Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh

[hchohan]

No it doesn't.

History and actual practice proves otherwise.

This belief is something that crept in at the end of the 19th Century from many Hindu converts to Sikhism. This is a hangover of Hindu Vaishnavism.

Also many Sant and Dera organisations who have had links to Hindu Vaishnavism have crept this into Sikhism.

The world according to those who cant survive without taking the lives of God's creatures.
Whos to say non-veggies interperated that history...? You can no more say that than I can say the opposite.

I am no more a sant than you are.....

If you say vaishavism or whatever (not that I know what that is in much detail) has crept into Sikhi's veggie philoshopy - I can as much say that non-veg practice has crept in from Islam.

 

[Randip Singh]

The world according to those who cant survive without taking the lives of God's creatures.
Whos to say non-veggies interperated that history...? You can no more say that than I can say the opposite.

I am no more a sant than you are.....

If you say vaishavism or whatever (not that I know what that is in much detail) has crept into Sikhi's veggie philoshopy - I can as much say that non-veg practice has crept in from Islam.

You could say that but you would have no evidence wheras I have evidence to prove my point. One example:

The seiks are remarkably fond of the flesh of the jungle hog, which they kill in chase: this food is allowable by their law. They likewise eat of mutton and fish; but these being unlawful the Brahmins will not partake, leaving those who chose to transgress their institutes to answer for themselves.
William Francklin in his writing about Mr George Thomas 1805

Also there has NEVER been a mass influx of Muslim converts to Sikhism. Maybe a few hundred at best.............Hindu's have formed the bulk of Sikh converts by far. Unless you can prove otherwise....your comment is invalid.


Note also I have replied to your other posts but the moderators are looking at it.

 

[hchohan]

Like I said previuosly - history is written how people want to write it. Even if the above was true, it does not means Sikhs should be non-veg then as much as now.
What has converts in the past got to do with my beliefs of Sikhi today - I know next to nothing about Hinduism etc.

To stop this going round in circles:
Not being well versed in Gurbani - can anyone please show me 1 shabad in the SGGS that confirms Jee Hatia for comsumption is acceptable practice.

 

[ISDhillon]

There are no definites or absolutes in life other than death in this sense shouldnt rehat maryada simply be just that, that we live in the constant memory of death it seems the most forward looking thing there can be, all rights and wrongs are subjective, i may not like pain but it is pleasurable to others, sikhism is not dualistic in its outlook it focusses on self-determination in life and self-determination in spirituality, what has lead us to believe that human constructs of logic and reason will effect us in the beyond? are we still being effected by another common frame of reference, perhaps the grand narrative of the west still affects us even though we shrugged of our colonial invaders?

 

[hchohan]

Good Comment Dhillon Ji

I believe Death is the ultimate and final truth - truthful living and the Name will save us.
I am not looking to create a duality where none exists. From my point of view - for part of that truthful living you must have Daya before you can have Dharm, and Jee Hatia is not approved.

p.s. i'll be busy for a sometime so may not be able to reply on this thread until after the weekend.

 

[ISDhillon]

Good Comment Dhillon Ji

I believe Death is the ultimate and final truth - truthful living and the Name will save us.
I am not looking to create a duality where none exists. From my point of view - for part of that truthful living you must have Daya before you can have Dharm, and Jee Hatia is not approved.

p.s. i'll be busy for a sometime so may not be able to reply on this thread until after the weekend.

Hc chohan ji,

Your giving truth a definition which is alien to sikhism, sikhism only calls god truth ie satnaam, truth in education system is described as all that is good, righteous, moral, reasonable and logical but this is not the sikh definition of truth. You then give truth an attachment ie, daya.

lets replace truthfull living with conscious living from this day forth, remeber sant jarnail singh ji bhindranwale said "physical death i do not fear death of conscience is a sure death" does this not ring true with all our current squabbles.

Indy

 

[Randip Singh]

Good Comment Dhillon Ji

I believe Death is the ultimate and final truth - truthful living and the Name will save us.
I am not looking to create a duality where none exists. From my point of view - for part of that truthful living you must have Daya before you can have Dharm, and Jee Hatia is not approved.

p.s. i'll be busy for a sometime so may not be able to reply on this thread until after the weekend.

