CdnSikhGirl

Actually I'd prefer all the experts on here who claim GRM as THE RM with direct lineage to Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself... I'd like those people on here to please answer my question. If they are quoting it as the direct word of Guru Ji, and they have full faith in it, then I'd really like them to answer. Thanks. Actually I'd REALLY like savinderpalsingh ji to answer this!! Please! Pretty Please!

I think he gave his life for Sikhi for that I respect him but I don't have to agree with everything he says, as other Sants and him disagree on points so it makes them still human. Please read my other post

hsingh ji, those same members on here who have posted that the rehet maryada of damdami taksal is THE infallible rehet maryada directly from Guru Gobind Singh Ji, I have posted a very interesting post on it here: The fact is, Damdami Taksal view women as subordinate to men, and beneath them... period. It's blatently obvious when you actually read the Gurmat Rehet maryada. I was giving some the benefit of the doubt before... It's not only Panj Pyare seva that women are restricted from. It's nearly ALL seva - no matter what some earlier in this thread have said about women being treated equally aside from Panj Pyare seva - My information came from Damdami Taksal's own website, and their own copy of the Gurmat Rehet Maryada. It is DDT who oppose women not only as Panj Pyare, but also as Granthi, Paathis, Ragees, nearly all seva. The rehet maryada several members on here try to say is THE maryada of Guru Ji himself, instructs women to see their husband as God, while the husband is instructed to see his wife as a faithful 'follower' (subordinate). The reasoning has nothing to do with the original five... it has to do with twisting of Gurbani as I clearly show in the other post. ...and I started out reading GRM as a means to become more educated on it. After reading it I am only angry.

In the GRM there exists some satatments that are very hard to justify as anything but sexist. I would like someone to please clarify because some of you delcare that the GRM is THE RM of Guru Ji, and that it is infallible. You also state that women are not excluded from anything except Panj Pyare (that they are free to participate equally in every other seva and that women are seen as equals by Damdami Taksal) but statements like the ones I am about to post paint an entirely different picture. Not only is it not only Panj Pyare that specifically states 'Singhs' other positions of authority - all of them (Granthi, Akhand Paath etc.) - also state 'Singh' so therefore using the reasoning that Panj can not be women because it says 'Singhs' means you also have to restrict women from nearly every other seva as well. It's not just in the context of Panj Pyare that states 'Singh' in GRM. Therefore, contradictory to what some of you have stated about DDT treating women as equals aside from Panj Pyare seva, women are actually restricted from almost ALL seva by DDT: Quoted directly from DDT's OWN website, and their OWN copy of Gurmat Rehet Maryada... Women can not prepare Karah Prashad, or recite Anand Sahib: " Two highly disciplined Singh’s should prepare Karah Parshad and bring it into the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee and then recite Anand SahibA prayer of bliss which was revealed by the 3rd Guru, Sri Guru Amar Das Jee " Or act as Granthi: "The Panj Pyare and Granthi Singh are to also clean their Kirpans and Karas with sand and then wash their GatrasKirpan holsters;" ...and it's not just Granthi for Amrit Sanchar either: "After completing the verse, the Granthi Singh is to place the Rumala back over Sri Guru Granth Sahib." Or birth ceremony: "An Amritdhari Singh should get a Sarab Loh bowl and half fill it with water." Or paathi during Akhand Paath: "The Paathi Singhs are to wear clean clothing and must bathe before starting on their Paath seva." Or Chaur Sahib Seva: "One Singh is to do Chaur Sahib Seva whilst one is to go ahead of Satguru Jee…” Or kirtan / Ragee.....even if there are no male Ragees: "If Ragee Singhs cannot be found, then the Granthi Singh is to recite each Lav, place the Rumala over Guru Sahib and then recite "Satnam, Vaaheguroo" whilst the couple walk/circumbabulate around Guru Sahib." ^^^ THIS is why women are still unable to do kirtan at Sri Harmandir Sahib... the opposition was DDT and Sant Samaj. And THIS is why!!!! Further reading of GRM brings to light some statements directly found within the Gurmat Rehet Maryada that outright states that women are beneath men: GRM under heading Haraam – Adultery, sexual relationships outside of marriage: "A Singh must look upon his wife as his faithful Singhni (follower). In the same manner a Singhni must look upon her husband as Parmeshwar (God)." Damdami Taksal directly instructs women in the GRM to view their husbands as God, while the men view their wives as a faithful follower... a subordinate. She is not even instructed to simply view him as a leader in a family sense, but in a sense that his authority over her is the same as if he were God....or not even 'as if he were' but she is too look at him AS God! Note: It has been suggested that this statement has some deep hidden meaning. However, Gurbani may contain metaphors and deeper meaning meant to be contemplated, but this is found in the GRM... Rehet Maryada is direct instruction to be followed! It is not meant to be some poetic and deep meaning, or else we could contest also the statement about Panj Pyares being 'Singhs' also being poetic! So if Rehet Maryada is a direct instruction, then it's clear what it is telling women to do. Further investigation reveals more remarks in this light: Here is another example… found in the GRM under the heading 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|| I believe inconsistencies like this are what are breeding the feelings that women should be beneath men in some sort of divine hierarchy as was suggested many times on this forum. Remember this is written directly in the Gurmat Rehet Maryada that many of you are demanding that everyone take as THE rehet maryada of Guru Ji. How can it be THE Rehet Maryada of Guru Ji when it goes so far against his teachings of equality, and takes single tuks out of context of the shabad they are from to misinterpret them into something that instead of uplifting women like was originally intended (as easily seen when the entire shabad is read in its full context), it instead puts them in to subordinate position? So how can it be stated to be THE Rehet Maryada of Guru Ji and how can it be claimed to be infallible when inconsistencies like this are blatently apparent, just by viewing the full shabad?? (in ANY language, English, or Punjabi) the shabad itself is what gives the context! Remember that the quotes above are from Damdami Taksal's OWN website, from their OWN copy of Gurmat Rehet Maryada! Or how about THIS doosey of an inconsistency for you: Sant Jarnail Singh Ji stated he is against women in Panj, but he stated that women should be allowed all other seva. So he actually spoke AGAINST what is stated in Gurmat Rehet Maryada. If indeed DDT's GRM is THE RM directly from Guru Ji himself, then why would SANT Jarnail Singh Ji speak AGAINST it??? It's obviously clearly stated that only Singhs can do most of the seva right?? Can anyone please explain??

