paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 WJKK WJKF, I never said it was banned... just that it was not encouraged. The Gurus did not encourage the yogi way of wandering off alone into the woods and renouncing society to find God. Because they taught God is within everything and everyone all around us and within us. God is no more in the woods than in your neighbour, or yourself. Agreed, the bujar kurehits include sex outside of marrige... but within it is perfectly fine. I agree with most of your thoughts except the last line. Sex for PLEASURE with spouse is not a Bajjar Kurehit, but still is a SMALL sin. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuttabanda2 Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 I'm pretty sure the Gurus weren't God, Guru Gobind Singh Sahib even says so in his Bani. If we keep looking at Sex ( for procreation) as a dirty and impure thing, then we won't understand Banis like Charitaropakhyan ( don't take this the other way). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 I'm pretty sure the Gurus weren't God, Guru Gobind Singh Sahib even says so in his Bani. If we keep looking at Sex ( for procreation) as a dirty and impure thing, then we won't understand Banis like Charitaropakhyan ( don't take this the other way). Bro, who gave you this false information that Satguru Sri Guru Nanak dev jee Maharaaj is not GOD? Gurbani proves that Maharaaj is GOD. Brother, don't listen to people who call Satguru Sri Guru Nanak dev jee Maharaaj as an ordinary guru or a prophet. You are right bro. Sex for PROCREATION is not a bad thing at all. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh123456777 Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Eating pizza is a sin We should eat leafs to sustain!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Eating pizza is a sin We should eat leafs to sustain!! Bro, I don't think we will be able to sustain a healthy body by eating leaves only. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 No but you can eat plenty of things that will keep you healthy without having them taste good. Eating for pleasure is also discouraged... but we all do it. We all add masala to our curries, we all add sugar to our kheer. Pleasure is not bad. It's addiction to pleasure that is bad. I don't know why you think pleasure itself is a sin. God created pleasure as a gift... one that should be appreciated. But not taken for granted and abused. Like our drug analogy. Sex between spouse if there was no pleasure at all, you'd be hard pressed to have any children. And the spouses would not be close as a family. The medicine, is that sex brings husband and wife together as one... and strengthens their bond. Abuse of sex however creates addiction to the mere physical pleasure of it, instead of the closeness and bonding between spouses. There is a huge difference. We can agree to disagree.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 No but you can eat plenty of things that will keep you healthy without having them taste good. Eating for pleasure is also discouraged... but we all do it. We all add masala to our curries, we all add sugar to our kheer. Pleasure is not bad. It's addiction to pleasure that is bad. I don't know why you think pleasure itself is a sin. God created pleasure as a gift... one that should be appreciated. But not taken for granted and abused. Like our drug analogy. Sex between spouse if there was no pleasure at all, you'd be hard pressed to have any children. And the spouses would not be close as a family. The medicine, is that sex brings husband and wife together as one... and strengthens their bond. Abuse of sex however creates addiction to the mere physical pleasure of it, instead of the closeness and bonding between spouses. There is a huge difference. We can agree to disagree.... I feel (might be wrong) that you cannot fathom a happy marriage without sex for pleasure. Please read below the sakhi of Jin Datt. It is from a non-Sikh website but it should be an eye opener for you. http://www.jainworld.com/book/tenuniversalvirtues/ch16.asp After reading it, one can only imagine the life of a Gurmukh couple. SEX does not bring Gurmukh couples together, GURBANI does. Gurbani is the medicine. I have already mentioned earlier that eating food for PLEASURE is also a sin in Gurmat. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IJJSingh Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 In India due to old religious traditions and cultural influences many people believe strongly that sex is dirty. People have projected their personal biases to float the belief that Guru Nanak's sons were not born through sex. This belief is anti-gurmat and has no historical support. The Guru says very clearly: ਜੈਸੇ ਮਾਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਬਿਨੁ ਬਾਲੁ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥ Without a mother or father there is no child; (SGGS 872) Why would Guru contradict his own statement and have a child without a father? God is in all creation and all births happen in God's hukam (will). The Guru is the champion of hukam. He gave us the message to always live in Hukam. Why would Guru break God's hukam? If Gurus' children were born through immaculate conception, this would been a huge deal. This fact would have been mentioned in history somewhere. Yet there is no mention of it in any of the writings of Gurus' contemporaries. It's not mentioned in: Puratan Janmsakhi, Bhai Gurdas ji's writings, Bala Janamsakhi, Meharban's writings, Bhat Bani in SGGS or Bhai Mani Singh ji's Janamsakhi. The very first mention is in Suraj Prakash which was written in 1843 -- centuries later after the Guru left his human form. Creation is a form of God, there is nothing bad in it. To see good and bad is to get mired in duality which takes us away from God. ਸਭੁ ਗੋਬਿੰਦੁ ਹੈ ਸਭੁ ਗੋਬਿੰਦੁ ਹੈ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਬਿਨੁ ਨਹੀ ਕੋਈ ॥ God is everything, God is everything. Without God, there is nothing at all. (SGGS 485) ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਆਪੇ ਆਪਿ ਹੈ ਦੂਜਾ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥ He Himself is everything; there is no other at all. (SGGS 39) Only thing bad is when we forget God, we stop seeing reality (which is God) and through attachment we see illusion. A deed is not good or bad; It's the attachment associated with deeds which is bad because it leads us to duality and make us forget God. Sex is a very powerful emotion and it's very easy to fall in its grip of attachment. This grip is Kaam which makes us forget God and leads us to hurt other human beings through cheating, jealousy, possessiveness and subjugation. If we are in a loving relationship with our spouse and view sex as a gift from God then sex is beautiful -- it's a blessing. If we see God in our spouse, then any interaction with our spouse is worship of God. In many places in SGGS Guru has compared union with God as a carnal relationship where Sikh is the bride and God is the groom: ਮਿਠਾ ਬੋਲਹਿ ਨਿਵਿ ਚਲਹਿ ਸੇਜੈ ਰਵੈ ਭਤਾਰੁ ॥ Her speech is sweet, and her way of life is humble. She enjoys the Bed of her Husband Lord. (SGGS 31) ਸਦ ਹੀ ਸੇਜੈ ਰਵੈ ਭਤਾਰੁ ॥ She enjoys her Husband Lord forever on His Bed. (SGGS 357) If sex was bad, then why would Guru compare a bad thing to something so wonderful as being one with God. If there was even an iota of sin in sex then Guru would not have used sex as a metaphor for union with God. Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 In India due to old religious traditions and cultural influences many people believe strongly that sex is dirty. People have projected their personal biases to float the belief that Guru Nanak's sons were not born through sex. This belief is anti-gurmat and has no historical support. The Guru says very clearly: ਜੈਸੇ ਮਾਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਬਿਨੁ ਬਾਲੁ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥ Without a mother or father there is no child; (SGGS 872) Why would Guru contradict his own statement and have a child without a father? God is in all creation and all births happen in God's hukam (will). The Guru is the champion of hukam. He gave us the message to always live in Hukam. Why would Guru break God's hukam? The tuk in Gurbani, related to father and mother is meant for us. Singh saab, please do not apply that tuk to guru saheb himself. Satguru jee is the incarnation of GOD. If modern science can create babies without male intervention, why cannot GOD do it? Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) I feel (might be wrong) that you cannot fathom a happy marriage without sex for pleasure. Please read below the sakhi of Jin Datt. It is from a non-Sikh website but it should be an eye opener for you. http://www.jainworld.com/book/tenuniversalvirtues/ch16.asp After reading it, one can only imagine the life of a Gurmukh couple. SEX does not bring Gurmukh couples together, GURBANI does. Gurbani is the medicine. I have already mentioned earlier that eating food for PLEASURE is also a sin in Gurmat. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh Maybe its our definition of pleasure that is making this difficult. You are speaking (I think, please correct me if I am wrong) about purely physical pleasure. I am speaking of a deeper spiritual connection with your spouse. I am speaking more of the union, the love, caring, etc. And sharing of spiritual energy. Not physical pleasure. I am trying to say that sex is much more than just simply physical feelings that feel good. The problem is that abuse by humanity, has turned it into only that for the majority. Nobody seeks that deeper union between husband and wife anymore... its now all about the feel good feelings (orgasm) and nothing more. Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Maybe its our definition of pleasure that is making this difficult. You are speaking (I think, please correct me if I am wrong) about purely physical pleasure. I am speaking of a deeper spiritual connection with your spouse. I am speaking more of the union, the love, caring, etc. And sharing of spiritual energy. Not physical pleasure. I am trying to say that sex is much more than just simply physical feelings that feel good. The problem is that abuse by humanity, has turned it into only that for the majority. Nobody seeks that deeper union between husband and wife anymore... its now all about the feel good feelings (orgasm) and nothing more. One can have love, deeper spiritual connection, sharing of energy, union and caring, even without physical sexual intercourse. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 One can have love, deeper spiritual connection, sharing of energy, union and caring, even without physical sexual intercourse. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh Sure! I care about my Mom, my brothers sisters etc. But I could never achieve that one soul in two bodies connection. If you want the same relationship with your spouse that you have with your Mom or sister then fine! I want that deeper one soul in two bodies connection, or else why even marry someone? I can love and care about my Mom etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Sure! I care about my Mom, my brothers sisters etc. But I could never achieve that one soul in two bodies connection. If you want the same relationship with your spouse that you have with your Mom or sister then fine! I want that deeper one soul in two bodies connection, or else why even marry someone? I can love and care about my Mom etc. The relationship with the spouse will be that of a female friend, which is not possible for a Singh with any other woman. So it will be different from the relationship with one's mother or sister. Also, for procreation, at times the sexual act will have to be performed many times before the wife gets pregnant. This type of physical closeness is not possible in any other sort of relationship. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) If we are in a loving relationship with our spouse and view sex as a gift from God then sex is beautiful -- it's a blessing. If we see God in our spouse, then any interaction with our spouse is worship of God. In many places in SGGS Guru has compared union with God as a carnal relationship where Sikh is the bride and God is the groom: ਮਿਠਾ ਬੋਲਹਿ ਨਿਵਿ ਚਲਹਿ ਸੇਜੈ ਰਵੈ ਭਤਾਰੁ ॥ Her speech is sweet, and her way of life is humble. She enjoys the Bed of her Husband Lord. (SGGS 31) ਸਦ ਹੀ ਸੇਜੈ ਰਵੈ ਭਤਾਰੁ ॥ She enjoys her Husband Lord forever on His Bed. (SGGS 357) If sex was bad, then why would Guru compare a bad thing to something so wonderful as being one with God. If there was even an iota of sin in sex then Guru would not have used sex as a metaphor for union with God. Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh Satguru jee has also used various yogic terms in Gurbani. That does not mean that Satguru jee is promoting hath jog. In the same way, sex is not being promoted by Satguru jee if he is using it as a figure of speech. Sex is not bad as long as it is used for procreation. If it is used for pleasure, then I think there is no difference between a man and an animal. Also, sex has numerous bad effects on the human body. If Satguru jee wanted, he could have made sex very pleasurable and it would have no bad effects on the body. But this is not the case. It is very pleasurable but takes a heavy toll on the human body. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh Edited April 12, 2015 by paapiman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Sex is not bad as long as it is used for procreation. If it is used for pleasure, then I think there is no difference between a man and an animal. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh Here is where you are wrong. Animals don't have sex for pleasure. They are the ones who do it only for procreation. They do it by pure instinct drive and not for the reason to be close to their spouse. They are driven by pure instinct only and not a thought to derive pleasure. An animal could care less if there was pleasure or not. They only know that they are driven to do it when it's breeding season. Humans are above that because we have no breeding season where we instinctively breed. For us there is an intimate connection with our spouse in the act. You have us and animals confused... IJJ Singh is correct. Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) If modern science can create babies without male intervention, why cannot GOD do it? I presume you are talking about in-vitro fertilisation? Modern science CANNOT produce babies without male sperm. Bro, where are you? In India? Some of things you say about science are way off the mark? Edited April 12, 2015 by dalsingh101 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh123456777 Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Bro, where are you? In India? Some of things you say about science are way off the mark?I know right... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) I presume you are talking about in-vitro fertilisation? Modern science CANNOT produce babies without male sperm. Bro, where are you? In India? Some of things you say about science are way off the mark? Bro, I meant without male intervention in a physical sense. Even then, modern science claims that they can create babies without males. Please read below. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-79711/We-create-babies-men-claim-scientists.html What other things I said are unscientific? I am curious to know. Bro, please don't discriminate against people from India. India is a country with enough smart people. That was stereotypical, which I believe is a sin in Sikhism. I don't mind it as we are here to learn from each other. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh Edited April 12, 2015 by paapiman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Here is where you are wrong. Animals don't have sex for pleasure. They are the ones who do it only for procreation. They do it by pure instinct drive and not for the reason to be close to their spouse. They are driven by pure instinct only and not a thought to derive pleasure. An animal could care less if there was pleasure or not. They only know that they are driven to do it when it's breeding season. Humans are above that because we have no breeding season where we instinctively breed. For us there is an intimate connection with our spouse in the act. You have us and animals confused... IJJ Singh is correct. Can you please provide any sort of reference to prove that animals do not perform sex for pleasure? Please read below. It proves that they do it for pleasure. Humans have been given intellect to evolve spiritually, which is not possible in animals. http://www.livescience.com/9631-animals-enjoy-sex.html Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh Edited April 12, 2015 by paapiman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Can you please provide any sort of reference to prove that animals do not perform sex for pleasure? Please read below. It proves that they do it for pleasure. Humans have been given intellect to evolve spiritually, which is not possible in animals. http://www.livescience.com/9631-animals-enjoy-sex.html You have put the human body (a jewel) below that of animals. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Here is where you are wrong. Animals don't have sex for pleasure. They are the ones who do it only for procreation. They do it by pure instinct drive and not for the reason to be close to their spouse. They are driven by pure instinct only and not a thought to derive pleasure. An animal could care less if there was pleasure or not. They only know that they are driven to do it when it's breeding season. Humans are above that because we have no breeding season where we instinctively breed. For us there is an intimate connection with our spouse in the act. You have us and animals confused... IJJ Singh is correct. Can you please provide any sort of reference to prove that animals do not perform sex for pleasure? Please read below. It proves that they do it for pleasure. Humans have been given intellect to evolve spiritually, which is not possible in animals. http://www.livescien...-enjoy-sex.html You have put the human body (a jewel) below that of animals. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Bro, I meant without male intervention in a physical sense. Even then, modern science claims that they can create babies without men. Please read below. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-79711/We-create-babies-men-claim-scientists.html What other things I said are unscientific? I am curious to know. Bro, please don't discriminate against people from India. India is a country with enough smart people. That was stereotypical, which I believe is a sin in Sikhism. I don't mind it but we are here to learn from each other. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Here is where you are wrong. Animals don't have sex for pleasure. They are the ones who do it only for procreation. They do it by pure instinct drive and not for the reason to be close to their spouse. They are driven by pure instinct only and not a thought to derive pleasure. An animal could care less if there was pleasure or not. They only know that they are driven to do it when it's breeding season. Humans are above that because we have no breeding season where we instinctively breed. For us there is an intimate connection with our spouse in the act. You have us and animals confused... IJJ Singh is correct. Evidence that animals are into oral sex too. http://www.thefrisky.com/photos/9-animals-who-are-into-oral-sex/ I am almost sure that they are not doing this for procreation, but rather for pleasure. I do agree with a bit you said about spouse. I think most animals don't have a concept of spouse in their minds. Therefore, we are different from animals in two ways - one, we have a concept of spouse and the other, we can choose to engage in sexual activity, only for procreation. Khalsa jee, a person like me should try to raise above theses animal instincts. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh Edited April 13, 2015 by paapiman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthseeker546 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 Where is SGGS does it say sex for pleasure is bad? and where in SGGS or rahit-nams does it say the gurus never had sex? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 15, 2015 Report Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) Where is SGGS does it say sex for pleasure is bad? Kaam is refereed to as sexual desire in Gurmat. There are more than enough verses in Gurbani regarding it. Some of them. I have posted below. ਕਾਮੁ ਕ੍ਰੋਧੁ ਤਨਿ ਵਸਹਿ ਚੰਡਾਲ ॥ Sexual desire and anger dwell in my body, like the outcasts who cremate the dead. ਮਾਇਆ ਕਾਮਿ ਵਿਆਪਿਆ ਸਮਝੈ ਨਾਹੀ ਗਾਵਾਰੁ ॥ Engrossed in Maya and sexual desire, the fool does not understand. ਕਾਮ ਕ੍ਰੋਧ ਮਦਿ ਬਿਆਪਿਆ ਫਿਰਿ ਫਿਰਿ ਜੋਨੀ ਪਾਇ ॥੨॥ Engrossed in the intoxication of sexual desire and anger, people wander through reincarnation over and over again. ||2|| There are many more. and where in SGGS or rahit-nams does it say the gurus never had sex? Satguru jee were above bodily pleasures, enjoyed by humans and animals. First, you need to understand that as Sikhs, we consider Satguru jee as an incarnation of God. Please click on the link below for the proof. Now, God is above all human desires and weaknesses. In Sri Jaap Sahib, God is refereed to as 'Nrikaamae' which means desireless. Therefore, in conclusion, Satguru jee never had sex. Peace out. Edited April 15, 2015 by paapiman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.