Talk:Langar: Difference between revisions

This page has been Spilt into several Archived pages to make it more manageable. Please refer to the several different sections:

• Archive 1:Mainly Discussions between Lecturer and Hari Singh

• Archive 2:Mainly Discussions with Lionchild, KingSingh, Lecturer and Hari Singh

• Archive 3:Most Recent Archive done on 28 July 2006

Restating the discussion and Refering to Wikipedia.org

dear Hari Ji

I like your choice selection of refering to Wikipedia when you need to.

Can I try that and refer to their Langaar article too? or is that not acceptable for this point?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar

"At Langar, only vegetarian food is served. This is done to ensure that all people, with whatever dietary restrictions (for example Jains, Jews, or Muslims) will feel welcome to eat as equals."

Remember the reason for this discussion?

I need to restate the reason for this discussion as it seems that you have occupied it mostly for your own agenda.

You changed my correction so your article.

You had written:

"Since it is against the basics of Sikhi to eat meat, fish or eggs; non-vegetarian foods of this sort is neither served nor brought onto the Gurdwara premises."

I changed it to:

"Since the purpose of langaar is to be open to all meat, fish or egg foods of this sort are neither served nor brought into the Gurdwara otherwise it would discriminate the purpose of the langaar. The food should be available to all. Hence the fact that it is usually a basic vegetarian meal."

your rebuke to this was:

" I do not believe that the reason veggie-food is served in Langar is purely for the principle of "equality of all attendees" "

Which will be amazing to any audience reading this but then you went on to say, in a very modern impractical context:

"If the reason for serving veg-food in Langar was only that it served the purpose of equally welcoming vegetarians into Langar then why is it served at wedding parties, where vegetarian also have to attend. Despite non-veg food being served at wedding parties in halls, vegetarians do attend these parties and do not generally complain and eat the food that suits them. So in practical terms, this reason cannot explain the reason why Guru ji appears to have served only vegetarian food in Langar. "

even more...

"Further, it is not very difficult to arrange equal but slightly separate areas for veg and non-veg eaters. It is common in some Gurdwaras to have different areas for men and women. So, I do not believe that this explanation is valid."

And i tried to remid you that:

Remember the basis of Langar. There is no disticntion between people, so everyone can sit together, and the symbolic nature of a Gurdwara having four doors facing all directions is that it is open to all.

That's my reason for changing the article.

I do not think there is any room left on this discussion to remind you of this.

Most of the audience of this discussion is probably wondering beyond belief why you cannot accept this view as the valid reason.

It seems that your fanatic veggie agenda is blinding you.

I hope one day you can put the energies you put into your veggie agenda into being an understanding and compromising soul to all around you.

- Lecturer

Reply

You said: "I like your choice selection of refering to Wikipedia when you need to"

You have failed to mention that these references are to neutral Wikipedia articles, the neutrality of which you are free to dispute – Do you have any objections to the Wikipedia reference for the definition of "meat"; Kingdoms (biology); and article on population of Hindus in India. If not then I wonder why you are mentioning this point? At least, I have made references to other sources, check and see if any of the other posts have used any references? – I think you will find that the other posters have seldom referenced any statement that they make. They just follow their one statement with another with no references and their own Manmat.

It is unacceptable to refer to articles where the neutrality of the article is disputed and several articles on Sikhism at Wikipedia are not accepted as Neutral and adhering to Gurmat principles. Most of my references are to Gurbani. For definitions of some commonly used words, I have referred to Wikipedia – I am sure similar definitions exist elsewhere.

Equality of Food

Thank you for re-focusing on the initial discussion and summarising the history of previous events in this discussion. You say that the serving of Veggie food is for equality reason – because veggie food is acceptable to all and you do not want anyone having any doubt about how the non-veg items were prepared. I put it to you that both veg and non-veg are served at our weddings in halls and no one complains – Where is the equality there? We have had people of all denominations attending these wedding and both types of food are served and I have never heard anyone say that this was unequal. Have you received any complaints, Lecturer ji?

Further at all other major world events like meetings of governments, heads of state, non-Sikh inter-faith do's, etc both foods are served without any problems. In most common places where they serve food to the general community like trains, hospitals, aircrafts, hotel, schools, etc both foods are served. Are you saying that the attendees at these places are getting un-equal treatment? Give me one other example of where else in the world this "equality" argument applies to where both type of food is served or not served.

Now if we analysis your "equality" argument further:

• What you are saying is that for example the Jews eat "kosher" meat; Muslims eat "Halal" meat; Jains are vegan who avoid root veg; Hindus are vegetarians; the Zulu (I believe) are canibals – To serve them Veg makes it equal. Is that what you are saying? And to serve them a choice of both foods makes it un-equal – Please clarify the point where this equality operates at – Is it at the individual level or are you talking about approach to the masses – ie: We serve the same ( and equal) food to all or is it some higher level intellectual level that I have not grasped.

• What you appear to be saying is that to give choice is to be un-equal and to restrict the diet is equality? So why do we serve "root Veg" which Jains (see Wikipedia article on Jainism) prefer not to eat? Where do we draw the line in this argument? What about certain sect who prefer to eat fruits (Fruitarians)? (See ^1) or other specialist diet consumers (need I say Zulus). Are we being "un-equal" to them by offering them only veg food?

• We have people who prefer veg-food, people who prefer meat and other who don't mind either way. Now, you say that serving veggie food to meat-eaters is a sign of "equality" for you then why don't we serve meat to all and call it "equality". You will be serving the same equal food "meat" to everyone. Is this another form of "equality which is the meat-eater will love"? Why does serving veg to all make it "equal" while serving meat to all sound stupid and unacceptable? Think about this very carefully and consider the individual rights of stunch meat-eaters. Are you not discriminating against these individuals who prefer and only like meat? At the 2004 Interfaith Forum, I met a Spanish gentleman who would eat nothing but meat and so did not take langar. Where is the "equality" for him? How would you explain your "equality" to him? Please give me a detailed answer to this without personal attack, please.

• So isn't the truth that SGGS forbids meat the only answer that can be given to these meat eaters!! How can you discriminate against meat-eater, who you say are openly allowed to eat meat by the SGGS (I am stating your position)?

• I am sure you will raise the point regarding Kosher, Halal, etc. So how do you explain the lack of fish in langar? I do not believe that Fish can be Halal or Kosher as it dies by "removal from water" (suffocation by air!!!) So why don't we serve fish to all as a sign of equality for meat-eaters.

For different dining areas for men and women in Gurdwara, please contact Shri Guru Tegh Bahadar Gurdwara in Glasgow, where I personally witnessed this and I am informed the most "Bhatra Sikh community" Gurdwaras (see ^2) have these arrangements. (Bit of useless information, perhaps?)

Personal Attack

You have made a personal attack on me by saying "It seems that your fanatic veggie agenda is blinding you." – This is absolutely incorrect. I am a vegetarian by choice and previously, I used to eat meat. What remark have I made which makes you conclude that I am blinded? I am following the clear message of Gurbani. By making this statement, you are refuting the pure Word of Gurbani. Why don't you call a spade a spade? – Please read the Tuks on the article SGGS on Meat. If you don't agree then tackle these tuks one by one. No personal attacks are necessary. You need to deal with these Tuks in a practical, thorough and acedamic manner. And this applies to every one who refutes this message – "Guru ji prefers his Sikhs not to kill or eat meat". Where in Gurbani does Maharaj say you should kill and eat animals? Please provides answers to these questions rather waste your breath making personal remarks and attacks – These are irrelevant and a complete waste of everyone's time.

The Audience

You remarked: "Most of the audience of this discussion is probably wondering beyond belief why you cannot accept this view as the valid reason." –If they were concerned and that bothered, they would have joined in – So please Lecturer ji let's not worry about that – Let's concentrate on Gurbani and recorded history. It may be that most people agree with what I have said and with the Gurbani Tuks. They may not practise Vegetarianism but they accept that that is the message of our Guru. Obviously you cannot attain all your goals overnight and it is perfectly acceptable to slowly change ones habits to follow Gurbani more strictly. For example, Guru ji has vigorously condemned the Five Evils but it can take the whole of one's lifetime to rid oneself of these terrible evils. We don't say that people who have not ridded themselves of any one of these evils is not a Sikh – far from it. In fact we all have varing amounts of these ills but we know and fully appreciate that Gurbani wants us and requires us to discard these passions.

Restrictions in Gurdwara

You state that: "There is no disticntion between people, so everyone can sit together, and the symbolic nature of a Gurdwara having four doors facing all directions is that it is open to all."Yes, it's open to all – but not to abuse the facilty and message of the Guru. You are restrained from doing certain things; there are restriction in place and the "equality" and "liberty" of the individuals is curtained while within the Gurdwara. For example:

• You cannot smoke, take intoxicating drugs or drink alcohol anywhere in the Gurdwara premises.
• You cannot go into the Darbar Sahib with uncovered head or with shoes on.
• You cannot bring or contribute "parsad" of dead meat or other animal product into Gurdwara. But at one time you could give horses, elephants, mules, etc. There is no credible record of cattle, goats and chickens being contributed to the Guru's darbar.
• You cannot sit on chairs (unless you have a disability or handicap) but all have to sit on the floor, whether you like it or not.

How does your "equality" argument stack up here.

Thank You!

And finally you remark: "I hope one day you can put the energies you put into your veggie agenda into being an understanding and compromising soul to all around you."

Thanking for appreciating that I do expend energies on something and I hope with Saadh Sangat's Ardas I will gain more understanding and knowledge. But on the matter of "compromising" on the message of Gurbani – that, I hope will never happen. As I have said before, the word "Sikh" applies to all who consider SGGS as their Guru, so I have equal respect for all of them whether they eat meat or not – And that is how we must treat all Sikhs regardless of their eating habits - But that does not mean that we should be distorting Gurbani to fit our personal preferences. Accept that Gurbani prefers us to be vegetarians and that is why we serve veggie food in Langar despite the fact that most communities now eat meat freely.

Many thanks for your continued time and effort. I am sorry that at present we are unable to agree on what is the real message of Gurbani in relation of this subject. Hopefully, with Guru's kirpa, he will bless both of us with "Shud Maat" so that we can both appreciate each others point of view and that we both become better individuals and enlightened Sikhs of Our Great Guru. --Hari Singh 07:54, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

Cutting Off Of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji's Arms

Hari, thanks for your responses because you have demonstrated the point this essay was trying to make (Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh). You are a classic example of somone who is a "one line merchant). You are butchering the arms (Angs) of our Guru by selecting one line out of a paragraph and distorting the meaning. A classic example of someone who has limited understand of Bani and Sikh History. Why you are even commenting on a site Sikh Wiki when you cannot even get the basics of Sikhi right is beyond me.

Every child knows that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is not only a teacher of a way of life but a teacher on the errors of man made religions. When Guruji say :

Page 747, Line 18 ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਸਿਮ੝ਰਿਤਿ ਸਭਿ ਸਾਸਤ ਇਨ੝ਹ੝ਹ ਪੜਿਆ ਮ੝ਕਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥ बेद कतेब सिमढ़रिति सभि सासत इनढ़ह पड़िआ मढ़कति न होई ॥ bayd katayb simrit sabh saasat inH parhi-aa mukat na ho-ee. One may read all the books of the Vedas, the Bible, the Simritees and the Shaastras, but they will not bring liberation.

He is making a direct attack on the hypocrasy of the people of the followers of those faiths, and when he says:

Page 518, Line 7 ਤ੝ਧ੝ ਧਿਆਇਨ੝ਹ੝ਹਿ ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬਾ ਸਣ੝ ਖੜੇ ॥ तढ़धढ़ धिआइनढ़हि बेद कतेबा सणढ़ खड़े ॥ tuDh Dhi-aa-eeniH bayd kataybaa san kharhay. The followers of the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran, standing at Your Door, meditate on You.

He is acknowledging that the truth is there somewhere.

I am affraid you lack the ability to discern where Guruji is making a dierect attack on ritualism in Koranic and Hindu terms. You do not understand the significance of the sacrifice by Abraham, or the rites of Anustrani. Our Guru's were surrounded by these people (we were those people), and using Bani he showed the errors of the hypocrasy of these rituals.

Alas, all you are doing is making an A-La-Carte Menu of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. What a shame. I fear Sikhism is doomed with people like you.

Reply

KingSingh Ji,

It is very common that when a person loses an argument, they take a swipe and lob insults on their opponent – So it does not surprise me that you have started doing that. I will not resort to the same thing as I think that is a demeaning position to take.

Every Tuks has a message. If the message is not complete then read the group of lines or the whole of the Shabad. If you care to look at the SGGS on Meat article, from which all the Tuks were taken, you will see that none of the sections quoted is a one line quotation – So even your basic observation is completely wrong. You will also notice that each quoted section is hyper-linked to the full Shabad and Ang at Srigranth.org. See example below:

The Shabad is a complete unit and gives a precise message from the Guru. When one takes a Hukamnama – You normally read just a Shabad or Pauri and that gives a complete message from the Guru. You don't have to read the complete page to understand the message being conveyed by the Guru. So please stop making comments like "You are a classic ……one line merchant". This sort of behaviour does not help the discussion. Also, what is wrong in taking the message conveyed in a full Tuk of Gurbani? Explain this to me. If the practise of reading and understanding Gurbani Line by line was not suitable, then why has no respected scholar mentioned this before? Why is it that you appear to be the only ones who seem to oppose this method? Has Bhai Gurdas Ji followed or promoted your example? Perhaps Guru ji may have supported you if it was so important. But I have never before come across this point made here by you.

So what you are saying is that if one line of Gurbani gives a certain message; we should forget it until one has read the full page and then try and "see" what message the whole of the page conveys. My friend, this cannot be true. This rule does not apply to any other text or scripture. All scriptures are read Line by line or at most a hymn at a time and then the message is conveyed. When quoting in an article, only a brief section is normally quoted with the refernce so that the reader can follow the article without too much distraction and return to the reference is he or she requires futher clarification. That is why the hyperlinks have been inserted. Can you tell me how the meaning of the above line changes when read as part of the Shabad?

You said "You are …. selecting one line out of a paragraph and distorting the meaning (of Gurbani)" My friend, it is you who is distorting the meaning. When Kabir ji asks: "You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?" Why don't you reply and deal with this statement head on! The statement is very simple, patently clear and tremendously precise. Please tell us exactly why you do not provide us with a reply? So please, let us be fair – I am following the precise words of the Guru. It is you who does not want to deal with this tuk!! This line to anyone who understands English questions the killing of animals in whom we say the Lord exists – Obviously, you do not like dealing with this fact and so you want to divert the attention to the whole page of Gurbani, history implications and try and muddle the issue. I'm sorry but that will not wash with me!

You stated: "…someone (referring to me) who has limited understand of Bani and Sikh History" Please let me know how you have established that my understanding is lacking. What have I said or not said for you to make this statement? And on the other hand, perhaps you can enlighten us on your precise qualification in Gurbani and Sikhism. Are you a qualified Giani or Graduate, MA or Professor in Sikh Studies?

You stated: "Why you are even commenting on a site Sikh Wiki when you cannot even get the basics of Sikhi right is beyond me." Perhaps you can teach me the basics. Please feel free. I am a good student. Please use a new page and start your lessons.

What do you mean by "errors of man made religions" – What are man made religions and what are these "errors"? Please provide references.

You are wrong in interpreting this Tuk – This is a couplet – If you look at the numbering system at the end of the line, you will see that after two lines the number changes – In this case, you must look at the two complete lines up to the number to get the complete message. The lines are: "One may read all the books of the Vedas, the Bible, the Simritees and the Shaastras, but they will not bring liberation. One who, as Gurmukh, chants the One Word, acquires a spotlessly pure reputation. ||3||" What Maharaj is saying is that by reading and studing these holy books (and in fact any holy book) one does not obtain liberation – that is obtained by Naam Simran – (Chants the One Word) remembering the Lord and Good deeds (from elsewhere "So perform good deeds, and chant the Naam, the Name of the Lord; you shall never have to go to hell." (p461)).

The Section beginning with: "The followers of the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran, standing at Your Door, meditate on You." Has to be read to the next number which is 8 lines down – Nowhere has Maharaj mentioned "ritualism in Koranic and Hindu terms". If you think Guru ji does, then please point it out to me. Your explanation is completely incorrect and is unsupported.

What I have done in this discussion is to explain the simple and clear message of Gurbani – It is obvious that you do not like this message of the Guru as you practise the complete opposite. So please do not try and pull wool over my eyes. With Guru's blessing, I have a very clear and precise idea of what Maharaj has said. You want to be blind to this issue – I have no problem with that but please do not try and bring unnecessary complication when none exist. Do not try and mislead me as it will not work!! --Hari Singh 23:05, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

Reply

What an underhand person you are Harji, not giving me a chance to reply. Anyway I continue:

quote:

KingSingh Ji, It is very common that when a person loses an argument, they take a swipe and lob insults on their opponent – So it does not surprise me that you have started doing that. I will not resort to the same thing as I think that is a demeaning position to take.

Far from. I am calling it as I see it. You are a Kenyan “Sikh”. You follow a Jatha Baba. You follow Jatha Baba Math and not the teachings of the Akal Takht or othodox Sikhs. Your Baba's Nishkam Sevak Jatha's botch job of the guilding of Harmandhir Sahib is on par with your understanding of Bani. You are not in a position to be lecturing any Sikhs who have taken Amrit at Harmandhir Sahib and eat Jhatka meat on the finer points of Sikhism.

quote:

Every Tuks has a message. If the message is not complete then read the group of lines or the whole of the Shabad. If you care to look at the SGGS on Meat article, from which all the Tuks were taken, you will see that none of the sections quoted is a one line quotation – So even your basic observation is completely wrong.

Sorry you are wrong yet again, and I will you give and example blow by blow of how completely and utterly wrong you are and how you Vaishnav Hindu Sant Mat is destroying Sikhism. Let us take - You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?

parbhaatee. Prabhaatee: bayd katayb kahhu mat jhoothay jhoothaa jo na bichaarai. Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.

So here is the opening line of the Ang. It is saying basically there is truth is Christianity, Islam and Hinduism…the background to this…..when Kabir was around his own city of Benares was sacked….100,000 people had been massacred in Dehli………Timur then sacked Benares with, even Mullahs taking part in killing Brahmins……… http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742629/posts ………..so what Kabir is saying is there is truth in all religions….so far so good….you understand?

ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai. ||1|| You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens? ||1||

This is saying that God dwells in and in everything, so why are you killing a chicken as a sacrifice to him (quarbani)……understand?

mulaaN kahhu ni-aa-o khudaa-ee. O Mullah, tell me: is this God's Justice?

THE CRUX…..this is being asked of a Mullah…..so Mulla (a Muslim Priest)……why do you kill chicken when Khudha (one of the words for allah or Gods), dwells in all)…….in other words, you are sacrificing chickens to God….God lives in the chicken to.

tayray man kaa bharam na jaa-ee. ||1|| rahaa-o. The doubts of your mind have not been dispelled. ||1||Pause||

You still have doubts about this ritual….(see line below about purification)…….in other word (see below about hypocraasy)…….your heart is full of hypocrisy etc (similar etc to when Guru Nanak prayed with Muslims in a Mosque and laughed at them for their minds were elsewhwere.

pakar jee-o aani-aa dayh binaasee maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa. You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay.

So when you are carrying out the sacrifice to God, the life force just goes somewhere else (see below)……there is no actual sacrifice to God. In anycase, God require no such appeasement. Read this about animal sacrifice: ]http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagen ame=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544988

jot saroop anaahat laagee kaho halaal ki-aa kee-aa. ||2|| The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed? ||2||

See above

ki-aa ujoo paak kee-aa muhu Dho-i-aa ki-aa maseet sir laa-i-aa. And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?

This is a General comment about all these purification Mullahs carried out above. Kabir ji then asks about the other things they do and why they do them?

ja-o dil meh kapat nivaaj gujaarahu ki-aa haj kaabai jaa-i-aa. ||3|| Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca? ||3||

Again Mullahs, you carry out all these rituals, washing faces, sacrifice etc, yet you are hypocrites (these Mullahs sactioned the massacre of 100,000’s of Hindu’s under the nose of Kabir, and yet they had the ordasity to appear pious).

tooN naapaak paak nahee soojhi-aa tis kaa maram na jaani-aa. You are impure; you do not understand the Pure Lord. You do not know His Mystery.

The second crux, after, carrying out animal sacrifice, washing faces, praying, pilgrimage, you are still a hypocrite Mulla

kahi kabeer bhisat tay chookaa dojak si-o man maani-aa. ||4||4|| Says Kabeer, you have missed out on paradise; your mind is set on hell. ||4||4||

Mullah you are set on hell because of the way you treat people….it doesn’t matter if you sacrifice animal for allah, or pilgrimage, or fast or whatever, so long as you carry on being bigoted you will go to hell

quote:

You will also notice that each quoted section is hyper-linked to the full Shabad and Ang at Srigranth.org. See example below:

see my comments above

quote:

The Shabad is a complete unit and gives a precise message from the Guru. When one takes a Hukamnama – You normally read just a Shabad or Pauri and that gives a complete message from the Guru. You don't have to read the complete page to understand the message being conveyed by the Guru. So please stop making comments like "You are a classic ……one line merchant".

I have posted the entire Angs and Pauris’, however you quote one lines. For me the biggest insult to Sikhism, is treating it divine revelation like an a-la-carte menu. Tell me, what is the difference between that and a Sharia type law?

quote:

This sort of behaviour does not help the discussion. Also, what is wrong in taking the message conveyed in a full Tuk of Gurbani? Explain this to me. If the practise of reading and understanding Gurbani Line by line was not suitable, then why has no respected scholar mentioned this before? Why is it that you appear to be the only ones who seem to oppose this method? Has Bhai Gurdas Ji followed or promoted your example? Perhaps Guru ji may have supported you if it was so important. But I have never before come across this point made here by you. ‘’’The problem is you are a one line quote merchant and your understand is limited. Just the one Pauri above has needed so much intense research before understanding it, and you have the ordasity to claim you are some sort of expert on Bani because you have published articles on Sikh Wikhi? Truly lghable and unbelievable’’’ So what you are saying is that if one line of Gurbani gives a certain message; we should forget it until one has read the full page and then try and "see" what message the whole of the page conveys. My friend, this cannot be true.

it is and always shall be true as clearly demonstrated above. I suggest you start by reading works of Dr Jodh Singh etc who are expert in Bani and have been quoed in the research for “Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh”. Dr Jodh Singh has stressed the need for not quoting one lines from Bani and always reading them in context. Bani is a living Guru, hence why we refers to its parts as Angs. We cannot dismember the Angs. Quoting one liners is dismembering.

quote:

This rule does not apply to any other text or scripture. All scriptures are read Line by line or at most a hymn at a time and then the message is conveyed. When quoting in an article, only a brief section is normally quoted with the refernce so that the reader can follow the article without too much distraction and return to the reference is he or she requires futher clarification. That is why the hyperlinks have been inserted. Can you tell me how the meaning of the above line changes when read as part of the Shabad?

Bani is a living Guru, it is more than just Script or text. It gives us a divine message to live our lives, and should be taken as whole and not dismembered. It certainly should not be quoted by people like you who are not familiar whith the background of the Bhagats, or the History line of its compilation

quote:

You said "You are …. selecting one line out of a paragraph and distorting the meaning (of Gurbani)" My friend, it is you who is distorting the meaning. When Kabir ji asks: "You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?" Why don't you reply and deal with this statement head on! The statement is very simple, patently clear and tremendously precise. Please tell us exactly why you do not provide us with a reply? So please, let us be fair – I am following the precise words of the Guru. It is you who does not want to deal with this tuk!! This line to anyone who understands English questions the killing of animals in whom we say the Lord exists – Obviously, you do not like dealing with this fact and so you want to divert the attention to the whole page of Gurbani, history implications and try and muddle the issue. I'm sorry but that will not wash with me!

READ above, reanalyse your Manmat. I don’t care about your washing but I expect my fellow Sikh scholars to have immpecable standards, and not to tow the Mcleodian, or Hindu Vaishnav line when interpreting Bani.

quote:

You stated: "…someone (referring to me) who has limited understand of Bani and Sikh History" Please let me know how you have established that my understanding is lacking. What have I said or not said for you to make this statement? And on the other hand, perhaps you can enlighten us on your precise qualification in Gurbani and Sikhism. Are you a qualified Giani or Graduate, MA or Professor in Sikh Studies?

I have a hatful of degree’s but that does not matter, because the people who compiled this essay are Doctor’s (Medical, History, Engineering, Philosophy) etc. I myself have been studying Bani since I was a child and Sikh History for nearly 20 years. It is my life. It is my Love. It is my passion. The fellows I have quoted share this, and when we see people denegrating Bani to Carrots and Drumstiks, it pains us.

quote:

You stated: "Why you are even commenting on a site Sikh Wiki when you cannot even get the basics of Sikhi right is beyond me." Perhaps you can teach me the basics. Please feel free. I am a good student. Please use a new page and start your lessons.

Unfortunately you do not wish to listen.

quote:

What do you mean by "errors of man made religions" – What are man made religions and what are these "errors"? Please provide references.

The message of God is divine, unfortunately it gets interferred with by men who wish to turn divine revelations into dining arrangements

quote:

You are wrong in interpreting this Tuk – This is a couplet – If you look at the numbering system at the end of the line, you will see that after two lines the number changes – In this case, you must look at the two complete lines up to the number to get the complete message. The lines are: "One may read all the books of the Vedas, the Bible, the Simritees and the Shaastras, but they will not bring liberation. One who, as Gurmukh, chants the One Word, acquires a spotlessly pure reputation. ||3||" What Maharaj is saying is that by reading and studing these holy books (and in fact any holy book) one does not obtain liberation – that is obtained by Naam Simran – (Chants the One Word) remembering the Lord and Good deeds (from elsewhere "So perform good deeds, and chant the Naam, the Name of the Lord; you shall never have to go to hell." (p461)).

Read above, and try and learn before commenting

quote:

The Section beginning with: "The followers of the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran, standing at Your Door, meditate on You." Has to be read to the next number which is 8 lines down – Nowhere has Maharaj mentioned "ritualism in Koranic and Hindu terms". If you think Guru ji does, then please point it out to me. Your explanation is completely incorrect and is unsupported.

Unfortunately this is a lack of your understanding. The fact you don’t understand Guruji’s ,ockery of meaningless rituals, such as Quarbani, Fasts, Anustrani etc shows a shortage of knowledge on your part

quote:

What I have done in this discussion is to explain the simple and clear message of Gurbani – It is obvious that you do not like this message of the Guru as you practise the complete opposite. So please do not try and pull wool over my eyes. With Guru's blessing, I have a very clear and precise idea of what Maharaj has said. You want to be blind to this issue – I have no problem with that but please do not try and bring unnecessary complication when none exist. Do not try and mislead me as it will not work!! --Hari Singh 23:05, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

No my friend. I love the message of Bani, but you wish to denigrate it to one of a Vaishnav Hindu one, dealing with dining arrangements, place settings, and what you cannot and can eat. Oh how our Guru’s must be wondering, whether their time was competely wasted in the compilation of The Sri Guru Guru Granth Sahib ji, and to see its arms and legs dismembered by people who follow Sant traditions rather than the Guru itself.