Very Interesting Critique Of Sgpc Rehat Maryada By Taksaal

[paapiman]

14 minutes ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

The SGPC Rehat Maryada relied more on Khoj then "Seeneh Baseeneh di Chali aayi Maryada" which frankly is quite questionable, especially with practices and beliefs that these Sampardas are propagating and practicing now.

Bro, can you please list those practices and beliefs and explain how they go against Gurmat?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Kuttabanda2]

4 hours ago, paapiman said:

Bro, can you please list those practices and beliefs and explain how they go against Gurmat?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Like wearing Dhotis at Hazoor Sahib, Aarti being done with a thaal, lamp, and a conch shell, tilaks at Hazoor Sahib, in Nihang Dals they used to practice caste-based discrimination in the Amrit Sanchar a few decades back. Offering Blood sacrifices to Shastars, etc. Hazoor Sahib is a great example.  As to how they go against Gurmat, they're blind rituals and practices that infected the Sikh Panth and now are considered an unquestionable 'Maryada' by some because the Sant-Mahapurakhs and falani Granth mentions so and so.

[paapiman]

13 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Like wearing Dhotis at Hazoor Sahib, Aarti being done with a thaal, lamp, and a conch shell, tilaks at Hazoor Sahib, in Nihang Dals they used to practice caste-based discrimination in the Amrit Sanchar a few decades back. Offering Blood sacrifices to Shastars, etc. Hazoor Sahib is a great example.  As to how they go against Gurmat, they're blind rituals and practices that infected the Sikh Panth and now are considered an unquestionable 'Maryada' by some because the Sant-Mahapurakhs and falani Granth mentions so and so.

There might be Manmat practices like caste based discrimination, etc, which have crept into some groups of the sampradas, but one cannot deny the fact that there are certain groups within the sampradas which practice Sikhism, the way it was done, during Satguru jee's times. Like for example,

DDT under Srimaan Sant Baba Mohan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindranwale

Nanaksar under Srimaan Sant Baba Gurdev Singh jee Samadh Bhai

Nihangs under Sriman Sant Baba Nihal SIngh jee Harianvelan

It is much better/safer to follow such groups, rather than a flawed/incomplete man made SGPC Maryada (which has been forced on the Panth) or cults which promote Manmat.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Kuttabanda2]

On 8/28/2016 at 0:55 PM, paapiman said:

There might be Manmat practices like caste based discrimination, etc, which have crept into some groups of the sampradas, but one cannot deny the fact that there are certain groups within the sampradas which practice Sikhism, the way it was done, during Satguru jee's times. Like for example,

DDT under Srimaan Sant Baba Mohan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindranwale

Nanaksar under Srimaan Sant Baba Gurdev Singh jee Samadh Bhai

Nihangs under Sriman Sant Baba Nihal SIngh jee Harianvelan

It is much better/safer to follow such groups, rather than a flawed/incomplete man made SGPC Maryada (which has been forced on the Panth) or cults which promote Manmat.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

I would disagree, Ji. DDT, Hazooris, and Nanaksar are also man made, (they formed around the same time as the Tatt Khalsa Singh Sabha did), as well as every other Samparda, their supposed lineage and claims aren't evidences of their purity . The caste discrimination, inconsistent Rehat/Maryada, is enough to doubt and disprove the ideas of these sects/cults/deras, In 1877, Chaupai Sahib wasn't even included in the Nitnem banis in their Rehatnama (This is the time when "Puraatan Maryada was followed".  These people are as flawed/incomplete and man made as the SGPC, The only thing the SGPC didn't do was concoct a fictitious history and connect a few well known historical personalities to their lineage. They're also evidently as Manmat as everyone else.  There is no 100% Puraatan Maryada or sect.  And they certainly aren't practicing Sikhi "the way it was done."

[jaikaara]

9 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

I would disagree, Ji. DDT, Hazooris, and Nanaksar are also man made, (they formed around the same time as the Tatt Khalsa Singh Sabha did), as well as every other Samparda, their supposed lineage and claims aren't evidences of their purity . The caste discrimination, inconsistent Rehat/Maryada, is enough to doubt and disprove the ideas of these sects/cults/deras, In 1877, Chaupai Sahib wasn't even included in the Nitnem banis in their Rehatnama (This is the time when "Puraatan Maryada was followed".  These people are as flawed/incomplete and man made as the SGPC, The only thing the SGPC didn't do was concoct a fictitious history and connect a few well known historical personalities to their lineage. They're also evidently as Manmat as everyone else.  There is no 100% Puraatan Maryada or sect.  And they certainly aren't practicing Sikhi "the way it was done."

