CdnSikhGirl

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...

One can have love, deeper spiritual connection, sharing of energy, union and caring, even without physical sexual intercourse.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

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.

Why did Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh jee Maharaaj NOT allow women in Panj Pyaray, even though some women had reached Brahamgyan? On the other hand, women were given rights to do seva in langar by Satguru jee himself.

Follow Satguru jee OR follow so-called SRM? Choice is yours.

Panth cannot accept anything which goes against the hukam of Satguru jee.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

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!

I feel (might be wrong) that you cannot fathom a happy marriage without sex for pleasure. Please read below the sakhi of Jin Datt. It is from a non-Sikh website but it should be an eye opener for you.

http://www.jainworld.com/book/tenuniversalvirtues/ch16.asp

After reading it, one can only imagine the life of a Gurmukh couple.

SEX does not bring Gurmukh couples together, GURBANI does. Gurbani is the medicine.

I have already mentioned earlier that eating food for PLEASURE is also a sin in Gurmat.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

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?

Even if all GURUDWARAS in the world start following the so-called SRM, it does not make it the maryada of the panth. There was a time in Sikh history, when some corrupt people in gurughars did not accept parshaad made by so-called low caste people. Would you accept that as a part of maryada?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

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!

Marijuana is a miracle plant. Cures all kinds of diseases and ailments. This cancer thing is new tho. I will read it when I find some time.

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.

Singhs never consider women as inferior or not worthy.

Men will always need WOMEN to take birth. At first, a Sikh would need a WOMAN to give him birth but later on, a woman (and a man) would need FIVE GURSIKH MEN to give her/him a new birth.

One birth by women and another by men. Sounds like equality.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

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...

I agree that Maharaaj gave full authority to the panth which means that sects which started from that time must be given precedence over other cults/sects which sprang up later. Orthodox sects would include Nanaksar, DDT, Nihangs, Sevapanthi, Udhasi, etc

Whatever happened during the times of Satgurus (which was approved by the Satguru) was perfect. No authority in this world can change that, including the panth. We should all follow that blindly.

First example - Women were allowed to do seva in the langar. No person should restrict them from doing it.

Second example - Women were NEVER allowed to be in Panj Pyaray, even though there were women at that time, who had reached the state of Brahamgyan. No person should change that.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

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??

I live in California and I see many Taksali Singhs encouraging Bibia to do Seva of Chaur Sahib, reading Bani from Guru Sahib, make Degh, etc.

If the GRM uses the word 'Singh' it doesn't mean it's Sexist, I'm pretty sure the original author didn't intentionally mean only one gender. some Shudh and Gurvaak Rehatnamas and use words that typically denote masculinity, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Rehatnama is only speaking to Male Khalsas.

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||

I think you should have posted the above message somewhere else. This forum was started to help a NON-SIKH understand Sikhi better. You are causing confusion on this topic sister by bringing in issues such as clothing, in-laws, maryada at Sri Harmandar Sahib, 1699, etc.

Answers to your concerns in a different post.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

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....

There is clear evidence in Sikh history with regards to age discrimination. There was a pundit who wondered, how can such a small child be a guru and have a name, which in a sense was better than that of Lord Krishna. Satguru jee shattered his ego and he became a Sikh.

Satguru jee also eliminated discrimination against women. Satguru jee gave enough rights to women. Women were treated very lowly during those times. For example, women were NOT allowed to listen to Katha. Maharaaj gave them this right, which was revolutionary at that time. Even the first Sikh of Satguru jee was a woman. There are many more such examples.

Dhan Dhan Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev jee Maharaaj

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

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?

I agree with you sister that this issue does not matter a lot.

In Gurmat, there is abstinence of certain things. That is why we have the four cardinal sins (Bajjar Kurehits). Also, Satguru jee encouraged householder life(due to Kaljugee times), but he did NOT ban asceticism. If a Sikh wants to become an ascetic, he is not doing anything against Gurmat.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

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.

What is so surprising, if all Satgurus and their wives were virgins? If Mother Mary can be a virgin, so can all the wives of Satgurus.

How do you know Bhai Saab Bhai Lehna jee were born normally?

Peace

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.

1. Elimination of Age discrimination - Age ego affects many people. Through this incarnation, God proved that irrespective of a person's age, one should respect all and try to learn from his younger peers too.

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:

ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯgur parsāḏ.

One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:

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||

ਕਵਨ ਰੂਪ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿਓ ਬਿਨਸਾਇਓ ॥

Kavan rūp ḏaristi▫o binsā▫i▫o.

How many forms and images appeared and disappeared?

ਕਤਹਿ ਗਇਓ ਉਹੁ ਕਤ ਤੇ ਆਇਓ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Kaṯėh ga▫i▫o uho kaṯ ṯe ā▫i▫o. ||1|| rahā▫o.

Where have they gone? Where did they come from? ||1||Pause||

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?

@Ragmaala

Firstly I'd like to apologise if I caused offence, this wasn't my intention. I'm simply trying to learn more about Sikhism.

Now you said the Gurus never had sex. This is news to me, is this a orthodox sikh view? This is the first I'm hearing of it. Do Sikhs believe all 10 gurus were born without sexual intercourse? so all were miraculous conceptions similar to Jesus?

If this is true then how do you explain charitropakhyan?

If this topic is a bit sensitive for sikhs then I won't ask any further questions on it, I'm just trying to understand Sikh beliefs?

Thanks

It's great you asked this question. Semen Retention has numerous benefits for the human body. Some of these I have pasted below.

"

Physical

• increased energy and drive
• boosted immune system
• cures erectile dysfunction
• prevents premature ejaculation

Mental

• more confidence
• improved memory
• more decisive

Spiritual

• calmer and less prone to anger
• more connected to spiritual nature
• control over material urges

" [1] - http://authentictantra.com/tantra-blog/semen-retention-and-how-it-will-change-your-life/

Furthermore,

"orgasm depletes enormous energy from the endocrine and nervous systems, leaving the body weak and lethargic until the energies are gradually created again."[2]

[2] - http://sacred-sex.org/facts/articles/231-semen-retention.html

There are possibly many more benefits. But the above should be enough to prove that sex is bad for health.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

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.