Told DAD that meat is NOT forbidden, and he gets ANGRY!

Archived_member14 · #19 (**permalink**) 14-Jun-2012, 09:23 AM

Harry ji,

Some questions, but first a clarification which may be helpful.

Quote:

I am happy to confirm that animals have feelings, they feel love, anger, hate, shame, lust etc

These are not feelings but mental formations. Feelings are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral arisen either at the mind or at the sense doors. So we have for example, love or attachment being associated with either pleasant or neutral but never unpleasant ‘mental’ feeling. And hate always with unpleasant mental feeling. Tactile consciousness is accompanied by either pleasant or unpleasant feeling, but never neutral, all being however, ‘bodily’.

Quote:

The difference is that animals feel according to circumstances and situations, and are generally in consonance with their environment when they feel, unlike human beings,

Is this consonance you are referring to, the same kind you seek to also attain? If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that humans are said to be superior to animals? In other words, if animals so easily achieve the consonance which is the aim all humans should have, does this not then mean that in fact human beings are inferior to animals? If this is not what you are saying, then please explain what it is that you mean by “consonance” in each of the two cases, namely one, which animals achieve naturally and the other, which human being achieve only as a result of correctly following the teachings of such persons as Guru Nanak?

Randip Singh · #20 (**permalink**) 14-Jun-2012, 16:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamala

Meat IS forbidden in all Sanatan religions! Just because a bunch of random people here say it is not does not mean they are right! Shakahari ki jai.

Whoever gives you a rehat maryada is not quite right, since their are many with different standards.

If you don't take my response seriously or your fathers, that means that you don't even care about the facts of your father! He would never want to harm you in that way.

Errr NO!!!

Meat is not forbidden in Sikhism. Shakta-ism doesn not forbid meat either infact it encourages animal sacrifice. Buddism does not ban meat either. In fact the Lord Buddha died eating rancid pork.

So please do not confuse you Vaishnav beliefs with all other faiths.

Randip Singh · #21 (**permalink**) 14-Jun-2012, 16:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navdeep88

Uh, I Cut my Hair, But Im a Proud Vegetarian, But My Responses to your Inquiries were based on the fact that it seemed like a Lame Issue & Situation. The way you're Blaming your Dad, about he's so this & that. Shut Up, Live Life, & then Give your Dad a Hug about how Awesome he was about everything but this One Miniscual Issue.

You really need to be more polite.

Remember, having intercourse and producing babies does not automatically make me a good father. This sounds like the same scenario here. Whats worse is that this man claims to be a Sikh.

Randip Singh · #22 (**permalink**) 14-Jun-2012, 16:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singh12

Thank you Randip for some Real Input on the matter.

Exactly, so my feelings are, that he was such an immoral hypocrite when he was my Age, and now hes jus choking on the fact that i eat meat.

- Yep I dont smoke.
- I dont drink much (maybe once in 3 months, and always remain in a state where i have control, and I have never gone to the extent that i throw up)
- I try to stay fit

Ive also told Him about how theres 6 CHASKA (addictions) written before MEAT (is last).

And especially addiction to SWEET things is a CHASKA BEFORE MEAT.
Ive Told him that SUGAR is worse than MEAT! e.g you NEVER see kids with BAD teeth CAUSE of eating too much meat, But you DO see kids with BAD teeth because of eating to much sweets as a kid (Malnutrition, sugar replaces vitamins, not good)

So SUGAR DAMAGES the body (+ diabetes), so you could say its closer to the effects of alcohol (body damage?)

At one point in the debate between my Dad, he said that Refined White Sugar is good for you!?
Lol *** the things he comes up with sometimes, seems like he makes them up on the spot, just to go against me, and not accept that im right (cos im the 'kid' i guess

)

Thank you for this

Also theres so much issues ive talked about with my dad who drinks milk EVERY day:

CRUILTY TO COWS while ALIVE: e.g how cows are locked up and treated for milk, how HORMONES are INJECTED into cows to INCREASE milk production. And They are PURPOSELY kept pregnant so that they continue producing milk to SELL for MONEY for HUMANS, when really the milk is intended by WAHEGURU (imo) to be for CALFS.

And in these UNATURAL FORCEFUL conditions the Cows udders Get SORE and blister and blead both Externally AND Internally, and this BLOOD & PUSS ends up in the milk. But wait theres More, sometimes the UDDERS get INFECTED, so then these milk factories Slap some OINTMENTS on and INJECT ANTIBIOTICS to deal with the infections, which ULTIMATELY end up IN THE MILK, which people consume. But yet so many sikhs cant get enough of MILK and PANEER. Look at this cruel ness for milk.

Also Regarding animals: what about all these Leather shoes (and furnature) that some sikhs wear, made by skin ripped from animals, and what about the SKIN on the TABLA in my Dads room??

ALSO The GGSJ says to NOT HARM the body.

But yet my family cant seem to get enough of WHEAT which is Gluten based, hard to digest. And is filled with PHYTO TOXINS and ANTI BODIES from the WHEAT, which can Damage our bodies. But also if the plant is producing antibodies, maybe it Does not want to be eaten? Not to mention WHEAT is So devoid of nutrients IMO.

P.S - Dont forget the Blood, Puss, Steroids and Antibiotics in MILK. Which damage the body.
Oh and I forgot that SO MANY people dont really digest LACTOSE (in milk) properly, so it can negatively affect digestion. Also MILK TAKES CALCIUM AWAY FROM BONES, The MYTH that milk gives you strong bones and stuff, is exactly that; a MYTH, FUNDED by the MILK FACTORIES to PUT ON TV so they can SELL MORE MILK and make MORE MONEY.

Theres so much stuff to consider. All i can say is that knowledge is power

Look ignore these Chakska's.

Everything can potentially be an addiction. Sugar, Tea, Sweets, Milk, Excercising, TV etc.

What you have to do is keep a balance. That is what Sikhi teaches us.

This utter nonsense surrounding meat should be ignore. The Sikh Rehat Maryada is clear:
Sikh Rehat Maryada

In the
Rehat Maryada" target="_blank">Rehat Maryada

Rehat_Maryada
, section six,^[31] it states:

The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided:
Dishonouring the hair

Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way (Kutha)

Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse

Using tobacco.

The reason for this was, Leading Sikh intellectuals/spiritual people ruled on this issue in the 1920s—as some Sikh sects attempted to get all Sikhs to be vegetarian.

That is the final word on this, and should be treated as such.

linzer · #23 (**permalink**) 14-Jun-2012, 20:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randip Singh

You really need to be more polite.

Remember, having intercourse and producing babies does not automatically make me a good father. This sounds like the same scenario here. Whats worse is that this man claims to be a Sikh.

I agree completely but to put it more politely, We aren't born knowing how to raise children. It sounds like the father needs to mature as much as the son does.
It's hard for most people to accept when they are wrong. It's harder when it comes from someone you still see as a child. At that age I had terrible arguments with my father. He was always republican. I'm a democrat. After a while we learned to agree to disagree. By the time he died we had the utmost respect for each other as men. It's all part of growing up for everyone involved.

Kamala · #24 (**permalink**) 15-Jun-2012, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randip Singh

Errr NO!!!

Meat is not forbidden in Sikhism. Shakta-ism doesn not forbid meat either infact it encourages animal sacrifice. Buddism does not ban meat either. In fact the Lord Buddha died eating rancid pork.

So please do not confuse you Vaishnav beliefs with all other faiths.

Shakta may do sacrifice, but they do not eat it after. I can almost 100% say that Sri Guru Nanak was vegetarian, doesn't that mean anything to you guys that he is so powerful and we should copy his beliefs for nature?

Archived_member14 · #25 (**permalink**) 15-Jun-2012, 11:24 AM

Kamala ji,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamala

Shakta may do sacrifice, but they do not eat it after. I can almost 100% say that Sri Guru Nanak was vegetarian, doesn't that mean anything to you guys that he is so powerful and we should copy his beliefs for nature?

Does this mean then, that you consider eating meat as wrong but killing an animal for sacrifice, right?

I think Guru Nanak would have taken more or less the opposite stance. That is, eating meat is not wrong, but killing and more so, sacrificial killing, is very wrong.

ps: And I don't think he would encourage imitating / copying his behavior.

Randip Singh · #26 (**permalink**) 15-Jun-2012, 17:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamala

Shakta may do sacrifice, but they do not eat it after. I can almost 100% say that Sri Guru Nanak was vegetarian, doesn't that mean anything to you guys that he is so powerful and we should copy his beliefs for nature?

On Shaktaism

Err no Shaktaism believers eat the meat. In fact people amongst Hindu's believe vegetarianism has made them and their great faith into jibbering cowards.Swami Vivekananda on Meat Eating - Part II By Dr. Radhasyam Brahmachari

http://hindtoday.com/Blogs/ViewBlogs...tPlaceCode=IND

On Guru Nanak

100%, that is a wild claim?

Especially when there is a shabad in Bani that Guru Nanak is said to have quoted to Brahmins at Kurukshetra who scolded him for eating meat.

"H. S. Singha, Mini Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, Delhi: Hemkunt Press,

International_Standard_Book_Number

81-7010-200-6,

"The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten venison or goat, depending upon different janamsakhi versions of a meal which he cooked at Kurukshetra which evoked the criticism of Brahmins."

and the Shabad

Page 1289

First Mehl:
The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom.
What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?
It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering.
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom.
O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said.
They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts.

They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.

Also meat was allowed in langar up until the 2nd Guru. So I think your 100% I can say with certainity is Zero percent

.

Like I said, don't make the mistake of confusing Vaishnav belief with Sikhism. We have Vaishnav converts in Sikhism and they choose to be vegetarian, but the Paanth is not commanded to be vegetarian.

harry haller · #27 (**permalink**) 15-Jun-2012, 18:00 PM

Confusedji

Quote:

These are not feelings but mental formations. Feelings are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral arisen either at the mind or at the sense doors. So we have for example, love or attachment being associated with either pleasant or neutral but never unpleasant ‘mental’ feeling. And hate always with unpleasant mental feeling. Tactile consciousness is accompanied by either pleasant or unpleasant feeling, but never neutral, all being however, ‘bodily’.

I have experienced love and attachment as a negative feeling, it is possible

As for hate, again, I have experienced hate with a positively pleasant feeling

Quote:

Is this consonance you are referring to, the same kind you seek to also attain? If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that humans are said to be superior to animals? In other words, if animals so easily achieve the consonance which is the aim all humans should have, does this not then mean that in fact human beings are inferior to animals? If this is not what you are saying, then please explain what it is that you mean by “consonance” in each of the two cases, namely one, which animals achieve naturally and the other, which human being achieve only as a result of correctly following the teachings of such persons as Guru Nanak?

Consonance to an animal is a given, most live in consonance, however it is the consonance of an animal, not a human, ie, for a lion to kill and eat a passing deer, and then spend the rest of day finding female lions to mate with, I would suggest it is in consonance, it is doing what lions do, no more, no less. If I were to kill a passing deer, and then fornicate with any female within 100 yards, that would not be in consonance, due to the fact I am a human.

All an animal has to do to achieve consonance is to be itself. All a human has to do to achieve consonance is to be itself too, but its harder, humans have more choices, humans can question, can override the natural thought process, some might say the Gurus thought process, and replace it with man made.

I do not think Guru Nanakji invented a way, or came up with anything original, in my belief he did the same that Newton did. He confirmed a truth, he solved a puzzle, how do we find consonance, easy, we live as it was intended we live, without destroying ourselves in the process, with our abilities comes lots of choice, we can be anything we want to be, yes, it is ironic that in my belief, with all our intelligence and abilities, finding consonance is supremely easier for a dog than it is for a human.