Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh
- Thread starter Randip Singh
- Start date
- Replies 1K
- Reads 339K
But the CREATOR made it all this way..JEEAN ka AHAAR JEE..LIFE feeds LIFE !!
when a virus or bacteria INVADE a human body...and cause sickness and eventual DEATH....whose "Life" counts ??..Mosquito bites MAN...man slaps mosquito to DEATH..the MALARIA injected by the Mosquito ( now dead) soon brings DEATH to the MAN !! Whose life counts..who is to blame..isnt it His HUKM..KUDRAT at work here.
He gave Humans a BRAIN..SARDAREE of this EARTH over all other Life forms...FOOD is FOOD...deliberate cruelty, absence of compassion, etc etc are Man's FAILINGS of CHARACTER.....Man is at the TOP of the Food Chain.....and given the brains to defend his life against all lowly lifes...its the HUMAN LIFE that COUNTS MOST....the SGGS is written for HUMAN LIFE....Kutta Raaj bahalleah fir chakkee chatteh..a DOG kept 24/7 at Harmandar Sahib listening to Kirtan/katha 24/7 of its life will NOT BENEFIT one iota..a HUMAN can and SHOULD....becasue the Kirtan is in HUMAN VOICE human langauge for Humans.
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,384
- 5,689
13800038 ji creation has very simple rules that can be complicated for pleasure, to fleece crowds of their money, to create sects of followers, to create classes of good people versus bad people, etc.
Rules are as the creation will state to a member of the species or the species like humans:
- Once you are created live as long as you can
- Live in consonance with creation,
- You are free to destroy if something is destroying you
- Enjoy as long as the one you use in enjoyment is not made extinct, i.e. animals, vegetables, etc., if they live in consonance as a whole
Meat is no different a food than vegetables. You can use either or both without being a devil or pious.
Sat Sri Akal.
Archived_member14
SPNer
13800038 ji, Gyani ji and Ambarsaria ji,
This is not going to make me popular, but I should not care about this.
13800038 ji, I very much liked your message given especially that you state your point so succinctly. Yes, I do have the impression that people here keep side-tracking and confusing the issue. It is almost as if there is unwillingness to keep the real question in mind because we know at the back of our minds, that we do not really have a good answer for it.
Ambarsaria ji, your conclusion in the end, namely:
Although it is a valid one in a particular context, here however, it can be used to divert the attention from the real issue. Why I say this is because, what 13800038 ji is highlighting is the fact of the wrongness of killing being covered up by the idea that an animal corpse has its industrial uses, and here the same is happening when you bring in the idea of animals and plants being used for food.
What I got from this discussion is that meat is meat and not a live animal, and so no one should feel guilty for ordering meat dish in a restaurant or buying raw meat from a supermarket to cook and eat. If we stop eating meat with the idea that it will reduce killing, this is not only being deluded, but is an action not aimed at helping the persons involved in the killing to realize their mistakes, and is in fact all about me and my own values and akin to sitting on a high horse.
So while my aim is to encouraging people to discriminate between moral and immoral actions and to not be fooled by wrong thinking into adopting a false sense of morality, and thereby ending up being in fact immoral, yours Ambarsaria ji, does not seem to be pointing to the same direction.
The idea that 13800038 ji brings is one which many would use to teach a child in order to encourage some idea about what is morally good and what is bad. If you don't wish your property to be stolen, do not take other people's property without permission. If you wish others to be honest with you, do not lie to them. If you do not want to be killed, do not kill any living being. If you do not wish other people to have sex with your spouse, you should take care not to do the same with others.
Now the above are reminders that have positive effect on the social level. But they can also work to aid in developing morality for those who have begun to actually differentiate between a wholesome and unwholesome state of mind and good intentions from bad intentions. Your statement quote below, Ambarsaria ji, seem to be an encouragement to take what is *not* wholesome for wholesome and overlooking what must necessarily involve bad intentions.
You can't swat a fly without some good deal of aversion and a degree of callousness. What amounts to less than a pinprick when a mosquito bites you, is reacted to with a taking of its life can only be the result of great attachment to me and my feelings. When food is available in so many forms, killing some animal in order to get the food must involve quite a perversion of perception and of consciousness, an attachment to one's own happiness and indifference to the feelings of that other living creature. What is good in any of this?!!
13800038 ji, although I consider the Christian conception of God to be extremely silly and childish, however your post has given rise to the following thoughts:
A personal God with very human attributes can allow for particular human values to remain in focus. "Do unto others what you would like others to do unto you" when stated by such a God is something that will be accepted and encouraged. If God destroys life, it is something he has to do but this does not translate as meaning that I can also do it too. This is because I am not God and God's intentions will never be of the same level as that of mine. Unlike me, his purpose is not aimed at personal interest, or to a group of people, or to particular range of beings, but to all of creation. Mine on the other hand, is focused on me and mine. Indeed if I were to do wrong such as killing some other of God's creation, I'd be doing what only He has the right basis for doing.
