Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh

[Randip Singh]

Ok I have read through the whole thread, and here was my post of questions-



Am I right in saying that

quote 2-
"Ḏunīʼn▫ā murḏār kẖurḏanī gāfal havā▫e. Rahā▫o.
The world eats dead carcasses, living by neglect and greed. ||Pause||

Gaibān haivān harām kusṯanī murḏār bakẖorā▫e.
Like a goblin, or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat. "

murdar = corpse/dead body
haram = the "forbidden corpse"

= the world eats humans (metaphor?) + like a beast they eat meat killed in a ritualistic manner?

is that correct?

with regards to the first quote
"You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?

You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher?"

i saw this quote was discussed, but all that was said was that it was taken out of context from the entire verse, but i still don't understand how?


quote 3-
Rojā ḏẖarai manāvai alhu su▫āḏaṯ jī▫a sangẖārai.
You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder other beings for pleasure.

Āpā ḏekẖ avar nahī ḏekẖai kāhe ka▫o jẖakẖ mārai. ||1||
You look after your own interests, and so not see the interests of others. What good is your word? ||1||

= you keep your fasts to please allah, while you murder other creatures for pleasure?

i dont see how that can just be referrin to ritualistic/sacrificed meat?

unless you say that pleasure does not include for the purpose of eating?

The reason why you don't understand it is.

Because you are:

1) Not understanding what the words mean
2) Reading 1 or 2 lines out of context from the shabad. The shabad must be read in its entirety.
3) Not reading the Gurumukhi script ( the translations are incredibly poor)

 

[Shanger]

I can't read gurumukhi or punjabi

and I'm not trying to read things out of context, I eat meat every day i am playin devils advocate for the sake of understanding this topic.

and I've read the full verses on each of the quotes and i've told you i dont see how theyre taken out of context, unless you are suggesting I can only ever understand them if i learn gurumukhi?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Shanger ji,

Guru Fateh.

I know you have participated in many threads quite actively, which is good. Let me ask you a couple of questions before I can give me 2 cent worth in the various threads you have asked questions in.

1. What is your religion?
2. Why do you feel insecure to share your faith as you are participating in a religious forum?
3. What is your agenda and why is your religion as" Undisclosed"?
4. What is there to hide about one's faith?
5. Are you ashamed about sharing your faith? If You are then please give us the reasons why?

Only knowing about your own faith and sharing it with us, we can all learn from each other.

Thanks and will wait for your interaction.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Shanger]

Shanger ji,

Guru Fateh.

I know you have participated in many threads quite actively, which is good. Let me ask you a couple of questions before I can give me 2 cent worth in the various threads you have asked questions in.

1. What is your religion?
2. Why do you feel insecure to share your faith as you are participating in a religious forum?
3. What is your agenda and why is your religion as" Undisclosed"?
4. What is there to hide about one's faith?
5. Are you ashamed about sharing your faith? If You are then please give us the reasons why?

Only knowing about your own faith and sharing it with us, we can all learn from each other.

Thanks and will wait for your interaction.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

Hello.
Ok

1. Right now I'm not sure what my beliefs would fall under. I believe the universe is governed by a set of rules (such as laws of physics etc), I suppose you could call that God, but I don't think there is a God who cares (or experiences any kind of emotion) or reacts to humans/life in any way.

2. I'm not insecure, if what I wrote just now to your first question was available as an Adherent tag I would have chosen that.


3. Agenda- Here to learn, parts of sikhism I like, such as it promotes good morals, equality, standing up to tyranny etc. It seems very ahead of its time. Parts I have trouble accepting, such as the concept of God (I try to explain what exactly in my q & a thread I made).

Also other parts I am not sure of, such as keeping hair (which has no direct benefit for humanity in my opinion). Also meat, surely a book inspired by God should have been much more clearer on the issue? You might say that it wasn't known at the time it would be such a big issue know, but surely God/the Gurus should have known and therefore made it black and white that we have a choice, or are forbidden.

I am trying to read the Guru Granth Sahib Ji, I don't know if I will become convinced, but I am expecting some very profound logic/science if I am to believe anything so who knows.

As of right now I think most religions were made up by very clever people in olden times as a way of controlling people. Some religions promote peace so it could have been for a good cause, but with good morals I'm not sure we need religion in this day and age.

4. Nothing see above
5. No I'm not ashamed, if I was I would have said I am an atheist or agnostic.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Hello.
Ok

1. Right now I'm not sure what my beliefs would fall under. I believe the universe is governed by a set of rules (such as laws of physics etc), I suppose you could call that God, but I don't think there is a God who cares (or experiences any kind of emotion) or reacts to humans/life in any way.

2. I'm not insecure, if what I wrote just now to your first question was available as an Adherent tag I would have chosen that.


3. Agenda- Here to learn, parts of sikhism I like, such as it promotes good morals, equality, standing up to tyranny etc. It seems very ahead of its time. Parts I have trouble accepting, such as the concept of God (I try to explain what exactly in my q & a thread I made).

Also other parts I am not sure of, such as keeping hair (which has no direct benefit for humanity in my opinion). Also meat, surely a book inspired by God should have been much more clearer on the issue? You might say that it wasn't known at the time it would be such a big issue know, but surely God/the Gurus should have known and therefore made it black and white that we have a choice, or are forbidden.

I am trying to read the Guru Granth Sahib Ji, I don't know if I will become convinced, but I am expecting some very profound logic/science if I am to believe anything so who knows.

As of right now I think most religions were made up by very clever people in olden times as a way of controlling people. Some religions promote peace so it could have been for a good cause, but with good morals I'm not sure we need religion in this day and age.

4. Nothing see above
5. No I'm not ashamed, if I was I would have said I am an atheist or agnostic.

Shanger ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the response.The reason about my question of why being insecure is because you decided to use" undisclosed" which means hidden rather than "undecided" that what it seems like from your above explanation.I may be wrong about that. So, it leaves one confused.It is important to clarify things especially in a faceless forum. Why hide when one can be honest?

My last question.

What faith does your family/ancestors belong to?

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Shanger]

Shanger ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the response.The reason about my question of why being insecure is because you decided to use" undisclosed" which means hidden rather than "undecided" that what it seems like from your above explanation.I may be wrong about that. So, it leaves one's confused.It is important to clarify things especially in a faceless forum. Why hide when one can be honest?

My last question.

What faith does your family/ancestors belong to?

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Well in this point of time I believe in what I wrote above (universe governed by set of rules etc) so I wouldn't say that I am undecided, just that I am learning and open-minded.

I'm from a Sikh family.

Though I'm not sure how this is relevant, I don't think it matters if anyone here is a devout sikh or an extremist muslim with hidden agenda etc it is the merit of their posts (reasoning etc) which matters no?

 

[spnadmin]

I can't read gurumukhi or punjabi

and I'm not trying to read things out of context, I eat meat every day i am playin devils advocate for the sake of understanding this topic.

and I've read the full verses on each of the quotes and i've told you i dont see how theyre taken out of context, unless you are suggesting I can only ever understand them if i learn gurumukhi?

Shanger ji

My reply is based on a fair amount of appreciation for your predicament. I do think it is unhelpful to tell someone to read the Gurmukhi to get at the deeper meanings. It supposes a linguistic elite who have the answers, leaving others to struggle until they get it. In the time spent learning, you must patiently wait to take your turn to drink the amrit. And that is not fair. Even in translation an entire shabad will provide some clues into the larger context for the tuks that are often misread as forbidding meat.


Many Sikhs do eat meat, and have done so historically. Many Sikhs do not eat meat - I don't eat meat - and the reasons are many and can be religious in nature or even the result of long family traditions influenced by Indic culture. The culture and history of Guru Nanak's times are important.

You want to scope out the historical framework for the shabads themselves. In many different ways, in these shabads, Guru Nanak was using the "metaphor" of "feeding" on the flesh of others. He used analogies and metaphors that compared the slaughter of animals to the slaughter of humans, though sometimes the slaughter took the form of mistreatment, immorality, hypocrisy and greed. He was speaking to those who claimed the moral high ground, the "pious" who did not eat meat, but would betray their countrymen in order to curry favor with the powerful.

In essence he is asking in many different ways, "How can you call yourself pious and moral, because you do not eat meat. Is that not hypocrisy, when you act in cruelty to the poor and powerless, and are driven by greed, driven by ego, and driven to save our own hide.

Try to read a shabad in this light and let us know what you think.

