Singh1989

Meat during 2nd Guru Ji???

11 posts in this topic

Am curious, about a Sakhi I heard a few times at Gurdwara/ radios. When Guru Amar Das Ji went to visit Guru Angad Dev Ji for the first time, Baba Amar Ji thought "I will consider Guru Angad a true Guru if he knows am a vegetarian."

In langar they sat close to each other and the second Guru said, to the sevadar serving food "Bhai Ji. Serve Baba Amar Das vegetarian items only," then Baba Amar Das was convinced this IS the real deal, the true Guru Sahib.

QUESTION!!! Doesn't this mean meat was being served in langar up to Guru Angad Dev Ji's Guruship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sakhi doesn't really add-up if you ask me. Many great Gursikh writers did mention this exact incident, Bhai Vir Singh, Bhai Satbir Singh, and Mehima Prakash, (original). Why this story doesn't add-up is because when Amar Das, (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Amar Das Ji), went to Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Angad Dev Ji he would've been in extreme depression, due to having no Guru and he was desperate to find one, when you are trying to find the truth, meat is the least of your worries. So even if meat was served, there would've been no reason for Guru Sahib to have accommodated a person, (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Amar Das Ji is beyond human, but for mortal explanations I had to use that word). Once when a Muslim came to Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Hargobind Ji the established rule was no one was allowed to wear a face covering, so she had to take it off.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Singh1989 said:

In langar they sat close to each other and the second Guru said, to the sevadar serving food "Bhai Ji. Serve Baba Amar Das vegetarian items only," then Baba Amar Das was convinced this IS the real deal, the true Guru Sahib.

QUESTION!!! Doesn't this mean meat was being served in langar up to Guru Angad Dev Ji's Guruship?

There are two narratives around the issue of meat in Sikhism: one is that meat is not allowed, period. This is what is preached to the Sangat by, for lack of a better term, Sants and other groups who accept the practice of Naam Simran. The other is that jhatka meat prepared by those in Nihang-Khalsa-shasterdhari maryada is allowed. But such a maryada was not in place before, at the earliest, the 6th Guru Sahib.

As for the practical effects of this sakhi on you, those around you, or your local Gurdwara, I wouldn't worry about it, since either if you're living abroad or in our homeland, 99% of Sikhs are not following Nihang Khalsa shasterdhari maryada.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Sikhs lived in jungles and deserts for decades in the 18th century until sikhs had Khalsa raj under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, you think they would've got bread butter , daal sabji ? 

Or what is more likely ? goat 

 

also non-vegetarian men tend to be stronger in musculature than vegetarian men who're mostly skinny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

also non-vegetarian men tend to be stronger in musculature than vegetarian men who're mostly skinny. 

I know what you are saying but genetics also seems to play a part. I know vegetarian types who are stocky (I don't know if it is because they ate meat previously?), and I've met plenty of meat eaters who are bean pole skinny, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

When Sikhs lived in jungles and deserts for decades in the 18th century until sikhs had Khalsa raj under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, you think they would've got bread butter , daal sabji ? 

Or what is more likely ? goat 

 

also non-vegetarian men tend to be stronger in musculature than vegetarian men who're mostly skinny. 

The poster asked about a sakhi about Guru Amar Das ji. Why are you bringing up jungles and dharam yudhs?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

also non-vegetarian men tend to be stronger in musculature than vegetarian men who're mostly skinny. 

This is true to an extent; however, someone who's carnivorous and doesn't bother to build muscle will be fat, and those who eat only vegetables or even vegans will not build muscle as fast, (but it's more effective than not working out and eating meat). That out of the way we should do whatever we can to preserve Jhatka wherever Sikhs are, or else this Anti-meat groups will be causing our own political collapse, when you compare it to Halal.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

This is true to an extent; however, someone who's carnivorous and doesn't bother to build muscle will be fat, and those who eat only vegetables or even vegans will not build muscle as fast, (but it's more effective than not working out and eating meat). That out of the way we should do whatever we can to preserve Jhatka wherever Sikhs are, or else this Anti-meat groups will be causing our own political collapse, when you compare it to Halal.

wouldn't whey protein shakes enough help to build muscles for a vegan or vegetarian . Lets not forget desi pehlwans are vegetarians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-4-29 at 10:44 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

This is true to an extent; however, someone who's carnivorous and doesn't bother to build muscle will be fat, and those who eat only vegetables or even vegans will not build muscle as fast, (but it's more effective than not working out and eating meat). That out of the way we should do whatever we can to preserve Jhatka wherever Sikhs are, or else this Anti-meat groups will be causing our own political collapse, when you compare it to Halal.

OMG! Halal's EVERYWHERE around here these days. I'd like to make a point clear, though I don't eat meat I would like to state, there is a big gap between halal and any normal meat... a BIG BIG gap. First evidence, ask a muslim if they'd prefer halal or jhatka. Second, during the make of halal process a Muslim will read kalmaa's over the animal... 

Final example, when we take out water from tap the world will call it water. But the SAME water if taken through Nitnem, mixed in patasi and khanda's mixed with it by panj pyaare in the presence of Maharaaj/ Sangat, SANGAT JI... NO SIKHS DARE TO CALL THAT WATER! If certain rituals have turned water into Amrit then certain rituals turn normal animal into halal. 

It'll be a contradiction to say one turns into something special (Amrit) and the other is "Still normal" (Meat) i.e. "It doesn't matter. Meat is meat" because we do not say "I had taken water and got baptised..." 

CORRECT ME IF AM WRONG but this is how I see it. Am saying both rituals (Sorry to use the word rituals it means rasma) both rituals are truth in my eyes. If our prayers can turn water into Amrit then Muslim's prayers hold the power to convert the animal into halal, otherwise would have been just a normal meat/ jhatka. 

Feel free to debate folks... (I'll mention all this in a new topic someday too). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Singh1989 said:

Feel free to debate folks... (I'll mention all this in a new topic someday too). 

I don't know what you are trying to debate Halal or Jhatka, or whether to argue whether meat is ok. But even the most basic Maryada prohibits Halal meat. Also Nihangs read Chandi Di Vaar when doing Jhatka, so is that Halal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

I don't know what you are trying to debate Halal or Jhatka, or whether to argue whether meat is ok. But even the most basic Maryada prohibits Halal meat. Also Nihangs read Chandi Di Vaar when doing Jhatka, so is that Halal?

Ah! No. Am saying halal SHOULD be considered different from jhatka n gave reasons why "Meat is meat" is a complete wrong thing to claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Simple lack of control over the mind.If the mind tells you to do IT you say no and do something else.
    • Ardaas without action is not the solution. Praying for the best outcome whilst doing nothing proactive is madness.
    • I happen to be a statistical nerd so if there are any figures you disagree with that I have quoted above - then mention them and I will justify my figures. Or feel free to offer your statistics in contrast to mine above related to the specific figures I have mentioned and I will tell you why I disagree with you. I will concede that we only have puratan sources to go on regarding my assertion of around 90% of Sikhs being killed in the vadda GhalluGhara 1746-1762. I am also willing to concede that during the Congress Genocide of Sikhs that the percentage of Sikh victims may have been less than 1 in 200 ballpark figure if we extrapolate Shaheed Bhai Jaswant Singh Khalra Ji's figures. Similarly it is possible that in the Pakistani Genocide of Sikhs there may have been more than 20% fatalities. Either way you look at it, in percentage of losses suffered per capita, the Pakistani Genocide of Sikhs was between 50-100 times worse (in percentage terms) than the Congress Genocide of Sikhs between 1984-1995. Thanks  
    • Hey DhadrianWaleZindabad, did you know 97% of stats are made up on the spot? 
    • Ajeet Singh no community should be trusted en masse. Even Sikhs in leadership positions should only be trusted on the basis solely of their actions rather than on the vague basis that they were/are supposedly a Brahmgiani Mahapurkh (eg Mahapurkh Sant Baba Harnam Singh Dhumma Khalsa Bhindranwale or "Faqr-e-Qaum" Badal or Santa or Beanta). Using Lakhpat Rai, Gangu and the various low level employees of the Islamic Mughal Empire is like saying that KPS Gill and General Brar or Punjab Police under Beanta or Badal recently represent the Sikh community. Pawns do the bidding of their more powerful masters. The 1984 Genocide was done in Delhi by a mixture of Hindu's and Muslims. But in the context of Delhi 1984 who physically did the murders is not as crucial as understanding who orchestrated the violence against Sikhs - Congress (Indira) and Rajiv. Interestingly, Damdami Taksal campaigned for Congress (Indira) in the 1980 elections, so we as Sikhs are not without blame for allowing a terrorist like Indira to gain power in 1980. By 1977, 30 years after the Pakistani Genocide of Sikhs in which 20% of our Qaum was killed there (the equivalent of if 6million Sikhs were killed today) most Sikhs had completely forgotten about the Pakistani Genocide of Sikhs and some were more focussed on Indira's pawn Gurbachana. During the Islamic vadda Ghallughara Genocide of Sikhs over 90% of the Sikh population at the time was killed off. During the Congress Genocide of Sikhs up to 1 in 200 of our community's population was murdered by no more than 0.001% to 0.0001% of the Hindu population at the time. Ie 99.99% or 99.999% of Hindu's committed no violence against us. Even the Congress (Indira) supporters at the Rajiv 1984 victory election constituted no more than 15% of the Indian population at the time (which is the maximum extent of the Hindutva minority which currently successfully cons 79% of Indians into falsely thinking that they are Hindu - despite the word "Hindu" being an Arabic word meaning a "black-skinned thief"). So it is highly counterproductive to our own Sikh interests to consider so-called Hindu's in a generalised way as enemies. Rather we should regard the minority of Hindutva supporters as our opponents but regard the general one billion so-called Hindu masses as future sehajdhari Sikhs. They are the biggest and easiest population for Sikhs to expand our numbers (for Sarbat da Bhala) fastest. Realise that the RSS and Hindutva elements are happy when we express generalised hate for Hindu's as they know that keeps their so-called Hindu flock safe from wholescale conversion into sehajdhari Sikhs. The best way to attack Hindutva is to expand the Sikh population by incorporation of erstwhile Hindu's as new Sikhs. If Sikhs are a minority by the 2021 census in Punjab then we will only have ourselves to blame for not reaching out to Hindu Punjabi's and Bihari's in Punjab despite Dashmesh Pita being born in Bihar and most Hindu Punjabi's ancestors attending Gurdwara prior to the terrorist Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Very well said Singh598! 1. True acsap Singh that Santa Niddar Dal Nangs and Damdami Taksal are trying to push their Hindu soch upon ordinary Sikh masses but in Punjab these two so-called jatha's are becoming increasingly irrelevant, People see through them and Dhumma's support of Indira Gandhi in 1980 as well as his murderous attacks on Shaheed Bhai Bhupinder Singh Ji, Bhai Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwale and Bhai Panthpreet Singh Khalsa. 2. Sikhi can NEVER be absorbed by Hinduism! Falsehood (Hinduism) can never absorb the Truth (Sikhi). It is Sikhs who need to absorb our brother peoples in India into Sikhi and liberate them from the lies of Hinduism. All poor and good people in India are fundamentally sehajdhari Sikhs. But if we don't term all Gurdwara attendees as Sikhs and try to restrict the definition of Sikh to as small a population as possible whereas Hindutva strategists do the opposite and include anything with a pulse as being Hindu (for the political power to be gained from falsely terming people as Hindu's) then the fault is ours as Sikhs. But yes I agree with you if we don't include as many people within the Sikh Panth (whereas our enemies strive to include include everyone under the Hindu umbrella) then clearly one method will defeat the other - so we need to strive to include as many non-Punjabi sehajdhari's within the Sikh Panth as possible - as the next Hindutva attack on Sikhs will be to try declare that sehajdhari are non-Sikhs so that Amritdhari Sikhs are reduced to a 3% minority in Punjab (which would be lesser in number than Muslims and Christians in east Punjab) which would be politically impotent in real terms. The puratan definition of a Sikh was anyone who bowed down in matha tek before Guru Sahib.