what it has to do with meat?
You are reading the English translation, which can potentially change the meaning if the gurmukhi and teekas are not taken into account.

Both,

I repeat the shabads I have presented are talking about killing animals as an unrighteous action. We are not discussing eating meat, rather killing animals for their meat, and killing animals for religious rituals.
This is what he is saying on page 332 as well (killing of any living being).

Do we agree that killing animals is not right action, per Kabir ji's bani?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 7, 2012)

Bhagt Ji,
IF kabir Ji had in mind that .."all" killing is bad..then he would have written so..THOU SHALT NOT KILL...even for Food".

1. The Mullahs DONT kill for Food per se..its RELIGIOUS MOTIVE over riding the food motive. Kabir Ji is exposing that . Killing God's animal to appease god.

2. Pandits also KILL for RELIGIOUS REASONS..the Goats killed  at Kali mandirs are for SACRIFICE to mata  Chandi/kali mata etc. That means the goat is being killed to appease a demigod.

AND Since BOTH the above are for "RELIGIOUS PURPOSES/ DHARMIC...they are BOTH...BANNED for SIKHS. One is halal..other is mata parshaad. THIS "religious reason" is why the Sikh rehat Maryada BANS halal....directly and clearly and the mata parshaad by association....and *Recommends ONLY JHATKA which is meat for FOOD ONLY and no religious significance whatsoever.
*


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 7, 2012)

Gyani ji,
Dharam is always placed above one's own interests in Sikhism. Dharam means righteousness. Kabir ji has said killing a lifeform for meat is tyranny (the very first shabad we looked at). He says it's not dharam at all, eat kichree instead of cutting throats to have meat with your bread. 

The Pandit kills for religious reasons, that is exactly why according to Kabir ji he is ignorant. He is doing adharam by killing the animal but the foolish one thinks he is doing dharam by killing it. Same with the mullah who thinks if he kills the animal in a particular way, it has become halal. They are both deluded precisely because what they are doing is adharam.

If killing something for food makes it dharmic then the mullah has got it right. His halal is going to be food. But Kabir ji says "NO, you are a fool for calling it halal, it is tyranny."

The tyranny is not because it is offered to God. Offering things to God is a good thing. The tyranny is that you used force and killed the animal. How can it ever be tyrannical to offer something to God?

ਆਸਾ ॥
आसा ॥ 
Āsā.  
Aasaa:
*
ਰੋਜਾ ਧਰੈ ਮਨਾਵੈ ਅਲਹੁ ਸੁਆਦਤਿ ਜੀਅ ਸੰਘਾਰੈ ॥
रोजा धरै मनावै अलहु सुआदति जीअ संघारै ॥  
Rojā ḏẖarai manāvai alhu su▫āḏaṯ jī▫a sangẖārai.  
You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder living beings for taste (ਸੁਆਦਤਿ).  
FKW: ਰੋਜਾ ਧਾਰਤਾ ਹੈ ਅਲਾਹ ਕੋ ਮਨਾਉਤਾ ਹੈ ਔਰ ਸੁਆਦ ਕੇ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਜੀਵੋਂ ਕੋ ਮਾਰਤਾ ਹੈ ਭਾਵ ਇਹ ਕਿ ਅਲਹ ਕਾ ਨਾਮ ਲੇ ਕਰ ਸੁਆਦ ਕੇ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਜੀਵ ਘਾਤ ਕਰਤਾ ਹੈ॥ 
PSS: (ਕਾਜ਼ੀ) ਰੋਜ਼ਾ ਰੱਖਦਾ ਹੈ (ਰੋਜ਼ਿਆਂ ਦੇ ਅਖ਼ੀਰ ਤੇ ਈਦ ਵਾਲੇ ਦਿਨ) ਅੱਲਾ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਤੇ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਆਪਣੇ ਸੁਆਦ ਦੀ ਖ਼ਾਤਰ (ਇਹ) ਜੀਵ ਮਾਰਦਾ ਹੈ।
[Keeps fasts for Allah but then for taste he kills living beings]*


ਆਪਾ ਦੇਖਿ ਅਵਰ ਨਹੀ ਦੇਖੈ ਕਾਹੇ ਕਉ ਝਖ ਮਾਰੈ ॥੧॥
आपा देखि अवर नही देखै काहे कउ झख मारै ॥१॥  
Āpā ḏekẖ avar nahī ḏekẖai kāhe ka▫o jẖakẖ mārai. ||1||  
You look after your own interests, and so not see the interests of others. What good is your word? ||1||  
ਅਪਨੀ ਓਰ ਦੇਖਕਰ ਔਰ ਦੂਸਰੇ ਜੀਵੋਂ ਕੀ ਓਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਦੇਖਤਾ ਹੈ ਭਾਵ ਜੋ ਹਮਾਰੇ ਹੀ ਜੈਸਾ ਜੀਵ ਇਨ ਕਾ ਭੀ ਹੈ ਜੇਕਰ ਜੀਵ ਦਇਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ ਤੌ ਰੋਜਾ ਨਿਮਾਜ ਕਰਨੇ ਮੇਂ ਕਿਉਂ ਝਖ ਮਾਰਤਾ ਹੈ॥੧॥


ਕਾਜੀ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਏਕੁ ਤੋਹੀ ਮਹਿ ਤੇਰਾ ਸੋਚਿ ਬਿਚਾਰਿ ਨ ਦੇਖੈ ॥
ਖਬਰਿ ਨ ਕਰਹਿ ਦੀਨ ਕੇ ਬਉਰੇ ਤਾ ਤੇ ਜਨਮੁ ਅਲੇਖੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
काजी साहिबु एकु तोही महि तेरा सोचि बिचारि न देखै ॥  
खबरि न करहि दीन के बउरे ता ते जनमु अलेखै ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥  
Kājī sāhib ek ṯohī mėh ṯerā socẖ bicẖār na ḏekẖai.  
Kẖabar na karahi ḏīn ke ba▫ure ṯā ṯe janam alekẖai. ||1|| rahā▫o.  
O Qazi, the One Lord is within you, but you do not behold Him by thought or contemplation.  
You do not care for others, you are a religious fanatic, and your life is of no account at all. ||1||Pause||  
ਹੇ ਕਾਜੀ ਕਿਆ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਏਕ ਤੌ ਹੀ ਮਹਿ ਹੈ ਔਰ ਤੇਰਾ ਹੀ ਪਖੀ ਹੈ ਭਾਵ ਇਹ ਕਿ ਸਭਮੇਂ ਹੈ ਔਰ ਸਭ ਕਾ ਪਖੀ ਹੈ ਯਹ ਬਡੀ ਸੋਚਨੇ ਕੀ ਬਾਤ ਹੈ ਤੂੰ ਬਿਚਾਰ ਕੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਦੇਖਤਾ ਹੈਂ ਹੇ ਦੀਨ ਕੇ ਬਉਰੇ ਕੀਏ ਹੂਏ (ਖਬਰਿ ਨ ਕਰਹਿ) ਸਮਝ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਤਾ ਹੈ ਅਰਥਾਤ ਵਿਵੇਕ ਰਹਿਤ ਹੈਂ ਇਸ ਸੇ ਤੇਰਾ ਜਨਮ (ਅਲੇਖੈ) ਬਿਅਰਥ ਹੈ॥


ਸਾਚੁ ਕਤੇਬ ਬਖਾਨੈ ਅਲਹੁ ਨਾਰਿ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਹੀ ਕੋਈ ॥
साचु कतेब बखानै अलहु नारि पुरखु नही कोई ॥  
Sācẖ kaṯeb bakẖānai alhu nār purakẖ nahī ko▫ī.  
Your holy scriptures say that Allah is True, and that he is neither male nor female.  
ਕਿਤਾਬ ਤੋ ਸਾਚ ਰੂਪ ਅਲਾਹ ਕੋ ਕਹਤੀ ਹੈ ਔ ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਪੁਰਖ ਕੋਈ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਰ ਕਾ ਭੇਦ ਅਲਾਹ ਮੇਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ॥


ਪਢੇ ਗੁਨੇ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਛੁ ਬਉਰੇ ਜਉ ਦਿਲ ਮਹਿ ਖਬਰਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥੨॥
पढे गुने नाही कछु बउरे जउ दिल महि खबरि न होई ॥२॥  
Padẖe gune nāhī kacẖẖ ba▫ure ja▫o ḏil mėh kẖabar na ho▫ī. ||2||  
But you gain nothing by reading and studying, O mad-man, if you do not gain the understanding in your heart. ||2||  
ਹੇ ਬਉਰੇ ਕਾਜੀ ਜੋ ਦਿਲ ਮੇਂ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਕੀ ਖਬਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਭਈ ਤੋ ਪਢਨੇ ਗੁਣਨੇ ਸੇ ਕਛ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋਤਾ॥੨॥


ਅਲਹੁ ਗੈਬੁ ਸਗਲ ਘਟ ਭੀਤਰਿ ਹਿਰਦੈ ਲੇਹੁ ਬਿਚਾਰੀ ॥
अलहु गैबु सगल घट भीतरि हिरदै लेहु बिचारी ॥  
Alhu gaib sagal gẖat bẖīṯar hirḏai leho bicẖārī.  
Allah is hidden in every heart; reflect upon this in your mind.  
ਅਲਾਹ ਛਿਪਾ ਹੂਆ ਸਭ ਘਟੋਂ ਮੈਂ ਹੈ ਹੇ ਕਾਜੀ ਇਸ ਬਾਰਤਾ ਕੋ ਵਾ ਤਿਸ ਅਲਾਹ ਕੋ ਤੁਮ ਹਿਰਦੇ ਮੇਂ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਲੇਹੁ॥


ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁਹੂੰ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੈ ਕਹੈ ਕਬੀਰ ਪੁਕਾਰੀ ॥੩॥੭॥੨੯॥
हिंदू तुरक दुहूं महि एकै कहै कबीर पुकारी ॥३॥७॥२९॥  
Hinḏū ṯurak duhū▫aŉ mėh ekai kahai Kabīr pukārī. ||3||7||29||  
The One Lord is within both Hindu and Muslim; Kabeer proclaims this out loud. ||3||7||29||  
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀ ਕਹਤੇ ਹੈਂ ਮੈਂ ਪੁਕਾਰ ਕਰ ਕਹਤਾ ਹੂੰ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਔਰ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੋਨੋ ਮੇਂ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਅਲਾਹ ਹੈ॥੩॥੭॥੨੯॥ 

page 483


----------



## Randip Singh (May 7, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Gyani ji,
> That shabad is not directed at Mullah rather it is addressed to a Pandit. Read the verses before that one. But the principle it is asking one to contemplate applies to everyone.
> Kabir ji says:
> If using force and killing dharmic, then what is adharmic? (Rhetorical for Killing is not dharma at all). If a you call yourself a sage (for killing animals for your fire rituals) then who would you call a butcher? (Rhetorical for you are not a sage, you are a butcher. You are following adharam.)
> ...



No he doesn't!!

The shabads are about tyranny and false religious people.



BhagatSingh said:


> Randip Ji,
> 
> Are you reading the teekas? The English translation does appear to look like a misquotation. Read the teekas instead, they are in fact taking the entire bani into account.  The Freed Kote wala teeka does this really well, but it's also more difficult to understand of the two teekas.



Either you don't understand what I am saying or you are dodging it. I repeat again. As soon as you pull out a one liner you distort the shabad. This appears to be what you are doing.



BhagatSingh said:


> Now you are jumping ahead of the discussion. You still don't agree with what I presented so how can you go ahead and start comparing this bani with the Gurus, etc? You cannot do that. The better way would be to look at each thing carefully with sehaj before moving to the next.



I'm not jumping ahead of the discssion but pointing out that you cannot isolate one line from a shabad because you distort it. Post the entire shabad and discuss it.



BhagatSingh said:


> The shabad is addressed to a Mullah, talking about halal and killing animals for meat and yet you cannot see what it has to do with meat?
> You are reading the English translation, which can potentially change the meaning if the gurmukhi and teekas are not taken into account.



I'm not at all. I'm using English side by side translitration. Translitration = Gurmukhi writtem in English, not a translation. This is for the benefit of those people who come on this forum and don't read Gurmukhi. 



BhagatSingh said:


> Both,
> 
> I repeat the shabads I have presented are talking about killing animals as an unrighteous action. We are not discussing eating meat, rather killing animals for their meat, and killing animals for religious rituals.
> This is what he is saying on page 332 as well (killing of any living being).
> ...



No I don't agree.

Kabir may have been a vegetarian just like Sheikh Farid a meat eater, but both are irrelevant to this discussion.

All that matters is what teh shabads meean and what the 6 Nanaks thought when they included them in Bani. By pulling out one liners you're distorting their meanings.

If you won't discuss the entire shabad there is no point to this discussion to be honest (something you appear to be reluctant to do so).:whatzpointsing:


----------



## Randip Singh (May 7, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Gyani ji,
> Dharam is always placed above one's own interests in Sikhism. Dharam means righteousness. Kabir ji has said killing a lifeform for meat is tyranny (the very first shabad we looked at). He says it's not dharam at all, eat kichree instead of cutting throats to have meat with your bread.
> 
> 
> ...



No! Your interpretation is incredibly narrow. You really must read some history books.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/bhagats/26791-bhagat-kabir.html

It reads like that if you read one line yes but if you read the entire shabad it does not mean that at all. He mentions tyranny in this. How the Islamic invaders under Timur justified massacres in the name of Islam.

_oraa gar paanee bha-i-aa jaa-ay mili-o dhal kool._
_kabeeraa Dhoor sakayl kai puree-aa baaNDhee dayh._
_divas chaar ko paykhnaa ant khayh kee khayh._
_kabeer sooraj chaaNd kai udai bha-ee sabh dayh._
_gur gobind kay bin milay palat bha-ee sabh khayh._
_jah anbha-o tah bhai nahee jah bha-o tah har naahi._
_kahi-o kabeer bichaar kai sant sunhu man maahi._
_kabeer jinahu kichhoo jaani-aa nahee tin sukh need bihaa-ay._
_hamhu jo boojhaa boojhnaa pooree paree balaa-ay._
_laagee chot maramm kee rahi-o kabeeraa tha-ur._
_kabeer chot suhaylee sayl kee laagat lay-ay usaas._
_chot sahaarai sabad kee taas guroo mai daas._
_kabeer mulaaN munaaray ki-aa chadheh saaN-ee na bahraa ho-ay._
_jaa kaaran tooN baaNg deh dil hee bheetar jo-ay._
_saykh sabooree baahraa ki-aa haj kaabay jaa-ay._
_kabeer jaa kee dil saabat nahee taa ka-o kahaaN khudaa-ay._
_kabeer alah kee kar bandagee jih simrat dukh jaa-ay._
_dil meh saaN-ee pargatai bujhai balantee naaN-ay._
_kabeer joree kee-ay julam hai kahtaa naa-o halaal._
_daftar laykhaa maaNgee-ai tab ho-igo ka-un havaal._
_kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon._
_hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un._
_kabeer gur laagaa tab jaanee-ai mitai moh tan taap._
_harakh sog daajhai nahee tab har aapeh aap._
_kabeer raam kahan meh bhayd hai taa meh ayk bichaar._
_so-ee raam sabhai kaheh so-ee ka-utakhaar._
_kabeer raamai raam kaho kahibay maahi bibayk._
_ayk anaykeh mil ga-i-aa ayk samaanaa ayk._
_kab_eer jaa ghar saaDh na sayvee-ah har kee sayvaa naahi_._
_tay ghar marhat saarkhay bhoot baseh tin maahi._
_kabeer goongaa hoo-aa baavraa bahraa hoo-aa kaan._
_paavhu tay pingul bha-i-aa maari-aa satgur baan._
_kabeer satgur soormay baahi-aa baan jo ayk._
_laagat hee bhu-ay gir pari-aa paraa karayjay chhayk._
_kabeer nirmal boond akaas kee par ga-ee bhoom bikaar._

_The hail-stone has melted into water, and flowed into the ocean._
_Kabeer, the body is a pile of dust, collected and packed together._
_It is a show which lasts for only a few days, and then dust returns to dust._
_Kabeer, bodies are like the rising and setting of the sun and the moon._
_Without meeting the Guru, the Lord of the Universe, they are all reduced to dust again._
_Where the Fearless Lord is, there is no fear; where there is fear, the Lord is not there._
_Kabeer speaks after careful consideration; hear this, O Saints, in your minds._
_Kabeer, those who do not know anything, pass their lives in peaceful sleep._
_But I have understood the riddle; I am faced with all sorts of troubles._
_Struck by the Mystery of God, Kabeer remains silent._
_Kabeer, the stroke of a lance is easy to bear; it takes away the breath._
_But one who endures the stroke of the Word of the Shabad is the Guru, and I am his slave._
_Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing._
_Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers._
_Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself?_
_Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord?_
_Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart._
_The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name._
_Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal._
_When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?_
_Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt._
_Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread?_
_Kabeer, one is known to have been touched by the Guru, only when his emotional attachment and physical illnesses are eradicated._
_He is not burned by pleasure or pain, and so he becomes the Lord Himself._
_Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider._
_Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord._
_Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction._
_One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself._
_Kabeer, those houses in which neither the Holy nor the Lord are served â€"_
_those houses are like cremation grounds; demons dwell within them._
_Kabeer, I have become mute, insane and deaf._
_I am crippled - the True Guru has pierced me with His Arrow._
_Kabeer, the True Guru, the Spiritual Warrior, has shot me with His Arrow._
_As soon as it struck me, I fell to the ground, with a hole in my heart._
_Kabeer, the pure drop of water falls from the sky, onto the dirty ground._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 

Don't fall into the one liner trap!!! Read shabads in context.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 7, 2012)

You gotta read the teekas Randip ji. Tell me where you think the teekas get it wrong. Like I have already said, they are accurate. When I read the gurmukhi and dissect the Gurmukhi words and when I read the entire shabads, I find my self agreeing completely with the teekas. Read the teekas and tell me what you think. If you need any help let me know.


----------



## mandemeet (May 7, 2012)

_Quote  Randip Singh   
Nanak only icluded Bani's of Bhaghats that were compatible with the Sikh view, or we may as well call our selves Kabir Panthi's. Infact why don't we call ourselves Kabir Panthis _



Randip Singh ji 
I went through these ebooks, I haven’t found a page of Sri Guru Granth Sahib where Kabir ji calls the woman a cobra; woman in Gurbani is referred as Nari, Kaman not Maya. Maya is deemed as everything that distracts us from Naam. On 480 and 329  pages, it is obviously clear that Maya is not referred to woman. 
480 
ਸਰਪਨੀ ਤੇ ਊਪਰਿ ਨਹੀ ਬਲੀਆ ॥ 
Sarpanī ṯe ūpar nahī balī▫ā.   
None is more powerful then mammon, the she-serpent, 
  ਸਰਪਨੀ = ਸੱਪਣੀ, ਮੋਹ ਦਾ ਡੰਗ ਮਾਰਨ ਵਾਲੀ ਮਾਇਆ। ਤੇ ਉਪਰਿ = ਤੋਂ ਵਧੀਕ। ਉਸ (ਮਾਇਆ) ਤੋਂ ਵਧੀਕ ਬਲ ਵਾਲਾ (ਜਗਤ ਵਿਚ ਹੋਰ ਕੋਈ) ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ, 

  ਜਿਨਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਛਲੀਆ ॥੧॥ 
Jin barahmā bisan mahāḏe▫o cẖẖalī▫ā. ||1||   
which deceived even the Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. 
  ਜਿਨਿ = ਜਿਸ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਨੇ। ਮਹਾਦੇਉ = ਸ਼ਿਵ ॥੧॥ ਜਿਸ ਮਾਇਆ ਨੇ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ, ਵਿਸ਼ਨੂੰ ਤੇ ਸ਼ਿਵ (ਵਰਗੇ ਵੱਡੇ ਦੇਵਤੇ) ਛਲ ਲਏ ਹਨ ॥੧॥   

ਮਾਰੁ ਮਾਰੁ ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਜਲਿ ਪੈਠੀ ॥ 
Mār mār sarpanī nirmal jal paiṯẖī.   
Beating and smiting all round the she-snake is now seated in the pure water. 
  ਮਾਰੁ ਮਾਰੁ = ਮਾਰੋ-ਮਾਰ ਕਰਦੀ, ਬੜੇ ਜ਼ੋਰਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਆਈ ਹੋਈ। ਜਲਿ = ਜਲ ਵਿਚ। ਨਿਰਮਲ ਜਲਿ = ਪਵਿੱਤਰ ਜਲ ਵਿਚ, ਸ਼ਾਂਤ ਸਰ ਵਿਚ, ਸਤ-ਸੰਗ ਵਿਚ। ਪੈਠੀ = ਆ ਟਿਕਦੀ ਹੈ, ਸ਼ਾਂਤ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ। ਪਰ ਇਹ ਬੜੇ ਜ਼ੋਰਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਆਈ ਮਾਇਆ ਸਤਸੰਗ ਵਿਚ ਸ਼ਾਂਤ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, (ਭਾਵ, ਇਸ ਮਾਰੋ-ਮਾਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੀ ਮਾਇਆ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਸਤਸੰਗ ਵਿਚ ਅੱਪੜਿਆਂ ਠੰਡਾ ਪੈ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ),

 ਜਿਨਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣੁ ਡਸੀਅਲੇ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ਡੀਠੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ 
Jin ṯaribẖavaṇ dasī▫ale gur parsāḏ dīṯẖī. ||1|| rahā▫o.   
By Guru's grace, I have seen her who has bitten the three worlds. Pause.   
ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣੁ = ਸਾਰਾ ਸੰਸਾਰ। ਡੀਠੀ = ਦਿੱਸ ਪਈ ਹੈ ॥੧॥ ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਜਿਸ ਮਾਇਆ ਨੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਜਗਤ ਨੂੰ (ਮੋਹ ਦਾ) ਡੰਗ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਹੈ (ਸੰਗਤ ਵਿਚ) ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਨਾਲ (ਉਸ ਦੀ ਅਸਲੀਅਤ) ਦਿੱਸ ਪੈਂਦੀ ਹੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ॥   

ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਕਿਆ ਕਹਹੁ ਭਾਈ ॥ 
Sarpanī sarpanī ki▫ā kahhu bẖā▫ī. 
  O brother, why callest thou mammon, a she snake? 
  ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ...ਭਾਈ = ਹੇ ਭਾਈ! ਸੱਪਣੀ ਤੋਂ ਇਤਨਾ ਕਿਉਂ ਡਰਦੇ ਹੋ? ਸੋ, ਹੇ ਭਾਈ! ਇਸ ਮਾਇਆ ਤੋਂ ਇਤਨਾ ਡਰਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਨਹੀਂ। 

  ਜਿਨਿ ਸਾਚੁ ਪਛਾਨਿਆ ਤਿਨਿ ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਖਾਈ ॥੨॥ 
Jin sācẖ pacẖẖāni▫ā ṯin sarpanī kẖā▫ī. ||2|| 
  He who realises the True Lord, devours a she-snake? 
  ਤਿਨਿ = ਉਸ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਨੇ। ਖਾਈ = ਖਾ ਲਈ, ਵੱਸ ਵਿਚ ਕਰ ਲਈ ॥੨॥ ਜਿਸ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਨੇ ਸਦਾ-ਥਿਰ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਨਾਲ ਜਾਣ-ਪਛਾਣ ਪਾ ਲਈ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਨੇ ਇਸ ਮਾਇਆ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੇ ਵੱਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਰ ਲਿਆ ॥੨॥   

ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਤੇ ਆਨ ਛੂਛ ਨਹੀ ਅਵਰਾ ॥ 
Sarpanī ṯe ān cẖẖūcẖẖ nahī avrā.   
No one else is more trifling than mammon. 
  ਆਨ ਅਵਰਾ = ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ, ਸੱਚ ਪਛਾਨਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨਾ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ। ਛੂਛ = ਖ਼ਾਲੀ, ਸੱਖਣਾ, ਬਚਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ। ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਤੇ ਛੂਛ = ਸੱਪਣੀ ਦੇ ਅਸਰ ਤੋਂ ਬਚਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ। (ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਨਾਲ ਜਾਣ-ਪਛਾਣ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨਾ) ਹੋਰ ਕੋਈ ਜੀਵ ਇਸ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਦੇ ਅਸਰ ਤੋਂ ਬਚਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ। 

  ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਜੀਤੀ ਕਹਾ ਕਰੈ ਜਮਰਾ ॥੩॥ 
Sarpanī jīṯī kahā karai jamrā. ||3|| 
  When the she serpent if subdued what can the king of Death's couriers do?   
ਜਮਰਾ = ਵਿਚਾਰਾ ਜਮ। ਕਹਾ ਕਰੈ = ਕੁਝ ਵਿਗਾੜ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਕਦਾ ॥੩॥ ਜਿਸ ਨੇ (ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਨਾਲ) ਇਸ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਮਾਇਆ ਨੂੰ ਜਿੱਤ ਲਿਆ ਹੈ, ਜਮ ਵਿਚਾਰਾ ਭੀ ਉਸ ਦਾ ਕੁਝ ਵਿਗਾੜ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਕਦਾ ॥੩   

329 Concept of Simiritis is deemed as Maya /serpent 

  ਬੇਦ ਕੀ ਪੁਤ੍ਰੀ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਭਾਈ ॥ 
Beḏ kī puṯrī simriṯ bẖā▫ī.   
The Simriti is the daughter of the Vedas, O brother.
 ਭਾਈ = ਹੇ ਭਾਈ! ਬੇਦ ਕੀ ਪੁਤ੍ਰੀ = ਵੇਦਾਂ ਦੀ ਧੀ, ਵੇਦਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਜੰਮੀ ਹੋਈ, ਵੇਦਾਂ ਦੇ ਅਧਾਰ ਤੇ ਬਣੀ ਹੋਈ। ਹੇ ਵੀਰ! ਇਹ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੀ ਜੋ ਵੇਦਾਂ ਦੇ ਆਧਾਰ ਤੇ ਬਣੀ ਹੈ, 

  ਸਾਂਕਲ ਜੇਵਰੀ ਲੈ ਹੈ ਆਈ ॥੧॥ 
Sāŉkal jevrī lai hai ā▫ī. ||1||   
She has brought a chain and a rope for the men.   ਸਾਂਕਲ = (ਵਰਨ ਆਸ਼ਰਮਾਂ ਦੇ) ਸੰਗਲ। ਜੇਵਰੀ = (ਕਰਮ-ਕਾਂਡ ਦੀਆਂ) ਰੱਸੀਆਂ। ਲੈ ਹੈ ਆਈ = ਲੈ ਕੇ ਆਈ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ ॥੧॥ (ਇਹ ਤਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂਆਂ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਵਰਨ ਆਸ਼ਰਮ ਦੇ, ਮਾਨੋ) ਸੰਗਲ ਤੇ (ਕਰਮ-ਕਾਂਡ ਦੀਆਂ) ਰੱਸੀਆਂ ਲੈ ਕੇ ਆਈ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ ॥੧॥   

ਆਪਨ ਨਗਰੁ ਆਪ ਤੇ ਬਾਧਿਆ ॥ 
Āpan nagar āp ṯe bāḏẖi▫ā. 
  Of herself, she has imprisoned them in her own city.   
ਆਪਨ ਨਗਰੁ = ਆਪਣਾ ਸ਼ਹਿਰ, ਆਪਣੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂਆਂ ਦੀ ਵਸਤੀ, ਆਪਣੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂ। ਆਪ ਤੇ = ਆਪ ਹੀ। (ਇਸ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੀ ਨੇ) ਆਪਣੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਜਕੜੇ ਹੋਏ ਹਨ,   

ਮੋਹ ਕੈ ਫਾਧਿ ਕਾਲ ਸਰੁ ਸਾਂਧਿਆ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ 
Moh kai fāḏẖ kāl sar sāŉḏẖi▫ā. ||1|| rahā▫o.   
She has spread the noose of worldly love and discarded the arrow of death. Pause. 
  ਮੋਹ ਕੈ = ਮੋਹ (ਦੀ ਫਾਹੀ) ਵਿਚ। ਫਾਧਿ = ਫਸਾ ਕੇ। ਕਾਲ ਸਰੁ = ਮੌਤ ਦਾ ਤੀਰ, ਜਨਮ ਮਰਨ ਦਾ ਤੀਰ। ਸਾਂਧਿਆ = ਖਿੱਚਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ (ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਰਗ ਆਦਿਕ ਦੇ) ਮੋਹ ਦੀ ਫਾਹੀ ਵਿਚ ਫਸਾ ਕੇ (ਇਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਿਰ ਤੇ) ਮੌਤ (ਦੇ ਸਹਿਮ) ਦਾ ਤੀਰ (ਇਸ ਨੇ) ਖਿੱਚਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥   

ਕਟੀ ਨ ਕਟੈ ਤੂਟਿ ਨਹ ਜਾਈ ॥ 
Katī na katai ṯūt nah jā▫ī. 
  By cutting she cannot be cut and is not broken, either.   xxx 
(ਇਹ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੀ-ਰੂਪ ਫਾਹੀ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂਆਂ ਪਾਸੋਂ) ਵੱਢਿਆਂ ਵੱਢੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਅਤੇ ਨਾਹ ਹੀ (ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ) ਇਹ ਟੁੱਟਦੀ ਹੈ।   

ਸਾ ਸਾਪਨਿ ਹੋਇ ਜਗ ਕਉ ਖਾਈ ॥੨॥ 
Sā sāpan ho▫e jag ka▫o kẖā▫ī. ||2||   
Becoming a serpent, she is eating the world. 
  ਸਾਪਨਿ = ਸੱਪਣੀ। ਜਗ = ਸੰਸਾਰ, ਆਪਣੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂਆਂ ਨੂੰ ॥੨॥ (ਹੁਣ ਤਾਂ) ਇਹ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਬਣ ਕੇ ਜਗਤ ਨੂੰ ਖਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ (ਭਾਵ, ਜਿਵੇਂ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਆਪਣੇ ਹੀ ਬੱਚਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਖਾ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, ਤਿਵੇਂ ਇਹ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੀ ਆਪਣੇ ਹੀ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂਆਂ ਦਾ ਨਾਸ ਕਰ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ) ॥੨॥   

ਹਮ ਦੇਖਤ ਜਿਨਿ ਸਭੁ ਜਗੁ ਲੂਟਿਆ ॥ 
Ham ḏekẖaṯ jin sabẖ jag lūti▫ā.   
Who before my very eyes has plundered the whole world, 
  ਹਮ ਦੇਖਤ = ਅਸਾਡੇ ਵੇਖਦਿਆਂ। ਜਿਨਿ = ਜਿਸ (ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੀ) ਨੇ। ਸਭੁ ਜਗੁ = ਸਾਰੇ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਨੂੰ। ਅਸਾਡੇ ਵੇਖਦਿਆਂ ਵੇਖਦਿਆਂ ਜਿਸ (ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੀ) ਨੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਠੱਗ ਲਿਆ ਹੈ।   

ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਮੈ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਿ ਛੂਟਿਆ ॥੩॥੩੦॥ 
Kaho Kabīr mai rām kahi cẖẖūti▫ā. ||3||30|| 
  I have escaped from her by uttering the Lord's Name, Says Kabir.   
ਰਾਮ ਕਹਿ = ਰਾਮ ਰਾਮ ਆਖ ਕੇ, ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦਾ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਕਰ ਕੇ। ਛੂਟਿਆ = ਬਚ ਗਿਆ ਹਾਂ ॥੩॥੩੦॥ ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! ਆਖ- ਮੈਂ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦਾ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਕਰ ਕੇ ਉਸ ਤੋਂ ਬਚ ਗਿਆ ਹਾਂ ॥੩॥੩੦ 

  Similar views are expressed by our Guru as well   510 ਮਃ ੩ ॥

 Mėhlā 3.   3rd Guru.   xxx xxx 
  ਮਾਇਆ ਹੋਈ ਨਾਗਨੀ ਜਗਤਿ ਰਹੀ ਲਪਟਾਇ ॥ 
Mā▫i▫ā ho▫ī nāgnī jagaṯ rahī laptā▫e.   
Mammon is a she-serpent, which is clinging to the world. 
  ਨਾਗਨੀ = ਸੱਪਣੀ। ਰਹੀ ਲਪਟਾਇ = ਚੰਬੜ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ। ਮਾਇਆ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਬਣੀ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ ਜਗਤ ਵਿਚ (ਹਰੇਕ ਜੀਵ ਨੂੰ) ਚੰਬੜੀ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ, 

  ਇਸ ਕੀ ਸੇਵਾ ਜੋ ਕਰੇ ਤਿਸ ਹੀ ਕਉ ਫਿਰਿ ਖਾਇ ॥ 
Is kī sevā jo kare ṯis hī ka▫o fir kẖā▫e.   
He, who performs her service him she ultimately devours.   xxx 
ਜੋ ਇਸ ਦਾ ਗ਼ੁਲਾਮ ਬਣਦਾ ਹੈ ਉਸੇ ਨੂੰ ਇਹ ਮਾਰ ਮੁਕਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ।   

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਕੋਈ ਗਾਰੜੂ ਤਿਨਿ ਮਲਿ ਦਲਿ ਲਾਈ ਪਾਇ ॥ 
Gurmukẖ ko▫ī gārṛū ṯin mal ḏal lā▫ī pā▫e.   
Some rare Guru-ward is a snake-charmer and he has trampled and crushed her and thrown her under his feet. 
  ਗਾਰੜੂ = ਗਾਰੁੜ-ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਜਾਣਨ ਵਾਲਾ; ਸੱਪ ਦਾ ਜ਼ਹਰ ਹਟਾਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਮੰਤਰ ਜਾਣਨ ਵਾਲਾ। ਮਲਿ = ਮਲ ਕੇ। ਦਲਿ = ਦਲ ਕੇ। ਮਲਿ ਦਲਿ = ਚੰਗੀ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਮਲ ਕੇ। ਤਿਨਿ = ਤਿਸ ਨੇ, ਉਸ ਨੇ। ਕੋਈ ਵਿਰਲਾ ਗੁਰਮੁਖ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਇਸ ਮਾਇਆ-ਸੱਪਣੀ ਦੇ ਜ਼ਹਿਰ ਦਾ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਜਾਣਦਾ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਨੇ ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ਚੰਗੀ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਮਲ ਕੇ ਪੈਰਾਂ ਹੇਠ ਸੁੱਟ ਲਿਆ ਹੈ।   

ਨਾਨਕ ਸੇਈ ਉਬਰੇ ਜਿ ਸਚਿ ਰਹੇ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਇ ॥੨॥ 
Nānak se▫ī ubre jė sacẖ rahe liv lā▫e. ||2||   
Nanak, they alone are saved who remain absorbed in the True Lord's love.   xxx ॥੨॥ 
ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! ਇਸ ਮਾਇਆ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਤੋਂ ਉਹੀ ਬਚੇ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਸੱਚੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਵਿਚ ਸੁਰਤ ਜੋੜਦੇ ਹਨ ॥੨॥   

I couldn’t find any quote by Bhagat Kabir in Sri Guru Granth Sahib that supports views of that intellectual you are referring to. 

That intellectual refers Maya  as woman and misleads Sikhs. I may be inept in finding quotes on those ebooks; if you could please clearly give me page of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, we can see if that intellectual is taking Gurbani as you advocate on this thread (I mean in entirety). If we don’t find it, it is a disservice done to  Sri Guru Granth Sahib by referring such idiotic views. Big names and holding phds did wrong justification to Bhagatas; Dr Sahib Singh proves them wrong in Guru Granth Darpan. I suggest you to check it yourself instead of depending on anyone; see the real quotes and read them in their entirety at your own.  

Following Sri Guru Granth Sahib, we remain Sikhs, it doesn’t matter if bani is written by any author; you cannot say following Kabir bani,  we become Kabir Panthi, following Namdev's bani, we become Namdev panthi, because we are following Sri Guru Granth Sahib not any individual and all authors are well aligned with Guru Nanak’s views; if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be there in Sri Guru Granth Sahib . Comparing Guru Nanak with Kabir and finding different approach in them is a fallacy. You can simply see his bani in entirety and feel this  . 

If you are bent upon depending on those articles instead of analyzing at your own discretion, I have nothing to say you further; No author of Sri Guru Granth Sahib goes against Guru Nanak and it is well proved by Dr Sahib Singh ji in detail. 

With regards 
mandemeet


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 8, 2012)

*No author of Sri Guru Granth Sahib goes against Guru Nanak and it is well proved by Dr Sahib Singh ji in detail...

Guru Nanak ji Sahib *chose ALL the Banis on His Travels called Udasis. Guru Arjun ji Sahib CONFIRMED the choice when He compiled the AAD Granth in Bir Form. Gurus follwoing had copies made of the AAD Granth and Guru Teg bahadur ji added his banis to many copies, and finally GURU GOBIND SINGH JI once more finally confirmed the entirety of AAD Granth and sealed it, before passing on The Gurgadee of The House of Nanak to SGGS in its PRESENT FORM.

It will indeed be a great dis-service and even grossly insulting to raise doubts on the authenticity of the Banis present in the SGGS. There is no doubt NONE of the authors, ,,nay NOT even a Single TUK goes against GURU NANAK Jis Gurbani/Teachings/Gurmatt. If we "see" any discrepancy..its OUR FAILING..because there is NONE..not even by a NANO-mm or hair breadth !! The Entire 1429 Pages run all as ONE PIECE.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 8, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> You gotta read the teekas Randip ji. Tell me where you think the teekas get it wrong. Like I have already said, they are accurate. When I read the gurmukhi and dissect the Gurmukhi words and when I read the entire shabads, I find my self agreeing completely with the teekas. Read the teekas and tell me what you think. If you need any help let me know.




I've read them, and if you add them back into the shabad they mean something completly different from what you are implying. 

No point dissecting a word here are there unless you can see it in the context of the shabad.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 8, 2012)

mandemeet said:


> _Nanak only icluded Bani's of Bhaghats that were compatible with the Sikh view, or we may as well call our selves Kabir Panthi's. Infact why don't we call ourselves Kabir Panthis _Doha’s of Kabir. The verses I am referring to are NOT in Bani. Let me repeat Not in Bani. *NOT in Bani*. Let me repeat again *NOT in Bani*. J
> 
> *Point 2* – There is nothing wrong with the articles I have posted. They are from intellectuals who have studied Kabir Bhaghats Doha’s, and when I have time I will find the exact link to that Doha where Kabir refers to Woman as Snake. They are not idiotic views, as you claim.
> 
> ...


----------



## BaljinderS (May 8, 2012)

Just look at the historical facts about Sikhs eating meat.  European travellers have noted down that Sikhs ate meat.  Akali Phuala Singh ate meat (was he not a Sikh?).  Read the Rehat Marayda.. it does not say you cannot eat meat.  The Nihangs eat meat and always have (Sarbans Dhani Guru Gobind Singh Ji's ladlee fauj).  

The fact of the matter, this idea of rejecting meat to become pure etc etc blah blah... has been propagated by various baba's and jatha's who want get more followers and control people with fear...  Take out the last 30 odd years from history when the Baba philosophy was not around, nobody said anything about eating or not eating meat...  Even now in India, people do not talk about it like we do in the West..    Go and read the facts..


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 8, 2012)

Randip ji, 


> Almost everywhere he links maya to a woman who is out to entice and entrap man, and destroy his spiritual life.


I don't think the author has read Guru Arjan Dev ji's writings. He employs the same imagery as Bhagat Kabir ji on pg 847, 394. 

Maya is feminine according to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Guru Nanak Dev ji has also criticized women saying they only love a man for his wealth (951) and again on 1187, 1243. Guru Arjan Dev ji on 374. 



> She is considered to be a hurdle in the path of the spiritual progress of man. He spoke, "woman ruins everything when she comes near a man; devotion, salvation and divine knowledge no longer enter his soul."


The Gurus have also said such things.

Everyone who is not doing things right gets it from the the Gurus, no one is spared.


BaljinderS ji,
You are not listening to Randip ji. He says just because some figures in our history ate meat or were vegetarian does not mean we should follow them.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 8, 2012)

BaljinderS said:


> Just look at the historical facts about Sikhs eating meat.  European travellers have noted down that Sikhs ate meat.  Akali Phuala Singh ate meat (was he not a Sikh?).  Read the Rehat Marayda.. it does not say you cannot eat meat.  The Nihangs eat meat and always have (Sarbans Dhani Guru Gobind Singh Ji's ladlee fauj).
> 
> The fact of the matter, this idea of rejecting meat to become pure etc etc blah blah... has been propagated by various baba's and jatha's who want get more followers and control people with fear...  Take out the last 30 odd years from history when the Baba philosophy was not around, nobody said anything about eating or not eating meat...  Even now in India, people do not talk about it like we do in the West..    Go and read the facts..



Indeed, vegetarianism in India has been used as a Brahmanical means of control. The Baba's use it. Various groups like AKJ, DDT, GNSSJ all advocate it. These groups also don't believe in the Rehat Maryada also and try and change the meaning of words in it.

Some of our Guru's ate meat some didn't. Their position was ambivalent and left it to the individual to choose.


----------



## mandemeet (May 9, 2012)

Randip Singh said:


> *Point 1* - You are misreading what I am saying or have not understood. The Nanaks did not include all the Doha’s of Kabir. The verses I am referring to are NOT in Bani. Let me repeat Not in Bani. *NOT in Bani*. Let me repeat again *NOT in Bani*.



_*I am happy that you have made it clear, Bhagat Kabir’s Bani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib doesn’t call woman cobra. You never mentioned it before, thanks though.*_



Randip Singh said:


> *Point 2*  – There is nothing wrong with the articles I have posted. They are from  intellectuals who have studied Kabir Bhaghats Doha’s, and when I have  time I will find the exact link to that Doha where Kabir refers to Woman as Snake. They are not idiotic views, as you claim.



_*The article is based on Kabir’s Dohas someone found it, but how sure we can be if it was actually written by Bhagat Kabir? If you search, many people wrote in the name of Nanak, but we accept what we find in Sri Guru Granth Sahib; whatever is there in those writings in the name of Nanak, we don’t care and believe in. Why we should believe Bhagat Kabir’s Dohas, which is not in Sri Guru Granth Sahib? In the same manner, we don’t care what Kabir panthis believe or say. Look how respectfully  Bhagat Kabir’s bani is introduced in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. 
*_
_*ਸਿਰੀ ਰਾਗੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀਉ ਕਾ  / ਆਸਾ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀਉ॥  and so on*_

_*Do you notice the respect the Guru gives to Bhagat Kabir? Kindly compare it with that intellectual who judges him and accusing him as anti woman just based on the floating around dohas? My all effort was to tell you not to look at Bhagat Kabir from outside Sri Guru Granth Sahib. If that is what you believe in, who I am to say anything to you? I am saying this all believing you to be an open minded and to rethink what others say about Bhagat Kabir based on “so called Dohas.*_



Randip Singh said:


> *Point 3*  – Why cannot the Snake be a male? Why does it have to be a Nagini? When  Nanak says from Woman Kings are born so why call her evil, how does  that fir in with Kabir Panthi doctrine? I think Nanak allowed this  because it is a metaphor, rather than a direct reference by Bhaghat  Kabir.



_*Good question. The word “Maya” is feminine gender, Bhagat Kabir including the Gurus use it as feminine gender and that is why she snake (Nagni or Sarpani) words are used. No Bhagatas or author of Sri Guru Granth Sahib says anything against woman. No intellectual on this earth can prove it on the basis of Sri Guru Granth sahib.*_



Randip Singh said:


> *Point 4*  – The Nanaks only included that of the Bhaghats that fitted in with  Sikh philosophy. Not ALL Kabir’s Donha’s are included in Bani. I repeat  again, *NOT in Bani, Not in Bani*.



_*“not in bani”, thanks again as you have made it clear “now”. We, as Sikhs, look at what is included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and what is floating out there is nothing for us. *_



Randip Singh said:


> What  is being advocated by the above discussion is that we follow the  teachings of one Bhaghat. If we do that then we must follow all the  writings of that Bhaghat. Many of the writings of Bhaghats not included  in Bani do not fit in with Sikh doctrine. Do you understand what I am  saying?



_*I do without a doubt. For us, our world is Bani of Sri Guru Granth Sahib; what is in there, as Sikhs, we should follow that and what is not there, we shouldn’t. A Bhagat, whose bani is not in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, we have nothing to do with him. We look at bani in its entirety, the context in which it says something; there is nothing wrong following the bani of Sri Guru Granth Sahib regardless of the author. We cannot say that this author was said to be so (by someone); therefore, we are not following him.  
*_

_*Personally, as  I wrote earlier, eating meat is one’s own choice. I have no problem  with your stand, or with those who don’t agree with you. I understand both  parties from where they come from and I respect their views from my  heart. My only concern is not to judge Bhagat Kabir on the basis of Dohras, which are not available in  Sri Guru Granth Sahib. We reject many corrupt Punjabi Sikh sources or something  written in the name of “Nanak” not aligned with Sri Guru Granth Sahib. I think  you are very well aware how through a campaign, some people have turned a simple  book “bachittar natak”  into a big “Sri Guru Dasam Granth Sahib ji” and they befooled many and still are doing it. Keeping such prevailing tendencies in mind, we should also reject that too, which could be written by someone in the name of Bhagatas (who knows?), because what is in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, only that is what we believe in.

*_
_*With regards*_
_*mandemeet*_


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (May 9, 2012)

There has always been attempt for intrusion of others Banee even in SGGS but timely and intelligent action taken by our 5th Nanak GuRu Arjan Dev ji elliminated every chance of intrusion for ever.So we are greatly indebted to 5th Nanak for this  but surprisinly we still fail to know How to understand What our GuRu wants us to.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## BaljinderS (May 9, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Randip ji,
> 
> BaljinderS ji,
> 
> You are not listening to Randip ji. He says just because some figures in our history ate meat or were vegetarian does not mean we should follow them.



Bhagat Singh veer ji,

**PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY AROUND, I AM TRYING TO ENGAGE IN THE DEBATE**

Who should we follow?  I am talking about historical figures (take out the last 50 years or so before history started to be tempered with).  Far as I know there was no discussion on whether to eat or not eat meat.  Listen to Giani Maskeen Singh Ji's katha on this topic.  

Gurbani has very clearly stated that plants have life same as animals do.  Who knows where the sin lies?

These various groups/babas advocating this... I would like to question them on their knowledge of Gurbani, Sikhi, history...   100% guarantee they will not have much to say.. as they have never really been interested in Sikhi (they know a few things to gather followers).  Where did they get their education from?  How many years have they spent studying??  Its funny really... the tabla, dolkee, shoes, are all made out of animal skin... along with many other products people use.  Farming practices are killing and eradicating wild life.  If they really care about animals, then why are they not asking their followers to plant trees, developing natures reserves etc etc..

We are all now educated and have allot of resources available to cross reference so we all should be well aware of the facts.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 9, 2012)

a side note to the kabir Bani facts...as we all know recently the Begampura sheher vassauunna hai..NAVAN PANTH Chalaunna Hai lobby led by Miss Pooja as lead singer...went ahead to create tensions among the Ravidassiah Community as Vested Interests namely Dera Ballan chiefs and mahants wanted a SEPARATED RAVISASSIAH COMMUNITY to lord over..so these people wnet ahead and REMOVED the ONLY AUTHENTICATED Gurbani of Bahgat ravidass Ji from SGGS and priinted  a separate Granth for themsleves...and Installed THAT in their Temples...and they PADDED up this ratehr SMALL Granth with banis they claim are written by Bhagat ravidass ji...and Latets news..is having discovered thta their Granth LACKS the "LAVAN"..( How to get married without Lavan ?? ha ha )...so they composed a set of Lavan and claim these are Lavan of Bhagat Ravidass Ji...Pehlerri Laav..Doosree Laav, Teesri laav and Chauthhrre Laav... and so on on the same tarz as the Authentic Lavan written by GURU RAMDASS JI sahib...The Ravidassisahs NEVER used to read these Lavan before as they never existed..this is how adulterated banis come into granths...Soon they may "discover" that Bhagat Ravidass ji also wrote Kirtan Sohila..Rehrass..Japji Sahib..Anand sahib..Ramkali sadd etc etc..when the "vested interests" see ravidassihs demanding these Banis..


----------



## Randip Singh (May 9, 2012)

mandemeet said:


> _*I am happy that you have made it clear, Bhagat Kabir’s Bani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib doesn’t call woman cobra. You never mentioned it before, thanks though.*_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Whew we have agreement Mandemeet ji 

Recently the Ravidasia Community wanted to extract Bhagat Ravidas's sloka's from the Guru Granth Sahib and incorporate his other Sloka's (outside Bani) into another Granth. I think we have to be very careful on focusing on one Bhagat. 

The actual Fools Wrangle essay to my mind is not actually about eating meat, but about reading shabads fully and understanding the context.

For example, Kabir (incidently a Muslim weaver) turned his back on Islam. Why? He saw the invasion of Timur. He saw the brutal massacre that took place in Benares of Hindu Priests in the name of Dharam (religion). He asks, tell me ohh Mullah's if this is Dharam, then what is Adharam? If you read the shabad in that context, you see what Bhagat Kabir is about.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 9, 2012)

Baljinder Ji,



BaljinderS said:


> Bhagat Singh veer ji,
> 
> Gurbani has very clearly stated that plants have life same as animals do.