All is ONE, and ONE is ALL The ONE contemplated itself. It had nothing else to contemplate, and in that contemplation, the 'spark' of creation. The ONE we know is formless, yet possesses all forms. How can this be? If we look at quantum physics, we know that the base of all the Universe is vibration... pure frequency. Light, heat, radio, radiation, colour, sound, even matter itself all exists through vibration. Thought too, is pure frequency and brainwaves can be measured by EEG. Why is this important? The clues MUST be within the Universe itself... consciousness, is formless, yet can possess all forms (dreams, imagery, thought, creativity) Thoughts do not take up 'space' they create space (imagine yourself dreaming, how can you quantify the space your dream takes?) This is important, because the base of all existence is pure frequency. At the lowest end is said to be sound... Every major religion in the world, speaks of a primal sound or 'word' that created the Universe. Most go beyond that and say that the word or sound itself IS God. My thoughts on anahad naad, is that it's the direct experience of this primal 'sound' - which goes way beyond simply hearing a sound... as you yourself are created into existence by this same force, then the experience going within and interacting directly with the source, is overwhelming. It's not just hearing something, but actually experiencing the base truth of existence. And that truth is ONEness. That everything we know as matter, separateness, even our own identity is an illusion. It's no longer belief... it's knowing. By going within, you are actually dissolving the illusion and discovering the truth of your existence. You do hear an audible sound... which itself is indescribable, and I have only gotten to this stage and also OBEs, but beyond this is only actually merging with it. Laying down your whole built up identity and becoming one with it. I have not reached that stage. These thoughts are only my own, I in no way purport to be any sort of expert...

Only in response to his deliberate offensiveness... and for that I apologize. I should be better than that. And I never said I agree with keski being kakkar? Just that I can see their point of view... but there is nothing written supporting it, so I don't personally say it is a kakkar. My personal belief on dastar being for both male / female doesn't stem from AKJ. Why I tie a dastaar: It's from SGGSJ where it states to let your total awareness be the turban on your head. It is not directed at men only... so I follow Gurbani on that in my decision to tie dastar. Please don't tell me that you disagree with Singhnis tying dastaars too? And also that Khalsa are supposed to be in Guru Gobind Singh Ji's roop... turban was part of that. So that's why I tie one and its a personal choice. As for your eating meat, I am vegetarian, but not vegan. I eat dairy and eggs. I do not consider eggs to be killing something since over here, they are never fertilized, so in that sense they are a product of animals but not an animal... some would say that I am doing wrong by eating eggs. So I also respect your decision to eat meat, especially as long as it's not killed ritualistically (Mulsim way and by extension also kosher Jewish) as per SRM. My being vegetarian is also a personal choice.

And you are free to follow whatever version of Sikhi if you wish... that's your right as a human being. But don't try to say that others can not do the same. And if you are not yet married... good luck finding a girl who will ever be happy always playing second fiddle to you.

Is it really male privelege to object? Again, Amrit is not a mere reenactment of the first, or else the castes that were absent would also be barred. This reasoning is only based on "Well, the first was this so then for all time it has to be this eaactly..." but low and behold... its not exact! Bits have been picked and choosen over other bits. As in, all castes can participate even though several castes did not volunteer their heads that day. Nobody contests it. Nobody says that because a shoemaker did not volunteer that day to give their head, that no shoe makers can ever be Panj Pyare. Also same for colur, etc. So it's not an exact reenactment is it? Its only gender that is being excluded. And its only human (males) who are doing the objecting and trying to say that's what Guru Ji intended, even in light of Gurbani, and even in light of Guru Ji's 52 hukams and silence on the issue of gender. It really sounds to me like you have a complex. Well at least agree that since different Sikhs will arrive at different conclusions, there will always be different Rehet Maryadas... So you are free to follow one, but don't push it down others throats. The end fact is that those who oppose women can hang with DDT, while those who believe in true equality can follow SGPC SRM. Easy... in the end I am confident my choices of equality and same divine light in all, will win over egotistical mindset in Guru Ji's eyes. Quoted from my friend Dr. Kirpal Singh "SGGSJ is the highest authority we can look to for guidance, (This was stated by Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself.) How can you even suggest that RMs which differ between different Jathas, can be higher than Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? RMs are made by humans, while we are supposed to treat SGGSJ as our ONLY and living Guru! In fact, the rehet maryada anyone should follow is the one passed to them by the panj pyare at the time they take Amrit. Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave this authority to the Panj Pyare himself. So in that light, what happened at the very first no longer holds anyway! The authority was given to the Panj themselevs!!! So for those Panj Pyare who follow SGPC SRM, any Sikhs who receive Amrit from them, are BOUND by THAT RM. End of story. Their authority on the matter comes from Guru Ji himself and is divinely ordained."

Wow. you really sound brainwashed savinderpalsingh... the same divine light is in everyone, there IS no 'order' or heirarchies. That is a false precept and an illusion. Gurbani tells us this! You totally sound like you just want to be 'better than someone else' by putting women beneath yourself. Pur ego. How can you ever wish to surpass the cycle of births and deaths and meet God, with that thinking? It is my humble opinion that It would be beneficial for your soul to be reborn as a woman who is being discriminated, so that you can learn a thing or two. Read the response from my friend on the other forum. Actually, wait I will copy it here, so everyone can read it. He consults Gurbani on the issue entirely. Not ego, not a desire to be better than others, not a desire of some sense of self entitlement being a male. And in this day and age, the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the one true beacon we all have and must abide by.

You don't realize it goes way beyond a mere rule. To say that only men can be panj is outright saying that women REQUIRE men for their spiritual progression while men do not require women. It's saying that women are somehow less spiritual or further from Waheguru Ji. So it's not just a matter of saying 'sorry dear men only' it goes to the core of women and how they are seen by our creator. How would you feel if you were told your spiritual progression entirely depended on women because your gender is not good enough? And I don't know why it's an issue anyway when SGPC states their position. Not AKJ, SGPC!! I already said I go by SGPC SRM and not ANY jatha. I was responding to his post and refuting his sad attempt to ignore the second line in that section of SRM. And I provided actual response from SGPC Jathedar. Oh the problem with oral tradition... Have you ever played the secret circle game when you were in school? Where someone starts the secret and it's passed around the circle and the final secret is nothing like the one that started. Written down is the only way...

