• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,949
55
United Kingdom
thanks for the reply veer... but that still didn't answer my question abt the vaar and how its related to the portion highlighted in blue.. ?

You would have to ask the author about this but my take on below is:

Historical evidence, in fact contradicts what Guru Hargobind ji was actually like. He was an avid hunter and warrior. Again this fact some have tried to dismiss as Guruji giving Mukhti to animals souls. This, however, contradicts the Guru's own philosophy which clearly states that only God is capable of granting such things.

Infact Bhai Gudas in his Vars States:

Just as one has to tie pail's neck while taking out water,
Just as to get Mani, snake is to be killed
Just as to get Kasturi from deer's neck, deer is to be killed
Just as to get oil, oil seeds are to be crushed
To get kernel, pomegranate is to be broken
Similarly to correct senseless people, sword has to be taken up.
Bhai Gurdas, Var-34, pauri 13



We know Bhai Gurdas Ji was a contemporary of Guru Hargobind ji and in the above he records hunting metaphors to describe the actions of the Guru. We aso know from Dabistan e Mazhib he was an avid hunter. So we know these facts yes?

I think the author is showing that Guruji was a hunter and also used force when need be.

On the second point of Mukhti, I too don't believe that Guru's went around killing animals so that there souls could be free'd. In that case all that eat meat could claim that.
 

lionheart

SPNer
Apr 8, 2009
7
7
You would have to ask the author about this but my take on below is:

Historical evidence, in fact contradicts what Guru Hargobind ji was actually like. He was an avid hunter and warrior. Again this fact some have tried to dismiss as Guruji giving Mukhti to animals souls. This, however, contradicts the Guru's own philosophy which clearly states that only God is capable of granting such things.

Infact Bhai Gudas in his Vars States:

Just as one has to tie pail's neck while taking out water,
Just as to get Mani, snake is to be killed
Just as to get Kasturi from deer's neck, deer is to be killed
Just as to get oil, oil seeds are to be crushed
To get kernel, pomegranate is to be broken
Similarly to correct senseless people, sword has to be taken up.
Bhai Gurdas, Var-34, pauri 13



We know Bhai Gurdas Ji was a contemporary of Guru Hargobind ji and in the above he records hunting metaphors to describe the actions of the Guru. We aso know from Dabistan e Mazhib he was an avid hunter. So we know these facts yes?

I think the author is showing that Guruji was a hunter and also used force when need be.

On the second point of Mukhti, I too don't believe that Guru's went around killing animals so that there souls could be free'd. In that case all that eat meat could claim that.

o ok i gotcha now... i guess that would b a question for the author cuz obviously thers no question that Guru Sahib did use force when necessary... i mean he won wars.. im sure they weren't all diplomatic so anyone who says that Guru Sahib din use force... well chalo they can keep believing w/e they want then...

but I think the baanee has lil relevance in the case we're discussing.. again i guess thats something I should ask the author.. i assumed that u would know y it was included as u were a part of the team of authors that came up with this... my bad

The second point of Muktee, we can't really claim that our killing of animals can lead to ther Muktee..that would b plain foolish lol... we do not hav the same drishtee as Guru Sahib...

Anyways, I guess I will have to do with your replies...thank you..
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,949
55
United Kingdom
but I think the baanee has lil relevance in the case we're discussing.. again i guess thats something I should ask the author.. i assumed that u would know y it was included as u were a part of the team of authors that came up with this... my bad

Which banee are you talking about? I really do not understand what you are saying?

The second point of Muktee, we can't really claim that our killing of animals can lead to ther Muktee..that would b plain foolish lol... we do not hav the same drishtee as Guru Sahib...

Even if Guru's had Grishti, why would they interfere with what God had intended?

They never resurrected people, or saved themselves from death. They never resurrected after death. So why would they interfere in this way? I don't buy the Mukhti argument.
 

lionheart

SPNer
Apr 8, 2009
7
7
Which banee are you talking about? I really do not understand what you are saying?



Even if Guru's had Grishti, why would they interfere with what God had intended?

They never resurrected people, or saved themselves from death. They never resurrected after death. So why would they interfere in this way? I don't buy the Mukhti argument.


ooo that was my bad.. i meant to say vaar not baanee..

from some saakhees that i've heard.. they did actually "resurrect" after death... n yes ur rite y would they interfere... unless they weren't interfering and that is just how God intended it to be? A thought...

u seem to b getting a lil annoyed with me... or i duno may b its just how i feel from the way ur saying things.. the limitations of a forum to convey emotions.. but o well...
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,949
55
United Kingdom
ooo that was my bad.. i meant to say vaar not baanee..

Ok I understand

from some saakhees that i've heard.. they did actually "resurrect" after death... n yes ur rite y would they interfere... unless they weren't interfering and that is just how God intended it to be? A thought...

Sakhee's are probably the most unreliable sources of info we have on our Guru's they often contradict and were usually written some 100 years after the demise of the last Guru.

I see what you are saying. They were an instrument of God's will. They knew such a such animal had such a such soul and therefore sought to liberate it. So was God using the Guru's to correct mistakes he/she had made?:confused: Is this your take?

u seem to b getting a lil annoyed with me... or i duno may b its just how i feel from the way ur saying things.. the limitations of a forum to convey emotions.. but o well...

No I am not annoyed at all.:D

I am just curious and trying to get as much information out of you in order to answer your question.:p

Can I ask why you use "coloquialisms" like "lil" etc when you write. The reason why I say this is that it is difficult for all our members to follow. Even me. :D
 

lionheart

SPNer
Apr 8, 2009
7
7
Ok I understand



Sakhee's are probably the most unreliable sources of info we have on our Guru's they often contradict and were usually written some 100 years after the demise of the last Guru.

I see what you are saying. They were an instrument of God's will. They knew such a such animal had such a such soul and therefore sought to liberate it. So was God using the Guru's to correct mistakes he/she had made?:confused: Is this your take?



No I am not annoyed at all.:D

I am just curious and trying to get as much information out of you in order to answer your question.:p

Can I ask why you use "coloquialisms" like "lil" etc when you write. The reason why I say this is that it is difficult for all our members to follow. Even me. :D

I agree, Saakhees are a bad source. Me and You both know that we believe that God does not make any mistakes. My take was that its God's play, and if God so wishes he can get Guru Sahib to resurrect someone from the dead... why not?

I'm sorry about using colloquialism, I'm a North American, its a habit we all have (I'm studying in the UK). I guess it saves time.. haha.. I don't know? I'll make sure my posts are proper from now on.
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,949
55
United Kingdom
I agree, Saakhees are a bad source. Me and You both know that we believe that God does not make any mistakes. My take was that its God's play, and if God so wishes he can get Guru Sahib to resurrect someone from the dead... why not?

Yes, agree 100% that God does not make any mistake. That is why I do not believe Guru's killed animals for Mukhti.

Resurrection from the dead is an interesting one. On the one hand, you could argue that in Sikhi we are governed by God's laws, that being the laws of "nature" . The Guru's were instruments of God and hence operated within those laws.

On the other hand one could argue ifthey were at one with God the creator, they could easily break those rules in this instance resurrect the dead.

My personal take is that they would not do the latter.


I'm sorry about using colloquialism, I'm a North American, its a habit we all have (I'm studying in the UK). I guess it saves time.. haha.. I don't know? I'll make sure my posts are proper from now on.

It's OK, it ios just that I want to make sure as many people as possible can read your questions because they are very interesting and get the grey matter working.:welcome:
 

lionheart

SPNer
Apr 8, 2009
7
7
Yes, agree 100% that God does not make any mistake. That is why I do not believe Guru's killed animals for Mukhti.

Resurrection from the dead is an interesting one. On the one hand, you could argue that in Sikhi we are governed by God's laws, that being the laws of "nature" . The Guru's were instruments of God and hence operated within those laws.

On the other hand one could argue ifthey were at one with God the creator, they could easily break those rules in this instance resurrect the dead.

My personal take is that they would not do the latter.




It's OK, it ios just that I want to make sure as many people as possible can read your questions because they are very interesting and get the grey matter working.:welcome:

Alright, then I guess we will agree to disagree. I believe that the so called laws of nature are made by God and since its his show, at any point if he wishes he could make new ones or break the old.
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,949
55
United Kingdom
Alright, then I guess we will agree to disagree. I believe that the so called laws of nature are made by God and since its his show, at any point if he wishes he could make new ones or break the old.

