Controversial Told DAD That Meat Is NOT Forbidden, And He Gets ANGRY!

[Randip Singh]

Uh, I Cut my Hair, But Im a Proud Vegetarian, But My Responses to your Inquiries were based on the fact that it seemed like a Lame Issue & Situation. The way you're Blaming your Dad, about he's so this & that. Shut Up, Live Life, & then Give your Dad a Hug about how Awesome he was about everything but this One Miniscual Issue.

You really need to be more polite.

Remember, having intercourse and producing babies does not automatically make me a good father. This sounds like the same scenario here. Whats worse is that this man claims to be a Sikh.

 

[Randip Singh]

Thank you Randip for some Real Input on the matter.



Exactly, so my feelings are, that he was such an immoral hypocrite when he was my Age, and now hes jus choking on the fact that i eat meat.

- Yep I dont smoke.
- I dont drink much (maybe once in 3 months, and always remain in a state where i have control, and I have never gone to the extent that i throw up)
- I try to stay fit

Ive also told Him about how theres 6 CHASKA (addictions) written before MEAT (is last).

And especially addiction to SWEET things is a CHASKA BEFORE MEAT.
Ive Told him that SUGAR is worse than MEAT! e.g you NEVER see kids with BAD teeth CAUSE of eating too much meat, But you DO see kids with BAD teeth because of eating to much sweets as a kid (Malnutrition, sugar replaces vitamins, not good)

So SUGAR DAMAGES the body (+ diabetes), so you could say its closer to the effects of alcohol (body damage?)

At one point in the debate between my Dad, he said that Refined White Sugar is good for you!?
Lol *** the things he comes up with sometimes, seems like he makes them up on the spot, just to go against me, and not accept that im right (cos im the 'kid' i guess lol)


Thank you for this

Also theres so much issues ive talked about with my dad who drinks milk EVERY day:

CRUILTY TO COWS while ALIVE: e.g how cows are locked up and treated for milk, how HORMONES are INJECTED into cows to INCREASE milk production. And They are PURPOSELY kept pregnant so that they continue producing milk to SELL for MONEY for HUMANS, when really the milk is intended by WAHEGURU (imo) to be for CALFS.

And in these UNATURAL FORCEFUL conditions the Cows udders Get SORE and blister and blead both Externally AND Internally, and this BLOOD & PUSS ends up in the milk. But wait theres More, sometimes the UDDERS get INFECTED, so then these milk factories Slap some OINTMENTS on and INJECT ANTIBIOTICS to deal with the infections, which ULTIMATELY end up IN THE MILK, which people consume. But yet so many sikhs cant get enough of MILK and PANEER. Look at this cruel ness for milk.

Also Regarding animals: what about all these Leather shoes (and furnature) that some sikhs wear, made by skin ripped from animals, and what about the SKIN on the TABLA in my Dads room??

ALSO The GGSJ says to NOT HARM the body.

But yet my family cant seem to get enough of WHEAT which is Gluten based, hard to digest. And is filled with PHYTO TOXINS and ANTI BODIES from the WHEAT, which can Damage our bodies. But also if the plant is producing antibodies, maybe it Does not want to be eaten? Not to mention WHEAT is So devoid of nutrients IMO.

P.S - Dont forget the Blood, Puss, Steroids and Antibiotics in MILK. Which damage the body.
Oh and I forgot that SO MANY people dont really digest LACTOSE (in milk) properly, so it can negatively affect digestion. Also MILK TAKES CALCIUM AWAY FROM BONES, The MYTH that milk gives you strong bones and stuff, is exactly that; a MYTH, FUNDED by the MILK FACTORIES to PUT ON TV so they can SELL MORE MILK and make MORE MONEY.

Theres so much stuff to consider. All i can say is that knowledge is power

Look ignore these Chakska's.

Everything can potentially be an addiction. Sugar, Tea, Sweets, Milk, Excercising, TV etc.

What you have to do is keep a balance. That is what Sikhi teaches us.

This utter nonsense surrounding meat should be ignore. The Sikh Rehat Maryada is clear:
Sikh Rehat Maryada

In the Rehat Maryada, section six,<SUP id=cite_ref-30 class=reference>[31]</SUP> it states:

The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided:

1. Dishonouring the hair
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way (Kutha)
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse
4. Using tobacco.

