CdnSikhGirl

Maybe its our definition of pleasure that is making this difficult. You are speaking (I think, please correct me if I am wrong) about purely physical pleasure. I am speaking of a deeper spiritual connection with your spouse. I am speaking more of the union, the love, caring, etc. And sharing of spiritual energy. Not physical pleasure. I am trying to say that sex is much more than just simply physical feelings that feel good. The problem is that abuse by humanity, has turned it into only that for the majority. Nobody seeks that deeper union between husband and wife anymore... its now all about the feel good feelings (orgasm) and nothing more.

SRM contains the basic that was agreed upon. It doesn't mean that you cant do extra beyond that. Its not telling you not to! Also... following on your comment....How can the Panth accept a discriminatory document that puts mother sisters daughters as inferior?

All these superficial things that cause us to elevate some while lowering others. There is no higher or lower status. All are equal. All these status distinctions were removed by the Gurus... caste, gender, colour, creed, etc. Just because there are many Singhs still brought up and taught to believe women are lower than them and that they have male privilege, doesn't make it right. For centuries many men thought women should throw themselves on their dead husbands funeral pyres too... they too were wrong!

There is actually truth to it... too bad people abused it so badly that nearly every country bans it! If used as medicine and not abused we would have a miracle medicinal plant! (But maybe not... since drug companies can not patent it).

WJKK WJKF, Forgive me for saying but you are now grasping... I will follow the SRM because it stands the test of agreeing with SGGSJ. GRM does not. SGGSJ does not anywhere state that women should be restricted or controlled by men in any way or play less of a role in Sikhism than men. In fact it encourages the opposite. It also states that the same light is in both equally. That same light of God is in both genders equally. It also says gender / this body is transitory. A part of the illusion. Only when we can see past these physical shells will we spiritually progress. Unfortunately too many Singhs are stuck in their gender identities (Ego) to get past it and recognize that SAME divine light in all equally. You can choose to follow RMs that focus instead more on the phsyical shells. I'll follow the RM that sees every soul as equal.

WWJKK WJKF Except that in physical birth BOTH men and women are needed. A woman can not make a baby by herself! Similarly, Spiritual rebrith should take BOTH. And if we are following original then why is it not reserved for a Singhni only to put the sugar puffs in the amrit and hold the iron bowl?? That was a woman in the original. And this has not been restricted for women only... Why are Singhs not told they may never put the sugar in the amrit?? (Since we are following the example of the first for all time) Should this duty not be reserved for only a woman? Shoudn't it be stated in GRM that ONLY a Singhni may do this if we are following original example?? (It comes down to men not liking to ever be told they cant do something. They always have to have a one up over women. Its the nature of domination... Rhetnamas were ALL written by humans through human perspective of what they experienced and their own interpretation. These rhetnamas were obviously written by men who didnt consider women as equals, contrary to what is written in Gurbani and what the Gurus taught.) P.S. - I am taking Amrit in Kashmir... and ALL Gurdwaras in Kashmir do not subscribe to the controversial 'orthodox' rhetnamas. ALL of the Gurdwaras there including the Historical ones follow only SRM. Not a single Gurdwara there uses GRM or any other Rehet Maryada. In fact at the state level, they agreed that ALL gurdwaras there follow only SRM) ...And the Gurdwara where I am taking it has had female Panj Pyares and since the day I am doing it, is being specially planned for me since I will be there only certain time... if I wish I can have females give me amrit... or a mix of both...

We again have to disagree... I will never take Amrit from only Singhs who see me as inferior or not worthy. Think about it. To say that women can neever be Panj Pyares is the same as saying that women are not as high spiritually as men are.... because it would be saying that women absolutely REQUIRE men for their spiritual progression (because everyone must at some point receive Amrit correct??) while men do not require women at all. I do not believe that I am so beneath men, that I require men for my spiritual progression. I am not against men being Panj when I receive amrit... I am only against the suggestion that I REQUIRE males for my own spiritual progression. Its saying that women are not good enough to do it on their own. The original Panj Pyares gender did not matter. All souls are the same... genderless. Five souls gave their heads... five Sikhs gave their heads. Gender is transitory. Amrit Sanchar is a matter of spiritual progression... not physical. Therefore physical gender of those giving Amrit does not matter. Of course they were allowed to do Langar... women relegated to the kitchen and out of sight... that's how its always been! Those Singhs who think that simply because they have the same physical genitalia as the original five Punj Pyares gives them special privilege are missing the point. Why should men NEVER have any restrictions put on them at all... while women are always restricted from doing some things?? Why do men always have to have privilege over women?? We should ask ourselves just Why does Gurbani NOT support this view??