Here is the response from the SGPC Jathedar I know: And I guess I know how u view women. As less than men because it's some divine order that men are better or more spiritual?? You actually suggested (not in exact words but its strongly intimated) that men are the form people are born into when they reach higher spirituality. Hence, without saying it, you came out and suggested women lack in spirituality compared to men. That sounds very Brahministical to me!!! (women needing to be born first in a male 'joon' in before they can attain mukhti sounds like something from Hinduism) Sikhi teaches ANYONE can merge with God in THIS lifetime...Regardless of gender. You are acting like it's privilege or a reward to be born male. Perhaps you think women should all be barred from taking Amrit altogether, since you believe we can not fufill all duties of Khalsa, meaning women would never truly be fully Khalsa in this thinking, so why even allow us to take Amrit in the first place? Maybe Khalsa should be kept entirely as a boy's club?? Also DDT's Rehet Maryada is not entirely traceable to Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Just because someone says it does, doesn't make it true... It's only entirely traceable back to Sant Sundar Singh Ji. I challenge you to prove otherwise with actual evidence! Quoted from another site: And as I promised.... Here is the response direct from SGPC on the question of women and Panj Pyare (note that he also continued on to say any reference to "Singh" is not done to discriminate or allow participation based on gender. It was used more in the same light that we refer to Waheguru Ji as "he" when we know from Mool Mantra Waheguru Ji is beyond gender or form at all. It's also the same way we refer to "Khalsa" Women also can take Amrit... but we are all still called Khalsa even though it's male form of the word. To add on to that, like 'man' is used for 'mankind' in general terms. And also use of Singhni now in the same light. And most of the historical gurdwaras are being run by those trained by DDT... hence they may state they use SGPC SRM, but in reality are using GRM. It's the same reason why SGPC SRM is SUPPOSED to be used at Sri Harmandir Sahib... but in reality DDT's RM has been followed there due to so many DDT members being in control. This is direct from SGPC Jathedar regarding Panj Pyare:

Nice try... re-read the second line... it states specifically that there is no problem that women can be Panj

I never said any such thing about Baba Deep Singh Ji?? I said there is no written rule that states women are not 'allowed' to be Panj Pyare. To say that its purely because no woman stood up as one of the first 5, is a weak argument. You can't punish all women for all time, for what those either did or didn't do that day. After all, all the men who act as Panj in the present day, were also not there on that day. It's a weak argument. And then Guru Gobind Singh Ji remained silent on the issue... never recording anything at all concerning gender. So I although I respect Sant Jarnail Singh Ji, I don't have to agree 100% with everything he says. And there are other Sants (not Taksalis) who state things which are contradiction to him... so its impossible to know who is 100% correct. And as I said, Panth decisions outweigh the decisions of individuals, and the panth as a *mostly* whole, decided Panj Pyare is not dependent upon gender. The bits specifically about DTT I did not say all DDT are sexist. What I said was that due to my first hand experiences with them (plural... numerous members) it was very discouraging and those members definitely were sexist. Case in point (this is just one member and only recent comments. He actually went as far as saying women desecrate SGGSJ just by touching it since women are unclean at one point awhile back). He is VERY much follower of Taksalis and outright stated that is who he learned from...