The Japji sahib, The Jaap Sahib The Akaal Ustat Sahib or even Sukhmani sahib ..these banis indicate that core Gurmat is the direct connection between Hari Purakh Akaal and us...if you dive deeper you would not need the Gurdwaara , the Prakaash and Sukhaasan as well as Deg rituals and Chaur sahib...just shoonya...HOWEVER ...does a human being right form the beginning understand this ? in generic term a good Sikh is one who regularly visits the Gurdwaara does sewa and contributes his daswandh along with doing Nitnem. In Gurbani Guru Maharaj has time and again mentioned that people who cut off themselves from the world living in caves and growing their kes too are not promised an awastha ...Then ..how does the so called Gursikhi jeevan of just doing things ritually guarantee anything ? Rituals are part of a Organized Religion and Sangat - Pangat were introduced by Guru ji Thyself for a reason. The Rituals at Hazoor Sahib are a mixture of Udasi, Nirmale and Nihang Sampradaas and rather than ridiculing them one should understand that they are cultural influences which play a vital role in the militarisation of the Khalsa...not everyone can be a Baba Deep Singh ji ..not every one is a Charhdikala awastha ...let us first correct our own self than we pinpoint Sampradaas maryada.

[Kuttabanda2]

On 8/30/2016 at 4:43 AM, jaikaara said:

The Japji sahib, The Jaap Sahib The Akaal Ustat Sahib or even Sukhmani sahib ..these banis indicate that core Gurmat is the direct connection between Hari Purakh Akaal and us...if you dive deeper you would not need the Gurdwaara , the Prakaash and Sukhaasan as well as Deg rituals and Chaur sahib...just shoonya...HOWEVER ...does a human being right form the beginning understand this ? in generic term a good Sikh is one who regularly visits the Gurdwaara does sewa and contributes his daswandh along with doing Nitnem. In Gurbani Guru Maharaj has time and again mentioned that people who cut off themselves from the world living in caves and growing their kes too are not promised an awastha ...Then ..how does the so called Gursikhi jeevan of just doing things ritually guarantee anything ? Rituals are part of a Organized Religion and Sangat - Pangat were introduced by Guru ji Thyself for a reason. The Rituals at Hazoor Sahib are a mixture of Udasi, Nirmale and Nihang Sampradaas and rather than ridiculing them one should understand that they are cultural influences which play a vital role in the militarisation of the Khalsa...not everyone can be a Baba Deep Singh ji ..not every one is a Charhdikala awastha ...let us first correct our own self than we pinpoint Sampradaas maryada.

I'm not dismissing Ritualism as a whole. There's a fine line between critique and ridiculing.  And I do understand that they are cultural influences, I just don't think that's "Original" or "Seeneh Baseeneh di Maryada", I also don't believe that the Sampardaic/Snaatan side of the Panth is in any position for moral or religious condemnation of the SGPC-Singh Sabha faction.  Also, Telling people to "Correct our own self self" shouldn't be used to shut down any kind of discussion.  I do however agree with your first few statements.  

[jaikaara]

10 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

I'm not dismissing Ritualism as a whole. There's a fine line between critique and ridiculing.  And I do understand that they are cultural influences, I just don't think that's "Original" or "Seeneh Baseeneh di Maryada", I also don't believe that the Sampardaic/Snaatan side of the Panth is in any position for moral or religious condemnation of the SGPC-Singh Sabha faction.  Also, Telling people to "Correct our own self self" shouldn't be used to shut down any kind of discussion.  I do however agree with your first few statements.  

I understand bro , i too am not saying there shouldnt be any discussion but these critique views are generated mainly by the missionary groups who are a cross breed of the taliban and go to any length and breadth to disown Dasam baani and Puraatan maryada. If we go back to the baani as said before we will not need anything ..nothing at all. With this will you want to stop building Gurdwaras ?

[Kuttabanda2]

On September 1, 2016 at 3:38 AM, jaikaara said:

I understand bro , i too am not saying there shouldnt be any discussion but these critique views are generated mainly by the missionary groups who are a cross breed of the taliban and go to any length and breadth to disown Dasam baani and Puraatan maryada. If we go back to the baani as said before we will not need anything ..nothing at all. With this will you want to stop building Gurdwaras ?

The Missionaries aren't a cross breed of the Taliban, or even remotely similar. That's an extreme and poor comparison. I would find Taksalis to be more like the Taliban. The Missionaries are just overly skeptical, anti-mystical, and paranoid. As for the Baani, Baani has been and is being interpreted in numerous ways. You can find a basic framework or common ground. As for 'Puraatan Maryada', I've already said that many people claim this and that  "Puraatan Maryada" is solely substantiated on the of "Seena Baseena" claim, which isn't entirely false, but is indeed questionable.

[JasperS]

Does discrimination fall into realm of manmat? Equality of all Sikhs is Gurmat.  Problem I have with Taksal maryada is telling women their husband is God. I don't think that is in line with Gurmat principles. I am not God to my wife anymore than she is to me.  It sounds really sexist to me and against Sikh principles.  This is only one example. For that reason I think Sikh Rehet Maryada is following closer according to what our Gurus taught. As kuttabanda2, and Amarjeet already said, Sikh Rehet Maryada was made as a minimum. As long as all others fit within that minimum, they can add whatever they want for their own dhera etc. But there is a fine line when it comes to discrimination is that considered adding to, or taking away? 

[jaikaara]

7 hours ago, JasperS said:

Does discrimination fall into realm of manmat? Equality of all Sikhs is Gurmat.  Problem I have with Taksal maryada is telling women their husband is God. I don't think that is in line with Gurmat principles. I am not God to my wife anymore than she is to me.  It sounds really sexist to me and against Sikh principles.  This is only one example. For that reason I think Sikh Rehet Maryada is following closer according to what our Gurus taught. As kuttabanda2, and Amarjeet already said, Sikh Rehet Maryada was made as a minimum. As long as all others fit within that minimum, they can add whatever they want for their own dhera etc. But there is a fine line when it comes to discrimination is that considered adding to, or taking away? 

are you related to Wanda Kaur ?

[Lucky]

7 hours ago, JasperS said:

Does discrimination fall into realm of manmat?

YES, discrimination is entirely manmat. period.

Gurmat is hard to grasp at times because most of us "learn" gurmat. However, there are ways when one can realise that self-inquiry and searching within-self can yield gurmat decisions. It's quite tricky because as soon as we start thinking aout the process and trying to self formulate some internal procedure or protocol,... then we immediately fall into the mann's mat(wisdom).

[Lucky]

7 hours ago, JasperS said:

As kuttabanda2, and Amarjeet already said, Sikh Rehet Maryada was made as a minimum. As long as all others fit within that minimum, they can add whatever they want for their own dhera etc.

I would disagree here. The rehat is supposed to be for uniform understanding and uniform learning for Sikhs(learners of guru).  As soon as factions or groups are created, then you have 'manmat-ly' split a uniform/single/oneness teaching into separate ego-systems. We are in maya. Maya is an illusion, our ego creates the ability to live in this illusion and be lost in it. Ego is the single division and separate-ness that we each individually have from God, If we start making further separated divisions of Dharam, in the illusion itself,  then we are dividing the Ego and God himself into further illusions and parts

GUR-MAT can ONLY be ONE.. We can't have one party claiming this is gurmat and that isn't and the other claiming different.  ThIs is why it NEVER has, and will NEVER work to have a dharam with further groups, factions /sects in itself..

You can look at it as simple math. If we keep using the division symbol in dharam process....then it will just divide further and further ..and eventually disintegrate to an end. You want to use the multiplication figure to keep growing.  That is the only way forward.

Look at islam. Tthey have a few "division' signs in the their dharam process, however, their multiplication signs  and multiplying sums, outweigh the divisions tremendously, which is why islam keeps getting bigger and bigger. (not forgetting their additional rabbit-like breeding habits

[JasperS]

16 hours ago, jaikaara said:

are you related to Wanda Kaur ?

I'm sorry I don't know who that is. 
 

16 hours ago, Lucky said:

I would disagree here. The rehat is supposed to be for uniform understanding and uniform learning for Sikhs(learners of guru).  As soon as factions or groups are created, then you have 'manmat-ly' split a uniform/single/oneness teaching into separate ego-systems. We are in maya. Maya is an illusion, our ego creates the ability to live in this illusion and be lost in it. Ego is the single division and separate-ness that we each individually have from God, If we start making further separated divisions of Dharam, in the illusion itself,  then we are dividing the Ego and God himself into further illusions and parts

GUR-MAT can ONLY be ONE.. We can't have one party claiming this is gurmat and that isn't and the other claiming different.  ThIs is why it NEVER has, and will NEVER work to have a dharam with further groups, factions /sects in itself..

You can look at it as simple math. If we keep using the division symbol in dharam process....then it will just divide further and further ..and eventually disintegrate to an end. You want to use the multiplication figure to keep growing.  That is the only way forward.

Look at islam. Tthey have a few "division' signs in the their dharam process, however, their multiplication signs  and multiplying sums, outweigh the divisions tremendously, which is why islam keeps getting bigger and bigger. (not forgetting their additional rabbit-like breeding habits

Veer ji, Actually I agree with you. Problem is, we won't ever see that happen as each group has their own thinking, each will fight tooth and nail to prove their version of gurmat is true or not. For me, gurbani is highest. If something does not agree with what is written in guru granth sahib ji, then to me there is problem. But on a large scale I dont think we will ever see that. For instance in the taksali maryada I quoted above, where did it come from that woman are to be lower than men and see us as gods? Didn't Guru Nanak Dev Ji teach us we are to see god in each other? But obviously that idea and thinking that man is higher than women came from somewhere? Even if you look close the panthic maryada has some language which on the surface sounds sexist. 

[Lucky]

4 hours ago, JasperS said:

Veer ji, Actually I agree with you. Problem is, we won't ever see that happen as each group has their own thinking, each will fight tooth and nail to prove their version of gurmat is true or not. For me, gurbani is highest. If something does not agree with what is written in guru granth sahib ji, then to me there is problem. But on a large scale I dont think we will ever see that. For instance in the taksali maryada I quoted above, where did it come from that woman are to be lower than men and see us as gods? Didn't Guru Nanak Dev Ji teach us we are to see god in each other? But obviously that idea and thinking that man is higher than women came from somewhere? Even if you look close the panthic maryada has some language which on the surface sounds sexist. 

Gurbani is the Highest like you say and that is what you should always stick with as primary.

I agree with what you say about  Man=Woman, All is One...but sadly, we have Sikhs that can influence huge people with their own interpretations of gurbani, usually to suit their own agendas.

Gurbani is the Ultimate TRUTH.  period!... Therefore, if someone distorts it and says that this means that and that means this, but you personally find some sort of contradiction with gurmat.... then you will need to dig for the answer yourself and find the real Truth.

Basically, if Gurbani is TRUTH, then it is IMPOSSBLE for it to contradict itself because TRUTH can NEVER CONTRADICT.

The example you mention of woman worshipping man is from a gurbani interpretation. However, it clearly contradicts Guru Nanak ji's Philosophy. Therefore, the interpretation is clearly wrong and misunderstood and we should make it our own duty as Sikhs to find the Truth. Remember, the Truth is within us once you step outside your MIND.

 

 

[paapiman]

There is no traditional Sikh Samprada/Group (including DDT), which promotes the idea of worshiping husbands. Only Sri Waheguru jee is worthy of worship.

Gurbani has multiple interpretations, depending on the varying spiritual levels of seekers. It is possible that one might feel that one interpretation is contradicting another one, but in reality those are being directed to different sets of people (who have their unique needs). Gurmukhs will understand this fact, while Manmukhs will argue over it.  

If in doubt, never ever trust your Mind (Manmat), until you have reached Brahamgyan. Always consult Brahamgyanis or Gurmukhs, who have done sangat of them, to find the truth to clarify your doubts.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[JasperS]

On 9/16/2016 at 8:06 AM, paapiman said:

There is no traditional Sikh Samprada/Group (including DDT), which promotes the idea of worshiping husbands. Only Sri Waheguru jee is worthy of worship.

Gurbani has multiple interpretations, depending on the varying spiritual levels of seekers. It is possible that one might feel that one interpretation is contradicting another one, but in reality those are being directed to different sets of people (who have their unique needs). Gurmukhs will understand this fact, while Manmukhs will argue over it.  

If in doubt, never ever trust your Mind (Manmat), until you have reached Brahamgyan. Always consult Brahamgyanis or Gurmukhs, who have done sangat of them, to find the truth to clarify your doubts.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

@paapiman

Forgive me Paapiman, but, werent you the one who once said on here that Gurmukh wives are expected to see their husbands as God (and even bow to them?). You were in a whole discussion with a girl on here before trying to push that idea.

I think that Gurmukh husband and wife should both see the divine in each other as equals which to me agrees fully with Gurbani.  How can I ever expect my wife to see me as God, if I would be unable to see the divine in her equally?  She would see what - Only the fallible human part of me then! (and in fact, that would actually make her higher than me spiritually if she was capable to see God in me, when I could not see God in her would it not?). This is what I am trying to teach my daughter (now 8) to see God in everyone.

The passage I am referring to is in the Taksal maryada. The wording is very sexist. It tells the wives to see their husband as God but it doesnt tell the husbands to see their wives as God, instead it tells husbands to see their wives as a follower which to me sounds a lot like worshipper. 

[jaikaara]

On 9/17/2016 at 0:21 PM, JasperS said:

@paapiman

Forgive me Paapiman, but, werent you the one who once said on here that Gurmukh wives are expected to see their husbands as God (and even bow to them?). You were in a whole discussion with a girl on here before trying to push that idea.

I think that Gurmukh husband and wife should both see the divine in each other as equals which to me agrees fully with Gurbani.  How can I ever expect my wife to see me as God, if I would be unable to see the divine in her equally?  She would see what - Only the fallible human part of me then! (and in fact, that would actually make her higher than me spiritually if she was capable to see God in me, when I could not see God in her would it not?). This is what I am trying to teach my daughter (now 8) to see God in everyone.

The passage I am referring to is in the Taksal maryada. The wording is very sexist. It tells the wives to see their husband as God but it doesnt tell the husbands to see their wives as God, instead it tells husbands to see their wives as a follower which to me sounds a lot like worshipper. 

tell your wife to follow you ...lets see how far can you get followed by her

[JasperS]

8 hours ago, jaikaara said:

tell your wife to follow you ...lets see how far can you get followed by her

If I try to TELL her anything, I will get a smack in the face most likely (and I'd deserve it too). If I ASK her to follow me, 99% of the time she would, but not because she feels its her duty to do so. She would do it because she loves and trusts me. BUT and this is a BIG BUT, By the same token, if she asks me to follow her, 99% of the time I'd also do so! Not because I am what some might call whipped, but because I also love her and trust her. So the leading and following is mutual and goes both ways. Sometimes I lead sometimes she leads. We don't keep count (though I'd say its 50/50) And for us, it's not about who is in control. Rather its about both of us having the freedom to express our individual needs and opinions and both of us having equal say and authority. And we have a very very satisfying and loving marriage. 

[jaikaara]

15 hours ago, JasperS said:

If I try to TELL her anything, I will get a smack in the face most likely (and I'd deserve it too). If I ASK her to follow me, 99% of the time she would, but not because she feels its her duty to do so. She would do it because she loves and trusts me. BUT and this is a BIG BUT, By the same token, if she asks me to follow her, 99% of the time I'd also do so! Not because I am what some might call whipped, but because I also love her and trust her. So the leading and following is mutual and goes both ways. Sometimes I lead sometimes she leads. We don't keep count (though I'd say its 50/50) And for us, it's not about who is in control. Rather its about both of us having the freedom to express our individual needs and opinions and both of us having equal say and authority. And we have a very very satisfying and loving marriage. 

Good for you ....so now you may want to think if the Pati Parmesar concept is good for you ....if not then what next ...

[JasperS]

7 hours ago, jaikaara said:

Good for you ....so now you may want to think if the Pati Parmesar concept is good for you ....if not then what next ...

Pati Parmeshwar concept has no place in Sikhi. Not unless it goes hand in hand with "Patni Parmeshwari".  Seeing God in each other, it goes both ways.

ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਹੈ ਸੋਇ ॥
Sabẖ mėh joṯ joṯ hai so▫e.
The Divine Light is within everyone; You are that Light.

If the divine light is within everyone as Gurbani says, then I am no more her pati parmeshwar than my wife is my patni parmeshwari. To expect her to look up to me as something higher than her is unthinkable.

But seeing the divine in someone is different than seeing someone AS God. No human should ever be seen AS God. That is left for Waheguru alone. 

[Kuttabanda2]

On September 12, 2016 at 8:20 PM, JasperS said:

Does discrimination fall into realm of manmat? Equality of all Sikhs is Gurmat.  Problem I have with Taksal maryada is telling women their husband is God. I don't think that is in line with Gurmat principles. I am not God to my wife anymore than she is to me.  It sounds really sexist to me and against Sikh principles.  This is only one example. For that reason I think Sikh Rehet Maryada is following closer according to what our Gurus taught. As kuttabanda2, and Amarjeet already said, Sikh Rehet Maryada was made as a minimum. As long as all others fit within that minimum, they can add whatever they want for their own dhera etc. But there is a fine line when it comes to discrimination is that considered adding to, or taking away? 

That's wrong. In the original manual of Taksal Maryada, the context and statement is different.

[JasperS]

29 minutes ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

That's wrong. In the original manual of Taksal Maryada, the context and statement is different.

Admittedly I dont know a lot about Damdami Taksal and only recently discovered they don't follow the Panthic Rehet Maryada and have their own, however the copy on their own website has that clause, that wives are to see their husband as God. It does not tell the husband to also see his wife as God instead it says he sees her as his follower. So their current version of their maryada does indeed say that and it sets a definite hierarchal view of marriage, which sounds a lot like husband worship. 
What was the original wording or context? I am interested to know.  I know that Taksal prohibit women from a lot of seva which also doesnt sit well with me. I guess it doesn't affect me because we are obviously not Taksals. We follow mainstream Panthic Rehet Maryada (Sikh Rehet Maryada) though we also frequent AKJ samagams because of their awesome simran. 

[paapiman]

On 9/12/2016 at 6:04 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

The Missionaries aren't a cross breed of the Taliban, or even remotely similar. That's an extreme and poor comparison. I would find Taksalis to be more like the Taliban. The Missionaries are just overly skeptical, anti-mystical, and paranoid.

Taliban was influenced by Wahhabism and Wahhabi activities are similar to Missionary activities in our religion.

For example, Wahhabis have destroyed historical and cultural artifacts of Islam. Similarly, during the Singh Sabha Lehar and afterwards, Sikh historical artifacts have been destroyed. If Taksalis (or any other Puratan Samprada) were in control of Sri Akal Takht Sahib jee, then this utter stupidity would not have taken place.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

If anyone has a doubt on Pati Parmeshwar concept in Sikhism, please have a look at the topic below.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Guest Yes-I]

On 9/20/2016 at 11:09 PM, JasperS said:

Admittedly I dont know a lot about Damdami Taksal and only recently discovered they don't follow the Panthic Rehet Maryada and have their own, however the copy on their own website has that clause, that wives are to see their husband as God. It does not tell the husband to also see his wife as God instead it says he sees her as his follower. So their current version of their maryada does indeed say that and it sets a definite hierarchal view of marriage, which sounds a lot like husband worship. 
What was the original wording or context? I am interested to know.  I know that Taksal prohibit women from a lot of seva which also doesnt sit well with me. I guess it doesn't affect me because we are obviously not Taksals. We follow mainstream Panthic Rehet Maryada (Sikh Rehet Maryada) though we also frequent AKJ samagams because of their awesome simran. 

Good on ya, don't be fooled by any of these jathas. Take what you can and what agrees with gurmat and apply it yourself. Taksalis aand akj's are the root of most panth problems. The pati parmeshar concept is a load of made up baloney. Especially taksalis who believe they are most righteous Sikhs..  Stick to mainstream rehat for now, do your own japna and find the temple inside you...don't give hoots about who goes which temple and who runs what. These saakat jathas have made sikhi into a dress up religion and it's all about whether you have amrit from them or someone else. Don't bow down to any of these so called brahmgianees or brahman-like taksals just bow down to SGGSji and follow bani.