Quoting From Rehitnamas

[spamindersingh]

Selective quotations have been a problem for a while. People are selective in what they quote and happily ignore anything which destabalises their thinking.

[waaheguroo]

Don't the katha vaachaks and sants quote from Gurbani and rehitnamey to make their point clear?

[N30S1NGH]

Don't the katha vaachaks and sants quote from Gurbani and rehitnamey to make their point clear?

Sants don't quote that much from rehitnamas but they do from gurbani.

[akal sahai]

THANK YOU NAMASTANG FOR SHARING GIAN WITH US!!!!!

[kaur_khalistani_lioness]

wow............so true................im so tired on the one liners, i think Kabir's bani where he talks about eating fish, drinking wine etc etc has to be the most abused and famous one liner used...............could be actually do vichaar on the whole shabd? so the next time we hear it thrown about we can rise against the massive an ensure it is being used in the correct context?

i havent checked ...but if u havent started a new topic on this already ..i would suggest u do so we can all discuss it=)

[SaRpAnCh]

I don't know if its concerning to others or my imagination going wild.

I see alarming rate of youths quoting from rehitnamas, janam sakhiya right left and center (whether it be bhai nand lal, bhai chaupa singh , bhai dya singh, bhai mani singh janamsakhis) to prove their point across on various topics. I have a question regarding that to people who are quoting rehitnamas, janamsakhiya- do you actually have read these full rehitnamas that you are quoting the rehitnamas or just quoting it from sikhitothemax.com or other websites?

I believe this trend of quoting the rehitnamas from sikhitothemax.com or various websites is causing misinterpretation of rehitnamas in general because rehitnamas are not read fully, critical analysis of which rehitnamas as whole is gurmat, shady, not credible, unreliable and various context of parts of rehitnamas are ignored just like context of gurbani are ignored.

I ll provide a further example when i go home..possibly by tom to further clarify this thread.

Some rehitnama's are dodgy,like sakhiya and the rest I agree with you

[N30S1NGH]

I don't know if its concerning to others or my imagination going wild.

I see alarming rate of youths quoting from rehitnamas, janam sakhiya right left and center (whether it be bhai nand lal, bhai chaupa singh , bhai dya singh, bhai mani singh janamsakhis) to prove their point across on various topics. I have a question regarding that to people who are quoting rehitnamas, janamsakhiya- do you actually have read these full rehitnamas that you are quoting the rehitnamas or just quoting it from sikhitothemax.com or other websites?

I believe this trend of quoting the rehitnamas from sikhitothemax.com or various websites is causing misinterpretation of rehitnamas in general because rehitnamas are not read fully, critical analysis of which rehitnamas as whole is gurmat, shady, not credible, unreliable and various context of parts of rehitnamas are ignored just like context of gurbani are ignored.

I ll provide a further example when i go home..possibly by tom to further clarify this thread.

Some rehitnama's are dodgy,like sakhiya and the rest I agree with you

Can you please tell us with examples which rehitnamas and its contents are dodgy? just wanted your know opnion on this.

[Bijla Singh]

Solutions 2 requires bibek buddhi and unbias attitude when doing analysis on rehitnamas with kausati of gurbani along with contexts and timing of rehitnamas even though it challenges their beleif..such people are real scholars who don't judge rehitnamas based on their standards or scan various rehitnamas and pick and chose to support their beleif or their group beleif. They have one goal only which is provide sangat with explanation of rehitnamas without their bias but reasoning the contents of rehitnamas.

Most of the sources have mixed elements that are anti-Sikhi. No Sikh would agree with such contents. If we use Gurbani and Vaars to determine which portions of the rehatnamas are valid then it indirectly results in what you call "picking and choosing". Bhai Veer Singh, Taksal and others believe that not everything is acceptable in Sooraj Parkash. Would you accuse them of biasing for picking and choosing? In my opinion, except Gurbani, Dasam Granth and Vaars etc we have to pick and choose so that we don't reject everything but filter out what is according to Sikhi and learn something from the filtered message.

[N30S1NGH]

Solutions 2 requires bibek buddhi and unbias attitude when doing analysis on rehitnamas with kausati of gurbani along with contexts and timing of rehitnamas even though it challenges their beleif..such people are real scholars who don't judge rehitnamas based on their standards or scan various rehitnamas and pick and chose to support their beleif or their group beleif. They have one goal only which is provide sangat with explanation of rehitnamas without their bias but reasoning the contents of rehitnamas.

Most of the sources have mixed elements that are anti-Sikhi. No Sikh would agree with such contents. If we use Gurbani and Vaars to determine which portions of the rehatnamas are valid then it indirectly results in what you call "picking and choosing". Bhai Veer Singh, Taksal and others believe that not everything is acceptable in Sooraj Parkash. Would you accuse them of biasing for picking and choosing? In my opinion, except Gurbani, Dasam Granth and Vaars etc we have to pick and choose so that we don't reject everything but filter out what is according to Sikhi and learn something from the filtered message.

so in that case, questions here comes down to -

- These rehitnamas who had anti sikhi elements in them were they collective writing of orginal author? or later mixed up by anti sikh people? can this by proven that they were added by anti sikh people by research? is not also not possible those writings which seem anti sikh contexts of them were only suitable for that time and period?

as i requote:

Prem Sumarg represents evolved local traditions and maryada, as do most rehitnamai , with the primary basis having an authentic foundation, and it have being added to since, reflecting the Khalsa's changing environment and challenges over time.

- Also i never said picking and choosing is wrong after unbiased analysis is done based on kusati of gurbani, bhai gurdas ji varan and sri dasam granth sahib ji. I said picking and choosing is wrong to push your own belief or group belief to people's throat.

But then the concern here comes down to regarding filtering rehitnamas based on gurbani which i fully agree but the main thing we need to ponder upon is bani could be interperted via uthanka, adhatamic arths, vikaayaran. So acceptance/rejection of rehitnamas will based on diversity of interpertations based on uthanka, adhatamic arths and vikayaran. Diversity of interpertation does not equal contradiction.

In layman terms, what you may reject contents of rehitnama based on gurbani interpertation eg- vikayaran. Other sikh scholar is equally right and have same right accepting the same content in rehitnama based on gurbani interpretation eg- uthanka or adhyatmic, and its context, connotations as long as that acceptance or rejection is not totally contradictory to gurmat.

To further explain what i m saying above, i gave an example in my previous post on this topic:

2nd example is from bhai dya singh rehitnama where in the rehitnama it talks about specific diet,/life style lot of people adhere to that specific diet/life style based on this rehitnama, pushes their ultra firm views based on the rehitnama but on the same rehitnama it also talks about khalsa can live his life/have diet in any of three gunas- rajo, tamo, satoguni.

There is no black and white answer to various diet or specific diet if we take this example- say for example- bijla singh uses quote from bhai dya singh ji rehitnamas talks about specific diet of khalsa ie- satoguni and back it up by further giving quotes from gurbani based on interpretation of vikaayaran. He is totally right in his stance. I come up use the same rehitnama which talks about three various types of diet/life style of khalsa- rajo, tamo, satoguni and i use gurbani to support all three types of life styles/diet of khalsa being acceptable based on interpretation of gurbani from uthanka/adhyatmic arth contexts. I am also right in my stance as long its not totally contradictory.

see if we can try to understand this, half of useless common debates Sikh engage in all day is gone out of window. Isn't it surprising all this useless debate on meat came back after singh sabha lehar and still lasting up to this vary day? how come there was no such debate of diet/lifestyle of khalsa before singh sabha? is one implying there were no hardcore veggie singhs (satoguni) and non veggie singhs (nihangs) existed and lived side by side in harmony before singh sabha? i highly doubt it.

Singh sabha lehar did many good things(kicked out curropt udasi mahants), stopped baut pooja in darbar sahib etc but during this good intention doing good things they went on total extreme and rejected outright many things without understanding the advait gurmat sidhant and gurbani and rehitnamas and its context eg- santhood in sikhism, various lifestyle of khalsa- rajo,tamo,sato , diversity in the sikhi (because of insecurity they were hell bent on making unique identity of Sikhs which is fine but some how they assume diversity in sikhi is enemy to goal of creating unique identity of sikhs).

[apne]

Singh sabha lehar did many good things(kicked out curropt udasi mahants), stopped baut pooja in darbar sahib etc but during this good intention doing good things they went on total extreme and rejected outright many things without understanding the advait gurmat sidhant and gurbani and rehitnamas and its context eg- santhood in sikhism, various lifestyle of khalsa- rajo,tamo,sato , diversity in the sikhi (because of insecurity they were hell bent on making unique identity of Sikhs which is fine but some how they assume diversity in sikhi is enemy to goal of creating unique identity of sikhs).

The unique identity was given by Guru Gobind Singh not Singh Sabha.