Outrage!

[sikhsta]

This was posted in the GUPT section, thought it might get more attention here, its a complete outrage! Any suggestions as to what to do about it are welcome!

• Group: Guests

Posted 10 September 2009 - 05:55 AM

Please view http://www.youtube.c...h?v=itwWMr4Ny5c

and explain 1) the beheading

2) The bringing of the head inside the darbar hall

3) The blood ritual? (for lack of a better word)

Regards

[Amrit79]

I seen it.....

It's wrong as hell

Whats talking about it going to do??

[GillAUS]

How is this a 'blood sacrifice'?

The act shown in the video is known as Jhatka. It is part of the tradition within the Hazuri Sikhs of Nanded. It was also part of the traditions of the wider Khalsa (depending on which line of history you subscribe), however this is not the case any more.

No one is compelled to do it, however, such traditions should be respected and whoever so wishes to practice Jhatka should be allowed to do so without prejudice or condemnation against them.

This topic has been discussed a number of times I believe, perhaps do a search so that you may be able to gain a fuller understanding of the Maryada in place at Takht Sri Hazoor Sahib.

Peace.

[Amrit79]

You can say what ever you want .........

But that 100% wrong FULLSTOP.

[Kaur :)]

COMPLETELYY WRONGGG!!!

[khalsa_lioness]

You can say what ever you want .........

But that 100% wrong FULLSTOP.

How about going to Hazoor Sahib, or Holla Maholla and speaking with the Gursikhs who do Jhatka and ask them as to why they do it?

Wudnt this then help you understand things a bit better before declaring it wrong.

[GillAUS]

You can say what ever you want .........

But that 100% wrong FULLSTOP.

But why is it wrong? Some elaboration is necessary for such a forceful statement.

Like the previous user has commented, it would be best to speak to the Gursikhs who practice jhatka face-to-face and then perhaps you can tell them it is wrong, as well as enlighten them with your reasons as to why it is so.

Peace.

[s50]

<h2 align="center"> Jhatka Maas Thath Gurmat Nirnay - Religious Meat

by Bhai Randhir Singh (translated by Bhai Kuldeep Singh) </h2> Nijhak Singh – (getting up from the congregation after eating ‘prashad’-consecrated food-) Hey, brother Gurprasad Singh. Do you eat Mahaaparsaad now and again?

Gurprasad Singh – Getting it would be a good thing! What more consecrated food than meat then? Mahaaparsaad is the real consecrated food. Being a Sikh, what else could one consume.

Nijhak Singh – Great! You are truly on the right track Gurprasad Singh; thinking of mahaa parshaad as a consecrated food. There are plenty of Sikhs who hate even the sight of mahaa parshaad and have nothing to do with it.

Gurprasad Singh – What kind of Sikh is that who hates mahaa parshaad and does not consume it? A great majority of the people consume it.

Nijhak Singh – I thought you hated it also. That is the reason I did not prepare it. Otherwise I would have bought some at the market.

Gurprasad Singh – Oh no! What a mistake you make. What kind of mahaa parshaad is that, which one can get at the market? The true ,mahaa parshaad is the one which a baptised (amrit shakia) Sikh prepares with his own hands. Do you really think that the meat on the market can ever get close to ‘real’ mahaa parshaad?

Nijhak Singh – Yes, you are completely right. The real Mahaaparsaad is one which a Sikh prepares with his own hands.

Gurprasad Singh – So that means you’ve been consuming fake Mahaaparsaad, which you’ve been buying at the market.

Nijhak Singh – No, No. I prepare it at home, having bought it from the Mahaaparsaad shops which Sikhs have opened in the market.

Gurprasad Singh – When it is readily available at Sikh shops, why do you prepare it at home?

Nijhak Singh – One only gets it raw from the shop, and has to prepare it at home.

Gurprasad Singh – Ahh, that means you are calling meat Mahaaparsaad, which is a big mistake. True Mahaaparsaad should be given charitably, and consumed briskly. Mahaaparsaad is the consecrated food which superior to all others. Like ‘krahh’ (consecrated food) from God’s house, which is referred to using respectable, well-known names. In the same way, meat demands the same respect. You meat-eaters have made out meat as Mahaaparsaad. That’s just an act to fulfill you desire to eat meat. Within religion, ‘krahh’ is referred to as a consecrated food, as in this verse by Bhai Gurdaas ji –

Awix mhw prswdu vMif KuAwieAw ]

They bring sacred food (maha parshad), distribute it among others and eat.

You have called any raw or cooked meat ‘Mahaaparsaad. You meat eaters buy the meat prepared at the market, or bring it home and prepare it. Which ever way you look at it, you will always remain eaters of meat, not Mahaaparsaad.

Nijhak Singh – (a little angrily) I don’t eat regular meat from the market.

Gurprasad Singh – You eat a special meat from the market? Which meat is that?

Nijhak Singh – What do you mean, ‘which meat is that?’. Jhuttka, of course.

Gurprasad Singh – This jhuttka of yours, is it readily available from shops?

Nijhak Singh – Yes. I consume jhuttka. Whether I buy it at the market or whether I perform the task at home. I will accept that calling meat a consecrated food is perhaps a mistake, but you cannot deny the fact that it is acceptable for Sikhs to eat jhuttka and that the practice is wide-spread.

Gurprasad Singh – Well, the fact that many Sikhs consume jhuttka is not real proof that it is religiously acceptable. As in the case of many Muslims drinking alcohol, it does not prove that it is acceptable for them to drink it.

Nijhak Singh – Perhaps drinking alcohol is prohibited for Muslims but, the eating of halal isn’t. Therefore, it is acceptable for Sikhs to eat jhuttka.

Gurprasad Singh – You have adopted jhuttka in competition to the halal of Muslims, do you have no other proof for eating it?

Nijhak Singh – Yes. I don’t want to eat halal meat.

Gurprasad Singh – Then what, do you want to eat haraam? (something that is forbidden)

Nijhak Singh – Halal meat is haraam for us.

Gurprasad Singh – Is eating haraam, the same as halal to you?

Nijhak Singh – When eating halal is haraam, then haraam meat automatically becomes haraam. Haraam meat is even more haraam.

Gurprasad Singh – Halal and haraam are both haraam! So then, you do not distinguish between the two.

Nijhak Singh – The distinction is that I see the halal of the Muslims as haraam..... (then he stopped unexpectedly)

Gurprasad Singh – Are all other meats halal then? Then do you only oppose the Muslim word of ‘halal’? On first reflection this word seems fine, and so does the reasoning behind it. But you have an intolerance for this word because it is about the meat of the Muslims. What if a Hindu or a Christian were to use this word, would you have any objections to it then?

Nijhak Singh – But Hindus don’t practice halal and nor do they eat it.

Gurprasad Singh – Then what do they practice, haraam? Yes, they eat haraam.

Nijhak Singh – What I mean is, that they do not practice halal like the Muslims do and nor do they eat it.

Gurprasad Singh – Then what is it that they do? How do they eat meat?

Nijhak Singh – I’ve heard that they practice jhuttka, and jhuttka is all they eat.

Gurprasad Singh – So, this means that the word ‘jhuttka’ belongs to the Hindus, and it is them who started this trend. You have heard that Hindus eat only jhuttka but, I have seen otherwise; what comes before them, they eat. Have you seen Hindus buying raw meat at Muslim shops in order to take home and prepare it.

Nijhak Singh – Have you seen them eating it?

Gurprasad Singh – Even if I haven’t actually seen them eating it, I have seen them buying it. I doubt that they buy it just to look at it. It’s not as if I have been sat on their table eating with them! I perceive that they are not convinced by jhuttka.

Nijhak Singh – Orthodox Hindus only advocate jhuttka.

Gurprasad Singh – Could it not be that with Sikhs, there are few ‘orthodox’ Sikhs like you who are advocates of jhuttka?

Nijhak Singh – Yes, yes. That you have guessed correctly.

Gurprasad Singh – What about the rest, do they eat meat?

Nijhak Singh – I don’t know about that. But what I do know is that no Sikh would eat any meat other than jhuttka. I do not eat any other meat than jhuttka.

Gurprasad Singh – Have you learned to become ‘orthodox’ from the Hindus? Are you sure that you haven’t just started to eat jhuttka because the Hindus eat it?

Nijhak Singh – Why because of the Hindus? Jhuttka is a food of Sikhs.

Gurprasad Singh – Then the Hindus copied the Sikhs. They copied the Sikhs and began to practice and consume jhuttka?

Nijhak Singh – That I do not know.

(a Hindu businessman, who until now had listened in silence, spoke up)

Hindu Businessman – The Hindus have been practising jhuttka for centuries, even before the Sikh panth was formed. The Sikhs have copied the Hindus, not the other way around. The ‘jhuttka’ is of the Hindus. The Sikhs took this word from the Hindus and adopted the practice of jhuttka, like the Hindus.

Gurprasad Singh – That is right. The Sikhs probably did copy the Hindus, as they had practised jhuttka long before that.

Nijhak Singh – What proof do you have of this?

Gurprasad Singh – The writings of Kabir sahib which are not in the Guru Granth Sahib, which were writing before the Gurbani, state the following about the Hindus and the Muslims-

“aun ibsml aun Jtkw kInw dieAw dohW qy BwgI ]”

(the Muslim calls his ritual “Bismal” and the Hindu calls it “Jhattka” but compassion has left both of them).

Kabir sahib has criticised the bismal (halal) of the Muslims and the jhuttka of the Hindus and has said that both practices are cruel. From this it is clear that the trend of jhuttka was started by the Hindus and was then copied by the Sikhs.

Nijhak Singh – (a little angrily) How have we copied them? Jhuttka is the food of the Sikhs. The Hindus don’t even know how to perform jhuttka.

Gurprasad Singh – By your thinking, only Sikhs know how to perform jhuttka and no one else does. But before you accepted and admitted that Hindus practice and consume jhuttka. Do you actually establish anything you say? I don’t see anything great about eating jhuttka and nor do I see anything belittling in eating it. I have only given the words of Kabir sahib and established that jhuttka is the practice of the Hindus which was widely criticised.

Nijhak Singh – Yeah, Kabir sahib may have criticised the practice of the Hindus, but not of the Sikhs.

Gurprasad Singh – What, is the Sikh practice of jhuttka different from the practice of the Hindus?

Nijhak Singh – When Kabir sahib wrote those words, Sikhs did not even exist.

Gurprasad Singh – Then that establishes that jhuttka is the practice of Hindus, and not of the Sikhs.

Nijhak Singh – Yeah, but Kabir sahib criticised the Hindus and not the Sikhs.

Gurprasad Singh – The criticism was of jhuttka, and not of Hindus. Whether Sikhs existed at that time or not, whether the exponents of jhuttka were from the past or the future, whether they were Hindu or Sikh, the criticism of Kabir sahib applied to all. The verse is –

prQwie swKI mhw purK boldy swJI sgl jhwnY ] Great men speak the teachings by relating them to individual situations, but the whole world shares in them.

Nijhak Singh – It isn’t as if this verse of Kabir sahib is a verse from the Gurbani. You yourself have said that the verse is not from the Guru Granth Sahib. The effect of this verse cannot fall upon Sikhs.

Gurprasad Singh – I myself will state that this verse was addressed to the Hindus. However, the truth behind the verse, falls upon each and every person. The least I can understand from this verse is that jhuttka is not an invention of the Sikhs.

Nijhak Singh – But there is no criticism of jhuttka anywhere in the Gurbani.

Gurprasad Singh – Even if it is not condemned, it certainly is not supported. The fact that there is no support for jhuttka, shows that this trend has been taken from the Hindus.

Nijhak Singh – Is there really no support for it in the Gurbani?

Gurprasad Singh – How could there be support for it, the word ‘jhuttka’ doesn’t even appear in the Gurbani. Practising jhuttka or consuming it is not endorsed anywhere in the Gurbani.

Nijhak Singh – That’s amazing! Even the word ‘jhuttka’ doesn’t appear in the Gurbani. Let me think. Yes, does the ‘foolish squabbles over meat’ verse from the Gurbani not support jhuttka?

Gurprasad Singh – You tell me, are you a meat-eater or a jhuttka-eater?

Nijhak Singh – I’m a follower of jhuttka.

Gurprasad Singh – Then, there is no kind of endorsement for jhuttka in any of the verses of the Gurbani. The verse you have stated, does not even refer to jhuttka but only to foolish squabbles over meat.

Nijhak Singh – Yeah but it does endorse eating meat, no?

Gurprasad Singh – Not in the slightest. But even if there was, that shouldn’t benefit you. You are a follower of jhuttka, or perhaps you eat all kinds of meat?

Nijhak Singh – Yeah, but jhuttka is meat.

Gurprasad Singh – Jhuttka is meat, as is halal. If that verse is to been seen as an endorsement for meat, then it endorses both halal and jhuttka. That testimony in no way authenticates this jhuttka of yours. As in the verse, if you wish to argue like a fool over this matter you can but, there is no room for jhuttka in the Gurbani.

Nijhak Singh – In the history of our religion, there are many references to jhuttka.

Gurprasad Singh – Well tell me then, exactly where are these references to jhuttka. Have you actually read this history, or are you just trying to pull a fast one. You will not find any reference to the preparation, or eating, of jhuttka anywhere in historical religious texts.

Nijhak Singh – Of course one can find them! Look in the history and you will see that, at the time of initiating the Panj Piarey, Guru Gobind Singh ji slaughtered five goats by practising jhuttka.

