Tempo:
TEACHING OF NANAK
CHAP. II
41
of his nature.^ In treating the two prominent external 1469-1539. observances of Hindus and Muhammadans, veneration for the cow and abhorrence of the hog, he was equally wise and conciliatory, yielding perhaps something to conciliatory the prejudices of his education as well as to the gentle- between ness of his disposition. 'The rights of strangers,' said Muhamhe, 'are the one the ox, and the other the swine, but madans
"Pirs" and "Gurus" will praise those who partake not ^"*^ Hindus, of that which hath enjoyed life.' -
Thus Nanak extricated his followers from the Nanak accumulated errors of ages, and enjoined upon th^m. fuiiy exdevotion of thought and excellence of conduct as the tncates his first of duties. He left them, erect and free, unbiassed ^o^ow^'^^ in mind and unfettered by x'ules, to become an increasing body of truthful worshippers. His reform was in But his reits immediate effect religious and moral only; believers formation were regarded as 'Sikhs' or disciples, not as subjects; necessarily and it is neither probable, nor is it necessary to sup- ^^I'sious ^ and moral ,1,1 pose, that he possessed any clear and sagacious views ^^j^ of social amelioration or of political advancement. He -,
1
1
.
.
left the progress of his people to the operation of time: Nanak ie:t "^^ for his congregation was too limited, and the state 01 |],'spf\*^5^ society too artificial, to render it either requisite or without 1 Adi-Granth, particularly the Ragni. (Cf. the Dabistan, ii. 271.)
-
Asa Ragni
Adi-Granth, Maj chapter. Cf. Malcolm
and
Ravikali
(Sketch,
p.
36,
where it is said Nanak prohibited swine's flesh; but, indeed, the flesh of the tavie hog had always been note,
and p.
137),
forbidden to Hindus. (Manu's Institutes, v. 19.) The. Dabistan (ii. 248) states that Nanak prohibited wine and pork, and himself abstained from all flesh but, in truth, contradictory passages about food may be quoted, and thus Ward (The Hindoos, iii. 466) shows that Nanak. defended those who eat flesh, and declared that the infant which drew nurture from its mother lived virtually upon flesh. The author of the Gxir Ratnavali pursues the idea, in a somewhat trivial manner indeed, by asking whether man does not take woman to wife, and whether the holiest of books are not bound with the skins of animals The general injunctions of Nanak have sometimes been misinterpreted by sectarian followers and learned strangers, to mean 'great chariness of animal life', almost in a mere ceremonial sense. (Wilson, As. Res., xvii. 233.) But the Sikhs have no such feeling, although the Jains and others carry a pious regard for worms and flies to a ludicrous extent a practice which has reacted upon at least some families of Roman Catholic Christians in India. Those in Bhopal reject, during Lent, the use of unrefined sugar, an article of daily consumption, because, in its manufacture, the lives of many insects are necessarily sacrificed [It is curious that the Greeks and Romans believed the life of the ox to have been held sacred during the golden age; and Cicero quotes Aratus, to show that it was only during the iron age the flesh of cattle began to be eaten. (On the Natiire of the Gods, Francklin's translation, p. 154.) J.D.C.] !
—
!
—
CHAP. II
41
of his nature.^ In treating the two prominent external 1469-1539. observances of Hindus and Muhammadans, veneration for the cow and abhorrence of the hog, he was equally wise and conciliatory, yielding perhaps something to conciliatory the prejudices of his education as well as to the gentle- between ness of his disposition. 'The rights of strangers,' said Muhamhe, 'are the one the ox, and the other the swine, but madans
"Pirs" and "Gurus" will praise those who partake not ^"*^ Hindus, of that which hath enjoyed life.' -
Thus Nanak extricated his followers from the Nanak accumulated errors of ages, and enjoined upon th^m. fuiiy exdevotion of thought and excellence of conduct as the tncates his first of duties. He left them, erect and free, unbiassed ^o^ow^'^^ in mind and unfettered by x'ules, to become an increasing body of truthful worshippers. His reform was in But his reits immediate effect religious and moral only; believers formation were regarded as 'Sikhs' or disciples, not as subjects; necessarily and it is neither probable, nor is it necessary to sup- ^^I'sious ^ and moral ,1,1 pose, that he possessed any clear and sagacious views ^^j^ of social amelioration or of political advancement. He -,
1
1
.
.
left the progress of his people to the operation of time: Nanak ie:t "^^ for his congregation was too limited, and the state 01 |],'spf\*^5^ society too artificial, to render it either requisite or without 1 Adi-Granth, particularly the Ragni. (Cf. the Dabistan, ii. 271.)
-
Asa Ragni
Adi-Granth, Maj chapter. Cf. Malcolm
and
Ravikali
(Sketch,
p.
36,
where it is said Nanak prohibited swine's flesh; but, indeed, the flesh of the tavie hog had always been note,
and p.
137),
forbidden to Hindus. (Manu's Institutes, v. 19.) The. Dabistan (ii. 248) states that Nanak prohibited wine and pork, and himself abstained from all flesh but, in truth, contradictory passages about food may be quoted, and thus Ward (The Hindoos, iii. 466) shows that Nanak. defended those who eat flesh, and declared that the infant which drew nurture from its mother lived virtually upon flesh. The author of the Gxir Ratnavali pursues the idea, in a somewhat trivial manner indeed, by asking whether man does not take woman to wife, and whether the holiest of books are not bound with the skins of animals The general injunctions of Nanak have sometimes been misinterpreted by sectarian followers and learned strangers, to mean 'great chariness of animal life', almost in a mere ceremonial sense. (Wilson, As. Res., xvii. 233.) But the Sikhs have no such feeling, although the Jains and others carry a pious regard for worms and flies to a ludicrous extent a practice which has reacted upon at least some families of Roman Catholic Christians in India. Those in Bhopal reject, during Lent, the use of unrefined sugar, an article of daily consumption, because, in its manufacture, the lives of many insects are necessarily sacrificed [It is curious that the Greeks and Romans believed the life of the ox to have been held sacred during the golden age; and Cicero quotes Aratus, to show that it was only during the iron age the flesh of cattle began to be eaten. (On the Natiire of the Gods, Francklin's translation, p. 154.) J.D.C.] !
—
!
—
©
2026
Lehal.net