I Don'T Understand This - Guru Nanak Dev Ji

[Sukhmanii]

I'm reading a book about the lives of the Gurus. I've come across this:

"Guru Nanak, accompanied by Mardana, came to Kurukshetra. A big fair was being held at the holy tank on account of a solar eclipse. One his arrival to the fair, Guru Nanak asked Mardana to cook meat for them. As it happened, they had been presented with a deer by a shikari on their way to Kurukshetra. Finding a pilgrim cooking meat on the holy premises, the yogis collected for the fair were scandalized. How could anyone defile the sacred premises with the profanity of cooking and eating meat? They gathered around Guru Nanak and started shouting at them. Guru Nanak said:

Implanted by flesh, conceived by flesh,

Born in flesh, with mouth, bones, skin, and body made of flesh,

Coming out of the flesh of the womb, he sucks the breasts of flesh,

He grows and marries flesh, bringing flesh into his house,

Flesh is born of flesh.

Fools fight over flesh.

They don't understand truth nor do they meditate on it.

What is flesh? What vegetable?

What is evil? What not?

Pandit! You know not how flesh is made.

It's from water,

The source of corn, sugarcane and cotton,

In fact, of all three worlds."

I don't understand what I've just read. Was Guru Nanak eating meat? Why? What was the meaning of what he said... was he trying to justify eating meat?

[Singh559]

What book is it?

Either way a Sikh should not eat meat. What Guru Ji did is not something we should copy in terms of making an example out of them (i don't even know if that account is true).

What is true is Sikhs do not eat meat for ritualistic purposes, we don't eat it because we extend compassion to all living beings and are pro-enviornment and recognize god in all living creatures.

"Our task must be to free ourselves . . . by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty."

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." ~Albert Einstein

Sikhs also should promote ethical agricultural practices and humane treatment of all animals. God is in all beings thus we do not eat meat, but that does not mean Sikhs do not eat meat because of a ritual like bahmans did.

What bahmans used to say is if you don't eat meat all your sins will be erased. Bahmans also said you shouldn't eat cows because they are gods. Guru Nanak Dev Ji made an example saying that your actions are what deem you as a good or bad person and not to get into the whole discussion of whether eating meat is right or wrong. Remember why jhatka was created, it is ONLY AND ONLY if taking of an animal's life is absolutely necessary. We live in a society where it is not. Also the account mentioned in the book may not even be true, but for discussion sake i acknowledged it.

People who listen to Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj will automatically come up with the right decision on what is right and what is wrong.

As for the entire discission Sant Randhawe wale summed it up quite well.

[Sukhmanii]

"Sikh Gurus

Their lives and teachings" - K.S Duggal.

It is actually very frustrating trying to read a decent book, I want to learn.. the truth!

[Singh559]

"Sikh Gurus

Their lives and teachings" - K.S Duggal.

It is actually very frustrating trying to read a decent book, I want to learn.. the truth!

Sorry, i edited what i said and added a lot more

[Sukhmanii]

Thanks for your response I understand what you're saying.

Does anyone else have any knowledge/ opinions of this?

[VanHelsingh]

Thanks for your response I understand what you're saying.

Does anyone else have any knowledge/ opinions of this?

I'm in the same boat as you. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about our faith, but it seems there isn't one standardised, universally-agreed agenda between the academics who write books about Sikhi. Which is a shame because it throws up issues such as the one you've presented in your original post. Although I guess if everyone agreed on everything, there'd be no need for numerous books.

One could argue that Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the only "universaly-agreed" reference we need, and whilst that is an understandable opinion, some curious folk like myself do like learning about the people behind the "words" as it were.

I guess it also depends on the motivation of the individual. If a person is looking for contradictions between academics in order to justify an anti-Sikh lifestyle, then I suppose anything goes. For example, I've read so many books where the authors (Sikh or non-Sikh) talk about the Vaisakhi "tent / goat incident". This nonsense is in around 90% of the books I've read about Sikhi, but that doesn't mean I suddenly begin to think any less of Guru Ji. My faith tells me that Guru Ji did what he said on that day in 1699, i.e. he asked for 5 heads and he received them in the manner that he requested.

We can't find all the answers in the pages of an academic book, as much as some people would have you believe. Who knows what the motivation of the author is, i.e. does he intend to mislead or distort the facts? We have to use our own common sense and most importantly our faith to come to certain conclusions.

[dalsingh101]

I'm trying to learn as much as I can about our faith, but it seems there isn't one standardised, universally-agreed agenda between the academics who write books about Sikhi.

And thank God for that. How boring would it be if it were otherwise.

I think personality type comes into this as well, as there are some people who seem to prefer an absolute unambiguous worldview. Black and white if you will. But the hard fact is that historical inquiry mostly defies this.

Sikhi (as opposed to Sikh history) seems to have very strong elements of mysticism itself. So when we dig deeper into it's theological side, we don't get text book like facts to absorb but something more sublime and subtle. That too, which can only be personally experienced.

It is hard not to feel that sometimes (Sikhs) spend more time (than is healthy) arguing over the details, rather than the broader message?

<braces himself for brickbats to be thrown his way>

[Only five]

When we speak of Sikh history, then it has to be accurate and absolute. All these varies different intrepretations are made up by people that don't want to accept what truly happened. So these so called academics add in their own way of thinking, trying to make sense of everything for themselves and the reader. Then you have people that purposely make up their own Sikh history to mislead the Sikh that is trying to learn about Sikhi. Sikh history in the absolute is not at all boring. Sikh history by a Sikh is used to understand Gurbani deeper, so if a person is getting happy by listening to wrong intrepretations of Sikh history, then their focus is not to move forward in Sikhi or help another move forward in Sikhi.

In Sikhi the lower spiritual person will get all different answers when they progress on reading Gurbani. This happens because they are stuck in their own mind and have not grasped the concept of Naam Simran in practice. But Gurbani is an absolute and is very black and white. Hence the Rehat that Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji Maharaj left us. There are exactly wrong answers and their are exactly right ways to intrpret Gurbani.

My advice for the original poster is that he stops reading these books and contemplate over the Shabad. These books are going to give you what the author only understood of Sikhi, which will be limited, unless it is written by a Sant. If you want to learn about Sikh history, then learn from a person that is a Gurmukh and they will explain every shabad to you in the context of history (where you will learn about Sikh history) and in the true message form, which align. Don't focus so much on corecting what authors say. Go straight to Gurbani and start devoting your mind to Gurmat.

[jassa]

Part 1/8 and do listen all 8

[Only five]

^^^^ Beautiful Katha done by Sant Maskeen Singh ji, thanks Singh for providing the link.