Jump to content

Viewing Husband as God (with evidence)


Recommended Posts

So you think you have more knowledge than all the Gyanis/Saints above?

Bhul chuk maaf

Where did I say so??? Show me! Again same thing,you make others to think and believe what you want! How can you make other to think like this? More knowledge than gyanis or sants?? How can you use this statement just to secure yourself.I know what I think of gyanis or sants!! I'm sorry!! That statement hurt me! And indirectly you said so wrong ..

WJKK WJKF!!

Hadd ho gyi!!

Edited by sukrit kaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I say so??? Show me! Again same think,you make others to think and believe what you want! How can you make other to think like this? More knowledge than gyanis or sants?? How can you use this statement just to secure yourself.I know what I think of gyanis or sants!! I'm sorry!! That statement hurted me! And indirectly you said so wrong ..

WJKK WJKF!!

Hadd ho gyi!!

Relax........It was only a question.

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I say so??? Show me! Again same thing,you make others to think and believe what you want! How can you make other to think like this? More knowledge than gyanis or sants?? How can you use this statement just to secure yourself.I know what I think of gyanis or sants!! I'm sorry!! That statement hurt me! And indirectly you said so wrong ..

WJKK WJKF!!

Hadd ho gyi!!

I posted quotes directly from a Gyani.  In fact the actual screenshots where this Gyani explained that husband and wife are equals and that 'sati' is to save our precious life (male and female both) so we can offer ourself to Waheguru and nobody else. No human is worthy of worship as a God.

Paapiman (and others) directly put this Gyani down, simply because this Gyani does not agree with their opinion.
But then, they attack anyone who disagrees with quotes from the Gyanis they post. 

So what they really mean to say is that only Gyanis etc that follow DDT etc. way of thinking should be given this respect, and not those trained by Sikh Missionary College or others.  So they themselves are not giving full respect to all Sants and Gyanis.  

Meaning, they are all big hypocrits! 

At least I acknowledge that they were trained by their various sects etc and so their thinking will automatically align with that jatha or sect's thinking.  Meaning that Sants and Gyanis do not necessarily agree with each other.  Who's to say who is correct?  We are all only human, as are they. Those who say Sants are God... forget that we are ALL God too.  They just have more insight but it's still based entirely on the path they took - which sect, which jatha they originated from. This is why ALL OF US are supposed to read Gurbani for ourselves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey satkirin, what do you think of the following?

"The girl should be told that she has been joined in matrimony to her man in the hallowed
presence of the Guru Granth Sahib and the congregation. She should ever harbour for him
deferential solicitude, regard him the lord and master of her love and trust; she should remain firm
in her loyalty to him and serve him in joy and sorrow and in every clime (native or foreign) and
should show the same regard and consideration to his parents and relatives as she would, to her
own parents and relatives."

wanna guess where i read that from ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey satkirin, what do you think of the following?

"The girl should be told that she has been joined in matrimony to her man in the hallowed
presence of the Guru Granth Sahib and the congregation. She should ever harbour for him
deferential solicitude, regard him the lord and master of her love and trust; she should remain firm
in her loyalty to him and serve him in joy and sorrow and in every clime (native or foreign) and
should show the same regard and consideration to his parents and relatives as she would, to her
own parents and relatives."

wanna guess where i read that from ? 

 

it's saying you should love and trust one another... I don't get any meaning from that of subjugation or subordination or seeing someone as God over or any suggestion that wives must 'obey' it's simply saying trust that he loves you and stay by his side even in sorrow... It says something very similar for him as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More evidence:

DDT_RM.thumb.jpg.829b4bebff23055874028a2

 

Bhul chuk maaf

This is not evidence, as this is the subject of the dispute itself!  LOL Even some on here said the original in Punjabi does not have that line...

 

And as I said, if a man is being worshipped as God, he BETTER BE LIVING ALL THE QUALITIES OF GOD EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THEIR MARRIED LIFE.... which means he would have already recognized the divine light in his Singhni as well, and see her as his Patni Parmeshwari.  Otherwise he is not worthy of being seen as God.  In fact only God is worthy of that...

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know the teachings that were imparted to Mata Amro jee by her father (Second Master)?

One of the teachings was to never come back home, without permission of in-laws.

Does anyone know the other teachings? Have they been documented in any historical source?

Thanks

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited by paapiman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence that proves this thinking crept into GRM from Laws of Manu, as the wording is too similar to dismiss, in fact it's nearly identical. 

By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house.
In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord (husband) is dead to her sons;
a woman must never be independent. She must not seek to separate herself from her father, husband, or sons;
by leaving them she would make both her own and her husband's families contemptible.

