I too, would like to hear your reasoning for your beliefs. I tried to find the thread in which you explained this but didn't see it. Perhaps you could explain more about it here for those of us who weren't around when it was discussed before.
If you don't believe Dasam Granth was written by Guru Gobind Singh ji, then do you follow rehat maryada? What about the Khalsa? Where do you stand on that and amrit? How many Sikhs are out there that believe as you do? This is interesting to me because I picked up on quite a few things that seem like contradictions in some of the philosophies concerning these issues from the very beginning of my experience on this forum. And, although I've read more about the political conflicts and oppression of Sikhs in Punjab, especially conflicts with Hindutsva, I have more understanding of the necessity of some of the 'policies' of Sikhism, i.e., the rehat maryada and central government of the religion. But I still am a little disturbed by some things that continue to appear to me as contradictions.
I readily admit that I am NOT knowledgable about Sikhi and so I don't really want anyone to get offended or emotional about this. I am asking in order to learn. I have heard a couple points of view that support the current structure of the organized religion of Sikhism. I would like to hear the view points of others as well. For instance, I don't quite understand why some Sikhs get so passionately offended at the idea that the current "mainstream" practices have rituals built in when it is so obviously so. I am currently reading the rehat maryada and the rituals are clearly outlined right up on the page... just how to carry the SGGS, how to walk around this way, how to enter, who can sing and who can't and exactly what they can and can't sing, which knee to have up and which to have down etc etc... Now, I am not criticizing this. There is nothing wrong with having this kind of structure if that's what the religion believes in and feels they need. My question is why is it such a cardinal sin to call it what it is? And my other question is if I am the only one who wonders why it doesn't seem to disturb anybody that those are the kinds of things that Guru Nanak spoke against.
Who says what is and isn't gurbani? Who says what is and isn't Guru Gobind Singh's writing? And why is it such a horrible thing to ask these questions?
When was rehat maryada written? What is the date? Who made the decisions? What did they base those decisions on?
When I ask these questions I mainly get the history of oppression of Sikhs by Hindus and have heard that people who question this current structure are mainly undercover Hindu saboteurs out to deconstruct Sikhism from within (or without as the case may be).
But I just can't believe that wanting to know when rehat maryada was written, by whom, and by whose authority should be a taboo question. I also don't think it should be taboo to say that it seems to conflict with the message of Sikhi. Politics aside - I just would like to have my questions answered. I am not trying to align myself with Hindutsva -- I just want to know if rehat maryada was something that came from the guru's writings or if it is something that was made up later by a group of officials and if so, by what authority did they make the rules up?
Is there any other authority in other groups or is this the only one? Is it the authority because it holds the majority of followers or does it have another base for authority? Obviously there are Sikhs who don't subscribe to all of it's edicts. What is the basis for their beliefs?