Very Interesting Critique Of Sgpc Rehat Maryada By Taksaal

[Kuttabanda2]

On 12/12/2016 at 5:10 AM, paapiman said:

Most likely, you must be aware that how much science has changed from those times to 2010's.

Blind faith and love are more important in religion than rationality.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Blind faith is dangerous to an extant, love is great for Sikhi.

when you say "those times" what times are you speaking of?

We're at a period where science can't be disproved, it's either denial or acception of the truth. 

[paapiman]

On 12/12/2016 at 4:58 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Blind faith is dangerous to an extant, love is great for Sikhi.

when you say "those times" what times are you speaking of?

We're at a period where science can't be disproved, it's either denial or acception of the truth. 

Blind faith in Sri Satguru jee is needed to reach high levels of spirituality.

1890 - 1940 - Period when Singh Sabha movement was very active and when the flawed and incomplete so-called Panthic Maryada was forced upon the Panth.

Science is evolving day by day. 200 years ago, there was no internet and many modern devices which we use now. 200 years from now, God knows where science will be. Using only science to understand the truth is imprudent. Today's myths might become tomorrow's science. Please have a look below.

 

Bhul chuk maaf 

[paapiman]

@Kuttabanda2 - Please have a look at this too.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[chatanga1]

On 11/12/2016 at 9:18 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

That's actually wrong.  What the SGPC did with Chaupai Sahib isn't even representative of the Singh Sabhas.  Panch Khalsa Diwan, Chief Khalsa Diwan, Rawalpindi Singh Sabha all read and preached Chaupai Sahib to conclude at Arril, as it actually does.  In 'Milgobha Sudhaar' and 'Gurmat Prakaash Sanskaar' The Chaupai Sahib is mentioned to start from "Hamri Karo Haath Dai Rachya...." up to "Ho jo yaaki eik baar chaupai ko kahai".  The change brought by the SGPC isn't representative of the Singh Sabhas.  Even Bhasaurias, after losing their marbles, read Chaupai Sahib till Arril and made a specific injunction to do so. So that can't be used against the Singh Sabhas, as it's not their belief, let alone their doing.

 

The SGPC are a the legitimate heirs, or even the Singh Sabha in their evolving form. If the SGPC made these changes, why did the Singh Sabhas all over the world accept them? They could have refused. But when the maryada was being discussed the main people involved were the Singh Sabha people.

 

 

On 12/12/2016 at 9:52 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Yes, an ideology based on sensical reasoning.

 

By using sensical reasoning you wipeout half of Guru's history. How could Guru Nanak have moved the Ka'aba? Made reethe, meethe? How could Guru Sahib have taken brought the Moosan back to life after his head had been chopped off? Sensical?

 

On 12/12/2016 at 9:58 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Blind faith is dangerous to an extant, love is great for Sikhi.

 

True love leads to blind faith. Bhai Lehna loved Guru Nanak so much, that when in broad daylight Guru Sahib said, "It is night, go to sleep," Bhai Lehna never questioned or thought about Guru Sahib's adesh, but accepted it straightaway. Blind faith is a big measure of love for the Guru.

[Kuttabanda2]

On 12/21/2016 at 5:42 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

The SGPC are a the legitimate heirs, or even the Singh Sabha in their evolving form. If the SGPC made these changes, why did the Singh Sabhas all over the world accept them? They could have refused. But when the maryada was being discussed the main people involved were the Singh Sabha people.

 

 

 

By using sensical reasoning you wipeout half of Guru's history. How could Guru Nanak have moved the Ka'aba? Made reethe, meethe? How could Guru Sahib have taken brought the Moosan back to life after his head had been chopped off? Sensical?

 

 

True love leads to blind faith. Bhai Lehna loved Guru Nanak so much, that when in broad daylight Guru Sahib said, "It is night, go to sleep," Bhai Lehna never questioned or thought about Guru Sahib's adesh, but accepted it straightaway. Blind faith is a big measure of love for the Guru.

