# Sikh Rehat Maryada: The Why & The Wherefore



## IJSingh (May 5, 2013)

*Sikh Rehat Maryada: The Why & the Wherefore*​
Why do we have one?  Do we even need it?  Couldn’t we live without it?

The questions are challenging.  And provoking; the idea, however, is to start -- not a fight but a conversation, so put on your thinking caps and turbans.




 

I didn’t dream up these questions.  Good people, Sikhs and non-Sikhs, ask them everyday not only about the Sikh Code of Conduct (Rehat Maryada) but the many similar codes that are basic to the many religions around the globe.  The Internet is abuzz with such challenges every day.

My focus is obviously on Sikhi and its fundamentals even though I’ll refer to the reasoning of some non-Sikh and secular traditions as well.

When such questions surface, as they do with awesome predictability, some rough and ready answers come to mind.  To wit, this is our tradition and it is sacred. To question is to profane it.  Or this is what the Guru-Founders of Sikhi gave us; how dare we try our puny little intellect around it?  This closes all conversation on the matter.  To shut down communication means a person has been silenced but not that he has been persuaded.  This then wouldn’t be consistent with the values of the Founder-Gurus.

And all the way on the other end of the spectrum is the extreme view that this Code is what some bright Sikhs thought up, in a different time and place. The world has changed. It may have been good then but no longer.  Look at how many Sikhs don’t follow it – particularly when it comes to the long unshorn hair etc.  Isn’t it time to change it if not to jettison the whole kit and caboodle?

Even those who carp continue to hold that Sikhi is a beautiful spiritual practice and path.  The core purpose of spirituality is to set us free; why then should we be bogged down by a man-made set of practices that we fondly label requirements of the faith?  All we need to do is to recognize the universality of the spirituality of the faith so that differences between people vanish. Spirituality enables us to see the humanity in all and transcend distinctions of caste, creed, color race, gender, national origin, even culture and language.

When such differences vanish then we become one with the teachings of Sikhi that tell us “Maanas ki jaat sabhe ekae pehchhanbo (Dasam Granth, Akal Ustat, Kabit 15, p 17) Aval Allah Noor Upayya kudrat ke sabh bande (Guru Granth p 1349); and then we can celebrate the idea of “Na ko baery naahi begaana” (Guru Granth p 703).

In this view then the defining question is, “Does spiritual awareness mandate a code of conduct?  Isn’t such a code self-limiting and self-defeating strategy for spirituality?  Why not let everyone go for what turns them on in the manner that seems suitable, as long as universal connectivity remains the direction and goal.  This takes me to the heady days of the 1960’s when I came to this country.  The mantra then was “Tune in, turn on, drop out.” In time the many that lived it discovered its shallowness. The goal was good, the practice risky, scattered and often clueless.

Let’s take a more expansive view.

With eyes wide open let’s step into the minefield of the Sikh Code of Conduct (Rehat Maryada).    Laws don’t come out of thin air.  Long-standing habits of a community become traditions (habits of the heart) and then get enshrined into law, particularly if the practices appear to be under siege. I have explored the history and process of the development of the Sikh Code of Conduct in an earlier essay and will not address it here.

A few things first while we delve into the why of any people and their code of conduct and then we hope to segue to the Sikh perspective.

What is a Code for?  I referred briefly to the spiritual core and raised the issue of why shouldn’t everyone follow his or her muse in how to define Nature and worship an ineffable Creator.

Am I mounting a defense of the existing Sikh Code of Conduct? Yes and no.

Religions serve mankind in many ways but the one idea that dominates in most, if not all, is the one of life after death.  Let me be absolutely clear – I am not going to touch this matter with a ten foot pole.  My concerns today are more Earthly.  If religion is going to dominate our waking hours surely then it should connect more with my earthly existence and provide me more meaning in it.  If there are to be any codes of religious conduct they have to be lived here on earth, not in heaven or hell when we are dead. And that’s my take.

The individual human, bright and intelligent as he is, is much too frail to survive beyond minutes after birth without someone caring for him.  (Forgive my use of he/him; it is a non-gender generic expression throughout this essay.)  That no man is an island is a truism beyond the literal meanings of John Donne’s poetry. Even the muscularly and intellectually gifted individual best survives and thrives in packs and tribes; civilizations and cultures can never be built by one person alone.

Times of solitude are essential but neither physically nor psychologically are humans equipped to handle life totally alone.

The smallest earliest grouping we form is that of a family, the largest would be the supranational conglomeration of countries, nations and continents.

Let’s revert a moment to the smallest unit of civilization – a family.  Even this unit must evolve a set of rules that members respect and will follow.  These control how we treat each other in the intimacy of a family’s small circle.

There then we have unwritten rules of behavior – a tacit code of conduct. We ignore it at our own peril.  We generally obey it because our survival depends on it.

True that humanity’s success stories became clearly more obvious as mankind learned to form cohesive groups larger than nuclear families and tribes.  Only then could larger entities like neighborhoods, villages and towns and finally nations come into being.

But where did these values come from that united people into such large coherent groups?

This is where religions have a place.  Exactly how religions began in human societies and projected a sense of their purpose remains problematic.  I am depending on the work of social scientists, particularly a 2007 essay by an atheist, Stewart Guthrie, in this brief discussion today. Human society’s formative theoretical framework posits three models: 1. Wishful thinking, 2. Intellectualism (Cognitive model) and 3. Social glue.

I will not analyze these in any great detail; very briefly wishful thinking rests on the need to identify some force for all the good and bad acts of nature that people saw, such as shooting stars, lightning and thunder.  Cognitive thinking tweaks emerging knowledge and the rational process to explain how the world functions and that process continues without end.  The social glue model may have been first elaborated by Prodicus around 420 BCE and was also touted by Karl Marx in the 20th century; it was best developed by Emile Durkheim in 1912. In this model any ideas or actions that promote cohesion in a people were considered sacred, hence the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane.

There is, at least in the United States, a hybrid fourth model in place and that is American civil religion – non-sectarian faith but one that draws its sacred symbols from the nation’s Christian history.  It becomes the national cohesive force promoting models of integration and assimilation -- the “American Way.” The Bully Pulpit then belongs to the elected President while the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Bill of rights become the sacred scriptures. See the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville and Robert Bellah’s 1967 work for an exhaustive commentary.  These sacred documents then become the Code of Conduct of this civic religion.

Now we come to skating on thin ice.  In my view religion’s primary purpose is not so much to prattle about how life will be after we are dead but how it should be lived here and now.  Keep in mind that how to make a life and how to make a living are two very different matters.  The former is the domain of religion, for the latter one finds the appropriate vocational training at a university or similar place. Every religion is, by definition, a way of life for a people, so there must be rules to the game. This essay today is crafted to incite the dialectic on and about our written and unwritten code of conduct. Surely these are matters that deserve rethinking, clarification, rewriting and re-editing.

I sometimes argue that we should look at the worldwide presence of Sikhs as the thousands of runners at a marathon.  If I rate the runners from one to ten, at “one” are those who will run the race in record time; nearer “ten” are the also-rans or those who might never finish.  But they are all on the same path though not at the same place at the same path at any given time.  Sikhs on their journey of Sikhi are similar. Some live the requirements of the faith to the nth degree and are closer to one in ranking; others, nearer ten, are like fellow travelers.  Most of us are somewhere in between.  We need to treasure them all and nurture them towards a higher level, if they so desire.

I point out that fully seven of the Ten Commandments that are the core of Judeo-Christian systems speak of right conduct in societal issues, not of heaven or hell after death. In Buddhism the eight-fold path speaks of how to live here on Earth. Much of Sikh teaching is focused similarly – on truthful living and on community service in this world.

Religions to be lived well on Earth have to develop rules of fair conduct between neighbors, a sense of self and an ethical framework.  The spiritual life – keep it in mind – is to be lived in this messy, noisy, confusing and competitive world, not in some idealized heaven sitting next to the prophet.  The idea is to live here and discover the divine that is to be found within us, (Mun too jot saroop hai apnaa mool pehchhan, Guru Granth p 441)

Religion, thus, becomes the most potent force in creating communities.  And communities have rules – a code of conduct.  They also have some power to enforce the rules.  The power has waned now but used to be fearsome not too many centuries ago.

Rules of conduct mean that families and communities will develop lines distinguishing themselves from neighbors.  It is rightly said that good fences make good neighbors.  Privacy requires them, rules mandate them, but fences must not hermetically seal neighbors from each other.  Yet, fences, sometimes, tend to become tight seals and impenetrable walls.  Fences, at best, are made up of codes – understood, even written and with a mechanism of enforcement but with kindness.

Fences exist between nations as they do between friends, even relatives.  Religion is often the glue that binds a people.  There is no guarantee that people of the same religion will get along.  Witness the number of sects that exist in every major religion, even Sikhi has a few.  Look at Bangladesh, a country of Muslims that violently separated from Muslim Pakistan to become an independent nation.  Or explore the long conflicting history of Sephardic and Ashkenazy Jews.  Christianity has so many sects that one loses count. Orthodox Communism that I would label a quasi-religion could not hold the diverse people of the former Soviet Union together when it collapsed in 1989. Think of the bloody record of the Sunni and Shia – sects of Islam – that seem to agree on little except their hatred of the West.

Rules and enforcement are two related items.  Nations of the world are trying to evolve common ground in these matters through the United Nations.    Most civilized nations have functioning civil and criminal judicial systems.  Religions may or may not have an effective system in place at this time. Sikhi is in such a reality now.   But these are matters for another day and I have visited some of these issues in other writings. No system is perfect nor is any Constitution – that is why they continue to get amended as necessary.  Witness the most recent history on the proposed gun laws or revisit the 1965 issue on civil rights in the United States.

Institutions that shape us and our lives, therefore, are family (parents), school (education), church (religion) and state (government). We need a closer examination of these and how they collaborate to give us a whole greater than the sum of the parts.

Don’t base your actions on how many people follow the code and how many don’t.  Remember that religions are for imperfect people who are on a path.  Abandoning the whole code of conduct is like throwing out the baby with the bath water.  Who should do the amending but they who live and die by the rules?  People must not be goaded to act in a hurry or react in frustration.  Amending comes from consensus building that takes more time and patience than we seem to have.

I acknowledge with pleasure the assistance of Kamaljeet Singh Dogra in preparation of this essay.

A national conversation is the goal here.  There should always be one in place – an ongoing reality.  And that’s what we need – like yesterday.


May 4, 2013


----------



## seekree (May 5, 2013)

The ideas are good but can be opposed by persons who donot like feedbacks.To my understanding sikh philosophy encourages questioning.


----------



## Brother Onam (May 5, 2013)

Veerji,
Thank you for the thoughtful exposition on the Rehat Maryada.
In my own humble contemplations I look at the kara as one answer. 
I believe that one meaning behind kara is that we are bondslaves of Waheguru. We are shackled to Him/Her.
When we look at the world today, most people delight in their freedom; freedom do do most anything (legal), and this is a vaunted state of living. But usually the end result of this lawlessness is depression, emptiness and gloom. This is perhaps the greatest captivity. But true liberty is really only achieved when we are bound by the laws of Love. This is a paradox that many many have learned through much suffering; chasing after the objects of the senses heedlessly is entrapment in the captivity of futility.
So my kara reminds me, without shame, I am a helpless slave of the amazing Lord of Love, Waheguru Waheguru.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 5, 2013)

The Kara...and endless CIRCLE..No end or beginning..also symbolizes the attributes of The Creator...Worn on the "DOING ARM"...( for most) RIGHT Hand..ACTION hand..also symbolises an attribute of the Creator...and made of IRON..BASIC enough for all to afford.affordable ......simple to construct, LONG LASTING... etc etc...so many "reasons"...symbols....:kaurkhalsaflagred:


----------



## Ishna (May 6, 2013)

In the case of my kara, it's too big for my arm and got hooked on a sacktruck while moving house a while ago and now it's the same shape as my relationship with IT (whatever It is) - oblong! hahaha

I don't wear it anymore though. I feel it's a privilege, not a right, and shouldn't be worn unless with conviction otherwise it's just a bangle.


