Holy Cow !!!

[truthseeker546]

I appreciate that you yourself see now difference between the dasam Granth and the SGGS , but of course for lots of Sikhs there are too many questions marks over the Dassam Granth. 

The second part about my opinion about the Gurus was just that an opinion. You're right it can be started on another thread but I'm not really interested in starting that particular topic.

[paapiman]

I appreciate that you yourself see now difference between the dasam Granth and the SGGS , but of course for lots of Sikhs there are too many questions marks over the Dassam Granth. 

Who is seeing the difference between the two Granths? Can you please clarify?

No Sikh will ever question Gurbani. Heretics are the ones, who caused confusion and trouble, regarding Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee. This is also off-topic (question marks over Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee). Issues related to Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee have already been discussed on this forum before. Please do review those topics, if you like. 

Bhul chuk maaf

[CdnSikhGirl]

Not just cows but all life should be preserved.  Which is why I advocate veganism if possible.  Especially in the issue of cows and protecting them, it is impossible to protect cows if you consume dairy.  As dairy industry results in direct killing of MANY baby male cows which are useless to the dairy industry (save for very few which are kept to become bull studs).  Rest are killed for meat. 

Myself I have not given up dairy or eggs yet. But I would like to, if I can find good vegan alternatives... But I am gluten sensitive (not entirely intolerant) but most of the vegan cheeses, vegan eggs etc are made with seiten which is made from wheat gluten LOL.  So for now, I still eat egg and dairy but I at least acknowledge that cows are dying as a result -  I try not to be a hypocrite that Gurbani speaks against.  

 

 

[paapiman]

I was looking for proof from the actual scripture or words of the Gurus themselves, especially Guru Nanak. 

 

Bro, there is a reference to killing of cows in SSGGSJ too. Give me sometime to find it out.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[truthseeker546]

Thanks Paapiman for looking for me !!! much appreciated. 

Also I don't want to get into a debate about the differences between Dassam granth and Guru Granth. But I've spoken to many Sikhs including on this forum that have said dto me they don't believe in the Dassam granth as it can't be verified and its apparent polytheistic beliefs of Hindu Gods etc - not to mention the more controversial chatriopakhyan chapter. Like I said its a different topic, don't want to start that here.

I know lots of Sikhs hold both granths on the same level - however I've stopped using the Dassam Granth as a source of Sikhism, due to the mentioned reasons. 

I can understand Satkirin's point of respecting all life on earth. - that to me makes sense - but that seems to be Satkirin's personal choice - as many non religious westerns also make - that's not specific to Sikhism.   The modern way of producing food is extremely cruel to animals, Just have to watch any documentary on how animals are treated in the west in the food process - eggs for example are taken from hens, the male chicks, not having a use are simply killed - in most cases simply left out in the cold to die - in the thousands. Don't see anyone getting upset over that -   The point of this thread was why is the cow specifically given higher regard in Sikhism? 

All the arguments given so far have fallen very short.

 

[Guest]

No luck on that reference I take it ?

[Guest]

On 30/10/2015 6:32:13, N30 S!NGH said:

 

1. I would call it cow satva(pure) just as water not holiness. Holiness gives a spiritual status like hindus

This is really weird. In most of your posts, one gets this impression as if Hindus are a one homogeneous ethno-religious group. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some Hindu faiths do give cows "spiritual status"but there are number of others which do not consider cows as holy.

which we don't. We don't eat cows not for holiness but rather not eat cow for giving milk to humanity. Milk is consider satva (pure) food which in its relative context has its place when it comes to proper diet for spiritual (satva) pure mind.

Not really just because there is no mentioning of cow protection does not meant prior to tenth guru there was none.

2. You are taking relative quote based on circumstances out of context. There is no confusion as such as message of mool mantar is clear and cut. Again who said about killing a human being over a cow. In the past, we defended cow slaughters usually on premises over challenge from mughals/muslims who were taking over a india, they were making a statement by killing a cow. We defended against cow killing by fascist muslism/mughals to set the record straight as they were making a statement.

In nepal, there is cow slaughter ritual by hindus in india and in nepal there to their demi god. You don't see sikhs fighting them or giving up their life for it.

this is ridiculous as there is no such ritual by Hindus in India and/or in Nepal. On one hand you make Hindus look like a cow-worshipping homogeneous group and here you are trying to prove that the same group slaughters cows!

Nepal Hindus celebrate Gadhimai animal sacrifice fest but cows are not killed in that mass event.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/nepal/11769867/Mass-animal-sacrifice-at-Nepalese-temple-halted-after-Joanna-Lumley-campaign.html

 

On 30/10/2015 6:32:13, N30 S!NGH said:

3. Your point is invalid as you are using historical examples or events to draw a broader  conclusion

 

 

4. This is what happens when you take out historical account out of context then top of it draw our own narrative out of it. Classic example is infront of you - cow is slaughtered in massive amounts in nepal and also in india yet we don't impose our beleifs on them, those previous quotes from ugardanati along with sikhs have a given up their life for cows has to be properly contextualized, conceptualized within historical framework of mughal era where mughals were slaughtering cows to make clear statement as they were invading and we gave our lives stopping cows slaughter by fighting back with mughals.

 

[chatanga1]

On 31/10/2015 19:38:40, truthseeker546 said:

Thanks chatanga1

OK. You said you don't eat any animals that provide sustenance? All animals that are killed for meat give some type of sustenance. Chicken = eggs Goats/cows/buffalo/ camels = milk, sheep = wool fish = caviare/fish oil etc - you mentioned cows, buffaloes, horses, elephants and dogs. why not the sheep or the chicken

 

Good question, I hope I can find the words to explain. Sheep and chickens are classed as those animals that have a purpose (to humans) only to provide wool/eggs whilst they are alive and food when they are killed for food. These are not considered essentials or necessities in life. But during the times, or certain times of Sikh history these animals have become part of that tradition, that it is considered heinous to kill them.

 

On 31/10/2015 19:38:40, truthseeker546 said:

Also I'm not sure if you read all the posts but it seems according to kdsingh80 - 80% of the milk in the Punjab is actually from buffaloes. So is the buffalo revered now more then the cow?

OK - So now Guru ever went tot battle or (at least the early ones) ever mention the cow being any more special then any other animal - thanks. I wonder if everyone on this forum agrees.

 

Thanks I do read them, but the "nassal" is one even thought the breeds are different.

[truthseeker546]

@ Guest ,,, umm I don't even know what points you are referring to dude. 

 

@Chatanga ... Wool and eggs (food) are not considered necessities in life ? That's rather biased don't you think, rather depends on your situation. 

OK coming back to this argument AGAIN - let's try explaining it a different way ... Let assume the cow is "pure" as it produces milk, which according to some would be more essential then the products produced by other animals. 

So I take it then a cow that has gone dry and can no longer produce milk, or male cattle (ie. bulls) are then not given this status as they no longer / or can't give milk. That would then put then in the same category as every other animal. No one has mentioned anything about other animals that are the main producers of milk on other parts of the world - eg. Goats, camels

The point I'm making is that it's obvious that the cow - as are a lot of other things in Sikhism (gender relations, Gods, mythology) are idiosyncratic to Indian culture/history, greatly linked to a Hindu vernacular that rapidly loses its meaning outside the subcontinent.

Still waiting for that quote from SGGS by the way ...

Edited November 5, 2015 by truthseeker546

[Xylitol]

Perhaps b/c Khalsa is defender of dharam and cow is considered sacred in Hindu dharam. 

It could also be b/c some powerful rishi gave hukam and that rishi's bachan became a spiritual force. Wanting to save his Sikhs from harm Guru ji could have made that injunction (just a guess). 

[CdnSikhGirl]

From SGGSJ... Seems without milk Gurbani considers cows no higher than any other animal.  Not sure how that translates to other milk producing animals like sheep, goats, Buffalo etc. 

Page 133, Line 7
ਧੇਨੁ ਦੁਧੈ ਤੇ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਕਿਤੈ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਕਾਮ ॥
Ḏẖen ḏuḏẖai ṯe bāhrī kiṯai na āvai kām.
Without milk, a cow serves no purpose.

Page 354, Line 14
ਦੁਧ ਬਿਨੁ ਧੇਨੁ ਪੰਖ ਬਿਨੁ ਪੰਖੀ ਜਲ ਬਿਨੁ ਉਤਭੁਜ ਕਾਮਿ ਨਾਹੀ ॥
Ḏuḏẖ bin ḏẖen pankẖ bin pankẖī jal bin uṯ▫bẖuj kām nāhī.
A cow without milk; a bird without wings; a garden without water - totally useless!

but then it also says:

ਆਪੇ ਬਛਰੂ ਗਊ ਖੀਰੁ ||

Āpe bacẖẖrū ga▫ū kẖīr.

He Himself is the calf, the cow and the milk.

Meaning God IS the cow, and the milk. So if God is both cow and its milk then how can the cow without milk be useless and just tossed aside?? The first two quotes could just be referencing how humans see the cow... And not its actual worth as a living being?? 

[paapiman]

On 11/2/2015, 6:55:36, truthseeker546 said:

Thanks Paapiman for looking for me !!! much appreciated. 