Again, why would God do that? The implication being that what he/she created (in this case the laws of "nature" he/she created) not being perfect. I cannot get my head around this. If he she is breaking his her own laws then he she cannot be perfect, because those laws created in the first place would be created as perfect.:confused:
 

vsgrewal48895

Writer
SPNer
Mar 12, 2009
651
663
89
Michigan
Dear Randip Ji,

I enjoyed the above elaborate debate on wrangling over eating meat. Here are my two cents on it;
Whether to consume any kind of meat should be a matter of personal preference on the basis of taste etc, but it is foolhardy to bring religion into this issue. Guru Nanak has explained it very well in Raag Majh that only God knows what is good and what is bad to eat but those who forget the Creator are deluded;

ਇਕਿ ਮਾਸਹਾਰੀ ਇਕਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਣੁ ਖਾਹਿ ॥ ਇਕਨਾ ਛਤੀਹ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਪਾਹਿ ॥ ਇਕਿ ਮਿਟੀਆ ਮਹਿ ਮਿਟੀਆ ਖਾਹਿ ॥ ਇਕਿ ਪਉਣ ਸੁਮਾਰੀ ਪਉਣ ਸੁਮਾਰਿ ॥ ਇਕਿ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੀ ਨਾਮ ਆਧਾਰਿ ॥ ਜੀਵੈ ਦਾਤਾ ਮਰੈ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਮੁਠੇ ਜਾਹਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਮਨਿ ਸੋਇ ॥

Ik māshārī ik ṯariṇ kẖāhi. Iknā cẖẖaṯīh amriṯ pāhi. Ik mitī▫ā mėh mitī▫ā kẖāhi. Ik pa▫uṇ sumārī pa▫uṇ sumār. Ik nirankārī nām āḏẖār. Jīvai ḏāṯā marai na ko▫e. Nānak muṯẖe jāhi nāhī man so▫e.

Some eat meat, while others eat grass. Some have all the thirty-six varieties of delicacies, while others live in the dirt and eat mud. Some control the breath, and regulate their breathing. Some live by the Support of the Name of the Formless Akal Purkh. The Great Giver lives; no one dies. O Nanak, those who do not enshrine the God within their minds is deluded. -----Guru Nanak, Raag Majh, AGGS, Page, 144-13

Meat has been eaten in all the four ages and has been referred to in all religious scriptures. Guru Angad in Raag Ramkali ponders on the life in ocean;

ਜੀਆ ਕਾ ਆਹਾਰੁ ਜੀਅ ਖਾਣਾ ਏਹੁ ਕਰੇਇ ॥ ਵਿਚਿ ਉਪਾਏ ਸਾਇਰਾ ਤਿਨਾ ਭਿ ਸਾਰ ਕਰੇਇ ॥

Jī▫ā kā āhār jī▫a kẖāṇā ehu kare▫i. vicẖ upā▫e sā▫irā ṯinā bẖė sār kare▫i.

Animals eat other animals; this is what the Akal Purkh has given them as food. God created them in the oceans, and provides for them as well.-----Guru Angad, Raag Ramkali, AGGS, Page, 955-11

Every material thing develops from water whether meat or vegetable. In AGGS there is no prohibition about eating or cooking meat. Guru Nanak cooked deer meat at the festival of the solar eclipse at Kurchetar to remove doubt and superstition. He elaborately writes about meat in Raag Malar. Guru Arjan writes about it spiritulistically in an indirect way in Raag Maru;

ਹਕੁ ਹਲਾਲੁ ਬਖੋਰਹੁ ਖਾਣਾ ॥ ਦਿਲ ਦਰੀਆਉ ਧੋਵਹੁ ਮੈਲਾਣਾ ॥

Hak halāl bakẖorahu kẖāṇā. Ḏil ḏarī▫ā▫o ḏẖovahu mailāṇā.

Let what is earned righteously be your blessed food. Wash away pollution with the river of your heart. -----Guru Arjan, Raag Maru, AGGS, Page, 1084-7

Cordially,

Virinder
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,949
55
United Kingdom
Dear Randip Ji,

I enjoyed the above elaborate debate on wrangling over eating meat. Here are my two cents on it;
Whether to consume any kind of meat should be a matter of personal preference on the basis of taste etc, but it is foolhardy to bring religion into this issue. Guru Nanak has explained it very well in Raag Majh that only God knows what is good and what is bad to eat but those who forget the Creator are deluded;

ਇਕਿ ਮਾਸਹਾਰੀ ਇਕਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਣੁ ਖਾਹਿ ॥ ਇਕਨਾ ਛਤੀਹ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਪਾਹਿ ॥ ਇਕਿ ਮਿਟੀਆ ਮਹਿ ਮਿਟੀਆ ਖਾਹਿ ॥ ਇਕਿ ਪਉਣ ਸੁਮਾਰੀ ਪਉਣ ਸੁਮਾਰਿ ॥ ਇਕਿ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੀ ਨਾਮ ਆਧਾਰਿ ॥ ਜੀਵੈ ਦਾਤਾ ਮਰੈ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਮੁਠੇ ਜਾਹਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਮਨਿ ਸੋਇ ॥

Ik māshārī ik ṯariṇ kẖāhi. Iknā cẖẖaṯīh amriṯ pāhi. Ik mitī▫ā mėh mitī▫ā kẖāhi. Ik pa▫uṇ sumārī pa▫uṇ sumār. Ik nirankārī nām āḏẖār. Jīvai ḏāṯā marai na ko▫e. Nānak muṯẖe jāhi nāhī man so▫e.