----------



## Harry Haller (May 6, 2013)

The SRM was written for those that did not have the time or inclination to read the SGGS.



> I believe that one meaning behind kara is that we are bondslaves of Waheguru. We are shackled to Him/Her.
> When we look at the world today, most people delight in their freedom; freedom do do most anything (legal), and this is a vaunted state of living. But usually the end result of this lawlessness is depression, emptiness and gloom.


 
Personally, I envisage one day, having the understanding that my free will only wishes to do the will of Waheguru, out of love, understanding, shackles intimate this will is enforced upon one, rather than embraced with a free heart.


----------



## JourneyOflife (Apr 10, 2015)

harry haller said:


> The SRM was written for those that did not have the time or inclination to read the SGGS.



That's quite the statement! Could you please elaborate on what you mean here?

Also, sorry for bumping such an old thread lol.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 10, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> That's quite the statement! Could you please elaborate on what you mean here?
> 
> Also, sorry for bumping such an old thread lol.



Its quite simple, a load of experts got together years ago, quite a few years ago, and between them decided what the SGGS stood for, what its interpretation was, and how it should be followed. 

This then became quite useful for the many people to whom the eleventh Guru is nothing more than a deity, full of ritualistic and dramatic readings, that you can close your eyes to and enjoy the sounds of the words. To those the SRM is a blessing, a nicely condensed version of what it is to be a Sikh. 

In my view, and it is only my view, every Sikh should make the effort to read and understand the SGGS using whatever mental tools are available, rather than rely on a third party. Personally I would not trust anyone other than my own brain, my own experiences, and my own intuition.


----------



## JourneyOflife (Apr 10, 2015)

Thanks for the reply 



harry haller said:


> Its quite simple, a load of experts got together years ago, quite a few years ago, and between them decided what the SGGS stood for, what its interpretation was, and how it should be followed.



Why may they have done this?



> This then became quite useful for the many people to whom *the eleventh Guru is nothing more than a deity, full of ritualistic and dramatic readings*, that you can close your eyes to and enjoy the sounds of the words. To those the SRM is a blessing, a nicely condensed version of what it is to be a Sikh.



I'd argue it did the quite the opposite, especially the parts in bold...



> In my view, and it is only my view, every Sikh should make the effort to read and understand the SGGS using whatever mental tools are available, rather than rely on a third party. Personally I would not trust anyone other than my own brain, my own experiences, and my own intuition.



Sure, but I don't see what this has to do with the SRM and its relevancy...


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 11, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> Why may they have done this?



it probably seemed like a good idea at the time! however, again, in my view, all it did was itemise the relevant rituals and ceremonies for a religion that was born out of rejection of such. 



JourneyOflife said:


> d argue it did the quite the opposite, especially the parts in bold...



ok, then state your argument, I argue that the SGGS has been reduced to the role of a deity, I look forward to your response



JourneyOflife said:


> Sure, but I don't see what this has to do with the SRM and its relevancy...



What is the SRM based on, before we go any further?


----------



## JourneyOflife (Apr 11, 2015)

harry haller said:


> *it probably seemed like a good idea at the time!* however, again, in my view, all it did was itemise the relevant rituals and ceremonies for a religion that was born out of rejection of such.



I see. Is this view backed by any historical work, or is it a personal opinion? Nothing wrong if it is, just genuinely curious how you've come to that conclusion.



> ok, then state your argument, I argue that the SGGS has been reduced to the role of a deity, I look forward to your response



It is impossible for me to state my argument-whether I agree or not- until I've learned a bit more about yours. When you say the "SGGS has been reduced to the role of a deity", what exactly do you mean? What are you comparing it being a 'deity' with? The idols of Hindu mythology?

Also, since you've stated that the SGGS has been "reduced" to the role of a deity, can you point to any other time in Sikh history when it was treated differently to how it is today?



> What is the SRM based on, before we go any further?



Do you mean the historical context in which it arose, or the goal it seeks to accomplish?


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 11, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> I see. Is this view backed by any historical work, or is it a personal opinion? Nothing wrong if it is, just genuinely curious how you've come to that conclusion.


it is my personal opinion, if I get the time later, I will give it another read and post a 'ritual and ceremony' count. 



JourneyOflife said:


> It is impossible for me to state my argument-whether I agree or not- until I've learned a bit more about yours. When you say the "SGGS has been reduced to the role of a deity", what exactly do you mean? What are you comparing it being a 'deity' with? The idols of Hindu mythology?


What I mean is that as Sikhs, we are more interested in the room where the SGGS is kept, the various rituals that govern the way in which the SGGS is presented, and the belief that it has some supernatural power that can be harnessed by bowing and praying to it. For some reason this can be used to assist in young Manoo passing his driving test, to help with more baby boys, or good luck for a new factory, and or Mercedes!


JourneyOflife said:


> Also, since you've stated that the SGGS has been "reduced" to the role of a deity, can you point to any other time in Sikh history when it was treated differently to how it is today?



You mean a time when Sikhs debated the SGGS, talked about it, read from it and discussed the meanings that they were finding within? Sorry I am not big on Sikh history, most of which has been infused with sexy stories portraying our Gurus as supernatural magicians with great powers, instead of the enlightened wise beings that I see them as. 

My opinion only........


----------



## JourneyOflife (Apr 11, 2015)

harry haller said:


> *it is my personal opinion*, if I get the time later, I will give it another read and post a 'ritual and ceremony' count.



I see. Would it then not have made sense to say "*in my opinion*, the SRM was written for those that did not have the time or inclination to read the SGGS", rather than making a more authoritative statement?




> What I mean is that as Sikhs, we are more interested in the room where the SGGS is kept, the various rituals that govern the way in which the SGGS is presented, and the belief that it has some supernatural power that can be harnessed by bowing and praying to it. For some reason this can be used to assist in young Manoo passing his driving test, to help with more baby boys, or good luck for a new factory, and or Mercedes!



I'm not sure I follow here. What does this have to do with the SRM? Most Sikhs don't follow it at all, heck I'd bet most Sikhs haven't even read it, so how can we blame the SRM for these behaviors?

Also, are any of these behaviors explicitly endorsed in the SRM?




> You mean a time when Sikhs debated the SGGS, talked about it, read from it and discussed the meanings that they were finding within? Sorry I am not big on Sikh history, most of which has been infused with sexy stories portraying our Gurus as supernatural magicians with great powers, instead of the enlightened wise beings that I see them as.



What? Sikh history is not synonymous with the Sakhis. There's plenty of great sources on what the Gurus did, cementing of the Sikh identity from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh, and the activities of Sikhs following this period; everything from Banda Singh Bahadur's uprising to the consolidation of power by the Misldars, Ranjit Singh's empire and the role of Sikhs under British rule has been touched on, not just by Sikh sources but non-Sikh sources as well.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 11, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> I see. Would it then not have made sense to say "*in my opinion*, the SRM was written for those that did not have the time or inclination to read the SGGS", rather than making a more authoritative statement?



absolutely, however, the post was written two years ago, I do try and make it quite clear that what I write is only my own opinion. However, If you have read any of my others posts it becomes quite clear that I do not consider myself an expert on traditional Sikhism, if anything, my thoughts and opinions border on heresy. I do agree with you on the subject of authoritative statements, they rile me too. 



JourneyOflife said:


> I'm not sure I follow here.


well then don't ask question if you cannot keep up, your question, and I quote again

It is impossible for me to state my argument-whether I agree or not- until I've learned a bit more about yours. When you say the "SGGS has been reduced to the role of a deity", what exactly do you mean? What are you comparing it being a 'deity' with? The idols of Hindu mythology?

and I have answered your question with

What I mean is that as Sikhs, we are more interested in the room where the SGGS is kept, the various rituals that govern the way in which the SGGS is presented, and the belief that it has some supernatural power that can be harnessed by bowing and praying to it. For some reason this can be used to assist in young Manoo passing his driving test, to help with more baby boys, or good luck for a new factory, and or Mercedes!

now what is so hard to understand or follow? do you wish me to draw a few diagrams or make baby noises?



JourneyOflife said:


> What does this have to do with the SRM?


 no idea, I was merely answering your question



JourneyOflife said:


> Most Sikhs don't follow it at all, heck I'd bet most Sikhs haven't even read it, so how can we blame the SRM for these behaviors?


 no idea, I was merely answering your question, try asking a different question next time, or even better be more clear and concise in your questions. 



JourneyOflife said:


> Also, are any of these behaviors explicitly endorsed in the SRM?



have you come here for the 10 minute or 20 minute argument?



JourneyOflife said:


> What? Sikh history is not synonymous with the Sakhis. There's plenty of great sources on what the Gurus did,



I disagree, most of what we know as history has been corrupted beyond belief

maybe that suits your agenda?


----------



## JourneyOflife (Apr 11, 2015)

harry haller said:


> absolutely, however, the post was written two years ago, I do try and make it quite clear that what I write is only my own opinion. However, If you have read any of my others posts it becomes quite clear that I do not consider myself an expert on traditional Sikhism, if anything, my thoughts and opinions border on heresy. I do agree with you on the subject of authoritative statements, they rile me too.



Yes, I noticed it was a few years ago too. Sorry I hope that didn't come across in the wrong way, I've been going through some other threads on here and I notice you do always try to state that what you're saying is only your opinion 




> well then don't ask question if you cannot keep up, your question, and I quote again
> 
> It is impossible for me to state my argument-whether I agree or not- until I've learned a bit more about yours. When you say the "SGGS has been reduced to the role of a deity", what exactly do you mean? What are you comparing it being a 'deity' with? The idols of Hindu mythology?
> 
> ...




Thank you. However, you have completely missed my point. I mean, you can't make statements like this:




> no idea, I was merely answering your question



since we are actually talking about the SRM, Let's go through this one more time. (I paraphrase): you first stated how many years ago, quite a few experts got together and decided for themselves what the SRM stood for, and this "then became quite useful for the many people to whom the eleventh Guru is nothing more than a deity, full of ritualistic and dramatic readings, that you can close your eyes to and enjoy the sounds of the words."

I then told you that I disagree, that if anything, the SRM helped eliminate most of the dogma, empty-ritualism and Hindu-influence which had seeped into the Panth in previous years. You then told me to state my argument, and I asked you a bit about yours- what exactly you mean when you say the SGGS has been "reduced" (implicitly by the SRM) to the role of a "deity". You then typed up a few sentences about "supernatural powers", "bowing", "praying", "Mercedes" and this confused me since I don't see how these are actually endorsed in the SRM.




> no idea, I was merely answering your question, try asking a different question next time, or even better be more clear and concise in your questions.



My point is most people haven't even read the SRM, so I don't see how we can blame it for this behavior when the vast majority of people don't base their actions off of it. Furthermore, the behavior displayed by most Gurdwaras towards the SGGS is far from treating it like a 'deity', if by 'deity' you mean akin to Hindu gods and goddesses. 

