☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 150722" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Findingmyway ji,</p><p></p><p>Thanks for your response.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You appeal to the concepts of "form of life" and "Biological process" where both plants and animals are grouped under. This is the result of worldly education, particularly that of biological science and which we so readily carried over and applied to general observations in daily life. I of course have come to question this and begun to note certain things about them that make plants and animals so different to each other, that the concept of "life" has now a very different meaning. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And just because you say that plants are the same as animals does not make it true. ;-) And you are clearly projecting attributes that are human onto plants. </p><p></p><p>Do you really think that a spinach plant has "desire"? And yes, we humans have the capacity to "perceive", and "be conscious", and "feel", and "think", which lead us to all having so many different inclinations, for example, to greed, to aversion, to kindness, to wisdom, to ignorance, to compassion, to jealousy, to miserliness, to faith etc. It is these and other such mental attributes which distinguish sentient beings (which include animals and humans) from plants, is it not?</p><p></p><p>And should such kind of distinction lead to an egotistical attitude? In breaking the "human" into being nothing more than a confluence of "elements", rather I think, that this leads to not having pride in being who we are. Indeed in this thread I've argued against human-centric attitudes and also encouraging more consideration for animals, have I not...? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It is good to keep in mind that we are limited by what we can perceive through the senses. This helps to not think that what we "experience" and think about, decides what actually exists and doesn't exists. But for an act to constitute "killing" according to my understanding, the following factors must be in place:</p><p></p><p>1. There is life</p><p>2. There is knowledge of life</p><p>3. There is intention to kill</p><p>4. There is effort to kill</p><p>5. There is consequent death</p><p></p><p>As you can now see, according to me, unlike animals and humans which are breathing creatures, plants are not living beings. So I wouldn't say that in plucking an apple out of a tree, I unavoidably am engaged in killing. On the other hand if I am lost in a forest and end up killing some small creature for food, I will not however feel justified in doing this but instead admit to being so much attached to dear life and to committing an evil act. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I'll be happy to make this my last response if this is what you insist on. ;-)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The products are products; they are there for anyone to use or not use. I do not see any need to be concerned about what and where the different parts came from because this does nothing to change people's attitudes towards killing / not killing. If I know that some product had animal parts in it, I'd buy and use it if I think that it is of better quality than another one which does not have any animal parts. However, if no such product is available, I'd be happy with whatever is. I will not insist on having only the one whereby indirectly asking someone to kill in order that I have my preferred item.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I'd be proliferating and doing just what you fear, namely making myself the center of the universe. Instead, my attention is drawn rightly to the only reasonable reference point, namely my own mind and the actions through speech and body coming from this. </p><p></p><p>Man in trying to patch up his own mistakes will forever be involved in a losing battle. This is because he does not know that ignorance and greed is the cause of all the problems in the world and so will be caught up in the exact same mechanism in trying to fix things.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a common mis-perception. In turning the attention to one's own actions is akin to wearing sandals instead of trying to cover the earth with leather. This is the result of an understanding which includes seeing that all our concern for the other, because of this very lack of understanding about one's own mind, is more often than not, in fact aimed at serving one's own attachments to ideals. And idealism has been compared to a {censored}, a symbol of stupidity. </p><p></p><p>Indeed it is because we lack understanding about our motives, that all our actions causes more problems than any good. Our minds are scattered and we get caught up in a struggle to do good deeds. We are never sure of our actions and often feel guilty and then try again to do things in order to set things right. And we have no clue when what otherwise is seen in other people as clearly wrong, is motivating our own deeds. </p><p></p><p>On the other hand, when we begin to pay attention to the "now", which must in the end be our own experience in the moment, we gradually become freed from such kind of senseless activities. This then opens the way for good qualities such as kindness, compassion, morality, giving etc. to manifest and grow. So is it not then that in fact, the self-centered activity is in the case of those people who do not take into account the state of their own minds, whereas those you judge as being so, is actually encouraging of real concern for other beings?</p><p></p><p>Besides, in my separating the issue of eating meat from that of killing, what is being done is putting the spotlight on what should be considered, instead of being murky and caught up in wrong ways of thinking about things. Killing is killing and we need to avoid confusing the issue by tying this up with the fact of eating / not eating meat. How can morality grow if we interpret actions that have nothing to do with morality and think that it does? </p><p></p><p>Understanding is understanding, it is not attachment to self, but in fact a process of detachment. It is when there is no understanding but instead an involvement in the "world", that attachment to self manifests and thrives.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The only way to encourage other people not to kill is to address the problem directly. </p><p></p><p>If I were at a fish seller where they killed the fish when someone orders, I'd not buy from there. This may or may not indicate to the seller that I have issues with killing but not to eating meat. If I cared about his wellbeing and saw signs that he'd listen, perhaps I'd start a conversation with him about the matter. But if I simply avoid buying meat from the supermarket or even a butcher, how is the message going to get to anyone that killing is wrong? To think along the lines that enough number of people stop eating meat is going to stop killing is not an expression of any real concern, but a self-centered activity. And the act of avoiding buying and eating meat not only will not get the right message across, but in fact likely cause derision to arise in the other person. After all you'd likely come across as not having his interests in mind, but only to your own ideas. It is like someone trying to make a statement by wearing a T-shirt with a slogan and willfully unconcerned about what other people think.</p><p></p><p>But even if the whole world did stop buying meat, this may stop killing from happening because there is no market. But does this in anyway address the fact of each person's inherent tendency to attachment and aversion which is the root of the problem? Would not the tendency to kill be fully intact and readily manifest when the market opens / outside circumstances change? </p><p></p><p>The only way I can help anyone is to first be clear in my own thinking about such issues. If I confuse and muddle matters, wouldn't I in fact cause for confusion in others as well?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 150722, member: 586"] Findingmyway ji, Thanks for your response. You appeal to the concepts of "form of life" and "Biological process" where both plants and animals are grouped under. This is the result of worldly education, particularly that of biological science and which we so readily carried over and applied to general observations in daily life. I of course have come to question this and begun to note certain things about them that make plants and animals so different to each other, that the concept of "life" has now a very different meaning. And just because you say that plants are the same as animals does not make it true. ;-) And you are clearly projecting attributes that are human onto plants. Do you really think that a spinach plant has "desire"? And yes, we humans have the capacity to "perceive", and "be conscious", and "feel", and "think", which lead us to all having so many different inclinations, for example, to greed, to aversion, to kindness, to wisdom, to ignorance, to compassion, to jealousy, to miserliness, to faith etc. It is these and other such mental attributes which distinguish sentient beings (which include animals and humans) from plants, is it not? And should such kind of distinction lead to an egotistical attitude? In breaking the "human" into being nothing more than a confluence of "elements", rather I think, that this leads to not having pride in being who we are. Indeed in this thread I've argued against human-centric attitudes and also encouraging more consideration for animals, have I not...? It is good to keep in mind that we are limited by what we can perceive through the senses. This helps to not think that what we "experience" and think about, decides what actually exists and doesn't exists. But for an act to constitute "killing" according to my understanding, the following factors must be in place: 1. There is life 2. There is knowledge of life 3. There is intention to kill 4. There is effort to kill 5. There is consequent death As you can now see, according to me, unlike animals and humans which are breathing creatures, plants are not living beings. So I wouldn't say that in plucking an apple out of a tree, I unavoidably am engaged in killing. On the other hand if I am lost in a forest and end up killing some small creature for food, I will not however feel justified in doing this but instead admit to being so much attached to dear life and to committing an evil act. And I'll be happy to make this my last response if this is what you insist on. ;-) The products are products; they are there for anyone to use or not use. I do not see any need to be concerned about what and where the different parts came from because this does nothing to change people's attitudes towards killing / not killing. If I know that some product had animal parts in it, I'd buy and use it if I think that it is of better quality than another one which does not have any animal parts. However, if no such product is available, I'd be happy with whatever is. I will not insist on having only the one whereby indirectly asking someone to kill in order that I have my preferred item. No, I'd be proliferating and doing just what you fear, namely making myself the center of the universe. Instead, my attention is drawn rightly to the only reasonable reference point, namely my own mind and the actions through speech and body coming from this. Man in trying to patch up his own mistakes will forever be involved in a losing battle. This is because he does not know that ignorance and greed is the cause of all the problems in the world and so will be caught up in the exact same mechanism in trying to fix things. This is a common mis-perception. In turning the attention to one's own actions is akin to wearing sandals instead of trying to cover the earth with leather. This is the result of an understanding which includes seeing that all our concern for the other, because of this very lack of understanding about one's own mind, is more often than not, in fact aimed at serving one's own attachments to ideals. And idealism has been compared to a {censored}, a symbol of stupidity. Indeed it is because we lack understanding about our motives, that all our actions causes more problems than any good. Our minds are scattered and we get caught up in a struggle to do good deeds. We are never sure of our actions and often feel guilty and then try again to do things in order to set things right. And we have no clue when what otherwise is seen in other people as clearly wrong, is motivating our own deeds. On the other hand, when we begin to pay attention to the "now", which must in the end be our own experience in the moment, we gradually become freed from such kind of senseless activities. This then opens the way for good qualities such as kindness, compassion, morality, giving etc. to manifest and grow. So is it not then that in fact, the self-centered activity is in the case of those people who do not take into account the state of their own minds, whereas those you judge as being so, is actually encouraging of real concern for other beings? Besides, in my separating the issue of eating meat from that of killing, what is being done is putting the spotlight on what should be considered, instead of being murky and caught up in wrong ways of thinking about things. Killing is killing and we need to avoid confusing the issue by tying this up with the fact of eating / not eating meat. How can morality grow if we interpret actions that have nothing to do with morality and think that it does? Understanding is understanding, it is not attachment to self, but in fact a process of detachment. It is when there is no understanding but instead an involvement in the "world", that attachment to self manifests and thrives. The only way to encourage other people not to kill is to address the problem directly. If I were at a fish seller where they killed the fish when someone orders, I'd not buy from there. This may or may not indicate to the seller that I have issues with killing but not to eating meat. If I cared about his wellbeing and saw signs that he'd listen, perhaps I'd start a conversation with him about the matter. But if I simply avoid buying meat from the supermarket or even a butcher, how is the message going to get to anyone that killing is wrong? To think along the lines that enough number of people stop eating meat is going to stop killing is not an expression of any real concern, but a self-centered activity. And the act of avoiding buying and eating meat not only will not get the right message across, but in fact likely cause derision to arise in the other person. After all you'd likely come across as not having his interests in mind, but only to your own ideas. It is like someone trying to make a statement by wearing a T-shirt with a slogan and willfully unconcerned about what other people think. But even if the whole world did stop buying meat, this may stop killing from happening because there is no market. But does this in anyway address the fact of each person's inherent tendency to attachment and aversion which is the root of the problem? Would not the tendency to kill be fully intact and readily manifest when the market opens / outside circumstances change? The only way I can help anyone is to first be clear in my own thinking about such issues. If I confuse and muddle matters, wouldn't I in fact cause for confusion in others as well? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top