CdnSikhGirl

The main difference between men and women is what's between our legs. And that is being used to put women into subordinate role. Though he didnt say that exactly... he's condoning men having more rights than women in Sikhi because they happen to have been born with male genitalia.

If I know for sure they they do not view me as less than them, and they support women having equal status in Sikhi then I don't have a problem if it happened to be five men. It's only if I know that the Gurdwara enforced only men... then I would not take it there. The Gurdwara I am taking it at, has had women panj pyares in recent past (even though some opposed it, most of the sangat supported it). This is in Kashmir and in Kashmir all of the Gurdwaras at the State level have said that SRM is to be followed and no other RM. SRM states both men and women can do panj pyare di seva. My fiance was involved with the executive at the time that women first did it there, and he was strong supporter of it. He also actively advocates for equal treatment of women at Harmandir Sahib... So though I plan to take Amrit with at least one female in Panj Pyares, if they happened to only be able to get all men, it wouldn't bother me at that Gurdwara because I know they support women doing it. Here locally in Canada in my city, if we had enough to do Amrit Sanchars, we would support females as well. And also Toronto and Vancouver has seen it happen many times with females as Panj Pyares (mostly AKJ) but also in a few other Gurdwaras as well. Aside from DDT specific run Gurdwaras every one here that I know of go by SRM only (save for AKJ who follow SRM with a few extras like keski and some follow sarbloh bibek).

So "Optimum" rights in Sikhism (in your understanding) is still less than rights given to men? (By your own interpretations, including the single tuk from Gurbani which you twisted)... so women's "optimum" value (the highest they could ever hope to achieve) is intrinsically less than a man's in your opinion. Because your interpretation is women can only do 'some' seva while men can do ALL seva. And by your own interpretation of one tuk in a shabad taken out of context, women are to view men as God. This sounds very much like Muslim ideology. Muhammad gave women 'some' rights so they should just accept that they were given a few rights and never want equal rights.

He keeps saying that men just by virtue of being men, are automatically entitled to do more (religiously speaking) than women. He said women can only do langar seva and keeps repeating it as if that should be good enough while he as a male can do any seva.

I have no issue dressing modestly, and expect the same from men. At the same level. Its when men think they are allowed to do differently that I have issue with. Women also look at men so whats good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak. Men don't get to tell women to dress in tents while they get to wear whatever is comfortable. They should also dress in tents. end of story.

I am really starting to think with your viewpoints, that you are a Muslim in disguise on here. This is exactly how Muslims speak. Instead of Muslim men controlling their gaze, they force the women to cover up in tents. By the way women also look at men in the same way, and a LOT of Muslim guys who try to enforce this dress code on women are the first ones at the gym taking pics of their shirtless bodies flexing their muscles and think it's perfectly ok for them. Or wearing those skinny jeans etc. Ill say it again. If a Singh thinks Singhnis should only wear salwar kameez, then he should only be wearing kurta pyjamas esle he's a hypocrite. Your other posts on here sound very Taliban too.. like your statement about women being given 'some' rights so they should be happy and not want full equality. That's the same argument Muslims use... saying that Muhammad gave women 'some' rights because they were treated badly before that. Nobody argues that women are oppressed and discriminated in Islamic majority countries. Where are you getting this attitude? DDT? Your family? (You did say your Mother actually bowed to your Dad so its no wonder you grew up thinking we are so low). Oh but you say you respect women... Muslims lock women in their homes, control their movements, dictate what they can wear, what they can do... all because they say they 'respect' women. I'd rather not have that kind of respect.

I have noticed that he tends to take one liners to suit his needs (and insists that is ok to do) while ignoring the context of the shabad as a whole. If we do that, we could find one liners to suit any need and support any argument in SGGSJ. You have to read the full shabad to get it's context and meaning.

Pappiman, but you are saying that because you have a penis you believe yourself more entitled to do things than I am. How could the Gurus work so hard to remove all discrimination against caste, etc., make the statement that everyone are equal, while still condoning discrimination based on gender? Because like it or not, barring anyone from anything based merely on what parts they have in their pants, is discrimination. It's no different than telling someone they can't do something because of their skin colour or caste. Wouldn't this make the Gurus hypocrites? I for one, do not believe the Gurus were hypocrites! Gurbani says God resides in ALL equally. It even specifies the divine light is within the male and female equally. It goes even further to state that God IS the male and God IS the female! Using your logic, a slave should be happy if he's given a piece of food and should never want freedom... Because hey he was given something he didn't have before and other slaves don't have food. Nevermind that what he wants is to be free and seen as equal to his captors. He should just be happy that he was given "some" rights. Anyone can see how this is just plain wrong. So why is it never wrong if it's women that are the ones being discriminated against??

This is not equality. Just because some rights were given is not equality. However this disagrees with Gurbani. Same divine light in all equality. It doesn't pass the litmus test!!! Therefore your "women were given a few rights so they should be happy" theory doesn't hold water when it's in disagreement with what's written in SGGSJ because Gurbani says all are equal.

