Jump to content

17Th And 18Th Century Rehat Maryada


Malkeetv
 Share

Recommended Posts

I never directly referred to you saying anything. Sorry for misunderstanding.

No misunderstanding, no need to apologise. lol

It's just really easy (and common from my experience) for people to start pointing fingers when we discuss this topic and claim people are trying to justify x and y practice today.

Some of us are genuinely interested in history and for me personally, given the violence Sikhs experienced in 1700s, I don't think any less of any of them doing all these things that people have issues with today. That's just a personal view - everyone is free to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first one I think is an excuse which the defeated armies made to their leaders. Many accusations of the sort were placed against the sikhs as they were thought to be consuming something very strong which made them undeafable in war.

These lines are parts of the whole stories and cannot be taken as direct references to the peoples behaviours. We need the full story.

For instance Banda SIngh Bahadur did practice magic and ate meat etc but he stopped when he came into the sharan of Guru Ji. He however disobeyed the hukam of not getting married. This led to his downfall and his son was sort of murdered in front of his eyes as well.

Further research is required into the main stories of where these lines have been taken from.

They are in no way presenting to us any concrete evidence that this was actually the rehat of the puratan Sikhs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but there is separate issue about so many references to meat eating, bhang consumption etc. in a lot of old Sikh manuscripts.

That's not me trying to justify it, but pretending these things don't exist is like burying ones head in the sand.

I don't think Sikh history is as clean cut as some people like to make out today. Suffice to say that it appears as if certain behaviours and thinking of SOME Singhs in the past was different to today, for whatever reason.

But yes, it's sad that people try and use this today to justify recreational intoxication.

There was obviously a split. Some Singh's consumed meat after hunting game themselves and bhang, others were strict veggies. Marijuana was used as a painkiller, increasing concentration and kept the body cool in the scorching heat, providing it was used in the correct quantities of course. First I've heard of Singh's drinking alcohol however!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first one I think is an excuse which the defeated armies made to their leaders. Many accusations of the sort were placed against the sikhs as they were thought to be consuming something very strong which made them undeafable in war.

Well, I'd disagree because I think soldiers taking afeem or bhang was common back then. We've even got a sakhi where the emperor Babur himself offers Baba Nanak bhang. It's still done now in places like Afghanistan for example.

Also, many Sikh sources themselves record the taking of bhang like it is no big thing. Read Rattan Singh Bhangu's Path Prakash for example. Remember Bhangu was the grandson of Mehtab Singh who slew Mass Runghur at Amritsar, so he wasn't any marginal figure in Sikh history.

For instance Banda SIngh Bahadur did practice magic and ate meat etc but he stopped when he came into the sharan of Guru Ji. He however disobeyed the hukam of not getting married. This led to his downfall and his son was sort of murdered in front of his eyes as well.

Well actually, Panth Prakash is REALLY interesting in this respect because it claims the opposite; that Banda Singh didn't eat meat and this was one of the things that upset the mainstream Khalsa. Other things that were supposed to have gone against Khalsa norms included wearing red instead of blue and changing the jaikara to 'Fateh Darshan'.)

You can read Panth Prakash in English and check for yourself:

Here's volume 1, which covers the Banda Singh period: https://www.scribd.com/doc/54832175/SRI-GUR-PANTH-PRAKASH-by-Rattan-Singh-Bhangoo-Trans-Kulwant-Singh

Further research is required into the main stories of where these lines have been taken from.

They are in no way presenting to us any concrete evidence that this was actually the rehat of the puratan Sikhs.

A lot of puratan rehats are available. A scholar called Piara SIngh Padam collected a good few in a book. Its a mixed picture, some rehats are okay with meat (as long as it is not halal), some not.

These lines are parts of the whole stories and cannot be taken as direct references to the peoples behaviours. We need the full story.

Given all the evidence I've seen it looks like some people have always eaten meat and some have always been vegetarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, many Sikh sources themselves record the taking of bhang like it is no big thing. Read Rattan Singh Bhangu's Path Prakash for example. Remember Bhangu was the grandson of Mehtab Singh who slew Mass Runghur at Amritsar, so he wasn't any marginal figure in Sikh history.

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad auctoritatem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some compromises might have been made on the ground during warfare.

That isn't to say that talking bhang etc. was something all or most Sikhs did. Or even that Gurmat condones it.

Also, on another thread on Nihang rehat I made a point that some use of substances may have been self medication i.e. opium is an analgesic and certain non-intoxicating compounds in marijuana have uses beyond getting high (i.e. cancer, MS, some psychological conditions amongst others).

Plus remember, a lot of these writers wrote a fair few decades (if not centuries) after the events. For example Gyani Gyan Singh published the above in 1880, a good 170 odd years after dasmesh pita's earthly passing.

It is incorrect to assume that some compromises were made. If we really wish to analyse history, we should have to first remove wishful thinking and confirmation biases. Otherwise, you will come to the conclusion that what You ALREADY BELIEVE TO BE TRUE is true. There were no compromise made. Sikhs gave in on their lives but not there Keshas. And, what about tobacco which was and is universally banned in Sikhism, However, that doesn't seem to be the case for meat and intoxicants. What about the proud Bhangi Sardars of the Dal Khalsa, nobody can say they were not Sikhs or they were patits because they consumed bhang.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video kiu murgi mare clearly explains that people who wanted to indulge in meat eating and other things will go to great lengths to get some sort of justification to do it.

This bani has been been very badly misinterpreted. Here, Kabir ji is trying to explain the logic behind Animal Sacrifice that if God is already there in the chicken, how can we sacrifice it and offer it to God. This bani doesn't say anything about what type of food should be eaten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one should have doubt on Brahmgiaanee Sant Mahapurakh Dhan Guru Piarey Bhai Gurbakhsh Singh Jee (a.k.a. Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Jee).

Read the following links and all of the pages. These kinds of topics have been done many times. You just have to search various online forums.

http://gurmatbibek.com/forum/read.php?3,32109,page=1

http://gurmatbibek.com/forum/read.php?3,26865

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use