CdnSikhGirl

On subject of instruments... when did harmonium become common use in kirtan? I thought originally it was stringed instruments and that in particular sarangi was used because it mimicked closest to human voice. (I actually want to learn to play sarangi... but I can't find one to purchase. Anyone know if I can get one from Toronto somewhere and shipped east?)

achatanga, it is you who is lying. You KNOW what you meant by that statement. Don't try to back track what the implication of it was and call others a liar because you were called on your views of women. Saying that family planning is not allowed in Sikhi = saying women's whole adult life will be filled with pregnancies, childbirth and breastfeeding. Its the same thing. And you know it implies that. But you are just holding on to this exact wording thing as if it matters LOL. Go rant to someone who cares!

Amarjeet Ji please close this thread as obviously members like achatanga can't read the first post saying to refrain from this thread. Also, we can start a new separate topic to discuss the masands and 52 being women, and how they were given authority to administer charan amrit as a means to show that even though not written explicitly, may be evidence that no prohibition on women participating as Panj Pyaras. I have actually found a few more references!

20 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

Child? Children tell lies but then admit it, when they get caught out. Deceitful people like you spin lie to cover up lie, to cover up lie. I'd rather be a child, o devious one.

I'm sorry you are just too dense to understand it.  Guru Nanak said not to argue with fools... so I'm done with you.  Your head is too thick to get anything through that there is a difference between lying and pointing out something that you meant.  There was no lie in what I said. You know it and I know it... you are playing semantics to try and look cool. But its not working because everyone KNOWS thats what you meant. That women's place is at home having baby after baby because no birth control = babies. I'm sure you must at least know biology right?? Anyway I'm done with you. Rant and yell and make accusations all you want. It wont change that you are a rude inconsiderate, spoiled brat who doesn't understand the english language. You think I need to learn Punjabi? Here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/
Your statement was IMPLICATURE of women going through pregnancy after pregnancy because no family planning IMPLIES that pregnancies will occur... one after the other... because the couple can not use birth control to plan out their families. Get it yet??? So by saying that family planning is not allowed in Sikhi you were saying that women who are married will undergo pregnancy after pregnancy.
And with that... I'm done with you.  Just avoid me on here and I will avoid you.

 Until the Baisakhi of AD 1699, Sikh initiation ceremony, charan pahul, comprised the administering of charanamrit or charanodak to the novitiate. As Bhai Gurdas, Varan, I.23, records, this was the practice Guru Nanak introduced for the Sikhs. At the ceremony the novitiate quaffed water poured over the foot of the Guru and vowed to follow the religious and moral injunctions as well as the code of communal conduct laid down. Later, masands or local leaders, specially authorized by the Gurus, also administered charan pahul. - See more at: http://searchsikhism.com/panj-pyare#sthash.BcpL0X78.dpuf 

So masands were authorized to administer charan pahul. And 52 were known to be women including operating in isolation alone in these leadership roles. One was in charge of all of Kashmir.

ALso... Amrit Sanskar or Amrit Sanchar or the Amrit ceremony is the Sikh ceremony of initiation or baptism. This practice has been in existence since the times of Guru Nanak Dev (1469 - 1539). During that time-period, this ceremony was known as Charan Amrit or Charan Phul or the Pag Pahul, the words Charan and Pag both signifying the foot of the teacher. During that time-period, the neophytes poured water over Guru's toe to be initiated into the fold. When the Guru was not present, the masands or the local sangat leaders officiated. A reference to initiation by Charan Amrit occurs in Bhai Gurdas, Varan, I.23, born 12 years after the passing away of Guru Nanak.

So it makes no sense why all of a sudden women would be disallowed to administer kande de pahul when they had been authorized to administer charan pahul previously. It would be like Guru  Gobind Singh Ji actually took away equality/rights for women that previous Gurus had established.
(Paapiman won't see this so if someone can quote it the link is above and bibliography sources are listed at bottom of the linked page).

You are actually acting like a spoiled child chatanga!

Its like you are a child saying "no girls in my blanket fort" and then your sister wants to come in your fort so someone says that you had said that your sister could not go in the blanket fort. And then you get all pissy and upset because you didn't say EXACTLY that your sister couldn't come in your fort.  But .....you had said no girls could come in your fort and your sister is a girl, so the end result is the SAME THING!  Without saying those exact words, you said that your sister was not allowed in your fort.

Understand??? I can't believe I am actually having to explain this to a grown adult!

19 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

 

You just ADMITTED lying about me. But you told the truth about lying. That's the best way to end your association with this forum.

I did not  anything about lying! said LEARN WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY! DAMMIT! You are an idiot!

You said "Family planning is not allowed" that is the SAME THING AS SAYING "women must go through pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy" are you dense??? The IMPLICATION OF NO FAMILY PLANNING is that she will be either pregnant of breastfeeding her entire adult life until menopause. Are THAT dense that you can't understand that??? It's not your exact words, but that is what the implication is... so it's the SAME THING as if you said it!  I never said "chatanag said these exact words....blah blah blah" I said he said that..... with the tag "He said that family planning is not allowed" because this is the inivitible IMPLICATION OF SAYING FAMILY PLANNING IS NOT ALLOWED! You must be the densest person on here that you can't understand associations and implications of what you are saying!  How can you say that family planning is NOT ALLOWED in Sikhi, and somehow rectify that the natural result of no birth control is babies... babies, and more babies!???

Stop being such a rude inconsiderate person! And actually UNDERSTAND what people are saying and LEARN the IMPLICATIONS of what you are saying, and not focus just on the exact wording. 

If you want to end your association with the forum go ahead! I won't stop you!
 

10 hours ago, Guest ASD said:

Does this rule apply to Sikh men as well? As in 'don't give your son's hand to a house where God's Sikhi doesn't exist'?
Sikhism is supposed to represent equality, so it should apply this way too right?

I think this was written when the girl would inivetibly move in with the in-laws. Not applicable today as most couples don't live with inlaws and instead have their own apartment or house together. I think that's why it was referring to women, because the woman would be the ones usually moving into the home of the inlaws. So thats why it was specified. But yes, according to Akal Takht edict in 2007, a Sikh (male or female) must marry a Sikh. So a Sikh male can not marry a non-sikh female either via Anand Karaj. This came about after the protests of mixed faith marriages in Gurdwaras in UK in recent years. 

@chatanga1  Though you didn't use those exact words, you said that family planning is not allowed. If family planning is not allowed what do you THINK the result will be????? Saying that family planning is not allowed is the SAME THING as saying she should just accept that she will be basically a breeding machine going through pregnancy after pregnancy! You can't escape the fact that no family planning (birth control) means that pregnancy is inivitible (unless she has something wrong). So how can she ever pursue a career if she no sooner finishes one pregnancy and breastfeeding and then gets pregnant again? And that continues until she physically can not have babies anymore?? So while you did not say exactly those words, and I never said you said those exact words... I said and please learn extrapolation and paraphrasing.... that by saying family planning is not allowed, you are making the statement that women will be pregnant or breastfeeding their entire adult lives from marriage up to menopause. Because THATS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CANT USE BIRTH CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Please don't get so hung up over exact wording of things... its apparent what you MEANT!  Because the only other option is abstinence. And how many married couples do you think can maintain a loving close relationship if their interaction is totally platonic??? I'd say virtually NONE! Why even be married then?? Do you SERIOUSLY expect after 1 or 2 kids, that a husband and wife married only a few years, will become entirely platonic after they have a couple kids, and never touch each other again??? Be realistic!!!! For that matter, as soon as she becomes Pregnant, then they should abstain right? Even more, only roughly 5 days per cycle is a woman even fertile, so sex outside of those 5 days shold be avoided too right? Since they'd be having sex knowing there won't be a chance of pregnancy. How many married Sikh couples do you think abstain as soon as she is pregnant, or avoid the times of month (majority) when pregnancy can not happen? Also, please show us where Gurbani etc state that married couples can ONLY partake in that act to procreate.  So yes, you never said exact words that women will be pregnancy after pregnancy and breastfeeding their entire adult life. But the IMPLICATION of no family planning (which you DID exactly say) is exactly that! That women are doomed to be only breeding machines and pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy. And a ton of unwanted kids that people can't afford.  Show me ANY Sikh family who wants like 10-12 kids these days!

Gurbani speaks against lust and overindulgence, when it becomes like an addiciton for only physical pleasure.  It degrades what sex is supposed ot be. However, sex is not merely physical pleasure. And between a huband and wife in marriage, is not considered LUST. It's an act and expression of love between two people and in itself can be a divine act as two people literally merge. It's a powerful union that goes way beyond physical. That's why it is reserved for a married couple because doing it for only physical pleasure degrades what it means. A husband and wife can

@Guest Ji... hehe I know who you are I think. You are on opposite side of the country from me (BC) and trade RMS?

1 hour ago, chatanga1 said:

It is not my opinion. The Guru ordiained Samprdayes cannot be compared to man-made jathas. btw the differences I stated are the differences between the Samprdayes actually.

 

I am not assuming it. I am basing it on written historical fact. Btw you are the one assuming actually. You cannot prove otherwise. You have nothing at all actually, to support your claim btw.

Only, its not historical Fact. You can't say because something was not written means it did not exist at all. It just means in the examples written about there weren't any women present. It doesn't mean there weren't women present in other examples that were not written about, or that Guru Ji "disallowed" women at all. If scientists used your thinking, we'd still be in the dark ages! Again, everyone knows that absence of proof, is NOT proof of absence! It only means you have not found the proof yet. And you can't base entire existence off 1% example which were specific examples of amrit sanchars of notable people taking amrit and centred on the military aspect of Sikhi. Of course women would not in that day been involved (generally) in military lifestyle. So what about the entire rest of the Sikh population?? There may have been thousands of amrit sanchars of ordinary every day Sikhs, with women acting as Panj Pyaras in many of them, that were never written about because they weren't important enough to write about. And you will just write them off. 

You can't say that a tiny percentage of examples gives us accurate picture of what Guru Ji actually intended. 

Actually what we have is enough to go btw. You are prepared to overlook this small piece of evidence, even though you were actually prepared to accept ONE piece of evidence from sikh-khoj, which turned out to be false btw.

This has nothing to do with Sikh Khoj. And of course I was willing to see what he had... he was not the first one I encountered who offered the idea of court poets authoring it.  And no.... 1% of something is NOT enough evidence to go by.  That's like saying that lifestyle of the 1% rich elite in the USA is enough to go by to figure out the tax system rules for the entire country.  Ask USA about the other '99%'.  

Why are you so inconsistent with your approach towards history? If there were women involved it would have been written in the same way that the names of the Sikhs running the 22 manjis (which included women btw) names were written.

Why would it have been written?? Only very few Amrit Sanchars were even written about, and that too, ones that only involved a prominent person taking Amrit. Why would ordinary amrit sanchars involving people who were not prominent etc be written about? Were they important enough to be written about? The Gurus advocated equality already, so why would an Amrit Sanchar that took place in rural area with non-notable people be written about?? Just because it had a woman you think that it would be made a big deal about? But the Gurus already established equal participation in Sikh religion of females with males... so maybe it was NOT such a big huge thing by then especially when women already had leadership roles in Sikhi by that time? So this was nothing BIG that people thought OMG a woman was involved with this amrit sanchar, so we have to write a book about it!  Amrit Sanchars already have an aire of secrecy / mystery about them, and I doubt unless it was amrit sanchars of notable persons like Amarjeet stated, they would not have been written about at all. So your thinking is flawed in this sense.  You want to use the very few notable amrit sanchars as a base for all time.  Well then, there were no white Singhs in the ones written about, nor black Singhs written about in any of those few...  must mean that Guru Ji disallowed them too huh??

