Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh

[Harry Haller]

Allow me to confuse you further, I do not believe in reincarnation, so most of your post makes no sense to me, although I accept it is a given facet of Sikhism.

Allow me to take you back to the time of the first Guru, he looked at Islam, he looked at Hinduism, he felt both lacked a true meaning and were in fact rich in ritual and actions, rather than furthering an educated wise mind.

'ok Lads, lets drop all the ritualistic stuff, and just concentrate on connection, live a life of love, help others, raise the human race',

' uh ok, that sounds great, can we leave reincarnation in?'

'uhm well we could, but does it matter, I don't know what happens at death, we should concentrate on our time here'

'uhmmm ok, but we cannot get rid of the caste system, next you will be saying its ok to eat Beef'

'It is ok to eat Beef, or rather, it is irrelevent whether you eat it or not'

'but this is ridiculous, how can you possibly get close to God without rituals and rules'

'easy, through love, and thinking for yourself, not following rhetoric'

everyone nodded, and then proceeded to basically do what they did before, but they called themselves Sikhs.

500 years later, we are still talking about animal souls being eaten, karma, rebirth, caste, meat,

I do not believe in sweating the small stuff, only those who are perfect towards themselevs and those around them have the right to even think about this argument as it is irrelevent, what use is not eating meat and respecting souls if you treat your parents with little respect, if you are all for yourself, its a cop out, its something you do to justify your life, a bit like a Hail Mary, do what you want, think what you want, treat people how you want, but hey, don't eat meat, everything is good!

 

[Brother Onam]

Harry Haller ji,
With all due respect, because I appreciate your emphasis on getting to the practical heart of spiritual practice, I don't understand how you can reconcile 'love' with eating beef.
Do you have a dog in your home? Should the occasion arrive that you for some reason needed to stab it in the heart, would you be able to feel loving then, too? A cow or a pig has fully as much personality, worth, and ability to feel pain and happiness as a pet, and yet, because of our hunger for meat, we willingly enter into a kind of schizophrenia in which we consign these poor animals to the status of 'food-animals', while we share much care and affection on our 'companion animals'.
I agree with you that true spirituality all comes back down to a broad practice love, and I think also, mercy.
WaheGuru

 

[Harry Haller]

With all due respect, because I appreciate your emphasis on getting to the practical heart of spiritual practice, I don't understand how you can reconcile 'love' with eating beef.

easy, I love eating Beef!

What has eating beef, or indeed spiritual practice got to do with consonance with Creation? (ok I know its bad grammar but I have to go home to walk the dogs, in the rain, again)

I intend to try and buy some small piece of land in the future, where I will raise pigs and chickens, they will be raised with much love and respect, and then they will be eaten, I hope that answers your question Veerji.

 

[Brother Onam]

No, it doesn't. But on we go. Peace

 

[angrisha]

I think the only thing you really need to do is to do what makes the most sense to you on the path that you are on... there is no real right or wrong answer. The only reason this issue even comes up now is because we live in a world of excess, where we can actually choose what we want to eat... when you dont have as many options the choice is rather simple... you eat what you can get.

The animal of the meat I eat has a soul so is it wrong in a way that I'm supporting something immoral? Is there anything that backs up eating flesh of animal that once had a soul. Each species try to have a relationship with God if that is what we believe, so if I get reincarnated as a cow and i'm kept in a slaughterhouse whats the chances for me?

I never really understood this soul debate thing, because plants are just as alive as anything else. Everything we see, eat etc is all in its very essence Sat GuruJi, there is nothing in this world that isnt apart of that essence. So, its really splitting hairs from a 'soul' stand point. No matter what you eat, your always eating something with a soul..

From Anand Sahib Page 922

ਏਹੁ ਵਿਸੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ਤੁਮ ਦੇਖਦੇ, ਏਹੁ ਹਰਿ ਕਾ ਰੂਪੁ ਹੈ; ਹਰਿ ਰੂਪੁ ਨਦਰੀ ਆਇਆ ॥
Ėhu vis sansār ṯum ḏekẖ▫ḏe ehu har kā rūp hai har rūp naḏrī ā▫i▫ā.
This whole world which you see is the image of the Lord; only the image of the Lord is seen.

ਗੁਰ ਪਰਸਾਦੀ ਬੁਝਿਆ ਜਾ ਵੇਖਾ ਹਰਿ ਇਕੁ ਹੈ; ਹਰਿ ਬਿਨੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਈ ॥
Gur parsādī bujẖi▫ā jā vekẖā har ik hai har bin avar na ko▫ī.
By Guru's Grace, I understand, and I see only the One Lord; there is no one except the Lord

The other thing is we assume that animals are 'less than us' or they are apart from god, when in reality ive come to believe that almost all other life on this planet is actually always linked with Sat Guru. They're not trying to have any type of relationship with anything, as they are constantly already apart of that essence.

JapJi sahib page 5

ਸਾਲਾਹੀ ਸਾਲਾਹਿ ਏਤੀ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਨ ਪਾਈਆ ॥
Sālāhī sālāhi eṯī suraṯ na pā▫ī▫ā.
The praisers praise the Lord, but they do not obtain intuitive understanding -

ਨਦੀਆ ਅਤੈ ਵਾਹ ਪਵਹਿ ਸਮੁੰਦਿ, ਨ ਜਾਣੀਅਹਿ॥
Naḏī▫ā aṯai vāh pavahi samunḏ na jāṇī▫ahi.
the streams and rivers flowing into the ocean do not know its vastness.

ਸਮੁੰਦ ਸਾਹ ਸੁਲਤਾਨ ਗਿਰਹਾ ਸੇਤੀ ਮਾਲੁ ਧਨੁ ॥
Samunḏ sāh sulṯān girhā seṯī māl ḏẖan.
Even kings and emperors, with mountains of property and oceans of wealth -

ਕੀੜੀ ਤੁਲਿ ਨ ਹੋਵਨੀ; ਜੇ ਤਿਸੁ ਮਨਹੁ ਨ ਵੀਸਰਹਿ॥ ੨੩॥
Kīṛī ṯul na hovnī je ṯis manhu na vīsrahi. ||23||
these are not even equal to an ant, who does not forget God. ||23||

Your life unfolds the way its suppose to, your chances are just as good as one elses. No matter where you are, thats where your meant to be. Eating or not eating meat is a personal decision which is something you can decide on. It wont make you any more enlightened if that is your goal?

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

When the GURU hunted and killed animals...it was made out to be that the GURU actually "Liberated" the animal's soul...a "rabbit" had actually been a Fallen Sikh from some other Gurus time..and he had been promised salvation by being killed by another Guru..how utterly ridiculous....Now that the Physically killing/hunting Guurs have been replaced by the SGGS...what happens to all thsoe "allegedly fallen sikhs"..who is going to liberate their souls by shooting them ?? OR have all of them been disposed off by within 1469-1708 and that chapter of liberation of souls is closed ?? Nihungs at Hazoor sahib continue to liberate souls daily by chopping off heads..BUT ALL the souls they liberate are ONLY those in GOAT BODIES...If a fallen Sikh got any other body..then sorry...we simply dont realise how utterly foolish the stories we place at our Gurus feet really are...liberating souls..indeed...and ONLY a solitary rabbit/snake//and a lion that Guru hargobind ji hunted and killed..and the Gurus soul liberation is DONE !! GET REAL Folks...:swordfight-kudiyan::japosatnamwaheguru:

 

[illykitty]

A question, in Sikhism, do love and compassion include or exclude non-human animals?

The reasons for not eating meat are numerous, some good some misplaced, but most people I know (I'm in the UK) do it for compassion, empathy, love, environment and causing as little suffering as possible. If you think of world hunger too, you can feed a lot more people with 1 pound of grain vs 1 pound of meat.

If you eat meat, you kill both plants -in larger quantities- and animals. If you only eat plants, much less lives are lost. Also, a lot of countries use factory farms, which are horrible beyond words.

Plus meat has huge effects on environmental damage. For 1 pound of meat (I presume beef), 13 pounds of grain is fed, 2,464 gallons of water is used, a lot more land too. Compare that to the tiny 25 gallons needed for 1 pound of wheat. There's many other reasons too (methane, fossil fuels, faeces contaminating water, top soil erosion etc) but I'm already thinking this post is getting too long.

This is something to ponder about and come to conclusions for one's self.
Credit for some info: http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/the-environmental-impact-of-a-meat-based-diet/

 

[Harry Haller]

A question, in Sikhism, do love and compassion include or exclude non-human animals?

In Sikhism there are no hard and fast rules that have to be followed (in my view everything flows as per grace of Creator, including what some would call rules), the essence of the truth is what Sikhism is all about, I eat animals, I also have much love and compassion for animals. When one embraces the truth, one is able to live in the real world and be able to use logic and discretion to live by that truth. Sikhism is not reading rules and then following them, Sikhism is understanding how the world, the universe works, and by taking ones place as a cog in the system.

Personally, I do not think your post is relevant until human starvation and misery have been dispensed with.

 

[illykitty]

Personally, I do not think your post is relevant until human starvation and misery have been dispensed with.

I'm not sure I understand your point... Are you saying that humans starving is a bigger problem? Then yes I agree but being veg isn't hard and if someone seriously thinks that's "enough" of a contribution to the world, then they have serious ego issues!

Besides, I said in my previous post how much more resources are used to feed animals and "If you think of world hunger too, you can feed a lot more people with 1 pound of grain vs 1 pound of meat." If those 13 pounds of grain don't go to 1 pound of meat, then what could we do with it instead?

Anyway, I don't see how doing one thing keeps you from doing the other... I think it actually might help instead seeing how everything is connected.

 

[Harry Haller]

I'm not sure I understand your point... Are you saying that humans starving is a bigger problem? Then yes I agree but being veg isn't hard and if someone seriously thinks that's "enough" of a contribution to the world, then they have serious ego issues!

Again, in my opinion, Sikhism does not turn us all into new age meditating veggies obsessed with mother earth and preserving the balance of life, Sikhism is about living in consonance with our surroundings, it is about eating animals, but showing some respect, it is about wearing leather, but also being grateful to the animal, a contribution to the world can take place in many ways, some contributions are in my view, merely lip service, some contributions are not, this is not a competition to see who contributes more, however, as is clearly written in the SGGS, the book that we hold dear, only fools wrangle over flesh, so every moment wasted debating this, is a moment that we could be contributing, to that end, the argument is moot.

However, as an animal lover, I would consider the veg way but purely on personal grounds, not because of a religion, or a way of life, but even then, it would be my own decision, and I would not dream of foisting it onto anyone else.

 

[illykitty]

Again, in my opinion, Sikhism does not turn us all into new age meditating veggies obsessed with mother earth and preserving the balance of life, Sikhism is about living in consonance with our surroundings, it is about eating animals, but showing some respect, it is about wearing leather, but also being grateful to the animal, a contribution to the world can take place in many ways, some contributions are in my view, merely lip service, some contributions are not, this is not a competition to see who contributes more, however, as is clearly written in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the book that we hold dear, only fools wrangle over flesh, so every moment wasted debating this, is a moment that we could be contributing, to that end, the argument is moot.

However, as an animal lover, I would consider the veg way but purely on personal grounds, not because of a religion, or a way of life, but even then, it would be my own decision, and I would not dream of foisting it onto anyone else.

"New age meditating veggies obsessed with mother earth and preserving the balance of life" to me sounds dismissive on how important nature and the Earth are to human lives. Our lives totally depends on it. If we are not careful, what will happen? More people will starve, so problems will only get worse. Wouldn't then all previous efforts by Sikhs (to help starving people) be pointless?

You're right it's not a competition. It's trying the best you can. It's up to each person to decide what that is and keep trying.

"Time wasting" is a little bit of a strange argument but perhaps it's because regardless of religion, I feel the Earth is important to our lives and since vegetarianism (or just eating less meat) has an impact on that, it's a valuable thing to discuss. If it's part of Sikhi or not, that's not my place to say since I barely scratched the surface of this wonderful path.

 

[Harry Haller]

"Time wasting" is a little bit of a strange argument but perhaps it's because regardless of religion, I feel the Earth is important to our lives and since vegetarianism (or just eating less meat) has an impact on that, it's a valuable thing to discuss. If it's part of Sikhi or not, that's not my place to say since I barely scratched the surface of this wonderful path.

I cannot fault anything you have said above, and if we were on a food and lifestyle forum, or a wicca forum, my reply would have been hugely different, however, this is a Sikh forum, and my interpretation of Sikhism is that it does not matter a hoot whether you eat meat or not, what does matter is how you think, act and speak.

Again from a personal view, I share what you have written and relate to it completely

 

[harmanpreet singh]

A question, in Sikhism, do love and compassion include or exclude non-human animals?

The reasons for not eating meat are numerous, some good some misplaced, but most people I know (I'm in the UK) do it for compassion, empathy, love, environment and causing as little suffering as possible.

Welcome to the forum illy ,thanks for lovely post .


its same reason why i am veggie and i feel its also encouraged in Sikhi .

 

[Brother Onam]

It's always amazing and dismaying to me to hear otherwise sensible people making plenty justifications and equivocations about how it's fine to eat meat and love animals, or how it's possible to be compassionate and feed the hunger to devour flesh. The belly can do that.
To say that Sikhi has nothing to say about meat-eating is fatuous. We are called to be saintly; we ought to exhibit the same consciousness and mercy and grace that Har Har continually blesses us with. Sikhi also has very little to say about gang-rape, but among saintly people there is a consensus that this brutality is abhorrent. Does it all need to be spelled out in scripture before we admit there is a higher and a lower way to nourish ourselves?
As IllyKitty so lucidly said, meat-eating, especially the industrialized, systematized method of meat production people depend on for their flesh foods, is a most nasty, irresponsible, and environmentally destructive business. To dismiss this as hippy, tree-hugger new-age mumbo-jumbo is infantile. We all have so much growing to do; I feel we are truly in the dark ages.

“I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.”
― Leonardo da Vinci

 

[aristotle]

Meat eating or not, is as big a debate in the secular world as it is in the religious world. Everyone is free to make their own choices but they should not be in the form of intellectual arrogance dismissing the other party's views as hypocritical or something like that. Not eating meat does not make one a better person, nor does eating meat make one a savage or an enemy of animals. Everything stems from the facts we tend to assume at our convenience.

 

[Harry Haller]

It's always amazing and dismaying to me to hear otherwise sensible people making plenty justifications and equivocations about how it's fine to eat meat and love animals, or how it's possible to be compassionate and feed the hunger to devour flesh. The belly can do that.
To say that Sikhi has nothing to say about meat-eating is fatuous. We are called to be saintly; we ought to exhibit the same consciousness and mercy and grace that Har Har continually blesses us with. Sikhi also has very little to say about gang-rape, but among saintly people there is a consensus that this brutality is abhorrent. Does it all need to be spelled out in scripture before we admit there is a higher and a lower way to nourish ourselves?
As IllyKitty so lucidly said, meat-eating, especially the industrialized, systematized method of meat production people depend on for their flesh foods, is a most nasty, irresponsible, and environmentally destructive business. To dismiss this as hippy, tree-hugger new-age mumbo-jumbo is infantile. We all have so much growing to do; I feel we are truly in the dark ages.

“I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.”
― Leonardo da Vinci

Your argument in the world today is completely moot, unfortunately animal products go way beyond just what we eat, but in every aspect of our lives, so, you may well avoid meat, but is that far enough? so firstly, no meat, secondly, no leather or animal skins, thirdly, nothing that has animal products in it, fats or margarines, I could go on, tyres, sugar, although I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this link, it makes interesting reading

http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.html

I am sure given the time, I could probably come up with accurate and verifiable links to prove this point.

So, if you truly wish to practice what it is you are preaching, it may mean a lot more changes to your life than simply not eating meat.

Of course the alternative would be to live on a smallholding and not venture out of your home, grow your own food, and finally be satisfied that you are not contributing to animal murder.

I am not prepared to do that, and although the argument for being a veggie, from an animal suffering point of view, is compelling, unless you go the whole hog (sorry, couldnt resist), it seems pretty pointless.

Lets face it, even if you choose the vegan alternatives, you have no choice over the transport methods used to ship them to the store, like it or not, dead animals are now ingrained in our consumer society,.

I guess the intelligent thing to do would be to spend all this precious debating time on more important subjects that actually require thought and interaction, roads that we should be trekking down, not roads that have little consequence to our growing as Sikhs.

 

[illykitty]

Welcome to the forum illy ,thanks for lovely post .


its same reason why i am veggie and i feel its also encouraged in Sikhi .

From what I read so far, there isn't much rules in Sikhi but each person sets their own standards and tries their best. So when it comes to being vegetarian, I'm inclined to think it's up to the individual.

But thinking "unless you're 100% perfect, all your actions are useless". It's like saying there's too many hungry people, whatever you do isn't enough (you can ALWAYS do more) so let's not do anything about it. I understand being humble but that's not it, that's being defeatist.

I refuse to have that outlook because with it, every action is useless so what's the point of trying? Getting basic humans needs to everyone and environmental issues are never going to be solved with this sort of thinking. And if one feels superior to another by doing actions, it's not because the actions are bad or useless it's because there's a problem in that person's character.

Maybe you can't prevent 100% suffering but you can try your best. You can't 100% prevent hunger, but you can try your best... And everyone's best is different.

 

[Harry Haller]

Kala Afghana on Non-Vegetarianism

1. The Adi Granth does not concern itself with either vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism.

2. Whereas the Adi Granth expounds at length about the need to abandon various vices, it says nothing about the need to abandon non-vegetarian diets.

3. The Adi Granth does not attempt to pass judgement on the dietary components required for maintaining a healthy human body.

The Adi Granth does, however, recommend against consuming substances that either cause grief or generate mental turbulence.

4. Those that choose to dwell on the consumption of substances rather than focus their minds on remembering God have been derided by the Adi Granth ('consumed by the desire for substances').

This 'desire' can be either for a single substance or for a number of substances.

It is worth noting that the Adi Granth mentions the desire for meat at the very end of a list of nine desires:

'The desires for gold, silver, women, fragrances,'

'horses, beds, palaces, sweets, and meat.'

(Verse 43/1, p. 34) [Guru Nanak, Adi Granth, p. 15]

It is clear from Guru Nanak's verse (above) that he accords meat a status similar to gold, silver, women, fragrances, horses, beds, palaces, and sweets.

To forget God and remain obsessed with substances is 'desire.'

For those that are immersed in the rememberance of God, no substance is 'desirous.'

To obsess unduly on meat, i.e. only one of the nine desires acknowledged by the Adi Granth, is tantamount to ignoring the fundamental messages of the Adi Granth.

5. To attach undue importance to matters of eating and drinking rather than focusing on remembering God has been termed by our Gurus as harmful to the pursuit of a spiritual lifestyle. Furthermore, our Gurus have placed meat on par with other superior substances such as fruit, butter, jaggery, and refined flour.

'What good are fruits, butter, sweet jaggery, refined flour, and meat?'

(Verse 44/2, p. 34) [Guru Nanak, Adi Granth, p. 142]

Verses such as the one above make it abundantly clear that it is not incorrect to view meat on par with other superior substances such as gold, silver, butter, jaggery, and refined flour.

6. Bhai Randhir Singh and other writers opposed to non-vegetarian diets have omitted verses that do not suit their purpose.

Consequently, these writers have zoomed in on just two of Guru Nanak's verses, namely: 'Mortals are first conceived in flesh and subsequently dwell on flesh' and 'Fools argue about flesh and meat but know little about meditation and spiritual wisdom.' (Guru Nanak, Adi Granth, p. 1289).

Even these two verses have only been mentioned out of compulsion since the Sikh community is already exposed to these verses. Preachers, Guru Nanak's biographies, and other historical texts have widely publicized these verses due to their said reference to Guru Nanak's visit to Kurukshetra.

Nevertheless, these writers have tried their level best to distort the meanings of these verses.

Clearly, Bhai Randhir Singh has been guided not by an in-depth understanding of the Adi Granth but by his own agenda, wishes, and desires.<SUP>1</SUP>

7. The meat that Muslim's have always referred to as 'halal' began to be referred to by brahmins as 'kutha' meat of the 'malech.'

8. The following are the reasons why Sikhs were forbidden from eating kutha meat:

a. During Mughal rule, kutha meat was used to destroy the Hindu faith.

Eating kutha meat resulted in spiritual weakness among Hindus.

b. According to Mughal law, Hindus were neither permitted to keep weapons at home nor allowed to cook and eat any form of meat.

Sikhism's tenth Guru, Gobind Singh, placed two major impediments in the way of Mughal oppression via his decision to a) arm the Sikhs and b) ban Sikhs from consuming spiritually detrimental katha food preparations.

9. Only those Adi Granth verses that refer to Islam have used the term 'kutha.' Otherwise, the terms 'kuh' or 'kuhi' (slaughter) have been employed.

Therefore, it is clear that the convention of referring to meat prepared in the Muslim style as 'kutha' existed at least since Guru Nanak's time.

10. The body may die, but never the soul.

11. Mankind (as opposed to God) has devised different names for identifying the various types of externally distinguishable living organisms.

It is mankind that considers it sinful to eat certain living organisms and not others.<SUP>A</SUP>

12. The Adi Granth has compared the bodies of living organisms to gowns, clothing, etc.

Therefore, it is mankind that has invented convenient terminology such as flour, meat, spinach, wood, etc. to refer to various bodies/coverings/clothing.

Disputes over the difference between spinach and meat are simply the result of either human ignorance or mischief.

13. The human body is unique among all other species.

This is because of all species God has awarded the ability to distinguish moral right from wrong only to humans.

14. Only the human mind is capable of yearning for relief from sorrow or attainment of happiness.

All other species lack the ability to yearn.

15. The Adi Granth only works on diseases of the human mind.

It is a recipe for winning the world by being victorious over the human mind.

The Adi Granth teaches us how to channel the immense forces of the human mind into positive directions.

The Adi Granth has to do with the soul.

None of the great holy books preaches about the welfare of living creatures.

We have continuously been engaged in the endeavor of reigning in the human mind.

16. The Adi Granth frequently refers to the human body as rare (unique) or God's temple.

The human body has been likened to a horse that carries the soul into God's country and a ladder that helps humans climb great heights to reach God's palaces.

It is for this reason that the human body is supreme among eighty-four lakh (84 times 100,000) species.<SUP>2</SUP>

Therefore, human society did not accept the idea of eating human flesh.

All other species such as animals, birds, insects, and micro-organisms are ingested into the human body in one form or another. In many other ways these animals and birds are slave to the superior human species.<SUP>3</SUP>

17. Eating and drinking are pure acts. However, the Adi Granth code of conduct places restrictions on the consumption of those substances which humans have manifested as desires that either harm the human body or cause grief.

18. Humans have treated meat as a part of their diet since ancient times.

Even today there are several peoples on this earth whose primary diet consists of animals, birds, and fish.

19. All living things - including lentils, vegatable oils, insects, micro-organisms, animals, and birds - possess equivalent life.

Our merciful behavior toward animals and birds should include every effort toward attention to their diet and comfort, protection from their mistreatment as beasts of burden, offering relief from pain and suffering.<SUP>4</SUP>

Whenever treatment is not feasible, it is merciful to assist helpless animals by sparing them pain and discomfort by ending their life swiftly via a blow to the head, electricity, etc.

20. No faith founder has campaigned against the trade of millions of pounds of meat, fish, and eggs - trade in non-vegetarian commodities continues just as seamlessly as trade in grains.

Since ancients times animals and birds have been cultivated and harvested for trade just like crops.

Conclusion:

Therefore, to raise issues pertaining to vegetarianism and non-vegetarianism is sheer foolishness.

The decision regarding whether or not to consume non-vegetarian diet should be upto each individual.

Neither does one become sinful by consuming meat nor does one become pious by renouncing meat.

The Adi Granth, which embodies the spirit of Guru Nanak, does not attempt to define restrictions pertaining to religious duties and horoscopes?.

Let us not distort the true import of the following verse from our Guru:

'Fools argue about flesh and meat but know little about meditation and spiritual wisdom.' [Guru Nanak, Adi Granth, p. 1289]

'Which is meat? Which is spinach? Which is sinful?' [Guru Nanak, Adi Granth, p. 1289]
http://www.sikhtimes.com/books_090803a.html

 

[Randip Singh]

Oh My God.

Are people still arguing? Read the first post before commenting. If you do not do that you're making yourself look really silly. Do not mix Vaishnavism with Sikhism.

So far all I'm reading is vegetarians trying to push their own point of view. Please drop this Hankaar. I live in the UK and they eat meat here, yet cruelty laws against animals are the most harshest in the world. :kaurkhalsaflagblue:

...and please do not distort Bani to suit your own agenda. That is the trust of the "Fools who wrangle over flesh!"

 

[angrisha]

Im sorry, but the environmental debate is just silly.... I was trying not to respond as Ive expressed my views earlier but it just seems ludicrous

How much of our deforestation is happening secondary to ariguluture? The crops that sell are planted in favour of those that would most likely aid in the species diversity of any give region.... the coffee industry for example has led to vast deforestation and and top soil loss in much of south america. In addtion, the major crops we eat in the industrilized world are from GMO's (which Im not against either per say).... How about all the chemicals and pesticides that get sent into ground water, and what about the poor insects we kill on top of it? Let alone transportation methods...

I see a rash double standard here, you talk about environmental impact or lack of empathy for animals but our agriculture industry isn't innocent either...


Honestly, do what feels best for you in your body....