- Apr 8, 2015
- 49
- 71
- 34
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:
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...
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.
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...
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...
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.
Last edited:
