Singh47 Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 That still does not change the fact that even the Vedas speak against killing animals for food. Besides the Vedas even the scriptures of the Vaishnavas, Shaivates etc are against animals for food. Consumption of animals for food is a foreign influence in India. Bhisham who is regarded as one of the greatest Kshatriyas ever refers to meat eaters as the Vilest of human beings! “YOu surely have Smartas, Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Shaktas but there never were Sanatanis before the 19th century!†hmm, I always suspected that the Sanatanis (which includes Sanatani Sikhs) were a recent phenomena non-existent before the 19th century as even admitted by you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Not all Vaishanavas accept the Vedas. The Pancaratra tradition for example does not. And regarding animal sacrifice please stop lying everyone knows that in the Vedic religion animals were sacrificed e.g. the famous ashvamedha! I personally refrain from using the term Sanatan Sikhi for many reasons. To clarify the difference between the Neo-SIkhs and the authentic traditional Sikhi I use the term puratan Sikhi. So it seems you missed your point Singh47. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh princess Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 NO I think you missed the point. This is funny, Narsingha's whole website is based on that fact that 'sanatan' sikhi goes back to the time of creation and lalleshvari has just admitted that there is no such thing as 'sanatan' sikhi before the 19th century! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narsingha Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Sikh princess, unlike mainstream Sikhs, Sanatan Sikhs allow the right for people to have opinions of their own. Its a fact that not everyone will agree on every issue....its termed "reality". If lalleshvari does not wish to use the term "Sanatan Sikhi", that is his right, and his opinion is respected. Live and let live. Sanatan Sikhs do not believe in creating Sikhs that look, act, and behave in identical manner. We prefer variety...and colourful personalities that have the ability to express themselves. Its a known fact that Raam, Krishan Maharaj, etc all hunted and ate meat. The vegetarian tinge arose much later. Consult any Archarya who has had old-school training and they will confirm this. Even within Dasam Guru Durbar, Krishan Maharaj's exploits are told in great detail...it may be a suggestion to read them. In one situation, Akali Nihang Guru Gobind Singh ji describes how Krishan Maharaj even mocks those who do not drink alcohol and partake in the company of fine women. Was the Guru incorrect? (btw, this is mentioned in Krishan Avtar, which is present even the SGPC-sanctioned versions of Dasam Guru Durbar) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Narsingha Veer: i'm not educated on this matter at all, so don't take this as a sarcastic question, but just trying to clarify one thing.. is it possible that in Dasam Granth, Guru Gobind Singh Ji's mocking of those who don't drink liquor but enjoy women.. could that not be simply metaphorical for if you're not going to be pure, then don't be pure at all? like.. if youre gonna tatoo your body, pierce it and all, then don't pretend like you're the greatest Gursikh inside the Darbar Hall, type of metaphor? thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hari Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 NO I think you missed the point. This is funny, Narsingha's whole website is based on that fact that 'sanatan' sikhi goes back to the time of creation and lalleshvari has just admitted that there is no such thing as 'sanatan' sikhi before the 19th century! :arrow: Aad Sach Jugaad Sach.Hai Bhi Sach Nanak Hosi Bhi Sach. Sikhi comes from Akaal Purukh, hence Sikhi is Akaal Purukh.Sikhi is Truth, you should know this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Aad Sach Jugaad Sach.Hai Bhi Sach Nanak Hosi Bhi Sach. Sikhi comes from Akaal Purukh, hence Sikhi is Akaal Purukh.Sikhi is Truth, you should know this. Thanks, Sikhi is truly timeless. Too bad I cant say the same about Sanatan Sikhi which did not even exist before the 19th century. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guv Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Thanks, Sikhi is truly timeless. Too bad I cant say the same about Sanatan Sikhi which did not even exist before the 19th century. what lalleshvari actually said was: I personally refrain from using the term Sanatan Sikhi for many reasons. To clarify the difference between the Neo-SIkhs and the authentic traditional Sikhi I use the term puratan Sikhi. So it seems you missed your point Singh47. it's a matter of terminology. according to lalleshvari, the term sanatan dharam was not used before the 19th century, so he prefers to use puratan sikhi. although i'm sure i heard a quote from sarbloh granth mentioning sanatan dharam... i may be wrong... could anyone clarify? the term dinosaur did not exist before the last millenium... that does not mean dinosaurs did not exist before then! another example is that the term akhand kirtani jatha was not always used... before it was known as bhai randhir singh da jatha. people now choose to use the term akj... but that does not mean that akj did not exist before the conception of the name. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 No guv, Veer Lalleshwari originally said the following: “YOu surely have Smartas, Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Shaktas but there never were Sanatanis before the 19th century!†As you can see, he named a number of religious groups, and ended it by saying the Sanatanis never existed before the 19th century implying that the Sanatanis as we know them today started only after the 19th century. So I stand corrected. "another example is that the term akhand kirtani jatha was not always used... before it was known as bhai randhir singh da jatha. people now choose to use the term akj... but that does not mean that akj did not exist before the conception of the name." What source do you have for this that proves it was ever called "bhai randhir singh da jatha"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 so, yeah.. Why is the cow sacred? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guv Posted June 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 YOu surely have Smartas, Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Shaktas but there never were Sanatanis before the 19th century! hmm, I always suspected that the Sanatanis (which includes Sanatani Sikhs) were a recent phenomena non-existent before the 19th century as even admitted by you. I personally refrain from using the term Sanatan Sikhi for many reasons. To clarify the difference between the Neo-SIkhs and the authentic traditional Sikhi I use the term puratan Sikhi. So it seems you missed your point Singh47. the quote i used was lalleshvari's response to u misinterpreting his first post. something which u've done again! please try reading the posts carefully, so that u don't make the same mistake twice. What source do you have for this that proves it was ever called "bhai randhir singh da jatha"? http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/sikhism/akha.html ------------------- so, yeah.. Why is the cow sacred? that is the question. i believe hari explained why the cow is sacred to vaishnavs, but is that the same reason for sikhs? or for different reasons? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAadmin Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 so, yeah.. Why is the cow sacred? Karl Luo Gal Hun... sariii ramyan mouk giii... hun poch daie hooaie sita kaun ccc??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Lalleshwari wrote: ““YOu surely have Smartas, Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Shaktas but there never were Sanatanis before the 19th century!â€â€ Sikh princess in response wrote: “NO I think you missed the point. This is funny, Narsingha's whole website is based on that fact that 'sanatan' sikhi goes back to the time of creation and lalleshvari has just admitted that there is no such thing as 'sanatan' sikhi before the 19th century!†Narsingha in response to that wrote: “ Sikh princess, unlike mainstream Sikhs, Sanatan Sikhs allow the right for people to have opinions of their own. Its a fact that not everyone will agree on every issue....its termed "reality". If lalleshvari does not wish to use the term "Sanatan Sikhi", that is his right, and his opinion is respected. Live and let live. Sanatan Sikhs do not believe in creating Sikhs that look, act, and behave in identical manner. We prefer variety...and colourful personalities that have the ability to express themselves.†Me, Sikh Princess, heck even Narsingha sees it. But you don’t… Even Narsingha (a “Sanatan†Sikh) admits that Lalleshwari has the “right†to have his own opinion in regards to his opinion that Sanatanis did not exist before the 19th century. You should reread the entire thread and analyze it carefully because everyone is seeing it except for you. "http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/sikhism/akha.html " This is not a credible source, it doesn’t even provide a source from where it got its information from. Provide a source from an AKJ book in which AKJ is referred to as "randhir singh da jatha". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commander Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 ... but is that the same reason for sikhs? or for different reasons? Guv, I don't believe that you have established that Sikhs consider Cows sacred. The quotes you have provided do not clearly support such a conclusion either. Maybe you should conduct a poll on Sikhawareness to see how many Sikhs consider the Cow a sacred animal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 is this a cow/buffalo? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 ^ Its a goat 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 hmm the caption on the site said "buctheringcow", but it looks too small to be a buffalo, maybe ur right 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Nihangs do NOT kill cows!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guv Posted June 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Even Narsingha (a “Sanatan†Sikh) admits that Lalleshwari has the “right†to have his own opinion in regards to his opinion that Sanatanis did not exist before the 19th century. what narsingha actually said was (as even u quoted!) If lalleshvari does not wish to use the term "Sanatan Sikhi"' date=' that is his right, and his opinion is respected. Live and let live.[/quote'] as i said originally: this is going round in circles... perhaps it would be easier if u clarified exactly how u define: 1. "sanatanis" 2. "sanatan dharm" (actually i asked u what your definition of "sanatan dharam" was earlier, but u never answered) 3. "sanatan sikhi" 4. who are "sanatan" sikhs. (from what u said, u see narsingha as a sanatan sikh... do u see lalleshvari as something else?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sardar Moderator Singh Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Dear All, Please can we keep this comment objective and relevant to the topic at hand. There have been many posts in the past on the matter of what and whom is Sanatan, please have a look at those, unfortunately owing to the usual knee-jerk reactions we inevitably see when discussing such matters, conclusions were rarely reached in the midst of personality slander and personal agendas. Should anyone wish to open up the discussion on what and who can be defined as Sanatan, please open a new thread. This concerns the status of the Cow (Go) as Holy -please continue to discuss this appropriately. Thanking you all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherni-E-Punjab Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 It seems pretty logical if Bhai Randhir Singh founded the movement - that the 'jatha' might take afterwards his name. Also, I was able to find few more sources where AKJ is reffered to of Bhai Randhir Singh...and as I was taught in grammar school, if you can cross-check the information on multiple sites, it is probably true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maha_Pavitar Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 What does this have to do with the discussion..just out of curiousity?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Bambokat Jee, but just because some non-AKJ Sikhs sometimes refer to AKJ as "bhai randhir singh dha jatha" does not mean it was ever officially called 'bhai randhir singh da jatha'. Similarly I have heard of many people refer to the followers of Baba Santa Singh as "santa singh da jatha", or in Punjab many people still refer to Sant Jernail SIngh Jee's armed followers as "bhindrawalay da bandookha da jatha". Pendu people of Punjab say a lot of things. But you will never find AKJ being referred to as ‘randhir singh da jatha’ by any book written by an AKJ sikh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maha_Pavitar Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 again..what is the relevance? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 Mod's Note: Edited! Please leave humor aside and stick to the topic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.