Also I don't want to get into a debate about the differences between Dassam granth and Guru Granth. But I've spoken to many Sikhs including on this forum that have said dto me they don't believe in the Dassam granth as it can't be verified and its apparent polytheistic beliefs of Hindu Gods etc - not to mention the more controversial chatriopakhyan chapter. Like I said its a different topic, don't want to start that here.

I know lots of Sikhs hold both granths on the same level - however I've stopped using the Dassam Granth as a source of Sikhism, due to the mentioned reasons. 

 

 

Brother, Gurbani is the ultimate source for Sikhs. It does not matter which scripture (SSGGSJ, SDGSJ, SSGSJ) it is from. If you have stopped accepting evidence from SDGSJ, then it is your personal choice. It is not our problem and IMHO it is a very narrow minded decision.

Both scriptural and historical evidence has been provided to you which clearly illustrates that cow protection is a must for Sikhs. Having said that, will try to state the evidence from SSGGSJ too.

 

On 11/2/2015, 6:55:36, truthseeker546 said:

I can understand Satkirin's point of respecting all life on earth. - that to me makes sense - but that seems to be Satkirin's personal choice - as many non religious westerns also make - that's not specific to Sikhism.   The modern way of producing food is extremely cruel to animals, Just have to watch any documentary on how animals are treated in the west in the food process - eggs for example are taken from hens, the male chicks, not having a use are simply killed - in most cases simply left out in the cold to die - in the thousands. Don't see anyone getting upset over that 

 

This is bit off-topic but some food for thought for you. 

Life has to be taken for human survival. Pest, insects, rodents, etc, are killed in millions, so that humans can acquire food. Don't you feel sorry for them? You are worried about animals. How about the humans that are suffering in this world? Are you sure your country (where you reside) is not involved in any human right violations? How is the foreign policy of your country? Is your country exploiting other countries? Is your country involved in any genocides? Is human slavery taking place in your country? What about corruption in your country?

The point is that there are many other issues which can be brought to the table, if one talks about mistreatment of animals. We can keep debating about them for days/months. Is it worth the time?

 

On 11/2/2015, 6:55:36, truthseeker546 said:

 The point of this thread was why is the cow specifically given higher regard in Sikhism? 

All the arguments given so far have fallen very short.

 

 

Cows were specifically created by the Almighty God to provide food sustenance. The amount of milk produced by cows/buffaloes is a clear indication of that. Therefore, they act like mothers to humans. The milk of other animals like sheep, camels, etc, is primarily meant for their off-springs and sparingly for human consumption. But, humans tend to over use it for their own needs. 

Other animals, which provide valuable materials/services to humans, such as sheeps. dogs, horses, donkeys, etc, should also be respected. 

 

18 hours ago, truthseeker546 said:

The point I'm making is that it's obvious that the cow - as are a lot of other things in Sikhism (gender relations, Gods, mythology) are idiosyncratic to Indian culture/history, greatly linked to a Hindu vernacular that rapidly loses its meaning outside the subcontinent.

 

 

Hinduism is a religion, not a culture. There are similarities between Sikhism and Hinduism. Other major world religions have similarities too. Like for example, Islam and Judaism have similarities among them. Quran has been stated as a plagiarized version of Bible and Torah by some.people too.

Sikhism is a universal religion, started by Almighty God himself, unlike Middle eastern religions, started by Prophets (Most of them did not even travel much). It's teachings are applicable in this entire creation. Anyways, let's stay on topic. If you want to discuss gender relations, mythology, etc, please do start new topics on them

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[truthseeker546]

@Satkirin_Kaur - some really good quotes. Thanks! 

Sorry I hadn't seen your replies so I'm replying a bit late.

@Satkirin_Kaur - Your quote seems to confuse more then it helps - lol. Two very contradictory statements - now left to peoples own interpretations to figure out what that means.

On one had the cow is useless without milk and on the other God is the cow and the milk - logical conclusion that can be drawn from this;

- God is literally the cow and the milk - and he has no purpose and is totally useless when he himself (thw cow) stop producing himself (milk).

-What does it mean God is the cow/milk. If this is the reason to stop eating beef as God is the cow then it should also stop people from drinking milk as God is milk also.

- If God is the cow - does the cow has the same status as the SGGS ? a bit confused....

@paapiman what is IMHO?    I know historically Sikhs have defended the cow - I've mentioned this myself in my posts - I was asking WHY, from scripture. Satkirin has kindly given some evidences above.

your  point about human suffering over animal protection is well noted - so didn't the early Sikhs think of these questions also - why go to war over cows when so much human rights violation war occurring at that time?

    " Cows were specifically created by the Almighty God to provide food sustenance. The amount of milk produced by cows/buffaloes is a clear indication of that. Therefore, they act like mothers to humans. The milk of other animals like sheep, camels, etc, is primarily meant for their off-springs and sparingly for human consumption. But, humans tend to over use it for their own needs. "

OK- any evidence for this from the texts? According to the Satkirin quote God is the cow himself.

At your final reply I can only laugh - your knowledge of other religions - as many Sikhs I've come across,  is really tragic. 

The Abrahamic faiths (Jewdaism, Christianity and Islam) are all from Abraham. They share all the Abrahamic prophets, Moses, Solomon, Joseph etc - Islam sees itself as the final version of that religion. In fact Muslims don't claim to be a new faith, rather a continuation of all the previous Abhrahamic faiths, - as do Christians. The difference being Sikhism doesn't see itself as being a part of Hinduism - yet it obviously shares a lot with the religion.

@ your point of : God started Sikhism and Prophets started Abrahamic faiths - I wasn't even going to bother addressing this it was so ridiculous - almost all major religions claim to be from God. Jews believe GOD spoke to Moses, Christian believe Jesus was the Son of GOD and Muslims believe Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel who conveyed the message from GOD. I suggest you learn about other faiths as well as your own.

Hindu by the way just means someone from India, it refers to the religion relatively recently, so what I mean't is that Indian culture, with  influences from the Hindu religion has a huge bearing and affect on Sikhism, it's really obvious if you look at the without bias.

 

[truthseeker546]

@Xylitol -sorry I missed your post. interesting though however Islam is a Dharam also, so which Dharam do you defend ? 

[CdnSikhGirl]

Actually Paapiman is wrong about cows providing all that extra milk as proof that God meant it was for us. 

1. Cows do NOT produce enough milk to meet demands - so they are given hormones to produce all that extra milk!  Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone.  Cows treated with this, have udders much larger than normal, and can barely even walk. A European Union report on the animal welfare effects of BST states that its usage often results in "severe and unnecessary pain, suffering and distress" for cows, "associated with serious mastitis, foot disorders and some reproductive problems".  What is mastitis? Infection... that infection by the way gets into the milk!  And there is an allowance for the amount of pus cells allowed into milk.  Yummy huh???!! So how do they try to combat the infections in their udders? Antibiotics.  Antibiotics that ultimately end up in the milk and in you.   Antibiotics that have contributed to the rise of superbugs (in humans) which are resistant to antibiotics.  

Oh, and if dairy cows spend their milk producing days hooked up to machines to extract the milk, you can bet the baby cow that was conceived and born  in order for the Mother cow to produce milk, won't be getting any.  If they keep the baby cow at all (either for a future milker or one of only very very few males for breeding) then they are fed commercial milk replacement powder and never get to see its Mother. The vast majority are killed within the first few days of life or sold to the meat industry. 

So anyone who says milk is perfectly fine and Waheguru wants us to drink it and cows are Mothers to us, but then says that cows must be protected is a big hypocrite!  Because by drinking that milk, they are actually contributing to the deaths of thousands of baby cows, Mother cows being fed hormones to increase their milk production, spending their lives having pregnancy after pregnancy, having their calves taken away right after birth, being hooked up to machines their whole life, having infections and udders so large they walk bow legged.  By the way the average dairy cow 'burns out' after about 4-5 years and then they are killed or sold for meat as well.  So the average dairy cow lives about 4-5 years ....the cows NORMAL life span you ask??? 18-25+ years!!!!!!! 

How exactly is this protecting the cow???

 

 By the way those verses saying without milk it's useless, I think it's just a reference point that humans could relate to.  It's not saying that a cow IS useless without milk.  Because the line right after says it's the mind without naam that is useless.  So it's taking things humans already assign value to like milk from a cow, and saying gives the reference that without the milk us humans THINK of the cow as useless.  But the real thing which is useless is when our mind is devoid of naam.  Because the subject of the shabad (the rahao line) is not about cows or milk.  It's in reference to our minds. 

In reality, EVERYTHING is God, and God IS everything.  So yes, the cow, the milk, the calf, the horses, the grass, the barn etc.  even you and I.  

 

 

Edited November 8, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

6 hours ago, truthseeker546 said:

 

@paapiman what is IMHO?    I know historically Sikhs have defended the cow - I've mentioned this myself in my posts - I was asking WHY, from scripture. Satkirin has kindly given some evidences above.

 

IMHO - In my humble opinion. Scriptural evidence has been provided to you.

 

6 hours ago, truthseeker546 said:

    " Cows were specifically created by the Almighty God to provide food sustenance. The amount of milk produced by cows/buffaloes is a clear indication of that. Therefore, they act like mothers to humans. The milk of other animals like sheep, camels, etc, is primarily meant for their off-springs and sparingly for human consumption. But, humans tend to over use it for their own needs. "

OK- any evidence for this from the texts? According to the Satkirin quote God is the cow himself.

 

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Articles/holy-cow.html

Now, don't say that it is from Sri Gita, which is a Hindu scripture. Sikhs respect and learn from all scriptures, which include Bible and Quran too. The catch is that they have to match with Sikh philosophy and be the original words of the Prophet. Some holy books have been tampered or written years after a Prophet passed away, unlike the three main Sikh scriptures. 

 

6 hours ago, truthseeker546 said:

 

@ your point of : God started Sikhism and Prophets started Abrahamic faiths - I wasn't even going to bother addressing this it was so ridiculous - almost all major religions claim to be from God. Jews believe GOD spoke to Moses, Christian believe Jesus was the Son of GOD and Muslims believe Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel who conveyed the message from GOD. I suggest you learn about other faiths as well as your own.

 

How is it ridiculous?

Claiming to be from God is different from started by Almighty God himself, in physical form. It should be elementary to understand.

Satguru Nanak Dev jee is Almighty God himself in physical form, not a mere Prophet or a Saint.  In fact, he can turn robbers, dacoits, evil men, etc, into Prophets, by just his glance. He has boundless powers. The same cannot be said about any Abrahamic Prophet. They were mere prophets with limited powers.  The Almighty Lord can send millions of Prophets to earth. One cannot even compare a Prophet or a Saint, with the Almighty God himself.

Don't get me wrong bro. All Sikhs are suppose to respect Abrahamic Prophets, but they are revered according to their level.

 

6 hours ago, truthseeker546 said:

 

Hindu by the way just means someone from India, it refers to the religion relatively recently, so what I mean't is that Indian culture, with  influences from the Hindu religion has a huge bearing and affect on Sikhism, it's really obvious if you look at the without bias.

 

 

Don't get into semantics. Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, even though, the term "Hindu" is relatively new. Let's call it Sanatan mat, if that makes you happy.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

 

Edited November 8, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

9 hours ago, truthseeker546 said:

your  point about human suffering over animal protection is well noted - so didn't the early Sikhs think of these questions also - why go to war over cows when so much human rights violation war occurring at that time?

 

Cow protection is a must for Sikhs, unlike for you. The above points were meant for you, as you brought the issue of animal cruelty into the picture. If some people try to kill a cow in front of Sikhs, they will fight to protect it, if possible. What will you do, if your mother is being molested in front of your eyes? Will you be worried about mistreatment of animals at that point? 

One tackles issues, which occur in his vicinity. This is human nature. Cow slaughter was committed by some tyrants in Punjab (home to majority of Sikhs) in the past and Sikhs fought to save cows. When Sikhs rule the entire world, they will make sure cow slaughter is banned and human rights are not violated everywhere. Currently, we don't have any country in the world, which runs entirely on Sikh principles.

FYI, in the past, Sikhs defended human rights in Punjab too, along with protecting cows.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited November 8, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

On 11/4/2015, 8:20:18, truthseeker546 said:

No one has mentioned anything about other animals that are the main producers of milk on other parts of the world - eg. Goats, camels

 Is there any major world religion, which considers goats, camels, etc, sacred, as Hindus consider cows?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[CdnSikhGirl]

2 hours ago, paapiman said:

 

Cow protection is a must for Sikhs, unlike for you. The above points were meant for you. If some people try to kill a cow in front of Sikhs, they will fight to protect it.

Truthseeker: Ask Paapiman if this includes the baby cows killed so he can drink his milk?? Or the Mother cows killed at only 4 or 5 years of age because they were bred so many times they are burned out and can't provide any more milk (when a cow's normal lifespan is 18-25+ years of age). 

[truthseeker546]

OK thanks for your replies -

 

@Satkirin_Kaur - Thanks for your notes - your 100% correct. The hypocrisy is mind blowing, not that I have an issue with that as it's not my religion. However although this not a main stream theological issue, the "religious" reasoning applied to certain beliefs/ideas are used all over Sikhism. During the times of Gurus till now... they don't make sense.

 

I absolutely agree with you @Satkirin_Kaur   so great :)   - I'm still having issues understanding the dichotomy in the SGGS, can you find out for me why there is a contradiction.

 

@Paapiman - let's start with logical issues - maybe that will help with the cow problems.

 

   "Claiming to be from God is different from started by Almighty God himself, in physical form. It should be elementary to understand"

 

OK - lets let this step by step.

 

1 - All religion claim to be from God and have at some point (via an intermediary or otherwise) have been started by God.

 

2- Christians believe Jesus was God, or the Son of God/ so Christianity was started by God himself. Hows that different to what you are claiming.

 

3- The fact that you are Sikh and you might "believe" your religion is true and that Sikhism was indeed started by God himself, and the other religions are not true (at least not in their current form) does not make your stance any more truer then say a Christian who "believes" Christ was the son of God and the Gurus were ordinary people. Matter of prospective depending on what you believe.

 

4- I tried to address this issue about the belief in Gurus on a thread I called " Gurus and Gods". It seems Sikhs themselves are confused as to what they believe regarding the Gurus. - ie. where they human or Gods. I can reopen that one if you want to discuss this?

 

I understand Satkirin's stance that everybody is God, which has it's own set of issues and problems. Put it simply  to say everybody is special, is saying no one is - to say everybody is God means no one is. - How can you blame the Human (God) eating the cow (God)-   Sikhism ends up with a lot more issues with this belief.

 

Now back to the cow;

 

lol at your quote from the Gita. On one hand you're claiming Sikhism is a unique religion, free from Hinduism, then you go and quote the Gita as proof. Hummmm. So you get this from Hinduism - is that what your saying. The Gita might say the Cow is holy but the bible sure as hell don't - how can you pick and chose between faiths?

 

As for your comments on protecting cows over humans. OK I can get that in Sikhism some Sikhs consider them pure or holy or like mothers - ignoring all the hypocrisies. But it's only Sikhs and Hindus to my knowledge that give the cow a high status, to everyone else its another animal - no more special than any other.

 

So when you say if Sikhism ruled the world we would ban cow slaughter, and praise people in the past that stopped cow "butchers" (btw otherwise known as normal people) by fighting them - isn't this forcing your beliefs on other people - the very thing Sikh detested about the Mughals ?

I'm believe in animal rights, but I don't see the cow any more important then a dog. Why should I be forced to follow Sikki if I were living under Sikhism?

 

[Guest]

Th hyporisy is making the statement that "cows must be protected" and then saying that dairy is perfectly fine and that cows were intended to produce milk for humans.  The reality is, that many thousands of babay male cows are killed in the first days of their life or sold to the meat industry so we can have the milk that was meant for them.  Additionally, hormones are given to the Mother cows, to force them to produce all this extra milk. They don't produce that much naturally. A cow's udders are not supposed to be so large that they nearly drag on the ground! And then the dairy cows burn out at age 4-5 and are killed, when a cows normal lifepan is 18-25+ years.  So to say that cows must be protected, and then say milk is perfectly fine... makes one a hipocrite!

As for God being within everything... Creation itself is within the Creator - as a dream or thought - since everything is WITHIN God, just like a dream, everything must actually BE God as well. Just like dream characters are ALL really the dreamer.  Matter is just energy in sow state of vibration. Einstein stated this.  But what is that energy? That base energy is Akal Purakh.  Pure consciousness without form.  In this physical reality though, our physical bodies must follow physical world rules.  Meaning we need sustenence. But that sustenence does not have to come from animals.... or does it? Either way does not matter in the end.  Guru Nanak Dev Ji spoke against the hypocrisy and not meat eating itself.  He also spoke against ritual killing / sacrifice to God... think of it, how can you sacrifice a part of God to God?? Makes no sense!  It's the act of ritual sacrifice (useless) that was spoken against and why we do not allow meat killed the Muslim way (or by extension Kosher).  This is why he said "the fools argue about flesh, but know nothing about spirituality".  A lot of references in SGGSJ, were pointing to situations or reference points which people at that time and in that culture could understand. They were used to illustrate a point and not the main point of the shabad itself.  Always look for the 'rahao' line as that gives you the context.

One example to show how this plays out: the shabad speaking about blood... it says [if] blood pollutes clothing, [then] what of those who suck the blood of others [exploitation]... the first part of that 'blood pollutes clothing' has been used to denegrate women and disallow them from doing seva during menstruation. However, using it in this way is taken out of context. The shabad is not actually saying that blood pollutes clothing at all. It's using a belief prevalent at the time in Hinduism (sootak - that women are ritually impure during menstruation), and making the reader do a 180 degree thought on it by comparing it to what really matters.  Since Gurbani overwhelmingly refers to our inner thoughts, our deeds, our minds and Ego, then it's saying that if you think blood pollutes clothing, then what you do think about those who (metaphorically) suck the blood of others (exploitation).

In a similar manner, the cow references are used. I don't think that they are direct orders to protect cows any more than other animals. In fact ALL animals deserve protection. They are ALL souls on the same journey as us!  Paapiman likes to argue that they are lower beings than us and so do not deserve equal treatment. (He uses the same argument to justify women having less than equal treatment to men) It's true they are less evolved spiritually and consciously, but the soul within them, is on the exact same journey as us, and we should not cause them more suffering than is necessary.  Some people with empathic abilities can discern discrete emotions in animals on par with humans. They bond with their young, many bond for life with a mate, those that live in communities with a single dominant male, the females tend to bond with each other etc. And one can easily see that when a member of their species dies which was close, they genuinely mourn the loss.  There IS consciousness there.  If we cause them a particularly painful or prolonged death, that memory may stay with that soul... who may eventually end up in a human body.  This is why meat in Sikhi must be killed swiftly and with a single blow as to cause instantaneous death, unlike halal which allows the animal to suffer for several minutes while it slowly bleeds out and experiences shock.

Those passages which say 'a cow without milk is useless' are pointing to the fact that cows were commonly kept for milk back then, and nothing more.  Farmers could understand the reference that a cow who can not produce milk anymore is no longer useful to them. The comparison was to a mind without naam - so it's saying just as you consider a cow to be useless without milk, so too is your mind without naam.  So it's not actually saying that cows are useless or even that it's ok to drink milk any more than eating meat. In fact the passage is quite indifferent on both subjects since the 'rahao' is the line speaking about mind and naam.

I hope this makes some sense??

SK Work

Th hyporisy is making the statement that "cows must be protected" and then saying that dairy is perfectly fine and that cows were intended to produce milk for humans.  The reality is, that many thousands of babay male cows are killed in the first days of their life or sold to the meat industry so we can have the milk that was meant for them.  Additionally, hormones are given to the Mother cows, to force them to produce all this extra milk. They don't produce that much naturally. A cow's udders are not supposed to be so large that they nearly drag on the ground! And then the dairy cows burn out at age 4-5 and are killed, when a cows normal lifepan is 18-25+ years.  So to say that cows must be protected, and then say milk is perfectly fine... makes one a hipocrite!

As for God being within everything... Creation itself is within the Creator - as a dream or thought - since everything is WITHIN God, just like a dream, everything must actually BE God as well. Just like dream characters are ALL really the dreamer.  Matter is just energy in sow state of vibration. Einstein stated this.  But what is that energy? That base energy is Akal Purakh.  Pure consciousness without form.  In this physical reality though, our physical bodies must follow physical world rules.  Meaning we need sustenence. But that sustenence does not have to come from animals.... or does it? Either way does not matter in the end.  Guru Nanak Dev Ji spoke against the hypocrisy and not meat eating itself.  He also spoke against ritual killing / sacrifice to God... think of it, how can you sacrifice a part of God to God?? Makes no sense!  It's the act of ritual sacrifice (useless) that was spoken against and why we do not allow meat killed the Muslim way (or by extension Kosher).  This is why he said "the fools argue about flesh, but know nothing about spirituality".  A lot of references in SGGSJ, were pointing to situations or reference points which people at that time and in that culture could understand. They were used to illustrate a point and not the main point of the shabad itself.  Always look for the 'rahao' line as that gives you the context.

One example to show how this plays out: the shabad speaking about blood... it says [if] blood pollutes clothing, [then] what of those who suck the blood of others [exploitation]... the first part of that 'blood pollutes clothing' has been used to denegrate women and disallow them from doing seva during menstruation. However, using it in this way is taken out of context. The shabad is not actually saying that blood pollutes clothing at all. It's using a belief prevalent at the time in Hinduism (sootak - that women are ritually impure during menstruation), and making the reader do a 180 degree thought on it by comparing it to what really matters.  Since Gurbani overwhelmingly refers to our inner thoughts, our deeds, our minds and Ego, then it's saying that if you think blood pollutes clothing, then what you do think about those who (metaphorically) suck the blood of others (exploitation).

In a similar manner, the cow references are used. I don't think that they are direct orders to protect cows any more than other animals. In fact ALL animals deserve protection. They are ALL souls on the same journey as us!  Paapiman likes to argue that they are lower beings than us and so do not deserve equal treatment. It's true they are less evolved spiritually and consciously, but the soul within them, is on the exact same journey as us, and we should not cause them more suffering than is necessary.  Some people with empathic abilities can discern discrete emotions in animals on par with humans. They bond with their young, many bond for life with a mate, those that live in communities with a single dominant male, the females tend to bond with each other etc. And one can easily see that when a member of their species dies which was close, they genuinely mourn the loss.  There IS consciousness there.  If we cause them a particularly painful or prolonged death, that memory may stay with that soul... who may eventually end up in a human body.  This is why meat in Sikhi must be killed swiftly and with a single blow as to cause instantaneous death, unlike halal which allows the animal to suffer for several minutes while it slowly bleeds out and experiences shock.

