• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Sikh Rehat Maryada - False Arguments, Fake Translations And Dubious Agendas

Status
Not open for further replies.

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
Going back to the essence of my original question before semantics and my diversion.. I suppose what I was getting at is that :
I genuinely don't understand the whole SRM thing

Because without being controversial that's where my rational has led. And I'm (definitely trying) laying out my understanding
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
Going back to the essence of my original question before semantics and my diversion.. I suppose what I was getting at is that :
I genuinely don't understand the whole SRM thing

Because without being controversial that's where my rational has led. And I'm (definitely trying) laying out my understanding
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Going back to the essence of my original question before semantics and my diversion.. I suppose what I was getting at is that :
I genuinely don't understand the whole SRM thing

Because without being controversial that's where my rational has led. And I'm (definitely trying) laying out my understanding
I am sorry to say I do not know what you do or do not understand about the SRM. Please elaborate each paragraph of SRM with your thoughts so we can further this original conversation in a fruitful manner. Thanks
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
I am sorry to say I do not know what you do or do not understand about the SRM. Please elaborate each paragraph of SRM with your thoughts so we can further this original conversation in a fruitful manner. Thanks
I'm sorry Tejwant ji but I can't possibly elaborate on each paragraph of the SRM..
Neither is My rationale to reject it based on it's contents . I fundamentally reject the need of such a document.. For me to accept the SRM as a source of truth I would have to accept the publishers ie. The SGPC as legitimate arbiters of said truth.. Which I don't.. So before I even consider the content of the SRM I will have to be convinced of the SGPC. I hope that makes sense?
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
I'm sorry Tejwant ji but I can't possibly elaborate on each paragraph of the SRM..
OK.

Neither is My rationale to reject it based on it's contents . I fundamentally reject the need of such a document..
This is a doublespeak. Please offer your reasons for saying, "I fundamentally reject the need of such a document.."

For me to accept the SRM as a source of truth I would have to accept the publishers ie.
Where did you get that from? Please offer some references so I can understand where you are coming from?

The SGPC as legitimate arbiters of said truth.. Which I don't..
Again, please supply some references for your claim.

So before I even consider the content of the SRM I will have to be convinced of the SGPC. I hope that makes sense?
Now you are mixing apples with mangoes I am afraid. I need some detailed explanations of your claim.

Btw, did you read my take on SRM that I wrote here many moons ago?
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
This is a doublespeak. Please offer your reasons for saying, "I fundamentally reject the need of such a document.."
This is my personal opinion . And to me makes perfect sense.. I believe that if guru sahibs wanted a -legal document to codify the sikh practices, define who is a sikh they would have created it ..



Where did you get that from? Please offer some references so I can understand where you are coming from?
Again this is my personal opinion.. And to me seems perfectly logical.. If I am to accept SRM as codified by the SGPC then I necessarily would need to accept the SGPC as legitimate arbiters of said content .

Again, please supply some references for your claim.
I don't know what references you would like? I am expressing my own humble opinions..

Fundamentally I don't recognise the SGPC a legitimate legal theocratic entity.. That is the basis of my rejection..

I find the politicisation of the sikh identity as fundamentally anti-sikh, when I read SRM and see how the very definition of 'sikh' has evolved and how the SRM is used as a document to provide ballast to wider political issues I am unable to reconcile that with my own personal views on sikhi and the message of guru nanak ji.. These are my opinions .. I also think that the SRM and it's establishment as a pseudo-legal document the first steps of a unconscious process towards creating a sikh shariah if you like..

I am making no claims as such, if you believe and are guided by SRM I have no problem with it.. I may disagree with it and not align with your thinking but that's my opinion..

I feel like you are challenging me in a defensive way rather having a dialogue .

May I now ask why I should as a sikh use the SRM as a guiding book..
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
@Tejwant Singh @Aman Singh I have just read your Synopsis on the link shared by Aman ji.. I'm in total agreement with that..

You've been pulling my leg.. Or I'm not making myself very clear which of course is highly likely and probable

You express far more eloquently than me.. Coming from a sociological background and one of political activism my starting point tends to be structural.. To look at the 'why', the 'how' and the motivations behind things .. Essentially I see the elevation of the SRM as a mechanism to consolidate 'power and authority' for the SGPC.. And nothing to do with sikhi..

I am quite reactionary and I should do better to keep that in check
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
This is my personal opinion . And to me makes perfect sense.. I believe that if guru sahibs wanted a -legal document to codify the sikh practices, define who is a sikh they would have created it ..
Do you know the history behind the SRM? Your opinion without the fundaments carries no weight.

Again this is my personal opinion.. And to me seems perfectly logical.. If I am to accept SRM as codified by the SGPC then I necessarily would need to accept the SGPC as legitimate arbiters of said content .
How did you come to that conclusion? Please read my very first post to you about it the one you rejected nonchalantly.

I don't know what references you would like? I am expressing my own humble opinions..
The references you based your opinions on.

Fundamentally I don't recognise the SGPC a legitimate legal theocratic entity.. That is the basis of my rejection..
We are in the same boat but you are incorrect in claiming that you have to accept SGPC to accept SRM which in my opinion is an evolving thing with time, the same way our own evolution in understanding Gurbani. SRM is just a framework which should be amended with what I mentioned above.

I find the politicisation of the sikh identity as fundamentally anti-sikh, when I read SRM and see how the very definition of 'sikh' has evolved and how the SRM is used as a document to provide ballast to wider political issues I am unable to reconcile that with my own personal views on sikhi and the message of guru nanak ji.. These are my opinions .. I also think that the SRM and it's establishment as a pseudo-legal document the first steps of a unconscious process towards creating a sikh shariah if you like..
Please provide some concrete examples of your above claim and what does "a pseudo-legal document" mean?

I am making no claims as such, if you believe and are guided by SRM I have no problem with it.. I may disagree with it and not align with your thinking but that's my opinion..
If I believed in the SRM the way it is, then I would not have written a write up for its changes.

I feel like you are challenging me in a defensive way rather having a dialogue .
Here we go again, you are always into a defensive, offensive mode. I am interacting with you. I have not accused you of anything. Yes, I am challenging you to push your intellectual muscle in this mental gym.

May I now ask why I should as a sikh use the SRM as a guiding book..
Guiding book in what sense? Please read the above article by Dr. Karminder Singh again and I am in agreement with him in the general idea.

Lastly, Sukh Singh, I am a bit appalled, to be honest, how can you reject something without knowing its history and why SRM was needed?
Your opinions matter naught if you do not have the basic knowledge of the fundamentals. This is the reason I mentioned doublespeak in my last post.
 
Last edited:

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
Do you know the history behind the SRM? Your opinion without the fundaments carries no weight.


How did you come to that conclusion? Please read my very first post to you about it the one you rejected nonchalantly.


The references you based your opinions on.


We are in the same boat but you are incorrect in claiming that you have to accept SGPC to accept SRM which in my opinion is an evolving thing with time, the same way our own evolution in understanding Gurbani. SRM is just a framework which should be amended with what I mentioned above.


Please provide some concrete examples of your above claim and what does "a pseudo-legal document" mean?


If I believed in the SRM the way it is, then I would not have written a write up for its changes.


Here we go again, you are always into a defensive, offensive mode. I am interacting with you. I have not accused you of anything. Yes, I am challenging you to push your intellectual muscle in this mental gym.


Guiding book in what sense? Please read the above article by Dr. Karminder Singh again and I am in agreement with him in the general idea.

Lastly, Sukh Singh, I am a bit appalled, to be honest, how can you reject something without knowing its history and why SRM was needed?
Your opinions matter naught if you do not have the basic knowledge of the fundamentals. This is the reason I mentioned doublespeak in my last post.
Paji please with all due respect I think we are talking cross purposes..
Brother If you want understand my rational and want to engage on a level where we can exchange ideas, then surely the starting point has to be where accept that both our opinions are built upon our own learnings..

If as you say my opinions 'matter naught . Then I am not sure why we are communicating, why you would be wasting your breath on me..

In all our exchanges you have asked from me to provide a rationale for my thinking.. Which I have provided, I have opened myself up to interrogation.. I feel I have answered the question why I think a document like the SRM is 'needed'.. Please see above. I'll say it again just so that it is clear what my opinion is . I believe that the need for a document such as the SRM is not required
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Paji please with all due respect I think we are talking cross purposes..
No, we are not I am afraid.

Brother If you want understand my rational and want to engage on a level where we can exchange ideas, then surely the starting point has to be where accept that both our opinions are built upon our own learnings.
I agree, however, opinions are based on some information. Every time I asked you for the information/references, you refuse to give me those. In the absence of that, I have not the faintest on what information your opinion is based. You have failed to supply that despite my several requests.

If as you say my opinions 'matter naught . Then I am not sure why we are communicating, why you would be wasting your breath on me.
Yes, without any proper references no opinion matters anything.

In all our exchanges you have asked from me to provide a rationale for my thinking.. Which I have provided, I have opened myself up to interrogation.
Firstly, it is an interaction, not an interrogation. Here you get into your defensive mode sans needs. Please repost where you have provided your rationale when asked. I must have missed it.

I feel I have answered the question why I think a document like the SRM is 'needed'.. Please see above. I'll say it again just so that it is clear what my opinion is. I believe that the need for a document such as the SRM is not required
Once again, opinions without references are not opinions but proclamations like,"I believe that the need for a document such as the SRM is not required," without giving any reasoning from your side. In this case, your opinion has become your belief as you mentioned.
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
No, we are not I am afraid.


I agree, however, opinions are based on some information. Every time I asked you for the information/references, you refuse to give me those. In the absence of that, I have not the faintest on what information your opinion is based. You have failed to supply that despite my several requests.


Yes, without any proper references no opinion matters anything.


Firstly, it is an interaction, not an interrogation. Here you get into your defensive mode sans needs. Please repost where you have provided your rationale when asked. I must have missed it.


Once again, opinions without references are not opinions but proclamations like,"I believe that the need for a document such as the SRM is not required," without giving any reasoning from your side. In this case, your opinion has become your belief as you mentioned.
I believe I have articulated my reasoning behind my opinions
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top