Jump to content
shastarSingh

Proof of Sikhs eating Meat in 17th Century!

Recommended Posts

Guest Jacfsing2
1 minute ago, muscleman said:

You gave your head but took your EGO home with you and as though this wasn't enough, you brought it on this forum masked under the name of 'daas.'

The username of this account is, "Jacfsing2", not "Daas", that's a different user all together. Daas means SERVANT, (what's hard for you to understand about it, it's not an egotistical word, but rather one that cuts Haumai). If you don't like the teaching someone gives, just move on and not make a big deal of their grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
7 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Do you even  know the definition of a racist?  Muslims were converting Hindus/ Sikhs to Islam, how can they be trusted with writing anything favorable about the Sikhs, Sikhism or the Sikh gurus?  Have you tried authenticating this document against more viable piece of evidence?

i also admire prophets of other dharams doesn't mean I am going to write beautiful poetic verses or prose about them. I will write these only to show my dharam in a favorable way. We are all conditioned by our environment and this conditioning is not easy to eradicate.

Sufism was not very close to Islam, if that's what you were expecting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Do you even  know the definition of a racist?  Muslims were converting Hindus/ Sikhs to Islam, how can they be trusted with writing anything favorable about the Sikhs, Sikhism or the Sikh gurus?  Have you tried authenticating this document against more viable piece of evidence?

i also admire prophets of other dharams doesn't mean I am going to write beautiful poetic verses or prose about them. I will write these only to show my dharam in a favorable way. We are all conditioned by our environment and this conditioning is not easy to eradicate.

Are u saying the entire muslim community shud not be trusted ?

A true sikh fights against the tryannical kings and governments but never dislikes the entire civilian population belonging to a particular religion.

And yes, there is nuthing wrong if an amritdhari calls himself Daas. So stop troubling the young kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Are people really arguing that Vaheguru  on Earth ate meat? This is basically a complete decline in our thinking, at O.P.

Such statements never make sense.  Next a Sikh will come around and say, are people really arguing that Vaheguru on Earth went to the toilet?????  The op quoted some writing or suggesting the writing is from the Gurus period and an authentic source.  The source says Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji did not eat meat and kept a non meat diet.  If the op wants to accept this source, then he needs to be careful.  Now we have a clear distinguish of what is meat and what is not meat.  So this destroys the op argument to say everything is meat eat either.  The meat eaters always like to quote the Shabad of moorakhs argue over flesh and they love to say their is no distinguish factor between animals and plants. 

The difference in lifestyle after Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji changed.  Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji was martyred and Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib ji took up arms.  Sikhs were being trained in warfare.  This became the focus.  The focus was Naam, but Naam took the form of bir raas.  Guru Sahib started training his Sikhs marital arts, so they can defend the weak and themselves from the dictators.  Many Sikhs don't want to trust this source because its a muslim or its an easy way for them to reject the source without really thinking about it.  However Sikhs can't deny the fact Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji tells us Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji hunted.  In hindsight some would say the op quoted source is given validity by Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, but it doesn't because it's like the argument what came first the chicken or the egg.  Also the source for the Punj Pyare heads being actually cut off was a Muslim spy in the Guru's darbar.  Yet many Sikhs accept this account without even thinking about it.

Place your mind in the time period of the Gurus.  The land layout of Punjab was very different from now.  Majority of Punjab was a forest.  No vehicles, no local markets on the way from town to town to get food.  Either carry it on your back or find it in the wild.  The Gurus established towns themselves in 1469 to 1708.  This alone should tell you how abandoned Punjab was.  The main aim for Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib to hunt may have been to teach Sikhs how to fight.  It's not like today, where there is shooting ranges, training simulations.  If we use the logic, Sri Hargobind Sahib ji only hunted because the local animals were attacking the villagers.  Then why is there no account of any Guru from Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji hunting for the same reason or at all.  Did the first five Gurus have no sense of protecting the locals from the vicious animals attacking the locals?  If the vegetarian cults use the logic, Satguru (first five forms) with his Shakti stopped animals from attacking; Satguru brought daya into the vicious animal with his shakti.  Then the sakhi of Punj Sahib loses merit because many will question, why didn't Satguru use his Shakti to release the person's greed and anger for holding the water source hostage?  Instead the person throw the rock at Guru Sahib and Guru Sahib had to stop it with his hand. 

There is a middle ground here and Gurbani teaches the middle ground to this discussion.  The meat eaters will blindly keep eating meat.  They have no idea to fight, train, or lay their life on the line for Sikhi.  I know what the meat eater is thinking right now.  What about the vegetarians?  Well History tells us the first 5 Gurus didn't hunt or eat meat.  Those Sikhs who hunted and ate meat put their life on the line for Sikhi in battle.  They gave up a worldly life like changing clothes.  Are you ready to fight, all those chicken wings must have given you the strength to fight 4 men all at once.  You have the heart to fight, we vegetarians only chop up vegetables even then arm starts to hurt.  Cutting all those goats head off must have given you the strength to fight.  But I hear no gun going off, no sound of two swords striking, no grenades going off in direction of the dusht.  Face it, it's all talk, and silent farts hoping the girl sitting two seats over doesn't hear because you want to start a brother and sister relationship with her. 

 

Edited by Akalifauj
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
3 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Such statements never make sense.  Next a Sikh will come around and say, are people really arguing that Vaheguru on Earth went to the toilet?????  The op quoted some writing or suggesting the writing is from the Gurus period and an authentic source.  The source says Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji did not eat meat and kept a non meat diet.  If the op wants to accept this source, then he needs to be careful.  Now we have a clear distinguish of what is meat and what is not meat.  So this destroys the op argument to say everything is meat eat either.  The meat eaters always like to quote the Shabad of moorakhs argue over flesh and they love to say their is no distinguish factor between animals and plants. 

The difference in lifestyle after Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji changed.  Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji was martyred and Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib ji took up arms.  Sikhs were being trained in warfare.  This became the focus.  The focus was Naam, but Naam took the form of bir raas.  Guru Sahib started training his Sikhs marital arts, so they can defend the weak and themselves from the dictators.  Many Sikhs don't want to trust this source because its a muslim or its an easy way for them to reject the source without really thinking about it.  However Sikhs can't deny the fact Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji tells us Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji hunted.  In hindsight some would say the op quoted source is given validity by Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, but it doesn't because it's like the argument what came first the chicken or the egg.  Also the source for the Punj Pyare heads being actually cut off was a Muslim spy in the Guru's darbar.  Yet many Sikhs accept this account without even thinking about it.

Place your mind in the time period of the Gurus.  The land layout of Punjab was very different from now.  Majority of Punjab was a forest.  No vehicles, no local markets on the way from town to town to get food.  Either carry it on your back or find it in the wild.  The Gurus established towns themselves in 1469 to 1708.  This alone should tell you how abandoned Punjab was.  The main aim for Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib to hunt may have been to teach Sikhs how to fight.  It's not like today, where there is shooting ranges, training simulations.  If we use the logic, Sri Hargobind Sahib ji only hunted because the local animals were attacking the villagers.  Then why is there no account of any Guru from Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji hunting for the same reason or at all.  Did the first five Gurus have no sense of protecting the locals from the vicious animals attacking the locals?  If the vegetarian cults use the logic, Satguru (first five forms) with his Shakti stopped animals from attacking; Satguru brought daya into the vicious animal with his shakti.  Then the sakhi of Punj Sahib loses merit because many will question, why didn't Satguru use his Shakti to release the person's greed and anger for holding the water source hostage? 

There is a middle ground here and Gurbani teaches the middle ground to this discussion.  The meat eaters will blindly keep eating meat.  They have no idea to fight, train, or lay their life on the line for Sikhi.  I know what the meat eater is thinking right now.  What about the vegetarians?  Well History tells us the first 5 Gurus didn't hunt or eat meat.  Those Sikhs who hunted and ate meat put their life on the line for Sikhi in battle.  They gave up a worldly life like changing clothes.  Are you ready to fight, all those chicken wings must have given you the strength to fight 4 men all at once.  You have the heart to fight, we vegetarians only chop up vegetables even then arm starts to hurt.  Cutting all those goats head off must have given you the strength to fight.  But I hear no gun going off, no sound of two swords striking, no grenades going off in direction of the dusht.  Face it, it's all talk, and silent farts hoping the girl sitting two seats over doesn't hear because you want to start a brother and sister relationship with her. 

Did Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderwale eat meat? He was the tough fighter for Gurmat of the last century, if a Mahapurukh like him doesn't need meat to fight, then why should we expect any less from our Guru?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
6 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Then be a humble 'daas!' Stop your holier than though mentality. It does not seem to have cut your humai?

We could argue forever, but you still don't seem to understand what Daas means, you assume it means "Mahapurukh", when it means "Servant", how long will you argue on this one point?

4 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Name a true Sikh?  Please, don't mention the 'daas' upstairs.

There's many true Sikhs, but the odds that you'd meet them easily is as rare as the odds of you actually stop arguing on Amritdharis calling themselves Daas, have you even taken Amrit, or are you here just to argue with the Sangat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jacfsing2 said:

Did Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderwale eat meat? He was the tough fighter for Gurmat of the last century, if a Mahapurukh like him doesn't need meat to fight, then why should we expect any less from our Guru?

Read the post again some other time.  Clearly your anger is not allowing you to read my post as it was written.  Put the carrot down or better yet, use it as a pointer and read my post again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, muscleman said:

You gave your head but took your EGO home with you and as though this wasn't enough, you brought it on this forum masked under the name of 'daas.'

Are you Amritdhari?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
6 minutes ago, muscleman said:

 

 

1 minute ago, muscleman said:

To be honest, I don't know what you mean? I don't understand you. Please clarify.

If your willing to learn, Sufism is the idea of Islamic mysticism, the foundation of Sufism from the start was very similar to the Gnostics Christians in that they were considered heretics and were persecuted for the claims that they could have a divine experience. Sufism is more similar to Gnostics and Sikhi than it is to Islam, for this reason. Sufism also doesn't believe in the 5 pillars of faith and rarely do they go on pilgrimages to Mecca, (but do so in other places). Pir Buddhu Shah was a Sufi who had become Shaheed for assisting Guru Sahib during a few battles, and all of his children became Shaheed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
11 minutes ago, muscleman said:

You are a very angry person for  someone who addresses him/herself as a 'daas.'

So you don't won't to move on from the "Daas" topic? Despite its completely unimportant compared to any other thing, we could be talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • There are many issues Sikh men need to be aware of when entering a life-long commitment whether it's with a woman from India, or a young lady from any respective western country in question. Unfortunately, it's somewhat of an uncomfortable truth that Punjabi fathers are themselves ill-equipped to advise their sons on the various ways of successfully traversing married life. Maybe this will change as people of my generation become fathers to their own children of marriageable age in the next 20 or so years, but I think that era will offer its own set of unique challenges. Generally, it's practically a sink or swim mentality amongst our people, and that leads to many serious issues that could easily be avoided if we just talked or even just frankly identified a few of the important issues to consider when selecting a partner AND the various issues that can arise between a couple after marriage, as well as identifying the problems that are unique to our culture regarding extended family norms, etc. Most of this soul-searching and analysis must begin before the marriage, before selecting a partner. There's TOO much to comprehensively identify and discuss here, but as an overview I will say that if you're going the traditional way of finding a partner through an introduction via a third party, just do yourself a favour and quickly eliminate from your mind any thoughts of romance and any other subjective ideas that will impair your judgement. If the institution of marriage is a serious concern to you, and one you plan to undertake just the once, then for God's sake use your brain, and don't take your cues from entertainment and other nonsensical soft-cultural influences. Be as dispassionate and as cool-headed as possible. Think about the sort of progeny that will result from your union with a lady, because ultimately you should be viewing a marriage as a method of securing the future of your lineage. This kind of approach to marriage isn't only for royalty and the elite families of the world. Sometimes, unavoidable bad stuff happens that you can't account for, but if you're attributing everything to fate and luck, you're going to be in for a shock. If this seems like I'm talking about breeding horses instead of humans and fostering relationships, then I apologise, but marriage and its related financial and social issues - that can destroy lives when it all falls apart - is a serious business. Look at not only the girl in question and her respective physical and personality traits, but analyse her family, too. Is there an errant sibling in the family? Maybe there's more than two? Could the potential person of interest be shielding their true nature for the purposes of securing an engagement? Look at the parents: are they loud and boisterous beyond the usual jolly Punjabi demeanour? Is their brash nature an endearing quality or does it suggest an unfortunate lack of manners and common sense? Could this be an indication of more concerning traits and values they've passed on to your potential marriage partner? Would you be upset if similar ingrained traits were passed onto your children? There's SO much to sift through if you aren't in the habit of leaving things to chance.  If you're going in with a head full of dreams and half-baked fantasies of everlasting love and romance, you're going to be disappointed. Marriage, even on a good day, is hard work. Give yourself a fighting chance by opening your eyes and your mind before entering such situations.
    • You think Trudeau family didn't spend thousands upon thousands on their designer top end Bollywood outfits? 
    • Big Tera  You need to be more firm and assertive when dealing in these matters.  Hope you have learnt some lessons here.  These type of life changing decisions cannot be taken lightly.  Still, it could have been worse.  I heard of a situation some years ago where the groom was waiting for his bride in the anand karaj and the bride bottled it. Her sister stepped in and married him instead.  Still,  if you are thinking of going to India for marriage,  there are still plenty of fish (metaphorically speaking).  Being a foreigner/westerner  going to India for marriage is a buyer's market  (sorry for this term). The reality is that you can turn one girl down and there are 20 to take her place.  Keep this in mind if you are going back there for marriage.  You dictate the terms to the vachola and don't back down. That is the langauge they understand. 
×