So-Called Mistakes In Ddt Books

[paapiman]

Sorry Paapiman, no offense intended... but:

ਮੂਰਖੈ ਨਾਲਿ ਨ ਲੁਝੀਐ ॥੧੯॥

मूरखै नालि न लुझीऐ ॥१९॥

Mūrkẖai nāl na lujẖī▫ai. ||19||

Don't argue with fools. ||19||

Guru Nanak Dev

You did not address the above concerns. Please take time to do that, rather than diverting to some other topic.

Gurbani has ONE updesh for all mankind, why would one updesh for brahmgyanis be different to updesh for normal human beings?

Taksal of Gurbachan is indirectly saying Nagar Keertans are contrary to gurmat, do you agree?

If you had read the posts in this topic properly, you would not have asked such questions. Read them again.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[paapiman]

Did Gurbachan have an acces to Lord Brahma? Only after having some Sukhnidhaan - cannabis I guess, after all he was an ex Nihang.

He had access to Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev jee Maharaaj. We both know, we are nothing in front of him.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[SikhKhoj]

After taking Bhang I have acces to Kali Mata too. She said Hi to you.

[SikhKhoj]

Is Nagar Keertan anti Gurmat? Yes or no. That one answer defines your whole DDT discussion.

Is DDT above Gurbani? Yes or no? Gurbani says recite bani while walking, DDT says don't. One is wrong. Pick which one.

[paapiman]

After taking Bhang I have acces to Kali Mata too. She said Hi to you.

I am not that fortunate bro. I am full of vices and evils. I don't think, I deserve the darshan of Mother Kali.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[paapiman]

Is Nagar Keertan anti Gurmat? Yes or no. That one answer defines your whole DDT discussion.

Is DDT above Gurbani? Yes or no? Gurbani says recite bani while walking, DDT says don't. One is wrong. Pick which one.

Read the posts carefully, rather than wasting time by repeating yourself. You will find your answer.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[CdnSikhGirl]

Paapiman, the context of the shabad itself gives what it is saying in that tuk! We don't need 'Lord Brhama' to tell us what to think. God gave us our own ability to understand.

You can not possibly twist that tuk to mean see husband as Lord, because it would distort the full shabad! And plus like I said... ALL THROUGH GURBANI in SGGSJ, it says see the divine light equally IN ALL... not just men! So it nakes no sense to put a tuk for women to view men as God, but not have one telling men to view women as God. It would go against the MANY shabads that say the divine light is in all equally! We should ALL see that light in EVERYONE. It's not just for women to see men as God and for men to see women as beneath them. Actually read SGGSJ for yourself! I am starting to think you have never even read it, and are just going by what people tell you!

I have read three separate translations of SGGSJ now... and ALL three follow the shabad's meaning and tell women instead to see GOD as their Husband (Husband Lord) instead of suffering attachment to their physical husbands and killing themselves when their physical husbands die (as if they have no worth as an individual in their own right... all their worth was only because because of the man they were married to). The Gurus knew this was wrong... they told us over and over in SGGSJ that the divine light is in everyone equally. The Gurus uplifted women. They would never say for women to see their husbands as God while not also telling the husbands to see their wives as God.

Actually read SGGSJ, NOT man made Rehet Maryadas... made by men who injected their own agenda into the meaning in order to preserve the male dominant position they held in society over women. SGGSJ comes FIRST. And you can't twist one tuk from a shabad to suit your needs... it completely destroys the meaning of the shabad! There is a reason we are told to sing kirtan in classical raag in FULL SHABADS... We can't take one liners and use as mantras etc... (that's why 3HO are getting people so mad because they misuse single tuks to justify yoga). You have to read the entire shabad to see the meaning because many times metaphor is used. And you need to know the context to understand the metaphor.

DDT are just plain wrong on that tuk. In fact I had a DDT member actually tell me once he read the shabad, that he has no idea how they took it to mean 'see husband as God' since changing it to that meaning, doesnt make sense in the shabad anymore. SO he asked someone else in DDT and they couldnt answer either. So if actual DDT members can not answer why it was interpreted as such, then it needs to be questioned. Especially when it's in GRM telling women to view men as God... but men are told to view women as followers. A Rehet Maryada can not go aginst Gurbani. Gurbani says divine light is in everyone male and female equally. So nobody is 'above' anyone else. This needs to be questioned and CHANGED in DDT's RM.

