Talk:Langar

From SikhiWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

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



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:

SGGS Page 1350 Full Shabad
ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਕਹਹ੝ ਮਤ ਝੂਠੇ ਝੂਠਾ ਜੋ ਨ ਬਿਚਾਰੈ ॥

ਜਉ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਝਕ੝ ਖ੝ਦਾਇ ਕਹਤ ਹਉ ਤਉ ਕਿਉ ਮ੝ਰਗੀ ਮਾਰੈ ॥੧॥

bayd katayb kahhu mat jhoothay jhoothaa jo na bichaarai.
ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai. ((1))

Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.
You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens? ((1))

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:

Please refer to both your user talk page and please read them. I do not want to be unfair and I am pleased to engage in discussion with a fellow Guru Sikh - Even if he call me a "fanatic Hindu Vaishnav". But please let's stick to a few ground rules.


My second replies are in italics

Intro:

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”.

Are we discussing Guru's Langar or are we discussing me. You must stay focused on the job in hand. I have said many times that we are not here to fire personal insults at each other – but you have failed to listen. If you repeat this next time, I will not answer any of those questions. It is clear that you do not wish to discuss Gurbani and that you will keep going back to personal issues. THIS PAGE IS TO DISCUSS LANGAR NOT HARI SINGH!!!! So remember next time – no more replies to anything of a personal nature.

Yes, I am from Kenya as I state on my User Page - So what difference does this make to the argument? Is there anything wrong with Kenyan Sikhs?

You follow a Jatha Baba. You follow Jatha Baba Math and not the teachings of the Akal Takht or othodox Sikhs.

No, I follow our eleven Gurus but will accept help from any fellow Gursikh who can assist me with my journey on Earth. Are you saying that the Panj Pyara in Birmingham are "inferior" to those at Akal Takhat or "Orthodox Sikhs", whatever that is? You, my friend are playing a very dangerous game and if you start discriminating against the Guru's institution then you will be on very shaky ground.

Your Baba's Nishkam Sevak Jatha's botch job of the guilding of Harmandhir Sahib is on par with your understanding of Bani.

What does the above add to your argument? As you keep reminding us of how great you are and how good your understanding of Gurbani is and how bad GNNSJ is, etc, etc - Why don't you go and re-gild the Darbar Sahib yourself. Or are you only good at making noises but have no substance?? And if you can't do it then I suggest you shut up from all this negativity and egotism. Have some respect for people who do sewa no matter how small or how big. What have you done for Sikhi that compares to any Sant Baba's Achievements? How many Sikhs have taken Amrit from you? How many Asthans have you made and maintained? Etc, Etc

Let's see whose understanding is good and whose is bad. I am honoured for you to compare my understanding of Gurbani with the re-gilding of Harmander Sahib. Thank you very much

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.

I am not lecturing anyone. What you do as a Sikh is up to you. All I am doing is explaining Gurbani as it is - Using approved English Translations. It is you who is twisting the Guru's word without any real understanding. Show me what proof you have to support your habit of eating "Jhatka meat" with clear references and then we will see how we can change this article until then it will remain as it is. All changes must be supported by Gurbani or recorded Historical proof. --Hari Singh 22:03, 30 July 2006 (CDT)

The Shabad & Each Line:

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.

First, you have not answered the question – Please deal with every question that is posted. Which Shabad is a one liner? Let us see your blow by blow analysis

Let us take - You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?

Line 1

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…..

STOP – First this is not the opening line of the Ang (page)- It is the opening line of the Shabad. Second, there is no reference to any background in the Shabad and who asked for the background – Just stick to the Shabad and its meaning – Please - No history or background unless there is reference to it within the Shabad.

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

This above section is irrelevant and not necessary

………..so what Kabir is saying is there is truth in all religions….so far so good….you understand?

All Kabir ji has said is that: No one should say that the holy books Hindus, Christians, Islam, etc are wrong – The followers who do not study and understand these holy books are wrong.

Nowhere has Kabir said anything about religions only about Holy books and the followers. So when you say: "Kabir is saying is there is truth in all religions" – That is not the message. Please be precise in your interpretations.

Line 2

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?

Now where does it say Sacrifice or Qurbani in this Tuk? Please see SGGS page 1350 where I have set out the Original text with 3 English translations. None of these translations refer to Sacrifice. I know why it suits you to add this at this stage. You want to narrow the tuk so that it goes to apply to everyone who kills. Please stick to what the Guru ji has said!

Why are you just adding this extra bit about sacrifice and qurbani? – It not in Gurbani – Have I missed a few words somewhere? PLEASE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. Nowhere does Kabir ji refer to sacrifice or Qurbani at this point or anywhere else in this Shabad. Please let us stick to the Original text as far as possible.

ਜਉ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਝਕ੝ ਖ੝ਦਾਇ ਕਹਤ ਹਉ ਤਉ ਕਿਉ ਮ੝ਰਗੀ ਮਾਰੈ
ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai
If all within one God say that then why chicken kill

Looking at the table above tell me where you get the words Sacrifice and Qurbani. If you understand Punjabi, then you must understand the Original Gurmukhi.

  • Ja-o means Whosoever / If / when; sabh means everyone or all; meh mean within or in;
  • Ayk is one; Khudaa-ay mean Creator/God; Kahat mean say;
  • ta-o is why; murgee is chicken and maarai is to kill. The Shabad breakdown as:
  • "ja-o sabh meh" means "If within everyone"
  • "ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o" means "you say there is one God"
  • "ta-o ki-o mugee maarai" mean exactly "then why kill chicken"

NOW please explain where this qurbani and sacrifice comes in from? There is no mention of qurbani or sacrifice here –Are you agreed on this?

Line 3

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.

NO, I am Sorry but you are over stepping the mark here again I will accept: "So Mulla why do you kill chicken when Khudha dwells in all – Is this God's justice?" – No mention of any sacrifice or Qurbani! What you appear to have missed is the fact that Guru Arjan Dev included this Shabad in the Adi Granth. The reference to the Mullah here is of little significance (see reference ^1 Reference to Qazi in SGGS also ^2 Reference to Pandit in SGGS).

There are many hundreds of references to Qazi, Mullah, Pandit, Yogi, etc. But in all these cases, we as Sikhs have to learn from the message being given by our Guru.

Do you think that the Mullahs were going to read the SGGS?

I don't believe that Maharaj included this Shabad for the benefit of Mullahs. What do you think our Guru was thinking when they included this Shabad? - "Oh, the Mullahs will read the SGGS?" - No. Come on my friend. This Shabad is for our consumption NOT for any Mullah. Maharaj is explaining to us by using the Bani of Kabir. So yes, Kabir ji is addressing Mullah but Maharaj wants us to read and understand from it and get the message. No Mullah is going to read this text or care about it. Maharaj knew that.

WHY did Maharaj INCLUDE this Shabad? Please think carefully, I urge you. I would say that when a Sikh read this Shabad then:

  • 1. He is told that God dwells in the Chicken & other living beings
  • 2. Why should one kill Chicken that has God in it?
  • 3. Is it just in God's eyes to kill chicken in which resides God?

That is what a Sikh learns. The Mullah address is of little relevance. The rest of the Shabad reinforces the first two lines of the Shabad.

Line 4

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.

No reference to ritual (at all in this shabad) or hypocrisy (yet) – just read the translation as it stands – It is spot on. If you understand Punjab – you should clearly understand the original text. It very simple everyday words:

  • "tayray man kaa bharam" means "the doubt of your mind"
  • "na jaa-ee! Means "doesn't go"

You don't need any of your additions that you have made to the translation by Dr Sant Singh. You are totally wrong and as before you have put your spin on the Tuk.

  • Maharaj is saying that the Mullah has doubts about God and about His existence in all beings – So although he says the holy lines, he cannot bring himself to completely and totally believe in God – He has uncertainties about God & His presence in All beings.

Line 5

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: ame=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544988

We don't need to read about animal sacrifice because nowhere has Maharaj mentioned anything to do with sacrifice. (the link does not work anyway). Look at SGGS page 1350 Out of the three translations and the word by word translation nowhere is the words "SACRIFICE" or "QURBANI" to be found? I think you are imagining things!!

