Controversial - Told DAD That Meat Is NOT Forbidden, And He Gets ANGRY! | Page 5 | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

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

Scarlet Pimpernel

We seek him here,we sikh
Writer
SPNer
May 31, 2011
995
1,092
In the Self
Eat whatever you wish but don't argue with you father
Confucius agrees "In serving your father and mother, you ought to dissuade them from doing wrong in the gentlest way. If you see your advice being ignored, you should not become disobedient but should remain reverent. You should not complain even if you are distressed." (4.18)
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,936
2,948
50
United Kingdom
Gyani ji,
That line of reasoning is limited to the warrior's duty on the battlefield. Where has basically done everything to stay off, but now finds himself forced to fight his elders, his cousins and his guru. When one is forced to kill conscious beings.

That's the reasoning Krishan ji gives Arjun, when he starts having doubts on the battlefield. Krishan ji reminds him of his duty as a warrior, and tells him to step up to the plate and fight, and defeat his relatives who had taken away Arjun's kingdom and wife, everything he owned. Krishan ji says the Atma never dies, so it's a non-issue, whether you kill them or not. It is your duty as a warrior to do so.

Now the line of reasoning in Guru Granth Sahib is that:
1. There is are differences between goat and grass and one of them is: Goat is conscious and experiences pain and suffering due to it being aware of its own pain and suffering.

3. It is wrong to kill humans. why? because they are conscious creatures. It is wrong to kill conscious creatures.

4. It is wrong to kill goats because they are conscious creatures.

When all peaceful means have failed only then it is right to draw the sword. Here we are going straight to killing without any peaceful methods.
WRONG!!

Prove a goat is concious!! The scientific test is the mirror test. The goat fails!

ttp://listnation.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/9-animals-that-are-self-aware.html
 

Brother Onam

Writer
SPNer
Jul 11, 2012
274
639
57
"- For example when he was 24 years old (NON AMRIT) He slapped my mother for eating meat (BTW THEY BOTH ATE MEAT BEFORE THEY GOT MARRIED, BUT AFTER MY DAD TURNED RELIGOUS, AND THEN TRIED FORCING IT UPON MY MUM)
- He also started hitting my mum because she let her MUSLIM (non religious) friend in the house"

Any man who beats a woman, for whatever reason, has renounced spiritual life.
 
Apr 25, 2006
2,921
1,643
RandipSingh
WRONG!!

Prove a goat is concious!!
Lol that test is of self-awareness ie. whether the goat has an image of herself that she gives a hoot about. Answer, no she doesn't care about her self-image. Now is it conscious? Love a goat and she will love you back. It is aware of your presence, and reacts to it. A dog for instance, is excited by the arrival of her companion. My bird immediately gets up and looks at me with a curious eye, when I approach her cage. Of course, us smart animals do the same thing. I will approach a woman, say "Hi", and she immediately looks up and responds. I take it that there is a conscious entity behind her. I have no proof of this. But it is quite apparent to me upon observation.

Compare that to a rock. Is a rock conscious? Is a cloud conscious?

Brother Onam
Onam said:
Any man who beats a woman, for whatever reason, has renounced spiritual life.
Isn't that sexist though? Sounds to me like it should be so:
Any one who beats anybody, for whatever reason, has renounced spiritual life.
 

Brother Onam

Writer
SPNer
Jul 11, 2012
274
639
57
"Isn't that sexist though? Sounds to me like it should be so:
Quote:
Any one who beats anybody, for whatever reason, has renounced spiritual life."

Sorry, I'm a fan of MMA; I guess that didn't come to mind.
I still think striking a woman is a worse violation.
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,762
8,156
50
Bhagat Singhji

Good to have you back!

Any one who beats anybody, for whatever reason, has renounced spiritual life
hmm should someone tell the Gurudwaras, beatings are common in our culture when people disagree, have our Gurudwaras renounced spiritual life?

actually its a silly question...............
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,936
2,948
50
United Kingdom
RandipSingh

Lol that test is of self-awareness ie. whether the goat has an image of herself that she gives a hoot about. Answer, no she doesn't care about her self-image. Now is it conscious? Love a goat and she will love you back. It is aware of your presence, and reacts to it. A dog for instance, is excited by the arrival of her companion. My bird immediately gets up and looks at me with a curious eye, when I approach her cage. Of course, us smart animals do the same thing. I will approach a woman, say "Hi", and she immediately looks up and responds. I take it that there is a conscious entity behind her. I have no proof of this. But it is quite apparent to me upon observation.

Compare that to a rock. Is a rock conscious? Is a cloud conscious?
Thanks for clarifying these are YOUR views. :mundabhangra:

Your views are similar to "Animalists " in philosophy, (views that are at odds with the Sikh view of the world).

I've said it before, you need to back statements up. Might I suggest you do some reading on self-awareness and self-consciounes by Nietzsche, Kant and Hegel. Great reading although advanced philisophical conscepts. I'm sure we've had this debate before ?
 
Last edited:

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,936
2,948
50
United Kingdom
"Isn't that sexist though? Sounds to me like it should be so:
Quote:
Any one who beats anybody, for whatever reason, has renounced spiritual life."

Sorry, I'm a fan of MMA; I guess that didn't come to mind.
I still think striking a woman is a worse violation.
Unless the woman is a trained MMA fighter and regurlarly beats up her husband, then I guess self defence is justified :p
 

Brother Onam

Writer
SPNer
Jul 11, 2012
274
639
57
Thanks for clarifying these are YOUR views. :mundabhangra:

Your views are similar to "Animalists " in philosophy, (views that are at odds with the Sikh view of the world).

I've said it before, you need to back statements up. Might I suggest you do some reading on self-awareness and self-consciounes by Nietzsche, Kant and Hegel. Great reading although advanced philisophical conscepts. I'm sure we've had this debate before ?
Randip ji,

In my reading, I don't think Sikhi is really at odds with animism. (I spend a lot of my time in Africa, and believe me, when Africans were largely animists they were in a far more blessed state than they are now, when their heads have been twisted by imported, imposed, churchical Christianity. Such people once regarded their rivers and trees and such as sacred, whereas now they are absolutely disassociated from their environment, looking on idly as their whole beautiful surroundings are turned to trash, while they sing (bad) gospel and gaze heavenward for the imminent arrival of some imaginary Jesus who will take them to 'heaven'.)
But in Sikhi, being the religion of Sacred Truth, I believe the holiness (and consciousness even) of the whole Creation is taught.
In So Dar we see the jewels and holy places singing to Har Har in adoration; in the Guru it also speaks of birds and plants singing His/Her praise, which I believe to be literally true, on the transcendental level.
ਮਾਨੁਖ ਬਨੁ ਤਿਨੁ ਪਸੂ ਪੰਖੀ ਸਗਲ ਤੁਝਹਿ ਅਰਾਧਤੇ
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brother Onam

Writer
SPNer
Jul 11, 2012
274
639
57
ps; Randip Singh ji,
I just re-read your message and realize I thought you said "animist", when indeed you had said "animalist". If this has a different meaning, sorry for the misunderstanding.
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,936
2,948
50
United Kingdom
ps; Randip Singh ji,
I just re-read your message and realize I thought you said "animist", when indeed you had said "animalist". If this has a different meaning, sorry for the misunderstanding.
In a nutshell the philisophical definition of animalism is:

an·i·mal·ism(
n
-m
-l
z
m)


3. The doctrine that humans are merely animals with no spiritual nature


Its a little more complicated than this, but from what I have read and been taught about Sikhism, humans have been endowed only with Waheguru's grace because they are the only species of controlling the 5 thieves. When we don't control the 5 thieves we become animals and no longer human.
 

Canada

SPNer
Jun 13, 2014
37
36
You're murdering sentient life.
It's pretty simple..

Here's a good test for meat-eaters: Go buy a chicken, or whatever livestock animal you like. Raise it yourself, and slaughter it yourself. If you can't do this, then you shouldn't be eating meat; forcing someone else to kill it for you so you don't have to deal with the consequences is backwards.
 

Canada

SPNer
Jun 13, 2014
37
36
Thanks for clarifying these are YOUR views. :mundabhangra:

Your views are similar to "Animalists " in philosophy, (views that are at odds with the Sikh view of the world).

I've said it before, you need to back statements up. Might I suggest you do some reading on self-awareness and self-consciounes by Nietzsche, Kant and Hegel. Great reading although advanced philisophical conscepts. I'm sure we've had this debate before ?
What do Nietzsche, Kant and Hegel have to do with overcoming solipsism or proving self-consciousness?
Do you even Descartes, Sartre, Schopenhaur?
 

Abneet

SPNer
Apr 8, 2013
281
312
You're murdering sentient life.
It's pretty simple..

Here's a good test for meat-eaters: Go buy a chicken, or whatever livestock animal you like. Raise it yourself, and slaughter it yourself. If you can't do this, then you shouldn't be eating meat; forcing someone else to kill it for you so you don't have to deal with the consequences is backwards.
Good point. Or take a trip to a slaughterhouse that will get the best out of meat-eaters. Even though I'm a vegetarian amritdhari I still don't bash on Sikhs who eat meat. But Amritdharis who eat meat have to be convinced to not eat as they think its fine as the Akal Takht meryada says so.

