Jump to content
Harjots8963

Important Point on Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM) and Panj Pyare

Recommended Posts

My wife doesn't bow down to me nor I ask her.. Does that mean she is affected by feminism? 

If a woman does not bow to her husband, it does not mean that she is affected by feminism, but if one refers to a Gurmat principle as degrading, then something is wrong.

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gender equality is unscientific. Gurparsaad, I will be starting a new post on it.

Bhul chuk maaf

Equality of anyone is unscientific if you look at it.  If one man is physically stronger than you, should you have to bow to him?  

I'm not talking about equality in the sense that physically we are exact replicas.  What I am referring to, is equal opportunity.  All humans are born equal in the eyes of Waheguru.  All humans deserve MUTUAL respect and understanding, and ALL humans deserve equal rights and opportunities.  So while one man may be stronger than another man, the stronger man does not deserve more opportunities while the weaker man is made to do menial tasks and degraded and made to bow to the stronger man. And this holds true especially with religious duties and rights.  No human should be made to feel inferior in the eyes of our Creator, by being kept from seva, relegated to only menial tasks, kept from having their voice heard and kept from being a teacher and authority figure in the faith, if that is their internal calling to do so.  

What is happening, is that the physical differences between male / female are being used to limit women from positions and seva in the Sikh faith, that really have nothing to do with gender differences.  And they are justifying it by saying women should bow to men, men are higher status than women, men are demi gods over women, women's nature is only to do menial tasks in the kitchen and that limited seva, langar only is what Guru Ji gave to the women.  Or that if they do seva other than langar God forbid if they are on their periods because women are impure on their periods and might desecrate SGGSJ.  Or going even firther like Hari Singh Rhandawa suggested, that women should never do seva of SGGSJ because they could just spontaneously start having their period at any time.  Even worse, some Singhs also say women were never meant to take Amrit, or if they were it was only supposed to be kirpan amrit, making them never truly Khalsa or suggesting that women were not given the name Kaur by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.  I mean how is that NOT degrading to suggest that Guru Ji didn't even care about his daughters and suggesting that it was all made up!  And then even worse, suggesting that the only reason women were given armit later on was so they could 'serve' their husbands because their husbands would not eat from a non-Amritdhari.  Then of course, stating that because no woman that Vaisakhi day in 1699 gave her head, so as punishment, women should be scored for all time and kept from the most prestigious seva of all (as if the gender of the original five really mattered), the seva which also happens to be the 'authority' in Sikhi for decision making, which by extension keeps women from any representation in decision making (outside of committee based decisions... I mean decisions put forth to Panj Pyaras) and some Singhs say women should not even be part of Gurdwara managemant committees!  

I mean.......you'd have to be a complete idiot to not think all of the above are degrading!!!  

And all of this, I mostly got off THIS very forum, from the swath of Sikhi represented by the members on here. Because I never encountered this outside of here, ( save for a few sites where I read about yes... Damdami Taksal specifically). Nearly everywhere speaks of the equality taught in Sikhi.  And uses Gurbani to back it up.  You are using ONE tuk which can easily be seen to be taken out of context.  I mean, the shabad itself says a true sati is one who sacrifices themself to their HUSBAND LORD. One who takes the transcendent Lord as their husband... as in we are all SOUL BRIDES.  How can a Singhni follow the MAIN CONTEXTUAL message in the shabad, by doing the opposite and seeing her physical husband AS God??  If she did so, she would not be able to follow the main message of losing attachment to the physical and taking God as husband - and being a soul bride.  There's no way to follow both.  Focus on the physical husband as God, or focus on God as your husband. I know which one I will follow!  That doesn't mean I don't love my husband... but I know he is not God, even though he contains the divine light within him, same as everyone and everything.  But one part of a whole can not be the whole.  This seeing and serving the husband as God comes straight out of the Laws of Manu.... almost word for word!!! How convenient that one tuk was twisted to almost be a word for word quote of the Laws of Manu regarding women! Brahminism thinking... plain and simple! 

