Talk:Vegetarianism Other Views: Difference between revisions

This Page need cleaning up. I may be able to assist.

Why The Interest In this Page?

Dear Hari Singh, why the interest in this page? This page is the point of view of meat eating Sikh's (ans might I add vegetarian one's).

• Before you add rebuttle's here, should you not add rebuttle's here http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Vegetarianism ? Suely we should have rebuttle's here too? If not, why not?

• The view that meat eating and vegetarianism has nothing to do with Sikhism is backed up by quotation's from scholar's in the essay's. Will you be challenging thos scholar's too?

• Why are there not the same level of refrences being requested at http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Vegetarianism ?

--Incredible 03:23, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Cleaning up

This page needs to be properly presented otherwise it will be deleted.

• You start with a wrong translation and then argue the matter. The translation for the Shabad on page 1377 does include "fish" – see here. So this is not the correct starting point for the argument. Please make sure you start with the correct translation. --Hari Singh 09:31, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

* Nobody is saying it does not include fish, but the point being argued is that machalee = fish and NOT flesh. A subtle but very important point.--Incredible 16:18, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Also can we keep the rebuttle's to the vegetarian page. This is an alternative or other view. Rebuttles are not appropriate here. --Incredible 16:43, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Please deal this the queries here on the discussion page before you delete any material by others. You are free to improve the article but not to revert or delete other parties work without discussion. See the Guidelines on the help section - verifiability, No original research and NPOV are rules that everyone must comply with. Further the article must conform to normal wiki style. Dump from other sites will not be allowed. If you cannot write articles for this site yourself then you are not really interested in the progress to this site. This articles need major improvements and need to follow guidelines. --Hari Singh 13:46, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

• Most of the work is mine. It is you that is deleting the work. I am merely reverting to the original. Your addition's do not add anything to the essay, but are merely detracting from the Meat Eating Sikh's point of view, which this page is about! I suggest before you edit it, that you discuss it, or does one rule appply to us, and one rule to you?--Incredible 03:23, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Vegetarianism Other Views NOT Vegetarianism and Rebuttles

Yhis not the page for giving rebuttles on vegetarianism and Sikhism. There is a whole page dedicated to vegetarianism and Sikhsm....is that not rebuttle enough? Or are not other views allowed here? --Incredible 01:30, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Initiating & Sustaining A CNTRVRSY(sic! can't spell)is the very ROOT of FALSEHOOD

"..The topic of meat eating is a controversial one...???" --Sayth NANAK NOOOOOOOO! IT IS NOT A TOPIC to BEGIN WITH...Mass Mass Kar...

User:Mutia 27 Sep 06

• I agree Mutia, however, Vegetarian Sikh's have several page's to express their view's, and Meat Eating Sikh's have this one. When they do express their view it is unfortunately stiffled with bully boy tractics.--Incredible 03:26, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

RECOMMENDED that ...

• TRUE IDEA(satgur) of handling rebuttals be the Talk/Discussion page of any Article.

User:Mutia 27 Sep 06

Finding a better system

I understand your concerns and I am asking a few of the other interested and wise people connected with Sikhiwiki about how we can best resolve this matter – It is possible that we will have a joint, strict discussion page; or may be changes via the discussion page need to be implemented? We could ask for views on the discussion page and then at the end of the discussion make the amendments - I will come back to you on this one.

I hope you will agree that it is not correct to have un-supported "facts" being highlighted on any article. And having read a few of the entries here on this article, it is clear that a NPOV (neutral point of view) is not been taken. Wrong translations was used as a starting point for the first Shabads; a very narrow interpretation of the meaning of words; wrong translations of words; and no explanation why such narrow approach was used are just a few points I have noticed – So there is concern about this approach and one must mention both POV in all articles and stick to the facts. We will have to decide the best way to get there.