No Gurbani has stated no such thing. And this discussion is precisely about what Gurbani is stating. In fact, it has been hijacked and has been taken out of context of teh Vegetarian Consciousness thread, which was closed. It's actually not about what this thread is about but certainly related to it.



> Who knows where the sin lies?


The sin lies is causing suffering. 

Contemplate these questions:


> Would you agree that higher conscious beings like humans and other animals suffer more than lower conscious (if any) beings like plants?
> 
> If an animal was put through the wooden rollers and crushed, do you reckon it would suffer more than a plant?
> 
> If rocks (lowest form of consciousness if any) were placed in the wooden rollers, do you think the would suffer less than a plant?http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/healt...ess-and-the-meditative-mind-3.html#post164099




Randip Singh ji,


> For example, Kabir (incidently a Muslim weaver) turned his back on Islam. Why? He saw the invasion of Timur. He saw the brutal massacre that took place in Benares of Hindu Priests in the name of Dharam (religion). He asks, tell me ohh Mullah's if this is Dharam, then what is Adharam? If you read the shabad in that context, you see what Bhagat Kabir is about.


http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120213055636/uncyclopedia/images/5/52/Double-facepalm.jpg 

Let's look at the entire shabad.

ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
ੴ सतिगुर प्रसादि ॥  
Ik▫oaŉkār saṯgur parsāḏ.  
One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:  
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਇੱਕ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲਦਾ ਹੈ।

ਪਡੀਆ ਕਵਨ ਕੁਮਤਿ ਤੁਮ ਲਾਗੇ ॥
पडीआ कवन कुमति तुम लागे ॥  
Padī▫ā kavan kumaṯ ṯum lāge.  
O Pandit, O religious scholar, in what foul thoughts are you engaged?  
ਪਡੀਆ = ਹੇ ਪਾਂਡੇ!
ਹੇ ਪੰਡਿਤ! ਤੁਸੀਂ ਲੋਕ ਕਿਹੜੀ ਕੁਮੱਤੇ ਲੱਗੇ ਪਏ ਹੋ?


ਬੂਡਹੁਗੇ ਪਰਵਾਰ ਸਕਲ ਸਿਉ ਰਾਮੁ ਨ ਜਪਹੁ ਅਭਾਗੇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
बूडहुगे परवार सकल सिउ रामु न जपहु अभागे ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥  
Būd▫huge parvār sakal si▫o rām na japahu abẖāge. ||1|| rahā▫o.  
You shall be drowned, along with your family, if you do not meditate on the Lord, you unfortunate person. ||1||Pause||  
ਸਿਉ = ਸਮੇਤ। ਅਭਾਗੇ = ਹੇ ਮੰਦ ਭਾਗੀ! ॥੧॥
ਹੇ ਮੰਦ-ਭਾਗੀ ਪਾਂਡੇ! ਤੁਸੀਂ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਿਮਰਦੇ, ਸਾਰੇ ਪਰਵਾਰ ਸਮੇਤ ਹੀ (ਸੰਸਾਰ-ਸਮੁੰਦਰ ਵਿਚ) ਡੁੱਬ ਜਾਉਗੇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ॥


ਬੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਪੜੇ ਕਾ ਕਿਆ ਗੁਨੁ ਖਰ ਚੰਦਨ ਜਸ ਭਾਰਾ ॥
बेद पुरान पड़े का किआ गुनु खर चंदन जस भारा ॥  
Beḏ purān paṛe kā ki▫ā gun kẖar cẖanḏan jas bẖārā.  
What is the use of reading the Vedas and the Puraanas? It is like loading a donkey with sandalwood.  
ਗੁਨੁ = ਲਾਭ, ਫ਼ਾਇਦਾ। ਖਰ = ਖੋਤਾ, ਖ਼ਰ। ਜਸ = ਜੈਸੇ, ਜਿਵੇਂ। ਭਾਰਾ = ਭਾਰ, ਬੋਝ, ਲੱਦਾ।
(ਹੇ ਪਾਂਡੇ! ਤੂੰ ਮਾਣ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈਂ ਕਿ ਤੂੰ ਵੇਦ ਆਦਿਕ ਧਰਮ-ਪੁਸਤਕਾਂ ਪੜ੍ਹਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈਂ, ਪਰ) ਵੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਪੜ੍ਹਨ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਭੀ ਲਾਭ ਨਹੀਂ (ਜੇ ਨਾਮ ਤੋਂ ਸੁੰਞਾ ਰਿਹਾ; ਇਹ ਤਾਂ ਦਿਮਾਗ਼ ਉੱਤੇ ਭਾਰ ਹੀ ਲੱਦ ਲਿਆ), ਜਿਵੇਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਖੋਤੇ ਉੱਤੇ ਚੰਦਨ ਦਾ ਲੱਦਾ ਲੱਦ ਲਿਆ। 

ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਕੀ ਗਤਿ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਨੀ ਕੈਸੇ ਉਤਰਸਿ ਪਾਰਾ ॥੧॥
राम नाम की गति नही जानी कैसे उतरसि पारा ॥१॥  
Rām nām kī gaṯ nahī jānī kaise uṯras pārā. ||1||  
You do not know the exalted state of the Lord's Name; how will you ever cross over? ||1||  
ਗਤਿ = ਹਾਲਤ, ਅਵਸਥਾ। ਨਾਮ ਕੀ ਗਤਿ = ਨਾਮ ਜਪਣ ਦੀ ਅਵਸਥਾ, ਨਾਮ ਜਪਿਆਂ ਜੋ ਆਤਮਕ ਅਵਸਥਾ ਬਣਦੀ ਹੈ ॥੧॥
ਤੂੰ (ਸੰਸਾਰ-ਸਮੁੰਦਰ ਤੋਂ) ਕਿਵੇਂ ਪਾਰ ਲੰਘੇਂਗਾ? ਇਹ ਤਾਂ ਤੈਨੂੰ ਸਮਝ ਹੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਈ ਕਿ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ ਸਿਮਰਿਆਂ ਕਿਹੋ ਜਿਹੀ ਆਤਮਕ ਅਵਸਥਾ ਬਣਦੀ ਹੈ ॥੧॥


*ਜੀਅ ਬਧਹੁ ਸੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਅਧਰਮੁ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਤ ਭਾਈ ॥
जीअ बधहु सु धरमु करि थापहु अधरमु कहहु कत भाई ॥  
Jī▫a baḏẖahu so ḏẖaram kar thāpahu aḏẖram kahhu kaṯ bẖā▫ī.  
You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?  
ਬਧਹੁ = ਮਾਰਦੇ ਹੋ (ਜੱਗਾਂ ਦੇ ਵੇਲੇ)। ਥਾਪਹੁ = ਮਿਥ ਲੈਂਦੇ ਹੋ। ਅਧਰਮੁ = ਪਾਪ। ਭਾਈ = ਹੇ ਭਾਈ!
(ਹੇ ਪਾਂਡੇ! ਇਕ ਪਾਸੇ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਮਾਸ ਖਾਣ ਨੂੰ ਨਿੰਦਦੇ ਹੋ; ਪਰ ਜੱਗ ਕਰਨ ਵੇਲੇ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਭੀ) ਜੀਵ ਮਾਰਦੇ ਹੋ (ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇਣ ਲਈ, ਤੇ) ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ਧਰਮ ਦਾ ਕੰਮ ਸਮਝਦੇ ਹੋ। ਫਿਰ, ਹੇ ਭਾਈ! ਦੱਸੋ, ਪਾਪ ਕਿਹੜਾ ਹੈ? (ਜੱਗ ਕਰਨ ਵੇਲੇ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਆਪ ਭੀ ਜੀਵ-ਹਿੰਸਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਪਰ) ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਸ੍ਰੇਸ਼ਟ ਰਿਸ਼ੀ ਮਿਥਦੇ ਹੋ।


ਆਪਸ ਕਉ ਮੁਨਿਵਰ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਕਾ ਕਉ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਸਾਈ ॥੨॥
आपस कउ मुनिवर करि थापहु का कउ कहहु कसाई ॥२॥  
Āpas ka▫o munivar kar thāpahu kā ka▫o kahhu kasā▫ī. ||2||  
You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher? ||2||  
ਮੁਨਿਵਰ = ਸ੍ਰੇਸ਼ਟ ਮੁਨੀ। ਕਾ ਕਉ = ਕਿਸ ਨੂੰ? ਕਸਾਈ = ਜੋ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਬੱਕਰੇ ਆਦਿਕ ਮਾਰ ਕੇ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਮਾਸ ਵੇਚ ਕੇ ਗੁਜ਼ਾਰਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ॥੨॥
(ਜੇ ਜੀਵ ਮਾਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕ ਰਿਸ਼ੀ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ,) ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਕਸਾਈ ਕਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਆਖਦੇ ਹੋ? (ਤੁਸੀਂ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਕਸਾਈ ਕਿਉਂ ਆਖਦੇ ਹੋ ਜੋ ਮਾਸ ਵੇਚਦੇ ਹਨ? ॥੨॥*


ਮਨ ਕੇ ਅੰਧੇ ਆਪਿ ਨ ਬੂਝਹੁ ਕਾਹਿ ਬੁਝਾਵਹੁ ਭਾਈ ॥
मन के अंधे आपि न बूझहु काहि बुझावहु भाई ॥  
Man ke anḏẖe āp na būjẖhu kāhi bujẖāvahu bẖā▫ī.  
You are blind in your mind, and do not understand your own self; how can you make others understand, O brother?  
ਕਾਹਿ = ਹੋਰ ਕਿਸ ਨੂੰ? ਬੁਝਾਵਹੁ = ਸਮਝਾਉਂਦੇ ਹੋ।
ਹੇ ਅਗਿਆਨੀ ਪਾਂਡੇ! ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ (ਜੀਵਨ ਦੇ ਸਹੀ ਰਸਤੇ ਦੀ) ਸਮਝ ਨਹੀਂ ਆਈ, ਹੋਰ ਕਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਮੱਤਾਂ ਦੇਹ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ?


ਮਾਇਆ ਕਾਰਨ ਬਿਦਿਆ ਬੇਚਹੁ ਜਨਮੁ ਅਬਿਰਥਾ ਜਾਈ ॥੩॥
माइआ कारन बिदिआ बेचहु जनमु अबिरथा जाई ॥३॥  
Mā▫i▫ā kāran biḏi▫ā becẖahu janam abirathā jā▫ī. ||3||  
For the sake of Maya and money, you sell knowledge; your life is totally worthless. ||3||  
ਅਬਿਰਥਾ = ਵਿਅਰਥ ॥੩॥
(ਇਸ ਪੜ੍ਹੀ ਹੋਈ ਵਿੱਦਿਆ ਤੋਂ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਆਪ ਕੋਈ ਲਾਭ ਨਹੀਂ ਉਠਾ ਰਹੇ, ਇਸ) ਵਿੱਦਿਆ ਨੂੰ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਮਾਇਆ ਦੀ ਖ਼ਾਤਰ ਵੇਚ ਹੀ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ, ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਜ਼ਿੰਦਗੀ ਵਿਅਰਥ ਗੁਜ਼ਰ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ ॥੩॥


ਨਾਰਦ ਬਚਨ ਬਿਆਸੁ ਕਹਤ ਹੈ ਸੁਕ ਕਉ ਪੂਛਹੁ ਜਾਈ ॥
नारद बचन बिआसु कहत है सुक कउ पूछहु जाई ॥  
Nāraḏ bacẖan bi▫ās kahaṯ hai suk ka▫o pūcẖẖahu jā▫ī.  
Naarad and Vyaasa say these things; go and ask Suk Dayv as well.  
ਨਾਰਦ, ਬਿਆਸ, ਸੁਕ = ਪੁਰਾਣੇ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਵਿਦਵਾਨ ਰਿਸ਼ੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਹਨ (ਨੋਟ: ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀ ਕਿਸੇ ਪੰਡਿਤ ਨੂੰ ਉਸ ਦਾ ਭੁਲੇਖਾ ਸਮਝਾ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ, ਇਸ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਹੀ ਰਿਸ਼ੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਹਵਾਲਾ ਦੇਂਦੇ ਹਨ)। ਜਾਇ = ਜਾ ਕੇ।
(ਜੇ ਮੇਰੀ ਇਸ ਗੱਲ ਉੱਤੇ ਯਕੀਨ ਨਹੀਂ ਆਉਂਦਾ, ਤਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਹੀ ਪੁਰਾਣੇ ਰਿਸ਼ੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਬਚਨ ਪੜ੍ਹ ਸੁਣ ਵੇਖੋ) ਨਾਰਦ ਰਿਸ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਇਹੀ ਬਚਨ ਹਨ, ਵਿਆਸ ਇਹੀ ਗੱਲ ਆਖਦਾ ਹੈ; ਸੁਕਦੇਵ ਨੂੰ ਵੀ ਜਾ ਕੇ ਪੁੱਛ ਲਵੋ (ਭਾਵ, ਸੁਕਦੇਵ ਦੇ ਬਚਨ ਪੜ੍ਹ ਕੇ ਭੀ ਵੇਖ ਲਵੋ, ਉਹ ਭੀ ਇਹੀ ਆਖਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਨਾਮ ਸਿਮਰਿਆਂ ਪਾਰ-ਉਤਾਰਾ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ)।


ਕਹਿ ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮੈ ਰਮਿ ਛੂਟਹੁ ਨਾਹਿ ਤ ਬੂਡੇ ਭਾਈ ॥੪॥੧॥
कहि कबीर रामै रमि छूटहु नाहि त बूडे भाई ॥४॥१॥  
Kahi Kabīr rāmai ram cẖẖūtahu nāhi ṯa būde bẖā▫ī. ||4||1||  
Says Kabeer, chanting the Lord's Name, you shall be saved; otherwise, you shall drown, brother. ||4||1||  
ਰਮਿ = ਸਿਮਰ ਕੇ। ਬੂਡੇ = ਡੁੱਬੇ ਸਮਝੋ ॥੪॥੧॥
ਕਬੀਰ ਆਖਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ (ਦੁਨੀਆ ਦੇ ਬੰਧਨਾਂ ਤੋਂ) ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ ਸਿਮਰ ਕੇ ਹੀ ਮੁਕਤ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ, ਨਹੀਂ ਤਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਡੁੱਬੇ ਸਮਝੋ ॥੪॥੧॥
page 1102-3

When we look at the context of the shabads, the teekas have it correct, and the authors of the article have it wrong. According to Kabir ji, whose view is clearly expressed in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, killing of animals is adharam, is unrighteous.


----------



## kds1980 (May 9, 2012)

> When we look at the context of the shabads, the teekas have it correct, and the authors of the article have it wrong. According to Kabir ji, whose view is clearly expressed in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, killing of animals is adharam, is unrighteous.



If Killing of animals is unrighteous then why Guru hargobind,Guru gobind and their Sikhs went on hunting?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 9, 2012)

kds1980 said:


> If Killing of animals is unrighteous then why Guru hargobind,Guru gobind and their Sikhs went on hunting?



hmmmmmmmmmm...maybe because they didnt have these "teekas" back then ??  U see now sikhs regard Teekas as more authentic than the Gurbani itself..
The Postman has become more important than the contents of the letter...
If only some one had written a teeka back then Guru hargobind Ji would have refrained form the sin and suffering caused to the lion Guru ji killed..or the deer ..rabbits that Guur Gobind Singh ji killed..or the "snake" that was supposedly a Sikh of Guru nanak ji...but reborn as a snake for Guru Gobind singh ji to commit a sin/suffering and release him/it...

When Gurbani clearly states that..OH Pandit..You dont even  KNOW difference between SAAG and MAAS...its rejected as NO..Gurbani doesnt say that Plant and animal "LIFE" is the *SAME SOURCE..The CREATOR.*..IN fact the entire 1429 pages of sggs concentrate on telling us that ITS ALL ONLY EK..ONE..THE CREATOR....He is in the thorn..He is in the Flower..He is in the root..He is in the ................


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 9, 2012)

Kds ji,
It's a good question.


kds1980 said:


> If Killing of animals is unrighteous then why Guru hargobind,Guru gobind and their Sikhs went on hunting?


Well Sikhs hunted to train for combat and war. Men were trained for war and self sacrifice, to protect civilians and society. Protection prevents suffering and promotes well being. Since an incoming threat on well-being was perceived by Guru Sahib, he began the training. There the animal suffering is dwarfed by a larger potential human suffering if we do not prepare. There our environment and situation first calls for human suffering to be prevented.

There exist stories of Guru Sahibs liberating animals on their hunts. These stories arose precisely to bridge the gap between the new hunting practices and traditional Sikh attitude against killing of animals (and against killing of humans as well).

Gyani ji,
By that logic, taking a maul and smashing a rock is no different to smashing a human skull... is this so? No, we know the latter is morally wrong. And Kabir ji's argument stems precisely from the same place from where we claim that killing a human being is wrong. We understand that smashing a rock and smashing a skull have different consequences. There is little to no suffering created when a rock is a destroyed, but immense suffering created when a human being is killed. 

I don't think I need to hammer (no pun intended) that point further because we intuitively understand it. But we need to bring our understanding forward to our conscious mind and see why crushing someone's skull is wrong and crushing a rock is not.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 9, 2012)

Bhagat Ji...mundahugpeacesignicecreammunda


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 9, 2012)

Bhagat Singh veer ji you are OK but logic in argumemnt is lacking.  Let us review,


BhagatSingh said:


> By that logic, _taking a maul and smashing a rock is no different to smashing a human skull_... is this so? No, we know the latter is morally wrong.


_By who is an important part of the argument or logic and it is missing and makes the statement as much a eunuchician statement._



BhagatSingh said:


> There is little to no suffering created when a _rock is a destroyed, but immense suffering created when a human being is killed_.


_For the first one you have to ask the rock and for the second one you have to ask a Lion if it smashes a human skull.

Pain and suffering can be quite different too.

Pain is an understood, tenable and acceptable item.  Suffering is separate and minimizing suffering and intent at that  is noble.  Whether for food like meat (Jhatka) or simply helping someone in minimizing their pain.

_Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## BaljinderS (May 10, 2012)

Bhagat Singh Veer Ji,

Hunting cannot train you for war, the only aspect of this training for war is shooting practice.  Maybe it does if you enemy is made of animals peacesign The main reason I see is because of the Khalsa warrior tradition.  Guru Gobind Singh Ji has said that a Sikh without weapons (mind and actual p) is like a Sheep, who will follow anyone.  Talking about suffering, I don't think an will suffer much if they are shot or killed in a way that would be instant death.  I love animals and nature, probably than most vegetarians out there.  

What gets to me is that people rather all the animal products, no matter how much suffering that would caused to the animals and then act like they are the purest saints on this earth.  Just like the pandits.  Acting or pretending to be saints, just does not cut it, it never has and never will.  Sikhs should be wary of such people.

The suffering is still there, and we all should train our selves in the art of combat.  Sikhs are still being slaughtered, its now even easier to do so because Sikhs live in a delusion thinking that art of combat no longer needs to be practised.  The biggest aspect of training in martial arts is, the conditioning of the mind and it teaches self discipline.  Ask any martial arts, they will confirm this.

------------------
Well Sikhs hunted to train for combat and war. Men were trained for war and self sacrifice, to protect civilians and society. Protection prevents suffering and promotes well being. Since an incoming threat on well-being was perceived by Guru Sahib, he began the training. There the animal suffering is dwarfed by a larger potential human suffering if we do not prepare. There our environment and situation first calls for human suffering to be prevented.

There exist stories of Guru Sahibs liberating animals on their hunts. These stories arose precisely to bridge the gap between the new hunting practices and traditional Sikh attitude against killing of animals (and against killing of humans as well).
------------------


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 10, 2012)

Ambarsaria ji,
Expand definition of pain to include emotional pain, and the pain of death/not living. Suffering is when pain gains momentum and persists long after. This is the plight of conscious creatures, of animals. Animals also have complex family structures, so killing one then creates a wave of suffering in the rest of the unit. 

We are talking about *our* morality here. I thought that was clear enough. Which one do you think is morally inferior smashing a rock or a human being's head? And why?


Baljinder S ji,
Sikhs and others hunted precisely to train for war. Hunting doesn't just involve shooting animals as target practice, which is already very valuable on it's own since it's better than shooting a stationary, predicatble target (BTW the enemy *is* made of animals. Humans *are* animals.). Hunting also involved working as a single unit to lure the animal into a trap (a hole dug out of the ground, etc). Organized teams would coordinate such traps. It also involves physical combat against a dangerous living thing. E.g. Hari Singh Nalwa fought off a tiger with his bare hands then decapitated it with his sword. Hunting also gets your killer instinct going. It desensitizes you to taking another's life. Afterall, this is what you are going to be doing in war. Hunting would be akin to those simulations they use for pilots. Yes, its not the best simulation but it's better than stationary targets. Other things they would do is train at akharas, weight-lifting, wrestling and of course weapon training.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 10, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Baljinder Ji,
> 
> 
> No Gurbani has stated no such thing. And this discussion is precisely about what Gurbani is stating. In fact, it has been hijacked and has been taken out of context of teh Vegetarian Consciousness thread, which was closed. It's actually not about what this thread is about but certainly related to it.
> ...



Sin lies in causing suffering?

1) My personal trainer causes me suffering
2) I caused my wife suffering by impregnating her and making her give birth to children
3)I cause suffering to my staff by making them work at weekends
4) The Guru's caused suffering by slaying people in battle.

No offence but your argument sounds like Vaishnavism not Sikhism.

Suffering, pain, hardship, death are all part of living.




BhagatSingh said:


> Contemplate these questions:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nonsense!!!  So let me see, this shabad is saying that the Pandit is going around killing being and is a butcher and thats bad? A Pandit is a butcher....errr right? 

Your argument would be correct for the one fact it makes no sense.......... because you keep dismembering the shabads to suit what YOU believe. You don't read the shabads in context and you've done it again. The authors are spot on, and *you* haven't presented one iota of evidence to change my mind.

Infact any doubts I had about the authors have been dispelled and my dismay at how vegetarians will twist bani for a particular agenda have left me dumbfounded. The authors are 100% correct in that Bani is neutral on the issue of meat and killing animals.

ਮਨ ਕੇ ਅੰਧੇ ਆਪਿ ਨ ਬੂਝਹੁ ਕਾਹਿ ਬੁਝਾਵਹੁ ਭਾਈ ॥
मन के अंधे आपि न बूझहु काहि बुझावहु भाई ॥  
Man ke anḏẖe āp na būjẖhu kāhi bujẖāvahu bẖā▫ī.  
You are blind in your mind, and do not understand your own self; how can you make others understand, O brother?


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 11, 2012)

Randip Singh ji,



Randip Singh said:


> Sin lies in causing suffering?


Yes



> 1) My personal trainer causes me suffering
> 2) I caused my wife suffering by impregnating her and making her give birth to children
> 3)I cause suffering to my staff by making them work at weekends
> 4) The Guru's caused suffering by slaying people in battle.
> ...


5) She went out and murdered someone because "Suffering, pain, hardship, death are all part of living."
6) Americans nuked Hiroshima and Nagasakai because "Suffering, pain, hardship, death are all part of living."

See the problem yet?

In 1, 2 and 3, both parties agreed to the hardship. There is pain involved. Both parties have agreed to the level of pain and suffering. E.g. You chose that personal trainer. So if you are suffering and want it to stop just tell them to stop training you.

1-3 one party could simply end it. They have accepted whatever the consequences of their actions are.

4. Yes. This did cause suffering. Thousands of soldiers killed on both sides. Their life is ruined. Their family is now without sons, fathers, husbands, brothers, - lots of suffering.
But I think most Sikh would agree that it was necessary to prevent a lot more suffering that would have been created if the wars were not fought if this amount of suffering was not created. The Mughals would justify it on similar terms. So even though immense amounts of suffering is created, both parties have consented.

Now compare this to other animals. The ones we slaughter, they have not consented. They have not agreed to that level of pain and suffering.

This is Kabir's line of reasoning. He would call this tyranny. ਕਬੀਰ ਜੋਰੀ ਕੀਏ ਜੁਲਮੁ ਹੈ ਕਹਤਾ ਨਾਉ ਹਲਾਲੁ ॥  Mullah, to use force is tyranny even if you call it halal/permissible. ਦਫਤਰਿ ਲੇਖਾ ਮਾਂਗੀਐ ਤਬ ਹੋਇਗੋ ਕਉਨੁ ਹਵਾਲੁ ॥੧੮੭॥ When your account is called for, you will be in a terrible position. ਕਬੀਰ ਖੂਬੁ ਖਾਨਾ ਖੀਚਰੀ ਜਾ ਮਹਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਲੋਨੁ ॥ Eat rice instead, it is very tasty when flavoured with salt. ਹੇਰਾ ਰੋਟੀ ਕਾਰਨੇ ਗਲਾ ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ ॥੧੮੮॥ Who would cut his own throat to have meat with his bread? (Rhetorical for, no one consents to having their throat cut just to someone could have meat with their bread.)

So after talking about God and his experience with Him. He turns to the Mullah and asks:

ਕਬੀਰ ਮੁਲਾਂ ਮੁਨਾਰੇ ਕਿਆ ਚਢਹਿ ਸਾਂਈ ਨ ਬਹਰਾ ਹੋਇ ॥
कबीर मुलां मुनारे किआ चढहि सांई न बहरा होइ ॥  
Kabīr mulāŉ munāre ki▫ā cẖadẖėh sāŉ▫ī na bahrā ho▫e.  
Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing.  
ਮੁਲਾਂ = ਹੇ ਮੁੱਲਾਂ! ਕਿਆ ਚਢਹਿ = ਚੜ੍ਹਨ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਫ਼ਾਇਦਾ ਨਹੀਂ। ਮੁਨਾਰੇ ਕਿਆ ਚਢਹਿ = ਮੁਨਾਰੇ ਉਤੇ ਚੜ੍ਹਨ ਦਾ ਤੈਨੂੰ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਕੋਈ ਲਾਭ ਨਹੀਂ, ਬਾਂਗ ਦੇਣ ਦਾ ਤੈਨੂੰ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਕੋਈ ਫ਼ਾਇਦਾ ਨਹੀਂ। ਬਹਰਾ = ਬੋਲਾ (ਨੋਟ: ਬੋਲੇ ਨੂੰ ਉੱਚੀ ਕੂਕ ਕੇ ਆਦਰ-ਪਿਆਰ ਦੀ ਗੱਲ ਆਖ ਕੇ, ਪਰ ਹੌਲੀ ਹੌਲੀ ਗਾਲ੍ਹਾਂ ਕੱਢ ਕੇ ਠੱਗ ਸਕੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਰੱਬ ਤਾਂ ਦਿਲ ਦੀ ਹਾਲਤ ਭੀ ਸਮਝਦਾ ਹੈ, ਉਹ ਨਹੀਂ ਠੱਗਿਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ)।
ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! ਹੇ ਮੁੱਲਾਂ! ਮਸਜਿਦ ਦੇ ਮੁਨਾਰੇ ਉਤੇ ਚੜ੍ਹਨ ਦਾ ਤੈਨੂੰ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਤਾਂ ਕੋਈ ਫ਼ਾਇਦਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਰਿਹਾ। ਖ਼ੁਦਾ ਬੋਲਾ ਨਹੀਂ (ਉਹ ਤੇਰੇ ਦਿਲ ਦੀ ਹਾਲਤ ਭੀ ਜਾਣਦਾ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਠੱਗਿਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ)।


ਜਾ ਕਾਰਨਿ ਤੂੰ ਬਾਂਗ ਦੇਹਿ ਦਿਲ ਹੀ ਭੀਤਰਿ ਜੋਇ ॥੧੮੪॥
जा कारनि तूं बांग देहि दिल ही भीतरि जोइ ॥१८४॥  
Jā kāran ṯūŉ bāŉg ḏėh ḏil hī bẖīṯar jo▫e. ||184||  
Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers. ||184||  
ਜਾ ਕਾਰਨਿ = ਜਿਸ ਰੱਬ ਦੀ ਨਮਾਜ਼ ਦੀ ਖ਼ਾਤਰ। ਜੋਇ = ਵੇਖ, ਢੂੰਢ ॥੧੮੪॥
ਜਿਸ (ਰੱਬ ਦੀ ਨਮਾਜ਼) ਦੀ ਖ਼ਾਤਰ ਤੂੰ ਬਾਂਗ ਦੇ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈਂ, ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੇ ਦਿਲ ਵਿਚ ਵੇਖ (ਤੇਰੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਹੀ ਵੱਸਦਾ ਹੈ। ਤੇਰੇ ਆਪਣੇ, ਅੰਦਰ ਸ਼ਾਂਤੀ ਨਹੀਂ, ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਹੀ ਸੱਦ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈਂ) ॥੧੮੪॥


ਸੇਖ ਸਬੂਰੀ ਬਾਹਰਾ ਕਿਆ ਹਜ ਕਾਬੇ ਜਾਇ ॥
सेख सबूरी बाहरा किआ हज काबे जाइ ॥  
Sekẖ sabūrī bāhrā ki▫ā haj kābe jā▫e.  
Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself?  
ਸਬੂਰੀ = ਸੰਤੋਖ।
ਹੇ ਸ਼ੇਖ! ਜੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਸੰਤੋਖ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ, ਤਾਂ ਕਾਬੇ ਦਾ ਹੱਜ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਜਾਣ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਲਾਭ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ;


ਕਬੀਰ ਜਾ ਕੀ ਦਿਲ ਸਾਬਤਿ ਨਹੀ ਤਾ ਕਉ ਕਹਾਂ ਖੁਦਾਇ ॥੧੮੫॥
कबीर जा की दिल साबति नही ता कउ कहां खुदाइ ॥१८५॥  
Kabīr jā kī ḏil sābaṯ nahī ṯā ka▫o kahāŉ kẖuḏā▫e. ||185||  
Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord? ||185||  
ਦਿਲ ਸਾਬਤਿ = ਦਿਲ ਦੀ ਸਾਬਤੀ, ਦਿਲ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਾਂਤੀ, ਅਡੋਲਤਾ। ਤਾ ਕਉ = ਉਸ ਦੇ ਭਾਣੇ। ਕਹਾ ਖੁਦਾਇ = ਰੱਬ ਕਿਤੇ ਭੀ ਨਹੀਂ ॥੧੮੫॥
ਕਿਉਂਕਿ, ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! ਜਿਸ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਦੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਦਿਲ ਵਿਚ ਸ਼ਾਂਤੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਆਈ, ਉਸ ਦੇ ਭਾਣੇ ਰੱਬ ਕਿਤੇ ਭੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ ॥੧੮੫॥


ਕਬੀਰ ਅਲਹ ਕੀ ਕਰਿ ਬੰਦਗੀ ਜਿਹ ਸਿਮਰਤ ਦੁਖੁ ਜਾਇ ॥
कबीर अलह की करि बंदगी जिह सिमरत दुखु जाइ ॥  
Kabīr alah kī kar banḏagī jih simraṯ ḏukẖ jā▫e.  
Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart.  
xxx
ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! ਰੱਬ ਦੀ ਬੰਦਗੀ ਕਰ, ਬੰਦਗੀ ਕੀਤਿਆਂ ਹੀ ਦਿਲ ਦਾ ਵਿਕਾਰ ਦੂਰ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ,


ਦਿਲ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਂਈ ਪਰਗਟੈ ਬੁਝੈ ਬਲੰਤੀ ਨਾਂਇ ॥੧੮੬॥
दिल महि सांई परगटै बुझै बलंती नांइ ॥१८६॥  
Ḏil mėh sāŉ▫ī pargatai bujẖai balanṯī nāŉ▫e. ||186||  
The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name. ||186||  
ਬਲੰਤੀ = ਬਲਦੀ ਅੱਗ, ਤ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨਾ ਦੀ ਬਲਦੀ ਅੱਗ। ਨਾਂਇ = ਨਾਮ ਦੀ ਰਾਹੀਂ ॥੧੮੬॥
ਦਿਲ ਵਿਚ ਰੱਬ ਦਾ ਜ਼ਹੂਰ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਇਸ ਬੰਦਗੀ ਦੀ ਬਰਕਤਿ ਨਾਲ ਲਾਲਚ ਦੀ ਬਲਦੀ ਅੱਗ ਦਿਲ ਵਿਚੋਂ ਬੁੱਝ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ ॥੧੮੬॥


*Now here Kabir Sahib makes this argument that I put forth to you.

ਕਬੀਰ ਜੋਰੀ ਕੀਏ ਜੁਲਮੁ ਹੈ ਕਹਤਾ ਨਾਉ ਹਲਾਲੁ ॥
कबीर जोरी कीए जुलमु है कहता नाउ हलालु ॥  
Kabīr jorī kī▫e julam hai kahṯā nā▫o halāl.  
Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal.  
ਜੋਰੀ ਕੀਏ = ਧੱਕਾ ਕੀਤਿਆਂ। ਹਲਾਲੁ = ਜਾਇਜ਼, ਭੇਟਾ ਕਰਨ-ਯੋਗ, ਰੱਬ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਤੇ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇਣ ਦੇ ਲਾਇਕ।
ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! (ਮੁੱਲਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਦੱਸ ਕਿ) ਕਿਸੇ ਉਤੇ ਧੱਕਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਜ਼ੁਲਮ ਹੈ, (ਤੂੰ ਜਾਨਵਰ ਨੂੰ ਫੜ ਕੇ ਬਿਸਮਿੱਲਾ ਆਖ ਕੇ ਜ਼ਬਹ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈਂ ਅਤੇ) ਤੂੰ ਆਖਦਾ ਹੈਂ ਕਿ ਇਹ (ਜ਼ਬਹ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਨਵਰ) ਰੱਬ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਤੇ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇਣ ਦੇ ਲਾਇਕ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ (ਅਤੇ ਇਸ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਨਾਲ ਖ਼ੁਦਾ ਤੇਰੇ ਉਤੇ ਖ਼ੁਸ਼ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ); (ਪਰ ਇਹ ਮਾਸ ਤੂੰ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਖਾ ਲੈਂਦਾ ਹੈਂ। ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਪਾਪ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ੀਂਦੇ, ਕਦੇ ਸੋਚ ਕਿ)


ਦਫਤਰਿ ਲੇਖਾ ਮਾਂਗੀਐ ਤਬ ਹੋਇਗੋ ਕਉਨੁ ਹਵਾਲੁ ॥੧੮੭॥
दफतरि लेखा मांगीऐ तब होइगो कउनु हवालु ॥१८७॥  
Ḏafṯar lekẖā māŉgī▫ai ṯab ho▫igo ka▫un havāl. ||187||  
When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then? ||187||  
xxx ॥੧੮੭॥
ਜਦੋਂ ਰੱਬ ਦੀ ਦਰਗਾਹ ਵਿਚ ਤੇਰੇ ਅਮਲਾਂ ਦਾ ਹਿਸਾਬ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ ਤਾਂ ਤੇਰਾ ਕੀਹ ਹਾਲ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ ॥੧੮੭॥


ਕਬੀਰ ਖੂਬੁ ਖਾਨਾ ਖੀਚਰੀ ਜਾ ਮਹਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਲੋਨੁ ॥
कबीर खूबु खाना खीचरी जा महि अम्रितु लोनु ॥  
Kabīr kẖūb kẖānā kẖīcẖrī jā mėh amriṯ lon.  
Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt.  
ਖੂਬੁ ਖਾਨਾ = ਚੰਗੀ ਖ਼ੁਰਾਕ। ਲੋਨੁ = ਲੂਣ।
ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! (ਮੁੱਲਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਬੇਸ਼ੱਕ ਆਖ ਕਿ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇ ਬਹਾਨੇ ਮਾਸ ਖਾਣ ਨਾਲੋਂ) ਖਿਚੜੀ ਖਾ ਲੈਣੀ ਚੰਗੀ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਸੁਆਦਲਾ ਲੂਣ ਹੀ ਪਾਇਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੋਵੇ।

ਹੇਰਾ ਰੋਟੀ ਕਾਰਨੇ ਗਲਾ ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ ॥੧੮੮॥
हेरा रोटी कारने गला कटावै कउनु ॥१८८॥  
Herā rotī kārne galā katāvai ka▫un. ||188||  
Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? ||188||  
ਹੇਰਾ = ਮਾਸ। ਕਾਰਨੇ = ਗ਼ਰਜ਼ ਨਾਲ, ਨਿਯਤ ਨਾਲ। ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ = ਮੈਂ ਕੱਟਣ ਨੂੰ ਤਿਆਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਾਂ ॥੧੮੮॥
ਮੈਂ ਤਾਂ ਇਸ ਗੱਲ ਲਈ ਤਿਆਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਮਾਸ ਰੋਟੀ ਖਾਣ ਦੀ ਨਿਯਤ ਮੇਰੀ ਆਪਣੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਪਰ (ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦਾ ਹੋਕਾ ਦੇ ਦੇ ਕੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਪਸ਼ੂ ਨੂੰ) ਜ਼ਬਹ ਕਰਦਾ ਫਿਰਾਂ ॥੧੮੮॥*


ਕਬੀਰ ਗੁਰੁ ਲਾਗਾ ਤਬ ਜਾਨੀਐ ਮਿਟੈ ਮੋਹੁ ਤਨ ਤਾਪ ॥
कबीर गुरु लागा तब जानीऐ मिटै मोहु तन ताप ॥  
Kabīr gur lāgā ṯab jānī▫ai mitai moh ṯan ṯāp.  
Kabeer, one is known to have been touched by the Guru, only when his emotional attachment and physical illnesses are eradicated.  
ਤਬ ਜਾਨੀਐ = ਤਦੋਂ ਜਾਣੋ, ਤਦੋਂ ਹੀ ਇਹ ਸਮਝੋ। ਗੁਰੁ ਲਾਗਾ = ਗੁਰੂ ਪੁੱਕਰਿਆ ਹੈ, ਮਿਲ ਪਿਆ ਹੈ। ਤਨ ਤਾਪ = ਸਰੀਰ ਦੇ ਕਲੇਸ਼, ਸਰੀਰ ਨੂੰ ਸਾੜਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਦੁੱਖ-ਕਲੇਸ਼।
ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! (ਜਨੇਊ ਆਦਿਕ ਪਾ ਕੇ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਸਮਝਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਮੈਂ ਫਲਾਣੇ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣਾ ਗੁਰੂ ਧਾਰ ਲਿਆ ਹੈ; ਪਰ) ਤਦੋਂ ਸਮਝੋ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਮਿਲ ਪਿਆ ਹੈ ਜਦੋਂ (ਗੁਰੂ ਧਾਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਦੇ ਦਿਲ ਵਿਚੋਂ) ਮਾਇਆ ਦਾ ਮੋਹ ਦੂਰ ਹੋ ਜਾਏ, ਜਦੋਂ ਸਰੀਰ ਨੂੰ ਸਾੜਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਲੇਸ਼ ਮਿਟ ਜਾਣ।


ਹਰਖ ਸੋਗ ਦਾਝੈ ਨਹੀ ਤਬ ਹਰਿ ਆਪਹਿ ਆਪਿ ॥੧੮੯॥
हरख सोग दाझै नही तब हरि आपहि आपि ॥१८९॥  
Harakẖ sog ḏājẖai nahī ṯab har āpėh āp. ||189||  
He is not burned by pleasure or pain, and so he becomes the Lord Himself. ||189||  
ਹਰਖ = ਖ਼ੁਸ਼ੀ। ਸੋਗ = ਚਿੰਤਾ। ਦਾਝੈ ਨਹੀ = ਨਾਹ ਸਾੜੇ। ਆਪਹਿ ਆਪ = ਹਰ ਥਾਂ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਆਪ ਦਿੱਸਦਾ ਹੈ ॥੧੮੯॥
ਜਦੋਂ ਹਰਖ ਸੋਗ ਕੋਈ ਭੀ ਚਿੱਤ ਨੂੰ ਨਾਹ ਸਾੜੇ, ਅਜੇਹੀ ਹਾਲਤ ਵਿਚ ਅੱਪੜਿਆਂ ਹਰ ਥਾਂ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਆਪ ਦਿੱਸਦਾ ਹੈ ॥੧੮੯॥ 

--------------------------------

The context of the shabad is quite clear. It is addressed to a Mullah and his practice of 1. climbing to a high location to worship God, 2. going to Mecca and 3. slaughtering animals. Kabir ji points out the problem with each of these practices and gives solutions.  

1. He says to look within yourself instead.
2. There is no use of going to Mecca if you are not content. Meditate on Allah and become content with yourself (first).
3. Use of force to slaughter animals is tyranny. Eat kichree instead. When flavoured with salt it is like amrit.

Fact: Kabir ji was a Vaishnav. So if his argument sounds like Vaishnavism to you, good for you. This argument also happens to appear in Sikh scriptures (and on more than one occasion) so per my knowledge it is also a Sikh argument.
===========================================================



> Nonsense!!!  So let me see, this shabad is saying that the Pandit is going around killing being and is a butcher and thats bad? A Pandit is a butcher....errr right?


Hahaha, try harder.

You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action? (Rhetorical for, killing is unrighteous)
You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher? ||2|| (Rhetorical for, you are not a sage because you do unrighteous deeds)



> Your argument would be correct for the one fact it makes no sense.......... because you keep dismembering the shabads to suit what YOU believe. You don't read the shabads in context and you've done it again. The authors are spot on, and *you* haven't presented one iota of evidence to change my mind.


It's fact of life that even if I did, you would still say the same thing. The circuits in our brain strengthen as we get older. Your mind is rooted in your brain, which is a physical entity. In order for me to change your mind I'd have to cause enormous amounts of physical changes to your brain. It is very difficult to do to an older brain. So I am not even going to bother. I will reply to everything you say but not expecting to change anything. It's for myself only.




> Infact any doubts I had about the authors have been dispelled and my dismay at how vegetarians will twist bani for a particular agenda have left me dumbfounded.


People in their intentions always try and get the best interpretation of bani. Plus, we need not concern ourselves with what vegetarians say, we should only look to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 11, 2012)

we should all give up EATING and live on Air (make sure all bateria are filtered out).
People here are simply IGNORING the IMMENSE "suffering" caused by the Pesticides in AGRICULTURE..that seeps into ground water causing horrible cancers in humans, animals, horrors of DAIRY FARMING..insects birds etc being horribly maimed, birth defects etc etc..birds disappearing or being killed off..all this "suffering" is not Visible..BUT IT was to GURU NANAK JI...hence the SUGAR CANE SHABAD...and Clearly telling us that there is NO DIFFERENCE between SAAG and MAAS...but we refuse point blank  becasue we are BLINDED by our own Perceptions/utube vidoes of halal slaughter..blah blah...Guru nanak Ji saw the Horrible Slaughter in Emnabaad by Babars Invading forces..and His heart cried out..and he cried out for the sugar cane as well..BUT NOT US,,we CANT HEAR the Sugar cane..only the COW..so sad...such Conditional "crying" at so called suffering..such CHOOSING and selective crying..its total *HYPOCRACY*.....Jeta KITAA teta NAU..HE is IN EVERYTHING...so STOP EATING* HIM*.PERIOD. GIVE UP YOUR STOMACH first IF you think you love HIM that MUCH.japposatnamwaheguru:


----------



## Randip Singh (May 12, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Randip Singh ji,
> 
> Yes
> 
> ...



You said suffering and pain was unjust, you did not attach condition to  it, so now you are attaching conditions. Conditions you think are right?

In the divine order of things how do you know the  "pain / suffering" (if it is indeed pain or suffering) to the animal doesn't involve both parties? The native American thinks Tatanka (buffalo) came out of the Earth to give them food i.e. he consented.  

Are you really such an  "excellent sage"   that you know the divine order of things? When  Nanak describes a plant being crushed in rollers, is that the divine  order of things? When you forcibly take the milk away from a cow and  away from its calf is that the divine order of things?





BhagatSingh said:


> This is Kabir's line of reasoning. He would call this tyranny. ਕਬੀਰ ਜੋਰੀ ਕੀਏ ਜੁਲਮੁ ਹੈ ਕਹਤਾ ਨਾਉ ਹਲਾਲੁ ॥  Mullah, to use force is tyranny even if you call it halal/permissible. ਦਫਤਰਿ ਲੇਖਾ ਮਾਂਗੀਐ ਤਬ ਹੋਇਗੋ ਕਉਨੁ ਹਵਾਲੁ ॥੧੮੭॥ When your account is called for, you will be in a terrible position. ਕਬੀਰ ਖੂਬੁ ਖਾਨਾ ਖੀਚਰੀ ਜਾ ਮਹਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਲੋਨੁ ॥ Eat rice instead, it is very tasty when flavoured with salt. ਹੇਰਾ ਰੋਟੀ ਕਾਰਨੇ ਗਲਾ ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ ॥੧੮੮॥ Who would cut his own throat to have meat with his bread? (Rhetorical for, no one consents to having their throat cut just to someone could have meat with their bread.)
> 
> So after talking about God and his experience with Him. He turns to the Mullah and asks:
> 
> ...



Flawed flawed and flawed again. Kabir Ji is talking about the futility  of animal sacrifice to God. It makes no sense. He's not talking about  suffrering at all. Also you realise That Kabir is talking about the invasion of Timur in the Beans flavoured with salt shabad? You understand the context of that don't you? 

_Kabir ji was a remarkable man and his shabads are probably the least understood in Bani, although most quoted.

If you look at the History of when he grew up, he witnessed like Guru  Nanak (inavsion by Babur) a Muslim invasion (invasion by Timur), and  incredible death and destruction._ 

_Memoirs of an Islamist - Timur

_


> _125,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain.  Maulana Nasiru-d din ‘Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in  all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order,  slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives._


_Massacres in Varnasi were on a Massive scale. When Kabir ji is saying this:

_


> _Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing.
> Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers._ _
> Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself? _ _
> Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord? _ _
> ...


_

 at the back of his mind is this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742629/posts






Massacre  of 125,000 Hindus At this Court Amir Jahan Shah and Amir Sulaiman Shah,  and other amirs of experience, brought to my notice that, from the time  of entering Hindustan up to the present time, we had taken more than  125,000 infidels and Hindus prisoners, and that they were all in my  camp. On the previous day, when the enemy’s forces made the attack upon  us, the prisoners made signs of rejoicing, uttered imprecations against  us, and were ready, as soon as they heard of the enemy’s success, to  form themselves into a body, break their bonds, plunder our tents, and  then to go and join the enemy, and so increase his [p. 53] numbers and  strength. I asked their advice about the prisoners, and they said that  on the great day of battle these 125,000 prisoners could not be left  with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of  war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty. In fact, no  other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.  When I heard these words I found them in accord with the rules of war,  and I directly gave my command for the Tawachis to proclaim throughout  the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to  death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his  property given to the informer. When this order became known to the  ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to  death. 125,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain.*  Maulana Nasiru-d din ‘Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in  all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order,  slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.* 

Click to expand...

You  can imagine this young devout Muslim, witnessing, so called fellow  Muslims massacring his innocent Hindu neighbours. Probably people he  knew. This must have had a profound effect on him. Similar Guru Nanak in  Babur Bani._

It is this tyranny Kabir is talking about, not some stupid chicken. 

Also that is not the context of the Shabad, because in this context Halal and Bismil refer to a specific thing, i.e. sacrifice. There is no mention of pain hardship etc. It talks about the futility of these purificaction rituals the mullahs are engagaed in.

Kabir may have been a Vaishnav (incidently he was born into a Muslim family) but Sikhs are not Vaishnavs? Why not follow all the teachings of Sheikh Farid and call ourselves Muslims?

Sorry flawed from begining to end. So long as you keep that vegetarian bias in your head and keep pulling one liners out it simply makes no sense.

I don't think I can add nything more to this the rest is up to you to learn and find out.

From the essay:

Again, let us put this into context: 

_bayd katayb kahhu mat jhoothay jhoothaa jo na bichaarai._
_ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai._
_mulaaN kahhu ni-aa-o khudaa-ee._
_tayray man kaa bharam na jaa-ee._ rahaa-o.
_pakar jee-o aani-aa dayh binaasee maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa._
_jot saroop anaahat laagee kaho halaal ki-aa kee-aa._
_ki-aa ujoo paak kee-aa muhu Dho-i-aa ki-aa maseet sir laa-i-aa._
_ja-o dil meh kapat nivaaj gujaarahu ki-aa haj kaabai jaa-i-aa._
_tooN naapaak paak nahee soojhi-aa tis kaa maram na jaani-aa._
_kahi kabeer bhisat tay chookaa dojak si-o man maani-aa._

_Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false._
_You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?_
_O Mullah, tell me: is this God's Justice?_
_The doubts of your mind have not been dispelled._ Pause
_You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay._
_The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed?_
_And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?_
_Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca?_
_You are impure; you do not understand the Pure Lord. You do not know His Mystery._
_Says Kabeer, you have missed out on paradise; your mind is set on hell._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


First point to note is that halaal and bismil,  does not mean kill but refers to a specific form of ritual slaughter.  Put into context this is a comment on the Muslim sacrifice ritual where  either a goat or a chicken is kept in the confines of the home and then  ritually slaughtered as obeisance to Abraham. Kabeer is mocking the  futility of this ritual and saying, that why are you doing this  sacrifice just to emulate Gods asking of Abraham to kill his only son?  It is a futile gesture that will not sway God. Abraham was sacrificing  his son to God, however all the sacrifice in this instance has achieved  is destruction of the outer shell of the chicken. The soul wont travel  to God, but merely to another form. One can only understand this if one  has a basic grasp of history. In this instance the person who tried to  use this tukh as an anti-meat quotation was unaware of the Koranic  context and had an extremely poor knowledge of Semitic history. 