Some eat meat, while others eat grass. Some have all the thirty-six varieties of delicacies, while others live in the dirt and eat mud. Some control the breath, and regulate their breathing. Some live by the Support of the Name of the Formless Akal Purkh. The Great Giver lives; no one dies. O Nanak, those who do not enshrine the God within their minds is deluded. -----Guru Nanak, Raag Majh, AGGS, Page, 144-13

Meat has been eaten in all the four ages and has been referred to in all religious scriptures. Guru Angad in Raag Ramkali ponders on the life in ocean;

ਜੀਆ ਕਾ ਆਹਾਰੁ ਜੀਅ ਖਾਣਾ ਏਹੁ ਕਰੇਇ ॥ ਵਿਚਿ ਉਪਾਏ ਸਾਇਰਾ ਤਿਨਾ ਭਿ ਸਾਰ ਕਰੇਇ ॥

Jī▫ā kā āhār jī▫a kẖāṇā ehu kare▫i. vicẖ upā▫e sā▫irā ṯinā bẖė sār kare▫i.

Animals eat other animals; this is what the Akal Purkh has given them as food. God created them in the oceans, and provides for them as well.-----Guru Angad, Raag Ramkali, AGGS, Page, 955-11

Every material thing develops from water whether meat or vegetable. In AGGS there is no prohibition about eating or cooking meat. Guru Nanak cooked deer meat at the festival of the solar eclipse at Kurchetar to remove doubt and superstition. He elaborately writes about meat in Raag Malar. Guru Arjan writes about it spiritulistically in an indirect way in Raag Maru;

ਹਕੁ ਹਲਾਲੁ ਬਖੋਰਹੁ ਖਾਣਾ ॥ ਦਿਲ ਦਰੀਆਉ ਧੋਵਹੁ ਮੈਲਾਣਾ ॥

Hak halāl bakẖorahu kẖāṇā. Ḏil ḏarī▫ā▫o ḏẖovahu mailāṇā.

Let what is earned righteously be your blessed food. Wash away pollution with the river of your heart. -----Guru Arjan, Raag Maru, AGGS, Page, 1084-7

Cordially,

Virinder

Thanks for your input.
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,949
55
United Kingdom
I dont think anyone has a right to stop others from eating meat, i'll back it up with a biological/dental statement,

herbivors (grass eating animals) all have flat teeth to help grind and digest the vegetables.
carnivors (meat eating animals) all have sharp teeth, for grip and chewing power.

In God's design we see how the set of teeth can indicate whether an animal eats meat or not.
I think people can eat meat because God designed the human mouth with both types of teeth, herbivorous, and carnivorous. hope that helps. :D

I think the biological argument is straight forward. I don't think anyone can deny humans are omnivores, although there are fringe groups that try and do this too.

The debate is about the Sikh view. In Sikhism, there have always been groups that espoused vegetarianism, but the thinking behind the essay is not to use one liners and selective quotes to try and prove Sikhism supports vegetarianism (or even meat eating).

The reality is that the Sikh Guru's saw the argument of one diet over another and spiritual arguments around this as a folly.
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,949
55
United Kingdom
'to use one liners and selective quotes'

Its not the Sikh view, its just a scientific observation. (does Sikhism agree, or take into account science?) from a purely physical biological view, y would God bless humans with both types of teeth? I think it would be wrong to say He made an error...! n e ways it was just a point i found worth mentioning. not spiritual, but scientific. :up:


The Sikh view supports the scientific view. If you read this:

ਮਃ
मः १ ॥
Mėhlā 1.
First Mehl:


ਮਾਸੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਕਰਿ ਮੂਰਖੁ ਝਗੜੇ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਣੈ
मासु मासु करि मूरखु झगड़े गिआनु धिआनु नही जाणै ॥
Mās mās kar mūrakẖ jẖagṛe gi▫ān ḏẖi▫ān nahī jāṇai.
The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom.


ਕਉਣੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਕਉਣੁ ਸਾਗੁ ਕਹਾਵੈ ਕਿਸੁ ਮਹਿ ਪਾਪ ਸਮਾਣੇ
कउणु मासु कउणु सागु कहावै किसु महि पाप समाणे ॥
Ka▫uṇ mās ka▫uṇ sāg kahāvai kis mėh pāp samāṇe.
What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?


ਗੈਂਡਾ ਮਾਰਿ ਹੋਮ ਜਗ ਕੀਏ ਦੇਵਤਿਆ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੇ
गैंडा मारि होम जग कीए देवतिआ की बाणे ॥
Gaiʼndā mār hom jag kī▫e ḏeviṯi▫ā kī bāṇe.
It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering.


ਮਾਸੁ ਛੋਡਿ ਬੈਸਿ ਨਕੁ ਪਕੜਹਿ ਰਾਤੀ ਮਾਣਸ ਖਾਣੇ
मासु छोडि बैसि नकु पकड़हि राती माणस खाणे ॥
Mās cẖẖod bais nak pakṛėh rāṯī māṇas kẖāṇe.
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.


ਫੜੁ ਕਰਿ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੋ ਦਿਖਲਾਵਹਿ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਨਹੀ ਸੂਝੈ
फड़ु करि लोकां नो दिखलावहि गिआनु धिआनु नही सूझै ॥
Faṛ kar lokāʼn no ḏikẖlāvahi gi▫ān ḏẖi▫ān nahī sūjẖai.
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom.


ਨਾਨਕ ਅੰਧੇ ਸਿਉ ਕਿਆ ਕਹੀਐ ਕਹੈ ਕਹਿਆ ਬੂਝੈ
नानक अंधे सिउ किआ कहीऐ कहै न कहिआ बूझै ॥
Nānak anḏẖe si▫o ki▫ā kahī▫ai kahai na kahi▫ā būjẖai.
O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said.


ਅੰਧਾ ਸੋਇ ਜਿ ਅੰਧੁ ਕਮਾਵੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਰਿਦੈ ਸਿ ਲੋਚਨ ਨਾਹੀ
अंधा सोइ जि अंधु कमावै तिसु रिदै सि लोचन नाही ॥
Anḏẖā so▫e jė anḏẖ kamāvai ṯis riḏai sė locẖan nāhī.
They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts.


ਮਾਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਕੀ ਰਕਤੁ ਨਿਪੰਨੇ ਮਛੀ ਮਾਸੁ ਖਾਂਹੀ
मात पिता की रकतु निपंने मछी मासु न खांही ॥
Māṯ piṯā kī rakaṯ nipanne macẖẖī mās na kẖāʼnhī.
They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.

ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਪੁਰਖੈ ਜਾਂ ਨਿਸਿ ਮੇਲਾ ਓਥੈ ਮੰਧੁ ਕਮਾਹੀ
इसत्री पुरखै जां निसि मेला ओथै मंधु कमाही ॥
Isṯarī purkẖai jāʼn nis melā othai manḏẖ kamāhī.
But when men and women meet in the night, they come together in the flesh.


ਮਾਸਹੁ ਨਿੰਮੇ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਜੰਮੇ ਹਮ ਮਾਸੈ ਕੇ ਭਾਂਡੇ
मासहु निमे मासहु जमे हम मासै के भांडे ॥
Māsahu nimme māsahu jamme ham māsai ke bẖāʼnde.
In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh.


ਗਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਕਛੁ ਸੂਝੈ ਨਾਹੀ ਚਤੁਰੁ ਕਹਾਵੈ ਪਾਂਡੇ
गिआनु धिआनु कछु सूझै नाही चतुरु कहावै पांडे ॥
Gi▫ān ḏẖi▫ān kacẖẖ sūjẖai nāhī cẖaṯur kahāvai pāʼnde.
You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar.


ਬਾਹਰ ਕਾ ਮਾਸੁ ਮੰਦਾ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਘਰ ਕਾ ਮਾਸੁ ਚੰਗੇਰਾ
बाहर का मासु मंदा सुआमी घर का मासु चंगेरा ॥
Bāhar kā mās manḏā su▫āmī gẖar kā mās cẖangerā.
O master, you believe that flesh on the outside is bad, but the flesh of those in your own home is good.


ਜੀਅ ਜੰਤ ਸਭਿ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਹੋਏ ਜੀਇ ਲਇਆ ਵਾਸੇਰਾ
जीअ जंत सभि मासहु होए जीइ लइआ वासेरा ॥
Jī▫a janṯ sabẖ māsahu ho▫e jī▫e la▫i▫ā vāserā.
All beings and creatures are flesh; the soul has taken up its home in the flesh.


ਅਭਖੁ ਭਖਹਿ ਭਖੁ ਤਜਿ ਛੋਡਹਿ ਅੰਧੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਜਿਨ ਕੇਰਾ
अभखु भखहि भखु तजि छोडहि अंधु गुरू जिन केरा ॥
Abẖakẖ bẖakẖėh bẖakẖ ṯaj cẖẖodėh anḏẖ gurū jin kerā.
They eat the uneatable; they reject and abandon what they could eat. They have a teacher who is blind.


ਮਾਸਹੁ ਨਿੰਮੇ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਜੰਮੇ ਹਮ ਮਾਸੈ ਕੇ ਭਾਂਡੇ
मासहु निमे मासहु जमे हम मासै के भांडे ॥
Māsahu nimme māsahu jamme ham māsai ke bẖāʼnde.
In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh.


ਗਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਕਛੁ ਸੂਝੈ ਨਾਹੀ ਚਤੁਰੁ ਕਹਾਵੈ ਪਾਂਡੇ
गिआनु धिआनु कछु सूझै नाही चतुरु कहावै पांडे ॥
Gi▫ān ḏẖi▫ān kacẖẖ sūjẖai nāhī cẖaṯur kahāvai pāʼnde.
You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar.


ਮਾਸੁ ਪੁਰਾਣੀ ਮਾਸੁ ਕਤੇਬੀ ਚਹੁ ਜੁਗਿ ਮਾਸੁ ਕਮਾਣਾ
मासु पुराणी मासु कतेबीं चहु जुगि मासु कमाणा ॥
Mās purāṇī mās ketābīʼn cẖahu jug mās kamāṇā.
Meat is allowed in the Puraanas, meat is allowed in the Bible and the Koran. Throughout the four ages, meat has been used.


ਜਜਿ ਕਾਜਿ ਵੀਆਹਿ ਸੁਹਾਵੈ ਓਥੈ ਮਾਸੁ ਸਮਾਣਾ
जजि काजि वीआहि सुहावै ओथै मासु समाणा ॥
Jaj kāj vī▫āhi suhāvai othai mās samāṇā.
It is featured in sacred feasts and marriage festivities; meat is used in them.


ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਪੁਰਖ ਨਿਪਜਹਿ ਮਾਸਹੁ ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹ ਸੁਲਤਾਨਾਂ
इसत्री पुरख निपजहि मासहु पातिसाह सुलतानां ॥
Isṯarī purakẖ nipjahi māsahu pāṯisāh sulṯānāʼn.
Women, men, kings and emperors originate from meat.


ਜੇ ਓਇ ਦਿਸਹਿ ਨਰਕਿ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਤਾਂ ਉਨ੍ਹ੍ਹ ਕਾ ਦਾਨੁ ਲੈਣਾ
जे ओइ दिसहि नरकि जांदे तां उन्ह का दानु न लैणा ॥
Je o▫e ḏisėh narak jāʼnḏe ṯāʼn unĥ kā ḏān na laiṇā.
If you see them going to hell, then do not accept charitable gifts from them.


ਦੇਂਦਾ ਨਰਕਿ ਸੁਰਗਿ ਲੈਦੇ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਏਹੁ ਧਿਙਾਣਾ
देंदा नरकि सुरगि लैदे देखहु एहु धिङाणा ॥
Ḏeʼnḏā narak surag laiḏe ḏekẖhu ehu ḏẖińāṇā.
The giver goes to hell, while the receiver goes to heaven - look at this injustice.


ਆਪਿ ਬੂਝੈ ਲੋਕ ਬੁਝਾਏ ਪਾਂਡੇ ਖਰਾ ਸਿਆਣਾ
आपि न बूझै लोक बुझाए पांडे खरा सिआणा ॥
Āp na būjẖai lok bujẖā▫e pāʼnde kẖarā si▫āṇā.
You do not understand your own self, but you preach to other people. O Pandit, you are very wise indeed.


ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੂ ਜਾਣੈ ਹੀ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਿਥਹੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਉਪੰਨਾ
पांडे तू जाणै ही नाही किथहु मासु उपंना ॥
Pāʼnde ṯū jāṇai hī nāhī kithhu mās upannā.
O Pandit, you do not know where meat originated.