Then Panj Pyare seva should also follow... because the reasoning behind restricting for Punj Pyares is that the GRM states 'five Singhs' If they are not following where it says Granthi must be a Singh, raagis must be Singhs, etc then they can't use that same reasoning to bar Singhnis from Panj Pyares! And yes I agree with you... SIngh means Lion. Just as Man means mankind. Singh can also mean both Lion and Lioness. And actually I believe its used in this context in SGGSJ where it sates the Lion hungers for meat... (paraphrased) means Lion or Lioness (the species).

WJKK WJKF, And DDT's GRM is not in line with Gurbani on equality of gender.... When I read SRM it seems closest to the ideals in SGGSJ. We may never have a fully unified RM because DDT won't budge on their views of women. Though I could see SRM having those two banis added... would that be enough? Probably not, because as I said, there are those Singhs who just don't want to even fathom seeing Singhnis as equals. Anyway, Isn't a Rhetnama supposed to espouse the ideals given in Gurbani?? Or else what's the point?? A Rhetnama is not valid if it doesn't agree with what is written in SGGSJ. We were told highest authority is SGGSJ no matter what. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji IS our only living Guru.... not any man made Rhetnamas.... And not ONE place in SGGSJ does it suggest that anything should be restricted for women. Not one spot. If there is I challenge you to post it. The SRM took many years to deliberate. Of course on order to get the most people to agree on something, some things have to be compromised. Still, it's the closest thing we have to Unified Panthic RM. Even if some still disagree. Those groups are welcome to follow their own RMs as long as they don't try to shove it down anyone elses throats. By that I mean (in the nicest way) DDT should not be protesting at Darbar Sahib to disallow women from doing kirtan, even when Akal Takht ruled to allow them, especially when SRM is the RM that's 'supposed' to be installed there. DDT is perfectly ok to follow GRM at their own Gurdwaras. And again... as I said in another thread. Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave full authority on the panth to make decisions. Sikhi is able to evolve. So even if the original rhetnamas said those things about restricting women, there is no reason for Singhs to feel upset about women having equal status now in the present. If the panth decides that women should have equal particiaption now, then what happened way back when should not matter. So even DDT could change this. They do not need to follow one specific and old rhetnama. Guru Gobind SIngh Ji gave the panth authority to change it. So why won't they change their feelings on women?? And for some of them (even on this forum) their feelings about restricting Singhnis into inferior positions, they seem more passionate about that, than they are about stopping drug use in Punjab, etc. Why is that??? 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 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|| 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 223, Line 4 ਨਾਰੀ ਪੁਰਖ ਸਬਾਈ ਲੋਇ ॥੩॥ Nārī purakẖ sabā▫ī lo▫e. ||3|| Among all the women and the men, His Light is shining. ||3|| Page 648, Line 5 ਗੁਰ ਸਿਖਾ ਇਕੋ ਪਿਆਰੁ ਗੁਰ ਮਿਤਾ ਪੁਤਾ ਭਾਈਆ ॥ Gur sikẖā iko pi▫ār gur miṯā puṯā bẖā▫ī▫ā. The Guru loves all of His GurSikhs equally well, like friends, children and siblings. 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||

WJKK WJKF, Sorry I got a bit carried away

No but you can eat plenty of things that will keep you healthy without having them taste good. Eating for pleasure is also discouraged... but we all do it. We all add masala to our curries, we all add sugar to our kheer. Pleasure is not bad. It's addiction to pleasure that is bad. I don't know why you think pleasure itself is a sin. God created pleasure as a gift... one that should be appreciated. But not taken for granted and abused. Like our drug analogy. Sex between spouse if there was no pleasure at all, you'd be hard pressed to have any children. And the spouses would not be close as a family. The medicine, is that sex brings husband and wife together as one... and strengthens their bond. Abuse of sex however creates addiction to the mere physical pleasure of it, instead of the closeness and bonding between spouses. There is a huge difference. We can agree to disagree....

