Very Interesting Critique Of Sgpc Rehat Maryada By Taksaal

[paapiman]

22 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Te Raagmale Di Gal Tu Naa hee karre, Bhala va. 

Disbelief in Sri Raagmala Sahib jee equates to heresy. 

 

Bhul chul maaf

[paapiman]

22 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Bhai Vir Singh isn't Taksali, by the way. He just Believed in Raagmala.

Bhai Sahib Bhai Vir SIngh jee was a student of Gyani Hazara Singh jee, who was a Taksali Vidhwaan.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

On 11/9/2016 at 2:38 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Your Mahapursh interpret Gurbani far more differently than the rest of the Panth to begin with.

 They interpret Gurbani, as it was taught by Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh jee Maharaaj to his beloved Sikhs.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[JasperS]

2 hours ago, WakeUp said:

I have only been on here as a guest before making this account and then you guys made guest make account. 

Haha I have been accused of the same. I was here for a brief period when the user they mentioned was being heavily abused for having views similar to yours (and my own) about gender equality. I was accused briefly of also being that same user and now find it funny that anyone who believes in equality is accused of the same (like there must only be one Sikh who thinks women deserve more). I think that member has left because I have not seen them around in a long time but from what I noticed, what she was subjected to on here was horrible. Anyway your arguments are sound. It's the minds of these misogynists who can't open to the fact that its about soul and not the body. By limiting those in female bodies, they are creating a hierarchy and false status that Gurus warned us about. Otherwise, being born female is as you suggested, a punishment. And then you have to qualify why, especially when our Gurus worked to abolish any system which places people in hierarchies based on something they had no control over, their birth. I flat out refuse to see my wife as anything lower than I am, and I flat out refuse to endorse anything which gives her less rights because she is a Kaur. 

[chatanga1]

21 hours ago, WakeUp said:

Except we are not talking just Amrit sanchars. Does the one putting the patase get a say in what punishment one receives for bujjar kurehits? And what about when Panj Pyaras are formed for decision to be made on behalf of the panth? There is no patase being added ther is there? So how would a female have any input on these decisions? If it's always males then no females ever have any say in these things.

Can't see it making a difference. The Gurus made all the decisions. They were males. 5 pyare are an extension of the Guru. So it makes no difference essentially.

 

21 hours ago, WakeUp said:

And Chatanga yes the consciousness is what gave their heads. The consciousness is what made the decision to. Which head they had at the time did not matter. I have come to the conclusion that you are just misogynistic and will never change which is a pitty. Yes masands were disbanded but Yiu had asked about women administering Amrit in that time and I gave you real world examples. It makes no sense that Guru Ji then decided to discriminate against women after 1699. And you keep harping on proof in history after 1699. We barely have any written history at all about who took part in Amrit sanchars after 1699! Usually only sanchars with prominent people being initiated were written about and those were mostly military etc. we can't use only those few examples as litmus test for all time! What about Amrit sanchars which took place in villages especially when many singhs would have been away fighting? It makes sense that women would have been the ones administering it in those cases but they weren't high profile so they were not written about. Have an open mind. Your resistance to women as Panj Pyaras seems to be rooted more in your own disgust at the idea than actually looking to see if it is in accordance with Gurbani and gurmat principles. In other words you go looking for the negative where there isn't. 

 

No it is not consciousness. Thre Sikhs all had consciousness at the time of Guru Teg Bahadur's shaheedi, but they were too afraid to some forward openly. Guru Sahib left it so no Sikhs could ever remain hidden again. So Guru Sahib asked for heads. Physically. Not spiritiually.

I have come to the conclusion that you are a feminazi and will always look or any opportunity to complain and make false claims wherever and whenever you can about men. Yes women were masands, and it was well documented, but a century or two later, there is no documentation whatsoever of any females being part of the Panj.  And whatever scarce history we may have, certainly does not help your point at all. We have more than enough history to know that Guru Sahib wrote Dasam Granth but yet you deny that. You pick and choose at history and accept/deny anything according to your feminazi thinking.

 

How do you know that Pahul Sinchaars took place in villages where Singhs were away? How would you claim at all that  because of this, women would have adminstered Pahul? That is a load of rubbish. They are fancy thoguhts just because you haven't got any answers Guri Ji! You need to have an open mind. Because women (oe men) aren't a part of anything that doesn't mean they are discriminated against, or held in contempt. Your resistance to acknowledging that women were never part of the Panj seems to be more rooted in your own feigned disgust at women not being part of something and claiming it as misogyny. In other words you go making up negatives where there are none.

[chatanga1]

30 minutes ago, JasperS said:

Haha I have been accused of the same. I was here for a brief period when the user they mentioned was being heavily abused for having views similar to yours (and my own) about gender equality.

 

Jaspreet, l can see the similarities between you and her in that she told a lot of lies and promoted her heresy on this forum. Why are you lying and saying it was because of her views on women in the Panj, that her nindak-puna was countered, when it was her great nindya of Dasme Patshah's Granth that caused her own downfall. Stop lying please.

 

30 minutes ago, JasperS said:

 And then you have to qualify why, especially when our Gurus worked to abolish any system which places people in hierarchies based on something they had no control over, their birth. I flat out refuse to see my wife as anything lower than I am, and I flat out refuse to endorse anything which gives her less rights because she is a Kaur. 

 

Oh the drama! What a drama queen you are! I won't my wife lower endorese less rights kaur blah blah blah. Guru Sahib gave women spiritual equality which was not found in other religions. Still no woman was made Guru. Now you will become an even greater enemy of your Guru because no woman was made Guru won't you?. I wonder what your wife makes of this.

 

[JasperS]

26 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Jaspreet, l can see the similarities between you and her in that she told a lot of lies and promoted her heresy on this forum. Why are you lying and saying it was because of her views on women in the Panj, that her nindak-puna was countered, when it was her great nindya of Dasme Patshah's Granth that caused her own downfall. Stop lying please.

 

 

Oh the drama! What a drama queen you are! I won't my wife lower endorese less rights kaur blah blah blah. Guru Sahib gave women spiritual equality which was not found in other religions. Still no woman was made Guru. Now you will become an even greater enemy of your Guru because no woman was made Guru won't you?. I wonder what your wife makes of this.

 

You sound like you are having a hissy fit chatanga. Please act like an adult instead of whining because other males don't agree with your misogynistic attitude. Simply put, placing restrictions on one, and privilege on the other, IS discrimination.
Dictionary Definition of the word Discrimination: "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."  Limiting females based on nothing but their being 'female' (their sex) is discrimination in ANY definition of the word. 

You can't see the logic in this. If you say that being born in a female body places certain restrictions and limitations on a soul, then you can't also then say that soul is being seen equally spiritually can you? Because that soul was born into punishment. 

If all souls are equal, then what body one is born into should not equal a punishment (having less rights) Being thrust into subordinate role because of the body one is born into, is a punishment. To not have equal say or voice in religious matters is punishment. Especially when religious matters ARE spiritual, and it's the spiritual which you say is equal! If all souls are equal, why then would some be born into this lower position physically to have to endure a lower existence while alive, if not for some inequality in their spirit? You have created a paradox! 

Your ideals are going directly against gurbani. There is nothing in our only Guru, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, which says those souls born into female bodies will have less rights than those born into male bodies. In fact quite the opposite. To give one gender more rights over the other, is creating a hierarchy. And ALL hierarchies are false. This is in Gurbani in plain language! 

As for my wife, she is probably more consistent with spiritual practice than I am (and I'd hazard a guess probably even you!) I refuse to see her as having less of the divine light, or somehow being punished and not being able to represent the Guru's light for something she had no control over, being born female. I refuse to give my daughter hopelessness as a female.  

This thinking is NO DIFFERENT than casteism! It just has a different name, and because males have been able to dominate females for so long, it somehow seems ok. But only. its NOT ok. I pray Waheguru to open your eyes! Either that or I pray Waheguru to make you female rest of your times on this earth so you can experience what its like yourself to be told you aren't good enough, over and over again, simply because you don't have the right sexual organs. 

I SEE the divine light in my wife! I see her as my absolute equal! Nothing you say will change that! Her soul is genderless as is mine. We are together this life because biology dictates in order to have children. But aside from that, we look past our gender. I could easily see her doing seva as one of the Panj Pyaras and would not think twice about taking amrit from a woman like her. Its because I already see that light. No nonsense about light coming down into anyone. It's already there! 

Stop this crusade to turn Sikhi into another sexist religion.

 

 

[amardeep]

2 hours ago, JasperS said:

Haha I have been accused of the same. I was here for a brief period when the user they mentioned was being heavily abused for having views similar to yours (and my own) about gender equality. I was accused briefly of also being that same user and now find it funny that anyone who believes in equality is accused of the same (like there must only be one Sikh who thinks women deserve more). I think that member has left because I have not seen them around in a long time but from what I noticed, what she was subjected to on here was horrible. Anyway your arguments are sound. It's the minds of these misogynists who can't open to the fact that its about soul and not the body. By limiting those in female bodies, they are creating a hierarchy and false status that Gurus warned us about. Otherwise, being born female is as you suggested, a punishment. And then you have to qualify why, especially when our Gurus worked to abolish any system which places people in hierarchies based on something they had no control over, their birth. I flat out refuse to see my wife as anything lower than I am, and I flat out refuse to endorse anything which gives her less rights because she is a Kaur. 

Not at all. It's because you use the same arguments, same sequence of writing, often repeating the same thing over and over again, attributing views onto the other members they have not claimed to have aand exhibit traits of having been on this forum for many years instead of merely guests passing by.

In any case, if im wrong I apologize. But people on here should not use multiple ID's..

[WakeUp]

2 hours ago, amardeep said:

Not at all. It's because you use the same arguments, same sequence of writing, often repeating the same thing over and over again, attributing views onto the other members they have not claimed to have aand exhibit traits of having been on this forum for many years instead of merely guests passing by.

In any case, if im wrong I apologize. But people on here should not use multiple ID's..

Bhaji have you ever thought people can use the same arguments because they are actually valid? Multiple Singhs on here use the same argument that Jarnail singh said because no woman gave her head that day no woman ever can be part of panj Pyaras. And its always presented the same way. But have you ever thought that these members are the same one? I doubt it. Just because Jasper Ji and I have different view point from the majority on here and because we use the same argument doesn't mean we are another member on here. It's because we feel our arguments are valid and if another member had these same arguments before both of us then they too I feel had valid points that need to be brought up. There are only so many ways to say that something goes against Gurbani. There are only so many ways to say we are equal and all have the divine light. There are only so many ways one can say that sexism is same as casteism. I thought I provided much truth based on Gurbani and gurmat principles to support my case. If I am not the only one presenting these ideas then that is evidence there is merit to them that others have thought the same! 

Prior to registering I was only ever a guest. I did come here to read for about 1 year. Though I did once use a different guest name posting but I didn't know we had to use same one all the time so once you pointed it out I stuck with this one. It's ok, I think you just can't fathom that multiple people have idea that Sikhi teaches absolute equality and equal opportunity. I didn't expect much else because it seems most on here can not ever have open mind to think so. 

I appolohize if I have said anything wrong. Bhul chuck maaf. 

[Kuttabanda2]

On November 10, 2016 at 1:30 PM, chatanga1 said:

The SS. They started off with good intentions of strenghening the Panth through education.

 

 

Too convenient and far too stretched historically.

 

 

But the Masands were disbanded. After that came the Panj Pyare. All male. Always male. No matter what false reasoning you employ.

And this picture is from a Nagar kirtan. Nice attempt to try and pass it off as as Khande ki pahul sinchar.

 

Jaspreet, if you think this is down to male ego, then you are very wrong. Ego has nothing to do with this at all. Do you think Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala was egoistic in that video?

 

 

Our "mahapursh" interpret Gurbani is a far wider scope than the rest of the Panth. And it is not an opinion. It is based on understanding. You can listen to a PHD holder, and see the difference from a nursery teacher. The SGPC or missionary donkeys, they are not a patch on Samprdaic Gyanis when it comes to Gyan. You can do 2 years and learn 25 shabads at the missionary college and become a gyani. In the Taksal you have to get vidya in something 9 Granths before you even start learning from Guru Granth Sahib. You can reach for the stars, or scrabble around in the dirt.

 

The SS wanted a distinct identity for the Sikhs (the Singh /Khalsa identity) which is why they started to dismiss anything connected with Hinduism as and where they could. To them anything that Sikhs shared with Hinduism was anathema. The level of Gyan amongst SGPC gyanis is very poor, very pendu compared to samprdaic gyanis. There's no contest.

 

The rationality is depending on an individuals own level of intellect. The Saprdais offer a level of education that the SGPC or pendu granthis cannot match.

LOgic has no place in Sikhi.

 

Even that is not free of doubt. Personally I havent read it myself. I would love to read it, but there are already topics on here about Sri Gur Katha. If you want to , visit one and add your opinions.

 

No they are not. We had a woman head of the SGPC who in her capacity would have made major decisions affecting the Panth.

Like I said earlier, go to Sri Akal Takht sahib and ask them how many of their sinchars involved women. The proof will be in the pudding.

 

It was NOT the soul that volunteered. It was the body, thaat gave it's head for amrit. We don't give our soul to take amrit, we give our head, therefore the act is completely physical. Guru Sahib asked for heads at Vasisakhi, not for souls. Guru Sahib took the heads of the 5 sikhs, not their souls. Taking Pahul is completely a physical act.

 

I hope you know I'm referring to the likes of Bhai Vir Singh Ji, Professor Sahib Singh Ji, Avtar Singh Vahiria, Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, Dr. Ganda Singh, Dr. Trilochan Singh, Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh, Gyani Hazara Singh, Bhai Karam Singh, Bhai Randhir Singh (SGPC), Joginder Singh Talwara, Piara Singh Padam, Gurbachan Singh Talib, Gyani Ditt Singh, Professor Puran Singh, and numerous others. A number of them had Sampardaic origins. The substance lies in their books, articles, columns, and newspaper articles. These people aren't "pendu Gyanis". They had a good grasp of the topics they had written about, discussed, and propagated.

 These vidhvaans studied 4 languages, various dialects, history-evolution of Indian literature/language, Indian History, linguistics, literary/textual analysis, and Indian culture. They weren't a group of cognitively dissonant ignoramouses that certain individuals portray them to be. As a matter of fact, they were open for research, input and new discoveries. Open discussions, conventions, and debates in Majha, Malwa, Pothohar, Rawalpindi, and Lahore Diwans were frequent. 

 As for the 9 Granths they read, that's literature of their circles and ideology, which isn't a problem to read, but it doesn't give them any sort of superiority to read texts that shapes their approach to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji over those who favor a different approach.

I don't refer to pendu Granthis when I say "scholars", Nor do I refer to the Sikh Missionary College. I'm not speaking of the SGPC or Singh Sabha of today, I don't know how many times more I'll have to restate that.

The Singh Sabha wanted to rid Sikhi of cultural influences that crept in due to the proximity Sikhs had with their Hindu neighbors and the practices brought in by Hindu converts to Sikhi, They were quite successful.

They even fancied Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, something viewed as quite brahminical by a deluded few today.

 

As for Sri Gur Katha, don't form your opinion based on what someone typed up online, this forum isn't a scholar hub. Buy the books, read them, and then formulate an opinion. It's authentic, not because it seems appealing, but because of the evidence Arifi provided and it's manuscript still being extant and accessible. I've already made clarifications in regards to it. One would actually read something before forming an opinion on It. 

rationality is also not very malleable. 

Logic doesn't have a place in Sikhi, that's correct. It has a place in humanity and society above all. Logic is what we use to intellectually navigate our world. Using it allows for the advancement of the human race, then to Sikhs. Whether or not you decide to use it, is your personal preference.

[chatanga1]

22 hours ago, JasperS said:

You sound like you are having a hissy fit chatanga. Please act like an adult instead of whining because other males don't agree with your misogynistic attitude.

It's funny because that is exactly what I'm getting from you and your "misogynist" label for anyone who sees differently.

 

22 hours ago, JasperS said:

You can't see the logic in this. If you say that being born in a female body places certain restrictions and limitations on a soul, then you can't also then say that soul is being seen equally spiritually can you? Because that soul was born into punishment.

I don't say it. I have never said it. Another thing you share with my darling. The ability to put words in others mouths.

 

12 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

I hope you know I'm referring to the likes of Bhai Vir Singh Ji, Professor Sahib Singh Ji, Avtar Singh Vahiria, Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, Dr. Ganda Singh, Dr. Trilochan Singh, Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh, Gyani Hazara Singh, Bhai Karam Singh, Bhai Randhir Singh (SGPC), Joginder Singh Talwara, Piara Singh Padam, Gurbachan Singh Talib, Gyani Ditt Singh, Professor Puran Singh, and numerous others. A number of them had Sampardaic origins. The substance lies in their books, articles, columns, and newspaper articles. These people aren't "pendu Gyanis". They had a good grasp of the topics they had written about, discussed, and propagated.

 

No I didn't know you were refering to these but thanks for telling me. it's made things a little clearer. Some of these people were scholars. They are not the same as samprdaic gyanis. Some of these scholars applied a British lense to analysing Sikh praxis and literature. You are right these scholars are not pendu gyanis, but scholars are not the same as Gyanis.

 

12 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

 

 As for the 9 Granths they read, that's literature of their circles and ideology, which isn't a problem to read, but it doesn't give them any sort of superiority to read texts that shapes their approach to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji over those who favor a different approach.

 

It doesn't, but the grounding is there before they even begin to look at both Granths. THis means they are able to give a wider and more detailed katha of Gurbani, rather the linear translations you find being told today.

 

13 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

The Singh Sabha wanted to rid Sikhi of cultural influences that crept in due to the proximity Sikhs had with their Hindu neighbors and the practices brought in by Hindu converts to Sikhi, They were quite successful.

They were in the beginnning, but as time went on, there became a strong emphasis on anything that was shared with Hinduism ie. lighting dhoof and deeve/jyot and narial.

 

13 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

As for Sri Gur Katha, don't form your opinion based on what someone typed up online, this forum isn't a scholar hub. Buy the books, read them, and then formulate an opinion. It's authentic, not because it seems appealing, but because of the evidence Arifi provided and it's manuscript still being extant and accessible. I've already made clarifications in regards to it. One would actually read something before forming an opinion on It.

 

I have no opinion on Sri gur Katha. If you look up the topic "debunking Sri Gur Katha" on this forum, you will see that I stressed the need to look at the granth and then form opinions rather than go with the approach of "debunking" it from the outset.

Let's discuss Sri Gur Katha further. If you have the granth, scan a few pages, post them on one of the existing topics of this granth and we can look at them.

 

Niranjan Singh Arifi on the other hand scares me. He is a "low-caste" Sikh who has sought to re-write history and claim the supreme status for low-castes only. Some of his writing is extremely biased and has no basis historically. He makes up a lot of things as well. He has tried to make out that Baba Bir Singh Naurangabadi was the same Bir Singh (a mazhabi) who offered his head to test a gun for Guru Gobind Singh Ji, in the sakhi of Bhai Dalla.

[chatanga1]

13 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Logic doesn't have a place in Sikhi, that's correct. It has a place in humanity and society above all. Logic is what we use to intellectually navigate our world. Using it allows for the advancement of the human race, then to Sikhs. Whether or not you decide to use it, is your personal preference.

We also, as Sikhs use faith to navigate through this world. More than logic I would say.

[samurai]

it's soo good following sikhi in a blanket environment...   like those in Canada and u.s....let me predict the response..."just meditate and feel the sh*tness"....id rather fight  with guru gobind singh ji's energy

[WakeUp]

17 minutes ago, samurai said:

some one is about to rape your daughter...and i am witnessing it..

simple question...what shall i do?...,... pls answer why is a male raping a female??..ok..so shall she defend herself?? shall i step back and say its equality?

I can answer that one. ALL Sikhs are to stand up and defend others. If anyone make or female sees anyone raping another or robbing another etc that Sikh has to stand up against that. This is why we need to also teach girls defence and martial arts. I don't think jasper is idolize for his daughter. His having a daughter allows him to see the limits placed on her because she is female and he wants to speak against that. And I agree with him. Feel free to yell at me too. Oh and reason why men rape women? One word. Control. It's about power over another. It actually stems from the idea that women are beneath men and subordinate. This is what We are supposed to be against. 

[samurai]

ffs..she is khalsa..how can a man rape her??

why do we need to "teach our girls self defense" did guru sahib not teach them enough?? do we MALES need to TEACH them..hhmm

 

[WakeUp]

3 minutes ago, samurai said:

ffs..she is khalsa..how can a man rape her??

You are making no sense. Pls calm down bro. Even a Khalsa male can be attacked just in different ways. And females can also attack others. It hardly matters now with guns. We need to focus on eliminating hatred and greed and wanting to harm others instead of focusing on who has the larger muscles. 

Mad for rehet maryada panthic decision women can be Panj Pyaras. Sorry you disagree (if in fact you do since you have not straight out said so) and Sikh rehet maryada is the only one recognized by Akal Takht. Sorry but that's how it is. You can choose to follow Damdami Taksal that's your right just like it's mine to follow Sikh rehet maryada. But you can't go saying your is right. Referencing Gurbani Sikh rehet maryada actually follows it more. Anyway I don't think jasper Ji has meant anything bad. 

[samurai]

after your first few words..i felt no need to read the rest..its like you are telling me to bounce and me telling you to bounce too..soo im here to protect, while you are here to bounce...soo keep meditating!!..we warriors are here to face sh*t.while you "feel connected"..we warriors don't mind, but you meditator's seem to have a chip on your shoulder.....fix it asap..

let it be...lol..actually..LOL

[chatanga1]

58 minutes ago, WakeUp said:

 Oh and reason why men rape women? One word. Control. It's about power over another.

Rape is not only about control or power. It's mainly about lust. To put rape down to power or control is just crazy.

 

44 minutes ago, WakeUp said:

Mad for rehet maryada panthic decision women can be Panj Pyaras. Sorry you disagree (if in fact you do since you have not straight out said so) and Sikh rehet maryada is the only one recognized by Akal Takht. Sorry but that's how it is. You can choose to follow Damdami Taksal that's your right just like it's mine to follow Sikh rehet maryada. But you can't go saying your is right. Referencing Gurbani Sikh rehet maryada actually follows it more. Anyway I don't think jasper Ji has meant anything bad. 

Reocgnised by Sri Akal Takht Sahib? What difference does that make, when the same people/institution who control Sri Akal Takht sahib were the same ones who made the maryada?

How do you know that the poster follows Damdami Taksal? He hasn't said so in any of his posts. That is a really stupid thing for you to say. It just shows how biased you are Guri ji.

 

[JasperS]

The fact that you even brought up the word rape, lets me know what type of person you are. The same old reasoning, Oh you think women are equal to men do you, then lets rape her and see how equal she is. Your attitude is part of the problem because . Why does 'being a warrior' have to equate to disrespecting and putting down and disrespecting women?

By the way I am well aware of all the coward men out there who prey on women. But just like terrorism, the true damage is not the act but the fear caused by it. The fear which causes one's life to be under restrictions and limitations in the name of safety. I refuse to let my daughter to be a lifelong victim having to be under male rule/control and so called protection, just to protect her from what? more men! LOL.  Kind of ironic init? I want her to be the warrior not a lifelong victim! 

I'm sorry if my caring about the child I was given by Waheguru offends you. But it won't change how I feel. Sorry. 

 

[JasperS]

5 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

Rape is not only about control or power. It's mainly about lust. To put rape down to power or control is just crazy.

 

Reocgnised by Sri Akal Takht Sahib? What difference does that make, when the same people/institution who control Sri Akal Takht sahib were the same ones who made the maryada?

How do you know that the poster follows Damdami Taksal? He hasn't said so in any of his posts. That is a really stupid thing for you to say. It just shows how biased you are Guri ji.

 

I think he meant that if he wants to follow a rehet maryada which doesn't allow women equal rights in Sikhi, then he can follow damdami taksal which is known to keep women in subordinate position. I don't think he was suggesting the member is damdami taksal. Thats how I read it anyway.

[JasperS]

If one is filled with lust, they masturbate, or watch porn, or pick up someone at a bar. They don't molest and violate a person who they know is unwilling. The act of violation of a person against their will, is entirely about control and power over that person. Its a well known fact that rapes are highest in societies where there is a definite hierarchy with women in an inferior role or position. 

"Rape isn't perpetrated only by members of one religion, race, nation or belief system. But rapists are particularly abetted by cultures in which women are second-class citizens, where women's bodies are intensely politicized, where social hierarchies outlandishly privilege certain members and where there's a presumption of male authority and righteousness.

Rape is a particularly difficult crime because it's about both power and violence. Rapists use sex organs as the locus of their violence, but rape isn't about sex, at least not in the sense of being motivated by sexual attraction or an uncontrollable sexual urge. Rape is about sex in the sense that rapists not only commit acts of sexual violence, but that the pervasive threat of sexual assault is used to limit women's sovereignty and justify sexual assault itself. The reality is that men are much more likely than women to be victims of violence outside of their own homes, yet I know far more women than men who internalize certain supposed violence-avoidance methods: walk with your keys in your hand, take cabs at night, don't accept drinks from strangers, be careful what you wear, don't walk alone after dark. When women are the victims of rape, there's an immediate assessment of what she did wrong and which of her perceived mistakes made her vulnerable to an assailant. An eleven-year-old girl is gang-raped in Texas by a group of grown men and the problem was that she wore make-up and "provocative" clothing. Women in Egypt are stripped and assaulted and their brightly-colored underwear is evidence of immodesty.

Rapists don't rape because they can't "get" sex elsewhere. Rapists don't rape because they're uncontrollably turned on by the sight of some cleavage, or a midriff, or red lipstick, or an ankle. They rape because they're misogynist sadists, and they flourish in places where misogyny is justified as tradition and maleness comes with a presumption of violence."

And anyway this has nothing to do with Rehet Maryada. 

[WakeUp]

Samurai if you consider your vulgar attitude to be the pinnacle of what Sikhs are supposed to be then I fear we are all doomed. There is no need for language like that! 

Admins, can you do something about this? This self proclaimed 'warrior' is directly attacking others for no reason, for their beliefs, beliefs which Gurbani actually espouses! 

[samurai]

no not a pinnacle.. but the fact you are callin on admin with the tuck tail etc mode says it all.and if admins want to stop me then i need to questions their liberal approach.. 

[WakeUp]

20 hours ago, samurai said:

no not a pinnacle.. but the fact you are callin on admin with the tuck tail etc mode says it all.and if admins want to stop me then i need to questions their liberal approach.. 

We can be warrior for a good cause, like upholding the rights of others and fighting injustice and tyranny. Like when we fought for Hindu to be able to practice their own religion and not converted by force. Did it mean we idolize them? Did it mean since we stood up for and fought for them that somehow it makes them lesser than us or deserving of less rights? And now we should fight for right for our sisters mothers and daughters to have their rightful equal status in Sikhi given by our Gurus. Gurus sent our women as masands and we want to keep them locked in kitchen! That would be a warrior with a righteous cause, to fight against this discrimination our Bibis face! But instead you seem to be fighting for the wrong side, to want to uphold discrimination, to put our sisters mothers daughters into lower position and take away their rightful place beside us. Remember the same jot is in all of us including women. Regardless of whether you can lift more or fight better than an average female (you may be better at fighting then I am but you wouldn't discriminate against me for seva would you? So it's not about the amount of muscles is it as any male no matter how large their muscles are they are can easily be selected for Panj Pyaras without resistance?) But Gurbani teaches us despite our differences we should all be treated equally. Shouldn't we fight for something worth fighting for? Be a warrior, nobody is stopping you but take example from our Gurus and fight for what's right and what Gurbani teaches us:

ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਹਰਿ ਗਾਇਆ ਹਰਿ ਹਾਰੁ ਉਰਿ ਪਾਇਆ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮਾ ਕੰਠਿ ਧਾਰੇ ॥
Gurmaṯ har gā▫i▫ā har hār ur pā▫i▫ā har nāmā kanṯẖ ḏẖāre.
Under Guru's Instruction, they sing the Lord's Name, and wear the garland of the Lord's Name around their necks; they keep the Lord's Name in their throats.

ਸਭ ਏਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਸਮਤੁ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖੈ ਸਭੁ ਆਤਮ ਰਾਮੁ ਪਛਾਨ ਜੀਉ ॥
Sabẖ ek ḏarisat samaṯ kar ḏekẖai sabẖ āṯam rām pacẖẖān jī▫o.
They look upon all with equality, and recognize the Supreme Soul, the Lord, pervading among all.

 

[amardeep]

On 12/11/2016 at 1:14 AM, WakeUp said:

Bhaji have you ever thought people can use the same arguments because they are actually valid? Multiple Singhs on here use the same argument that Jarnail singh said because no woman gave her head that day no woman ever can be part of panj Pyaras. And its always presented the same way. But have you ever thought that these members are the same one? I doubt it. Just because Jasper Ji and I have different view point from the majority on here and because we use the same argument doesn't mean we are another member on here. It's because we feel our arguments are valid and if another member had these same arguments before both of us then they too I feel had valid points that need to be brought up. There are only so many ways to say that something goes against Gurbani. There are only so many ways to say we are equal and all have the divine light. There are only so many ways one can say that sexism is same as casteism. I thought I provided much truth based on Gurbani and gurmat principles to support my case. If I am not the only one presenting these ideas then that is evidence there is merit to them that others have thought the same! 

Prior to registering I was only ever a guest. I did come here to read for about 1 year. Though I did once use a different guest name posting but I didn't know we had to use same one all the time so once you pointed it out I stuck with this one. It's ok, I think you just can't fathom that multiple people have idea that Sikhi teaches absolute equality and equal opportunity. I didn't expect much else because it seems most on here can not ever have open mind to think so. 

I appolohize if I have said anything wrong. Bhul chuck maaf. 

And there you go again attributing views to us we dont adhere to. very similiar to what satkirin/harkirin used to do. So no wonder people think you are her.

And when I say the same arguments i mean in the sense that it is the exact same arguments in repetitive form, - same tuks, same everything. Nothing new is added in your posts that she has'nt already said 100 times before, just going on and on and on again and again.

But if you aint her then I apologize.