Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh

[Ambarsaria]

The following additional if it helps.

You'll be fine. Just be more aware of what is halal and what is not, from now on.

It is additionally mentioned in part of the Sikh Reht Maryada as follows,

The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided
1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way;
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse;
4. Using tobacco.
In the event of the commission of any of these transgressions, the transgressor must get baptised again. If a transgression is committed unintentionally and unknowingly, the transgressor shall not be liable to punishment. You must not associate with a Sikh who had uncut hair earlier and has cut it or a Sikh who smokes. You must ever be ready for the service of the Panth and of the Gurdwaras (Sikh places of worship). You must tender one tenth (Daswand) of your earnings to the Guru.

Hope it adds to the understanding.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[kds1980]

No that's too simplistic.

3) The Gurus' beliefs and background were different.
The blog states that Guru Amardas ji is a Vaishnu therefore He does not eat meat, and so He was surprised to see Guru Angad Dev ji serving it. We know Bhai Lehna ji was a Shakta before He met Guru Nanak Dev ji and became Guru Angad Dev ji. He had been Shakta for a very long time. He commanded a large following, who were all Shakta and probably ate meat. So He serves it in His langar.

We've already discussed hunting so I won't get into that. My view is that it was for a larger cause where human suffering was involved thus it overrode animal suffering. The kurukshtra sakhi does not mention Him eating the meat.

The gurus did want us to transcend identities like vegetarian and such, this I will say now. I am open to more evidence, what would make me question Kabir ji's vegetarian stance as representative of Guru Granth Sahib ji is if Guru Nanak, Guru Amardas, Guru Ramdas, Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur ate meat, which as far as I know, they did not.

Bhagat singh j

i

Are you trying to say Guru angad dev ji had different practices from Guru Nanak dev ji ? Then what about the concept of 1 jot in all guru's ?

Also other saakhi's mentioned Guru gobind singh ji eating goat meat , not about hunting

Guru Gobind Singh ate Goat Meat at Machiwaadaa - Mahima Parkash
In Sakhi 23, It is mentioned that when Guru Gobind Singh reached Machiwarha where he did Jhatka of Goat and took dinner of it.

The text is:
....ਸਾਮ ਤਕ ਮਾਛੀਵਾੜੇ ਆਏ ਪਹੁਚੇ | ਰਾਤੀ ਕੋ ਉਹ ਬ੍ਰ੍ਹਮਨੀ ਕੇ ਘਰ ਉਤਰੇ | ਰਾਤ ਕੋ ਬਕਰਾ ਮੰਗਾਈ ਕੈ ਝਟਕਾ ਕਰਵਾਇਆ | ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦ ਛਕਾ ਅਰ ਛਿੰਗਾ ਉਸ ਕਿਆ ਪਿਛਵਾੜੇ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨਾ ਕਾ ਘਰ ਥਾ ਊਹਾ ਫ਼ੇਕੀ |....

Guru Gobind Singh Ji ordered Sikhs to Do eat Jhatka meat - Panth Parkash - Ratan Singh Bhangu
While creating Khalsa Panth, Guru Gobind Singh ji gave order to Khalsa to take Jhatka Meat only and should not take Meat prepared in Islamic way of slaughtering and neither to take meat of dead.

ਚੋਪਈ
ਔਰ ਕਹੀ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਪੜ੍ਹਯੋ । ਜਪੁ ਜਾਪੁ ਦੋਇ ਵੇਲੇ ਜਪਯੋ
ਔਰ ਅਨੰਦ ਰਹਿਰਾਸ ਜਪਯੋ । ਚੰਡੀ ਬਾਨੀ ਖੜੇ ਜਪਯੋ ।
ਦੋਇ ਵੇਲੇ ਉਠ ਬਧਯੋ ਦਸਤਾਰ ।ਪਹਰ ਆਠ ਰਖਯੋ ਸ਼ਸਤਰ ਸੰਭਾਰ ।
ਪਿਓ ਸੁਧ ਔਖਲੋ ਸ਼ਿਕਾਰ । ਸ਼ਸਤਰ ਵਿਦ੍ਯਾ ਜਿਮ ਹੋਈ ਸੰਭਾਰ ।
ਕਰ ਝਟਕੈ ਬਕਰਨ ਕੋ ਖਯੋ । ਮੁਰਦੇ ਕੂਠੇ ਨਿਕਟ ਨਾ ਜਯੋ
ਕੇਸਨ ਕੀ ਕੀਜੇ ਪ੍ਰਿਤਪਾਲ । ਨਹੀ ਉਸਤਰਨ ਸੋ ਕਟਯੋ ਬਾਲ ।18।
ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸੰਸਕਾਰ , ਭਾਈ ਰਤਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਭੰਗੂ, ਪ੍ਰਾਚੀਨ ਪੰਥ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼

Anyway Bhagat singh ji the fact is meat was never issue in sikhism until 20th century.It was only in 20th century fanatic vegetarian sects emerged

 

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat singh ji

Are you trying to say Guru angad dev ji had different practices from Guru Nanak dev ji ?

Well for one He is serving meat in His langar, as the blog stated. Don't know about any others.

I wouldn't be surprised if Guru Gobind Singh ji actually ate meat. He was influenced quite a bit by Shaiv and Shakta panths. Just read Dasam Granth because it will tell you what they are about, and how he relates to them. Eating meat for them is nothing like it is in Vaishnu circles. Vaishnu conceive of God as protector of living things. He incarnates as Narsingh, as Machh, as Varaha to protect His devotees. He would not hurt living beings. Hence Vaishnu tend to be vegetarian. So much so that when I visited Punjab I found that the word "Vaishnu" *meant* vegetarian. "100% pure vaishnu dhaba" read the board on many restaurants.
On the other hand, Mahakal of Dasam Granth wears a garland of skulls and body parts... He is the Destroyer. Guru Gobind Singh ji's vision of Shakti to emphasizes Her Destroyer-ness.

Then what about the concept of 1 jot in all guru's ?

What do you think jot means? I am sure it does not mean they are clones of one another. You can see differences in there bani and how they articulate concepts. I am sure their practices vary too. So what does jot mean then?

 

[gurtej khubbar]

One thing for sure is that I will keep eating meat as long as my health allows. I mean there are way bigger things to be concerned about then what to eat and not. People cut and eat vegetable and even they have life, where do you stop? What would you say to ppl living in deserts or mountains. Don't tell me this crap.

At the same time if someone don't want to eat it , choice is theirs. If I am doing something wrong by eathing it then I will answer the true lord when I have to give account of my life. With numerous sins I have done, I am pretty sure eating meat will not be top of the list.

Also, did Guru's eat it or not, I don't know but whatever the never supported or rejected it as they knew it was a never ending discussion.

 

[Randip Singh]

Kanwaljit Singh ji,
Would instant death make it any less immoral to kill?

I've always been interested behind the issues of morality and killing. To my mind their is no moral way of killing.

Sikhism however, is very different on morality, infact I would argue it does not deal with morality but with what is Just and Un-Just in any given situation.

For example, if I killed someone walking down the road for no reason that would be Un-Just. Now if I killed someone who tried to kill me that would be Just.

Now when it comes to kill animals, is it Just to kill an animal for hunger? This is the CRUX of the issue.

1) People who see it as Un-Just state animals are on the same level as humans in terms of conciousness.

2) Those that see is as Just state that animals are like Plants, and and not on the same level of consciousness of humans. Other state they are liberating them.

All agree, there is no need to be unnecessarily cruel.

Bani states, no point arguing about 1 and 2, just try and make your own decision.

 

[BhagatSingh]

For example, if I killed someone walking down the road for no reason that would be Un-Just. Now if I killed someone who tried to kill me that would be Just.

The latter would also be unjust but you had no choice. Having no choice does not make it just. There is no just or moral/just way to kill. Killing is always immoral and unjust.

But for the sake of argument let's say killing can be just when you have no other choice but to kill. When only killing is the option. You are at sehaj, no krodh, lalach, etc and you see that the only thing you can do is kill. Then even in this case, it is not just to kill an animal. Because you do have a choice of letting it go. An animal who is not trying to kill you or other humans, should not be killed. So this includes all cows, pigs, goats, etc, they are not trying to kill you. They are helpless in fact.

1) People who see it as Un-Just state animals are on the same level as humans in terms of conciousness.

2) Those that see is as Just state that animals are like Plants, and and not on the same level of consciousness of humans. Other state they are liberating them.

2 is clearly incorrect. Animals are like plants? I don't think any one in their right mind can believe this. Animals are more like humans than they are like plants. In fact, chimpanzee DNA is 99% similar to ours, the other 1% is a few genes. They even have a degree of self-awareness. Are we going to say chimps are like plants?

Bani states, no point arguing about 1 and 2, just try and make your own decision.

False. Bani states it is unjust to kill animals.

 

[Luckysingh]

But for the sake of argument let's say killing can be just when you have no other choice but to kill. When only killing is the option. You are at sehaj, no krodh, lalach, etc and you see that the only thing you can do is kill. Then even in this case, it is not just to kill an animal.

This is what the Guru Gobind Singh Ji tries to teach us with 'bir ras'
A sikh should learn the difference between krodh and bir ras.
:grinningkaur:There's something called DG that teaches this very well!!:grinningkaur:

 

[BhagatSingh]

Haha so true!

I love you managed to give some context to Dasam Granth on a thread about Guru Granth Sahib's stance on meat! lol

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

has anyone read the UK Best seller...The PIG that wants to be eaten " 100 experiments for the Armchair Philosopher by Julian Baggini...its an excellent read ...funny too,

 

[BhagatSingh]

Gyani ji, Any parts you found most memorable?

 

[21khalsa13]

question..?

a plant has life force - it grows, moves towards the sun, reproduces etc..
a animal has life force plus other qualities a plant doesn't have
an egg is sterile - has no life force, nothing living or growing or feeling why these people who wrangle about flesh stop eating meat and plants (which are alive) and eat eggs - they will get all energy (fat) and full protein?

:interestedsingh:

on the note of diet can we suggest gurudwara to ban sugar and white flour from langar
these are two of the biggest threats to the health of indians in the west - the rate of diabetes is alarming and growing - we need better nutrition in our langar

thanks

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

question..?

a plant has life force - it grows, moves towards the sun, reproduces etc..
a animal has life force plus other qualities a plant doesn't have
an egg is sterile - has no life force, nothing living or growing or feeling why these people who wrangle about flesh stop eating meat and plants (which are alive) and eat eggs - they will get all energy (fat) and full protein?

:interestedsingh:

on the note of diet can we suggest gurudwara to ban sugar and white flour from langar
these are two of the biggest threats to the health of indians in the west - the rate of diabetes is alarming and growing - we need better nutrition in our langar

thanks

EXACTLY ji..read SGGS page 15..and the GURU has already WARNED us of the over indulgence in Sugars and all that stuff....and MEAT is mentioned LAST..BUT FOOLISH SIKHS have dragged it to the TOP of their own man made LIST...whose LIST is more important..one made by the GURU or by some brahmgyani/sant/baba ji/waddeh baba ji etc ?? I accept the GURU !! and His LIST..for ME Maas comes at the LOWEST RUNG of Raass/swaad/jeebh rass etc etc...

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Gyani ji, Any parts you found most memorable?

This author addresses two main concerns that vegetarians usually cite...1. The Living conditions of farming animals..chickens, pigs etc in cramped horrible conditions...THAT is Concern with LIFE and NOT killing per se.
2. Concern with slaughter...killing..horrible slaughter rituals etc..

He says the First can be addressed if we all pressure the Meat industry to IMPROVE how animals are raised...BUT then Vegatarians dont eat Free range cxhickes goats etc...so LIFE condition is not really their concern..

2. He says what will happen if scientists produce a GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PIG/goat etc..that is genetically wired to WANT TO BE EATEN !! Its sole purpose in Life is to be eaten..
Its not as "Yucky" as imagined...Organ transplants, blood transfusions etc were nauseously yucky..when first introduced...but as they become ordinary..nearly everyone is comfortable with it and the Moral concerns have disappeared..just some rrandom thoughts..

