Jump to content
Harjots8963

Important Point on Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM) and Panj Pyare

Recommended Posts

Im not even going to get into this again about seeing husband as God.  It's degrading....   Women should not see anyone except God as God.  Men are not gods over women. Get over it and get off your male high horse.  A penis isn't a free ticket to be considered a demi God.  See past your penis for once. 

----

Oh hey ---- you say it's INSTRUCTION for woman to see her husband as a demi God.  

Well Gurbani also INSTRUCTS for ALL GURMUKHS to see ALL HUMANS as equal.  (It says "As Gurmukh, not As "Brahamgyani") 
So then a Gursikh husband should also see his wife as a demi God in return!  If he is a Gurmukh, then he is INSTRUCTED to see her as his equal!!!!! 

There... fight Gurbani with Gurbani.  

And don't pick and choose which tuks you like and don't and then claim all the ones you don't like are for Brahamgyanis only LOL.  It's very obvious!

Also, if the husband can't follow that INSTRUCTION on equality, it means he is NOT Gurmukh... so that makes him MANMUKH!  And if he is ANMUKH he is not worthy of being seen as a demi God anyway! (you even said so!) 
And if a woman sees her husband as a demi God.  That INSTRUCTION to see EVERYONE equally, if she is Gurmukh, she will ALSO SEE HERSELF as a demi God as well!  Since she is also part of 'everyone'.  Or else she herself is not being a Gurmukh and not following instruction in Gurbani!!! 

So either way, husband and wife are to see each other EQUALLY! Or else they are MANMUKH and NOT Gurmukh!  

 

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well Gurbani also INSTRUCTS for ALL GURMUKHS to see ALL HUMANS as equal.  (It says "As Gurmukh, not As "Brahamgyani") 
So then a Gursikh husband should also see his wife as a demi God in return!  If he is a Gurmukh, then he is INSTRUCTED to see her as his equal!!!!! 

 

 

Well, Gurbani instructs all Gurmukhs to see all beings as equal. Back to the question, asked earlier.

Why call the police -  God resides in the robber/assaulter. Let them do whatever they want, in your house. Even if he goes against humanity, still God exists in him. Why not, do his seva? 

Gurmukh has several meanings. It could mean God or Satguru jee or Brahamgyani.

Bhul chuk maaf

 

There... fight Gurbani with Gurbani.  

And don't pick and choose which tuks you like and don't and then claim all the ones you don't like are for Brahamgyanis only LOL.  It's very obvious!

 

There is no contradiction in Gurbani. The beauty of Gurbani is that it can talk to people of different spiritual levels, with the same verse.

An ordinary woman should look upon her husband as a demi-God, but when she reaches Brahamgyan, she will start seeing God in all. An ordinary son will look upon his mother as a guru, but when he reaches Brahamgyan, he will start seeing God in all. The vision changes, but the person remains the same. For example - A person might struggle to do nitnaym in a day, but when the very same person reaches high spiritual levels, he can probably mediate for 10-12 hours in a day.

A person with limited Gurbani knowledge, like me, cannot understand the depth of Gurbani.

Bhul chuk maaf.

Edited by paapiman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See... you are picking and choosing the tuks you like.  It's very very obvious you hate women.  So you are picking and choosing whatever tuks suit your needs while ignoring the rest.  

Doing seva to help a robber would be to help him out of his ways which are against other humans.  That would include the help he would receive in jail, maybe it would be a wake up call for him to start helping others instead of hurting them.  Obviously a person who is hurting someone else needs to be stopped or else we are allowing the victim to be treated badly for no reason.  It's the ego in the robber causing him to behave like that.  Our sevs to him WOULD BE to help him overcome those things.  Jail time is part of that because he would realize his bad ways.  He would also likely receive help to be able to have a job when he was released (education) if he was lacking it, counselling for psychological issues etc.  You can't compare that to two humans one male and one female who are both behaving as good Gursikhs.  Unless you are trying to say being a woman is criminal.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh hey ---- you say it's INSTRUCTION for woman to see her husband as a demi God.  

 

The above applies to all women, who want to be considered as a Sati, in the court of Lord. A lady does not have to be a Brahamgyani to follow it.

