SIKHISM and meat

[Bane]

Not everyone has time to buy meat from a farmer or tend a garden. The free time people have now is not much. I myself work over 50 hours a week, and find it difficult to consume nutritious wholesome food because it is not readily available, you have to go to lengths to obtain it. Most people have to work and raise a family, maybe they are not well off, sometimes you have to accpet what you are given. My point is life for some people is somewhat incompatible with ideals prescribed in old texts. Not everyone has rich parents that can afford to send them to university. An arrogant attitude towards people of lesser understanding is pointless, and unsophistiacted.

[Guest Javanmard]

1. What is gross about the example? It is accurate and fits the purpose of proving that just because a praxis is based on an oral tradition that one should dismiss the textual reference.

2. Sophistication in the art of discussion implies things like:

not stating ex nihilo statements such as "India has a rich oral tradition" without an appropriate context.

When referring to oral traditions and narratives in Indology one normally refers to narratives that are well established in a given population. In the case of eating pork seems that in praxis and oral tradition the prohibitions and taboos found in textual references are respected except by certain marginal groups. So again I don't see where your reference to Indian oral tradition fits in here. The only example I have found so far in terms of confirmed oral tradition of pork eating as a tradition is in a French work based on discussions with an outcaste woman from Southern India (Racine,J & J.L.1995. Une Vie de Paria, Paris: Plon/UNESCO). She refers to her caste's practise of pig sacrifice. Even then their practise is clearly refered to as being opposed to the norm.

This example is not to be put at the same level as individuals who eat pork because of their own preference. This doesn't count as an oral tradition and in any case even there it is in contradiction with the norm. So much for being subtle.

[Guest Javanmard]

1. My parents aren't rich. I am the son of poor working class immigrants who had to work hard to get my education despite racism and great financial difficulties. With Maharaj's grace I have been able to study at some of the best universities in the world and that without daddy's money or having contacts in the university. The fact that I have been able to teach at university is only due to two things: Maharaj's grace and hard work! So keep your preaching to yourself.

2. I have also been through the 50 hours a week job (remember my parents aren't rich) and not once was I tempted by food that contained pork or beef. Even when I was working on construction sites under the summer sun carrying 50kg ciment bags...The reason my family gets meat like that it's precisely because it's cheaper and healthier! So again keep your preaching to yourself.

3. If you take the information I give as arrogance that is your own personal problem and in this case guess what...you can keep your preaching for yourself again!

[Bane]

I don't believe in 100% reliance on texts, India also has a rich oral tradition which cannot be found in texts.

Maryada tells us to keep kesh (theory) yet most "Sikhs" don't (praxis), does that mean we should dismiss textual evidence?

What is gross about the example? It is accurate and fits the purpose of proving that just because a praxis is based on an oral tradition that one should dismiss the textual reference.

I never said "that one should dismiss the textual reference" There should be a mutual coming together of textual sources with the reality we live in. This is my point. Relying solely on textual sources to live your life is to put it bluntly seriously Naieve because you are dismissing the fact that the manifest world, maya, changes continiously. Not just day to day but also over long periods of time. A certain sadhana may be suitable for sat jug but not kaliyug. Modern academics seem to like have everything spelt out for them, too rooted in objectivity for my liking.

[Bane]

Not everyone has rich parents that can afford to send them to university. An arrogant attitude towards people of lesser understanding is pointless, and unsophistiacted.

I shouldn't have directed those assumptions towards you I apologise. I respect your achievements and respect people who work hard. Your posts are very informative, even though you come across to me as arrogant your right its my personal problem and should not have been said.

[Guest Javanmard]

1. As you seem to so conscienscious about the ethics of discussion you should know that in the exchange of arguments that is the discussion arguments should precisely be "spelt out". For someone who puts so much emphasis on sophistication you should be aware that a discussion without clearly 'spelt out' is impossible.

2. It isn't just "modern academics" who try to be as objective as possible. All serious academics try to reach a stage of objectivity that enables proper research. But I don't really see what academic objectivity has got to do with the issue of theory or praxis in our discussion. An acedemic who stops trying to be objective is not an academic anymore. Your statement:

"Modern academics seem to like have everything spelt out for them, too rooted in objectivity for my liking." is oxymoronic by essence and devoid of validity.

3. I do get your point about a somehow exagerated textualism in terms of praxis but you should realise that though understandable your own statement contains in itself dangers in terms of taking liberties with textual authority (even though I know this isn't what you intend). In any case regarding the taboo on beef and pork there is no problem with it in the so-called "moden world". Most of us live in societies that are pretty much accomodating in terms of dietary choice so that abstaining from pork and beef isn't a problem at all for those who claim to follow a kshatriya type of life style. And I say this out of knowledge of the source and my own experience.

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Das finds one thing over here.

when as per as Bijai Mukt Sakhi Dasvi(Part of Panj Sau Sakhi).

Sikhs obejcted about Churhas killing cow with poison or perhpas otherwise for leather and meat.

Guru told them that if you have to save it,buy it and take care of it.

Churhas are doing a good work and from that work only do you get leather for mucical intstrument.

Coming to Kastriya Maryada,We can read Bhai Gurdas First Bani and Bhabgus book.Guru united Four Varnas as one.

So like Sudra Gunas in us to do Service we can have any food but not Halal.(they ate dead so were called Halal Khors or obdients.Once they served Muslim under Baba Jewan Singh Ji,Muslims joked to Sikhs that your brethern are Halal Khors of us).

Sikhs told those Sikhs that in this world or in next world our Brotherhood breakes if you continue with this Job.They rejoined thier Sikh brethrens.

So for Sudars dead animal is Allowed and to do service we do outsamrt Sudras.So for that diet can be like that of sudra but intellect of Brahmin,Earning of Vaishya and figthing of Kshtriya.

just humble opininion.Mahatma Budha,just took pork(Sukar Maddav) before his death as Kushnara.

Say dog is dog wild or domestic and there is not much differnt betweens boas also.Das could see few tusks coming out.but domsitic breeds are bred without that so that do not attack owner.

Cow is co with or without horns,Elephant is elephant with or without tusks.

and filth thing can be consumed by Lambs and Chiecken also in rural Areas.And wheat also gets manure from human waste.

[kdsingh80]

<<and filth thing can be consumed by Lambs and Chiecken also in rural Areas.And wheat also gets manure from human waste.>>

very well said vijaydeep singh ji lambs and chickens too consume filth.i myself has seen hens eating from drainage.so for those who say that pig is unclean are wrong.this is islamic superstition which should not be bought into sikhism.

[Khalsa'z_Pyari]

Everyone, thank you for all the feed back. :wink:

[Singh47]

"Compassion is the basis of morality..."

Take a good look at this video which shows how meat ends up at your dinner table.

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?vi...live_transport3

[Guest Javanmard]

Not on my table thank God!

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Well bro Singh47 Ji,

Das saw that there are rules in west to prohibit curltiy to animals but here we may kill animal ourselves but compasion has to be more on man then say animal.

As per Russian(rather sovit) socail scintists here many men die of hunger and if stary cattle which is left on road just for religeous reason,to die or to eat filth or to invade agricultral fieds,is made part of dinner then problem of hunger can end.

[Khalsa'z_Pyari]

"Compassion is the basis of morality..."

Take a good look at this video which shows how meat ends up at your dinner table.

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?vi...live_transport3

THANK YOU, lol i'll show this to my older brother see if it changes his mind. :wink:

[unbreakable]

..

[Khalsa'z_Pyari]

Waheguru. All this over meat.

Tell your brother, eat what he wants, Stop looking for excuses.

This is what really gets to me, when people look for excuses.

"oh the Qu'ran doesn't say anything about smoking, so I can bust a joint"

very tru...