You previously implied that the SRM "reduced the role of the SGGS to that of a deity", but that doesn't check out at all when we take the facts I listed above into consideration...




> have you come here for the 10 minute or 20 minute argument?



No, I've come here to see whether the vilification of the SRM on this forum is based on any actual academic work or not.




> I disagree, most of what we know as history has been corrupted beyond belief



I'm sure most scholars would disagree. Aside from some sakhis, what exactly is this history which has been corrupted beyond belief?



> maybe that suits your agenda?



SPN's "about us" says "our community has been around for many years and pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds." I don't think that entails trying to claim I have an "agenda" for simply wishing to know on which historical basis members of this site feel the SRM is unnecessary. 

If you feel the SRM has "reduced the SGGS to the role of a deity", then you're going to need to demonstrate what was going on in the Panth before it was drafted and then formulate an argument which actually shows, using real history, how the SRM's drafting in the 20th century damaged the Panth more than it hurt it.


----------



## N30S1NGH (Apr 11, 2015)

This whole over focus on Rehit maryada business is been totally blown out of proportion. It was circumstantial has context, stages. But its been turned into dogma to the point where one has wrapped their head around it and gotten stuck in initial stages.. now the dogmatic notions of it have become hindrance in one's spirituality.

Whichever scholars made rehit maryada obviously dropped the ball somewhere, totally forgot to include various context, stages include japji sahib khand stages/stages-state of mind, shabad as transcendental updesh-forewarning in bold just for many sikhs who follow rehit maryada so that we have some spiritual development framework as its listed in gurbani.

Here is transcendence shabad from gurbani, originally addressed to muslims seekers who are stuck in their shariat, but this transcendence shabad applies universally to all:

Ang- 1083
saraa _*sareeath*_ lae ka(n)maavahu ||
Let your practice be to live the spiritual life

_*thareekath*_ tharak khoj ttolaavahu ||
Let your spiritual cleansing be to renounce the world and seek God.
_*
maarafath*_ man maarahu abadhaalaa milahu _*hakeekath*_ jith fir n maraa ||3||
Let control of the mind be your spiritual wisdom, O holy man; meeting with God, you shall never die again. ||3

Here is full gurbani shabad beautiful transcendence message originally meant for our muslims brothers who are stuck in shariat since gurbani applies to all, this message also applies to sikhs as well who are in similar boat(frame of mind-state) to follow truth in their respective religion:

source: http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbaniAction=Page&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&fb=0&Param=1083

ਮਾਰੂ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥ मारू महला ५ ॥ Mārū mėhlā 5. Maaroo, Fifth Mehl:
ਅਲਹ ਅਗਮ ਖੁਦਾਈ ਬੰਦੇ ॥ अलह अगम खुदाई बंदे ॥
Alah agam kẖuḏā▫ī banḏe. O slave of the inaccessible Lord God Allah,

ਛੋਡਿ ਖਿਆਲ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਕੇ ਧੰਧੇ ॥ छोडि खिआल दुनीआ के धंधे ॥ Cẖẖod kẖi▫āl ḏunī▫ā ke ḏẖanḏẖe. forsake thoughts of worldly entanglements.

ਹੋਇ ਪੈ ਖਾਕ ਫਕੀਰ ਮੁਸਾਫਰੁ ਇਹੁ ਦਰਵੇਸੁ ਕਬੂਲੁ ਦਰਾ ॥੧॥ होइ पै खाक फकीर मुसाफरु इहु दरवेसु कबूलु दरा ॥१॥ Ho▫e pai kẖāk fakīr musāfar ih ḏarves kabūl ḏarā. ||1||
Become the dust of the feet of the humble fakeers, and consider yourself a traveler on this journey. O saintly dervish, you shall be approved in the Court of the Lord. ||1||

ਸਚੁ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਯਕੀਨ ਮੁਸਲਾ ॥ सचु निवाज यकीन मुसला ॥ Sacẖ nivāj yakīn muslā.
Let Truth be your prayer, and faith your prayer-mat.

ਮਨਸਾ ਮਾਰਿ ਨਿਵਾਰਿਹੁ ਆਸਾ ॥ मनसा मारि निवारिहु आसा ॥ Mansā mār nivārihu āsā.
Subdue your desires, and overcome your hopes.

ਦੇਹ ਮਸੀਤਿ ਮਨੁ ਮਉਲਾਣਾ ਕਲਮ ਖੁਦਾਈ ਪਾਕੁ ਖਰਾ ॥੨॥ देह मसीति मनु मउलाणा कलम खुदाई पाकु खरा ॥२॥ Ḏeh masīṯ man ma▫ulāṇā kalam kẖuḏā▫ī pāk kẖarā. ||2||
Let your body be the mosque, and your mind the priest. Let true purity be God's Word for you. ||2||

ਸਰਾ ਸਰੀਅਤਿ ਲੇ ਕੰਮਾਵਹੁ ॥ सरा सरीअति ले कमावहु ॥ Sarā sarī▫aṯ le kammāvahu.
Let your practice be to live the spiritual life.

ਤਰੀਕਤਿ ਤਰਕ ਖੋਜਿ ਟੋਲਾਵਹੁ ॥ तरीकति तरक खोजि टोलावहु ॥ Ŧarīkaṯ ṯarak kẖoj tolāvahu.
Let your spiritual cleansing be to renounce the world and seek God.

ਮਾਰਫਤਿ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਰਹੁ ਅਬਦਾਲਾ ਮਿਲਹੁ ਹਕੀਕਤਿ ਜਿਤੁ ਫਿਰਿ ਨ ਮਰਾ ॥੩॥ मारफति मनु मारहु अबदाला मिलहु हकीकति जितु फिरि न मरा ॥३॥ Mārfaṯ man mārahu abḏālā milhu hakīkaṯ jiṯ fir na marā. ||3||
Let control of the mind be your spiritual wisdom, O holy man; meeting with God, you shall never die again. ||3||

ਕੁਰਾਣੁ ਕਤੇਬ ਦਿਲ ਮਾਹਿ ਕਮਾਹੀ ॥ कुराणु कतेब दिल माहि कमाही ॥ Kurāṇ kaṯeb ḏil māhi kamāhī.
Practice within your heart the teachings of the Koran and the Bible;

ਦਸ ਅਉਰਾਤ ਰਖਹੁ ਬਦ ਰਾਹੀ ॥ दस अउरात रखहु बद राही ॥ Ḏas a▫urāṯ rakẖahu baḏ rāhī.
restrain the ten sensory organs from straying into evil.

ਪੰਚ ਮਰਦ ਸਿਦਕਿ ਲੇ ਬਾਧਹੁ ਖੈਰਿ ਸਬੂਰੀ ਕਬੂਲ ਪਰਾ ॥੪॥ पंच मरद सिदकि ले बाधहु खैरि सबूरी कबूल परा ॥४॥ Pancẖ maraḏ siḏak le bāḏẖhu kẖair sabūrī kabūl parā. ||4||
Tie up the five demons of desire with faith, charity and contentment, and you shall be acceptable. ||4||

ਮਕਾ ਮਿਹਰ ਰੋਜਾ ਪੈ ਖਾਕਾ ॥ मका मिहर रोजा पै खाका ॥ Makā mihar rojā pai kẖākā.
Let compassion be your Mecca, and the dust of the feet of the holy your fast.

ਭਿਸਤੁ ਪੀਰ ਲਫਜ ਕਮਾਇ ਅੰਦਾਜਾ ॥ भिसतु पीर लफज कमाइ अंदाजा ॥ Bẖisaṯ pīr lafaj kamā▫e anḏājā.
Let Paradise be your practice of the Prophet's Word.

ਹੂਰ ਨੂਰ ਮੁਸਕੁ ਖੁਦਾਇਆ ਬੰਦਗੀ ਅਲਹ ਆਲਾ ਹੁਜਰਾ ॥੫॥ हूर नूर मुसकु खुदाइआ बंदगी अलह आला हुजरा ॥५॥ Hūr nūr musak kẖuḏā▫i▫ā banḏagī alah ālā hujrā. ||5||
God is the beauty, the light and the fragrance. Meditation on Allah is the secluded meditation chamber. ||5||


----------



## N30S1NGH (Apr 11, 2015)

This is how mystic traditions in Islam view shariat, tariqat, marfat and hakikat. We have simliar framework as well stage break down are universally applied in gurbani as well:

http://hazrat-inayat-khan.org/php/views.php?h1=31&h2=14&h3=16
*
Vol. 9, The Unity of Religious Ideals*
*Prophets and Religions*


*The Four Grades of Knowledge in Islam*
In Islam there is no caste, as the Message was meant to be for uniting humanity in one brotherhood, and yet it was found necessary to train the individuals according to their evolution in life. A training was given in four classes, namely, Shariat, Tarikat, Haqiqat, and Marifat.

Since the world of Islam became busy in national and social affairs, the Shariat was held fast by the religious authorities and Tarikat only with a few pious ones, who sought the door of a Sufi, wanting an initiation in the inner light which was contained in the two remaining classes, Haqiqat and Marifat.

The two immediate disciples of the Prophet, Ali and Sadik, were initiated by the Prophet, and were the great Masters of the inner teachings of the knowledge of God. Besides, the Sufis who existing during the time of the Prophet were benefited by the presence of the Prophet and the inspiration they gained in Sufism, to which one soon reaches through the path of Shariat, Tariqat, Haqiqat, and Marifat.

*Shariat means the law that it is necessary for the collectivity to observe, to harmonize with one's surroundings and with one's self within. Although the religious authorities of Islam have limited it to restrictions, yet a thousand places in the Qur'an and Hadith one can trace where the law of Shariat is meant to be subject to change to suit the time and place. The law of Shariat, unlike any other religious law, deals with all aspects of life, and it is therefore that the Prophet of Islam had to experience personally all aspects of life. The Prophet as an orphan, as a warrior, as a politician, as a merchant, as a shepherd, as a king, as a husband, as a father, as brother, as son and grandson, had to play different parts in the world's various aspects of life before he was prepared to give this divine law.

Tariqat is the understanding of law besides following it, that we must understand the cause of all things that we must do and must not do, instead of obeying the law without understanding. Those who are not evolved are supposed to have faith and to submit to the law. It is for those whose intelligence does not accept things that cannot answer their reason.

Haqiqat is to know the truth of our being and the inner law of Nature. This knowledge widens the heart of a person. When he has realized the truth of being, he has realized the One Being; he is different from nobody, distant from no one: he is one with all. That is the grade where religion ends and Sufism begins.

Marifat is the actual realization of God, the One Being, when there is no doubt anywhere.

When these four classes are accomplished, then the full play of Sufism comes. Sufi means Safi, pure--not only pure from differences and distinctions, but even pure from all that is learnt and known. That is the state of Allah, the pure and perfect One.*


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 12, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> Yes, I noticed it was a few years ago too. Sorry I hope that didn't come across in the wrong way,



no your coming across exactly as you intend 



JourneyOflife said:


> I've been going through some other threads on here and I notice you do always try to state that what you're saying is only your opinion



yes, my opinion, not the opinion, nor the stance of this forum



JourneyOflife said:


> hank you. However, you have completely missed my point. I mean, you can't make statements like this
> 
> no idea, I was merely answering your question
> :



why can't I? is there an international law regarding forum etiquette that you uphold? Are you an enforcer? 