But lets not forget eating meat is a sub-issue like Dasam Granth that the Panth can worry about later. After we have a stable Khalsa Panth than we can go after the subset issues like meat and DG.
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,762
8,156
50
You're murdering sentient life.
It's pretty simple..

Here's a good test for meat-eaters: Go buy a chicken, or whatever livestock animal you like. Raise it yourself, and slaughter it yourself. If you can't do this, then you shouldn't be eating meat; forcing someone else to kill it for you so you don't have to deal with the consequences is backwards.
Hmm, Well I am a meat eater and a Sikh, according to your philosophy, I am both a murderer and backwards.

I absolutely respect your desire not to eat animals, I think it is good Sikh practice to respect all views and lifestyles, once we label others as backwards, we are pandering to our own egos that it is ourselves that are forwards, and that we have to educate and enlighten the masses, there are just too many different opinions on the matter, we all just have to live with each other and accept that others have different views.
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,762
8,156
50
Good point. Or take a trip to a slaughterhouse that will get the best out of meat-eaters. Even though I'm a vegetarian amritdhari I still don't bash on Sikhs who eat meat. But Amritdharis who eat meat have to be convinced to not eat as they think its fine as the Akal Takht meryada says so.
this reminds me of the saying ' I am not a racist, but......'
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,762
8,156
50
nah i specifically called out Amritdharis since they are doing naam simran that it is basically useless if you eat meat. Bhai Randhir Singh talked about this.
Guru Nanak Devji also talked about, I think out of the two, you will excuse me for deferring to our first Guru

As someone who feels Naam Simram is useless whether you eat meat or not, I could not comment on the effect of meat, however, I would be intrigued to know Chazji or Luckyji's opinion on the matter, as they practice and feel the benefit of such, and I do not.
 

Canada

SPNer
Jun 13, 2014
37
36
Hmm, Well I am a meat eater and a Sikh, according to your philosophy, I am both a murderer and backwards.

I absolutely respect your desire not to eat animals, I think it is good Sikh practice to respect all views and lifestyles, once we label others as backwards, we are pandering to our own egos that it is ourselves that are forwards, and that we have to educate and enlighten the masses, there are just too many different opinions on the matter, we all just have to live with each other and accept that others have different views.
Billions and billions of animals are slaughtered ever year so you can have a burger. I don't *think* it's backwards, I KNOW it is. And I KNOW it's murder; like I said, go slaughter your own animals and at least then you would know the true reality of what it is you are choosing to do.
I don't say this in a way to put myself forward, or enhance my ego; I am using what power I have as a human being capable of speaking, to speak for those who can't and are being abused, having their children stolen away, and being ruthlessly murdered before they reach even 1/5th of their natural life span.

If any other life form, chemical, virus etc. was needlessly (and visibly - not talking about bacteria eating other bacteria) killing things by the billions like this we would put a stop to it immediately. But the blind lead the blind; and they are blind to their sins.
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,762
8,156
50
Billions and billions of animals are slaughtered ever year so you can have a burger.
phew thats one big burger!

I don't *think* it's backwards, I KNOW it is
good for you, I hope it enhances your life, why do you feel the need to impose it on me?

like I said, go slaughter your own animals and at least then you would know the true reality of what it is you are choosing to do.
I have this dream of owning a farm, with livestock, I am going to raise pigs, feed them well, then eat them, I am well aware of the reality, but thanks for the heads up.

I don't say this in a way to put myself forward, or enhance my ego; I am using what power I have as a human being capable of speaking, to speak for those who can't and are being abused, having their children stolen away, and being ruthlessly murdered before they reach even 1/5th of their natural life span.
Ahhh priorities, tell you what, once world starvation, war, mass rape and murder have gone, I will give you a hand with the animals!

If any other life form, chemical, virus etc. was needlessly (and visibly - not talking about bacteria eating other bacteria) killing things by the billions like this we would put a stop to it immediately. But the blind lead the blind; and they are blind to their sins.
I guess you mean we humans are the only life form that kill for food, hmmmm, also, there are no sins in Sikhism, and as for putting a stop to it, by it, I guess you mean life? interfere in Creation?

Sorry, I think the world will probably carry on in its own way regardless.

thanks for the post though, funniest thing I have ever read today, made me smile!
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Featured post

Ang 690
This shabad uses the word ਜੀਉ frequently, it is written as if Guru Ram Das is talking to a friend (us). What do you think is the significance of this?

Meanings of individual words...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top