hsingh ji, with much respect, I can't see it any other way because ALL of my interactions with any DDT member were very discouraging. Can you confirm for me that women can participate fully in religious duties (let's exclude Panj Pyare for now... which the argument against women is weak at best) but even taking Panj Pyare out of the equation, nobody has answered me yet... can you confirm to me that women are actively encouraged by DDT to participate freely in the following: 1. Act as Granthi? 2. Perform Kirtan? 3. Participate/recite Akhand Paaths? 4. Take the Hukamnama? 5. Recite Ardaas? 6. How about even chaur sahib seva? 7. Palki seva? 8. How about Katha? 9. Be elected as Gurdwara President? 10. What about other Gurdwara management positions? Now all of them I am not sure of... that's why I am asking... someone confirm for me all of the above. Since the above is the BULK of religious duties in Sikhi concerning active participation and seva (langar excluded) and also excluding panj pyare for now... remember active participation is an indicator of how a religion (or jatha etc) treats women. In order for women to be seen equally as spiritual (in any religion), they need to be able to participate and act in active positions of leadership in that religion, on par with the men. Or else its too easy to take the mindset that the women can't be taken seriously, and think of them as being less knowledgable spiritually. Also in order to have balance and equality, is there any seva from which DDT consider men to be prohibited, but women not?

Das Ji, Its not that I want to -believe- it's that I -know- it to be true... from much research on the subject on my own, the evidence in the support of Guru Gobind Singh JI's 52 Hukams (with no mention of any such restrictions on women), and the fact that SRM states both male or female can be Panj Pyare. The only argument I see against is that there were none in the original five... as if the original five must be emulated exactly. But nobody knows if Guru Ji intended the original five to be emulated exactly??? And if that were the case, why is it not mentioned in the 52 Hukams?? There seems to be a lot of 'because they aren't' with no hard evidence to back it up... and Sants are human and still have opinion - you can't use the opinion of a human as 'proof'. I mean hard evidence... if it was so important to exclude women, then Guru Ji WOULD have certainly written it down, since he thought it necessary to write down 52 other hukams?? Not at all... because cutting hair is already established as one of the 4 main cardinal sins... therefore no they can not cut hair. But they believe that the keski is the 5th kakkar and not the kesh (for the above reason, its already established that we can not cut it), and the other kakkars are external gifts from the guru where kesh is part of the body already. At least that's how it was explained to me about AKJ and their belief about keski. Yes, we have to agree to disagree... I realized that this forum is majority DDT and will always see women as below them. I am free however to follow SRM and the majority of the panth - I already stated I am not following any jatha - including AKJ. Gurfateh...

Myself, during Simran, I have experienced what I can only describe as an internal primal sound. But it's not the sound itself that is the crux of the experience... it's the realization that ALL is vibration / frequency. From light, heat, radiation, magnetism, energy, radio, microwave, colur, even matter itself at the subatomic level manifest from vibration at different frequencies. The realization too, that you are not your physical body, but pure frequency...but even more, that there is only ONE awareness... that primal sound, the universe, that awareness, Creator, creation and you are ONE in the same. It's profound... and that is the very best I can seem to do with human words... Anyway, this very in-depth abstract about it was posted on another site and I thought I would share:

If you are DDT member, and do not think like this about women, then do not take this as directed at you. But in general, those who I have met are very well.... sexist... and it hurts.

Except... spiritually we are ALL female! Secondly, if men are somehow jealous about women giving birth, I am absolutely POSITIVE majority of women would trade if they could! And, if this were the case then, as I said, Guru Ji would have specified on that day "five men" but instead said "five sikhs" and he certainly would have mentioned in his 52 Hukams. This is just another 'theory' without proof, as many people have taken Amrit with female Panj Pyare. A theory that majority of the panth does not agree with, or else the SRM would not specify that either gender can be Panj Pyare.

Not all Sikhs are DDT. And from history, we know that DDT is not exactly supportive of women. (notice I am trying my absolute best to not use the word 'sexist' - side note: I have a katha saved where a DDT leader came straight out and said that 'women do not and should not have any rights in Sikhi" Any respect I might have had for DDT prior, was destroyed by that one comment) Also, if Guru Ji had explicitely wanted to bar women from Panj, why did he not include it in his 52 hukams, thereby completely negating ANY confusion?? I think his silence on the matter speaks to his intent. He did not have a preference either way... he called for five Sikhs, not five men. And then he was silent on the issue. The fact that it's men who keep interpreting what Guru Ji intended, also speaks volumes. Nobody can say for sure what Guru Ji intended.... except for Guru Ji himself, and given the opportunity, he remained silent on the issue, not even mentioning it in his 52 Hukams. What I find even more fascinating, is that all the 'men' who have interpreted Guru Ji's intentions in this matter, seem to have some inflated sense of self entitlement, standing on the backs of the original five. (It was not YOU who was there in 1699 to give your head, yet you feel entitled now simply because you are the same gender.) Also, the panth speaks louder than any person, Sant, or Jatha. Even in Guru Ji's time, he referred decisions to the panth. In this matter, the panth has spoken, and the SRM reflects the panth's decision.... that Panj Pyare can be either male or female. So there should be no more issue or argument on this. Of course, you are free to follow any more restrictive RM that you wish, but don't expect everyone else to do so. And if you follow DDT GRM, then follow all of it. I have known DDT followers, who like preaching the bits about restrictions on women, but then self-admittedly watch porn, which is also prohibited in the DDT GRM (as is self-pleasure). Lastly, how can you say that DDT's GRM is for sure more accurate? I have provided earlier in the thread evidence against it, brought forth by AKJ. Of course, if you follow DDT, I don't expect you agree with AKJ. However my point is, I don't follow any Jatha for this reason, they all disagree with each other... I instead will follow the bulk of the panth, and the SRM which was agreed upon by majority. Specifically in his 52 Hukams Guru Gobind Singh Ji DID make the related statement concerning positions of authority in Sikhi: #27 "Think independently. In the affairs of governing, do not give the power of religious authority to those of other faiths." The fact that Guru Ji did not say anything about it at all, speaks volumes! In his 52 Hukams, if he had wanted to restrict Sikh women from positions of authority (Panj Pyare are seen as authority are they not? Especially for those being re-baptized and illustrating maryada etc.) There was the perfect opportunity...however, he remained conspicuously quiet on it. Why? I think this speaks for the fact that gender did not matter to him with regards to leadership or authority. He could have easily removed ALL doubts on this issue by instead wording it as "In the affairs of governing, do not give the power of religious authority to those of other faiths, or women." Panj Pyare, Granthi, etc are positions of leadership and religious authority - But he specifically did not mention gender...at all! And this was AFTER Vaisakhi 1699. If Guru Ji had intended in placing restrictions on one gender but not the other, surely such an important issue would be included in his 52 Hukams??? For gender not to be even mentioned in this capacity at all, surely it means Guru Ji thought about more important things than a person's gender!!! This was Guru Gobind Singh Ji's own words and own Hukam...written AFTER Vaisakhi 1699 (1708) and no mention about gender restrictions at all. Certainly if he held any grudge against women for none of them volunteering their head that day, he would have made it clear in his 52 hukams? But nothing.... By contrast, DDT actually restrict women from ALL positions of authority, not just Panj Pyare. Also Granthi, gurdwara management committee positions and even they are barred from participating in Akhand Paaths. But Guru Ji's Hukam restricts these positions only to those of "other faiths". So.... having women in Panj Pyare is NOT going against Guru Ji's intent... since his intent on this was not written down specifically, nobody can say for sure. But barring women from positions of authority within SIkhi certainly DOES go against #27 where the only mention of restricting anyone, applies to those of 'other faiths'.

Thanks for the reply BhagatSingh Ji. I pretty much only learned one way to start tying,... by draping back to front and wrapping my hair like a pony tail in the material and then coil it on top... that way the material is anchored, and the keep wrapping around till it fills out and then turns over top. (I guess its how a lot of people start dumalla, but I do it that way for gol dastar too) So by then there is already a ton of material over top of my head. Any time I try to start without anchoring it like that, it slips off my head. I will have to ask someone for help that day to just tie a small keski I guess. I'll figure it out

Don't worry... I have been studying Sikhi for about 18 years... Not exactly new at it. I am not leaving... And don't get me wrong... Please I am not a man hater... I just think we all should be treated equally, even with our biological differences. I mean equal opportunity. I have been pulled to Sikhi from when I was young and have never deviated. I treat everyone equally whether man or woman. They get the same respect .., I consider neither one an authority over the other. It's an equal partnership in this life. Is that so bad? I have never had an issue. Now I have met a Sikh man and we are doing Amrit together actually as we feel that will solidify our journey together in life and in Sikhi. And he considers me his absolute equal... He would never think of ordering me around etc. it's a bit late for marriage as we are both late 30's and I have been alone nearly my whole adult life (not even dating) but I know this path is the right one... I can't explain, it's like I have been before. I guess my unique position gives me insight into the faith without the cultural influence which may not be part of the actual Sikh teachings. My hopefully soon to be husband is punjabi btw. With much respect chatanga Ji I am not looking to make enemies... Just don't want to be seen or respected as less than men because I happened to be born with two X chromosomes this time.

Well we can agree to disagree on the Panj Pyare... obviously many Sikhs do agree women can... and that's why SRM states it can be any baptized Sikh, male or female. Its a moot point when the rehet maryada states it can be either! You have the choice to take Amrit from a more restrictive jatha who think men are more privileged than women, and I have the choice to take Amrit from a jatha (or none at all) who see men and women as equals. There is no harm done! How panj even got brought into this thread is beyond me... This is where you intimated it... that males and females are equal in spirituality only, but right there you stated that how can Guru Ji give equal status to gender when the Creator has not... you said the Creator has done 'otherwise' (intimating lack of equality) - The only things which differ besides the obvious biology, are that men have more physical strength, and women are better at intuitive problems, can track more tasks at once (thats why women actually come out ahead of men as fighter pilots... aside from the Gforce effects that is... but the women can track more contacts at once, maintaining 3d spacial awareness. Men have a more difficult time tracking multiple contacts. Just a military tidbit...) So who is to say which ability is worth more? Physical strength, or mentally demanding tasks? Neither is... They are just different... different however, does not mean one should have privilege over the other. And then what about the crossover? The men who are better scientists but lack physical prowess, and the women who are strong fighters? This is why everyone no matter what should be treated equally. And women have been acting as Panj long before 2014. Its not new... I have a whole folder filled with photos of Panj Pyare which included women I could post. Only some are 3HO (in case you are wondering). There are plenty of photos from India as well. So it's not an issue of yes or no they aren't allowed. The short answer is, yes women are 'allowed' just as much as men are 'allowed'. I am not the only one to think so...or else it would not specifically be mentioned on the SRM that Panj Pyare / Granthi during Amrit Sanchar can be either male or female. - Only in a couple of jathas are they barred from this seva....and we all have choice of where we take Amrit. If women want to take amrit where women can be Panj Pyare, then they an just avoid DDT, Sant Samaj etc. The fact that women can do this is not hurting anyone in those jathas at all. Forgive me if I have said something wrong.... I am only posting facts. The reasons given by both sides that I have read on numerous sites and the facts that the SRM should have cleared up, being the basic panthic rehet maryada. We can agree to disagree without name slinging like 'arrogant' can't we? (btw I have been studying Sikhi and the philosophy in Gurbani for about 18 years now. SO even though I am just about to take Amrit, I am not really new to it.) As for the original post... I agree with your last line. It's a warning to men (and women) to not allow their lust to be their downfall, but also there is a deeper message to not put people in the position where they would even think they would need to use someone's achilles heel (lust) against them in the first place. As the original poster said... equality is the only answer for progress.

Being in the navy I found there is nothing like the sound of the waves and sunrise at sea (you can see like 20 nautical miles) I have used it to my advantage many times meditating on the quarter deck (that's the back or after end for non navy types). You are in Toronto Ragmaala Ji? I'm in Halifax. You should come here next samagam we have here! I almost went to the AKJ samagam Canada Day weekend in Toronto. (Needed to save my vacation days tho for India trip. I leave next Thursday 28th) Edit: I can't type on an ipad lol

You seem to have no issues pointing out women's flaws but get defensive when someone points out your own. How many young men are sexually groomed by women? How many teenage girls pressure boys for sex before marriage? How many rape cases are women raping men vice men raping women? When women use sex as a means to try and influence men (as in those stories) it has nothing at all to do with lust.... They aren't doing it because they are craving sex. They were not even necessarily physically attracted to those men. They were using the one thing they know men want, as a means to get their own desires met. In other words they were using men's own lustful ways against them, in order to influence them to do things.