Although like I said, I find the particular God concept to be silly, something which must in the long run be very harmful, on the other hand, the thoughts and behavior of many Christians have on many occasions been quite inspiring to me. I found them to be often much more scrupulous than I am when it comes to moral actions.
Now I am not saying that the Sikh conception of God is bad when compared the Christian one. What I'd like to point out is that when interpreted a certain way as it appears to have been done here, this apparently has led to discouraging moral scrupulousness. A disinterested and impersonal God has given rise to indifference and lack of moral shame on the part of some people who have wrongly conceived, or perhaps forgotten to take into account certain other attributes.
I don't think it follows that belief in a disinterested God will lead necessarily to becoming indifferent. However I do think given the level of ignorance and attachment to self, that this can and does happen.
I remember that at one time many years ago, I too believed in some kind of impersonal force driving the cosmos. In looking back I remember also, to having ended up being somewhat indifferent to what goes on in the world and bending towards not accepting the idea of good vs. evil. There was associated with this, a sense not only of something directing the whole show, but also that *I had the power* to watch from a distance and not be moved by all that goes on. And I think that perhaps there is a similar motivation behind some of the ideas expressed here.
Gyani ji, what have you observed about the behavior of viruses and bacteria which has led you to the conclusion that these are sentient beings? They have "form" and appear to move around and multiply, but do they have consciousness, perception, feeling, volition, attachment, aversion and do they think?
And when you talk about humans being at the top of the evolutionary ladder, rather than think that all below him must then exist only to serve his purpose, has it not occurred to you that perhaps he could help them? I find what Uncle Ben said to Spiderman quite inspiring in this regard:
"With great power comes great responsibility."
Again, I apologize if this has offended anyone. There was no intention to show any disrespect, but I do take it that I am limited in my own capacity to wisdom and kindness to express myself in the best way.
This is not going to make me popular, but I should not care about this.
13800038 ji, I very much liked your message given especially that you state your point so succinctly. Yes, I do have the impression that people here keep side-tracking and confusing the issue. It is almost as if there is unwillingness to keep the real question in mind because we know at the back of our minds, that we do not really have a good answer for it.
Ambarsaria ji, your conclusion in the end, namely:
Although it is a valid one in a particular context, here however, it can be used to divert the attention from the real issue. Why I say this is because, what 13800038 ji is highlighting is the fact of the wrongness of killing being covered up by the idea that an animal corpse has its industrial uses, and here the same is happening when you bring in the idea of animals and plants being used for food.
What I got from this discussion is that meat is meat and not a live animal, and so no one should feel guilty for ordering meat dish in a restaurant or buying raw meat from a supermarket to cook and eat. If we stop eating meat with the idea that it will reduce killing, this is not only being deluded, but is an action not aimed at helping the persons involved in the killing to realize their mistakes, and is in fact all about me and my own values and akin to sitting on a high horse.
So while my aim is to encouraging people to discriminate between moral and immoral actions and to not be fooled by wrong thinking into adopting a false sense of morality, and thereby ending up being in fact immoral, yours Ambarsaria ji, does not seem to be pointing to the same direction.
The idea that 13800038 ji brings is one which many would use to teach a child in order to encourage some idea about what is morally good and what is bad. If you don't wish your property to be stolen, do not take other people's property without permission. If you wish others to be honest with you, do not lie to them. If you do not want to be killed, do not kill any living being. If you do not wish other people to have sex with your spouse, you should take care not to do the same with others.
Now the above are reminders that have positive effect on the social level. But they can also work to aid in developing morality for those who have begun to actually differentiate between a wholesome and unwholesome state of mind and good intentions from bad intentions. Your statement quote below, Ambarsaria ji, seem to be an encouragement to take what is *not* wholesome for wholesome and overlooking what must necessarily involve bad intentions.
You can't swat a fly without some good deal of aversion and a degree of callousness. What amounts to less than a pinprick when a mosquito bites you, is reacted to with a taking of its life can only be the result of great attachment to me and my feelings. When food is available in so many forms, killing some animal in order to get the food must involve quite a perversion of perception and of consciousness, an attachment to one's own happiness and indifference to the feelings of that other living creature. What is good in any of this?!!
13800038 ji, although I consider the Christian conception of God to be extremely silly and childish, however your post has given rise to the following thoughts:
A personal God with very human attributes can allow for particular human values to remain in focus. "Do unto others what you would like others to do unto you" when stated by such a God is something that will be accepted and encouraged. If God destroys life, it is something he has to do but this does not translate as meaning that I can also do it too. This is because I am not God and God's intentions will never be of the same level as that of mine. Unlike me, his purpose is not aimed at personal interest, or to a group of people, or to particular range of beings, but to all of creation. Mine on the other hand, is focused on me and mine. Indeed if I were to do wrong such as killing some other of God's creation, I'd be doing what only He has the right basis for doing.
Although like I said, I find the particular God concept to be silly, something which must in the long run be very harmful, on the other hand, the thoughts and behavior of many Christians have on many occasions been quite inspiring to me. I found them to be often much more scrupulous than I am when it comes to moral actions.
Now I am not saying that the Sikh conception of God is bad when compared the Christian one. What I'd like to point out is that when interpreted a certain way as it appears to have been done here, this apparently has led to discouraging moral scrupulousness. A disinterested and impersonal God has given rise to indifference and lack of moral shame on the part of some people who have wrongly conceived, or perhaps forgotten to take into account certain other attributes.
I don't think it follows that belief in a disinterested God will lead necessarily to becoming indifferent. However I do think given the level of ignorance and attachment to self, that this can and does happen.
I remember that at one time many years ago, I too believed in some kind of impersonal force driving the cosmos. In looking back I remember also, to having ended up being somewhat indifferent to what goes on in the world and bending towards not accepting the idea of good vs. evil. There was associated with this, a sense not only of something directing the whole show, but also that *I had the power* to watch from a distance and not be moved by all that goes on. And I think that perhaps there is a similar motivation behind some of the ideas expressed here.
Gyani ji, what have you observed about the behavior of viruses and bacteria which has led you to the conclusion that these are sentient beings? They have "form" and appear to move around and multiply, but do they have consciousness, perception, feeling, volition, attachment, aversion and do they think?
And when you talk about humans being at the top of the evolutionary ladder, rather than think that all below him must then exist only to serve his purpose, has it not occurred to you that perhaps he could help them? I find what Uncle Ben said to Spiderman quite inspiring in this regard:
"With great power comes great responsibility."
Again, I apologize if this has offended anyone. There was no intention to show any disrespect, but I do take it that I am limited in my own capacity to wisdom and kindness to express myself in the best way.
Its quite a tall order.........if carried to " full term"...man would be barred from using any a nd all pesticides on farms..allow all insects and pests to multiply at will....let the birds and others like rats, etc eat their fill and multiply at will...end of the day MAN woudnt have any "grains/daals" for his own feeding....thats WHY Guru ji in His INFINITE WISDOM RUBBISHED this dea in Maas Maas akr Moorakh jhaggrrey from DAY ONE..a Non-issue. Guur ji delcared openly that Each GRAIN has a JEEA..LIFE..and there are many other lives living inside..weevils, susree, sundee etc...inside the Grains !!..on Vegetable leaves..on their roots..etc etc..a never ending discussion..."responsibilty"has a limit..its responsibility to HUMAN LIFE first and foremost. No need for apologies as no offense is ever taken by me from any poster Jios..all welcome.
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,384
- 5,689
confused ji thanks for your post. No offense in dialog.
Sat Sri Akal.
Archived_member14
SPNer
Gyani ji,
And so comes in man to play his part in the scheme of things. He'd be silly to show kindness and compassion towards animals, lest they will destroy man's crops and he will then become extinct and God be seen as having failed in carrying out his project. But look, he has in fact been doing God's work in this regard without even having to *know God* since prehistoric times. This can't be right however can it, since religions teaching means to connect with God came in much later on? And besides, these same religions also teach about the undesirability of greed, and what else but greed could be behind man's drive for survival? And agriculture, this came in long after man killed for food, so is it not that he 'evolved' during that time? Why the sudden need to go back to the old primitive ways?
Doesn't it make sense to conclude that man in fact evolved such that he can now do better than be driven by self-seeking impulses which causes harm to other creatures and in moral terms, to himself as well? Isn't religion a reflection of man's finally coming to know to distinguish between impulses that are base and knowing the qualities which lead to rising above them? And when you state that it is vital that man survive since only he can taste the nectar of Truth, how could you expect this to happen if at the same time you insist that he survive any which way he can, including killing for food? Can the road to Truth be paved with killing and death?
But why even talk in such terms? It appears that we get lost in "stories" about the world out there in terms of past, present and future, precisely because there is no urgency to understand what is "NOW". Assumptions are made and taken so seriously and defended, such that whatever is the driving force, these are never known, let alone addressed.
It is said that when a person has lost morality, he begins to talk about justice. I say also that if his focus is on humans, be it at the expense of animals or not, that this indicates his sense of morality must be questionable. This is the reason why I find the concept "humanism" very repulsive.
And don't get me wrong and think that I'm an animal lover or something, because I am not. I do not even have a pet and would never think of getting one. I don't like being near animals. When people go all emotional about their pets, this puts me off completely. My concern is with man, but this is because I only know how to communicate with him and believe that, unlike animals, he has some capacity to develop goodness and wisdom. I am not here to protect animals, but in fact to encourage people to not waste this precious life away in wrong kinds of thinking and accumulating tendencies towards bad even more.
I still think the non-issue has its basis in the fact that both the raw vegetable and raw meat and cooked vegetable and cooked meat, are just food to be consumed and therefore no different from each other.