Bhul chuk maaf

Doing seva to help a robber would be to help him out of his ways which are against other humans.  That would include the help he would receive in jail, maybe it would be a wake up call for him to start helping others instead of hurting them.  Obviously a person who is hurting someone else needs to be stopped or else we are allowing the victim to be treated badly for no reason.  It's the ego in the robber causing him to behave like that.  Our sevs to him WOULD BE to help him overcome those things.  Jail time is part of that because he would realize his bad ways.  He would also likely receive help to be able to have a job when he was released (education) if he was lacking it, counselling for psychological issues etc.  You can't compare that to two humans one male and one female who are both behaving as good Gursikhs.  Unless you are trying to say being a woman is criminal.  

So what about Baba Ghaniya jee, doing seva of mughal soldiers, by giving them water? From an ordinary man's perspective, he is helping those tyrants. He would not have called police, if robbers has come to his house.

Difference - He was a Brahamgyani, not like you or me. We need to stay within our human limits.

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope and we don't have to be Brahamgyani to see all humans with a single eye of equality either.  And it's obvious that it's not referring to Gurmukh as God because the line immediately before it says that He is within and without... and the same shabad goes on to instruct us to restrain our fickle minds.  A Brahamgyani would not have a fickle mind... nor would God.  

And it makes sense that Gurbani would be saying what I wrote above because:

A husband (or anyone) should only ever be seen as God if he is actually living the qualities of God. (even though all of us contain the same light of God) 
And that means that he would also have to see her as his equal. And if she is to see him as God then that also means he is to see her a God as well.  Because if she is seeing God in him, then SHE IS THE ONE espousing the qualities of God (seeing God in everyone)... if he isn't seeing God also in his wife then first of all why did he marry her, and second, then she is actually HIGHER spiritually than he is.  

In reality every human IS just an aspect of God as God is the ONLY one who actually exists.  It's our Egos making us trapped in duality.  Are you saying that a wife should see her husband's ego as God?  Or the part of him which is ACTUALLY God? Because if it's the first... then that would be SO WRONG.  If its the second, then he has to realize she too contains the SAME.  

 

Edit: How would you know if I was a Brahamgyani or not?  We are told that only a Brahamgyani knows if they are or not... nobody else can.

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope and we don't have to be Brahamgyani to see all humans with a single eye of equality either.  

Normal humans like me can only understand, but not see it. Only a Brahamgyani can see all beings (including animals, plants, etc) as one.


In reality every human IS just an aspect of God as God is the ONLY one who actually exists.  It's our Egos making us trapped in duality.  Are you saying that a wife should see her husband's ego as God?  Or the part of him which is ACTUALLY God? Because if it's the first... then that would be SO WRONG.  If its the second, then he has to realize she too contains the SAME.  

Relationships have been explained in Sikhism. Mother-child, husband-wife, brother-sister, brother-brother, etc. One can follow his/her personal opinions.

Examples - A child should look upon his/her mother as a Guru; a wife should look upon her husband as a demi-God, etc.

Bhul chuk maaf

In reality every human IS just an aspect of God as God is the ONLY one who actually exists.  It's our Egos making us trapped in duality.  Are you saying that a wife should see her husband's ego as God?  Or the part of him which is ACTUALLY God? Because if it's the first... then that would be SO WRONG.  If its the second, then he has to realize she too contains the SAME.  

 

God resides in all matter (living and non-living). Please don't neglect animals and plants.

A Sikh husband should not expect his wife to bow to him, but she will do it, as it is ordered by Satguru jee. 

When a son bows to her mother, is he looking at her mother's ego as God?

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited by paapiman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(just look at the uproar that happened with Hari Singh Randhawa over his sexist statements about women and suggesting they cant do seva at all ever... because they might accidentally have their period at any time. 

Could you please point out at which point in which video this remark was made? Edited by Xylitol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please point out at which point in which video this remark was made?

Myself I am not sure because they are speaking in Punjabi.  The other commenters on the actual video can tell you at which exact time it was.  Try posting on the Youtube video comments. 

