CdnSikhGirl

Not all Sikhs follow your line of thinking. Deriving pleasure with your spouse is allowed. Seeking sex for ONLY pleasure is not. There is a difference between using sex for purely physical reasons, and expressing love and emotion to your spouse. It was not purely for procreation only, or else humans would not have emotional bonding with their spouse. Your line of thinking is leading you to a very Islamic interpretation of Sikhi. Maybe even more restrictive than Islamic. You can believe it if you want. my last words on this are: LUST is NOT the same as expressing Love through intimacy with your own spouse. LUST is NOT ALL sexual desire... only sexual desire that is being misused purely for the physical aspect only. Sex with your own spouse to bond and share spiritual connection is perfectly fine, even if you don't plan to conceive! Seeking casual sex just to get jollies is not! There IS a difference. Please don't say that YOUR viewpoint only is Gurmat! There are far more groups than the couple so called puratan groups you keep mentioning! If you want to follow this severely strict interpretation of Sikhi, then please do so... but don't mislead others into thinking that viewpoint is the majority because its not! I can assure you that EVERY Sikh married couple I know, has not stopped having sex because they have had the kids they want, or because they are in their 50's. I can almost guarantee it! Also, you can keep restricting yourself more and more from things in life, but it wont get you to God. Only realization will... awakening. Those things don't cause that awakening. Opening your eyes does. We were put here in life.... to live! Not to try and live in a bubble so we won't accidentally commit 'kaam' etc. The real challenge is in living... having a spouse, having a healthy sexual relationship with your SPOUSE ONLY, experiencing that bonding with each other... not walling yourself up in some self made prison so you wont accidentally make any mistakes. Again, you are free to follow that line of thinking, but if that is what got anyone to God then the Yogi ascetics would have all already gotten there and we would have had no need for SIkhi. Please dont mislead Truthseeker into thinking this severe strict form of Sikhi is what all Sikhs think... because its not!

A drop may suffice... IF that drop happens to make it all the way. Fact is, female reproductive tract is not hospitable to sperm. Most never make it. In fact each time a couple has sex, there is less than an 8% chance of becoming pregnant. If sex were only about procreation, then one would think the odds would be much closer to 100%. But, nature seems to be hinting that humans should do it more, not less. Animals have a much higher rate of pregnancy per coupling. Dogs for instance, have a near 100% rate ensuring most only mate once to become pregnant. The emotional aspect in human coupling (absent in animals), also suggests that with this low 8% rate of pregnancy, it's meant more for bonding than procreation... the emotional bonding can not be ignored. Spouses feel different love towards each other than they do with a brother or sister. And that love can not be expressed in a platonic relationship. You guys are seriously worried about a few nutrients?? haha I can't believe what I am reading! I can't believe you'd forgo intimacy with your spouse and deprive her of that emotional bond, in order to be selfish about retaining a few nutrients that your body would replace within a few hours anyway! How selfish and petty! Isn't love supposed to be SELFLESS? If you want to remain celibate its your choice (please don't get married then either) but that won't get you to God. Guess what? I actually LIVE LIFE, and do not renounce it. And I have had multiple experiences which can only be explained as spiritual. I didn't try to deprive myself of everything in hopes that God might be pleased with me. I was given those experiences with his Grace without asking. I realized that God is not some old bearded guy sitting on a cloud that you have to please through suffering and renouncing his creation. God is WITHIN you! Your only task in this life is to FIND God WITHIN yourself! The Gurus taught us to do this while actually living in this world. By treasuring life, and this chance to learn from one another, by giving of ourselves selflessly, helping others. Not by renouncing living! Its your own choice but please do not try to force that view on everyone... it goes against what the Gurus were trying to say. As in, I think some of you have completely missed the point! If we didn't need to actually live life for some reason, we wouldn't be here. If we didn't need to form emotional bonds with a spouse, then we would not feel anything emotionally toward our husband or wife. Everything that happens is his hukam. I live life to the fullest, to see the beauty of creation, but I also have realized the divine is within all of us. I have actually experienced consciousness outside of the physical realm. I am approaching 40, and a child is not guaranteed at this age. But I am not going to live with my husband as if he were my brother. We are supposed to have emotional bond as spouses, to become one soul in two bodies, each helping one another on the same spiritual journey. That would be impossible if a husband and wife lived as platonic partners. I think some of you are so caught up in enforcing rules that you are missing out on the actual experience itself! If merely following all these rules were a ticket to Akal Purakh, then the yogis would have achieved it and there would be no need for Sikhi. That's all I am going to say on this topic.