What is this Jee Hatia business....this is not a Sikh concept? This is Hindu Vaishnav.

 

[Randip Singh]

Like I said previuosly - history is written how people want to write it. Even if the above was true, it does not means Sikhs should be non-veg then as much as now.
What has converts in the past got to do with my beliefs of Sikhi today - I know next to nothing about Hinduism etc..

If you do not understand Sikh history then you do not understand Sikhism...simple.....thats what it has to do with belief in Sikhi today.

You cannot build a house on no foundations.

You made a statement about Islamic influence on Sikhism.....I can prove the influx of Hindu Vaishnavs into Sikhims and Hindu influence.....you must make good your statement and demonstrate the Islamic influence and where it came from?

Was it converts? Sikh prechers who were Muslim? Something other. Don't dodge the question and give referenceses.

Read:

Sikh History From Persian Sources - Grewal and Habib

The Khalsa Over 300 Years - Grewal and Indu Banga....in particular The Census and the Sikhs Page 121

To stop this going round in circles:
Not being well versed in Gurbani - can anyone please show me 1 shabad in the SGGS that confirms Jee Hatia for comsumption is acceptable practice.

No the glass is not half empty...it is half full!!!

The demostration is to show where Bani states one must eat a certain type of food.........it clearly does not!!

The vegetarians and meat eaters here apart from you are all agreed.....Bani has nothing to do with Vegetarianism or Meat eating...........it is not an a-la-carte menu. You have yet to demonstrate anything coming close to even saying that it does.

The point of the essay IS that fools wrangle over flesh.........be that from an animal or a plant!!! It use Bani and historical texts to illustrate that........so far you have not demostrated either.

 

[Randip Singh]

welcome to the new world of organic farming (non organic is only a recent phenomena)
there are laws around the treatment of farm animals now in this country. the buffalos on our farm back in India are all treated well also.

Actually you need to understand Oraganic farming. It still involves pest eradication. Also breeding of some plants that insects won't eat.......this means birds do not have a food source and die.

Farming land destroys natural habitats for wild life and they die.

Ploughing soil kills many millions of insects and worms.

Saying that I am a great supporter of Organic Farming....and supported it when I first started Power Lifting and realised the importance of good nutrition.

 

[Randip Singh]

I see your point also – and no I cannot claim to understand the ways of Akal.
However – I still cannot reconcile killing with my belief that Sikhi is a progressive, logical, forward thinking way of the future for mankind.

In Sikhi you cannot avoid killing….that is the point. Matter cannot be destroyed or created but merely changes from one form to another.

Sikhi acknowledges that.

The fact you do not see plants as killing is neither here nor there…….because Guruji CLEARLY does. However, the killing of plants is acceptable for you.

I do not claim to know much about history, what the situation was in the past or how things came to be the way they are. However, I believe the whole human race is progressing and becoming more aware of the concepts of animal cruelty (Daya) the benefits of vegetenarianism and even newer ideas like the benefits of organic farming etc.

Organic farming does not mean Vegetarianism…..it also means livestock and poultry. It means rearing and growing in a natural way as possible. No use of insecticides, steroids etc.

Daya does not mean animal cruelty. That assumption on your part is wholly wrong. Daya is compassion. A meat eater can have compassion yet vegetarians can be the most cruel. Adolf Hitler example of the most cruellest Vegetarian ever.

Let me try and explain my view in another way:

If an apple ripens and falls from the tree – where was the life, in the apple or the tree? Does the life in the tree remain..? Will a new apple emerge..?

The apple is the fertilised egg of the tree…….it has potential to be life………..by eating it you deny it that life.

When the wheat dries up and “dies” it is ready for harvest. Is there life in that wheat..?

Wheat ripening is a man made process……….basically you are denying wheat water………and then harvesting the wheat eggs to be criushed and eaten in bread. Again you are denying those fertilised wheat eggs (grain) a chance for life.

ਜੇਤੇ ਦਾਣੇ ਅੰਨ ਕੇ ਜੀਆ ਬਾਝੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥
जेते दाणे अंन के जीआ बाझु न कोइ ॥
jaytay daanay ann kay jee-aa baajh na ko-ay.
As many as are the grains of corn, none is without life.

ਪਹਿਲਾ ਪਾਣੀ ਜੀਉ ਹੈ ਜਿਤੁ ਹਰਿਆ ਸਭੁ ਕੋਇ ॥
पहिला पाणी जीउ है जितु हरिआ सभु कोइ ॥
pahilaa paanee jee-o hai jit hari-aa sabh ko-ay.
First, there is life in the water, by which everything else is made green.

When I mow my lawn to keep it tidy – does the blade of grass not grow tall again..?

When the grass grows it is trying to get to the stage where it can release its seeds (eggs), to grow….by cutting the grass you are denying it a chance to do that…..hence prevent it from procreating.

I cannot comprehend God’s wonderful creation. As mankind is not as enlightened as our Guru Ji’s we cannot posses the wisdom to comprehend such things (do you..?).

I cannot, but in terms of Bani, this seems to be a denial that Plant has life and that we do not kill Plants or manipulate them and stop them from breeding for our own needs.

However, do we still ignore the suffering that God has enabled us to perceive right in front of us..? Do he give us these senses for no reason..?

Your senses will also take you to Kaam, Krodh, Moh, Lobh and Hankaar……….let us follow our senses to this too.

The comprehension of life in all its wonders is beyond our senses………..our senses can fool us.

If I was to eat merely the liver of a cow – will the cow recover..?

You would not slice part of apple from a tree, and throw the rest away………in the same way you would not do this to a cow. Sorry this is an absurd analogy.

If I eat the leg of a sheep – does the leg grow back?

Again the same applies as the apple analogy.

If I bury the heart of a pig in the ground and water that ground – will a new pig appear..?

That would be an attempt at unnatural manipulation………..

Pigs breed….that is the way God made them………in the same way plants breed………both in different ways. This is again an absurd analogy.

I think not – because I would be extinguishing the Jot of that creature completely and deliberately. What right do I have to do that for no reason other than to eat..?

Is not the potential Jot of the apple to become a tree extinguished for your apple pie? Is not the Jot of the wheat seed to become a plant extinguished for your bread?

You are applying the Jot concept to a narrow set of criteria, and not in the concept of Bani.

Guru Ji made Amrit on Akal’s command. Mata Ji added sweetness to that Amrit so that the Khalsa would keep sweetness, love, caring and compassion (Daya) in our hearts. All of which are undeniably among the qualities of our True Lord.
How is the killing God’s creatures the way of the Khalsa and not an insult to the Amrit..?

Are you denying a plant is one of Gods creatures?

It breeds, it feeds, it breathes etc……….again a very narrow application of what is construed as having life.

Without having that Daya when you kill do you become Dharmi by doing so..?

So everytime you have a mouthful of cornflakes you are a Dharmi?.............I think not.

By drawing blood so needlessly (as God has created the right food for us in vegetation) how is the Khalsa benefiting mankind – or is he merely satisfying his own thirst for blood..?

This is YOUR view, and not the view of Bani.

A plant has blood, it has sap….because it is not red you have no Daya. Foe someone who is saying they have Daya this is a very narrow definition and only stretched to certain life forms.

Same thirst could be applied to thirst for plant blood (sap).

 

[kds1980]

welcome to the new world of organic farming (non organic is only a recent phenomena)
there are laws around the treatment of farm animals now in this country. the buffalos on our farm back in India are all treated well also.

organic food is only for rich people as it is 4 or 5 times costlier than non
organic food so does that mean a poor person is papi because he cannot
afford organic food

as far as milk is concerned milk and meat are totally associated with each other.for production of milk breeding of cows or buffaloes is necessary 1 cow become's 10 ,10 becomes 100 and so on.in the end there is only 1 solution left for them and that is to kill them to control their population.this is exactly happening in india.indians don't eat beef but they love to drink cow milk so population of cows is increasing day by day.so cows in india are dieing from
starvation,eating polythene bags or illegaly transported to bangladesh or pakistan.so who is responsible for this condition of cows obviously the milk drinkers.so if a person think that meat eating is wrong he cannot justify
milk drinking whether organic or non organic.

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Vijaydeep - you make me laugh..
Khalsa should not have Daya..? :crazy:

Das is happy that he made a Mahpurush(Great Person) laugh.

Yes Khalsa does not ahev any emotion.Bramgyani Ka Sad Nirlep.Nirlep is from Nirlipta Bhav in Sanskrit.Like lotus is not touched by marsh.Khalsa has not self feeling or attachemtn towards any worldy thing.no love to biotic or abiotic things.

As in Body of that Khalsa.Instead of self mind,mind of Akal lives.In me nothing is mine and all is your(Mera Mujh Mein kichh Nahi,Jo Kichh Hai So Tera..(forgive das for wrong spelling if any)).

Daya or mercy as well as mercylessness(mentioned in Sukhmani Sahib and Dasham Granth Sahib Ji) are attribute of Akal.All feeelings are of Akal.And Akal onle feels them vide our bodies.Our bodies are not our rather apprantly ours.They are of Akal.Sat Sri Akal means that Truth is Eternal.Eternalo Akal is truth.Rest we run after our deeds good or bad while all are of Akal.

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

of course we learn from history - but was what happened in history always the right thing..? Who's to say..?

Comparing humans to animals is a non issue as God created humans with a certain degree of intelligence.

In terms of areas of the earth without fertile land that can be promlematic for Khalsa - however in this day and age there are many ways around that (that may even include Khalsa being restricted to certain lands)
That is still no justification for being non-veg

Respected Chauhan Sahib,

Akal is as in Human as in Animals and as in Plants.Humans as you say are aboe animals,so are they above plants.By nature spcie above in parmyd eats the speice below.

Khalsa is told to be in all world as Avtar of Kaliyuga(Sau Sakhi).so how can Avtar of Kaliyuga be limted to fertile Land only.Is rest of the Land not the part of the world.

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

<Sikh is state which is before Khalsa and via Singh state we be Khalsa.From comman man to Sikh,then to Singh and then to Khalsa.>

can you elaborate please?

As per an audio cassate by Sant Singh Ji Maskeen Sadhu Sant.
Human being has four state.

Duniyadar,nothing to do with faith and in all wordly affaris.Sikh in such place is more a turbanned Hindu.

Jigyasu-here a person becomes interested to know something about God,gaining of knowledge is ore a work.Term Sikh goes over here.

Sadhu-Here person starts to move on the path of truth.Knwoledge gained in previous state is put to use.Term Singh(after Baptism perhaps) is used.

Sant-Sa Anant-(like limitless) at this state a person reaches the destination.It is state of Salvation of being Alive.Here person is one with God.God is felt all around.People may see individual body but God only rests there.That is Khalsa.

 

[Randip Singh]

Sorry – I missed out some more of my thoughts.

Many say that eating Halal meat is a cardinal sin. All identify it as meat that has been “sacrificed” in a slow way with the name of God said over it.

In saying this you have no difficulty in identifying that meat as the meat of an animal.
To identify what is killed in a slow way or what is killed in a fast way would imply that you know what time is and how to deal less suffering. Time and suffering are things that only Akal knows – you are a fool if you think you know it.
When a Khalsa readies a meal he should offer that food for blessing to God (Bhog) or remember Waheguru or recite a prayer over it before eating.

So I ask you – what is difference between that and Halal?
To me either one is a cardinal sin against the Amrit.

Read the folleing:

And one semitic practice clearly rejected in the Sikh code of conduct is eating flesh of an animal cooked in ritualistic manner; this would mean kosher and halal meat. The reason again does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to enoble the flesh. No ritual, whoever conducts it, is going to do any good either to the animal or to the diner. Let man do what he must to assuage his hunger. If what he gets, he puts to good use and shares with the needy, then it is well used and well spent, otherwise not.
Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers.

The key here is sacrifice. Whether it be Bismil, Halal, or Anustrani............the point of sacrificing animals is pointless to the Sikh. Jhatka was introduced for several reasons. Not the quickness or slowness of killing (although that lies in logic - see point 2)

1) It gave Sikhs a prescribed way of killing animals that did not involve sacrifice.

2) It was logical, since crops to were harvested and severed in the exact same manner.

3) It stopped this notion that God needed appeasement through sacrifice. As Kabir ji points out to Mullahs who carry out their Halal sacrifice:

(SGGS p1350)
You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay.
The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed?
And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?
Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca?

4) If God has created everything then what is the point of sacrificing something he/she has created too him/her?. It is like me owning a choclate factory (and I make all the choclates in the world) and you giving me a choclate for a present. Makes no sense. The above shabad also highlights this point.

On a side note the essay highlights countless shabads that have words like Bismila, Halal etc thathave wrongly been misinterpretated by people as alluding to killing animal.........rather than alluding to meaningless sacrifice.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

The solid proof that all this "Meat-NonMeat" debate was SETTLED by Guru nanak ji Sahib..is the Complete "NON-touching of this issue by any other succeeding Guru sahibs" None of the other Gurus Sahibs wrote anything on this..after Guru nana K jI made the Final point - Maas maas kar MOORAKH Jhaggrreh. Long after the passing on of Guru Gobind Singh ji and round about middle of the 18th Century..this DEBATE was REVIVED - by the Udasis, Nirmalas, etc who were HINDUS/Brahminised saboteurs who had gained control of Sikh shrines and religious books..these same peopel revived the so called Bachittar natak granth (subtly renamed dasam guru da granth ) and anti gurmatt books like Gurbilas, sooraj parkash, etc etc ( sooraj parkash writer santokh singh was a drug user..so he wrote that Guru Gobind Singh Ji used Drugs..Rattan Singh Bhangu of Panth prkash was a Bhang user..so he made Guru nanak ji a user of BHANG..any writer who was aDevi worshipper..made sure he wrote Guru ji worshipped Devis..and so on..this meat thingy is a link in thsi nefarious chain to dilute and defame Gurnmatt of SGGS. Aakllen SAHIB seveahn..Sikho use your God givne Intellect to differentiate between Gurmatt and non-Gurmatt.
Gyani jarnail Singh

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

The solid proof that all this "Meat-NonMeat" debate was SETTLED by Guru nanak ji Sahib..is the Complete "NON-touching of this issue by any other succeeding Guru sahibs" None of the other Gurus Sahibs wrote anything on this..after Guru nana K jI made the Final point - Maas maas kar MOORAKH Jhaggrreh. Long after the passing on of Guru Gobind Singh ji and round about middle of the 18th Century..this DEBATE was REVIVED - by the Udasis, Nirmalas, etc who were HINDUS/Brahminised saboteurs who had gained control of Sikh shrines and religious books..these same peopel revived the so called Bachittar natak granth (subtly renamed dasam guru da granth ) and anti gurmatt books like Gurbilas, sooraj parkash, etc etc ( sooraj parkash writer santokh singh was a drug user..so he wrote that Guru Gobind Singh Ji used Drugs..Rattan Singh Bhangu of Panth prkash was a Bhang user..so he made Guru nanak ji a user of BHANG..any writer who was aDevi worshipper..made sure he wrote Guru ji worshipped Devis..and so on..this meat thingy is a link in thsi nefarious chain to dilute and defame Gurnmatt of SGGS. Aakllen SAHIB seveahn..Sikho use your God givne Intellect to differentiate between Gurmatt and non-Gurmatt.
Gyani jarnail Singh

Respected Gyani sahib,if we read this verse of Aakllen Sahib Seveahn,and aakll not from Farsi but from Sanskrit/Hindi,then meaing is differnt,ie A(non)kal(movement).God has no moves or art or motions as singluar as all belong to that.As God is everywhere so God does not move from say from Kuala Lampur to Sarwak.God is everywhere.

Das was compelled to thing over this intperpetation as in Japu Ji Sahib we are told,Hundereds of cleverness can be there,but not a single move alongside. As our Body is of Akal and not ours so brain and intellect of all belong to Akal.

Das will discuse someother time that wheather interpretors of above texts who judge them Anti Gurmat,themsevles could understand Gurmat correctly but Udasis and Nirmalas are not Anit Meat.More they are anti many vegg food also which they find not OK for Brah Vidya or Naam Abhyas.In fact das did know some family members of Missioaries going to Yoga class from Hindus and having simlar restriction for health.

Path of gurm,at is higher then that of Hindu yoga.Udasis and Nirmalas may behold meating Nihungs sometime higher then thier own self.That is Gurmat ie to respect each others views.

There are some other reformining Sikh gruops who are hystrically anti meat.They came to from much after Britishers came into India.

There have been instances of Nirmalas going to hunting and meat being allowed to those who are slioder by proffessions,Das could assume that some biased people spread rumours about Nirmalas and that false Data reached our Gyani Sahib,else there were Many Nirmalas only who intialy rose doubts about author of the Raagmala,Dasham Granth Sahib and Sarbloh Granth Sahib.

They are often refred by moderne day Missioanries.In past if they sing,tune of present day people,they are OK else not?


By numbers and by views Nirmalas and Udasis are as diverse as rest of Sikhs.So generalising them with some idelogy may not be OK as it may not be OK for all Sikhs.

 

[hchohan]

Hello again
Sorry I have been off this thread for a while (busy weekend) – however I managed to grab two hours this evening. There seem to be an overwhelming number of replies that it would take me too long to reply to them all. Even if I did I feel we would be going round in circles as people are just intent to find the smallest faults and apply the maximum spin to the words of this simple Sikh.

Therefore I try my very hardest to make this my last post on this particular thread. However where previously I have only shared some of my own feelings on the issue – instead I humbly endeavour (with my limited knowledge) to reply directly to the issues raised by Randip Ji as the author of the original article. You can then make play of my words to your hearts content for after this you will have lost my attention.


Firstly to summarise the points Ranjit has made:

• Mistranslation and Mis-interpretation of the SGGS.
• Flesh of Animal is the same as the flesh from vegetation.
• Approval from other authors
• Sikhs in History ate meat
• The Gurus – approved of and ate meat
• Hukamnama of 6th and 10th Masters.
• Vegetarian Bhagats, Sadhu’s, Sant’s and Sangat are merely Vaishnav Hindu’s
• Jhatka meat is approved
• Maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay
• Final Thoughts

1. Mistranslation and Misinterpretation of the SGGS.
Firstly to save retyping everything please reference what Randip Ji has included on page1 (points 1 to 7 in red at the top).

Who is doing the Mistranslation or Misinterpretation – the people you refer to or you yourself. To me there is one clear message in there – do not kill to eat and being veggie alone will not bring union with Akal. Without Naam your being vegetarian will be no good.
You have explained your interpretation of those shabads – so obviously you must be right and everyone else must be wrong..?


2. Flesh of Animal is the same as the flesh from vegetation
I have touched on this in a previous post. I have not denied that there is life in vegetables as well as animals. Nor do I deny that killing life is sometimes necessary and/or unavoidable. Nor do I deny my own senses. Akal’s creation is limitless and in-describable.
The animals you choose to kill merely for food are undeniably created with senses similar to our own. Therefore we can understand to an extent the cruelty there is in slaughtering it (in whichever manner Halal, Jhatka etc). Just as we can understand how cruel some rulers in India were when they slaughtered the Guru’s Sikh’s.
Akal has made it known that there is life in all. However he has made us only able to comprehend (to our limited ability) the suffering of animals rather than vegetation (unless you claim to be able to see that Randip Ji,)
The Guru’s and Waheguru’s Bhagat’s were above us – they by the grace of God had that ability, not us mere men.
The Guru taught us to acknowledge many things of the Lords illusion – but when did he teach us to deny that part of the illusion that we can clearly see..? In fact, did they not teach us that to renounce that which the Lord put before us would be akin to renouncing the Lord..?
Thereby we must acknowledge that before us as well as accept the that things happen that we cannot see or comprehend but can do nothing about as I need vegetation to survive, I do not need animal meat to survive.

Alternatively if you are gifted enough to see that there is as much suffering when you kill vegetation for food as there is when you kill animals for food – perhaps you should not eat the flesh of plants or the flesh of animals.
OR, if all flesh is the same – please kill me and serve me up. However, don’t forget to do Bhog before digging in.


3. Approval from other authors
Apologies – but I have no interest in what your meat eating 2 a penny authors have to say in their 2 a penny books just to try and justify there own eating habbits.


4. Sikhs in History ate meat
The examples you cite are from after the human lives of our Gurus. However, I do not deny that some Sikhs ate meat during the Guru’s time as well as after it.

However a lot of the pro-meat group states that it occurred during the time of the Guru – and site specific examples in war times when other food had ran out. E.g. Most of this refers to the siege of Anandpur.
During this siege the Guru his Sikhs and his family were cut off from food for 9months. It was suggested that Sikh’s under this incredible hardship were forced to eat meat. I don’t necessarily agree that they did – but let us for a moment assume that they did (excluding Guru Ji). They went hungry for nine months and they were fighting for the very survival of Sikhi and were therefore forced to eat what they could in order to keep their strength in the face of the enemy.
Tell me – do you go without for even a day..? What war for mankind are you waging..?

It seems meat eating Sikhs thereafter have used that as justification for there habit.



5. The Gurus – approved of and ate meat
The Gurus had previously merged with the Akal. They were one with the Akal when He sent them to teach us.
You cannot understand their actions any more than you can understand Akal (Sochi Soch na Hovai je Sohci Lakh War). It is people like you who think the Guru merely enacted a theatre play at the birth of the Khalsa by killing goats rather than taking the heads of the Panj Pyare.
Yes, the some of the Gurus did hunt – but don’t for one second bring the Guru down to your level and say they did it in order to eat (when was there ever a shortage in Guru Ka Langar). You cannot understand their reasons for they were one with Akal.
They did it for a higher purpose under hukam from Akal. They did it to eliminate animals that were threatening Sangat or they did it (up-to-the point of the actual kill) for training.

Let us for one moment assume you are right and the Guru’s killed and then ate for food.
The Gurus were our teachers. They taught us many things but above all practised what they taught. Gurus taught us to be above this, to control our emotions and urges if we were to develop spiritually. Something we often find difficult.
For example. Kirt Karna, Naam Japna, Vand Shakna.
The Guru’s believed so greatly in Vand Shakna that they formalised it and institutionalised Langar in Sikhi. The Guru would therefore have had ALL of their meals as part of, or prepared from Guru ka Langar. Langar, even by your own admission has always and will always be vegetarian (and Guru Ji defined that vegetarianism as NOT the flesh of killed animals) – therefore the Guru’s NEVER ate meat.


6. Hukamnama of 6th and 10th Masters.
Why do you so easily readily dismiss the Hukamnama of 6th Master. Does it contradict your desires...? Are we above the consequences if you are wrong..?
If as I believe it is genuine - it would apply to all Sikh – then and now.
The Hukam of 10th master for Sikhs in a Muslim land where Kuttha would generally be the only meat available does NOT contradict this in any way.
Note: The Shabad you quote does not clearly define Kuttha only as ritually slaughtered meat.


7. Vegetarian Bhagats, Sadhu’s, Sant’s and Sangat are merely Vaishnav Hindu’s
The Bhagats were great souls you were at one with the Akal. Why do you dismiss them so readily, is your gyan greater than theirs..? Has Waheguru communicated through them, or do you have that connection..? You are happy to misinterpret the Shabads of Kabir Ji – but you forget that after all is said and done (e.g not plucking flowers etc), he was a vegetarian.
Why do you ignore the other Bhagats in the SGGS..? For example do you forget the reasons why Bhagat Sadhna became vegetarian and become Akal Bhagat..? What food did Bhagat Dhana ask Akal to provide him with..? etc etc

You accuse contemporary Khalsa Sadhu’s, Sants (not the type who write books etc) as being Hindu vaishnavs. I don’t know how many Sadhu’s & Sants you have met – but the majority I have met have had no agenda other than Waheguru Jaap and Sangat Seva. Some of these Sant Sadhus have performed maha tapasia and seva. They are Guru das – and a lot closer to Waheguru than I am. There are a few even, who our Guru’s still communicate through to Gurmukh Sangat today (although most manmukh will deny this).
Yet if these Guru sevadars say you should not kill animals for food – you much like other academic manmukhs say they must be Hindu Vaishavs..!


8. Jhatka meat is approved
Here none of you have a problem in identifying Jhatka meat as meat of an animal rather than vegetable. Your argument that vegetables are chopped quickly is irrelevant as that is not always the case. Nor are you enlightened enough to understand Time. Besides even you quote Shabad from p143 of the SGGS with regards to what the sugar cane experiences AFTER it is cut down.
You say Jhatka is approved over other meats as it is not sacrificial but killed in a certain way. Sacrificial e.g. Halal generally means that at kill time animal is offered to appease God before consumption.
So what is the difference between that and offering meat to God for blessing after it is killed? A Sikh should offer all food for Bhog (or at least say a prayer over it) before consumption.


9. Maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay.
You have interpreted the Shabad in your way. I would offer my humble thoughts on that. However, I DO NOT like to do this for who am I to interpret Shabad for others – therefore I will offer an interpretation by another person which I agree with.

deeper study of the whole hymn brings out:

Herein, Guru Sahib is addressing a Vaishnav Pandit who believes that he can achieve his spiritual goal only by avoiding meat as food and not trying to obtain the true wisdom through meditation. Guru Ji has stressed that only avoiding meat will not lead one to the achievement of Spiritual Bliss if one does not do Naam-Simran. This equally applies to all, including non-meat-eating Sikhs.

It relates to the flesh or meat in general and not to any particular type of flesh - whether prepared by Halaal or Jhatka method. The Sikh supporters of flesh eating do not accept at all the intake of all types of meat, but according to them, only Jhatka meat is permissible and Halaal is totally prohibited. In other words, what does the term "Kuthha" denote?

The flesh of the mother's womb wherein the human body is born, the flesh of the mother's breasts which feed the infant, the flesh of the tongue, ears, mouth, etc., used for perception of various senses of the body, the flesh in the form of wife and off-springs referred to in the Shabad, is flesh no doubt and one cannot escape it, but is it the flesh to be eaten as food by the humans? Does the love for this type of flesh involve any cruelty or slaughter of living bodies? Obviously, the Shabad has a deeper meaning telling Vaishnav pandits that merely escaping from the flesh does not take one anywhere. Nor can anyone get rid of the flesh (i.e., attainment of salvation from the cycle of birth and death) by his own futile efforts without the Grace of the True Guru.



11. Final Thoughts
My very first post on this thread stated.
I am a fool for writing these comments, just as you are a fool for writing the original article. For I will not change your outlook on the issue just as though you will never change mine.

Personally I don’t give a hoot if you eat non-veg food. If I wrote a list of a million things I care about, your diet would still not feature.
What I do care about though is when academic manmukhs like you try to propagate your personal brand of Sikhi to the sangat.

Have you given the smallest, slightest most miniscule passing thought to the possibility that you may be wrong..? Even if there was a 1 in 10billion chance that you may be mistaken about non-veg being acceptable – is that a risk you are willing to take..?
Surely as for the vast majority of us meat avoidance is viable and non-veg food is NOTHING BUT an option for you – would you not rather tread the line of caution..?


Anyway – like I said at the start, I will not be posting any more reply’s on this thread. Goodbye for now (until we meet on another thread).

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Das awaits for Bhai Randeep Singh Ji to reply.Anyway das would like to add another thing of Nirmalas,they do not eat meat themsleves but in Sarbloh Granth someone did misinteretpain that meat is unedaible and Nirmalas proved that misinterpetaion as wrong.If das is allowed das will give more detail.Over to Randeep Singh Ji and KDSingh Ji.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

<<Duniyadar,nothing to do with faith and in all wordly affaris.Sikh in such place is more a turbanned Hindu.
>>

Vijaydeep singh ji

thanks for the reply..

can you explain the line quoted above on following points -

How can you use the term "turbaned Hindu" ? do you mean to say that every sikh is a turbaned hindu ?

How can you assume that a Hindu is always in this state only ? Do you mean to say that being hindu means being in worldly state?

How can you assume that only a Turbaned person can follow the four steps? Do you assume that a sikh is always turbaned?