WJKK WJKF, Ahhh but yet discrimination still persists. Just because someone's rights are elevated from what they were before, does not mean the discrimination was completely eliminated. We don't have to look fat to see it in Sikhi either to this day!! 1. Dominating Husbands and in-laws 2. Women encouraged to not pursue higher education or professional careers so they can stay at home and live simple life doing menial tasks serving the husband and their family 3. Gurdwaras restricting women from having equal participation in religious duties... chaur sahib seva, taking hukam, participating in akhand paaths, kirtan, panj pyares etc. (even though these things have been explicitly clarified in the SIkh Rehet Maryada... which though some disagree with, is still the closest thing we have to panthic unified rehit maryada). 4. Arguments about what happened or didnt happen in 1699 do not matter. Authority was given to the panth by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. This allowed Sikhi to continue to develop for the times. So whether or not women were restricted then (which is debatable and unproven), it does not matter in the present because Sikhi was given the ability to evolve over time by Panthic decision. 5. Women being told what to wear by Singhs who think they can wear anything. If a Singh is telling a Singhni to only ever wear salwar kameez, then he should only ever wear kurta pyjama. end of story. As long as clothing is modest and respectable, both men and women should be free to wear what they want. But I always see Singhs posing on Facebook photos flexing their muscles at the gym with bare arms and sometimes even chest. Yet those same Singhs are first ones to criticize a Singhni for merely wearing a pair of jeans with a modest kurti! If you are going to preach it, then practice what you preach! I guess I am lucky... here locally and in Canada in general male / female are equal in Sikhi. Most follow SRM and AKJ especially puts it into practice. I HIGHLY respect AKJ. I have seen female panj pyares in AKJ samagams. At my Gurdwara we are not affiliated to a Jatha but twice in the last decade the ENTIRE management committee was made up of women!!!!! That's EVERY position from President to Vice, to Treasurer, to Secretary were all women! You can google it... Maritime Sikh Society. This year, I am myself on the Executive! I was elected as treasurer which is a very important position paperwork wise. At our Gurdwara, you will see a woman do Ardas, take Hukam, women do most of the kirtan. If I wanted to, I could walk up and do chaur sahib seva but usually the students do it. But at Harmandir Sahib which is supposed to be the seat of our faith... most holy place... and women are told they can't do majority of the seva. And there is no reason cited except for 'tradition'. But if the Gurus taught us anything about tradition is that useless rituals and traditions should be broken... they did it with satee, among other things. Singing shabads... singing praises of God, there is no reason it needs to be a mans voice. Some of the best kirtan I have heard was performed by women. My friend... an Amritdhari Singhni was in Amritsar recently with her husband, and she tried to go for palki seva (she tried to slip in quickly to see what would happen). A jathedar stopped her, and went to her husband (wouldn't even talk to her) and told her husband to 'keep control of his Singhni'. Some of the silly excuses for palki sahib seva are that its heavy... etc. But she is tall and not weak! She easily could have done it. But its how the jathedar ignored her and told her husband to 'control' his Singhni. Once, a woman did do Kirtan there but upstairs of Sanctum Sanctorum. They tried to stop her but a group (even made of Singhs) made a circle around her to block them, until she was finished. These things need to stop. Why do you think it was more important to have a male child respected and listened to, than adult devoted and deeply spiritual women?

WJKK WJKF, I never said it was banned... just that it was not encouraged. The Gurus did not encourage the yogi way of wandering off alone into the woods and renouncing society to find God. Because they taught God is within everything and everyone all around us and within us. God is no more in the woods than in your neighbour, or yourself. Agreed, the bujar kurehits include sex outside of marrige... but within it is perfectly fine.

Sex has only become sin because humans have abused it. A drug is medicine until it's abused and then it becomes someone's downfall. Sex between two souls who have dedicated their lives together with the common goal of advancing together spiritually, it is a beautiful thing. It was meant to unite two people on a level we no longer understand because by abusing it, we have lost that original experience. As I explained before, there are many spiritual paths that state there is an actual energy exchange between the two people on a base level way beyond physical. It was meant for two partners to become one.. Humans have abused it and turned it into some drug where everyone looks for the next high. In doing this, we have lost that original purpose and meaning. Procreation yes is the physical reason, but something so built in to all species, there is something much more. There is a spiritual aspect too. The fact that all species do it (except for vey select few asexual species) shows it was meant to be. If sex were 'sin' then why would God create the only means to sustain a species be something that is considered a sin? Anyway, whether or not the Gurus did it with their wives, does it really matter? They told us to live householder life, and to be faithful to our spouse. They spoke against asceticism and abstinence. Whether they themselves did what they said, the way I look at it, what happened in their bedrooms, is none of my business.

