hsingh8963

Still waiting on Paapiman's response about the Gurmat Rehet Maryada... and how it's actually against GRM to bow to Dasam Granth or consider it equal to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  He's usually the one who quotes 'Anti-Gurmat' this and 'Anti-Gurmat' that... but he's now suddenly become very quiet! 

Harjot Paji i have to say the video is a ridiculously weak attempt by those who stitched it together (not yourself) to dodge the issues discussed by Sarbjit Dhunda, simply by juxtaposing clips of Sant Ji and Giani Pinderpal Singh Ji, neither of whom are referring to or addressing any of the points mentioned in my post (in blue) below. As the topic referred to in context is Sri Hemkhunt Sahib which is now the number one tourist/pligrimage yatra for Sikhs from Punjab to visit after Amritsar (ahead of Sri Anandpur Sahib) when Gurmat clearly tells us that Sikhs should not partake in pilgrimages like the Muslims and Hindu's.

I fully agree with Sarbjit Dhunda that Sri Anandpur Sahib as the birthplace of the Khalsa Panth holds more historic resonance to the Panth than yatra's to snow-filled glaciers around Sri Hemkhunt Sahib. I fully respect that you might prioritise Sri Hemkhunt Sahib and the whole supposed Dusht Daman history and Sikhs who feel that way are entitled to that view.

But for the majority of the Panth the arguable previous life of Guru Sahib (claimed to be as Dusht Daman spent in isolation and prayer around Sri Hemkhunt Sahib) is not relevant (as Dhan Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj emphasised physical actions towards Sarbat da Bhala and the eradication of ancestry history and pride) and we should solely focus on Dhan Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj's lifetime in which they held GurGaddi and initiated the Khalsa Panth. If certain sects wish to focus their attention on debateable previous lives that again is their perogative. Hindutva forces and the RSS-supporting shopkeepers around Sri Hemkhunt Sahib are certainly more than delighted that Sikhs travel there from Punjab to spend their money and acknowledge the Dusht Daman ascetic story whilst none of the money wasted on these pilgrimages is used to fighting the societal problems the Sikh Panth faces in the form of female infanticide, drugs, biraderi apartheid, poverty or illiteracy.

Last but not least, you are aware that the clip of Sant Ji using the famous bemukh and nastik line referring to Babbar Khalsa Singhs is wholly irrelevant and from the era when Damdami Taksal supported Indira Gandhi and Congress in the 1980 elections. As via the Dharam Yuddh Morcha, Sant Ji turned their back on everything that DDT was doing in opposition to the Panth and focussed solely on Unity - whereby those Sikhs previously labelled bemukhs and nastiks came to comprise the majority of shaheeds of June 1984.

 

 

Oh you mean don't do like Damdami Taksal does? 
Because they pick and choose tuks to suit their agenda:

They use this one, without taking the lines immediately following, you lose the context, which tells us that the idea of physical pollution (and useless rituals to purify oneself) are false deeds, that the one who is impure is the one who 'sucks the blood' of others (using metaphor to speak of exploitation of others). So, like majority of Gurbani it uses allegory to take a physical reference and shift our thinking to our own mind, thoughts and deeds. DDT however, uses it alone to try to say that blood causes pollution. How can blood be pollution if blood is life force of all animals?  They pick and chose this tuk to try to declare women as impure because of menstruation.
 
ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥
Je raṯ lagai kapṛai jāmā ho▫e palīṯ.
If one's clothes are stained with blood, the garment becomes polluted

They pick and chose this next one and changed the context which is that a true sati is one who takes God as their true husband... as soul-bride.  But to push their agenda of women being inferior, they again took the tuk out of context and twisted it to sound like it's telling physical wives to see and serve their physical husband as a God.  If the original context was to forget these physical attachments and take God as your true husband, and surrender to God's will alone, then how can you view a physical husband AS God?  Certainly we are to see the divine light in ALL humans, but an individual part of a whole, can never equal the whole.  And if a wife is being told to serve a physical husband as a God, then how can she take God as her true husband as a soul bride? DDT took this tuk out of context to push their agenda. 

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥ 
Kaho Nānak jin pari▫o parmesar kar jāni▫ā. 
Says Nanak, she who looks upon the Transcendent Lord as her Husband,
ਧੰਨੁ ਸਤੀ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਰਵਾਨਿਆ ॥੪॥੩੦॥੯੯॥ 
Ḏẖan saṯī ḏargėh parvāni▫ā. ||4||30||99|| 
is the blessed 'satee'; she is received with honor in the Court of the Lord. ||4||30||99||

And these are only two examples, and there are more! So you can't tell one person not to do something, that you are supporting Damdami Taksal doing the same thing.
That makes you a bit of a hypocrite! 

 

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.