Canadian Desi Media on Meat Eating

[Cisco_Singh]

You guys might want to read Jhatka Prakash by Giani Niranjan Singh, you might also want to look into the historical evidence, texts and references regarding Sikhs and meat consumption. Then you might also want to consult Budha Dal and ask them about maryada. On top of that you have Akal Taht Hukamnama which says it is permisabble to eat jhatka mean and no sikh can be excommunicated for eating jhatka meat...

". Hukamnama issued by Akal Takht Jathedar Sandhu Singh Bhaura dated February 15th 1980 that Amritdhari Sikhs can eat meat as long as it is jhatka meat and that eating meat does not go against the code of conduct, Kurehit, of the Sikhs. Thus a Sikh cannot be excommunicated for eating meat."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100583067/Jhatka-Parkash

[SunSingh]

gorillas are vegetarian and also have "canine" teeth....

As for jhatka, i view that as a completely different thing than regular meat eating b/c khalsa is allowed to do jhatka when there is majhboori (and not for taste). So I don't see that as an issue.

[DSGj]

You guys might want to read Jhatka Prakash by Giani Niranjan Singh, you might also want to look into the historical evidence, texts and references regarding Sikhs and meat consumption. Then you might also want to consult Budha Dal and ask them about maryada. On top of that you have Akal Taht Hukamnama which says it is permisabble to eat jhatka mean and no sikh can be excommunicated for eating jhatka meat...

". Hukamnama issued by Akal Takht Jathedar Sandhu Singh Bhaura dated February 15th 1980 that Amritdhari Sikhs can eat meat as long as it is jhatka meat and that eating meat does not go against the code of conduct, Kurehit, of the Sikhs. Thus a Sikh cannot be excommunicated for eating meat."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100583067/Jhatka-Parkash

I've seen this posted in another thread on this site as well.

If you critically analyze that book, it becomes very clear that Giani Niranjan Singh is against Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Jee very much.

Who is Giani Niranjan Singh Jee anyways? What's his background and does he have any other literary works?

I would take Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Jee's side ANY DAY over Giani Niranjan Singh Jee.

And as for the so called Jathedar as you stated: "Akal Takht Jathedar Sandhu Singh Bhaura".....

Please read into how he became Jathedar in the first place. Now, I must say, I don't like the sikhmarg website as it is well known that they are kala-afghanis/missionaries. But, sometimes they do provide an interesting perspective into things. One would be the Jathedar you place so much trust in.

"When on October 2, 1962, the Fateh Singh group wrested the control of the S.G.P.C. from the Master Tara Singh, Jathedar Achchhar Singh, the caretaker of Akal Takht Sahib resigned his position to protest against the mismanagement of the affairs of Darbar Sahib and the other shrines. No one bothered about the institution of the caretaker of Akal Takht Sahib. No one reacted when Sadhu Singh Bhaura, who had been defeated in the S.G.P.C. elections, was appointed as so called Jathedar of Akal Takht Sahib. It was not only on September 26, 1979, when Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi and Jathedar Gurcharan Singh Tohra approached Akal Takht Sahib for settlement of the internal affairs of the Akali Dal, that the so called Jathedar of Akal Takht Sahib came to be known as some "extra special" entity."

He lost the elections, but because SGPC and the Akali Dal was in such a mess, he was appointed anyways during the whole mixup/commotion. If he couldn't even win the SGPC elections, how much faith do you think the Sikh Panth had in him to be the Jathedar of Akal Takht Sahib. He was placed in that position by default. Not because he deserved it or earned it.

The full link to the article is:

http://www.sikhmarg.com/english/akal.html

Just to add to the topic,

here is a seemingly older picture of Jhatka taking place:

http://www.nihangsingh.org/website/images/j1.jpg

[TheFancyBanana]

Let's take a look at Guru Har Rai Ji.

As a young child Guru Sahib was running in the flower garden at Kiratpur Sahib. He was wearing a Chola (cloak). While running the cloak brushed passed some flowers, thus the flowers were damaged. Guru Hargobind ji explained: "Always walk and move with care. Look after and manage your cloak and ensurtre that it doesn't hurt or damage anything in its path. Guru Sahib promised his grandfather, that he would in the future be careful in his responsibilities towards man, animals and plants.
This was just for a flower. What do you expect would happen if it was an animal?