These words are not mentioned but you have deliberately polluted the Guru's Shabad by bringing them in. The Bani is saying that "you seize a being, bring and kill it, you have destroyed the clay. (matee) – As simple as that!! Why are bringing in this bit about Sacrifice and Qurbani?

Line 6

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

I would have said – "the light of the Soul joins "Anaahat" which is God but the translation is almost in keeping with the Guru's words. So Kabir ji is saying that the Soul light merges with the Lord – So what have you Halaled (killed)?

Line 7

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?

Absolute Rubbish – "Ujoo" is the purification by washing of hands & feet before praying – another Shabad which is by Bhagat Farid Ji may make it easy for you to understand this word –

SGGS Page 1381 Full Shabad

ਉਠ੝ ਫਰੀਦਾ ਉਜੂ ਸਾਜਿ ਸ੝ਬਹ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਗ੝ਜਾਰਿ ॥
uth fareedaa ujoo saaj subah nivaaj gujaar.
Rise up, Fareed, and cleanse yourself; chant your morning prayer.


What Kabir ji is saying is: Why do you wash your hands & feet; Why do you wash your face: Why do you bow your head in the mosque?

Putting it in a nutshell, Guru ji is basically conveying the message – What good are these washings and bowing in the mosque if you cannot understand the simple message of the Lord – God dwells in All!

Line 8

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).

You are doing your spinning again – Stick to the translation as its almost perfect. Apart from the word "gujaarahu" which means "5 Prayers" every other word is simple Punjabi.

  • ja-o dil meh kapat nivaaj" mean "one who harbours deceit in their heart"
  • "gujaarahu ki-aa haj kaabai jaa-i-aa."means "What for the 5 prayers & your pilgrimage to Mecca?"

Together that means: "One who harbours deceit in their heart, what good are the 5 prayers & your pilgrimage to Mecca?"

So Maharaj is carrying on from the previous like and saying – What good are these prayers & pilgrimages if you have deceit and malice in your heart?

Line 9

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

The translation is almost perfect but your spin is crooked.

I will give you my commentary on this line and the Shabad so far:

  • Maharaj says "you are impure" – why does Maharaj say this to the Mullah? – Because Mullah, you say: God is in all living beings, yet you kill chicken – You are deceitful ("Kapat"), what good are your ablutions, prayers and pilgrimages?
  • The message to the Sikh is clear. Maharaj says: "ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਹੈ ਸੋਇ ॥ sabh meh jot jot hai so-ay. The Divine Light is within everyone; You are that Light." (p663) – So if you believe the Guru's word, and believe that God's light is in all beings, then why do you kill these beings with His light?
  • This is the message of the Shabad for a Sikh who follows Gurbani and principles of Gurmat.

Line 10

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

Where has Maharaj mentioned "the way you treat people" or "you sacrifice animal for allah" or even "fast" in the above Shabad? I am sorry but you have continued to put your spin again and again. Please, just stick to words of the Shabad? Because of your own spin, you have not understood the Shabad – If you remove your spin, only then you will understand the real meaning. You have mixed the two seperate parts of the Shabad:

  • Maharaj starts the Shabad with a question: Don't say the holy books are wrong, wrong are those who do not study and understand them followed by "You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?
  • Nowhere is there any mention of "the way you treat people" or "you sacrifice animal for allah"
  • And nowhere is the "why do you kill chickens" mixed with "Washing, bowing in the mosque, prayers and pilgrimage" One is seperate from the other.

Please don't mix the separate parts of the Shabad up to suit your own views of life. Stick to what Gurbani tells us!

Hyper-linked:

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?

The posting of the Gurbani line (Tuk) is to give the reader the main essence of the Guru's message. The reader can look at the full Shabad or Ang by pressing the hyperlink. You cannot in a discussion, while making a point veer off and quote the whole Shabad to make your point. Most people would get completely distracted. Give me one example where an article quotes a whole page as reference to a topic being discussed?

Also, when you listen to Gyani's doing Gurbani Vichaar (See iKirtan Katha) where they are explaining the message of Gurbani, they only quote the main lines of Gurbani and not the full Shabad or Ang.

Line by line

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.

I asked for quotes from Gurbani or from scholars like Bhai Gurdas ji and you have failed to provide such references. If what you say is important, don't you think that Bhai Gurdas ji or other prominent Sikhs would have made this point.

Please refer to www.sikhphilosophy.net Dr Jodh Singh which is one of his articles.

In this article by Dr Jodh Singh, also uses "one line" from Guru ji to explain a point. Please examine the article and you will see that he uses just one line:

SGGS Page 423 Full Shabad

ਜ੝ਗਹ ਜ੝ਗਹ ਕੇ ਰਾਜੇ ਕੀਝ ਗਾਵਹਿ ਕਰਿ ਅਵਤਾਰੀ ॥
jugah jugah kay raajay kee-ay gaavahi kar avtaaree.
In each and every age, He creates the kings, who are sung of as His Incarnations.

in his article in the following context:

"Yet Sikhism does not show ….., and came to be hailed as gods and goddesses. Says Guru Amar Das – Jagah Jugah ke raje kie gavahi kar(I)avtari – SGGS: p. 423). No amount of incitement can compel Sikhs to …… followers of pseudo nationalism and upon their mentors sitting at their headquarters."

Also look at the article at All About Sikhs which also uses one line and other sections of Bani. See in particular the quotes: ""Maya is a slave of the Lord, it serves those in constant communion with Him".[6] Maya functions to hide the reality. "Maya makes us forget God, creates delusion and makes man love the other."[7]"

  • So what you are saying is that your respected scholar is also "Cutting Off Of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji's Arms"

My friend, what's your answer to this?

Rule does not apply

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

See previous sections and again please provide us with one article in connection with Sikhism where the author has consistently used a full Ang as a quote to make a point.

True Meaning

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.

I have and you are wrong as you have added your own spin to the Bani Tuks. Either you do not understand Gurmukhi as I said before or you do not have access to all the 3 translations of SGGS in English. They all disagree with your translation of the Shabad. Please retract your article from the net as it is completely wrong and unsupported by Gurbani and our Gurus.

I have proved that you wrong in this Shabad and clearly shown that you have put your spin at every corner – So who is Manmukh and who is Gurmukh – Only the Saadh Sangat & Waheguru know!

Also this business of "Cutting off the arms of SGGS" is another non-starter where you have been proven wrong.

  • So you are wrong on both counts. Please re-examine your position on this issue

Hatful of degrees

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.

Please give me the names & email addresses to these people because I would like to speak to them.


Be my Teacher

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.

A good teacher will overcome these difficulties – At least try

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

I asked "What are man made religions"? - you have as before not answered this question.

God's divine message has to be translated into language of everyday, doesn't it? To you Daya has no meaning and what you eat and how you behave in life have little value - What then is Dharma? What is living righteously? Please address these issues.

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

see detailed analysis above

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

Please refer to the part of the Shabad – the actual word – that mentions Sacrifice, Qurbani, etc. You don't have to do anything else – JUST REFER TO THE WORD! We don't need a lecture in how good you are and how bad everyone else is – Just the word in the original text. Thank you. Please provide this.

Simple and Clear message of Gurbani

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.

You love the message Gurbani but you don't love Gurbani. If you did, you would try and understand each word and follow it. You would not keep adding your own SPIN TO THESE WORDS so that it fits your own perceived message.

Speak to Saadh Sangat; speak to Gurmukhs and you will understand. Bhai Randhir Singh and all his followers; Bhai Yogi Ji and all his followers; All Sant Jathas; Sant Isher Singh, Sant Nand Singh, Sant Puran Singh, etc, etc which is many millions of people understand this Shabad as I have outlined it. These are the millions who have the deepest respect for Gurbani and so have changed their ways to follow the message of the Guru.

Unfortunately, you have not even understood Gurbani – Forget about following it's message. How do you think you will obtain salvation if you do not even understand this simple message?

Retrieved from "https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Talk:Langar&oldid=15829"