Question On Gurmat Rehet Maryada (Damdami Taksal)

[savinderpalsingh]

Are we done here? Neo paaji please close this thread.

[paapiman]

In the GRM there exists some satatments that are very hard to justify as anything but sexist. I would like someone to please clarify because some of you delcare that the GRM is THE RM of Guru Ji, and that it is infallible. You also state that women are not excluded from anything except Panj Pyare (that they are free to participate equally in every other seva and that women are seen as equals by Damdami Taksal) but statements like the ones I am about to post paint an entirely different picture. Not only is it not only Panj Pyare that specifically states 'Singhs' other positions of authority - all of them (Granthi, Akhand Paath etc.) - also state 'Singh' so therefore using the reasoning that Panj can not be women because it says 'Singhs' means you also have to restrict women from nearly every other seva as well.

It's not just in the context of Panj Pyare that states 'Singh' in GRM. Therefore, contradictory to what some of you have stated about DDT treating women as equals aside from Panj Pyare seva, women are actually restricted from almost ALL seva by DDT:

Quoted directly from DDT's OWN website, and their OWN copy of Gurmat Rehet Maryada...

Women can not prepare Karah Prashad, or recite Anand Sahib:

" Two highly disciplined Singh’s should prepare Karah Parshad and bring it into the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee and then recite Anand SahibA prayer of bliss which was revealed by the 3rd Guru, Sri Guru Amar Das Jee "

Or act as Granthi:

"The Panj Pyare and Granthi Singh are to also clean their Kirpans and Karas with sand and then wash their GatrasKirpan holsters;"

...and it's not just Granthi for Amrit Sanchar either:

"After completing the verse, the Granthi Singh is to place the Rumala back over Sri Guru Granth Sahib."

Or birth ceremony:

"An Amritdhari Singh should get a Sarab Loh bowl and half fill it with water."

Or paathi during Akhand Paath:

"The Paathi Singhs are to wear clean clothing and must bathe before starting on their Paath seva."

Or Chaur Sahib Seva:

"One Singh is to do Chaur Sahib Seva whilst one is to go ahead of Satguru Jee…”

Or kirtan / Ragee.....even if there are no male Ragees:

"If Ragee Singhs cannot be found, then the Granthi Singh is to recite each Lav, place the Rumala over Guru Sahib and then recite "Satnam, Vaaheguroo" whilst the couple walk/circumbabulate around Guru Sahib."

^^^ THIS is why women are still unable to do kirtan at Sri Harmandir Sahib... the opposition was DDT and Sant Samaj. And THIS is why!!!!

Further reading of GRM brings to light some statements directly found within the Gurmat Rehet Maryada that outright states that women are beneath men:

GRM under heading Haraam – Adultery, sexual relationships outside of marriage:

"A Singh must look upon his wife as his faithful Singhni (follower). In the same manner a Singhni must look upon her husband as Parmeshwar (God)."

Damdami Taksal directly instructs women in the GRM to view their husbands as God, while the men view their wives as a faithful follower... a subordinate. She is not even instructed to simply view him as a leader in a family sense, but in a sense that his authority over her is the same as if he were God....or not even 'as if he were' but she is too look at him AS God!

Note: It has been suggested that this statement has some deep hidden meaning. However, Gurbani may contain metaphors and deeper meaning meant to be contemplated, but this is found in the GRM... Rehet Maryada is direct instruction to be followed! It is not meant to be some poetic and deep meaning, or else we could contest also the statement about Panj Pyares being 'Singhs' also being poetic! So if Rehet Maryada is a direct instruction, then it's clear what it is telling women to do.

Further investigation reveals more remarks in this light:

Here is another example… found in the GRM under the heading Fasting, where the entire meaning of the shabad in its original context has been ignored so that the exact opposite meaning of one tuk was misinterpreted to suggest that women should view their husbands as God. This I believe was the basis for the line I quoted above. However, when the entire shabad it was taken from is taken into context, it becomes apparent that the meaning was twisted to become something sexist.

Here is the correct translation - when taking into account the meaning of the FULL shabad in it’s entirety:

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥

Says Nanak, she who looks upon the Transcendent Lord as her Husband,

ਧੰਨੁ ਸਤੀ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਰਵਾਨਿਆ ॥੪॥੩੦॥੯੯॥

is the blessed 'satee'; she is received with honor in the Court of the Lord. ||4||30||99||

In contrast here is DDT’s translation of the lines above:

(http://www.damdamitaksaal.org/26-code-of-conduct)

Directly written in GRM, found under the heading Fasts:

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥

"Guru Jee says, she who looks upon Her Husband as the Lord, is blessed and has firm faith; great are

ਧੰਨੁ ਸਤੀ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਰਵਾਨਿਆ ॥

those wives and they are received with honour in the Court of the Lord."

Damdami Taksal’s translation does not make sense when you take the entire shabad as a whole:

This entire shabad speaks out against the practice of satee by Hindu wives on their husband’s funeral pyre. The Shabad is suggesting that the wives do not become filled with so much attachment to their husbands that they kill themselves when their husbands die….That the true satee is in continuing to live through the loss and instead to see the Transcendent Lord as her husband (as we are all instructed to do as soul-brides).

Damdami Taksal are taking it way out of context, ignoring the full shabad, and then translating those two lines wrongly to mean the opposite of what they actually do! They take it to mean that wives should view their husband as the Lord (in other words suggesting the wife should submit to her husband and be subordinate to him as though he were God).

It makes absolutely no sense in the context of the entire shabad, and besides that it goes against what is written in Gurbani about equality, status of women, and the fact that the SAME divine light is within everyone, males and females equally! It also sounds to me like an attempt to Bhraminize Sikhi as this concept of women viewing men as God is seen in Hinduism (Mahabharata/Smriti: husbands are the highest diety of their wives) and also Islam for that matter (Quran: Muhammad makes statement that if he were to have anyone prostrate anyone else it would be the wives prostrating their husbands).

SGGSJ however, speaks to the equality of gender:

Page 1020, Line 15

ਆਪੇ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਨਾਰੀ ॥

You Yourself are the male, and You Yourself are the female.

Page 96, Line 9

ਏਕੋ ਪਵਣੁ ਮਾਟੀ ਸਭ ਏਕਾ ਸਭ ਏਕਾ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਬਾਈਆ ॥

There is only one breath; all are made of the same clay; the light within all is the same.

Here is the full context of the shabad those lines were taken from so you can see the actual meaning:

ਗਉੜੀ ਗੁਆਰੇਰੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥

Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl:

ਕਲਿਜੁਗ ਮਹਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਆਏ ਸੰਜੋਗ ॥

In the Dark Age of Kali Yuga, they come together through destiny.

ਜਿਚਰੁ ਆਗਿਆ ਤਿਚਰੁ ਭੋਗਹਿ ਭੋਗ ॥੧॥

As long as the Lord commands, they enjoy their pleasures. ||1||

ਜਲੈ ਨ ਪਾਈਐ ਰਾਮ ਸਨੇਹੀ ॥

By burning oneself, the Beloved Lord is not obtained.

ਕਿਰਤਿ ਸੰਜੋਗਿ ਸਤੀ ਉਠਿ ਹੋਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Only by the actions of destiny does she rise up and burn herself, as a 'satee'. ||1||Pause||

ਦੇਖਾ ਦੇਖੀ ਮਨਹਠਿ ਜਲਿ ਜਾਈਐ ॥

Imitating what she sees, with her stubborn mind-set, she goes into the fire.

ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਸੰਗੁ ਨ ਪਾਵੈ ਬਹੁ ਜੋਨਿ ਭਵਾਈਐ ॥੨॥

She does not obtain the Company of her Beloved Lord, and she wanders through countless incarnations. ||2||

ਸੀਲ ਸੰਜਮਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਆਗਿਆ ਮਾਨੈ ॥

With pure conduct and self-restraint, she surrenders to her Husband Lord's Will;

ਤਿਸੁ ਨਾਰੀ ਕਉ ਦੁਖੁ ਨ ਜਮਾਨੈ ॥੩॥

that woman shall not suffer pain at the hands of the Messenger of Death. ||3||

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥

Says Nanak, she who looks upon the Transcendent Lord as her Husband,

ਧੰਨੁ ਸਤੀ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਰਵਾਨਿਆ ॥੪॥੩੦॥੯੯॥

is the blessed 'satee'; she is received with honor in the Court of the Lord. ||4||30||99||

I believe inconsistencies like this are what are breeding the feelings that women should be beneath men in some sort of divine hierarchy as was suggested many times on this forum.

Remember this is written directly in the Gurmat Rehet Maryada that many of you are demanding that everyone take as THE rehet maryada of Guru Ji. How can it be THE Rehet Maryada of Guru Ji when it goes so far against his teachings of equality, and takes single tuks out of context of the shabad they are from to misinterpret them into something that instead of uplifting women like was originally intended (as easily seen when the entire shabad is read in its full context), it instead puts them in to subordinate position? So how can it be stated to be THE Rehet Maryada of Guru Ji and how can it be claimed to be infallible when inconsistencies like this are blatently apparent, just by viewing the full shabad?? (in ANY language, English, or Punjabi) the shabad itself is what gives the context!

Remember that the quotes above are from Damdami Taksal's OWN website, from their OWN copy of Gurmat Rehet Maryada!

Or how about THIS doosey of an inconsistency for you: Sant Jarnail Singh Ji stated he is against women in Panj, but he stated that women should be allowed all other seva. So he actually spoke AGAINST what is stated in Gurmat Rehet Maryada. If indeed DDT's GRM is THE RM directly from Guru Ji himself, then why would SANT Jarnail Singh Ji speak AGAINST it??? It's obviously clearly stated that only Singhs can do most of the seva right??

Can anyone please explain??

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Sister, even according to Nanaksar maryada, women cannot do any sewa in Sachkhand (Bhog, Chaur, etc), perform Kirtan or be part of Panj Pyaray. I will try to find out the reason for it from some scholar. Until that time, you should try to accept these conditions with love and faith as both DDT and Nanaksar trace back their roots to Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh jee maharaaj.

Srimaan Sant Baba Nand Singh jee Maharaaj once told some women that there is no need for them to come to him. It would be enough for them to serve their husbands.*

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

*ref - Sri Nanaksar Stairs to God

[CdnSikhGirl]

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Sister, even according to Nanaksar maryada, women cannot do any sewa in Sachkhand (Bhog, Chaur, etc), perform Kirtan or be part of Panj Pyaray. I will try to find out the reason for it from some scholar. Until that time, you should try to accept these conditions with love and faith as both DDT and Nanaksar trace back their roots to Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh jee maharaaj.

Srimaan Sant Baba Nand Singh jee Maharaaj once told some women that there is no need for them to come to him. It would be enough for them to serve their husbands.*

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

*ref - Sri Nanaksar Stairs to God

Except I follow Sikh Rehet Maryada... It follows closest to what is actually in SGGSJ. Which I believe I have shown above that you have quoted. I am not DDT and not Nanaksar... I have not taken Amrit yet, but if I do it with ANY jatha, it would be AKJ.

And in SRM there is NO restriction at all on women.

Again, like others, you are parroting certain RMs and not supporting the reasons why with actual Gurbani. Instead of just being another sheep, we should use the brain given to us by Waheguru and go to the ONE source of information we CAN trust as authentic... and that's our only living Guru... Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Those specific RMs you mention are VERY sexist, and I will not 'just accept' them. First of all, there is no proof that they have been unaltered at some point, and second, that they were written taking in to account the actual teachings of the Gurus. I have shown in the Chaupa Singh Rhetnama recently, how there are inconsistencies, which point to very Brahministic thinking.... like waking at dawn and saluting the Sun with 'Namaste'. (only one example there are others), and low and behold.... what was Chaupa Singh's background??? Brahmin! So it's no surprise that his rhetnama contains instructions such that women should behold their husband as 'God' and he restricts women from nearly everything. And even the wording is almost identical to what is written in Hindu scripture! Mere coincidence I think not!

There are many Rehet Maryadas... ALL differing in some ways. I am not obliged to follow the most sexist ones just... because some say I should?? I would prefer to go to SGGSJ and read for myself what it says about equality.

And... I will NEVER serve a man as 'God'. Why should he be above me? We are both here on the same journey... shouldnt we serve each other equally? Or... maybe being born as a woman is somehow a punishment? Maybe we have to be reborn in a male 'joon' before we can merge back with God??? That idea has been thrown around too... also very Brahministic thinking which has no backing in SGGSJ.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

Except I follow Sikh Rehet Maryada... It follows closest to what is actually in SGGSJ. Which I believe I have shown above that you have quoted. I am not DDT and not Nanaksar... I have not taken Amrit yet, but if I do it with ANY jatha, it would be AKJ.

You can take amrit from anywhere as long as the Singhs who are part of the Panj Pyaray have high spiritual levels. There is currently NO one Sikh Rehat Maryada. The so-called Sikh Rehat Maryada has not been accepted by the panth.

Again, like others, you are parroting certain RMs and not supporting the reasons why with actual Gurbani. Instead of just being another sheep, we should use the brain given to us by Waheguru and go to the ONE source of information we CAN trust as authentic... and that's our only living Guru... Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

If you read the DDT RM, there is more than enough Gurbani in it, to make it understandable to an ordinary person like me.

Those specific RMs you mention are VERY sexist, and I will not 'just accept' them. First of all, there is no proof that they have been unaltered at some point, and second, that they were written taking in to account the actual teachings of the Gurus. I have shown in the Chaupa Singh Rhetnama recently, how there are inconsistencies, which point to very Brahministic thinking.... like waking at dawn and saluting the Sun with 'Namaste'. (only one example there are others), and low and behold.... what was Chaupa Singh's background??? Brahmin! So it's no surprise that his rhetnama contains instructions such that women should behold their husband as 'God' and he restricts women from nearly everything. And even the wording is almost identical to what is written in Hindu scripture! Mere coincidence I think not!

I think you should show respect towards Bhai saab Bhai Chaupa Singh jee as he was a great Sikh of tenth master. What is wrong in doing namastay to Sooraj Devta? Bhai Saab jee did not say to worship it. Namastay is used to greet and show respect to someone. Without Sun, there would be no life on Earth. It is a great creation of Satguru jee.

DDT RM was written by Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa. Neither he nor Srimaan Baba Deep Singh jee Shaheed or Srimaan Baba Mani Singh jee Shaheed (founders of DDT) were born into Brahmin families. The reason, their thinking matches is because they are ALL SIKHS of Satguru jee.

And... I will NEVER serve a man as 'God'. Why should he be above me? We are both here on the same journey... shouldnt we serve each other equally? Or... maybe being born as a woman is somehow a punishment? Maybe we have to be reborn in a male 'joon' before we can merge back with God??? That idea has been thrown around too... also very Brahministic thinking which has no backing in SGGSJ.

You can follow whatever you want. If you don't want to follow the orthodox sects (DDT, Nanaksar, Nihang, Sevapanthi, Nirmalay, etc), you can follow sects/cults which came later into the panth. It is NO surprise that all the sects which trace back their roots to the tenth master have more or less, the same kind of thinking. Just for example, Keski is NOT considered as a Kakaar by any orthodox sect of Sikhism and suddenly after more than 100 years of the creation of Khalsa, it becomes a Kakaar.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 8, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

And if I take Amrit somewhere that has Kaurs as Panj Pyares? AKJ does do this! I have photos to back this up if you don't believe me! I would rather espouse the equality the Gurus taught than take Amrit from some Singhs who see me as infeior. Oh wait... those puritan Rehetnamas say I shouldn't even be able to take Amrit! Oopps.. sorry forgot my inferior place for a moment.

If you read the DDT RM, there is more than enough Gurbani in it, to make it understandable to an ordinary person like me.

Then please explain this:

(ignore the quote thing is not working properly)

Here is another example… found in the GRM under the heading

Fasting, where the entire meaning of the shabad in its original context has been ignored so that the exact opposite meaning of one tuk was misinterpreted to suggest that women should view their husbands as God. This I believe was the basis for the line I quoted above. However, when the entire shabad it was taken from is taken into context, it becomes apparent that the meaning was twisted to become something sexist.

Here is the correct translation - when taking into account the meaning of the FULL shabad in it’s entirety:

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥

Says Nanak, she who looks upon the Transcendent Lord as her Husband,

ਧੰਨੁ ਸਤੀ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਰਵਾਨਿਆ ॥੪॥੩੦॥੯੯॥

is the blessed 'satee'; she is received with honor in the Court of the Lord. ||4||30||99||

In contrast here is DDT’s translation of the lines above:
(http://www.damdamitaksaal.org/26-code-of-conduct)
Directly written in GRM, found under the heading Fasts:

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥
"Guru Jee says, she who looks upon Her Husband as the Lord, is blessed and has firm faith; great are

ਧੰਨੁ ਸਤੀ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਰਵਾਨਿਆ ॥

those wives and they are received with honour in the Court of the Lord."

Damdami Taksal’s translation does not make sense when you take the entire shabad as a whole:

This entire shabad speaks out against the practice of satee by Hindu wives on their husband’s funeral pyre. The Shabad is suggesting that the wives do not become filled with so much attachment to their husbands that they kill themselves when their husbands die….That the true satee is in continuing to live through the loss and instead to see the Transcendent Lord as her husband (as we are all instructed to do as soul-brides).

Damdami Taksal are taking it way out of context, ignoring the full shabad, and then translating those two lines wrongly to mean the opposite of what they actually do! They take it to mean that wives should view their husband as the Lord (in other words suggesting the wife should submit to her husband and be subordinate to him as though he were God).

It makes absolutely no sense in the context of the entire shabad, and besides that it goes against what is written in Gurbani about equality, status of women, and the fact that the SAME divine light is within everyone, males and females equally! It also sounds to me like an attempt to Bhraminize Sikhi as this concept of women viewing men as God is seen in Hinduism (Mahabharata/Smriti: husbands are the highest diety of their wives) and also Islam for that matter (Quran: Muhammad makes statement that if he were to have anyone prostrate anyone else it would be the wives prostrating their husbands).

SGGSJ however, speaks to the equality of gender:

Page 1020, Line 15
ਆਪੇ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਨਾਰੀ ॥
You Yourself are the male, and You Yourself are the female.

Page 96, Line 9
ਏਕੋ ਪਵਣੁ ਮਾਟੀ ਸਭ ਏਕਾ ਸਭ ਏਕਾ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਬਾਈਆ ॥
There is only one breath; all are made of the same clay; the light within all is the same.

Here is the full context of the shabad those lines were taken from so you can see the actual meaning:

ਗਉੜੀ ਗੁਆਰੇਰੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥

Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl:

ਕਲਿਜੁਗ ਮਹਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਆਏ ਸੰਜੋਗ ॥

In the Dark Age of Kali Yuga, they come together through destiny.

ਜਿਚਰੁ ਆਗਿਆ ਤਿਚਰੁ ਭੋਗਹਿ ਭੋਗ ॥੧॥

As long as the Lord commands, they enjoy their pleasures. ||1||

ਜਲੈ ਨ ਪਾਈਐ ਰਾਮ ਸਨੇਹੀ ॥

By burning oneself, the Beloved Lord is not obtained.

ਕਿਰਤਿ ਸੰਜੋਗਿ ਸਤੀ ਉਠਿ ਹੋਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Only by the actions of destiny does she rise up and burn herself, as a 'satee'. ||1||Pause||

ਦੇਖਾ ਦੇਖੀ ਮਨਹਠਿ ਜਲਿ ਜਾਈਐ ॥

Imitating what she sees, with her stubborn mind-set, she goes into the fire.

ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਸੰਗੁ ਨ ਪਾਵੈ ਬਹੁ ਜੋਨਿ ਭਵਾਈਐ ॥੨॥

She does not obtain the Company of her Beloved Lord, and she wanders through countless incarnations. ||2||

ਸੀਲ ਸੰਜਮਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਆਗਿਆ ਮਾਨੈ ॥

With pure conduct and self-restraint, she surrenders to her Husband Lord's Will;

ਤਿਸੁ ਨਾਰੀ ਕਉ ਦੁਖੁ ਨ ਜਮਾਨੈ ॥੩॥

that woman shall not suffer pain at the hands of the Messenger of Death. ||3||

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥

Says Nanak, she who looks upon the Transcendent Lord as her Husband,

ਧੰਨੁ ਸਤੀ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਰਵਾਨਿਆ ॥੪॥੩੦॥੯੯॥

is the blessed 'satee'; she is received with honor in the Court of the Lord. ||4||30||99||

Finally: Do you actually believe that Sikhi was created for men only and that women are to be subordinate and beneath men, and that they shouldn't concern themselves with spiritual matters because their husband should be the only God they serve? Because thinking like that is what it is suggesting... do you see your sisters, Mothers, etc as beneath you? Do you feel some sense of superiority over all the Singhnis in Sikhi? Do you think this is what the Gurus starting with Guru Nanak really wanted?

Edited April 8, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[CdnSikhGirl]

I think you should show respect towards Bhai saab Bhai Chaupa Singh jee as he was a great Sikh of tenth master. What is wrong in doing namastay to Sooraj Devta? Bhai Saab jee did not say to worship it. Namastay is used to greet and show respect to someone. Without Sun, there would be no life on Earth. It is a great creation of Satguru jee.

DDT RM was written by Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa. Neither he nor Srimaan Baba Deep Singh jee Shaheed or Srimaan Baba Mani Singh jee Shaheed (founders of DDT) were born into Brahmin families. The reason, their thinking matches is because they are ALL SIKHS of Satguru jee.

So basically you think all Sikhs of Satguru Ji should belive that women are inferior to men and should be restricted from having the same freedoms that men have? Why do you think this is? Is being born female a punishment then? I think it's more likely that the reasoning their views were all the similar is that they were all sexist, having their minds deluded by the societal customs of the times, and they disregarded the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji on gender equality.

This thinking has kept women oppressed for ages. If this is what Sikhi truly is (or was supposed to be) I need to reconsider whether or not it is the true path. Thank you for opening my eyes to the fact that so many Singhs see us as inferior. Because of this I may choose not to take Amrit at all, and maybe I made a mistake by following Sikhi.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[Guest]

Sikh community is not totally patriarchy, allthough it may seem that way because of misal (sikh army period who fought so many wars) and other factors such as british influence etc. But gladly, seed for woman full equality is still there by guru's grace. I have done some research on sikh woman saints and female preachers:

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/70272-thread-dedicated-to-sikh-woman-parcharikhssants/

Even speaking from sikh theological point of view, Vahiguru(god) - full of attributes immanent form-Sargun form is both described as male- purakh, and female as in sri dasam granth sahib which is interpreted both as shakti(life/creative/ destructive force)- feminine and weapon-shakti.

ਕਿ ਪਰਮਹ ਪ੍ਰਭਾ ਛੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਪਾਵਿੱਤ੍ਰਤਾ ਛੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਆਲੋਕਣੀ ਹੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਆਭਾ ਪਰੀ ਹੈ ॥੩੧੩॥
कि परमह प्रभा छै ॥ कि पावि्त्रता छै ॥ कि आलोकणी है ॥ कि आभा परी है ॥३१३॥
She was illustrious, pure and like enlightning effulgence; she was a glorious fairy.313.

ਕਿ ਚੰਦ੍ਰਾਮੁਖੀ ਛੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਸੂਰੰ ਪ੍ਰਭਾ ਛੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਪਾਵਿੱਤ੍ਰਤਾ ਹੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਪਰਮੰ ਪ੍ਰਭਾ ਹੈ ॥੩੧੪॥
कि चंद्रामुखी छै ॥ कि सूरं प्रभा छै ॥ कि पावि्त्रता है ॥ कि परमं प्रभा है ॥३१४॥
She was glorious like the moon and the sun; she was supremely immaculate and radiant.314,

ਕਿ ਸਰਪੰ ਲਟੀ ਹੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਦੁੱਖੰ ਕਟੀ ਹੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਚੰਚਾਲਕਾ ਛੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਚੰਦ੍ਰੰ ਪ੍ਰਭਾ ਛੈ ॥੩੧੫॥
कि सरपं लटी है ॥ कि दु्खं कटी है ॥ कि चंचालका छै ॥ कि चंद्रं प्रभा छै ॥३१५॥
She was a Naga-girl and the destroyer of all sufferings; she was mercurial and glorious.315.

ਕਿ ਬੁੱਧੰ ਧਰੀ ਹੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਕ੍ਰੁੱਧੰ ਹਰੀ ਹੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਛੱਤ੍ਰਾਲ ਕਾਛੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਬਿੱਜੰ ਛਟਾ ਹੈ ॥੩੧੬॥
कि बु्धं धरी है ॥ कि क्रु्धं हरी है ॥ कि छ्त्राल काछै ॥ कि बि्जं छटा है ॥३१६॥
She was Sarasvati-incarnate, destroyer of anger, having long hair; she was like the flash of lighning.316.

ਕਿ ਛਤ੍ਰਾਣਵੀ ਹੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਛਤ੍ਰੰ ਧਰੀ ਹੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਛਤ੍ਰੰ ਪ੍ਰਭਾ ਹੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਛਤ੍ਰੰ ਛਟਾ ਹੈ ॥੩੧੭॥
कि छत्राणवी है ॥ कि छत्रं धरी है ॥ कि छत्रं प्रभा है ॥ कि छत्रं छटा है ॥३१७॥
She was a Kshatriya woman, a canopied queen and a glorious and beautiful damsel like the canopy.317.

ਕਿ ਬਾਨੰ ਦ੍ਰਿਗੀ ਹੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਨੇਤ੍ਰੰ ਮ੍ਰਿਗੀ ਹੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਕਉਲਾ ਪ੍ਰਭਾ ਹੈ ॥ ਨਿਸੇਸਾਨਨੀ ਛੈ ॥੩੧੮॥
कि बानं द्रिगी है ॥ कि नेत्रं म्रिगी है ॥ कि कउला प्रभा है ॥ निसेसाननी छै ॥३१८॥
Her doe-like eyes worked like arrows and she was pretty like the radiance of lotus or the moonbeams.318.

ਕਿ ਗੰਧ੍ਰਬਣੀ ਹੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਬਿਦਿਆਧਰੀ ਛੈ ॥ ਕਿ ਬਾਸੰਤ ਨਾਰੀ ॥ ਕਿ ਭੂਤੇਸ ਪਿਆਰੀ ॥੩੧੯॥
कि गंध्रबणी है ॥ कि बिदिआधरी छै ॥ कि बासंत नारी ॥ कि भूतेस पिआरी ॥३१९॥
She was a Gandharva woman or a Vidyadhar girl or the spring like lady or a beloved of all the people.319.

[paapiman]

So basically you think all Sikhs of Satguru Ji should belive that women are inferior to men and should be restricted from having the same freedoms that men have? Why do you think this is? Is being born female a punishment then? I think it's more likely that the reasoning their views were all the similar is that they were all sexist, having their minds deluded by the societal customs of the times, and they disregarded the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji on gender equality.

This thinking has kept women oppressed for ages. If this is what Sikhi truly is (or was supposed to be) I need to reconsider whether or not it is the true path. Thank you for opening my eyes to the fact that so many Singhs see us as inferior. Because of this I may choose not to take Amrit at all, and maybe I made a mistake by following Sikhi.

Sister, I am not in favor of considering all women as inferior. But, you need to follow the maryada made by God. Women have certain capabilities which men don't have and I agree with it. Sikhism did a lot to uplift women, but still there are certain restrictions.

A Singh will consider himself inferior to a woman (due to utter humility) and not superior.

Even if you consider yourself equal to your husband, I don't think it is a bad thing to do as long as you remain faithful to him and love him.

Also, I would request you at your feet to take Amrit as it is a precious item which is gained by huge grace of Satguru jee. If I said anything which hurt your feelings, please forgive me (I am a big idiot) but don't leave Sikhi.

Bhul Chuk Maaf

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 8, 2015 by paapiman

[Guest]

Srimaan Sant Baba Nand Singh jee Maharaaj once told some women that there is no need for them to come to him. It would be enough for them to serve their husbands.*

a) This bachan is not precedence.

b.) This bachan has a context, without proper context its highly foolish to believe this as this bachchan is circumstantial.

[CdnSikhGirl]

paapiman, through my own spiritual experiences (and I have had some experiences which defy physical logic and have given me some insight and ultimately lead me to Sikhi in the first place) through these experiences, I have found that the ONLY part of each and every one of us that is true, is pure light. That light has no gender. (Though is spoken of as being female for everyone as God is the only true Male... we are all soul brides). Therefore, physical gender is only transitory and part of this illusion we live in. Because of this, it makes no sense to restrict anyone from anything. Seva....any religious duties, affect us spiritually... not physically. Therefore why would God restrict some from achieving the same spiritual level by saying they can not perform seva that will connect them on that level, simply because of which transitory physical form they inhabit? The greater picture is our spiritual nature... not this physical one. Rehet Maryadas were ALL written by those thinking in this physical form. The contents written with much influence of the cultural norms of the time. The Gurus did not give us a Rehet Maryada... they gave us Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. It is infallible while rhetnamas differ from one to another based on the writer's own thoughts. Therefore, we should recognize these facts, and follow what is written in SGGSJ. SGGSJ is what drew me to SIkhi. But there seems to be a HUGE divergence between what's taught in SGGSJ and those rhetnamas you mentioned.

Also worth considering... Guru Ji placed ALL authority onward with the panth through Panj Pyares... therefore, is Panj Pyares say to follow Sikh Rhet Maryada, that is what I will follow as they have the authority of Guru Ji. If that rhet maryada says that women can also be Panj Pyares, and perform all seva, then that is as good as Guru Ji himself saying such. And when we look back at SGGSJ as the ultimate guide, it's in agreement.

I am in conflict with the whole rehet maryada thing... SRM seems the logical and truest to SGGSJ and to what I have experienced spiritually myself. But if there is insistence that Sikhi is actually supposed to be exclusive to men, and women are seen as inferior, then to me they are not looking at the larger picture of our spiritual nature and out TRUE identity. Therefore, if that is what SIkhi actually is, it doesn't fit with my belief and knowledge.

A Singh will consider himself inferior to a woman (due to utter humility) and not superior.

That statement in an of itself is suggesting that Singh sees her as inferior but will tell her he is inferior just to make her feel better... Women do not need men to feel sorry for them... that only reiterates the idea that they are inferior!

Edited April 9, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[Guest]

Sister, I am not in favor of considering all women as inferior. But, you need to follow the maryada made by God. Women have certain capabilities which men don't have and I agree with it. Sikhism did a lot to uplift women, but still there are certain restrictions.

A Singh will consider himself inferior to a woman (due to utter humility) and not superior.

Even if you consider yourself equal to your husband, I don't think it is a bad thing to do as long as you remain faithful to him and love him.

Also, I would request you at your feet to take Amrit as it is a precious item which is gained by huge grace of Satguru jee. If I said anything which hurt your feelings, please forgive me (I am a big idiot) but don't leave Sikhi.

Bhul Chuk Maaf

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Women have full rights in the sikh panth, there are no restrictions. Most small aspects which may seem inequality in rehitnamas and maryada is not written on a stone as they are subjected to time and circumstantial.

Nirmale have treated women fully equally, have nirmale mahants as woman, its only nihangs because of misal influence and taksali have some issues regarding respect of maharaj during women period time for hygienic reasons but that portion in maryada is outdated as now there are technology/innovative products which ensures women are quite hygienic during period time.

I personally believe sikh youths should stop getting hung upon small aspects in rehit maryada to the point they are arguing with sikh women over it and putting them off. They should concentrate on gurbani and essence of gurbani.

[paapiman]

That statement in an of itself is suggesting that Singh sees her as inferior but will tell her he is inferior just to make her feel better... Women do not need men to feel sorry for them... that only reiterates the idea that they are inferior!

I meant that a Singh will consider himself inferior to all other people (male or female) because of utter humility taught to us by Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev jee Maharaaj.

Sister, I beg you, please do take amrit from wherever you feel like.

Bhul Chuk Maaf

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[khalsa_tigerforce]

waheguru ji ka khalsa waheguru ji ki fateh ji

As now a days I am hearing that in 1699 when our father gave us amrit that time no women took amrit

By my knowledge and I have read in our history that women also took amrit and she became kaur like our mother mata sahib kaur

[khalsa_tigerforce]

waheguru ji ka khalsa waheguru ji ki fateh ji

As now a days I am hearing that in 1699 when our father gave us amrit that time no women took amrit

By my knowledge and I have read in our history that women also took amrit and she became kaur like our mother mata sahib kaur

[paapiman]

a) This bachan is not precedence.

b.) This bachan has a context, without proper context its highly foolish to believe this as this bachchan is circumstantial.

Answers to your issues in a different post.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[Kuttabanda2]

You are aware that there is more one Splinter group or faction of DamDami Taksal, right? And they might have differences and opinions that may contradict each other.

If the GRM uses the word 'Singh' it doesn't mean it's Sexist, I'm pretty sure the original author didn't intentionally mean only one gender.

some Shudh and Gurvaak Rehatnamas and use words that typically denote masculinity, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Rehatnama is only speaking to Male Khalsas.

[paapiman]

You are aware that there is more one Splinter group or faction of DamDami Taksal, right? And they might have differences and opinions that may contradict each other.

If the GRM uses the word 'Singh' it doesn't mean it's Sexist, I'm pretty sure the original author didn't intentionally mean only one gender.

some Shudh and Gurvaak Rehatnamas and use words that typically denote masculinity, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Rehatnama is only speaking to Male Khalsas.

Good points Singh Saab.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[Kuttabanda2]

I live in California and I see many Taksali Singhs encouraging Bibia to do Seva of Chaur Sahib, reading Bani from Guru Sahib, make Degh, etc.

[CdnSikhGirl]

I live in California and I see many Taksali Singhs encouraging Bibia to do Seva of Chaur Sahib, reading Bani from Guru Sahib, make Degh, etc.

If the GRM uses the word 'Singh' it doesn't mean it's Sexist, I'm pretty sure the original author didn't intentionally mean only one gender. some Shudh and Gurvaak Rehatnamas and use words that typically denote masculinity, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Rehatnama is only speaking to Male Khalsas.

Then Panj Pyare seva should also follow... because the reasoning behind restricting for Punj Pyares is that the GRM states 'five Singhs'

If they are not following where it says Granthi must be a Singh, raagis must be Singhs, etc then they can't use that same reasoning to bar Singhnis from Panj Pyares!

And yes I agree with you... SIngh means Lion. Just as Man means mankind. Singh can also mean both Lion and Lioness. And actually I believe its used in this context in SGGSJ where it sates the Lion hungers for meat... (paraphrased) means Lion or Lioness (the species).

Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[Kuttabanda2]

It's not because The Gurmat Rehat Maryada states 'five Singhs', their reasoning is that: When Guru Sahib asked for Heads, five men stood up, not women, however, a woman can partake in the ceremony, by putting pataase into the Baata as Mata Sahib Kaur had.

Then Panj Pyare seva should also follow... because the reasoning behind restricting for Punj Pyares is that the GRM states 'five Singhs'

If they are not following where it says Granthi must be a Singh, raagis must be Singhs, etc then they can't use that same reasoning to bar Singhnis from Panj Pyares!

And yes I agree with you... SIngh means Lion. Just as Man means mankind. Singh can also mean both Lion and Lioness. And actually I believe its used in this context in SGGSJ where it sates the Lion hungers for meat... (paraphrased) means Lion or Lioness (the species).

[Kuttabanda2]

Their reasoning is: five men stood up, no woman. So no Seva in the Panj Pyare for woman. However, a woman can put Pataasseh in the Baata as Mata Sahib Kaur had.

[Singh123456777]

Their reasoning is: five men stood up, no woman. So no Seva in the Panj Pyare for woman. However, a woman can put Pataasseh in the Baata as Mata Sahib Kaur had.

Mata sahib Kaur did not put the patasseh in the baata... It was mata jeet Kaur who put them in... Mata sahib Kaur came 1 year and 18 days after 1699...

[CdnSikhGirl]

Their reasoning is: five men stood up, no woman. So no Seva in the Panj Pyare for woman. However, a woman can put Pataasseh in the Baata as Mata Sahib Kaur had.

So using that same reasoning no man should be allowed to put pataasseh in the baata? But wait... its ALWAYS men too!

You guys just can not see past gender. Our souls are genderless (actually referred to all of us have female souls and Waheguru is the only male hence soul bride). Their gender did not matter. It wasn't a penis that volunteered. Their gender had nothing to do with them volunteering. It was five Sikhs, five souls who volunteered. All else is part of this illusion we call Maya. Just because you have a penis does not give you any more right than I have to do this seva. It wasn't YOU who volunteered your head that day either. Do you really think the Gurus were all about punishing someone for what they happen to have between their legs?? I really feel sorry for those of you who can not see past the physical... can not see past Maya. All you see when you look at someone is a penis or vagina... and if they have a penis then great they can do anything... if they have a vagina, then you give a big full stop and say they cant do this or cant do that. If it was all about imitating the original five exactly then why can any caste now be Panj Pyares? Should it not be restricted to only the five representative in the original? How about their surnames? How about if they were vegetarian? Where do we draw the line? Why is it only gender that sticks as a reason to restrict, to discriminate?

This is why I would never follow DDT or any jatha who views women in this light... thinking that ALL women for all time should be punished because none happened to be in the first five. It's a scorning / punishment that they will carry on for all time against women??? I dont know why any women would follow DDT being put into this lowly position and seen this way. It's like you all want to scorn women for all time for what a few present in that one day did or didnt do. What makes you think YOU are any more worthy of being Panj Pyares? Simply because you have a penis??? hahaha

I really pray to Waheguru Ji that someday you will see past this illusion and see reality for what it is... nonphysical, where gender does not matter at all. In fact it doesnt really even matter now expect for one thing... procreation. Outside of that we are all essentially the same. We breathe the same air, have the same hopes and desires, we all have 2 arms and 2 legs, 2 eyes, a nose etc.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[Singh123456777]

Can we just close this topic?