Gurprasad Singh – The truth is that Guru Gobind Singh ji did no such thing. Those historians who have recorded that serve to an agenda of their own, which is contrary to the Guru’s. The Guru had no need whatsoever to perform jhuttka on goats. Guru Gobind Singh ji, ruler of the universe, was not a person who did one thing and showed another. Whatever he said, he did. In a full congregation he said ‘I need one head. Come, one beloved of God give me your head.’ To say that He asked for someone’s head and then used a goat instead, is quite a ridiculous suggestion. This would really be an act of deception. Any historian who casts that image of Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji, is completely incompetent. Believing in such a deception

is left to Sikhs who live in their own strange little world.

Nijhak Singh – Well what are your thoughts, if Guru Gobind Singh ji didn’t kill the goats, what else did he do?

Gurprasad Singh – It’s not just a thought but, a solid belief of mine that instead of taking the heads of goats, he took the heads of the Panj Piarey and after taking them, He resuscitated all five of them as a way of showing his wondrous miracles.

Nijhak Singh – This miracle was then shown as wrath, why did the Guru need to show it then?

Gurprasad Singh – Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji did not show the miracle, he kept it hidden. Not everyone was made aware of the fact that the heads of the Panj Piarey were removed, and that the five were then resuscitated.

Nijhak Singh – But, this removing of the heads and then resuscitating of the Panj Piarey is only one miracle. Are there other examples of these miracles within religious history?

Gurprasad Singh – Everyone in the Panth knows about the story of Saman and Moosan, as it he is mentioned in the Gurbani. For the sake of benevolence, Moosan had his head removed from his body. His father, believing in the permanence of the Guru’s will, kept the head and the body as an offering, placed it in his chamber and went to serve at the temple. When the ruling Guru failed to see Moosan serving the congregation as usual, he asked where he was. His father, Saman, pleaded that his son was asleep in his chamber. The Guru then said, ‘go and wake him’, to which Saman relied, ‘my lord I am not capable of waking him, only you are’. Upon hearing this, Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji with all his miraculous powers resuscitated Moosan. When night came, the proof of this miracle was shown to all. This account is famous within the Panth.

Nijhak Singh – So, someone just made up that nonsensical story about jhuttka being performed on the five goats?

Gurprasad Singh – Yes, certainly. Nonsense. One stupid historian made it up and then a few more jumped on the band wagon. The Sikhs like you began to believe it as the truth.

Nijhak Singh – Yeah, but if one believes the story, then it gives permission perform jhuttka on goats.

Gurprasad Singh – Please do one thing, on the strength of this nonsensical story, do not think that it gives permission to prepare meat or perform jhuttka.

Nijhak Singh – I suppose you’re right there.

Gurprasad Singh – Bear in mind another thing; even if the goats had been slaughtered, it wasn’t done so that they could be consumed. No historical reference can state such a thing.

Nijhak Singh – Yes, that point of yours is completely right. But there are quite a few historical references to Sri Guru Gobind Singh performing jhuttka, eating and serving it, licking the bones clean and then throwing them in the yard of the Kaazi (interpreter of Muslim law). This happened in Machivaar.

Gurprasad Singh – This story is completely fabricated. One historians account does not match the account of another. Even from the tales told by the old folk in Machivaar, which have been passed down over centuries, one cannot find any link to what you have said. There have been many corrupt historians who also stated that the Guru allowed his Sikhs to eat halal meat of the Muslims. One cannot even conceive the thought.

Nijhak Singh – Yes but this account appears in historical records. The Guru permitted it, and the Sikhs followed what the Guru had said and began to eat.

Gurprasad Singh – Yes, but what did they eat! Tell me that. All historians write that when then followed the order and sat down to eat, they produced krahh and other consecrated food, which they ate plenty of. They consumed consecrated food, not meat.

Nijhak Singh – This account is contradictory.

Gurprasad Singh –Believing one part of the account to be true but dismissing another accompanying part, calling it contradictory. What kind of historical referencing is that? If you believe on part to be true, believe the other also. Otherwise, both parts are contradictory, and neither is the truth.

Nijhak Singh – Yes, doing such a thing would be unjust. I suppose historians write whatever comes into their minds.

Gurprasad Singh – Not only that, but they write things of interest to them. They then hide their deficiencies under such veils. Those historians who are fond of consuming opium, make up a little story about the Guru consuming opium. Those historians who are fond of cannabis, falsely record a tale about the Guru using cannabis and then announce it at the top of their voices. In the same way, historians who were fond of meat, probably threw in a few tales to serve their own interests.

Nijhak Singh – I’ve never seen any historical reference to the Guru consuming opium.

Gurprasad Singh – Then you haven’t been thorough enough in your historical research. These historians are the ones who consume opium but, they pass it off as the Guru. Can you believe that the Guru would consume opium?

Nijhak Singh – Do you have any evidence to support what you say?

Gurprasad Singh – Again, I’ll offer you evidence. Do you know the scholar Gian Singh, who wrote many books on religious history of the Sikhs?

Nijhak Singh – Yes, of course, everyone knows him. I’ve heard his name but I don’t know him in person.

Gurprasad Singh – I’ve seen him completely laid out.

Nijhak Singh – Nothing has been laid out yet! So what?

Gurprasad Singh – Not only laid out, but completely off his head from using opium.

I’d only gone to visit him by chance really. I didn’t even know he used opium. I had heard that he lived in a small house in Moti Bagh, in Pattiala. I was still rather naive but I had a great interest in religion. In those day, a friend of mine from our village, Joginder Singh, was the finance officer for the region and had an office in Moti Bagh. I went to visit him one. I asked him if he could introduce me to Gian Singh. I will go with you he said happily. It was early in the morning when we arrived at Gian Singh’s house. Just by chance, he had a large ball of opium in his hand. At that point we went in. He greeted us warmly. He has very elderly. Even his eyebrows were completely white. He was just about to put the ball of opium into his mouth when I took hold of his arm and said that I would only let him consume it if he truthfully answered a question. He didn’t mind at all, and said, ‘yes sire, ask whatever you like. I will have the opium once I have answered your question. I said, remember you are in view of God when you answer. The historical accounts that you wrote about Guru Gobind Singh ji consuming opium, were they written as a way of concealing this addiction of yours?

Bearing in mind what I had said to him, he answer truthfully and said that I had guessed correctly. Why did I make it up? Well you know us historians, we don’t hesitate to agree with other historians. Why do you make up false accounts or simply agree with other historians? I said. When you come before God, will you not be a sinner? It is sad that you yourself are addicted to opium, but it is even sadder that, by recording your false history, you are making others addicted also. Do you not think that other see your writings and use them as an excuse to use opium? What bigger sin is there than making Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji into a user of opium? It would be for the best if you stopped using opium and you removed the lies you have told from the next edition of your publication. If you do not, then I will have no other choice than to go to all the newspapers with connection to the Panth and tell them what I have seen and heard here today. At that point, Gian Singh promised that he would correct his mistakes and would begin to reduce his consumption of opium day by day.

