Guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 fanatic vegetarian mainstream Sikhs u say it like not eatin meat is a crime or something, that ur disgusted by the fact that most "mainstream" sikhs are vegetarian ...just cos someone wishes not to eat meat u call em "fanatic" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narsingha Posted June 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 Whether a person is a vegetarian, or meat eater doesnt matter ....what does matter is when people enforce their vegetarianism on others and claim to be doing it for the good of Sikhi. I dont see anyone forcing people toe at meat, so why shud anyone force others to abstain from it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 if someone tells a meat eater to stop eating meat, i doubt it will have any effect on them - people are very stubborn in their ways... its jus the same as how non meat eaters can be told to eat meat... whether u like either view or not - there is no need to start callin people fanatics... u obviously have friction with groups such as akj, if they have a strict view on eatin meat whats that to u???... if u wanna eat meat go ahead.... didnt u say on another thread that if u wish to go to the higher level of shastar vidiya that u have to accept taking shaheedi degh and chatka?... isnt that a form of tellin people what they should do???.... .... u support these things.. and they support a vegetarian diet... there is bound to be a clash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narsingha Posted June 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 I mentioned that you have to ACCEPT and RESPECT these aspects, not practice them. There is a difference. Never is any individual forced to consume meat or shaheedi degh against their will. Great warriors such as Paindeh Khan never consumed chatka but remained eaters of Halal. Akali Nihang Singh Khalsa do not preach that all HAVE to eat meat, that has never been the case. There are plenty of Akali Nihang Singhs who are vegetarians, but unlike the fanatic vegetarian mainstream Sikhs I refer to, these Akali Nihang Singhs do not enforce their vegetariansim on others, nor do they actively preach against meat. Unlike other groups that exist within mainstream Sikhi, vegetarianism or partaking of Mahapraasad is not enforced upon an individual within the Akali Nihang Khalsa Panth The term "fanactic vegetarians" is apt as it refers to those people who enforce vegetarianism on people and consider meat eating as being anti-Gurmat simply because it does not appeal to their version of Sikhi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narsingha Posted June 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 forgot to mention ..regardless of what people may think, these traditions and maryada will continue regardless...they are Sanatan.... If people wish to accept them, or not, or respect ..or not... doesnt really affect the Akali Nihang Singh Khalsa or the Sanatan Sikhs...it will continue on regardless as maryada is above anyone's personal opinions or petty insults. Bottom line, we are simply providing information, what u wish to do with it is ur choice...if u wish to ignore it...exercise ur freedom and move on to wat u may consider greener pastures.. If u wish to learn more...there is more... If however, all u wish to do is insult it (or the individuals promoting it) then dear fellow, thats cool too...it just motivates us more to continue to ensure this maryada is kept alive....be it at the expense of our lives. :twisted: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 well i guess its the case of "live and let live"... i do not wish to have an arguement with u on this matter, i hope to improve myself rather then pick out faults in other people these disputes between people will never amount to nothing, the day all jathas and groups unite under the kesri nishan sahib and put aside their differences will be the first step of the khalsa raj, until then, this widening gap will only become wider.... when shri guru gobind singh maharaj created the khalsa he wanted a distinct group, a unique khalsa panth.... what have we nowadays??? different groups arguing that their way is right... no one backing down to no one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 well said steele bangle & Narsingha veer...no point just live and let live.. hun tusi dunouou guat kaie daffi paa luouoououo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BikramjitSingh Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 Narsingha You are so predictable. Can you ever debate in a manner where you do not assume that your view is the only correct one and any Sikh who doesn't agree with your 'sanatan' sikhism formulation is a stooge of the SGPC. Before you dismiss Professor Sahib Singh as a 'a stooge of the SGPC with an education from the British Raj' you should read some of his writings, especially where he has shown up Giani Gain Singh's tendency to weave anti-Gurmat fairy stories around the most simplest of events. Professor Sahib Singh was a thousand times more educated than either you or me. His 'Gurbani Vyakaran' ( Gurbani Grammer ) was the first work on the subject. Professor Sahib Singh tested the stories associated with the compilation of the Guru Granth Sahib using the test of Gurbani and rational argument. He did not, as Giani Gian Singh did accept every fanciful story told by Udasis and Nirmalas. Do not dismiss him out of hand because of your bais against anyone who does not support your 'sanatan' Sikhism views. If you would like to discuss Giani Gian Singh's writings then I will post some of his writings and perhaps we can test his writings using Gurbani. But I think you have been spoon fed the 'sanatan' Sikhism without any opportunity to use your own thinking. If you are not the 'chief' of 'sanatan' Sikhism then perhaps you would like to invite him/her here and we can have a real debate. Have a debate in the forum where all Sikhs can decide for themselves which 'type' of Sikhism, 'sanatan' or 'mainstream' is the Sikhi that the Gurus preached. Gurfateh Bikramjit Singh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narsingha Posted June 12, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 Firstly, Bikramjit, please try to understand that it is not "my" view that is being presented on the websites. The websites are there to present historical and scriptural truths and Sanatan Sikhi. Personal opinions without any backing have no basis. Besides, I do not claim to be any authority on Sanatan Sikhi. If people see me as such, that is their own perception and I am not going to go around convincing people of anything.... If you can manage to stick to being rational and objective and avoid personal insults (as you normally tend to resort to) then go ahead and post what you wish. With regard to being spoonfed, maybe its time you looked within yourself rather than pointing faults in others. As is evident, if you consider Prof. Sahib Singh's works as being irrefutable, then, its clear you are biased against Sanatan Sikhs (so your arguments as such will also be skewed and not objective). At the end of the day, regardless of how much you cry against Sanatan Sikhi, it will continue to exist. It was around before we came, and will continue to exist long after. In the greater picture, ur personal opinion (and mine) dont really count for much. I assume if you consider Giani Gian Singh Nirmala's works as being of dubious nature, then do you also consider the following line as being incorrect? "Aageya Pey Akal Kee Tabey Chalayoh Panth, Sabh Sikhan Koh Hukam Heh Guru Maneyo Granth" That is simply one of many aspects within Sikhi that has stemmed from Giani Gian Singh Nirmala's works. ...the fact that Giani Gian Singh Nirmala's works are the basis for most modern day texts on Sikh history, including much of Prof Sahib Singh's works too seems to suggest that there is a sound basis for the validity of his works. Why reject one bit of his work and accept another simply because it may or may not agree with ur view of what is correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undergroundsikhi Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 Intersting point, also if you look at The "Encyclopedia of Sikhism" Harbans Singh, Patitala Uni..alot of the references come from Rattan Singh Bhangoo and Giani Gian Singhs work. its now online @ www.allaboutsikhs.com but you have to register I recently bought a book, Called "Sikh in the 18th century, by Surjit Singh Gandhi" and like all other modern historians he has selected the pieces that suit his needs...good stepping stone though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 We are closing this arguement as its getting into discussing of mainstream sikhs vs sanatan sikhs. We have opened up a new discussion so please go there and discuss it. If you think that you have anything to contribute to this topic without your personal comments then feel free to PM me and I will unlock it. Here is the link to new discussion. http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...topic.php?t=856 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts