Talk:Langar 1

From SikhiWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Purpose of Vegetarian Diet in Langar

I have reverted the changes made by User:Lecturer as no detailed supporting reason has been given for this change. We need to discuss this issue before any change can be made on this point as I believe that it is fundamental to Sikhi principles.

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

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.

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.

Further, no tuk (line) from Gurbani has been quoted to support this reasoning. Infact, Gurbani advices us the opposite � To eat simple, veggie food thus:

Gurbani Quotations

SGGS page 467: "They burn away the bonds of the world, and eat a simple diet of grain and water."

SGGS page 723: "The world eats dead carcasses, living by neglect and greed. ((Pause)) Like a goblin, or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat."

SGGS page 1103: "You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?"

SGGS page 1128: "He kills his self-conceit, and does not kill anyone else. ((3))"

SGGS page 1306: "Even with only dry crusts of bread, and a hard floor on which to sleep, my life passes in peace and pleasure with my Beloved, O sisters. ((2)(3)(42))"

SGGS page 1350: "You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?"

SGGS page 1350: "You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay."

SGGS page 1369: "Kabeer, I will remain in the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, even if I have only coarse bread to eat."

SGGS page 1375: "Kabeer, they oppress living beings and kill them, and call it proper."

SGGS page 1374: "Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt. Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? ((188))" --Hari Singh 13:53, 7 July 2006 (Central Daylight Time)

Reverting my corrections

I am new to this forum, but when I was reading about the Langaar, its was just surprising to me that the main reason for "open kitchen" was totally wrong.

A lot of people get their piousity mixed up with dogma. I am not going to battle your reversion, as I do not have the time, but here are my reasons.

1. I am not comparing Langar to functions as you are, I am not talking about having a menus of preferences. 2. If meat was served then then it would discriminate vegitarians, it could discriminate Muslims and all other faiths. 3. If meat was served and not Halal, only NON Muslims could eat it if not vegitarian. 4. It all gets too confusing. 5. The simplest and most basic form of common denominator is that Vegitarian food is served, as anyone can eat that without any restriction. 6. your suggestion of splitting the langaar into two would go again the first para of the article. "principle of equality between all people of the world regardless of religion, caste, colour, creed, age, gender or social status. In addition to the ideals of equality, the tradition of Langar expresses the ethics of sharing, community, inclusiveness and oneness of all humankind. " Not everyone could sit together.

People need to tackle debate from the larger persective and not from actions. Sikhs are able to eat meat, it is not forbidden, so your ascertion that due to the fact that it is strictly forbidden in our diet is massive misrepresentation. We are not allowed to eat Ritually killed food.

Any historical text that you chose to read and now and again references to the Khalsa eating meat. The biggest reference is when Guru Gobind Singh Ji whent to Hermit's place, Madhodas (known now as Bandha Bahadur Singh Ji), when he was not present he:

"Guru Gobind Singh went to his hermitage. Madhodas was away. The Guru ordered his disciples to kill a few goats of the Bairagi and cook meat there and then. The matter was reported to Bairagi. "


and this

"The Guru ordered his disciples to kill a few goats of the Bairagi and cook meat there and then. The matter was reported to Madho Das, who was enraged."


and please to open your eyes a bit more read this very interesting posting, a lot of your quotes are choice extractions without any cohesion. You must learn to find things out for yourself and not follow people blindly. Read in context.;f=10;t=000802

Also it is very common knowledge that the late Guru's used to go hunting too, so some of the quotes could be seen as contradictory.

So the reason for Langaar is to be an "open Kitchen" open to all. How can you have an open kitchen if what you serve cannot be open to all? Hence Vegitarian food. NOT that is against Sikhi, which it is not. Any person of any background can instantly receive langaar without prior planning, remember we are talking about when langaar was in it's infancy before the Khalsa, not now in 2006 London. Can you imagine Darbar sahib splitting it's langaar according to preference as you advocate, it would be chaos :) When Akbar visited, he did not have to wory about the diet of the langaar, he could be instantly served with everyone there.

You must be very careful with this Wiki, people go to it and mostly think that it is a realiable place to get facts on our religion. It should not turn into a personally owned, personal controlled forum. People hold this site in esteem and therefore there is a big responsiblity.

Shame there has been no discussion

There has been a lot of activity by the person who reverted my changes on this site, but as yet no response to my posting.

I am sorry I could not reply earlier but I was seeking views of other friends and spiritually elevated people so that I could make a proportional and balanced response to your queries. Also, unfortunately, various other matters have to be done regularly on Sikhiwiki for which I have taken responsibility and these had been pending for a little while. So please accept my apology and I hope you will forgive me for the delay in replying. --Hari Singh 10:11, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Why no meat in Langar?

Respected User:Lecturer ji

It is very heartening to have new contributors to Sikhiwiki and I would like to encourage you and other users to contribute to this major task to establish a comprehensive pool of knowledge on Sikhi on the web which is freely available to all who have access to the net.

I am sorry that you are not able to agree with the points that I have made, which I totally believe are in keeping with Gurbani. I understand your argument that serving veggie food makes everyone (Hindus, Muslims, etc) feel 'safe' (the equality reason) to take the food without any 'fear' of eating anything that they may feel is 'polluted'. I also accept that there are many Sikh Sites on the 'Net' which do not follow or agree with this point. I believe that they are wrong. The point that I have made is that Veggie food is served in Langar because Sikhs (especially Amritdhari Sikh) are forbidden from general consumption of meat and that the SGGS forbid this as outlined in my previous post. Further the reason may also be that historically, since our Guru's time, vegetarian food has been served in Langar.

Just looking at one tuk, which is in simple Punjabi, this point to most un-biased people is very clear and final:

Kabir ji clearly states: (p1350) "ਜਉ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਝਕ੝ ਖ੝ਦਾਇ ਕਹਤ ਹਉ ਤਉ ਕਿਉ ਮ੝ਰਗੀ ਮਾਰੈ ॥੧॥ 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 simple Punjabi so all of us should be able to understand this simple tuk with 11 words. Kabir ji asks us: "Why do you kill Murgee?" Now what's your answer to this statement? Only by dealing with all the tuks that I have outlined previously can we move forward.

I hope you will agree with the following points:

  • 1. No authority in the world can dispute the laws laid down by SGGS. The Guru is our prime authority on Sikhism and spirituality. If a matter is not covered by the Guru, we may refer to other authorities. However, this point does not arise in this case as we have not exhausted the references available from the Guru – so please do not refer me to any other source of "authority" until we have exhausted references in SGGS.
  • 2. If you eat meat, then it is very possible that you are biased and you will not be rational in accepting an opposing view. There will be great difficulty in you coming to a reasoned decision in these circumstances. All that can be done is to look at what our Guru says about this matter. So it is important that the Tuks highlight by me before in this discussion are dealt with thoroughly one by one so we can then see what you make of them and why you disagree with the stand that has been put forward by these tuks. Isn't the Guru our ultimate authority on this and all other such issues? Also, we need to ask spiritually elevated people about their view on these Tuks.
  • 3. You will also be aware that most spiritually elevated people like sants, bhagats, and leader like yogi ji support the view that I have advanced. Surely these people's view must have considerable bearing on this matter as they are the experts who specialise in things to do with spirituality. They are the people who spent most of their time in Naam Simran, Nishkam Sewa and Gurbani vichaar. Do you believe that their views are important?
  • 4. I do not believe that if one eats meat, that the person is committing a "babber Khurat" or as the SGPC put it "tabooed practices" which are: a). dishonouring the hair; b). Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way; c). cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse; d). Using tobacco.
    However, as can be seen from references to the Tuks from SGGS, eating meat is not a matter that has the backing of the Guru. It is not the most important matter in a Sikhs life – but it is not supported by the Guru just like Kaam Krodh, Lobh, Moh and Ahankar are not supported by the Guru. All these are negative things from which a Sikh should refrain.
  • 5. Meat is totally forbidden from Gurdwara premises and that even the Gianis and kirtaneaas are forbidden from consumption of meat at the Gurdwara building. So when they have their breakfast in their living quarters first thing in the morning, they are not allowed to consume meat, eggs, etc before they open the Gurdwara to the sangat. If a Sikh is allowed meat, then why can't they eat this on their own in their living quarters at the Gurdwara? No other person will be joining them in these quarters so the "equality" reason does not apply.
  • 6. Also, you will be aware that I made my first contribution to this topic in April 2005 and this matter has remained in this state for a long time. I do not believe that we need to make any major changes in haste. It's better to have a long and thorough discussion on this point so that the correct views of the Panth and Guru are reflected in the article.

I hope I have made my views a little clearer for you to understand. --Hari Singh 10:03, 14 July 2006 (CDT)


Unfortunately you are what people would label a fanatic.

There is no pleasing people of your type as you do not like to read any evidence presented to you if it does not suite you.

Ironically Your Kabir reference falls straight into the trap mentioned this posting.


If you had read any of the links I put in my post, then you would see that there are many reasons why you are wrong. The links I sent are from many sites by many people from many sources and from many points in history.

The overall is that Sikhs are not forbidden to eat meat, but veggie is always the prefered option, but it is a personal choice. If you must then it should be killed instantly, not like Halal, etc. Your attempt to involve my personal diet preference, of which you don't know, would never sway an argument. Arguments are swayed on facts not digs.

But anyway, good luck in your quest. I loved the idea of this wiki but when people like you take over it, there is no point.

You got to put all debate into perspective of history, in times gone by when these things were thought out by people a lot more pious than your peers. You cannot argue points from a 2006 London perspective. There is so much in Sikhism that had been varying from the beaten track, and unfortunaltey people like you do not help.

My dear Friend, Kabir ji's tuk is simple to understand so why do I need someone else's help? Each word can be clearly understood, I cannot understand why I should refer to anyone else except my Guru and the Shabad? - So please tell me, my friend why I should refer to someone else. I perfectly understand what this tuk says.
Remember, there is no priestly class in Sikhism; so as Sikhs we should not be falling back to these sites or people for simple explanation like these. Further what makes you so sure that these sites are better qualified than any other site? Please do not rely on others, give me direct references from Gurbani.
If you like to call me fanatic, then may it be your pleasure. The dictionary definition of fanatic is "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm for a cause
My reasoning is based entirely on Gurbani and I have quoted many tuks and one I have analysed in depth – If this makes the point "extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm" then I guess that Gurbani has made the Sikh so.
You say, "The overall is that Sikhs are not forbidden to eat meat" – Please give evidence from Gurbani to support this statement.
You also say, "If you must then it should be killed instantly, not like Halal, etc." – Please kindly give tuks from scriptures which allows a Sikh to slaughter animals in this manner.
You said, "Arguments are swayed on facts not digs." - Point 1: That was not a dig at you because as you said, I do not know your personal preference – It was a point based on logic –It is clear to me that if a person loves to eat meat, he or she will not be unbiased and objective when it come to a discussion about meat/veggie food eating. Point 2: Where are your facts to support your arguments – I don't see any. All you have done is referred me to various sites which don't have all the facts that I have put forward; are very selective in their scope and appear to be completely biased.
I am aware of what these links have to say and as I have said before their arguments are without any real foundation or understanding of Gurbani and its message. Where is the Daya when you kill the animal?
As you believe in what you read on the net, perhaps, you would like to look at these site which supporting my view:
I am sorry to hear that you think that I have "taken over" the site and that "people like me do not help". All I am saying is that you need to support your views with recognised facts – You have not provided these facts. Please re-consider this point as I am as keen as you to follow the word of the Guru and as an "Amritdhari" Sikh, I have been told not to take meat. If this is incorrect, then I am willing to re-examine this matter and approach the panj pyare and return to my old habits, but it must be backed by proof – not just other web-sites. Can you produce any text from scriptures from the Guru's time to support your view?
I am grateful for your good wishes, I hope with Guru's kirpa, you will find the energy to see this argument through for yourself – Let the Guru guide you. I have no ill-feeling or animosity towards you – This is an argument about differing views and I must thank you for providing me with an opportunity to have this discussion. My only regret is that we failed to reach a single conclusion unlike Bhai Randhir Singh & Bhai Kartar Singh.
I would like to encourage you to please make contribution to this Wiki. Sikhism has very few controversial points and unfortunately you stepped on one that is such a point. Most of Sikhism is non-controversial – so please do help us make this a comprehensive site on Sikhism.
I accept that Sikhs of both types are found and that at some point will need to be reflected in articles on dietary habits of the Sikhs – But at the moment, Gurbani seems to support the veg-view. However, I am open of discussion and alternative view points and I will discuss this with other keen Sikhs and may be we will revise the article in due course, once a neutral point is found. Or may be we will put both the views in the article. Perhaps, you would like to think about this and we can amend the article to show both view points. What do you say to this? If you agree with this course of action then, I suggest you put the revised text here on the talk page and we can then try and agree the text. Then, once agreed, we can transfer it to the main article page.
Many thanks for your time and dedication to the cause. --Hari Singh 23:53, 15 July 2006 (CDT)

New generation of Historians

For too long Our perception of Sikhism has been controlled by the older

genration of un-compromising people. They adhere to strict "beliefs", rituals,

Babas, "chinese whispers" handed down to them from others. Non questioning, and

non embracing.

Thankfully we now have the whole world's "New Amateur Sikh Historian" generation taking

over from these types. We are here to debate, question, clean up, ask taboo

questions on what has now become a hearsay, Sant Baba following religion.

Some can only do this by debate, putting facts into context, not putting context

into facts, and the Internet should of now opened up this boundry, giving

everyone an equal part.

Some of us do not hold a whiter than white stance, that is not the case when

debating fact, it will only clarifty itself. Many people can have lots of valid

views on subjects, not like the "uncle - i'm right and every other view is

wrong", mentality which is on it's way out, luckily.

Debate about Sikhi is good and healthy as long as the message of SGGS is not distorted for any personal gain or for any personal agenda. In my opinion nothing can override the facts outlined by our Guru - That is the ultimate authority on Sikhi; everything else takes second place.
Even history comes after the message of our Guru - That is our prime directive! If one cannot accept the word of Gurbani then there is absolutely no point in discussing any spiritual topic connected with Sikhism. To consider any historical fact, it must be well documents and have wide support otherwise it can lead to the diluting of our principles.
No one is "whiter than white" - we all are here in this human form due to our Karmas and actions which are not perfect otherwise we would not still take birth - "The record of one's past actions cannot be erased; who else is to blame for one's birth and death?" SGGS page 1014. --Hari Singh 23:04, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

The irony

Anyone reading my postings will know that all I have done is refer to the SGGS.

And Final point is that your extraction of the SGPC support my view.

"The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided

  • 1. Dishonouring the hair;
  • 2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way;
  • 3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse;
  • 4. Using tobacco."

Obviously to avoid eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way, is to avoid eating meat altogether, which is perfect if you don't know the history of the meat on your plate. And also eating veg is a lot better for the person - which is a well accepted view.

But we have no way been forbidden to eat meat, and debate about it should not be an important topic.

Therefore your view is down to your personal choice, which was my very point from the beginning.

However misrepresentation is a big topic, the reason for this thread.

I accept and agree with you on the following:
  • that meat/veg is not the most important topic for a Sikh. SGGS says so and a Sikh should NOT consider people who meat as "second-class" citizens.
  • Veg is the preferred diet for a Sikh but if nothing else is available, the Sikh is not barred from eating meat altogether. However, it must be done with "compassion" (Daya) if it has to be done at all and one should be aware of the Karmic burden. Remember that Bhagat Sadhana was a butcher but he "attained God" and became enlightened in due course - "Naam Dayv, Kabeer, Trilochan, Sadhana and Sain crossed over. Says Ravi Daas, listen, O Saints, through the Dear Lord, all is accomplished." (SGGS page 1106)
  • this is absolutely a personal choice - Maharaj does not compel anyone or asks for any force or punishment to be used against people who eat meat, etc. Spirituality is a matter of "awareness" and "consciousness" and our plight to become better in this respect. However, we are restricted in our everyday life in many ways and the ideological position cannot be attained easily – It may take many "Junes" (lives).

However, I hope you will agree with me that the 4 tabooed acts are an extreme position. For example, if "Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse" is prohibited for a Amritdhari Sikh, it does not mean that casual "kissing", "hugging" and other "lower sexual activities" with other women is allowed. The Rehat-Maryada lists the extreme that MUST be avoided but as good Sikhs of the Guru, we have to tread on a much more "cleaner path" than just avoiding these 4 tabooed "sins". So here, we are discussing the best paths for a Sikh to follow - not the extreme "lower end" of the scale - We are discussing the "top end" rules of Sikhi.
Many thanks for your help and for your valuable time, respected views and the most humble and polite way in which you have conveyed them. --Hari Singh 09:02, 19 July 2006 (CDT)


So you agree that is it not stricty forbidden in Sikhi to eat meat?

You now agree with me and not with yourself?

Maybe I leave it to you to correct your own mistakes then.

I don't think there is any contradiction in what I have said. I think you are missing the point which may be I have not made very clearly. It's to do with what the Guru wants his Sikhs to do and to promote. A Sikhs has to have compassion, love, humility, contentment and be truthful; and has to promote these and other messages of the Guru. See the articles in the category Sikh Beliefs
For example, the SGGS asks Sikhs to refrain from the Five Evils and other negative actions. That does not mean that a person who cannot completely refrain from Kam, Krodh, Lobh, Moh and Ahankar is not a Sikh. Similarly, a person who cannot refrain from eating meat is not barred from being a Sikh - He is termed a Sahajdhari (Slow adopter) Sikh. To be a good Sikh you need to refrain from meat; refrain from slander and gossip; refrain from the Five Evils, etc and practice eating simple food; live truthfully, Naam Simran, (not in this order) etc. However, if you do not practice these positive acts and cannot refrain from the negative ones, you will not be barred from Sikhi. But we cannot promote the negative acts as a sign of Sikhi!!!
So although our views are close, they are not the same. I believe that you wish to concentrate your definition of a Sikh on very basic minimum values while I would like to set the standard much higher. I am sure there are others who would like to set the standard even higher than I do. For example, there are Sikhs who advocate cooking in iron ("sarbhlo") cookware. I believe that our views of Sikhism should be supported by Gurbani otherwise it should not be a condition that can be used to gauge Sikh values or to be promoted as Sikh values. These non-supported views should be termed "personal preferences" and should be stated as such – They should never be termed "Sikh values" unless they are properly supported by scriptures and/or recorded history.
I believe that the views I have stated are based on Gurbani - If you disagree, you will need to quote from our scriptures or recorded history!! Let's keep things simple. If Gurbani says it, I will adjust me views accordingly. I do not think we need to consider any other resource in resolving this issue. Gurfateh, --Hari Singh 17:58, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

My crime and your views

I believe that you are not capable of changing your views as I mentioned in " New generation of Historians" section.

My only crime was to change your section of the Langar article from this

"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."


"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."

(BTW. I've never been to a Gurdwara where men and women's Langaar are seperate. Especially in India. That sounds quite fanatic and old fashioned taboo.)

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

Therefore the basis of this discussion is the diet of the Langaar and my reasons are quite clear and simple.

My only crime was to remove you false reference to basic Sikhi.

However I know I have no chance in changing this article as you will probably pounce upon it as you feel you own this article written upon your own views. This is my only forum.

