New posts

Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!

Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up Log in

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shaheediyan" data-source="post: 56490" data-attributes="member: 2867">Veer Ji, "idea being that animal form spiritually is closer to man. Biologically this maybe true, however, spiritually within Sikhism, this could not be further from the truth." So you are at least admitting that biologically, animals have a closer form to humansthan animals.  Alongside this don't forget that socially, emotionally and politically, animals also have a closer form to humans. The value of a Sikhs relationship with an animal is evidenced through the age old working and emotional relationship between man and dog (in some societies) and man and horse in others. Nihang Singhs are the perfect exampe, calling their horses jaan bhai (life brothers), and historical eye witness accounts speak of the emotional attachment Singhs used to have to their horse... in terms of a travelling aid and battle partner (as the horse learns to think and move like it's master during battle).Words are one thing, if you really want to know the worth of animals, I suggest you go and spend some time in an Orangutan sanctuary in Borneo, and then see if you hold the same views. Your interpretations of the bani you have quotes are biased.  You say Satguru does not speak of heirarchies of life, therefore all life outside of human life has the same worth... this is pure conjecture.  The point of the said tuks is not demonstrate the value of various life, that does not automatically mean that various life has no value. I am not saying plant has no value, of course it does, all life depends on it.  But we should not discount evolution and the advancing journey of life, culminating in its it ultimate self-realising form, insaan.</blockquote>

Verification