The result of it all was that in his next edition Gian Singh completely removed the material on opium. I don’t know if he actually stopped consuming opium, as I hadn’t seem him since. A short while after we met, he passed away.

Nijhak Singh – Nice! That was a good thing. But he never removed his material on jhuttka meat?

Gurprasad Singh – I never had the opportunity to discuss the subject with him.

Nijhak Singh – But surely he ate it.

Gurprasad Singh – Anything's possible with opium addicts! The reason why I told you of that little encounter was to show you that historians, in order to serve their own purpose, write that the Guru used opium. In the same way, jhuttka-eating historians have added the verses on jhuttka to their texts. I will only believe the historian who writes with reference to the Gurbani.

Nijhak Singh – Does not even a trace of jhuttka appear in the Gurbani?

Gurprasad Singh – Certainly not. If there is, you show me where?

Nijhak Singh – There are references to meat in the Gurbani.

Gurprasad Singh – Yes, but you are an eater of jhuttka, or is it all kinds of meat?

Nijhak Singh – No, I don’t eat all meat, I only eat jhuttka. All jhuttka-eating Sikhs should eat jhuttka alone, and no other meats.

Gurprasad Singh – Then your and other jhuttka eaters’ claim to eat jhuttka is dismissed, as you have not been able to find any support for eating it in the Gurbani. If there is, then please tell me?

Nijhak Singh – No. There isn’t any support. I do not have any doubts in accepting that.

But my friend, I have remembered another thing. When a Sikh is about to become amrit shakia, and is made aware of the codes of conduct, a considerable portion of that is taken up by kuttha. It is clear that the kuttha verse is used as a substitute for jhuttka. Prohibition is of kuttha, and not jhuttka.

Gurprasad Singh – Have you made this up yourself?

Nijhak Singh – Why? What do you mean I made it up. You tell me whether kuttha is mentioned in the codes of conduct or not?

Gurprasad Singh – Yes, it is. So what?

Nijhak Singh – Do you accept that this use of kuttha has been going on since our Tenth Guru?

Gurprasad Singh – Yes I do accept that. So what?

Nijhak Singh – Then it is clear that jhuttka is accepted in our religion.

Gurprasad Singh – How do you manage that? Jhuttka isn’t even mentioned, only kuttha is mentioned in the codes of conduct.

Nijhak Singh – The opposite of kuttha, is jhuttka. If kuttha is banned, then it is clear that jhuttka isn’t.

Gurprasad Singh – So, according to your way of thinking, if it is acceptable to consume jhuttka then it is also acceptable to consume kuttha?

Nijhak Singh – Yes, that’s right. Look, Muslims eat kuttha.

Gurprasad Singh – Do they eat it because, in their minds, eating jhuttka is not acceptable? Is there something in their minds against jhuttka, that makes them eat kuttha?

Nijhak Singh – Perhaps not, but they view eating jhuttka as shameful.

Gurprasad Singh – What is the reasoning behind you thinking that they find jhuttka shameful and kuttha not?

Nijhak Singh – They eat kuttha, and they don’t eat jhuttka. That is reason enough.

Gurprasad Singh – Who says that they eat kuttha? The meat that they eat, they have named halal, not kuttha. Halal is a permitted within their religion. If we go along with your way of thinking, that freedom to eat halal was granted as competition to jhuttka, then this verse on jhuttka would have been for Hindus and not Sikhs. This is because at the time the Muslim religion was conceived, it would have been Hindus who practised jhuttka. The people of the Khalsa were not even present at that time.

Nijhak Singh – OK, that point is clear. That the jhuttka verse is of the Hindus and that halal wasn’t given acceptance because of competition from the Sikh’s jhuttka verse.

Gurprasad Singh – The jhuttka verse is not of the Sikhs, it is of the Hindus. Do you think of one jhuttka for Hindus and one for Sikhs? If that is what you think, then it will become clear that in practising jhuttka, the Sikhs have copied the Hindus and not established jhuttka as competition for the halal of Muslims. Kuttha isn’t even of the Muslims. They call their meat halal. You have stuck this word ‘Kutthaa into their interpretation of halal.

Nijhak Singh – Then why is the verse on kuttha still being used in the code of conduct amrit shakna takes place? Even you admit that it is in the code of conduct.

Gurprasad Singh – But I do not accept that the word ‘Kutthaa is used instead of the word ‘halal’. Nor do I accept that kuttha was used in the codes of conduct as a reaction to the halal meat of the Muslims. I am also not ready to accept that the word ‘jhuttka’ has become acceptable amongst Sikhs as result of Hindus permitting jhuttka. The Khalsa Panth has its own principles and is different from other groups of peoples.

Nijhak Singh – You don’t accept any of my arguments. But tell me one thing; why is the word ‘Kutthaa used what amrit shakna takes place? Up until now, I was always under the impression that kuttha was a reference to halal. So halal musn’t be eaten.

Gurprasad Singh – In which dictionary do you find that kuttha and halal have the same meanings?

Nijhak Singh – That I do not know.

Gurprasad Singh – If you can show me an example where the two terms have the same meaning, I will be humbled by you.

Nijhak Singh – But I cannot establish that.

Gurprasad Singh – You cannot establish that eating jhuttka is permitted in our religion, you cannot establish from either a Muslim dictionary or other, that the meanings of the the words ‘Kutthaa and ‘halal’ are the same and nor can you find a trace of the word ‘jhuttka’ within the Gurbani. What have you got to whinge about? If people want to persist in eating meat then what else can stop them. Think about it, have you actually presented any evidence?

Nijhak Singh – According to you, what is the meaning of kuttha?

Gurprasad Singh – According to dictionaries, the meaning of the the word kuttha is: that meat which is derived from killing an animal. That means the killing of animals in any way possible. That is the true meaning derived from various dictionaries. So when an animal is killed, the meat that one obtains, is kuttha. The word kuttha doesn’t refer only to the halal meat of the Muslims. Halal meat is the meat which is derived by slicing the throat of the animal and reading Muslims religious verses when preparing it. Kuttha isn’t merely the same as halal. In a way kuttha does cover halal, as the animal has been killed. The word ‘Kutthaa comes from the Hindi language, and not the language of the Muslims.

Nijhak Singh – From this it has been established that the word ‘Kutthaa covers the meat of the Hindus and of the Muslims as both kill the animal. But it doesn’t cover jhuttka, so that makes it acceptable.

Gurprasad Singh – What, when you perform jhuttka do you not kill the animal? The underlying principle is that the animal is killed. So that meat which is derived from the killing of animals, is kuttha.

Nijhak Singh – Jhuttka is meat with is derived by performing a single stroke.

Gurprasad Singh – Is the killing of the animal not involved in that single stroke?

Nijhak Singh – Yes, it does involve killing. But jhuttka isn’t the same as killing.

Gurprasad Singh – Why, what is the difference?

Nijhak Singh – The act of the stroke is the wielding of a weapon, this way, jhuttka meat is derived from the weapon.

Gurprasad Singh – Does the weapon operate by itself when you rest it against the animal?

Nijhak Singh – No. Only by striking the weapon firmly is the animal slaughtered.

Gurprasad Singh – Whether it is one stroke or whether it is many, the animal suffers greatly. The Guru states that to do harm to animals is a very cruel act.

Nijhak Singh – But there is great cruelty when the Muslims prepare their halal.

Gurprasad Singh – That is because they wield the knife very very slowly.

Nijhak Singh – Yes, they do it with great suffering.

Gurprasad Singh – Not in a great hurry.

Nijhak Singh – What I mean to say is that the single stroke doesn’t cause so much suffering. Very little in fact.

Gurprasad Singh – But there is a great crime. A crime in being forceful. The killing with great force is awful.

Nijhak Singh – Yes, but to kill with a little force takes a long time and causes a lot of suffering to the animal.

Gurprasad Singh – The Guru’s ‘Bani states that ‘using force is a crime’, should we accept what you say or what the Guru says? The truth of the matter is that whether you kill an animal slowly and painfully or quickly with force, both use force and both are considered a crime. The butchers who slaughter the animal have no compassion whatsoever. They are only fulfilling their greed by eating and selling the meat. The words ‘jhuttka’ and ‘halal’ have been conceived as an excuse to eat meat. According to religious writings, only those who have been consumed by their own greed eat meat and kill animals. They buy their meat meat from butchers and practisers of jhuttka and consume it. Those who consume it openly proclaim that they eat jhuttka but they have never even performed jhuttka in their lives! They probably haven’t even seen it performed, let alone done it themselves. They don’t even possess a sword, though even if they do, it’s so blunt that it couldn’t even cut through paper.

Nijhak Singh – That’s a pointless argument. I think jhuttka has to be performed by one’s own hands in order to merit the name, and has to be done with a single stroke.

Gurprasad Singh – Well done! But let me remind you of one thing; normal Sikhs who claim to eat jhuttka, buy ‘jhuttka’ meat from the shops and in reality, are eating regular carcass meat.

Nijhak Singh – That’s true, that meat on which one does not perform jhuttka, is regular carcass meat. A lion (Singh) never eats meat which is already dead, only meat which it has killed itself.

Gurprasad Singh – But meat-eating Sikhs (Singhs) say that so long as another Singh has performed the practice of jhuttka, there is no harm in eating the meat. The meat is still jhuttka meat, no matter which Singh performs the practice of jhuttka. The ones who kill the animal themselves will be few and far between; I have never seen one. Do you eat your own kills, and do you use a single stroke? What if a goat shouldn’t die with one stroke, do you then hit it with another?

Nijhak Singh – That would be normal meat, not jhuttka. If you ask of me, I have never eaten jhuttka before in my life nor have I performed it.

Gurprasad Singh – So you eat carcass meat then?

Nijhak Singh – No, No. Up to this day, I have never eaten meat.

Gurprasad Singh – What, are you just messing around with my head for nothing?

Nijhak Singh – I touched upon this topic so we could discuss it. I have never eaten any kind of meat. But one thing that I believe strongly in is that he who does not perform jhuttka himself is, in reality, eating regular carcass meat. How can one actually believe that the shop keepers actually perform the jhuttka or not. Their aim is only to make money from selling it. Up to know, I hold the belief that one should not eat meat unless the practice is perform by oneself, and even then, it must be with one stroke.

Gurprasad Singh – But I wish you would show me someone who does. Brother Nijhak Singh, someone who hasn’t performed jhuttka, has never wielded a sword, how are they going to perform jhuttka with a single stroke?

Nijhak Singh – That is impossible. Swordsman of such ability are few and far between.

Gurprasad Singh – Those who perform jhuttka on goats, tie their limbs before doing so. Is that not a crime, is that not force? To perform such an act upon an animal, is that bravery?

It’s just to fulfill the desire to eat meat.

Nijhak Singh – The Guru also used to hunted blood-thirsty animals.

Gurprasad Singh – Keeping animals from inflicting their thirst of blood on others is not even an excuse to eat meat. The Guru’s use of weapons was done out of preserving faith, protecting the troubled and weak, fighting oppression and protecting himself, and not for any other reason.

Nijhak Singh – But sire, it is well known that Sri Guru Gobind Singh hunted animals.

Gurprasad Singh – From the esteemed ‘Bani of the Tenth Guru, it is clear that he only hunted evil, blood-thirsty animals. He never hunted the animals to inflict suffering, to make them extinct nor to eat them. There aren’t any sources which can establish that the Guru prepared meat. The proof of this is that the free food (langar) which is served at Sri Hazoor Sahib, never includes meat. The stupid Hindu customs which have been adopted by many Sikhs at Sri Hazoor Sahib are due to them following unsuitable sources.

Nijhak Singh – But I have heard that in many places of Sikh pilgrimage, jhuttka is performed on a goat and a ‘ticka’ of blood is applied to weapons.

Gurprasad Singh – This is another one of those customs that corrupt, Hindu-minded historians have introduced. These very same people also claim the the Guru made it acceptable to worship Hindu deities. In general, the esteemed teachings of the Gurbani and Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji criticise worshipping Hindu deities. But one thing is true, that the Guru did preach about Sri Sahib and for the cause of religion, displayed the shoulder-belts of Sri Sahib. He has also talked of blessing weapons, but never said anything of putting a ‘ticka’ of blood on them. All these things are superstitions, which are slowly but surely, working their way into our everyday lives.

Nijhak Singh – But I know sources which clearly state that the Guru worshipped the Devi (Hindu Goddess).

Gurprasad Singh – I’m familiar with that source, and know that it is put together by false members of the Panth. It has been clearly stated in the Gurbani that this reference has been written into history by Hindu Brahmins, and since that time, no one has removed it, as in the case of the Raag Mala (which was introduced into the Guru Granth Sahib and not taken out).

It is well known that, during the writing of that reference, Maharaja Fareedkot employed a few Brahmin pandits to help Santokh Singh compile it. It is possible that one of these pandits took the opportunity to force a piece of his own thinking into our history.

Nijhak Singh – That is fine by me, but there are some references that keep popping up, time and time again. If they appeared now and again, then one could accept that they had been introduced falsely. The regular appearance of such references can give the impression that, the acts that are mention, are acceptable. For instance, the Tenth Guru kept a hawk (baaj) which killed other birds, and for him keeping this hawk, he was called ‘baajan vala’.

Gurprasad Singh – If it has been written that Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji’s hawk killed other birds, it has also been written that he had little birds kill the hawk too. It has been well documented that the Guru carried out this act as a way of judgement and of setting them into the cycle of reincarnation, not to eat them. The animal that may have been killed is, in fact, meat. But it cannot be seen as jhuttka. There is no benefit to supporters of jhuttka from this reference.

Nijhak Singh – Fair enough, it has been established that the meat which was killed by the hawk, is not jhuttka. But should the Guru have used his weapons to kill an animal, surely that could be termed as jhuttka? He must have performed the hunting for the interest of meat-eaters, so there can be no objections if this meat is called jhuttka as the Guru was used to killing the animals with a single stroke; one aim, one shot and the animal would be dead.

Gurprasad Singh – In the first place, no source has ever established that the Guru hunted animals for the sake of hunting, let alone for the interest of meat-eaters.

Nijhak Singh – It has been recorded in history that Guru Nakak ji prepared the meat of a dear that had been hunted as the sun was setting.

Gurprasad Singh – It is established that he ordered the preparation of it, but not the serving and the eating of it. Nor is it proven that Guru Nanak hunted the animal himself.

Nijhak Singh – It is said that the son of the Raja hunted the animal.

Gurprasad Singh – Can this action be called jhuttka then? In your own words jhuttka is that meat which is prepared by other Sikhs or is prepared by the Sikh himself. In that case, an animal hunted by the Raja’s son cannot be called jhuttka. It is a strict criteria that the animal be killed with one stroke. We don’t know how many strokes the Raja’s son took, and it is normal for an animal who has been hit to die slowly and painfully. Again, this does not fit the criteria for jhuttka.

Nijhak Singh – Yes, you are not wrong but, why did Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji prepare the dear meat?

Gurprasad Singh – You should be asking that question to those historians who have recorded such a thing. The historians also state that Guru Nanak did not prepare or serve the food; Raj Kumar did. But do you know what the historians say was served?

Nijhak Singh – Yes, the historians say that when it came to the serving, it turned out to be rice.

Gurprasad Singh – That doesn’t establish the preparation and serving of meat. If the Guru had been a supporter of meat, then he would have served meat and let people eat meat.

Nijhak Singh – Yes, that does all make sense.

Gurprasad Singh – In any case, it cannot be established that the Guru supported the eating of meat. Like it cannot be established that, in the story of the Ganga festival, when throwing water towards the west, instead of the east, he was a believer in ancestor worship.

Nijhak Singh – Who throws water to the west? The Hindus don’t do it.

Gurprasad Singh – Then you should ask, who prepares meat when the sun is setting? The Hindus don’t prepare anything. From both stories, it is clear that the Guru did what he did as a way of enlightening those who had gathered around.

Nijhak Singh – But that kind of enlightenment sides with eating meat.

Gurprasad Singh – Is it on the side of eating jhuttka?

Nijhak Singh – That it isn’t but, it is on the side of eating meat.

Gurprasad Singh – Then, those who eat meat should use this story, not jhuttka eaters.

Nijhak Singh – (with a smile) For a few minutes, think of me as a meat-eater.

Gurprasad Singh – Why, do you want to start eating meat or are you doing this for the sake of the discussion?

Nijhak Singh – No, no. Only for the discussion.

Gurprasad Singh – What do you get from such a discussion? Do you want to resolve an argument with someone?

Nijhak Singh – No sir, I only want to see if this discussion can clear up whether meat is permitted or not.

Gurprasad Singh – To this point, you know that it has been established jhuttka is not permitted.

Nijhak Singh – Yes, it looks that way.

Gurprasad Singh – Do you see in the Guru’s words, which states that the eating of meat is permitted?

Nijhak Singh – I have that suspicion. I would appreciate it if you would rid me of that suspicion. If eating meat is established, then people with find a way of eating jhuttka too.

Gurprasad Singh – What gives you the impression that eating meat is permitted. Please tell me.

Nijhak Singh – Nothing in particular, not that I can recall anyway.

Gurprasad Singh – OK, I will explain things further. But first, let me say that the eating of meat is only one aspect of religious devotion; it isn’t the be-all and end-all of it. As in the case of followers adopting the task of washing as a religion, the act of denouncing meat alone, does not make a person a devotee of God. Nor does hating the word ‘meat’, or proclaiming one’s hate for meat in public. Our religion is multi-faceted. I’m sure you understand what I mean.

Nijhak Singh – Yes, I understand.

Gurprasad Singh – Now lets take a closer look at this matter and see if meat is permitted or not.

Nijhak Singh – Start from the beginning, I can’t remember it too well.

Gurprasad Singh – OK, we will go over every line.

First line

pihlW mwshu inMimAw mwsY AMdir vwsu ]

First, the mortal is conceived in the flesh, and then he dwells in the flesh.

Does this line establish that we should eat meat? Is there permission to eat meat?

Nijhak Singh – No, permission cannot be assumed from this line.

Gurprasad Singh – Here’s the second line then-

jIau pwie mwsu muih imilAw hfu cMmu qnu mwsu ]

When he comes alive, his mouth takes flesh; his bones, skin and body are flesh.

Does this line establish that we should eat meat?

Nijhak Singh – No instruction exists to eat meat, so therefore, it cannot be established.

Gurprasad Singh – Take a closer look. Make sure you haven’t missed anything, otherwise all kinds of meat will have to be made acceptable.

Nijhak Singh – No, no. Nothing establishes the fact.

Gurprasad Singh – Fair enough, the next line then –

mwshu bwhir kiFAw mMmw mwsu igrwsu ]

He comes out of the womb of flesh, and takes a mouthful of flesh at the breast.

Can you see anything in this 3rd line?

Nijhak Singh – No, nothing so far. Yes it is clear from what you have presented that one should not hate the word ‘meat’, and that one should not fall prey to meat.

Gurprasad Singh – The word ‘meat’ or the eating of meat?

Nijhak Singh – From these lines, only the hate of the word ‘meat’ has been criticised and has been established. It is clear that if people had the instinct to eat meat, then they would try to eat the breast of the mother that feeds them. The child only drinks milk from the breast, like it is holy.

Gurprasad Singh – The next part is this –

muhu mwsY kw jIB mwsY kI mwsY AMdir swsu ]

His mouth is flesh, his tongue is flesh; his breath is in the flesh.

Now tell me, is there anything in this line that is pro-meat? If there is, then you will have to eat the tongue, face, stomach, everything, of a human as they are all meat.

Nijhak Singh – No, not even from this verse can one stablish permission to eat meat.

Gurprasad Singh – Here’s the fifth line –

vfw hoAw vIAwihAw Gir lY AwieAw mwsu ]

He grows up and is married, and brings his wife of flesh into his home.

Do you see anything of note from this line?

Nijhak Singh – Certainly not. The child grows and brings home a woman to start a life together, not to eat her.

Gurprasad Singh – Here’s the sixth line –

mwshu hI mwsu aUpjY mwshu sBo swku ]

Flesh is produced from flesh; all relatives are made of flesh.

Here the nutrients for a child to survive are mentioned and doesn’t establish that eating meat is acceptable.

Nijhak Singh – That is true.

Gurprasad Singh – The seventh and the eighth lines are

siqguir imilAY hukmu buJIAY qW ko AwvY rwis ]

When the mortal meets the True Guru, and realizes the Hukam of the Lord's Command, then he comes to be reformed.

Awip Cuty nh CUtIAY nwnk bcin ibxwsu ]1]

Releasing himself, the mortal does not find release; O Nanak, through empty words, one is ruined. ||1||

Even from these lines that permission cannot be established. If you think so, please tell me.

Nijhak Singh – I would if that were the case. The go-ahead to eat meat cannot be gained from any of these lines.

Gurprasad Singh – That’s the first stanza covered. There is the second stanza; pay close attention and tell me if the eating of meat has any support. The first two extracts are –

mwsu mwsu kir mUrKu JgVy igAwnu iDAwnu nhI jwxY ]

The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom.

kauxu mwsu kauxu swgu khwvY iksu mih pwp smwxy ]

What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?

The meaning behind these two extracts is that to have continuous arguments, with people who are mistaken about the religious stance on meat, is a foolish act. These people cannot even differentiate between meat and vegetables, and whether the eating of one of these is a sinful act. There isn’t even a hint that meat is acceptable, so it amazes me how some people can find anything to support their evil acts. This verse states that by uttering the vocabulary of meat and by looking at meat, one isn’t punished, one doesn’t become a saint by constantly denouncing meat and that one doesn’t become a sinner if one doesn’t “hate” meat. It can also be concluded from these extracts that the killing of animals is an evil act and is a great sin. Since purchase and eating of vegetables through money which was earned by committing sins is also a sin like eating flesh. The distinction between “What is meat and what is green vegetables” can only be determined by those who have the Gurmat knowledge and the Gurmat spirituality to do so. To just argue over meat without these qualities is the act of a fool. But instruction to eat meat cannot be gained from these two extracts under any condition.

Nijhak Singh – Yes, that is how it actually appears.

Gurprasad Singh – The next two extracts are as follows –

gYNfw mwir hom jg kIey dyviqAw kI bwxy ]

It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering.

mwsu Coif bYis nku pkVih rwqI mwxs Kwxy ]

Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.

The first extract shows that the sacrificial acts of Hindus are in accordance with the Vedas. The killing of cattle, and then offering it as a sacrifice is the act of Hindus. But their hypocrisy lies in the fact that they publicly make a show of their disgust of meat; they can’t even bear the smell of it. This extract shows how false people can be. Permission to eat meat, still cannot be established. Tell me truthfully, is there any support for eating meat?

Nijhak Singh – No, there isn’t. Though the falseness of people’s behaviour is clearly evident.

Gurprasad Singh – The next two extracts are as follows –

PVu kir lokW no idKlwvih igAwnu iDAwnu nhI sUJY ]

They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom.

nwnk AMDy isau ikAw khIAY khY n kihAw bUJY ]

O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said.

Again, this is more criticism of people’s hypocrisy and not support for eating meat. What do you say?

Nijhak Singh – The go-ahead to eat meat still hasn’t been found.

Gurprasad Singh – The next two extracts are as follows

AMDw soie ij AMDu kmwvY iqsu irdY is locn nwhI ]

They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts.

mwq ipqw kI rkqu inpMny mCI mwsu n KWhI ]

They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.

Once again, here is more criticism of hypocrisy, and still no trace of a positive word about meat.

Nijhak Singh – It is apparent that when a child is born it doesn’t have a need to consume meat.

Gurprasad Singh – Then the child shouldn’t need the food which came through blood in umbilical cord either.

Nijhak Singh – That is the example they have given. How can it be that the nutrients that come through blood in the umbilical, cause a person to desire meat? They should eat the umbilical cord then!

Gurprasad Singh – If they can claim that, then what do they say about eating just fish? Why doesn’t it show that all kinds of meat are needed? Why have some people only taken this as permission to eat fish? Fish doesn’t even have blood, and even if there is, only very little.

Nijhak Singh – How do you interpret this extract?

Gurprasad Singh – Again it is more criticism of hypocrisy. These people hold their noses when they see meat but, they do not realise that they too are made of flesh and blood which came from their parent’s blood. To hate the word ‘meat’ doesn’t make a person more religious. Throughout both extracts the word ‘meat’ is used but, there isn’t a single word in support of it.

Nijhak Singh – That’s true.

Gurprasad Singh – The 9th extract –

iesqRI purKY jW inis mylw EQY mMDu kmwhI ]

But when men and women meet in the night, they come together in the flesh.

Nijhak Singh – Here there are celebrations but no one is eating each others flesh. What you say is correct, please go further.

Gurprasad Singh – The next two extracts are –

mwshu inMmy mwshu jMmy hm mwsY ky BWfy ]

In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we are born; we are vessels of flesh.

igAwnu iDAwnu kCu sUJY nwhI cquru khwvY pWfy ]

You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation, even though you call yourself clever, O religious scholar.

Nijhak Singh – Is this the same criticism as before; about hating meat?

Gurprasad Singh – Sure it isn’t permission to consume it?

Nijhak Singh – Certainly not.

Gurprasad Singh – The next three extracts are as follows –

bwhr kw mwsu mMdw suAwmI Gr kw mwsu cMgyrw ]

O master, you believe that flesh on the outside is bad, but the flesh of those in your own home is good.

jIA jMq siB mwshu hoey jIie lieAw vwsyrw ]

All beings and creatures are flesh; the soul has taken up its home in the flesh.

ABKu BKih BKu qij Cofih AMDu gurU ijn kyrw ]

They eat the uneatable; they reject and abandon what they could eat. They have a teacher who is blind.

Even after these three extracts, it cannot be established that eating meat is permissable. If our meat-eating brothers want to establish permission, then they should tell me what they think of the 12th extract; the one which mentions meat from home and from outside? If they say that the meat at home is the meat of humans, and the meat from outside is regular meat then they are not even worthy of being called meat-eaters. If they do not see eating human flesh as acceptable, then they shouldn’t eat animal flesh either. But these words fall upon deaf ears. If they prepared and ate the meat of humans, then their argument would make sense. What is the difference between these meats; all beings on earth are merely statues of meat. Why have a hatred towards beings made of meat? If there is a hatred, then it should be for all meat, not selected meat.

Nijhak Singh – From the way I see it, this verse criticises those who eat meat at home but, when they are outside, they say the can’t stand it. That is why the Guru says, O’ Pandits, while sitting secretly at home you eat meat but, to keep your face in front of people outside, you put on an act.

Gurprasad Singh – OK, I accept that as the true meaning. The meanings are virtually the same. The 13th extract (“All beings and creatures are flesh...”) goes along with the others from before.

Nijhak Singh – But what connection does this 14th extract (“They eat the uneatable..”) have with others?

Gurprasad Singh – This verse stands alone and states that those people who have not adopted the True Guru’s wisdom and who have no faith in God, continue to eat all kinds of things. The food that should be eaten is “avoided” and that which should not be eaten is continually consumed. Acceptable food (that which is obtained through an honest living) is never consumed but unacceptable food (that which is earned through deception) is forever consumed. Whether meat eaters of meat avoiders, if their thinking is not of a righteous nature then arguing over this matter is merely foolish. Those God oriented individuals who consider this matter with importance implement the correct decision within their lives. They are highly respectable individuals who only do good and shun outward appearances. They do not get involved in fruitless arguments. Those who abandon meat for their spirituality are truly accepted. But the efforts of those who abandon meat to be distinguished as “meat avoiders” are nothing more than hipocrisy. On the other hand, those individuals who eat meat are not necessarily hipocrits but are just mistakenly in the habit of eating it. But those people who look for support from the Gurbani to justify their greed for meat-eating, are merely frauds. Those people who are intent on eating meat have instigated these arguments over. Those who have not desire to consume meat have not need to get into arguments. Their positive efforts are not in any danger. The danger is for those who consume meat.

Nijhak Singh – I think this thought of yours is incorrect. These days, people who eat meat stand proudly and claim that those who do not eat meat are punishable and cowards, and that there is no wrong in their consumption of meat. What arrogance. Some people fight wars and some people farm their land, both can become injured. But why would anyone want to attack an individual who never even grasped the weapon?

Gurprasad Singh – They make the innocent out to be the guilty. Those who do not fight injustice and do not fight for their country may be called cowards, but not those who refrain from eating meat. Those who don’t eat meat are in fact, braver then those who do, and those who eat meat have been shown to display greater cowardice. Those who never administer fear, tyranny and injustice never fear the threats of others either. By worshipping the Fearless Lord they enter the world of fearlessness. The essence of the warrior stems for fearlessness. Fear comes to those who give or show fear to others. No meat eater has been declared as a true warrior to this day. Let alone being declared, none has been born to date. The actions of a true warrior have been declared in Gurbani by Guru Jee as follows

jw kau hir rMgu lwgo iesu jug mih so khIAq hY sUrw ]

He alone is called a warrior, who is attached to the Lord's Love in this age.

Awqm ijxY sgl vis qw kY jw kw siqguru pUrw ]1]

Through the Perfect True Guru, he conquers his own soul, and then everything comes under his control. ||1||

The Lord’s love does not attach itself to an individual who eats meat and neither do they conquer their soul. A fearless warrior is only created by the conquering of the soul and this has been the case in our history. Up to this day, all saints and warriors recognised in the Khalsa Panth have been individuals who avoided the consumption of meat. No meat eating indivual has attained the true love of the Lord to date either.

Nijhak Singh – What you say is completely true. Now, I would appreciate it greatly if you would explain the remaining extracts also. Though, I don’t think it is necessary for you to do so. I think this whole passage concentrates on making foolish people realise their foolish actions. Permission to eat meat is not going to be obtained. Even if it is, then it doesn’t effect me as I’m not a meat-eater. I only wanted to find out about the basis for some Sikhs adopting jhuttka. I know that there isn’t anything in the Gurbani which supports the eating of jhuttka. I know there will be plenty of other sources which criticise the eating of meat, and also know that there will not be any that support it. I also know that meat-eaters can never be peaceful to animals, nor can renouncers of jhuttka.

Gurprasad Singh – Why is that? When they haven’t even practised jhuttka and haven’t killed animals, they cannot be accused of being violent. They are innocent and are peaceful.

Nijhak Singh – But small insects and micro-bodies are also animals. People trample on them every single day, they swallow them when drinking fluids and taking their last breaths, they die once inside.

Gurprasad Singh – They don’t kill them themselves. Violence is when one kills animals. The verse on cruelty to animals doesn’t apply in this case, and can only be applied to those who make the conscious decision to kill animals. People eat to save their lives. They eat what is natural to them, and it is normal for small micro-bodies to go inside them at the same time.

Nijhak Singh – I will accept that there are other acts which lead to animals being eaten. Perhaps they don’t harm the animal themselves but the animals do go inside them. Supporters of jhuttka can say that, even having cast jhuttka aside, you are still meat-eaters as the meat of animals still goes inside you.

Gurprasad Singh – I am not stating this to the extent that we should give up our food also! I accept that small insects may come into what we eat but, if I see a little creature in my food, I will take it out. I will throw the food away and eat something else. There are small creatures in the air but I will not go the the extent of covering my mouth with a cloth like Jains. I cannot abandon a diet which is natural to me. I will not do this as it is against my religion, as is eating meat and killing animals. Religion doesn’t state that we should stop eating our natural food, or stop drinking water. This is not the case for eaters of jhuttka. They make a decision to eat meat, and when they do, the animal goes inside them. They do this with great stubbornness.

At this point a Giani (teacher) who was a supporter of jhuttka, who had been there for quite a while and had heard our discussion, interrupted.

Pro-jhuttka Giani – (looking at Nijhak Singh) Why did you have to start this discussion; it has backfired on us.

Gurprasad Singh – Then pro-jhuttka people like yourself should not bother posing such questions. You should not try to use

jyqy dwxy AMn ky jIAw bwJu n koie ]

As many as are the grains of corn, none is without life.

to argue your case that nobody can avoid “meat”. You present your case, and it is that very same case that disproves what you believe. If only you could see the truth behind it in the first place. You are responsible for it ‘backfiring on you’, and have shot yourself in the foot.

Do one thing for me now Giani ji, please take a look at the state of you teeth after eating all that meat. Dogs and wolves have teeth like that from mother nature, which can cut through raw flesh. First you must grow teeth like a wolf, then you can present a case to eat meat.

Upon hearing this, the Giani vanished quickly and the rest of the congregation began to disperse.

[BhaiSukhSingh]

VaheGuruJeKaKhalsaVaheGuruJeKkeFetah

ye me dont agree with whats happening here BUT lets concentrate on our relationship with VaheGuru rather than judge others main thing is we stick to our rehat marada and let others stick to theres whether we agree with it or not.

VaheGuruJeKaKhalsaVaheGuruJeKkeFetah

[jassa]

has anyone heard of jhatka parkash granth ... ???