Fanatcism, old fashioned beliefs and hearsay is one aspect of Sikhi I hope will die away as it is a beautiful religion mis-represented by many people.

In the interest of compromise and flexibility, I have made a change to the article. I did suggest previously that both views be made part of the article: "Perhaps, you would like to think about this and we can amend the article to show both view points. What do you say to this?" - For the sanity of both our minds, I have made a change to reflect the 2 differing points of view. What do you think about this? --Hari Singh 20:12, 20 July 2006 (CDT)

You are right

Yes you are right, and the false reference to Sikhi is also right, and you will always be right.

All the contributors to this article on this other Wiki are wrong too.

"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."

Please correct it.

Please supply us with at least one clear authority from our scriptures that supports this view and then we will change this section. I think you have to accept that Sikhi is about the word of our Guru and not necessarily about our own personal views - so please support your view with credible authorities. --Hari Singh 18:41, 22 July 2006 (CDT)

Debate without full reading of responses

Hari Singh

your message to Lion child that

"I have noticed a large "cut and paste" from another site. I will look at this on the next occasion."

Proves my previous posting that:

" There is no pleasing people of your type as you do not like to read any evidence presented to you if it does not suite you.

Ironically Your Kabir reference falls straight into the trap mentioned this posting.



So you never actually read it and went to to debate without fully reading my responses. This shows that it is not possible to debate with you. You are right after all.

- Lecturer


My friend, Lecturer ji,
You will notice that I like to deal with all queries in a considered manner where I spent several days researching the points raised by the user in their posting. This research, mainly from Gurbani but also from other learnt sources can take some time. Once this research has been done, I post the reply. Now my last reply was to Lionchild's initial posting and at this point I noticed this second "Cut & paste" posting by Lionchild. I will now go thro this second posing in detail and I will give a proper, considered response in due course. And that is the normal way to deal with a discussion like this – posting by posting and point by point.
I could also do a "cut and paste" from a pro-veggie site and just ask you to reply to the point made there – But I believe that is not the way to resolve these issues. I am committed to Sikhi and it gives me pleasure to "investigate" these differing views – It tests my understanding of the Gurus words. I am sure you realise that we all have our "kirit Kammi" to do everyday and so only a limited amount of time can be given to this "discussion exercise" per day.
I will keep you updated - Joined together in our love of Sikhism, --Hari Singh 10:27, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
The article above is not written by pro-meat eater or pro-veggies. It was prepared by both. The conclusion is that Sikhism has nothing to do with Vegetarianism (a Vaishnav Hindu practice), or Meat eating. Diet is a personal choice. by KingSingh
The conclusion of this article in my opinion is based entirely on Manmat and not on Gurmat. The writers have failed to provide any supporting Gurbani or recorded history to support their incorrect conclusion. Failing to support a principle with clear guidance from Gurbani is totally unacceptable for a Sikh.
On the contrary, Gurbani says completely the opposite of what this article purports to conclude. Gurbani in my opinion clearly supports a vegetarian diet. However, one must remember that this is not to say that a non-vegetarian person cannot be a Sikh. Both are acceptable but it has to be the aim of all Sikhs to eventually become Vegetarian in due course. To improve oneself to the level required by the Guru is no small task and this is mentioned by Gurbani thus: "How rare are those few Gurmukhs who swim across to the other side!" (p145)
One needs to compare this habit of eating meat with say the habit of 'slandering'. Gurbani condemns slanders thus: "Slandering others, he wastes away and dies; within his body, he burns." (p315) It should be every Sikhs duty to refrain from slandering. However, a slander cannot be said to not be a Sikh – What we can say is the he is a Sikh who slanders. If one believes only in our Gurus and their Bani, then the person is called a Sikhs. However, we as Sikhs, all have vices but that does not stop us from being Sikhs. It is our duty to make every effort to discard these vices and don the virtues prescribed by our Guru. --Hari Singh 21:50, 26 July 2006 (CDT)