Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh

[unbiasedview]

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]

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

People who eat food per se do it for taste…..why should meat eaters be singled out?

,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.

.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.

Infact the only absolute truth in this world is god.

According to Guru Nanak, Higher than Truth is Truthful Living.

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?

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?

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?

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.

by that token u can eating nothing in this world.

So why are you judging people on what they can and cannot eat?

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
​

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?

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]

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]

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.

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)

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]

Yes milk has these proteins and minerals, i admit it…




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:

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]

Randip singh,

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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,
One great video that had awoken me up, and had a turning point in my life is the following, please have a look, and ask yourself, "Is this food that Sri Guru Gobing Singh Ji or any Guru would have allowed us to consume?", please ask yourselve.
Link: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142&ei=u9EESYuZJZH8qAOU99XyDw&hl=enThis is an award winning documentory, and really get's across important detail.

In conclusion, my dear Gursikh friends, we never know how our meat gets to our table untill the truth is shown, so therefore please, reconsider, rethink, and react,

WaheGuru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh,
Harsimran Singh Khalsa

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]

No I am not.

If we are forbidden from eating todays meat then we are forbidden from eating todays vegetables too.

Organic meat and vegetables are perfectly acceptable to Sikhs.




Meat too Organic is the way to go and is perfectly acceptable for Sikhs.

You have totally misunderstood why I added the link to the milk site, because it exposes the bubble that most vegetarians live in.




Meat organic is acceptable.

The fact one cannot see how factory farming for vegetables of the environment is killing insects, destroying habitats again shows the hypocrisy and the bubble most vegetarians live in.




A common misconception.

The word Kuttha relates to ritually slaughtered meat.

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.




A common misconceptuion

The blood coming ourt of the sweat meat was meant to be an analogy for exploitation of another man's “blood and sweat”. Absolutely NOTHING to do with meat.



Meat is an essential part of our diet. In some parts of the world it is the only diet.

No where have the Guru’s stated we must eat only Daal and Roti. This is pure conjecture.



A Half Truth

This relates not only to meat production.

What about wool?
What about Leather? (for belts shoes, and tabla’s played in the Gurudwara)
What about fertiliser for plants?
What about MILK?




Another Half Truth


Most factories with vegetables are contaminated

I think you need to read up on diseases and contamination from vegetarian sources.



Yet another Half Truth.

No. 1 cause is over consumption. Be that meat, dairy, vegetable.




Add a small amount of meat and you become a power individual like me.




Again are these animals being fattened for MILK too?

Or for wool and leather production?





But eating grain alone would leave millions malnourished.




Please define Sarbat Dha Bhalla? How does this apply to plants as well as animals?




Sikhs don’t eat Halal meat or any other ritually slaughtered meat i.e. Kuttha.



Does this apply to the Agri chemical used to kill insects and grow vegetables?



Is that fault of meat or economic policies?



Meat is Not life threatening.



Meat is part of that variety.



Nothing to do with meat.




I suspect you could, because your inherent bias is pro-vegetarian rather than pro-Sikh. Sikhism allows meat and vegetarianism.

It is an individual choice and neither blackmail, telling half truth’s or misconstruing the message of Sikhism will change that. That is the message of fools who wrangle over flesh..




Let us be correct about this. This message is a pro-vegetarian message, and NOT the SIKH message.



I will call it as it is and I will call vegetarians and 99.9999% of the points you have made hypocrisy and half truths. Sorry to be so blunt, but we see this kind of pro-vegetarian propaganda raise its UGLY head here from time to time.

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



I have reconsidered and reacted, and have found the fanaticism of vegetarian groups incredibly distasteful.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

"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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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]

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 B12
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]

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.