Jump to content

Very Interesting Critique Of Sgpc Rehat Maryada By Taksaal


dalsingh101

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, tva prasad said:

as it say in the above line that they look up to eachother, so there is some equality.

Actually I wish that were true, but those who follow this rehet maryada very much see it as it sounds, that a husband is seen in a position of authority over his wife and her position is one of subordination to her husband, expected to obey and follow her husbands lead just as Jaikaara explained. However this has no place in Sikhi. The term 'faithful Singhni' sounds more like 'follower' while to see someone as God implies commanding and power over.  In fact, if you do some searching on this site you will see certain members emphasizing this by suggesting a gurmukh wife should even bow to her husband to acknowledge that authority, and they will use the anand karaj and the fact that the male is in front for the lavaans as justification showing that women are inferior and are to follow while the husband leads.  However they are not getting the metaphor in the lavaans (that the bride is not the physical bride but instead is just a symbol for ALL humans following Waheguru, our true husband). In a human marriage neither spouse is over the other, and to suppress the wife into a subordinate role, one of obedience (following her husband's will at the cost of giving up her own entirely) is completely against Sikhi. Sikhi teaches ALL humans are equal and ALL humans have right to personal expression and authority over their own lives. Husband and wives are supposed to work together as a team of equals, and see God in each other. 

The correct corresponding idea, if Pati Parmeshwar is to be explored, is Patni Parmeshwari (as also pointed out by Guest Guest) because that agrees with Gurbani and seeing the divine in each other, and not a one way thing where one person sees the other AS God but herself is seen as a subordinate or inferior in return. 

You are right, women in Sikhi are armed just like men and expected to defend not only themselves but also others, the same as men. There is no difference in obligations when one takes amrit. There is only one amrit, and only one code of conduct. (Yes I disagree with only males tying turbans in Sikh Rehet Maryada actually) I understand why it was done, but I think same code of conduct should be for both. My wife ties a turban and would not have it any other way.   But for all else I support Sikh Rehet Maryada, and definitely not Taksal maryada for the main reason we are now discussing among others like discriminating against women when it comes to seva, and seeing them as impure and dirty during their menses (a natural biological function). It seems to me to be lot of Hindu mat crept into their thinking. Dont get me wrong I dont disrespect taksal though as I think they do some good as well, but I wish they would apply some of these ideas to litmus test of Gurbani and actually ask if they are compatible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do u know what I really don't get what's so dirty about blood everyone has it, seriously. I actually think that women should tie a turban as is sign of equality, royalty, etc. A Sikh should have humility and not look down on anyone. The wife could have a much higher avastha then the husband so it is bad to look down on anyone. One should consider themselves the kookar of guru nanak not god. So I think the main thing is to respect one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2016 at 3:26 AM, paapiman said:

The so-called SGPC Rehat Maryada has major flaws in it (Gurparsaad, will make a new topic on this issue). It is much much safer for a Sikh to follow Taksal Maryada or any other Maryada of a Samprada (which traces it roots to Sri Satguru jee).

 

Bhul chuk maaf 

Here's the problem, no samparda can be traced back to Guru Sahib.

 

No one was forced to follow the SRM so it's not being imposed on anyone.  It's actually like a basis of every other Maryada.

As for the Mool Mantar issue, both sides have good evidence and arguments. There is no resolve for it. 

As for flaws, the biggest is how it's asserted. 

The DDT Chaupai Sahib's inclusion of the Sambhat Chaupai doesn't have evidence substantiating it. The same with the Rehraas Sahib. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2016 at 7:26 AM, paapiman said:

The so-called SGPC Rehat Maryada has major flaws in it (Gurparsaad, will make a new topic on this issue). It is much much safer for a Sikh to follow Taksal Maryada or any other Maryada of a Samprada (which traces it roots to Sri Satguru jee).

 

Bhul chuk maaf 

No groups can trace all the way back. Claims don't make it so. 

And Taksal maryada discriminates against females. Sikhi sees all humans as equal. 