 

[Shanger]

Shanger ji

My reply is based on a fair amount of appreciation for your predicament. I do think it is unhelpful to tell someone to read the Gurmukhi to get at the deeper meanings. It supposes a linguistic elite who have the answers, leaving others to struggle until they get it. In the time spent learning, you must patiently wait to take your turn to drink the amrit. And that is not fair. Even in translation an entire shabad will provide some clues into the larger context for the tuks that are often misread as forbidding meat.


Many Sikhs do eat meat, and have done so historically. Many Sikhs do not eat meat - I don't eat meat - and the reasons are many and can be religious in nature or even the result of long family traditions influenced by Indic culture. The culture and history of Guru Nanak's times are important.

You want to scope out the historical framework for the shabads themselves. In many different ways, in these shabads, Guru Nanak was using the "metaphor" of "feeding" on the flesh of others. He used analogies and metaphors that compared the slaughter of animals to the slaughter of humans, though sometimes the slaughter took the form of mistreatment, immorality, hypocrisy and greed. He was speaking to those who claimed the moral high ground, the "pious" who did not eat meat, but would betray their countrymen in order to curry favor with the powerful.

In essence he is asking in many different ways, "How can you call yourself pious and moral, because you do not eat meat. Is that not hypocrisy, when you act in cruelty to the poor and powerless, and are driven by greed, driven by ego, and driven to save our own hide.

Try to read a shabad in this light and let us know what you think.

Thanks for reply.

I'll enquire about one point at a time to make discussion easier.

I tried reading the shabad in that light, but

in Ang 1103 http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1103&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0

You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?

You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher? ||2||

the text seems pretty clear and literal. that killing living beings/creatures is wrong, and that would make someone a butcher. Unless the entire quote has been mistranslated by the translator?
also nothing I read before/after those lines in the shabad lead me to think im taking it out of context.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Thanks for reply.

I'll enquire about one point at a time to make discussion easier.

I tried reading the shabad in that light, but

in Ang 1103 http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1103&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0

You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?

You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher? ||2||

the text seems pretty clear and literal. that killing living beings/creatures is wrong, and that would make someone a butcher. Unless the entire quote has been mistranslated by the translator?
also nothing I read before/after those lines in the shabad lead me to think im taking it out of context.

Shanger ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have a suggestion to make. As your parents are Sikhs. It would be a wonderful idea to show them this Shabad and ask for their opinion. You can also ask your other Sikh relatives about it and share their thoughts with us.

Will be waiting for you to share what is the input from your own family about the Shabad.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[spnadmin]

Thanks for reply.

I'll enquire about one point at a time to make discussion easier.

I tried reading the shabad in that light, but

in Ang 1103 http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1103&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0

You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?

You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher? ||2||

the text seems pretty clear and literal. that killing living beings/creatures is wrong, and that would make someone a butcher. Unless the entire quote has been mistranslated by the translator?
also nothing I read before/after those lines in the shabad lead me to think im taking it out of context.

Shanger ji

It may be that someone needs to go through the entire shabad, and study its poetic structure with you. It might help to see how the line "you call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would call you a butcher" and the line "You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?" is giving you a big hint that Guru Nanak is not taking a literal stand on eating meat.

I also agree with Tejwant Singh ji. Make an inquiry into the shabad and gathering opinions from family and friend. This just might trigger some thoughts about the context in which the shabad was written. Place the lines into a bigger picture.

 

[Ishna]

... I thought the shabad was by Kabeer Ji?

 

[findingmyway]

... I thought the shabad was by Kabeer Ji?

This fact all the more suuports the fact that the shabad is not condemning meat eating itself but the greed and emptiness of rituals

For the sake of Maya and money, you sell knowledge; your life is totally worthless. ||3||

Only fools wrangle over flesh!!

 

[spnadmin]

Ishna ji

You are correct. It is by Kabeer ji. My mistake. However, the entire banee of Guru Granth Sahib is consistent in one voice, so that in the end the author of any particular shabad is less important than the message, which is the same throughout. Thanks again

 

[Randip Singh]

I can't read gurumukhi or punjabi

and I'm not trying to read things out of context, I eat meat every day i am playin devils advocate for the sake of understanding this topic.

and I've read the full verses on each of the quotes and i've told you i dont see how theyre taken out of context, unless you are suggesting I can only ever understand them if i learn gurumukhi?