Those passages which say 'a cow without milk is useless' are pointing to the fact that cows were commonly kept for milk back then, and nothing more.  Farmers could understand the reference that a cow who can not produce milk anymore is no longer useful to them. The comparison was to a mind without naam - so it's saying just as you consider a cow to be useless without milk, so too is your mind without naam.  So it's not actually saying that cows are useless or even that it's ok to drink milk any more than eating meat. In fact the passage is quite indifferent on both subjects since the 'rahao' is the line speaking about mind and naam.

I hope this makes some sense??

SK Work

 

 

 

[paapiman]

1 hour ago, truthseeker546 said:

 

1 - All religion claim to be from God and have at some point (via an intermediary or otherwise) have been started by God.

- Indirectly started by God, through a Prophet, is different from actually started by the Almighty God himself. Any educated person should be able to understand that. Prophets were not perfect, unlike Satguru Nanak Dev jee, who is the physical manifestation of the Almighty God.

 

2- Christians believe Jesus was God, or the Son of God/ so Christianity was started by God himself. Hows that different to what you are claiming.

- Sikhs don't believe that Jesus is God. He is a Prophet. Christians have the freedom to claim that Jesus is the "Son of God". Anyways, this is kind of off-topic. Please start a new topic, if you are interested in doing a comparative study on Sikhism and Christianity.

 

3- The fact that you are Sikh and you might "believe" your religion is true and that Sikhism was indeed started by God himself, and the other religions are not true (at least not in their current form) does not make your stance any more truer then say a Christian who "believes" Christ was the son of God and the Gurus were ordinary people. Matter of prospective depending on what you believe.

- People have the freedom to believe in whichever religion they want.  Please remember that you are on a Sikh forum; I am not on a Christian or a Muslim forum.

 

4- I tried to address this issue about the belief in Gurus on a thread I called " Gurus and Gods". It seems Sikhs themselves are confused as to what they believe regarding the Gurus. - ie. where they human or Gods. I can reopen that one if you want to discuss this?

- Clear evidence has been provided on this forum to prove that Satguru Nanak Dev jee is the incarnation of the Almighty God. If some people (born in Sikh families) don't believe in it, it's their problem. Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, etc) and Islam (Wahabi, Sunni, Shia, etc) also have sects in them, which have massive differences among them. Do you want to go there? If yes, please start a new topic.

 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited November 9, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

9 hours ago, truthseeker546 said:

 

As for your comments on protecting cows over humans. OK I can get that in Sikhism some Sikhs consider them pure or holy or like mothers - ignoring all the hypocrisies. But it's only Sikhs and Hindus to my knowledge that give the cow a high status, to everyone else its another animal - no more special than any other.

- If people want to treat the cow just like another animal, it's their wish.

 

So when you say if Sikhism ruled the world we would ban cow slaughter, and praise people in the past that stopped cow "butchers" (btw otherwise known as normal people) by fighting them - isn't this forcing your beliefs on other people - the very thing Sikh detested about the Mughals ?

- Almighty God's command is to protect cows. We will do it. If we rule the world, we won't force people to believe that cow is an estimable animal or like a mother. They can treat cow, just like other animals, but they won't be allowed to butcher cows. They are like mothers to us. What will you do if someone comes to butcher your mother?

 

I'm believe in animal rights, but I don't see the cow any more important then a dog. Why should I be forced to follow Sikki if I were living under Sikhism?

- A cow can provide you milk for many years (keeping you healthy and providing valuable nutrients), which even your human mother cannot. If you still think that a cow is as good as a dog, you are free to think so.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited November 9, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

1 hour ago, truthseeker546 said:

 

lol at your quote from the Gita. On one hand you're claiming Sikhism is a unique religion, free from Hinduism, then you go and quote the Gita as proof. Hummmm. So you get this from Hinduism - is that what your saying. The Gita might say the Cow is holy but the bible sure as hell don't - how can you pick and chose between faiths?

 

- When did I claim that Sikhism is free from Hinduism? Can you please provide proof? How can you stop us from picking and choosing from faiths? Where is our freedom?

 

Thanks

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

On 10/27/2015, 1:12:24, truthseeker546 said:

Bro, let's keep things simple by going back to your initial post.

The relationship between the cow and Sikhism has long since intrigued  me. A recent post leads me to ask " what is the relationship between the sacredness of the cow and Sikhism?

Did any of the Guru's or do any of the Sikh scripture promote the idea of sacredness to the cow? If so, can someone give me some proof? 

- Proof has been provided. 

 

What about other animals that are revered in Hinduism, I know the 24 incarnations mentions certain animals that are revered in the Hindu faith, Is it the same in Sikki?

- Sikhs don't worship any animals. We only worship the one Almighty God. Even in the case of cows, we don't worship them, but they are special animals created by God to provide us valuable food. They act like mothers for humans.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited November 9, 2015 by paapiman