This article as it stands is not acceptable as it is a dump from other sites without adjusting it for its place here as a Sikh resource. This is not acceptable. And I suggest that you look at this very carefully and I suggest that each section has references added otherwise the unsupported text will need to be deleted. All basic concepts must be supported by approved Bani or recorded historical records otherwise it will not be entertained. Views of the Gurus need to be dealt with respect and reverence. On other authority for a Sikh can have the same relevance. No quotes for "undisclosed sources" which are not available can be entertained. Copies of hukamnama must be supplied where they are used. --Hari Singh 13:33, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Section 3

In this section,

"First point to note is that halaal and bismil, does not mean kill but refers to a specific form of ritual slaughter ^{[citation needed]}. Put into context this is a comment on the Muslim sacrifice ritual where either a goat or a chicken is kept in the confines of the home and then ritually slaughtered as obeisance to Abraham. Kabeer is mocking the futility of this ritual and saying, that why are you doing this sacrifice just to emulate God’s asking of Abraham to kill his only son? It is a futile gesture that will not sway God. Abraham was sacrificing his son to God, however all the sacrifice in this instance has achieved is destruction of the outer shell of the chicken. The soul won’t travel to God, but merely to another form. One can only understand this if one has a basic grasp of history. In this instance the person who tried to use this tukh as an anti-meat quotation was unaware of the Koranic context and had an extremely poor knowledge of Semitic history."

We need references to where these words do not refer to "kill". Where in the Shabad does Abraham get mentioned or his son? If it is not in the Shabad, it cannot be in this explanation – Please quote Bani to help with explanation not your own research. This narration will be removed without proper external support. Where does Maharaj say you need history to understand Bani? Is this more OR? --Hari Singh 14:14, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

If you click on the word halaal and bismil, they link to article's that define the two word's. You may be able to link the article's better.--Incredible 03:28, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Section 4

4. Bhagat Kabir says, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils)

...where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is willing to have their head cut ? (SGGS p1374)

Let us add this to the correct context:

At one level this is a mistranslation and at another misrepresentation of the context within which this is written:

In the above Gurmukhi, there is no mention of meat whatsoever. hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un, means literally, who would cut their own throat to eat food. The person who has tried to translate this has added his/her own spin. What this is actually saying is that to the follower of the Guru or one who has been touched by God a simple dish of Kheechree (lentils and rice), flavoured with salt is enough. To have something more exotic to eat you would not cut your own throat (the western equivalent would be to cut your own nose off to spite your face). In no way is this tukh anything to do with meat eating and the person who has misrepresented and mistranslated it should be held to account for his/her actions.

Rebuttal

Having checked 4 translations, (2 on Srigranth, Dr Gopal Singh and Bhai Pritam Singh Chahil Sahib) they say more or less the same thing "Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread?" - so this section is removed to dicussion page. You cannot challenge 4 translations of the SGGS without some other proof. Please provide this. Please amend before reinserting, if this is appropriate --Hari Singh 14:41, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Again the article is challenging those translation's. This is a meat eaters point of view. No one is claiming it is neutral. If the article is not to you liking, then I suggest you delete any refernce to Vegetarianism OTHER Views. Thanks --Incredible 03:30, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Section 5 - need proof - Original Research

5.In this dark age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs...

.... They eat rotting dead bodies for food. (SGGS p1242) Read full Shabad here

Again, let us put this into context:

At first glance one notices that this paragraph is clearly a metaphor for people who behave like dogs. The dog is a scavenger, hunts in packs, fights within its pack, eats practically anything it can find etc etc. This entire Ang talks about people greed and those that lack honour when they are alive.

The second point to note is the mistranslation. Murdaar is not the word for meat. Murdaar is a reference to people who are dead. In other words people are acting so much like dogs that when people have died they gather round to get as much as they can. A good analogy would be inheritance, where is some instances people try and contest them or try and grab for themselves as much as they can. In India, it has not been unusual to murder siblings of inheritance disputes. In fact the word Murder in the English language has come from the word Murdaar.

Rebuttal

I have checked 2 translations and they both refer to meat - so this is OR. Please produce proof --14:52, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Section 6 - See comment for section 5

6. Falsehood is my dagger and to eat by defrauding is meat.

(Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raaj p24) Read Full Shabad here

Let us again see this in context:

Again this is similar to the above translated Shabad. The Guru is clearly making an analogy between people who are acting like dogs. He is even saying that they are barking like dogs.

Again Murdaar does not mean meat at all. Murdaar refers to dead people, and how people are literally fighting over one another to get what they think is theirs. They are so consumed with greed and selfishness that they care not for one another, clearly nothing to do with meat eating.

Rebuttal

see comments for section 5 --Hari Singh 14:57, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Again, this is challenging the translation's as well as the meaning, so to refer to traditional translations would be the just plain stupidity. --Incredible 03:32, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Section 7 - see comments for section 5

7. Avarice is a dog, falsehood the sweeper and cheating the eating of meat. (Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raag p15)

Let us put this last shabad in context with its correct translation:

Again clearly a mistranslation and mischief making on the part of someone who wishes to convey a certain message.

Again Murdaar is not Meat but is dead people. The entire Ang is talking about people who fall prey to the 5 thieves, Kaam, Krodh, Moh, Lobh and Hankaar.

Other Sections

The rest of the article need major editing and insertion of references. I give some examples below:

MOTIVATIONS BEHIND MISTRANSLATION AND MISREPRESENTATION

There are several reasons behind why these mistranslations and misrepresentations have occurred:

• The publishers have a lack of education and do not understand the meaning of words in Gurmukhi and the correct translation into English. ^{[citation needed]} Give references for your view - who else has said this - give a few references as this is a very strong statement. Why are Dr Sant Singh, Dr Gopal Singh, Bhai Manmohan Singh, Bhai Pritam Singh' translations all not acceptable?

The article is saying that current translation's are not accurate enough. --Incredible 03:50, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

• In their eagerness to promote their own brand of Sikhism (Sant, Jatha etc) they have deliberately allowed mistranslation and misrepresentation.^{[citation needed] [references needed OR?]} Give references of who has said this and it needs to be someone of substance and not a private website - Akal Takhat; prominent Gursikh; etc. Why are some of the scholars quoted in this article relevant; Why rely on quotes by scholars rather than Gurbani or prominent Gursikhs like Bhai Gurdas, etc

It is the Sikh Meat Eater's point of view? That is the point of this page is it not? --Incredible 03:50, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

• Genuine abhorrence of killing animals can be a motivation too (eg those people that believe in Animal Rights), however Sikhism should not be used as a tool to promote such agendas. Why is Sikhism not compatible with AR ^{[Gurbani citation needed]}

Because one looses true objectivity, and is promoting a certain agenda and mindset when reading Sikh texts. --Incredible 03:50, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

• Poor knowledge of history and the context in which the Guru’s and Bhaghats wrotes these Angs is a factor too. This can lead to a misrepresentation. ^{[Gurbani citation needed]} Where in Gurbani does it say that knowledge of history is required to understand the Guru's message

It does not say this in Bani and it does not need to either. The suggestion here is that a greater knowledge of Sikh History can lead to greater understanding of Bani. Let me give you an example. When Guru Nanak wrote many of his Shabads, Babur commited many attrocities in the North Wesern Area of India. The are some Shabads that directly relate to this event. Most children from the last centtury growing up in India would be aware of these events and the background and can therefore understand a deper fuller meaning. Many (especially in the Wet), do not know of these events and therefore have a more superficial knowledge of Gurbani. Again, this is a viewpoint, and does not claim to be Neutral. --Incredible 03:50, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

In conclusion one can only say that it is very important that Sikh institution promote a clear and concise programme where only those with a certain amount of knowledge in Sikh History and the Sikh Language, should be officially sanctioned as being translators for the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.

Delete The Entire Page And Refrence to Sikh Diet

The suggestion from us is to delete all page's that allude or express views towards a particular Sikh Diet, if the keeper's of this site want to truly main neutral, or leave both view points intact and let the reader make his/her own mind up as to what is what. Thanks. --Incredible 03:50, 28 September 2006 (CDT)