Interestingly I watched a documentary last night on the shroud of Turin, and they tested the blood... whoever was in that shroud (and they believe it was Jesus) had human DNA which was not solely mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is the type of DNA passed by the Mother. There was evidence of two contributors, and both were human. I have never heard until this forum that the Gurus were virgins and their wives had all immaculate conceptions. This is not a widely held belief. I asked a visiting Giani his thoughts on this and its also not something he has heard before either. With nothing in writing, I don't know if its true or not... but does it really matter anyway? The Gurus taught us to live life of householder and not ascetic. To not abstain, but to share the gift of togetherness with one's spouse. Why can't we just follow what they taught, without questioning if they did the same or not... Either they did or didn't but what happened in the bedrooms of the Gurus I don't think is our business to pick it apart.

So if eliminating age discrimination was one of the reasons, then why no woman as Guru to eliminate gender discrimination? It doesn't make sense that God would want to get rid of all forms of discrimination except that of gender... which in many cases has been the worst! What about respect for women, learning from women?? Only God knows the reasons, but it makes no sense to eliminate some forms of discrimination but not others.

Truth Seeker, here is my understanding of how Creator is formless, and is also all forms: Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Ang 736: The Ultimate truth is ONE pure Universal Creative (formless) Consciousness. From this ALL forms arise. Consciousness doesn't just happen, consciousness just 'is' because its the base truth to all reality. Think of it as a dream. This reality is as a dream... SGGSJ likens it to a dream many times over. Think when you dream at night. The 'YOU' that's dreaming essentially is formless (Your consciousness...your physical body is not in the dream). There are many characters in the dream, and they are ALL you. Even if you only interact and experience as one at one time only. In reality, every character, every blade of grass, every stone are you. While in the dream, those forms seem just as real as forms in this reality do.... until you wake up. Now, understand WHO is the dreamer really? This reality is another dream. Creator, has no form (Ultimate reality), but has many millions of forms (everything within the dream). Those forms can even have their own dreams where they create again...a dream within a dream. Kirtan Sohila describes it as thus: "You have thousands of Lotus Feet, and yet You do not have even one foot. You have no nose, but you have thousands of noses." Creator / Consciousness has no form. It just 'IS' Yet, through its own creation, it is ALL FORMS. Yet all those forms (us) are only experiencing through a tiny veil of consciousness. The Doer, the Experiencer behind ALL of us, is one in the same, but our experiences differ because of this illusion of separateness. It's really ONE dream and ONE dreamer only.

But then, physically anyway, it means that the Gurus sons were not really (genetically) their sons? Just like Jesus was not the (genetic) son of Joseph. But they were still referred to as 'sons' of the Gurus. Since some of these 'sons' become known as successive Gurus, and were obviously 'born' to the wives of previous Gurus... I am having trouble understanding this... pls forgive me. Do you mean that the child born was soulless and then after birth the light of the Guru entered (hence avoiding having to be born)? Or do you mean something else? Like the child was beamed out or something? Or were the wives never pregnant to begin with and the babies just appeared? I am only trying to understand what you are saying because I have never read this anywhere... Also, I thought the soul of a child is present IN the womb? (why abortion is wrong) There are those who have distinct memories when regressed, of being in the womb. Babies who's Mothers listen to music etc. those children are actually affected by that, some even remembering (or at least feeling some connection) to the songs played later in life. If you come straight down to it... there really only is ONE consciousness anyway. Akal Purakh is the whole - and all the parts of the whole. The difference is that we have forgotten that connection to who we really are while the Gurus knew the entire truth. The 'doer', the 'experiencer' in all of us is one and the same. We are just experiencing through highly fragmented viewpoints, each separate from one another but all are the same. (Ang 736: The director stages the play, and plays the parts of all the characters, but when the play ends, and the costumes are removed, there is only ONE - there only ever was ONE) We have just forgotten we are in the play.... The Gurus contained that same light (they spoke of that same light within ALL of us) only, in them there was no veil... there was no forgotten identity. This higher state of awareness they possessed, they tried to teach us that we too can experience eventually (after many lifetimes). They told us about dasam dwar and how to connect through naam simran, seva... I remember reading where Guru Nanak also made the statement that he was a mere servant of God. So were the Gurus highly enlightened humans? Were they God fully incarnate (aren't we taught that God does not take form?), what then of the statements that the same divine light is in everyone and that there is only ONE universal consciousness (God) and that Ego (personal identity) is false? If this world is illusion, then does anyone TRULY take birth and death or is that too an illusion? (In Gurbani it mentions "conquering death while still alive"... how better can you conquer death, than to realize it's false and that you are just waking up from another dream?) I have always imagined it as a dream... this world is the dream of the Creator. And we are all dream characters, all within God's dream, and hence... we are all really the Creator. Just like when we dream at night, ALL of the characters in our dream are really US, even if we experience through the eyes of only one at a time. In fact, every blade of grass, every rock etc are us as well. Now, imagine you become aware in your dream... that you areactually dreaming. You remember you are the dreamer... without any doubts, you know for sure the falseness of the dream world. Some people can do this, and they take control of the dream. There is no more fear because they know they control all of it and that it is false and they will eventually wake up. Now back to this reality... we are the little dreamers in this bigger dream. What if we woke up while still in the dream?? This is how I have always thought about it especially reading the descriptions in Gurbani. Anyway, I got a bit off topic... but it all centers around the Guru's taking birth. Please don't think I am challenging anything, it's just how I have been told, and how I have interpreted things from reading SGGSJ. Gur Fateh

I am interested in this now as well, as it's the first time I have heard of it! Since the Gurus had progeny, some of who were successuve Gurus, were these births all immaculate conceptions? Where is this written?? Why did the Gurus have wives then if the women could conceive in the same manner as Christian Mary - ie Immaculate conception without a male? I have always read that the Gurus all taught against asceticism and taught that the life of householder was important, and that they embodied that ideal by living it themselves. (Lead by example) Where can I read more about them all being immaculate conceptions?

Ummm exercise depletes energy too... I guess that is my excuse to not exercise anymore then?? Of course it depletes energy... it burns calories too! And it's good for cardiovascular health! Please show me where it says semen retention boots immune system etc? In actual scientific credited research... I can show you where it says the opposite actually... and anyway you only mentioned semen retention and not sex itself. And even then, only what pertains to men... Scientific research shows that regular sex prevents prostrate cancer in men btw. Have a read of the article posted by N30 S!NGH as its very interesting and puts it in perspective. Either end of the scale is bad... The Gurus never taught abstinence. They themselves had wives after all! Both extremes are bad... no sex is bad and too much is bad. But with your own spouse in a monogamous marriage it is fine.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh Great Article! This is exactly what I was trying to say That the union of husband and wife, together as ONE on the same path to reach God together. And that beyond the physical experience and pleasure there is a spiritual aspect to it having to do with the energy exchange. The Gurus did not advocate abstinance... they advocated monogamous sex with one's spouse only.

Be careful of teapot calling kettle black, as Singnis are your sisters, mother, aunts, etc. And you haven't missed a beat in disrespecting them with the male patriarchy model of Sikhi. Spirituality is BEYOND physical gender.

paapiman, through my own spiritual experiences (and I have had some experiences which defy physical logic and have given me some insight and ultimately lead me to Sikhi in the first place) through these experiences, I have found that the ONLY part of each and every one of us that is true, is pure light. That light has no gender. (Though is spoken of as being female for everyone as God is the only true Male... we are all soul brides). Therefore, physical gender is only transitory and part of this illusion we live in. Because of this, it makes no sense to restrict anyone from anything. Seva....any religious duties, affect us spiritually... not physically. Therefore why would God restrict some from achieving the same spiritual level by saying they can not perform seva that will connect them on that level, simply because of which transitory physical form they inhabit? The greater picture is our spiritual nature... not this physical one. Rehet Maryadas were ALL written by those thinking in this physical form. The contents written with much influence of the cultural norms of the time. The Gurus did not give us a Rehet Maryada... they gave us Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. It is infallible while rhetnamas differ from one to another based on the writer's own thoughts. Therefore, we should recognize these facts, and follow what is written in SGGSJ. SGGSJ is what drew me to SIkhi. But there seems to be a HUGE divergence between what's taught in SGGSJ and those rhetnamas you mentioned. Also worth considering... Guru Ji placed ALL authority onward with the panth through Panj Pyares... therefore, is Panj Pyares say to follow Sikh Rhet Maryada, that is what I will follow as they have the authority of Guru Ji. If that rhet maryada says that women can also be Panj Pyares, and perform all seva, then that is as good as Guru Ji himself saying such. And when we look back at SGGSJ as the ultimate guide, it's in agreement. I am in conflict with the whole rehet maryada thing... SRM seems the logical and truest to SGGSJ and to what I have experienced spiritually myself. But if there is insistence that Sikhi is actually supposed to be exclusive to men, and women are seen as inferior, then to me they are not looking at the larger picture of our spiritual nature and out TRUE identity. Therefore, if that is what SIkhi actually is, it doesn't fit with my belief and knowledge. That statement in an of itself is suggesting that Singh sees her as inferior but will tell her he is inferior just to make her feel better... Women do not need men to feel sorry for them... that only reiterates the idea that they are inferior!

