Proof of Sikhs taking cannabis in 1776

[shastarSingh 232]

http://sikhcybermuseum.com/history/PolierLetter.htm

for the Seikhs, that formidable aristocratic republick, I may safely say, it is only so to a weak defenceless state, such as this is. It is properly the snake with many heads. Each zemindar who from the Attock1 to Hansey Issar,2and to the gates of Delhi lets his beard grow, cries Wah gorow3, eats pork,4 wears an iron bracelet, drinks 'bang', abominates the smoking of tobacco 

[Redoptics 152]

2 hours ago, shastarSingh said:

http://sikhcybermuseum.com/history/PolierLetter.htm

for the Seikhs, that formidable aristocratic republick, I may safely say, it is only so to a weak defenceless state, such as this is. It is properly the snake with many heads. Each zemindar who from the Attock1 to Hansey Issar,2and to the gates of Delhi lets his beard grow, cries Wah gorow3, eats pork,4 wears an iron bracelet, drinks 'bang', abominates the smoking of tobacco 

Eats pork? Drinks 'bang' and what is a seikh? Do not post crap on here please, thank you. 

[AjeetSingh2019 30]

18th century was VERY harsh for sikhs. 

You're not declared illegal today or have bounty on your head. You're not forced to live in jungles. Stop justifying your addictions ! 

[dallysingh101 1,690]

On 9/15/2019 at 9:09 AM, Redoptics said:

Eats pork? Drinks 'bang' and what is a seikh? Do not post crap on here please, thank you. 

There are a few historical references along this line bro. 

[GurjantGnostic 525]

On 9/15/2019 at 3:03 AM, AjeetSingh2019 said:

18th century was VERY harsh for sikhs. 

You're not declared illegal today or have bounty on your head. You're not forced to live in jungles. Stop justifying your addictions ! 

Lol. You'd think you'd be more understanding. 

[AjeetSingh2019 30]

3 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

Lol. You'd think you'd be more understanding. 

Understanding of what and why ?? 

 

[garch 203]

Proof hahaha

 

Its like saying wikipedia is proof of anything.

[dallysingh101 1,690]

On 9/15/2019 at 11:03 AM, AjeetSingh2019 said:

18th century was VERY harsh for sikhs. 

You're not declared illegal today or have bounty on your head. You're not forced to live in jungles. Stop justifying your addictions ! 

If someone acknowledges certain aspects of Sikh history that people find uncomfortable today, it doesn't mean they do these things themselves or are addicts......

Grow up. 

[dallysingh101 1,690]

Maybe our ancestors had an inkling of the health and psychological benefits of certain components of sukha? Look at these goray, they are now selling sukha da telh with haldhee mixed in. 

https://www.simply-cbd.co.uk/product/liquid-gold/

Edited September 18 by dallysingh101

[TigerForce1 170]

100 or so years from now, historical observations from the late 80’s and early 90’s armed resistance of Khalistan Guerrilla Fighters is going to be examined and debated upon.  They will find some of the Guerrilla fighters used Afeem (Opium) to  help them stay alert and fight fatigue during the harsh times when they were being hunted or carrying out missions.  Examining this through the present we can say that by no means was ‘Afeem’ a part of their Rehit Marayada, or were they encouraged or given exemption by the Jathedar of Akal Takhat to do so.  They did this because they simply chose to do so.

Unless anyone can submit evidence from Sikh sources or written Hukamnama from the 18th Century that taking Bhang was part of Sikh Rehit Marayada, this is no more than an observation of ‘some Sikhs who chose to do so’.

[Akalifauj 900]

4 minutes ago, TigerForce1 said:

100 or so years from now, historical observations from the late 80’s and early 90’s armed resistance of Khalistan Guerrilla Fighters is going to be examined and debated upon.  They will find some of the Guerrilla fighters used Afeem (Opium) to  help them stay alert and fight fatigue during the harsh times when they were being hunted or carrying out missions.  Examining this through the present we can say that by no means was ‘Afeem’ a part of their Rehit Marayada, or were they encouraged or given exemption by the Jathedar of Akal Takhat to do so.  They did this because they simply chose to do so.

Unless anyone can submit evidence from Sikh sources or written Hukamnama from the 18th Century that taking Bhang was part of Sikh Rehit Marayada, this is no more than an observation of ‘some Sikhs who chose to do so’.

You will be hated for making sense.  The poster above you will now call you the F word in punjabi.  Dolly101 cannot comprehend this type of deep thought.

[dallysingh101 1,690]

1 hour ago, TigerForce1 said:

100 or so years from now, historical observations from the late 80’s and early 90’s armed resistance of Khalistan Guerrilla Fighters is going to be examined and debated upon.  They will find some of the Guerrilla fighters used Afeem (Opium) to  help them stay alert and fight fatigue during the harsh times when they were being hunted or carrying out missions.  Examining this through the present we can say that by no means was ‘Afeem’ a part of their Rehit Marayada, or were they encouraged or given exemption by the Jathedar of Akal Takhat to do so.  They did this because they simply chose to do so.

Unless anyone can submit evidence from Sikh sources or written Hukamnama from the 18th Century that taking Bhang was part of Sikh Rehit Marayada, this is no more than an observation of ‘some Sikhs who chose to do so’.

The whole point about rehit-namas and the differences between them is a whole discussion in itself, but there is evidence in Bhangu's Panth Prakash, Sainapati's Gursobha, Prem Sumarag Granth. 

There is also notice of this in the earliest european sources from the late 1700s. 

No one is telling anyone to do these things, but to whitewash your own people's history is weak. 

As alluded to previously, the people who did partake aren't likely to have done so for what we call 'recreational reasons' today. It may as well have been medical reasons? Given how sukha da tehl is being increasingly investigated by modern science along this very line, it isn't implausible. It may well have been a carry over from pre-existing Ayurvedic practice?

Can't you people have a grown up discussion about this? 

Edited September 18 by dallysingh101

[AjeetSingh2019 30]

Unless you're going to fight enemies of panth and need help of sukha , I don't see any excuse why I should exempt you from similar judgement as of any regular drug addict. People have for long perverted religion for their goals .

Nothing new here. Why not get high on naam instead 

[shastarSingh 232]

30 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

The whole point about rehit-namas and the differences between them is a whole discussion in itself, but there is evidence in Bhangu's Panth Prakash, Sainapati's Gursobha, Prem Sumarag Granth. 

There is also notice of this in the earliest european sources from the late 1700s. 

No one is telling anyone to do these things, but to whitewash your own people's history is weak. 

As alluded to previously, the people who did partake aren't likely to have done so for what we call 'recreational reasons' today. It may as well have been medical reasons? Given how sukha da tehl is being increasingly investigated by modern science along this very line, it isn't implausible. It may well have been a carry over from pre-existing Ayurvedic practice?

Can't you people have a grown up discussion about this? 

Veer ji can u please post pankitis from gursobha and prem sumarag about sukha?

[TigerForce1 170]

9 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

The whole point about rehit-namas and the differences between them is a whole discussion in itself, but there is evidence in Bhangu's Panth Prakash, Sainapati's Gursobha, Prem Sumarag Granth. 

There is also notice of this in the earliest european sources from the late 1700s. 

No one is telling anyone to do these things, but to whitewash your own people's history is weak. 

As alluded to previously, the people who did partake aren't likely to have done so for what we call 'recreational reasons' today. It may as well have been medical reasons? Given how sukha da tehl is being increasingly investigated by modern science along this very line, it isn't implausible. It may well have been a carry over from pre-existing Ayurvedic practice?

Can't you people have a grown up discussion about this? 

I don’t see how you see this practice as a part of our ancestral history.  What I chose to do independently outside of Sikhi cannot be associated with Sikhi practices. Similar as to how dietary influence is largely down to the landscape and culture of the region you belong to.  The same is for narcotics which are largely taken due to cultural influence and availability to the region.  Just because I eat potato chips in England this does not mean my future generations should adopt this, and somehow associate this with my religious identity.  Your cultural practices can be altered, discarded and chosen but your religious practices can never change,  whether that be in the 18th Century or the 21st.  

If you reword this with ‘medicinal, recreational drug use in the region of Punjab in the 17th-18th Century’, I would have no problem with this observation.  But as soon as someone quotes ‘Puratan Sikhs and use of Marijuana’, I am not comfortable with this!