Plants can be said to have life, but not in the sense that a sentient being does. Personally, I think it foolish to mindlessly destroy plants, not because it is in fact "killing", but because it is cutting short a process of growth and also interfere with the environment. When I take a bite of a fruit and suddenly discover that it is infested with insects, I do not eat it not because I do not wish to kill those insects, but because I don't want to get sick. But I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume some form of life existing in each apple that I pick up or a cabbage that I buy.
And if somehow I do become convinced by the knowledge that insects exist in every fruit and vegetable out there, I will admit to and take responsibility for the killing as being for the sake of survival. Perhaps I will start to only eat meat and ready-made food. But if for some reason I have to eat a fruit and believe that some insect has been killed in the process, I will *not* think it right to have done so.
But of course there is a difference in such a case as compared to any deliberate killing. Here I won't be perceiving the insect and would probably even hope that there isn't one, in fact. We all know that we need to sort the grains and daal out to remove any insects that are there. And the situation you draw is correct or not, who knows. And again, why even be drawn in by such thinking? After all, it all comes down to intention and this means that when eating fruit, it is eating fruit and not killing. Indeed as I've indicated above, the imperative is to know what is it that is behind such thinking and note the tendency to keeping away from attending to the present moment.
Regarding eating vegetables, yes, buying vegetables in the market is no different from buying meat when it comes to considering its history. I do believe that many more number of insects die during the whole process of getting one rice plant to bear rice grain and then to cutting and processing it. I am fortunate that I do not have to grow my own food. But if I do and end up having to kill, again I will not think it justified to having done it. And hopefully I'd continue to be inspired by what the Buddha once said:
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will .'abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
Getting off the cycle of existence is the goal, not survival, where one ends up only to perpetuate the madness.
To go by the "survival" mentality would be quite irresponsible in my opinion. To not be concerned about one's own happiness sounds more like the responsible thing to do and teach to other people. Faith is faith in goodness. Aiming at survival is to rely on attachment and this shows lack of faith.
Thanks, but it was aimed more at other members, particularly those who respect your opinions.
And so comes in man to play his part in the scheme of things. He'd be silly to show kindness and compassion towards animals, lest they will destroy man's crops and he will then become extinct and God be seen as having failed in carrying out his project. But look, he has in fact been doing God's work in this regard without even having to *know God* since prehistoric times. This can't be right however can it, since religions teaching means to connect with God came in much later on? And besides, these same religions also teach about the undesirability of greed, and what else but greed could be behind man's drive for survival? And agriculture, this came in long after man killed for food, so is it not that he 'evolved' during that time? Why the sudden need to go back to the old primitive ways?
Doesn't it make sense to conclude that man in fact evolved such that he can now do better than be driven by self-seeking impulses which causes harm to other creatures and in moral terms, to himself as well? Isn't religion a reflection of man's finally coming to know to distinguish between impulses that are base and knowing the qualities which lead to rising above them? And when you state that it is vital that man survive since only he can taste the nectar of Truth, how could you expect this to happen if at the same time you insist that he survive any which way he can, including killing for food? Can the road to Truth be paved with killing and death?
But why even talk in such terms? It appears that we get lost in "stories" about the world out there in terms of past, present and future, precisely because there is no urgency to understand what is "NOW". Assumptions are made and taken so seriously and defended, such that whatever is the driving force, these are never known, let alone addressed.
It is said that when a person has lost morality, he begins to talk about justice. I say also that if his focus is on humans, be it at the expense of animals or not, that this indicates his sense of morality must be questionable. This is the reason why I find the concept "humanism" very repulsive.
And don't get me wrong and think that I'm an animal lover or something, because I am not. I do not even have a pet and would never think of getting one. I don't like being near animals. When people go all emotional about their pets, this puts me off completely. My concern is with man, but this is because I only know how to communicate with him and believe that, unlike animals, he has some capacity to develop goodness and wisdom. I am not here to protect animals, but in fact to encourage people to not waste this precious life away in wrong kinds of thinking and accumulating tendencies towards bad even more.
I still think the non-issue has its basis in the fact that both the raw vegetable and raw meat and cooked vegetable and cooked meat, are just food to be consumed and therefore no different from each other.
Plants can be said to have life, but not in the sense that a sentient being does. Personally, I think it foolish to mindlessly destroy plants, not because it is in fact "killing", but because it is cutting short a process of growth and also interfere with the environment. When I take a bite of a fruit and suddenly discover that it is infested with insects, I do not eat it not because I do not wish to kill those insects, but because I don't want to get sick. But I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume some form of life existing in each apple that I pick up or a cabbage that I buy.
And if somehow I do become convinced by the knowledge that insects exist in every fruit and vegetable out there, I will admit to and take responsibility for the killing as being for the sake of survival. Perhaps I will start to only eat meat and ready-made food. But if for some reason I have to eat a fruit and believe that some insect has been killed in the process, I will *not* think it right to have done so.