Ok, let me break this one down for you:

quote 2-
"Ḏunīʼn▫ā murḏār kẖurḏanī gāfal havā▫e. Rahā▫o.
The world eats dead carcasses, living by neglect and greed. ||Pause||

Gaibān haivān harām kusṯanī murḏār bakẖorā▫e.
Like a goblin, or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat. "

"Ḏunīʼn▫ā murḏār kẖurḏanī gāfal havā▫e. Rahā▫o.

Literally means

The world lives of the the dead i.e. those that have passed away who have been neglected and exploited, that is what the world lives off.

Gaibān haivān harām kusṯanī murḏār bakẖorā▫e.

They are like Goblins who gnaw at the bones of these dead people.

Basically the two lines starkly point out that people exploit others for greed. People are like blood suckers. They cheat. They lie. They exploit for greed.

In no place does this mention meat, or is this about diet. It relates to human nature and is a great metaphor for exploitative human behaviour.

In this case even a limited amount of Gurmukhi would be useful, or alternatively a good translation. I recommend the version by Pritam Singh Chahil

http://www.jsks.co.in/sggs_guru_granth_sahib_pritam_singh_chahil.htm

 

[Randip Singh]

Thanks for reply.

I'll enquire about one point at a time to make discussion easier.

I tried reading the shabad in that light, but

in Ang 1103 http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1103&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0

You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?

You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher? ||2||

the text seems pretty clear and literal. that killing living beings/creatures is wrong, and that would make someone a butcher. Unless the entire quote has been mistranslated by the translator?
also nothing I read before/after those lines in the shabad lead me to think im taking it out of context.

ਜੀਅ ਬਧਹੁ ਸੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਅਧਰਮੁ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਤ ਭਾਈ ॥
जीअ बधहु सु धरमु करि थापहु अधरमु कहहु कत भाई ॥
Jī▫a baḏẖahu so ḏẖaram kar thāpahu aḏẖram kahhu kaṯ bẖā▫ī.
You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?

ਆਪਸ ਕਉ ਮੁਨਿਵਰ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਕਾ ਕਉ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਸਾਈ ॥੨॥
आपस कउ मुनिवर करि थापहु का कउ कहहु कसाई ॥२॥
Āpas ka▫o munivar kar thāpahu kā ka▫o kahhu kasā▫ī. ||2||
You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher? ||2||

Lets analyse

Jī▫a baḏẖahu so ḏẖaram kar thāpahu aḏẖram kahhu kaṯ bẖā▫ī.

You kill people in the name of your religion, then tell me what do you call someone without religion?

Āpas ka▫o munivar kar thāpahu kā ka▫o kahhu kasā▫ī. ||2||

And you call yourself a brilliant priest then whats the difference between you and butcher.


This is a slap in the face from Kabeer to those who call themselves religious yet kill people in its name. You could be lynched if you were low caste and your shadow touched a Brahmin in those days.

 

[Randip Singh]

Shanger

Here is one for you!

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&Param=1379

1379

ਫਰੀਦਾ ਰੋਟੀ ਮੇਰੀ ਕਾਠ ਕੀ ਲਾਵਣੁ ਮੇਰੀ ਭੁਖ ॥
फरीदा रोटी मेरी काठ की लावणु मेरी भुख ॥
Farīḏā rotī merī kāṯẖ kī lāvaṇ merī bẖukẖ.
Fareed, my bread is made of wood, and hunger is my appetizer.

ਜਿਨਾ ਖਾਧੀ ਚੋਪੜੀ ਘਣੇ ਸਹਨਿਗੇ ਦੁਖ ॥੨੮॥
जिना खाधी चोपड़ी घणे सहनिगे दुख ॥२८॥
Jinā kẖāḏẖī cẖopṛī gẖaṇe sėhnige ḏukẖ. ||28||
Those who eat buttered bread, will suffer in terrible pain. ||28||

Does this mean you should give up buttered bread?

 

[Shanger]

Thanks for replies, reading through them.

Shanger ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have a suggestion to make. As your parents are Sikhs. It would be a wonderful idea to show them this Shabad and ask for their opinion. You can also ask your other Sikh relatives about it and share their thoughts with us.

Will be waiting for you to share what is the input from your own family about the Shabad.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

I showed my parents and asked them what they thought it meant (I didn't show the english translation given)

My mum can read/write punjabi fine but she said this gurumukhi was too difficult to translate properly as she could only understand parts of it. Same with my dad.

