Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh

Kanwardeep ji,


Or you may yourself say on another occasion, that he is afraid to die. Bravery then would be, not being so afraid because one understands the way things are and accepts it. Facing the pain with understanding is being brave, fighting the illness in order to escape from the pain is natural, but let us not call this brave.

You appear to be linking the idea of vegetarianism with that of killing / non-killing. If you are in fact saying that Abrahamic religions encourage killing and yet they can have compassion, you are correct. But this will be in spite of the human-cantered values and not because of it. But if you think that it comes from seeing man as the only worthy object of daya, this is quite a perversion of thought. Any supposed compassion arising must surely then be something else mistaken for the real thing, perhaps it is only pity. And pity is in fact a form of aversion, and aversion being conditioned by attachment, indicates that the relationship towards other human beings must be that of attachment. And taking this further, because in fact the attachment comes down to 'me' and 'mine', other people must then only be extensions of our own self. And so it becomes just a game of delusion.

So you are in fact saying that compassion can arise only with the perception of this particular hairless animal with two legs and two feet, (with or without clothes). And if someone felt something positive for hairy quadrupeds, feathered bipeds, scaly creatures swimming in the water or those crawling without any limbs, and thought that that was compassion, they are in fact fooled by a projected ideal.

Please tell me then, what is it about the image of “man� that qualifies him as worthy recipient for compassion and what is there in an animal which makes it impossible as object of compassion? Is it because you can relate to human beings and can't feel the same about some furry animal that can't speak but only know to make strange sounds? Is it because you can use “thy� and “thou� with regard to human beings whereas the animal will always remain an “it� to you?

Well if this is along the lines of what you really think, as far as I’m concerned, you have never known any compassion, not for any human being even. Because if you did, you'd know that compassion is aimed at the suffering of others and must in fact be preceded by kindness. If you have never experienced any kindness towards animals and if you have never perceived them as suffering beings, then you must be quite dead to anyone else's feelings. You only react to your own pleasant and unpleasant feelings. A human being is favored because he gives you pleasure and when something happens to him, it is not he that you care about, but the loss of your own pleasant feelings. What comes across as concern for the other is in fact the agitation which comes with aversion towards the new situation. In other words, it is all about YOU from beginning to end.

While vegetarianism in these cases is result of wrong understanding, however at some point there may actually have been genuine compassion towards animals. Advocating killing of animals on the other hand, can at no point ever be right! It can be made to appear justified through holding a particular view about things, one which is opposed to the limited view which those saints and rich people held, namely a comprehensive and all-encompassing view of the world.

And by this comprehensive view do you mean, thinking about plants, animals, humans, the environment, the earth through the eye of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, and going further to relate this to the earth's place in the solar system, galaxy, universe and the cosmos? And what is man's place in relation all of this and how everything might be interconnected like a net of jewels? Or is it something even more? But let me ask you this:

When a mosquito bites you and you swat it, is this not because of aversion and not because you are thinking in terms of your and the mosquito's place in the scheme of things? When you chop off the chicken's head in order cook it for dinner, is it because you think in terms of natural selection, that you are motivated to do it, or is it that you think only about eating a tasty dish of chicken? It takes quite a bit of bullheadedness to deny what the real motivation for the killing is, and it takes a good deal of living in one's own head to then refer to an abstract idea such as 'the natural scheme of things', in order that the killing appear justified.

So thanks but no thanks for the kind of view which you think is superior.

If the Abrahamic prophets are claiming that killing for food is justified because the environment does not allow for vegetation, this is plain silliness on their part and foolish of you to agree with them. Animals kill for food but do so only enough to fill their bellies. They however do not entertain such silliness of view, one which makes man much more dangerous than any animal can ever be.

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

Why post an entire shabbad, because some of them are several pages long. Shlok Seheskrit M 5 is too much to read to make a small comment. I am trying to save time for all readers as the panktis I use are famous, anyway.

Harisimratkaur ji

The posting of an entire shabad is a forum Term of Service. There is only good reason for it. Saving time is laudable, true. However, the tendency to throw out a tuk here and pangatee there to prove a point is so tempting for so many who wish to discuss tenets of Sikhi. The result is that of posting the tuk that "proves" one's point, often missing the point of the tuk. Even worse is the tendency to search on a single word or term, and then to stack tuks and pangatees up in an article, 4 or 5 or even 20 to make a case. The cumulative effect is very impressive. The posters seems to know his/her stuff. But there again, the same idea expressed in Gurbani in one pangatee contributes a different meaning depending on the context of the shabad that surrounds it.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8828

We are here to promote understanding of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and discussion of shabads is the ideal way. Per Professor Sahib Singh, the meanings of words and pangatees, even of shabads, requires a wholistic reading of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. As we gather the big encompassing ideas, then the particulars of word and phrase begin to fall into place.

By posting from http://www.srigranth.org the posting of long shabad goes much faster.

Thanks for your question.

NO

You back it up with a quote that say's it is NOT ok (whatever you are saying)!!

NO

Please quote a shabad with an explanation. No one words replies. No one liners!

It is very simple.

I hope this shows the value of quoting full shabads as otherwise people could and would be misled to mis-quote lines as you have done. Sorry for my directness.

Sat Sri Akal.

Interestingly the essay is not only about meat but about misquoting, misunderstanding shabads.

Harsimirat Kaur ji the above as I quoted is perhaps even more helpful to understand with Prof. Sahib Singh ji's Teeka embedded.

This is a great shabad and your statements for this shabad are valid.

However I don't understand how it relates to eating meat. Unless you are implying that there is no difference between vegetables, meats and alcohol so we can have any or all of these. I added alcohol to just verify the rigor of your statement in terms of eating meat.

Sat Sri Akal.

Confused ji,
I find your comments confusing in this case and I do see a strong Buddhist way of thinking. Every form of life is naturally geared for survival-thats why all biological processes have evolved the way they have. A spinach plant or potato plant wants to survive as much as a cow or dog or human. Just because humans do not have the capacity to perceive this with their own senses does not make it untrue and I think it is a very egotistical attitude to take – similar to the attitude of Romans who thought the Earth was the centre of the universe. Killing is killing whether it is a plant or animal, and is unavoidable in life. I don't see the difference in killing a plant and an animal as I am not bigheaded enough to limit my understanding of the world to my own senses and this is how Gurbani sees things too (as detailed earlier in the thread). Animal products (often byproduct from meat industry but not always) appear in the most unlikeliest places including our clothes, shoes, soaps, shampoos, cleaning products, hardback books, sports gear, cars, firefighting equipment, medical equipment and a thousand other things (including alcoholic drinks!). Sometimes these products are safer for the environment and for people than the synthetic alternatives. Indirectly the synthetic alternatives kill more life. So if you promote not killing on moral grounds then you should not be using any of these products either. Your stance on not killing yourself but not having problems with meat if it has already been killed confuses me as it seems a selfish way to behave showing concern for your own actions only (and hence attachment to self). If you were not consuming there would be no need for the killing to occur in the 1^st place to it is an indirect way of supporting the action. Forgive my directness but your posts make no sense to me or maybe I've misunderstood.