 

[BhagatSingh]

Ah very interesting problem! here are my thoughts.
The first thing that comes to mind is the theme of "man as the controller of Nature". My kes are long enough to tell me that is borderline immoral. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

So is it ok to kill the pig who wants to die? because eating it would mean killing it, even thought they are two separate actions.
I will reply with a counter problem to you. Do you kill those people who want to die, who want to commit suicide? Or do you console them so that they stop wanting it? So wouldn't it be immoral to somehow manipulate them to want to die?

Similar problem but now we are in place of the pig. If your sole purpose is to be eaten, should I kill you and eat you or should I teach you the meaning of life?

The action here is in our hands. We decide whether to kill it or not. We know the killing is unjust and immoral because it snatches from the living being the right to live. It would be unjust for me to do that. So it would be unjust for me to kill the pig whether it wants to die or not, simply because it would be immoral on my part to take it's life. Taking it's life would mean I am depriving it of it's rights.

Do you go further and create humans who want to be slaves to others?

 

[kds1980]

What do you think jot means? I am sure it does not mean they are clones of one another. You can see differences in there bani and how they articulate concepts. I am sure their practices vary too. So what does jot mean then?

Here is what Bhai Gurdas ji said about 1 jot

੪੫ : ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ

ਜਾਰਤਿ ਕਰਿ ਮੁਲਤਾਨ ਦੀ ਫਿਰਿ ਕਰਤਾਰ ਪੁਰੇ ਨੋ ਆਇਆ।

Jaarati Kari Mulataan Dee Dhiri Karataari Puray No Aaiaa.

जारति करि मुलतान दी फिरि करतारि पुरे नो आइआ ।

After the journey of Multan, Baba Nanak again turned towards Kartarpur.

1 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੧


ਚੜ੍ਹੇ ਸਵਾਈ ਦਿਹਿ ਦਿਹੀ ਕਲਿਜੁਗਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਇਆ।

Charhhay Savaaee Dihi Dihee Kalijougi Naanak Naamu Dhiaaiaa.

चड़्हे सवाई दिहि दिही कलिजुगि नानक नामु धिआइआ ।

His impact increased by leaps and bounds and he made people of kaliyug remember Nam.

2 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੨


ਵਿਣੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਮੰਗਣਾ ਸਿਰਿ ਦੁਖਾ ਦੇ ਦੁਖ ਸਬਾਇਆ।

Vinu Naavai Horu Manganaa Siri Doukhaan Day Doukh Sabaaiaa.

विणु नावै होरु मंगणा सिरि दुखां दे दुख सबाइआ ।

Desiring anything except the Nam of the Lord, is invitation to multiplying sufferings.

3 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੩


ਮਾਰਿਆ ਸਿਕਾ ਜਗਤ੍ਰਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਪੰਥ ਚਲਾਇਆ।

Maariaa Sikaa Jagati Vichi Naanak Niramal Pandu Chalaaiaa.

मारिआ सिका जगति विचि नानक निरमल पंथु चलाइआ ।

In the world, he established the authority (of his doctrines) and started a religion, devoid of any impurity (niramal panth).

4 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੪


ਥਾਪਿਆ ਲਹਿਣਾ ਜੀਵਦੇ ਗੁਰਿਆਈ ਸਿਰਿ ਛਤ੍ਰ ਫਿਰਾਇਆ।

Daapiaa Lahinaa Jeenvaday Guriaaee Siri Chhatr Dhiraaiaa.

थापिआ लहिणा जींवदे गुरिआई सिरि छत्र फिराइआ ।

During his life time he waved the canopy of Guru seat on the head of Lahina(Guru Angad) and merged his own light into him.

5 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੫


ਜੋਤੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਮਿਲਾਇਕੈ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕ ਰੂਪ ਵਟਾਇਆ।

Jotee Joti Milaai Kai Satigur Naanaki Roopu Vataaiaa.

जोती जोति मिलाइ कै सतिगुर नानकि रूपु वटाइआ ।

Guru Nanak now transformed himself.

6 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੬


ਲਖਿ ਨ ਕੋਈ ਸਕਈ ਆਚਰਜੇ ਆਚਰਜ ਦਿਖਾਇਆ।

Lakhi N Koee Sakaee Aacharajay Aacharaju Dikhaaiaa.

लखि न कोई सकई आचरजे आचरजु दिखाइआ ।

This mystery is incomprehensible for anybody that awe-inspiring (Nanak) accomplished a wonderful task.

7 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੭


ਕਾਇਆ ਪਲਟਿ ਸਰੂਪ ਬਣਾਇਆ ॥੪੫॥

Kaaiaa Palati Saroopu Banaaiaa ॥45॥

काइआ पलटि सरूपु बणाइआ ॥४५॥

He converted (his body) into a new form.

8 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੪੫ ਪੰ. ੮


http://www.searchgurbani.com/bhai_gurdas_vaaran/vaar/1/pauri/45

Here is from Guru granth sahib

ਲਹਣੇ ਦੀ ਫੇਰਾਈਐ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਦੋਹੀ ਖਟੀਐ ॥
लहणे दी फेराईऐ नानका दोही खटीऐ ॥
Lahṇe ḏī ferā▫ī▫ai nānkā ḏohī kẖatī▫ai.
Nanak proclaimed Lehna's succession - he earned it.

ਜੋਤਿ ਓਹਾ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਸਾਇ ਸਹਿ ਕਾਇਆ ਫੇਰਿ ਪਲਟੀਐ ॥
जोति ओहा जुगति साइ सहि काइआ फेरि पलटीऐ ॥
Joṯ ohā jugaṯ sā▫e sėh kā▫i▫ā fer paltī▫ai.
They shared the One Light and the same way; the King just changed His body.

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=966&english=t&id=41536

Bhagat Singh ji

By saying that Guru's had different ways you have the base of Sikhism.There will be million question raised if Sikhs will start saying that all Guru's were different.

 

[Randip Singh]

The latter would also be unjust but you had no choice. Having no choice does not make it just. There is no just or moral/just way to kill. Killing is always immoral and unjust.

No, because in courts of law i.e. where Justice and Just decisions are implemented people are aquitted for killing in self defence in other words in such a situation it was Just to kill someone. Morality doesn't come into it as it is an emotive state and a very Semitic way of thinking. Very different from what Sikhism states.

But for the sake of argument let's say killing can be just when you have no other choice but to kill. When only killing is the option. You are at sehaj, no krodh, lalach, etc and you see that the only thing you can do is kill. Then even in this case, it is not just to kill an animal. Because you do have a choice of letting it go. An animal who is not trying to kill you or other humans, should not be killed. So this includes all cows, pigs, goats, etc, they are not trying to kill you. They are helpless in fact.

Who's talking about an animal wanting to kill you? This is about one man's food and anothers poison. Vaishnav orientated Sikhs tend to have the above sort of views.

2 is clearly incorrect. Animals are like plants? I don't think any one in their right mind can believe this. Animals are more like humans than they are like plants. In fact, chimpanzee DNA is 99% similar to ours, the other 1% is a few genes. They even have a degree of self-awareness. Are we going to say chimps are like plants?.

Who's talking about DNA, but we are talking about levels of consciousness. Now some argue animals are not on the same level of consciousness as humans, and therfore akin to a plant.

False. Bani states it is unjust to kill animals.

Err no BHaghat Singh, we've been down this road before and your arguments were defeated. People who think this are fools, and tend to be biased from a Vaishnav orientation.

 

[Randip Singh]

Ah very interesting problem! here are my thoughts.
The first thing that comes to mind is the theme of "man as the controller of Nature". My kes are long enough to tell me that is borderline immoral. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

So is it ok to kill the pig who wants to die? because eating it would mean killing it, even thought they are two separate actions.
I will reply with a counter problem to you. Do you kill those people who want to die, who want to commit suicide? Or do you console them so that they stop wanting it? So wouldn't it be immoral to somehow manipulate them to want to die?

Similar problem but now we are in place of the pig. If your sole purpose is to be eaten, should I kill you and eat you or should I teach you the meaning of life?

The action here is in our hands. We decide whether to kill it or not. We know the killing is unjust and immoral because it snatches from the living being the right to live. It would be unjust for me to do that. So it would be unjust for me to kill the pig whether it wants to die or not, simply because it would be immoral on my part to take it's life. Taking it's life would mean I am depriving it of it's rights.

Do you go further and create humans who want to be slaves to others?

Bit of a daft argument really.lol

Where on God's earth is a Pig on the same level as a Human?

The basis of this argument is that of a Vaishnav concept that assumes that an animal is on the same level of human being. You are not talking in terms of Sikh concepts.

....and you are still talking in terms of Semetic concepts of morality and Immorality which are based around sinning and the ten commandments. Sikhi does not talk in those concepts. If we did, then we would believe in concepts of good and evil, God and Devil etc etc. We clearly do not.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat Singh ji

By saying that Guru's had different ways you have the base of Sikhism.There will be million question raised if Sikhs will start saying that all Guru's were different.

Kds ji,
In Guru Granth Sahib it says that the Gurus are God's incarnation. "In Satyug, You taught humility to Bali raja. In treta, You defeated Ravan as Sri Ram. In Dwapar, You defeated Kans as Krishan Murare. In Kaliyug, You have arrived and established your sovereign rule as Guru Nanak, Angad and Amardas. " Even Sri Ram and Krishan had different personalities yet they are also Jot of God.

I think people already know that the Gurus are different. Some were writers, some warriors, some ruled, and some went on udasis, some initiated through charan pahul, some treated the sick, some treated the wealthy, some through khande di pahul, some asked for horses and weapons, some gave their life.

I doubt there will be a million questions asked. There will only be one. and that would be "what does having 1 jot really mean if the Gurus have different personalities?".

 

[Randip Singh]

I think this part of Bani is the crux of the issue:

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

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

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

ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5.
ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa.
ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa.
ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o.
ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o.
mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa. chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa. rahaa-o.
ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa.
ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa.
ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa.
lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa.
saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat.
kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat.
ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan.
jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan.
avar na doojaa karnai jog.
taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay.
kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay.

Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl:
In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;
in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer.
In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake.
In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse.
Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him.
After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you. Pause
In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;
in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;
you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations.
Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life.
Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har.
Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance.
Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord.
Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord.
No one else can do anything at all.
We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself.
Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

mehlaa 1.
vaykh je mithaa kati-aa kat kut baDhaa paa-ay.
khundhaa andar rakh kai dayn so mal sajaa-ay.
ras kas tatar paa-ee-ai tapai tai villaa-ay.
bhee so fog samaalee-ai dichai ag jaalaa-ay.
naanak mithai patree-ai vaykhhu lokaa aa-ay.

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


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

 

[BhagatSingh]

No, because in courts of law i.e. where Justice and Just decisions are implemented people are aquitted for killing in self defence in other words in such a situation it was Just to kill someone. Morality doesn't come into it as it is an emotive state and a very Semitic way of thinking. Very different from what Sikhism states.

Who is talking about Semitic religions? This is about what Sikhism states that it is unjust to kill animals.

Who's talking about an animal wanting to kill you? This is about one man's food and anothers poison. Vaishnav orientated Sikhs tend to have the above sort of views.

I am sure Vaishnu aren't the only ones with common sense.
If you are going to state that killing is only just in self-dense then why do you harm an animal that is not attacking you?

Who's talking about DNA, but we are talking about levels of consciousness. Now some argue animals are not on the same level of consciousness as humans, and therefore akin to a plant.

I am talking about DNA, and citing it as Biological evidence for animals being close to us. There is Psychological evidence showing chimps with self awareness.
Amazing Apes: Self-awareness (1/2) - YouTube
There is no excuse for ignorance when the knowledge is there and easily accessible.

Err no BHaghat Singh, we've been down this road before and your arguments were defeated. People who think this are fools, and tend to be biased from a Vaishnav orientation.

False, you proved nothing.

Where on God's earth is a Pig on the same level as a Human?

The basis of this argument is that of a Vaishnav concept that assumes that an animal is on the same level of human being. You are not talking in terms of Sikh concepts.

Where do Vaishnu state that animals are on the same level as humans? Which scripture, page number?

If we did, then we would believe in concepts of good and evil, God and Devil etc etc. We clearly do not.

Yeah you clearly don't believe in good if you say it is justified to kill someone who is not attacking you.