I'm not close enough with any other relatives. I guess I could print the shabad and take it down to the local gurdwara.

 

[Shanger]

Shanger ji

It may be that someone needs to go through the entire shabad, and study its poetic structure with you. It might help to see how the line "you call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would call you a butcher" and the line "You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?" is giving you a big hint that Guru Nanak is not taking a literal stand on eating meat.

I also agree with Tejwant Singh ji. Make an inquiry into the shabad and gathering opinions from family and friend. This just might trigger some thoughts about the context in which the shabad was written. Place the lines into a bigger picture.

from that in my opinion it seems to be saying


"you call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would call you a butcher"
self-explanatory, if you're not a butcher for killing living beings, then who is?

"You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?"

You kill living beings, and say it is right. Well if that is right, then what is wrong (rhetorical question)
kind of like saying
"if you terrorise people and are not a bully, then tell me what is a bully?"

 

[Shanger]

Ok, let me break this one down for you:

quote 2-
"Ḏunīʼn▫ā murḏār kẖurḏanī gāfal havā▫e. Rahā▫o.
The world eats dead carcasses, living by neglect and greed. ||Pause||

Gaibān haivān harām kusṯanī murḏār bakẖorā▫e.
Like a goblin, or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat. "

"Ḏunīʼn▫ā murḏār kẖurḏanī gāfal havā▫e. Rahā▫o.

Literally means

The world lives of the the dead i.e. those that have passed away who have been neglected and exploited, that is what the world lives off.

Gaibān haivān harām kusṯanī murḏār bakẖorā▫e.

They are like Goblins who gnaw at the bones of these dead people.

Basically the two lines starkly point out that people exploit others for greed. People are like blood suckers. They cheat. They lie. They exploit for greed.

In no place does this mention meat, or is this about diet. It relates to human nature and is a great metaphor for exploitative human behaviour.

In this case even a limited amount of Gurmukhi would be useful, or alternatively a good translation. I recommend the version by Pritam Singh Chahil

http://www.jsks.co.in/Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji_guru_granth_sahib_pritam_singh_chahil.htm

Thanks, see now this makes a HUGE difference.

"gnaw at the bones of these dead people." does not in any way appear to refer to meat compared to "kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat."

if that is the case I am surprised there is not a huge uproar over such a mistranslation which must have been done on purpose (since you cant confuse something so different) if translators know gurumuki.

Thanks for link will read.

 

[Shanger]

ਜੀਅ ਬਧਹੁ ਸੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਅਧਰਮੁ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਤ ਭਾਈ ॥
जीअ बधहु सु धरमु करि थापहु अधरमु कहहु कत भाई ॥
Jī▫a baḏẖahu so ḏẖaram kar thāpahu aḏẖram kahhu kaṯ bẖā▫ī.
You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?

ਆਪਸ ਕਉ ਮੁਨਿਵਰ ਕਰਿ ਥਾਪਹੁ ਕਾ ਕਉ ਕਹਹੁ ਕਸਾਈ ॥੨॥
आपस कउ मुनिवर करि थापहु का कउ कहहु कसाई ॥२॥
Āpas ka▫o munivar kar thāpahu kā ka▫o kahhu kasā▫ī. ||2||
You call yourself the most excellent sage; then who would you call a butcher? ||2||

Lets analyse

Jī▫a baḏẖahu so ḏẖaram kar thāpahu aḏẖram kahhu kaṯ bẖā▫ī.

You kill people in the name of your religion, then tell me what do you call someone without religion?

Āpas ka▫o munivar kar thāpahu kā ka▫o kahhu kasā▫ī. ||2||

And you call yourself a brilliant priest then whats the difference between you and butcher.


This is a slap in the face from Kabeer to those who call themselves religious yet kill people in its name. You could be lynched if you were low caste and your shadow touched a Brahmin in those days.

Again "You kill people" vs "you kill living beings" makes an enormous difference

This again makes sense put this way, and I understand the metaphor but why do you think so many others have given it a different meaning? Surely to distort the words of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a serious misconduct?

I'm also confused as to how someone can mistake

"then tell me what do you call someone without religion?"
for
"Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?"



are the definitions you have given the general consensus here?


Also if you don't mind me asking why did you not include these quotes and their analysis in your original article?