I don't care if the current DDT leader's uncle's great grandfather's great uncle Ji was at the very first Vaisakhi Mela 1699. DDT just like any other organization, is just as vulnerable to corruption etc. And twisting Gurbani to suit their needs is just one way that manifested through the years. Since DDT was always males, male dominated etc. It stands to reason they would want to preserve that male dominant position and control over women. So they twisted it to justify their wishes that women should be beneath them, obedient, subservient.... because hey who benefits from that??? Why the men of course! Since they had the means to do it... they did! The women certainly don't benefit from being dominated and controlled!

Who should be go by? SGGSJ! THAT is our only Guru.... not some Baba who can twist tuks to suit his need...

[Lucky]

So in your opinion raag mala ain't gurbani?

No. Singh Ji....I am a firm believer in Raagmala.

There are some very strong reasons why it was included.

[Singh123456777]

No. Singh Ji....I am a firm believer in Raagmala.

There are some very strong reasons why it was included.

Very good

[Singh123456777]

The DDT interpretation tuk is also correct... The only thing that is not correct is to view their wives as followers...

There is a bhai mani Singh Ji steek that bhai sahib wrote when guru gobind Singh Ji was giving the arths of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji... That teeka is really similar with the faridkot vala teeka...

[SikhKhoj]

Is DDT also right when it says don't recite bani while walking?

[Singh123456777]

Post up where it said that...

[SikhKhoj]

Your brother Paapiman accepted the book says that. I cba scanning that book, look online its somewhere there. I say with 150% conviction that its there on page 62 of Gurbani Paath Darpan of Gurbachan Singh.

[CdnSikhGirl]

If that tuk was meant to be translated that way... then the shabad no longer makes sense!!! And are you saying that it should instead say "those spouses who view their spouse as God" ?? Because that's not how they translate it in Gurmat Rehet Maryada... and then they actually go on to define what they meant by telling Singhnis to view their husband as God while Singhs are to view their Singhnis as faithful 'followers'.

So let's look at that tuk in the shabad, translated how DDT wants it to be:

Here is the original... in three separate translations of SGGSJ it is written as this:

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||

Now look immediately above this tuk... it says "she surrenders to her Husband Lord's will" you would also have to change that place as well to say "Lord Husband" or else the shabad makes no sense. Ahhh but even if you did... the next line says that woman will not suffer pain at the hands of the Messenger of Death. So how can a physical human husband possibly have the power to stop his wife suffering at the hands of the Messenger of Death? Only God can do this! And not for obedience to a husband.

Read even further above... it says that women who kill themselves on their *physical* husband's funeral pyre, does not obtain the company of the Lord. She ends up wandering through countless incarnations... because she stubbornly put her attachment on a physical spouse instead of God. So much so, that she gave up her own worth as an individual and instead viewed herself and having no worth except as that attachment to her husband so when he died, she should die too because she had no worth on her own.

So to lets now switch out that tuk and see how much sense it makes!!

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 ॥
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.

Okay so now we have the shabad saying that a woman killing herself on her husbands funeral pyre will not obtain the company of her beloved Lord. And that with pure conduct and self restraint she surrenders to her Husband Lords will... (that being that she should live), and will not suffer the pain at the hands of the messenger of Death... but then what??? Its now telling her to look at her *physical* husband as God... so then it's ok to jump into the fire?? Its first telling her not to be so attached to physical husband that she kills herself... but if you switch it out, it's flipping it to say that her physical husband should be seen as God and therefore what? It's ok to jump in the fire because he was God over her??

See what happens to the shabad when you do that? You cant have it both ways... you can't have the original meaning which serves to uplift women from the shackles of being tied to their physical husbands, and show them they have worth on their own to live a fufilling life. And then flip it and state the opposite... first telling her not to be attached to her physical husband and then telling her that she should view him as God... thus reiterating attachment and serving to degrade her worth as an individual.

Can you not see this???

@Singh123456777 I might have considered that they meant both spouses should view each other as God however this is in the paragraph following that tuk in Gurmat Rehet Maryada:

A Singh must look upon his wife as his faithful follower and a Singhni should look upon her husband as Parmeshwar(God).

It further states:
Mai Sevan, Bibi Rajni, Mai Bhag Kaur and others stories illustrate this firm faith, of serving one’s Husband as God.

There is no similar line for husbands in Gurmat Rehet Maryada. In fact if you click on the tool tip for the word God in this line, it actually lays it all out... wives are to serve their husbands as God while the men are to simply 'respect' their wives. It also says that it can only work if he is religious of high moral character and all decisions in the household (which are to be made by him not her) are made according to Gurmat.