Code of Manu 5:147-49


Though he be destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure elsewhere,
or devoid of good qualities, yet a husband must be constantly worshipped as god by a faithful wife.
No sacrifice, no vow, no fast must be performed by women apart from their husbands; if a wife obeys her husband, she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven.
Code of Manu 5:155

However Guru Nanak Dev Ji condemned such thinking, reocgnizing that ALL humans come from a woman:

"from the woman is our birth, in the woman's womb are we shaped;
To the woman we are engaged, to the woman we are wedded;
The woman is our friend and from woman is the family;
Through the woman are the bonds of the world;
Why call woman evil who gives birth to the leaders (male and female) of the World?
From the woman is the woman, without woman there is none".
(Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 473)

This he says against the idea of pollution from menstruation / birth / reproductive things:

If pollution attaches to birth, then pollution is everywhere (for birth is universal).
Cow-dung (used for purifying the kitchen floor by Hindus) and firewood breed maggots;
Not one grain of corn is without life;
Water itself is a living substance, imparting life to all vegetation.
How can we then believe in pollution, when pollution inheres within staples?
Says Nanak, pollution is not washed away by purificatory rituals;
Pollution is removed by true knowledge alone".

(Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 472).

And advocated equal participation - as comrades - not as subordinates. Notice too how he says in us ALL demerits... meaning no human should be seen as God:

"Come my sisters and dear comrades! Clasp me in your embrace.
Meeting together, let us tell the tales of our Omnipotent God.
In the True Lord are all merits, in us all demerits".
(Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 17).

And here is the big answer to those who think there was no female Guru, so this is indication that women are inferior.
On the contrary, our only living Guru, and the one which has existed longest, and will continue to exist everlasting - is in the feminine form - Gurbani:

The poetic utterances of the Gurus were not called "Guru Vak" which is masculine but 'Guru Bani" which is feminine. Thus the fourth Guru (Guru Ram Das) says:

Bani guru guru hai bani, vich bani amrit sare
Bani is the Guru, the Guru Bani, Within Bani are contained all nectars.

(Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 982).

So those who oppose women as Panj Pyaras using the exucse that a woman can never represent Guru simply because they were in male form and put all importance on the gender, are forgetting our current, and everlasting Guru... I refer to the above. Gurbani IS the Guru. And Gurbani is feminine form.  Your ONLY living Guru, is feminine. 
 

Perhaps this is why kashmir Sikhs are so open to equality of women:
Sikh Missionaries - Guru Amar Das trained missionaries to spread Sikhism throughout the country. According to one account, of the 146 missionaries Guru Amar Das trained and sent out, 52 were women. At one time the religious seats in the country of Afghanistan and Kashmir were under the jurisdiction of women. These women had complete jurisdiction in decision making as well as preaching to congregations.

"With the passage of time, social pressures, male chauvinistic attitudes, and the forgetting of the essence of the teachings of the Sikh Gurus, the position of Sikh women in today's society has suffered a set back. Some of the Sikh men have adopted chauvinistic attitudes of the existing Hindu and Islamic society of the Indian sub-continent. The recent materialistic attitude of some Sikhs living in India have added to the deterioration in the status of women. Many of the progressive teachings of the Sikh Gurus which were 500 years ahead of their time have been forgotten. Some Sikhs (like perhaps you Paapiman??) have become disciples of Manu concerning women's rights rather than of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and the Sikh Gurus. This is a deplorable situation. But aided by the spread of education, economic empowerment and an analytical look back at the teachings and lives of the Gurus, the study of Sikh Scriptures has reawakened Sikh women as well as Sikh men. They are now conscious of rights of women as equal partners in human progress, and citing the Holy Scriptures, they are fighting back for these rights and to uphold their responsibility to Waheguru, the Guru Khalsa Panth, their family, and themselves as daughters of the Guru and a pilar of Sikh Society."

Finally you ony need to look as far as the first line in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, to know that there can only be 1 God, Ik Onkar.  So it makes no sense to later on in Gurbani tell wives to see their physical husbands as God.  Seeing the divine light in someone is not the same as seeing them AS God.  Paapiman I think you are confusing Laws of Manu for Sikhism.