JourneyOflife said:


> nce we are actually talking about the SRM, Let's go through this one more time.



ok, one more time, just for you



JourneyOflife said:


> you first stated how many years ago, quite a few experts got together and decided for themselves what the SRM stood for, and this "then became quite useful for the many people to whom the eleventh Guru is nothing more than a deity, full of ritualistic and dramatic readings, that you can close your eyes to and enjoy the sounds of the words."



I did!



JourneyOflife said:


> I then told you that I disagree



you did! I like this way of debating! this is fun



JourneyOflife said:


> that if anything, the SRM helped eliminate most of the dogma, empty-ritualism and Hindu-influence which had seeped into the Panth in previous years


well I do not remember you saying this, but I do not agree that the SRM has achieved this



JourneyOflife said:


> You then told me to state my argument, and I asked you a bit about yours- what exactly you mean when you say the SGGS has been "reduced" (implicitly by the SRM) to the role of a "deity". You then typed up a few sentences about "supernatural powers", "bowing", "praying", "Mercedes" and this confused me since I don't see how these are actually endorsed in the SRM.



Ah ok, lets do this slowly, my response is to the fact that the SGGS is treated as a deity, it is worshipped and ritualised instead of simply just being respected and read, I personally feel that the biggest respect that can be shown is by reading and carrying out the contents of the SGGS, rather than worrying about the ambient temperature. 


JourneyOflife said:


> My point is most people haven't even read the SRM


I see, do you have any reference to back this point up? I wager more people have read the SRM than the SGGS. 


JourneyOflife said:


> so I don't see how we can blame it for this behavior when the vast majority of people don't base their actions off of it.



oh but they do, instead of reading the SGGS to find out the answers, it is easier to just follow the SRM, 


JourneyOflife said:


> Furthermore, the behavior displayed by most Gurdwaras towards the SGGS is far from treating it like a 'deity', if by 'deity' you mean akin to Hindu gods and goddesses.



I beg to differ



JourneyOflife said:


> You previously implied that the SRM "reduced the role of the SGGS to that of a deity", but that doesn't check out at all when we take the facts I listed above into consideration...



facts eh....no definitive statements for you then!! But just to clarify, your saying that everything in your argument is fact, documented fact?



JourneyOflife said:


> No, I've come here to see whether the vilification of the SRM on this forum is based on any actual academic work or not.



Why? who are you? SRM police? There is no vilification of the SRM on this forum, I do not recall being given a mandate to speak for the forum, I speak for myself, and if you read any more of my posts you will also realise that I do not pray, believe in the afterlife, believe in beardy, with his flowing long locks and sandals, or attend any religious or social events, so how can my opinions count as anything other than my own personal feelings. I am surprised you cannot tell the difference!


JourneyOflife said:


> I'm sure most scholars would disagree. Aside from some sakhis, what exactly is this history which has been corrupted beyond belief?



first some questions 

Has any Sikh Guru performed miracles?
Has any Guru married more than once?
Who added patashas to the Amrit at Vaisakhi?

After we have had an answer we can move forward on that point.



JourneyOflife said:


> If you feel the SRM has "reduced the SGGS to the role of a deity", then you're going to need to demonstrate what was going on in the Panth before it was drafted and then formulate an argument which actually shows, using real history, how the SRM's drafting in the 20th century damaged the Panth more than it hurt it.



oh do I have to?  tell you what, Ill start another thread 'has the SRM reduced the SGGS to the role of a deity'!


----------



## JourneyOflife (Apr 12, 2015)

harry haller said:


> why can't I? is there an international law regarding forum etiquette that you uphold? Are you an enforcer?



Come on man, are you really going to resort to this? No, I am not an enforcer. But if you're going to make claims about the SRM "reducing" the SGGS to the role of a deity, you're actually going to need to demonstrate that its net effect has been negative, rather than positive. I'll be the first to admit that it isn't perfect and could use some updating, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around telling people its horrible and was created because the individuals who drafted it were just so darn evil that they wanted to define Sikhi for everyone else and tell us how to live our lives, for no other reason than "it probably seemed like a good idea at the time".




> first some questions
> 
> Has any Sikh Guru performed miracles?



No.



> Has any Guru married more than once?



Aside from the case of Mata Sahib Kaur being the 'mother' of the Khalsa, no.



> Who added patashas to the Amrit at Vaisakhi?



Mata Sahib Kaur,



> After we have had an answer we can move forward on that point.



This discussion has dissolved into tip-toeing around the issue. You've already stated that the stance on the SRM is your personal opinion. That's fine, and you're entitled to it. But I'm sorry, when you make points about the SRM "itemising the relevant rituals and ceremonies for a religion that was born out of rejection of such", it just shows a general lack of awareness about concepts like Miri-Piri, identity politics and the role of the Khalsa within the Panth.

You claim the SRM has "reduced" the SGGS to a "deity". Did you know there were actual Hindu idols being taken into Harmandir Sahib (even at the expense of having to remove SGGS from the premises) before its drafting? Did you know members of 'low-castes' were barred from dipping in the Sarovar surrounding the Darbar Sahib complex because they were seen as been impure and unclean? Did you know the British had vowed to convert every Sikh to Christianity and toss Sikhi into the dustbin of history, to the point where they hoped that within a few generations, Punjabis would have to go to museums and look at old photos to be able to see what turbaned Sikh men and women used to look like?

No? Because it was the leaders of the Singh Sabha movement (the people who drafted the modern SRM) that removed those idols from Darbar Sahib, brought back the SGGS ji, removed the restrictions on low-castes within the premises of the Harmandir Sahib, and prevented Sikhi from being wiped out by the British and/or absorbed into Hinduism. Now, are you going to tell me the fact that the SRM basically barricated Sikhi from outside malevolent forces and removed idols/caste distinctions at Sri Harmandir Sahib, was a bad thing?

Did you know Rehatnamas have existed since the early 18th century? Did you know Guru Gobind Singh ji himself actually gave the Khalsa the right to draft Rehatnamas, revise them, and update them when necessary? These people didn't draft the SRM just because they were bored or wanted to ifringe on others' freedom to practice Sikhi and just "felt like it would be a good idea at the time". For all the whining that goes on about how Sikhi is so gosh darn Brahmanical these days and longing to go back to the good-old days before the modern SRM was drafted, people don't even understand that Sikhi WAS actually at one point controlled by real Brahman/Hindu forces who did not even hesitate to bring actual Hindu idols into the Darbar Sahib when they felt like it. These people actually DID regard the SGGS as just another deity and not just that, even turned the human Sikh Gurus into statues and brought them into the Darbar Sahib complex along with all the Hindu images and idols. Sikhi pre-SRM was a religion which would have disappeared within a few generations: on the one hand, the actual 'leaders' were too busy rotting it at the core and turning it into another branch on the tree of Hinduism. On the other hand, the British were fearless in their proselytizing of Christianity and desire to rid Punjab of Sikhs once and for all.

For all its faults, it was the Singh Sabha movement which turned all this around. They kicked out the idols in Darbar Sahib, barricaded Sikhi from the British by spreading the Khalsa identity among the masses and then removed the previous leaders (who were non-Khalsa, and only interested in turning Sikhi into another branch on the Hindu tree) and replaced them with the Khalsa at the helm of Sikh institutions. That is the Khalsa's rightful place, not according to me, but according to Guru Gobind Singh ji. Nothing they did was against Sikhi, the Guru actually has given the Khalsa the right to draft Rehats and implement as necessary.

You may not like the SRM and that's fine, but at the very least, take the time to read up on what was happening in the Panth before it was drafted. Contrary to what you may feel, Sikh leaders aren't all out to spoil your fun or intrude on your right to practice as you see fit, many of them are simply interested in protecting Sikhi and will take the necessary measures to safeguard it when the need arises. By the way, the Rehats have historically only applied to Baptized Sikhs, so if you haven't taken Amrit, no, it doesn't apply to you. You can let out a sigh of relief now, Guru Gobind Singh ji actually did recognize that not everybody would want to join the Khalsa, and he was fine with it. Non-Baptized Sikhs like you (and me) are not bound by the Rehat at all, and are free to do as we wish. Historically there has always been a distinction between a 'regular Sikh' and a 'Baptized Sikh', and the current Rehat has eliminated that distinction by simply redefining 'Sikh' to mean 'Khalsa', but it was a necessary sacrifice in order to rid Sikhi of the malicious forces mentioned above. If you want to get more into this point, I can do so.

I don't know about you pa ji, but even though I recognize the current SRM has its shortcomings, I'm also able to see how its overall net effect has been tremendously positive.

Last point: they exist for different reasons. SGGS is a spiritual compilation. The SRM is a political document. Both have their place within Sikhi, and both are necessary to Sikhi's survival. The primary purpose of the SRM is not to force people to abide by somebody else's interpretation of Sikhi; it is to create a distinction between the Khalsa and non-Sikh religions and uphold that separate identity. It's no surprise that even the most vicious among the "Sikhs are Hindus" crowd cannot find a way to account for the distinctiveness of Guru Gobind Singh's Khalsa without making very outlandish (and easily disprovable) claims. The Khalsa Panth is the reason Sikhi did not turn into another Buddhism or Jainism in India. The SRM is the document which solidifies that distinctiveness. If you don't want to follow it that's fine, but that doesn't take away from the priceless role it has played in preserving Sikhi into the 21st century.

Sikhs should actually take the time to learn about their history. The fact that Sikhs lack knowledge of their own history is one of the most destructive realities within the Panth today. I'd even go as far as saying you can't properly understand the many different dynamics at play within Sikhi (like what we've witnessed here with the Rehat conversation) without actually dedicating some time to learn about the history of Sikhi and Sikh politics. Claiming that most Sikh history is corrupted is a very outlandish claim and will require substantial evidence to back it up. There may be a level of hagiography to the accounts in the Sakhis, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many are actually still extremely useful in our study of the past. Not to mention, the Sakhis are a VERY small blip on the massive spectrum that is Sikh history, so even if someone wished to discard them altogether, it would still leave no shortage of important documents and historical collections needing to be studied.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 12, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> Come on man, are you really going to resort to this?


well, its called humour, it comes in useful!



JourneyOflife said:


> But if you're going to make claims about the SRM "reducing" the SGGS to the role of a deity, you're actually going to need to demonstrate that its net effect has been negative, rather than positive. I'll be the first to admit that it isn't perfect and could use some updating, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around telling people its horrible and was created because the individuals who drafted it were just so darn evil that they wanted to define Sikhi for everyone else and tell us how to live our lives, for no other reason than "it probably seemed like a good idea at the time".



ok calm down, I am making a very simple point that you seem to have pounced on and now seem determined to squeeze every last drop of heresy out of. I will make my simple point again, but for the last time, the very existence of the SRM means that to be a Sikh, to know what it means to be a Sikh, to know how a Sikh should behave can be gleaned without study of the SGGS, so even if the SRM was the most wonderful document in the world, it would still have the effect of being a shortcut, and it will always be an interpretation. People as what does the SRM say about this, or that, when they could just study the SGGS and come to their own conclusion. No one is saying the SRM is nasty or evil. Do you understand this?

Now regarding the history aspect, let us take something pretty given, that Mata Sahib Kaur added patashas to the Amrit in order to make Sikhs sweet natured, and became the mother of the Khalsa. What would have happened if she had not been there? Would we all be savages? Are you suggesting that the tenth master did not anticipate this? Are we saying that as enlightened as the Tenth Master was, he left something as important as this to chance? and that is why I have little faith in the recordings of Sikh history, there are just too many damn agendas. I have little choice but to run with what I can see, and what the litmus test of Sikhism validates, so in one fell sweep, multiple marriages, miracles, magic, boulders with handprints in, all fail miserably.



JourneyOflife said:


> But I'm sorry, when you make points about the SRM "itemising the relevant rituals and ceremonies for a religion that was born out of rejection of such", it just shows a general lack of awareness about concepts like Miri-Piri, identity politics and the role of the Khalsa within the Panth.



ok, you are struggling with this, thats ok, allow me to explain once again

*Article IV - Meditating on Naam (Divine Substance) and Scriptures 
a. A Sikh should wake up in the ambrosial hours (three hours before the dawn), take bath and, 
concentrate his/her thoughts on One Immortal being, repeat the name of ‘Waheguru’ (Wondrous 
Destroyer of darkness). *

Firstly, Amrit Vela is taken as 3 hours before dawn, so there is a window of time for Amrit Vela? other times are not Amrit Vela? this is not ritualistic?

Next your going to tell me there is actually some point in repeating
the same word again and again? this is not ritualistic?
Do you want any more examples, thats just the first page...



JourneyOflife said:


> You claim the SRM has "reduced" the SGGS to a "deity". Did you know there were actual Hindu idols being taken into Harmandir Sahib (even at the expense of having to remove SGGS from the premises) before its drafting? Did you know members of 'low-castes' were barred from dipping in the Sarovar surrounding the Darbar Sahib complex because they were seen as been impure and unclean? Did you know the British had vowed to convert every Sikh to Christianity and toss Sikhi into the dustbin of history, to the point where they hoped that within a few generations, Punjabis would have to go to museums and look at old photos to be able to see what turbaned Sikh men and women used to look like?



yes, I did


JourneyOflife said:


> No? Because it was the leaders of the Singh Sabha movement (the people who drafted the modern SRM) that removed those idols from Darbar Sahib, brought back the SGGS ji, removed the restrictions on low-castes within the premises of the Harmandir Sahib, and prevented Sikhi from being wiped out by the British and/or absorbed into Hinduism. Now, are you going to tell me the fact that the SRM basically barricated Sikhi from outside malevolent forces and removed idols/caste distinctions at Sri Harmandir Sahib, was a bad thing?



it did not stop the huge numbers of Deras in Punjab, do you know how many different types of Sikh there are at present?



JourneyOflife said:


> Did you know Rehatnamas have existed since the early 18th century? Did you know Guru Gobind Singh ji himself actually gave the Khalsa the right to draft Rehatnamas, revise them, and update them when necessary? These people didn't draft the SRM just because they were bored or wanted to ifringe on others' freedom to practice Sikhi and just "felt like it would be a good idea at the time". For all the whining that goes on about how Sikhi is so gosh darn Brahmanical these days and longing to go back to the good-old days before the modern SRM was drafted, people don't even understand that Sikhi WAS actually at one point controlled by real Brahman/Hindu forces who did not even hesitate to bring actual Hindu idols into the Darbar Sahib when they felt like it. These people actually DID regard the SGGS as just another deity and not just that, even turned the human Sikh Gurus into statues and brought them into the Darbar Sahib complex along with all the Hindu images and idols. Sikhi pre-SRM was a religion which would have disappeared within a few generations: on the one hand, the actual 'leaders' were too busy rotting it at the core and turning it into another branch on the tree of Hinduism. On the other hand, the British were fearless in their proselytizing of Christianity and desire to rid Punjab of Sikhs once and for all.



nothing much changes, when is the next poorenmashi by the way.....



JourneyOflife said:


> You may not like the SRM and that's fine,



actually I am indifferent to it, I certainly would not lean on it to further my knowledge of Sikhism, and that is basically the point I was trying to make. However if Sikhism to you is waking up in the middle of the night and repeating the same word over and over, knock yourself out!




JourneyOflife said:


> Sikhs should actually take the time to learn about their history. The fact that Sikhs lack knowledge of their own history is one of the most destructive realities within the Panth today. I'd even go as far as saying you can't properly understand the many different dynamics at play within Sikhi (like what we've witnessed here with the Rehat conversation) without actually dedicating some time to learn about the history of Sikhi and Sikh politics. Claiming that most Sikh history is corrupted is a very outlandish claim and will require substantial evidence to back it up. There may be a level of hagiography to the accounts in the Sakhis, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many are actually still still extremely useful in our study of the past. Not to mention, the Sakhis are a VERY small part of the blip on the massive spectrum that is Sikh history, so even if someone wished to discard them altogether, it would still leave no shortage of important documents and historical collections needing to be studied.



I am not saying you are correct, its just not for me. Sikhism to me is incredibly simple, no rituals, no repetition of words, no specified times of holiness, just a holy manuscript of pearls of wisdom. To be a good Sikh is not to follow blindly the words of others, to bask in history that has been distorted, to follow rehats that if they do not apply to us means we can sigh with relief, no, Sikhism is between me and the Creator and the guide to this relationship is the SGGS. Its that simple.

I am sorry that you find it so strange that a way of life that rejects ritual, should publish a document that specifies which rituals are appropriate to given events......


----------



## JourneyOflife (Apr 13, 2015)

harry haller said:


> well, its called humour, it comes in useful!





> ok calm down, I am making a very simple point that you seem to have pounced on and now seem determined to squeeze every last drop of heresy out of. I will make my simple point again, but for the last time, the very existence of the SRM means that to be a Sikh, to know what it means to be a Sikh, to know how a Sikh should behave can be gleaned without study of the SGGS, so even if the SRM was the most wonderful document in the world, it would still have the effect of being a shortcut, and it will always be an interpretation. People as what does the SRM say about this, or that, when they could just study the SGGS and come to their own conclusion. No one is saying the SRM is nasty or evil. Do you understand this?



The problem isn't that you hold an opinion different from mine, the problem is that your opinion is rooted in absolutely no academic history and you think it is equal to opinions which are actually based on real research.

Not only that, you resort to grossly incorrect generalizations to make these absurd points. Statements like "The SRM is a shortcut" and "to be a Sikh, to know what it means to be a Sikh, to know how a Sikh should behave can be gleaned without study of the SGGS" actually require some evidence to back them up. You're going to need to actually demonstrate how Sikhs who follow the SRM (so Guru Gobind Singh ji's Khalsa) spend less time reading and pondering over the SGGS ji than Sikhs (generally non-Khalsa) who do not read the SRM. From personal experience, I don't know a whole lot of non-Khalsa Sikhs who read the SGGS on a regular basis, but I know plenty of Amritdharis who do...

How about you harry ji? You are Sikh yet do not wish to associate with the SRM. How often do you _*actually *_read the SGGS? Well I took the liberty of using the search engine and found this:



harry haller said:


> I decided to only read what I could live by and then move on, I have managed the superhuman feat of not getting past line two.



2 lines? And here I was being told that people who follow the SRM are taking a shortcut and wouldn't be as motivated to read the SGGS as other Sikhs. But you've only read 2 lines? Considering the entire SGGS is 1429 pages long and each page contains dozens of lines, that doesn't really seem like a lot, wouldn't you agree?

Come on man, stop these generalizations. I know from personal experience that plenty of Khalsa Sikhs take the time to go through the SGGS- how could they not, when the Rehat itself instructs that they do? At the same time, I know plenty of non-Khalsa Sikhs who only go to Gurdwara 1-2 times a month and think that is enough for them to be Sikhs, even if they've never read a single page in the SGGS. I'd go as far as saying that based on what I've observed in my own life, it is the Khalsa Sikhs who tend to be more disciplined about reading the SGGS than the non-Khalsa Sikhs. The SRM itself says you have to read the SGGS, so I'm not sure where you're pulling these gross generalizations from. Overall, I'd say that people who are motivated to learn in-depth about Sikhi will do so whether they follow the SRM/have taken Amrit or not, and the people who aren't motivated to learn in-depth about Sikhi will not do so, whether they follow the SRM/have taken Amrit or not.

Don't you think it would be a better idea to get past the 2nd line than to accuse others of following shortcuts? That claim itself is rich, considering the SRM clearly prescribes a baseline reading of the SGGS ji every single day...



> Now regarding the history aspect, let us take something pretty given, that Mata Sahib Kaur added patashas to the Amrit in order to make Sikhs sweet natured, and became the mother of the Khalsa. What would have happened if she had not been there? Would we all be savages? Are you suggesting that the tenth master did not anticipate this? Are we saying that as enlightened as the Tenth Master was, he left something as important as this to chance? and that is why I have little faith in the recordings of Sikh history, there are just too many damn agendas. I have little choice but to run with what I can see, and what the litmus test of Sikhism validates, so in one fell sweep, multiple marriages, miracles, magic, boulders with handprints in, all fail miserably.



This is what happens when you don't spend any time consulting actual academic work. Do you really think Mata Sahib Kaur adding patashas to the Amrit to 'save the Khalsa from turning into savages', the "multiple marriages, miracles, magic, boulders with hand prints" are what I'm talking about when I tell you to study the history? To the best of my knowledge, literally everything you've listed finds no mention anywhere outside the Sakhis. And the Sakhis ARE NOT what I mean when I'm talking about 'Sikh History'. The Sakhis are a very small blip on the huge spectrum that encompasses Sikh history. Come on dude, you haven't argued against actual Sikh history in any sense- all you've done is show your discomfort at accepting the hagiographies which have found their way into Sikh oral tradition over time, and I don't blame you for it. Even then, I must point out that not ALL Sakhis are the same, there are actually plenty which contain valuable historical information and offer a window into the events which occurred during the time of the Gurus.

I also agree that as far as Sikh Philosophy is concerned, there is no point looking outside the SGGS since it contains everything we'd ever need to know about the SPIRITUAL (not political) message of the Gurus. I just want to clarify I don't rely on the Sakhis or other sources of Sikh history to actually inform my opinion about the spiritual message of the Gurus, the only thing I rely on for that is the SGGS.

But you seem to have this idea that Sikh history is limited to the Sakhis when in reality, reputable scholars on Sikh history tend to use them as supporting material, not the primary source of evidence for the argument they are putting forward. You need to get over this misconception that the hagiographic/magical stories found in oral traditions/sakhis are what I mean when I say "Sikh history", because you aren't even close.




> ok, you are struggling with this, thats ok, allow me to explain once again
> 
> *Article IV - Meditating on Naam (Divine Substance) and Scriptures
> a. A Sikh should wake up in the ambrosial hours (three hours before the dawn), take bath and,
> ...



Okay, let me put this in simpler words since my last post seems to have completely flown over your head: yes, it is a 'ritual'. No, not every 'ritual' is bad, nor does Sikhi reject them outright. You're making the basic mistake of selective bias- you search for snippets of the SGGS which, on the surface, appear to support your "Rituals are evil" stance and when you find those snippets, you think Sikhi actually supports your position.

You're focusing on a single tree while ignoring the rest of the forest. Sikhi is not one-dimensional. There are multiple dynamics at play and until you learn to recognize this, you're going to keep falling into the same trap over and over again.

Contrary to what you may think, there ARE rituals in Sikhi. Do all Sikhs NEED to follow them? No, not at all. The rituals outlined in the SRM are only applicable to the Khalsa, and they do not apply to you. Please actually take the time to read up a bit on identity politics within the Panth. Despite what "your personal opinion" may be, these same rituals you look down on are the reason Sikhi is here today. The Khalsa has the power to create its own ritualism, not because I said so, but because Guru Gobind Singh ji gave them that power. The creation of the Khalsa was for those Sikhs who were ready to completely break free from their previous faith traditions and adopt the Sikh spiritual path to the fullest. The whole point of the SRM is to nurture that separate identity from the rest of the world. Without that separate identity, Sikhi today would be dead either because of absorption wholesale into Hinduism, or because of the proselytizing of Christianity by the British.

By your logic, everything is a ritual. I brush my teeth every day at roughly the same times. I guess I must be a bad Sikh since I'm engaging in ritualism. I wash my hands before I eat anything. Oops, more ritualism, I guess I'm not following Sikhi properly 

By the way, I'm not sure what your issue with getting up in the early hours of the morning is when this practice even finds mention in the SGGS. http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=KeertanPage&K=305&L=16  But who knows, maybe Guru Ram Das ji was engaging in empty ritualism as well?

Not all 'ritualism' is the same. The ritualism the Gurus spoke out against in the SGGS ji isn't the same as the ritualism found in places like the SRM ( although I'll be first to admit the current SRM is far from perfect). Going by your logic, even the 5 K's themselves are rituals.

The ritualism of the Khalsa isn't to make them 'better' or 'more holy' than everybody else. It is to preserve the overall distinctiveness of Sikhi by institutionalizing certain practices (with the consent of the Panth) which differentiate the Khalsa from the rest of the world and nurture that unique identity.

And no, this isn't my opinion. This is from Guru Gobind Singh ji. He was the one who created the Khalsa. He was the one who gave them the power to create Rehatnamas and implement practices/'rituals' which would preserve the distinctiveness of Sikhi. Are you going to argue with him as well?

Just to clarify one more time, the SRM DOES NOT apply to you (or me) since we haven't taken Amrit. And that's perfectly fine, it doesn't make you any less of a Sikh. Guru Gobind Singh ji acknowledged that not EVERY Sikh would want to take Amrit, and he was fine with it. I just don't see the point of complaining about the SRM when it was that distinctiveness which preserved Sikhi into the modern day in the first place...



> it did not stop the huge numbers of Deras in Punjab, do you know how many different types of Sikh there are at present?



Yes, that's what happens when we ignore our Guru's Hukam for the Khalsa to organize itself under a common banner. These deras are operating despite the SRM, not because of it. As bad as you think the situation is now, it would've been 100x worse if the SRM drafted by the Singh Sabhas was not there to provide powerful political ammunition against the destructive practices of these deras. In case you didn't notice, the most powerful opponents of these deras are the Takhsalis, and the Takhsalis are probably the strictest followers of the SRM around.

The SRM is the reason they are more fringe groups than a part of mainstream Sikhi. Without the SRM, nothing would've stopped them from going out and extending their influence over the whole of Punjab. Funny thing is, that's EXACTLY what was going on before the Singh Sabha movement rolled around, the SRM is responsible for pushing these deras to the fringes of the Panth instead of the mainstream, which is where they used to be.

Instead of bashing the SRM 24/7, maybe take the time to read up on the immsenely positive net effect it has had on Sikhi. Or was it a bad thing that the Rehat pushed the poor deras to the fringes instead of leaving them in the mainstream?

What you don't seem to realize is that the deras are the PERFECT example of what happens when you run around telling people to just do whatever the hell they want. Regular Sikhs? Sure, we're free to practice Sikhi as we see fit, once again the SRM does not actually apply to us. But the Khalsa? They are actually supposed to be united under a common Rehat, otherwise you get cases like the deras who completely step over the precedence set by our Guru. Occasionally, compromises have to be made which is why I don't think the current SRM is necessarily perfect, there were just too many conflicting opinions in the room while it was being drafted to make it perfect. It is largely the product of great compromise (which is necessary in a democratic system like the Khalsa), but most people did come to accept it, and it united the Khalsa Panth in a way which hadn't been seen in a long time and saved Sikhi from complete annihilation.

Let's be open minded, but not to the point where our brains start spilling out. The SRM exists for a reason. Guru Gobind Singh ji wasn't an idiot. He gave the Khalsa the power to draft/revise/destroy Rehats and implement rituals/practices which solidify the distinctiveness of Sikhi for a reason. It may be worthwhile to read up on these than to simply go around making unsubstantiated claims about how the vast majority of Sikh history is distorted beyond belief...




> actually I am indifferent to it, I certainly would not lean on it to further my knowledge of Sikhism, and that is basically the point I was trying to make. However if Sikhism to you is waking up in the middle of the night and repeating the same word over and over, knock yourself out!
> 
> 
> I am not saying you are correct, its just not for me. Sikhism to me is incredibly simple, no rituals, no repetition of words, no specified times of holiness, just a holy manuscript of pearls of wisdom. To be a good Sikh is not to follow blindly the words of others, to bask in history that has been distorted, to follow rehats that if they do not apply to us means we can sigh with relief, no, Sikhism is between me and the Creator and the guide to this relationship is the SGGS. Its that simple.
> ...



Please see the above. It's kinda funny you are upset about the SRM supposedly trampling on your right to practice Sikhi as you see fit (when in reality, it doesn't even apply to you) while at the same time throwing unreserved mockery at how others wish to practice their Sikhi.

Please take the time to read up on actual Sikh history, the circumstances surrounding the drafting of the Singh Sabha SRM, the power politics in Sikhi, the differences between 'regular Sikhs' and 'Baptized Sikhs' and why oh why Guru Gobind Singh ji may have chosen to transfer all his political power (including the right to draft Rehats/create rituals and practices) to the Khalsa Panth entity. Oh, and get past the 2nd line in SGGS ji. It would probably be more fruitful than senselessly complaining about the SRM...

ONCE MORE, the SRM DOES NOT apply to you, and you are free to practice Sikhi however you wish, and nurture your relationship with the Creator through the timeless wisdom of the SGGS ji in any way you like. I actually agree with A LOT of what you say and I think our views on things like 'what is God', the afterlife and miracles are largely the same.

But that doesn't reduce the importance of the SRM in the least bit or take away from the significance of Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji bestowing complete political power on the Khalsa Panth. The more Sikhs become ignorant of their own history, the easier it will be for outside groups to come in and distort the past to suit whichever narrative they're trying to push. The "Sikhs are Hindus" crowd wouldn't even be significant if it weren't for the fact that so many Sikhs just do not take the time to learn about their own history, which just makes them easy prey to propaganda.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 13, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> The problem isn't that you hold an opinion different from mine, the problem is that your opinion is rooted in absolutely no academic history and you think it is equal to opinions which are actually based on real research.



Well, it is my opinion, and I am pretty sure I can have an opinion rooted in whatever I want, or is that something else you wish to enforce?



JourneyOflife said:


> Not only that, you resort to grossly incorrect generalizations to make these absurd points. Statements like "The SRM is a shortcut" and "to be a Sikh, to know what it means to be a Sikh, to know how a Sikh should behave can be gleaned without study of the SGGS" actually require some evidence to back them up.



I have already gone through this, several times now, if you do not understand, or cannot understand, I am sorry. 



JourneyOflife said:


> You're going to need to actually demonstrate how Sikhs who follow the SRM (so Guru Gobind Singh ji's Khalsa) spend less time reading and pondering over the SGGS ji than Sikhs (generally non-Khalsa) who do not read the SRM. From personal experience, I don't know a whole lot of non-Khalsa Sikhs who read the SGGS on a regular basis, but I know plenty of Amritdharis who do...



I do not need to demonstrate anything, I have my opinion, I have backed up by opinion with whatever proofs I feel have influenced me, and that is enough, if you are unable to grasp this, then you are unable to grasp it. 



JourneyOflife said:


> How about you harry ji? You are Sikh yet do not wish to associate with the SRM. How often do you _*actually *_read the SGGS? Well I took the liberty of using the search engine and found this:



Entertainment in your house that bad eh you have to occupy your time looking for my soundbites! There are many quotes and translations on this forum I have participated in, the comment you have pounced on is actually sarcasm, the following post explains it, but I guess quoting that would not have done your agenda any good. 



JourneyOflife said:


> 2 lines? And here I was being told that people who follow the SRM are taking a shortcut and wouldn't be as motivated to read the SGGS as other Sikhs. But you've only read 2 lines? Considering the entire SGGS is 1429 pages long and each page contains dozens of lines, that doesn't really seem like a lot, wouldn't you agree?



no, not really, the line in question is in regard to the truth, the second line I am referring to is satnam, the facet that we should all embrace, to live by the truth, is there any point reading the SRM if you struggle with this concept, maybe for you there is, and good luck to you, but for me there is not, and nothing you say will change that. Do you have trouble reading between the lines?



JourneyOflife said:


> Come on man, stop these generalizations. I know from personal experience that plenty of Khalsa Sikhs take the time to go through the SGGS- how could they not, when the Rehat itself instructs that they do?



I see, they do it because of a Rehat? I do it out of a desire to better myself, your right I am struggling with your form of Sikhism. 



JourneyOflife said:


> Don't you think it would be a better idea to get past the 2nd line than to accuse others of following shortcuts? That claim itself is rich, considering the SRM clearly prescribes a baseline reading of the SGGS ji every single day...



It would be absurd to assume that I have only read two lines, but for the purposes of your argument, lets say that is all I have had to read, I would still say that concentrating on living by the truth is going to bring you closer to Sikhism than reading the SRM.....



JourneyOflife said:


> This is what happens when you don't spend any time consulting actual academic work. Do you really think Mata Sahib Kaur adding patashas to the Amrit to 'save the Khalsa from turning into savages', the "multiple marriages, miracles, magic, boulders with hand prints" are what I'm talking about when I tell you to study the history? To the best of my knowledge, literally everything you've listed finds no mention anywhere outside the Sakhis. And the Sakhis ARE NOT what I mean when I'm talking about 'Sikh History'. The Sakhis are a very small blip on the huge spectrum that encompasses Sikh history. Come on dude, you haven't argued against actual Sikh history in any sense- all you've done is show your discomfort at accepting the hagiographies which have found their way into Sikh oral tradition over time, and I don't blame you for it. Even then, I must point out that not ALL Sakhis are the same, there are actually plenty which contain valuable historical information and offer a window into the events which occurred during the time of the Gurus.



Unfortunately your talking utter rubbish, which I will demonstrate to you very easily, google Sikh history, and then read it, even on established Sikh sites, and what do you see, multiple marriages, miracles, people being brought back to life, etc etc etc. Those Sakhis have influenced Sikh history hugely, right down to the first Amar Chitra Katha I read when I was 6. They may not be what you are talking about, but they sure are what everyone else is talking about. 



JourneyOflife said:


> But you seem to have this idea that Sikh history is limited to the Sakhis when in reality, reputable scholars on Sikh history tend to use them as supporting material, not the primary source of evidence for the argument they are putting forward. You need to get over this misconception that the hagiographic/magical stories found in oral traditions/sakhis are what I mean when I say "Sikh history", because you aren't even close.



again, the proof is in the pudding, what you feel or have opinions about is not how the rest of the word sees it, again, one only has to browse the internet to see how Sikh history is presented. 


JourneyOflife said:


> Okay, let me put this in simpler words since my last post seems to have completely flown over your head: yes, it is a 'ritual'. No, not every 'ritual' is bad, nor does Sikhi reject them outright.



hey look, another definitive statement!



JourneyOflife said:


> You're making the basic mistake of selective bias- you search for snippets of the SGGS which, on the surface, appear to support your "Rituals are evil" stance and when you find those snippets, you think Sikhi actually supports your position.



Now this is where you really need to understand where I am coming from, I am not an academic like yourself, I am not a social Sikh, I do not socially know any other Sikhs, I do not mix with Sikhs, (actually I do not mix with anyone), so I do not really need Sikhi to support my position, and nor do I wish to push my opinion as Sikh fact. I have come to my own conclusions through living, through alcoholism, drug use, casual sex, prison, bankruptcy, 5 heart attacks, etc etc etc etc. What I have learned, I see similar in Sikhism, and that makes me happy, and I write about it. If your telling me that I am not a Sikh, thats fine, you will have to join the queue, but I do not believe in rituals, and as far as I know Sikhism does not believe in rituals so that is where I am. 



JourneyOflife said:


> You're focusing on a single tree while ignoring the rest of the forest.



I do believe that is my right



JourneyOflife said:


> Sikhi is not one-dimensional. There are multiple dynamics at play and until you learn to recognize this, you're going to keep falling into the same trap over and over again.



I also believe that is my right too, I fail to see your point, are you trying to save me?



JourneyOflife said:


> Contrary to what you may think, there ARE rituals in Sikhi. Do all Sikhs NEED to follow them? No, not at all. The rituals outlined in the SRM are only applicable to the Khalsa, and they do not apply to you



I see, so the SGGS does apply to me, but the SRM does not apply to me, or even to you, why are we arguing about it then? Replying to your posts is really starting to cut into my day and my chocolate consumption. 



JourneyOflife said:


> Please actually take the time to read up a bit on identity politics within the Panth.



Err , I'll pass on that one if its all the same to you



JourneyOflife said:


> By your logic, everything is a ritual. I brush my teeth every day at roughly the same times. I guess I must be a bad Sikh since I'm engaging in ritualism. I wash my hands before I eat anything. Oops, more ritualism, I guess I'm not following Sikhi properly



that my friend is up to you, that is your interpretation and you are entitled to it



JourneyOflife said:


> By the way, I'm not sure what your issue with getting up in the early hours of the morning is when this practice even finds mention in the SGGS. http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=KeertanPage&K=305&L=16 But who knows, maybe Guru Ram Das ji was engaging in empty ritualism as well?



maybe it is badly translated, who knows


JourneyOflife said:


> Not all 'ritualism' is the same. The ritualism the Gurus spoke out against in the SGGS ji isn't the same as the ritualism found in places like the SRM ( although I'll be first to admit the current SRM is far from perfect). Going by your logic, even the 5 K's themselves are rituals.



Well they are not, but many Sikhs do have a ritualistic attitude to the 5 K's


JourneyOflife said:


> The ritualism of the Khalsa isn't to make them 'better' or 'more holy' than everybody else. It is to preserve the overall distinctiveness of Sikhi by institutionalizing certain practices (with the consent of the Panth) which differentiate the Khalsa from the rest of the world and nurture that unique identity.



I see, a bit like the thread the Hindus have!

Look, I am not bashing the SRM, there is much of what you write that is good, if you wish me to concede the SRM has its role, fine I am happy concede that, I see little or no point in defending my own opinion when I also consider myself a madman, if you were a madman, we could talk, but your not, so this really is a pointless discussion.

Failing that, what exactly is your agenda?


----------



## JourneyOflife (Apr 13, 2015)

harry haller said:


> Well, it is my opinion, and I am pretty sure I can have an opinion rooted in whatever I want, or is that something else you wish to enforce?




Yes, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion, no matter what it is rooted in.



> I have already gone through this, several times now, if you do not understand, or cannot understand, I am sorry.




All you've really said is that you feel it's a "shortcut" and so offers individuals a way to be 'Sikh' without ever actually reading and studying the SGGS for themselves. I know from personal experience this is incorrect. Amritdharis are actually required to read a certain base level of the SGGS every day. That is the commitment they make upon taking Baptism. On the other hand, plenty of non-Khalsa only identify with Sikhi because they were born into it and go to the Gurdwara every once in a while. Like I said, I feel if an individual is dedicated to Sikhi, they'll take the time to learn about it regardless of whether they've taken Amrit/follow the SRM or not, and if they AREN'T interested in Sikhi, then they will refuse to learn about it regardless of whether they've taken Amrit/follow the SRM or not. A person's dedication to learning about Sikhi is, in my opinion, a personal decision, and following the SRM or not isn't going to change that. I've refuted every point you've made, so unless there is some actual data to back up the claim that people who adhere to the SRM are less inclined to learn about Sikhi, it isn't going to fly.



> I do not need to demonstrate anything, I have my opinion, I have backed up by opinion with whatever proofs I feel have influenced me, and that is enough, if you are unable to grasp this, then you are unable to grasp it.



If your experiences have been different from mine then that's fine, maybe the things you've seen are different from what I have, and I respect that. My only issue is with making general sweeping implications about how the SRM somehow discourages people all across the board from studying the SGGS to the same level as those who do not follow it.



> Entertainment in your house that bad eh you have to occupy your time looking for my soundbites! There are many quotes and translations on this forum I have participated in, the comment you have pounced on is actually sarcasm, the following post explains it, but I guess quoting that would not have done your agenda any good.



There's nothing in the next post about having read past the first 2 lines, only that it is something you "would like to do, over time". That doesn't disprove anything.

In all seriousness though, relax mate. I was just taking your advice from before and injecting some humor into my posts. Of course I know you've read more than 2 lines, like you said, "it comes in useful!"
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







> no, not really, the line in question is in regard to the truth, the second line I am referring to is satnam, the facet that we should all embrace, to live by the truth, is there any point reading the SRM if you struggle with this concept, maybe for you there is, and good luck to you, but for me there is not, and nothing you say will change that. Do you have trouble reading between the lines?



'SatNam' is actually a part of the first line of SGGS ji, so it looks like you haven't even made it to the second line yet. Don't take that seriously lol
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Is there any point in reading the SRM if you struggle to live by the truth? That's a really good question, and I'm glad you brought it up. In my opinion, none of us are perfect. I think the Gurus were some of the only individuals in history who lived by the truth perfectly. The rest of us are bound to make mistakes, that is the reality of human nature, we have our faults and are prone to making the wrong decisions.

Given this reality, I cannot imagine the logic behind waiting until you are able to perfectly "live by the truth" before reading the SRM/taking Amrit. So which criteria should we use in order to decide whether we are ready or not? Let's go back to the first Vaisakhi in 1699. Guru Gobind Singh ji stands before an enormous crowd of Sikhs. He pulls out his sword and yells out, asking who among the crowd is ready to give their head for the Guru. Silence. People don't understand what's happening, and what the Guru is thinking. Finally, a very ordinary man raises his hand and stands up. The Guru beckons him onto the stage and takes him inside the tent at the back. The Guru comes back, his sword dripping in blood, with the man nowhere in sight. Some people actually start leaving out of fear because they think the Guru's gone insane, that he killed that man by cutting his head off.

4 more times the Guru asks for a head and 4 more times, he receives it. By the end of it, people can’t believe what they’ve just witnessed.

But alas! The men are still alive, and had spent their time inside the tent changing into a brilliant new uniform, donning a brand new identity. These men came to be known as the original Panj Pyare (5 beloved ones) and received Amrit from the hands of Guru ji himself, and then collectively issued Amrit to him.

There was nothing magical about these men. They had not mastered the art of “living truthfully”. They were ordinary individuals. The only thing which separated them from the rest was their willingness to give their heads and by extension, their entire lives to the Guru upon his request. They did not raise their hands and walk up to put on the 5 K’s. They did not raise their hands and walk up expecting to follow a Rehat. They did not raise their hands and walk up expecting to immortalize their names in Sikh history by becoming the original Panj Pyare. They went up to die that day, to offer their lives to the Guru upon his request.

Those, I feel, are the people who should be reading and following the Rehat by taking Amrit. None of us are perfect, I think it is unrealistic to expect someone to “live truthfully” without ever making mistakes, because we are all susceptible to them. That is human nature. I therefore feel it is illogical to wait until then to read the SRM and take Amrit. The original Panj Pyare were not chosen because they were judged to be “living truthfully” to a greater extent than the rest of the Sangat. They were chosen to be the original Panj Pyare because they were ready to die for their Guru’s sake. I know lots of people in my life who would happily die protecting Sikhi and their Guru’s teachings (SGGS). That is when you pick up and read the SRM, that is when you seriously consider taking Amrit, because that is the criteria the Guru himself used. People may have their our own individual criteria and opinions of when a person should read the SRM (like you have to be living by the ‘truth’), but I personally give more weight to the criteria used by Guru Gobind Singh ji in 1699.



> I see, they do it because of a Rehat? I do it out of a desire to better myself, your right I am struggling with your form of Sikhism.



You are making the mistake of assuming they are mutually exclusive reasons. You can do something because the Rehat instructs it AND because you want to better yourself. When I go to the gym and workout, my personal trainer yells at me to finish the set by completing ALL the reps, even if I’m tired and have a nagging voice in my head telling me to stop because it would be easier. But I don’t just do it because my personal trainer is pushing me on to keep doing it, but because I feel like I would be cheating myself and selling myself short if I gave up, and I want to better myself.

You would be wrong for saying I only push out those last few reps because of my trainer. My trainer offers extra motivation, but the main reason is because it is something I want to do in order to better myself. Likewise, you would be wrong in saying that the Khalsa only read the SGGS ji because the Rehat instructs them to do so. It definitely offers extra motivation to do so by reminding the Sikh of his/her commitment to the Khalsa, but the main reason should be because he/she is motivated out of an earnest desire to learn more about Sikhi, or at least that is the way the Guru envisioned it.

But hey, some people do only push out those last few reps because their trainer is yelling at them to do so. Some Khalsa do only read the SGGS because of the Rehat. That is what happens when we start telling people they need to take Amrit in order to be ‘true Sikhs’. You can be a great Sikh without ever taking Amrit, and a horrible Sikh after taking it. I wish that is something more people would understand. Only those who have a desire to give their lives to the Guru should take it, because that is how the original Panj Pyare were chosen.



> It would be absurd to assume that I have only read two lines, but for the purposes of your argument, lets say that is all I have had to read, I would still say that concentrating on living by the truth is going to bring you closer to Sikhism than reading the SRM.....



Yes, I agree with this. Once again I must stress that the SRM is NOT a spiritual document. It is political. Simply reading it isn’t going to do anything by itself, but reading it, having a strong desire to dedicate your life to the Guru and then following it in accordance with reading SGGS ji IS actually going to have an effect. It did for the countless men and women throughout Sikh history who were able to roll around on the floor laughing in the face of death.



> Unfortunately your talking utter rubbish, which I will demonstrate to you very easily, google Sikh history, and then read it, even on established Sikh sites, and what do you see, multiple marriages, miracles, people being brought back to life, etc etc etc. Those Sakhis have influenced Sikh history hugely, right down to the first Amar Chitra Katha I read when I was 6. They may not be what you are talking about, but they sure are what everyone else is talking about.



Lol dude, you need to get over this obsession with the Sakhis. When I talk about Sikh history, I’m not talking about the writing on some random websites. ANYBODY can create their own website and write whatever the hell they want. Yes, it is a shame that there exists so much misinformation about Sikh history within the Panth today. It is a shame there are so many websites which claim to be espousing Sikh history when in reality, they are simply regurgitating the hagiographies which have found their way into oral tradition over the year. This wouldn't be such a big problem if more Sikhs actually took the time to read actual history from academic sources instead of believing the Sakhis were the only source of information on the Sikh past. Sikhs need to start learning their history gain or risk becoming easy prey to propaganda machines which wish to destroy Sikhi either by absorbing it (like Hinduism) or converting Sikhs to their religion (orthodox Christians and Muslims).

Do you know what I mean when I say ‘actual Sikh history’? I’m not talking about random websites which rely on Sakhi hagiographies. I’m talking about the works of actual academic authors and research specialists. People like Khushwant Singh, Harjot Oberoi, J.S. Grewal, Teja Singh, Ganda Singh, Louis. E. Fenech, Purniva Dhavan, W.H. McLeod, and even Macauliffe. Any of those names ring a bell? There’s plenty more where they came from…

Khushwant Singh’s ‘History of the Sikhs’ would be a good place to start. If you’re interested in a further study of the relationship between ‘regular Sikhs’ and ‘Khalsa Sikhs’, check out Harjot Oberoi’s ‘The Construction of Religious Boundaries’. It would also answer most of your questions about the necessity of Rehat documents and how they’ve preserved the sanctity of Sikhi into the modern age. ‘Sikh History From Persian Sources’ if you’re looking to see how the early Sikhs and Khalsa were viewed by Afghan and Mughal writers. ‘Sicques Tigers or Thieves’ if you’d like to see European accounts on the Sikhs. And these are just the tip of the iceberg. All these manuscripts are preserved in top libraries across the world. This is actual Sikh history, writings in random websites based on the Sakhis don’t make the cut.



> again, the proof is in the pudding, what you feel or have opinions about is not how the rest of the word sees it, again, one only has to browse the internet to see how Sikh history is presented.



Except that stuff isn’t what I’m basing my opinions on. It isn’t even actual Sikh history, at least not authoritative enough to be stand-alone. You are doing a huge disservice to Sikh history by trying to reduce it to the hagiographic tales in the Sakhis. I don’t care if you do any further research into this stuff or not, but it may be a good idea to stop making outlandish statements about how “most of Sikh history is corrupted beyond belief” when that clearly isn’t the case.



> Now this is where you really need to understand where I am coming from, I am not an academic like yourself, I am not a social Sikh, I do not socially know any other Sikhs, I do not mix with Sikhs, (actually I do not mix with anyone), so I do not really need Sikhi to support my position, and nor do I wish to push my opinion as Sikh fact. I have come to my own conclusions through living, through alcoholism, drug use, casual sex, prison, bankruptcy, 5 heart attacks, etc etc etc etc. What I have learned, I see similar in Sikhism, and that makes me happy, and I write about it. If your telling me that I am not a Sikh, thats fine, you will have to join the queue, but I do not believe in rituals, and as far as I know Sikhism does not believe in rituals so that is where I am.



No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m sure you’re a fine Sikh, and I respect your right to nurture your relationship with the Creator however you see fit. I don’t care if you don’t want to go to a Gurdwara, talk to other Sikhs or sit down and try to meditate. Everything you do is between you and your Guru, it is not within my rights to judge whether you are a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ Sikh.



> I do believe that is my right



Okay.



> I also believe that is my right too, I fail to see your point, are you trying to save me?



Nope, just interested in challenging unsubstantiated, outlandish claims against the SRM.



> I see, so the SGGS does apply to me, but the SRM does not apply to me, or even to you, why are we arguing about it then? Replying to your posts is really starting to cut into my day and my chocolate consumption.



See above. My issue is with the idea that the Rehat is a bane on Sikhi, and nothing else.



> Err , I'll pass on that one if its all the same to you



Sure, but in the future, maybe don’t make authoritative statements about Sikh history and the SRM?



> maybe it is badly translated, who knows



Sure, whatever you say. Do you know of any alternative translation which doesn’t mention waking up in the early hours of the morning and contemplating Akal Purakh?



> Well they are not, but many Sikhs do have a ritualistic attitude to the 5 K's



Exactly! Finally, we can agree 100%  It all comes down to your attitude and the way you approach things. If you treat the 5 K’s as these holy items with magical properties, then your attitude is pretty ritualistic (not to say, it contradicts the actual history surrounding the creation of the Khalsa). If you read the SGGS on a regular basis just because it is written in the SRM or because you want to be ‘holier’ than everyone else and not because you genuinely wish to develop a greater relationship with your Guru, then you’re engaging in empty ritualism. If you are not motivated out of a genuine desire to give your head to the Guru and live the Sikh Spiritual Path to the highest level, then yes, it is empty, useless ritualism.

On the other hand, if you love your Guru and are ready to give your head, not because the SRM says so or because you want to act like you are better than everyone else, but out of your own free will, then I’d argue it is no longer the sort of ritualism the Gurus criticized in SGGS ji.



> I see, a bit like the thread the Hindus have!



Just like above, it comes down to intention. If you think the rituals of the Khalsa make you wiser and holier than everyone else, then yes, it is a bit like the threads the Hindus have. However, if you understand the actual meaning behind the practices, that they are to foster a sense of distinctiveness and NOT superiority, and wish to dedicate your life to the Guru, then they are not remotely the same as the thread that Guru Nanak criticized in his writings.



> Look, I am not bashing the SRM, there is much of what you write that is good, if you wish me to concede the SRM has its role, fine I am happy concede that, I see little or no point in defending my own opinion when I also consider myself a madman, if you were a madman, we could talk, but your not, so this really is a pointless discussion.



It really seemed like bashing to me when you claimed it was “written for those that did not have the time or inclination to read the SGGS”, that “a load of experts got together years ago, quite a few years ago, and between them decided what the SGGS stood for, what its interpretation was, and how it should be followed” because “it seemed like a good idea at the time”, “itemise the relevant rituals and ceremonies for a religion that was born out of rejection of such”, that it “reduced” the SGGS ji to just another deity and gave people a “short-cut” to half-{censored} their Sikhi. The discussion is there for everyone to see and I think I’ve made enough points to show how none of this is even remotely correct.



> Failing that, what exactly is your agenda?


.

I hope I have made my point clear by now but if I haven’t, I will restate it: none of this is a personal attack against how you choose to practice your Sikhi. The Guru has given you the right to learn and grow with the SGGS ji in any way you like. If the message you take from the SGGS ji is that you do not want to follow any rituals or meditate or any of that stuff, but you are instead inspired by the words of the Guru to be a kinder, gentler person who cares about humanity, than that’s great, if anything I’d say you’re a better Sikh than a lot of others out there these days. My ONLY concern/agenda is with this idea that the SRM was drafted by a bunch of guys who wanted to impose their version of Sikhi on everybody else, that the SRM is the bane of Sikhi and pretty much useless, that it has no role to play whatsoever in the affairs of the Panth and that it has given people an excuse to “short-cut” their Sikhi. My concern is not because I am somehow in love with the Rehat and can’t stand anybody criticizing it-because I’ll be the first to admit that it isn’t necessarily perfect- but because from a historical standpoint, the SRM was ABSOLUTELY necessary in preserving the sanctity of Sikhi and preventing it from being absorbed into Hinduism or destroyed by British proselytizing of Christianity. Historically, Guru Gobind Singh ji himself gave the Khalsa the power to draft, revise, edit and destroy Rehats, and to implement practices which would be followed by the entire Khalsa, with the goal of upholding the distinctiveness of the Sikh Spiritual Path. Bringing these points to light is my only concern, not attacking an individual’s right to practice Sikhi however they want because again, the Rehat doesn’t apply to all Sikhs, just the ones who have chosen to take Amrit.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 13, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> The discussion is there for everyone to see and I think I’ve made enough points to show how none of this is even remotely correct.



fine, lets move on from the personal trivia and deal with the subject in hand, I do not feel you have made enough points to show anything, other than arguing with you is beginning to feel like arguing with myself, I suggest I start a new thread where we completely dissect the SRM, it will be good, interesting, I hope we learn something.

However, I stress again, any views are mine own and do not represent or reflect the forum.

I look forward to an enjoyable journey of history and translation, together with logic, discretion and intellect.

En Guard!


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 13, 2015)

Brother,

I have created the thread and asked questions that I hope will lead to meaningful debate, if you could provide the next step, and any points that I have made in this thread that you feel you wish to discuss, please make them there. I hope we get some good input from others and I hope we all learn and share together.  I sense an intelligence and wisdom in you that means I know this will not descend into mud slinging (however I cannot say the same for myself, haha only kidding), I look forward to your reply

thank you


----------



## Original (Apr 13, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> JourneyOflife said: ↑
> 2 lines? And here I was being told that people who follow the SRM are taking a shortcut and wouldn't be as motivated to read the SGGS as other Sikhs. But you've only read 2 lines? Considering the entire SGGS is 1429 pages long and each page contains dozens of lines, that doesn't really seem like a lot, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Lot more need to be discussed, but so far, I've enjoyed the read from both yourself and H.
> ...


----------



## JourneyOflife (Apr 14, 2015)

Sorry mate, I can't accept that last page with Raag Mala when it is so obviously false. But maybe that's just me.


----------



## JourneyOflife (Apr 14, 2015)

harry haller said:


> Brother,
> 
> I have created the thread and asked questions that I hope will lead to meaningful debate, if you could provide the next step, and any points that I have made in this thread that you feel you wish to discuss, please make them there. I hope we get some good input from others and I hope we all learn and share together.  I sense an intelligence and wisdom in you that means I know this will not descend into mud slinging (however I cannot say the same for myself, haha only kidding), I look forward to your reply
> 
> thank you



Thank you. It took a while to type out my reply but you asked some really important questions and I wanted to be thorough. Again, I hope I didn't come across in the wrong way and I apologize if I have. I hope you like my post in the other thread and feel free to delve deeper into anything that interests you


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 14, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> Thank you. It took a while to type out my reply but you asked some really important questions and I wanted to be thorough. Again, I hope I didn't come across in the wrong way and I apologize if I have. I hope you like my post in the other thread and feel free to delve deeper into anything that interests you



I liked your post very much, you are clearly passionate about Sikhi, and such passion is rare these days, you have nothing to apologize for, I will, once I have finished this enormous bar of chocolate, go through it and reply, but I must warn you, the more you write, the more I think we are singing from the same song sheet.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 14, 2015)

My thoughts on SRM written in 2006.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threads/thoughts-on-the-sikh-rehat-maryada.14705/#post-49136

*Thoughts on the Sikh Rehat Maryada*

By Tejwant Singh

It is interesting to notice that Guru Nanak founded our Sikhi way of life to get rid of the shackles of dogmas and lead a pragmatic life. Our honchos of Sikhi, who are sitting crosslegged on their high chairs at the Takhats, are only involved in nothing but. They ban books, ban people from speaking in the Gurdwaras which has 4 doors to welcome all mankind from all walks of life, irrespective of one's hue,creed or faith. Banning people to speak about Gurmat in Gurdwaras is like Saudi Arabia banning all other places of worship but the mosque. They argue about having langar on the floor rather than on tables and chairs no matter if old people can or can not sit on the floor. They do not care about that. Still today, there are no means for the handicapped to visit Harmandir Sahib or any other Gurdwara because they are too involved in banning gay marriage in Canada. It seems like a joke. Doesn't it?

Sikhi was founded on Shabad Vichar, not on having personal ego trips.

The biggest flaw of the writers of the SRM is that it was created by making Sikhi one more dogmatic religion rather than a very unique way of life which is absent of any man made Truth-Subjective reality. They fail to realise that through the SRM they have put padlocks on the 3 remaining doors.

The SRM is only valid if it is based on Gurmat, not on man invented DO's and DON'Ts.

Sikhi is NOT based on what I can or can not do, but what I will or will not do. Until we come to grips with that, we will be leading a manmat path rather than that of Gurmat.

Sikhi demands a lot more from us than just gold leafing the domes.

#1Tejwant Singh, Dec 9, 2006


----------