So there you have it. DDT actually lays it out... word for word.... women are servants to men and are to serve them as God... while men are to see women as followers. There is no line telling men to view their wives as God... or even on an equal level. It implicitly states 'follower' and 'servant' and 'serving their husbands'.

And this is based off one tuk, which doesn't even made sense when put back into the shabad with that twisted meaning.

Page 20, Line 8

ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਨਿਰੰਤਰੀ ਬੂਝੈ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਸਾਰੁ ॥੪॥
Gẖat gẖat joṯ niranṯrī būjẖai gurmaṯ sār. ||4||
One who sees that Light within each and every heart understands the Essence of the Guru's Teachings. ||4||

I guess since DDT thinks that light is only in men's hearts, and is telling women to see men in this way and not the other way around....that they are not understanding the essence of the Guru's teachings??

Edited May 10, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[CdnSikhGirl]

Hmm this is a good shabad for Paapiman (and whoever else thinks thinks the twisted tuk above translation regarding women is correct) to contemplate:

ੴ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯnām karṯā purakẖ gur parsāḏ.

One Universal Creator God. Truth Is The Name. Creative Being Personified. By Guru's Grace:

ਜਬ ਇਹੁ ਮਨ ਮਹਿ ਕਰਤ ਗੁਮਾਨਾ ॥

Jab ih man mėh karaṯ gumānā.

When this mind is filled with pride,

ਤਬ ਇਹੁ ਬਾਵਰੁ ਫਿਰਤ ਬਿਗਾਨਾ ॥

Ŧab ih bāvar firaṯ bigānā.

then it wanders around like a madman and a lunatic.

ਜਬ ਇਹੁ ਹੂਆ ਸਗਲ ਕੀ ਰੀਨਾ ॥

Jab ih hū▫ā sagal kī rīnā.

But when it becomes the dust of all,

ਤਾ ਤੇ ਰਮਈਆ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਚੀਨਾ ॥੧॥

Ŧā ṯe rama▫ī▫ā gẖat gẖat cẖīnā. ||1||

then it recognizes the Lord in each and every heart. ||1||

ਸਹਜ ਸੁਹੇਲਾ ਫਲੁ ਮਸਕੀਨੀ ॥

Sahj suhelā fal maskīnī.

The fruit of humility is intuitive peace and pleasure.

ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਅਪੁਨੈ ਮੋਹਿ ਦਾਨੁ ਦੀਨੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Saṯgur apunai mohi ḏān ḏīnī. ||1|| rahā▫o.

My True Guru has given me this gift. ||1||Pause||

ਜਬ ਕਿਸ ਕਉ ਇਹੁ ਜਾਨਸਿ ਮੰਦਾ ॥

Jab kis ka▫o ih jānas manḏā.

When he believes others to be bad,

ਤਬ ਸਗਲੇ ਇਸੁ ਮੇਲਹਿ ਫੰਦਾ ॥

Ŧab sagle is melėh fanḏā.

then everyone lays traps for him.

ਮੇਰ ਤੇਰ ਜਬ ਇਨਹਿ ਚੁਕਾਈ ॥

Mer ṯer jab inėh cẖukā▫ī.

But when he stops thinking in terms of 'mine' and 'yours', (or similarly male vs female)

ਤਾ ਤੇ ਇਸੁ ਸੰਗਿ ਨਹੀ ਬੈਰਾਈ ॥੨॥

Ŧā ṯe is sang nahī bairā▫ī. ||2||

then no one is angry with him. ||2||

ਜਬ ਇਨਿ ਅਪੁਨੀ ਅਪਨੀ ਧਾਰੀ ॥

Jab in apunī apnī ḏẖārī.

When he clings to 'my own, my own', (including things like perceived notion of superiority over others just because of your gender)

ਤਬ ਇਸ ਕਉ ਹੈ ਮੁਸਕਲੁ ਭਾਰੀ ॥

Ŧab is ka▫o hai muskal bẖārī.

then he is in deep trouble.

ਜਬ ਇਨਿ ਕਰਣੈਹਾਰੁ ਪਛਾਤਾ ॥

Jab in karṇaihār pacẖẖāṯā.

But when he recognizes the Creator Lord,

ਤਬ ਇਸ ਨੋ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਿਛੁ ਤਾਤਾ ॥੩॥

Ŧab is no nāhī kicẖẖ ṯāṯā. ||3||

then he is free of torment. ||3||

ਜਬ ਇਨਿ ਅਪੁਨੋ ਬਾਧਿਓ ਮੋਹਾ ॥

Jab in apuno bāḏẖi▫o mohā.

When he entangles himself in emotional attachment,

ਆਵੈ ਜਾਇ ਸਦਾ ਜਮਿ ਜੋਹਾ ॥

Āvai jā▫e saḏā jam johā.

he comes and goes in reincarnation, under the constant gaze of Death.

ਜਬ ਇਸ ਤੇ ਸਭ ਬਿਨਸੇ ਭਰਮਾ ॥

Jab is ṯe sabẖ binse bẖarmā.

But when all his doubts are removed,

ਭੇਦੁ ਨਾਹੀ ਹੈ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ॥੪॥

Bẖeḏ nāhī hai pārbrahmā. ||4||

then there is no difference between him and the Supreme Lord God. ||4||

ਜਬ ਇਨਿ ਕਿਛੁ ਕਰਿ ਮਾਨੇ ਭੇਦਾ ॥

Jab in kicẖẖ kar māne bẖeḏā.

When he perceives differences, (instead of seeing that light within everyone equally he sees male vs female)

ਤਬ ਤੇ ਦੂਖ ਡੰਡ ਅਰੁ ਖੇਦਾ ॥

Ŧab ṯe ḏūkẖ dand ar kẖeḏā.

then he suffers pain, punishment and sorrow.

ਜਬ ਇਨਿ ਏਕੋ ਏਕੀ ਬੂਝਿਆ ॥

Jab in eko ekī būjẖi▫ā.

But when he recognizes the One and Only Lord, (within ALL males and females both equally... when he sees ONLY this)

ਤਬ ਤੇ ਇਸ ਨੋ ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਸੂਝਿਆ ॥੫॥

Ŧab ṯe is no sabẖ kicẖẖ sūjẖi▫ā. ||5||

he understands everything. ||5||

Edited May 11, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

Is DDT above Gurbani? Yes or no? Gurbani says recite bani while walking, DDT says don't. One is wrong. Pick which one.

Gurbani instructs us to believe that Satguru is a doctor.

ਮੇਰਾ ਬੈਦੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਵਿੰਦਾ ॥

My physician is the Guru, the Lord of the Universe.

Do you agree to the above? Yes or no.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited May 11, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

Gurbani also states that we must meditate with each and every breadth.

ਸਾਸਿ ਸਾਸਿ ਸਿਮਰਹੁ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ॥

With each and every breath, meditate in remembrance on the Lord of the Universe,

This implies that whenever we do any activity, we must be meditating. According to you, this applies to all.

Do you agree to the above? Yes or no.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

I dont know about you, but in everything I do, I keep Waheguru Ji in my mind...

You didn't answer his question Paapiman. Who is higher authority? DDT or Gurbani?

Not just with the tuk he posted, but the one I also posted. I showed how it cant be correct as that translation to that tuk would ruin the meaning of the entire shabad as a whole.

Gurbani says don't become so attached to physical husband that you go into the fire because you have forgotten your worth as an individual in your own right as a woman. You will not find God that way. Instead live through it, live a full life by taking God as your Husband Lord and you will escape the pains of the messenger of death.

DDT says look at your physical husband as God... so therefore he has more value than you and you are beneath him. This disagrees with the lines immediately above the tuk in question where it says by surrendering to her 'Husband Lord's' will (and not killing herself in the fire - living life as an individual and not just a servant to her physical husband with no worth) then God save you from the pains of the messenger of death.

They can't both be correct. Pick one!

DDT or Gurbani??

[paapiman]

DDT or Gurbani??

This question does not make sense. It is like asking a person, is university higher or education?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[CdnSikhGirl]

Gurbani is the authority. DDT is a group of men who interprets that authority as per their own understanding.

Gurbani is infallible.

DDT is not.

If DDT's interpretation of a tuk doesn't even make sense when inserted back in the full shabad, then there is discrepency.

Discrepency means obvious difference. Both can't be correct.

DDT or Gurbani???

I KNOW WHICH ONE IS ABOVE THE OTHER......do you??? You won't come straight out and say. You keep avoiding it. We all KNOW you will always divert to DDT's interpretations. You've proven that on here. Because you can't think or read Gurbani for yourself. You have been programmed to think and say what DDT tells you to.

Like SikhKhoj and others. I am not programmed to keep parroting what one group says. I actually read Gurbani for myself. And I usuually double check with several translations so I am sure I get the meaning of the shabads. You just always parrot back what DDT tells you to.

I am done dealing with you... you really are a lost cause.

Guru Nanak Says:

ਮੂਰਖੈ ਨਾਲਿ ਨ ਲੁਝੀਐ ॥੧੯॥

Mūrkẖai nāl na lujẖī▫ai. ||19||

Don't argue with fools. ||19||

This question does not make sense. It is like asking a person, is university higher or education?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[paapiman]

Gurbani is the authority. DDT is a group of men who interprets that authority as per their own understanding.

Gurbani is infallible.

DDT is not.

If DDT's interpretation of a tuk doesn't even make sense when inserted back in the full shabad, then there is discrepency.

Discrepency means obvious difference. Both can't be correct.

DDT or Gurbani???

I KNOW WHICH ONE IS ABOVE THE OTHER......do you??? You won't come straight out and say. You keep avoiding it. We all KNOW you will always divert to DDT's interpretations. You've proven that on here. Because you can't think or read Gurbani for yourself. You have been programmed to think and say what DDT tells you to.

Like SikhKhoj and others. I am not programmed to keep parroting what one group says. I actually read Gurbani for myself. And I usuually double check with several translations so I am sure I get the meaning of the shabads. You just always parrot back what DDT tells you to.

I am done dealing with you... you really are a lost cause.

Guru Nanak Says:

ਮੂਰਖੈ ਨਾਲਿ ਨ ਲੁਝੀਐ ॥੧੯॥

Mūrkẖai nāl na lujẖī▫ai. ||19||

Don't argue with fools. ||19||

Let's wait for the reply from SikhKhoj.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[shastarsewak]

The same as the one I posted... twisted for their own agenda to subordinate women and maintain male dominance:

Here is the original Shabad. It's actually telling women that they have worth as an individual, that their worth is not attached to their physical husband, to the point that they should kill themselves when he dies, or out of grief. Instead that they should view God as their Husband Lord, and put faith in God alone, to live through that grief and that is the true satee. It's actually a message to uplift women not denigrate them.

DDT have gone even further and used their twisted version to state outright that Singhs are to view their wives as faithful 'followers' (subordinate) while Singhnis are to view their husbands as 'God' (Singhnis are outright told by DDT they must be obedient to their husbands because their husbands are in charge over them, superior to them).

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh!

First of all, if any male interprets the meaning of this shabad as recognizing the fact women should be subservient or women must stay in their control, he has already lost the blessings of Guru Sahib.

As per my understanding, Gurbani revolves around one the facts to give our head(ego, intellect) to Waheguru. This shabad also revolves around giving ourselves truly to Waheguru out of Love. I believe Guru sahib ji said this shabad to signify the fact that Sati pratha doesn't certify that woman(as a a person) was true to husband OR it is not necessary for a woman to get Sati, just to prove that she was actually a true wife.

"She who looks upon the Husband as Lord" or "She who looks upon Lord as Husband" both are valid.

When a woman (out of love and devotion) believes her husband is lord, she has already learned to be a Sati. The same goes for male too, when he sees his wife (out of love and devotion) as Lord he becomes a Sati too (being Sati refers to state of devotion, hence not gender limited). Also, for the soul-bride who sees Lord as Husband has already learned to be a true and blessed Sati, and accepted in court of Lord.

Satkirin_Kaur: Respectfully Bhenji, without any provocation - I wonder if it really means women must be seen as subordinates or controlled in this line as you interpreted

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

I believe this message is not about uplifting women as you described in this line:

- "It's actually telling women that they have worth as an individual, that their worth is not attached to their physical husband".

Again, as per my understanding, it is more about "intent" of a person to be true to the cause, mere actions doesn't make one "Sati" but true Love makes one Sati (gurmat-sati - which could be female or male as well)

Could you kindly provide instances where Dam Dami Taksal Singhs used this shabad as you described, twisted for their own agenda. I'm not aware of such cases, an individual Singh as a person could interpret as you mentioned, but Dam Dami Taksal as an institution would believe in such things - I find it very hard to agree.

[CdnSikhGirl]

It's actually in their own copy of Gurmat Rehet Maryada. After that line, they go on to say that a Singhni must see her husband as God while he is to see her as his faithful follower. It's not saying both should see God in each equally... or I might believe you that it was meant for both. But the fact that they actually define what they mean to say that only SAinghnis should see their husband like this, while their husbands see them as a 'faithful follower' that defines a master / subordinate relationship. Not one of equality and seeing God within each other.

Also, Below that, they also define it even further to say that certain Sikh women in history showed that devotion of 'serving the husband as God'. They do not mention any Historical Sings 'serving their wives as God'

So your interpretation does not make sense.

I agree with you that BOTH should see EACH OTHER as God. Because we are told in Gurbani to see that divine light in everyone.

But DDT in their own GRM actually define what they mean in that interpretation of that tuk by saying straight out that Singhs lead (make all the decisions in the household), Singhnis follow and are subservient to their husbands. DDT does not define marriage as an equal relationship at all. They try to use the words 'complimentary roles' as if Master and Servant are complimentary... Only one benefits from that kind of relationship... the one in the Master position.

I have always been told Sikh marriage goes above and beyond the physical, and that husband and wife become One soul in two bodies... true equality. Putting one in control over the other as Master while the other is the servant is not in balance at all. The wife always feels shackled and controlled, dominated. While the husband enjoys the freedom to make all the decisions and be served by his wife.

It would be more appropriate as you have suggested that both husband and wife should see God in each other and both serve each other. Decisions should be made as a team while they work together towards the same goal. Not he says, she does.

I will try to post screenshot from DDTs website to show you where they actually define what they meant by that interpretation of that tuk. SO there is no chance of it meaning 'serve each other as God' and Paapiman has already vouched for that anyway by stating several times on here that women are to see men as God while there is no tuk to tell men to see women as God, therefore it justifies that men are above women and that women are subordinate to men.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh!

First of all, if any male interprets the meaning of this shabad as recognizing the fact women should be subservient or women must stay in their control, he has already lost the blessings of Guru Sahib.

As per my understanding, Gurbani revolves around one the facts to give our head(ego, intellect) to Waheguru. This shabad also revolves around giving ourselves truly to Waheguru out of Love. I believe Guru sahib ji said this shabad to signify the fact that Sati pratha doesn't certify that woman(as a a person) was true to husband OR it is not necessary for a woman to get Sati, just to prove that she was actually a true wife.

"She who looks upon the Husband as Lord" or "She who looks upon Lord as Husband" both are valid.

When a woman (out of love and devotion) believes her husband is lord, she has already learned to be a Sati. The same goes for male too, when he sees his wife (out of love and devotion) as Lord he becomes a Sati too (being Sati refers to state of devotion, hence not gender limited). Also, for the soul-bride who sees Lord as Husband has already learned to be a true and blessed Sati, and accepted in court of Lord.

Satkirin_Kaur: Respectfully Bhenji, without any provocation - I wonder if it really means women must be seen as subordinates or controlled in this line as you interpreted

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

I believe this message is not about uplifting women as you described in this line:

- "It's actually telling women that they have worth as an individual, that their worth is not attached to their physical husband".

Again, as per my understanding, it is more about "intent" of a person to be true to the cause, mere actions doesn't make one "Sati" but true Love makes one Sati (gurmat-sati - which could be female or male as well)

Could you kindly provide instances where Dam Dami Taksal Singhs used this shabad as you described, twisted for their own agenda. I'm not aware of such cases, an individual Singh as a person could interpret as you mentioned, but Dam Dami Taksal as an institution would believe in such things - I find it very hard to agree.

[paapiman]

Deleted

Edited May 11, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

When a woman (out of love and devotion) believes her husband is lord, she has already learned to be a Sati. The same goes for male too, when he sees his wife (out of love and devotion) as Lord he becomes a Sati too (being Sati refers to state of devotion, hence not gender limited). Also, for the soul-bride who sees Lord as Husband has already learned to be a true and blessed Sati, and accepted in court of Lord.

Again, as per my understanding, it is more about "intent" of a person to be true to the cause, mere actions doesn't make one "Sati" but true Love makes one Sati (gurmat-sati - which could be female or male as well)

This is not how DDT actually define it. These are screenshots from DDT's GRM from DDT's own official website:

Edited May 11, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

"She who looks upon the Husband as Lord" or "She who looks upon Lord as Husband" both are valid.

You are right. One cannot pick and choose the meanings, which one likes and ignore the ones which one doesn't. All the arths of a tuk, will have to be accepted as the truth.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh