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

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jul 4, 2004
7,708
14,381
75
KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
HA..KESH !! This had to drop in to this thread...and so i digress out of necessity..apologies in advance..Jios...

Many shaven heads never forget to cite Bhagat Kabir Jis Tuks on .."..IT doesnt really matter whether one has a long matted hair..or a shaved head...BOTH dont matter in religiousity/morality...." And of course Kabir Ji is Absolutley Right. In his time ( and today as well) many SADHUS cultivated MATTED HAIR on their heads...rubbing the sap of the Boharr or Pipall tree into the scalp to make hair grow luxuriously, then matting it all up in one huge mess on the head..as a SIGN OF RELIGIOUS HOLIER THAN THOU moral HIGH GROUND !!
The Second group of SIMILAR SADHUS..took the exact opposite stand...they rubbed ashes into their scalps..and PULLED OUT all hair by the roots..this group felt Holier than Thou and on High Moral Ground via their shaved shining heads !!.............Leading Kabir Ji to further ask..OH Shaven heads..WHY are you so proud of your shaved heads when you HAVE NOT SHAVED YOUR MIND/MANN..of all its evil habits/thoughts etc ?? How can shaving the ehad make one HOLY ?? and neither can keeping Goldilocks or hair that reach to the ground from the highest tower...

SO YES ...IF any Amrtidharee feels he is Holier than thou/and on High Moral Ground just by keeping uncut hair/beard..he is seriously mistaken..Bhagat kabir Ji has already made that clear..LONG before 1699....The INNER GLOW of GURBANI and NAAM RASS must shine out to make any meaning out of the Kesh Kirpan Karra kachh and Kangha....or we will look and feel like donkeys wearing lion skins. Simialrly GURBANI GLOWS from within..BEFORE any external "DIET" can take effect..GURBANI MUST GLOW long before merley eating/abstaining form meat or milk can be of any use...
 

findingmyway

Writer
SPNer
Aug 17, 2010
1,665
3,778
World citizen!
Randip Singh ji,
Ok in that case my comment was off-topic. My concern is with diet and well-being alone, that is, eating certain diets to increase individual and communal well-being.

We are all individuals with different lifestyles, environment, physiques, digestive systems and metabolism. What works for 1 person won't necessarily work for the next. Neither meat should be mandated, nor forbidden. A balanced diet should be determined by each of us for ourselves.
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,194
54
HA..KESH !! This had to drop in to this thread...and so i digress out of necessity..apologies in advance..Jios...

Many shaven heads never forget to cite Bhagat Kabir Jis Tuks on .."..IT doesnt really matter whether one has a long matted hair..or a shaved head...BOTH dont matter in religiousity/morality...." And of course Kabir Ji is Absolutley Right. In his time ( and today as well) many SADHUS cultivated MATTED HAIR on their heads...rubbing the sap of the Boharr or Pipall tree into the scalp to make hair grow luxuriously, then matting it all up in one huge mess on the head..as a SIGN OF RELIGIOUS HOLIER THAN THOU moral HIGH GROUND !!
The Second group of SIMILAR SADHUS..took the exact opposite stand...they rubbed ashes into their scalps..and PULLED OUT all hair by the roots..this group felt Holier than Thou and on High Moral Ground via their shaved shining heads !!.............Leading Kabir Ji to further ask..OH Shaven heads..WHY are you so proud of your shaved heads when you HAVE NOT SHAVED YOUR MIND/MANN..of all its evil habits/thoughts etc ?? How can shaving the ehad make one HOLY ?? and neither can keeping Goldilocks or hair that reach to the ground from the highest tower...

SO YES ...IF any Amrtidharee feels he is Holier than thou/and on High Moral Ground just by keeping uncut hair/beard..he is seriously mistaken..Bhagat kabir Ji has already made that clear..LONG before 1699....The INNER GLOW of GURBANI and NAAM RASS must shine out to make any meaning out of the Kesh Kirpan Karra kachh and Kangha....or we will look and feel like donkeys wearing lion skins. Simialrly GURBANI GLOWS from within..BEFORE any external "DIET" can take effect..GURBANI MUST GLOW long before merley eating/abstaining form meat or milk can be of any use...

I have made this argument a few times now, but I will put it forward again, if only to ensure I am on the right track here, I am a mona, and have only just recently decided to renew my faith, as I understand it, being a mona does not allow me to enjoy the fruits of sikhism to the complete, but no more than not being a mona, and say, sleeping with *****s. I would never argue the point that you can be complete without hair, but no more than I would argue that you could be complete with a mind like a cess pit, both are just states to be in, however on reflection, I would prefer a clean mind, and no hair to the opposite.
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
62
Thailand
Spnadmin ji,

Thanks for your response. However, I can't really make out from your remarks how much we agree and what the disagreements are, if any. I am going to respond to some of your comments, but they are more like random thoughts.

You remarked:


Freedom to decide meat or veg without having one's morality judged in an overweening way by someone who has made a different decision.

Yes, it is not right to judge. But to point out what is right and what is wrong is what religion does.
Eating is eating, and no harm is done to others when we eat what we like. If we steal, kill or lie in order to get what we wish to have, these are evil actions, but the eating itself isn't. However, there is also the question of wrong attitude towards one's choice of food which can lead to other kinds of wrong, including judging others and trying to convince them to believe similarly. So should we not point to such errors in thinking?

But why the need to refer to the idea of freedom of choice?
Indeed such an idea must include and mostly is, about following one's desire isn't it? And where would this lead to? Would not the ideal (of not imposing our values upon others) likely draw the attention away from seeing harm in desire and inadvertently encourage following its dictates? One may factor in the idea of not hurting others as way to control one's actions. But when desire and its harm is not acknowledge, what do you think wins in the end? Do the moral laws not exist in reality? Would desire not lead to more desire? Can we say that it depend on each individual to decide what is right and what is wrong? If so, what about the ideal of "not imposing" itself, is this not also up to the individual?

Freedom to decide for kesh, and knowing why one has done that, without being judged by someone who has made a different decision. Freedom to decide against keeping kesh, without being judged on a harsh moral plane by someone who has made a different decision. Freedom to give oneself freedom to decide. Freedom to consider deeply the reasons for those decisions. Freedom to change one's mind.

And freedom to judge and impose?
This is the problem isn't it, to tie morality with the idea of individual freedom? While a person of moral integrity will allow for others to develop at their own pace, hence no mind to force anything onto anyone, he will however take care not to encourage others to follow their desires, which as he knows, is the cause for immorality and can lead to many other problems.

More importantly however, there is in fact no such thing as "freedom of choice". This is only an abstraction created by those who do not understand the truth. Keeping kesh and not keeping kesh, thinking this and thinking that, all this is conditioned. The imperative then is to develop understanding of one's own mind and in the process come to know that others are no different from us. So it is not like we have to allow them to do what they wish, but to understand that they can't help doing what they do and think what they think. In this way, wrong and right remains in focus and while one tries to help others, it does not end up catering to desire.

How is one moral without freedom?

We of course can pursue a philosophical debate about the meaning of freedom. Let's not for the sake of thread relevance, and take that elsewhere. I am of course in my remarks assuming that this sense of freedom to decide is coming from a place in dharma and is not merely wanton willfulness.

And I could ask, "how can there be morality if one insists on the idea of individual freedom"?!
And to keep all this in-topic, I'd like to suggest that Guru Nanak in pointing out to the brahmin priests, the wrongness of judging those who eat meat, was not making a statement about "individual freedom", but rather addressing the mistaken belief that becoming a vegetarian makes one morally pure and eating meat the opposite. In the end of course, we eat what we like, and no one should make a moral judgement in this regard. But the judgement happens, and this comes from those who believe that they have made a correct moral decision by their choice of food. After all the act of eating food is seen by them as a moral act, when in fact morality must be a reference to particular mental states from which actions flow and affect other beings. And in pointing out their mistake, this is not judging nor expecting that anyone change their choice of food, but only an attempt at correcting the mistaken belief.