_oraa gar paanee bha-i-aa jaa-ay mili-o dhal kool._
_kabeeraa Dhoor sakayl kai puree-aa baaNDhee dayh._
_divas chaar ko paykhnaa ant khayh kee khayh._
_kabeer sooraj chaaNd kai udai bha-ee sabh dayh._
_gur gobind kay bin milay palat bha-ee sabh khayh._
_jah anbha-o tah bhai nahee jah bha-o tah har naahi._
_kahi-o kabeer bichaar kai sant sunhu man maahi._
_kabeer jinahu kichhoo jaani-aa nahee tin sukh need bihaa-ay._
_hamhu jo boojhaa boojhnaa pooree paree balaa-ay._
_laagee chot maramm kee rahi-o kabeeraa tha-ur._
_kabeer chot suhaylee sayl kee laagat lay-ay usaas._
_chot sahaarai sabad kee taas guroo mai daas._
_kabeer mulaaN munaaray ki-aa chadheh saaN-ee na bahraa ho-ay._
_jaa kaaran tooN baaNg deh dil hee bheetar jo-ay._
_saykh sabooree baahraa ki-aa haj kaabay jaa-ay._
_kabeer jaa kee dil saabat nahee taa ka-o kahaaN khudaa-ay._
_kabeer alah kee kar bandagee jih simrat dukh jaa-ay._
_dil meh saaN-ee pargatai bujhai balantee naaN-ay._
_kabeer joree kee-ay julam hai kahtaa naa-o halaal._
_daftar laykhaa maaNgee-ai tab ho-igo ka-un havaal._
_kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon._
_hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un._
_kabeer gur laagaa tab jaanee-ai mitai moh tan taap._
_harakh sog daajhai nahee tab har aapeh aap._
_kabeer raam kahan meh bhayd hai taa meh ayk bichaar._
_so-ee raam sabhai kaheh so-ee ka-utakhaar._
_kabeer raamai raam kaho kahibay maahi bibayk._
_ayk anaykeh mil ga-i-aa ayk samaanaa ayk._
_kab_eer jaa ghar saaDh na sayvee-ah har kee sayvaa naahi_._
_tay ghar marhat saarkhay bhoot baseh tin maahi._
_kabeer goongaa hoo-aa baavraa bahraa hoo-aa kaan._
_paavhu tay pingul bha-i-aa maari-aa satgur baan._
_kabeer satgur soormay baahi-aa baan jo ayk._
_laagat hee bhu-ay gir pari-aa paraa karayjay chhayk._
_kabeer nirmal boond akaas kee par ga-ee bhoom bikaar._

_The hail-stone has melted into water, and flowed into the ocean._
_Kabeer, the body is a pile of dust, collected and packed together._
_It is a show which lasts for only a few days, and then dust returns to dust._
_Kabeer, bodies are like the rising and setting of the sun and the moon._
_Without meeting the Guru, the Lord of the Universe, they are all reduced to dust again._
_Where the Fearless Lord is, there is no fear; where there is fear, the Lord is not there._
_Kabeer speaks after careful consideration; hear this, O Saints, in your minds._
_Kabeer, those who do not know anything, pass their lives in peaceful sleep._
_But I have understood the riddle; I am faced with all sorts of troubles._
_Struck by the Mystery of God, Kabeer remains silent._
_Kabeer, the stroke of a lance is easy to bear; it takes away the breath._
_But one who endures the stroke of the Word of the Shabad is the Guru, and I am his slave._
_Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing._
_Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers._
_Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself?_
_Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord?_
_Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart._
_The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name._
_Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal._
_When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?_
_Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt._
_Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread?_
_Kabeer, one is known to have been touched by the Guru, only when his emotional attachment and physical illnesses are eradicated._
_He is not burned by pleasure or pain, and so he becomes the Lord Himself._
_Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider._
_Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord._
_Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction._
_One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself._
_Kabeer, those houses in which neither the Holy nor the Lord are served _
_those houses are like cremation grounds; demons dwell within them._
_Kabeer, I have become mute, insane and deaf._
_I am crippled - the True Guru has pierced me with His Arrow._
_Kabeer, the True Guru, the Spiritual Warrior, has shot me with His Arrow._
_As soon as it struck me, I fell to the ground, with a hole in my heart._
_Kabeer, the pure drop of water falls from the sky, onto the dirty ground._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



At one level this is a mistranslation and at another misrepresentation of the context within which this is written: ​ 

kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.
Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt. 
hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un. 
Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 

In the above Gurmukhi, there is no mention of meat whatsoever. _hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un_,  means literally, who would cut their own throat to eat food. The person  who has tried to translate this has added his/her own spin .What this  is actually saying is that to the follower of the Guru or one who has  been touched by God a simple dish of Kheechree (lentils and rice),  flavoured with salt is enough. To have something more exotic to eat you  would not cut your own throat (the western equivalent would be to cut  your own nose off to spite your face). In no way is this tukh anything  to do with meat eating and the person who has misrepresented and  mistranslated it should be held to account for his/her actions. 


PS When I said this sounded more like Vaishnavism I meant YOUR interpretation was more akin to Vaishnavism. 
:singhsippingcoffee:


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 12, 2012)

I mean just how many of the vasihnavites  here actually..EAT ONLY KICHHRREE with salt as a STAPLE DIET ?? I think its mere and empty Talk. Kichhrree is a Dish cooked for SICK PEOPLE....recommended by Doctors for sick patients...to recover from a sickness..
Remember Kabir said..KHOOB kahnna khichhrree..it means STAPLE DIET...because KHOOB means..KHOOB.....look it up !! a person who KHOOB eats khichhrree has to eat it daily...and we cannot DIVERSIFY ..Probabaly Kabir ji followed his own advise..BUT certainly not those who use this one liner OUT OF CONTEXT.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 12, 2012)

Randip Singh ji,



Randip Singh said:


> You said suffering and pain was unjust, you did not attach condition to  it, so now you are attaching conditions. Conditions you think are right?
> 
> In the divine order of things how do you know the  "pain / suffering" (if it is indeed pain or suffering) to the animal doesn't involve both parties? The native American thinks Tatanka (buffalo) came out of the Earth to give them food i.e. he consented.
> 
> Are you really such an  "excellent sage"   that you know the divine order of things?


Yes I do that part-time :interestedmunda:

What is an excellent sage? One who knows the divine order? But your definition of divine order in no different to the natural order of things. Are you saying that the divine order is the same as the natural order?

People think different things, but we should listen to the divine order expressed in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.



> When  Nanak describes a plant being crushed in rollers, is that the divine  order of things? When you forcibly take the milk away from a cow and  away from its calf is that the divine order of things?


Guru Nanak Dev ji is talking about human attachment in the shabad. I tell you these authors are pretty horrible at interpreting shabads. Then they accuse the original translators of doing it wrong. It's like Ulta chor kotwal ko dante

But it is probably true that plant feels some level of suffering. I am saying what animals ( and humans) experience is much greater in magnitude because they have a (higher) consciousness. Imagine a volume knob of sin, pain and suffering rather than on and off switches. Instead of black and white, imagine shades of grey.

What Punjabi Espada ji keeps brining up then is very relevant to the thread. In modern factory farming, not only is there suffering created by killing the animal but also while the animal is alive. It's hell for the animal. Kabir ji is strictly speaking about the former kind but it is very much related to the latter.



> Flawed flawed and flawed again.


Naiga dewalf, dewalf and dewalf... nope didn't work.
Saying it three times doesn't make it so. Not even when you say it backwards.



> Kabir Ji is talking about the futility  of animal sacrifice to God. It makes no sense.


Animal sacrifice to God is adharam not because something is being offered to God (which is a good thing, it is Dharam) but because something is illegitimately being offered to God. Life that is not yours is being taken away from who it belongs, the animal, then offered to God. THAT is unrighteous. When talking about animal sacrifice he says "You murder living things and worship lifeless things, you will feel immense pain in the end." 332

To the Pandit he says, If it is righteous to kill animal for worship then what is unrigheous. If you call yourself a sage because you kill living things, then who would call a butcher? Kabir ji is comparing the pandit to a butcher, to what he considers an unrighteous profession.

In contrast, when you offer your own possesssions and life to God that is righteous (pg 20, 28, 31, and so on). 




> He's not talking about  suffrering at all. Also you realise That Kabir is talking about the invasion of Timur in the Beans flavoured with salt shabad? You understand the context of that don't you?


Why is the invasion of Timur unrighteous?



> Kabir may have been a Vaishnav (incidently he was born into a Muslim family) but Sikhs are not Vaishnavs? Why not follow all the teachings of Sheikh Farid and call ourselves Muslims?


We follow those teachings laid out in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, whether they be Vaishnav of Sufi.



> From the essay:
> 
> 
> 
> First point to note is that halaal and bismil,  does not mean kill but refers to a specific form of ritual slaughter.



Oh right because slaughter is not killing? 
Kabir ji is against ritual slaughter because it involves killing animals. Otherwise he would not criticize pandits, who he compared to a butcher. A butcher does not do a ritual slaughter nor slaughters an animal and offers it to God, he simply slaughters the animal, and sells the meat.



> From the essay:
> 
> In the above Gurmukhi, there is no mention of meat whatsoever.



ਹੇਰਾ ਰੋਟੀ ਕਾਰਨੇ ਗਲਾ ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ ॥੧੮੮॥
हेरा रोटी कारने गला कटावै कउनु ॥१८८॥
Herā rotī kārne galā katāvai ka▫un. ||188|
Wrong. Hayra means "meat obtained from a hunt". Hayra roti means "roti with meat". Check your dictionary.

Jesus, that essay is messed up. Stop posting it everywhere, especially when I have shown it to be wrong. Put forth your own understanding and discuss what *you *think Gurbani is talking about. Stop using the essay as a crutch. It's a broken one. If anything we should be fixing that essay so it is at least accurate when it comes to gurbani interpretaions and gurmukhi words.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 13, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Randip Singh ji,
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, that essay is messed up. Stop posting it everywhere, especially  when I have shown it to be wrong. Put forth your own understanding and  discuss what *you *think Gurbani is talking about. Stop using the  essay as a crutch. It's a broken one. If anything we should be fixing  that essay so it is at least accurate when it comes to gurbani  interpretaions and gurmukhi words.



The essay is fine, it is your vegetarian bias and pulling out one liners that is messed up.  


The reason why you and Espanada burn up is for one reason only. Egotism. You can't stand the fact that other people can make informed choices. People are capable of going on to Youtube and finding videos themselves. We are adults. Monsanto and Peta are flip sides of the same coin, but that is not the debate here.

I think I've added as much as I can. I think the debate is becoming a bit ridiculous now. I bow out on that note. 

I can't debate with people if they do not understand the basics.

I think this says it all.



BhagatSingh said:


> Why is the invasion of Timur unrighteous?




Now that IS messed up 

PS And if you think Halal and Bismil just means to kill then I can't help you.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 13, 2012)

The ESSAY is definitely NOT "messed" up...its the BEST essay ever on SPN (or elsewhere)...if the 10GB mailbox that got filled up is anything to check by......No one has ever succeeded better in exorcising the ghost of vasihanvites misinterpreting Gurbani than the writers of this essay. It MUST remain as it is on SPN.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 13, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> The ESSAY is definitely NOT "messed" up...its the BEST essay ever on SPN (or elsewhere)...if the 10GB mailbox that got filled up is anything to check by......No one has ever succeeded better in exorcising the ghost of vasihanvites misinterpreting Gurbani than the writers of this essay. It MUST remain as it is on SPN.



My personal view is that it is a very good essay but not perfect. I was asked to edit it and not contribute. If I was asked to contribute I would tweek certain bits, so as to make it far more easier to read for the average person. I may speak to the people who wrote it to see if I can add historical and backgrounds to the shabads.

We have a lot of youngsters on this site who don't understand/know the basics of Sikh history and hence the background of the shabads in Bani. They don't understand the metaphors. The attempts of people throughout the ages to amalgamate Sikhism in Vaishnavism. We have many groups like Radhaswami, AKJ, GNSSJ, DDT etc who are unbeknown/known as spouting Vaishnav dogma. We have to be on our guard of such things. 

Vegetarianism, ritual, purity, sexism, biggotry etc are all facets found in India. All part of the problem, and not the cure.

Unitil we can look at things with pure objectivity and not be drwan in by our own biased views, we cannot move on.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 13, 2012)

Randip Ji..i stand corrected..ONLY Dhur Ki bani is PERFECT.PERIOD.
Still..the Essay doesnt contain real "Flaws " of reasoning/logic/gurbani interpretation..thats all.


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 13, 2012)

Bhagat Singh ji thanks for your efforts but the urge to win the argument at all costs is showing its ugly head icecreammunda





BhagatSingh said:


> ਹੇਰਾ ਰੋਟੀ ਕਾਰਨੇ ਗਲਾ ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ ॥੧੮੮॥
> हेरा रोटी कारने गला कटावै कउनु ॥१८८॥
> Herā rotī kārne galā katāvai ka▫un. ||188|
> Wrong. Hayra means "meat obtained from a hunt". Hayra roti means "roti with meat". Check your dictionary.


Let us review the full context of above one liner,

ਕਬੀਰ ਖੂਬੁ ਖਾਨਾ ਖੀਚਰੀ ਜਾ ਮਹਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਲੋਨੁ ॥
कबीर खूबु खाना खीचरी जा महि अम्रितु लोनु ॥ 
Kabīr kẖūb kẖānā kẖīcẖrī jā mėh amriṯ lon. 
Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt. 
ਕਬੀਰ ਸ਼੍ਰੇਸ਼ਟ ਹੈ ਭੋਜਨ ਖਿਚੜੀ ਦਾ, ਜਿਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਸੁਆਦਲਾ ਨੂਣ ਪਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ। 
ਖੂਬੁ ਖਾਨਾ = ਚੰਗੀ ਖ਼ੁਰਾਕ। ਲੋਨੁ = ਲੂਣ।
ਹੇਕਬੀਰ! (ਮੁੱਲਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਬੇਸ਼ੱਕ ਆਖ ਕਿ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇ ਬਹਾਨੇ ਮਾਸ ਖਾਣ ਨਾਲੋਂ) ਖਿਚੜੀ ਖਾਲੈਣੀ ਚੰਗੀ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਸੁਆਦਲਾ ਲੂਣ ਹੀ ਪਾਇਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੋਵੇ।
_Kabir, the salty rice pudding is great food with salt as the pure essence_

ਹੇਰਾ ਰੋਟੀ ਕਾਰਨੇ ਗਲਾ ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ ॥੧੮੮॥
हेरा रोटी कारने गला कटावै कउनु ॥१८८॥ 
Herā rotī kārne galā katāvai ka▫un. ||188|| 
Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? ||188|| 
ਆਪਣੇ ਟੁੱਕਰ ਨਾਲ ਮਾਸ ਦੀ ਖਾਤਰ ਆਪਣੇ ਗਲੇ ਨੂੰ ਕੌਣ ਵਢਵਾ ਲੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ? 
ਹੇਰਾ = ਮਾਸ। ਕਾਰਨੇ = ਗ਼ਰਜ਼ ਨਾਲ, ਨਿਯਤ ਨਾਲ। ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ = ਮੈਂ ਕੱਟਣ ਨੂੰ ਤਿਆਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਾਂ ॥੧੮੮॥
ਮੈਂਤਾਂ ਇਸ ਗੱਲ ਲਈ ਤਿਆਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਮਾਸ ਰੋਟੀ ਖਾਣ ਦੀ ਨਿਯਤ ਮੇਰੀ ਆਪਣੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਪਰ(ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦਾ ਹੋਕਾ ਦੇ ਦੇ ਕੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਪਸ਼ੂ ਨੂੰ) ਜ਼ਬਹ ਕਰਦਾ ਫਿਰਾਂ ॥੧੮੮॥
_Just to eat bread with meat who wants to get their neck cut off._

*ESSENCE:  *Kabir ji state that of all that is needed is simple means, say of nourishment, why would one go to treacherous lengths to do otherwise.

It is neither a statement to promote vegetarianism nor show disdain of non-vegetarianism.  

Simply metaphoric use to illustrate the simplicity in spiritual matters.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 14, 2012)

Ambarsaria ji,
1. There is no argument that can be won. 
2. I suggest you read the teeka translation you are quoting. Professor Sahib Singh explains the shabad there.

ਕਬੀਰ ਜੋਰੀ ਕੀਏ ਜੁਲਮੁ ਹੈ ਕਹਤਾ ਨਾਉ ਹਲਾਲੁ ॥
कबीर जोरी कीए जुलमु है कहता नाउ हलालु ॥  
Kabīr jorī kī▫e julam hai kahṯā nā▫o halāl.  
Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal.
ਜੋਰੀ ਕੀਏ = ਧੱਕਾ ਕੀਤਿਆਂ। ਹਲਾਲੁ = ਜਾਇਜ਼, ਭੇਟਾ ਕਰਨ-ਯੋਗ, ਰੱਬ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਤੇ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇਣ ਦੇ ਲਾਇਕ।
ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! (ਮੁੱਲਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਦੱਸ ਕਿ) ਕਿਸੇ ਉਤੇ ਧੱਕਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਜ਼ੁਲਮ ਹੈ, (ਤੂੰ ਜਾਨਵਰ ਨੂੰ ਫੜ ਕੇ ਬਿਸਮਿੱਲਾ ਆਖ ਕੇ ਜ਼ਬਹ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈਂ ਅਤੇ) ਤੂੰ ਆਖਦਾ ਹੈਂ ਕਿ ਇਹ (ਜ਼ਬਹ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਨਵਰ) ਰੱਬ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਤੇ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇਣ ਦੇ ਲਾਇਕ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ (ਅਤੇ ਇਸ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਨਾਲ ਖ਼ੁਦਾ ਤੇਰੇ ਉਤੇ ਖ਼ੁਸ਼ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ); (ਪਰ ਇਹ ਮਾਸ ਤੂੰ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਖਾ ਲੈਂਦਾ ਹੈਂ। ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਪਾਪ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ੀਂਦੇ, ਕਦੇ ਸੋਚ ਕਿ)
Kabir says, Mullah, to use force is tyranny. 
[Further, elaboration]You forcefully hold the animal and read your prayers and slaughter it, and claim that the animal (which you slaughtered) is ready as sacrifice, and that God will be graceful for this. But you eat the meat yourself. Your sins will not be forgiven this way.


ਦਫਤਰਿ ਲੇਖਾ ਮਾਂਗੀਐ ਤਬ ਹੋਇਗੋ ਕਉਨੁ ਹਵਾਲੁ ॥੧੮੭॥
दफतरि लेखा मांगीऐ तब होइगो कउनु हवालु ॥१८७॥  
Ḏafṯar lekẖā māŉgī▫ai ṯab ho▫igo ka▫un havāl. ||187||  
When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then? ||187||  
xxx ॥੧੮੭॥
ਜਦੋਂ ਰੱਬ ਦੀ ਦਰਗਾਹ ਵਿਚ ਤੇਰੇ ਅਮਲਾਂ ਦਾ ਹਿਸਾਬ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ ਤਾਂ ਤੇਰਾ ਕੀਹ ਹਾਲ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ ॥੧੮੭॥


ਕਬੀਰ ਖੂਬੁ ਖਾਨਾ ਖੀਚਰੀ ਜਾ ਮਹਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਲੋਨੁ ॥
कबीर खूबु खाना खीचरी जा महि अम्रितु लोनु ॥  
Kabīr kẖūb kẖānā kẖīcẖrī jā mėh amriṯ lon.  
Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt.  
ਖੂਬੁ ਖਾਨਾ = ਚੰਗੀ ਖ਼ੁਰਾਕ। ਲੋਨੁ = ਲੂਣ।
ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! (ਮੁੱਲਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਬੇਸ਼ੱਕ ਆਖ ਕਿ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇ ਬਹਾਨੇ ਮਾਸ ਖਾਣ ਨਾਲੋਂ) ਖਿਚੜੀ ਖਾ ਲੈਣੀ ਚੰਗੀ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਸੁਆਦਲਾ ਲੂਣ ਹੀ ਪਾਇਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੋਵੇ।
Kabir says, Mullah, rather than to eat meat with the excuse that it is animal sacrifice, it is better to eat Khichree with salt.

ਹੇਰਾ ਰੋਟੀ ਕਾਰਨੇ ਗਲਾ ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ ॥੧੮੮॥
हेरा रोटी कारने गला कटावै कउनु ॥१८८॥  
Herā rotī kārne galā katāvai ka▫un. ||188||  
Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? ||188||  
ਹੇਰਾ = ਮਾਸ। ਕਾਰਨੇ = ਗ਼ਰਜ਼ ਨਾਲ, ਨਿਯਤ ਨਾਲ। ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ = ਮੈਂ ਕੱਟਣ ਨੂੰ ਤਿਆਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਾਂ ॥੧੮੮॥
ਮੈਂ ਤਾਂ ਇਸ ਗੱਲ ਲਈ ਤਿਆਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਮਾਸ ਰੋਟੀ ਖਾਣ ਦੀ ਨਿਯਤ ਮੇਰੀ ਆਪਣੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਪਰ (ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦਾ ਹੋਕਾ ਦੇ ਦੇ ਕੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਪਸ਼ੂ ਨੂੰ) ਜ਼ਬਹ ਕਰਦਾ ਫਿਰਾਂ ॥੧੮੮॥ 
I am not even ready to accept that for my intention of eating meat, an animal is being slaughtered (in the name of sacrifice).


My understanding of the shabad was presented here. 
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/164643-post1036.html What you are quoting is only to demonstrate that the word hayra/hera (meat) exists in the shabad and that contrary to what the article says, the shabad is in fact talking about meat. Studying the full shabad we find that Kabir expresses the view that killing animals is tyrannical and unrighteous. This is confirmed when we read other Saloks of Kabir and is consistent with his vegetarian diet.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 14, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Randip Ji..i stand corrected..ONLY Dhur Ki bani is PERFECT.PERIOD.
> Still..the Essay doesnt contain real "Flaws " of reasoning/logic/gurbani interpretation..thats all.



Indeed that is so. The Vaishnav interpretations of Bani will ultimately lead us down the wrong path. The damage is here to be seen already.

I've talked to one of the authors and I am going to be allowed to correct some of the grammar.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 14, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> Bhagat Singh ji thanks for your efforts but the urge to win the argument at all costs is showing its ugly head icecreammundaLet us review the full context of above one liner,
> 
> Sat Sri Akal.



Indeed thats why I refuse to participate. One has to have a bare minimum of understanding of Sikhism, Sikh History and Sikh Polity in order to understand Bani. The point of the essay is exactly what our friend Bhaghat Singh seems to be doing:

1) Not realising that this is a direct attack on the Invasion of Timur which was done in the name of Islam
2) Not understanding that the word Hayra hunt/meat/or not is irrelevant in the context of the shabad, in that it talks about simplicity and not hypocrasy. I mean you could replace this word with cavier, pineapple, mangoe, karah/halwa and the meaning would be exactly the same of the shabad.
3) Lack of understanding of words like Bismil and Halal, and thinking they only mean kill. I wonder if the Halal toothpaste in my local muslim shop had been killed 
4) Pulling out one lines in the shabads and distorting the shabads. In the above, actual distorting the entire meaning of the shabad.
5) Treating the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as an A la carte menu of what to eat and not to eat. Something I personally find abhorrent.
6) Allowing his Krodh and Egotism to dictate what Bani whould say rather than what it should say.
7) I've been through several translations of this shabad, and Bhagat Singh interpretation is the most unique I have found. I have not found a single Sikh intellectual of note that agrees with his interpretation.

From the essay:

*MOTIVATIONS BEHIND MISTRANSLATION AND MISREPRESENTATION 

There are several reasons behind why these mistranslations and misrepresentations have occurred: 
· The  publishers have a lack of education and do not understand the meaning  of words in Gurmukhi and the correct translation into English. 
· In  their eagerness to promote their own brand of Sikhism (Sant, Jatha etc)  they have deliberately allowed mistranslation and misrepresentation. 
· Genuine  abhorrence of killing animals can be a motivation too (eg those people  that believe in Animal Rights), however Sikhism should not be used as a  tool to promote such agendas. 
· Poor  knowledge of history and the context in which the Gurus and Bhaghats  wrotes these Angs is a factor too. This can lead to a misrepresentation.  
· In  conclusion one can only say that it is very important that Sikh  institution promote a clear and concise programme where only those with a  certain amount of knowledge in Sikh History and the Sikh Language,  should be officially sanctioned as being translators for the Sri Guru  Granth Sahib ji. *

:noticemunda:


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (May 14, 2012)

Veer Jio's ,by grace let us eat and be thankful but place no black marks against anyone else,and be compassionate and softly spokenonly then can we be sure we are not hurting life.With the tongue we can  butcher or befriend.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 14, 2012)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Veer Ji ,by grace eat and be thankful but place no black marks against anyone else,only then you are truly not hurting life.The tongue can be the knife and can make you a butcher or beautiful.



You are 100% , Bhaghat Singh ji forgive me for my comments. Section edited in the essay as well:

*4.  Bhagat Kabir says, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils)  where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is  willing to have their head cut ? (Sri Guru Granth Sahib p1374)*

 Let us add this to the correct context: 

_oraa gar paanee bha-i-aa jaa-ay mili-o dhal kool._
_kabeeraa Dhoor sakayl kai puree-aa baaNDhee dayh._
_divas chaar ko paykhnaa ant khayh kee khayh._
_kabeer sooraj chaaNd kai udai bha-ee sabh dayh._
_gur gobind kay bin milay palat bha-ee sabh khayh._
_jah anbha-o tah bhai nahee jah bha-o tah har naahi._
_kahi-o kabeer bichaar kai sant sunhu man maahi._
_kabeer jinahu kichhoo jaani-aa nahee tin sukh need bihaa-ay._
_hamhu jo boojhaa boojhnaa pooree paree balaa-ay._
_laagee chot maramm kee rahi-o kabeeraa tha-ur._
_kabeer chot suhaylee sayl kee laagat lay-ay usaas._
_chot sahaarai sabad kee taas guroo mai daas._
_kabeer mulaaN munaaray ki-aa chadheh saaN-ee na bahraa ho-ay._
_jaa kaaran tooN baaNg deh dil hee bheetar jo-ay._
_saykh sabooree baahraa ki-aa haj kaabay jaa-ay._
_kabeer jaa kee dil saabat nahee taa ka-o kahaaN khudaa-ay._
_kabeer alah kee kar bandagee jih simrat dukh jaa-ay._
_dil meh saaN-ee pargatai bujhai balantee naaN-ay._
_kabeer joree kee-ay julam hai kahtaa naa-o halaal._
_daftar laykhaa maaNgee-ai tab ho-igo ka-un havaal._
_kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon._
_hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un._
_kabeer gur laagaa tab jaanee-ai mitai moh tan taap._
_harakh sog daajhai nahee tab har aapeh aap._
_kabeer raam kahan meh bhayd hai taa meh ayk bichaar._
_so-ee raam sabhai kaheh so-ee ka-utakhaar._
_kabeer raamai raam kaho kahibay maahi bibayk._
_ayk anaykeh mil ga-i-aa ayk samaanaa ayk._
_kab_eer jaa ghar saaDh na sayvee-ah har kee sayvaa naahi_._
_tay ghar marhat saarkhay bhoot baseh tin maahi._
_kabeer goongaa hoo-aa baavraa bahraa hoo-aa kaan._
_paavhu tay pingul bha-i-aa maari-aa satgur baan._
_kabeer satgur soormay baahi-aa baan jo ayk._
_laagat hee bhu-ay gir pari-aa paraa karayjay chhayk._
_kabeer nirmal boond akaas kee par ga-ee bhoom bikaar._

_The hail-stone has melted into water, and flowed into the ocean._
_Kabeer, the body is a pile of dust, collected and packed together._
_It is a show which lasts for only a few days, and then dust returns to dust._
_Kabeer, bodies are like the rising and setting of the sun and the moon._
_Without meeting the Guru, the Lord of the Universe, they are all reduced to dust again._
_Where the Fearless Lord is, there is no fear; where there is fear, the Lord is not there._
_Kabeer speaks after careful consideration; hear this, O Saints, in your minds._
_Kabeer, those who do not know anything, pass their lives in peaceful sleep._
_But I have understood the riddle; I am faced with all sorts of troubles._
_Struck by the Mystery of God, Kabeer remains silent._
_Kabeer, the stroke of a lance is easy to bear; it takes away the breath._
_But one who endures the stroke of the Word of the Shabad is the Guru, and I am his slave._
_Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing._
_Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers._
_Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself?_
_Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord?_
_Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart._
_The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name._
_Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal._
_When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?_
_Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt._
_Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread?_
_Kabeer, one is known to have been touched by the Guru, only when his emotional attachment and physical illnesses are eradicated._
_He is not burned by pleasure or pain, and so he becomes the Lord Himself._
_Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider._
_Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord._
_Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction._
_One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself._
_Kabeer, those houses in which neither the Holy nor the Lord are served â€"_
_those houses are like cremation grounds; demons dwell within them._
_Kabeer, I have become mute, insane and deaf._
_I am crippled - the True Guru has pierced me with His Arrow._
_Kabeer, the True Guru, the Spiritual Warrior, has shot me with His Arrow._
_As soon as it struck me, I fell to the ground, with a hole in my heart._
_Kabeer, the pure drop of water falls from the sky, onto the dirty ground._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



At one level this is a mistranslation and at another misrepresentation of the context within which this is written: ​ 

kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.
Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt. 
hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un. 
Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 

In the above Gurmukhi, there is no mention of meat in the context of dining habits whatsoever. _hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un_,  means literally, who would cut their own throat to eat food, in this  context. The person who has tried to translate this has added his/her  own spin .What this is actually saying is that to the follower of the  Guru or one who has been touched by God a simple dish of Kheechree  (lentils and rice), flavoured with salt is enough. To have something  more exotic to eat you would not cut your own throat (the western  equivalent would be to cut your own nose off to spite your face). In no  way is this tukh anything to do with meat eating but to do with tyrrany.  If one looks at this shabad in the context of which it was written,  i.e. the invasion of Timur the shabads true meaning becomes apparent. 

Kabir ji was a remarkable man and his shabads are probably the least understood in Bani, although most quoted.

 If you look at the History of when he grew up, he witnessed like Guru   Nanak (invasion by Babur) a Muslim invasion  by Timur, and   incredible death and destruction. 

Memoirs of an Islamist - Timur



> 125,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day  slain.  *Maulana Nasiru-d din ‘Umar, a counsellor and man of learning,  who, in  all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of  my order,  slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his  captives.*


Massacres in Varnasi were on a Massive scale. He witnesses so called  religious holymen/Mullahs and Shaykhs killing people in the name of God.  When Kabir ji is saying this:



> Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing.
> Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers.
> Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself?
> Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord?
> ...




 at the back of his mind is this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742629/posts





> Massacre   of 125,000 Hindus At this Court Amir Jahan Shah and Amir Sulaiman  Shah,  and other amirs of experience, brought to my notice that, from  the time  of entering Hindustan up to the present time, we had taken  more than  125,000 infidels and Hindus prisoners, and that they were all  in my  camp. On the previous day, when the enemy’s forces made the  attack upon  us, the prisoners made signs of rejoicing, uttered  imprecations against  us, and were ready, as soon as they heard of the  enemy’s success, to  form themselves into a body, break their bonds,  plunder our tents, and  then to go and join the enemy, and so increase  his [p. 53] numbers and  strength. I asked their advice about the  prisoners, and they said that  on the great day of battle these 125,000  prisoners could not be left  with the baggage, and that it would be  entirely opposed to the rules of  war to set these idolaters and foes of  Islam at liberty. In fact, no  other course remained but that of making  them all food for the sword.  When I heard these words I found them in  accord with the rules of war,  and I directly gave my command for the  Tawachis to proclaim throughout  the camp that every man who had infidel  prisoners was to put them to  death, and whoever neglected to do so  should himself be executed and his  property given to the informer. When  this order became known to the  ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords  and put their prisoners to  death. 125,000 infidels, impious idolaters,  were on that day slain.*  Maulana Nasiru-d din ‘Umar, a counsellor  and man of learning, who, in  all his life, had never killed a sparrow,  now, in execution of my order,  slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous  Hindus, who were his captives.*


You  can  imagine this young devout Muslim, witnessing, so called fellow  Muslims  massacring his innocent Hindu neighbours. Probably people he  knew.  This must have had a profound effect on him. 

Here:

_Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord._
_Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction._
_One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself._

Here Kabir ji is clearly saying, look Oh Mullah we are all the same, whether we are Hindu or Muslim.

This shabad is in no way about dining habits.


----------



## kds1980 (May 14, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Kds ji,
> It's a good question.
> 
> Well Sikhs hunted to train for combat and war. Men were trained for war and self sacrifice, to protect civilians and society. Protection prevents suffering and promotes well being. Since an incoming threat on well-being was perceived by Guru Sahib, he began the training. There the animal suffering is dwarfed by a larger potential human suffering if we do not prepare. There our environment and situation first calls for human suffering to be prevented.
> ...



May be hunting is for martial training , but then what about practice of Chatka? 

Here is something from amarnamah

----------------------------------------------------------------------
         It is clear from what transpired on September 03, 1708, the day of the solar eclipse, that, eventually Banda's objection to submitting to the Guru was on the single point of vegetarianism. The Guru decided to wait no longer. The master psychologist that he was, he forced the issue in such a manner that Banda would have to make the final choice in the matter of accepting him as the Guru. Anticipating what was to come he did not distribute any cattle to the Lombadas on that day.

         The Guru ordered his Sikhs to get ready to visit Banda's place. On reaching there they found him absent. The Guru gave instruction to slaughter Banda's goats, which was immediately complied with. The jungle-folk knew from experience that the meat was meant for them, and came immediately to wait upon the Guru in anticipation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Driops (May 15, 2012)

WjkK Wjkf,
Just want to share my expieriences
One day I was in a Cornfield , I just sat there and meditate on the  formless one Akal Purakh - I was really in Bliss - I just felt - I  cannot describe with words. Maybe I was in unison with God? I dont know  and I cant tell you. So I started looking around myself - sitting in  media of the Cornfield - and I saw how the Corn was twirled by the wind.  I was fascinated - I felt the whole Cornfield each and every corn - I  saw live in it - First time I realised it that the corn  has live as  well - I felt everything around me every sense the earth the grass  everything. From this time I realised I am a hypocrite - I am blind.  I  was just focused on beings that I see with my eyes and hear with my  ears... And that was wrong - I realised that the SAME life is in  everything - and that made me feel and think... It is the same living I  eat for my "food" , the same essence , but it isn´t apparent like the  animals... I can´t see it with my "eyes".  I felt my self such an  hypocrite thinking that I am better than others - eating vegetarian food  - but I realised this falsehood... Where does I differ from animals or  other (Human) Beinges, what makes me better? Nothing, it is just the  understanding/feeling/embracement( I don´t have any word for this ) of  the One immaculate formless Creator - I have the One chance - to realise  him. This is very deep.  
After that I rememberd the Shabad by Guru ji : 

ਮਃ ੧ ॥ 
ਵੇਖੁ ਜਿ ਮਿਠਾ ਕਟਿਆ ਕਟਿ ਕੁਟਿ ਬਧਾ ਪਾਇ ॥ 
ਖੁੰਢਾ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਰਖਿ ਕੈ ਦੇਨਿ ਸੁ ਮਲ ਸਜਾਇ ॥ 
ਰਸੁ ਕਸੁ ਟਟਰਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਤਪੈ ਤੈ ਵਿਲਲਾਇ ॥ 
ਭੀ ਸੋ ਫੋਗੁ ਸਮਾਲੀਐ ਦਿਚੈ ਅਗਿ ਜਾਲਾਇ ॥ 
ਨਾਨਕ ਮਿਠੈ ਪਤਰੀਐ ਵੇਖਹੁ ਲੋਕਾ ਆਇ ॥੨॥ 
First Mehl:
Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,
and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed.
What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed  in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out.
And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below.
Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!

    Page 143 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 


And I understood more and more....
Again: I don´t want to change anyone ones dieties or attitue or something else - I just want to share was I experienced.
May Waheguru bless you all.

Waheguru Ji ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji ki Fateh!


----------



## Kamala (May 15, 2012)

Ahimsa is the true way.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 15, 2012)

Kamala said:


> Ahimsa is the true way.





YES..A-HIMSA..not only against all LIFE (including Plant and bacterial/viral etc ) BUT more importantly against Praya Haak, others properties, lands, wives, husbands, intellectual properties (piracy/copying of music films etc ) etc etc etc....AHIMSA AHIMSA and AHIMSA.PERIOD. Then all will be PEACE...A-Him(her)-SA !!


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (May 15, 2012)

Includes Ahimsa against the insects! I am still not very caring towards those spiders!


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 16, 2012)

AHimsa against QUE BEATERS...I LOVE it when everyone obeys the RULES...and doesnt try to beat the que...


----------



## Randip Singh (May 16, 2012)

Kamala said:


> Ahimsa is the true way.



...but not the Sikh way!!:noticemunda:


----------



## Randip Singh (May 16, 2012)

Driops said:


> WjkK Wjkf,
> Just want to share my expieriences
> One day I was in a Cornfield , I just sat there and meditate on the formless one Akal Purakh - I was really in Bliss - I just felt - I cannot describe with words. Maybe I was in unison with God? I dont know and I cant tell you. So I started looking around myself - sitting in media of the Cornfield - and I saw how the Corn was twirled by the wind. I was fascinated - I felt the whole Cornfield each and every corn - I saw live in it - First time I realised it that the corn has live as well - I felt everything around me every sense the earth the grass everything. From this time I realised I am a hypocrite - I am blind. I was just focused on beings that I see with my eyes and hear with my ears... And that was wrong - I realised that the SAME life is in everything - and that made me feel and think... It is the same living I eat for my "food" , the same essence , but it isn´t apparent like the animals... I can´t see it with my "eyes". I felt my self such an hypocrite thinking that I am better than others - eating vegetarian food - but I realised this falsehood... Where does I differ from animals or other (Human) Beinges, what makes me better? Nothing, it is just the understanding/feeling/embracement( I don´t have any word for this ) of the One immaculate formless Creator - I have the One chance - to realise him. This is very deep.
> After that I rememberd the Shabad by Guru ji :
> ...


 
I've had similar experiences when walking in the hills in Wales. Bani has an interesting attitude to life:

On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written: 

_ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5._
_ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa._
_ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa._
_ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o._
_ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o._
_mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa_. _chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa._ rahaa-o. 
_ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa._
_ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa._
_ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa._
_saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat._
_kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat._
_ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan._
_jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan._
_avar na doojaa karnai jog._
_taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay._
_kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay._

_Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl_: 
_In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;_
_in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer._
_In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake._
_In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse._
_Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him_.
_After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you._ Pause 
_In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;_
_in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;_
_in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;_
_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._
_Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life._
_Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har._
_Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance._
_Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord._
_Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord._
_No one else can do anything at all._
_We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself._
_Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 




Reading this Shabad one can clearly see that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not attach any particular order to how life is incarnated. Infact it states: ​

ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa. 
In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains; 
ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa.
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb; 
ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa. 
in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves; 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 


If you were to apply the logic of those that claim spiritually animal life is closer to human, then according to this a rock then becomes an aborted human foetus, then becomes a plant! It is only after this one becomes human. Surely then a plant is a closer form of life to human? 

The Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji only proclaims one life form as being so precious. On page 50 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji it states: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 5 ghar 2._
_go-il aa-i-aa go-ilee ki-aa tis damf pasaar._
_muhlat punnee chalnaa tooN sampal ghar baar._
_har gun gaa-o manaa satgur sayv pi-aar._
_ki-aa thorh-rhee baat gumaan._ rahaa-o. 
_jaisay rain paraahunay uth chalsahi parbhaat._
_ki-aa tooN rataa girsat si-o sabh fulaa kee baagaat._
_mayree mayree ki-aa karahi jin dee-aa so parabh lorh._
_sarpar uthee chalnaa chhad jaasee lakh karorh._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh bharmati-aa dulabh janam paa-i-o-ay._
_naanak naam samaal tooN so din nayrhaa aa-i-o-ay._

_Siree Raag, Fifth Mehl, Second House:_
_The herdsman comes to the pasture lands-what good are his ostentatious displays here?_
_When your allotted time is up, you must go. Take care of your real hearth and home._
_O mind, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, and serve the True Guru with love._
_Why do you take pride in trivial matters?_ Pause 
_Like an overnight guest, you shall arise and depart in the morning._
_Why are you so attached to your household? It is all like flowers in the garden._
_Why do you say, "Mine, mine?" Look to God, who has given it to you._
_It is certain that you must arise and depart, and leave behind your hundreds of thousands and millions._
_Through 8.4 million incarnations you have wandered, to obtain this rare and precious human life._
_O Nanak, remember the Naam, the Name of the Lord; the day of departure is drawing near!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji


----------



## Driops (Jul 26, 2012)

Thanks for the answer. Yes, we had similiar experience and thats nice! I have just a small side question: Would you eat Halal? I mean food that is already slaughtered Halal? And what about if you eat it accedentaly? I mean the animal is already dead , and suffered pain , should we waste that meat? The prayers are useless on animal we all know.  And what is if there is only Halal meat availabe , example: you live in an muslim country? Would you quit?


This question goes to all not only you Randip ji.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Jul 26, 2012)

Personally, I quit meat when I was in Hyderabad which has mostly halal meat. Once my mama mami came and bought mutton biryani in my office cafe. I was ordering some dosa on other counter, and I realized it late that I should have told them what kind of meat it could be. I hope they knew it 

After that I went back to Delhi, didn't feel like eating meat again. For me, I try to avoid double lifestyles. So I felt ok with the no meat one. Soon it became a habit, which I could maintain even in Canada. Thankfully the west has many more veggie options. Sometimes I miss specific meat dishes. And it is only coz they are well prepared (yes chefs pay more attention to them, haha!) and don't have a veg counterpart.

E.g. palak paneer led to palak chicken but there is no veggie twist to meatball sub! Anyway to each his own. How your life turns out depends on the things life throws at you. Maybe if I didn't go to Hyderabad I would have continued to be a meat eater.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Jul 26, 2012)

> And that was wrong - I realised that the SAME life is in everything - and that made me feel and think... It is the same living I eat for my "food" , the same essence , but it isn´t apparent like the animals... I can´t see it with my "eyes".


 
Hmm the only naturally offered food by plants are fruits perhaps. They want us to eat their mangos, oranges, apples. And throw away the seeds far and wide. So that they can sprout out new trees. It's like a symbiotic relationship


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 26, 2012)

Driops said:


> Thanks for the answer. Yes, we had similiar experience and thats nice! I have just a small side question: Would you eat Halal? I mean food that is already slaughtered Halal? And what about if you eat it accedentaly? I mean the animal is already dead , and suffered pain , should we waste that meat? The prayers are useless on animal we all know.  And what is if there is only Halal meat availabe , example: you live in an muslim country? Would you quit?
> 
> 
> This question goes to all not only you Randip ji.



HALAL IS BANNED FOR SIKHS. PERIOD.
Are you suggesting that its a LIfe and Death situation ?? That a Sikh must consume halal or DIE ?
Meat is NOT MANDATORY you know...thats the Bottom line..Guru Ji leaves it to us to decide..."WHATEVER...again in BOLD - *WHATEVER* that is bad for YOUR body, that causes DISCOMFORT..causes bad feelings, bad vibes, bad thoughts...etc etc etc etc...*DO NOT CONSUME*.  Now I find this advise the most consistent, most scientific and most acceptable than any other "diet laws" of any religion. Islam tells you to eat beef from a halal cow...BUT fails to mention BRAIN COW DISEASE....who is responsible for a man getting sick form Brain cow disease after consuming beef form  a halal brain-cow infected cow ?? A SIKH is already advised to REFRAIN/AVOID such which causes discomfort allegies etc....hence even a *JHATKA* cow/sheep/goat/pig/chicken whatever.. is *NOT MANDATORY*. Mostly a Jhatka was originally recommended and is true even Today is because a JHATKA is personally performed..or in the family house/village..or at least in your presence whereby you can have a look at the animals health etc. IF you CANNOT be sure..then DONT EAT.

2. Milk intolerance..again Gurbani advise is BEST. IF MILK gives you trouble.*.DONT DRINK MILK. *Nothing to do with jhatka or halal...IF WHEAT GLUTTEN causes your stomach to be upset..*DONT EAT BREAD*..nothing jhatka or halal anywhere !!! IF apple cider vinegar gives you ULCERS..dont use apple cider vinegar..so simple and straightforward...*.GURBANI IS BEST0 *!!


----------



## Luckysingh (Jul 26, 2012)

Driops said:


> Thanks for the answer. Yes, we had similiar experience and thats nice! I have just a small side question: Would you eat Halal? I mean food that is already slaughtered Halal? And what about if you eat it accedentaly? I mean the animal is already dead , and suffered pain , should we waste that meat? The prayers are useless on animal we all know. And what is if there is only Halal meat availabe , example: you live in an muslim country? Would you quit?
> 
> 
> This question goes to all not only you Randip ji.


 
If only halal was available, then I would NOT consume it- SIMPLE.
Halal is NOT for us sikhs to consume and that is instructed to us in the rehat!!
So, if no other option available then I would give up all together in such a place.
 In all honesty, I don't know what reason I would have to be in a muslim dominated country where there was no non-halal available in the first place!!
If circumstances were unpreventable that I was unfortunate to be stuck in such a place, then like my muslim brothers do in other country's,- I would insist and find a way to get certain rules overturned so that non-halal was made available for people like me!!!-SIMPLE!!!!


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 27, 2012)

Driops said:


> Thanks for the answer. Yes, we had similiar experience and thats nice! I have just a small side question: Would you eat Halal? I mean food that is already slaughtered Halal? And what about if you eat it accedentaly? I mean the animal is already dead , and suffered pain , should we waste that meat? The prayers are useless on animal we all know. And what is if there is only Halal meat availabe , example: you live in an muslim country? Would you quit?
> 
> 
> This question goes to all not only you Randip ji.


 
I can happily live on any diet, but when I'm training I need a balanced diet. Protein from nuts doesn't cut the mustard despite what Vegans and lacto-Vege's say.

 I would't eat Halal because the Sikh Rehat Marayada prohibits it for an Amritdhari Sikh:

In the Rehit Marayada (http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html), Section Six, it states: 
The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided 
1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way(Kutha); 
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse
4. Using tobacco.
Sikh Rehit Maryada 


I suppose killing the animal yourself would have to  be an option. Also fish and eggs are not halal so those could be consumed.

I would ask the question how can Vegetarians in India justify drinking milk baring in mind the cruelty involved in that?

Also what about the insects that are killed so that people can eat their wheat and rice?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 27, 2012)

Randip Ji..you ask embarrassing questions...how can they be answered truthfully...thats the reason for the silence. We can wait till the cows jump over the moon...silence will remain.


----------



## itsmaneet (Jul 27, 2012)

Randip Singh said:


> I can happily live on any diet, but when I'm train I need a balance. I would't eat Halal because the Sikh Rehat Marayada prohibits it for an Amritdhari Sikh:
> 
> In the Rehit Marayada (http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html), Section Six, it states:
> The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided
> ...


Dear Randip Ji- I din't get the reason for deleting my views....kindly explain. Also from your views above, plz be clear with 'do you support eating flesh/meat or not?'


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 27, 2012)

> Dear Randip Ji- I din't get the reason for deleting my views....kindly explain. Also from your views above, plz be clear with 'do you support eating flesh/meat or not?'



Yes, Randip ji, please be clear, throughout the last 119 pages, I am still unsure as to what your position is!

lol


----------



## Luckysingh (Jul 28, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Yes, Randip ji, please be clear, throughout the last 119 pages, I am still unsure as to what your position is!
> 
> lol


I came in to this debate quite late as it has been going on for some time.
It is probably the most interesting and ueful ones on here, hence the spn record 119 or so pages.
Quite early in the posts, I realised that Randipji was very NEUTRAL, he did not favour either choice. I myself, used to believe that eating meat was forbidden and a sin. -Thanks to the learning on here, I have realised that no choice is superior or for that matter forbidden.

It is personal choice on what one feels obliged to do and how one feels. The problem with our society is this judging of each other on the meat eating basis. Some feel superior and clean or pure because they are veggie.
 From these posts we should have learnt that this judging is not at all wise and completely out of order. 
So why are some of us scratching our heads wondering if the other eats meat or not. It does NOT matter if the person contributing to the thread eats meat or not. We should have learnt now that NO one person has the upperhand in their say and that the choice is purely personal.
So, it shouldn't matter if I say eat or don't eat and in my own time I don't consume any meat.

The huge learning curve for all is that we don't judge on the basis of diet and that no specific choice is superior. Whatever one feels obliged to do, they are free to feel and act that way.

I am quite thankful and consider myself lucky that I have been able to learn and educate myself about this very common blind myth that huge numbers follow.

Threads like these are the core of the success on this forum. If someone's attitude or life can be changed by anothers words, then we should encourage each other even more to keep this form of learning alive.
It doesn't matter if the person to respond to my post eats meat or not.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 28, 2012)

itsmaneet said:


> Dear Randip Ji- I din't get the reason for deleting my views....kindly explain. Also from your views above, plz be clear with 'do you support eating flesh/meat or not?'



I posted on your wall why it was deleted. Multiple issues, such as inflamatory language. No evidence to back up points. Use of one liners from Bani that distorts its meaning. On such an inflamatory issue one should at least try and make an attempt to differentiate from personal and the Sikh view.

My view on this is neutral. The Sikh view seems to be neutral. From what I have seen only those Sikhs from Vahnavite backgrounds tend to have problems with meat.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 28, 2012)

And the reason WHY the so called "admission" is VITAL is so they can put you away in a sealed BOX and be done with it.

You see *IF you declare that you are a Veggie*..( the fuller the better and higher up in spirituality, santhood, whatever..ha ha - even though just as described in GURBANI you    are one of those who "Naak Pakkrreh" ( hold noses) in PUBLIC but ravenously DEVOUR even RAW MEAT in the dark of night in Private behind closed doors )...then whatever you POST is defacto..Highly spiritual, santhoodist writing, worthy of Gyanis, sants, bhai sahibs, whatever...you are HOLY and PURE.   On the other hand if you declare you consume Jhatka..that instantly removes your Gyaan, (*A*Gyani)  santhood, holiness, from a Bhai Sahib you become Oi bai, scum..possibly a kala fghanatic, darshanite (follower of Prof darshan Singh) or something even more evil who hates dasm pita, amrit, and is enemy of Sikhism..blah blah blah... Whatever you posted earlier also becoems highly suspect and reviling... *SUCCESS - You  are Now clearly BOXED and labelled.*  That is the Level we have allowed ourselves to descend to...the SGGS, Gurbani, Lives of our Gurus all have absolutely no bearing in this..*WE DECIDE*....*WE LABEL. and WE DIVIDE.*  ALL this on a NON-ISSUE of no consequence.


----------



## Driops (Jul 30, 2012)

THanks dor the replies - yes I know I was just curious about this.. This topic here changed my mind to meat as well - lol, I was raised up - saying NO to meat - I never really had choice - my parents just marked me .. But it never suited me because - I am I guess more "open" for all? I couldn´t live with this decision, because it doesnt´made any sense in my eyes. And then I got my experience - like posted before. 

The main problem is - I unfortunately ate Halal ( I am still not Amritdhari , some time ago I posted here , why still not)  But I am trying to keep rehit...  Furthermore I saw the "Halal" Logo on a Noodles package - I am asking how you can Halal noodles?!?!


----------



## Luckysingh (Jul 30, 2012)

Driops said:


> THanks dor the replies - yes I know I was just curious about this.. This topic here changed my mind to meat as well - lol, I was raised up - saying NO to meat - I never really had choice - my parents just marked me .. But it never suited me because - I am I guess more "open" for all? I couldn´t live with this decision, because it doesnt´made any sense in my eyes. And then I got my experience - like posted before.
> 
> The main problem is - I unfortunately ate Halal ( I am still not Amritdhari , some time ago I posted here , why still not) But I am trying to keep rehit... Furthermore I saw the "Halal" Logo on a Noodles package - I am asking how you can Halal noodles?!?!


 
It's good that this has been a learning curve for you. As I stated above, I think this is probably the best thread as nearly everyone comes on this, reads through and learns, walking away with a new attitude!!!

If a forum like this can make this huge affect, then we should encourage more learning in this manner.

I think I could have spent months in a librabry going through different books with differing views on this subject without coming to a solid conclusion. Instead spending a few days going through the posts on here, I have learnt much more with every single argument covered more than once, thereby coming up with a rock solid conclusion!!

With your halal question, I would ignore these marketing gimmicks where they write halal on non meat products just to endorse the product.
You see, many people believe that chicken flavour crisps or chips(as they are called in N.America) actually contain chicken!!- when in reality all they contain is a flavouring made of pure synthesised chemicals.
Now these kind of people expect to see ''halal'' labelling on this chicken flavouring or they will simply NOT purchase.

If I'm the manufacturer and I can make good money by selling to muslims, then as long as it is legal I shall call my product ''halal''- SIMPLE!!


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Jul 30, 2012)

> If a forum like this can make this huge affect, then we should encourage more learning in this manner.


 
I was thinking if we should have a wiki for SPN started on wikia.com. All the content of these big topics (running >50 pages ) could be organized in one article there.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 30, 2012)

Driops said:


> THanks dor the replies - yes I know I was just curious about this.. This topic here changed my mind to meat as well - lol, I was raised up - saying NO to meat - I never really had choice - my parents just marked me .. But it never suited me because - I am I guess more "open" for all? I couldn´t live with this decision, because it doesnt´made any sense in my eyes. And then I got my experience - like posted before.
> 
> The main problem is - I unfortunately ate Halal ( I am still not Amritdhari , some time ago I posted here , why still not)  But I am trying to keep rehit...  Furthermore I saw the "Halal" Logo on a Noodles package - I am asking how you can Halal noodles?!?!



Hi Driops , the issue is not about "Halal" meat.

Anything that has some sort of ritual purification behind it and offered to God has a problem for Sikhs. God created all the plants and animals, so how does one purify something that Gidis supposed to have created? That for Sikhs is the main issue, nit the issue with Halal per se.

It is interesting that Sikh Masands are developing their own purification rituals. That too would be a problem for Sikhs in my eyes.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 30, 2012)

> I am asking how you can Halal noodles?!?!


 
well, its hard but possible, you need to examine the noodles under a microscope, and kill each cell in the halal manner.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 30, 2012)

harry haller said:


> well, its hard but possible, you need to examine the noodles under a microscope, and kill each cell in the halal manner.



Then again maybe NOT..a teeny veeny single cell may be jhatkaed accidentally..spoiling the whole batch !!


----------



## P0TTER (Jul 30, 2012)

I tried to click Like, having read the discussion on this thread... but got this message... Sikh Philosophy Network: Important Message  P0TTER, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:      Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?     If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.  WHY? I was sent a link to this thread by email. I only wanted to Click 'Like' to encourage the writer.


----------



## P0TTER (Jul 30, 2012)

P0TTER said:


> I tried to click Like, having read the discussion on this thread... but got this message... Sikh Philosophy Network: Important Message  P0TTER, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:      Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?     If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.  WHY? I was sent a link to this thread by email. I only wanted to Click 'Like' to encourage the writer.



 This problem seems to be resolved now.. I can click like now without an error message appearing.  http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/images/smilies/sikhsmileys/animated_winking_munda.gif


----------



## P0TTER (Jul 30, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> It's good that this has been a learning curve for you. As I stated above, I think this is probably the best thread as nearly everyone comes on this, reads through and learns, walking away with a new attitude!!!
> 
> If a forum like this can make this huge affect, then we should encourage more learning in this manner.
> 
> ...



  If a meat or non-meat product has the halal sign, this means that money is regularly being paid to a halal authority from the sale of that product to inspect the production plant and for the Halal Certification. 

Every sale also funds the Halal Industry 
 - and you may ask "What's wrong with that?" 

Every halal purchase leads to an indirect payment of Zakat Tax, one eighth of which goes to fund Islamic Freedom Fighters. 

For more about this see this article: 

Halal Funds Terrorists: ZAKAT
http://boycotthalal.com/halal-funding-terrorists-zakat/ 

Sadly the majority of halal products are sold by stealth and unlabelled as such. 
 Gurus have explained that not eating meat was not the real sin but:
Taking another's right is the real thing to be avoided

 Falsehood is the real thing to avoid 

Surely it is our right to know what we are eating and whether we are eating a product which is being sold under the Halal Religious Standard? 
Surely all eateries should display the kind of meat they serve - especially if it has been ritually slaughtered and dedicated to a foreign god, so that consumers are able to make a reasoned choice? 

  Article 9 Human Rights Act. regarding Freedom of Conscience - should give us the right to religious and secular freedom, i.e. to not be forced to participate in religious rites. 

Dedicating this meat to a god violates this right: hence there is forced participation in another’s religion without consent. 

 Jews, Sikhs & Christians are specifically instructed not to eat this meat, so where is their religious freedom? 

UK Human Rights Blog 

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-index/article-9/


----------



## P0TTER (Jul 30, 2012)

harry haller said:


> well, its hard but possible, you need to examine the noodles under a microscope, and kill each cell in the halal manner.




In answer to the question of how you 'halal' noodles... 

Firstly Muslims convince the manufacturers of the noodles to pay them regularly (weekly or monthly) to inspect and regularly monitor their Production Plant... usually on the promise that this will open up huge rises in their trade to new muslim markets. 

All the rules of Sharia Law must be obeyed - even the cleaning procedure must follow halal guidelines and not include alcohol based cleaning products... halal certified cleaning products & equipment must be used.

Then the recipe of the noodles must follow halal principles... halal certified flour must be used and preferably only muslims can be employed for all tasks that involve contact with the product... yes this involves marginalisation of non-muslims in the workplace. 

The material used for the packaging of the product must follow halal guidelines too.

The Production Plant and the Product... in this case Noodles, will only then be given Halal Certification and this will incur an annual Payment to a Halal Authority, like the HFA or HMC in UK

To find out more about them read this...

We Call on the Government to Investigate the HMC & other Muslim Halal ‘Charities’

http://boycotthalal.com/halal-charity-business-irregularities 

When it comes to buying halal certified products, the Question is - 

Do you want to fund Islam and encourage the growth of the halal industry?


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 30, 2012)

Potter ji thanks for your posts.

I believe in the present commercial empire it is important to recognize the tax one pays indirectly in such endeavors.  It is equivalent to partial subjugation.  Is subjugation hardening and encroaching over time?  I believe it is.  So some caution is necessary.

We should not allow ourselves to be taxed directly or indirectly for such stuff.  We already pay enough taxes as is.

I believe same goes for Kosher too and cooking without eggs .  

The new vegan fad regarding eggs is catching on and exploited by merchants and many a Sikhs followers of this too.  I wonder if this also flows through back to Beas or Ravi 

Regards.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 31, 2012)

Ambarsariah Ji..*BEAS *definitely...RAVI flows nearby Lahore...def not vege land !!:sippingcoffee::sippingcoffee:


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 31, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Ambarsariah Ji..*BEAS *definitely...RAVI flows nearby Lahore...def not vege land !!:sippingcoffee::sippingcoffee:


Gyani ji thanks indeed for correcting me.  I mixed up Sutluj with Ravi. lol

I find land East of Sutluj a fertile ground for Babey, Shabey, Sant, Mahants and everything in between.  

Regards and Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 2, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> Gyani ji thanks indeed for correcting me. I mixed up Sutluj with Ravi. lol
> 
> I find land East of Sutluj a fertile ground for Babey, Shabey, Sant, Mahants and everything in between.
> 
> Regards and Sat Sri Akal.


 
I was in conversation off the record with one of these cult members a few years ago, who is quite high up and he was very candid with me, he said that making someone a vege makes they more placid and less aggressive, so they are more likely to listen to what you are saying to them. 

Sounds like subtle mind control to me. This would also explain why they ban eggs as well!!! 

They defininelty don't want Guru Granth and Guru Paanth (that can collectively overturn the will of the Guru if need be).

They want Guru Mahant to sit and control the Guru Granth and Paanth!!! Passive {censored} cats who will do the masters bidding.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 3, 2012)

Interesting Nihang view. See below::interestedkudi:


http://www.nihangsingh.org/website/trad-jhatka.html


*Introdcution
*
The practise of Jhatka is one of the most recognisable rituals of the Nihang Singhs. It involves killing an animal, usually a goat, with one swift swing of a sword which painlessly kills the animal with one blow. Jhatka is one of the most contentious and misunderstood traditions of the Nihang Singhs. It has always been an important tradition within the Khalsa and its existence is well documented in historical literature. At major festivals and celebrations Nihang Singhs perform Jhatka and distribute the resulting goat meat which is termed Mahaparshad, meaning blessed food. Within the Dalpanth, mobile battalions of the Nihang Singhs, Jhatka is performed much more regularly and meat forms and important part of the diet due to the rigorous and physically demanding lifestyle its members live.

_*“Jhatka is a distinguishable tradition of the Nihang Singhs. The Khalsa has been performing Jhatka since the time of the Gurus, it is part of our Kshatri (warrior) tradition. One is at liberty to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to eat Mahaparshad. Many oppose the tradition of Jhatka and the British tried to ban it, this means nothing to us and we will carry practising the traditions entrusted to us by our Gurus.” (Jathedar Baba Joginder Singh Nihang 96 Krori, Audio Recording May 2009)
*_
*The Process* 
The internationally renowned Sikh preacher Giani Thakur Singh Ji, a student of Damdami Taksal, explains the tradition as follows: 

*"Nihang Singhs eat Jhatka meat because of their traditions. The Guru allowed this tradition of Jhatka to be practised within his army and by his soldiers; it was not for civilians to eat. Maharaj said to them that if need be you may Jhatka an animal and eat it, not just goats or chickens but any animal you may find in the jungle. The Nihang Singhs of today still follow this tradition. When performing Jhatka on a goat, first the goat is bathed, then Japji Sahib and Chandi Di Var are read. One Singh stands by the head of the goat and upon the final lines of Chandi Di Var being read, ‘Those who sing this divine ballad will be liberated from the realm of life and death’, at this moment the goat is decapitated with one blow and the soul of the goat is liberated. The goat itself lowers its head to receive salvation”. (Giani Thakur Singh, Asa Di Var Viakhya Part 25)*





The late Jathedar Baba Kharak Singh, a revered warrior-saint of the Budha Dal, performs Jhatka
​
Once the goats head has been removed in one blow, the blood is collected in an iron utensil and is used to anoint the Guru’s battle standards and weaponry in the Gurus army. This is a form of shastar puja or weapons worship. Jathedar Baba Surjeet Singh explains;

_*“Weapons are sustained by blood. We make an offering to our weapons which have been praised extensively by the Tenth Guru within their writings. We offer the blood to the Guru’s battle standards and pray that whenever we go to war with the Guru’s grace we shall be victorious.” (Oral Interview, July 2007)
*_
The goat is then skinned; the skin of a goat has historically had great worth within the Sikh tradition. As well as being used to make various utensils and clothing, goats skin continues to be used to prepare Tabla drums which can be found in all Sikh Gurdware to accompany other instruments in the rendition of Kirtan (religious music). Furthermore, goats skin was also used to make the battle drums (nagara) of the Khalsa. Rattan Singh Bhangu mentions that when a small group of Singhs under the command of Nihang Tara Singh Wan were preparing for battle against a large Turk force sent from Lahore; 

_*‘Jhatka was performed on a goat and its skin was removed. Immediately the Singhs made a nagara (battle drum) using its skin.’ (Pracchin Panth Parkash Steek, Part 1, Page 531) 
*_



A Nihang Singh removes the skin of a goat following Jhatka.
​The meat of the goat is cooked and served as mahaparshad ‘blessed food’. There are various accounts of Sri Guru Gobind Singhs Ji themselves eating Mahapashad, including the meat of a lion;

_*‘On one occasion Guru Sahib went to hunt prey. They showed the Rajput princes how to kill a lion and then ate the mahaparshad.’ (Sau Sakhi Steek, Part 1, page 197)
*_
*Jhatka in Sikh history and philosphy
*
The tradition traces back to the time of Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji who started the tradition of hunting for Sikhs. Even today Nihang Singhs continue to enjoy hunting trips and often wear either boar tusks or lion claws as a decorative piece as a trophy of their hunt. The Sikh community situated at Hazoor Sahib also frequently hunt in the jungles surrounding Nander. However, Shikaar (hunting) and Jhatka have been a much more ancient tradition practised by Rajputs and Kshatris, i.e. warriors of India. The goat is the favourite animal for Nihang Singhs to Jhatka. Bhai Gurdas Ji, the foremost philosopher of the Sikh tradition elucidates various reasons for this;

In the inimitable Sikh spirit of divine service to humanity, Sardar Karam Singh ji, the father of Baba Mit Singh ji , sadly passed away in 1903 while freely administering medicine to plague victims in the region. Baba Mit Singh ji was also briefly infected with the deadly plague, though he was marvellously healed by God's holy touch.

_*‘The proud elephant is inedible and none eats the mighty lion. The Goat is humble and hence it is respected and honoured everywhere. On occasions of death, joy, marriage and such celebrations only its meat is accepted. Among the householders its meat is acknowledged as sacred and with its gut stringed instruments are made. From its leather the shoes are made to be used by the saints merged in their meditation upon the Lord. Drums are mounted by its skin and then in the holy congregation the delight-giving kirtan, eulogy of the Lord, is sung. In fact, going to the holy congregation is the same as going to the shelter of the true Guru.’ (Vaar 23, Pauri 16)
*_
The tradition was later reinforced by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, who upon delivering baptismal vows to the Khalsa instructed;

_*‘Drink the immortal nectar and upon joining the Khalsa fold go hunting. Continually seek to perfect your use of weapons. Perform Jhatka and eat goats. Do not even go near Halal meat.’ (Pracchin Panth Parkash Steek, Part 1, Page 110)
*_
As well as providing nutritional value, Jhatka helps prepare one for the scenes which are witnessed in warfare, many do not take likely to scenes of blood and death and therefore the exposure to Jhatka is essential. Furthermore, the head of goat is believed to require roughly the same amount of force that is required to take off the head of a man. Thus, Jhatka has been a great way for Nihang Singhs to practise their martial skills.

Importantly the ritual of Jhatka has further esoteric value for a spiritual seeker. Firstly, it involves a series of prayers and forms of worship. It involves visualising the destructive energy of the Divine in the form of the sword. Mahakaal, the timeless aspect of the divine is invoked as death approaches for the animal which ultimately lowers it head surrendering before God. It is said if an animal suffers at death or is frightened one bares that suffering and emotion upon consuming its flesh. This belief system suggests that the consumption of that food, where the animal has died surrendering itself before God would promote humility and Godly devotion within those who eat the flesh. The stroke of the sword personifies the speed within which death may strike down all. Jhatka can also be seen as an expression of one conquering their own animalistic instincts, moving beyond their lower self. In the same way that reading duels between forces of good and evil one seeks to conquer their own demons, upon visualising Akaal and performing Jhatka one offers a prayer to the Guru to rid them of their inner pasu, characteristic of the lower self. It is the historical traditions and spiritually enriching elements associated with Jhatka that are important, rather than simply just the consumption of flesh, that is important for warrior Nihang Singhs of the Guru to maintain. Therefore, all Nihang battalions forbid the consumption of non-Jhatka meat, this will be looked at in greater detail later in the article.

*Dasam Bani
*
The tradition of Jhatka is closely related to the martial writings of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji which often discuss the ancient and cosmically ongoing warfare between the forces of good and evil. Many ignorant people and their farcical organisations may seek to question the writings of the Tenth Guru, but they alone who spent many hours reciting the writings of their father know the Bir Ras (warrior spirit) which is contained within the Tenth Guru’s writings. Baba Teja Singh Nihang Singh, a student of Sant Giani Gurbachan Singh Bhinderanwale, notes the additional practises which occur when Nihang Singhs perform an Akhand Path (continuous reading) of Dasam Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji;

_*‘Throughout the whole reading coconuts and sugarcanes are chopped, large amounts of Karah Parshad (blessed food) is given out openly and Shaheedi Degh (drink of the martyrs) made with some amount of Sukhnidhan (cannibas) is also given out openly. Once the reading has been completed Jhatka is performed upon a goat and its blood is used as an anointment. These maryada (traditions) are very difficult to maintain and is practised by great warriors... for more information regarding these traditions one should speak the Guru’s beloved Nihang Singhs.’ (Adi-Dasam Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji de Patha Dee Sankheph Maryada, Page 23)
*_



A Nihang Singh sits through the night during an Akhand Path of Dasam Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji
​The tradition of ritually sacrificing goats and consuming Mahaparshad remains alive not only with the Nihang Singh Dals, but also at Sachkhand Sri Hazoor Sahib and Sachkhand Sri Patna Sahib (two of the Sikhs holiest shrines). It is also worth noting that the ‘official’ Akal Takht maryada published SGPC also permits the consumption of jhatka meat.

*Opposition
*
Jhatka also used to happen at the Sri Akal Takht Sahib. According to the historical literature of the Sikhs, when a dispute between the Tat Khalsa and Bandai Sikhs was resolved in favour of the Tat Khalsa Nihang Singhs, Jhatka was performed in front of the Akal Takht and the Bandai Sikhs were only reaccepted into the Khalsa fold after the eating meat as an act of rejecting the Bishnoi practices which they adopted. With the Tat Khalsa and Bandai Khalsa divide also came about the first division of differences regarding diet. The nephew of Sant Baba Thakur Singh, Jathedar Baba Trilok Singh Ji states;

*‘We read in history that when a dispute between the Sikhs arose it was settled in favour of the meat eating Tat Khalsa. A slip was taken from Tat Khalsa and one from Banda Khalsa and placed in the holy pool at Harimandir Sahib for the Guru to decide which group were the true Sikhs. It was the meat eating Tat Khalsa Nihang Singhs that the Guru chose to show were the true Khalsa.’ (Oral Interview, February 2009)
*
The practise of Jhatka outside the Akal Takht was only stopped in the twentieth century by the SGPC (organisation entrusted with running of Sikh temples) despite the official Akal Takht code of conduct published by the SGPC stating that Sikhs may eat Jhatka meat. During the British Raj various measures were taken in order to dilute the martial spirit of the Sikhs in order to rid the Sikhs of their natural revolutionary resistant spirit. The British had many individuals and groups working directly and indirectly to push forward their innovations within the Sikh community. Of the most noted individuals is one Teja Singh Bhasuaria of the Panch Khalsa Diwan; a retired government employee who is held responsible for raising doubts over the Raagmala, writings of the Bhagats, writings of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji and for removing the word Bhagauti (meaning sword) from the Sikh Ardas. Furthermore, he and his cult were also responsible for removing hymns which invoke martial spirit from traditional Sikh prayers such as Rehras Sahib. 

From the writings of Principal Teja Singh, a vivid Sikh academic who often criticised British involvement in Sikh affairs, we learn that the ritual of Jhatka was banned by the British:

_*‘The Guru introduced this idea of Jhatka among his followers, which being incorporated later on by Guru Gobind Singh among the baptismal vows prescribed by him is still insisted on by Sikhs as a mark of their liberty. It stands for freedom of food, which was maintained as long as Sikhs were politically free. But with the coming of the British it was suspended for us, and we are still waiting for the day when we should be again free in the matter of food.’ (Sikhs as Liberators, page 5)
*_
Despite this particular writing of Principal Teja Singh being published by the SGPC, it is the SGPC which has taken great efforts to minimise the significance and hide the history of Jhatka from the Sikhs. For example as well as willingly stopping the Jhatka from happening in front of Sri Akal Takht Sahib as it had been for centuries, they also restricted the availability of the Jhatka Parkash Granth – a text written by Bhai Narinjan Singh Saral on the tradition of Jhatka. Thus, despite historically having members who were critics of British influence in Sikh affairs, the Nihang Singhs and many Sikhs believe that as an organisation the SGPC is but an extension of British attempts of reforming Sikhi. 

*Jhatka Parkash Granth
*
The Jhatka Parkash Granth is a direct refutation of the misinformed but largely propagated views of Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Ji regarding the tradition of Jhatka. Bhai Randhir Singh was a highly respected Sikh saint and reformist during the twentieth century whose views were largely influenced by Bhasauria due to the strong relationship the two held for many years. Eventually Bhai Randhir Singh broke ties with Bhasauria once the latter had been excommunicated from the Sikh community after committing many blasphemies. However, some of his ideas continued to resemble those of Bhasauria who had managed to dramatically change the ideological foundations of the Sikh tradition with long standing consequences.

Disturbed by the views of Bhai Randhir Singh regarding meat which were outlined in his text ‘Tat Gurmat Nirne’, Giani Narinjan Singh Saral, a leading preacher of the SGPC, in detail refuted Bhai Randhir Singh’s views on Jhatka. Foremost, he highlights that Bhai Randhir Singh grossly misunderstood and misrepresented certain passages of Gurbani and that this misunderstanding is that root of his misinformed views on Jhatka and outlines complexities of scriptural interpretation. Giani Narinjan Singh addresses the root of every question and doubt raised against Jhatka by eloquently analysing etymology, ideology, history and philosophy surrounding Jhatka and related concepts. He praises Nihang Singhs for keeping alive the tradition of Jhatka and highlights that at the time of his writing Jhatka was performed at all Sikh Takhts, thrones of temporal authority:

*‘The traditions of Kshatri Dharam, the ideals of Jhatka and the custom of anointing weapons with blood have been kept alive until now by the Nihang Singh battalions. Until today this tradition still exists at all Sikh Takhts, should for any reason this be stopped it would be great manmat (egocentric action of men which is against the teachings of the Gurus)’ (Jhatka Parkash, Page 228)
*



Jhatka being performed outside Hazoor Sahib during the 300 Sala celebrations
​Giani Niranjan Singh states that during the writing of his book and afterwards he received many threats from the followers of Bhai Randhir Singh. Bhai Randhir Singh devotees consisted of largely urban well to do Sikhs who as a result of their financial strength had significant influence within the religious sphere. It is unfortunate that great efforts were taken to remove Jhatka parkash from all libraries and book shops limiting its existence to handful of private collections

*Jhatka and Individual Spiritual Development
*
As a result of such historical whitewashing, today many practising Sikhs believe that Sikhs of old never practised Jhatka, despite ample references and sources to Jhatka and hunting existing in literature stretching around four centuries to the time of the 6th Guru. As well as deliberate attempts to rid Sikhi of its martial elements, this is also partly due to the influence of Sants (saints). Promoting the value of Satogun (saintly virtues) amongst their followings, Sants encourage their followers to refrain from meat as it considered to promote Tamogun. However, the value of Tamogun does form part of the Nihang Singh lifestyle (for more information see philosophy section). Recognising the importance of Jhatka for Nihang Singhs many Sants of past and present have at times made offerings of Goats to Nihang Singh battalions. Sant Joga Singh of Karnal closely associated with the Nanaksar samprada is one such saint.

The effect of meat on a person’s spirituality varies from individual to individual, the great saint and author Bhai Raghbir Singh Bir in his writings on spiritual living writes;

_*‘It is my personal view that excessive consumption of meat has evil effects and retards the spiritual progress. Its consumption should be reduced to the minimum. More liberal use should be made of milk, fruit and vegetables. I have, at times, eaten meat daily, and at other times, avoided it for a full year at a stretch, and have come to the conclusion that meat should be eaten sparingly, say, once or twice a week. Of course, those who do not eat meat at all, considering it unsuitable for spiritual growth are at liberty to do so as they choose.’ (Bandgi Nama – Communion with the Divine, page 194) 
*_



Mahaparshad being prepared in the Bidhi Chand Dal
​The possible negative impacts of meat consumption should also be considered. For example if an individual has difficulty maintaining self discipline such as arising early in the morning and following a set routine, then consumption of heavy food such as Jhatka meat should not be consumed. For this reason Jhatka is only practised by Nihang Singhs as a matter of preserving the Gurus tradition and not for pleasure of the tongue. It should only be eaten by those of martial inclination; 

_*“Today people have changed traditions in order to please the desire of the tongue and eat other forms of meat from shops etc...Jhatka was a special tradition that was only for the soldiers of the Guru to practise, not normal householder Sikhs.” (Giani Thakur Singh, Asa Di Var Viakhya Part 25)
*_
Partap Singh Mehta, while commenting on the Gurus instructions regarding meat states;

_*‘Satguru has ordered one to make the following choice, first draw a line and decide which side you want to stand on. If you wish to carry arms and live according to Kshatri Dharam (way of a warrior) then you should go hunting, hold foremost Kshatri ideals and eat meat. If you wish to stay Vaishnu (vegetarian) or follow the path of the saints then meat is forbidden. Those who wish just to meditate on God and those of Sattvic nature should not eat meat as it promotes Tamogun within the mind. They who practise for Dharam yudh and the protection of the weak, in battle they must spill much blood and be ready to sacrifice their own life. Such a person should have no fear of hunting and eating meat as they are preserving their Kshatri Dharam. But remember this, to eat meat because the tongue desires it or to indulge in pleasure is sin and in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji it is said such a person will reap severe punishment.’ (Sau Sakhi Steek, Part 2, page 137)
*_
*Liberating the Animal
*
Those Sikhs who study history or the writitings of the Guru’s learn that Jhatka was performed and the Gurus themselves were fond hunters. However, many Sikhs object to the idea of killing animals. A common belief is that it was ‘acceptable’ for the Gurus to kill animals because they had within them the ability to liberate the animals while humans do not. Indeed many lay Sikhs confidently and assertively propound this argument believing it to be an enlightened observation, in truth it is a flawed observation and shows a lack of understanding of Sikh tradition. Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji and Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji would take their beloved troops hunting and encourage such martial practises, therefore it is little surprise that the these traditions continue to flourish within the Guru’s battalions. With regards to the power of a human, it is entirely correct that one mortal being does not have the ability to liberate another. However, as a whole the Khalsa was invested the authority of Guru which ultimately implies that within the Khalsa resides the same miraculous ability and grace that was possessed by the Guru in their human form. It is the Gurbani which ultimately liberates the animal, as highlighted at the beginning of this article Jhatka is performed following the concluding lines of the Chandi Di Var which ends;

_*‘The composition of Durga has been poetically composed. Whosoever recites that shall not again take birth.’ (Dasam Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 325)
*_
*Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji at Kurukshetra
*
It is unfortunate that meat has become a popular issue of debate within Sikh circles at the expense of greater attention to matters more beneficial to an individual’s spiritual development. Indeed, amongst the Brahmin community who for centuries intellectually dominated India, the consumption of flesh was considered as a vile practise. Thus the performance of Jhatka and consumption of Mahaparshad is a clear inversion of brahmanical values. Upon cooking the meat of a deer in the holy city of on a solar eclipse, considered an auspicious occasion, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji wrote the following shabad following discourse with leading Brahmin scholars; 

_*‘The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin? It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering. Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said. They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts. They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat. But when men and women meet in the night, they come together in the flesh. In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh. You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar. O master, you believe that flesh on the outside is bad, but the flesh of those in your own home is good. All beings and creatures are flesh; the soul has taken up its home in the flesh. They eat the uneatable; they reject and abandon what they could eat. They have a teacher who is blind. In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh. You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar. Meat is allowed in the Puraanas, meat is allowed in the Bible and the Koran. Throughout the four ages, meat has been used. It is featured in sacred feasts and marriage festivities; meat is used in them. Women, men, kings and emperors originate from meat. If you see them going to hell, then do not accept charitable gifts from them. The giver goes to hell, while the receiver goes to heaven - look at this injustice. You do not understand your own self, but you preach to other people. O Pandit, you are very wise indeed. O Pandit, you do not know where meat originated. Corn, sugar cane and cotton are produced from water. The three worlds came from water. Water says, ""I am good in many ways."" But water takes many forms. Forsaking these delicacies, one becomes a true Sannyaasee, a detached hermit. Nanak reflects and speaks. ||2|| (Adi Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1289)
*_



Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji in discourse with religious scholars at Kurukshetra
​*Khulla Maas-Freedom of Meat
*
Nihang leaders stress the point meat resulting from Jhatka performed according to Nihang Singh traditions may be consumed, no other meat from shops etc, known as ‘khulla mass’ or freedom of meat, can be eaten:

_*‘This is not Kshatri Dharam (way of a warrior). Don’t shame us by wondering in shops, restaurants, market places etc eating meat, refrain from doing this! Perform Jhatka with your own hands and go hunting for prey. Only then are we permitted to eat meat’ (Jathedar Baba Santa Singh, Pracchin Panth Parkash Steek, Part 1, page 110)

“Those who wish to eat meat should eat Jhatka which gears individuals towards warfare. Those Sikhs who just wish to perform selfless service and meditate should avoid meat and maintain a very simple diet. There is no obligation on anyone to eat meat, one should never eat khulla mass.” (Jathedar Baba Joginder Singh, Oral Interview July 2006)

“It is important to perform Jhatka to anoint our weapons with blood and make an offering to Bhagauti. It then becomes mahaparshad (great blessed food) and one is free to make their own choice whether or not they want to eat this. Guru Sahib has instructed that one may perform Jhatka and eat meat. However, one should never eat meat brought from shops, butchers or restaurants. Who knows in what condition the animal, what illnesses it may have had and by what means it was killed?”(Jathedar Baba Surjit Singh, Oral Interview July 2007)
*_
*Conclusion
*
Jhatka is an ancient Kshatri ritual which the Sikhs have practised since the times of Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji and was reinforced by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji. It is of great spiritual significance and also serves physical purposes. Prominent Sikh historians of past and present and non-Sikhs sources have given various examples of Jhatka being performed, including at the Sri Akal Takht Sahib. Deliberate attempts to demilitarise Sikhs and efforts of Sikh saints have lead to many Sikhs being ignorant of this historical tradition. Nihang Singhs and other Sikhs have kept alive this tradition and forbid consumption of non-Jhatka meat.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 3, 2012)

Some of the above pictures would have been appropriate for the website called Ogrish(?) which I think is now banned, and for good reason. 

Interesting that in one tradition a "saint" is someone who is incapable of killing any living being even if it meant giving up his or her own life. But here we have a saint (warrior) who chops off a goat's head and that too as part of a ritualistic activity! :-/


----------



## itsmaneet (Aug 3, 2012)

In the above artical, 'Mahaprasad' has been referred to flesh but actually Mahaprasad is the one started by Guru Nanak Ji during his some discussions with certain Brahmins. 'Mahaprasad' actually is the 'Krah Parshad' unfortunately things changed with time and certain agencies intentially started refering 'Maha Parshad' to flesh...


----------



## itsmaneet (Aug 3, 2012)

Confused said:


> Some of the above pictures would have been appropriate for the website called Ogrish(?) which I think is now banned, and for good reason.
> 
> Interesting that in one tradition a "saint" is someone who is incapable of killing any living being even if it meant giving up his or her own life. But here we have a saint (warrior) who chops off a goat's head and that too as part of a ritualistic activity! :-/


Unfortunately major part of flesh consuming Sikhs start comparing themselves with Gurus ...like Guru did this we too will do it but they forget that they are not GURUS. They just do want they want and put forth what Guru did to justify their doing.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 3, 2012)

itsmaneet said:


> Unfortunately major part of flesh consuming Sikhs start comparing themselves with Gurus ...like Guru did this we too will do it but they forget that they are not GURUS. They just do want they want and put forth what Guru did to justify their doing.



Fortunately ? those that DONT consume/abhor consumption of flesh/eggs...go beyond simple "Comparing"..they consider themsleves DEFACTO GURUS...conferring on sleves grandiose titles like Satguru, Guru, Maharaj, Sri 108, or STRINGS of Titles..Gurmatt MAARTAND, Shiromani Kathakaar, Mahagyani, Vidya Sagar, etc etc etc..and Sit on Gadees, have Darbars, Have Sangats Matha Tek at their FEET, drink water that has been used to wash their feet...SANT JI MAHARAJ is so common that there may be clsoe to 18,000 in Punjab alone besides the GURUS and the Satgurus. In the 12,000 villages of Punjab there are 18,000 DERAS which ahs  aHUMAN HEAD far above the SGGS in PRACTISE (in theory many are afraid due to fear of sikh anger/retaliation and so remain muted in their actions)

The GURUS who wrote such Masterpieces as Japji, jaap, Sukhmani, Anand sahib, Oankaar etc etc..are JUST NUMBERS...with common Name Nanak...just go to any bookshop and pick up a KATHA/TEEKA of these SGGS compositions and see the NAMES and TITLES of the HUMAN who merely TRANSLATED/EXPOUNDED on these Masterpieces....and tell me of ANY that just has a NUMBER under the AUTHORs. Name !!

Its a travesty and a tragedy that we can see the one celled amoeba on the far off Andromeda galaxy..BUT we CANT see the Mammoth sitting on our NOSE....meat is a NON-ISSUE..all these Fake GURUS, satgurus, sri 108 and Mahrajs etc are BIG ISSUES...


----------



## itsmaneet (Aug 4, 2012)

Giani Ji 

You are right. Bigger than meat/flesh is the issue of fake Deras been/being established in Punjab & one needs to stop it.....but who will do it is the quest. I personally feel Damdami Taksal had a bigger role to play in it to somehow curb it but they are quite passive from the past few years.


----------



## Taranjeet singh (Aug 4, 2012)

Maas maas kar moorakh jaghde .................sarabjit singh dhoonda.flv      - YouTube

Maneet ji,

Though I am a vegetarian and shall remain so but this video says it all in so far as 'sikhism' is concerned.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 17, 2012)

For me Sant Maskeen ji sums it up nicely. He is not allied to any AKJ, DDT, Radhaoswami or anyone else:

Maas Maas kar moorakh jhagre - Giani Sant Singh Ji Maskeen 01/08      - YouTube


----------



## Kamala (Aug 18, 2012)

> In the 12,000 villages of Punjab there are 18,000 DERAS which ahs   aHUMAN HEAD far above the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in PRACTISE (in  theory many are afraid due to fear of sikh anger/retaliation and so  remain muted in their actions)


Is that actually true? :O I never knew this... what would the bali be significant for us?


----------



## Kamala (Aug 18, 2012)

> *When performing Jhatka on a goat, first the goat is bathed, then  Japji Sahib and Chandi Di Var are read. One Singh stands by the head of  the goat and upon the final lines of Chandi Di Var being read, ‘Those  who sing this divine ballad will be liberated from the realm of life and  death’, at this moment the goat is decapitated with one blow and the  soul of the goat is liberated. The goat itself lowers its head to  receive salvation”. (Giani Thakur Singh, Asa Di Var Viakhya Part 25)
> *


Wow! If it is really that simple I would love to have jhatka on myself as well lol*!

*


----------



## Randip Singh (Sep 15, 2012)

Kamala said:


> Wow! If it is really that simple I would love to have jhatka on myself as well lol*!
> 
> *



Why would you wish to be liberated from the highest form of life on this planet?


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 20, 2012)

Someone has created the following blog on meat in sikhism.
http://meateatinginsikhism.blogspot.in/


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Nov 22, 2012)

Do we consider the meat available in McDonalds, KFC etc. as Jhatka? Sorry if am repeating it here.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 22, 2012)

Kanwaljit Singh said:


> Do we consider the meat available in McDonalds, KFC etc. as Jhatka? Sorry if am repeating it here.



I wouldn't but I guess it's a personal choice.

I avoid vege and meat stuff at such outlets.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Nov 22, 2012)

Given the way cows are hung, bled to death, chickens half alive while being boiled etc. I don't think there is any instant death here.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 22, 2012)

Kanwaljit Singh ji,
Would instant death make it any less immoral to kill?


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Nov 22, 2012)

Isn't jhatka concept around that?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 22, 2012)

Well it is certainly promoted as such. Kabir ji would say that it too is immoral, less painful maybe but immoral. He would say that any kind of slaughter is immoral.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 22, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Well it is certainly promoted as such. Kabir ji would say that it too is immoral, less painful maybe but immoral. He would say that any kind of slaughter is immoral.




Then I guess then their are 2 possibilities 

1) Guru's too were unable to understand what Kabir ji is saying

2) All the reference from Prachin panth prakash, Mahima prakash , suraj prakash etc about Guru's and sikhs eating meat is wrong


http://meateatinginsikhism.blogspot.in/p/sikh-history-on-meat-eating.html


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 22, 2012)

No that's too simplistic. 

3) The Gurus' beliefs and background were different. 
The blog states that Guru Amardas ji is a Vaishnu therefore He does not eat meat, and so He was surprised to see Guru Angad Dev ji serving it. We know Bhai Lehna ji was a Shakta before He met Guru Nanak Dev ji and became Guru Angad Dev ji. He had been Shakta for a very long time. He commanded a large following, who were all Shakta and probably ate meat. So He serves it in His langar. 

We've already discussed hunting so I won't get into that. My view is that it was for a larger cause where human suffering was involved thus it overrode animal suffering. The kurukshtra sakhi does not mention Him eating the meat. 

The gurus did want us to transcend identities like vegetarian and such, this I will say now. I am open to more evidence, what would make me question Kabir ji's vegetarian stance as representative of Guru  Granth Sahib ji is if Guru Nanak, Guru Amardas, Guru Ramdas, Guru Arjan  and Guru Tegh Bahadur ate meat, which as far as I know, they did not.


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Nov 22, 2012)

What is if you accidently ate Halal meat? I mean halal is not labelled, in my country. I am just asking. Is it a maha paap.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 22, 2012)

You'll be fine. Just be more aware of what is halal and what is not, from now on.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 22, 2012)

The following additional if it helps.





BhagatSingh said:


> You'll be fine. _Just be more aware of what is halal and what is not_, from now on.


It is additionally mentioned in part of the Sikh Reht Maryada as follows,





> The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided
> 1. Dishonouring the hair;
> 2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way;
> 3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse;
> ...


_Hope it adds to the understanding._

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 23, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> No that's too simplistic.
> 
> 3) The Gurus' beliefs and background were different.
> The blog states that Guru Amardas ji is a Vaishnu therefore He does not eat meat, and so He was surprised to see Guru Angad Dev ji serving it. We know Bhai Lehna ji was a Shakta before He met Guru Nanak Dev ji and became Guru Angad Dev ji. He had been Shakta for a very long time. He commanded a large following, who were all Shakta and probably ate meat. So He serves it in His langar.
> ...



Bhagat singh j

i

Are you trying to say Guru angad dev ji had different practices from Guru Nanak dev ji ? Then what about the concept of 1 jot in all guru's ?

Also other saakhi's mentioned Guru gobind singh ji eating goat meat  , not about hunting

Guru Gobind Singh ate Goat Meat at Machiwaadaa - Mahima Parkash 
In Sakhi 23, It is mentioned that when Guru Gobind Singh reached Machiwarha where he did Jhatka of Goat and took dinner of it.

The text is:
....ਸਾਮ ਤਕ ਮਾਛੀਵਾੜੇ ਆਏ ਪਹੁਚੇ | ਰਾਤੀ ਕੋ ਉਹ ਬ੍ਰ੍ਹਮਨੀ ਕੇ ਘਰ ਉਤਰੇ | ਰਾਤ ਕੋ ਬਕਰਾ ਮੰਗਾਈ ਕੈ ਝਟਕਾ ਕਰਵਾਇਆ | ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦ ਛਕਾ ਅਰ ਛਿੰਗਾ ਉਸ ਕਿਆ ਪਿਛਵਾੜੇ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨਾ ਕਾ ਘਰ ਥਾ ਊਹਾ ਫ਼ੇਕੀ |....

Guru Gobind Singh Ji ordered Sikhs to Do eat Jhatka meat - Panth Parkash - Ratan Singh Bhangu 
While creating Khalsa Panth, Guru Gobind Singh ji gave order to Khalsa to take Jhatka Meat only and should not take Meat prepared in Islamic way of slaughtering and neither to take meat of dead. 

ਚੋਪਈ
ਔਰ ਕਹੀ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਪੜ੍ਹਯੋ । ਜਪੁ ਜਾਪੁ ਦੋਇ ਵੇਲੇ ਜਪਯੋ  
ਔਰ ਅਨੰਦ ਰਹਿਰਾਸ ਜਪਯੋ । ਚੰਡੀ ਬਾਨੀ ਖੜੇ ਜਪਯੋ ।
ਦੋਇ ਵੇਲੇ ਉਠ ਬਧਯੋ ਦਸਤਾਰ ।ਪਹਰ ਆਠ ਰਖਯੋ ਸ਼ਸਤਰ ਸੰਭਾਰ ।
ਪਿਓ ਸੁਧ ਔਖਲੋ ਸ਼ਿਕਾਰ । ਸ਼ਸਤਰ ਵਿਦ੍ਯਾ ਜਿਮ ਹੋਈ ਸੰਭਾਰ ।
*ਕਰ ਝਟਕੈ ਬਕਰਨ ਕੋ ਖਯੋ । ਮੁਰਦੇ ਕੂਠੇ  ਨਿਕਟ ਨਾ ਜਯੋ *
ਕੇਸਨ ਕੀ ਕੀਜੇ ਪ੍ਰਿਤਪਾਲ । ਨਹੀ ਉਸਤਰਨ ਸੋ ਕਟਯੋ ਬਾਲ ।18।
ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸੰਸਕਾਰ , ਭਾਈ ਰਤਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਭੰਗੂ, ਪ੍ਰਾਚੀਨ ਪੰਥ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼  

Anyway Bhagat singh ji the fact is meat was never issue in sikhism until 20th century.It was only in 20th century fanatic vegetarian sects emerged


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 23, 2012)

> Bhagat singh ji
> 
> Are you trying to say Guru angad dev ji had different practices from  Guru Nanak dev ji ?


Well for one He is serving meat in His langar, as the blog stated. Don't know about any others. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Guru Gobind Singh ji actually ate meat. He was influenced quite a bit by Shaiv and Shakta panths. Just read Dasam Granth because it will tell you what they are about, and how he relates to them. Eating meat for them is nothing like it is in Vaishnu circles. Vaishnu conceive of God as protector of living things. He incarnates as Narsingh, as Machh, as Varaha to protect His devotees. He would not hurt living beings. Hence Vaishnu tend to be vegetarian. So much so that when I visited Punjab I found that the word "Vaishnu" *meant* vegetarian. "100% pure vaishnu dhaba" read the board on many restaurants.
On the other hand, Mahakal of Dasam Granth wears a garland of skulls and body parts... He is the Destroyer. Guru Gobind Singh ji's vision of Shakti to emphasizes Her Destroyer-ness.



> Then what about the concept of 1 jot in all guru's ?


What do you think jot means? I am sure it does not mean they are clones of one another. You can see differences in there bani and how they articulate concepts. I am sure their practices vary too. So what does jot mean then?


----------



## gurtej khubbar (Nov 23, 2012)

One thing for sure is that I will keep eating meat as long as my health allows. I mean there are way bigger things to be concerned about then what to eat and not. People cut and eat vegetable and even they have life, where do you stop? What would you say to ppl living in deserts or mountains. Don't tell me this crap. 

At the same time if someone don't want to eat it , choice is theirs. If I am doing something wrong by eathing it then I will answer the true lord when I have to give account of my life. With numerous sins I have done, I am pretty sure eating meat will not be top of the list.

Also, did Guru's eat it or not, I don't know but whatever the never supported or rejected it as they knew it was a never ending discussion.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 23, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Kanwaljit Singh ji,
> Would instant death make it any less immoral to kill?


 

I've always been interested behind the issues of morality and killing. To my mind their is no moral way of killing.

Sikhism however, is very different on morality, infact I would argue it does not deal with morality but with what is Just and Un-Just in any given situation.

For example, if I killed someone walking down the road for no reason that would be Un-Just. Now if I killed someone who tried to kill me that would be Just.

Now when it comes to kill animals, is it Just to kill an animal for hunger? This is the CRUX of the issue.

1) People who see it as Un-Just state animals are on the same level as humans in terms of conciousness.

2) Those that see is as Just state that animals are like Plants, and and not on the same level of consciousness of humans. Other state they are liberating them. 

All agree, there is no need to be unnecessarily cruel.

Bani states, no point arguing about 1 and 2, just try and make your own decision.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 23, 2012)

> For example, if I killed someone walking down the road for no reason  that would be Un-Just. Now if I killed someone who tried to kill me that  would be Just.


The latter would also be unjust but you had no choice. Having no choice does not make it just. There is no just or moral/just way to kill. Killing is always immoral and unjust.

But for the sake of argument let's say killing can be just when you have no other choice but to kill. When only killing is the option. You are at sehaj, no krodh, lalach, etc and you see that the only thing you can do is kill.  Then even in this case, it is not just to kill an animal. Because you do have a choice of letting it go. An animal who is not trying to kill you or other humans, should not be killed. So this includes all cows, pigs, goats, etc, they are not trying to kill you. They are helpless in fact.



> 1) People who see it as Un-Just state animals are on the same level as humans in terms of conciousness.
> 
> 2) Those that see is as Just state that animals are like Plants, and and  not on the same level of consciousness of humans. Other state they are  liberating them.


2 is clearly incorrect. Animals are like plants?  I don't think any one in their right mind can believe this. Animals are more like humans than they are like plants. In fact, chimpanzee DNA is 99% similar to ours, the other 1% is a few genes. They even have a degree of self-awareness. Are we going to say chimps are like plants?



> Bani states, no point arguing about 1 and 2, just try and make your own decision.


False. Bani states it is unjust to kill animals.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 23, 2012)

> But for the sake of argument let's say killing can be just when you have no other choice but to kill. When only killing is the option. You are at sehaj, no krodh, lalach, etc and you see that the only thing you can do is kill. Then even in this case, it is not just to kill an animal.


 
This is what the Guru Gobind Singh Ji tries to teach us with 'bir ras'
A sikh should learn the difference between krodh and bir ras.
:grinningkaur:There's something called DG that teaches this very well!!:grinningkaur:


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 24, 2012)

Haha so true! 

I love you managed to give some context to Dasam Granth on a thread about Guru Granth Sahib's stance on meat! lol


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 24, 2012)

has anyone read the UK Best seller...The PIG that wants to be eaten "  100 experiments for the Armchair Philosopher  by Julian Baggini...its an excellent read ...funny too,


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 24, 2012)

Gyani ji, Any parts you found most memorable?


----------



## 21khalsa13 (Nov 24, 2012)

question..?

a plant has life force - it grows, moves towards the sun, reproduces etc..
a animal has life force plus other qualities a plant doesn't have
an egg is sterile - has no life force, nothing living or growing or feeling why these people who wrangle about flesh stop eating meat and plants (which are alive) and eat eggs - they will get all energy (fat) and full protein?

:interestedsingh:

on the note of diet can we suggest gurudwara to ban sugar and white flour from langar
these are two of the biggest threats to the health of indians in the west - the rate of diabetes is alarming and growing - we need better nutrition in our langar

thanks


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 24, 2012)

21khalsa13 said:


> question..?
> 
> a plant has life force - it grows, moves towards the sun, reproduces etc..
> a animal has life force plus other qualities a plant doesn't have
> ...



EXACTLY ji..read SGGS page 15..and the GURU has already WARNED us of the over indulgence in Sugars and all that stuff....and MEAT is mentioned LAST..BUT FOOLISH SIKHS have dragged it to the TOP of their own man made LIST...whose LIST is more important..one made by the GURU or by some brahmgyani/sant/baba ji/waddeh baba ji etc ?? I accept the GURU !! and His LIST..for ME Maas comes at the LOWEST RUNG of Raass/swaad/jeebh rass etc etc...


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 24, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Gyani ji, Any parts you found most memorable?



This author addresses two main concerns that vegetarians usually cite...1. The Living conditions of farming animals..chickens, pigs etc in cramped horrible conditions...THAT is Concern with LIFE and NOT killing per se.
2. Concern with slaughter...killing..horrible slaughter rituals etc..

He says the First can be addressed if we all pressure the Meat industry to IMPROVE how animals are raised...BUT then Vegatarians dont eat Free range cxhickes goats etc...so LIFE condition is not really their concern..

2. He says what will happen if scientists produce a GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PIG/goat etc..that is genetically wired to WANT TO BE EATEN !! Its sole purpose in Life is to be eaten..
Its not as "Yucky" as imagined...Organ transplants, blood transfusions etc were nauseously yucky..when first introduced...but as they become ordinary..nearly everyone is comfortable with it and the Moral concerns have disappeared..just some rrandom thoughts..


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 24, 2012)

Ah very interesting problem! here are my thoughts.
The first thing that comes to mind is the theme of "man as the controller of Nature". My kes are long enough to tell me that is borderline immoral. But that is beyond the scope of this thread. 

So is it ok to kill the pig who wants to die? because eating it would mean killing it, even thought they are two separate actions.
I will reply with a counter problem to you. Do you kill those people who want to die, who want to commit suicide? Or do you console them so that they stop wanting it? So wouldn't it be immoral to somehow manipulate them to want to die?

Similar problem but now we are in place of the pig. If your sole purpose is to be eaten, should I kill you and eat you or should I teach you the meaning of life?

The action here is in our hands. We decide whether to kill it or not. We know the killing is unjust and immoral because it snatches from the living being the right to live. It would be unjust for me to do that. So it would be unjust for me to kill the pig whether it wants to die or not, simply because it would be immoral on my part to take it's life. Taking it's life would mean I am depriving it of it's rights.

Do you go further and create humans who want to be slaves to others?


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 24, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> What do you think jot means? I am sure it does not mean they are clones of one another. You can see differences in there bani and how they articulate concepts. I am sure their practices vary too. So what does jot mean then?



Here is what Bhai Gurdas ji said about 1 jot

੪੫ : ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ

ਜਾਰਤਿ ਕਰਿ ਮੁਲਤਾਨ ਦੀ ਫਿਰਿ ਕਰਤਾਰ ਪੁਰੇ ਨੋ ਆਇਆ।

Jaarati Kari Mulataan Dee Dhiri Karataari Puray No Aaiaa.

जारति करि मुलतान दी फिरि करतारि पुरे नो आइआ ।

After the journey of Multan, Baba Nanak again turned towards Kartarpur.

1 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੧


ਚੜ੍ਹੇ ਸਵਾਈ ਦਿਹਿ ਦਿਹੀ ਕਲਿਜੁਗਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਇਆ।

Charhhay Savaaee Dihi Dihee Kalijougi Naanak Naamu Dhiaaiaa.

चड़्हे सवाई दिहि दिही कलिजुगि नानक नामु धिआइआ ।

His impact increased by leaps and bounds and he made people of kaliyug remember Nam.

2 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੨


ਵਿਣੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਮੰਗਣਾ ਸਿਰਿ ਦੁਖਾ ਦੇ ਦੁਖ ਸਬਾਇਆ।

Vinu Naavai Horu Manganaa Siri Doukhaan Day Doukh Sabaaiaa.

विणु नावै होरु मंगणा सिरि दुखां दे दुख सबाइआ ।

Desiring anything except the Nam of the Lord, is invitation to multiplying sufferings.

3 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੩


ਮਾਰਿਆ ਸਿਕਾ ਜਗਤ੍ਰਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਪੰਥ ਚਲਾਇਆ।

Maariaa Sikaa Jagati Vichi Naanak Niramal Pandu Chalaaiaa.

मारिआ सिका जगति विचि नानक निरमल पंथु चलाइआ ।

In the world, he established the authority (of his doctrines) and started a religion, devoid of any impurity (niramal panth).

4 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੪


ਥਾਪਿਆ ਲਹਿਣਾ ਜੀਵਦੇ ਗੁਰਿਆਈ ਸਿਰਿ ਛਤ੍ਰ ਫਿਰਾਇਆ।

Daapiaa Lahinaa Jeenvaday Guriaaee Siri Chhatr Dhiraaiaa.

थापिआ लहिणा जींवदे गुरिआई सिरि छत्र फिराइआ ।

During his life time he waved the canopy of Guru seat on the head of Lahina(Guru Angad) and merged his own light into him.

5 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੫


ਜੋਤੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਮਿਲਾਇਕੈ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕ ਰੂਪ ਵਟਾਇਆ।

Jotee Joti Milaai Kai Satigur Naanaki Roopu Vataaiaa.

जोती जोति मिलाइ कै सतिगुर नानकि रूपु वटाइआ ।

Guru Nanak now transformed himself.

6 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੬


ਲਖਿ ਨ ਕੋਈ ਸਕਈ ਆਚਰਜੇ ਆਚਰਜ ਦਿਖਾਇਆ।

Lakhi N Koee Sakaee Aacharajay Aacharaju Dikhaaiaa.

लखि न कोई सकई आचरजे आचरजु दिखाइआ ।

This mystery is incomprehensible for anybody that awe-inspiring (Nanak) accomplished a wonderful task.

7 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੭


ਕਾਇਆ ਪਲਟਿ ਸਰੂਪ ਬਣਾਇਆ ॥੪੫॥

Kaaiaa Palati Saroopu Banaaiaa ॥45॥

काइआ पलटि सरूपु बणाइआ ॥४५॥

He converted (his body) into a new form.

8 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੮


http://www.searchgurbani.com/bhai_gurdas_vaaran/vaar/1/pauri/45

Here is from Guru granth sahib

ਲਹਣੇ ਦੀ ਫੇਰਾਈਐ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਦੋਹੀ ਖਟੀਐ ॥
लहणे दी फेराईऐ नानका दोही खटीऐ ॥
Lahṇe ḏī ferā▫ī▫ai nānkā ḏohī kẖatī▫ai.
Nanak proclaimed Lehna's succession - he earned it.

ਜੋਤਿ ਓਹਾ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਸਾਇ ਸਹਿ ਕਾਇਆ ਫੇਰਿ ਪਲਟੀਐ ॥
जोति ओहा जुगति साइ सहि काइआ फेरि पलटीऐ ॥
Joṯ ohā jugaṯ sā▫e sėh kā▫i▫ā fer paltī▫ai.
They shared the One Light and the same way; the King just changed His body.

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=966&english=t&id=41536

Bhagat Singh ji

By saying that Guru's had different ways you have the base of Sikhism.There will be million question raised if Sikhs will start saying that all Guru's were different.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 25, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> The latter would also be unjust but you had no choice. Having no choice does not make it just. There is no just or moral/just way to kill. Killing is always immoral and unjust.



No, because in courts of law i.e. where Justice and Just decisions are implemented people are aquitted for killing in self defence in other words in such a situation it was Just to kill someone. Morality doesn't come into it as it is an emotive state and a very Semitic way of thinking. Very different from what Sikhism states.



BhagatSingh said:


> But for the sake of argument let's say killing can be just when you have no other choice but to kill. When only killing is the option. You are at sehaj, no krodh, lalach, etc and you see that the only thing you can do is kill.  Then even in this case, it is not just to kill an animal. Because you do have a choice of letting it go. An animal who is not trying to kill you or other humans, should not be killed. So this includes all cows, pigs, goats, etc, they are not trying to kill you. They are helpless in fact.



Who's talking about an animal wanting to kill you? This is about one man's food and anothers poison. Vaishnav orientated Sikhs tend to have the above sort of views.



BhagatSingh said:


> 2 is clearly incorrect. Animals are like plants?  I don't think any one in their right mind can believe this. Animals are more like humans than they are like plants. In fact, chimpanzee DNA is 99% similar to ours, the other 1% is a few genes. They even have a degree of self-awareness. Are we going to say chimps are like plants?.



Who's talking about DNA, but we are talking about levels of consciousness. Now some argue animals are not on the same level of consciousness as humans, and therfore akin to a plant.



BhagatSingh said:


> False. Bani states it is unjust to kill animals.



Err no BHaghat Singh, we've been down this road before and your arguments were defeated. People who think this are fools, and tend to be biased from a Vaishnav orientation.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 25, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Ah very interesting problem! here are my thoughts.
> The first thing that comes to mind is the theme of "man as the controller of Nature". My kes are long enough to tell me that is borderline immoral. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.
> 
> So is it ok to kill the pig who wants to die? because eating it would mean killing it, even thought they are two separate actions.
> ...




Bit of a daft argument really.lol

Where on God's earth is a Pig on the same level as a Human? 

The basis of this argument is that of a Vaishnav concept that assumes that an animal is on the same level of human being. You are not talking in terms of Sikh concepts.

....and you are still talking in terms of Semetic concepts of morality and Immorality which are based around sinning and the ten commandments. Sikhi does not talk in those concepts. If we did, then we would believe in concepts of good and evil, God and Devil etc etc. We clearly do not.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 25, 2012)

kds1980 said:


> Bhagat Singh ji
> 
> By saying that Guru's had different ways you have the base of Sikhism.There will be million question raised if Sikhs will start saying that all Guru's were different.


Kds ji,
In Guru Granth Sahib it says that the Gurus are God's incarnation. "In Satyug, You taught humility to Bali raja. In treta, You defeated Ravan as Sri Ram. In Dwapar, You defeated Kans as Krishan Murare. In Kaliyug, You have arrived and established your sovereign rule as Guru Nanak, Angad and Amardas. " Even Sri Ram and Krishan had different personalities yet they are also Jot of God.

I think people already know that the Gurus are different. Some were writers, some warriors, some ruled, and some went on udasis, some initiated through charan pahul, some treated the sick, some treated the wealthy, some through khande di pahul, some asked for horses and weapons, some gave their life. 

I doubt there will be a million questions asked. There will only be one. and that would be "what does having 1 jot really mean if the Gurus have different personalities?".


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 25, 2012)

I think this part of Bani is the crux of the issue:



> THE 84 MILLION INCARNATION ARGUMENT - ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, MINERAL.
> 
> The  other argument that has been made over this issue is that there is some  sort of hierarchy of incarnations within Sikhism of incarnations. Life  goes through many incarnations (up to 84 million) before becoming human.  In other words, life takes the form of incarnation in plant form, then  animal, and then human. The idea being that animal form spiritually is  closer to man. Biologically this maybe true, however, spiritually within  Sikhism, this could not be further from the truth.
> 
> ...


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 25, 2012)

Randip Singh said:


> No, because in courts of law i.e. where Justice and Just decisions are implemented people are aquitted for killing in self defence in other words in such a situation it was Just to kill someone. Morality doesn't come into it as it is an emotive state and a very Semitic way of thinking. Very different from what Sikhism states.


Who is talking about Semitic religions? This is about what Sikhism states that it is unjust to kill animals.


> Who's talking about an animal wanting to kill you? This is about one man's food and anothers poison. Vaishnav orientated Sikhs tend to have the above sort of views.


I am sure Vaishnu aren't the only ones with common sense.
If you are going to state that killing is only just in self-dense then why do you harm an animal that is not attacking you?


> Who's talking about DNA, but we are talking about levels of consciousness. Now some argue animals are not on the same level of consciousness as humans, and therefore akin to a plant.


*I* am talking about DNA, and citing it as Biological evidence for animals being close to us. There is Psychological evidence showing chimps with self awareness.
Amazing Apes: Self-awareness (1/2) - YouTube
There is no excuse for ignorance when the knowledge is there and easily accessible.



> Err no BHaghat Singh, we've been down this road before and your arguments were defeated. People who think this are fools, and tend to be biased from a Vaishnav orientation.


False, you proved nothing.




> Where on God's earth is a Pig on the same level as a Human?
> 
> The basis of this argument is that of a Vaishnav concept that assumes  that an animal is on the same level of human being. You are not talking  in terms of Sikh concepts.


Where do Vaishnu state that animals are on the same level as humans? Which scripture, page number?


> If we did, then we would believe in concepts of good and evil, God and Devil etc etc. We clearly do not.


Yeah you clearly don't believe in good if you say it is justified to kill someone who is not attacking you.


----------



## japjisahib04 (Nov 25, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> I think people already know that the Gurus are different. Some were writers, some warriors, some ruled, and some went on udasis, some initiated through charan pahul, some treated the sick, some treated the wealthy, some through khande di pahul, some asked for horses and weapons, some gave their life.



Simple question, if each Gurus are different than why did they write under Nanak Name and not their own name?

Best regards


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 25, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Who is talking about Semitic religions? This is about what Sikhism states that it is unjust to kill animals.



You are.

You are talking in terms of morality when Sikhism does not talk in those terms.



BhagatSingh said:


> I am sure Vaishnu aren't the only ones with common sense.



Maybe they are , maybe they are not, but lets not confuse Vaishnav dogma with Sikhism.



BhagatSingh said:


> If you are going to state that killing is only just in self-dense then why do you harm an animal that is not attacking you?



I didn't say that. ....but you were talking in terms of morality and I pointed out in terms of morality, which is based on the Semitic concepts of the 10 commandements killing is morally wrong..

In any case, more than one *Guru killed people*, are you saying they were *immoral?* motherlylove

The killing for food in terms of being Just or Un-Just can't be argued about, as it about personal choice. Tis is exactly the stance of Baba Nanak.




BhagatSingh said:


> *I* am talking about DNA, and citing it as Biological evidence for animals being close to us. There is Psychological evidence showing chimps with self awareness.
> Amazing Apes: Self-awareness (1/2) - YouTube
> There is no excuse for ignorance when the knowledge is there and easily accessible.



Who's being ignorant?

Chimps probably are closer to humans in terms of DNA, but they are not humans.

Dolphins, Chimps, Orangutans and Elephants are self aware as well. Me personally, I would have a problem in killing these for food.



BhagatSingh said:


> False, you proved nothing.



Well I could trade insults with you, but the truth is your arguments in the past were demolished based on the fact you had not studied the meanings of shabads and put them into historical and sociological concepts. For this I have to take some responsibilty as I often assume everyone on this forum has read the similar amount of Sikh History books I have, and maybe sometimes I need to explain myself better vis a vis Kabir ji and his comments on theMuslim invaders and the sacking of Varnasi.

Just because there in Bani of Kabir in the Granth Sahib it does not make us Vaishnavs. In the same context, because there is Bani of Sheikh Farid it does not make us Muslims.

Bani is neutral. On meat it does not promote of denounce any form of diets.



BhagatSingh said:


> Where do Vaishnu state that animals are on the same level as humans? Which scripture, page number?


 
Read this part on Vaishnav belief:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudiya_Vaishnavism#Living_beings





BhagatSingh said:


> Yeah you clearly don't believe in good if you say it is justified to kill someone who is not attacking you.



Well maybe I'm a bad person, or a good person. I really don't know. I  try and avoid the 5 thieves, and try and treat other humans with  respect. If you think I'm a bad person because of my views and my  beliefs that Sikhism is not an off shoot of Vaishnavism, then so be it.

An animal is not someone. It's not a human being. 

That doesn't mean you should be sadistic to animals either because they are a lower form of life. 

Here in the UK, the English are voracious meat eaters, yet their laws on cruelty to animals means you could end up in jail if you are sadistic to animals.

Because you eat meat, doesn't mean you are cruel. India has some of the cruelest people in the world who are vegetarians. :sippingcoffee:


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 25, 2012)

japjisahib04 said:


> Simple question, if each Gurus are different than why did they write under Nanak Name and not their own name?
> 
> Best regards




I think on this point I probably agree with Bhaghat Singh.

The fact one Guru ate meat and another didn't illustrates it was not an issue even amongst the Guru's.

In terms of their teaching they were consistent.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 25, 2012)

Randip Singh said:


> You are.
> 
> You are talking in terms of morality when Sikhism does not talk in those terms.


Just and Unjust are part of morality. They are related terms. And yes Sikhism does talk about it.

I don't know how the Semitic religions or Vaishnu or this religion or taht religion view morality, my concern is with Sikhism alone.


> *just/jəst/*
> Adjective:  Based on or behaving* according to what is morally right and fair*:  "a just society".





> I didn't say that. ....


Don't deny making your own statement. You said killing is just in self-defense.


> For example, if I killed someone walking down the road for no reason  that would be Un-Just. Now if I killed someone who tried to kill me that  would be Just.


That's what you said earlier. :sippingcoffeemunda:



> In any case, more than one *Guru killed people*, are you saying they were *immoral?* motherlylove


I have answered this previously. I have also talked about hunting. Just go back a few pages.



> Who's being ignorant?


You and I.


> The killing for food in terms of being Just or Un-Just can't be argued about, as it about personal choice.





> Chimps probably are closer to humans in terms of DNA, but they are not humans.
> 
> Dolphins, Chimps, Orangutans and Elephants are self aware as well. Me personally, I would have a problem in killing these for food.


What the self-awareness experiments are meant to highlight is the level of awareness animals have. 


			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Pigs  are able to use the information seen in a mirror but do not show  evidence of self-recognition. In an experiment, 7 of the 8 pigs tested  were able to find a bowl of food hidden behind a wall using a mirror.  The eighth pig looked behind the mirror for the food.


For those who don't realize it, being able to discern that the mirror is reflecting the surroundings requires a great level of intelligence and awareness.
Animal intelligence- pigs and chickens are smart - YouTube
Pigs outperform chimps on some tests of intelligence.

Besides humans, animals are still missing awareness of the "I" behind the other. Being able to sense sentience in another being (and in an object, if you develop your awareness to a high level). This is the only quality which separates humans and animals, and this is why humans can reach God ( that is seeing God in all) and animals cannot. Also, the degree to which humans can become aware through meditations, prayers etc, is just mind-blowing.


But animals are also aware and feel immense emotions. They act out of intentions and can make great sacrifice, and show great empathy. Just like humans but not to the same degree.

Not all animals have self-awareness, and like I said that was just a demonstration of the high level of awareness they have. Some are so high that they have self-awareness. You get what I mean.

Their intelligence and awareness levels are similar to to human infants. So by analogy, would you say it is ok to kill and eat a baby? Rhetorical question. Is it really a matter of personal choice at this point? Especially when being a human you can see that behind the animal lies a sentience, the I, who carries out intentions inherent to the animal.  This is something that only a human can do, which is see the animal as more than food, and is tossed aside and excused on the basis of "personal choice". How does that make you different than an carnivorous animal, like a tiger who cannot do so either?

Amongst tigers, this is a non-issue. Their prey is just food. But humans are so much more than. We can see the tiger acting out of intention and the fear in the prey, as it alerts it's herd. We can see the I, and we can empathize with the creatures. We can see for ourselves, even without Psychological and Biological evidence that there is a sentience behind the beast, so how do we justify our killing it?

Those who have pets know what I talking about. Even if you have two of the same breed, the pets each have personalities. They are individuals with feelings and emotions. They connect with you and respond to your way of being. They are beings themselves.



> Well I could trade insults with you, but the truth is your arguments in the past were demolished based on the fact you had not studied the meanings of shabads and put them into historical and sociological concepts. For this I have to take some responsibilty as I often assume everyone on this forum has read the similar amount of Sikh History books I have, and maybe sometimes I need to explain myself better vis a vis Kabir ji and his comments on theMuslim invaders and the sacking of Varnasi.


i am not here to trade insults with you either. You did a great job with Sikh history website, it's a wonderful resource, and the first one I go to for information on Sikh history. So I am certainly not calling you ignorant or trying to.

But not all of Kabir's shabads fall into the category of response to Muslim invaders. I think you are generalizing there. But this is not what I am debating here. We went through that already. I left it because I didn't feel I was being responded to, and that no attention was paid to what I was saying or my posts were ignored outright. All I got in response was a copy-paste of the article. I don't call that a debate.

Anyways.



> Read this part on Vaishnav belief:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudiya_Vaishnavism#Living_beings


What about it? Where does it state the claims you are making about the Vaishnu religion?


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 26, 2012)

Bhagat singh ji

The problem is if we want to live then we have to kill ,the only question whether we kill directly or indirectly



> OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet (3/5/02)
> 
> CORVALLIS - *Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 26, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Just and Unjust are part of morality. They are related terms. And yes Sikhism does talk about it.



No it's the other way round. Morality comes under the heading of Justice and being Just:

http://www.friesian.com/moral-2.htm



> The difference between *morality* and *justice* comes not from the difference between actions and consequences (as between morality and euergetic  ethics) but from the difference between motives and actions.  As Kant  noted, the worth of moral action is in the intention, not in what is  actually done.  The imperative of morality is first of all to act with  good will.  Even the best of good will, however, does not necessarily  produce right action -- the  saying is that *the path to hell is paved with good intentions.  And  even ill will does not necessarily produce wrong action* -- it is really  an _ad hominem_ fallacy to evaluate an action on the basis of an agent's motive



So in summary, Justice tends to come from total objectivity, wheras Morality from Subjectivity. However, Justice can be based on morality i.e. subjectivity. The classic example is the Ten Commandments which are the basis for many systems of Justice.

You could also look at Justice as being Timeless, and Morality as being a moment in time.




BhagatSingh said:


> I don't know how the Semitic religions or Vaishnu or this religion or taht religion view morality, my concern is with Sikhism alone.
> Don't deny making your own statement. You said killing is just in self-defense.
> That's what you said earlier. :sippingcoffeemunda:



No my friend this is exactly what I said:



> Now when it comes to kill animals, is it Just to kill an animal for hunger? This is the CRUX of the issue.
> 
> 1) People who see it as Un-Just state animals are on the same level as humans in terms of conciousness.
> 
> 2) Those that see is as Just state that animals are like Plants, and and  not on the same level of consciousness of humans. Other state they are  liberating them.




I'm asking a question and presenting two points of view. Very different from killing in self defence.

The Semitic and Vaishnav concepts are very relevant. My own bringing up in a Vaishnav orientated family and brought up with Semitic concepts of the West did confuse me. I too argued vehemently pro-vegetarian some 17 years ago. I don't now, because it's plain stuupid.




BhagatSingh said:


> I have answered this previously. I have also talked about hunting. Just go back a few pages.



It doesn't make sense. In terms of morality the Guru's were immoral people, however, in terms of Justice they 100% correct.




BhagatSingh said:


> You and I.
> What the self-awareness experiments are meant to highlight is the level of awareness animals have.
> 
> For those who don't realize it, being able to discern that the mirror is reflecting the surroundings requires a great level of intelligence and awareness.
> ...



I read the article on Pigs, but one point you missed was wheras with Dolphins, Chimps, Orangutans, and Elephants, you can put a mirror infront of them and they are self aware or appear to be concious of their awareness. Pigs had to be trained over a period of time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html?_r=0



BhagatSingh said:


> Besides humans, animals are still missing awareness of the "I" behind the other. Being able to sense sentience in another being (and in an object, if you develop your awareness to a high level). This is the only quality which separates humans and animals, and this is why humans can reach God ( that is seeing God in all) and animals cannot. Also, the degree to which humans can become aware through meditations, prayers etc, is just mind-blowing.



Indeed



BhagatSingh said:


> But animals are also aware and feel immense emotions. They act out of intentions and can make great sacrifice, and show great empathy. Just like humans but not to the same degree.
> 
> Not all animals have self-awareness, and like I said that was just a demonstration of the high level of awareness they have. Some are so high that they have self-awareness. You get what I mean.



Some are, most are not. I get that. Note that when we dwell in the 5 thieves we are described as animals in our behaviour.



BhagatSingh said:


> Their intelligence and awareness levels are similar to to human infants. So by analogy, would you say it is ok to kill and eat a baby? Rhetorical question. Is it really a matter of personal choice at this point? Especially when being a human you can see that behind the animal lies a sentience, the I, who carries out intentions inherent to the animal.  This is something that only a human can do, which is see the animal as more than food, and is tossed aside and excused on the basis of "personal choice". How does that make you different than an carnivorous animal, like a tiger who cannot do so either?



I used the emotive baby argmument in my militant vege days. Then it was pointed out to me, that a baby has the potential to be a human. An animal does not!. I said what about disabled people, we should kill them? Again it was pointed out to me, it is because we are humans we do not terminate fellow malfunctioning humans.




BhagatSingh said:


> Amongst tigers, this is a non-issue. Their prey is just food. But humans are so much more than. We can see the tiger acting out of intention and the fear in the prey, as it alerts it's herd. We can see the I, and we can empathize with the creatures. We can see for ourselves, even without Psychological and Biological evidence that there is a sentience behind the beast, so how do we justify our killing it?



You are missing the point.

Humans can make their OWN decisions. Now if someone like you feels a strong empathy towards animals then don't eat it. If  someone else doesn't then thats up to them. Fools wrangle over flesh says exactly this, and this is the Sikh position.

In any case the who flesh debate falls on the egg!!




BhagatSingh said:


> Those who have pets know what I talking about. Even if you have two of the same breed, the pets each have personalities. They are individuals with feelings and emotions. They connect with you and respond to your way of being. They are beings themselves.



I've had cats. They are not intelligent. They act on instinct.



BhagatSingh said:


> i am not here to trade insults with you either. You did a great job with Sikh history website, it's a wonderful resource, and the first one I go to for information on Sikh history. So I am certainly not calling you ignorant or trying to.



Can't take credit for sikh-history. That's Sandeep Bajwa ji. A great and learned man.



BhagatSingh said:


> But not all of Kabir's shabads fall into the category of response to Muslim invaders. I think you are generalizing there. But this is not what I am debating here. We went through that already. I left it because I didn't feel I was being responded to, and that no attention was paid to what I was saying or my posts were ignored outright. All I got in response was a copy-paste of the article. I don't call that a debate.



Hmm.

Those weren't copy and pastes, but selected historical articles and memoirs of an infamous invader.

Just as Baba Nanak had his Babur Bani so Kabir was deeply influenced by the invasion of Timur...and to show why he turned away from Islam and was so critical of of Mullahs. If you understand this you understand Kabir.

In anycase, ask yourself, were you ignoring other peoples points? It can happen in debates, or people maybe just missing it or considering it unimportant.

I must I do ignore points in debates when I consider them to be trivial and if the person was better read would understand that particular issue.




BhagatSingh said:


> Anyways.
> 
> What about it? Where does it state the claims you are making about the Vaishnu religion?



You have to read the sections and the links.

I think the point is Vaishnavs consider a kind of equality between humans and animals (they exclude plants). They're a kind of super pacificist, unless ofcourse you are a certain caste i.e. Kshatriya, then you can eat meat. They condem people as low caste for eating meat.

Sikhism doesn't say that.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 26, 2012)

21khalsa13 said:


> question..?
> 
> a plant has life force - it grows, moves towards the sun, reproduces etc..
> a animal has life force plus other qualities a plant doesn't have
> ...



Your point on eggs is excellent and was what made me take a look at my own pro-Vaishnav views.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 26, 2012)

Some of us may think it is unjust and others not so.
It's all too easy to be sat in an armchair and claim that eating meat is unjust, because an animal is killed just for feeding.
But some will argue that just as many animals suffer enormous cruelty to provide their veggie diets.

I think it is more of a personal opinion of what is exactly unjust and just in terms of killing.

I'm sure that in the true and strict nihang tradition, they are only to eat the meat of one that has had jhatka and it has been done by them or other nihangs in the group.
This strictly means that they are NOT to purchase meat from stores and restaurants as such, because they don't know when, where and how the animal was killed.

If this case applied to all of us, then the armchair claimaints of just and unjust would be completely different.
If most meat eaters had to kill the very chicken or goat themselves before cooking and eating, then a huge number of them would do a U-turn.

I used to very much enjoy lobster,snails,octopuss and many other spanish paella dishes. 
However, one time I were in a restaurant that had this huge tank in the centre with live lobsters fully active. We had to pick our own  from the tank and then watch it get boiled and killed whilst they prepared your dish in front of you !!
NeedI say more..?, but I have never eaten lobster ever again !!!!

I think it is more about the awareness of what really happens there and then. I mean we all know how the cow or goat gets killed, but if we had to stand there infront and witness it, then it becomes a different ball game altogether.

All foods are obtained by some degree of unjust means, it is just how unjust that it appears to us individually that gives us different views.
Remember the torture the corn is put through in Guru Nanak ji's shabad !!!


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 27, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> Some of us may think it is unjust and others not so.
> It's all too easy to be sat in an armchair and claim that eating meat is unjust, because an animal is killed just for feeding.
> But some will argue that just as many animals suffer enormous cruelty to provide their veggie diets.
> 
> ...



It all depends on the type of environment you are living.Most of educated city folks which are in white collar jobs may get shocked when they see animal being killed but rural or tribals are not going to feel in the same way.

A farmer every year end up killing millions of insects and other pests to save his crop

Similarly  millions living in coastal area which are totally dependent on their fish supply for survival.These people everyday see billions of fishes,crabs  etc dieing in front of them yet they are eating them from thousands of years.


----------



## harcharanjitsinghdhillon (Dec 14, 2012)

subject on food still drop under the 3 gunas.. if whole life we pay more attention on food but not earning naam, then our destiny is still maya not out from it.. this subject is just a small step in our spiritual development, because for those who want to get involve in serious meditation to earn naams, then it is always recommended to be a vegetarian.. from it you only earn the higher GUNA only that is satvic, but still not out from maya yet. we must proceed further to earn naam, a ticket to move out of maya.. vegetarian diet also helps on developing positive karmas. thanks


----------



## Luckysingh (Dec 14, 2012)

harcharanjitsinghdhillon said:


> subject on food still drop under the 3 gunas.. if whole life we pay more attention on food but not earning naam, then our destiny is still maya not out from it.. this subject is just a small step in our spiritual development, because for those who want to get involve in serious meditation to earn naams, then it is always recommended to be a vegetarian.. from it you only earn the higher GUNA only that is satvic, but still not out from maya yet. we must proceed further to earn naam, a ticket to move out of maya.. vegetarian diet also helps on developing positive karmas. thanks


 
That is not the pure gurmat sikh view according to the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji !!
Your post that mentions earning naams with vegeterianism to increase spirituality is more of a radhsoami view.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Dec 14, 2012)

I suppose..IF everyone had to Cut up carrots radishes and peel onions...and COOK them before eating them..how many would do a U-TURN and opt for  KFC or MCDonalds...??ha ha
How about DAAL MAKING Tarrkah etc BEFORE you can EAT it ?? How many will still say they LOVE Daal and Kichhrree ??
The ONIONS alone will chase many away !!! CRYING BUCKETS....
COOKING is NOT easy..for MOST its TOO HOT in the KITCHEN...and so many young couples EAT OUT !!!:interestedkudi:


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Dec 14, 2012)

And DONT beleive in everything we see....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247849/The-truth-free-range-turkeys-Christmas-dinner.html


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 14, 2012)

harharanjitsingh ji

What do you mean  by the phrase "earn naams?"  You seem to be saying that meditation helps one earn naams.

Important for me to understand how you think of "naams", and why you think "naams are something that can be earned? 

Rather than "naams" as plural,  I think of one Naam. I think of it as something that is always present within us and without, freely given, not earned, but realized. How does a person earn naams?

How does food, meat or not meat, get in the way of naam?

How do you earn a "guna?" The gunas are considered 3 states within Maya, to those who believe of gunas, they are natural forces. I do not see how a person "earns" a natural force. They are there, according to those who take gunas literally, whether we do anything about them or not. So how would you earn a guna?

How does food, meat or not meat, get in the way of a guna?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Dec 15, 2012)

harcharanjitsinghdhillon said:


> subject on food still drop under the 3 gunas.. *if whole life we pay more attention on food but not earning naam, then our destiny is still maya not out from it*..


Pretty much.





> this subject is just a small step in our spiritual development, because for those who want to get involve in serious meditation to earn naams, then it is always recommended to be a vegetarian.. from it you only earn the higher GUNA only that is satvic, but still not out from maya yet. we must proceed further to earn naam, a ticket to move out of maya.. vegetarian diet also helps on developing positive karmas. thanks


How can one know for ourselves if certain foods contain more Sattva?


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 15, 2012)

If green beans had been favored by Muslims and banned by Vashnaiv during Guru Nanak's time, this thread would be titled Fools who Wrangle over Green Beans. The beans would become the topic of our controversy. 

Guru Nanak would be telling us that it is not the green beans, but the pride of self that comes from believing we are holy because we avoid them, or the disposition to use them as symbols of status if we eat them, or the kaam that comes from gorging on them. He would be right because we would be wrangling like fools.

That leaves me still with two unanswered questions. How does one "earn naams?" How does food get in the way of earning naam? For example, lima beans are sattvic. Would lima beans hinder or help me in my search for naam?


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 21, 2012)

spnadmin said:


> harharanjitsingh ji
> 
> What do you mean by the phrase "earn naams?" You seem to be saying that meditation helps one earn naams.
> 
> ...


 
So true. 

This gibberish about Guna's and Satvic diet is just Brahmistic propaganda designed to control the masses.

I had this debate years ago, and it was pointed out the meat diets make you more aggresive and less able to concerntrate.

I then asked the question, why were Kshatriya's allowed to eat meat and encourage by Brahmins? The answer I got back was because they were required to be aggressive.

I then asked OK, what should be the diet of a Saint Soldier then? No answer.

It's all utter rubbish.


----------



## Luckysingh (Dec 22, 2012)

The only judgement that should be given to foods is their nutritional value.
If we started viewing and treating foods as 'fuels' for our body, as that is what they are! Then we wouldn't have problems that we are faced with.
Non-nutritional classifications are of no value or benefit to anyone except the ones that impose them.


----------



## japjisahib04 (Jan 2, 2013)

There is another perspective of vegetarian

http://www.meatfreeindia.com/

mohinder sahni


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 10, 2013)

Lionprince ji

I think that the passage on Jatka belongs in a thread about Jatkha. Therefore I have deleted the passage from this discussion and turned it into a new thread. Thanks.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 10, 2013)

japjisahib04 said:


> There is another perspective of vegetarian
> 
> http://www.meatfreeindia.com/
> 
> mohinder sahni



Unfortunately it fails to address the point that the most greenest lifestyle is that of the hunter gatherer. Farming has caused untold damage to our environment!!


----------



## Brother Onam (May 11, 2013)

Har Har Har be praised

I'm sorry I'm coming rather late to this discussion. In His/Her mercy, Har has allowed humans the constitution which may, in times of need, extract nutrients from a broad range of sources, rather like a goat. But it should be clear that, at least for spiritual people, our natural diet is a vegetarian one. Others have broken down the anatomical details that identify the human body as corresponding to the anatomies of other vegetarian animals, which is hard to dispute. But let us also use our sense:
Observe a predator animal when it sees movement. Most of us will have seen a cat stalking a bird in the grass, or else seen nature programs showing a lion pursuing its prey in the savannahs. When a predator detects the movement of an animal it regards as food, it becomes very tense, nervous, begins twitching and salivating, and makes ready to pounce and kill. This is the way of low predator beasts.
I have not yet seen a man or woman who, upon encountering a cow or chicken, becomes highly agitated and begin to salivate. Of course not, because this is not really food for us. Our food is a ripe mango, a watermelon, these will make us salivate, if we are genuinely hungry. Because these are food for us. A tiger will have no use for these.
It is really a testimony to our waywardness as a species that so much of what we see in the marketplace (especially Chinese or African markets!), is things that ran, creeped, swam or jumped; specifically the things humans ought have no business eating. These are foods to low beasts; our foods hang from trees and vines. But we are a lawless and ungovernable race, given over to low impulses too often, as the state of our world will readily testify.
So, as creatures of free will, yes we are at liberty to eat either high foods of spiritual, peace-loving souls, or else low foods, which perpetuate suffering and disease. But as a holy people, let us choose the high way.
                May the Naam of Waheguru continue to be praised.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (May 11, 2013)

This I find the longest discussion without any conclusion. 
We must accept the conclsive decision  from a Quote from Gurbanee as
ਸਲੋਕ ਮਃ ੧ ॥ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਨਿੰਮਿਆ ਮਾਸੈ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਵਾਸੁ ॥ ਜੀਉ ਪਾਇ ਮਾਸੁ ਮੁਹਿ ਮਿਲਿਆ ਹਡੁ ਚੰਮੁ ਤਨੁ ਮਾਸੁ ॥ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਕਢਿਆ ਮੰਮਾ ਮਾਸੁ ਗਿਰਾਸੁ ॥ ਮੁਹੁ ਮਾਸੈ ਕਾ ਜੀਭ ਮਾਸੈ ਕੀ ਮਾਸੈ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਸਾਸੁ ॥ ਵਡਾ ਹੋਆ ਵੀਆਹਿਆ ਘਰਿ ਲੈ ਆਇਆ ਮਾਸੁ ॥ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਹੀ ਮਾਸੁ ਊਪਜੈ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਸਭੋ ਸਾਕੁ   ਸਤਿਗੁਰਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਐ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਬੁਝੀਐ ਤਾਂ ਕੋ ਆਵੈ ਰਾਸਿ ॥ ਆਪਿ ਛੁਟੇ ਨਹ ਛੂਟੀਐ ਨਾਨਕ ਬਚਨਿ ਬਿਣਾਸੁ ॥੧॥ {ਪੰਨਾ 1289}
It seems to be very pertinent to understand the message of last two lines 
ਸਤਿਗੁਰਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਐ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਬੁਝੀਐ ਤਾਂ ਕੋ ਆਵੈ ਰਾਸਿ ॥ ਆਪਿ ਛੁਟੇ ਨਹ ਛੂਟੀਐ ਨਾਨਕ ਬਚਨਿ ਬਿਣਾਸੁ ॥੧॥ {ਪੰਨਾ 1289}
and in response to this context we come to know next that ---- those are foolish who 
discuss on flesh..flesh..

So this is a topic which is ever going to be inconclusive .In fact Guru ji is telling us 
not to discuss such an issue.
This is my personal understanding .
Prakash.s.Bagga


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 11, 2013)

Respected parkash Singh bagga Ji..
You a re absolutely Correct.

However a SIKH is duty bound to set matters right when he/she sees it wrong...
Thats About ALL we are doing here. The Pro Vege Lobby always INSIST they are telling us Guru jis commands when thats a LIE.a BRAZEN white faced LIE......so we have to set that right by saying GURU JI SAYS NO SUCH THING...if we dont do that..the LIE like declared by goebells may become "TRUTH" because no CHALLENGE MOUNTED. BTW Goebells was Hitlers Propoganda Minister who believed that if a LIE is told a THOUSAND TIMES..most begin to beleive in it as ""truth"...  LIE must alwys be Challenged.:swordfight-kudiyan:


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (May 11, 2013)

Maan Yog Giyani Jarnail Singh ji,
I fully appreciate your stand but my concern is only the discission of this topic in context of Gurbanee.I know people are more curious about this issue from our Gurbanee which can be answered as a quote given in Gurbanee.

I think the messages  from Gurbanee  for INTOXICATED THINGS and DRINKS are more clear directions for Sikhs rather than issue of being veg or non veg.
.This we all shun to accept and take a pledge to follow.
With regards
Prakash.S.Bagga
This problem is moe serious in dimensions


----------



## seekree (May 11, 2013)

well said. hypocrisy can vanish with introspection. A sikh who trims is a patit. How about a sikh who is not honest minimum at finances. Is he not Patit? In improving ourselves, let Gurbani be the reference but let us also appreciate the good things told even before Sikhism evolved. ( May 11,2013)


----------



## spnadmin (May 11, 2013)

prakash s. bagga ji

Your very directed and pointed references to Gurbani are needed in this thread from time to time. That is where the thread began and sometimes that focus is lost. "Fools who wrangle over meat..." and other matters is directly taken from Guru Nanak whose meaning appears to be the discussion itself can be a distraction from more important matters of life and the soul. 

From your conversation with Gyani ji, we can see how the interpretation of the shabad has at least 2 positive results. It helps us to introspect on values we need to thrive morally and spiritually. The Shabad along with the introspection helps us to turn the shabad into a beacon and guide for living a moral and spiritual life.

The two of you help this thread along at a point where it was needed.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 11, 2013)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> This I find the longest discussion without any conclusion.
> We must accept the conclsive decision  from a Quote from Gurbanee as
> ਸਲੋਕ ਮਃ ੧ ॥ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਨਿੰਮਿਆ ਮਾਸੈ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਵਾਸੁ ॥ ਜੀਉ ਪਾਇ ਮਾਸੁ ਮੁਹਿ ਮਿਲਿਆ ਹਡੁ ਚੰਮੁ ਤਨੁ ਮਾਸੁ ॥ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਕਢਿਆ ਮੰਮਾ ਮਾਸੁ ਗਿਰਾਸੁ ॥ ਮੁਹੁ ਮਾਸੈ ਕਾ ਜੀਭ ਮਾਸੈ ਕੀ ਮਾਸੈ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਸਾਸੁ ॥ ਵਡਾ ਹੋਆ ਵੀਆਹਿਆ ਘਰਿ ਲੈ ਆਇਆ ਮਾਸੁ ॥ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਹੀ ਮਾਸੁ ਊਪਜੈ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਸਭੋ ਸਾਕੁ   ਸਤਿਗੁਰਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਐ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਬੁਝੀਐ ਤਾਂ ਕੋ ਆਵੈ ਰਾਸਿ ॥ ਆਪਿ ਛੁਟੇ ਨਹ ਛੂਟੀਐ ਨਾਨਕ ਬਚਨਿ ਬਿਣਾਸੁ ॥੧॥ {ਪੰਨਾ 1289}
> It seems to be very pertinent to understand the message of last two lines
> ...



Prakash Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

I beg to differ with your following claim:



> In fact Guru ji is telling us not to discuss such an issue.



In fact Guru ji is telling us to discuss this subject or any other subject openly but by always putting it into contextual perspective. 

The partial Gurbani verses you have quoted above from the Shabad do not do justice to the idea Guru Nanak is expressing. It is unfair on our part to throw one liner or two to prove our point when the context lies in the whole Shabad. But let's not wrangle over it.

Regards 

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 11, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> The only judgement that should be given to foods is their nutritional value.
> If we started viewing and treating foods as 'fuels' for our body, as that is what they are! Then we wouldn't have problems that we are faced with.
> Non-nutritional classifications are of no value or benefit to anyone except the ones that impose them.



Fish n Chips or a chalice of Burgundy?


----------



## Luckysingh (May 12, 2013)

The carbohydrate content from chips is a good and fast fuel source after a strenuous workout - a small portion though !


----------



## itsmaneet (May 12, 2013)

I got a chance to hear the vyakhya of Krishn Avtar from Dasam Grath in which Dasam Pitaji very openly disclosed certain facts. Guru never hid what Krishn did like ate sort of drugs...alchohols...etc but Guruji appreciated one thing giving more stress on it ... that was that Krishan was a core Nitnemi ... no matter what he did he never gave up Amritvela & every second use to remain merge in God. So my point is that as the old saying goes 'an elephant have different teeth to show & to eat' ... we humans have two lives one is to do karam being in this birth chakar (cycle) & second which is the most important is to remain merge in Almighty. People who are merged in Almighty are the blessed ones. 

Another fact is eating meat has nothin to do with God coz if it was so there are pleces on the earth where people are more dependent on animals & plantation harly exists so in tht case they can never get Almighty which in somewhat not digestable.

So eating meat or avoiding it solely depends on one's health may be...for example I tried eating meat/eggs few times but it upsets my mind & digestion. But for others it may benefit. So I feel previous times & even now core Nitnemis take thorough care of what they eat so that it so not disturb their health & hence causing intruption in Nitnem...

Please let me have your kind views on above as I might be wrong .... 

Gurfateh !!


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 12, 2013)

seekree said:


> well said. hypocrisy can vanish with introspection. A sikh who trims is a patit. How about a sikh who is not honest minimum at finances. Is he not Patit? In improving ourselves, let Gurbani be the reference but let us also appreciate the good things told even before Sikhism evolved. ( May 11,2013)




Of course Ji...

Didnt bahgat kabir ji declare..Why shave the head when you have failed to shave the MIND ??..Mann moondiah nahi ??

A Dishonest Sikh, a Corrupt Sikh, A murder Sikh, A chor sikh, a womaniser sikh.a LIAR sikh, a deceiver Sikh, a LAZY SIKH...are ALL PATITS..and much WORSE than the KESH REMOVER !! The KESH REMOVER can STOP being a PATIT more EASILY than the other patits...and GURBANi says so...Its infinetly MORE EASIER to "keep sikhi" OUTSIDE (just dont use scissors/visit the naii)..BUT the REAL SIKHI INSIDE...is almost IMPOSSIBLE..a 24/7 hour job..!! Even while SLEEPING  a dream can shatter this INSIDE SIKHI...

YET Many HUNDRED THOUSAND will proudly claim that they are "SIKHS INSIDE "....I find that difficult to swallow... Another couple of HUNDRED THOUSAND fit into the SECOND category.." NO SIKHI INSIDE"...but long flowing beards, huge cholas, 3 ft kirpans and  rounder turbans..OUTSIDE like "Sajjan THUGGHS Oojal keha chilkanna !!! HOLLOW DRUMS..just for making NOISE...no substance inside.

2. As for the Good things said before Sikhi came along..thats exactly WHY Guru nanak ji chose Kabir Jis bnai, Ravidass jis Bani, Namdev, etc etc etc..even Sheikh farid who was long before Guru ji....so the SGGS is complete...  SAMPOORAN


----------



## arshdeep88 (May 12, 2013)

i asked about this forum from spnadmin sister few days back and that's how i came about to this forum.The main thing to give this forum a read was because few days back someone posted a picture of two amrithdari sikhs cutting down chickens to eat.To my amazement i found so many abuses in the comments for the amritdhari sikhs.All got an excuse to lay down the frustation of their day to day lifes on poor amritdhari guys.People ranging from having profile named "Bhuka Jatt " to "Singh Khalsa" came and commented with words "shame on them "
while someother chose abusive words.To my amazement those who dont know the abc of sikhism started fighting with anyone who chose to defend the amritdhari guys.The whole idea of judging others is really absurd.if instead of we can jugde ourselves rather than others the whole world could be a beatiful place.If people who were abusing and taking up fights and sending life threatening messages could judge their actions that do there abuses and life threatening messages are need of the time then it would have served them better instead of such things.The whole idea of judging others is really abusrd till you are perfect yourself and it was a shame that people were really fighting over this issue to which i found the title of this forum really appropriate


----------



## spnadmin (May 12, 2013)

arshdeep88 ji

This thread is one of our older threads going back a long way in SPN history. One really does need to read from the beginning to get the most from the discussion. The thread is also the most popular. Seeing how abusive posters can be is a let-down as you have pointed out. Tarring amritdhari Sikhs whether they deserve it or not is demoralizing. I do sincerely hope that the language threatening other members, and similar abuses, tapered off some time back. 

When the world-wide web took off, it was an Internet trend to use forums to work out personal frustrations in an uncontrolled way through extreme language. The theory used to be that Internet users would police one another and themselves. 

Heavy moderation will chase abusers away from a forum. Light moderation chases responsible members away because they tire of the craziness. There are those who are willing to spend free time for the Internet in a gladiator's arena.  My own untested theory is that more women participate when a forum supports debate and not warfare; they are not the same thing.

The goal of debate is to learn. Your words need to be heeded if we are to learn from debate. On any of these threads the point is not to win but to learn.


----------



## arshdeep88 (May 12, 2013)

well the picture i am talking about was posted on facebook in some community not here ,just out of curiosity i started reading comments so as i could learn ,as the one who posted picture had posted it with big caption saying "vekho gursikhan di kartoot" .

For me watching people fight and throwing tantrums and coming up with abusive languages came as a blessing in disguise as  then i came forward to this forum and watched few videos too in relation to this context and to the subject 

indeed its a really long thread and i did read.
whether eating meat is right or wrong i cant comment as people who said its wrong talked of daya and compassion but at the same time couldn't explain about the killing of pests and insects required to cultivate a particular growth.
what about if they are put up on a bed for one night in an area full of mosquitoes ?
will they be so much tolerant to allow the mosquitoes to feed on their blood or will they just kill those mosquitoes?
we walk daily to our offices and for household work and nobody knows how many insects are executed by our just walking beneath our shoes and cars.
An oax is struck most of the time to carry a load of fruits and vegetables  from village to city doesnt the oax feels the pain then ?
what more if the oax would have had mind like us he might be thinking its better to die than to live such with so much of thrashing daily.
If eating meat is sin according to some peoples own perception that he should give a thought that then whole world is sinful including him too.

recently i read an article stating that plants also feel pain and how they performed scientific experiments to prove this 
thought provoking for people who love eating saag (aur banao kut kut ke saag)

but ONE thing is sure according to guru nanak dev ji 

"Maas Maas Kar Moorakh Jhaghrrey. 
Gian dhian Nahin Jaaney. 
Kaun Maas Kaun Saag Kahaavey 
Kis Mah Paap Samaaney" which i myself witnessed many times

i dont find this shabad either encouraging or discouraging people from eating flesh ,but it is rather a direct comment on those people who dont know anything about spirituality and make up their own rules just as pandits and bharamins use to do earlier time at the time of Guru Nanak.Those people were good in religious studies only but spiritually they were blind and they would at that time just direct people blindly to perform certain rituals without even explaining the reason behined it as most of them themselves didnt knew .It was just used as a tool by bharamins to create a class so that they could rule over people by claiming them to be true knowledgeable of religion and god.Kings too use to come to these bharamins to seek help and guidance ,thats how they ruled people.
Hypocricy was mainy prevaling that time hidden behined religious robes.
i find Guru Nanak ji always rubbishing and directly attacking such hyporicy by putting up such questions to so called religious scholars and showing the world how we ourselfes sometimes sleep in this darkness of hypocricy not only by just closing our eyes but by then covering our eyes with blanket.Only by self examining we can know about ourselves and no one is perfect to claim what is right and what is wrong.We all make mistakes then learn from them in the journey of our lives for the better.


Gyani ji talked about pleasures in this thread relating to food items and i think he has a valid point regarding this.Addiction to pleasures including food items be it vegetarian or non vegetarian has always been our downfall.


----------



## spnadmin (May 12, 2013)

arshdeep ji

Great news you did not find immature insults and bashing here! And Yes, I agree with your summary of the issues. 

Thank you!


----------



## Luckysingh (May 12, 2013)

Arshdeepji,
I do advise that you read through most of the posts on this thread as every single angle and argument does seem to be covered. 
I know it's a lot of pages and takes a while to get through it, but in all honesty it was one of the threads that I learned the most from !

For me personally, it was quite an eye opener and I am sure you view will be the same as mine towards the end !

It is probably one of the reasons that I have stayed on this forum because the learning experience was the greatest on this one thread.

Bottom line, we should judge people for the actions and contributions to mankind and not for what they eat !


----------



## Brother Onam (May 12, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> The only judgement that should be given to foods is their nutritional value.
> If we started viewing and treating foods as 'fuels' for our body, as that is what they are! Then we wouldn't have problems that we are faced with.
> Non-nutritional classifications are of no value or benefit to anyone except the ones that impose them.


 

"The only judgement that should be given to foods is their nutritional value."
Where is the place then for mercy? Is this not perhaps also part of the judgement of saintly ones?
Are we to disregard the cries of panic and pain? I guess they're just low animals, incapable of really percieving fear and suffering. I remember that in WWII and also Vietnam, people were actively compelled not to be taken in by apparent 'human' expressions from the Asian enemies; they didn't really have the capacity to genuinely suffer, as they might appear to.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by how its animals are treated" -Gandhi

Has Waheguru not been merciful to us? Time and again? Should we not also try to extend this blessing to others?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 13, 2013)

Brother Onam said:


> "The only judgement that should be given to foods is their nutritional value."
> Where is the place then for mercy? Is this not perhaps also part of the judgement of saintly ones?
> Are we to disregard the cries of panic and pain? I guess they're just low animals, incapable of really percieving fear and suffering. I remember that in WWII and also Vietnam, people were actively compelled not to be taken in by apparent 'human' expressions from the Asian enemies; they didn't really have the capacity to genuinely suffer, as they might appear to.
> 
> ...




Just this one line negates the entire post...Gandhi was the biggest FRAUD..and least interested in any animals - his mutterings on SIKHS is enough to show this. The Nehrus and the patels followed this GANDHI..and see what the SIKHS got in return...since 1947...1984...2013...the "animal" quote is out of place..Gandhis country cant even treat HUMANS properly... :happysingh: :happysingh: :interestedsingh:


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 13, 2013)

Could we have a quote from SGGS please that supports GANDHI on Animals ?? Or we do beleive that the GURUS didnt give two hoots to the way animals were treated ??? Enough MERCY is demonstrated by the Love of Horses ....and eagles (hunters)..Gurus hunting LIONS ....and BHAI GHANIYAH Jis actions in battle.  Did Gandhi ever keep an eagle..Did he ever kill a Lion that was terrorizing the villagers...did Gandhi ever have a Horse to ride ?? He ONLY ahd a BAKREE whcih he kept MILKING day and night..and his followers MILK INDIA day and night ever since.:grinningsingh:
  Most of this is tongue in cheek..no apologies..no offense..no replies required....


----------



## Brother Onam (May 13, 2013)

Paji,
When the mighty chief Sitting Bull was brought from his country to Washington to meet the president and be shown all the fineries of western 'civilization' (Maybe time for another Gandhi quote: When asked by a British reporter what he thought of English civilization, he said "I think it would be a good idea."), Sitting Bull was struck by all the beggars, wondering how such an 'advanced' people could care so little for its poor.
Gandhiji was a flawed man, but I think still one of the most admirable in modern history. Even with his inconsistencies, he still exhibited more courage and principle than most of us could aspire to. But this is not a defense of Gandhi but rather just a look at the point he was making:
Crass and low people may trumpet their advancement and 'exceptionalism', but if they treat the poor and the helpless with indifference or brutality, all their perceived virtue is just illusion. 
I think it's true that the Guru has little to say about meat-eating, but at such times it requires saintly people to draw on our native spiritual sense to exhibit Godly conduct. For saintly people, we ought to want to engage in mercy, light, peace and healing, not partake of the mean and bloody deeds of beasts. A lion has no choice but to nourish itself through bloodshed; for a man, we can choose a brutal low diet, or a pure and living diet. it's up to us which path we trod in this lifetime.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 13, 2013)

Brother Onam said:


> Har Har Har be praised
> 
> I'm sorry I'm coming rather late to this discussion. In His/Her mercy, Har has allowed humans the constitution which may, in times of need, extract nutrients from a broad range of sources, rather like a goat. But it should be clear that, at least for spiritual people, our natural diet is a vegetarian one. Others have broken down the anatomical details that identify the human body as corresponding to the anatomies of other vegetarian animals, which is hard to dispute. But let us also use our sense:
> Observe a predator animal when it sees movement. Most of us will have seen a cat stalking a bird in the grass, or else seen nature programs showing a lion pursuing its prey in the savannahs. When a predator detects the movement of an animal it regards as food, it becomes very tense, nervous, begins twitching and salivating, and makes ready to pounce and kill. This is the way of low predator beasts.
> ...


 
Brother do you study bioligy?

If you do then you know that an egg is a waste product incapable of producing life. If you scroll up the discussion we talked about the egg having less than a destructive quality to life in general than milk.

This is where the enture argument about promoting one diet over another in terms of spirituality fails. This is Nanaks point as well.

I don't and neither did Nanak buy into the philsophy that one diet which promotes a so called "high way". If we choose to do that, lets shave our heads and beards and become Brahmins!! 
When we say "high way" we are saying "my way" , not the Guru's way. This is the way of "Hankaar", and "Egotism"!!


----------



## Randip Singh (May 13, 2013)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Could we have a quote from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji please that supports GANDHI on Animals ?? Or we do beleive that the GURUS didnt give two hoots to the way animals were treated ??? Enough MERCY is demonstrated by the Love of Horses ....and eagles (hunters)..Gurus hunting LIONS ....and BHAI GHANIYAH Jis actions in battle. Did Gandhi ever keep an eagle..Did he ever kill a Lion that was terrorizing the villagers...did Gandhi ever have a Horse to ride ?? He ONLY ahd a BAKREE whcih he kept MILKING day and night..and his followers MILK INDIA day and night ever since.:grinningsingh::grinningsingh:
> Most of this is tongue in cheek..no apologies..no offense..no replies required....



Gyani ji let not forget the so called Mahatma who was racist against blacks and had countless affairs, called Guru Gobind Singh a "misguided patriot" . Vaishnavism and Sikhism are miles apart:

http://sikhinstitute.org/oct_2011/12-harbans.html


----------



## Randip Singh (May 13, 2013)

arshdeep88 said:


> Gyani ji talked about pleasures in this thread relating to food items and i think he has a valid point regarding this.Addiction to pleasures including food items be it vegetarian or non vegetarian has always been our downfall.


 
Brilliant perception!!

Our very own Gynai ji points this out all the time....yet people seem not to listen him. Why? because they love their butter and halwaa too much. Nursing thier big "gogars" while reading Gyani ji's message that addiction to pleasures is far worse makes them feel at unease. It forces tham to look at themselves rather than point the finger.

They think "well we are better than you because we don't eat meat" -

Gyani ji points out "No you are are wrong...you are no better because you have worse addictions!!" :winkingmunda: At this point they get angry and hurle abuse!! Patit, blah blah and worse!!


----------



## Brother Onam (May 13, 2013)

Honourable Randip ji,
When I say high or low diets, I am really just picturing how it looks that we, children of Dayal, Lord of Mercy, are elbowing aside wolves and jackals, trying to get a go at the bloody carcass of a dead beast, while the vibrant, life-giving fruits are hanging untouched overhead, waiting to be consumed.
Any animal, even a fish, will flee in fear if we grasp it with knife in hand. A fruit, though, desires to be eaten, looking and smelling delightful, to impart its life-energy and scatter its seed.
Let's leave the predators their bloody feasts, rather than emerging from the frenzy with face smudged with animal blood and gristle.
As we agreed, the Guru expresses little opinion about diet, so let us be guided instead by Har-given sense and compassion.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 13, 2013)

:icecreamkaur:my "better half".... would kill for an ice cream..is that "Highway" or Herway ?? No one can stop her..not the hanging gogarr..not the doc..not us the family..not her screaming knees..ice cream or I SCREAM. After that she absolutely must have Wild Boar roast.1 KG ..butter chicken. 2kg....and large orange juice - stirred and not shaken..Bond style.. already diabetic, BP in the 180's, weight at 200kg..can hardly breathe after 2 steps up a bus..and she says..I am NOT "addicted"..arent you also mad about the Mahaan dee daal called Makhni daal ?? THAT shuts me up. Good. SO its all Her-way, Highway, MYway...BUT certainly NOT GURUS WAY.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 14, 2013)

Brother Onam said:


> Honourable Randip ji,
> When I say high or low diets, I am really just picturing how it looks that we, children of Dayal, Lord of Mercy, are elbowing aside wolves and jackals, trying to get a go at the bloody carcass of a dead beast, while the vibrant, life-giving fruits are hanging untouched overhead, waiting to be consumed.
> Any animal, even a fish, will flee in fear if we grasp it with knife in hand. A fruit, though, desires to be eaten, looking and smelling delightful, to impart its life-energy and scatter its seed.
> Let's leave the predators their bloody feasts, rather than emerging from the frenzy with face smudged with animal blood and gristle.
> As we agreed, the Guru expresses little opinion about diet, so let us be guided instead by Har-given sense and compassion.


 
I'm sure a plant would run if it had legs !!!:kaurkhalsaflagblue:

In anycase where does flesh end and begin. An egg you would agree is a waste product and doeos no harm to any animal yet die hard vegetarians will not eat an egg, but they will consume milk, which is biologically cows blood in effect.

With regards to blood and flesh, we are born of flesh and blood, we are covered in flesh and blood when born, to associate blood and flesh with all that is bad is wrong I think!! 
*Pahilan masuhn nimmiya masai andari vasu (Guru Nanak, Pg1289-1290 Guru Granth Sahib, Raga Malar)*
Born out of flesh, in flesh does man live.
With life comes love of flesh, bones, skin, limbs
All are flesh.
As from flesh the living body issues, the breast that is flesh,
It grasps in mouth.
Of flesh is the mouth, of flesh the tongue,
Through flesh is breath drawn.
As is man grown up, matrimony he enters,
And brings home flesh.
Of flesh is born flesh,
With flesh are all relationships established.
By the touch of the holy Perceptor is the Divine Ordinance realized,
Whereby comes fulfilment.
Not by man's own effort comes liberation:
Saith Nanak: Such talk only to perdition leads. (1) 


Also with regard to predators, we are saints we are soldiers. We are farmers/artisans and hunters. The Guru's hunted. My ancestors hunted. There is nothing wrong with being a predator!! It's the Sikh way!!


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 14, 2013)

GURU NANAK JI SETTLED that good and proper...early ON..in Asa dee vaar..
FIRST REMOVE that piece of FLESH inside the MOUTH (Tongue)....the ROOT of ALL TASTES and ADDICTIONS...pleasures and what not..then TALK about "meat eating".....

WE are MADE OF FLESH, WE ARE BORN IN FLESH..WE SUCK FLESH FOR LIFE..WE GROW UP IN FLESH..WE MARRY FLESH..WE SUCK FLESH TO PROCREATE..WE MANUFACTURE FLESH...WE HAVE FLESH 24/7 INSIDE OF OUR MOUTHS AND STOMACHS..DID GURU NANAK JI WRITE THIS...ALL LENGTHY SHABAD JUST FOR FUN ???? WAS GURU JI STUCK UP ON FLESH THAT MUCH ???  
NO WAY..HE HAD TO LABOUR HARD TO GET US OUT OF THE GUTTER OF AHIMSA..VEGE-GRASS EATING COMPULSIONS..ETC WHICH FALSELY PROMOTED SUCH GRASS EATERS AS MORE HOLY AND MORE SPIRITUAL ETC...BUT WE IN OUR OWN WISDOM..FELL BACKWARDS INTO THAT SAME gutter SO FAST..WE DONT  EVEN REALISE IT...AND FEEL SO SPIRITUAL..SO HOLY...as COWS must feel !!!


----------



## Randip Singh (May 14, 2013)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> GURU NANAK JI SETTLED that good and proper...early ON..in Asa dee vaar..
> FIRST REMOVE that piece of FLESH inside the MOUTH (Tongue)....the ROOT of ALL TASTES and ADDICTIONS...pleasures and what not..then TALK about "meat eating".....
> 
> WE are MADE OF FLESH, WE ARE BORN IN FLESH..WE SUCK FLESH FOR LIFE..WE GROW UP IN FLESH..WE MARRY FLESH..WE SUCK FLESH TO PROCREATE..WE MANUFACTURE FLESH...WE HAVE FLESH 24/7 INSIDE OF OUR MOUTHS AND STOMACHS..DID GURU NANAK JI WRITE THIS...ALL LENGTHY SHABAD JUST FOR FUN ???? WAS GURU JI STUCK UP ON FLESH THAT MUCH ???
> NO WAY..HE HAD TO LABOUR HARD TO GET US OUT OF THE GUTTER OF AHIMSA..VEGE-GRASS EATING COMPULSIONS..ETC WHICH FALSELY PROMOTED SUCH GRASS EATERS AS MORE HOLY AND MORE SPIRITUAL ETC...BUT WE IN OUR OWN WISDOM..FELL BACKWARDS INTO THAT SAME gutter SO FAST..WE DONT EVEN REALISE IT...AND FEEL SO SPIRITUAL..SO HOLY...as COWS must feel !!!


 
Gyani ji, my friend jokingly refers to such misfortunates as the "Aloo Gobi Brigade!!". 

He says to me, he went to Punajb and he sat with people who stuck up their noses to flesh, yet he knew that these same people had got their wives to abort female foetuses!!! They kill their own flesh. These "Aloo Gobi Brigade" ought to be :realangrymunda:


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 14, 2013)

Definitely Ji..the PUNJAB has the most Aaloo-gobi brigade..and also the HIGHEST Female foeticide/Bride burnings/women beaters (police included) in the world...WHAT GIVES ?? Holy cow. Proof that all this Sham hypocracy spiritualism from eating grass is just Holy cow bovine expulsion.
And oh oh..try "talking" after the tongue has been removed..for more spirituality and inner peace...sheer hypocracy exposed wide open by SGGS.


----------



## esieffe (Sep 10, 2013)

Sat Shri Akal!

Randip Singh Ji,
Thank you for the very valuable discussion and the work involved in presenting it.   It is comforting to know that eating a casserole that might have been cooked with meat broth at a friend's house won't land me in some karmic hell, especially while there are often one or two of the five thieves howling outside my door that I have to contend  with!  One less thing to worry about!
:icecreammunda:


----------



## Babandeep Singh (Sep 11, 2013)

VJJK VJKF!!!

Well I must say I don't give much importance to veg. vs non-veg. issue but I read certain comments in this thread regarding how to be vegetarian is to be merciful... :interestedkudi:

Following articles and studies clearly show that plants do "feel" though in their own, often imperceptible, way...The thorns and poisonous saps clearly demonstrate how they too yearn for survival and self-defence!!! Ever touched a "Touch-me-not"???

1. Amazing Plants - Do Plants Respond to Pain? - YouTube
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/science/15food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
3. http://www.viewzone.com/plants.html

And how much more movement do we need to show that they too have basic instincts shared by other life-forms!! Just because they don't scream doesn't imply they don't have an urge to live on!!! Take a look at this...

BBC Life 2009 - Plants HD - YouTube

And what about this (non-veg.) plant...
Life - Venus Flytraps: Jaws of Death - BBC One - YouTube (whoopsies it's quite hungry...lol)
Such hunger...such a carnivorous instinct...
Now if I want to eat this plant (say hypothetically :icecreamkudi: ), can I be a vegetarian (and merciful at the same time)?? It is a plant after all...or is it? :winkingmunda:

What about parasitic plants like Dodder plant (amarbel)?? The plants themselves don't seem to be much concerned with "mercy"...

And what about fungi like mushroom?? Does eating them amount to vegetarianism or not?? and so on...

Now I can see why Gurus said that how delving on such topics is fruitless and a fool's game :grinningsingh:

And now on evolutionary terms how humans have been through natural selection deemed as omnivores...
http://www.superteacherworksheets.com/reading-comp/4th-carnivores-herbivores.pdf

The incisors, the eyes in the front and not on the sides clearly point out the nature's design (Creator's design imho) as far as humans are concerned...

If some one is a vegetarian and is happy, nothing better than that  But to say that those who are meat eaters are somewhat lesser mortals is in my opinion quite judgemental and against the principles of Sikhi...

Anyways, no intention to offend anybody... One Love


----------



## Randip Singh (Sep 11, 2013)

I've come to the conclusion all this non-vege and vege is designed to distract us. 

I was having a discussion with a historian who tells me that Khandhe dha Pahul was taken 200 years ago to free them.

In other words your average Hindu was restrricted by many practices, shave your head, eat certain things, know your place according to how pure you are etc. Once a Hindu took Amrit he was free. He could break all these Hindu taboo's.

Today however, Khandhe dha Pahul is being used to restrict again....:noticekudi:


----------



## Seeker2013 (Nov 3, 2013)

*Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

I am 23 yr old male . Growing up , I ate almost an exclusively lacto-vegetarian diet , not even eggs . I somewhat regret it today because being a vegetarian could put you at risk of certain deficiencies . For instance , vitamin D and vitamin B12 is found almost exclusively in non veg sources ! also omega 3 too is found more abundantly in fish than anything else . 

But TBH while I do eat meat infrequently (chicken , goat etc ) , I never seem to enjoy the experience . I am not a fan of the taste either . More like 'eat this coz its got some good iron and minerals' . This is in contrast to me enjoying veggies , even eggs or crunchy fish !
I am also just 5'5" and generally weaker . Perhaps this too due to my bad eating habits and vegetarianism .

What i do not understand is why meat eating is associated with masculinity / virility ?
Is it BECAUSE meat is already considered nasty by all people and thus eating this is a sign of 'yes I can eat this even if its so unpalatable' and thats why its associated with power ?

I never really seem to get it ! I am tired of few people trolling me all the time and embarassing me on social functions as to why I don't take meat from the buffet ! Its obvious they see vegetarians as weak ! 

Also , (not surprisingly ) people tend to use 'gay' word for men whenever they do something people don't want them to do ! like 'why are you vegetarian ? is it because you're gay?' 
Like srsly , this is so annoying . This is compounded by the fact that people think if a guy doesn't like to consume things which are not 'sweet' , he's gay ! (gay word is thrown around as synonym for 'despicable' , 'stupid'  etc and I find it annoying as I am a gay person myself
Like when I told my friend the other way I don't drink alcohol coz its bitter , he was like 'so u only like sweet things? you're gay !' 
And trust me a lot of people think like that !

But , really whats so masculine about chewing into steak ?
what do u guys think

Admin note: Given the turn this thread has taken, it is important to point out that views expressed are the opinions of posters, unless specifically cited by the Sikh Rehat Maryada or SGGS. SPN cannot vouch for the accuracy of what posters say.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

Seeker2013 ji

Half-way between being 'moderator/admin' and being just plain old me with a burning desire for life in a rational world, i bring you these assertions:

1. The original thread title was changed because of punctuation TOS violations and bad grammar. This was the original - "Why Meat eating is associated with masculinity and power ? Is it necessary"

2. The first part of the title "Why Meat eating is associated with masculinity and power" is a statement not a question in spite of the misplaced question mark. You begin the thread therefore with the assumption that the statement is true.

3.The second part of the title "Is it necessary" requires a question mark, with none to be found. But the graver violation of ordinary logic is that, the question "Is it necessary" follows from your personal suspicions, and is dependent on them. We don't know if meat eating is associated with masculinity and power. All we know is that you believe it is. 

So basically you are generalizing a wider truth from your own individual experience, or rather your emotional interpretation of your experience. Now which is worse? Bad grammar or absence of reason? They actually walk hand in hand. An unreasonable thought in this case comes to us in an ungrammatical sentence or two. I am not being a prig about this either. Why on earth do you think that, because you 'suspect' you are being made to feel uncomfortable, the entire remainder of humanity shares your suspicions? Once again you are hijacking our forum with personal melodrama. Who but a handful of 'possibly gay guys' who are embarrassed at social functions when they refuse to eat meat is going to be able to identify with this?

My observation may even be a partial answer to a personal concern you raised on another thread. Remember we all have experiences and we all have emotional reactions to our experiences and suspicions. You are not alone.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

I know! This was the part where I had more to say.


> So basically you are generalizing a wider truth from your own individual experience, or rather your emotional interpretation of your experience. ..... Why on earth do you think that, because you 'suspect' you are being made to feel uncomfortable, the entire remainder of humanity shares your suspicions? Once again you are hijacking our forum with personal melodrama. Who but a handful of 'possibly gay guys' who are embarrassed at social functions when they refuse to eat meat is going to be able to identify with this?



It could even be the case that "a handful of 'possibly gay guys' are not really gay but only 'think' they are gay and 'suspect' that others are 'thinking' 'negative' 'thoughts.' Frankly we need a Buddhist to see us through these convolutions of personal reality. 

Because someone refused to eat meat (period '.' and question mark '?'


----------



## Seeker2013 (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

You are the one being melodramatic here and not only are you being melodramatic , you are also bordering on unnecessarily acrimonious remarks. 

You may not be the best judge of how acrimonious I either am or am required to be. I am sure that opinions are all over the map on spnadmin. lol

The subject is simple . I have experienced it first hand . So I will speak with my experience .

Be honest then and make it clear that it is your experience, and that your experience is not the blueprint for a greater truth.
And I think it does hold quite a bit . Hunting for eating is more of a masculine habit . How many female hunters do you hear of ?
I don't know how many female hunters there are for a fact. Do you? Both you and I can only guess. What we "have heard of" is only what we have heard of. And by no means a basis for generalizing about why we eat meat.

Some species are extinct now because men have hunted them so much for food 

What does this have to do with anything?

You need to stop attacking me and answer if you wish or look the other way

I am unlikely to look the other way anytime in the near future.

Seeker2013 ji 

Grow up!

spnadmin note: This comment is added later after forum member ishna ji suggested that it was unclear I was making inline responses to Seeker2013 ji. It would have been clear to her if I had indicated that somewhere on the comment. Actually we are supposed to include our id's when we react in-line. Therefore, anything in red font was an in-line moderation remark. Thank you ishna ji


----------



## aristotle (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

I've never personally seen any vegetarian(and in India, they aren't a minority) be dubbed gay, even in slang, but that may be because I'm a small town guy. Anyways, veganism is the new in-thing nowadays. Masculinity and meat is a connection that is difficult to visualise, and what abot the ladies out there who savour KFC chicken snackers? Are they turning masculine then?


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*



aristotle said:


> I've never personally seen any vegetarian(and in India, they aren't a minority) be dubbed gay, even in slang, but that may be because I'm a small town guy. Anyways, veganism is the new in-thing nowadays. Masculinity and meat is a connection that is difficult to visualise, and what abot the ladies out there who savour KFC chicken snackers? Are they turning masculine then?




lol Yes. We are trying to grow hair on our chests so we can be ready for anything.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

Yes, with certain meats there is definitely the masculine power thing attached.
For example, if you were a waitress or worked in a diner/restaurant, and lets say a couple came in (man and woman) and their order was 120z steak, fries and salad PLUS chicken alfredo pasta with salad......... then although BOTH dishes are meat, most of us will quickly deduce that the steak is for him and the alfredo chicken is for her !

Therefore, meats like steak or chicken legs on the bone are much more likely to be ordered by a masculine man.- No doubt !

It is also not surprising that if you go into a classic diner on some major highway, you may across some ODD combinations like fried egg on steak which is most likely going to be ordered by well built and muscled Truckers or Hells angels. You wouldn't be surprised to see them order this for breakfast either !

I would say any meat that involves vigorous cutting or some skillful, heavy biting is always going to have a masculine adherent to it.
Whereas feminine will still order meats, but only one's that are well prepared/cut/de-boned or quite simply one's that can be eaten with just a fork without any heavy knife cutting.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

Luckysingh ji

Maybe you know more mild-mannered kaurs than I do.

One good kaur-friend always orders steak and eggs when we go to a diner for breakfast, and when she eats prime rib she stabs and slices and rushes the bleeding red chunks to her mouth as if she had not eaten in weeks. And she never orders chicken or alfredo or salad for that matter. She is also a diabetic. Should I build an entire theory about diabetics based on my solitary experiences.

p/s She is also silent as a tomb and will not utter a word until every shred of flesh is cleaned from the bone.

Another good kaur-friend hunts. She is certified in a number of weapons. For her 50th birthday her husband gave her a 22 calibre pistol for her collection. She keeps 2 freezers full of beef. She always buys a side of a cow and has it butchered and dressed within minutes of slaughter. These days her personal political mission is to make it legal for teachers to carry firearms in schools.

p/s Her husband's sister and mother also hunt. She fits right in.

I won't continue. Each and everyone is a unique experience. I don't see how we can come up with big truths based on individual cases. 

On the other hand, based on these 2 examples --- maybe women should be forbidden to eat meat. They should stick to shrimp. Then they will remain feminine.

All this meat eating by women must be what is changing the world. How is that for a gross generalizaton?


----------



## Ishna (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

My husband is a big vegetarian truckers type with a tattoo down the side of his head. He is a very blokey  bloke. Maybe he eats meat when Im not looking.

He also has his gun license but loves pet bunnies and ducks. Not sure which pigeon hole to put him in...


----------



## Seeker2013 (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

This thread wasn't supposed to generate gender debate . 

But the way someone hacked my account and posted a reply from my own account asking me to 'grow up' is not appreciated , but then maybe again , misusing their privileges is admin's habit and when you do things like that it gives a bad impression of the whole site ! 

WELL DONE !


----------



## Seeker2013 (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

I was just making random stuff up based upon my emotional interpretations ! 

I am not the only one with this 'emotional interpretations' then !

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/meat-men-masculinity_n_1524224.html


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*



Seeker2013 said:


> This thread wasn't supposed to generate gender debate .
> 
> But the way someone hacked my account and posted a reply from my own account asking me to 'grow up' is not appreciated , but then maybe again , misusing their privileges is admin's habit and when you do things like that it gives a bad impression of the whole site !
> 
> WELL DONE !




*Yes, a bad impression all the way around.

This is a very serious accusation veer ji... but I am not surprised. Nor is it funny, it appears you have amended your comment to make it seem like a joke.

For the sake of other forum members reading this, it is technically impossible for admin (either me or Admin Singh) to "hack" an account, or send an SPN private message to a member from that member's account.

 For now your membership will be suspended until a decision can be made. Even in jest an accusation of hacking is not a laughing matter.Both Admin ji and I are harmed by the suspicions raised by your words.

You have been given some time off to think about it. *


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*



spnadmin said:


> Luckysingh ji
> 
> Maybe you know more mild-mannered kaurs than I do.


 
I don't actually know many kaurs.
Maybe I have encountered the minority crowd all along... who knows and who really cares ?
My post was speaking in the generalization that we can find out there.

I have come across many articles in male magazines especially, about how more Men like to order meat instead of a veggie dish to feel more masculine or manly.
If you conduct a simple web search, you should find many articles and surveys that shout the same thing. 
To be honest, I know that I would often do this myself when out for a meal with the lads. Sometimes I would feel like trying some veggie stuff but probably felt a little sissy to order it whilst everyone else ordered different meats !! .... That was my own weakness back then and I am well past that stage now...it wouldn't happen today or tomorrow !


Anyway, it's a pointless discussion because we all have different experiences on a day to day basis. But when it comes to fine dining and eating at parties or functions, then things change on a whole even with drinks that get consumed and most of this is down to social and cultural settings. nothing to do with acting masculine, feminine or sissy.
Any Punjabi or Indian party caterer will confirm that most of the meat gets consumed by men and most of the veggie dishes go to the females !
I am sure that we have all seen this as a generalization at most punabi/indian functions that we may have attended.
I don't think it has any correlation with gays and their social settings for that matter.

I'm not going to waste any more energy on this matter as it only drains me spiritually. Instead, I shall go and meditate and clear this clutter from my mind whilst connecting with my true innerself.:singhsippingcoffee:


----------



## Ishna (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*



			
				Seeker2013 said:
			
		

> This thread wasn't supposed to generate gender debate .


 
Seeker ji, the discussion is naturally going to be about gender when the question is directly about such! How can it not?



			
				Seeker2013 said:
			
		

> But , really whats so masculine about chewing into steak ?


 
Responses thus far have generally been "nothing!" with a sprinkle of "steak isn't as feminine a meal as chicken or other dainty foods".

If you don't want to talk about gender, then don't start threads about it.

In Australia, meat is a very masculine food. BBQs are a very popular cultural activity, where we have an outdoor hotplate/grille, usually gas powered, where (generally) the men congreate drinking beer and cooking the meat, and the women sit around the table which they've prepared with salads and other snacks, drinking champagne.

The men are supposed to eat the majority of the meat and avoid what they call the 'rabbit food' (the salad). The women will still eat the meat, but they can also eat just the salad without risk of social faux pas.

I present Exhibit A for the jury:






Mmm, smell the testosterone.

We still have quite a social stigma in Australia regarding vegetarianism in general, and yes, men who are vegetarian tend to be seen as more effeminate, not because of physical development, but because the expectation is that men should eat meat.

Happily, as vegetarians are growing in number including male ones, the stigma will lessen, and we'll all be one big happy eating family.

And as a bonus prize, here's a link to a page about Vegetarian Athletes. http://www.unleashed.org.au/who_cares/vegetarian_athletes.php?athlete=bill-pearl 

Oh my! Well hello Mr Simmonds! :grinningkudi:


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

ishna ji

You have now made me wonder how much of our ideas about meat-eating are not shaped so much by gender (men v women) but culture in combination with cultural ideas about men and women.

The Mediterranean diet is much touted today for its healthy qualities. That is the diet I was raised with. Meat is eaten in moderation. Fish (apparently also a feminine food in some zones) adds variety to the diet, and much sought after variety. Many different cheeses are included. Vegetables abound. Salads are culturally mandated.  

I have vivid memories of uncles munching happily on salad soaked in vinegar and oil and sprinkled with Gorgonzola cheese after everyone else had their fill. No evening dinner ended without it. Meat was there but not every night, and certainly not red meat. They brought their eating habits from the old country, from the Mediterranean. Fish and other seafoods, and lots of it, could be cooked in a half-dozen ways. (You are really into this if you like octopus salad or the tentacles of squid stewed in tomato sauce. And that was for my uncles special order.)There are in the Mediterranean diet at least 6 ways to cook any green vegetable -- oh so savory. 

So much land around the Mediterranean was over-cultivated over centuries that most of it was good only for olive trees, small private vegetable plots that could be watered by hand, and chickens. Grazing lands were nil; so beef was expensive and rare. And then when the immigrants' children made good in new lands where red meat was plentiful, we all started to eat more beef, more veal, more pork. In new lands where there was open-space and meat was more plentiful, and people could afford it. Then we were told - Go on a Mediterranean diet.

So my ideas of what men eat and what women eat are colored by a different set of memories, experiences and associations. My father and uncles had not a good meal unless it began with a soup laced with shredded greens (this was a norm that traces back to the Roman legionnaires who brought many varieties of lettuce to northern Europe), it continued with good bread and just a little bit of meat (but just as often an omelette or fish), it might have included pasta or rice but not every day, and it ended with salad and cheese. And a salad was not a salad unless there were upwards of 6 different ingredients. Men and women ate essentially the same things. The idea that men would feel like sissies if they eat quiche doesn't compute for me. Friday night was fritatta night - a baked omelette filled with peppers, onions, potatoes and cheese - not that different from quiche. It was paired with white beans stewed with celery and with peppers roasted with garlic. Maybe there was also codfish, bluefish or a tuna salad or cold asparagus. 

Men were in charge of cooking certain things too; and women, other things. Men did not barbecue; men cleaned crabs and dressed a good bluefish. Women cooked just about everything. Right about now, in autumn, my grandfather and his friends would take over the kitchen and make sausage to dry for the winter. Both men and women baked bread and desserts.

Those are my experiences. That is how my ideas of what men eat were fine-tuned. When  I hear that 'men eat meat and that's just what men do' I might as well be hearing transmissions from Mars.  But then we know men are from Mars - or say what?


----------



## Kamala (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

I have never meet anyone calling someone "gay" because of what they eat!
Your sexuality isn't determined by what foods you eat lol.

Anyways, there are plenty of people in this world who are living proof that you can be fit and healthy with a lactose vegetarian diet/vegan (pure). 

Anyone that calls you gay for being vegetarian isn't worthy of attention and you do not have to associate with such people.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Brother Onam (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

Sat Sri Akaal,
I remember reading in the autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi that when he was a schoolboy, in colonial India, there was a ditty that was chanted: 
"Behold the mighty Englishman, he rules the Indian small; because he is a meat-eater, he stands (6 ft) tall."
So the perception even at that time was that it was the vegetarianism of the colonized that enabled the domination. In actual fact, of course, this is not true. I've lived among hundreds of strict vegans who were tall, strong, could outrun me by miles, and had ridiculous stamina and longevity (see Fauja Singh!). At the same time, in the U.S., where meat is eaten in great abundance, osteoporosis, diabetes, heart disease and obesity -all debilitating diseases- occur in record-breaking frequency.
If you feel compelled to get omega fatty acids, iron, protein or B12, these are all obtained in superior form, from walnuts, flax seeds, leafy greens, or natural supplements. The reason many species of sharks are on the endangered species list is because in Chinese 'culture' the eating of shark-fin soup is considered a ritual of verility, because the shark is big, strong and dangerous. It has neither flavour nor nutritional value, but is hunted to virtual extinction, to appease the desire to indulge in a food signifying dominance. 
People with real strength have no need to fall back on mis-guided and obsolete concepts of strength through blood-shed.:singhsippingcoffee:Waheguru


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*



Brother Onam said:


> Sat Sri Akaal,
> I remember reading in the autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi that when he was a schoolboy, in colonial India, there was a ditty that was chanted:
> "Behold the mighty Englishman, he rules the Indian small; because he is a meat-eater, he stands (6 ft) tall."
> So the perception even at that time was that it was the vegetarianism of the colonized that enabled the domination. In actual fact, of course, this is not true. I've lived among hundreds of strict vegans who were tall, strong, could outrun me by miles, and had ridiculous stamina and longevity (see Fauja Singh!). At the same time, in the U.S., where meat is eaten in great abundance, osteoporosis, diabetes, heart disease and obesity -all debilitating diseases- occur in record-breaking frequency.
> :singhsippingcoffee:Waheguru



The fact that meat makes you strong was also prevelant in Guru Gobind singh's time.I read one saakhi where some people asked Guru gobind singh that a turk can eat whole goat and we eat rice and lentils how could we fight with them.The fact is Almost everywhere warrior races used to eat meat  even in hinduism kshatriyas were allowed to eat meat. 

May be reason behind it is that fighting war is very heavy body exercise and body needs enormous amount of energy and protein which could had been easily obtained from meat.

As far diseases are concerned, Indians are more prone to Diabetes and heart diseases even if they are less obese and vegetarian. Its because of genetics

So Yes meat will always be associated with power and energy but for those people which are doing plenty of physical activity .For others the less they eat the better it is


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

Seeker Veera What does peace look like?


----------



## Harry Haller (Nov 4, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*



Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Seeker Veera What does peace look like?



they are small green and round, but the man is talking about meat here SPji


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Nov 4, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

Musketeer ji

He has not come to terms yet with what he is talking about ,it is another meet or the meeting of mind or himself for peace looks like you,if you look at your face in the mirror you can see if you are at peace,all other worries about meat or masculinity or reputation is just the need for a peace in mind.


----------



## AngloSikhPeace (Nov 4, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

Umm, if people got turned gay by not eating enough meat, then surely India wouldn't be the second most populated country in the world? lol


People seem to be born gay, and it might have something to do with testosterone exposure in the womb (hence the link with digit ration). It's not something that can easily be influenced by environmental factors like meat-eating and such.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 4, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?

What's the answer then ?


----------



## Ishna (Nov 4, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

Answer is it depends on the culture.

We have an example from Australian culture where it is, an example from Mediterranean culture where it isn't, and I think an example of American culture where it isn't. What about an example from Punjabi culture. Anyone?


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 4, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

I would say Punjabi culture definitely is.
Punjabi jatts(farmers) especially, are famous for eating meat and drinking home made desi(liquor)! ohh.... not forgetting the bhangra(bruaaahhh) dancing


----------



## Kamala (Nov 5, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

Depends on the area of the jatt people too.
The area of punjab where I come from, the jatts didn't eat meat (other than the rare druggies). The backwards caste people were known to eat meat in my area.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 5, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*



Kamala said:


> Depends on the area of the jatt people too.
> The area of punjab where I come from, the jatts didn't eat meat (other than the rare druggies). The backwards caste people were known to eat meat in my area.


 
Hey... so you hung out with the forward caste !..

Just kidding...

Yeh, I think I established that it was more a cultural thing that depends on social setting as well.
On the whole, it seems the macho men are the bigger meat eaters, although some will be adamant to disagree........
Not everything is black and white is it ?


----------



## another gupt (Nov 5, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

In ayurveda (indian science of food), meat is termed as "Pitta" , which basically means "heat " .. so meat increases the heat or kam (passion/lust/ physical energy) in your body. This is ok of you are fighting a war or doing a hard day's physical labour . But  as you age there comes a time when you have  overloaded your body with Pitta producing foods this eventually leads to disease.

 Women should be really careful and cut out meat especially during menopause because it interferes with the body.

Overall meat is not really good for those following a spiritual life because it influences mind.

The mind seeks to survive, compete and win - quite the opposite of following the guru's path.


----------



## aristotle (Nov 5, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*



> Overall meat is not really good for those following a spiritual life because it influences mind.



I wonder how...


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 5, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*

I believe we should clarify these are your opinions and experiences, another_gupt ji. These are not scientifically proved nor are they true from a gurmat point of view.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 5, 2013)

*Re: Is Eating Meat Associated with Masculinity and Power?*



> Overall meat is not really good for those following a spiritual life because it influences mind.


 
I think that the biggest food/influence for my MIND is  MAYA.
The only problem I am aware of is, -If trying to meditate and calm the mind after a meaty meal, you may feel over sleepy. But then again, you can also experience this with a meal of pasta, and especially if it is in a heavy cheesy sauce !


----------



## param_70 (Nov 5, 2013)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*

Waheguru Jiyo, do not listen to anyone (if you try to live according to the dictates of the great Gurus, Bhagats and Saints) and just ponder over this and hopefully you will be able to make up your mind about the unsettling question of whether we should eat meat or not:
siB Gt myry hau sBnw AMdir ijsih KuAweI iqsu kauxu khY ] 
_God says, all bodies are mine, and I am in all bodies. Who can explain this to one who is confused?
_hir mMdru eyhu srIru hY igAwin rqin prgtu hoie ]
_This body is the Temple of the Lord, in which the jewel of spiritual wisdom is revealed._
_hir mMdr mih hir vsY srb inrMqir soie ]
The Lord abides within the Temple of the Lord (human body). He is pervading in all.

So now just put two and two together and make four! God abides in one and all. Human body is a temple he himself made to reside in. You seem to be conscious of entering Gurudwara Saheb (a temple of brick and mortar we made) after eating meat but seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that you are throwing all kinds of dead animals in His temple when you eat meat. Does that not constitute desecration of the most glaring type? Think and you will find answer! Regarding vitamin mineral deficiencies, it's all rubbish! The more our information base is widening as a result of modern research, the more confused we are growing! If you don't agree, don't believe me go to Wikipedia, search Fauja Singh (and he is one of millions, if not billions who are vegetarians) and find for yourself this iconic man is a vegetarian. I sincerely pray to Waheguru may this help clear the cobwebs in your mind about meat eating. Remember Waheguru Jiyo when you tread the path of spirituality then one of the very first noble qualities that begin to rise up in your heart is compassion (daya). That is sure sign you are making headway on the road to God realization. Otherwise you could be deceiving yourself, unwittingly perhaps.  
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa!
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!!_


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 5, 2013)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*

The thread, "Can I go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat" has been merged with the thread "Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh"  spnadmin


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 5, 2013)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*

The thread Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh stands out as the SPN thread with the most views and the most replies. More emotions have also been spent at SPN on the topic of meat. We are more emotional about meat than about sexual grooming of Sikh girls in UK, remaining faithful to the 3 pillars of Sikhism, forced conversions in the SWAT, drug abuse and alcoholism in Punjab, forced marriages and honor killings, and many other subjects.

If commanded by unseen cosmic authorities to pick one and only one thread for SPN, based on popularity, and discard all the others, it would be this thread about eating meat. Meat seems to be more defining of Sikhi than SGGS or Bhai Gurdas ji. It would mean that SPN would no longer be Sikh Philosophy Network. SPN would become the Meat Philosophy Network or MPN. Who can explain to me how it comes to pass that "meat" seems more important than all other challenges to our identity, spirituality and way of life. Why is meat is more important and therefore more interesting than problems faced by our youth, the multifarious troubles of Punjab, loss of identity in the diaspora, remaining faithful to the 3 pillars of Sikhism.


----------



## aristotle (Nov 5, 2013)

> You seem to be conscious of entering Gurudwara Saheb (a temple of brick and mortar we made) after eating meat but seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that you are throwing all kinds of dead animals in His temple when you eat meat. Does that not constitute desecration of the most glaring type? Think and you will find answer!



Well, Guru Nanak Sahib performed this 'desecration of most glaring type' when he consumed deer meat at Snehat Teerth/Siddh Vati of Kurukshetra during the Solar eclipse to bust the myth that meateating during some religiously ordained time-periods leads to hell hereafter; and don't tell me no one knows that Guru Hargobind Sahib and Guru Gobind Sahib performed hunting occassionally. 

While our Guru Sahibans were rationalists and mythbusters, it is sad to observe that some of our own community are falling victims to these Taliban-like 'don't do this, don't do that' kind of exercises, none of which are mentioned in Sikh Rehat Maryada, perhaps we consider ourselves bigger Sikhs than the Rehat Maryada expects us to be.



> Regarding vitamin mineral deficiencies, it's all rubbish! The more our information base is widening as a result of modern research, the more confused we are growing!



I would say it is rubbish if I could. But, a normal vegetarian diet does suffer from nutritional inadequacy, and that is the prime reason primarily vegetarian societies like India suffer from alarming nutritional deficiencies, and fare poorly in some respects (say, Iron deficiency anaemia: www.hindawi.com/isrn/public.health/2012/765476/ ) as compared to financially poorer neighbours like Pakistan and Bangladesh. 

Not that a vegetarian person cannot live a healthy lifestyle, but it does require deliberate and careful management of diet and exercise, as compared to non-veg counterparts who get some nutrients comparatively easily. Anyways, vegetarianism should be out of choice(a considerable number of Atheists are Vegans/vegetarians too), and not out of 'guilt' to 'desecrate body temple'. Every gun need not be fired from religion's shoulders.


----------



## gurtej khubbar (Nov 19, 2013)

Eating meat is not even a discussion point. For me the more important question is how do we treat animals we are breeding for meat. I don't want to look back 100 years from now when we regret the way we treated animals the same way as we once treated slaves.

I try to buy real organic meat or eggs or vegetables as much as I can from ethical prospective and that's more important that discussing if I shud eat meat or not..


----------



## linzer (Nov 20, 2013)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*



spnadmin said:


> The thread Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh stands out as the SPN thread with the most views and the most replies. More emotions have also been spent at SPN on the topic of meat. We are more emotional about meat than about sexual grooming of Sikh girls in UK, remaining faithful to the 3 pillars of Sikhism, forced conversions in the SWAT, drug abuse and alcoholism in Punjab, forced marriages and honor killings, and many other subjects.
> 
> If commanded by unseen cosmic authorities to pick one and only one thread for SPN, based on popularity, and discard all the others, it would be this thread about eating meat. Meat seems to be more defining of Sikhi than Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji or Bhai Gurdas ji. It would mean that SPN would no longer be Sikh Philosophy Network. SPN would become the Meat Philosophy Network or MPN. Who can explain to me how it comes to pass that "meat" seems more important than all other challenges to our identity, spirituality and way of life. Why is meat is more important and therefore more interesting than problems faced by our youth, the multifarious troubles of Punjab, loss of identity in the diaspora, remaining faithful to the 3 pillars of Sikhism.


 
Spnadmin ji,
Absolutely!! The post I started about Sewa, which I consider to be one of the most important facets, of Sikhi, got five responses. What is up here?


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 20, 2013)

*Re: Can I Go to the Gurdwara after Eating a Tiny Bit of Meat?*



linzer said:


> Spnadmin ji,
> Absolutely!! The post I started about Sewa, which I consider to be one of the most important facets, of Sikhi, got five responses. What is up here?



It is strange linzer ji. I don't have an answer. Keep on with the sewa, all the ways you define it, and all the ways that are active in your life.


----------



## Kamala (Nov 20, 2013)

This thread always drives me nuts lol


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 20, 2013)

Kamala said:


> This thread always drives me nuts lol



just dont end up that way permanently...:swordfights:


----------



## Abneet (Dec 12, 2013)

*Not Eating Beef or Meat at all?*

I know there are many threads about it I wanted to make one nonetheless. I had a conversation with my Dad who is amritidhari, and he was lecturing me on why I should stop eating beef and meat. Let me summarize what he said and it might not be 100% what he said. 

He said that all animals have souls. They are reincarnated to all different kinds of animals. He then said eating a animal that has been brutally killed just for food intake is inhumane. But he says we live in a society that thinks nothing is wrong with it. He specifically told me the story with Guru Gobind Singh Ji killing the rabbit while hunting just to release his soul. The story is more broad, but I wanted to summarize it. 

Now modern Sikh society finds it acceptable to eat meat and beef some are not very fond of eating that. 

Guru Nanak Dev Ji says, “To take what rightfully belongs to another, is like a Muslim eating pork, or a Hindu eating beef. Our Guru, our Spiritual Guide, stands by us if we do not eat those carcasses. By mere talk, people do not earn Liberation. Salvation only comes from the practice of truth. By adding spices to forbidden foods, they are not made acceptable. O Nanak, from false talk, only falsehood is obtained” (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 141).

“Living by neglect and greed, the world eats dead carcasses. Like a goblin or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat. Control your urges, or else you will be thrown into the tortures of hell” (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 723).

How many of you Amritdhari's eat meat? In general to everyone whats your take on this.

Quotes found at http://www.realsikhism.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1248309400&ucat=7


----------



## Harry Haller (Dec 13, 2013)

*Re: Not Eating Beef or Meat at all?*



> *Q: Are the stories about Guru Ji eating meat true?*
> *A:* Many people write many misleading things. We suggest not to believe in any article if each act described in that article is not supported by references from Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
> Please let us know where in the Sikh scriptures it is written that Guru Ji ate  meat. Historians can be wrong, as they do not know what exactly  happened back then. Some historians have purposely created their own  stories in an attempt to hurt Sikhism. The Sikh scriptures are the only  true source of knowing the truth as they were written in that time.
> Stories also get twisted as they are passed from one person to another and one generation  to another. Sakhis written in Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Sau Sakhi are  the only true source and they all show again and again that Sikh Gurus were vegetarian and preached to live a vegetarian lifestyle. Not even once permitting of eating meat is mentioned in any Sikh Scripture.



lol lol lol lol


----------



## Ishna (Dec 13, 2013)

*Re: Not Eating Beef or Meat at all?*

Wow. It's one heck of a slippery slope making that argument. *sigh*

Abneet ji, you may want to peruse this extensive thread: http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 13, 2013)

*Re: Not Eating Beef or Meat at all?*

Just for the record:

Some amritdhari believe that eating meat is the 5th kurehit. The Sikh Rehat Maryada names only 4 kurehit and meat eating is not one of them. Meat eating is not forbidden by the SRM.

The Sau Sakhi are not anything more than a fraudulent group of writings mysteriously discovered in someone's backyard during the 19th Century. They are not considered a reliable authority on anything. During the 19th Century there was a concerted effort to inject many hindu teachings into Sikhism. That gave rise to the SinghSaba movement - to take Sikhi back from the mahants. We are alas still debating this today.

The only other authority than Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that is considered reliable are the vaars of Bhai Gurdas. Sau Sakhi do not trump his writings regarding the lives of the Gurus.

Finally, this thread will need to be merged later in the day with an existing thread "Fools who Wrangle over Flesh" because there are too many threads about meat and it becomes hard to keep track of.

Unfortunately I must contradict what you have been taught Abneet ji.


----------



## Abneet (Dec 13, 2013)

I didn't get to read the whole thread because I have been busy, but can one answer to me were all the gurus vegetarians and if they were vegetarians why did they choose a vegetarian lifestyle?


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 13, 2013)

Abneet ji

There is no evidence the Gurus were vegetarians. Today goats are slaughtered jatka style at Hazoori Sahib, a shrine to Guru Gobind Singh. Nihangs eat goats slaughtered jatka style. You don't have to read any sakhis for this information. You can go to India and see for yourself.

Guru Nanak incurred the wrath of devotees at a celebration of the solar eclipse in Haryana when he and Mardana partook of deer meat. His exchange with the irate worshipers is remembered in these verses:



> ਮਃ ੧ ॥
> Mėhlā 1.
> First Mehl:
> 
> ...



This thread derives its title from the words _mas mas kar murakh jhagre_ Take it from there.


----------



## Abneet (Dec 15, 2013)

I still haven't finished reading, but I am also curious if we believe in reincarnation and being reincarnated into different species why are we allowed to eat food that represents a dead animal. The animal of the meat I eat has a soul so is it wrong in a way that I'm supporting something immoral? Is there anything that backs up eating flesh of animal that once had a soul. Each species try to have a relationship with God if that is what we believe, so if I get reincarnated as a cow and i'm kept in a slaughterhouse whats the chances for me? I hope I made my question a little clear I'm just confused on this topic. I will finish the reading though.

Here's a link to an article I read about this topic that I though had some good points.

http://www.panthkhalsa.org/rahit/rahit_kuthha.php


----------



## Harry Haller (Dec 15, 2013)

Allow me to confuse you further, I do not believe in reincarnation, so most of your post makes no sense to me, although I accept it is a given facet of Sikhism. 

Allow me to take you back to the time of the first Guru, he looked at Islam, he looked at Hinduism, he felt both lacked a true meaning and were in fact rich in ritual and actions, rather than furthering an educated wise mind. 

'ok Lads, lets drop all the ritualistic stuff, and just concentrate on connection, live a life of love, help others, raise the human race', 

' uh ok, that sounds great, can we leave reincarnation in?'

'uhm well we could, but does it matter, I don't know what happens at death, we should concentrate on our time here'

'uhmmm ok, but we cannot get rid of the caste system, next you will be saying its ok to eat Beef'

'It is ok to eat Beef, or rather, it is irrelevent whether you eat it or not'

'but this is ridiculous, how can you possibly get close to God without rituals and rules'

'easy, through love, and thinking for yourself, not following rhetoric'

everyone nodded, and then proceeded to basically do what they did before, but they called themselves Sikhs. 

500 years later, we are still talking about animal souls being eaten, karma, rebirth, caste, meat, 

I do not believe in sweating the small stuff, only those who are perfect towards themselevs and those around them have the right to even think about this argument as it is irrelevent, what use is not eating meat and respecting souls if you treat your parents with little respect, if you are all for yourself, its a cop out, its something you do to justify your life, a bit like a Hail Mary, do what you want, think what you want, treat people how you want, but hey, don't eat meat, everything is good!


----------



## Brother Onam (Dec 15, 2013)

Harry Haller ji,
With all due respect, because I appreciate your emphasis on getting to the practical heart of spiritual practice, I don't understand how you can reconcile 'love' with eating beef.
Do you have a dog in your home? Should the occasion arrive that you for some reason needed to stab it in the heart, would you be able to feel loving then, too? A cow or a pig has fully as much personality, worth, and ability to feel pain and happiness as a pet, and yet, because of our hunger for meat, we willingly enter into a kind of schizophrenia in which we consign these poor animals to the status of 'food-animals', while we share much care and affection on our 'companion animals'. 
I agree with you that true spirituality all comes back down to a broad practice love, and I think also, mercy.
                                                   WaheGuru


----------



## Harry Haller (Dec 15, 2013)

> With all due respect, because I appreciate your emphasis on getting to  the practical heart of spiritual practice, I don't understand how you  can reconcile 'love' with eating beef.



easy, I love eating Beef!

What has eating beef, or indeed spiritual practice got to do with consonance with Creation? (ok I know its bad grammar but I have to go home to walk the dogs, in the rain, again)

I intend to try and buy some small piece of land in the future, where I will raise pigs and chickens, they will be raised with much love and respect, and then they will be eaten, I hope that answers your question Veerji.


----------



## Brother Onam (Dec 15, 2013)

No, it doesn't. But on we go. Peace


----------



## angrisha (Dec 15, 2013)

I think the only thing you really need to do is to do what makes the most sense to you on the path that you are on... there is no real right or wrong answer. The only reason this issue even comes up now is because we live in a world of excess, where we can actually choose what we want to eat... when you dont have as many options the choice is rather simple... you eat what you can get.



> The animal of the meat I eat has a soul so is it wrong in a way that I'm  supporting something immoral? Is there anything that backs up eating  flesh of animal that once had a soul. Each species try to have a  relationship with God if that is what we believe, so if I get  reincarnated as a cow and i'm kept in a slaughterhouse whats the chances  for me?



I never really understood this soul debate thing, because plants are just as alive as anything else. Everything we see, eat etc is all in its very essence Sat GuruJi, there is nothing in this world that isnt apart of that essence. So, its really splitting hairs from a 'soul' stand point. No matter what you eat, your always eating something with a soul..

From Anand Sahib Page 922

*ਏਹੁ ਵਿਸੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ਤੁਮ ਦੇਖਦੇ, ਏਹੁ ਹਰਿ ਕਾ ਰੂਪੁ ਹੈ; ਹਰਿ ਰੂਪੁ ਨਦਰੀ ਆਇਆ ॥ 
Ėhu vis sansār ṯum ḏekẖ▫ḏe ehu har kā rūp hai har rūp naḏrī ā▫i▫ā.*
This whole world which you see is the image of the Lord; only the   image of the Lord is seen.

ਗੁਰ ਪਰਸਾਦੀ ਬੁਝਿਆ ਜਾ ਵੇਖਾ ਹਰਿ ਇਕੁ ਹੈ; ਹਰਿ ਬਿਨੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਈ ॥
Gur parsādī bujẖi▫ā jā vekẖā har ik hai har bin avar na ko▫ī.
By Guru's Grace, I understand, and I see only the One Lord; there is no one except the Lord

The other thing is we assume that animals are 'less than us' or they are apart from god, when in reality ive come to believe that almost all other life on this planet is actually always linked with Sat Guru. They're not trying to have any type of relationship with anything, as they are constantly already apart of that essence.

JapJi sahib page 5

ਸਾਲਾਹੀ ਸਾਲਾਹਿ ਏਤੀ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਨ ਪਾਈਆ ॥ 
Sālāhī sālāhi eṯī suraṯ na pā▫ī▫ā.
The praisers praise the Lord, but they do not obtain intuitive understanding -

ਨਦੀਆ ਅਤੈ ਵਾਹ ਪਵਹਿ ਸਮੁੰਦਿ, ਨ ਜਾਣੀਅਹਿ॥
Naḏī▫ā aṯai   vāh pavahi samunḏ na jāṇī▫ahi.
the streams and rivers flowing into the ocean do not know its vastness.

ਸਮੁੰਦ ਸਾਹ ਸੁਲਤਾਨ ਗਿਰਹਾ ਸੇਤੀ ਮਾਲੁ ਧਨੁ ॥
Samunḏ sāh sulṯān girhā seṯī māl ḏẖan.
Even kings and emperors, with mountains of property and oceans of wealth -

ਕੀੜੀ ਤੁਲਿ ਨ ਹੋਵਨੀ; ਜੇ ਤਿਸੁ ਮਨਹੁ ਨ ਵੀਸਰਹਿ॥ ੨੩॥
Kīṛī ṯul na hovnī je ṯis manhu na vīsrahi. ||23||
these are not even equal to an ant, who does not forget God. ||23||

Your life unfolds the way its suppose to, your chances are just as good as one elses. No matter where you are, thats where your meant to be. Eating or not eating meat is a personal decision which is something you can decide on. It wont make you any more enlightened if that is your goal?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Dec 15, 2013)

When the GURU hunted and killed animals...it was made out to be that the GURU actually "Liberated" the animal's soul...a "rabbit" had actually been a Fallen Sikh from some other Gurus time..and he had been promised salvation by being killed by another Guru..how utterly ridiculous....Now that the Physically killing/hunting Guurs have been replaced by the SGGS...what happens to all thsoe "allegedly fallen sikhs"..who is going to liberate their souls by shooting them ?? OR have all of them been disposed off by within 1469-1708 and that chapter of liberation of souls is closed ?? Nihungs at Hazoor sahib continue to liberate souls daily by chopping off heads..BUT ALL the souls they liberate are ONLY those in GOAT BODIES...If a fallen Sikh got any other body..then sorry...we simply dont realise how utterly foolish the stories we place at our Gurus feet really are...liberating souls..indeed...and ONLY a solitary rabbit/snake//and a lion that Guru hargobind ji hunted and killed..and the Gurus soul liberation is DONE !! GET REAL Folks...:swordfight-kudiyan::japosatnamwaheguru:


----------



## illykitty (Jan 2, 2014)

A question, in Sikhism, do love and compassion include or exclude non-human animals?

The reasons for not eating meat are numerous, some good some misplaced, but most people I know (I'm in the UK) do it for compassion, empathy, love, environment and causing as little suffering as possible. If you think of world hunger too, you can feed a lot more people with 1 pound of grain vs 1 pound of meat.

If you eat meat, you kill both plants -in larger quantities- and animals. If you only eat plants, much less lives are lost. Also, a lot of countries use factory farms, which are horrible beyond words.

Plus meat has huge effects on environmental damage. For 1 pound of meat (I presume beef), 13 pounds of grain is fed, 2,464 gallons of water is used, a lot more land too. Compare that to the tiny 25 gallons needed for 1 pound of wheat. There's many other reasons too (methane, fossil fuels, faeces contaminating water, top soil erosion etc) but I'm already thinking this post is getting too long.

This is something to ponder about and come to conclusions for one's self.
Credit for some info: http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/the-environmental-impact-of-a-meat-based-diet/


----------



## Harry Haller (Jan 3, 2014)

> A question, in Sikhism, do love and compassion include or exclude non-human animals?


In Sikhism there are no hard and fast rules that have to be followed (in my view everything flows as per grace of Creator, including what some would call rules), the essence of the truth is what Sikhism is all about, I eat animals, I also have much love and compassion for animals. When one embraces the truth, one is able to live in the real world and be able to use logic and discretion to live by that truth. Sikhism is not reading rules and then following them, Sikhism is understanding how the world, the universe works, and by taking ones place as a cog in the system.

Personally, I do not think your post is relevant until human starvation and misery have been dispensed with.


----------



## illykitty (Jan 3, 2014)

harry haller said:


> Personally, I do not think your post is relevant until human starvation and misery have been dispensed with.



I'm not sure I understand your point... Are you saying that humans starving is a bigger problem? Then yes I agree but being veg isn't hard and if someone seriously thinks that's "enough" of a contribution to the world, then they have serious ego issues!

Besides, I said in my previous post how much more resources are used to feed animals and "If you think of world hunger too, you can feed a lot more people with 1 pound of grain vs 1 pound of meat." If those 13 pounds of grain don't go to 1 pound of meat, then what could we do with it instead?

Anyway, I don't see how doing one thing keeps you from doing the other... I think it actually might help instead seeing how everything is connected.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jan 3, 2014)

> I'm not sure I understand your point... Are you saying that humans  starving is a bigger problem? Then yes I agree but being veg isn't hard  and if someone seriously thinks that's "enough" of a contribution to the  world, then they have serious ego issues!



Again, in my opinion, Sikhism does not turn us all into new age meditating veggies obsessed with mother earth and preserving the balance of life, Sikhism is about living in consonance with our surroundings, it is about eating animals, but showing some respect, it is about wearing leather, but also being grateful to the animal, a contribution to the world can take place in many ways, some contributions are in my view, merely lip service, some contributions are not, this is not a competition to see who contributes more, however, as is clearly written in the SGGS, the book that we hold dear, only fools wrangle over flesh, so every moment wasted debating this, is a moment that we could be contributing, to that end, the argument is moot. 

However, as an animal lover, I would consider the veg way but purely on personal grounds, not because of a religion, or a way of life, but even then, it would be my own decision, and I would not dream of foisting it onto anyone else.


----------



## illykitty (Jan 3, 2014)

harry haller said:


> Again, in my opinion, Sikhism does not turn us all into new age meditating veggies obsessed with mother earth and preserving the balance of life, Sikhism is about living in consonance with our surroundings, it is about eating animals, but showing some respect, it is about wearing leather, but also being grateful to the animal, a contribution to the world can take place in many ways, some contributions are in my view, merely lip service, some contributions are not, this is not a competition to see who contributes more, however, as is clearly written in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the book that we hold dear, only fools wrangle over flesh, so every moment wasted debating this, is a moment that we could be contributing, to that end, the argument is moot.
> 
> However, as an animal lover, I would consider the veg way but purely on personal grounds, not because of a religion, or a way of life, but even then, it would be my own decision, and I would not dream of foisting it onto anyone else.



"New age meditating veggies obsessed with mother earth and preserving the balance of life" to me sounds dismissive on how important nature and the Earth are to human lives. Our lives totally depends on it. If we are not careful, what will happen? More people will starve, so problems will only get worse. Wouldn't then all previous efforts by Sikhs (to help starving people) be pointless?

You're right it's not a competition. It's trying the best you can. It's up to each person to decide what that is and keep trying.

"Time wasting" is a little bit of a strange argument but perhaps it's because regardless of religion, I feel the Earth is important to our lives and since vegetarianism (or just eating less meat) has an impact on that, it's a valuable thing to discuss. If it's part of Sikhi or not, that's not my place to say since I barely scratched the surface of this wonderful path.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jan 3, 2014)

> "Time wasting" is a little bit of a  strange argument but perhaps it's because regardless of religion, I feel  the Earth is important to our lives and since vegetarianism (or just  eating less meat) has an impact on that, it's a valuable thing to  discuss. If it's part of Sikhi or not, that's not my place to say since I  barely scratched the surface of this wonderful path.



I cannot fault anything you have said above, and if we were on a food and lifestyle forum, or a wicca forum, my reply would have been hugely different, however, this is a Sikh forum, and my interpretation of Sikhism is that it does not matter a hoot whether you eat meat or not, what does matter is how you think, act and speak. 

Again from a personal view, I share what you have written and relate to it completely


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Jan 4, 2014)

illykitty said:


> A question, in Sikhism, do love and compassion include or exclude non-human animals?
> 
> The reasons for not eating meat are numerous, some good some misplaced, * but most people I know (I'm in the UK) do it for compassion, empathy,  love, environment and causing as little suffering as possible.*


Welcome to the forum illy ,thanks for lovely post .


its same reason why i am veggie   and i feel  its  also encouraged   in Sikhi .


----------



## Brother Onam (Jan 4, 2014)

It's always amazing and dismaying to me to hear otherwise sensible people making plenty justifications and equivocations about how it's fine to eat meat _and _love animals, or how it's possible to be compassionate _and _feed the hunger to devour flesh. The belly can do that. 
To say that Sikhi has nothing to say about meat-eating is fatuous. We are called to be saintly; we ought to exhibit the same consciousness and mercy and grace that Har Har continually blesses us with. Sikhi also has very little to say about gang-rape, but among saintly people there is a consensus that _this_ brutality is abhorrent. Does it all need to be spelled out in scripture before we admit there is a higher and a lower way to nourish ourselves?
As IllyKitty so lucidly said, meat-eating, especially the industrialized, systematized method of meat production people depend on for their flesh foods, is a most nasty,  irresponsible, and environmentally destructive business. To dismiss this as hippy, tree-hugger new-age mumbo-jumbo is infantile. We all have so much growing to do; I feel we are truly in the dark ages.

 “I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.” 
― Leonardo da Vinci


----------



## aristotle (Jan 5, 2014)

Meat eating or not, is as big a debate in the secular world as it is in the religious world. Everyone is free to make their own choices but they should not be in the form of intellectual arrogance dismissing the other party's views as hypocritical or something like that. Not eating meat does not make one a better person, nor does eating meat make one a savage or an enemy of animals. Everything stems from the facts we tend to assume at our convenience.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jan 5, 2014)

Brother Onam said:


> It's always amazing and dismaying to me to hear otherwise sensible people making plenty justifications and equivocations about how it's fine to eat meat _and _love animals, or how it's possible to be compassionate _and _feed the hunger to devour flesh. The belly can do that.
> To say that Sikhi has nothing to say about meat-eating is fatuous. We are called to be saintly; we ought to exhibit the same consciousness and mercy and grace that Har Har continually blesses us with. Sikhi also has very little to say about gang-rape, but among saintly people there is a consensus that _this_ brutality is abhorrent. Does it all need to be spelled out in scripture before we admit there is a higher and a lower way to nourish ourselves?
> As IllyKitty so lucidly said, meat-eating, especially the industrialized, systematized method of meat production people depend on for their flesh foods, is a most nasty,  irresponsible, and environmentally destructive business. To dismiss this as hippy, tree-hugger new-age mumbo-jumbo is infantile. We all have so much growing to do; I feel we are truly in the dark ages.
> 
> ...




Your argument in the world today is completely moot, unfortunately animal products go way beyond just what we eat, but in every aspect of our lives, so, you may well avoid meat, but is that far enough? so firstly, no meat, secondly, no leather or animal skins, thirdly, nothing that has animal products in it, fats or margarines, I could go on, tyres, sugar, although I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this link, it makes interesting reading

http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.html

I am sure given the time, I could probably come up with accurate and verifiable links to prove this point. 

So, if you truly wish to practice what it is you are preaching, it may mean a lot more changes to your life than simply not eating meat. 

Of course the alternative would be to live on a smallholding and not venture out of your home, grow your own food, and finally be satisfied that you are not contributing to animal murder.

I am not prepared to do that, and although the argument for being a veggie, from an animal suffering point of view, is compelling, unless you go the whole hog (sorry, couldnt resist), it seems pretty pointless.

Lets face it, even if you choose the vegan alternatives, you have no choice over the transport methods used to ship them to the store, like it or not, dead animals are now ingrained in our consumer society,.

I guess the intelligent thing to do would be to spend all this precious debating time on more important subjects that actually require thought and interaction, roads that we should be trekking down, not roads that have little consequence to our growing as Sikhs.


----------



## illykitty (Jan 7, 2014)

harmanpreet singh said:


> Welcome to the forum illy ,thanks for lovely post .
> 
> 
> its same reason why i am veggie   and i feel  its  also encouraged   in Sikhi .



From what I read so far, there isn't much rules in Sikhi but each person sets their own standards and tries their best. So when it comes to being vegetarian, I'm inclined to think it's up to the individual.

But thinking "unless you're 100% perfect, all your actions are useless". It's like saying there's too many hungry people, whatever you do isn't enough (you can ALWAYS do more) so let's not do anything about it. I understand being humble but that's not it, that's being defeatist.

I refuse to have that outlook because with it, every action is useless so what's the point of trying? Getting basic humans needs to everyone and environmental issues are never going to be solved with this sort of thinking. And if one feels superior to another by doing actions, it's not because the actions are bad or useless it's because there's a problem in that person's character.

Maybe you can't prevent 100% suffering but you can try your best. You can't 100% prevent hunger, but you can try your best... And everyone's best is different.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 6, 2014)

Kala Afghana on Non-Vegetarianism

*1.* The Adi Granth does not concern itself with either vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism. 

*2.* Whereas the Adi Granth expounds at length about the need to abandon various vices, it says nothing about the need to abandon non-vegetarian diets. 

*3.* The Adi Granth does not attempt to pass judgement on the dietary components required for maintaining a healthy human body. 

The Adi Granth does, however, recommend against consuming substances that either cause grief or generate mental turbulence. 

*4.* Those that choose to dwell on the consumption of substances rather than focus their minds on remembering God have been derided by the Adi Granth ('consumed by the desire for substances'). 

This 'desire' can be either for a single substance or for a number of substances. 

It is worth noting that the Adi Granth mentions the desire for meat at the very end of a list of nine desires: 

'The desires for gold, silver, women, fragrances,' 

'horses, beds, palaces, sweets, and meat.' 

(Verse 43/1, p. 34) [Guru Nanak, Adi Granth, p. 15] 

It is clear from Guru Nanak's verse (above) that he accords meat a status similar to gold, silver, women, fragrances, horses, beds, palaces, and sweets. 

To forget God and remain obsessed with substances is 'desire.' 

For those that are immersed in the rememberance of God, no substance is 'desirous.' 

To obsess unduly on meat, i.e. only one of the nine desires acknowledged by the Adi Granth, is tantamount to ignoring the fundamental messages of the Adi Granth. 

*5.* To attach undue importance to matters of eating and drinking rather than focusing on remembering God has been termed by our Gurus as harmful to the pursuit of a spiritual lifestyle. Furthermore, our Gurus have placed meat on par with other superior substances such as fruit, butter, jaggery, and refined flour. 

'What good are fruits, butter, sweet jaggery, refined flour, and meat?' 

(Verse 44/2, p. 34) [Guru Nanak, Adi Granth, p. 142] 

Verses such as the one above make it abundantly clear that it is not incorrect to view meat on par with other superior substances such as gold, silver, butter, jaggery, and refined flour. 

*6.* Bhai Randhir Singh and other writers opposed to non-vegetarian diets have omitted verses that do not suit their purpose. 

Consequently, these writers have zoomed in on just two of Guru Nanak's verses, namely: 'Mortals are first conceived in flesh and subsequently dwell on flesh' and 'Fools argue about flesh and meat but know little about meditation and spiritual wisdom.' (Guru Nanak, Adi Granth, p. 1289). 

Even these two verses have only been mentioned out of compulsion since the Sikh community is already exposed to these verses. Preachers, Guru Nanak's biographies, and other historical texts have widely publicized these verses due to their said reference to Guru Nanak's visit to Kurukshetra. 

Nevertheless, these writers have tried their level best to distort the meanings of these verses. 

Clearly, Bhai Randhir Singh has been guided not by an in-depth understanding of the Adi Granth but by his own agenda, wishes, and desires.<SUP>1</SUP> 

*7.* The meat that Muslim's have always referred to as 'halal' began to be referred to by brahmins as 'kutha' meat of the 'malech.' 

*8.* The following are the reasons why Sikhs were forbidden from eating kutha meat: 

*a.* During Mughal rule, kutha meat was used to destroy the Hindu faith. 

Eating kutha meat resulted in spiritual weakness among Hindus. 

*b.* According to Mughal law, Hindus were neither permitted to keep weapons at home nor allowed to cook and eat any form of meat. 

Sikhism's tenth Guru, Gobind Singh, placed two major impediments in the way of Mughal oppression via his decision to a) arm the Sikhs and b) ban Sikhs from consuming spiritually detrimental katha food preparations. 

*9.* Only those Adi Granth verses that refer to Islam have used the term 'kutha.' Otherwise, the terms 'kuh' or 'kuhi' (slaughter) have been employed. 

Therefore, it is clear that the convention of referring to meat prepared in the Muslim style as 'kutha' existed at least since Guru Nanak's time. 

*10.* The body may die, but never the soul. 

*11.* Mankind (as opposed to God) has devised different names for identifying the various types of externally distinguishable living organisms. 

It is mankind that considers it sinful to eat certain living organisms and not others.<SUP>A</SUP> 

*12.* The Adi Granth has compared the bodies of living organisms to gowns, clothing, etc. 

Therefore, it is mankind that has invented convenient terminology such as flour, meat, spinach, wood, etc. to refer to various bodies/coverings/clothing. 

Disputes over the difference between spinach and meat are simply the result of either human ignorance or mischief. 

*13.* The human body is unique among all other species. 

This is because of all species God has awarded the ability to distinguish moral right from wrong only to humans. 

*14.* Only the human mind is capable of yearning for relief from sorrow or attainment of happiness. 

All other species lack the ability to yearn. 

*15.* The Adi Granth only works on diseases of the human mind. 

It is a recipe for winning the world by being victorious over the human mind. 

The Adi Granth teaches us how to channel the immense forces of the human mind into positive directions. 

The Adi Granth has to do with the soul. 

None of the great holy books preaches about the welfare of living creatures. 

We have continuously been engaged in the endeavor of reigning in the human mind. 

*16.* The Adi Granth frequently refers to the human body as rare (unique) or God's temple. 

The human body has been likened to a horse that carries the soul into God's country and a ladder that helps humans climb great heights to reach God's palaces. 

It is for this reason that the human body is supreme among eighty-four lakh (84 times 100,000) species.<SUP>2</SUP> 

Therefore, human society did not accept the idea of eating human flesh. 

All other species such as animals, birds, insects, and micro-organisms are ingested into the human body in one form or another. In many other ways these animals and birds are slave to the superior human species.<SUP>3</SUP> 

*17.* Eating and drinking are pure acts. However, the Adi Granth code of conduct places restrictions on the consumption of those substances which humans have manifested as desires that either harm the human body or cause grief. 

*18.* Humans have treated meat as a part of their diet since ancient times. 

Even today there are several peoples on this earth whose primary diet consists of animals, birds, and fish. 

*19.* All living things - including lentils, vegatable oils, insects, micro-organisms, animals, and birds - possess equivalent life. 

Our merciful behavior toward animals and birds should include every effort toward attention to their diet and comfort, protection from their mistreatment as beasts of burden, offering relief from pain and suffering.<SUP>4</SUP> 

Whenever treatment is not feasible, it is merciful to assist helpless animals by sparing them pain and discomfort by ending their life swiftly via a blow to the head, electricity, etc. 

*20.* No faith founder has campaigned against the trade of millions of pounds of meat, fish, and eggs - trade in non-vegetarian commodities continues just as seamlessly as trade in grains. 

Since ancients times animals and birds have been cultivated and harvested for trade just like crops. 

*Conclusion:* 

Therefore, to raise issues pertaining to vegetarianism and non-vegetarianism is sheer foolishness. 

The decision regarding whether or not to consume non-vegetarian diet should be upto each individual. 

Neither does one become sinful by consuming meat nor does one become pious by renouncing meat. 

The Adi Granth, which embodies the spirit of Guru Nanak, does not attempt to define restrictions pertaining to religious duties and horoscopes?. 

Let us not distort the true import of the following verse from our Guru: 

'Fools argue about flesh and meat but know little about meditation and spiritual wisdom.' [Guru Nanak, Adi Granth, p. 1289] 

'Which is meat? Which is spinach? Which is sinful?' [Guru Nanak, Adi Granth, p. 1289] 
http://www.sikhtimes.com/books_090803a.html


----------



## Randip Singh (Apr 15, 2014)

Oh My God.

Are people still arguing? Read the first post before commenting. If you do not do that you're making yourself look really silly. Do not mix Vaishnavism with Sikhism.

So far all I'm reading is vegetarians trying to push their own point of view. Please  drop this Hankaar. I live in the UK and they eat meat here, yet cruelty laws against animals are the most harshest in the world.  :kaurkhalsaflagblue:

...and please do not distort Bani to suit your own agenda. That is the trust of the "Fools who wrangle over flesh!"


----------



## angrisha (Apr 16, 2014)

Im sorry, but the environmental debate is just silly....  I was trying not to respond as Ive expressed my views earlier but it just seems ludicrous

How much of our deforestation is happening secondary to ariguluture? The crops that  sell are planted in favour of those that would most likely aid in the species diversity of any give region.... the coffee industry for example has led to vast deforestation and and top soil loss in much of south america. In addtion, the major crops we eat in the industrilized world are from GMO's (which Im not against either per say).... How about all the chemicals and pesticides that get sent into ground water, and what about the poor insects we kill on top of it? Let alone transportation methods... 

I see a rash double standard here, you talk about environmental impact or lack of empathy for animals but our agriculture industry isn't innocent either...


Honestly, do what feels best for you in your body....


----------



## Sherdil (Apr 16, 2014)

I think the whole point of this shabadh was to show that people do not understand what meat and flesh is. They make a distinction between plants and animals, without realizing they are both living things. Who are we to say that we don't cause plants suffering when we pluck them and cut them down. That's why Guru Nanak talks about the sugar cane being cut and ground up, in this very shabadh.


----------



## Canada (Jun 21, 2014)

angrisha said:


> Im sorry, but the environmental debate is just silly....  I was trying not to respond as Ive expressed my views earlier but it just seems ludicrous
> 
> How much of our deforestation is happening secondary to ariguluture? The crops that  sell are planted in favour of those that would most likely aid in the species diversity of any give region.... the coffee industry for example has led to vast deforestation and and top soil loss in much of south america. In addtion, the major crops we eat in the industrilized world are from GMO's (which Im not against either per say).... How about all the chemicals and pesticides that get sent into ground water, and what about the poor insects we kill on top of it? Let alone transportation methods...
> 
> ...



You're not against GMO food but you're worried about the chemicals?
You do realize they're one and the same, right? lol


----------



## Canada (Jun 21, 2014)

Sherdil said:


> I think the whole point of this shabadh was to show that people do not understand what meat and flesh is. They make a distinction between plants and animals, without realizing they are both living things. Who are we to say that we don't cause plants suffering when we pluck them and cut them down. That's why Guru Nanak talks about the sugar cane being cut and ground up, in this very shabadh.



Guru Nanak said this hundreds of years ago.
We now know that pain comes from the nervous system, and plants don't have a nervous system, but animals do.
Are we not allowed to consider new knowledge in our deliberations?


----------



## Ishna (Jun 21, 2014)

Actually there is some evidence to suggest that plants do have some sort of electrical signal that is sent from an injured branch down to the roots.  I'll find the documentary for you later on today.


----------



## Ishna (Jun 22, 2014)

As promised... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGLABm7jJ-Y


----------



## Canada (Jun 22, 2014)

Ishna said:


> Actually there is some evidence to suggest that plants do have some sort of electrical signal that is sent from an injured branch down to the roots.  I'll find the documentary for you later on today.





Ishna said:


> As promised...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGLABm7jJ-Y




Ok, so a plant receives an electrical signal when injured. Does it do this for self-preservation? Does it "feel" it? This implies that plants have consciousness.

I hardly see how this justifies eating meat or these issues I've posted about here: http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/controversies/38652-told-dad-meat-not-forbidden-he-14.html#post198042

So basically you're saying because there are electrical signals in plants, that they may or may not interpret as pain - since they don't have nerve cells, a brain, and may or may not have a mind/consciousness. 
But that makes it OK to kill an animal who clearly does have a brain, mind and consciousness.. that will scream in pain and look you in the eye? Give me a break.

A dead animal's body will jolt around if you shock it with electricity. Does it feel the pain then? Really, I'm not very shocked by these experiments; clearly every living thing has an electromagnetic field and uses pulses to communicate among its parts and cells.. this does not imply the capacity to feel pain, suffering, emotions, or anything at all.

Part of my last point on the subject in the thread I've linked above is the use of GMO plants and pesticides/insecticides and fungicides. We are genetically modifying the plant, spraying it with chemicals and poisoning ourselves in the process. Does the plant feel pain from all that? Does it cry out and ask us to stop? Well, perhaps it does; by giving us cancer? Who knows? 

The point is; if I were in front of a cow, pig, or cat for that matter! (what's the difference really? right? you can't put a cat above the others if plants can't even be safe to eat).. and I had to kill it, or eat a plant... well, the animals would beg me to stop hurting them, they would weep and attack me back. There would then be blood everywhere and it would reek of death. If I eat the plant, nothing happens; at most, some interruption in an electromagnetic field. So, about the equivalent of getting a text message on a cell phone. Does your phone feel pain? How about the dead animals and plants that are in the oil, that go into the plastic to make your phone? Do they feel pain too? These questions are all so inane and pointless; as Guru Nanak Ji has said.

Nature has provided us with these plants for a reason - we need to eat. Animals are not here to be abused and enslaved. There are people who do this who do not even eat the animals, it's not a question of diet; it's ethical. Ever been to a zoo? Do the animals look happy? Can they feel emotion? Obviously. Do plants in a conservation area look sad?

Sigh.


----------



## Sashahere (Jun 22, 2014)

harry haller said:


> Again, in my opinion, Sikhism does not turn us all into new age meditating veggies obsessed with mother earth and preserving the balance of life, Sikhism is about living in consonance with our surroundings, it is about eating animals, but showing some respect, it is about wearing leather, but also being grateful to the animal, a contribution to the world can take place in many ways, some contributions are in my view, merely lip service, some contributions are not, this is not a competition to see who contributes more, however, as is clearly written in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the book that we hold dear, only fools wrangle over flesh, so every moment wasted debating this, is a moment that we could be contributing, to that end, the argument is moot.
> 
> However, as an animal lover, I would consider the veg way but purely on personal grounds, not because of a religion, or a way of life, but even then, it would be my own decision, and I would not dream of foisting it onto anyone else.



http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/india/42275-sikh-enviornment-day-celebrations-ecosikh-sees.html


----------



## Ishna (Jun 22, 2014)

Canada/Sashahere

Sharing information for your benefit, Ji.  There is much we still don't know about our world.


----------



## Canada (Jun 23, 2014)

Ishna said:


> Canada/Sashahere
> 
> Sharing information for your benefit, Ji.  There is much we still don't know about our world.



Ignorance is not a justification for mass-murder, poisoning the land and water, and in the process, poisoning ourselves.

That and I have realized, by reading blog posts, that most of the people we are talking to are 'giving up' on Sikhi and feel they've gained nothing from it anyway... so why am I wasting my time??

Here's a nice picture I've had on my computer for a while that summarizes how I feel about the "information" you've given us;







I think I've got BINGO by now!


----------



## Ishna (Jun 23, 2014)

You sure are making a lot of rude assumptions for someone who doesn't even know me.

Try calming down a bit.  You catch more flies with honey.


----------



## Canada (Jun 23, 2014)

Ishna said:


> You sure are making a lot of rude assumptions for someone who doesn't even know me.
> 
> Try calming down a bit.  You catch more flies with honey.



I said "most", doesn't mean you.

But.

"Sikhi: Gone."
Posted Yesterday.

I don't take kindly to people who try to justify murder by asking if plants feel sad. Even if they do, there's no reason to be murdering beings that are obviously sentient; can cry, yell, have children and raise them, and look you right in the eye. I'm sorry you can't see how that could upset someone, I'm sorry you're so desensitized to murder that when confronted with the reality of it, you resort to ridiculous arguments.

Like I said in my last comment.. I'm wasting my time, and this is the first time I've bothered to try to talk about being vegetarian on the internet because I know this happens.
So, I'm done talking about it. 

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.


----------



## Ishna (Jun 23, 2014)

Thank you for reading my blog. You still don't know anything about me though (i.e. vegetarian 7 years and counting).

I understand you're passionate about vegetarianism, as are many people, which is why this thread has had over 100,000 views by itself. 

However, kindly stop with the attitude towards me and other posters, please. You can debate issues without resorting to personal judgements. And the meat issue is a big issue in Sikhi and you're going to come across it A LOT (so get used to it).

Gurfateh


----------



## Canada (Jun 23, 2014)

Ishna said:


> Thank you for reading my blog. You still don't know anything about me though (i.e. vegetarian 7 years and counting).
> 
> I understand you're passionate about vegetarianism, as are many people, which is why this thread has had over 100,000 views by itself.
> 
> ...



A vegetarian who insists on helping carnivores justify their murder?
Please. I do come across it all the time, it's true. But I just don't bother associating with anyone who decides to knowingly murder innocent lives and, in the process, destroy the environment. Thankfully, I am surrounded by vegans/vegetarians and environmentally minded people.
I assure you I won't be doing it anymore, because I won't be posting here at all. I never meet any Sikhs in real life who are like this - and I'm not just talking about the meat issue.
I'm quite disappointed to be honest. We can dance around the issue as long as we like; but the fire is getting bigger. Fortunately, in real life, I am doing something to help.. but the internet is where ideas come to die. So, I implore you to keep dancing; it is surely much like Shiva's dance in the flames.


----------



## arshi (Jun 23, 2014)

Canada ji

Waheguru ji ka.Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh

Please don't give up posting. Wand shakna, sharing the rewards of our toil, including knowledge, is one of the cornerstones of Sikhi. I know you are aware of this. I, personally have felt frustrated sometimes and often drawn comments which irritated me. Sikhi teaches us to be tolerant and humble.... I keep reminding myself and this keeps me going. 

Ishna ji comes across to me as a very sincere person and as an avid learner constantly asks questions. She's only trying to help.

I found your posts extremely interesting and informative .... Please Kindly DO continue.

Humbly.

Rajinder Singh 'Arshi'


----------



## Canada (Jun 23, 2014)

arshi said:


> Canada ji
> 
> Waheguru ji ka.Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh
> 
> ...



Rajinder Singh Ji,

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Thank you for your support and kind words, but I will be refraining from posting; at least on this topic. I have a lot of work to do elsewhere and this is just becoming a distraction, and quite honestly an unnecessary stress.
I assure you that I will continue to share my knowledge to the best of my ability (in fact, that's what the aforementioned "work" is about), but I have no need to preach or continue try to reason with those who have already made up their minds long ago and have armed themselves to the teeth to protect their views.

Since I have again posted in this thread, I should remain on topic, so.. a quote! Since I don't want to say anything more :happysingh:

"Truly man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others, we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men" - Leonardo da Vinci


----------



## arshi (Jun 25, 2014)

Dear Canada ji

Waheguru ji ka.Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh

Please accept my apologies for a belated response

*You wrote:*



> _*I have a lot of work to do elsewhere and this is just becoming a distraction, and quite honestly an unnecessary stress.*_



I can understand where you are coming from. It is hard to balance things and it all depends on your other engagements, activities, interests and social obligations (not to forget one’s spouse ha..ha). Forums can become an all consuming activity often dragging us away from other equally, if not more important, commitments. 

My post on the 23rd June is the first on this thread. Although, I abstain from meat, I have not engaged in the debate on this forum. This is one area which, IMHO, will never be resolved - at least not in my lifetime (what is left of it – I am in my early seventies). I do not say this in any ‘holier than though attitude as I did indulge many years ago.



> _*I assure you that I will continue to share my knowledge to the best of my ability (in fact, that's what the aforementioned "work" is about)*_



I am really pleased to hear that as I am convinced *you have a lot to offer*. I, too, have cut down, drastically, on my lecturing activity and hope to devote more time to music, my first love, which has manifested in _kirtan _performances and hopefully, health permitting, recordings whenever I get the opportunity. Reading, researching and translating Gurbani is my passion. Walking the Sikhi path as per Guru’s message is my constant prayer and aspiration.

Rajinder Singh ‘Arshi’


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jun 25, 2014)

Arshi ji writes:



> My post on the 23rd June is the first on this thread. Although, I abstain from meat, I have not engaged in the debate on this forum. This is one area which, IMHO, will never be resolved - at least not in my lifetime (what is left of it – I am in my early seventies). I do not say this in any ‘holier than though attitude as I did indulge many years ago.



Arshi ji,

Guru Fateh.

There is nothing to resolve in this. We, as humans have to consume life in order to survive. There is no other way and no ifs or buts about it either. Gurbani is the proof in this very subject. 

Having said that, it is up to the individual what kind of life he/she consumes.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## arshi (Jun 25, 2014)

Tejwant ji, I was referring to the debate in general on foums and otherwise and not on a personal basis - I am quite at peace with individuals making their own choices. 

R.S. 'Arshi'


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 6, 2014)

Oh I do so love this article and watching people throw mooli's and drum sticks at each other without even taking time out to understand the underlying message. 

 
The article is not about justifying meat eating. It is not about justifying vegetarianism. It is primarily about distortion of Granth Sahib ji to suit a particular agenda. It just so happens, at THIS moment in time , the Vaishnav orientated Sikh's seem to be doing this more so. Tomorrow it maybe the Shakta orientated Sikhs.

Either way distortion of the Granth into an a la carte menu is NOT the Sikh way.

Ok let us analyse diets and say the Granth Sahib forbids diets. The Guru's were primarily scholars, philosophers and scientists. They understood nature.

Which diet is permissible?

1) Lacto Vege? - But hey hold on, the Vegan tells us that cow milk or any milk from an animal is cruel. In fact anyone who understands the process by which milk is made knows it is primarily liquefied flesh. Fat cells. Then there is the Eco-Damage methane from cows does for the dairy industry?


2) Vegan? - No milk, just plants and pulses. Now people argue this is not a natural diet. We are primarily hunter gatherers and this diet destroys our environment. Some scientific studies argue this is also unhealthy.


3) Ovo-Vege - Eggs are part of a chickens ovulation cycle. It's a waste product. It cannot become a living being. Waste Flesh. Lacto-Vege's argue it is still flesh? but hold on, I thought your argument was that you didn't eat flesh because of cruelty? It pains the chicken to lay eggs? Err well the chicken is going to lay eggs whether you like it or not? 


4) Meat - It's cruel vege's argue. Killing animals etc. Meat eaters say, well it's part of the cycle of life. Others argue it depletes the environment.

etc etc etc...and so the Fools continue to wrangle over flesh....
Our Guru says, eat what your conscious tells you too. We do not judge people based on diets. 



Also what are these spurious arguments over pain? Pain is part of “Hukam”. If you accept Hukam, you accept pain. End of argument.

When I agreed to edit this article for my two friends (who remain nameless) they said to me, I would get grief for being the editor. I said I don't care, so long as their anonymity was preserved (especially my vegetarian friend) , because I knew she would get the most grief. People really need to look at themselves and ask, why am I so concerned with what someone else eats. Let em carry on. Stop the stupidity. Jhatka eaters, Fish Eaters, Lacto Vege eaters, Ovo/lacto eaters , Vegans etc unite as one. Unite as Sikhs!!!


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 7, 2014)

Thats the part that hurts the most.."UNITE AS SIKHS".....Vested interests like the derawadees, taksaals, badal and dals, nihungs, namdharees, nirankarees,Radhas and Soamis, beas and sirsas..etc etc etc..ALL have Vested interests in DISUNITY....UNITY means DEATH for their interests...thats why we will continue to be FOOLS and continue to wrangle and be disunited...Until and unless..we WAKE UP....and smell the coffee...Oh oh..wait..many Derawadees taksalis have this thingy about Coffee..tea drinking as well....a sort of Backup ..Plan B..just in case Sikhs UNITE on the Meat thingy....then on to Plan B..divide them on Tea and Coffee..and Milo..Horlicks..etc etc etc...:kaurkhalsaflagblue::kaurkhalsaflagred::swordfights:lol


----------



## japjisahib04 (Oct 8, 2014)

Beautiful article Randeep Jee. Permit me to add in it, the aspect of compassion. In Guru Granth Sahib word , 'ਦਇਆ' is appeared almost 719 times. Close look at the pankties where word 'ਦਇਆ'  is used, it shows Guru is directing me to show mercy on the miserable state of my manh which most of time conspires to suck the blood of fellow human beings and persuade manh to surrender and blend with divine traits.  How could they be called vegetarian who, 'ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਹਿ ਮਾਣਸਾ ਤਿਨ ਕਿਉ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਚੀਤੁ ॥ Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.19.10 suck the blood of fellow beings by dominating, exploiting etc?


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Oct 9, 2014)

There is a saying in punjabi " ਵਾਲ ਦੀ ਖੱਲ ਲਾਹੁਣੀ ". This is what we are doing.

1. Those who want to eat *WILL* eat meat and interpret Gurbani that it does not prohibit one from eating meat.
2. Those who don't eat meat, The *WILL not* and will find something in Gurbani which supports this logic.

Who is right /who is wrong only God knows, because *NONE *of the thousand comments above satisfy  question(Is it OK to eat meat or not?)

In the end, its not possible that truth will win, but I guess majority will. So if majority favors meat eating, then they will present it as ultimate truth and if majority is vegetarians, then they will announce it as ultimate truth.

After all discussions, it will remain as a *Personal Choice*. and we all know how many Right choices we have made so far with our intellect.:winkingmunda:

This is not a topic where anyone can comment unless they have SPIRITUALLY seen any advantage or disadvantage and I wonder how many of the comments above are from  *personal experience* and NOT * personal choice.*


Wahguru ji ki fateh.

PS: I am a Vegetarian.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 9, 2014)

notanotherloginplease said:


> There is a saying in punjabi " ਵਾਲ ਦੀ ਖੱਲ ਲਾਹੁਣੀ ". This is what we are doing.
> 
> 1. Those who want to eat *WILL* eat meat and interpret Gurbani that it does not prohibit one from eating meat.
> 2. Those who don't eat meat, The *WILL not* and will find something in Gurbani which supports this logic.
> ...



notanotherloginplease,

Guru Fateh.

I see a bit of contradiction in your post above. As it is a personal choice, then every chooser is a winner. It has nothing to do with the majority.

The fact of the matter is that we humans have to consume life in order to survive whether it is Filet Mignon or Watercress under Hearts of Palm with a squeeze of a lemon and extra virgin olive oil. I am not ready to discuss about the virginity of the oil though. 

All living things are alive and are thriving according to Gurbani.

I am a life eater, hence a survivor.


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Oct 9, 2014)

Tejwant Singh said:


> notanotherloginplease,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



Tejwant Ji,

*I was making fun of personal choice excuse.*

1. Nothing is a personal choice for a Sikh. If its a personal choice, then cutting hairs is OK,Drinking/smoking weed is OK,raping women is OK, Idol worship is OK. We shall only be allowed to make personal choices when we become one with the lord.
2. *I agree that life can only survive by consuming other life form.*

*So why don't we start eating humans?*

as far as   question of 'all living things alive'  is concerned. yes they are, plants are alive too so are rabbits and chickens.
many plants shed fruits when they are ripe, have you seen chickens offering their legs for someone to eat?

We call ourselves Sikhs- where is mercy of Sikhs, has Guru Ji ordered us only to save humans beings, have mercy on humans and be cruel to animals?
Wear kirpaan to save yourself and fellow human beings, but use same kirpaan to kill animals.

I believe answer is NO. Sikhs wear kirpaan to help helpless.I found animals helpless when they are slaughtered , so I dont eat meat.

**** If somebody feels like responding please read everything above and explain, not just the last line of this post. Please . Peace.

And because I have talked about personal experience in my last post.
There is an example: please answer these as well.

1.Pluck an orange, carrot or apple - eat it- What do you feel when you sleep?
Answer please:
2. Kill a mosquito or lizard-  How do you feel?
Answer please:
3: Kill a pigeon or parrot: how do you feel?
Answer please:
4: Kill a dog or a cow-  How do you feel?
Answer please:
5: Kill a human- How do you feel ?(ofcourse bad because police is after you or already caught you lol)

In above 5 questions , you have killed different life forms and degree of sadness or guilt will increase from 1 to 5. *Think Why*


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 9, 2014)

notanotherloginplease said:


> Tejwant Ji,
> 
> *I was making fun of personal choice excuse.*
> 
> ...



notanotherloginplease ji,

Guru Fateh.

Let's not deviate from the topic of the thread which is wrangling about eating or not eating meat. Let's stick to that choice of the topic which is personal.


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Oct 9, 2014)

Tejwant Singh said:


> notanotherloginplease ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> Let's not deviate from the topic of the thread which is wrangling about eating or not eating meat. Let's stick to that choice of the topic which is personal.



ha ha ha.. Tejwant veer ji,I am not deviating from topic.

*What is the aim to start this topic?* if it is just to write a shabad from gurbani, then I am sorry, I was deviating from topic. 

But if it is to discuss that shabad then I am just doing my part.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 10, 2014)

notanotherloginplease said:


> ha ha ha.. Tejwant veer ji,I am not deviating from topic.
> 
> *What is the aim to start this topic?* if it is just to write a shabad from gurbani, then I am sorry, I was deviating from topic.
> 
> But if it is to discuss that shabad then I am just doing my part.



notanotherloginplease ji,

Guru Fateh.

Pardon my ignorance but I do not find any discussion about the shabad in your couple of posts that I have interacted with you so far. In fact you are deviating by talking about pain etc. etc.

Am I missing something here?

Please share your understanding about the Shabad if you wish to so we can have a discussion on that.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 10, 2014)

notanotherloginji



> 1. Nothing is a personal choice for a Sikh. If its a personal choice, then cutting hairs is OK,Drinking/smoking weed is OK,raping women is OK, Idol worship is OK. We shall only be allowed to make personal choices when we become one with the lord.


 
 Your understanding differs from my own, you make Sikhism sound like a set of rules that must be adhered to in order to 'become one with the lord'. Everything is personal choice for a Sikh, in my mind the idea is to align your personal choice with the truth as written in the SGGS. It is not a matter of what is ok or not, ie, is it ok to celebrate pooerenmashi, is it ok to not have air conditioning in Babaji's room, I think it is more a case of drink if you want, but accept the consequences, smoke weed if you want, but be prepared for the multitude of chemicals washing around in your brain, I, personally have never wanted to rape women or worship idols, so I do not need anyone to tell me those things are ok. 



> 2. *I agree that life can only survive by consuming other life form.*
> 
> *So why don't we start eating humans?*


 
 some do..........



> as far as question of 'all living things alive' is concerned. yes they are, plants are alive too so are rabbits and chickens.
> many plants shed fruits when they are ripe, have you seen chickens offering their legs for someone to eat?


 
 I see, I guess you do not eat potatoes then, ripping them from mother earth, while they sleep peacefully in the soil. Carrots are out too, your a strange vegetarian if your rules of eating are only what is offered and shed. I guess milk is out too, what do you survive on? 



> We call ourselves Sikhs- where is mercy of Sikhs, has Guru Ji ordered us only to save humans beings, have mercy on humans and be cruel to animals?


 
 Guruji ordered us to live in consonance with the world, by your logic, the Sikhs of old should have gone to war holding flowers and sweets, maybe your forefathers were there holding placards with 'war is murder'. I do not agree with cruelty to anyone or anything, but it is possible to eat an animal without being cruel and showing respect. 



> I believe answer is NO. Sikhs wear kirpaan to help helpless.I found animals helpless when they are slaughtered , so I dont eat meat.


 
 I see, have you ensured that through your lifestyle, no animals are harmed from your activities? From the car you drive, the plane you travel on, trains, clothes, consumer items, do you ensure that no animal was harmed in the many by products that enable you to live your life?



> 1.Pluck an orange, carrot or apple - eat it- What do you feel when you sleep?
> Answer please:


 
 slightly acidic



> 2. Kill a mosquito or lizard- How do you feel?
> Answer please:


 
 Well I do kill quite a few mosquitos, when I walk my dogs, they keep biting my head, and then it swells, and as I am bald, I end up looking like sloth from the goonies, so it is quite satisfying to catch one in mid bite. I have never killed a lizard, I have no reason to kill lizards any more than I have a reason to kill new born babies, how would I feel if I killed one for no reason.. uhmm its a pointless question, just because I eat meat does not make me a mad animal hating killer. 



> 3: Kill a pigeon or parrot: how do you feel?


 
 I have killed a pigeon, one hit my windscreen, but luckily it was a range rover, so the damage was more to the car than the pigeon, although, it did die, I felt sad, pointless death makes me sad. 



> 4: Kill a dog or a cow- How do you feel?
> Answer please:


 
 I have killed a dog, he had to be put down, it was my decision,  he was ill, I sat with him, cuddled him as the vet injected him, looked into his eyes, until they closed, cried a bit, I have never killed a cow, although I really sometimes wanted to kill my ex wife sometimes, not sure if that counts.



> 5: Kill a human- How do you feel ?(ofcourse bad because police is after you or already caught you lol)


 
 interesting, you assume one would only feel bad if you are caught or in the process of being caught, if I had to kill a human, I would do it if the circumstances merited it, and I would not feel bad at all, but then that's the great thing about the truth, it is the truth, in certain circumstances killing another human can be absolutely true, or it can be absolutely false, in my view, a good Sikh does all he can to find the absolute truth in everything, would I go to war, absolutely yes, would I kill, no problem, it is easier to kill a human trying to rape your wife than swat a mosquito,


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Oct 10, 2014)

harry haller said:


> notanotherloginji
> 
> 
> Your understanding differs from my own, you make Sikhism sound like a  set of rules that must be adhered to in order to 'become one with the  lord'.
> ...



Please see above in blue.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 10, 2014)

> This comment doesn't make sense at all. I am not talking about those primitive men or the ones living in jungle who are less evolved and may have physical appearance similar to men but have intellectual level of animals. If you are comparing yourself to them, then its OK.


 
http://listverse.com/2008/12/19/top-10-cases-of-human-cannibalism/

none of the above live in jungles




> I eat vegetables, potatoes ripped from earth, i dont know if they are sleeping or not, never heard them snoring. Do you want me to answer like this? If not then I also dont expect such childish answers.


 
actually its called sarcasm, if you wish to hear a potato snoring try potatosnorings.com!




> *but it is possible to eat an animal without being cruel and showing respect.
> 
> I am not saying that they should go on war with flowers, War was against cruelty not in favor of it. Please explain above in pink. **Thats the funniest thing I have ever heard. Killing someone without cruelty and paying respect. That's hilarious really. Joke of the Year
> *




I am glad you find the concept funny, we will discuss it again when you find the maturity to understand it. 




> I try to ensure as much as I can


 
so your actions still cause animals to die, you compromise, I am what I am and I am happy to stand up and proclaim it rather than hide behind a holier than thou attitude, whilst still causing the same effect, good luck with that one


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 10, 2014)

notanotherloginji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



> I think yes, it differs and yes there are set rules which cannot be changed, if they were to be changed then Guru's should not have objected on* "mitti be-imaan ki , instead of mitti muslmaan ki. *



Would you be kind enough to start a new thread and post the whole Shabad  *"mitti be-imaan ki"* with your own understanding? You may use the literal translation in English but along with your own interpretation as literal traslations are quite misleading and more importantly, poetry can only be interpreted by the individual.

Also, please share your thoughts about the common Sakhi,* "mitti muslmaan ki"* which has become very common and many people use it for the reasons only known to them.

Does the Sakhi compliment what is written in Mool mantar or contradicts it and in which way if it does either?

Hope to learn from you about the Shabad's understanding in your own words which was penned by our first Guru Nanak and the Sakhi which supposedly happened during our 7th Guru, Guru Har Rai's time about a couple of centuries after.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

PS: The reason I have asked you for the above because one liners are not allowed here. Hence, we request the full Shabad with the personal understanding from all so that we can learn from each other.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 11, 2014)

I apologise. I inadvertently reversed the order. This is the corrected version.

Would you be kind enough to start a new thread and post the whole Shabad *"mitti muslmaan ki"* with your own understanding? You may use the literal translation in English but along with your own interpretation as literal traslations are quite misleading and more importantly, poetry can only be interpreted by the individual.

Also, please share your thoughts about the common Sakhi, *"mitti be-imaan ki"* which has become very common and many people use it for the reasons only known to them.

Does the Sakhi compliment what is written in Mool mantar or contradicts it and in which way if it does either?

Hope to learn from you about the Shabad's understanding in your own words which was penned by our first Guru Nanak and the Sakhi which supposedly happened during our 7th Guru, Guru Har Rai's time about a couple of centuries after.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 19, 2014)

japjisahib04 said:


> Beautiful article Randeep Jee. Permit me to add in it, the aspect of compassion. In Guru Granth Sahib word , 'ਦਇਆ' is appeared almost 719 times. Close look at the pankties where word 'ਦਇਆ'  is used, it shows Guru is directing me to show mercy on the miserable state of my manh which most of time conspires to suck the blood of fellow human beings and persuade manh to surrender and blend with divine traits.  How could they be called vegetarian who, 'ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਹਿ ਮਾਣਸਾ ਤਿਨ ਕਿਉ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਚੀਤੁ ॥ Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.19.10 suck the blood of fellow beings by dominating, exploiting etc?



Absolutely!

Visiting India a few years ago I met some real pious people who were making a show of being pure and being vegetarian and how where they sold food was pure vegetarian. But when  a hungry begger came to their shop to ask for alms they shooed him a away! Where was the compassion there?

"Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they  do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom."

..and even if they do give something, do they do it because they genuinly want to help someone or out of ego? They feel they will get something out of it? :icecreamkaur:


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 19, 2014)

notanotherloginplease said:


> There is a saying in punjabi " ਵਾਲ ਦੀ ਖੱਲ ਲਾਹੁਣੀ ". This is what we are doing.
> 
> 1. Those who want to eat *WILL* eat meat and interpret Gurbani that it does not prohibit one from eating meat.
> 2. Those who don't eat meat, The *WILL not* and will find something in Gurbani which supports this logic.
> ...



Ok lets say for one minute that we are going to talk about meat/vegetarianism, I was convinced many years ago that vegetarianism was the way. Then I discovered that lacto-vegetarianism (what a lot of Sikhs practice) was hypocritical. So I tried veganism. That made me incredibly ill. So much so I got anaemic and found it function on a day to day. ...but I knew lacto-vegetarianism was hypocritical (vis a vis eggs).

I therefore started to research Sikh History. I knew our Guru's were intellectuals first and used logic and reason in their arguments. I discovered the following.

1) Guru Nanak definitely encountered and ate meat.
2) Meat was part of langaar up until the second Guru , but it was removed because of objections by Vaishnavs ad lanaagr should be open to all. Plus Muslims wanted meat prepared with their rights. Hidu's would not eat the meat of the mlecchaa or kuttha.
3) Bhai Gurdas (who kept excellent records of the Guru's activities) described the Guru's as avid hunters (Particularly HarGobind) and eating meat.
4) Hukamanama's supposedly written by Guru HarGobind condeming meat turning out to be false and contracdiciting Guru Gobind Singh's verified Hukamanama advising Sikh's to stay away from Kuttha.
5) The ONLY time we have a disagreement over diet amongst Sikhs over meat and vegetarianism is when Bandha Bahadhur causes a rift and sstates everyone should be a vegetarian. This causes a split amongst Bandhahi Sikhs and Khalsa Sikh's.
6) We also have the distortion's of Vaishnavite groups such as Nirmala's and Udasis's trying to advocate vegetarianism....and passs off their beliefs as Sikhi (we have groups such as AKJ etc that descended from that school of thought)
7) Then in the late 19th century Sikh ranks are swelled by Vaishnavite converts who pass off their vegetarian lifestyles as part of Sikhism.
8) Then we have groups like DDT being taken over why the staunchly vegetarian Bhindrawala groups (again influenced by Nirmala's and Udasis).
9) Then we have Radhaoswami's etc, clearly Vashnavite groups at the heart of teh SGPC now.

That brings us to today. Analysing history, one see's a clear pattern of infiltration and distortion of Bani to suit certain agenda's. The meat eaters on the large have stayed quiet and not say much, it is the Vaishnavites I would say have had an agenda. I find this disturbing, as Vaishnavism and their own ideals do not fit in with Sikhism.

So what you see is a bigger issue emerging than just diet. It's about the very core thinking of Sikhism. The very basis of the Sikh thought process is being eroded. We are being turned into bearded Brahmins, more concerened about purety and appearance than about action and consequence.


----------



## linzer (Oct 19, 2014)

That brings us to today. Analysing history, one see's a clear pattern of infiltration and distortion of Bani to suit certain agenda's. The meat eaters on the large have stayed quiet and not say much, it is the Vaishnavites I would say have had an agenda. I find this disturbing, as Vaishnavism and their own ideals do not fit in with Sikhism.
So what you see is a bigger issue emerging than just diet. It's about the very core thinking of Sikhism. The very basis of the Sikh thought process is being eroded. We are being turned into bearded Brahmins, more concerened about purety and appearance than about action and consequence.  Randip Singh ji,
Well put. 
The other day a Punjabi friend of mine who very recently took Amrit was explaining how one of the hardest of being Amritdhari was to maintain a vegetarian diet. I commented that living in truth was much harder. All he did was sort of nod and kept on with the conversation. I didn't want to press the issue but I think it completely passed him by. 
On a different occasion this same fellow was explaining that Seva will bring you rewards in this life but Wahe Guru Simran (Wahe Guru Japa)is what will connect you to Ek Ong Kar. I really love fellow and all his family . They have been so welcoming to me and my wife so I don't really want to argue with him .
Another incident is of another very dear ours friend posting pictures of her and her friends celebrating the fast for Karwa Chauth. 
As a newcomer I feel presumptuous discussing these things with my Punjabi friends but it is somewhat disheartening to see ,what I consider, distortions of Sikhi happening so frequently. 


​


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 19, 2014)

linzer said:


> That brings us to today. Analysing history, one see's a clear pattern of infiltration and distortion of Bani to suit certain agenda's. The meat eaters on the large have stayed quiet and not say much, it is the Vaishnavites I would say have had an agenda. I find this disturbing, as Vaishnavism and their own ideals do not fit in with Sikhism.
> So what you see is a bigger issue emerging than just diet. It's about the very core thinking of Sikhism. The very basis of the Sikh thought process is being eroded. We are being turned into bearded Brahmins, more concerened about purety and appearance than about action and consequence. Randip Singh ji,
> Well put.
> The other day a Punjabi friend of mine who very recently took Amrit was explaining how one of the hardest of being Amritdhari was to maintain a vegetarian diet. I commented that living in truth was much harder. All he did was sort of nod and kept on with the conversation. I didn't want to press the issue but I think it completely passed him by.
> ...



Some very salient points.


----------



## kggr001 (Oct 19, 2014)

The reason I don't eat meat is cause I freakin love animals also it wouldn't feel alright knowing that something with alot of human characteristics is killed to fill my belly.

I know that plants also do feel pain, but pain can be interpretted by organisms in many different ways.

Few years ago I saw video about how they were killing a cow, the butcher was slowly cutting the cow's throat. It felt like someone was killing a human infront of me. Animals are somuch alike us and also in some ways beter then most of us.

Animals too know Love(e.g. see a mother taking care of her childeren), Fear, Lust, Anger etc..
The only thing they lack is intelligence like we have.


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 19, 2014)

kggr001 said:


> The reason I don't eat meat is cause I freakin love animals also it wouldn't feel alright knowing that something with alot of human characteristics is killed to only fill my belly.
> 
> I know that plants also feel pain, but pain can be interpretted by organisms in many different ways.



Well this thread is not about that. It is about the Sikh point of view. :interestedsingh:


----------



## kggr001 (Oct 19, 2014)

I would find it really weird that someone eats meat or not eat meat cause Sikhism says so. People shouldn't base there views on whatever they should or shouldn't do, everyone should make there own choices.

I'm not trying to say that you guys shouldn't discuss about the sikh view of it, just saying that everyone should make there own choices and not base them on whatever religion say.

If you feel ok with eating meat then eat it, if not then don't eat it.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 20, 2014)

kggr001 said:


> I would find it really weird that someone eats meat or not eat meat cause Sikhism says so. People shouldn't base there views on whatever they should or shouldn't do, everyone should make there own choices.
> 
> I'm not trying to say that you guys shouldn't discuss about the sikh view of it, just saying that everyone should make there own choices and not base them on whatever religion say.
> 
> If you feel ok with eating meat then eat it, if not then don't eat it.



Thats EXACTLY what Guur nanak ji is saying....BUT then we are living in the 3rd millineum..and we think we are far cleverer than the GURU...so we FORCE FEED everybody on what they should do and shouldnt do..eat or dont eat...

ha ha


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 20, 2014)

> The only thing they lack is intelligence like we have.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->


 

speak for yourself, my dog is smarter than me


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 21, 2014)

Harry Ji you are absolutley RIGHT. My dogs can recognise my car from a mile away...even around corners...and not only my car but the cars of all others who love them but visit occasionally...The bird called Beejrrah builds an intricate nest which defies even Human Engineering Skills & principles and is built with just a beak and claws...and done without any teaching/demonstration lessons by anyone else...Humans spend decades in School..learning..and yet we claim to be more intelligent ?? Nature holds millions of such really fantastic builders, engineers, bees with their hives..bats with their radar...whales salmon turtles with their vast distance homing skills, migratory birds etc etc builders of dams exist among animals with only a snout and four paws...
The ONLY thing a HUMAN is which animals are NOT..is being SAKAT....and thats the ONE THING that Gurbani tells us leads to waywardness...and away from Him...NO animal is Sakat...only HUMANS.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 21, 2014)

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ca.../dogs-are-better-for-people-than-some-people/


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Oct 21, 2014)

I think Guru has only one hukum, not two-four. The problem begins when we start making choices and mold guru's hukum accordingly. 
That might feel right to our mind but it is NOT. 

To eat meat, we have to kill animals(Intelligent animals as per above posts) and killing of any kind does not go along with merciful behavior of our gurus as  we all know goats ,rabbits,cows, chickens are not harming us.

I have read some comments above which are totally absurd to me, testifying that Gurus eat meat, is utter nonsense. Has anybody seen gurus eating meat? I don't know on what research such testimonies are based on. 

Rab e Rakha


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 22, 2014)

> I think Guru has only one hukum, not two-four


 
What a strange statement, hukam is hukam.....



> The problem begins when we start making choices and mold guru's hukum accordingly


. 

but that is the nature of the beast, you will never stop people from doing that, all we can hope for is to be guided by the truth. 



> That might feel right to our mind but it is NOT.


 
I pity those that feel this way, in some respects, I find it hard to believe, everything I do that is wrong, that is outside of consonance, I am fully aware of, I have never kidded myself that things feel right and therefore are right, everything wrong, feels wrong, no matter how pleasurable or beneficial. 



> To eat meat, we have to kill animals(Intelligent animals as per above posts)


 
why just to eat meat? what about the animals that are killed for hides, fluids and all sorts of by products that have penetrated our lives. I find those that do not eat meat, but continue to use animal by products quite strange, I certainly do not take kindly to being lectured on my own habits by such people, if you feel that not eating meat, but still purchasing products that have animal content, makes you a better person, or even a better Sikh, good luck to you, just keep it to yourself!



> and killing of any kind does not go along with merciful behavior of our gurus as we all know


 
as we all know...... well, no, I do not know, your saying that the Gurus never sanctioned killing of any kind? what a strange statement, given the wars that Sikhs fought over the years, what did the Gurus do then? Did they sanction mass praying meetings to repel our enemies? or churn out beads and ramalas? maybe they prayed to the pink hippo god to give us special flying powers so that no one was killed?



> I have read some comments above which are totally absurd to me


 
I know how you feel!!



> testifying that Gurus eat meat, is utter nonsense. Has anybody seen gurus eating meat?


 
Has anyone seen the Gurus not eat meat? Has anyone seen the Gurus eating a nice nut roast with butternut squash? We do however, have the SGGS, which does rather lean towards a non ritualistic and supersitious life, where its not what you eat, but how you behave, that is important, yeah, I know, strange concept.....



> I don't know on what research such testimonies are based on.


 
unlike your testimonies, which are backed up with concrete research and fact!

In my view, we are not bleeding heart liberals, nor are we fatalistic prayer monkeys, and nor do we kid ourselves that not eating porky makes us better people, we are Sikhs, we live, we help, we assist, we use logic, discretion, tact, diplomacy, all wonderful skills in life, those are the facets we should be honing, learning, perfecting so that we are able to recognise truth and live by it. 

Wasn't Hitler a vegetarian..............?


----------



## kggr001 (Oct 22, 2014)

Well with Humans having more intelligence then Animals I meant, we can do way more with our intelligence then any animal could.  So yes in a way we are league's ahead with our intelligence then that of an animal. I don't see any animal doing algebra or building fusion reactor or curing any diseases. We're, undoubtedly, the most intelligent species on Earth. The tools that we invented are testimony of this.



harry haller said:


> In my view, we are not bleeding heart liberals, nor are we fatalistic prayer monkeys, and nor do we kid ourselves that not eating porky makes us better people, we are Sikhs, we live, we help, we assist, we use logic, discretion, tact, diplomacy, all wonderful skills in life, those are the facets we should be honing, learning, perfecting so that we are able to recognise truth and live by it.



What makes us better people is showing kindness to all things including animals. I don't believe that someone who is a murderer but is only kind to animals. is any beter then the one who kills animals but is kind to fellow humans.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 22, 2014)

kggr001 said:


> Well with Humans having more intelligence then Animals I meant, we can do way more with our intelligence then any animal could. So yes in a way we are league's ahead with our intelligence then that of an animal. I don't see any animal doing algebra or building fusion reactor or curing any diseases. We're, undoubtedly, the most intelligent species on Earth. The tools that we invented are testimony of this.
> 
> 
> 
> What makes us better people is showing kindness to all things including animals. We can't say that someone who is a murderer but is only kind to animals. is any beter then the one who kills animal but is kind to fellow humans.


 
I do not see why folks that do algebra, or build fusion reactors are any more 'intelligent' than other folks. I have met many 'intelligent' people in my life, and many lacked a complete grasp of common sense, in fact if anything, I think the more you lean towards genius, which is a pinnacle of intelligence, the more your common sense goes out of the window!

there seem to be a lot of really good soundbites in this thread, but this one is my favourite, a murderer who is kind to animals is no better than a carnivore who is kind to humans, BRILLIANT! so by this logic, I am on the same level as Hitler! Now if someone could explain to me where the logic, intelligence and far sighted thinking is in the above statement, I would be hugely grateful. 

I do not believe Sikh life is measered by how big your turban is, whether your kara is enscribed or not, or made of stone age iron, whether you eat meat or not, worship the moon, light a few candles, avoid wearing red, its all in the mind, it is not a case of following rules, it is a case of developing a mature and thinking mind so that the answers to the above questions are obvious. There is a big picture out there, seems some can only see the small stuff, however, if I ever do see a Sikh, with an enormous turban, a huge iron kara, oversized kachera, munching a carrot, dressed all in black, (or white, or saffron), I will be sure to prostrate myself before a true master of Sikhism!


----------



## kggr001 (Oct 22, 2014)

harry haller said:


> I do not see why folks that do algebra, or build fusion reactors are any more 'intelligent' than other folks. I have met many 'intelligent' people in my life, and many lacked a complete grasp of common sense, in fact if anything, I think the more you lean towards genius, which is a pinnacle of intelligence, the more your common sense goes out of the window!



We were talking about animals, yes humans are way more intelligent then animals and thats cause we can do much more with the intelligent we've.
Thats what i'm trying to say. Not that someone who knows algebra or builds fusion reactors should be more intelligent then people who don't do that. I do agree that animals are in some parts doing beter then humans however it's still we who can do more with the intelligent we've.



harry haller said:


> there seem to be a lot of really good soundbites in this thread, but this one is my favourite, a murderer who is kind to animals is no better than a carnivore who is kind to humans, BRILLIANT! so by this logic, I am on the same level as Hitler! Now if someone could explain to me where the logic, intelligence and far sighted thinking is in the above statement, I would be hugely grateful.



Well an Animal wants to live if you kill it you robbed it from it's life.
If you murder someone that person also might've wanted to live and your robbed his life.
So in my eyes the exact same thing happened here.
Also the way we can think like this is what makes us humans different then animals.


----------



## japjisahib04 (Oct 22, 2014)

Gurbani furman, 'ਅਵਰ ਜੋਨਿ ਤੇਰੀ ਪਨਿਹਾਰੀ ॥ ਇਸੁ ਧਰਤੀ ਮਹਿ ਤੇਰੀ ਸਿਕਦਾਰੀ ॥ - other juene are for your survival and you are the ruler of this universe.

best regards


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 22, 2014)

notanotherloginplease said:


> I think Guru has only one hukum, not two-four. The problem begins when we start making choices and mold guru's hukum accordingly.
> That might feel right to our mind but it is NOT.
> 
> To eat meat, we have to kill animals(Intelligent animals as per above posts) and killing of any kind does not go along with merciful behavior of our gurus as  we all know goats ,rabbits,cows, chickens are not harming us.
> ...



notanotherloginplease ji.

Guru Fateh.

Does your Guru tell you to cite Sakhis which are anti Gurmat as part of your Gurmat wisdom? I hope not.

For the reason I am still waiting for the whole Sakhi about Ram Rai and your understanding of the Shabad " Miti Musalmaan ki" penned by Guru Nanak a couple of centuries before this Sakhi supposed to have had occured.

Our Guru tells us to base our wisdom on Gurbani which is in SGGS, our only Guru, not on some baseless Sakhis. 

Will wait for you to start a new thread for this. This is a reminder for all of us to learn from each other.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## linzer (Oct 22, 2014)

japjisahib04 said:


> Gurbani furman, 'ਅਵਰ ਜੋਨਿ ਤੇਰੀ ਪਨਿਹਾਰੀ ॥ ਇਸੁ ਧਰਤੀ ਮਹਿ ਤੇਰੀ ਸਿਕਦਾਰੀ ॥ - other juene are for your survival and you are the ruler of this universe.
> 
> best regards



japjisahib04 ji 
 could you post the ang # for this I've tried various searches and I can't find it.
 thanks


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Oct 22, 2014)

Apologies if I have cited an anti gurmatt sakhi according to you. But  I dont find it anti gurmatt. It would be right to say that I have cited sakhi which has never proved to be happened in reality.  In that case I apologize.   But still it wont change the intention behind his sakhi, which I guess everybody can understand.  Changing bani with your own 'matt' is forbidden or not considered right. I think thats what we can call anti gurmatt.


Please let me know if you are Ok with changing bani. I am not.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 22, 2014)

notanotherloginplease said:


> Apologies if I have cited an anti gurmatt sakhi according to you. But  I dont find it anti gurmatt. It would be right to say that I have cited sakhi which has never proved to be happened in reality.  In that case I apologize.   But still it wont change the intention behind his sakhi, which I guess everybody can understand.  Changing bani with your own 'matt' is forbidden or not considered right. I think thats what we can call anti gurmatt.
> 
> 
> Please let me know if you are Ok with changing bani. I am not.




notanotherloginplease,

Guru Fateh.

Please read my first post to you regarding this and see if the Sakhi passes the Gurmat benchmark of the SGGS and this is the reason I asked you to express your view on the whole Shabad and also relate the Sakhi so we can interact if this Sakhi took place and of anyone changed anything according to the Sakhi.

Let me ask you a couple of questions which are related to the Sakhi and the Shabad.

1. What does Ghumar (Potter) mean in Hindu religion?
2. What does Ghumar mean in Islam and the two other Abrahamic religions?
3. Does it mean the same thing in the above 2?
4. Who is the Shabad addressed to by Guru Nanak, Hindus or to the Muslims?

Please start a different thread while responding the above.

Will wait for the details.

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Nov 20, 2014)

harry haller said:


> What a strange statement, hukam is hukam.....
> 
> Hukam is hukam, true. But what I meant to say from my statement was that guru has only  one hukam, not 2-4. This means either guru will either  say its right or its wrong. There wont be 2-4 different versions of the hukam,
> 
> ...



..


----------



## Harry Haller (Nov 21, 2014)

> Hukam is hukam, true. But what I meant to say from my statement was that guru has only one hukam, not 2-4. This means either guru will either say its right or its wrong. There wont be 2-4 different versions of the hukam,
> 
> 1 Hukam saying - its allowed to eat meat.
> 2nd Hukam saying its not allowed.
> ...


 
you seem to be confusing Hukam with some sort of rule system, my understanding is that a good example of hukam would be gravity, it is absolute, on earth anyway, you cannot argue with gravity..hukam to me is an absolute truth, it is not fate, it is not 'what is written', it is an order of the absolute truth. The concept of hukam is too important to be wasted on what you eat anyway....




> Nature is not an excuse for doing wrong things,


 
I absolutely disagree, nature is nature, and what happens in nature is subject to the laws of Creation, in some respects you are right, because the very essence of nature means there is no wrong.Maybe next time you see a Lion eating its young, you may wish to educate the Lion as to how wrong it is?




> I assume we are not stopping people from doing anything, its themselves who have to think and stop themselves from doing that. We can only explain.


 
I am sorry but who are you to explain anything to anyone, I am not interetested in you stopping me from doing anything, nor am I interested in your explanations. By the same token I have no interest in stopping others do anything, I have enough to deal with in my own life without taking responsibility for anothers. 




> Answer of above in bold : because we are discussing just MEAT here.
> 
> Those products which are obtained by killing animals should never be obtained.It is just another form of eating meat. I feel ashamed of people who do this and call themselves vegetarians. They are in illusion.
> 
> ...


 
I love reading others viewpoints, I love interacting, and I love debate, I also love this forum and those on it.

*



Its so funny. I dont understand how could you write such a statement. Oh I know, because you like arguing.

Well here goes the explanation:
Gurus sanctioned no innocent's killing. The wars sikhs fought were result of atrocities, not for enjoyment purposes or as a leisure activity. I dont see cows coming to your house and taking your kids and wives away forcibly. or rabbits chickens coming to gurudwara and started killing people reading gurbani with their beaks.

Click to expand...

* 
Actually I do not love arguing, I am known for my reluctance to argue, your statement that the Gurus sanctioned no killing, now changed to the Gurus sanctioned no innocent killing, seemed a false statement, I am merely, using humour, showing how false it was. The point I am making is that when people, animals, need to be killed, they get killed. Now you see, no cows have come to my house, and I have not yet seen a rabbit coming to gurudwara (altough I did once see someone that looked a bit like a rabbit, does that count?), but they taste delicious, and they have by products that are really useful. 

 Actually, thinking about it, I am a Sikh, you are a Sikh, and the Gurus stand as the pinnacle of how to be a Sikh, uhmm, I am sorry to burst your bubble, but the Gurus were known to have hunted. Do you think this is a lie? It is certainly possible that they did not hunt, and instead sat all the animals down and invited them to have langar, you know what Sakhis are like!! I would appreciate your comments on this. 




> we are sikhs lol..and you are a hindu and person sitting next to you is a muslim and the other one on right side is a christian..
> sorry brother , i dont see the *humility *here. Isnt it also a trait of Sikhs???


 
humility to me is recognising that I am only a small tiny cog, but I am still a cog.


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Nov 21, 2014)

Well.. whatever we discuss here, is not going to take us anywhere.  Do whatever you feel right. Ultimately,its not between you and me. Its between you and lord.


----------



## ravneet_sb (Mar 28, 2015)

Sat  Sri Akaal,

Waheguru Ji Da Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Di Fateh


----------



## N30S1NGH (Mar 29, 2015)

The way I look at this whole meat debate,  its mindset from both sides of argument try to box Sikhi into black and white rules. Whilst, there may be notable affects of eating enrich foods/tamogun-meat related foods on affecting the mind at intial stages  in meditation, but is is relative from one case to another it should be left at that, it affects one then its understandable one becomes veggie.

Above should not be taken overall position of Sikhism rather than relative choice of individual.

This whole eating meat or not eating meat falls in one of gunas of this relative reality which is in itself is part of bigger illusory fragmented reality.

According to my understanding, gurbani has very balanced neutral stance in regards to eating meat, it neither condemns eating meat in totality nor supports it in its totality. It condemns our confined/dogmatic notions behind both positions. Gurbani is of turiya-4th dimension, it ultimately talks about absolute reality which is above from simple black and white rules- allowing of eating meat or not eating meat. Positions in gurbani which supports or condemns eating meat is part of relative reality which is further fragmented into different gunas of divine -(sato-pure - life/compassion-attribute of divine, tamo-death- destruction attribute of divine deathless) both and all three gunas are just as valid as they are all pointing towards chauda pad(4th high dimension reality/absolute reality)- turiya which is gurbani ultimate position on relative realities which is absolute neutral stance eating meat or not eating as not eating meat-compassion/giving life to creation is aspect of divine, or eating meat- destructive force of divine is also aspect of divine /both positions or both aspects (life/death) are of Ultimate reality/truth which underpins both of dualities and is beyond them- turiya- ~ Ik Oankar ~

~ Ik Oankar ~ One universal Eternal Absolute unchanged Awareness Being-Light-Knowledge- God- all in one, one in all- embodiment of stillness awareness, *expressing itself in its movement - creating, preserving and changing/destructing spontaneously effortlessly.*


----------



## N30S1NGH (Mar 29, 2015)

Personally speaking, I am veggie, cannot say i am staunch veggie as whenever unconditioned truth operates can't say which position it will express itself as, off course there are times truth would operate and without any second thought  driven by deep intuition i would eat  by product of  egg then my own staunch veggie conditioning lol kicks in feel guilty about it. I guess the point i m trying to make it.

Both eating meat or not eating without any conditioning of mind are equal expression of truth/divine.

The way i understood or felt at times- Our-turiya natural state is neither full time veggie nor full time non veggie, its  unconfined unconditioned flowing expression of non dual truth between and beyond both


----------



## ravneet_sb (Mar 29, 2015)

Sat Sri Akaal,

Atoms have electron, proton, and neutron.

Protons can not stay together without neutrons in the nuclei, and mass with orbiting electrons can not form,
Neither Positive nor negative can bind together.

Neutral minds are required to bind  in form.

This  is "TRUE" nature

Bhul Chuk Maaf 

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## Ishna (Jul 7, 2015)

Mod note:
Major thread maintenance has occurred affecting the entire thread up to this point.  Utmost care has been taken to ensure nothing has been omitted.  As most maintenance involved removing visible redundant HTML and MSOffice tags from around Gurmukhi text, if anything has been removed from the Gurbani I apologise profusely.  Please PM me and I will fix it, and any other problems users may come across.
Thanks.


----------



## Admin (Feb 10, 2016)




----------



## ravneet_sb (Feb 11, 2016)

Sat Sri Akaal,

GURU's SIKH SANGAT JI,

The thought process must be shared in each GURUDWARA to dispel the doubts on the issue

Conclusion of thoughts and discussion is "MUKT" 

and 

"MUKTI" comes while  living with all thoughts "CONCLUDED" which normally happens during "DEATH" of being.  

"GURUSIKH" gets it while "Living"

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Feb 22, 2016)

Does bibi ji mean to say, eat whatever you want, it does not affect your spiritual growth if you thank god for the food?


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Feb 22, 2016)

Isnt it like "I can do whatever Iwant to do, then Go for ganges bath/hajj and all will be washed away".

Every action has a reaction, that's how it works here.


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Feb 22, 2016)

Something good to read: http://www.panthic.org/articles/4432


----------



## Parma (Feb 22, 2016)

You don't have to breastfeed a child but can it survive any other way?  I like the way the Chinese eat in accordance with no hidden obligations. The whole process is thoroughly extreme when it comes to eating. So eat a nutritionally balanced diet as civilised humans if you cannot achieve that without thought's then maybe the environment needs addressing to another source (space maybe? Lol). For some it doesn't matter what they eat anything is justified. If Guru Gobind Singh ji was alive here today and asked me to take the position of his son on the ultimate battlefield I would have gladly obliged. From knowing who and what they were and what they lived for. What an honour that would have been to have been able to see them survive in Sikhi's honour and for them to live and eat another day. I would have been humbled to have been asked to form such a seva. They rever Guru Gobind Singh Ji now but from the thousands of followers of sikhi at the time it was unable to perform a seva. Waheguru ji ki khalsa, Waheguru ji ki fathe. Don't let people control you or tell you how to eat or think, from the above articles the points picked as an explanation to the guiding shabads are for the individual and seems more in tune about the vessel=flesh and the souls relationship, then daily dietary requirements. Although a declaration of decency is a must for a peaceful existence.


----------



## Sherdil (Feb 23, 2016)

Sikhi doesn't promote or condone the eating of meat. What Gurbani says is that everything is made from the same clay. This includes plants and animals. They come from the same source. Therefore if you eat one but make a fuss about the other, it shows that you lack the fundamental understanding that all things are one.

Some put forward the notion that plants do not suffer when you kill them. How do we really know for sure? Plants are much further removed from us than our animal brethren. Just because they don't have a face doesn't mean they don't suffer in some sort of way. Our ability to empathize with a plant is much less than our ability to empathize with our fellow animals. If we euthanized the animals in a non-painful manner, instead of killing them with traditional methods, would the meat then be sanctified for consumption?

GGS, page 143:

ਮਃ ੧ ॥ 
मः १ ॥ 
Mėhlā 1. 
First Mehl:

ਵੇਖੁ ਜਿ ਮਿਠਾ ਕਟਿਆ ਕਟਿ ਕੁਟਿ ਬਧਾ ਪਾਇ ॥ 
वेखु जि मिठा कटिआ कटि कुटि बधा पाइ ॥
 vekẖ jė miṯẖā kati▫ā kat kut baḏẖā pā▫e. 
Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,

ਖੁੰਢਾ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਰਖਿ ਕੈ ਦੇਨਿ ਸੁ ਮਲ ਸਜਾਇ ॥
 खुंढा अंदरि रखि कै देनि सु मल सजाइ ॥ 
Kẖundẖā anḏar rakẖ kai ḏen so mal sajā▫e. 
and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed.

ਰਸੁ ਕਸੁ ਟਟਰਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਤਪੈ ਤੈ ਵਿਲਲਾਇ ॥ 
रसु कसु टटरि पाईऐ तपै तै विललाइ ॥
 Ras kas tatar pā▫ī▫ai ṯapai ṯai villā▫e. 
What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out.

ਭੀ ਸੋ ਫੋਗੁ ਸਮਾਲੀਐ ਦਿਚੈ ਅਗਿ ਜਾਲਾਇ ॥ 
भी सो फोगु समालीऐ दिचै अगि जालाइ ॥ 
Bẖī so fog samālī▫ai ḏicẖai ag jālā▫e. 
And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below.

ਨਾਨਕ ਮਿਠੈ ਪਤਰੀਐ ਵੇਖਹੁ ਲੋਕਾ ਆਇ ॥੨॥ 
नानक मिठै पतरीऐ वेखहु लोका आइ ॥२॥
 Nānak miṯẖai paṯrī▫ai vekẖhu lokā ā▫e. ||2|| 
Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated! ||2||

If you wish to eat meat, then you should be free to do so. If you want to be vegetarian or vegan then go ahead. But to dictate your lifestyle to others on the basis of what is morally or religiously permissible is foolery. Hence the opening line "Fools wrangle over meat and flesh".


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Feb 24, 2016)

Sherdil said:


> Sikhi doesn't promote or condone the eating of meat. What Gurbani says is that everything is made from the same clay. This includes plants and animals. They come from the same source. Therefore if you eat one but make a fuss about the other, it shows that you lack the fundamental understanding that all things are one.



Sikhi actually forbids from killing creatures for pleasure/eating them. Its a matter of individual understanding. Those who want to eat meat will understand gurbani from their own point of view without actually thinking from perspective of gurus who wrote bani.

*Fundamental understanding:*

Gurbani says everything is made by same clay, but it also divides living beings into 5 forms based on their awareness of life and activity of 5 elements.
Plants and Animals differ in their characteristics, so do Humans/animals/plants/birds. Killing plants incur a karma which have to be paid but it is lesser as compared to killing animals. Even people without much spiritual inclination understand this. Thats why plucking a flower from someones' house does not have that much punishment as is of killing someone's dog or cat , and killing a dog or cat does not have that severe punishment as of killing a person.


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Feb 24, 2016)

Sherdil said:


> Some put forward the notion that plants do not suffer when you kill them. How do we really know for sure? Plants are much further removed from us than our animal brethren. Just because they don't have a face doesn't mean they don't suffer in some sort of way. Our ability to empathize with a plant is much less than our ability to empathize with our fellow animals.



Plants do suffer but it is degree of consciousness and amount of active elements pertaining in them which differentiate them from rest of the creation. They only have element of water being most active and other are almost null. that results in us humans having  less empathy with plants than animals.

Kindly read this article to lear more about 5 elements
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threads/panch-tattva-a-perspective-from-sri-guru-granth-sahib.40057/

While we are here in this creation, the law of 5 elements is enforced on us.


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Feb 24, 2016)

Sherdil said:


> If you wish to eat meat, then you should be free to do so. If you want to be vegetarian or vegan then go ahead. But to dictate your lifestyle to others on the basis of what is morally or religiously permissible is foolery. Hence the opening line "Fools wrangle over meat and flesh".



The word 'wish' is causing all the problems. What we wish is not always good for us. I am not dictating my lifestyle , i am trying to explain the lifestyle which gurbani wants us to follow and some fellows have just mended that lifestyle to suit their own wishes.

Fools wrangle over meat and flesh- It is for those who dont even understand the *Fundamentals *of life but still argue over food. Kindly read this for more clarity,its very well explained :

http://www.panthic.org/articles/4432


----------



## Sherdil (Feb 24, 2016)

notanotherloginplease said:


> Gurbani says everything is made by same clay, but it also divides living beings into 5 forms based on their awareness of life and activity of 5 elements.
> Plants and Animals differ in their characteristics, so do Humans/animals/plants/birds. Killing plants incur a karma which have to be paid but it is lesser as compared to killing animals. Even people without much spiritual inclination understand this. Thats why plucking a flower from someones' house does not have that much punishment as is of killing someone's dog or cat , and killing a dog or cat does not have that severe punishment as of killing a person.



On what scale does one measure the worth of one life form vs another? If any such scale exists, then it was surely made by man and not the Divine. It is man who places himself at the top of the totem pole and then dictates the worth of other life forms according to his own created system of virtues. In this respect, Humans are the Brahmans of the Animal Kingdom. Karma doesn't reside in action, it lies in intention. Killing an ant out of spite is much worse than killing a dog to put it out if it's misery. It is the intention behind the action that takes one closer or further to the Divine in one's mind. We exchange selfishness for Divinity. This is the only price to be paid.

GGS, page 988:

ਸਭੈ ਘਟ ਰਾਮੁ ਬੋਲੈ ਰਾਮਾ ਬੋਲੈ ॥ 
सभै घट रामु बोलै रामा बोलै ॥
 Sabẖai gẖat rām bolai rāmā bolai. 
Within all hearts, the Lord speaks, the Lord speaks.

ਰਾਮ ਬਿਨਾ ਕੋ ਬੋਲੈ ਰੇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ 
राम बिना को बोलै रे ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥ 
Rām binā ko bolai re. ||1|| rahā▫o. 
Who else speaks, other than the Lord? ||1||Pause||

ਏਕਲ ਮਾਟੀ ਕੁੰਜਰ ਚੀਟੀ ਭਾਜਨ ਹੈਂ ਬਹੁ ਨਾਨਾ ਰੇ ॥ 
एकल माटी कुंजर चीटी भाजन हैं बहु नाना रे ॥
 Ėkal mātī kunjar cẖītī bẖājan haiŉ baho nānā re. 
Out of the same clay, the elephant, the ant, and the many sorts of species are formed.

ਅਸਥਾਵਰ ਜੰਗਮ ਕੀਟ ਪਤੰਗਮ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਰਾਮੁ ਸਮਾਨਾ ਰੇ ॥੧॥ 
असथावर जंगम कीट पतंगम घटि घटि रामु समाना रे ॥१॥
 Asthāvar jangam kīt paṯangam gẖat gẖat rām samānā re. ||1|| 
In stationary life forms, moving beings, worms, moths and within each and every heart, the Lord is contained. ||1||

ਏਕਲ ਚਿੰਤਾ ਰਾਖੁ ਅਨੰਤਾ ਅਉਰ ਤਜਹੁ ਸਭ ਆਸਾ ਰੇ ॥ 
एकल चिंता राखु अनंता अउर तजहु सभ आसा रे ॥
 Ėkal cẖinṯā rākẖ ananṯā a▫or ṯajahu sabẖ āsā re. 
Remember the One, Infinite Lord; abandon all other hopes.

ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਭਏ ਨਿਹਕਾਮਾ ਕੋ ਠਾਕੁਰੁ ਕੋ ਦਾਸਾ ਰੇ ॥੨॥੩॥
 प्रणवै नामा भए निहकामा को ठाकुरु को दासा रे ॥२॥३॥
 Paraṇvai nāmā bẖa▫e nihkāmā ko ṯẖākur ko ḏāsā re. ||2||3||
 Naam Dayv prays, I have become dispassionate and detached; who is the Lord and Master, and who is the slave? ||2||3||



notanotherloginplease said:


> Plants do suffer but it is degree of consciousness and amount of active elements pertaining in them which differentiate them from rest of the creation. They only have element of water being most active and other are almost null. that results in us humans having less empathy with plants than animals.



The meaning of empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. It has nothing to with the proportion of the 5 elements in another being with relation to yourself. The 5 elements are a primitive way of understanding the makeup of the universe. It is pseudoscience. If Gurbani were written today, instead of hundreds of years ago, it would surely have replaced the 5 elements with a mention of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc. These elements are the fundamental building blocks of all life forms. This is the clay that Gurbani alludes to.

Plants provide the oxygen that makes life on earth possible for animals like us. Without them, we wouldn't exist. They give us much more than the sacred cow does, yet people kill the plants and worship the cow.


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Feb 25, 2016)

I am a vegetarian and not a vegan. The idea of putting the corpse of a dead animal in my mouth  nauseates me. I leave it to others to do as they please.

I just came across an article which clearly states that Sikhs ate meat in 1798.

*Rare 1798 Welshman’s Account of Sikhs Discovered*
*Extract from the book*

*“The city of Lahore is next, about a hundred and fifty miles distant from Moultan. It is the capital of the Seiks, a people which started up in the fifteenth century, under a Hindoo of the name of Nanuck, born in 1470. They are a set of religionists, tolerant in matters of faith like the Hindoos, but, unlike them, admit proselytes. They require conformity in certain*
*signs and ceremonies, but in other respects are pure monotheists; they worship God alone,*
*without image or intermediation. They may be called the reformers of India. They retain also a calvinistical principle, and take an oath ever to oppose a monarchical government.*

*They eat any kind of meat excepting beef, for like the Hindoos they hold the ox in the utmost veneration. Their general food is pork, probably because it is forbidden by the Mahometans, whom they hold in abhorrence. Their army consists wholly of horse; they can raise a hundred thousand cavalry, and make war in the most savage mode. They kept long concealed or unnoticed, at length became formidable by their courage and enterprize, and extended their conquests over Lahore, Moultan, and the western parts of Delhi.”2*
*Reference*

*1. The National Library of Wales*
*2. Thomas Pennant (1798): The View of Hindustan Vol 1 & 2. Printed by Henry Hughs,*
*London*​


----------



## Sherdil (Feb 25, 2016)

I doubt they venerated the ox. It has no significance in Sikhi. More likely they understood its symbolic importance to the various Hindu traditions, and treated it with respect out of consideration for the religious sentiments of the majority community of the subcontinent. A beast of burden like an ox is worth more alive than dead anyway. Pigs on the other hand hold no esteemed position in Islam. Muslims avoid pork because they consider it to be an unclean animal.


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Feb 25, 2016)

Inderjeet Kaur said:


> I just came across an article which clearly states that Sikhs ate meat in 1798.



I wouldnt say its a confirmation that sikhs ate meat. Its more an observance.

same way like most western people say to me, "you dont drink alcohol, but sikhs drink alcohol" .


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Feb 25, 2016)

Sherdil said:


> Plants provide the oxygen that makes life on earth possible for animals like us. Without them, we wouldn't exist. They give us much more than the sacred cow does, yet people kill the plants and worship the cow.



If this is the case, and living beings with least importance in world should be killed and eaten, then why not start with Human Beings with special needs, they are sometimes unable to take care of themselves. Why is it considered a murder? why have pity on them? Then why not kill all the poor people Africa, they dont do much for us.


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Mar 13, 2016)

I don't know how accurate it is, but it does say unequivocally that Sikhs eat meat. Certainly, Sikhs never venerated the ox (cow) but well might have refrained from eating beef out of respect for the Hindus.

I agree that this piece proves nothing; it is just one more piece of evidence to be considered.


----------



## kds1980 (Mar 17, 2016)

notanotherloginplease said:


> I wouldnt say its a confirmation that sikhs ate meat. Its more an observance.
> 
> same way like most western people say to me, "you dont drink alcohol, but sikhs drink alcohol" .


Very simple answer, Sikhs in 18th century fought wars and lived in jungles.That type of lifestyle require High calorie and high protein food.In 18th century Food sources were limited, it was not possible to fight wars without adding animal protein in diet as in jungles wild pigs were easily available.So they ate various type of meat to keep them fit and strong.There is granth called jhatka prasad granth , it is written in it that Jassa singh ahluwalia used to eat half bakra at one go.The strength of those puratan singh's was also phenominal


----------



## notanotherloginplease (Mar 20, 2016)

kds1980 said:


> Very simple answer, Sikhs in 18th century fought wars and lived in jungles.That type of lifestyle require High calorie and high protein food.In 18th century Food sources were limited, it was not possible to fight wars without adding animal protein in diet as in jungles wild pigs were easily available.So they ate various type of meat to keep them fit and strong.There is granth called jhatka prasad granth , it is written in it that Jassa singh ahluwalia used to eat half bakra at one go.The strength of those puratan singh's was also phenominal



There is a granth called Jhatka Nikedh granth. It is written in it that real sikhs never ate meat and never asked anybody to eat it. Their food was naam, and satnaam was powerful enough to keep their physical bodies healthy and strong..


----------



## Sikhilove (May 15, 2016)

Lol! I remember writing on this thread back in the day, almost 10 years back and I see that people are still wrangling over flesh nearly 10 yrs on!!


----------



## lionprinceuk (Jan 7, 2017)

notanotherloginplease said:


> There is a granth called Jhatka Nikedh granth. It is written in it that real sikhs never ate meat and never asked anybody to eat it. Their food was naam, and satnaam was powerful enough to keep their physical bodies healthy and strong..



It would be interesting to know who wrote this Jhatka Nikedh Granth? Unfortunately most of the vegeterian amrit dharis I meet or listen to parchar from don't seem to be very good at keeping a Khalsa rehit. Most of them aren't good with wearing bana, and actually not bani either - don't read full Chaupai and some might also have problems with Raagmala which is a bani in Guru Granth Sahib. Luckily a few are good with wearing dumalla but most just wear cultural indian/punjabi turbans. Also most are hopeless with shastar and probably don't know how to wear kammarkasa either, just gatray with the colonial-mandated undersized kripaan. So basically most of them are very much sehajdhari just with a turban and gatra. I wouldn't trust most of them with sikhi knowledge. Nevermind the corrupt ones that run the commitees.  Being vegeterian doesn't make up for the lack of rehit present in most amrit-dharis. And the jhatka Singhs are very good at keeping rehit, I wonder why (is it the sukha, lol?) ?


----------