The SGPC absorbed the remaining Singh Sabhas, at the time of it's inception. The Singh Sabha members of the 1870s-1890s weren't in the SGPC of the 30s-50s. Sure, you could say they're heirs, in the same way Dhumma is the heir of the DDT and Sant Jarnail Singh.

 

 

When I speak of reasoning, logic, rationale, etc. I'm speaking of it in the confines of Sikhi. Accepting the Gurus to be the manifestation of  the divine (an entity that controls everything). The DDT and any other Samparda or organization isn't the Guru, they're Sikhs, and humans.  There's no comparision here. So when they propose an idea or make a bold claim, we're going to have to use our intellect to evaluate what they're saying is true or not.  Bhai Lehna Ji witnessed and discovered Guru Sahib's kuatak, kalaa, and ilaahi, which is why he accepted what he said without question, because Guru Sahib was all truth himself. 

 

But what does that have to do with the Sampardas? Are they collectively the Guru themselves? 

[paapiman]

17 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

But what does that have to do with the Sampardas? Are they collectively the Guru themselves? 

Sri Satguru jee vested his power into the Panth. All the Gurmukhs of the Sampradas form the Panth. So they do have a lot of power. We cannot equate anyone with Sri Satguru jee, but they are very close to him.

 

 

Bhul chuk maaf 

[Kuttabanda2]

On 2/3/2017 at 7:23 AM, paapiman said:

Sri Satguru jee vested his power into the Panth. All the Gurmukhs of the Sampradas form the Panth. So they do have a lot of power. We cannot equate anyone with Sri Satguru jee, but they are very close to him.

 

 

Bhul chuk maaf 

That again, is your opinion.  Paapiman, not everyone here holds your Samparda Gurmukhs to be the flawless, unquestionable, indisputable, epitomes of Sikhi you believe them to be. 

[Kuttabanda2]

Now yes, I do believe in the karamaats and kautaks associated with the Guru Sahibaans.  But just because those feats, that I believe the Gurus did, defy rationale and logic (due to my predispositional belief that Guru Sahib was Akaal Purakh's jyot) doesn't mean I'm going completely stop using my brain.

The Singh Sabha dealt with issues that required one's basic sense of logical reasoning and critical thinking, for issues such as Raagmala, brahminical influences, Mool Mantar, Nitnem Banis, definition of a Sikh, identifying and exposing rudimentary Sikh principles and concepts, etc. required reasoning as they studied numerous texts such as Janamsakhis, Rehatnamey, SGGSJ, SDGSJ, Suraj Prakash, Panth Prakash, Sau Sakhi, bijay mukat Khalsa Dharam Shastar, etc. 

It wasn't made to destroy the Panth, but give it an underlying basis that we could all have common grounds on. 

 

As far as the evils of the SGPC go, no one's clean here.  A while back Patna Sahib, they did sanskaar of hundreds of ancient Birs that were "too old to read and maintain", coincidentally a lot of them didn't have Raagmala in it.  Everyone's got dirt on them. Just a harsh reality. Every Jathebandi now is in someway influenced, l restricted, in favor to, linked to, or controlled by Badal, or the RSS.  You wouldn't get Khalistan, Khalsa Raj, or a prospering Panth just because a certain Jathebandi is in control of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib.

[chatanga1]

On 02/02/2017 at 9:34 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

The SGPC absorbed the remaining Singh Sabhas, at the time of it's inception. The Singh Sabha members of the 1870s-1890s weren't in the SGPC of the 30s-50s.

 

There were 2 phases to the Singh Sabha lehar, the first was in the 1880s which started the rmission of spreading Gurmat on a wider and more rigorous platform, the 2nd was in the 1920s which was more widely known as the "Gurdwara Sudhar Lehar".

 

On 02/02/2017 at 9:34 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

When I speak of reasoning, logic, rationale, etc. I'm speaking of it in the confines of Sikhi.

 

OK, that's good to hear. When you approach it from a western perspectice, thing can go badly wrong. There is no rationale or logic for "sharda". Western concepts of evalution incude tearing everything down to the last atom. And even then, trying to split that atom further. There was a great thread on here about "Science and Sikhi" many years ago.

 

On 02/02/2017 at 9:34 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

The DDT and any other Samparda or organization isn't the Guru, they're Sikhs, and humans.  There's no comparision here. So when they propose an idea or make a bold claim, we're going to have to use our intellect to evaluate what they're saying is true or not.  Bhai Lehna Ji witnessed and discovered Guru Sahib's kuatak, kalaa, and ilaahi, which is why he accepted what he said without question, because Guru Sahib was all truth himself.

 

But you have to ask yourself did any of that truth rub off on Bhai Lehna?

[chatanga1]

5 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

The Singh Sabha dealt with issues that required one's basic sense of logical reasoning and critical thinking, for issues such as Raagmala, brahminical influences, Mool Mantar, Nitnem Banis, definition of a Sikh, identifying and exposing rudimentary Sikh principles and concepts, etc. required reasoning as they studied numerous texts such as Janamsakhis, Rehatnamey, SGGSJ, SDGSJ, Suraj Prakash, Panth Prakash, Sau Sakhi, bijay mukat Khalsa Dharam Shastar, etc.

 

No problems with that list except "brahmanical influences" is very vague and can be very wide-reaching. The Sikh Panth has a phobia about "brahmanical influences." Only at the weekend I was at a wedding, where the kirtani whilst talking about wedding practices, used the words "bip-reet" three times, yet played the european harmonium, singing lavan and anand to some filmy tune.

The literature studied by the SS was studied under their own parameters (which was also shaped by the ongoing political situation in Panjab). Not like in the Samprdais, where (I beleive) the parameters were set by Guru Sahib himself. Because of this people even began to doubt Bhagat-bani, bhatt-bani, raagmala etc.

As mentioned before the literature/scriptures read in the samprdais is much more than the SS studied, or the SGPC use today.

 

5 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

It wasn't made to destroy the Panth, but give it an underlying basis that we could all have common grounds on.

 

I don't think it was either, it was a reaction to things going wrong in the Panth. But, the measure of it is, whether it has acheived any betterment for the Panth in todays times.

[paapiman]

6 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

As far as the evils of the SGPC go, no one's clean here.  A while back Patna Sahib, they did sanskaar of hundreds of ancient Birs that were "too old to read and maintain", coincidentally a lot of them didn't have Raagmala in it.  

How old were those saroops? 

Did those saroops have all the other banis in them?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Kuttabanda2]

On 2/7/2017 at 1:55 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

There were 2 phases to the Singh Sabha lehar, the first was in the 1880s which started the rmission of spreading Gurmat on a wider and more rigorous platform, the 2nd was in the 1920s which was more widely known as the "Gurdwara Sudhar Lehar".

 

 

OK, that's good to hear. When you approach it from a western perspectice, thing can go badly wrong. There is no rationale or logic for "sharda". Western concepts of evalution incude tearing everything down to the last atom. And even then, trying to split that atom further. There was a great thread on here about "Science and Sikhi" many years ago.

 

 

But you have to ask yourself did any of that truth rub off on Bhai Lehna?

Bhai Lehna Ji witnessed kautaks from Guru Sahib. That was his truth.  The Sampardas aren't the Guru. The form of the Guru we have now is Gurshabad/Gurbani, which we interpret according to the rationale and Budhi Guru Sahib bestowed on us, whilst keeping faith in Guru Sahib. 

How do you use that Sakhi to defeat the idea of using logic and rationality with the ideas the Singh Sabha dealt with and proposed? Didn't Guru Sahib also teach a lesson to the brahmins when they splashed water towards the sun for their deceased ancestors? Was he not using logic when explaining to them the fallacy of their actions?  The idea is to have faith in your Guru, i.e. Gurshabad as we have it now, The Sampardas aren't the Guru.  We are predisposed to use our critical thinking skills and sense of reasoning. As Sikhs, we do that in light of Gurbani, which we interpret with the credible tools available to us. 

