Meat-Eaters! Read This Before You Take Another Bite

[JagsawSingh]

Interesting BBC article today about the debate between European and American food authorities. Within the debate though are some very interesting facts that all meat-eaters should consider before they take another bite again. Within that mouthfull of meat there are an insane number of chemicals and pesticides etc. Totally scary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33055665

[Balkaar]

All meat eaters? Hardly. Organic meat in the EU is not laden with poisons, the article you've quoted attests to this.

Besides, the vegetables eaten by our brothers in the Punjab are just as heaped with chemicals as these American meat products, considering the level of pesticides they use.

That said, none of the meat in the West is Jhatka and is therefore off limits.

[Balkaar]

Even jhatka is gross because it is tamas guni food!! It gives the mind a negative impact.

Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib, the highest temporal authority in Sikhi, maintains that it is permissible.

Read any Puraatan account of the old Sikhs, or the very earliest observations of them by outsiders. They will all, without exception, attest to the fact that Sikhs have always eaten Jhatka meat.

"Each Zamindar... from the Attock... to the gates of Delhi lets his beard grow, cries Wah Gorow (Waheguru), eats pork, wears an iron bracelet, abominates the smoking of tobacco... sets up immediately for a Seik Sardar" - A Major Polier to Colonel Ironside (1776)

"They consider Halali meat as forbidden... and eat the jhatka meat, that is, the meat of any animals slaughtered by the sword" - James Skinner, Tasrhihu'l Aqwan, 1825, quoted in Sikh history from Persian sources, p.218

You can't rewrite, whitewash or play pick and mix with our history to flatter your vegetarianism. This isn't an issue of opinions, but of historical fact, and it is a historical fact that the Sikhs of old consumed Jhatka meat.

[Balkaar]

I don't care what Sri Akal Takhat Sahib says about that since that has nothing to do with my post!

My post was stating that all meat is tamas guni which gives your way of thinking in a negative state!!!

It has everything to do with your post.

If eating Jhatka was tamoguni, or as harmful as you maintain, then why would Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib, which when passing decisions on such matters consults some of the most learned and keen minds in the Sikh world, declare it permissible? If eating a chicken fell under tamogun, a branch of actions which includes murder and rape, do you really think it would be given a green light by the highest temporal power in the Sikh world?

The answer is an emphatic no.

[GurburAkal]

Just a small recommendation to meat-eaters :

Read a book called Why Kill a Chicken (Tau Kio Murgi Marai in Punjabi) by Bhai Joginder Singh Talwara

I believe it is online somwhere.

Read it open-minded

[Guest Jacfsing2]

It has everything to do with your post.

If eating Jhatka was tamoguni, or as harmful as you maintain, then why would Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib, which when passing decisions on such matters consults some of the most learned and keen minds in the Sikh world, declare it permissible? If eating a chicken fell under tamogun, a branch of actions which includes murder and rape, do you really think it would be given a green light by the highest temporal power in the Sikh world?

The answer is an emphatic no.

Because it's owned by Badal?

[Balkaar]

Because it's owned by Badal?

Do you believe eating Jhatka is tamoguni and therefore akin to murder or child abuse?

[Balkaar]

I don't think they are really concerned for us as you think they are. A lot of stuff are tamas guni such as spicy/frozen/greasy/fried foods but they aren't going to say anything because it's gonna start up another useless larai. I can give you proof that eating meat does not impress Sri Vaheguru at ALL. Do you think VIVEK people eat meat? Being Viveki is supreme!!! I don't think so! So stop with this.

VIVEK is a Tamil film actor ( you seem to interject Hindu parlance into everything you post and use it interchangeably with Gurmukhi ). However, are you aware Preeet that the tradition of Gurmat BIBEK as used by jathas like the AKJ was originally a practice exclusive to Nihang Singhs, a group that consumes Jhatka meat? There are plenty of Mahapurakhs in the Nihang Dals who are omnivores, and they are above your slanderous accusations of being malecch or paapi.

I have provided you irrefutable historical evidence of the consumption of Jhatka meat by Sikhs in an earlier post. Forget everything I said about Akal Takhat and Tamoguni, all that was incidental to me, it barely mattered. The point I really wanted you to take me up on was that of the historical sources, they were the crux of my argument and they are the very things you've decided to ignore so that you could instead leap about aiming ripostes at my minor commentary.

Simply being a vegetarian does not mean you have daya for all pasus and human beings. I know plenty of vegetarians who are simply awful, and some of the kindest people I know happen to enjoy a Pork chop in the evening. Guru Nanak Dev himself cites the hypocrisy of those who abhor flesh but 'consume men by night':

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.

[Balkaar]

Are you just going to ignore the gurbani I gave you?

Yes, because it doesn't deal with the topic of vegetarianism. A meat eater can still demonstrate kindness to animals, and a vegetarian, cruelty to them. If Guru Sahib would take objection to anything, it would be your declarations concerning who is and who isn't a Sikh, rather than someone proposing his views.

My historical evidence means nothing? If I have to repress the repugnance I feel for the way you play pick and mix with our sacred itihas in order to justify your fanaticism for a moment longer, I might just have a horrific aneurysm. If several historical sources all attest to the same thing, the likelihood of their being mistaken is extremely small. Gurbani can be interpreted in several ways, a factual source cannot really. You don't appear to have any conception of the way in which rational minds operate or discern the provenance of material.

I don't see that there is any point continuing this argument with you.

[singh_khalsa]

Here are the undeniable facts in this debate:

The meateaters have made ithaas writings their True Guru rather then Gurbani. Those who believe eating meat is against sikhi is because they believe this is overall hukum of gurbani, so they have made Guru Granth Sahib jee their only Guru. Only Gurbani is pure Sach. Nothing else is I'm afraid.

There are three main differing views about eating meat in the khalsa panth:

1) anti - eating meat wrong

2) neutral - let everyone do their own thing don't argue about these things

3) pro - non-halal meat allowed (nihangs more strict only allow jhatka meat)

In Guru Granth Sahib jee you will find tuks to support view 1 and view 2. But here is the thing. No tuks to support view 3! This is why you see pro meat sikhs always bringing up tuks which support view 2 only and have the nerve to ignore the tuks supporting view 1. Can anyone who ignores gurbani be a true sikh? Are they not slandering Guru Sahib. Those who slander will have to bear the consequences.

What sachiyaar gursikhs do is they try to respect and follow ithaas but use the fliter of gurbani to ignore the non gurmat parts in it. Remember history was not written and given the stamp of approval by Guru parmeshar

So finally is Guru Granth Sahib (pure sach) your Guru or are historical writings your Guru?

If you want Guru Sahib to be your saviour then don't make the mistake of disrespecting Gurbani by ignoring it and putting Gurbani lower then some historical writings.