I think the closest we have to a maryada to time of Guru Gobind Singh Ji is his 52 Hukams. I have recently been made aware of content of Bhai Daya Singh JI's rehetnama as well. Neither discriminate against anyone, and they both espouse gurmat principles and agree with Guru Granth Sahib Ji. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, paapiman said:

So you are saying that Sewanpanthis, Nihangs, Nanaksar, etc, cannot be traced back to Sri Satguru jee?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

In reality ALL Sikhs trace their routes back to the Gurus! Think about it where did we all come from!? Are there more than one kind of Sikh?

I think what you mean to ask is are the code of conduct they follow traceable all the way back and none are. I am with JasperS on this as closest example we have to what Guru Gobind Singh wanted is his 52 Hukams. All else in individual maryadas are prone to change over time and yes even your precious taksal maryada has changed even in last few decades as pointed above there are lines currently in there which were only recently added including those lines pointed in this thread that are sexist. They were not there prior. So if that is so easily verifiable then no taksal can not say their current maryada is traceable all the way back. If change happened even this recently in history of taksal maryada then how likely is it you think it happened many times before? Not just taksal maryada but all of them! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, paapiman said:

What about hiding evidence? The below is enough to suggest that those people in power at that time cannot be completely trusted.

Please have a look.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Maybe so, but at least they are for the most part, upholding the panthic maryada which actually agrees with gurmat principles. Taksals maryada (the current one) goes against principles of equality.  And corruption is everywhere, including in Damdami Taksal, you are naive if you don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/09/2016 at 3:34 AM, JasperS said:

No groups can trace all the way back. Claims don't make it so. 

And Taksal maryada discriminates against females. Sikhi sees all humans as equal. 

I think the closest we have to a maryada to time of Guru Gobind Singh Ji is his 52 Hukams. I have recently been made aware of content of Bhai Daya Singh JI's rehetnama as well. Neither discriminate against anyone, and they both espouse gurmat principles and agree with Guru Granth Sahib Ji. 

 

 

Jaspreet when you say this you need to be really careful. And I mean really careful. There are many aspects of Sikhi as we know it today that have no contemporary evidence for them. Even the basics of SIkhi. If you start doubting one thing, you will start doubting them all. Many Sikhs are very eager to disregard certain practices as they cannot be backed up by scriptoral evidence.

Sikhi only sees all humans as equals in spiritual terms, because our soul has no gender. but our body does.

52 hukams does not seem to be from Guru kaal. The language is way too modern. Compare it to literature of that time, and even the basic Panjabi is very different.

 

On 22/09/2016 at 2:23 PM, paapiman said:

If the great Saints (Baba Amir Singh jee, Baba Sundar Singh jee, Baba Gurbachan Singh jee, Baba Kartar Singh jee, Baba Kirpal Singh jee, Baba Jarnail Singh jee, etc) of Taksal had been in power, they would have done a way way way better job than SGPC. No Sikh can deny this fact.

 

These listed people, 5 or 6 of them have brought more people closer to Sikhi than the SGPC have in 50 years.

 

On 29/09/2016 at 3:20 AM, tva prasad said:

According to guru ji woman are not weak. If guru ji thought that women r weak do u think they would let them fight in battles with men? Why would they let women take amrit? Why would they let women play gatka, carry the sword, etc.? Guru g has no discrimination against anyone, as his Sikhs neither should we. How is it fair to treat one better than the other if all contain the divine light of god himself? Those who practice discrimination will have to suffer. Those who brought discrimination into sikhi will have to suffer. That is the divine law of karma.

 

 

Women fighting in battles were the exception not the norm. there was only ever a handful of women fighting.

 

On 29/09/2016 at 3:20 AM, tva prasad said:

good equals good. So it is balanced. The main thing is the respect each other. That I my opinion and I m not saying it is a fact or anything.

1 thing I hate is discrimination. Discrimination against anything animals, gender, age, etc. I just hate it. It is not human to discriminate other wether it be animal or human.

Now let's look at discrimination. Discrimination is everywhere.

The bigets discriminator is Waheguru. Why couldn't males and females both be able to do absolutely everything the other can do. After all there are animals that can take on either reproductive role. Isn't this discrimination?

The 10 gurus were male. The panj pyaery , 4 sahibzade, chali mukte, were all male. And the only reference to a SIkh female personality in SGGS is to Mata Khivi and how delicious Mata Ji's kheer is. Isn't this discrimination?

In our culture, let's say, although it was once part of western culture before they got all modern, sons were expected to look after their parents, and wives were expected to look after their husbands and children. In Panjabi/Sanskirt culture, it was always sons and the eldest one at that who looked after their parents. Why only the eldest? If a couple had 5 sons  the duty of looking after the parents would always be the eldest son. That is the son's dharam, to look after his parents. There is a sakhi of 19th Guru refusing water from the hands of a boy who neglected his parents.

But isn't this discrimination? Of course it is. The eldest son has the responsibility completely on him.

My dharam as the eldest son is to look after my parents. It is my puttar dharam/duty of a son. "Sarwan puttar" is something you rarely hear these days, because we have started to ape the westerners in thier culture and neglect our own culture.

Also, son's always bow and touch their parents/elders feet. Girls don't. Why? Isn't this discrimination?

Girl's don't look after their birthparents but look after their inlaws. Isn't this discrimination? To not be able to alook after the ones that gave birth to you and nurtured you, but to look after the ones whose son you have married?  Isn't this discrimination?

Similarly in our culture, it is the duty of a wife to look after her husband and children. It is her istri-dharam, which focused more on maintaing a good home.  It was this in the times of our Guru's and long beyond. Only in the last 50 years has gender roles become more wider. It's not a bad thing as there are plenty of activities/tasks that either gender can do, but there are some things than only 1 gender can do. Isn't this discrimination?

Bhai Gurdas in one of his vaars says that "the son is adharmi, why didn't his mother become a widow? Being a widow was a curse in those days. But why blame the mother only if the son is adharmi? Isn't this discrimination?

Kavi Tulsidas wrote the famous "janani jane" but why is the onus on a woman? Isn't this discrimination?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ਜਿਉ ਪੁਰਖੈ ਘਰਿ ਭਗਤੀ ਨਾਰਿ ਹੈ ਅਤਿ ਲੋਚੈ ਭਗਤੀ ਭਾਇ ॥

The devoted wife in her husband's home has a great longing to perform loving devotional service to him;

 

ਬਹੁ ਰਸ ਸਾਲਣੇ ਸਵਾਰਦੀ ਖਟ ਰਸ ਮੀਠੇ ਪਾਇ ॥

She prepares and offers to him all sorts of sweet delicacies and dishes of all flavors.

 

ਤਿਉ ਬਾਣੀ ਭਗਤ ਸਲਾਹਦੇ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੈ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇ ॥

In the same way, the devotees praise the Word of the Guru's Bani, and focus their consciousness on the Lord's Name.

 

ਮਨੁ ਤਨੁ ਧਨੁ ਆਗੈ ਰਾਖਿਆ ਸਿਰੁ ਵੇਚਿਆ ਗੁਰ ਆਗੈ ਜਾਇ ॥

They place mind, body and wealth in offering before the Guru, and sell their heads to Him.

Salok Vaaraan and Vadheek Guru Amar Das

 

Isn't this discrimination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Wake Up

Chatanga not everyone fit into neat little boxes. If people are spiritually equal and this world is illusion then we need to see past what body they are in. All of the examples you have above are culture based. Who says only eldest son has to look after parents? Why? This is something society can change, it's not a physical limitation! Same with wife having to be a servant. Now days married couple have their own flat and don't live with in laws. Idea that son must look after parents perpetuates the idea of females abortion and preference for sons. This ideology as you know is condemned in sikhi and if the result is condemned then how can the situation that cause it be accepted? Same with these roles in family who cares if the wife works too? Then shouldn't both the husband and wife pitch in housework and cooking? They both make mess so both contribute. Or even some the wife works because she has higher paying job and husband stays home to do housework and cooking. I bet you would feel all emasculated huh? But for many it works and works well! 

When you realize same one soul is in all humans then you can't discriminate at all anymore. when we say equality we don't mean they are physically identical but we mean equal opportunity. When you say dharam you are implying women are being punished that's why they are born in female body so their punishment is to serve men and inlaws. You are implying by simply being male you are entitled to more privilege and higher position, a reward. Gurus fought hard to remove all forms of discrimination based on this idea of putting humans into status hierarchies. Hence why we share same Amrit from same bata and eat langar on equal level! The Gurus may have been male but they were male because do you think a female form in that time would have been even taken seriously? Especially a female saying that females should be given equal opportunity? It would be same as a slave claiming that slaves have right to freedom! How do you think that would have gone over with slave owners? Not very well! But coming from a slave owner who is respected makes a huge difference right? So here were males claiming all humans deserve equal treatment including females.

so it makes no sense to follow a maryada which goes backward in thinking and puts women back into inferior and menial role and depicts them as lower status beneath their Godlike husband. I much prefer interacting with my wife on equal level than to have her cowering to me and treating me as some deity above her. We have a very close relationship as equals. And for the record I do the cooking. 

And I agree with women doing all seva as well. I have actually witnessed sanchar with women in punj and no they were not AKJ before you ask. It was in India. There is no reason to keep women from leadership roles and seva. Understand that the illusion is this reality and the same soul is in all humans. Your soul is same as her soul. I don't mean same as in similar I mean same as in the same ONE soul. There is only one! It's one big dream and its the same one dreamer. Do you think the dreamer discriminates against them self? How do you operating through ego of one character get to dictate what other characters do when all are actually the same one entity?

yes Gurbani teaches this. And Gurbani is the test we have to put everything to! As Gurmukh look upon all with a single eye for equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained. Jasper Ji posted in a different thread shabad saying we need to realize our own self and that he is me. That doesn't just apply to you and Waheguru but to also realize she is me as well and all other he in this creation. The body is false. The awareness in it is not. Please don't limit some based on what body they are in.  Prime example is rich vs poor. Some say it's their dharam to be rich and so they don't have to share wealth and can just enjoy their life being greedy and don't share with others. While poor his dharam is to never have enough to eat. I am sure you will agree to surpassing those labels and those who have should share with those who don't have. Its task of those in male bodies to realize and surpass the need to be above women and elevate them to equal status. It's not some dharam for all time. It's cultural and can be broken. We are not gods while they are serfs. In fact all of collectively male and female alike are GOD (singular). 

And also one last thing veer is that I agree no group can be traced back all the way and yes it can be dangerous to dismiss things but then that also applies to other jathas like AKJ who also believe they are following closest to what our Guru wanted. You want to apply that thinking to taksal etc who can't trace all the way back but dismiss others like AKJ then you are doing what you yourself said is dangerous. If you disagree and say anything against AKJ for example then you are just a hypocrite. And no taksal can not be traced directly back. None can. So what do we have to look to that can be? Our only Guru is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/09/2016 at 7:23 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Their leaders would probably force Taksal Maryada over the entire Panth. A Maryada that does not have enough research to substantiate it.

 

Stop adding hyperbole to these discussions. The fact is that neither you or myself would know what the Taksal would do in this situation. In 1982-84 when Taksal was based at Darbar Sahib did they try to change the Rehit Maryada there? Didn't one taksal student read Raagmala at a service at Sri Akal Takht Sahib and suffer a severe rebuke from Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala for doing this? Didn't Jarnial Singh also warn his students that Sri Akal Takht Maryada was to be upheld whilst they were there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

The 10 gurus were male. The panj pyaery , 4 sahibzade, chali mukte, were all male. And the only reference to a SIkh female personality in SGGS is to Mata Khivi and how delicious Mata Ji's kheer is. Isn't this discrimination?

the gurus were all male because the represent the husband waheguru and the soul bride is us. 

the punj pyare are males but guru ji said "i need a sikhs head" he never said a singh's head or a male head. he asked all the sangat at once including females. A female could also have stood up but didn't (explanation by sant jarnail singh ji bhinderanwale). since that day only males are 5 pyare to represent the original 5. 

the chaar sahibzaade were previous bhagat who came to take amrit (without amrit one cannot go to sachkhand). this was explained by giani thakur singh ji in a katha.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Wake Up
28 minutes ago, tva prasad said:

the gurus were all male because the represent the husband waheguru and the soul bride is us. 

the punj pyare are males but guru ji said "i need a sikhs head" he never said a singh's head or a male head. he asked all the sangat at once including females (explanation by sant jarnail singh ji bhinderanwale). since that day only males are 5 pyare to represent the original 5. 

the chaar sahibzaade were previous bhagat who came to take amrit (without amrit one cannot go to sachkhand). this was explained by giani thakur singh ji in a katha.  

 

The first five were male but since Guru Ji did not specify males heads then their gender did not matter. It's not a matter of competition between genders. In fact it's not about gender at all. Gender is inconsequential because we are talking about one universal soul. If the same one soul is in every human regardless of their gender then it doesn't matter who administers Amrit does it? As long as they are high avastha. It's the SAME ONE soul. Get it? The bodies are illusion. Difference is illusion.

Discrimination comes from one place only. Ego. Duality creating thinking of me me me. Instead we all should collectively be thinking just Waheguru. In reality only Waheguru is real only Waheguru exists. We all of us male and female alike are Waheguru. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

ਜਿਉ ਪੁਰਖੈ ਘਰਿ ਭਗਤੀ ਨਾਰਿ ਹੈ ਅਤਿ ਲੋਚੈ ਭਗਤੀ ਭਾਇ ॥

The devoted wife in her husband's home has a great longing to perform loving devotional service to him;

 

ਬਹੁ ਰਸ ਸਾਲਣੇ ਸਵਾਰਦੀ ਖਟ ਰਸ ਮੀਠੇ ਪਾਇ ॥

She prepares and offers to him all sorts of sweet delicacies and dishes of all flavors.

 

ਤਿਉ ਬਾਣੀ ਭਗਤ ਸਲਾਹਦੇ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੈ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇ ॥

In the same way, the devotees praise the Word of the Guru's Bani, and focus their consciousness on the Lord's Name.

 

ਮਨੁ ਤਨੁ ਧਨੁ ਆਗੈ ਰਾਖਿਆ ਸਿਰੁ ਵੇਚਿਆ ਗੁਰ ਆਗੈ ਜਾਇ ॥

They place mind, body and wealth in offering before the Guru, and sell their heads to Him.

Salok Vaaraan and Vadheek Guru Amar Das

 

Isn't this discrimination?

Chatanga you do realize that the verses are not an imperative, but are instead using a known situation in the culture of the time, as allegory, as often is done in Gurbani. Situations and ideas from that time which people understood were used to illustrate things which can't easily be illustrated. The ideas being used as comparisons however are not imperatives, but are just examples of known cultural ideas. Case in point is the fact that many ideas presented as comparisons in Gurbani were actually not condoned by our Gurus. Practice of sati for example was used as a comparison of total surrender of soul bride to Waheguru. But the Gurus definitely did not condone or instruct anyone to actually practice sati. Quite the opposite. So while women doing the housework was common in that time, and there is nothing wrong with it if the woman likes serving her husband, there is no imperative saying that housework must be a woman's job. So to say it's her dharam is wrong. In modern society, most couples both spouses work. And both share the housework. Its only fair. You can't expect a wife who also works full time, to also do all the housework while you sit on your duff after you get home from your job. So no its not discrimination. It would be discrimination if it said "women must do all the housework and cooking and serve the men".  But the way its written does not preclude men from serving their wives and cooking / cleaning for them as well. It just wasn't common in that time culturally. 

You have to understand, that while yes we have gender for procreation, anything that our Creator would preclude someone from, would be evident because for example if women were never meant to do leadership roles, then no woman would have leadership ability. And we know that's wrong because many women are more than capable leaders when given the chance. Some excel at it! If our Creator meant for women to never to do seva as Punj Pyaras, then all women would not be capable of performing the amrit sanchar physically, or mentally. But again, we know this is wrong, because women have acted in this role and have done well. The limitations you classify as dharam, as already pointed out are cultural. They were created and they can also be destroyed. Once you realize that divine light in everyone as Guest Wake Up said, its the same one soul in every person. Therefore, its a bit redundant to say that only men can do it. In reality the same one universal consciousness is in both the male and female. The body is part of maya. Only the consciousness is true. This is why we are supposed to see god in everyone. As soon as you say that someone is not allowed to do something simply by virtue of what body they are in, you destroy this idea of oneness and perpetuate duality. Its only yourself you will hurt in the end because its you who cant see the truth, that she is you and you are ultimately god. Actually guest ji summed it up really well! And I think Bhagat Singh Ji also understands based on his other post. 

You know its funny, that as men we are told our limitations are only derived from our physical or mental abilities alone. So if we can't do something its because we cant physically do it, or we aren't smart enough. Most can be rectified by working harder, or studying etc.  But we think its ok to tell women they can't do things simply because we say they are not allowed, instead of it being based on their actual ability. There is a big difference there.  And thats my main issue with taksal maryada. Men are not limited in any way, while women are. That IS discrimination.

I know you feel that because in 1980s taksal did not force their maryada when at darbar sahib, means they wont now. But if user paapiman is any indication of what this generation of taksalis are, Id say there is a good chance they would try to shove their maryada down everyone's throats. And I dont mean that in a disrespectful way but todays taksalis are very narrow minded, believe only in their own interpretations and disrespect anyone who doesn't agree with them - very fervently at that! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, tva prasad said:

the gurus were all male because the represent the husband waheguru and the soul bride is us. 

the punj pyare are males but guru ji said "i need a sikhs head" he never said a singh's head or a male head. he asked all the sangat at once including females. A female could also have stood up but didn't (explanation by sant jarnail singh ji bhinderanwale). since that day only males are 5 pyare to represent the original 5. 

the chaar sahibzaade were previous bhagat who came to take amrit (without amrit one cannot go to sachkhand). this was explained by giani thakur singh ji in a katha.  

Whatever they were, they were still all male.

5 hours ago, JasperS said:

Chatanga you do realize that the verses are not an imperative, but are instead using a known situation in the culture of the time,

Which is as valid now as it was then. Just because there is now something in the world masquarading as equality, it doesn't mean that you, or anyone can start to rearrange Gurbani.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JasperS said:

But if user paapiman is any indication of what this generation of taksalis are,

Jaspreet, Why should he be any indication of what Taksalis are? Is he a Taksali? No.

What could a person with a anglocized name when he has a very nice Panjabi/Gurmukhi name be indicative of? Don't you think it quite foolish to jump to conclusions like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2016 at 7:05 AM, chatanga1 said:

And the only reference to a SIkh female personality in SGGS is to Mata Khivi and how delicious Mata Ji's kheer is. Isn't this discrimination?

Which shabad? Can you please let us know?

There is also reference to Mata Harhaan jee (sister of Mata Ganga jee) in SSGGSJ. Sri Satguru jee (Fifth Master) gives her updesh and uses her name in Gurbani (Sri Funhay Sahib jee) many times.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paapiman said:

There is also reference to Mata Harhaan jee (sister of Mata Ganga jee) in SSGGSJ. Sri Satguru jee (Fifth Master) gives her updesh and uses her name in Gurbani (Sri Funhay Sahib jee) many times.

There is also reference to Mata Yashoda jee and Mata Devaki jee (mothers of Sri Krishan jee) in SSGGSJ.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

Which is as valid now as it was then. Just because there is now something in the world masquarading as equality, it doesn't mean that you, or anyone can start to rearrange Gurbani.

Chatanga, veerji Who is rearranging Gurbani? I was simply pointing out that things people knew in that time and culture were used as a reference so people could understand. Take for instance, the reference of marriage used as allegory to explain our soul merging with Akal Purakhs. It's not actually meaning a marriage right? It simply uses human marriage as a reference because as in this human form, the closest we can get to understanding a union with another is marriage. Its not saying that we actually marry Waheguru. So that verse you used is using reference point of the time, that loving wife would be devoted to her husband. It does not mean that a loving husband would not also be devoted and serve his wife, and it also is not saying that woman must do all the cooking and always serve men. To read into it that it is somehow saying women must always be servants of men as some form of karmic punishment, is very wrong thinking. If that verse were written today, maybe a different reference would be used because as I said, most couples share in the menial work now. Possibly, something like:  Just like a teenager is devoted to his video games, and makes time for them every day, so too the devotees... you get the point.  

Also, I thought I explained before why I use this instead of my real name (and I would hazard a guess chatanga is not your real name either). I was on a hike with a nephew when he was younger and we were picking rocks because he was always interested in geological things. We found some jasper, and I told him what it was and he made a big day of calling me jasper because it is close to my name. No I dont call myself jasper in real life, and he is now older, but this is a forum and most people do not use their real name online for fear of internet dangers.  

In reference to your quote 

Whatever they were, they were still all male.



No you are still thinking wrong. There is only ONE soul within ALL. There is no they or you or me in reality. The forms are all part of the illusion. Since the Gurus were fully God realized, meaning they were literally ONE in consciousness with God, without Ego, then they understood from their point of view that there is no gender and that every other human regardless of what outer shell, are actually the same one entity.  
Lets say you have a play and there are different costumes for the characters. But the catch is the entire play is being played out by only ONE actor (who also happens to be the writer and director). Sure several characters might be on stage at once, but through a trick of camera work or something, its still the same one actor. So the costumes can be removed when the play is over, and we can see that it was really one entity the whole time. So from the point of view of WHO is doing things, since it's the same ONE doing ALL, there is no he vs she, vs they, vs you, vs me. Now the problem is, while playing the characters, a sort of amnesia happens and the ONE actor forgets they are an actor and instead thinks they are the character. But at any time, if they remember who they are, they realize the costume is a facade.  (ggsj ang 736) Gender is only part of the costume. It doesn't matter. It only comes into play in the play itself. Once the character awakens to the fact that they are the actor, not the character, then they realize that they are the same actor in all the other actors. There can be no limitations placed on others. So essentially in the larger picture, there is no difference between any other humans and the Gurus, whether male or female because everyone are the same one universal consciousness, we are all Waheguru. And this is not metaphor. This is a base reality of the physical universe. I really hope you can start to see this truth, because once you do, it will do much for your spiritual progress. And the whole point is for us to awaken within the dream.
They were male costumes only because of the scene for the play at that moment, and the need for the culture within that era and place. As God fully realized they told us all humans are equal and deserve equal treatment. But its Ego (the costume, character identity) which prevents us from applying it. I wish you well bro and really hope you ponder what I have written.

Also regarding paapiman, I assumed he was taksali because his every post is taksal this taksal that and his views are very narrow-minded that he obviously only supports their ideology and nobody else's. If he is not taksal himself he certainly idolizes them to the point of disregarding (and disrespecting) anyone else, which frankly given the sheer number of his almost spamming posts on this site, make this site seem to alienate any other Sikhs beside them. 
Though I agree taksal have done a lot for the panth, especially in 1980s, I do not agree with their full ideology because of the above what I have come to understand through Gurbani and some of the things they do speak more to Brahmanical ideology than Sikhi when put to test of what is written in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Maybe they began with different ideology and this stuff crept in later I don't know. But all I know is that I support Sikh Rehat Maryada because when put to test with Gurbani it agrees most closely. I really feel deeply on this. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/10/2016 at 4:25 PM, JasperS said:

Chatanga, veerji Who is rearranging Gurbani?

 

Jaspreet, you are rearrangin the meaning of the Gurbani shabad i pasted. it says that a Bhagat should shold derive the same pleasure from serving his/her Lord, that  a woman derives fromserving her husband. there is no confusion.

Another line from Gurbani says " In the midst of this world, do seva,
and you shall be given a place of honor in the Court of the Lord.
Says Nanak, swing your arms in joy! ||4||33||
" Ang 26 SGGS

But there has to be a structure to this seva. As per sakhi of Guru Gobind Singh, the son who didn't do sewa of  his parents, his sewa was nisfal in the Guru's court. A son's dharam is to do seva of his parents whilst they are alive. A woman similarly has to do sewa of her husband otherwise. It is her Istri-dharam.

 

On 04/10/2016 at 4:25 PM, JasperS said:

No you are still thinking wrong. There is only ONE soul within ALL.

 

Jaspreet, I agree with you 100% on this but there is a difference between our spiritual body and our physical body. Our Spiritual body is the same throughout mankind, but our bodies are not. Whilst men and women are both able to experience Waheguru, we do not have the same capabilities physically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...