Perhaps we should take care not to bring social considerations in to interpret religious principles. The idea about "freedom of choice" should in my opinion, not come into the picture as it distorts the perception. Dharma / Dharam is aimed at the individual and not the group. No doubt it leads to and even gives some guidance with regard to living with other people. But the basis for this is each individual's own development in morality and wisdom, which can happen only when the reference point is his own mind and not ideas such as equal rights and freedom of choice etc. these being result of the perception of "self and the world out there". Rather it seems that those who fail at understanding the point of religion are in need of some outside governing principle to control the behaviour.

And talking about freedom, who in fact is more free, the person who forever follows his desires or the person with moral integrity? Desire leads to anger, such as when we don't get what we want or we get what we don't want. On the other hand, a person who knows the value of moral restraint, friendliness, truthfulness, compassion etc, when he is faced with a difficult situation, what do you think his reaction will be like?

So should we encourage freedom of choice or should we be talking about how morality and wisdom can be developed?

Regarding the question about kesh, I wanted also to find out how far this ideal about "freedom of choice" is taken by those who have a strong belief in it.
 

Randip Singh

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



If this is the point of your original essay, then it looks like that I made a mistake citing it in another discussion forum. There, some members were suggesting that it was morally wrong to eat meat. I in response, tried to point out that eating is eating and that it is driven by plain desire no matter the food is fruit and vegetables or meat. To associate becoming a vegetarian with moral purity must be the result of some kind of wrong understanding and leads to many problems, most notably the increased inability to give due consideration to what should be considered while being driven by a false sense of morality. Indeed this is a great evil, one which is hard to detect, given especially that for the person who is under its influence, it is perceived as a kind of good standing against some perceived evil.

But you are saying now, that this issue is actually about “freedomâ€. I have my doubts, but I will not get into a debate. However I would like to ask you the following questions:

If ‘freedom’ is such an important point in the teachings, what is your opinion with regard to the general Sikh practice of keeping one’s hair and never cutting it?
Should those who make ‘hair’ an issue be considered fools?

It is about morals as well. It works on many different levels.

The essay is about:

1) Freedom
2) One groups superiority over another (morally through diet or otherwise)
3) Mistranslations
4) Lack of understanding

etc

Many issues....and I Have seen it being used in ways I had not even considered.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
confused ji

I think my main question was whether it makes any sense at all to think morality possible without freedom to decide or make choices.

As for your comment
So should we encourage freedom of choice or should we be talking about how morality and wisdom can be developed?

1. I am not certain that any one person or group can resolve the "should" part of your question. Either it is encouraged or it is not encouraged, which in turn has impact on whether there can be any morality absent freedom to make choices.

2. The second part of your comment "should we be talking about how morality and wisdom can be developed?" is a philosophical question that has engaged philosophers from pre-Socratic times, east and west. Certainly I believe it is worth discussion. It is an excellent question but the discussion would take the thread off topic.
 

kds1980

SPNer
Apr 3, 2005
4,502
2,743
43
INDIA
An interesting read

http://neo-sikhism.blogspot.com/search/label/jhatka

Saints and vegetarianism
The word Sant means a seeker of the Truth, or one who has merged into the Truth. The word Sadhu means a renunicate from the world. Over the years many Sikhs have called Sadhus, Sants and vice-versa. The Nirmala Panth was of Sants, and Sadhus, some being gristi and others being celibate. The Udasi Panth was mainly Sadhus.
In the last 150 years in Punjab the Sadhu-Sant movement has been huge. Kahn Singh Nabha writes " the Sants are preaching eating meat is wrong, this is against Gurmat". The passive, Sadhu-Sant movement was patronised by the British rulers and Royal family. Many of the "great" Saints of the last 150 years were regularly visited by the British regency. Most Sants never wore a Kirpan, and were into Ahinsa, complete non-violence. This served the interests of the colonial rulers very well.
Today all over Punjab, there are an unknown number of white clad, vegetarian, passive, cultish Sants. The Sant movement originated in some respects out of the scholaristic movement of the Nirmala Sikhs, and aseceticism of Udasi's. These Sikhs wore Salmon Pink, orange, or white, and were scholars of Sanskrit. Mostly Sadhus, who were unmarried, they wrote books to defend the ideas of Gurmat, via giving "proof" from Vedant, or other Indian philosophies.

Most Sants today are unaware of their origins, and have been "reformed". As they follow the Sikh Rahit Maryada, and wear a Kirpan. Although it is fair to say, whether the Kirpan is sharp or usable, or if they know how to use it, is questionable. They prefer to stay Shant and in general keep away from the Bir Ras spirit. It is common in Sant deras to tell people not to read Chandi Di Var, or other Dasam Granth bani. However they do still believe it is Guru's bani. There are exceptions here like the Dam Dami Taksal who keep armed. While on the other hand Namdhari's read Dasam bani, but do not keep armed.
The old tradition was that a Sadhu could not keep worldy items, as a Sadhu was separate from maya. However the Sadhus of today put the Gangster rappers to shame, with the bling bling they have.




Nihang Sant Soorma Sahid Avatar Singh Brahma, who single handedly killed thousands of rapists, murders, and paedophiles in the Punjab police. For many years he practiced Jhatka, in the Baba Biddhi Chand Nihang Dal.



Some Nirmala scholars, paid off by their British masters, condemed the practices of the Khalsa in some texts. At one point they even attempted to create the Nirmala-Buddha Dal, but lost their battle in the British court. All of these were attempts to dissolve the Saint-Soldier ideal of the Khalsa created by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Guru Gobind Singh told the Khalsa to be armed at all times, it is our right as a Sovereign Nation. " Saif Sarohi Saythee, Yahai Hamarey Pir". Shastar Nam Mala Puran. Dasam Granth Sahib Ji.



Nirmala Sant Giani's in the passive traditional Nirmal Bhek/dress.





However the Nirmala Sants kept the Sikh tradition alive when the Christians nearly converted all of Punjab to Christianity. This was a great service performed by them, for the Khalsa Panth. There also have been examples of Nirmala Saints like Bhai Maharaj Singh who fought against the British. In the next few weeks, there will be a post about the life of this great Brahmgiani.


The True Nirmala Sadhus like Baba Nand Singh were not gristi, never took money, and spent their whole life in meditation on Akal Purukh. Most of the Sants today are a mismatch, of Singh Sabha reform, Sikh Rahit Maryada, Vedant Hindu thought, Gristi Jivan, Nirmala Bhekh, etc. Brahmgianis like Baba Nand Singh Ji spent YEARS in unbroken meditation and gurbani, and YEARS in seva. Vegetarianism was originally linked to the idea of renunication, and those not living a gristi jivan, and spending literally hours in constant simran. See the Shabad at the end of the post:
"Forsaking these delicacies, one becomes a true Sannyaasee, a detached hermit. Nanak reflects and speaks. 2"
This was a sattvic lifestyle, and puritanical. For the Khalsa, Rajas Gun was needed, to fight in war, and to have energy to live in gristi. Strict vegetarians can often feel cold, withdrawn, and having low physical energy levels, depending on their strictness of diet. Ascetic vegetarian Sadhus used to meditate in the Indian Sun to keep warm, as well as infront of fires (dhuni). Whereas these feelings can help meditation, it can be detrimental to the body. Therefore the maryada of Jhatka existed in the Panth from the very beginning. As the Khalsa is a Karma-Yogi.



Baba Nand Singh Ji, on his Bairangam. In complete union with Akal Purukh.
Hindu and Jain Gujarati's are strict vegetarians, to make heat in their bodies, they add in lots of spices. In the UK many of them suffer from high blood pressure, strokes, diabetes, heart attacks etc. This could be due to their strict vegetarian, high carbohydrate, high fat, low protein diet. It could increase fat and decrease lean muscle.
In Gristi ashram meat is allowed. This was even written by the vegetarian Nirmala Sikhs. In the Prem Sumarag Granth, Guru Gobind Singh writes about Jhatka, and what types of meat to eat, as well as the methods of slaughter. In worldy life, physical energy is required. In spiritual life, mental energy is required. The Khalsa is the middle, therefore the Khalsa eats a balanced diet. Just eating meat, kills the energy of the mind. To just eat fruits, seeds, nuts and vegetables, eventually kills the energy of the body.
As soon as it is possible, on this blog will be a step by step guide of how to do Jhatka, with the various bani's from the Adi Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Dasam Granth Sahib Ji.
At Kurekshetra at a Hindu festival, Guru Nanak was brought as a gift a Deer, that had been hunted. It was being cooked, the Brahmins found and protested. See Janamsakhis of Guru Nanak, the Guru replied to the insulted Brahmins:

Salok, First Mehla:

First, the mortal is conceived in the flesh, and then he dwells in the flesh.
When he comes alive, his mouth takes flesh; his bones, skin and body are flesh.
He comes out of the womb of flesh, and takes a mouthful of flesh at the breast.
His mouth is flesh, his tongue is flesh; his breath is in the flesh.
He grows up and is married, and brings his wife of flesh into his home.
Flesh is produced from flesh; all relatives are made of flesh.
When the mortal meets the True Guru, and realizes the Hukam of the Lord's Command, then he comes to be reformed.
Releasing himself, the mortal does not find release; O Nanak, through empty words, one is ruined. 1

First Mehla:

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.
But when men and women meet in the night, they come together in the flesh.
In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh.
You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar.
O master, you believe that flesh on the outside is bad, but the flesh of those in your own home is good.
All beings and creatures are flesh; the soul has taken up its home in the flesh.
They eat the uneatable; they reject and abandon what they could eat. They have a teacher who is blind.
In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh.
You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar.
Meat is allowed in the Puraanas, meat is allowed in the Bible and the Koran. Throughout the four ages, meat has been used.
It is featured in sacred feasts and marriage festivities; meat is used in them.
Women, men, kings and emperors originate from meat.
If you see them going to hell, then do not accept charitable gifts from them.
The giver goes to hell, while the receiver goes to heaven - look at this injustice.
You do not understand your own self, but you preach to other people. O Pandit, you are very wise indeed.
O Pandit, you do not know where meat originated.
Corn, sugar cane and cotton are produced from water. The three worlds came from water.
Water says, ""I am good in many ways."" But water takes many forms.
Forsaking these delicacies, one becomes a true Sannyaasee, a detached hermit. Nanak reflects and speaks. 2
Adi Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1289-90. Rag Malar: Guru Nanak Dev Ji.
Guru Gobind Singh:

If the Khalsa is independant. I bestow all power to it.
If they follow the way of the Brahmins, I have no faith in them.
Sri Sarbloh Granth Sahib Ji


The Marayada of Jhatka at Sachkhand Hazur Sahib:

1. The Sri Sahib is not just a symbol it has usage. The best way to train, to get the feel of any weapon, is to use it. Decapitating humans is simply out of the question, the Samurai used to practice on murders and rapists. To perfom Jhatka on a male goat is not against Sikh practices. In fact the Sikh Rahit Maryada allows this practice.

2. To apply ceremonial marks of Bhog on Shastar is also not against Sikh practices. As Karah Parshad has bhog, (ceremonial meeting between the Parshad and the Kirpan) called Kirpan Bhet. Jhakta is also another form of Kirpan Bhet. The flour was also alive at some point just like the goat:

Guru Nanak asks in Rag Malar "what is vegetable, what is meat?"

Guru Ji states:

Meat is allowed in the Puraanas, meat is allowed in the Bible and the Koran. Throughout the four ages, meat has been used.
Guru Ji said this is response to a vegetarian pandit , protesting at the Guru cooking a deer for the langar, at Kurekshetra. See Bhai Bala Janam Sakhi, and Gian Ratnawali Bhai Mani Singh Ji. Also see the shabads in Guru Granth Sahib Ji angs 1289-90.

Conclusion: Jhatka is scaremental food for langar. Known as Mahaprashad see Bhai Gurdas Vara. If rituals are a problem, we should not have chaur, sukhasan parkash, bhog, etc.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Very interesting read. Though it does repeat shabads already quoted many times already in the thread, this information also includes some new material that was informative to say the least.
 

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jul 4, 2004
7,708
14,381
75
KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
Harry Haller ji,
You are spot on.
When Guru nanak ji was asked..Who is better - Hindu or Muslim..? Guru Ji replied..SHUBH AMLAAN BAJHON..dovehn roiee..WITHOUT Shubh Amals..Good habits, discipline etc..BOTH are a "Crying Shame". If Today Guru ji were asked..who is Better..Hindu...Mulsim..Christian..Amrtidahree Singh....the Answer would be the EXACT SAME !! Sans SHUBH AMALS..all are a crying shame !! For US..Sikhs..the Pahul Ceremony (Khandeh batte da Pahul mistakenly known as Amrit) the Baana endorsed as mandatory Kesh, Kangha, Kirpan, Karraand kachha,and the Nitnem are just the STARTING POINT..First day in Khalsa School !! Just the Introduction..ALL the Hard Work comes later....till DEATH..only at DEATH cna someone possibly claim he has done his best.
Most "Instant Amrtidharees" mistakenly think that the very act of Pahul means INSTANT GRATIFICATION and conferment of Holier than All THOUS !! Haumaii Hankaar form Day ONE !! This attitude is the cause of much heartache to Monas and all...
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
62
Thailand
Randip ji,


It is about morals as well. It works on many different levels.

The essay is about:

1) Freedom
2) One groups superiority over another (morally through diet or otherwise)
3) Mistranslations
4) Lack of understanding

etc

Many issues....and I Have seen it being used in ways I had not even considered.


You are the author of the article and I accept what you say about it. As I said, I have used it to support my own arguments elsewhere, so I should feel grateful to you.

Thank you.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Thanks findingmyway ji for the warning. Twice I have suggested that another thread can be started on the topic of freedom and choice. Therefore I won't be replying to the previous comments. :)
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
62
Thailand
Spnadmin ji,


Thanks findingmyway ji for the warning. Twice I have suggested that another thread can be started on the topic of freedom and choice. Therefore I won't be replying to the previous comments. :)

I did not wish to start a new thread, and was trying not to stray too far from what I felt was related to the topic of discussion. What gave me the impression was Randip ji's own remark re:

"I think Bhagat Singh ji, the issue is not about diet at all, it is about freedom. People miss that point time and time again!!"

Anyway, I have decided to move my last message to a new thread as you requested, however I can't find it now. Perhaps you have taken the initiative to do this yourself and are in the process of doing it. If not, can you help me locate the post I am referring to?

Thanks in advance.
 
Aug 18, 2005
163
123
66
Fremont, California
Singh means "Lion" in Gurmukhi.

A Singh does not eat vegetables: it eats meat. If it eats only vegetables, it will get weak. Brahmans want Sikhs to get weak so they can continue to brainwash them with the pakandi Brahmans wearing amritdhari Sikh costumes and some of their followers look and act like Taliban.

Since an animal has no shame for eating you, then why would you feel ashamed to eat it ? Do not kill slowly, only jhatka, as Sikh Rehat Meryada says.

I promote vegeterianism for health purposes, but I do not exlude Sikhs because of being omnivorous. Many of those who hate sikhs that eat meat actually it it in secret.

Hindus permit milk consumption because they consider milk as the cow idol's amrit.

This universe is a play of huqam. things constantly eat each other. The universe constantly regenerates itself, janam maran, janam maran. Not just living and dying, but molecules and infinite pixels of particles constantly borrow from each other. It is the perfection of the universe. Created and operating as it should.
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,949
55
United Kingdom
Singh means "Lion" in Gurmukhi.

A Singh does not eat vegetables: it eats meat. If it eats only vegetables, it will get weak. Brahmans want Sikhs to get weak so they can continue to brainwash them with the pakandi Brahmans wearing amritdhari Sikh costumes and some of their followers look and act like Taliban.

Since an animal has no shame for eating you, then why would you feel ashamed to eat it ? Do not kill slowly, only jhatka, as Sikh Rehat Meryada says.

I promote vegeterianism for health purposes, but I do not exlude Sikhs because of being omnivorous. Many of those who hate sikhs that eat meat actually it it in secret.

Hindus permit milk consumption because they consider milk as the cow idol's amrit.

This universe is a play of huqam. things constantly eat each other. The universe constantly regenerates itself, janam maran, janam maran. Not just living and dying, but molecules and infinite pixels of particles constantly borrow from each other. It is the perfection of the universe. Created and operating as it should.

Spoken like a true Kaur!

Excellent post. A vegetarian yet does not judge meat eaters. Excellent!!icecreamkaur
 
Aug 18, 2005
163
123
66
Fremont, California
None of us are vegeterians.

A microscopic insect could fly into my drink or food, and I might not even notice it.

For all people who wish to guarantee are vegetarians, this tips will help:

Sunny Delight Orange drink contains food coloring derived from a special beetle or moth (titlee) This drink is served in every gurdwara I know in USA.

If you find any food substances that contain food coloring or mono/dy glycerides, they are not necessarily vegetarian.

Natural flavor does not mean vegeterian. Beef or chicken soup stock could be added.

Powdered garlic in USA sometimes is imported from Asian garlic which is too pungent to use, so many companies add chicken soup stock to it to enhance the flavor. The same is also true of mixed ground spices.

If you look for kosher symbols, it will help you to identify the details of ingredients. Such as a circle with a "k" in it, a u with a circle around it, and others.

Kosher does not mean vegeterian, but will let you know that vegeterian products that contain chemicals are from animals or not.

Cheeses contain renet from animals to help curdle the milk.
 

Kanwaljit.Singh

Writer
SPNer
Jan 29, 2011
1,501
2,172
Vancouver, Canada
But let me add one point, the meat one gets in US or UK (sorry for pointing out) is not Jhatka. One should personally visit the slaughter house and see for yourself that death of animals there is traumatic and not swift. One Muslim guy I met on flight (in India) told me that many joints like Mc Donalds get Halal meat only because it is available in abundance and is cheap. Hotels do the same because many rich Arabs come and they want that kind of meat, so it is kind of the norm. I cannot verify his claim, but it is always better to have food which has been prepared by your own hands or some Gursikh. It is not easy to trust what you eat outside. Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh
 

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jul 4, 2004
7,708
14,381
75
KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
Kanwaljit Singh Ji you are 100% RIGHT....

THE "meat".....THE "milk"...the Cheese..whatever we get in the Supermarkets, MCDonalds, KFC s and all that.......is the Product of GREED...PROFIT....its neither Halllal Nor is it Jhatka.
Vegetables produced by INJECTIONS of various growth inducers..to make them grow phenomenally almost overnight...milk produced from cows shackled in confined places all their life, injected with milk inducers, impregnated immediately after giving birth and having that newborn calf taken away immediately for veal products...overcrowded and unhygenic farms, slaughterhouses filled with inhuman satanic butchers who show not an iota of mercy..is the NORM rather than the EXCEPTION.

The FOOD we have to eat is the Milk of CRUELTY and not the Milk of Kindness...its PRAYA HAKK and therefore HARAM .............but we have to be realsitic....or we will starve....what to make of the farmer who gets 4967 KILOS of wheat form planting just 7 Kilos....and then spraying tons of pesticides, that kills all worms, bugs, insects, even BIRDS....is the ATTA/BREAD form that field HARAM ? you bet it is !! But we have to be relaistic..ha ha
 

❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM

Top