ਨਿਰਦਇਆ ਨਹੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਉਜਾਲਾ ॥ ਬੂਡਤ ਬੂਡੇ ਸਰਬ ਜੰਜਾਲਾ ॥੪॥
You have no compassion; the Lord’s Light does not shine in you.

You are drowned, drowned in worldly entanglements.(4)

[Sherdil]

gorillas are vegetarian and also have "canine" teeth....

As for jhatka, i view that as a completely different thing than regular meat eating b/c khalsa is allowed to do jhatka when there is majhboori (and not for taste). So I don't see that as an issue.

You are correct.

Gorillas have canines, as do chimpanzees. In fact, their canines are bigger than ours.

While they don't eat meat, their canines are used for fighting. When they bite each other, they are still tearing flesh

It is a scientific fact that humans are omnivores, and have been for centuries. It is for this reason, that we have canines. We have learned to hunt using weapons, thus we have rudimentary canines, compared to other meat-eating species.

What constitutes being in a state of majboori?

It seems silly to me that we have accepted the practice of Jatkha, and we have accepted that our Gurus used to hunt. Yet, we draw the line at eating the animal once we have killed it. Which one is worse: Taking a life, or eating something that is dead?

[gurdssingh]

Let's take a look at Guru Har Rai Ji.

As a young child Guru Sahib was running in the flower garden at Kiratpur Sahib. He was wearing a Chola (cloak). While running the cloak brushed passed some flowers, thus the flowers were damaged. Guru Hargobind ji explained: "Always walk and move with care. Look after and manage your cloak and ensurtre that it doesn't hurt or damage anything in its path. Guru Sahib promised his grandfather, that he would in the future be careful in his responsibilities towards man, animals and plants.

This was just for a flower. What do you expect would happen if it was an animal?

ਨਿਰਦਇਆ ਨਹੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਉਜਾਲਾ ॥ ਬੂਡਤ ਬੂਡੇ ਸਰਬ ਜੰਜਾਲਾ ॥੪॥

You have no compassion; the Lord’s Light does not shine in you.

You are drowned, drowned in worldly entanglements.(4)

I'm confused? So we have to take care with all things but then we can EAT vegetables?

Also what about bacteria in all things e.g. yogurt (dhahey), it's made with bacteria. It's a living organism it multiplies why is there no controversey over eating it. I mean it's living, reproduces etc. So an animal right?

If you don't eat meat then also refrain from using animal products in alot of things. Just examples I have seen in all Gurdwareh I been too. Some musical instuments are made with animal products. Also so are some clothes and alot of shoes i.e leather.

Also an argument I have read in this thread is that you should not eat meat for taste only if you need for survival. Like think about it when the Khalsa were in the mountains or Ladkhi jungles do you think an army who had no other means of food lived off leaves? They were soldiers, they needed strength to eat. Don't no if true but when Banda Singh Bhahdurs army was engulfed by the mouguls and food ran out they ate animals including oxon, which Indians usally refrain from. So my question is you can eat it to survive not for taste, but what about Shaheeds like Shaheed Taru Singh, they would rather face death than cut their hair. So either it is you can or can not eat meat. Either face death or live.

On a side note theres been some scientific views posted. a point I like to make is we cut nails as they are dead, that's the justification as taht is also how god made us with growing nails. But it's ok to cut. But why the same logic not applied to hair. All hair that grows out of the skin is dead. So guys don't make silly claims, there must are other reasons why we keep hair, such as to be easily identifiable. (Well that's the only one I can think off).

[DSGj]

It seems silly to me that we have accepted the practice of Jatkha, and we have accepted that our Gurus used to hunt. Yet, we draw the line at eating the animal once we have killed it. Which one is worse: Taking a life, or eating something that is dead?

"Something that is dead".

It's only dead because you killed it. Let's not act like it's killed by another animal for food, lightning, roadkill, etc.

It's dead because you deliberately killed it.

Look, the fact is that other animals don't have a choice. You'll never see a lion eating grass deliberately. You'll never see a goat or deer eating meat deliberately. It's not their nature to do that. And other omnivores don't have a choice either. They eat both meat and vegetarian. They don't have the choice in their genes to stop eating one or the other completely. Humans do.

And which "GuruS" used to hunt? Please let me know, as you put it in plural form. What is the historical/literary evidence of this? And if they did hunt, and also ate the meat, please let me know where I can find that information. Also, if they ate the meat, surely 90% of the other Sikhs ate it as well right? So, that means there should be evidence of Sahibzaadey, Panj Pyaarey, Baba Deep Singh Jee, Bhai Mani Singh Jee, Baba Banda Singh Bahadur, Mata Gujjar Kaur Jee eating meat too. Where in literary evidence is this stated? And in what context? In times when nothing else was available? Or did they eat it daily/weekly/monthly?

[jang123]

Regarding Guru Sahib hunting, Sri Guru Hargobind ji and Guru Gobind Singh did kill few animals but not for the fun or for flesh but for ''udhaar''. If you are not familiar with this I recommend you to read janam sakhis where they tell the previous life of the soul and why did they become an animal -e.g. Moola Khatri became a rabbit and Guru Gobind Singh ji did his udhaar in the land of Nanded.

I am not planning to repeat everything so for comparing eating plants and animals I ask you to read my first post for this topic.

[TheFancyBanana]

I'm confused? So we have to take care with all things but then we can EAT vegetables?

Also what about bacteria in all things e.g. yogurt (dhahey), it's made with bacteria. It's a living organism it multiplies why is there no controversey over eating it. I mean it's living, reproduces etc. So an animal right?

If you don't eat meat then also refrain from using animal products in alot of things. Just examples I have seen in all Gurdwareh I been too. Some musical instuments are made with animal products. Also so are some clothes and alot of shoes i.e leather.

Also an argument I have read in this thread is that you should not eat meat for taste only if you need for survival. Like think about it when the Khalsa were in the mountains or Ladkhi jungles do you think an army who had no other means of food lived off leaves? They were soldiers, they needed strength to eat. Don't no if true but when Banda Singh Bhahdurs army was engulfed by the mouguls and food ran out they ate animals including oxon, which Indians usally refrain from. So my question is you can eat it to survive not for taste, but what about Shaheeds like Shaheed Taru Singh, they would rather face death than cut their hair. So either it is you can or can not eat meat. Either face death or live.

On a side note theres been some scientific views posted. a point I like to make is we cut nails as they are dead, that's the justification as taht is also how god made us with growing nails. But it's ok to cut. But why the same logic not applied to hair. All hair that grows out of the skin is dead. So guys don't make silly claims, there must are other reasons why we keep hair, such as to be easily identifiable. (Well that's the only one I can think off).

We need to eat something. The Guru was sad because he broke the flower off for no reason other than being clumsy, even though the plant cannot feel anything, Guru Har Rai felt sad that he had damaged it.

Bacteria are NOT animals. Bacteria is neither plant nor animal. Plants are in Kingdom Plantae. Animals are in Kingdom Animalia. In a five-kingdom classification system, bacteria are in Kingdom Monera. Bacteria are not plants mainly because bacteria are prokaryotic -- no nuclei or membrane-bound organelles inside their cells. Besides I've never seen a bacteria or plant pull its roots out and start running when I approach it. Have you?

The musical instruments are supposed to be made of already dead animals? In India dead cows were put in a field for vultures to eat. The tanners would come and take the skin. I asked this question at the place I purchased my tabla and the owner said it was from animals that died a natural death.

I am not sure about the survival bit. From katha I have heard Singhs survived off tree and bark while hiding out in forests and small amounts of cholay. I guess they didn't need food to sustain them. They just needed naam.

I have asked myself the hair question. I think it is for spiritual reasons. All sants and holy men would keep their hair. Rom simran happens when hair vibrates to simran. Also the identity part. We are sants and soldiers so we have the hair and the weapons for it.

[gurdssingh]

Put things into groups classify them if you want. Fact remains bacteria is a living organism or is it not? They can move and reproduce. Just becasue they are small and we can not see them they are no different to other LIVING ORGANISMS. They might not run away when you approach because either they are not sacred of you or because you can't see them with the naked eye. Trust me bacteria can move.

Living of bark etc. OK. In Guru ji's time I have no views about the Singhs but what about misl period? Please read about the rakhi system etc. The Singhs were just like normal people, they had the same disre for material things.

Also inthe Khalsa army under our Guru's they hired mercenaries who were paid, many were muslims were in the army.

Sorry this is off topic but don't live in dream land where the Khalsa armies were all saints, just read historical docs from the period. Obviously they are going to baised depending on the authour put you can still get an idea.