ਤੋਇਅਹੁ ਅੰਨੁ ਕਮਾਦੁ ਕਪਾਹਾਂ ਤੋਇਅਹੁ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣੁ ਗੰਨਾ
तोइअहु अंनु कमादु कपाहां तोइअहु त्रिभवणु गंना ॥
Ŧo▫i▫ahu ann kamāḏ kapāhāʼn ṯo▫i▫ahu ṯaribẖavaṇ gannā.
Corn, sugar cane and cotton are produced from water. The three worlds came from water.


ਤੋਆ ਆਖੈ ਹਉ ਬਹੁ ਬਿਧਿ ਹਛਾ ਤੋਐ ਬਹੁਤੁ ਬਿਕਾਰਾ
तोआ आखै हउ बहु बिधि हछा तोऐ बहुतु बिकारा ॥
Ŧo▫ā ākẖai ha▫o baho biḏẖ hacẖẖā ṯoai bahuṯ bikārā.
Water says, "I am good in many ways." But water takes many forms.


ਏਤੇ ਰਸ ਛੋਡਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਸੰਨਿਆਸੀ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਕਹੈ ਵਿਚਾਰਾ ॥੨॥
एते रस छोडि होवै संनिआसी नानकु कहै विचारा ॥२॥
Ėṯe ras cẖẖod hovai sani▫āsī Nānak kahai vicẖārā. ||2||
Forsaking these delicacies, one becomes a true Sannyaasee, a detached hermit. Nanak reflects and speaks. ||2||

Here Guru Nanak tackles flesh/meat etc from all angles.
 
May 22, 2009
3
1
India
I personally feel that there is no harm in having "non veg diet" .. and what does one means by veg diet ? The milk which veg people consumes, scientifically that is also Non-Veg, but it counts as Veg...Just proof mee why milk is Veg ???? The plants, trees etc even they too have life in some manner... God has given us life eat what ever you like, just have full faith in god.. enjoy life... never hurt anyones feelings ;)

Hey look what i have found the real cool website : Global Ongoings ---- Detailed portal for current happenings in whole world
 
May 22, 2009
2
4
Canada
Very knowlegeable article. Rather this should be preached in a big manner so that two sects of sikh one those who eat meat and the second who do not eat meat should not indulge in war for justification of there own way. Guru Nanak ji have written .. Baba Hore Khanaa Khushee Gawar, Jit Khadei Tan Peeria Man Mei Chalei Vikaar. Guru ji has explained in this shabad " That food is bad which makes you sick physically and mentally. So hei man you decide which food suits you or not".
So keep it up and spread more knowlege.
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,949
55
United Kingdom
Very knowlegeable article. Rather this should be preached in a big manner so that two sects of sikh one those who eat meat and the second who do not eat meat should not indulge in war for justification of there own way. Guru Nanak ji have written .. Baba Hore Khanaa Khushee Gawar, Jit Khadei Tan Peeria Man Mei Chalei Vikaar. Guru ji has explained in this shabad " That food is bad which makes you sick physically and mentally. So hei man you decide which food suits you or not".
So keep it up and spread more knowlege.

Exactly!

Many people have thought this essay to be pro-meat and anti-vegetarian. It is anti- nothing but pro-Sikh.

When our Guru's decided they were going to civilise Punjabi's they must have despaired and some of the shenanigans they must have pulled. I am surprised they didn't uproot and take their message to another state altogether.

I sometimes despair at the destruction of the simple message of Sikhi by people who have their own agendas.

Eat what is good for YOU, do not look at what YOUR neighbour is eating......so simple yet so complicate by the Punjabi brain. :)
 

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jul 4, 2004
7,708
14,381
75
KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
This came in the Mail today..Read on...

Sahel is the transition region of grassland and shrubland between wooded Africa to its South and Sahara to its north.

This is the where the modern humans evolved, after chimps from the wooded south travelled northwards and started bi-pedalism and hunting for small prey and developed the first tools for cooking and hunting. Jaw size became smaller as the cooked food became available. And brain size and processing increased due to additional proteins available from hunted food. Anthropologists are unanimous in view after studying dietary habits and tools made by first humans in the region that modern humans may not have evolved without change in dietary habits.

Read articles below from Berkeley and National Geographic.

Sahel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

06.14.99 - Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet "Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies
--
Rgds
Amandeep Singh


Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet
By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs

BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.

Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.

Her thesis complements the discovery last month by UC Berkeley professor Tim White and others that early human species were butchering and eating animal meat as long ago as 2.5 million years. Milton's article integrates dietary strategy with the evolution of human physiology to argue that meat eating was routine. It is published this month in the journal "Evolutionary Anthropology" (Vol.8, #1).

Milton said that her theories do not reflect on today's vegetarian diets, which can be completely adequate, given modern knowledge of nutrition.

"We know a lot about nutrition now and can design a very satisfactory vegetarian diet," said Milton, a professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management.

But she added that the adequacy of a vegetarian diet depends either on modern scientific knowledge or on traditional food habits, developed over many generations, in which people have worked out a complete diet by putting different foods together.

In many parts of the world where people have little access to meat, they have run the risk of malnutrition, said Milton. This happened, for instance, in Southeast Asia where people relied heavily on a single plant food, polished rice, and developed the nutritional disease, beriberi. Closer to home, in the Southern United States, many people dependent largely on corn meal developed the nutritional disease, pellagra.

Milton argues that meat supplied early humans not only with all the essential amino acids, but also with many vitamins, minerals and other nutrients they required, allowing them to exploit marginal, low quality plant foods, like roots - foods that have few nutrients but lots of calories. These calories, or energy, fueled the expansion of the human brain and, in addition, permitted human ancestors to increase in body size while remaining active and social.

"Once animal matter entered the human diet as a dependable staple, the overall nutrient content of plant foods could drop drastically, if need be, so long as the plants supplied plenty of calories for energy," said Milton.

The brain is a relentless consumer of calories, said Milton. It needs glucose 24 hours a day. Animal protein probably did not provide many of those calories, which were more likely to come from carbohydrates, she said.

Buffered against nutritional deficiency by meat, human ancestors also could intensify their use of plant foods with toxic compounds such as cyanogenic glycosides, foods other primates would have avoided, said Milton. These compounds can produce deadly cyanide in the body, but are neutralized by methionine and cystine, sulfur-containing amino acids present in meat. Sufficient methionine is difficult to find in plants. Most domesticated grains - wheat, rice, maize, barley, rye and millet - contain this cyanogenic compound as do many beans and widely-eaten root crops such as taro and manioc.

Since plant foods available in the dry and deforested early human environment had become less nutritious, meat was critical for weaned infants, said Milton. She explained that small infants could not have processed enough bulky plant material to get both nutrients for growth and energy for brain development.

"I disagree with those who say meat may have been only a marginal food for early humans," said Milton. "I have come to believe that the incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an absolutely essential role in human evolution."

Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have developed a more elongated small intestine rather than retaining the huge colon of apes - a change in the human lineage which indicates a diet of more concentrated nutrients.
###

"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies
Hillary Mayell, for National Geographic News February 18, 2005

Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.

Our taste for meat has also led us into some trouble—our teeth are too big for our downsized jaws and most of us need dental work.

"It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives:

How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans?
What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape?

Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago.

How Did Meat-Eating Start?

Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche.

Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC).

Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees.

"It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationship—do they compete for food, for nesting sites?"

The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets.

When humans switched to meat-eating, they triggered a genetic change that enabled better processing of fats, said Stanford, who has worked extensively with gerontologist Caleb Finch of USC.
"We have an obsession today with fat and cholesterol because we can go to the market and stuff ourselves with it," Stanford said. "But as a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. Compared to the great apes, we can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot.

"Even though we have all these problems in terms of heart disease as we get older, if you give a gorilla a diet that a meat-loving man might eat in Western society, that gorilla will die when it's in its twenties; a normal life span might be 50. They just can't handle that kind of diet."

Diet and Teeth

Tool-use no doubt helped early humans in butchering their dinners. But there is evidence that the advance to cooking and using knives and forks is leading to crooked teeth and facial dwarfing in humans.

Today it's relatively rare for someone to have perfectly straight teeth (without having been to the orthodontist). Our wisdom teeth don't have room to fit in the jaw and sometimes don't form at all, and the propensity to develop gum disease is on the increase.

"Virtually any mammalian jaw in the wild that you look at will be a perfect occlusion—a very nice Hollywood-style dentition," said Peter Lucas, the author of Dental Functional Morphology and a visiting professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "But when it comes to humans, the ideal occlusion [the way teeth fit together] is virtually never seen. It's really the only body part that regularly needs attention and surgery."

Lucas argues that the mechanical process of chewing, combined with the physical properties of foods in the diet, will drive tooth, jaw, and body size, particularly in human evolution.

Essentially, by cooking our food, thereby making it softer, we no longer need teeth big enough to chow down on really tough particles. By using knives and forks to cut food into smaller pieces, we no longer need a large enough jaw to cram in big hunks of food.

"We're evolving to eat mush," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University.
 

❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM

❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM

📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Top