So basically you think all Sikhs of Satguru Ji should belive that women are inferior to men and should be restricted from having the same freedoms that men have? Why do you think this is? Is being born female a punishment then? I think it's more likely that the reasoning their views were all the similar is that they were all sexist, having their minds deluded by the societal customs of the times, and they disregarded the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji on gender equality. This thinking has kept women oppressed for ages. If this is what Sikhi truly is (or was supposed to be) I need to reconsider whether or not it is the true path. Thank you for opening my eyes to the fact that so many Singhs see us as inferior. Because of this I may choose not to take Amrit at all, and maybe I made a mistake by following Sikhi.

And if I take Amrit somewhere that has Kaurs as Panj Pyares? AKJ does do this! I have photos to back this up if you don't believe me! I would rather espouse the equality the Gurus taught than take Amrit from some Singhs who see me as infeior. Oh wait... those puritan Rehetnamas say I shouldn't even be able to take Amrit! Oopps.. sorry forgot my inferior place for a moment. Then please explain this: (ignore the quote thing is not working properly) Fasting, where the entire meaning of the shabad in its original context has been ignored so that the exact opposite meaning of one tuk was misinterpreted to suggest that women should view their husbands as God. This I believe was the basis for the line I quoted above. However, when the entire shabad it was taken from is taken into context, it becomes apparent that the meaning was twisted to become something sexist. Here is the correct translation - when taking into account the meaning of the FULL shabad in it’s entirety: 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|| In contrast here is DDT’s translation of the lines above: (http://www.damdamitaksaal.org/26-code-of-conduct) Directly written in GRM, found under the heading Fasts: 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." Damdami Taksal’s translation does not make sense when you take the entire shabad as a whole: This entire shabad speaks out against the practice of satee by Hindu wives on their husband’s funeral pyre. The Shabad is suggesting that the wives do not become filled with so much attachment to their husbands that they kill themselves when their husbands die….That the true satee is in continuing to live through the loss and instead to see the Transcendent Lord as her husband (as we are all instructed to do as soul-brides). Damdami Taksal are taking it way out of context, ignoring the full shabad, and then translating those two lines wrongly to mean the opposite of what they actually do! They take it to mean that wives should view their husband as the Lord (in other words suggesting the wife should submit to her husband and be subordinate to him as though he were God). It makes absolutely no sense in the context of the entire shabad, and besides that it goes against what is written in Gurbani about equality, status of women, and the fact that the SAME divine light is within everyone, males and females equally! It also sounds to me like an attempt to Bhraminize Sikhi as this concept of women viewing men as God is seen in Hinduism (Mahabharata/Smriti: husbands are the highest diety of their wives) and also Islam for that matter (Quran: Muhammad makes statement that if he were to have anyone prostrate anyone else it would be the wives prostrating their husbands). SGGSJ however, speaks to the equality of gender: Page 1020, Line 15 ਆਪੇ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਨਾਰੀ ॥ You Yourself are the male, and You Yourself are the female. Page 96, Line 9 ਏਕੋ ਪਵਣੁ ਮਾਟੀ ਸਭ ਏਕਾ ਸਭ ਏਕਾ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਬਾਈਆ ॥ There is only one breath; all are made of the same clay; the light within all is the same. Here is the full context of the shabad those lines were taken from so you can see the actual meaning: 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|| Finally: Do you actually believe that Sikhi was created for men only and that women are to be subordinate and beneath men, and that they shouldn't concern themselves with spiritual matters because their husband should be the only God they serve? Because thinking like that is what it is suggesting... do you see your sisters, Mothers, etc as beneath you? Do you feel some sense of superiority over all the Singhnis in Sikhi? Do you think this is what the Gurus starting with Guru Nanak really wanted?