Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh
- Thread starter Randip Singh
- Start date
- Replies 1K
- Reads 374K
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Shaheediyan
SPNer
- Jun 10, 2006
- 66
- 3
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.
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.
<<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
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
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
SPNer
- Jun 10, 2006
- 66
- 3
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.
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.
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.
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
SPNer
- Jun 10, 2006
- 66
- 3
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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 ॥
Pa­oṛī.
Pauree:
ਇਕਿ ਜੈਨੀ ਉਝੜ ਪਾਇ ਧੁਰਹੁ ਖੁਆਇਆ ॥
इकि जैनी उझड़ पाइ धुरहु खुआइआ ॥
Ik jainī ujẖaṛ pā­ė ḏẖarahu kẖu­ā­i­ā.
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 nĥā­i­ā.
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 kẖohā­ė na bẖaḏ karā­i­ā.
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 bẖā­i­ā.
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 gavā­i­ā.
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 kẖā­i­ā.
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 pā­i­ā.
Without the Shabad, no one achieves a lifestyle of good conduct.
ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਸਚਿ ਸਮਾਇਆ ॥੧੬॥
गुरमुखि ओअंकारि सचि समाइआ ॥१६॥
Gurmukẖ o­ankār sacẖ samā­i­ā. ||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.
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
Gyani Jarnail Singh
Gret to see you here again Gyani ji.
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.
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.
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
Thanks for the post.....it was very enlighteneing.
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.
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.
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
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