But of course there is a difference in such a case as compared to any deliberate killing. Here I won't be perceiving the insect and would probably even hope that there isn't one, in fact. We all know that we need to sort the grains and daal out to remove any insects that are there. And the situation you draw is correct or not, who knows. And again, why even be drawn in by such thinking? After all, it all comes down to intention and this means that when eating fruit, it is eating fruit and not killing. Indeed as I've indicated above, the imperative is to know what is it that is behind such thinking and note the tendency to keeping away from attending to the present moment.
Regarding eating vegetables, yes, buying vegetables in the market is no different from buying meat when it comes to considering its history. I do believe that many more number of insects die during the whole process of getting one rice plant to bear rice grain and then to cutting and processing it. I am fortunate that I do not have to grow my own food. But if I do and end up having to kill, again I will not think it justified to having done it. And hopefully I'd continue to be inspired by what the Buddha once said:
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will .'abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
Getting off the cycle of existence is the goal, not survival, where one ends up only to perpetuate the madness.
To go by the "survival" mentality would be quite irresponsible in my opinion. To not be concerned about one's own happiness sounds more like the responsible thing to do and teach to other people. Faith is faith in goodness. Aiming at survival is to rely on attachment and this shows lack of faith.
Thanks, but it was aimed more at other members, particularly those who respect your opinions.
Last edited:
Archived_member14
SPNer
Kanwardeep ji,
When did the argument evolve to "if you want to live don't kill"? Has survival somehow become a virtue in your eyes? Do you believe that some people talk about the value of kindness and morality because they think that this is the best means to survive? If anything, there are those who won't ever kill even if this means that they will have to die as a consequence. This is from seeing fault in killing and the value in good deeds. Survival is never the question for them.
The picture people paint with regard to the situation out there and as you do above, this is almost like an excuse to give vent to the underlying aversion, which one would do well to realize. Nothing is ever as we *think* it is, and the truth is right in front of us, but we don't see it.
When did the argument evolve to "if you want to live don't kill"? Has survival somehow become a virtue in your eyes? Do you believe that some people talk about the value of kindness and morality because they think that this is the best means to survive? If anything, there are those who won't ever kill even if this means that they will have to die as a consequence. This is from seeing fault in killing and the value in good deeds. Survival is never the question for them.
The picture people paint with regard to the situation out there and as you do above, this is almost like an excuse to give vent to the underlying aversion, which one would do well to realize. Nothing is ever as we *think* it is, and the truth is right in front of us, but we don't see it.
Archived_member14
SPNer
Ambarsaria ji,
You are going by the particular concept "life" that you have. Plants are different from rocks in that of all the Natural Orders existing, a rock follows only the Caloric Order whereas plants follow this as well as what is called the Germinal Order. So you observe that plants evolve from seed to stem, branches, leaves and bear fruit, which does not happen in the case of rocks. We infer then that plants have life, which is OK as long as we learn to differentiate this from that which happens in the case of human beings and animals. Human beings and animals follow the Caloric Order, the Moral Order and the Psychical Order but not the Germinal Order. This latter has nothing to do with consciousness and volition whereas human beings and animals are from birth to death driven by these and is what makes them sentient beings.
You are going by the particular concept "life" that you have. Plants are different from rocks in that of all the Natural Orders existing, a rock follows only the Caloric Order whereas plants follow this as well as what is called the Germinal Order. So you observe that plants evolve from seed to stem, branches, leaves and bear fruit, which does not happen in the case of rocks. We infer then that plants have life, which is OK as long as we learn to differentiate this from that which happens in the case of human beings and animals. Human beings and animals follow the Caloric Order, the Moral Order and the Psychical Order but not the Germinal Order. This latter has nothing to do with consciousness and volition whereas human beings and animals are from birth to death driven by these and is what makes them sentient beings.
But Confused ji, I am not aware that the Caloric Order and Germinal Order or Psychical Order are part and parcel of fundamentals of SGGS, nor in the Rehat Maryada which contradicts the requirement of no meat, nor in the janamsakhi where Guru Nanak himself ate killed, roasted and offered meat to his fellows. So the concept of Orders would not be relevant within Sikhism.
Archived_member14
SPNer
Spnadmin ji,
I had the impression that Guru Nanak cooked and ate meat, but did not know that he also killed. I should have taken into account my lack of information and been more careful about commenting. So I think I will now not say any more on this topic.
Thanks.
I had the impression that Guru Nanak cooked and ate meat, but did not know that he also killed. I should have taken into account my lack of information and been more careful about commenting. So I think I will now not say any more on this topic.
Thanks.
Confused ji Take heart. We know he cooked a reindeer from the Janamsakhi. I was not implying that he personally killed it. Maybe he did or maybe not. Someone did and he did not refuse it. But it was dead when it reached the fire.
The title of the thread,Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh, are the words of Guru Nanak. It would appear he did not himself wrangle.
The title of the thread,Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh, are the words of Guru Nanak. It would appear he did not himself wrangle.
Archived_member14
SPNer
Spnadmin ji,
Yes, what I heard was that he was once seen carrying venison into a market place and cooking and eating it. And I wonder if as you express, “Someone did and he did not refuse it”, that this is the basis for why some people conclude that Guru Nanak allowed killing for food? But unless there were other incidents in which this issue was addressed, I think that this is a wrong conclusion to draw.
His own words point to the fact of eating or not eating “flesh” and not to killing or not to killing an animal for food. It would have been unarguable had he said instead, “fools who wrangle over killing / not killing animals” or something to the effect. Besides, I’d expect that if the issue was about killing and not killing animals, there would have been many occasions, such as getting rid of pests, where this would have come up.
In my argument with the vegetarian, I have tried to show that there is no link between one person killing an animal and selling its meat and another person buying that meat. And I believe the same applies here as well.
If someone has killed something just to serve me and I know it, my eating that meat would be in effect condoning killing. (This is why I stopped going to sea food restaurants where they take the fish out from the fish tank and kill it to cook for you.) If I pick out a chicken, in a place where they have just killed them, then I am blameless, because my buying or not buying that chicken has no effect on their decision to do what they do.
Indeed if a friend has just hunted a rabbit and decided to offer it to me, it would be unkind of me not to accept it. And surely, I’d likely advise him against killing and tell him that I’d be happy with any food he gave me. This could make him realize that whatever the food, meat or vegetables, is not important, but attachment to the one and ending up having to take a life in order to consume it must surely be bad.
Perhaps Guru Nanak did similarly after being offered the deer saying, “Hey buddy, you know that I’m happy with simple food like kitcheree or daal and roti. So next time, don’t bother getting me anything special. But killing is no good friend, so try avoiding it.” Or maybe he didn’t, because in fact he bought it from some seller in another part of that same market. However I think that it is a big mistake to conclude from what has been recorded of the incident, that he in effect did condone killing.
But like I said, there may be other things that Guru Nanak said on other occasions which have formed the basis for why some people believe that according to him, it was alright to kill for food…..
Yes, what I heard was that he was once seen carrying venison into a market place and cooking and eating it. And I wonder if as you express, “Someone did and he did not refuse it”, that this is the basis for why some people conclude that Guru Nanak allowed killing for food? But unless there were other incidents in which this issue was addressed, I think that this is a wrong conclusion to draw.
His own words point to the fact of eating or not eating “flesh” and not to killing or not to killing an animal for food. It would have been unarguable had he said instead, “fools who wrangle over killing / not killing animals” or something to the effect. Besides, I’d expect that if the issue was about killing and not killing animals, there would have been many occasions, such as getting rid of pests, where this would have come up.
In my argument with the vegetarian, I have tried to show that there is no link between one person killing an animal and selling its meat and another person buying that meat. And I believe the same applies here as well.
If someone has killed something just to serve me and I know it, my eating that meat would be in effect condoning killing. (This is why I stopped going to sea food restaurants where they take the fish out from the fish tank and kill it to cook for you.) If I pick out a chicken, in a place where they have just killed them, then I am blameless, because my buying or not buying that chicken has no effect on their decision to do what they do.
Indeed if a friend has just hunted a rabbit and decided to offer it to me, it would be unkind of me not to accept it. And surely, I’d likely advise him against killing and tell him that I’d be happy with any food he gave me. This could make him realize that whatever the food, meat or vegetables, is not important, but attachment to the one and ending up having to take a life in order to consume it must surely be bad.
Perhaps Guru Nanak did similarly after being offered the deer saying, “Hey buddy, you know that I’m happy with simple food like kitcheree or daal and roti. So next time, don’t bother getting me anything special. But killing is no good friend, so try avoiding it.” Or maybe he didn’t, because in fact he bought it from some seller in another part of that same market. However I think that it is a big mistake to conclude from what has been recorded of the incident, that he in effect did condone killing.
But like I said, there may be other things that Guru Nanak said on other occasions which have formed the basis for why some people believe that according to him, it was alright to kill for food…..
Confused piaare jio!
You always are so meticulous in your analysis and I am not in your league. But my point was very simple. Someone had to kill the deer before it was cooked an eaten, unless we are entertaining a scenario where it was cooked alive. I cannot walk in the shadow of Guru Nanak. But if someone offered m e a carcass, and said, "Cut it up, freeze it, you have meat for a year. All you have to do is light the grill" ... as a vegetarian I would say, "No. Does it matter who killed it, me or you" In fact that is a governing principle in my life... I don't eat meat or fish. So I can only conclude that Guru Nanak had a different take on this issue. He was willing to offer the deer's meat to his sangat for food.
I need to add two things.
1. The discussion of meat in this thread continually shifts away from the point of the shabad from which the words, Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh, is but one part of a single verse. The shabad is a serious exploration of the crookedness of the rich and powerful. Flesh is but a symbol of their rotten influence and the corruption of power. Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh digs to a deeper meaning than these 4 words suggest. Sometimes it is necessary to go back to the moral lessons of the shabad as they are actually given.
2. How did we get started talking about a reindeer in the janamsakhi? I am curious about that. Reindeer inhabit the Arctic, not India. It had to be some other kind of deer.
I am a guilty party.
You always are so meticulous in your analysis and I am not in your league. But my point was very simple. Someone had to kill the deer before it was cooked an eaten, unless we are entertaining a scenario where it was cooked alive. I cannot walk in the shadow of Guru Nanak. But if someone offered m e a carcass, and said, "Cut it up, freeze it, you have meat for a year. All you have to do is light the grill" ... as a vegetarian I would say, "No. Does it matter who killed it, me or you" In fact that is a governing principle in my life... I don't eat meat or fish. So I can only conclude that Guru Nanak had a different take on this issue. He was willing to offer the deer's meat to his sangat for food.
I need to add two things.
1. The discussion of meat in this thread continually shifts away from the point of the shabad from which the words, Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh, is but one part of a single verse. The shabad is a serious exploration of the crookedness of the rich and powerful. Flesh is but a symbol of their rotten influence and the corruption of power. Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh digs to a deeper meaning than these 4 words suggest. Sometimes it is necessary to go back to the moral lessons of the shabad as they are actually given.
2. How did we get started talking about a reindeer in the janamsakhi? I am curious about that. Reindeer inhabit the Arctic, not India. It had to be some other kind of deer.
I am a guilty party.
Spnadmin Ji wrote:<<<<<1. The discussion of meat in this thread continually shifts away from the point of the shabad from which the words, Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh, is but one part of a single verse. The shabad is a serious exploration of the crookedness of the rich and powerful. Flesh is but a symbol of their rotten influence and the corruption of power. Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh digs to a deeper meaning than these 4 words suggest. Sometimes it is necessary to go back to the moral lessons of the shabad as they are actually given.<<<<<<<<<
I would go as far to say that Bhagat kabir Jis shabads ref bhaang surapaan machhlee sherab, meat etc are also more concerned with the "LIFESTYLES of the Rich and the Powerful..the Tyrants, the rulers, rather than the oppressed poor kirtees/working classes."...than with the Bhanng meat fish as "food/diets" per say.
Today also a person who frequents such places is known as a "KHAANN PEENN Wallah type..." which is NOT a compliment and doesnt relate to Khaan( eating) or "Peenn( drinking) as normal people who eat daal roti and drink water..BUT to those who indulge in such food at places of ill repute....pubs, grills, hotels etc ( and in Todays context pubs grills, clubs hotels etc are all very reputable becasue its so common but in the 15th century it was NOT the place to visit for a fmaily man and who certainly couldnt afford to frequent them too !! Certain Strict families frown on their teenagers going clubbing/pubbing/hoteling/snookering etc too..even today..as these places have reputations of their own !! Since no one goes to a Pub to drink MILK..no one would go to a Grill and order Daal Roti...thats where the "maas/machhi" thing comes in..they GO hand in hand with teh reputation of the places the lifestyles are related to...and its the LIFESTYLE that will lead to "NARAK" ( Either on earth - seen plenty of such in families that belong to gamblers and runkards..or the one that jamdoots rule ??) and NOT the act of eating a hamburger.
I would go as far to say that Bhagat kabir Jis shabads ref bhaang surapaan machhlee sherab, meat etc are also more concerned with the "LIFESTYLES of the Rich and the Powerful..the Tyrants, the rulers, rather than the oppressed poor kirtees/working classes."...than with the Bhanng meat fish as "food/diets" per say.
Today also a person who frequents such places is known as a "KHAANN PEENN Wallah type..." which is NOT a compliment and doesnt relate to Khaan( eating) or "Peenn( drinking) as normal people who eat daal roti and drink water..BUT to those who indulge in such food at places of ill repute....pubs, grills, hotels etc ( and in Todays context pubs grills, clubs hotels etc are all very reputable becasue its so common but in the 15th century it was NOT the place to visit for a fmaily man and who certainly couldnt afford to frequent them too !! Certain Strict families frown on their teenagers going clubbing/pubbing/hoteling/snookering etc too..even today..as these places have reputations of their own !! Since no one goes to a Pub to drink MILK..no one would go to a Grill and order Daal Roti...thats where the "maas/machhi" thing comes in..they GO hand in hand with teh reputation of the places the lifestyles are related to...and its the LIFESTYLE that will lead to "NARAK" ( Either on earth - seen plenty of such in families that belong to gamblers and runkards..or the one that jamdoots rule ??) and NOT the act of eating a hamburger.
Survival is the utmost priority in the world ,from a beggar to the millionares all are trying to survive in this world.As far the argument is concerned that if you want to live then don't kill ,this argument has two meaning 1)If you want to live then don't kill other Humans 2) If you want to kill then don't kill others including animals.The later argument was evolved mainly by Some Indian saints,Pandits ,Jains and Rich people.In no other part of world this argument is evolved because all humans were killing and using animals for survival
Anyway just because this argument is evolved then it does not mean it is true.
Archived_member14
SPNer
Kanwardeep ji,
I am not getting some of what you are saying; perhaps you need to explain further. In the meantime I would like to make some general comment based on what I think I understand you to be saying.
At the root is attachment. And what is this attachment aimed at? The eye and the ability to see different colours, the ear and to hear different sounds, the tongue and to tasting different flavours, the nose and to smelling different aromas, the body and to touching different sensations, and the mind and to be able to think different thoughts. In other words, we are most attached to me, mine and I. Ironically however, once we begin to understand (and not just assume) that the person we love most in the world is "me", in understanding that everyone else is also like this, we begin to be more sympathetic and kind towards other people.
So although it is a rule that we are all selfish and self-centred and do things all day often at the expense of others, our thoughts may begin to gradually incline towards the opposite direction, namely, the benefit of other people. Furthermore on seeing the difference in the quality of mind necessarily involved in these two states, the one would be perceived as desirable and the other not so.
This is of course not easy, and not only because we have accumulated so much of the tendency to attachment, but because of what in fact is the real problem, namely ignorance. It is because of ignorance that all kinds of evil arise. To know ignorance as ignorance and to know attachment as attachment is wisdom.
When we know that attachment to self, (which is the driving force for survival) comes down to the fundamental experiences such as seeing, hearing and so on, and that these are extremely fleeting and rise and fall away not in anyone's control, there is no reason to then struggle so much in order to get what we want. If we realize that whatever it is that we aim for in our struggle for survival can't ever satisfy except momentarily, is there any sense in continuing mindlessly pursuing those things? If we actually begin to see that the attachment itself is a state of agitation and that the detachment which comes with understanding is of the opposing quality, do we still wish to rely on attachment as means to happiness?
You may have dropped some word out in the above or I am just too dense right now. But I am very curious to know what is behind the second meaning you mention above and how some Indian saints, Jains and rich people are the same in this regard. So please elaborate.
Are you saying here that those saints and rich people were wrong due to some perversion of thought and that the normal and sensible thing to do is to aim at survival?
Again, I don't understand your meaning here....
I am not getting some of what you are saying; perhaps you need to explain further. In the meantime I would like to make some general comment based on what I think I understand you to be saying.
At the root is attachment. And what is this attachment aimed at? The eye and the ability to see different colours, the ear and to hear different sounds, the tongue and to tasting different flavours, the nose and to smelling different aromas, the body and to touching different sensations, and the mind and to be able to think different thoughts. In other words, we are most attached to me, mine and I. Ironically however, once we begin to understand (and not just assume) that the person we love most in the world is "me", in understanding that everyone else is also like this, we begin to be more sympathetic and kind towards other people.
So although it is a rule that we are all selfish and self-centred and do things all day often at the expense of others, our thoughts may begin to gradually incline towards the opposite direction, namely, the benefit of other people. Furthermore on seeing the difference in the quality of mind necessarily involved in these two states, the one would be perceived as desirable and the other not so.
This is of course not easy, and not only because we have accumulated so much of the tendency to attachment, but because of what in fact is the real problem, namely ignorance. It is because of ignorance that all kinds of evil arise. To know ignorance as ignorance and to know attachment as attachment is wisdom.
When we know that attachment to self, (which is the driving force for survival) comes down to the fundamental experiences such as seeing, hearing and so on, and that these are extremely fleeting and rise and fall away not in anyone's control, there is no reason to then struggle so much in order to get what we want. If we realize that whatever it is that we aim for in our struggle for survival can't ever satisfy except momentarily, is there any sense in continuing mindlessly pursuing those things? If we actually begin to see that the attachment itself is a state of agitation and that the detachment which comes with understanding is of the opposing quality, do we still wish to rely on attachment as means to happiness?
You may have dropped some word out in the above or I am just too dense right now. But I am very curious to know what is behind the second meaning you mention above and how some Indian saints, Jains and rich people are the same in this regard. So please elaborate.
Are you saying here that those saints and rich people were wrong due to some perversion of thought and that the normal and sensible thing to do is to aim at survival?
Again, I don't understand your meaning here....
I sincerely do not mean offence to you of Confused, but what has this got to do with Sikhism?
What do you understand as the Sikh view on meat. I say the same thing to Confused.
Please back up with shabads. No straying into Peta, and what an animal feels etc. What is the SIKH view?
I await your answer.
Last edited:
Forget explanations and the rights and wrongs , but what is the SIKH view?
This thread is about the SIKH view. Please stick to that. I await your response.
❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM
❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM
