CdnSikhGirl

savinderpalsingh ji, one of the gifts I have been given by Waheguru Ji is in my singing. To be told by anyone, that because of my gender I am not allowed to do kirtan, would be devestating. AT least its only at Harmandir Sahib that they have affected.

I can not imagine never doing kirtan except in the quiet of my own home alone. While some men who can hardly hold a note on pitch are allowed simply because they are men..... Kirtan is meant to be shared.

Where you and I differ, is that I see the Indian culture and Bhraminism crept into the GRM, where you think it's Guru Ji's wishes. If nobody ever speaks out about injustice, things will never change. Do you think that Iraqi people should just accept ISIS? How about the women who are covered head to toe in black? People being crucified etc. SHould they all just 'accept it'? My test of whether something is true or not is when I compare it to Gurbani. GRM did not pass that test as you can see above on the statament of women seeing their husband as God. The shabad was taken out of context. Its easily seen when you read the whole shabad... even the original Gurmukhi.

Further regarding just accepting things, you keep mentioning Sant Jarnail Singh Ji in yur earlier posts. He himself spoke against the Gurmat Reher Maryada in the same video that everyone posts... aside from the Panj Pyare issue, he actually stated women should be allowed to do all other seva. This is in stark contrast to the Gurmat Rehet Maryada that states only 'Singhs' can do nearly ALL seva.

So which are you following? You once asked me how could I go against what Sant Ji said... which is right? GRM or Sant Jarnail SIngh Ji (who was educated by DDT)?

no i am not in your friendlist but yes , i saw it happening .

i choose to leave the rehat to be explained by a taksali sing himself , but none the less

there is no grudge in sikhism , every maryada has a reason for it , because culture and religion go together

i understood that , there are many oral traditions in india which we follow and some we question but if you find the right person .

and do a lot of reading it all makes sense.

remember you are in sikhism to fill your cup with knowledge

how will it be filled if you have soo much already there, even if someone tries to put there something . it will spill out

to learn something new one must empty their cup

our mind plays tricks, its already ready with counter answers to counter the questions placed !!

its more hard for westerners to grab the concept because somethings never make sense ,

however give it time , you just took amrit .

keep your head at gurus feet and with time you will get it .

What I get from Sikhi is equality... I read GRM fully so I could learn... to see your view point. All I was after reading it was angry.

Even you yourself said that DDT did not discriminate women, only with Panj Pyare... so I read to see what they said... and then found all the other instances of 'Singh' and saw that women are excluded from nearly everything by DDT (except of course cooking the rotis for the men).

I'm sorry savinderpalsingh ji, I must go by SRM because its in my opinion the closest that espouses what the Gurus taught. And my feelings are based on Gurbani. You are free to follow whatever RM you want though. Just please try to look past the culture, and look at the actual religion and always ask if it makes sense with what is written in SGGSJ.

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||

my opnion is ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥

means one who sees the Lord as His/her beloved ..i tell you the reason why i feel so ..there is no mention of stree which is woman ..so this is not looking gender specific.

ਧੰਨੁ ਸਤੀ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਰਵਾਨਿਆ

Satee means a true One ..the ritual wherein a lady would sit on her husband's pyre was also called Satee....it begin with ladies who kind of commited suicide to escape the invaders during mughal rule and then it was taken as tradition...there is no hindu scripture which insists on ladies committing suicide like this. they might talk about something that happened but that is not a rule ..and by the way ..Maharaja Ranjit Singh's wives had commited Sati. .

I will do some more research on this ..i am not a scholar ..however since i am born and brought up in India ..i am familiar with the language. I take advie of Gianis from Siri Hazoor Sahib too.

Exactly... and when taken in context of the entire shabad it becomes apparent that its not telling women to view their husband as God. However, Damdami Taksal, in their GRM, outright tell Singhs must view their SInghni as their faithful follower, while the Singhni is to view her husband as God. And it's because of the last two lines in the quoted shabad. Their translation makes it sound like subordinate and subservient women are what pleases God and that she must be in submissive role to her husband who she is to consider as God.

But this is in the ineffable infallible GRM that savinderpalsingh ji says is directly Guru Gobind Singh Ji's word. That translation puts marriage into a master / slave relationship rather than a marriage of equal partnership on the same spiritual path that embodies the 'one light in two bodies' mentioned in SGGSJ.

Except... This is not each and every thing.. its only the mistreatment of women by only a small group of Sikhs.

Since when did discrimination become a part of Sikhi that everyone should just 'accept'? It may be Indian culture to put women beneath men, but it is what the Gurus strongly taught against. Everything they worked for on equality.... And as soon as they were gone it went right back. It's a shame. At least its not ALL Sikhs, its only small group.

Here locally the Gurdwra has seen twice in the last revent years an ENTIRELY female management committee. Not just one or two positions but ALL of them. And every other year at least one female member. Usually its women doing kirtan, not men. Nearly all the time its a woman who does Ardas. Hukam is about 50/50. They are all Punjabi btw. I imagine you'd just cringe in the Gurdwara here then... seeing the women doing that...

Oh, and I would never 'just accept' to view my husband as God, while I am the little follower. We are equals. One soul in two bodies. Only Waheguru Ji deserves to be seen as God. No man is. Even though we posses the divine light... ALL OF US EQUALLY male and female both, individually we are not God. There are no hierarchies, women are not beneath men in the eyes of Waheguru Ji.

And you never even attempted to answer... That says a lot.

Facebook? I was not aware we were friends? I only post on my own page and it's blocked to anyone I don't have added. And I don't usually post Sikh related stuff on there as many of my fb friends are coworkers etc.

You hold a mean grudge don't you.

Imagine switching roles, how would you honestly feel?

It's best that they explain their own maryada. Maybe you should get into touch with some Gyanis from the Taksals.

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...

Now you are being deliberately offensive.

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.

sorry i wont believe anything that stupid sgpc does , end of story

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.

if women were at that time in panj pyaare, we would have no objection

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.

penji no i am not branwashed ,

and i full heartidly agree with guru sahib , however rehat is rehat

wont change my opinion on it

i never said females dont attain freedom from life cycles

and i am in no way discriminating against females.

there have been many bhramgiani females in sikhism , all heed to rehat never opposed it

but as my guru says

rehat pyaari mujko sikh pyaara nahi

i heed to it . i dont need many answers from guru granth sahib to clarify it .

and by rehat i dont mean the ones constructed by sgpc ,

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.

The Issue Of Equality Of Women In Sikhi From The Standpoint Of Gurbani

By Dr. Kirpal Singh

University of London

Fellow Singhs, a disturbing trend has been emerging as of late, where we insist on excluding our Mothers, Sisters and Daughters from full participation in our faith. We must seriously ask ourselves where our desire to this is coming from. We seem to have this deep seated desire to exclude women from Panj Pyare seva, sukhasan seva, kirtan, palki seva at Darbar Sahib as if we consider ourselves to be above women and somehow more privileged.

Since we don’t truly know what Guru Ji intended regarding exclusion of women, as Sikhs we have two choices in this matter. And our choices should be based upon Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru. Either way, we will be judged on whichever choices we make by Waheguru Ji when the time comes, so we should really think hard if we can justify our actions with Gurbani. Will Waheguru Ji be pleased with us or disappointed with us in the end?

So our two choices are:

1. Allow women to participate equally, assuming that Guru Ji;s silence on the issue intended everyone to be treated as equals, recognizing the divine light within all and the genderless nature of our soul; or
2. Exclude women from full participation and exclude them from Panj Pyare seva. In this case we are assuming that Guru Ji intended to restrict women under men, as some sort of divine order where one gender has privilege over the other.

Let’s look now to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our ONLY guru, for guidance on our choices:

Are all humans considered equal?

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 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 96, Line 9
ਏਕੋ ਪਵਣੁ ਮਾਟੀ ਸਭ ਏਕਾ ਸਭ ਏਕਾ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਬਾਈਆ ॥
Ėko pavaṇ mātī sabẖ ekā sabẖ ekā joṯ sabā▫ī▫ā.
There is only one breath; all are made of the same clay; the light within all is the same.

Page 1323, Line 10
ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮੁ ਹੈ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਬਾਈ ਤਤੁ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਕਾਢਿ ਲਈਜੈ ॥੧॥
Rām nām hai joṯ sabā▫ī ṯaṯ gurmaṯ kādẖ la▫ījai. ||1||
In just the same way, the Lord's Name is the Light within all; the Essence is extracted by following the Guru's Teachings. ||1||

** So Gurbani tells us that every human is made of the same clay, and all contain the same divine light within equally. It also states that one who understands this is rare (no doubt, just look at this thread!).

So what does Gurbani say specifically about excluding people:

Page 349, Line 13
ਜਾਣਹੁ ਜੋਤਿ ਨ ਪੂਛਹੁ ਜਾਤੀ ਆਗੈ ਜਾਤਿ ਨ ਹੇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Jāṇhu joṯ na pūcẖẖahu jāṯī āgai jāṯ na he. ||1|| rahā▫o.
Recognize the Lord's Light within all, and do not consider social class or status; there are no classes or castes in the world hereafter. ||1||Pause||

Page 67, Line 13
ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕੇ ਬੇਤੇ ਸਬਦੁ ਪਛਾਣਹਿ ਹਉਮੈ ਜਾਤਿ ਗਵਾਈ ॥
Barahm ke beṯe sabaḏ pacẖẖāṇėh ha▫umai jāṯ gavā▫ī.
Those who know God and recognize His Shabad lose their ego and class consciousness.

Page 142, Line 15
ਜਾਤੀ ਦੈ ਕਿਆ ਹਥਿ ਸਚੁ ਪਰਖੀਐ ॥
Jāṯī ḏai ki▫ā hath sacẖ parkẖī▫ai.
What good is social class and status? Truthfulness is measured within.

** When people are being restricted from participation in seva (or anything) based on gender, then that is applying a status to gender; a social hierarchy with women beneath men. Yet Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji our only Guru warns against this! Further, it’s telling us that those who truly know God, lose their Ego and class consciousness. They no longer think in terms of ‘Me vs You” or “Men vs Women” as ALL are seen as ONE. They recognize that same divine light of God in everyone equally, and that there are no classes or status in God’s eyes.

So what specifically does it say about the female gender?

One of the reasons given to restrict women has to do with the fact that that men see women as unclean or impure because of certain biological functions. Let’s see what Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji has to say on this subject:

ਜਿਉ ਜੋਰੂ ਸਿਰਨਾਵਣੀ ਆਵੈ ਵਾਰੋ ਵਾਰ ॥

Ji▫o jorū sirnāvaṇī āvai vāro vār.

As a woman has her periods, month after month,

ਜੂਠੇ ਜੂਠਾ ਮੁਖਿ ਵਸੈ ਨਿਤ ਨਿਤ ਹੋਇ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥

Jūṯẖe jūṯẖā mukẖ vasai niṯ niṯ ho▫e kẖu▫ār.

so does falsehood dwell in the mouth of the false; they suffer forever, again and again.

ਸੂਚੇ ਏਹਿ ਨ ਆਖੀਅਹਿ ਬਹਨਿ ਜਿ ਪਿੰਡਾ ਧੋਇ ॥

Sūcẖe ehi na ākẖī▫ahi bahan jė pindā ḏẖo▫e.

They are not called pure, who sit down after merely washing their bodies.

ਸੂਚੇ ਸੇਈ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਜਿਨ ਮਨਿ ਵਸਿਆ ਸੋਇ ॥੨॥

Sūcẖe se▫ī nānkā jin man vasi▫ā so▫e. ||2||

Only they are pure, O Nanak, within whose minds the Lord abides. ||2||

*** So we are told that pureness is not dependent upon any physical factors at all. Someone can be false and yet wash their physical body, but they will not be pure. Similarly, women experiencing a normal biological function are not considered impure if within their mind the Lord abides… in fact it’s outright telling us that is the only requisite to determine if someone is ‘pure’.

So what does it say about the human physical body in general?

ਭਈ ਪਰਾਪਤਿ ਮਾਨੁਖ ਦੇਹੁਰੀਆ ॥

Bẖa▫ī parāpaṯ mānukẖ ḏehurī▫ā.

This human body has been given to you.

ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਮਿਲਣ ਕੀ ਇਹ ਤੇਰੀ ਬਰੀਆ ॥

Gobinḏ milaṇ kī ih ṯerī barī▫ā.

This is your chance to meet the Lord of the Universe.

** Notice it doesn’t say this to only men. Women have equal chance to meet God in this lifetime, (and without dependence on men to do so) as we have already seen that all humans possess the same divine light equally. Therefore both genders have the chance to surpass this physical reality equally. To put women in a position where their spiritual advancement is entirely dependent on the male gender (as Sikhs we are all to strive for taking Amrit), this does not reflect Guru Ji’s teachings at all!

Page 219, Line 6
ਝੂਠਾ ਤਨੁ ਸਾਚਾ ਕਰਿ ਮਾਨਿਓ ਜਿਉ ਸੁਪਨਾ ਰੈਨਾਈ ॥੧॥
Jẖūṯẖā ṯan sācẖā kar māni▫o ji▫o supnā rainā▫ī. ||1||
The body is false, but they believe it to be true; it is like a dream in the night. ||1||

Page 760, Line 13
ਕਾਚੀ ਦੇਹਾ ਵਿਣਸਣੀ ਕੂੜੁ ਕਮਾਵੈ ਧੰਧੁ ਜੀਉ ॥
Kācẖī ḏehā viṇsaṇī kūṛ kamāvai ḏẖanḏẖ jī▫o.
His body is false and transitory; it shall perish. And still, he entangles himself in false pursuits.

Page 1354, Line 2
ਮਿਥ੍ਯ੍ਯੰਤ ਦੇਹੰ ਖੀਣੰਤ ਬਲਨੰ ॥
Mith▫yanṯ ḏehaʼn kẖīṇanṯ balanaʼn.
The body is false; its power is temporary.

Page 1186, Line 7,8

ਸਾਧੋ ਇਹੁ ਤਨੁ ਮਿਥਿਆ ਜਾਨਉ ॥

Sāḏẖo ih ṯan mithi▫ā jān▫o.

O Holy Saints, know that this body is false.

ਯਾ ਭੀਤਰਿ ਜੋ ਰਾਮੁ ਬਸਤੁ ਹੈ ਸਾਚੋ ਤਾਹਿ ਪਛਾਨੋ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Yā bẖīṯar jo rām basaṯ hai sācẖo ṯāhi pacẖẖāno. ||1|| rahā▫o.

The Lord who dwells within it - recognize that He alone is real. ||1||Pause||

*** Knowing the body to be false (both male and female), and only the Lord that dwells with it as real, how can any human be excluded in any sort of hierarchy? How can we exclude or deny the Lord, our Creator in any form, from full participation?

And what of the physical world in general?

Gurbani tells us that this reality is an illusion (including the physical body) in which we are deluded by egotism:

Page 536, Line 13
ਮ੍ਰਿਗ ਤ੍ਰਿਸਨਾ ਜਿਉ ਜਗ ਰਚਨਾ ਯਹ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਰਿਦੈ ਬਿਚਾਰਿ ॥
Marig ṯarisnā ji▫o jag racẖnā yėh ḏekẖhu riḏai bicẖār.
The created world is like an illusion, a mirage - see this, and reflect upon it in your mind.

Page 581, Line 15
ਜਿਉ ਬਾਜੀਗਰੁ ਭਰਮੈ ਭੂਲੈ ਝੂਠਿ ਮੁਠੀ ਅਹੰਕਾਰੋ ॥
Ji▫o bājīgar bẖarmai bẖūlai jẖūṯẖ muṯẖī ahankāro.
Like the juggler, deceiving by his tricks, one is deluded by egotism, falsehood and illusion.

Page 812, Line 11
ਮਤ ਭੂਲਹੁ ਮਾਨੁਖ ਜਨ ਮਾਇਆ ਭਰਮਾਇਆ ॥
Maṯ bẖūlahu mānukẖ jan mā▫i▫ā bẖarmā▫i▫ā.
Don't be fooled, O mortal being, by the illusion of Maya.

** Perhaps the best instruction given to us on this subject:

Page 924, Line 9
ਮਾਇਆ ਮਦਿ ਮਾਤਾ ਹੋਛੀ ਬਾਤਾ ਮਿਲਣੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ਭਰਮ ਧੜਾ ॥
Mā▫i▫ā maḏ māṯā hocẖẖī bāṯā milaṇ na jā▫ī bẖaram ḏẖaṛā.
Intoxicated with the wine of Maya, the mortal babbles on about trivial affairs; giving in to the illusion, he cannot meet the Lord.

*** So we are told that the illusion of Maya breeds EGO and that separates us from the ONE Lord through duality. EGOtism causes us to babble on about trivial affairs (such as who can be Panj Pyare), and separate humans into classes and status in a hierarchy. EGO causes us to think in terms of I AM vs YOU ARE – or HE IS vs SHE IS. But this hierarchy is a false precept of the illusion; One that we are told over and over to surpass.

Is it really OUR privilege as men to decide whether or not women have less status than us, when we really do not know what was intended? Is it really up to us as mere (male) humans to decide on behalf of our Creator, what was intended for our Mothers, sisters and daughters, who also contain that same divine light of Waheguru Ji equally, as stated in SGGSJ? Or is it just our EGO speaking to our desires to be better than someone else?

Definition of EGO:

The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.

Definition of EGOTISM:
Egotism is the drive to maintain and enhance favorable views of oneself, and generally features an inflated opinion of one's personal features and importance. It often includes intellectual, physical, social and other over estimations.

Let’s look specifically at what Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji says on the matter of EGO:

Page 1044, Line 2
ਹਉਮੈ ਮਾਇਆ ਵਿਚੇ ਪਾਈ ॥
Ha▫umai mā▫i▫ā vicẖe pā▫ī.
Egotism was instilled into the illusion of Maya.

Page 1, Line 10
ਨਾਨਕ ਹੁਕਮੈ ਜੇ ਬੁਝੈ ਤ ਹਉਮੈ ਕਹੈ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥੨॥
Nānak hukmai je bujẖai ṯa ha▫umai kahai na ko▫e. ||2||
O Nanak, one who understands His Command, does not speak in ego. ||2||

Page 19, Line 9
ਹਉਮੈ ਮਮਤਾ ਮੋਹਣੀ ਸਭ ਮੁਠੀ ਅਹੰਕਾਰਿ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Ha▫umai mamṯā mohṇī sabẖ muṯẖī ahaʼnkār. ||1|| rahā▫o.
Egotism and possessiveness are very enticing; egotistical pride has plundered everyone. ||1||Pause||

Page 31, Line 4
ਇਹੁ ਸਰੀਰੁ ਮਾਇਆ ਕਾ ਪੁਤਲਾ ਵਿਚਿ ਹਉਮੈ ਦੁਸਟੀ ਪਾਈ ॥
Ih sarīr mā▫i▫ā kā puṯlā vicẖ ha▫umai ḏustī pā▫ī.
This body is the puppet of Maya. The evil of egotism is within it.

*** So we are again told that this body is a puppet of Maya, which contains egotism. And that egotism causes false constructs in society of social class and statuses, of hierarchies (including gender hierarchy) in which we rank ourselves against others. But we are told this is not the path to God. One who understands his command (hukam) does not speak in ego.

*** If most of us do not even understand ego vs our true nature, then how can we spout off our beliefs as being true or what Guru Ji intended?

ਜਾ ਹਉ ਨਾਹੀ ਤਾ ਕਿਆ ਆਖਾ ਕਿਹੁ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਿਆ ਹੋਵਾ ॥

जा हउ नाही ता किआ आखा किहु नाही किआ होवा ॥

Jā ha▫o nāhī ṯā ki▫ā ākẖā kihu nāhī ki▫ā hovā.

Since I am no one, what can I say? Since I am nothing, what can I be?

ਕੀਤਾ ਕਰਣਾ ਕਹਿਆ ਕਥਨਾ ਭਰਿਆ ਭਰਿ ਭਰਿ ਧੋਵਾਂ ॥

कीता करणा कहिआ कथना भरिआ भरि भरि धोवां ॥

Kīṯā karṇā kahi▫ā kathnā bẖari▫ā bẖar bẖar ḏẖovāʼn.

As He created me, so I act. As He causes me to speak, so I speak. I am full and overflowing with sins-if only I could wash them away!

ਆਪਿ ਨ ਬੁਝਾ ਲੋਕ ਬੁਝਾਈ ਐਸਾ ਆਗੂ ਹੋਵਾਂ ॥

आपि न बुझा लोक बुझाई ऐसा आगू होवां ॥

Āp na bujẖā lok bujẖā▫ī aisā āgū hovāʼn.

I do not understand myself, and yet I try to teach others. Such is the guide I am!

ਨਾਨਕ ਅੰਧਾ ਹੋਇ ਕੈ ਦਸੇ ਰਾਹੈ ਸਭਸੁ ਮੁਹਾਏ ਸਾਥੈ ॥

नानक अंधा होइ कै दसे राहै सभसु मुहाए साथै ॥

Nānak anḏẖā ho▫e kai ḏase rāhai sabẖas muhā▫e sāthai.

O Nanak, the one who is blind shows others the way, and misleads all his companions.

ਅਗੈ ਗਇਆ ਮੁਹੇ ਮੁਹਿ ਪਾਹਿ ਸੁ ਐਸਾ ਆਗੂ ਜਾਪੈ ॥੨॥

अगै गइआ मुहे मुहि पाहि सु ऐसा आगू जापै ॥२॥

Agai ga▫i▫ā muhe muhi pāhi so aisā āgū jāpai. ||2||

But, going to the world hereafter, he shall be beaten and kicked in the face; then, it will be obvious, what sort of guide he was! ||2||

*** So in the end do we make our choices based on what Gurbani teaches about equality, inclusiveness, the divine light within all, or do we base our choices on ego and pride, and our desire to better than someone else?

Consider this, if we make our choice based on equality, inclusiveness, and all humans as ONE, would Waheguru Ji really be angry with us, even if we erred?

However, if we make our choice based on our own desires to be superior to someone else, or to exclude because we think we are more entitled than others, in the face of Gurbani telling us that we humans are ALL absolute equals, and it is the same divine light in everyone… if we are wrong in this case, how do you think Waheguru Ji will react? Would our Creator think our hearts and intentions were in the right place? The answer is of course not!!

Our intentions are far more important than our actions.

Page 171, Line 3
ਜਿਨ ਕਉ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਰਿਦੈ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਤਿਨ ਕੂਰੇ ਗਾਢਨ ਗਾਢੇ ॥
Jin ka▫o parīṯ riḏai har nāhī ṯin kūre gādẖan gādẖe.
Those who do not have love for the Lord within their hearts, harbor only false intentions and goals.

*** Only those who remove ego, treat everyone as equal, and recognize the Lord equally within every heart can possibly harbor true intentions. This is what we are instructed through Gurbani.

So please fellow Singhs, consider all of this and act from your heart and not your ego.

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.

it was all in devine order

all of those 5 pyaare were bhagats in previous life
and they were boung to become panj pyaare in second life and take amrit

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:

"Damdami Taksal maryada is maryada of Baba Gurbachan Singh. AKJ is of Bhai Sahhib Bhai Randheer Singh. Nanaksar is Baba Nand Singh and his chela Gurmukh SIngh or something and Akaal Takht is Panth Parvaanat made by the Panth. - Taksal maryada is not the maryada from Guru Ji. Taksal maryada has so many brahmnical rituals. How can it be from Guru Ji. Also if it was from Guru Ji. Why did the SGPC hold all those meetings and debates and discussions to make a new maryada. Maryada given by Guru Ji was lost. If Mahants were able to change Akaal Takht maryada, then what was Taksal? Taksal was nothing before Bhai Jarnail Singh. He stood up for Sikh rights and gave his martyrdom. That is how Taksal became popular but now they are taking it too far. They can try but the real Tat Gurmat will always be the way. It is in best interest of Taksal to apply Sikh Rehat Maryada given at www.sgpc.net at their deras. Else, all they are doing is hurting Sikh sentiments and going against Guru Ji.

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:

Satkiran Ji this is becoming insane there are bad people who defame all jathas but to suggest that just because of your bad experiences with DDT Brahmgyani Sant Baba Deep Singh Ji who fought off the enemy and defied death is sexist is taking it too far. Women can participate in all the things you listed. Sant Ji made this clear... Honestly I think you are trying to attack DDT over an issue which is. Not man vs woman because of past experiences.

I'm curious what do you think of Sant kartar Singh Ji Sant gurbachan Singh Ji and Sant jarnail Singh Ji?

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...

I find it offensive that you say that all of DDT is sexist. You honestly feel that Jathadar of DDT Baba Deep Singh JI saw woman below men?

Btw waiting for the audio or video of the sexist DDT leader... Action needs to be taken against him.

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?

Again, if you want to believe that women can be Panj Payaras, then it's upto you as you also have a free-will, but please ponder upon the following (and I'm not writing this to discourage you but just as a side note):

* AKJ treats Kesge as kakkar but not Kesh (Hair); I got a question for them: Is it okay to cut the hair and get 5 kakkars and be Amrit-dhari?

das

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...

Guru Ji is said to have called for "5 Heads" not 5 Sikhs. However if 5 men had come up, and during all the subsequent amrit sinchars during his lifetime, Guru Ji could easily have said "give the females a chance to participate in this" couldn't he?

He didn't say either way... that says a lot!!! And again, he could have written it in the 52 Hukams if he considered gender such an imporant quality for Panj Pyare. His silence in this case actually speaks louder than words... It shows he had no preference either way. He took such care in writing down his 52 Hukams for Sikhs to follow, yet he never mentioned gender at all with any reference to religious 'authority' positions. So I'll ask again: Surely if he had intended to restrict women from any position of authority and specifically Panj Pyare seva, he would have written something so imporant in his 52 Hukams, which was written in 1708, long after that fateful Vaisakhi Day 1699? However, in his 52 hukams, the only reference to any such restriction on authority positions within Sikhi applies only to members of 'other faiths'.

And when the Guru's were choosing successors for Guruship, why did Guru NanakDev Ji only test the men? There is no evidence or sakhi that any women were tested for suitability. Bibi Bhani secured a promise from her father Guru Amardas to keep the Guruship in her family, why did Guru Ji give it to her husband and not her? 6th Guru had daughters, why weren't they considered ?

Easy: Culturally it would never have been accepted at that time. Even today in Punjab, it is very Patriarchal. If Punjab still has not advanced beyond Patriarchy even today, do you think society at that time would have accepted a female? It very well could have been a different outcome if Guru Nanak Dev Ji were born in present time instead of over 500 years ago.

Here I am in agreement with you. The SRM reflects the panths decision. So when you do take amrit, accept non vegetarian Sikhs as your equals as the SRM also forbid only halal meat for Sikhs, whereas many advocate that sikhs can only be vegetarians.

I do. I acknowledge that it doesn't specify vegetarian or meat either way, except that it can not be sacfiricial meat (killed the Muslim - and by extension also Kosher) meat. Myself I am vegetarian, but that is a personal choice.

Your knowledge of DDT seems to have come form akj. they usually say all the kind of stuff you are parroting. Anyway, if what you say is true, and if you have it recorded, it would be great to listen to it, because action can be taken against the offender, the person saying it cannot be speaking for sikhs or the ddt.

This should be pretty clear, and if you, for all your posturing on this forum about equality and such would hold an entire jatha responsible for the alleged words of one of it's members then maybe that tells us more about you, than the issue.

I really wish I could say it was just the one person, but it's not. And no I have not actually spoken to many AKJ members. As I stated before I don't follow any jatha. I had another DDT member (who was actually trying to express interest in me for marriage but whatever... I was not interested) Anyway he said DDT teach women should not be 'allowed' to work, or to pursue higher education, that they should be barefoot and pregnant and their 'duty' is to obey and serve the men. He said that's what Guru Ji sees as honorable for women.

Also, I challenge you to prove where women have any semblence of equality (or even say) in DDT religious affairs (Panj Pyare seva aside). Are they free to perform kirtan? Participate in Akhand Paaths? Act as Granthi? How about Gurdwara President, or other committee member positions? Ardaas? Take the Hukamnama? That guy I told you about above, basically stated women are unclean, and therefore they can not even touch SGGSJ, lest they 'desicrate' it. He tried to prove his point on his facebook page, and had several other DDT members agree with him on the post. So yes, my views of DDT were not very high to begin with...

"any prior respect" - woman, you should listen to yourself sometimes!

Since he was speaking in a position where he was publically representing DDT and their beliefs, then you can imagine how that can make women feel listening to it. He got into why women should never be in leadership positions, why they should always obey male leadership, and remain quiet and subservient in religious functions.

let's hear the recording.

I bookmarked the link to it, and will look for it again when I get home. I actually found it originally linked on another site (Sikhsangat I think) where someone else brought it up on a similar thread... also about Panj Pyare. And of course the usual DDT supporters chimed in on that site as well, stating DDT RM is THE RM.

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.

Just as woman is responsible for physical birth, so the man is responsible for spiritual birth (Panj Piyare). Guru Ji has created this as a balance.

Otherwise, we might as well complain to God that men having the inability to give birth is "inequality".

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.

Saint Hi made it pretty clear... Lol I dunno why there is a debate I can't see how any Sikh can try to disagree with a brahmgyani... If rehit says no woman in Panj Pyare then there shouldn't be an argument.. Guru Ji decided who are we to go against... Also the reason I find Gurmat Rehit Maryada accurate over SRM is because AKJ and SGPC composers of SRM are man made while the taksaal is started from Guru Ji. With the first Jathedar Baba Deep Singh... This is a situation of man vs woman as Sant JI Explained....

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: