JasperS

Something for thought if you are against the cruelty to animals in the meat industry, and this is from india too. 
 
https://m.yourstory.com/2017/03/dairy-industry/

This is seriously unbelievable. First of all, a Sikh should NEVER do anything for ANY worldly desires. To be frank, this sounds like Hindu superstition. Sikhs don't pray for worldly things or do rituals for worldly desires.  Or perhaps dhera concocted stories to create control in the members.
And a Sikh is to recite naam with every breath. Remember Waheguru with every beat of your heart every day. One will find Waheguru much easier by ACTION of selfless service.  Do seva for others, and remember Waheguru with every breath while doing so. There is no need to count jaaps, sit in certain way, like ritual and superstition.  
I don't know where you are getting your idea of Sikhi Paapiman, but you seriously need to reevaluate what Sikhi is and what it is NOT. 
And a person would never go mad doing this.  Either it was for show, or something else unrelated happened or its a concocted story.
I am really starting to wonder about what is being touted as Sikhi as of late! 

Wow, veils for women, multiple wives. Sounds like Islam, not Sikhi. 

Woe you really like putting women down huh?
There was research that done that proved the reason males have more muscle capacity is because the overall metabolic burden on both male and female bodies are the same. Since women expend so much of that burden on growing an entire human being, it balances out.  Yes fine men can be stronger. That doesn't mean men are better, and it certainly doesnt mean men get to be in control of everything. Humans deserve to all be treated equally.  I was just pointing out that size doesn't necessarily matter. That someone small can be more agile and use the larger person's size against them. You know the bigger they are the harder they fall. And military is not all ground pounders anymore either. Fine the men want to be the grunts? The privates in the field, let them. The women can command back at base, or operate high tech drones, or even be tank crew, or yes even fighter pilots where actually women are more suited to the g force and being able to track more contacts at once. "Women make better fighter pilots than men because the female body is better suited to handle g-force and less likely to lose consciousness during flight." That coupled with being better at multitasking make women better fighter pilots. But would say men should never be fighter pilots? Same reason you cant say women should never be infantry either. If the person can do the job and is motivated, then let them. But what does this even have to do with harassment? 
I was just pointing out that MANY females are fighting back, and winning, against their attackers. That somehow makes you mad? Then you have issues. 
 
 

I dont have a lot of time before I have to head out, but here are a few. And I remember a really great example where a young girl actually fought off multiple male attackers to the point she injured all 4 of them!  Most male attackers preying on young women are not trained fighters, so when these girls attack they are not expecting it at all. 
And to suggest that the black belt master testing her was holding back suggests that she was cheated out of really qualifying for her belt. In other words she was just handed it is what you are saying. Trust me that was not the case! They are not allowed to do that as ITC TaeKwon Do is regulated at the world level. If anyone was found out just giving girls their belts without them actually earning them, the Masters in Korea would shut them down and probably take away that instructors qualifications. 
Anyway here are a few good examples.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11617129/Female-kickboxer-knocks-out-sex-attacker-who-pounces-as-she-walks-home.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2790060/attacker-left-battered-bruised-trying-grab-young-teenage-girl-martial-arts-expert.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10729692/Girl-fights-off-attacker-with-jiu-jitsu-skills

 

And I thought you said Charitropakhyan was not about women but was some deep mystical meaning and not bashing of women? Then why post this and link it to Charitropakhyan unless you do believe Charitropakhyan IS a slam on women.  News flash, we have done these things to women in far greater numbers than they have ever done to us, and that too all throughout history. If you ask me, we are the ones who caused some of them to lash back in this way. Hey they learned how to do it from the best - Us! 
 
 

So please tell me then brother, are you saying souls which get a female body are lower status than we are?  If so, then you have to qualify why. I don't think gurbani says anywhere that being born female is result of any past sin. (I am well aware of the passage where it says that a man who thinks of women (in sexual sense) at death will come back as prostitute, but that is a specific situation where women are exploited, and the one guilty of that exploitation what better punishment than to experience what it's like to be on the receiving end of that same exploitation. Same as a slave owner a fitting punishment would be to experience being a slave. This is not saying being a woman in general is a lower status than males. Just like saying a slave is not in a lower status. It's the ones doing the exploiting who are guilty.)  Other than that Gurbani says akal purakh is both the male AND the female. Gurbani also says for US as in all of us who walk the life of a gurmukh, to see all equally. I don't think you are following that. 
Gender matters only on superficial things. Yes you are correct! This HUMAN body was given and is our chance to merge with the one! Notice it does not say this male human body? It says this human body. The reason why a human body is required is because its only through this developed of consciousness that we can contemplate creation, creator, and our purpose. The animals are unable to do this because of lack of higher reasoning. They can certainly reason as my naughty little moggie will prove, but higher reasoning is not provided more to one gender over the other init? 
Being of medical background I have perspective on biology, and gender is only required for procreation. (the proof is that some species do exist which procreate asexually, snails for one) And the reason why gender was even needed was that genetically speaking, asexual reproduction is unreliable to prevent errors in the DNA the more complex a species becomes, requiring diversity of genetic material. This does not establish hierarchy though as both genders are equal halves of the same whole, the human species. Just like yin and yang can not be in a hierarchy, they must be in balance, so to the genders. As long as hierarchy exists in any state we will never achieve balance.  But proof is in gurbani. If gurbani is telling us that male and female are equal and moreover that we are to TREAT male and female equally (and you can not contest this fact) then how can you argue against gurbani?  How can you blatantly ignore what is written in guru granth sahib? How can you still think females are lower status than males?
Anyway I wanted to stay out of these conversations so that's my last word on that. It seems all these type of conversations turn into full out argument and it seems this forum is not too open to this subject. 
So my final comment on this matter, is I agree totally with what Lucky Ji said, the gender of the Gurus was inconsequential. Their body was a vehicle that we could interact with. The gender of that body at that time I imagine had to be male only for cultural reasoning, I mean look at even now, you flat out refuse to see your sisters on equal level with you, so imagine at that time if light of Guru Nanak Dev Ji had come in a female body would any pig headed males have listened? (and I say pig headed in jest, as I know I can be sometimes just ask my wife )  
 

I think you are seriously missing the mark. 
I don't think Lucky Ji meant that we have to walk around blind. We need to see to navigate. But we need to see beyond this illusion of Maya. 
If one arrives to Gurdwara in a red car and another in a blue car does it really matter?  The point is they both were going to the same destination and neither should have limitations placed or be put into status hierarchies because of what vehicle they happen to drive to get there. The body is just a vehicle and we are the passenger inside it and the passengers are all the same. In the case of the Gurus, it was the light inside that we follow, the vehicle tat they happened to arrive in, is inconsequential and ceased to exist even in their case. (or are you trying to say a male body is some higher status than a female one? Because Gurbani tells us otherwise and without getting into details because I fear from recent events this forum is not open about these topics but you know its true) The light is the only permanence. If you can't see it, then it's your own issue. 
My comment to Lucky Ji stands. 
 
 
 
 

In absolute concurrence with the above! Gurus were not the body, they were the jyot within. 

OK Lads, here's something to ponder over.......
Sant is not Brahmgyani.. There is a difference.  I've spent some time absorbing the gurbani and meditating, and seem to notice the distinctions. If someone wants to bring quotes and shabads that may seem otherwise, then we can surely discuss in separate threads.
 
With reference to this particular thread about "Women as Guru" , I would probably say that some of us moorakhs could easily label a 'sant' as a woman sant or a man sant. However, if the moorakh happens to know a brahmgyani and has actually swallowed some of the gyan that emanates from brahmgyani, then they would be unlikely to refer to brahmgyani in any form of dualism. i.e.. man/woman, black/white, christian/muslim
 
Brahmgyani= Has the knowledge of all divine and human things. Lets say that brahmgyani knows both the NATURE and WISDOM of God.
Sant= Is a servant...a Sikh...one who speaks from experience,...also on journey back home.....on journey to full brahmgyan.,..but still in maya and dualism like us.
 
As for the "Guru as women" op of this thread.  All i can say is that if I see a guru and then subconsciously or consciously, group them into man -woman category, then I've already failed to witness a true guru.   Why?.... because, I've foolishly bought dualism into the forefront.
Being a male or a female is just the vehicle of the mind and soul on this human realm.
Are we following the soul or the vehicle? .....Do we judge the mind & soul as guru or the vehicle?... If the vehicle was guru, then it would have made sense to mummify all the gurus body's back then.
Problem is that we are always making judgments and looking via our physical eyes.  We need to learn to use the eyes of the consciousness
 
 
 
 
 

Pati Parmeshwar concept has no place in Sikhi. Not unless it goes hand in hand with "Patni Parmeshwari".  Seeing God in each other, it goes both ways.

ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਹੈ ਸੋਇ ॥
Sabẖ mėh joṯ joṯ hai so▫e.
The Divine Light is within everyone; You are that Light.
If the divine light is within everyone as Gurbani says, then I am no more her pati parmeshwar than my wife is my patni parmeshwari. To expect her to look up to me as something higher than her is unthinkable.
But seeing the divine in someone is different than seeing someone AS God. No human should ever be seen AS God. That is left for Waheguru alone. 

Came across this old picture of the akal takht

Chatanga Ji I do t know why you keep bringing up marriage LOL I already answered. It's reproduction and species preservation which drives attraction. That has nothing to do with Amrit or the soul.
Yes women can administer Amrit. I already have you example of masands prior to 1699. Masands had full authority to administer Amrit by charan pahul. We know there were women masands. It makes no sense to all of a sudden bar women from something which they had Guru given authority prior. 
Also as I said since becoming Khalsa is spiritual and puts everyone on same level as equals it makes no sense to treat some as lesser by limiting what they can do in spiritual sense. 
You may say and want Panj Pyaras always be males but there have been females. If you want to take Amrit from all males the go to taksal. But taksal maryada should not be imposed on rest of the panth because it goes against gurmat principles as laid out in Gurbani. There is nothing in Gurbani saying women have some lower position to men. Also you seem to be trying very hard to tip toe around the fact that male and female both can be living image of the Guru and since Panj Pyaras is essentially representing Guru Ji both genders can do this. It's the jot not the genetalia which matters. Your thinking is typical male mysoginistic thinking. You can't give any good reason except saying women and men are different? Ok physically yes we are but Amrit is not about the physical. It's a spiritual act. If women take same Amrit as men and give their heads symbolically same as men then they can also do seva as Panj Pyaras.   Otherwise give women a separate sanchar which is also considered lower. You can't initiate someone and then tell them they will never really be 'fully' Khalsa. Akal Takht agrees on this. What individual Sikhs do is their own issue. Singhs who are keeping Kaurs in a lower position in Sikhi will be held accountable eventually by higher authority. 
I don't care if mysoginistic Sighs want to go to males for Amrit. But don't stop Kaurs from being able to take Amrit from other Kaurs. I don't care if taksalis stay to themselves and keep their maryada for them only. Even Jarnail singh ji was quoted saying taksal maryada is only for taksalis. But don't force it on rest of panth. Women can choose that way, to avoid associating with taksalis if they feel oppressed. 
Here is a photo In India. Five females doing seva as Panj Pyaras. And yes it was for sanchar. And no they are not AKJ. So no, hate to bust your bubble but it won't always be (and hasn't always been) only males. Also remember the written history we have usually only deals with notable Amrit sanchars where prominent person took Amrit and were comparably few when thinking of how many sanchars took place. So just because the few writing we have doesn't illustrate any women doing this doesn't mean in the thousands and thousands of other sanchars taking place that were not written about there were likely women, especially in cases where males were scarce because they were away possibly fighting etc. Just because they were not written about doesn't mean it didn't happen. And it's also well known that males tend to leave forgotten female stories out of history anyway. (Just look how many stories about male sants and so few stories written about female sants. It's not because they don't exist. It's because males generally step in limelight all the time to detriment of females.).
It's time we stopped treating fellow equal souls as lesser than us because of what body they are in. In reality they are the same light. And please don't bring up marriage again as if you are too stupid to understand the mechanics of procreation and why males and females have to marry, then I can't explain it to you. 

So then what things in Sikhi did the Gurus give to women that men dont have?  If rights are given to men that women dont have certainly there would be things to balance it out that women have which men dont? And dont say childbirth because that has nothing to do with religion. I mean in the religion. Because if rights were given to men more than women, then it very much does make a statement of superiority and preference. How are the women supposed to feel when the only reason they have these fewer less rights than you, is their gender (something they had no control over)?  Certainly seems like Waheguru is giving preference to some souls over others no? To be born in a male body is then a privilege while being born a female which already has hardships like childbirth is even less privileged with these fewer less rights in Sikhi.  
You really have to stop doing nindiya of people especially her. 
How do you explain the tuk CdnSikhGirl posted above?
As gurmukh look upon all with single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained.  Are you gurmukh or manmukh? The choice is yours.

I can't believe you guys are labelling this as a controversial topic but paying no attention or concern for the op at all, rather the opposite. As Sikhs I find this shameful. We're not on about suspicion and pointing fingers, aren't we supposed to help?
Admins: Might I make a suggestion, perhaps create a sub forum where guests can post (because many even those who have user names) may want to broach a controversial topic and don't want their reputation on rest of site defamed because of their views on a particular subject which is hard to talk about. Like bar guest topics creation on rest of site but create a subforum specifically for controversial topics where people can post anonymously / as a guest. Then it will be contained to one sub forum at least and those who don't want to read those topics don't have to.
On a side note, I posted before as a guest and due to suggestion to make an account I did. Now I am being accused of being someone else. So you can't win, and it doesn't really matter anyway in the end.  People will still have their agendas and be weary of anyone who disagrees with their agenda. On both sides.

What if it's not? And there is a young girl out there who might be thinking of doing something stupid? Guest Sukhdev above mentioned in the extreme what can happen what these thoughts start to occur. It would be a huge tragedy and fault on our part if we dismissed this person and then see in the news story of a young girl who commits suicide to escape being a girl. (or rather to escape the limitations and lower position we put on girls).  We can't take the chance to cause that.

These are good points that also need to be resolved. Turbans all around for Amritdhari. And no removal of kesh for anyone! Easy. I actually think if more girls tied dastaars the Singhs would start seeing them more as equals actually! 
But nobody can force anyone to do anything. Becoming Amritdhari is by choice not by compelling someone. Every Sikh boy I know who cuts his kesh, has not been subject of wrath by anyone. Rather, people felt disappointed and sad. But it was the boys choice! 
 
 

Guest Sharanpreet, please do not feel disheartened. Our Gurus taught that all humans are equal and deserve equal treatment. 

This says it all, this is all you need to know:
Guru Granth Sahib ji Ang 599
ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਏਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੨॥
Gurmukẖ ek ḏarisat kar ḏekẖhu gẖat gẖat joṯ samo▫ī jī▫o. ||2||
As Gurmukh, look upon all with the single eye of equality; in each and every heart, the Divine Light is contained. ||2||
If we Sikhs all followed this, there would be no problem. We would understand that gender is only transitory and means nothing. Its not a punishment, though yes there are challenges to being female that we as males will never understand. Waheguru would never have made you female if he did not think you were up to that challenge. In that way, it is actually maybe more meritorious being born female than it is being born male. 
Its your choice if you want to have children, or even be married. You can pursue any career you want (even if your parents do not agree, you just might have to do it once you leave their home is all). And what some Sikhs think or do, does not speak to the philosophy itself. If Singhs are keeping women from seva, that is them who is doing it, not Waheguru or our Gurus, who all taught that women should have dull equality to men. All seva is open to you, yes ALL. You just need to find Gurdwaras that do not discriminate or have attitude like paapiman in the screenshots above. 
Dont let anyone tell you that you cant do something because you are a girl. I tell my own daughter that all the time!  And if anyone tries to tell her that, I will give them piece of my mind!
 

'Rehatnameh' by Piara Singh Padam.

You are aware that's not evidence, right? 

Agreed on finding the right Panj Pyaras however, that secret should NEVER have been kept from his wife. She had every right to know if her husband was a cheater. If he had came clean to her himself maybe things would have been much better, but hiding the deed from her, was wrong on so many levels. Obviously he was affected mentally by his misdeed, and the results of it. But the choice to take his life was his alone and had nothing to do with his wife or family. He rightly should have come clean himself and dealt with the aftershock. Just by admitting his wrongs to his wife, she would feel much more like he was able to be trusted again in future.  So while I agree the Panj Pyaras should not divulge information, I think it was HUGELY wrong to keep the cheating a secret from his wife. It was HIS duty to tell his wife he screwed up. You keep wanting to drag women name through the mud and use dasam granth as support, but then stories like this you make it sound like keeping the secret from his wife was the right thing to do. Remember it was not her who was cheating, it was him. And to follow what dasam granth says - that being men should keep secrets from women - only leads to disaster. Let's not put blame on the wrong person here. Keeping secrets is wrong, and cheating is wrong. Unfortunately this Singh learned the hard way and could not deal with the consequences of his actions. 
 

Agreed on finding the right Panj Pyaras however, that secret should NEVER have been kept from his wife. She had every right to know if her husband was a cheater. If he had came clean to her himself maybe things would have been much better, but hiding the deed from her, was wrong on so many levels. Obviously he was affected mentally by his misdeed, and the results of it. But the choice to take his life was his alone and had nothing to do with his wife or family. He rightly should have come clean himself and dealt with the aftershock. Just by admitting his wrongs to his wife, she would feel much more like he was able to be trusted again in future.  So while I agree the Panj Pyaras should not divulge information, I think it was HUGELY wrong to keep the cheating a secret from his wife. It was HIS duty to tell his wife he screwed up. You keep wanting to drag women name through the mud and use dasam granth as support, but then stories like this you make it sound like keeping the secret from his wife was the right thing to do. Remember it was not her who was cheating, it was him. And to follow what dasam granth says - that being men should keep secrets from women - only leads to disaster. Let's not put blame on the wrong person here. Keeping secrets is wrong, and cheating is wrong. Unfortunately this Singh learned the hard way and could not deal with the consequences of his actions. 
 

Guests, just ignore this paapiman. Here is a small sampling of what he thinks of women, quoted from this site over the past year or so. You can see, its hard to take him seriously, who has such skewed views of the female gender and such obvious hatred, which has blinded him to the point that he is misinterpreting Gurbani to support his own misogynistic views. 
These are actual quotes from this site from this paapiman member (yes, he actually said these things):
 
He believes women are disgusting and impure:


He believes men should never listen to a woman's advice: 


He believes women are downgrades to men:


 
He equates women with lesser beings like animals, plants and insects. (Apparently transgenders are also lumped in there):


He believes women are only half human, not full humans. Only men are fully human:


He believes women are to see husbands as God, but no mention of the husband seeing his wife as God - which as you can see above, he suggests most men are not high enough avastha to see the divine light in women:



How can anyone take what this member says seriously?? For that matter does anyone take him seriously at all??
What he is touting is not Sikhi. Just ignore him and let him spam his hatred. If nobody replies, he will eventually give up. I think he only does it for attention.

Admins why do you even allow this to go on? It's no wonder you have no female members! What are Kaurs supposed to think when they come here and read all of the above? If the statements were instead against a different race or skin colour, I am sure you would remove the posts as being racist and bigoted. So why do you allow it when it's against Kaurs?

I'm not denying any of the Seva Taksal did in the 80s and 70s. I respect the fact that Baba Gurbachan Singh and his 2 successors respected the Maryada at Akal Takhat. However, that doesn't mean I'd like them to be in charge of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib as the authority over the Panth. Indeed I won't know what they would do in such situations, no one would. But a track record is sufficient to provide insight in to what might've happened. 
I haven't made any hyperbole as of now. I've been careful not to.  

Division of labour is fine as long as every happy. It should be the choice of the couple what they want to do.abour is also divided by mental ability too and also dexterity and in today's world these are far more important than brute force in 90% of careers. What Chatanga was saying is that women must serve their husbands (and not the other way around) even today when both work. I agree if one spouse is not contributing financially they should not be able to sit around and do nothing on the sofa all day (male or female!).
But what Chatanga was saying is that it is always the wife's duty to serve her husband and not the other way around. So even when you have both spouses working full time it's still her job to do all the housework and cooking and serve it to him on a silver platter.  I was pointing out that the shabad was only using a cultural reference for THAT time in history as a comparison and that the shabad is not implying that women always must serve the man and not the other way around. He also mentioned sons and parents and I pointed out that too is cultural. In reality all humans should seek to serve all others. Leave the how up to each couple to decide how to do that between themselves. In today's world that usually means splitting the house tasks and not shoving them all on the woman because most couples even in India both work nowadays at least in the cities.