Using that logic, ALL of us are also God. Because there really is only ONE... we are just cut off and experiencing through a tiny peep hole, but the 'doer' the 'experiencer' in all of us is ONE and the same. God is everything and everyone here is the proof (which you can not dispute because you are using the same proof to say Guru = God): Page 35, Line 1 ਸਭ ਕਿਛੁ ਆਪੇ ਆਪਿ ਹੈ ਹਉਮੈ ਵਿਚਿ ਕਹਨੁ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥ Sabẖ kicẖẖ āpe āp hai ha▫umai vicẖ kahan na jā▫e. God Himself is everything; those who are in their ego cannot even speak of this. Page 39, Line 4 ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਆਪੇ ਆਪਿ ਹੈ ਦੂਜਾ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥ Sabẖ kicẖẖ āpe āp hai ḏūjā avar na ko▫e. He Himself is everything; there is no other at all. Page 1403, Line 17 ਆਪੇ ਨਰੁ ਆਪੇ ਫੁਨਿ ਨਾਰੀ ਆਪੇ ਸਾਰਿ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਪਾਸਾ ॥ Āpe nar āpe fun nārī āpe sār āp hī pāsā. He Himself is male, and He Himself is female; He Himself is the chessman, and He Himself is the board. 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|| Our purpose is to realize our true self. That we ALL are this ONE. That God is no further than within ourself: Page 60, Line 13 ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੀਐ ਅਵਰ ਕਿ ਕਰੇ ਕਰਾਇ ॥੯॥ Gurmukẖ āp pacẖẖāṇī▫ai avar kė kare karā▫e. ||9|| When one becomes Gurmukh and realizes his own self, what more is there left to do or have done? ||9|| Page 86, Line 1 ਗੁਰਮਤੀ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣਿਆ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਪਰਗਾਸੁ ॥ Gurmaṯī āp pacẖẖāṇi▫ā rām nām pargās. Follow the Guru's Teachings, and recognize your own self; the Divine Light of the Lord's Name shall shine within. Page 97, Line 3 ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਘਰ ਮਹਿ ਪਾਇਆ ॥ Parabẖ abẖināsī gẖar mėh pā▫i▫ā. I have found the Immortal Lord within the home of my own self. Page 163, Line 15 ਸਜਣੁ ਹਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਪਾਇਆ ਘਰਿ ਸੋਹਿਲਾ ਗਾਇਆ ॥ Sajaṇ har parabẖ pā▫i▫ā gẖar sohilā gā▫i▫ā. I have obtained the Lord God as my Best Friend, within the home of my own self. I sing the Songs of Joy. Page 386, Line 13 ਥਿਰੁ ਘਰਿ ਬੈਠੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਅਪਨਾ ਪਾਵਹੁ ॥੨॥ Thir gẖar baiṯẖe parabẖ apnā pāvhu. ||2|| Remain steady and stable within the home of your own self, and find God. ||2|| Yes we are told that: Page 123, Line 11 ਆਤਮ ਰਾਮ ਪਰਗਾਸੁ ਗੁਰ ਤੇ ਹੋਵੈ ॥ Āṯam rām pargās gur ṯe hovai. The Divine Light of the Supreme Soul shines forth from the Guru. But we are also told ....by Guru Nanak Dev Ji himself: Page 599, Line 2 ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਏਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੨॥ Gurmukẖ ek ḏarisat kar ḏekẖhu gẖat gẖat joṯ samo▫ī jī▫o. ||2|| As Gurmukh, look upon all with the single eye of equality; in each and every heart, the Divine Light is contained. ||2|| Page 663, Line 8 ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਹੈ ਸੋਇ ॥ Sabẖ mėh joṯ joṯ hai so▫e. The Divine Light is within everyone; You are that Light. Page 1041, Line 16 ਅਹਿਨਿਸਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਨਿਰੰਤਰਿ ਪੇਖੈ ॥ Ahinis joṯ niranṯar pekẖai. see the Divine Light deep within your nucleus, day and night. Further this Shabad puts it into perspective that God is ALL of us. We just need to realize this fact. We are ALL just characters being played by the ONE same God: ਬਾਜੀਗਰਿ ਜੈਸੇ ਬਾਜੀ ਪਾਈ ॥ Bājīgar jaise bājī pā▫ī. The actor stages the play, ਨਾਨਾ ਰੂਪ ਭੇਖ ਦਿਖਲਾਈ ॥ Nānā rūp bẖekẖ ḏikẖlā▫ī. playing the many characters in different costumes; ਸਾਂਗੁ ਉਤਾਰਿ ਥੰਮ੍ਹ੍ਹਿਓ ਪਾਸਾਰਾ ॥ Sāʼng uṯār thamiĥa▫o pāsārā. but when the play ends, he takes off the costumes, ਤਬ ਏਕੋ ਏਕੰਕਾਰਾ ॥੧॥ Ŧab eko ekankārā. ||1|| and then he is one, and only one. ||1|| Also using dreams an analogy as Gurbani mentions several times... the dreamer would never be able to fully 'incarnate' within their own dream. The dream would collpase as there would no longer be a dreamer! We are told in Gurbani, that EVERYTHING is WITHIN God. ALL consciousness is God's. There is only ONE dreamer and only ONE dream. We are all just characters within it. However, even though all the characters can interact within the dream and even though they are all really aspects of the Dreamer, no single dream character could ever be equal to the dreamer, or else the dream (no longer having a dreamer to create it) would collapse - the dreamer would just awaken. Even if I gain full waking consciousness within my own dreams at night... I am not 'incarnated' in that dream. I am still dreaming the dream from my vantage point outside of the dream. I am simply the dreamer AND the dream, AND all of the characters within it.

This is my point! The self proclaimed 'Orthodox' Sikhs on here sound a lot like the "Khaliban"

But you said to him that Marriage can happen without sex (ie if someone can not conceive then they should not have sex with their spouse). He is just saying that since those people likely could not have sex, then they should be allowed to marry for the same reasons you quoted for the younger couple who for medical reasons can not conceive... the companionship, the support etc. because they too should not have sex (since you quoted sex is for procreation only). He is just using your own logic back on you. I earlier made the statement exactly what you just said... that if sex is purely for procreation only, then why would two people even get married at all if they can not conceive due to medical reasons... they would have the label of spouse, but be living as brother and sister. No point. However I found several references to the fact that even in Sikhi, (one I posted above and I think Sikh Missionary College to answer your question) that sex goes beyond only procreation. That there is a highly spiritual link in the act. The two essentially become one, sharing spiritual energy. This is not seen as a physical loss of energy as you keep stating by losing nutrients in a teaspoon of sperm... but BOTH partners SHARE their energy and truly become one soul in two bodies. It's allows husband and wife to unite spiritually and it mirrors the relationship of us with the divine. Soul bride to Husband Lord. Spouses do not have intercourse just to get their jollies. They do it be close (closer than any sister / brother relationship ever could be), to express love and affection for one another, to truly attach together to become One soul in two bodies. This is why its against Sikhi to have sex outside of marriage... because of how powerful this connection is. I am pretty sure that every married couple who has sex, are not doing it purely for physical pleasure. There is a difference between lust and sex. They are not the same thing. It's when sexual desire becomes ALL about the physical pleasure, that we are missing out. That is lust. And it's only ourselves we are hurting. Because we are missing that truly divine link and spiritual connection of love between husband and wife. Sex is not bad. Lust is. Showing love for your spouse and expressing that love, is not Lust. Having sex casually just so you can feel physical pleasure is Lust. Hopefully you can realize the difference.

If Guru Nanak Dev Ji IS incarnation of God can u please explain: 1. Why Mool Mantra says God does not take birth or death (formless) and that all forms occur within God? 2. Why did Guru Nanak Dev Ji disappear for three days at the river where he was said to be in 'presence of' that divine and had the revelation revealed to him about reality... Of Which he wrote down as Mool Mantra? 3. Why he would claim that he is but a servant of God? I thought Sikhi does not believe God takes direct incarnation / avatars.... That we believe in the One timeless formless Akal Purakh?? I think I posted the concept of Nirgun Sargun in another thread... But suffice to say that if ALL forms occur within the One then no one form could ever be the sum of that One.

Homosexuals having sex goes against how nature defined sex... you can't fit a round peg in another round peg if you know what I mean...I believe Sikhi is also against unnatural sex between a man and a woman too... also if you know what I mean...as that anatomic area was not designed for that.

There are Sikh scholars who disagree with you Paapiman... and they explain the spiritual connection of marital sex. (As I have tried to explain... it's not purely physical) It actually mirrors the connection we are supposed to find to God. In a committed relationship, husband and wife literally become one soul in two bodies. Joining physically, they share spiritual energy and become ONE on the same path. The book excerpt I posted below does a better job of explaining it and he actually speaks AGAINST using sex purely for procreation and instead says it is for husband and wife in a deeply committed relationship to establish that spiritual connection: Book: Sikhism By Arvind-Pal Singh Mandair

So Paapiman, you are saying that people who are unable to procreate can get married, but they are not allowed to touch each other?? How would their relationship be any different from brother sister relationship then? Being intimate has a spiritual level too... it's not ONLY physical. You just can not be emotionally close to someone who you can't even touch as a spouse. You can love, support, get psychological benefits from sister / brother type relationship.

Let me see if I can show you how we differ in thinking... Page 599, Line 2 ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਏਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੨॥ Gurmukẖ ek ḏarisat kar ḏekẖhu gẖat gẖat joṯ samo▫ī jī▫o. ||2|| As Gurmukh, look upon all with the single eye of equality; in each and every heart, the Divine Light is contained. ||2|| How you see Vaisakhi 1699: How I see Vaisakhi 1699: The physical shell is not the entity... the Divine Light within is. Once you learn to see past the physical shell, and see that light, gender no longer matters. This is how I have learned to see the world, and everyone within it. No matter their caste, colour, creed, ethnicity, or gender. I only see that light. So to me, there is no competition - no reason to restrict anyone because ALL are emanations the same ONE light. So to me, saying 'no woman gave her head that day' and use it as a reason to limit that light in any female form, does not make sense. I don't see female or male. Those are just shells that are being used. They mean nothing and will become dust. The entity is not the gender. The entity is the light inside. The gender did not chose to give their head. The light within those physical shells did. The physical shell had nothing to do with it. The Divine Light emanating from within did. And it's the same Divine Light within ALL.

Here is some information on Guru Nanak Dev Ji Astral Travelling... though I can't vouch for its validity http://www.wahegurunet.com/astral-plane

When I was 8 years old, I woke in the middle of the night, and was standing beside my bed. I think I was trying to go get a drink of water or something... but when I tried to move, I found that my feet were glued in place. I couldn't move them. At that same time, I started hearing odd sounds of rushing static like electrical sounds that were coming in waves like intermittent (like vibrational in nature). The paralysis that was in my feet started moving upward and I felt something pulling me... I can't really describe it. At that point I could only turn my head so I turned it back towards my bed, and what I saw forever changed me.... I saw myself laying there! Those sounds grew stronger and the pull got stronger and I was pulled back to my body. That was the first of many times this happened to me. In later years I learned not to fear it, and was able to move around a bit. These things happened on their own (I didn't cause them to happen). In fact, when it first started to happen, I thought that everyone did it and that it was normal. When I was older and could appreciate it more, I was able to observe how I 'felt' while out. I can only describe it as, I had absolutely no attachment to my physical body. It was like I knew that was not me. The me that was real was the one standing there beside the physical body (or floating above it). I did have form, in fact I remember once raising my arm to look at it while out and it was see through but not skin colour... more like translucent whitish. Like a self luminescent light. I could still think and still knew 'who' I was in physical sense... but it didn't matter really. Why this happened to me I don't know... but it launched me on the path I am on today.

Or maybe not time travel but soul travel. Beyond this physical illusion, there is no time or space. All is ONE. There have been many stories of people soul travelling (astral projection) to other places.... including Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

Yes I am taking Amrit in Kashmir, and though they are no specific Jatha they allow women Panj Pyares. And have had female Panj Pyares.

Neither does gender: Page 23, Line 11 ਆਪੇ ਹੋਵੈ ਚੋਲੜਾ ਆਪੇ ਸੇਜ ਭਤਾਰੁ ॥੧॥ Āpe hovai cẖolṛā āpe sej bẖaṯār. ||1|| He Himself is the Bride in her dress, He Himself is the Bridegroom on the bed. ||1|| 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. Page 219, Line 6 ਝੂਠਾ ਤਨੁ ਸਾਚਾ ਕਰਿ ਮਾਨਿਓ ਜਿਉ ਸੁਪਨਾ ਰੈਨਾਈ ॥੧॥ Jẖūṯẖā ṯan sācẖā kar māni▫o ji▫o supnā rainā▫ī. ||1|| The body is false, but they believe it to be true; it is like a dream in the night. ||1|| Page 1403, Line 17 ਆਪੇ ਨਰੁ ਆਪੇ ਫੁਨਿ ਨਾਰੀ ਆਪੇ ਸਾਰਿ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਪਾਸਾ ॥ Āpe nar āpe fun nārī āpe sār āp hī pāsā. He Himself is male, and He Himself is female; He Himself is the chessman, and He Himself is the board. Page 93, Line 18 ਰਵਿਦਾਸ ਸਮ ਦਲ ਸਮਝਾਵੈ ਕੋਊ ॥੩॥ Raviḏās sam ḏal samjẖāvai ko▫ū. ||3|| O Ravi Daas, one who understands that the Lord is equally in all, is very rare. ||3|| Page 907, Line 7 ਰਹੈ ਗਗਨ ਪੁਰਿ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਸਮੈਸਰਿ ਅਨਹਤ ਸਬਦਿ ਰੰਗੀਣਾ ॥੨॥ Rahai gagan pur ḏarisat samaisar anhaṯ sabaḏ rangīṇā. ||2|| He abides in the Tenth Gate, and looks equally upon all; He is imbued with the unstruck sound current of the Shabad. ||2|| Page 1061, Line 19 ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਪਉਣੁ ਵਹੈ ਇਕ ਰੰਗੀ ਮਿਲਿ ਪਵਣੈ ਸਭ ਵਜਾਇਦਾ ॥੪॥ Gẖat gẖat pa▫uṇ vahai ik rangī mil pavṇai sabẖ vajā▫iḏā. ||4|| The breath flows equally through the hearts of each and every being. Receiving the breath, all the instruments sing. ||4|| Page 1103, Line 18 ਦਰਸਨੁ ਛੋਡਿ ਭਏ ਸਮਦਰਸੀ ਏਕੋ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵਹਿਗੇ ॥੨॥ Ḏarsan cẖẖod bẖa▫e samaḏrasī eko nām ḏẖi▫āvhige. ||2|| Giving up the different schools of philosophy, I look upon all equally; I meditate only on the One Name. ||2|| Page 605, Line 6 ਸਭਿ ਘਟ ਆਪੇ ਭੋਗਵੈ ਪਿਆਰਾ ਵਿਚਿ ਨਾਰੀ ਪੁਰਖ ਸਭੁ ਸੋਇ ॥ Sabẖ gẖat āpe bẖogvai pi▫ārā vicẖ nārī purakẖ sabẖ so▫e. The Beloved Himself enjoys every heart; He is contained within every woman and man. Gender is TRANSITORY. It's ONLY function is physical procreation. Outside of that we are find our TRUE identity which is genderless. Gurbani says that God is within male and female equally and says this over and over... yet humans still let Ego (male ego) get in the way of recognizing that gender is part of the illusion. Who cares if it happened to be five males that first time? See PAST their gender. It wasnt their penis that volunteered! It was the SOUL within the LIGHT within them that volunteered. And that SAME LIGHT is in EVERYONE male and female!!! God was equally within ALL present that day! see the SOUL and not the physical shell. Why are you so attached to your male form??? Why you do put so much importance on your gender?

Then you would also have to restrict those from being Panj Pyares who were castes differing from the original five... using your thinking. Because nobody from those castes volunteered.

Not just AKJ or 3HO. There are Gurdwaras who don't follow any jatha and just go by Sikh Rehet Maryada which specifically states either men or women can be panj pyares. I already mentioned that all of Kashmir follows only SRM. I am taking Amrit in Srinagar. And you are right, I am not thinking western mindset. I read Gurbani for myself with open mind. SGGSJ is our highest authority. Rhetnamas came AFTER and were human interpretation OF Guabni not the other way round. So any rhetnama should agree with Gurbani. And that is how I look at it.

You are still missing the point... if replicating the original five exactly were that important then why is there no restriction on which castes can be panj pyares? There were only some castes who were represented.... How about black men or caucasian men... there were none of them who volunteered that day. How about different names? Maybe panj pyares should all have the exact same name as the original five? Hmmm what about strict vegetarian... Why is it the only thing that needs to be replicated as per the original their gender?? Also, Amrit Sanchar is SPIRITUAL rebirth... beyond this physical life, gender does not exist. IN fact... we are all referred to as soul BRIDES... therefore our souls are all feminine. Also Gurbani says that he IS the male and he IS the female. Therefore... really, it was the same ONE light in all who volunteered... and the SAME ONE light was also in everyone else in attendance that day. Also, the men of today, were not there that day. So why should they get to enjoy the laurels of the original five, simply because they have the same physical genetalia?? And as I said if it were the fact of replicating the original, then only those castes that volunteered that day should be allowed as well? That argument is weak. Five SIKHS gave their heads. Their physical gender had nothing to do with them volunteering their heads. Five SOULS gave their heads... not five penises.

Hmm but when will the husband bow to his wife out of respect? If not... why?? Why does she not deserve the same respect from him?? If she bows to him out of respect, should he not also bow to her out of respect? What makes him above her? Where is his instruction to view her as God on equal level? Oh wait.. I already showed it to you! Page 599, Line 2 ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਏਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੨॥ Gurmukẖ ek ḏarisat kar ḏekẖhu gẖat gẖat joṯ samo▫ī jī▫o. ||2|| As Gurmukh, look upon all with the single eye of equality; in each and every heart, the Divine Light is contained. ||2|| You can interpret it how you want. But you are missing the point... and I really hope you experience the oneness during simran that I have glimpsed. Then you will understand. There is no He or She. There is only ONE light in ALL.

I have shown however that the one you tried to make stand alone actually says the opposite of what's its saying when taken in context. How do you reconcile the meanings being opposite? Is the full shabad wrong then? It also goes against other shabads like the one that contain this: Page 599, Line 2 ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਏਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੨॥ Gurmukẖ ek ḏarisat kar ḏekẖhu gẖat gẖat joṯ samo▫ī jī▫o. ||2|| As Gurmukh, look upon all with the single eye of equality; in each and every heart, the Divine Light is contained. ||2|| How can a Gurmukh view ALL with the single eye of equality if he expects his wife to prostrate him as a God? He is not viewing her as his equal then is he?? So that tuk you keep trying to say is telling women to be inferior to their husbands and view them as God (above them), it doesnt hold water to not only the shabad it's contain within, but also many other shabads that are saying the opposite. So no, your tuk can not stand alone as the meaning you wish to use it as. It CAN however stand alone with the meaning "view the trancendent Lord as their husband" meaning since that still agrees with context of the shabad its in, and also the rest of Gurbani.

Using your logic, then one could say that: Page 26, Line 16 ਜੇ ਲਖ ਇਸਤਰੀਆ ਭੋਗ ਕਰਹਿ ਨਵ ਖੰਡ ਰਾਜੁ ਕਮਾਹਿ ॥ Je lakẖ isṯarī▫ā bẖog karahi nav kẖand rāj kamāhi. You may enjoy the pleasures of hundreds of thousands of women, and rule the nine continents of the world. Soooo I guess, you are allowed to enjoy the pleasures of not just one woman, but thousands!!! And don't say that you can twist the other tuk around to suit your meaning, but not this one. There is no codex telling us that only some tuks can stand alone (the ones which ironically suit your needs at the time). 3HO does this ALL the time, trying to take one liners to justify kundalini yoga as being part of Sikhi. They take one line saying something to the effect of "they perform kundalini yoga" and they ignore the rest of the shabad where it says ultimately, that yoga did not bring them to God. What's against Gurmat??? Wives viewing their husbands as God is against Gurmat! Otherwise how would you ever explain how if the SAME ONE divine light is in all EQUALLY, then why would the husband not also view his wife as God? The SAME divine light is in both EQUALLY after all! (This is mentioned in MANY shabads!!!!!) How could God in ANY form be beneath God in ANY other form in some sort of heirarchy, especially when it says divine light in all EQUALLY? God is ONE... so how can you justify women prostrating to men, when God is in both equally?? Your translation does not make sense. And then, when you view the full shabad, it becomes apparent that the meaning was that we are to view God as our Husband Lord and not have attachment to our physical spouse (to the point that we'd kill ourselves if our spouse died). How could a tuk have opposite meanings and both be true? It would contradict itself. The full shabad is telling wives don't become so attached to your husbands that you kill yourself over their death. Instead view only God as your Husband Lord. It would be self defeating if it also meant to view your physical husband as God!! That is exact opposite of what the full shabad is saying. I am only asking you to use your brain!

Sorry Harjot I disagree... equality is equality... discrimination is discrimination. Telling someone they can't do something is still inequality. You can't call it some 'other' kind of equality. It's not. And you'd feel different about it if you were a Kaur. That mindset of limiting some and still calling it equality, is what is driving Sikh women to leave Sikhi and marry outside... I am talking about Punjabi born Sikh women... leaving Sikhi because they feel put at a disadvantage, defined as somehow less then men. There is no eastern vs western equality. Equality is equality. Meaning if one person is allowed then the other should be allowed. Equal opportunity. No restrictions on anyone. It's difficult for Singhs to fathom because they are not restricted from anything at all. And it's easy being on that side of the fence and telling others they cant do something, when they themselves feel they are allowed to do everything. Its much harder to swallow if you are the one being told sorry, you're a girl you can't do this. Basically, it's male ego (gender is only transitory) telling God in female form, which is equal to God in male form, that it is beneath and not privy to the same privileges as God in the other form. But... Gurbani tells us that the SAME divine light is in BOTH FORMS equally. How can you, in your human ego, decide to limit God in ANY form???

That works two ways. If a woman has those thoughts because a man wears a muscle shirt or tight jeans, using that line of thinking, should he not also cover? (and yes to answer your question, women are also affected by men dressing provocatively) Those men are also INTENTIONALLY dressing like that for attention... from both women AND other men... (Look at these muscles, see how much I work out? Look how my body is so tight and toned... etc.) You can't apply it to only women. If you think women should only wear loose clothing like salwar kameez, then I hope you don't wear western clothing either... and only wear chola (with pyjami) or kurta pyjama. I wear western clothes. But I always wear loose fitting kurtis with jeans, so even though I do wear jeans for the practicality of it. Salwar can be difficult to do some active things. But I always wear longer kurtis so I am still modest. Never sleeveless, At least 5-6" short sleeves, but usually 3/4 or full sleeves as I sunburn easily and it protects me. I never wear anything with cleavage, or kurtis that are snug to my body. Yet, this would still not make some Singhs happy. I have had some say so... however, those same Singhs were wearing jeans at the time they said it! Page 148, Line 8 ਨਾਨਕ ਪਰਖੇ ਆਪ ਕਉ ਤਾ ਪਾਰਖੁ ਜਾਣੁ ॥ Nānak parkẖe āp ka▫o ṯā pārakẖ jāṇ. O Nanak, if someone judges himself, only then is he known as a real judge. I do not hate you... I am just trying to hopefully nudge you to use the brain given to you by Waheguru Ji and actually read and interpret Gurbani for yourself instead of being a sheeple and following what others say. Follow whatever Rehetnama you want to you... but only concern yourself with the rules that apply to you, and don't try to force others to follow your way of thinking. Sikhi is all about your OWN journey, don't concern yourself with trying to limit others or affect how they interpret it. The basics in all of the Rehetnamas are the same... the 4 Bujjar Kurehits are the same. All else is interpretation by different human minds. It's THEIR interpretation of Gurbani. Why not read Gurbani yourself and raelly reflect on what it says. And do with an open mind, rid yourself of any preconceived notions of inequalities, and then read what SGGSJ says with an open mind and you will see. It's very likely those early Rehetnamas were written by those who had preconceived notions due to society, and so they interpreted things a certain way based on those preconceived notions (like women's position in society). Instead of blindly following one specific interpretation, read SGGSJ yourself and then decide what you think. Do those preconceived notions still hold in today's society? Were they even meant to be written in stone forever? Or did Guru Gobind Singh Ji give the panth ability to evolve Sikhi over time? After all, it took 200 years for it to evolve to the point where we no longer required a human Guru. Guru Gobind Singh Ji recognized that Sikhs then, had the ability to think for themselves and apply what was written in Gurbani. What one interpretation was for the early times just after Guru Ji left his physical body, can not hold true now, and that's why authority was given to the panth. And not everyone will agree... that's the problem. Majory vote wins, but those who still disagree go off on their own with their own interpretation, and call everyone else wrong. From what I read about SRM, it took years to arrive at the version we have now. And there WERE representatives from every sect who participated. Not everyone will agree 100% - it's very difficult to get unanymous votes in ANY group on ANY topic!! But still SRM was revolutionary and many did agree... enough agreed that it was put into effect. It closest represents interpretation of Gurbani for TODAY'S society. And its the closest thing we have to unified panthic decision. Getting back to colour of clothes... the context of red in Gurbani is stating to not be that person wearing red (metaphor for Hindus) it uses other comparisons too. If you take again the full shabad its not saying dont wear red clothes. It's saying don't be like those Hindus who wear all red and do these useless rituals etc. (because that's how they were recognized was the all red dress). I think there is similar verses about green because of Muslims. The colour red itself in Gurbani is mentioned as being colour of God as well. Yes colour can affect people... but red may affect me different than it does you. As for dressing modestly, I do it because mostly for comfort. To be honest I dont really think about what men are thinking. I am not dressing to impress them, similarly, I am not dressing to unimpress them. It really doesn't matter to me one way or another. I expect them to control their own kaam. Just like I do when I see a guy in a muscle shirt flexing his muscles. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