 

[Kuttabanda2]

On 2/7/2017 at 2:05 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

No problems with that list except "brahmanical influences" is very vague and can be very wide-reaching. The Sikh Panth has a phobia about "brahmanical influences." Only at the weekend I was at a wedding, where the kirtani whilst talking about wedding practices, used the words "bip-reet" three times, yet played the european harmonium, singing lavan and anand to some filmy tune.

The literature studied by the SS was studied under their own parameters (which was also shaped by the ongoing political situation in Panjab). Not like in the Samprdais, where (I beleive) the parameters were set by Guru Sahib himself. Because of this people even began to doubt Bhagat-bani, bhatt-bani, raagmala etc.

As mentioned before the literature/scriptures read in the samprdais is much more than the SS studied, or the SGPC use today.

 

 

I don't think it was either, it was a reaction to things going wrong in the Panth. But, the measure of it is, whether it has acheived any betterment for the Panth in todays times.

By braminical influences, I mean moorti puja, tilak, dhoop-dheep, conch shells, dhoti, sacredness of the cow, the idea of Guru Sahib ordaining multiple panths, devi puja, reverence for the Hindu Pantheon, casteism,  and legitimizing multiple sub-Panths, snaatan mat, not the extremes of Ghagga and new age Singh Sabhas are saying.

 

And you are aware that the harmonium is frequented by the Nihungs, Taksalis, Hazooris and Patna Sikhs as well, right?

 

You're also wrong about The Singh Sabha's literary study, they read a large portion of literature for Sikh history, philosophy, ideology, and tenets, starting with Guru Sahib's Bani itself.  The SRM, Mahan Kosh, Gurmat Sudhakar, Gurbani Vyakaran, Mundavni, Singh Sabha Patrikas, Raagmala Darpan, Bhai Randhir Singh's research, Devi Puja Partal, Ham Hindu Nahin, Guru Granth Darpan, Gurmat Prabhakar, etc. is solid proof of that, along with their steeks and teekas.  These guys studied Persian, sanskrit, hindi, and Punjabi (with it's various dialects) along with it's history and literature.  They dug up old dictionaries and encyclopedias of Persian and medieval Indian languages to implement in their study of Gurbani, their primary source for identifying the framework and skeletal system of Sikhi.  You can read their early literature yourself and see how much they've referenced and studied for yourself.  You're severely underestimating them.  They have a better line of logic and reasoning (the kind we need for research, and analysis).

The Sampardas on the other hand have set their parameters with texts like Bhavsamarit, vichar mala, saruktavali, fareedkot teeka, etc along with the elucidations and interpretations their mahapurakhs gave them. they study and reference their own texts to validate and supplicate their lens, from which they view/contextualize Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Sri Dasam Granth Sahib. The Sampardas additionally falsely validate their veracity by claiming they've been in a 150+ year game of telephone, so they somehow have more authority.  That's conjectural, not factual.  Whereas the Singh Sabhas started from scratch and went back to the original source to interpret it as it is.  

As for the bhatt bani and bhagat bani issue, that was only one group, the Bhasaurias who later on (when they lost their marbles) were rejected by the other Singh Sabhas (who were becoming uncomfortable with them a decade before their excommunication).  As for Raagmala, there have been doubts on Raagmala before the Singh Sabha even existed, and even outside of the Singh Sabhas, from Nirmalas for example.  A lot of evidence backs the anti-raagmala brigade. 

 

 

[tva prasad]

On ‎7‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 2:57 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

A while back Patna Sahib, they did sanskaar of hundreds of ancient Birs that were "too old to read and maintain", coincidentally a lot of them didn't have Raagmala in it.  

if the birs were "too old to read and maintain" how did they know if raagmala was included or not? They obviously couldn't read it if it was "too old to read". It is possible that the birs could be written before raagmala was composed.

[amardeep]

It is important to note that samprdaye's - especially the nirmale - are not bound by beliefs, but by scholarship. In this regard it is very normal to see instances where a highly respected student disagrees on an issue with his highly respected teacher. This can be seen in history as well as in present day.

[paapiman]

4 hours ago, amardeep said:

. In this regard it is very normal to see instances where a highly respected student disagrees on an issue with his highly respected teacher. This can be seen in history as well as in present day.

Can you provide an instance?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Kuttabanda2]

11 hours ago, tva prasad said:

if the birs were "too old to read and maintain" how did they know if raagmala was included or not? They obviously couldn't read it if it was "too old to read". It is possible that the birs could be written before raagmala was composed.

It's not like the ink wore off, you just had birs that were apparently crumbling.  It wasn't hard to tell if Raagmala was in them or not. Besides, "Too old to read and maintain" was an excuse for them to do agan bhet/sanskar.  It wasn't a coincidence that the many Puraatan birs and sarroops Shamsher Singh Ashok and Gyani Gurdit Singh recorded (that were missing Raagmala) became "too old to maintain" thus had to be cremated.  

[Kuttabanda2]

7 hours ago, amardeep said:

It is important to note that samprdaye's - especially the nirmale - are not bound by beliefs, but by scholarship. In this regard it is very normal to see instances where a highly respected student disagrees on an issue with his highly respected teacher. This can be seen in history as well as in present day.

Which is another reason why their words aren't the gospels of truth.  They don't hold anymore authority or veracity than anyone else.  

[amardeep]

3 hours ago, paapiman said:

Can you provide an instance?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

On the top of my head: Pandit Tara Singh Narotam did'n believe in the Sarbloh Granth as Guru krit whereas his student Giani Gian Singh called included it as the foundation of Sikhi along with Guru Granth and Dasam Granth... Here you have a student who disagrees with his teacher.

[tva prasad]

8 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

It's not like the ink wore off, you just had birs that were apparently crumbling.  It wasn't hard to tell if Raagmala was in them or not. Besides, "Too old to read and maintain" was an excuse for them to do agan bhet/sanskar.  It wasn't a coincidence that the many Puraatan birs and sarroops Shamsher Singh Ashok and Gyani Gurdit Singh recorded (that were missing Raagmala) became "too old to maintain" thus had to be cremated.  

ok but I still believe raagmala is bani.

[paapiman]

5 hours ago, tva prasad said:

ok but I still believe raagmala is bani.

All "Gurmukh Brahamgyanis" believed in Sri Raagmala Sahib jee. There must be a reason why those saroops did not have that Gurbani.

The controversy surrounding this Gurbani was initiated during the British Raj,

Sant Baba Harnam Singh jee Rampurkheray wale had darshan of Sri Satguru jee (Fifth Master). He asked Maharaaj if Sri Raagmala sahib jee was Gurbani and the answer was in affirmative.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

On 2/15/2017 at 4:02 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Which is another reason why their words aren't the gospels of truth.  They don't hold anymore authority or veracity than anyone else.  

They are still way more safer to follow, as compared to deviant groups/cults like Naamdhari, AKJ, Anti-Dasam Brigade, etc.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Kuttabanda2]

On 2/15/2017 at 9:25 PM, tva prasad said:

ok but I still believe raagmala is bani.

yeah good for you, i'm not trying to convince anyone that it's not Bani. 

 

[paapiman]

On 2/15/2017 at 4:05 PM, amardeep said:

On the top of my head: Pandit Tara Singh Narotam did'n believe in the Sarbloh Granth as Guru krit 

What were his reasons?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

On 10/28/2016 at 2:12 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Kavi Santokh Singh was a student of Gyani Sant Singh (whom Taksalis attach to their lineage) and his views on Raagmala are quite clear, contradictory to today's Taksal. 

What do you mean by, his views are quite clear? Mahakavi Santokh Singh jee never said that Sri Raagmala Sahib jee is not Gurbani. He was not sure about it. He said it is either Guru-Krit or Sikh-Krit. He was misinformed by Sobha Singh (who in turn was also misguided by a British agent by the name of Chetan Das).

 

Bhul chuk maaf