Paapiman what you do think women are supposed to be chained to the kitchen with a baby on each hip, barefoot and pregnant, and worshipping her husband and bowing to him and calling him God? And this is the sum of what her life should be?  And that in the Gurdwara she should sit quietly, never have a say or express her interpretations of gurbani etc, and let men do all the seva, all the leadership (except cooking of course since the kitchen is where she belongs right?). You are really twisted.  it's YOUR idea which is against Sikhi.  Your hatred of women is apparent... You even stated once on here, that Muslims have a 'good way' of dealing with women.  Suggesting what? That Sikh men should beat women into submission and subjugation? 



 

If a woman does not bow to her husband, it does not mean that she is affected by feminism, but if one refers to a Gurmat principle as degrading, then something is wrong.

Bhul chuk maaf

What I said was degrading is not Gurmat Principle... it's YOUR idea of Gurmat principle which is degrading...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not my idea. It is mentioned in the DDT RM, the taksaal started by the tenth master himself.

Bhul chuk maaf

Though Guru Gobind Singh Ji may have started a taksal, there is no proof that the today's current so called DDT is that exact lineage. Also, the current RM for DDT was only existent in it's current form since modern time (Baba Gurbachan Singh) and Sikh Khoj already showed you that at least some of it had been altered.  

Next point, is that DDTs RM is NOT .... I repeat NOT the accepted RM by Akal Takht.  By advocating DDTs RM, you are going directly against Akal Takht.  

Last Point: VAST majority of Sikhs follow Sikh Rehet Maryada, and do not associate with any specific jatha or taksal.  If you wish to go against Akal Takht and follow an RM which is not the accepted RM, by all means (you already call yourself a non-Sikh anyway) but you can't force the Brahministic views of that specific RM on the entire Panth as if it were the universally accepted RM. Because it's NOT! 


This is what one prominent member on *another similar site* said about DDT's RM:

"Taksal maryada is not the maryada from Guru Ji. It is from from whom I said it is from. Taksal maryada has so many brahmnical rituals. How can it be from Guru Ji. Also if it was from Guru Ji. Why did the SGPC hold all those meetings and debates and discussions to make a new maryada. Maryada given by Guru Ji was lost. If Mahants were able to change Akaal Takht maryada, then what was Taksal? Taksal was nothing before Bhai Jarnail Singh. He stood up for Sikh rights and gave his martyrdom. That is how Taksal became popular but now they are taking it too far. They can try but the real Tat Gurmat will always be the way. It is in best interest of Taksal to apply Sikh Rehat Maryada given at www.sgpc.net at their deras. Else, all they are doing is hurting Sikh sentiments and going against Guru Ji. If you want to discuss more maryada issues. The reason why the Kharkoos failed was also due to their internal fighting due to following different maryadas. There are some holes in the Akaal Takht maryada but they are minor. Not something big."

Then he got the usual Taksalis bashing his post and using 5 banis as a justification to bash the Panthic Rehet Maryada and his response:

"How do you know morning nitneim was 5 banis? List me one rehatnama which says 5 banis. All rehatnamas mostly mention Japuji Sahib and Jaap Sahib. Bhai Nand Lal Singh also mentions Japuji Sahib and Jaap Sahib. The 5 bania is used as an excuse to bash the Akaal Takht maryada. Nothing else. Hukamnamas and Adaish Pdf file was available here and is still available on www.sgpc.net

Show me where an adaish was given that said taksal maryada is also Panthic maryada. Recently bibi (Jagir Kaur) was saying that all deras should follow Akaal Takht maryada and said steps will be taken to make this a reality. I know this won't happen yet.
Rehatnama Bhai Desa Singh:
Partah Uth Isnaan Kur, Parhe Japu Jaapu Doe, Sodar Kee Chonki Karay, Aaalas Kray Naa Koe|| Pehar Raate Beet Hai Jubhee|| Sohilaa Paath Kray So Tabhee||
Sakhi Rahit Kee (Bhai Nand Lal)
Sikh should rise up during late night before sun rise rise. After getting up, Sikh should recite Jap and Jaap.

Rehatnama Bhai Prehlaad Singh
Binna Jap Jaap Jpai, Jo Sayvhay Paarsaade So Bistaa Kaa Kiram Huaye, Janam Gvaanai Baad||
So Akaal Takht maryada is the one to be followed. If you are not following Akaal Takht maryada. It is not good.
If anyone chooses to read more bani, there is no stoppage. Read as much bani as you want. Not only read, but learn and apply. "

And in that same thread another good response:

"the panthik parvan reyat maryada is the akal takht one. why arent akj and taksali's not with it? is it because they think there only right and they wont give up there Ankhar. I could get a bunch of people and say we believe this and make our own maryada. Then we'll say no this maryada is right not the akal takht or taksal one is right. This AKAL TAKHT maryada is for the somuchi sikh panth. Not for just indivduals who think it is right. No matter if you think it is wrong you are supposed to agree with it. You can keep everything to yourself. A lot of study and khoj has been taken to make this maryada. People like giani dit singh, proffeser Gurmukh singh musafur, bhai khan singh nabha and other great scholars made this. They studied this it wasn't mader by stories passed on by other people to see what is right or wrong. "

and More...Since you like to accuse SGPC so much..

"HAHAHA... IM sorry to tell you but SGPC DID NOT MAKE THE AKAL TAKHT REYAT MARYADA. Please read what i had written before the people who made the Akal takht maryada it was the sikh panth itself. Not SGPC. People like giani dit singh, proffeser Gurmukh singh musafur, bhai khan singh nabha and other great scholars made this. why did they leave thjey couldve solved things out. They couldve done whatever they believed. I understand they both take stand on a lot of things. Keski's raagmala etc. It doesnt permit anyone from not wearing keski. It doesn permit anyone for not reading raagmala. Im I think they just for there own stomach they wanted everything to go there way. Who agrred on the taksal maryada if you said it is a panthic maryada? "

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Also, the current RM for DDT was only existent in it's current form since modern time (Baba Gurbachan Singh) and Sikh Khoj already showed you that at least some of it had been altered.  

Where did Sikhkhoj show that? Can you please provide the link?

Next point, is that DDTs RM is NOT .... I repeat NOT the accepted RM by Akal Takht.  By advocating DDTs RM, you are going directly against Akal Takht.  

It's simple - Sikhism or Sri Akal takht Sahib, which is currently being controlled by SGPC/Punjab government?

Last Point: VAST majority of Sikhs follow Sikh Rehet Maryada, and do not associate with any specific jatha or taksal.  If you wish to go against Akal Takht and follow an RM which is not the accepted RM, by all means (you already call yourself a non-Sikh anyway) but you can't force the Brahministic views of that specific RM on the entire Panth as if it were the universally accepted RM. Because it's NOT! 
 

Obviously, most Gurudwaras are under SGPC control, therefore the so-called SRM has been enforced on them, which has influenced many people. Anyways, majority is not always right. Even, Wahabi ideology has taken control over Muslim shrines in Saudi Arabia, even though Wahab was born, 1000+ years after Prohphet Muhammad.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited by paapiman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


"HAHAHA... IM sorry to tell you but SGPC DID NOT MAKE THE AKAL TAKHT REYAT MARYADA. Please read what i had written before the people who made the Akal takht maryada it was the sikh panth itself. Not SGPC. People like giani dit singh, proffeser Gurmukh singh musafur, bhai khan singh nabha and other great scholars made this. why did they leave thjey couldve solved things out. They couldve done whatever they believed. I understand they both take stand on a lot of things. Keski's raagmala etc. It doesnt permit anyone from not wearing keski. It doesn permit anyone for not reading raagmala. Im I think they just for there own stomach they wanted everything to go there way. Who agrred on the taksal maryada if you said it is a panthic maryada? "

If Daas gets time, Gurparsaad will comment on the points above.

Bhai Kaan Singh Nabha did not even believe in complete SSGSJ. How can a Sikh completely follow him?

Not 100% sure (can someone confirm this) --Two great sects did not show up (DDT and Nanaksar). How can a Sikh compeltely follow it?

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Daas gets time, Gurparsaad will comment on the points above.

Bhai Kaan Singh Nabha did not even believe in complete SSGSJ. How can a Sikh completely follow him?

Not 100% sure (can someone confirm this) --Two great sects did not show up (DDT and Nanaksar). How can a Sikh compeltely follow it?

Bhul chuk maaf

I don't know if that's true.... I thought DDT WAS in representation there... BUT:

If DDT did not show up at deliberations to create a PANTHIC REHET MARYADA, then DDT of their own volition, withdrew any chance they had to contribute!
If they out of their own choice did not participate, then that proves the point that they were never interested in a panthic rehet maryada anyway, making what he said correct... That DDT would only be happy if they got everything to go their way.  

And if they CHOSE to not participate in creation of a Rehet Maryada based on PANTHIC decision, then how can they now think they have full rights to speak against the SRM (which they had a chance to contribute to)? And how do they have ANY right to challenge SRM and try to enforce their own GRM on the panth after the fact?? 


 Btw, the DDT GRM in it's current form, has been around for about 50 years LESS than the SRM.  
 

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if that's true.... I thought DDT WAS in representation there... BUT:
If DDT did not show up at deliberations to create a PANTHIC REHET MARYADA, then DDT of their own volition, withdrew any chance they had to contribute!
If they out of their own choice did not participate, then that proves the point that they were never interested in a panthic rehet maryada anyway, making what he said correct... That DDT would only be happy if they got everything to go their way.  

And if they CHOSE to not participate in creation of a Rehet Maryada based on PANTHIC decision, then how can they now think they have full rights to speak against the SRM (which they had a chance to contribute to)? And how do they have ANY right to challenge SRM and try to enforce their own GRM on the panth after the fact?? 


 Btw, the DDT GRM in it's current form, has been around for about 50 years LESS than the SRM.  
 

What about Nanaksar, Udhasis?

The fact is that it is not a panthic maryada. It has been forced on the panth, by some people as they had power during that time (SGPC had taken control of many gurudwaras).

Do you know that Sri Rehraas Sahib jee has been changed 'x' (can someone please state the number) number of times since the inception of the so-called SRM. So which maryada will you follow - old so-called SRM or the latest so-called SRM?

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Nanaksar, Udhasis?

The fact is that it is not a panthic maryada. It has been forced on the panth, by some people as they had power during that time (SGPC had taken control of many gurudwaras).

Do you know that Sri Rehraas Sahib jee has been changed 'x' (can someone please state the number) number of times since the inception of the so-called SRM. So which maryada will you follow - old so-called SRM or the latest so-called SRM?

Bhul chuk maaf

SRM is WAY more Panthic Rehet Maryada than DDT's GRM is.  And if DDT CHOSE not to participate, they really have no say now...

And Nothing was forced... they deliberated about the contents of SRM for a very long time, many scholars participated, and it was made to be most inclusive to EVERYONE.  If DDT, Nanaksar, etc CHOSE not to contribute, then they don't really have any say after the fact!

You keep saying SRM is not panthic... it's WAY MORE PANTHIC of an RM than DDT's RM!  And SRM was NOT written by SGPC!! SGPC ONLY PUBLISHES IT!

And DDTs GRM in it's current form has only existed since (if memory serves me correct) 1987??  

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SRM is WAY more Panthic Rehet Maryada than DDT's GRM is.  And if DDT CHOSE not to participate, they really have no say now...

And Nothing was forced... they deliberated about the contents of SRM for a very long time, many scholars participated, and it was made to be most inclusive to EVERYONE.  If DDT, Nanaksar, etc CHOSE not to contribute, then they don't really have any say after the fact!

You keep saying SRM is not panthic... it's WAY MORE PANTHIC of an RM than DDT's RM!  And SRM was NOT written by SGPC!! SGPC ONLY PUBLISHES IT!

And DDTs GRM in it's current form has only existed since (if memory serves me correct) 1987??  

Answer the question:

Do you know that Sri Rehraas Sahib jee has been changed 'x' (can someone please state the number) number of times since the inception of the so-called SRM. So which maryada will you follow - old so-called SRM or the latest so-called SRM?

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myself I am not sure because they are speaking in Punjabi.  The other commenters on the actual video can tell you at which exact time it was.  Try posting on the Youtube video comments. 
 

He doesn’t say that. You need to be very careful whenever you take secondhand opinions/interpretations of a controversial topic. People get emotional and accuracy goes out the window. There are also numerous groups with vested interests in deliberately misrepresenting what scholars from sampradas say b/c they are in a struggle to influence the mass numbers of Sikhs and don’t care to stick to Gurmat  (honesty in this case) to do it. 

 

Some background context for people, the idea of patti parmeshwar is basically that if the husband is like parmeshwar (i.e., not some drunk slob but actually walks the walk of Gurmat) then the wife should serve him with sharda and devotion as if he is parmeshwar. According to Baba Nand Singh ji and many others, she will then gain All the riddhi siddhis. 

 

There are actually universally accepted sakhian of people living by this principle, such as that of Bibi Rajni ji. 

 

Btw, Sants also say to try to serve all as if they are parmeshwer when we do seva as this will give us greater benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn’t say that. You need to be very careful whenever you take secondhand opinions/interpretations of a controversial topic. People get emotional and accuracy goes out the window. There are also numerous groups with vested interests in deliberately misrepresenting what scholars from sampradas say b/c they are in a struggle to influence the mass numbers of Sikhs and don’t care to stick to Gurmat  (honesty in this case) to do it. 

 

Some background context for people, the idea of patti parmeshwar is basically that if the husband is like parmeshwar (i.e., not some drunk slob but actually walks the walk of Gurmat) then the wife should serve him with sharda and devotion as if he is parmeshwar. According to Baba Nand Singh ji and many others, she will then gain All the riddhi siddhis. 

 

There are actually universally accepted sakhian of people living by this principle, such as that of Bibi Rajni ji. 

 

Btw, Sants also say to try to serve all as if they are parmeshwer when we do seva as this will give us greater benefit.

And what if she is like parneshwar, should he also serve her with "sharda and devotion" as if she is parmeshwar?

Why is it always only stated one way? To make that statement it seems very self-serving for the males huh?  And that is a Hindu ideology btw.  from Laws of Manu.  It's not in Gurbani.  One line was removed from the context of the shabad to make it SEEM like it was in Gurbani, but then... its impossible to follow the original context of the shabad if one takes that twisted meaning. Because the shabad IN CONTEXT says to see only the TRANSCENDENT LORD as husband (as soul bride).  So then to twist it and say that wives are to see their husbands as God.  Well, if you already followed the IN CONTEXT meaning, you would be considering only God to be your true husband... so I guess then its just saying the same thing - see God as God.  But - its being twisted to say that wives should see their physical husband as God. (in other words, see yourself as lower than him) If you are already told in context of the shabad that only the Transcendent Lord is your true husband... then how can you see your physical husband as God? It's impossible.  

You CAN however see the divine light of God within EVERYONE. And Gurbani tells us to do this.  But Gurbani nowhere says for wives to submit themselves beneath their physical husbands and serve him as if he were God.  Sikhs are to see the divine light of God in all humans. Not just males.  Meaning that if he is a good Gursikh, and following Gurbani, he would also see that same divine light in his wife, and serve her in the same manner mutually... This is further evident with the instruction for Gurmukhs to see ALL with a single eyes of equality.  So, if the wife is serving her husband as God, then he would also have to serve her as God, otherwise he is not seeing her with single eye of equality.  If the submission goes one way only, with the wife in a position beneath and inferior to the husband, then that is not equal. That becomes a master / servant relationship and not a relationship that could ever fulfill the description of being "one soul in two bodies".  

Husband and wife are to see the same divine light of God in each other, and serve the TRUE husband lord as Soul-Bride together as One.  I know this realization hurts the sentiments of men who like their 'sammiches' made for them on command, and don't like doing dishes. 

Sikhi was never about the physical... everything in SGGSJ is using ALLEGORY to describe how we can reach God.  As in the video and talk about apavitar / impurity.  The few instances where menstruation is mentioned, is not to make the statement that physical blood is impure etc.  In fact it's the opposite (if you actually look at the context instead of taking one line out of the context of the shabad... again with the context!!!!)

ਜਿਉ ਜੋਰੂ ਸਿਰਨਾਵਣੀ ਆਵੈ ਵਾਰੋ ਵਾਰ ॥
Ji▫o jorū sirnāvaṇī āvai vāro vār.
As a woman has her periods, month after month,
ਜੂਠੇ ਜੂਠਾ ਮੁਖਿ ਵਸੈ ਨਿਤ ਨਿਤ ਹੋਇ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥
Jūṯẖe jūṯẖā mukẖ vasai niṯ niṯ ho▫e kẖu▫ār.
so does falsehood dwell in the mouth of the false; they suffer forever, again and again.
ਸੂਚੇ ਏਹਿ ਨ ਆਖੀਅਹਿ ਬਹਨਿ ਜਿ ਪਿੰਡਾ ਧੋਇ ॥
Sūcẖe ehi na ākẖī▫ahi bahan jė pindā ḏẖo▫e.
They are not called pure, who sit down after merely washing their bodies.
ਸੂਚੇ ਸੇਈ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਜਿਨ ਮਨਿ ਵਸਿਆ ਸੋਇ ॥੨॥
Sūcẖe se▫ī nānkā jin man vasi▫ā so▫e. ||2||
Only they are pure, O Nanak, within whose minds the Lord abides. ||2||

Anyone can see this is not saying anything against women's periods... it's actually chastising those who would say periods are impure (they are the false ones, making false statements) Then it goes on to say straight out that washing the body does not make one pure. Again... it's making the statement that ideas of physical purity (and rituals designed to purify someone) are false ideals. Someone is only considered pure if they have God in their minds.  

It's using allegory of physical circumstances to shift our thinking to that of the nonphysical... our mind, our thoughts and our actions towards others. 


And the other main one that has been misused:

ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਃ ੧ ॥ 
Salok mėhlā 1. Shalok, First Mehl:
ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥ 
Je raṯ lagai kapṛai jāmā ho▫e palīṯ. 
If one's clothes are stained with blood, the garment becomes polluted
ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਹਿ ਮਾਣਸਾ ਤਿਨ ਕਿਉ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਚੀਤੁ ॥ 
Jo raṯ pīvėh māṇsā ṯin ki▫o nirmal cẖīṯ. 
Those who suck the blood of human beings-how can their consciousness be pure?
ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਉ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਕਾ ਦਿਲਿ ਹਛੈ ਮੁਖਿ ਲੇਹੁ ॥ 
Nānak nā▫o kẖuḏā▫e kā ḏil hacẖẖai mukẖ leho. 
O Nanak, chant the Name of God, with heart-felt devotion.
ਅਵਰਿ ਦਿਵਾਜੇ ਦੁਨੀ ਕੇ ਝੂਠੇ ਅਮਲ ਕਰੇਹੁ ॥੧॥ 
Avar ḏivāje ḏunī ke jẖūṯẖe amal karehu. ||1|| 
Everything else is just a pompous worldly show, and the practice of false deeds. ||1||

It's not saying that blood makes things polluted.  It's making a comparison... which is evident by the second line.  It's saying that "you say this thing about pollution and blood, but look at those who suck the blood of humans (through exploitation) - how can their consciousness be pure?"  (see how allegory was used to shift you to thinking about the idea that was being conveyed?) So once again it's shooting down the idea of physical impurity and making us instead think about purity in our minds and deeds.  It's saying that it's the ones who 'suck the blood' of others (exploit them, cheat them etc) are the ones with the pollution. Even more evident when it instructs us to chant the name of God with full devotion and that all else (including the idea of physical pollution and useless rituals to purify) are 'false deeds'. 

But it's easy to see how if you only take the first line... "If one's clothes are stained with blood, the garment becomes polluted" how you could use it to justify the opposite of what it's actually saying.  And that's EXACTLY what Hari Singh Randhawa did! 

By the way, I don't speak Punjabi but I have plenty of people close to me who are 100% fluent, and I watched it with them.  


 

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer the question:

Do you know that Sri Rehraas Sahib jee has been changed 'x' (can someone please state the number) number of times since the inception of the so-called SRM. So which maryada will you follow - old so-called SRM or the latest so-called SRM?

Bhul chuk maaf

I follow the one PUBLISHED (not written) by SGPC, because THAT is the ONLY authorized RM which is accepted by Akal Takht!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I follow the one PUBLISHED (not written) by SGPC, because THAT is the ONLY authorized RM which is accepted by Akal Takht!

Well, an ex-SGPC member said that they have changed Sri Rehraas Sahib, from the one in 1940's (when the so-called SRM was formulated).

The one published now, is different from the original one.

So if SGPC removes Sri Jaap Sahib, Sri Chaupai Sahib, etc from the nitnaym --- will you still follow them?

Do you want to follow GOD or a bunch of scholars?

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited by paapiman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resorting to rhetorical questions now are we??? Grasping at straws?? Your DDT current GRM was written in 1987 only!  
And why are you (a self proclaimed NON SIKH) even commenting on any of this at all!?


Direct question: have you yourself actually taken Amrit??

Answer the simple question:

So which maryada will you follow - old so-called SRM or the latest so-called SRM?

If you say you follow Akal takht, you are indirectly implying that the initial draft of the so-called SRM had an error.

It's simple - Sikhism or Akal takht, controlled by SGPC/Punjab government?

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me where the original SRM is different Paapiman. The foreword only states that it is the same one which was originally approved. Any changes would have been mentioned with dates of the changes.  Without showing me proof of changes from the original, I think you are just trying to make noise... 

Right from Akal Takht:
The Rehat Maryada is the Official Sikh Code of Conduct and Conventions. There were a number of unsuccessful attempts in the eighteenth century following the death of Guru Gobind Singh to produce an accurate portrayal of the Sikh conduct and customs. These attempts were contradictory and inconsistent with many of the principles of the Gurus and were not accepted by the majority of the Sikhs. Starting in 1931, an attempt was made by the Shromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (S.G.P.C.) to produce a modern standard Rehat. These efforts involved the greatest Sikh scholars and theologians of this century who worked to produce the current version. The document produced has been accepted as the official version which provides guidelines against which all Sikh individuals and communities around the world can measure themselves. The Rehat Maryada is the only version authorized by the Akal Takht, the seat of supreme temporal authority for Sikhs. Its implementation has successfully achieved a high level of uniformity in the religious and social practices of Sikhism. 

Also, its not up to us to decide individually who we think is in error... Akal Takht is SEAT of Sikh authority.  They are not a bunch of stupid idiots sitting there you know.  They would not be in the position they hold without having a solid grasp on the Sikh religion!  Whether or not we like them, we have to follow the RM that is declared the authorized RM by Akal Takht.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me where the original SRM is different Paapiman. The foreword only states that it is the same one which was originally approved. Any changes would have been mentioned with dates of the changes.  Without showing me proof of changes from the original, I think you are just trying to make noise... 

-- Sri Rehraas Sahib jee has been changed 'x' (can someone please state the number) number of times since the inception of the so-called SRM. An ex-member of SGPC mentioned that in a katha. I don't remember, how many times.


Also, its not up to us to decide individually who we think is in error... Akal Takht is SEAT of Sikh authority.  They are not a bunch of stupid idiots sitting there you know.  They would not be in the position they hold without having a solid grasp on the Sikh religion!  Whether or not we like them, we have to follow the RM that is declared the authorized RM by Akal Takht.  

-- check the video below. Do you want us to follow such people? They stood up, when ministers came to Sri Harmandar Sahib. Sri Akal Takht Sahib is indirectly controlled by the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are going by what an ex-member claimed was in a Katha sometime that he couldn't remember???? LOL That's hersay of heresay!  HAHA I knew you could not produce proof! 

And from what I see, they stood up to acknowledge the ministers?? What was wrong in that? Is there some rule against it?  I have stood up in the Gurdwara a bunch of times when I had to do things... and when the military came to make a presentation to the Gurdwara we stood up to acknowledge them when they entered.  As far as I know, we didn't do anything wrong... and the military certainly does NOT control us! LOL In fact every week we get new members to the gurdwara to stand up so we can acknowledge them and welcome them.  It doesn't mean they control us, or we control them LOL. What absurd thinking!

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are going by what an ex-member said in a Katha sometime???? LOL That's hersay of heresay!  HAHA I knew you could not produce proof! 

-- So are you accusing that person of lying?? He is a great scholar of the panth

And from what I see, they stood up to acknowledge the ministers?? What was wrong in that? Is there some rule against it?  I have stood up in the Gurdwara a bunch of times when I had to do things... and when the military came to make a presentation to the Gurdwara we stood up to acknowledge them when they entered.  As far as I know, we didn't do anything wrong... and the military certainly does NOT control us! LOL

-- OMG.........Do you know who SSGGSJ is? Do you know, the character of those people, who came in the video above?

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited by paapiman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why aren't you speaking of the points brought up.  

And how can you say SRM is accepted? If you have viewed the video / translation.  

 

 

Please explain your understanding of what went on in the video. 

 

Satkirin ji and pappiman ji you  have already had the above argument so many times without reaching a conclusion.  

 

So explain your understanding of what happened in the video. 

The points brought up are a good basis to have a good discussion.  Which is not happening here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...