p.s. - I currently serve on the management committee here as treasurer. My sangat supported me when I fought for the right of Sikh women to tie turban in Canadian military, and when the story made it to even Indian newspapers when I became the first Sikh woman to tie dastar in Royal Canadian Navy, my Sangat bestowed me with siropa for opening the door for future Singhnis to do the same without having to fight for it. I am trying to be the change I want to see, by trying to make a difference where I can to uplift other Sikh women and girls. I don't actually do much langar seva... I was never good at cooking. But I try to do seva wherever else I can. Outside of being on the executive committee, I am part of the Defence Visible Minority Advisory Group and helped plan a National event at the base here, involving all the different ethnic communities and I was liaison for the Sikh community and the Hindu community here locally to raise awareness of who we are. All this even though I am not Punjabi. I am a gori who embraced Sikhi for the ideals it teaches in Gurbani about equality. But to see people twist one liners from Gurbani to mean the opposite of what it's actually saying in order to justify women being inferior to men, just irks me to the core! Its disheartening for Singhnis!!!! Not to pick on you Paapiman but that one liner you posted can not be taken in the meaning you tried to apply to it. It has to be in context to the shabad. sorry... its not a poke at you personally, just this whole movement among the young Singhs that seem to want to pick on Singhnis for no other reason than to stir up trouble or feed their male egos. Trust me you aren't the only one on here and its not your fault that you were brought up or taught that way of thinking. That way of thinking though will not unify the panth. Eventually, it would end up with an all male membership with the girls all leaving to marry outside Sikhi and pursue other spiritual paths that do truly treat them as equals. It's inevitable unless attitudes change. Women taking subordinate roles may have been fine 500 years ago when they came from very bad position prior. But as time goes on, we as a human race need to realize what Gurbani was saying all along: Page 599, Line 2 ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਏਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੨॥ Gurmukẖ ek ḏarisat kar ḏekẖhu gẖat gẖat joṯ samo▫ī jī▫o. ||2|| As Gurmukh, look upon all with the single eye of equality; in each and every heart, the Divine Light is contained. ||2|| Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

Oh I am calm, it's just frustrating that the one spiritual path that boasts itself as treating women as equals, really doesn't. You can dress it up any way you want and try to call it what you want. The Singhs can all say 'Oh this isnt discrimination' but it doesn't change the fact that it is. Any time you tell someone they can't do something, for a reason that is beyond their control like.... caste, creed, colour, and yes even gender, it's discrimination. It's very unfair to the ones being told they are 'not allowed' to do something for a reson that's beyond their control. If it was for something that we could change, then we'd change, we'd improve ourselves in order to be able to do it. But if it's based on something like gender, that we are born with, it's very disheartening for Singhnis when Singhs keep saying'You aren't allowed to do this, you aren't allowed to do that' all the while intimating that simply because they happened to be born male, they themselves are allowed. Especially when the task in question, does not actually require any specific genetalia. Singhs boast that caste discrimination was removed, stating that it means all humans are seen as equals in Sikhi... while still limiting their Mothers, sisters, daughters from full participation. Some go as far as actively looking for any shred of evidence they can to justify limiting Sikh women, instead of looking for evidence to uplift them. This says much about the internal attitudes of many Singhs... just how they view women. If caste discrimination is wrong, why a gender discrimination ok? Then, these same Singhs wonder why Sikh girls are leaving Sikhi in droves, and marrying in interfaith marriages. Those that stay in SIkhi, go to the Gurdwara as more of a social gathering. Many will not marry a Singh with turban and beard. And Singhs wonder why?? They come here asking for the reasons??? Instead of relegating women to the kitchen, into subservient roles, maybe if Singhs started to uplift Sikh women to equal status, then they would embrace their religion much more. Maybe if SInghs started to support Bibian who choose to tie dastars and take Amrit, instead of trying to tell them that Amrit Sanchar was never meant for women. Maybe if women were respected as more than baby machines and house servants by Singhs, and seen as fully capable of defending themselves with training, and be seen as equals to them, maybe then Singhnis would stick around. I know there ARE SInghs who think like this... that support Sikh women. I am marrying one. But if majority of Singhs are brought up to think their wives belong in the kitchen in the home, in subordinate roles, only cooking for them in langar, while not participating fully in Sikhi, then how can they ever expect women to actually stick around and take Sikhi seriously?? It's no wonder that most women just go to the Gurdwara to gossip these days and socialize. They for the most part remain in the kitchen where the SInghs pushed them to... and they gossip, and talk about everything but Sikhi. They don't take it seriously because they are not given active roles in religious duties. Note that I am not talking about everyone. But you can not ignore the trend.... I for one, am serious about deeper philosophy. I take it seriously. I read Gurbani a lot. But to have Singhs tell me on here that I am not allowed to do this, not allowed to do that because I am a woman. It is very disheartening. How am I supposed to stay interested, if everything is done by the Singhs? They are in the limelight... they get to do all the visible seva. Seriously think about this... if you don't actively involve everyone equally, those who are discriminated, eventually lose interest. It's a proven fact! Luckily my sangat are very open and supportive of women. And so are the Sangat in Kashmir where I will be living....