Paapiman maybe for you, you can't see everyone as equal. But please don't speak for me.  I don't only understand it but I also see it.  I will pray for you that you will someday see it too.  Then, bowing to others will mean nothing.  There is no heirarchy other than what humans have created.  I see God in all the animals too... I look in my cats eyes and I see consciousness there.  She can't understand at the same level as a human, but I know it's there.  There is consciousness in everything.  In reality, there is no husband no wife, no you, no me... its only your ego that is preventing you from seeing it. If you have given up on ever seeing it because you think its out of your reach then you've already lost.  And I feel sorry for you. But nowhere does it teach in Sikhi that a husband is a demi God.  In fact there is no such thing as a demi God.  There is only God.  Its your own ego - your own love of duality - that is making you want to be 'better' than others, or superior to others.  And in your case, I can see you just don't want to let the idea go that in reality you are not higher status than anyone just for being born with a penis. Just like the Brahmins, you don't want to give up your perceived higher status (in this case over women). And you can't see that in reality, it doesn't exist at all. Not only that but holding on to the idea of it so tightly is like poison:

ਮਹੁਰਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਹਥਿ ਮਰੀਐ ਚਖੀਐ ॥ 
Mahurā hovai hath marī▫ai cẖakẖī▫ai. 
Pride in one's status is like poison-holding it in your hand and eating it, you shall die.

I already showed you that the shabad about seeing everyone equal was not meant for only Brahmgyanis... it was meant for all Sikhs who strive to be Gurmukhs and not Manmukhs. If you don't follow it, then you are Manmukh.  You agree you are Manmukh? You agree that vast majority of followers of so called Orthodox Sikh sects are Manmukh because they are not following the INSTRUCTION to see EVERYONE with single eye of equality? The verse says as GURMUKH DO THIS... so anyone NOT following this instruction is a MANMUKH then you agree?? That means that nearly all of the members of your so called Orthodox sects are Manmukhs then.  What is the definition of Manmukh vs Gurmukh?

"
A person who is self-centred is called a Manmukh. The opposite of Manmukh is Gurmukh, which means a person who follows the teaching and life-code as narrated by the Guru. A Manmukh is the opposite of a Gurmukh."

So there we have it, a Gurmukh is not a Brahamgyani.  A Gurmukh is someone who follows what is being instructed in Gurbani.  And anyone not following what is instructed is a Manmukh.  This definition makes sense,.... because someone who is self-centred, could never fathom seeing someone else as their equal.  That makes you Paapiman, self-centred.  And you are self-centred in a huge way (Because you just don't want to let go of this idea of superiority you have based on your genetalia.  ).  It makes Hari Singh Rhandawa self-centred because he wishes to put women at disadvantage to men regarding seva.  It makes any Singhs following GRM self-centred because they want to see themselves as higher than women, be bowed to by women, and limit women from the same opportunities they have. That is definitely NOT acting like a Gurmukh.  

So my previous explanation stands:

A Gurmukh man would have to follow this instruction (or else they are not a Gurmukh) and see his wife with 'single eye of equality'. That means even if that interpretation of sati were true (which it's not) but even if so, then in order for him to see her with single eye of equality, it means that he would also have to see her as God (or demi God as you like to put it).  Otherwise he is not following instruction for Gurmukhs which is to see (treat) everyone with single eye of equality. And as a Gurmukh she too would still have to follow that instruction. Meaning even if that tuk about sati were true (which it isnt - it was twisted backward by those with an agenda) but even if it were true, then she would also have to see herself as God (or demi God whatever), because she also falls into the definition of ALL.  The instruction is to see ALL (treat ALL) with single eye of equality.  So no matter how you look at it, if that tuk is true (which again its not but you are too stubborn and pig headed to see it), but if it were, then BOTH husband and wife would have to see each other as God.  

I really pray that you drop this superiority complex.  But this is all I am going to say on it.  I'm done.  The only one who break you out of this duality thinking is yourself. And the only way that will happen is if you want it.  And it really seems that you don't want it.  You are too caught up in the I AM MAN I deserve more privilege than women attitude.  I will include you in my prayers in hopes you can overcome this... but I am not engaging you in conversation anymore because it gets nowhere. You are too stuck in Maya. I really think you would be happier following Brahmin thought and follow Hinduism. Because how you see women in relation to men is much closer to how they view women.  

 

 

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paapiman maybe for you, you can't see everyone as equal. But please don't speak for me.  I don't only understand it but I also see it.  I will pray for you that you will someday see it too.  Then, bowing to others will mean nothing.  There is no heirarchy other than what humans have created.  I see God in all the animals too... I look in my cats eyes and I see consciousness there.  She can't understand at the same level as a human, but I know it's there.  There is consciousness in everything.  In reality, there is no husband no wife, no you, no me... its only your ego that is preventing you from seeing it. If you have given up on ever seeing it because you think its out of your reach then you've already lost.  And I feel sorry for you. But nowhere does it teach in Sikhi that a husband is a demi God.  In fact there is no such thing as a demi God.  There is only God.  Its your own ego - your own love of duality - that is making you want to be 'better' than others, or superior to others.  And in your case, I can see you just don't want to let the idea go that in reality you are not higher status than anyone just for being born with a penis. Just like the Brahmins, you don't want to give up your perceived higher status (in this case over women). And you can't see that in reality, it doesn't exist at all. Not only that but holding on to the idea of it so tightly is like poison:

ਮਹੁਰਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਹਥਿ ਮਰੀਐ ਚਖੀਐ ॥ 
Mahurā hovai hath marī▫ai cẖakẖī▫ai. 
Pride in one's status is like poison-holding it in your hand and eating it, you shall die.

I already showed you that the shabad about seeing everyone equal was not meant for only Brahmgyanis... it was meant for all Sikhs who strive to be Gurmukhs and not Manmukhs. If you don't follow it, then you are Manmukh.  You agree you are Manmukh? You agree that vast majority of followers of so called Orthodox Sikh sects are Manmukh because they are not following the INSTRUCTION to see EVERYONE with single eye of equality? The verse says as GURMUKH DO THIS... so anyone NOT following this instruction is a MANMUKH then you agree?? That means that nearly all of the members of your so called Orthodox sects are Manmukhs then.  What is the definition of Manmukh vs Gurmukh?

"
A person who is self-centred is called a Manmukh. The opposite of Manmukh is Gurmukh, which means a person who follows the teaching and life-code as narrated by the Guru. A Manmukh is the opposite of a Gurmukh."

So there we have it, a Gurmukh is not a Brahamgyani.  A Gurmukh is someone who follows what is being instructed in Gurbani.  And anyone not following what is instructed is a Manmukh.  This definition makes sense,.... because someone who is self-centred, could never fathom seeing someone else as their equal.  That makes you Paapiman, self-centred.  And you are self-centred in a huge way (Because you just don't want to let go of this idea of superiority you have based on your genetalia.  ).  It makes Hari Singh Rhandawa self-centred because he wishes to put women at disadvantage to men regarding seva.  It makes any Singhs following GRM self-centred because they want to see themselves as higher than women, be bowed to by women, and limit women from the same opportunities they have. That is definitely NOT acting like a Gurmukh.  

So my previous explanation stands:

A Gurmukh man would have to follow this instruction (or else they are not a Gurmukh) and see his wife with 'single eye of equality'. That means even if that interpretation of sati were true (which it's not) but even if so, then in order for him to see her with single eye of equality, it means that he would also have to see her as God (or demi God as you like to put it).  Otherwise he is not following instruction for Gurmukhs which is to see (treat) everyone with single eye of equality. And as a Gurmukh she too would still have to follow that instruction. Meaning even if that tuk about sati were true (which it isnt - it was twisted backward by those with an agenda) but even if it were true, then she would also have to see herself as God (or demi God whatever), because she also falls into the definition of ALL.  The instruction is to see ALL (treat ALL) with single eye of equality.  So no matter how you look at it, if that tuk is true (which again its not but you are too stubborn and pug headed to see it), but if it were, then BOTH husband and wife would have to see each other as God.  

I really pray that you drop this superiority complex.  But this is all I am going to say on it.  I'm done.  The only one who break you out of this duality thinking is yourself. And the only way that will happen is if you want it.  And it really seems that you don't want it.  You are too caught up in the I AM MAN I deserve more privilege than women attitude.  I will include you in my prayers in hopes you can overcome this... but I am not engaging you in conversation anymore because it gets nowhere. You are too stuck in Maya.

 

Gurmat rules cannot be changed. Gender equality is an unscientific principle. Satguru jee knows all types of sciences. If Maharaaj had advocated gender equality, Sikhism would have been based on falsehood, which is not possible.

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gurmat rules cannot be changed. Gender equality is an unscientific principle. Satguru jee knows all types of sciences. If Maharaaj had advocated gender equality, Sikhism would have been based on falsehood, which is not possible.

Bhul chuk maaf

Maharaj DID advocate gender equality!  You just refuse to see it!  I proved it with science! Look at level of atoms... there is no difference!  DNA in humans is the same regardless of gender or ethnicity etc.  

You really are a lost cause if you think this.  Good thing you wrote Bhul chuk maaf because you really ARE in error... enjoy your fake perceived higher status than women. Just shows how self centred you really are.  This poison will eat away at you.  Anyway I am done.  You have just come out and claimed that Sikhism believes in male superiority / female submission like nearly every other religion designed to keep women under men's control and limit us. Go enjoy your pedestal.... I hope you fall off.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maharaj DID advocate gender equality!  You just refuse to see it!  I proved it with science! Look at level of atoms... there is no difference!  DNA in humans is the same regardless of gender or ethnicity etc.  

You really are a lost cause if you think this.  Good thing you wrote Bhul chuk maaf because you really ARE in error... enjoy your fake perceived higher status than women. Just shows how self centred you really are.  This poison will eat away at you.  Anyway I am done.  You have just come out and claimed that Sikhism believes in male superiority / female submission like nearly every other religion designed to keep women under men's control and limit us. Go enjoy your pedestal.... I hope you fall off.  

 

Will discuss this in a separate topic.

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(* From Hikaa-itaan (3 & 12) - Guru Gobind Singh Ji - Sri Dasam Granth Sahib )

ਬਿਦਿਹ ਸਾਕੀਯਾ ਸਾਗ਼ਰੇ ਸਬਜ਼ ਰੰਗ ॥ ਕਿ ਮਾਰਾ ਬਕਾਰ ਅਸਤ ਦਰ ਵਕਤ ਜੰਗ ॥੫੬॥

Bideh Sakeeya Saagrey sabaz Rang. Ke Mara bakaarasat dar vakat jang.

(The poet says),
‘Oh Saki,' beloved pourer of wine ' - the bartender, give me the cup full of green (liquid),
‘Which I may need at the time of struggle,(56)

ਬਿਦਿਹ ਸਾਕੀਯਾ ਸਾਗ਼ਰੇ ਨੈਨ ਪਾਨ ॥ ਕੁਨਦ ਪੀਰ ਸਦ ਸਾਲਹ ਰਾ ਨਉ ਜਵਾਨ ॥੫੭॥੩॥

Bideh Sakeeya Saagrey nain paan. Kunad peer sad saalah ra nao javaan (57.3)

(The poet says),
“Oh! Saki, bring me the cup full of eyes-exhilarator,
Which restores the youthful vigour in a hundred year old.(57)

ਬਿਦਿਹ ਸਾਕੀਯਾ ਸਾਗ਼ਰੇ ਸਬਜ਼ ਗੂੰ ॥ ਕਿ ਮਾਰਾ ਬਕਾਰਸਤ ਜੰਗ ਅੰਦਰੂੰ ॥੨੦॥
Bideh Sakeeya Saagrey sabaz goo. Ke mara bakaar-ast jang androon
The poet says),
‘Oh! Saki, Give me the cup full of green (liquid),
‘Which I need at the time of struggle.(20)
ਲਬਾਲਬ ਬਕੁਨ ਦਮ ਬਦਮ ਨੋਸ਼ ਕੁਨ ॥ ਗ਼ਮੇ ਹਰ ਦੁ ਆਲਮ ਫ਼ਰਾਮੋਸ਼ ਕੁਨ ॥੨੧॥੧੨॥
Labaalab bakun dam badam naush kun. Gamey har du aalam faraamaush kun. (21. 12)

‘Fill it up to the brim, so that I can drink it with every breath,
‘And forget the afflictions of both the worlds.(21)(12)

( *From. Zafarnama of Guru Gobind Singh Ji (Sri Dasam Granth Sahib)

ਨ ਸਾਜ਼ੋ ਨ ਬਾਜ਼ੋ ਨ ਫ਼ੌਜੋ ਨ ਫ਼ਰਸ਼ ॥ ਖ਼ੁਦਾਵੰਦ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਿੰਦਹਿ ਐਸ਼ਿ ਅਰਸ਼ ॥੪॥

Na Saazo Na Baazo Na Faoujo Na Faarsha ॥ Khhudaavnda Bakhhashiandahi Aaishi Arasha ॥4॥

Through His Generosity, He provides Heavenly Enjoyments to one without any wealth, falcon, army property and authority.4.

Jaikara Gajaavy Nihaal Ho jaavey Sat Sri Akaaaal !

 

May maharaj never let the shaheedi degha cauldrons be empty. Jhatka and degh will never stop.

 

Problems is with the SRM is meat...it says we can consume but groups claim otherwise...confuses people 

 

Crystal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myself I am not sure because they are speaking in Punjabi.  The other commenters on the actual video can tell you at which exact time it was.  Try posting on the Youtube video comments. 

Paapiman maybe for you, you can't see everyone as equal. But please don't speak for me.  I don't only understand it but I also see it.  I will pray for you that you will someday see it too.  Then, bowing to others will mean nothing.  There is no heirarchy other than what humans have created.  I see God in all the animals too... I look in my cats eyes and I see consciousness there.  She can't understand at the same level as a human, but I know it's there.  There is consciousness in everything.  In reality, there is no husband no wife, no you, no me... its only your ego that is preventing you from seeing it. If you have given up on ever seeing it because you think its out of your reach then you've already lost.  And I feel sorry for you. But nowhere does it teach in Sikhi that a husband is a demi God.  In fact there is no such thing as a demi God.  There is only God.  Its your own ego - your own love of duality - that is making you want to be 'better' than others, or superior to others.  And in your case, I can see you just don't want to let the idea go that in reality you are not higher status than anyone just for being born with a penis. Just like the Brahmins, you don't want to give up your perceived higher status (in this case over women). And you can't see that in reality, it doesn't exist at all. Not only that but holding on to the idea of it so tightly is like poison:

ਮਹੁਰਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਹਥਿ ਮਰੀਐ ਚਖੀਐ ॥ 
Mahurā hovai hath marī▫ai cẖakẖī▫ai. 
Pride in one's status is like poison-holding it in your hand and eating it, you shall die.

I already showed you that the shabad about seeing everyone equal was not meant for only Brahmgyanis... it was meant for all Sikhs who strive to be Gurmukhs and not Manmukhs. If you don't follow it, then you are Manmukh.  You agree you are Manmukh? You agree that vast majority of followers of so called Orthodox Sikh sects are Manmukh because they are not following the INSTRUCTION to see EVERYONE with single eye of equality? The verse says as GURMUKH DO THIS... so anyone NOT following this instruction is a MANMUKH then you agree?? That means that nearly all of the members of your so called Orthodox sects are Manmukhs then.  What is the definition of Manmukh vs Gurmukh?

"
A person who is self-centred is called a Manmukh. The opposite of Manmukh is Gurmukh, which means a person who follows the teaching and life-code as narrated by the Guru. A Manmukh is the opposite of a Gurmukh."

So there we have it, a Gurmukh is not a Brahamgyani.  A Gurmukh is someone who follows what is being instructed in Gurbani.  And anyone not following what is instructed is a Manmukh.  This definition makes sense,.... because someone who is self-centred, could never fathom seeing someone else as their equal.  That makes you Paapiman, self-centred.  And you are self-centred in a huge way (Because you just don't want to let go of this idea of superiority you have based on your genetalia.  ).  It makes Hari Singh Rhandawa self-centred because he wishes to put women at disadvantage to men regarding seva.  It makes any Singhs following GRM self-centred because they want to see themselves as higher than women, be bowed to by women, and limit women from the same opportunities they have. That is definitely NOT acting like a Gurmukh.  

So my previous explanation stands:

A Gurmukh man would have to follow this instruction (or else they are not a Gurmukh) and see his wife with 'single eye of equality'. That means even if that interpretation of sati were true (which it's not) but even if so, then in order for him to see her with single eye of equality, it means that he would also have to see her as God (or demi God as you like to put it).  Otherwise he is not following instruction for Gurmukhs which is to see (treat) everyone with single eye of equality. And as a Gurmukh she too would still have to follow that instruction. Meaning even if that tuk about sati were true (which it isnt - it was twisted backward by those with an agenda) but even if it were true, then she would also have to see herself as God (or demi God whatever), because she also falls into the definition of ALL.  The instruction is to see ALL (treat ALL) with single eye of equality.  So no matter how you look at it, if that tuk is true (which again its not but you are too stubborn and pig headed to see it), but if it were, then BOTH husband and wife would have to see each other as God.  

I really pray that you drop this superiority complex.  But this is all I am going to say on it.  I'm done.  The only one who break you out of this duality thinking is yourself. And the only way that will happen is if you want it.  And it really seems that you don't want it.  You are too caught up in the I AM MAN I deserve more privilege than women attitude.  I will include you in my prayers in hopes you can overcome this... but I am not engaging you in conversation anymore because it gets nowhere. You are too stuck in Maya. I really think you would be happier following Brahmin thought and follow Hinduism. Because how you see women in relation to men is much closer to how they view women.  

 

 

So  you  don't  uunderstand punjabi.  That  means  you haven't  even  looked  at  the  points  in  the  video.  There are SRM people  on  the  other side of the debate.  Even  they  are  having  a respectful  discussion.  You  have  not  even  asked for  a translation.  You and pappiman saw  SRM and Panj Pyare.  And  spiraled this discussion into that same argument.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Seriously amount of time we spent talking about semantics on wife and husband relationship. Who bow first, how subordinate one has to be wouldn't it make sense both couples go to anand karaj and re-commit the anand karaj vows pay special attention to third and fourth lavan, both rise above from body, mind five senses, go beyond it and abide in true essence of anand karaj.

Even if one party wins over another in terms of push wife to be patti varta or other party brings equality in each and every instances argue over semantics over it until cows got home...whats really accomplished? does it help them to transcendent pass it and follow anand karaj lavan spiritual stages thoroughly including 3rd and 4th lavan of anand karaj ?

By looking at sad state of affairs, many amritdharis due to caught up in nitty gritty semantics on marriage cannot get pass  cham dristhi and this goes both ways, they need more than ever to recommit to anand karaj vows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One has full rights to disagree to a certain concept, but to say it's degrading, is pretty bad.

Quote

Im not even going to get into this again about seeing husband as God.  It's degrading.

Unquote 

The above statement is clearly an attack on a Gurmat principle and also looks down upon all those great Gursikh Sati women, who looked upon their husbands as a demi-God.

We are on a Sikh forum, not a feminist or a non-Sikh one.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited by paapiman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Paapi Ji you yourself admit that you are a non-Sikh.

So Satkirin Kaur has every right to politely expose your anti-Sikh thinking.

Non-Sikhs have full rights to defend Sikhism.

Her thinking (regarding gender equality) is anti-Sikh. It is more towards feminism, than Sikhism.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited by paapiman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagee with you Paapi.

I strongly believe Satkirin Kaur's advocacy of gender equality is fully in tandem with Gurmat and Sikhi.

I don't think for one minute that you as a non-Sikh are defending Sikhism.

I think you are very cleverly and very subtly ridiculing Sikhi.

 

Edited by mrsingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagee with you Paapi.

I strongly believe Satkirin Kaur's advocacy of gender equality is fully in tandem with Gurmat and Sikhi.

Gender equality is unscientific. Gurparsaad, I will be starting a new post on it.

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×