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More evidence against this nonsense of seeing husband AS God:
SGGSJ Ang 1353-1354


 
ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa▫o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaʼn gur parsāḏ.
One Universal Creator God. Truth Is The Name. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying. Beyond Birth. Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace: 
ਕਤੰਚ ਮਾਤਾ ਕਤੰਚ ਪਿਤਾ ਕਤੰਚ ਬਨਿਤਾ ਬਿਨੋਦ ਸੁਤਹ ॥
Kaṯancẖ māṯā kaṯancẖ piṯā kaṯancẖ baniṯā binoḏ suṯah.
Who is the mother, and who is the father? Who is the son, and what is the pleasure of marriage? 
ਕਤੰਚ ਭ੍ਰਾਤ ਮੀਤ ਹਿਤ ਬੰਧਵ ਕਤੰਚ ਮੋਹ ਕੁਟੰਬ੍ਯ੍ਯਤੇ ॥
Kaṯancẖ bẖarāṯ mīṯ hiṯ banḏẖav kaṯancẖ moh kutamb▫yaṯe.
Who is the brother, friend, companion and relative? Who is emotionally attached to the family? 
ਕਤੰਚ ਚਪਲ ਮੋਹਨੀ ਰੂਪੰ ਪੇਖੰਤੇ ਤਿਆਗੰ ਕਰੋਤਿ ॥ 
Kaṯancẖ cẖapal mohnī rūpaʼn pekẖanṯe ṯi▫āgaʼn karoṯ.
Who is restlessly attached to beauty? It leaves, as soon as we see it. 
ਰਹੰਤ ਸੰਗ ਭਗਵਾਨ ਸਿਮਰਣ ਨਾਨਕ ਲਬਧ੍ਯ੍ਯੰ ਅਚੁਤ ਤਨਹ ॥੧॥
Rahanṯ sang bẖagvān simraṇ Nānak labḏẖa▫yaʼn acẖuṯ ṯanah. ||1||
Only the meditative remembrance of God remains with us. O Nanak, it brings the blessings of the Saints, the sons of the Imperishable Lord. ||1|| 
ਧ੍ਰਿਗੰਤ ਮਾਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਸਨੇਹੰ ਧ੍ਰਿਗ ਸਨੇਹੰ ਭ੍ਰਾਤ ਬਾਂਧਵਹ ॥
Ḏẖariganṯ māṯ piṯā sanehaʼn ḏẖarig sanehaʼn bẖarāṯ bāʼnḏẖvah.
Cursed is loving attachment to one's mother and father; cursed is loving attachment to one's siblings and relatives. 
ਧ੍ਰਿਗ ਸ੍ਨੇਹੰ ਬਨਿਤਾ ਬਿਲਾਸ ਸੁਤਹ ॥
Ḏẖarig snėh▫aʼn baniṯā bilās suṯah.
Cursed is attachment to the joys of family life with one's spouse and children. 
ਧ੍ਰਿਗ ਸ੍ਨੇਹੰ ਗ੍ਰਿਹਾਰਥ ਕਹ ॥
Ḏẖarig snėh▫aʼn garihārath kah.
Cursed is attachment to household affairs. 
ਸਾਧਸੰਗ ਸ੍ਨੇਹ ਸਤ੍ਯ੍ਯਿੰ ਸੁਖਯੰ ਬਸੰਤਿ ਨਾਨਕਹ ॥੨॥
Sāḏẖsang snėh saṯi▫yaʼn sukẖ▫yaʼn basanṯ nānkah. ||2||
Only loving attachment to the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, is True. Nanak dwells there in peace. ||2|| 
 

This shabad continues, telling us this body is false and only God is true. It asks us directly who is the Mother and Facther in actuality? The truth we see further down, where it makes it clear that God IS every character. 
 

So how can there be any idea at all that a wife should see her physical husband as God as if there is some heirarchy?  And the nonesense that women are half humans, and downgrades to men LOL.
Similarly there is not one single line in Gurbani telling women to obey men or that they are in any way subordinate.  This is culture and not Sikhi.

 

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey satkirin, what do you think of the following?

"The girl should be told that she has been joined in matrimony to her man in the hallowed
presence of the Guru Granth Sahib and the congregation. She should ever harbour for him
deferential solicitude, regard him the lord and master of her love and trust; she should remain firm
in her loyalty to him and serve him in joy and sorrow and in every clime (native or foreign) and
should show the same regard and consideration to his parents and relatives as she would, to her
own parents and relatives."

wanna guess where i read that from ? 

 

Bro, what is the source of the above? Can you please tell us?

Thanks

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Good find bro.

 

That says nothing about leader/subordinate, or being submissive, or who gets to boss who around, or suggesting anyone has to be obedient etc. And its not a literal meaning of Lord... It's just saying to trust that he will be faithful. Master OF your love and trust.  It's NOT saying Master of YOU.  IN that he has mastered your love and trust... trust that he is faithful and also be loyal to him as well (which is the next line and gives the context).  And it says very similar in next part for the husband.  

The above, suggests nothing about obedience, or who is 'in charge' of who or any sort of hierarchy etc.  

I definitely trust that my husband is faithful. I know he will never cheat on me and I will never cheat on him.  But he knows if he tries to boss me around I will just laugh.  If he asks me nicely then I will likely do it for him because I love him. But he also does the same for me.  There is no sense of one having authority over the other.  At all... whatsoever. 

This is HUGELY different than DDT saying look upon husband as a God.  

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you love someone, do they have authority over you?

If you love God, does he have authority over you? Though, does he not have it regardless?

If you love your husband, does he not have authority over you?

I'm not talking in a master slave mentality, but from the point of view of love.

Because, even the Almighty God, if he is bound by one thing, that is love.

Just something to think about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want a women to respect me like a 'God', I'm more like 'b1tch respect me as a man!'

 

Women deserve respect when they conduct themselves with class. Any girl acting like a slapper shouldn't be shocked at being treated like a ho. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you love someone, do they have authority over you?

If you love God, does he have authority over you? Though, does he not have it regardless?

If you love your husband, does he not have authority over you?

I'm not talking in a master slave mentality, but from the point of view of love.

Because, even the Almighty God, if he is bound by one thing, that is love.

Just something to think about...

but then that is saying if he loves me I am also in authority over him.  In that symbolic sense as you are using its bilateral going both ways and that's perfectly fine.  And that's how my husband and I think. 

It's the idea of someone being in a position of privilege and authority over someone else (in the sense of control and barking orders) while the other is in one of less privilege / servitude / obedience simply because of gender which is very morally and ethically wrong.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want a women to respect me like a 'God', I'm more like 'b1tch respect me as a man!'

 

Women deserve respect when they conduct themselves with class. Any girl acting like a slapper shouldn't be shocked at being treated like a ho. 

and similarly she deserves your respect and not on any less of a scale.  Respect goes both ways... You don't deserve respect just because you are a man... You deserve respect when you treat others likewise and and are a good human being.

you make it sound like you believe that men deserve respect just for being men.... But women only deserve respect when they have your idea of 'class'?  What about when a man is acting like a 'slapper'? (Not exactly sure what that is)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and similarly she deserves your respect and not on any less of a scale.  Respect goes both ways... You don't deserve respect just because you are a man... You deserve respect when you treat others likewise and and are a good human being.

you make it sound like you believe that men deserve respect just for being men.... But women only deserve respect when they have your idea of 'class'?  What about when a man is acting like a 'slapper'? (Not exactly sure what that is)

That's what it's about - conduct. Plenty of women deserve no respect for how they go on. Same with men. 

I haven't got any respect for he-slags, that 5hit is only really promoted and encouraged in white culture. You see it a lot in films like James Bond, where promiscuity is celebrated. Here in the UK if you work in an office and shag a lot of girls you get respected by the indigenous. I think many white people think anyone not shagging as much as possible isn't normal. Mainstream media is obsessed with who is shagging who. 

But you have to admit, female psychology with an often comparatively unstable frame of mind in emotional terms, is a bit of a headache to deal with. 

Look at where western white society has taken it: Women given all the freedom in the world to choose their partners, even co-habitation before marriage but even then we have massive rates of failed marriages. How do you explain that? Are whites even in a position to give other people lectures given their own abysmal record when it comes to fidelity and  marriage? 

Like we discussed previously, plenty of women prefer traditional relationships - what you would call patriarchy. I'd say the minority are otherwise. Plus check where whitey goes with their freedom, getting boozed up at clubs on the weekends and getting laid. Real class. 

 

I say white society promotes promiscuity and the mfs are trying to encourage that in other cultures too. 

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no link between females having their own minds and not being ruled by men and promiscuity.  That is to say men not ruling over women, is not the cause of promiscuity.

Men were still 'shagging' outside marriage for eons, having mistresses while the wife was expected to remain loyal to only her husband.  Prostitution is the world oldest profession... Would not be so if there were not customers. 

We were not talking about promiscuity anyway. We were talking about men lording it over women or if they have the right to do so while women being expected to be obedient and subservient.  Unfair bias towards men.  Perhaps the women who claimed to be happy under those conditions were being told to say so by their husbands... Whom they had no choice but to obey right? Lol. 

 

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you are backtracking. Only a few weeks ago you agreed that some (many!) women do prefer traditional setups, now you are suggesting they are all coerced into it. 

 

Make your mind up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably none.

It's a completely optional thing. Nobody forces it on the woman, nor should they. It's a huge boon for them spiritually if they choose to follow it, and if not, then I guess they'll only get the normal phall of their simran seva like men without having this additional bonus on top of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...