The reason for this was, Leading Sikh intellectuals/spiritual people ruled on this issue in the 1920s—as some Sikh sects attempted to get all Sikhs to be vegetarian.

That is the final word on this, and should be treated as such.
​

 

[linzer]

You really need to be more polite.

Remember, having intercourse and producing babies does not automatically make me a good father. This sounds like the same scenario here. Whats worse is that this man claims to be a Sikh.

I agree completely but to put it more politely, We aren't born knowing how to raise children. It sounds like the father needs to mature as much as the son does.
It's hard for most people to accept when they are wrong. It's harder when it comes from someone you still see as a child. At that age I had terrible arguments with my father. He was always republican. I'm a democrat. After a while we learned to agree to disagree. By the time he died we had the utmost respect for each other as men. It's all part of growing up for everyone involved.

 

[Kamala]

Errr NO!!!

Meat is not forbidden in Sikhism. Shakta-ism doesn not forbid meat either infact it encourages animal sacrifice. Buddism does not ban meat either. In fact the Lord Buddha died eating rancid pork.

So please do not confuse you Vaishnav beliefs with all other faiths. :angryyoungsingh:

Shakta may do sacrifice, but they do not eat it after. I can almost 100% say that Sri Guru Nanak was vegetarian, doesn't that mean anything to you guys that he is so powerful and we should copy his beliefs for nature?

 

[Archived_member14]

Kamala ji,

Shakta may do sacrifice, but they do not eat it after. I can almost 100% say that Sri Guru Nanak was vegetarian, doesn't that mean anything to you guys that he is so powerful and we should copy his beliefs for nature?

Does this mean then, that you consider eating meat as wrong but killing an animal for sacrifice, right?

I think Guru Nanak would have taken more or less the opposite stance. That is, eating meat is not wrong, but killing and more so, sacrificial killing, is very wrong.

ps: And I don't think he would encourage imitating / copying his behavior.

 

[Randip Singh]

Shakta may do sacrifice, but they do not eat it after. I can almost 100% say that Sri Guru Nanak was vegetarian, doesn't that mean anything to you guys that he is so powerful and we should copy his beliefs for nature?

On Shaktaism

Err no Shaktaism believers eat the meat. In fact people amongst Hindu's believe vegetarianism has made them and their great faith into jibbering cowards.Swami Vivekananda on Meat Eating - Part II By Dr. Radhasyam Brahmachari

http://hindtoday.com/Blogs/ViewBlogsV2.aspx?HTAdvtId=1490&HTAdvtPlaceCode=IND

On Guru Nanak

100%, that is a wild claim?

Especially when there is a shabad in Bani that Guru Nanak is said to have quoted to Brahmins at Kurukshetra who scolded him for eating meat.

"H. S. Singha, Mini Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, Delhi: Hemkunt Press, ISBN 81-7010-200-6,

"The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten venison or goat, depending upon different janamsakhi versions of a meal which he cooked at Kurukshetra which evoked the criticism of Brahmins."

and the Shabad

Page 1289

First Mehl:
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.

Also meat was allowed in langar up until the 2nd Guru. So I think your 100% I can say with certainity is Zero percent .

Like I said, don't make the mistake of confusing Vaishnav belief with Sikhism. We have Vaishnav converts in Sikhism and they choose to be vegetarian, but the Paanth is not commanded to be vegetarian.

 

[Harry Haller]

Confusedji

These are not feelings but mental formations. Feelings are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral arisen either at the mind or at the sense doors. So we have for example, love or attachment being associated with either pleasant or neutral but never unpleasant ‘mental’ feeling. And hate always with unpleasant mental feeling. Tactile consciousness is accompanied by either pleasant or unpleasant feeling, but never neutral, all being however, ‘bodily’.

I have experienced love and attachment as a negative feeling, it is possible

As for hate, again, I have experienced hate with a positively pleasant feeling

Is this consonance you are referring to, the same kind you seek to also attain? If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that humans are said to be superior to animals? In other words, if animals so easily achieve the consonance which is the aim all humans should have, does this not then mean that in fact human beings are inferior to animals? If this is not what you are saying, then please explain what it is that you mean by “consonance” in each of the two cases, namely one, which animals achieve naturally and the other, which human being achieve only as a result of correctly following the teachings of such persons as Guru Nanak?

Consonance to an animal is a given, most live in consonance, however it is the consonance of an animal, not a human, ie, for a lion to kill and eat a passing deer, and then spend the rest of day finding female lions to mate with, I would suggest it is in consonance, it is doing what lions do, no more, no less. If I were to kill a passing deer, and then fornicate with any female within 100 yards, that would not be in consonance, due to the fact I am a human.

All an animal has to do to achieve consonance is to be itself. All a human has to do to achieve consonance is to be itself too, but its harder, humans have more choices, humans can question, can override the natural thought process, some might say the Gurus thought process, and replace it with man made.

I do not think Guru Nanakji invented a way, or came up with anything original, in my belief he did the same that Newton did. He confirmed a truth, he solved a puzzle, how do we find consonance, easy, we live as it was intended we live, without destroying ourselves in the process, with our abilities comes lots of choice, we can be anything we want to be, yes, it is ironic that in my belief, with all our intelligence and abilities, finding consonance is supremely easier for a dog than it is for a human.

 

[Archived_member14]

Harry ji,

These are not feelings but mental formations. Feelings are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral arisen either at the mind or at the sense doors. So we have for example, love or attachment being associated with either pleasant or neutral but never unpleasant ‘mental’ feeling. And hate always with unpleasant mental feeling. Tactile consciousness is accompanied by either pleasant or unpleasant feeling, but never neutral, all being however, ‘bodily’.

I have experienced love and attachment as a negative feeling, it is possible

As for hate, again, I have experienced hate with a positively pleasant feeling

Well, one reason we need to hear the truth regarding such things is so that we begin to question our experiences. Consider this:

In the act of reading this message it seems as though there is seeing, thinking, touching, hearing and on top of this, the sense of the experiencer having these experiences all happening at the same time. But the truth is that only one experience through one of the five senses or the mind arises at one time. The rapidity of these rising and falling away however is at the rate of trillions in just one second, and this gives the impression that it is all happening at once. And consider also our experience of seeing. The impression we get is that there is light all the time. In reality however, seeing happens in between many, many moments of other kinds of experience, and all of these are in fact *without light* or in other words *dark*.

What we can understand from this is the extent of our ignorance. It is ignorance which is what has led you to believe that moments of love is accompanied sometimes by unpleasant feeling. The fact is that aversion must have arisen in close proximity to the love and you were not aware. Neither the characteristic of love nor the aversion were made known, but the strong unpleasant feeling which arose with the latter, ended up being the object of thinking. Indeed this is where we are all at, reacting all day to pleasant and unpleasant feelings and no awareness of anything.

The same idea can be applied to the hate with pleasant feeling. This pleasant feeling comes with the attachment to the impression of oneself being right while the person we hate is wrong.

Is this consonance you are referring to, the same kind you seek to also attain? If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that humans are said to be superior to animals? In other words, if animals so easily achieve the consonance which is the aim all humans should have, does this not then mean that in fact human beings are inferior to animals? If this is not what you are saying, then please explain what it is that you mean by “consonance” in each of the two cases, namely one, which animals achieve naturally and the other, which human being achieve only as a result of correctly following the teachings of such persons as Guru Nanak?

Consonance to an animal is a given, most live in consonance, however it is the consonance of an animal, not a human, ie, for a lion to kill and eat a passing deer, and then spend the rest of day finding female lions to mate with, I would suggest it is in consonance, it is doing what lions do, no more, no less.

This is Harry seeing through rose-tinted glasses to give support to a much loved view regarding the world / cosmos. ;-)

Animals experience through the five senses and the mind just as we human beings do. Any study of one’s moment to moment experiences would lead one to notice the extent of the restlessness which is characteristic of all animals. Beside the restlessness which is conditioned by ignorance, animals experience only the different forms of attachment and aversion all day. Yes what they do is what they do. This does not mean however that you approve, let alone make it all look desirable. Restlessness, attachment and aversion are no states to encourage. You as a human being are projecting your view because you have the luxury to do that. But the poor animals are *not* at peace at all!! Compassion for them is therefore what is needed. Indeed it is from seeing them for what they really are that people who believe in karma are led to conclude how so difficult it is to move out of the animal realm and be reborn as a human being.

According to the law of moral cause and effect, being born as an animal is result of bad karma. So I think it is very misleading to paint a picture about them which gives the impression that theirs is a life of harmony and is good. You perhaps think that you are being kind and generous towards them to paint a positive picture, but the fact is that it is you who find comfort in the particular view.

If I were to kill a passing deer, and then fornicate with any female within 100 yards, that would not be in consonance, due to the fact I am a human.

All an animal has to do to achieve consonance is to be itself. All a human has to do to achieve consonance is to be itself too, but its harder, humans have more choices, humans can question, can override the natural thought process, some might say the Gurus thought process, and replace it with man made.

So what is the answer to my question regarding which is superior to the other, animals or human beings? Would it be more correct for me to consider animals as result of better karma than human beings? And human beings being what they are, why should anything it does be a problem? Why should whatever he does not be considered in consonance with the grand design?

I do not think Guru Nanakji invented a way, or came up with anything original, in my belief he did the same that Newton did. He confirmed a truth, he solved a puzzle, how do we find consonance, easy, we live as it was intended we live, without destroying ourselves in the process, with our abilities comes lots of choice, we can be anything we want to be, yes, it is ironic that in my belief, with all our intelligence and abilities, finding consonance is supremely easier for a dog than it is for a human.

It is like a curse then to have the ability to think as human beings do?

 

[Kamala]

Kamala ji,





Does this mean then, that you consider eating meat as wrong but killing an animal for sacrifice, right?

I think Guru Nanak would have taken more or less the opposite stance. That is, eating meat is not wrong, but killing and more so, sacrificial killing, is very wrong.

ps: And I don't think he would encourage imitating / copying his behavior.

I don't think sacrifices are great either, I never said I liked it. Stop twisting my words besides, killing for a human is a waste, but if it is for a divine being I am sure you would sacrifice for waheguru ji if he asked. Not saying the devi(S) asked.

 

[Kamala]

On Shaktaism

Err no Shaktaism believers eat the meat. In fact people amongst Hindu's believe vegetarianism has made them and their great faith into jibbering cowards.Swami Vivekananda on Meat Eating - Part II By Dr. Radhasyam Brahmachari

http://hindtoday.com/Blogs/ViewBlogsV2.aspx?HTAdvtId=1490&HTAdvtPlaceCode=IND

On Guru Nanak

100%, that is a wild claim?

Especially when there is a shabad in Bani that Guru Nanak is said to have quoted to Brahmins at Kurukshetra who scolded him for eating meat.

"H. S. Singha, Mini Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, Delhi: Hemkunt Press, ISBN 81-7010-200-6,

"The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten venison or goat, depending upon different janamsakhi versions of a meal which he cooked at Kurukshetra which evoked the criticism of Brahmins."

and the Shabad

Page 1289

First Mehl:
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.

Also meat was allowed in langar up until the 2nd Guru. So I think your 100% I can say with certainity is Zero percent .

Like I said, don't make the mistake of confusing Vaishnav belief with Sikhism. We have Vaishnav converts in Sikhism and they choose to be vegetarian, but the Paanth is not commanded to be vegetarian.

If you find any records of meat being in the langar hall by the 2nd guru ji please let me know. Why do they not allow meat now? I think this whole thread is going backwards rather than progressing.

 

[Kamala]

I see you wrote down you are a mona as well, if you cannot even keep a kesh I have no idea why you even care what your dad thinks of this religion.

 

[Randip Singh]

If you find any records of meat being in the langar hall by the 2nd guru ji please let me know. Why do they not allow meat now? I think this whole thread is going backwards rather than progressing.

There's Plenty of research on Langar being served in meat and in some temples it still is:

Page 38 here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_(Sikhism)#cite_ref-6Singh, Prithi Pal (2006). "3 Guru Amar Das". The History of Sikh Gurus. New Delhi: Lotus Press. pp. 38. ISBN 81-8382-075-1.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...Gurus+By+Prithi+Pal+Singh#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 241 here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_(Sikhism)#cite_ref-8S.R. Bakshi, Rashmi Pathak,, ed. (2007). "12". Punjab Through the Ages. 4 (1st ed.). New Delhi: Sarup and Sons. pp. 241. ISBN 81-7625-738-9 (Set).

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...Rashmi Pathak, Rashmi Pathak volume 4&f=false

A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi ISBN 978-81-7023-139-4.

"However, it is strange that nowadays in the Community-Kitchen attached to the Sikh temples, and called the Guru's Kitchen (or, Guru-ka-langar) meat-dishes are not served at all. May be, it is on account of its being, perhaps, expensive, or not easy to keep for long. Or, perhaps the Vaishnava tradition is too strong to be shaken off."

On Variations of Langar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_(Sikhism)

Langar (Punjabi: ਲੰਗਰ, Hindi: लंगर) is the term used in the Sikh religion or in Punjab in general for common kitchen/canteen where food is served in a Gurdwara to all the visitors (without distinction of background) for free. At the langar, only vegetarian food is served, to ensure that all people, regardless of their dietary restrictions, can eat as equals. Langar is open to Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike.
The exception to vegetarian langar is when Nihangs (in India) serve meat<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup> on the occasion of Holla Mohalla,<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2]</sup> and call it Mahaprasad.<sup id="cite_ref-Mahaprasad_2-0" class="reference">[3]</sup> There are also variations on langar, for example at Hazur Sahib,<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">[4]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5]</sup> where meat is included. Langar is also a common term used across various units in the Indian Army, when referring to a mess<sup class="Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[citation needed]</sup>, especially when there is no building and the food is served in open air (or through temporary arrangements like tents).


The reason why meat is no longer served at most langar is, that Langaar is open to all. If we started having meat, the Vaishnav minded Sikhs would start crying and not come. Muslims who attend would say it's not Halal etc etc. Much safer to have a vege option....although even that in some temples is being challenged who don't want garlic etc.

 

[Randip Singh]

I see you wrote down you are a mona as well, if you cannot even keep a kesh I have no idea why you even care what your dad thinks of this religion.

You can still be a Sehajdhari and a good Sikh you know. Haaving a long beard and long hair doesn't make someone a Sikh!!

 

[linzer]

I've seen so many threads like this one on the issue of Meat versus No Meat and I've wondered just how long has this nonsense been going on. Then it occured to me, more than 500 years and that's exactly why Guru Nanak wrote the bani "fools who wrangle over flesh".
Just what have we been doing.
Wrangling over flesh
And that makes us
???????
As I understand it most of Gurbani is how not to waste our lives but do we listen?
By the way Kamala you should read the part again about eating people.0

I see you wrote down you are a mona as well, if you cannot even keep a kesh I have no idea why you even care what your dad thinks of this religion.

 

[findingmyway]

Singh12 ji,
I have many sympathies with you. I don't think this thread is really about meat at all but a clash of the generations! I have lived independently of my parents for over 12 years including at the other side of the world on my own, but they still treat me like a child and think I don't know how the world works!! My views about Sikhi related issues frequently are at odds with the rest of the family. At first this caused lots of clashes then slowly my parents and other family/family friend elders realised that I had been making the effort to actually read Gurbani. Gradually, they opened themselves up for more discussions (not debates as these became heated and angry) and were willing to hear my point of view more often. A lot of topics are still off limits. I wait for them to broach subjects but we are getting there slowly. Good luck!! Views will only change when someone wants to open their mind, not before. Talk about other Sikhi things amicably and world news or any other topics and see what happens......peacesignkaur

 

[Luckysingh]

I see you wrote down you are a mona as well, if you cannot even keep a kesh I have no idea why you even care what your dad thinks of this religion.

Most of us on this forum are monnai or cut hair, I don't see how this can affect. Sikhism is not just about your ritualistic appearance.

 

[Archived_member15]

In terms of brother Harry Haller ji and Confused ji's fascinating and absolutely riveting discussion about animals, consonance etc. I thought I might throw in this quote the Bible, to add a different religious perspective into the mix:


"...I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is impermanent, like breath. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that all should enjoy their work, for that is their lot; who can bring them to see what will be after them?...As they [human beings] came from their mother's womb, so they shall go again, naked as they came...This is what I have seen to be good: it is fitting to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of the life God gives us; for this is our lot..."

- Book of Ecclesiastes, Holy Bible


kaurhug


And here is a quote from a Catholic priest's sermon on this passage from the Bible, addressed to animals (not humans) on the Feastday of Saint Francis patron saint of animals as part of a blessing of animals service:


"...We come to bless you (animals) today because you too are beloved creatures of God. The Scriptures we have read this afternoon remind us of that, though I daresay we too often fail to notice how God indeed cares for you. As the Psalmist says, you all are an expression of God’s wisdom. Each cat, each dog, each sheep each iguana — each of YOU here has been created by our loving heavenly God, and each of you, whether you are a rabbit, or a sheep or a horse, you reveal something of our Creator in all your being.
Second, I want to speak about what you all have in common with each other, and have in common with us human animals. The writer of Ecclesiastes draws of number of parallels between your lives and those of your human masters and companions. Like human animals, God has created you out of the dust, and to dust you will return. The writer of Ecclesiastes seems to think that if human animals can hope for an afterlife so can you. However, perhaps the most important thing that you share with human animals is that you have been created to glorify God in your very being. If you are a cat, you glorify God by your cat-ness, being what God has created you as a cat to be. If you are a dog, you glorify God in your living as a dog. In the same way I, a human animal, glorify God by being the kind of human animal God creates me to be. I am sorry to say that this is a fundamental truth about who you are that many of my fellow humans — and I am sometimes guilty of this too — fail to realize. Your existence, and that of all your fellow animals, as well as the lives of myself and all other humans, is fundamentally ordered to glorifying God. By living your lives as dogs, or as iguanas, or rabbits, or cats, you glorify God, you give pleasure to your Creator. So I apologize on behalf of myself and my fellow human beings that all too often, we forget that the ultimate purpose of your lives is not to assist us, to keep us company, to amuse us, or even to feed us. Your lives have their worth in God’s love and concern and purposes for you...Fellow creatures, God uses you to reveal God’s very self to us humans...."

- Fr John Berkman, 2001


Of course the above quote is from the viewpoint of a person who does not believe in reincarnation but rather one life for all living beings.

 

[Kamala]

You can still be a Sehajdhari and a good Sikh you know. Haaving a long beard and long hair doesn't make someone a Sikh!!

You're wrong, to be a 100% Sikh you have to be Amritdhari, sehaj dhari doesn't mean anything since you are just BORN a Sikh aka no choice.. now even a white person can say they are sehajdhari even though they may be born in a diff religion. Like the 5ks do not mean anything to them..

 

[Harry Haller]

Confusedji

What we can understand from this is the extent of our ignorance. It is ignorance which is what has led you to believe that moments of love is accompanied sometimes by unpleasant feeling. The fact is that aversion must have arisen in close proximity to the love and you were not aware. Neither the characteristic of love nor the aversion were made known, but the strong unpleasant feeling which arose with the latter, ended up being the object of thinking. Indeed this is where we are all at, reacting all day to pleasant and unpleasant feelings and no awareness of anything.

As a Buddhist, you have your own take on life, and I completely respect that, but I am not a Buddhist, and as such, I do not feel limited by the concepts of aversion and attachment. To feel love, as well as feeling unpleasant about it, is not a hugely alien concept for a lot of people, for instance falling in love the wrong person, or for a gay man to fall in love with another man, because society validates everything we do (unless you reject society), this blessing from society can make many things unpleasant. For anyone with fetishes, again, to love will always have the tinge of unpleasantness about it.

The same idea can be applied to the hate with pleasant feeling. This pleasant feeling comes with the attachment to the impression of oneself being right while the person we hate is wrong.

OK, I hate front wheel drive cars, I positively loathe them, in fact, if we are talking about a car with all the hated characteristics, then it would be a two door, front wheel drive, diesel, in yellow, with no cd player, a noise when you dont put the belt on, and a complicated start system that involves pressing the clutch in, pressing a button, whilst headbutting another button, oh, and a manual gearbox. This car I would love to hate. I would get excited at the prospect of hating it, I would crunch its gears and rev it up, delighting in the painful howl of protest, I would hide rotten fish under its seats, pour jam into its engine, .. I think you get the picture,. hatred can be enjoyable without attachment/aversion.

Animals experience through the five senses and the mind just as we human beings do. Any study of one’s moment to moment experiences would lead one to notice the extent of the restlessness which is characteristic of all animals. Beside the restlessness which is conditioned by ignorance, animals experience only the different forms of attachment and aversion all day. Yes what they do is what they do. This does not mean however that you approve, let alone make it all look desirable. Restlessness, attachment and aversion are no states to encourage. You as a human being are projecting your view because you have the luxury to do that. But the poor animals are *not* at peace at all!! Compassion for them is therefore what is needed. Indeed it is from seeing them for what they really are that people who believe in karma are led to conclude how so difficult it is to move out of the animal realm and be reborn as a human being.

I can only base this on my own animals, Dan, my dog, I have never seen in a condition of restlessness, if we take a starting time of say 9pm. At 9pm I am normally watching south park, and Dan is normally sat at the window watching the fox. He will spend till around 10pm being teased by the fox, and generally running between the living room and the garden whilst getting more frustrated until, depending on his mood, he will give up and come to bed, or headbutt the window, smashing it (3 panes this month). He will then jump on the bed, and wriggle in between the two of us until he has his head near my knee, and his feet in my face. When I wake up, Dan will have migrated to the end of the bed where he lies on his back with his legs in the air. Wife feeds him at around 9am, and then he watches TV, licks the cat, runs to talk to the ferrets, his favourite place is in bed with my wife and the cat, and three of them sit there all day watching tv and eating ice cream, I have to confess Confusedji, I have never noticed my dog to be not at peace, I mean, he can lick his own genitals!.

So what is the answer to my question regarding which is superior to the other, animals or human beings? Would it be more correct for me to consider animals as result of better karma than human beings? And human beings being what they are, why should anything it does be a problem? Why should whatever he does not be considered in consonance with the grand design?

Confusedji, I am a Sikh, and therefore we all have the same Karma, as I believe this is my one and only life. Superiority has no relevance here, I can do things Dan cannot do, Dan can do things I can only dream of, he is a dog, I am a human. It is interesting to note that I look upon Dan as a Sikh dog, and he has been brought up that way. It is interesting to note that depressives are normally quite intelligent people, some might say the more intelligent, the easier it is to question so much it brings you down. Dan does not question, he is brave, polite, he treats every other living animal with respect, once, while chasing rabbits, he cornered a baby one. I ran after him and found him looking at this rabbit, he looked around at me with a look of utter confusion, clearly like a lot of people, having chased something and obtained it, he had no idea what to do with it. Dan turned round to the baby rabbit, and gently started licking it and nuzzling it, and then ran off.

It is like a curse then to have the ability to think as human beings do?

I think it is a curse or a blessing depending on how you deal with it.

Lets say you could have any car in the world you wanted, or that you had the resources to build your own, some would buy the car of their dreams, and they would be happy. Some would build their own, but not all would be happy. Some would fail miserably even given free choice on the components, some would be ecstatic at the end result.

An animal would buy a Bentley, an enlightened human would build a dream machine, and the rest of us would make a complete pigs ear. That is the danger of choice, of being human, of being happy enough to shoot into the sky like the brightest star, or of being miserable enough to drive into your house wishing it could all end now, of going to university and ticking off all your goals, of learning moderation, being aware of consonance, or of spending all day dirty, filthy, penniless, in a stinking pit of drugs and vice, the choice is ours, and it has nothing to do with previous lives, sins of our fathers, and everything to do with just how seriously we view the gift of choice, or the ability to discern, sometimes I wish I had been born an animal, then I would not the have the responsibility of free thought, I could just buy a Bentley, instead of trying to build my own and failing every time.

 

[Harry Haller]

You're wrong, to be a 100% Sikh you have to be Amritdhari, sehaj dhari doesn't mean anything since you are just BORN a Sikh aka no choice.. now even a white person can say they are sehajdhari even though they may be born in a diff religion. Like the 5ks do not mean anything to them..

There are those for whom appearance, ritual, doing the things that must be done, are hugely important, even more important than cultivating wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

you say 'even' a white person, this is the second time you have made comments based on race, I do not have a problem with a sehajdhari white person, brown person, yellow person, even if they have been born in a different religion. As for the 5ks, I wear not one myself, I am not baptised, I have no need to wear them, as far as I am concerned they represent the Khalsa in me, and until that Khalsa shines out of me, wearing them would be an insult to each K and what it stands for.

Maybe you should concentrate on your inner prejudices and further your knowledge with a view to concentrating on the one religion, rather than knowing and propagating the misinformation that you seem to be keen on.