CdnSikhGirl

I'm not the one being arrogant...read the Gurmat Rehet Maryada and what it says about females... then you will see arrogance... It can't possibly be what Guru Ji would have wanted for women. I know this deep inside. And other members like a few who PMd me saying they do not believe DDTs position on women, and SikhKhoj convinced me to stay. And if you think roughly 21 years is considered 'new' to Sikhi... okay... whatever... I started to read SGGSJ and study SIkhi since I was 18 and I am 39 now. I think I may actually have been studying it for longer than Paapiman has been alive... I am just guessing but judging by his posts / how he thinks.

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||

And so does AKJ And so does SGPC etc. Because at some point the members that started EVERY sect had association with other members, etc who trace back... like I said ALL Sikhs, ALL Khalsa originated from the same one event in 1699. Guru Ji created the Khalsa... he did not create sects or taksals etc. Conclusion: GURU GOBIND SINGH Ji created ONE KHALSA. NOT SECTS!

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??

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...

Also you are referencing rehet maryadas... Things that came after SGGSJ. Things that were written by men with men's own agendas put in there ( I mean who benefits from twisting that tuk? Men of course) I am talking about actually in SGGSJ. In all the translations I have looked in for SGGSJ it says see God as husband lord in that shabad.

Because every sect had members at some point that associated with other groups that eventually trace back. So every sect has its origins from same one point. There was only one Khalsa. Every one since came from same origin!

Paapiman post the entire shabad.... Leaving it that way does not make sense. If it that were a correct interpretation of that tuk then in order to agree with rest of Gurbani telling us to all see that divine light in all hearts (not just in men's hearts) then there should also be a corresponding tuk to tell men to view their wives as God also because without it, it doesn't follow rest of Gurbani. The light of God is not only in men. Gurbani is very clear on this in many shabads.... Shabads taken IN CONTEXT!!! Now post the entire shabad that is from with that interpretation for that line... And It doesn't make sense at all. The shabad is not talking about husband and wife duties. It's talking about women burning themselves on their husbands funeral pyre out of attachment for their physical husbands and it's telling them that they have worth as an individual and to instead take God as their husband lord. If you leave the meaning as 'view husband as God' then it's doing the opposite! Instead of uplifting women, it's shackling them even more to men and not as individuals who have their own worth. It would basically be telling them to jump in the fire because their husband was God and was worth far more than them! Can you even think for yourself???

If DDT is supposed to impart high level of teaching then why take one tuk out of context from a shabad, to tell women to view men as God.....but not also tell men to view women as God since Gurbani many times tells us, in context in shabads.... To see that divine light in each and every heart.... Not just men??? If they were truly following what Gurbani says then they would have interpreted it as both men and women seeing God in each other. But we can't even extrapolate that they meant that at all... Because they actually define what they meant in GRM by telling men to view their Singhni as a faithful 'follower' while telling women to view their husband as Parmeshwar (God). So DDT actually define a hierarchical relationship between men and women with men as leader women as follower. What he says goes, she must be obedient. So again.. That tuk was twisted. I went to three different interpretations of Gurbani and all three say 'view God as husband' (husband lord). In that shabad..... Not one translation says view husband as God... Except for DDT and they only take one line from the shabad to do it. (Because if they had quoted the full shabad their interpretation would not make sense)

So then using that line of thinking any Jatha can do the same!!

See the other thread reference ddt and distortions of Gurbani. It doesn't matter what they claim about their origins... it doesn't mean they are correct on their interpretations of Gurbani regarding women. (notice I didn't say all DDT treat women like that... I know there are some great Singhs who highly respect women as equals to them even with regards to Panj Pyare seva they disagree with their own rehet maryada on that! But I am speaking directly of their twisting Gurbani tuks in their Rehet Maryada to put women into subordinate position to men.

I dont know about that.... I believe there is a transition period before you come back. And I also believe that its possible to interact with this world. I have two *personal* stories which seem to suggest this: 1. I already mentioned I have had numerous out of body experiences in my life, so I networked with others who also had same experiences. One of my friends did an experiment while 'out'. He went towards his computer and waved his *hand* through the tower. He really didn't expect anything to happen but when he was back in physical and went to turn on the computer, he had corrupted the hard drive. It was as if a large chunk had been erased. This suggests a definite electromagnetic connection between the physical and nonphysical realities. It also makes sense, since many of the sounds encountered during separation and return from out of body experiences are described to be like static, or rushing, electrical like sounds. It means that recently departed may be able to somehow interact with electronic devices... which leads me to #2 2. When my own Father died, the day of the funeral we were all leaving the hall where the wake was, and outside the building waiting to go to the funeral at the Church (he was Catholic). As they wheeled him around the corner in the casket, the lights and car alarm on the limousine started going haywire... and nobody was standing anywhere near it. Then when we got home, My Mother and I found a message left on the answering machine. It was pretty garbled up, but I was able to clear most of it. The machine was not a tape machine, it was digital so it could not have been a bad tape and we tried to do the *69 thing where it tells you the last number that called. The last number came up as a call we had received in that morning... long before that message was left. Another strange thing was that the bird my Mother had was chirping in the background. The only way the bird could have been on there is if someone clicked the 'memo' button and left a message right at the machine itself. But.... nobody was there as we were all at the funeral! The message itself gets clearer in the second half, and some of the things blew me away: One thing was "Remember the LIGHT. Remember the life we had. I can hear you, don't worry if I'm alright, I'm ok. I can hear you, I'm sorry that we couldn't do more, but I'm not cold or tired. Remember. Do not doubt. Remember your faith. Remember" Now he didnt say Catholic faith... he said faith. And a word he didnt really use before... light. Remember the light. Now I had been alone the previous day, and I was saying out loud... I need to know you are ok because I am having doubts. I need to know you are still 'somewhere' - so it was very eerie hearing 'I can hear you, don't worry if I am alright, I m ok" as you can well imagine! This is also how I KNOW it was not a prank that someone did. Because I said those things while I was completely alone in the house!!! This is only a tiny bit of the over 2 min long message by the way! I clipped it so you can hear exactly this spot. "Remember the LIGHT. Remember the life we had. I can hear you, don't worry if I'm alright, I'm ok. I can hear you, I'm sorry that we couldn't do more, but I'm not cold or tired. Remember. Do not doubt. Remember your faith. Remember" message1.mp3

Even if they can somehow through another name... it doesn't mean they are right.

Paapiman, please stop this crusade you are on trying to make women out to be evil, inferior, lustful, etc that you are trying to do. It's precisely THIS reason... the fact that you are trying to hard to differentiate by gender, and put one on a pedistal while the other you are trying to throw in the trash, that you can not see the jot in everyone. Until you can personally see women on the same level as you... and only see that light in everyone equally, then you will keep fighting that beast of lust within yourself. You seem to keep bringing up lust, women, how women are lustful, how women are this and that as if you are trying to blame women for all the ills in the world. I am getting the distinct feeling that you are struggling with something in yourself, and looking to blame women for your own lustful thoughts towards them. It's time to look in yourself instead of trying to blame the other gender. You almost seem obsessed with this... almost to the point of hatred towards women because of what they evoke in you!

It's not a joke. It's common knowledge that men seek out sex FAR more than women... In the west where sexuality is more open, you can easily see it. Teen girls being duped by teen boys who just want to get in their pants and then leave them. The girls however are not looking to have sex once and then move on. They are naively hoping that it's leading to a relationship and marriage. Majority of rapes in this world are men raping women. Men going to bars looking to hook up, who feed alcohol to their dates in hopes that it will lessen their inhibitions so they can have sex with them. Women do not usually want to jump in bed on the first date. Even advertising in the west exploits women to appeal to the male lust. Not saying there are no ads that work in the opposite, but women are just not turned on by that stuff like men are. Porn industry caters to men, not women. Again not saying that no women are guilty of partaking in that stuff, but the ratio is like 90/10. So it's vastly more men than women that are looking to satisfy their carnal desires. And of course.... everyone has heard the story that if the husband messes up and his wife is mad, its very easy for her to with-hold sex as a sort of punishment. Why? The woman doesn't need sex all the time... the man however is drawn to it far more than her, so she is able to use it to get back at him if he's done something wrong. Ever hear the term "Sleeping on the couch" or "in the dog house" that's because she kicked him out of the bed for doing something that upset her. With-holding sex hurts the man... not the woman lol. Really I think its a joke that you are thinking women are more lustful than men! haha it's really funny because most women can go throughout life without thinking about sex. Due to their biology and testosterone levels, it's far more difficult for men to block it out. I don't know what planet you are on paapiman but it can't be earth!

Actually God is all those things because both Nigrun / Sargun. Creator and creation are one so while creator is formless, through its own creation it is ALL forms. Creation's forms are actually illusion just like the dream characters you have in your dreams at night...., how can you say that the monster chasing you in your childhood nightmares has actual form when it was really just brainwave frequencies?? Creator is the consciousness and form is really just within the dream. But all forms in that dream male and female are being played out by the creator.

Lucky, if you look at all of Paapimans posts on this forum it's very obvious what he's trying to prove about women vs men.

^^^ THIS!!!!

Page 1020, Line 15 ਆਪੇ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਨਾਰੀ ॥ Āpe purakẖ āpe hī nārī. You Yourself are the male, and You Yourself are the female. I know Akal Purakh is genderless, formless actually. But since all of creation is within God and IS God, then God is both male and female. Page 2, Line 6 ਨਾਨਕ ਏਵੈ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਸਭੁ ਆਪੇ ਸਚਿਆਰੁ ॥੪॥ Nānak evai jāṇī▫ai sabẖ āpe sacẖiār. ||4|| O Nanak, know this well: the True One Himself is All. ||4|| Page 11, Line 17 ਤੂੰ ਦਰੀਆਉ ਸਭ ਤੁਝ ਹੀ ਮਾਹਿ ॥ Ŧūʼn ḏarī▫ā▫o sabẖ ṯujẖ hī māhi. You are the River of Life; all are within You.

I know this! God is both the male and the female... I was just commenting on Paapiman's ridiculous interpretation.

One would think the womanizer would actually be the poison coated with sugar... LOL.

paapiman, your explanation basically makes the statement God= Male and therefore males are superior, while God taking a bunch of wives as he so likes, turns women into a mere comodity for men's enjoyment and use. I really don't think that's how the Guru's thought of women. You on the other hand...

For me it's easy.... I just don't think about it. Here's how I look at everything, and I know you won't like it because you seem to focus so much on gender and trying to prove that males are better / superior etc. But when I look at any human being, I look PAST their gender. I don't even allow the thought that they are somehow different than I am enter my mind. I instead resolve to see only the 'divya jot' within them. Since I have resolved to only see this, I actually and truly see light emenating from everyone (not just in my mind... I actually see their auras). And that light is identical in everyone. Thinking and viewing things from that perspective it's impossible to lower myself to base carnal desires. I am more interested in the good in someone as a brother or sister (and that is even a bad comparion because to me there is no 'brother' or 'sister' just 'sibling', how we can work together to better humankind, provide charity, etc. Even though I work surrounded by nearly all males, in a submarine for extended periods of time in that small space where even personal privacy is limited, I see ALL of us as a team... all identical (well everyone have different skill sets but you know what I mean, we are all team members on the same team). When I interact with supervisors, subordinates, etc I don't even think of them as male and me female. I think of us all as simply sailors. The only exception to this I will allow is my own husband. And in that case, I still see that jot. Our pairing is not a physical one. I do not even think of our union as a physical one, but instead one that is happening at purely the spiritual level as we are two halves of the same one soul. In fact even the fact that we met at all, seemed impossible unless Waheguru Ji had intervened. So even when I speak to him, I do not even have the thoughts enter my mind that he is male and I am female... I have simply learned to not define people in this way. I instead think of us as two identical halves of one pure light. My whole view of the world has changed to this view... it's liek I now am seeing the level above the physical in all things and in everyone. Back to the two halves of one light...My Husband and I think and act almost identically. We can almost finish each other's sentences. So of course we want to be close in the physical sense, but we don't want to be close to satisfy some carnal sexual urge, but instead to merge our light... to show care, to show mutual respect and same goals, to support each other in our spiritual journey together as one. That is what marriage is actually about. I could care less if we actually were intimate as that's such a small thing. So paapiman... you seem to be so obbsessed with lust. And so obsessed with differentiating women and men, and trying to declare males as superior and females as weak and inferior. Maybe if you actually started to see all humans for what we truly are...and resolve to see ONLY that divine light in everyone and basically tell your eyes to not even see the physical shells or judge people based on their physical genders, then maybe you could actually start to learn to control your lust. But then.... you'd have to leave this men are better than women attitude behind...

Can someone please tell me the English translation of those 3 words? I cant even find it anywhere... is it in SGGSJ?

So you believe him then? Answer outright... since you chose to just defend him rather than question the above, do you believe what he said about women? Answer outright please... without skirting the question.