Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh

[japjisahib04]

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

Simple question, if each Gurus are different than why did they write under Nanak Name and not their own name?

Best regards

 

[Randip Singh]

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

You are.

You are talking in terms of morality when Sikhism does not talk in those terms.

I am sure Vaishnu aren't the only ones with common sense.

Maybe they are , maybe they are not, but lets not confuse Vaishnav dogma with Sikhism.

If you are going to state that killing is only just in self-dense then why do you harm an animal that is not attacking you?

I didn't say that. ....but you were talking in terms of morality and I pointed out in terms of morality, which is based on the Semitic concepts of the 10 commandements killing is morally wrong..

In any case, more than one Guru killed people, are you saying they were immoral? motherlylove

The killing for food in terms of being Just or Un-Just can't be argued about, as it about personal choice. Tis is exactly the stance of Baba Nanak.

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

Who's being ignorant?

Chimps probably are closer to humans in terms of DNA, but they are not humans.

Dolphins, Chimps, Orangutans and Elephants are self aware as well. Me personally, I would have a problem in killing these for food.

False, you proved nothing.

Well I could trade insults with you, but the truth is your arguments in the past were demolished based on the fact you had not studied the meanings of shabads and put them into historical and sociological concepts. For this I have to take some responsibilty as I often assume everyone on this forum has read the similar amount of Sikh History books I have, and maybe sometimes I need to explain myself better vis a vis Kabir ji and his comments on theMuslim invaders and the sacking of Varnasi.

Just because there in Bani of Kabir in the Granth Sahib it does not make us Vaishnavs. In the same context, because there is Bani of Sheikh Farid it does not make us Muslims.

Bani is neutral. On meat it does not promote of denounce any form of diets.

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

Read this part on Vaishnav belief:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudiya_Vaishnavism#Living_beings

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

Well maybe I'm a bad person, or a good person. I really don't know. I try and avoid the 5 thieves, and try and treat other humans with respect. If you think I'm a bad person because of my views and my beliefs that Sikhism is not an off shoot of Vaishnavism, then so be it.

An animal is not someone. It's not a human being.

That doesn't mean you should be sadistic to animals either because they are a lower form of life.

Here in the UK, the English are voracious meat eaters, yet their laws on cruelty to animals means you could end up in jail if you are sadistic to animals.

Because you eat meat, doesn't mean you are cruel. India has some of the cruelest people in the world who are vegetarians. :sippingcoffee:

 

[Randip Singh]

Simple question, if each Gurus are different than why did they write under Nanak Name and not their own name?

Best regards

I think on this point I probably agree with Bhaghat Singh.

The fact one Guru ate meat and another didn't illustrates it was not an issue even amongst the Guru's.

In terms of their teaching they were consistent.

 

[BhagatSingh]

You are.

You are talking in terms of morality when Sikhism does not talk in those terms.

Just and Unjust are part of morality. They are related terms. And yes Sikhism does talk about it.

I don't know how the Semitic religions or Vaishnu or this religion or taht religion view morality, my concern is with Sikhism alone.

just/jəst/
Adjective: Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair: "a just society".

I didn't say that. ....

Don't deny making your own statement. You said killing is just in self-defense.

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

That's what you said earlier. :sippingcoffeemunda:

In any case, more than one Guru killed people, are you saying they were immoral? motherlylove

I have answered this previously. I have also talked about hunting. Just go back a few pages.

Who's being ignorant?

You and I.

The killing for food in terms of being Just or Un-Just can't be argued about, as it about personal choice.

Chimps probably are closer to humans in terms of DNA, but they are not humans.

Dolphins, Chimps, Orangutans and Elephants are self aware as well. Me personally, I would have a problem in killing these for food.

What the self-awareness experiments are meant to highlight is the level of awareness animals have.

Pigs are able to use the information seen in a mirror but do not show evidence of self-recognition. In an experiment, 7 of the 8 pigs tested were able to find a bowl of food hidden behind a wall using a mirror. The eighth pig looked behind the mirror for the food.

For those who don't realize it, being able to discern that the mirror is reflecting the surroundings requires a great level of intelligence and awareness.
Animal intelligence- pigs and chickens are smart - YouTube
Pigs outperform chimps on some tests of intelligence.

Besides humans, animals are still missing awareness of the "I" behind the other. Being able to sense sentience in another being (and in an object, if you develop your awareness to a high level). This is the only quality which separates humans and animals, and this is why humans can reach God ( that is seeing God in all) and animals cannot. Also, the degree to which humans can become aware through meditations, prayers etc, is just mind-blowing.


But animals are also aware and feel immense emotions. They act out of intentions and can make great sacrifice, and show great empathy. Just like humans but not to the same degree.

Not all animals have self-awareness, and like I said that was just a demonstration of the high level of awareness they have. Some are so high that they have self-awareness. You get what I mean.

Their intelligence and awareness levels are similar to to human infants. So by analogy, would you say it is ok to kill and eat a baby? Rhetorical question. Is it really a matter of personal choice at this point? Especially when being a human you can see that behind the animal lies a sentience, the I, who carries out intentions inherent to the animal. This is something that only a human can do, which is see the animal as more than food, and is tossed aside and excused on the basis of "personal choice". How does that make you different than an carnivorous animal, like a tiger who cannot do so either?

Amongst tigers, this is a non-issue. Their prey is just food. But humans are so much more than. We can see the tiger acting out of intention and the fear in the prey, as it alerts it's herd. We can see the I, and we can empathize with the creatures. We can see for ourselves, even without Psychological and Biological evidence that there is a sentience behind the beast, so how do we justify our killing it?

Those who have pets know what I talking about. Even if you have two of the same breed, the pets each have personalities. They are individuals with feelings and emotions. They connect with you and respond to your way of being. They are beings themselves.

Well I could trade insults with you, but the truth is your arguments in the past were demolished based on the fact you had not studied the meanings of shabads and put them into historical and sociological concepts. For this I have to take some responsibilty as I often assume everyone on this forum has read the similar amount of Sikh History books I have, and maybe sometimes I need to explain myself better vis a vis Kabir ji and his comments on theMuslim invaders and the sacking of Varnasi.

i am not here to trade insults with you either. You did a great job with Sikh history website, it's a wonderful resource, and the first one I go to for information on Sikh history. So I am certainly not calling you ignorant or trying to.

But not all of Kabir's shabads fall into the category of response to Muslim invaders. I think you are generalizing there. But this is not what I am debating here. We went through that already. I left it because I didn't feel I was being responded to, and that no attention was paid to what I was saying or my posts were ignored outright. All I got in response was a copy-paste of the article. I don't call that a debate.

Anyways.

Read this part on Vaishnav belief:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudiya_Vaishnavism#Living_beings

What about it? Where does it state the claims you are making about the Vaishnu religion?

 

[kds1980]

Bhagat singh ji

The problem is if we want to live then we have to kill ,the only question whether we kill directly or indirectly

OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet (3/5/02)

CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow?

This question is central to a study of bioethics that explores the moral foundation of a strictly vegetarian, so-called vegan diet. The research, by Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, adds a new perspective to a millennia-old debate: Is it right for people to kill animals in order to feed themselves?

Davis turns that question on its head. How many animals must die, he asks, in order for people to feed themselves?

To address the question, Davis applies a principle used by moral philosophers to measure the least amount of harm an action might cause, called the Least Harm Principle.

Davis's research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy professor from North Carolina State University and founder of the contemporary animal rights movement. Regan argues that the least harm would be done to animals if people were to adopt a vegan diet - that is, a diet based only on plants, with no meat, eggs, or milk products.

What goes unaccounted for in Regan's vegan conclusion, according to Davis, is the number of animals who are inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest.

"Vegan diets are not bloodless diets," Davis said. "Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets."

Davis presented his research last fall at a meeting of the European Society for Agriculture and Food Ethics, in Florence, Italy. There he questioned the conclusions of animal rights proponents and offered alternatives using the Least Harm Principle. Central to his argument is the unseen mortality that accompanies the production of row crops and grains, staples of a vegan diet, in agricultural systems large enough to sustain the human population.

"Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I have never found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the 'harm' to - animals of the field," Davis said. "This, it seems to me, is a serious omission."

Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference between the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the other so that humans may eat.

Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes and other field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one researcher: "Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture's effects on their populations."

Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to animals of the field.

In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower blades, and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams.

"Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, would be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture," Davis said.

Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference, according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn.

Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may be morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants in order to cause the least harm to animals.

Davis's work goes beyond the vegan debate to grapple with issues of animal cloning, genetic engineering, and ethical treatment of production animals. Through the OSU Agriculture Experiment Station and a regional project on animal bioethics, Davis is part of a team of biological and social scientists from throughout the West who are working to integrate ethics and moral reasoning into the work and study of agriculture.

By Peg Herring, 541-737-9180
SOURCE: Steven Davis, 541-737-1892
OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet (3/5/02)

CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow?

This question is central to a study of bioethics that explores the moral foundation of a strictly vegetarian, so-called vegan diet. The research, by Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, adds a new perspective to a millennia-old debate: Is it right for people to kill animals in order to feed themselves?

Davis turns that question on its head. How many animals must die, he asks, in order for people to feed themselves?

To address the question, Davis applies a principle used by moral philosophers to measure the least amount of harm an action might cause, called the Least Harm Principle.

Davis's research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy professor from North Carolina State University and founder of the contemporary animal rights movement. Regan argues that the least harm would be done to animals if people were to adopt a vegan diet - that is, a diet based only on plants, with no meat, eggs, or milk products.

What goes unaccounted for in Regan's vegan conclusion, according to Davis, is the number of animals who are inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest.

"Vegan diets are not bloodless diets," Davis said. "Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets."

Davis presented his research last fall at a meeting of the European Society for Agriculture and Food Ethics, in Florence, Italy. There he questioned the conclusions of animal rights proponents and offered alternatives using the Least Harm Principle. Central to his argument is the unseen mortality that accompanies the production of row crops and grains, staples of a vegan diet, in agricultural systems large enough to sustain the human population.

"Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I have never found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the 'harm' to - animals of the field," Davis said. "This, it seems to me, is a serious omission."

Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference between the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the other so that humans may eat.

Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes and other field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one researcher: "Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture's effects on their populations."

Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to animals of the field.

In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower blades, and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams.

"Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, would be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture," Davis said.

Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference, according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn.

Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may be morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants in order to cause the least harm to animals.

Davis's work goes beyond the vegan debate to grapple with issues of animal cloning, genetic engineering, and ethical treatment of production animals. Through the OSU Agriculture Experiment Station and a regional project on animal bioethics, Davis is part of a team of biological and social scientists from throughout the West who are working to integrate ethics and moral reasoning into the work and study of agriculture.

By Peg Herring, 541-737-9180
SOURCE: Steven Davis, 541-737-1892

 

[Randip Singh]

Just and Unjust are part of morality. They are related terms. And yes Sikhism does talk about it.

No it's the other way round. Morality comes under the heading of Justice and being Just:

http://www.friesian.com/moral-2.htm

The difference between morality and justice comes not from the difference between actions and consequences (as between morality and euergetic ethics) but from the difference between motives and actions. As Kant noted, the worth of moral action is in the intention, not in what is actually done. The imperative of morality is first of all to act with good will. Even the best of good will, however, does not necessarily produce right action -- the saying is that the path to hell is paved with good intentions. And even ill will does not necessarily produce wrong action -- it is really an ad hominem fallacy to evaluate an action on the basis of an agent's motive

So in summary, Justice tends to come from total objectivity, wheras Morality from Subjectivity. However, Justice can be based on morality i.e. subjectivity. The classic example is the Ten Commandments which are the basis for many systems of Justice.

You could also look at Justice as being Timeless, and Morality as being a moment in time.

I don't know how the Semitic religions or Vaishnu or this religion or taht religion view morality, my concern is with Sikhism alone.
Don't deny making your own statement. You said killing is just in self-defense.
That's what you said earlier. :sippingcoffeemunda:

No my friend this is exactly what I said:

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

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

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

I'm asking a question and presenting two points of view. Very different from killing in self defence.

The Semitic and Vaishnav concepts are very relevant. My own bringing up in a Vaishnav orientated family and brought up with Semitic concepts of the West did confuse me. I too argued vehemently pro-vegetarian some 17 years ago. I don't now, because it's plain stuupid.

I have answered this previously. I have also talked about hunting. Just go back a few pages.

It doesn't make sense. In terms of morality the Guru's were immoral people, however, in terms of Justice they 100% correct.

You and I.
What the self-awareness experiments are meant to highlight is the level of awareness animals have.

For those who don't realize it, being able to discern that the mirror is reflecting the surroundings requires a great level of intelligence and awareness.
Animal intelligence- pigs and chickens are smart - YouTube
Pigs outperform chimps on some tests of intelligence.

I read the article on Pigs, but one point you missed was wheras with Dolphins, Chimps, Orangutans, and Elephants, you can put a mirror infront of them and they are self aware or appear to be concious of their awareness. Pigs had to be trained over a period of time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html?_r=0

Besides humans, animals are still missing awareness of the "I" behind the other. Being able to sense sentience in another being (and in an object, if you develop your awareness to a high level). This is the only quality which separates humans and animals, and this is why humans can reach God ( that is seeing God in all) and animals cannot. Also, the degree to which humans can become aware through meditations, prayers etc, is just mind-blowing.

Indeed

But animals are also aware and feel immense emotions. They act out of intentions and can make great sacrifice, and show great empathy. Just like humans but not to the same degree.

Not all animals have self-awareness, and like I said that was just a demonstration of the high level of awareness they have. Some are so high that they have self-awareness. You get what I mean.

Some are, most are not. I get that. Note that when we dwell in the 5 thieves we are described as animals in our behaviour.

Their intelligence and awareness levels are similar to to human infants. So by analogy, would you say it is ok to kill and eat a baby? Rhetorical question. Is it really a matter of personal choice at this point? Especially when being a human you can see that behind the animal lies a sentience, the I, who carries out intentions inherent to the animal. This is something that only a human can do, which is see the animal as more than food, and is tossed aside and excused on the basis of "personal choice". How does that make you different than an carnivorous animal, like a tiger who cannot do so either?

I used the emotive baby argmument in my militant vege days. Then it was pointed out to me, that a baby has the potential to be a human. An animal does not!. I said what about disabled people, we should kill them? Again it was pointed out to me, it is because we are humans we do not terminate fellow malfunctioning humans.

Amongst tigers, this is a non-issue. Their prey is just food. But humans are so much more than. We can see the tiger acting out of intention and the fear in the prey, as it alerts it's herd. We can see the I, and we can empathize with the creatures. We can see for ourselves, even without Psychological and Biological evidence that there is a sentience behind the beast, so how do we justify our killing it?

You are missing the point.

Humans can make their OWN decisions. Now if someone like you feels a strong empathy towards animals then don't eat it. If someone else doesn't then thats up to them. Fools wrangle over flesh says exactly this, and this is the Sikh position.

In any case the who flesh debate falls on the egg!!

Those who have pets know what I talking about. Even if you have two of the same breed, the pets each have personalities. They are individuals with feelings and emotions. They connect with you and respond to your way of being. They are beings themselves.

I've had cats. They are not intelligent. They act on instinct.

i am not here to trade insults with you either. You did a great job with Sikh history website, it's a wonderful resource, and the first one I go to for information on Sikh history. So I am certainly not calling you ignorant or trying to.

Can't take credit for sikh-history. That's Sandeep Bajwa ji. A great and learned man.

But not all of Kabir's shabads fall into the category of response to Muslim invaders. I think you are generalizing there. But this is not what I am debating here. We went through that already. I left it because I didn't feel I was being responded to, and that no attention was paid to what I was saying or my posts were ignored outright. All I got in response was a copy-paste of the article. I don't call that a debate.

Hmm.

Those weren't copy and pastes, but selected historical articles and memoirs of an infamous invader.

Just as Baba Nanak had his Babur Bani so Kabir was deeply influenced by the invasion of Timur...and to show why he turned away from Islam and was so critical of of Mullahs. If you understand this you understand Kabir.

In anycase, ask yourself, were you ignoring other peoples points? It can happen in debates, or people maybe just missing it or considering it unimportant.

I must I do ignore points in debates when I consider them to be trivial and if the person was better read would understand that particular issue.

Anyways.

What about it? Where does it state the claims you are making about the Vaishnu religion?

You have to read the sections and the links.

I think the point is Vaishnavs consider a kind of equality between humans and animals (they exclude plants). They're a kind of super pacificist, unless ofcourse you are a certain caste i.e. Kshatriya, then you can eat meat. They condem people as low caste for eating meat.

Sikhism doesn't say that.

 

[Randip Singh]

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

Your point on eggs is excellent and was what made me take a look at my own pro-Vaishnav views.

 

[Luckysingh]

Some of us may think it is unjust and others not so.
It's all too easy to be sat in an armchair and claim that eating meat is unjust, because an animal is killed just for feeding.
But some will argue that just as many animals suffer enormous cruelty to provide their veggie diets.

I think it is more of a personal opinion of what is exactly unjust and just in terms of killing.

I'm sure that in the true and strict nihang tradition, they are only to eat the meat of one that has had jhatka and it has been done by them or other nihangs in the group.
This strictly means that they are NOT to purchase meat from stores and restaurants as such, because they don't know when, where and how the animal was killed.

If this case applied to all of us, then the armchair claimaints of just and unjust would be completely different.
If most meat eaters had to kill the very chicken or goat themselves before cooking and eating, then a huge number of them would do a U-turn.

I used to very much enjoy lobster,snails,octopuss and many other spanish paella dishes.
However, one time I were in a restaurant that had this huge tank in the centre with live lobsters fully active. We had to pick our own from the tank and then watch it get boiled and killed whilst they prepared your dish in front of you !!
NeedI say more..?, but I have never eaten lobster ever again !!!!

I think it is more about the awareness of what really happens there and then. I mean we all know how the cow or goat gets killed, but if we had to stand there infront and witness it, then it becomes a different ball game altogether.

All foods are obtained by some degree of unjust means, it is just how unjust that it appears to us individually that gives us different views.
Remember the torture the corn is put through in Guru Nanak ji's shabad !!!

 

[kds1980]

Some of us may think it is unjust and others not so.
It's all too easy to be sat in an armchair and claim that eating meat is unjust, because an animal is killed just for feeding.
But some will argue that just as many animals suffer enormous cruelty to provide their veggie diets.

I think it is more of a personal opinion of what is exactly unjust and just in terms of killing.

I'm sure that in the true and strict nihang tradition, they are only to eat the meat of one that has had jhatka and it has been done by them or other nihangs in the group.
This strictly means that they are NOT to purchase meat from stores and restaurants as such, because they don't know when, where and how the animal was killed.

If this case applied to all of us, then the armchair claimaints of just and unjust would be completely different.
If most meat eaters had to kill the very chicken or goat themselves before cooking and eating, then a huge number of them would do a U-turn.

I used to very much enjoy lobster,snails,octopuss and many other spanish paella dishes.
However, one time I were in a restaurant that had this huge tank in the centre with live lobsters fully active. We had to pick our own from the tank and then watch it get boiled and killed whilst they prepared your dish in front of you !!
NeedI say more..?, but I have never eaten lobster ever again !!!!

I think it is more about the awareness of what really happens there and then. I mean we all know how the cow or goat gets killed, but if we had to stand there infront and witness it, then it becomes a different ball game altogether.

All foods are obtained by some degree of unjust means, it is just how unjust that it appears to us individually that gives us different views.
Remember the torture the corn is put through in Guru Nanak ji's shabad !!!

It all depends on the type of environment you are living.Most of educated city folks which are in white collar jobs may get shocked when they see animal being killed but rural or tribals are not going to feel in the same way.

A farmer every year end up killing millions of insects and other pests to save his crop

Similarly millions living in coastal area which are totally dependent on their fish supply for survival.These people everyday see billions of fishes,crabs etc dieing in front of them yet they are eating them from thousands of years.

 

[harcharanjitsinghdhillon]

subject on food still drop under the 3 gunas.. if whole life we pay more attention on food but not earning naam, then our destiny is still maya not out from it.. this subject is just a small step in our spiritual development, because for those who want to get involve in serious meditation to earn naams, then it is always recommended to be a vegetarian.. from it you only earn the higher GUNA only that is satvic, but still not out from maya yet. we must proceed further to earn naam, a ticket to move out of maya.. vegetarian diet also helps on developing positive karmas. thanks

 

[Luckysingh]

subject on food still drop under the 3 gunas.. if whole life we pay more attention on food but not earning naam, then our destiny is still maya not out from it.. this subject is just a small step in our spiritual development, because for those who want to get involve in serious meditation to earn naams, then it is always recommended to be a vegetarian.. from it you only earn the higher GUNA only that is satvic, but still not out from maya yet. we must proceed further to earn naam, a ticket to move out of maya.. vegetarian diet also helps on developing positive karmas. thanks

That is not the pure gurmat sikh view according to the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji !!
Your post that mentions earning naams with vegeterianism to increase spirituality is more of a radhsoami view.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

I suppose..IF everyone had to Cut up carrots radishes and peel onions...and COOK them before eating them..how many would do a U-TURN and opt for KFC or MCDonalds...??ha ha
How about DAAL MAKING Tarrkah etc BEFORE you can EAT it ?? How many will still say they LOVE Daal and Kichhrree ??
The ONIONS alone will chase many away !!! CRYING BUCKETS....
COOKING is NOT easy..for MOST its TOO HOT in the KITCHEN...and so many young couples EAT OUT !!!:interestedkudi:

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

And DONT beleive in everything we see....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247849/The-truth-free-range-turkeys-Christmas-dinner.html

 

[spnadmin]

harharanjitsingh ji

What do you mean by the phrase "earn naams?" You seem to be saying that meditation helps one earn naams.

Important for me to understand how you think of "naams", and why you think "naams are something that can be earned?

Rather than "naams" as plural, I think of one Naam. I think of it as something that is always present within us and without, freely given, not earned, but realized. How does a person earn naams?

How does food, meat or not meat, get in the way of naam?

How do you earn a "guna?" The gunas are considered 3 states within Maya, to those who believe of gunas, they are natural forces. I do not see how a person "earns" a natural force. They are there, according to those who take gunas literally, whether we do anything about them or not. So how would you earn a guna?

How does food, meat or not meat, get in the way of a guna?

 

[BhagatSingh]

subject on food still drop under the 3 gunas.. if whole life we pay more attention on food but not earning naam, then our destiny is still maya not out from it..

Pretty much.

this subject is just a small step in our spiritual development, because for those who want to get involve in serious meditation to earn naams, then it is always recommended to be a vegetarian.. from it you only earn the higher GUNA only that is satvic, but still not out from maya yet. we must proceed further to earn naam, a ticket to move out of maya.. vegetarian diet also helps on developing positive karmas. thanks

How can one know for ourselves if certain foods contain more Sattva?

 

[spnadmin]

If green beans had been favored by Muslims and banned by Vashnaiv during Guru Nanak's time, this thread would be titled Fools who Wrangle over Green Beans. The beans would become the topic of our controversy.

Guru Nanak would be telling us that it is not the green beans, but the pride of self that comes from believing we are holy because we avoid them, or the disposition to use them as symbols of status if we eat them, or the kaam that comes from gorging on them. He would be right because we would be wrangling like fools.

That leaves me still with two unanswered questions. How does one "earn naams?" How does food get in the way of earning naam? For example, lima beans are sattvic. Would lima beans hinder or help me in my search for naam?

 

[Randip Singh]

harharanjitsingh ji

What do you mean by the phrase "earn naams?" You seem to be saying that meditation helps one earn naams.

Important for me to understand how you think of "naams", and why you think "naams are something that can be earned?

Rather than "naams" as plural, I think of one Naam. I think of it as something that is always present within us and without, freely given, not earned, but realized. How does a person earn naams?

How does food, meat or not meat, get in the way of naam?

How do you earn a "guna?" The gunas are considered 3 states within Maya, to those who believe of gunas, they are natural forces. I do not see how a person "earns" a natural force. They are there, according to those who take gunas literally, whether we do anything about them or not. So how would you earn a guna?

How does food, meat or not meat, get in the way of a guna?

So true.

This gibberish about Guna's and Satvic diet is just Brahmistic propaganda designed to control the masses.

I had this debate years ago, and it was pointed out the meat diets make you more aggresive and less able to concerntrate.

I then asked the question, why were Kshatriya's allowed to eat meat and encourage by Brahmins? The answer I got back was because they were required to be aggressive.

I then asked OK, what should be the diet of a Saint Soldier then? No answer.

It's all utter rubbish.

 

[Luckysingh]

The only judgement that should be given to foods is their nutritional value.
If we started viewing and treating foods as 'fuels' for our body, as that is what they are! Then we wouldn't have problems that we are faced with.
Non-nutritional classifications are of no value or benefit to anyone except the ones that impose them.

 

[japjisahib04]

There is another perspective of vegetarian

http://www.meatfreeindia.com/

mohinder sahni

 

[spnadmin]

Lionprince ji

I think that the passage on Jatka belongs in a thread about Jatkha. Therefore I have deleted the passage from this discussion and turned it into a new thread. Thanks.