Akhand Kirtani Jatha does. Also in Kashmir all of the gurdwaras follow only Sikh Rehet Maryada and at least one that I know of has had females as panj payres (my fiancé was on executive who rallied for women to do it). They do not follow any specific Jatha. Here also in Canada at our Gurdwara if we actually had enough amritdhari to do it, would allow women. We also don't follow any specific Jatha but follow sikh rehet maryada. In Toronto there have been numerous females as panj for years now. (Mostly AKJ)

Hmm I hope someday to do panj pyare di seva just so I can say see a woman can do it just as good as a man! And I plan to at least have one female panj when I take Amrit soon. Singhs stuck in past discriminating against women can follow DDT while I will follow SRM. We all have a choice. We all know what's right in our hearts.

Gurbani is for all not instructions for women on how to be subservient to their husbands. In context of the shabad the second translation is the one that's correct. But you can believe what you want. You said you don't plan on being married anyway so that's good.

Actually sikh rehet maryada does not ban women from anything. And Akal Takht had already ruled that women be allowed to do Kirtan at Sri Darbar sahib. It was DDT and Sant Samaj who kicked up such a fuss and opposed that it was never implemented. Besides that I still disagree that the only authority figures in Sikhi who denote what initiates are to follow have to be male. That's putting all authority on men and making women dependent upon men for spiritual progression. At least if they said it must be a woman to put the sugar puffs then if it was only men they couldn't do it. So it would be a bit better but not ideal. Because Guru Ji said that he will be present wherever there are panj plates. That would say that women are not good enough for Guru Ji to be present.

Here is where you are wrong. Animals don't have sex for pleasure. They are the ones who do it only for procreation. They do it by pure instinct drive and not for the reason to be close to their spouse. They are driven by pure instinct only and not a thought to derive pleasure. An animal could care less if there was pleasure or not. They only know that they are driven to do it when it's breeding season. Humans are above that because we have no breeding season where we instinctively breed. For us there is an intimate connection with our spouse in the act. You have us and animals confused... IJJ Singh is correct.

Even if u take it by itself it's saying to view the transcendent Lord as your husband. (Soul bride) NOT to view your husband as God! Nobody should be looked upon as God except God or else we are told that the divine light of God resides in ALL equally. So nobody should consider anyone else higher on the totem pole so to speak. I get the impression you are fairly young and have been subject to a lot of cultural influence that put women beneath men. So you look purposely to interpret Sikhi as also putting women beneath men. I can tell in your wording and tone that you consider yourself above me simply because you have male genitalia. All I can tell you is that I have had some deeply spiritual experiences through simran and otherwise where I have experienced a glimpse that oneness spoken of. I have been outside my physical body and experienced that perspective... Which has no gender. I hope you someday also experience it. A child is subordinate to a parent only because they are still growing. Once an adult they are equals. Though a child will always look up to their parents because they raised that person. A husband is never above his wife. They both contain the same divine light of Waheguru Ji equally and they are both adults. What's between someones legs does not denote their position in some rank structure. I wish you could see this. I truly hope someday u do. I have likely been studying this longer than u have been alive (if my estimate on your age is correct). And I have had spiritual experiences happen to me on their own all my life. I remember being in out of body state at 8 yrs old as if it was normal part of life that everyone experienced. I didn't know at the time that those experiences are rare. I truly hope you see the truth and not go through life with an inflated Ego thinking you are above women and privileged simply because you happened to be born male. If you do you are missing the point that ALL is ONE

Because a child IS subordinate to their parent. A husband and wife are equals. You are suggesting the husband is the head over the wife as if he is in a higher position over her as if there is some sort of rank structure and she's beneath him. This is against Sikhi! Those are not husband and wife who merely sit together but who become one soul in two bodies. Same divine light in both equally. There is no heirarchy where men are above women. This is not Islam or Hinduism!!!

That suggest heirarchy. Respect should be mutual. Why the husband not bowing to the wife? What gives him right to deserve more respect than her? There is no support for that view in Gurbani at all (save for your misinterpreted tuk) Husband should equally respect the wife.

No they can't!! Or else one says "they do yoga" taken alone it seems as if yoga is condoned. 3HO does this all the time!!! But reading the full shabad it becomes apparent that it later says all these things (including the yoga) did not get them to God. Anyway late here I have to sleep. WJKK WJKF

So if people actually believe that then is being born a woman a punishment? Did your mom think maybe she did something wrong in a past life to be born as s female where she was put into such subordinate position? Gurbani only tells that it's difficult to attain this human life... And that we can ALL merge back with God not just men. So that makes no sense. Gurbani also as I have already quoted says divine light is in ALL both genders equally!!! How do u reconcile that if your Mom bowed to your dad? We are only supposed to Matha tek SGGSJ only!!!

Either way it's using sati as a metaphor for working through challenges in life without giving up and taking easy way out. Instead we have to deal with them and live on while putting trust in God as our Husband Lord.... ALL of us male and female as we are ALL soul brides. There is no way reading the context of the shabad to suggest that it's telling women to treat their husbands as a God lol

I will look to my husband as my equal and he will look to me as his equal. And we will both be Gursikhs. There is no hierarchy in marriage. He is not above me and I am not above him. Gurbani tells us the divine light is in ALL equally Look above I posted the shabad

Here it is by the way... Wishful thinking that a guy would think it's telling him women should look to him as God... Lol ਜਲੈ ਨ ਪਾਈਐ ਰਾਮ ਸਨੇਹੀ ॥ जलै न पाईऐ राम सनेही ॥ Jalai na pā▫ī▫ai rām sanehī. By burning oneself, the Beloved Lord is not obtained. ਕਿਰਤਿ ਸੰਜੋਗਿ ਸਤੀ ਉਠਿ ਹੋਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ किरति संजोगि सती उठि होई ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥ Kiraṯ sanjog saṯī uṯẖ ho▫ī. ||1|| rahā▫o. Only by the actions of destiny does she rise up and burn herself, as a 'satee'. ||1||Pause|| ਦੇਖਾ ਦੇਖੀ ਮਨਹਠਿ ਜਲਿ ਜਾਈਐ ॥ देखा देखी मनहठि जलि जाईऐ ॥ Ḏekẖā ḏekẖī manhaṯẖ jal jā▫ī▫ai. Imitating what she sees, with her stubborn mind-set, she goes into the fire. ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਸੰਗੁ ਨ ਪਾਵੈ ਬਹੁ ਜੋਨਿ ਭਵਾਈਐ ॥੨॥ प्रिअ संगु न पावै बहु जोनि भवाईऐ ॥२॥ Pari▫a sang na pāvai baho jon bẖavā▫ī▫ai. ||2|| She does not obtain the Company of her Beloved Lord, and she wanders through countless incarnations. ||2|| ਸੀਲ ਸੰਜਮਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਆਗਿਆ ਮਾਨੈ ॥ सील संजमि प्रिअ आगिआ मानै ॥ Sīl sanjam pari▫a āgi▫ā mānai. With pure conduct and self-restraint, she surrenders to her Husband Lord's Will; ਤਿਸੁ ਨਾਰੀ ਕਉ ਦੁਖੁ ਨ ਜਮਾਨੈ ॥੩॥ तिसु नारी कउ दुखु न जमानै ॥३॥ Ŧis nārī ka▫o ḏukẖ na jamānai. ||3|| that woman shall not suffer pain at the hands of the Messenger of Death. ||3|| ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥ कहु नानक जिनि प्रिउ परमेसरु करि जानिआ ॥ 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॥ धंनु सती दरगह परवानिआ ॥४॥३०॥९९॥ 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|| She surrenders to her husband lords will (God) that her physical husband died and she must live on and not burn herself on his funeral pyre. She lives through the grief and putting her trust in God as her 'husband lord' In a larger context it's telling all of us men and women to not give up when there is a challenge but to go on in spite of it while putting trust in God to whom we are ALL soul brides.

Glad you brought up that misinterpreted tuk! It does NOT say to look at her husband as God!!! If you read the full shabad in context you'd know it was speaking against practice of sati by Hindu women. Instead it says to view GOD as your husband, (husband lord) that is the true sati by living through the grief instead of killing herself. You can't take one liners and twist to suit your need! The full shabad itself gives the context. Please don't tell me u expect your wife to look at you as God??? Please don't say this...

Sure! I care about my Mom, my brothers sisters etc. But I could never achieve that one soul in two bodies connection. If you want the same relationship with your spouse that you have with your Mom or sister then fine! I want that deeper one soul in two bodies connection, or else why even marry someone? I can love and care about my Mom etc.

How do we know he did 'not allow' women??? All we know is that in oral history, it was passed down that there were no women. Maybe none ever volunteered?? Maybe those women did not want to do that seva? And here we are again back to the menial task of cooking for women... hahahah seems cooking, serving men and cleaning and having babies is all we are good for. It doesn't mean he did not allow them. Did you hear him personally say that no women could??? Did anyone for that matter? Is it written anywhere by Guru Ji that he specifically SAID women were not allowed??? I challenge you to show me! He DID however, write his 52 hukams AFTER 1699, in which he contained all the important points... yet if this was such an important thing to him to discriminate against women... then why did he not include a statement restricting women??? Absence of proof is NOT proof of absence!!! Just because we have no evidence that it DID happen, is NOT proof that it was not ALLOWED to happen!! It very well COULD have happened! There COULD have been women as Panj Pyares. Do we even know much about the Panj Pyares after the first day? Who were they etc? How do we know for sure none ever had women? History could have been written to say 'five Sikhs' in which case we'd never know. Or men who had something against women, could have chosen to not specifically state women participated. We will never know. But absence of proof is not proof of absence. The only way wed know for sure is if SGGSJ says something about restricting women (which it doesn't) or if Guru Ji had written to restrict women in his 52 Hukams (which he didn't). I think that leaves it pretty open ended! ALl else is speculation... by MEN! Further he said "Whenever and wherever five baptised Sikhs come together, the Guru would be present" not five sikh men... And once again... Panth was given authority to make decisions... so SRM is valid!