I am snubbing your advocation of women being in the panj pyarey only. I am not snubbing women. but seeing as you have asked these questions many times actually, i will actually refer you back to my answer btw: "Why were there no female Gurus?". "Did the Gurus practice snub half the Sikh souls on this planet, when all souls are genderless and equal?"

That IS snubbing women! And it's Gurbani saying all souls are equal and genderless. And Gurbani is saying to TREAT ALL equally. I already explained my theory (not just my theory others as well) why Gurus were male.  Culture at the time... the message had to be spread by someone who the population would actually acknowledge, and a woman at that time, in Indian culture would not have been. Women in Hinduism were not even allowed to read their own scriptures! So if a woman tried to spread spirituality, she would have just likely been ignored. It was culture / time.  The other reason is that an oppressed group, can never spread message of their equality, they can only demand it by fighting.  However, if someone in the same group as the oppressors gives that same message they will listen. Using slaves as an exmaple. A slave claiming they should be free will NEVER be acknowledged by those who own slaves... but a slave owner saying so, may be listend to.  Especially if they are a leadership figure!  So the fact that MALES were saying women were equal... accomplished WAY MORE!!!! And this theory has been proven in different circumstances to hold a LOT of water!
 

@GurpreetKaur  You were dragged into the other topic by her holiness, because she thought she could use you as ammunition. I don't know why she looks down on you the way she does.

Actually I said she studied to be an egineer. You said women should spend their entire adult lives having babies and breastfeeding... So I said you can be the one to tell her that her education was for nothing if she gets married, because you said family planning is not allowed. (Actually Akal Takht disagrees with you. Birth control is only not allowed for having illicit sex... meaning outside of marriage but within marriage it is allwoed for family planning). So I am supprotive of her career choice and ability to actually follow that dream and not be burdened by pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy etc. without family planning, a woman would be stuck being only a housewife, no need for education etc. That was my point. You can be the one to tell her...

57 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Now here is a big test for you. The Samprdayes are not sects. They are traditions in the Sikh Panth. btw can you confirm whether you understand this?

And how exactly is AKJ not a tradition? I think they have been around long enough to be given that classification!

Actually it's you who has been vilifying the Taksal regularly since you have been here, btw. Without reason. Now you want to acknowledge the Taksal maryada?

I never villified anyone. I said I disagree with some things in their RM which seem to be a bit biased against women. I acknowledge Taksal Maryada must be follow by Taksalis. I also acknowledge that Sikh Rehet Maryada is the one I was given, and is the one accepted by Akal Takht - and majority of panth follow. Where I have issue are those who try to push DDTs RM on everyone else and put down SRM.

Actually I said the Samprdayes are not sects. AKj is a sect/jatha. Sri Akal Takht Sahib is maryada from a jatha (singh sabha). These are not Samprdayes and cannot compete with the samprdayes. Anyone who follows a sect will not have the approval of any act that contravenes the maryada of the Sampardayes inc women in the Panj Pyaeru and menstruation btw.

Except that Akal Takht IS the seat of Sikh authority is it not?? And it was not a jatha who drafted it. It was drafted over a decade and hundreds of Sikhs from differeing backgrounds, taking into consideration ALL historical rehetnamas and Gurbani. Meaning it was panthic decision. Whether you agree that there were enough representation of some of the sampardas or not doesn't make it any less so. So you can't say it was one Jatha that wrote it. 

And fine... those groups can do what they want... I am not looking for approval from DDT or Nihangs. Though I do not agree with their view of women, which yes I think is misogynistic / chauvenistic.  As long as I have AKJ / panthic rehet maryada and know that majority of Gurdwaras worldwide don't discriminate against women. If women want to belong to a group that gives them less rights, then that's their own choice. But those 'sampardas' should also acknowledge that there are a good majority of Sikhs who do not agree with their views.

19 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

 

You are 40 years old btw. Actually Sikhi is a lot older that.

Yes, but you said none today... you were wrong. There are numerous.

These are sects, and their maryada or status does not compare with the Samprdayes in the same way.

This is entirely your personal opinion. Even some Damdami Taksal members hold AKJ in high esteem, looking past their differences. I have heard DDT members actually praise AKJ for their kirtan. And no they don't compare - that's the point!!! - because they have differences! Differences you just stated are perfectly justified. Not all Sikhs are Nihang warriors, or DDT members, then why would you look down upon Sikhs who choose to focus (specialize) more on kirtan and simran (AKJ) for example? Different functions, different RMs as you said...

Yes that is correct , a small amount of sinchars were documented and no women were alloweed to do Panj Pyarey sewa.

Actually, you are just assuming none were 'allowed'. Just because there were none in those documented sanchars, does not mean that women were not allowed. It just means that none were in the ones documented. You can't assume that meant they were not allowed.  Maybe they were allowed, but none who were suitable were present at those specific sanchars that happened to be documented?

Actually why worry about history that hasn't been mentioned and concentrate on history that has been mentioned? Which one will be more fruitful?

Actually its not more fruitful, if majority of Sikh panth has been unwritten. It would be like taking a country and writing rules only on the rich elite which compose maybe 1% of the population. What about what the other 99% did? Did that 1% accurately depict the country as a whole?? Ask USA about the "99% movement".  If the 1% that was written about only encompasses the military aspect of Sikhi or amrit sanchars that involved prominent historical figures, then how can that accurately encompas the other 99% of Sikhs??  Easy answer is it can't! So where can we look for answers?????? Gurbani... what does Gurbani say??? Obviously nothing specific about Amrit Sanchar and Panj Pyara Seva. But its DOES give us idea of how we should treat everyone in general: "As Gurnukh look upon ALL with single eye of equality, for in each and every heart the divine light is contained"  Now, if the SAME divine light is contained in ALL, how can you justify snubbing half of the Sikh souls on this planet, for something transient like gender, when we are told ALL souls are genderless and equal? So Gurbani is clear on equality in general. Does this sound like our Gurus would advocate treating people unequally? Giving some privileges over others for something thats not a permanent trait of our souls?

6 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

Yes there is. No women in Panj Pyarey today or for the last 3 centuries.

I have personally witnessed women in Panj Pyaras.... and know that it's happened numerous times. So you can't say "today" there are none. There are numerous AKJ who have done so. 3HO does it regularly. And many Gurdwaras that have no affiliation with specific sampardas have had women in this role... and I know specifically of several in recent years in Kashmir.

And as Amarjeet Ji said before, only small percentage of Amrit Sanchars were actually documented as to who was involved, and then too only Amrit Sanchars that involved historically notable Sikhs who were taking Amrit. That leaves a LOT of amrit sanchars with no documentation at all as to who the panj pyaras were. So you can't say "No women" --- all you can say is that in the small percentage of amrit sanchars that WERE documented, there were no women mentioned. And since most historical writing was centered around the military aspect of Sikhi, there is a whole chunk of history missing outside of that. It's very likely with thousands upon thousands of amrit sanchars that happened in last few centuries, with only a very small percentage being written about, and that too the notable ones involving military aspect, the majority of Sikhs would not have even been accurately depicted. How can you say there were no women, when there is so much history not even mentioned??

1 hour ago, Ragmaala said:

lol if you over-think that much this phenomenon might not even happen again, so stop rationalizing, acknowledge and move on, its nothing...just be thankful, and

and I can sense some pride in your writing...you seem to talk a lot about your accomplishments openly. Not sure if you mean it that way but it does come off as kinda full of yourself..or I could be wrong.

How is beai freaked out about something showing pride?? lol I was worried it was something medical and not related to meditation / simran!  I just wanted to know if anyone else heard the same things.... or do you think I should get checked out??

31 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Yes bro there is not doubt that both Mata Sahibs were leading from the front. But even during this time, there is nothing to suggest that females formed any part of the Panj.

There's nothing to suggest they didn't either...

30 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

 

You are in the navy yes? Do all the people who form the naval defence forces perform exactly  the same duties as you? I mean come on! There are so many different aspects of forming a defence force from front line fighters, to medics to cooks, to admin and so on. Do all of the people know all of these duties or do they specialise in one particular area? Or are there differences?

I'[m sure you get the point I'm making,

So you in your OWN words, just justified the existence of DIFFERING REHET MARYADAS for different groups!  Those of us who are not Nihang or DDT, follow Sikh Rehet Maryada! AKJ follow their own (which is basically SRM with a few tweaks). I don't care if people want to follow a specific sect themselves... but when they make statements that something is 'against Gurmat' then please all I ask is to specify that it's according to THAT SECTs RM that you basing this on, and at least acknowledge that there are others with differing views.  And I will do the same from now on... can you agree???

You just said that differences in RMs exist for different groups. Right! So, when you say that women can not be in Panj Pyaras, then specify that it's THOSE sects who that rule applies to, and NOT others, who follow a different RM. That's all I ask! Same with menstruation... if a Bibi wants to belong to DDT, then she obviously has to follow DDTs RM which says she can't do seva. But don't try to say it's a rule for ALL Sikhs as SRM does not specify this at all.  Please don't make this an SRM slamming thread. As you know that MANY MANY Sikhs are subject to it. Just please make distinctions when you say something is anti-gurmat specify which RM you are referring to. And we can all live in peace!

3 minutes ago, Ragmaala said:

 is just findiing excuses to prove that mens beard is dirtier than menstruation.

Well.... they are!!! LOL Test bacteria in blood from menstruation (while still in the body), vs the average beard.  Which do you think will turn out to be dirtier??

8 hours ago, Sat1176 said:

Fear is totally a natural response to something you have never experienced before. Keep up the simran and you will be really lucky if they come back again.

Its not that I feared these sounds...I have heard sounds before like roaring, static, and other times very similar to the sounds NASA recorded during flyby to Jupiter... like weird electromagnetic wave type sounds. But this was different and first time I heard it. I didnt fear it as such but what freaked me out was that they did not stop immediately when I got up and stopped simran. They had gotten loud actually. And I could still hear it when I was walking around for a few mins! Then they faded over about 15 mins. So thats why I was a bit freaked out. I thought I was actually experiencing tinnitus or auditory hallucinations or something...

Please note, I prefer bearded men - which is a given... but since weère on subject of cleanliness (I think beard bacteria is actually turning out to be worse than any issue with menstruation!)
 

"UPDATE (5/4/15, 3:28 p.m. ET): Turns out the beard bacteria situation is worse than we initially thought. ABC affiliate KOAT Action 7 News wanted more info on the topic, so they asked microbiologist John Golobic to swab and analyze beard hair from several willing participants.

The news report from last Thursday (April 30) reveals some of the beards contained bacteria “similar to those found in fecal matter.” Golobic told the news channel that if particles like these were present in our water, the water facility would have to be closed down and disinfected.:"  http://www.mtv.com/news/2106390/beard-study-germs-bacteria/

The blood from menstruation however, is essentially same as while in the body, until it comes out and is exposed to air é external bacteria. So internal protection renders the issue moot. Beards however... eeewwwwww.  Bacteria profiles the same as fecal matter??!! yucky! If you are concerned about cleanliness and uncleanliness while doing seva of SGGSJ, maybe all Singhs should refrain from it with those bacteria farms hovering over our Gurus pages! 

"Carol Walker, a consultant trichologist from the Birmingham Trichology Centre, said having facial hair can lead to more frequent skin infections and to germs being passed on to others. Beards harbour more germs because facial hair is courser than other hair, so traps dirt and germs more easily, she explained. She told MailOnline: 'Beard hair; it’s courser. It has the shape of a bayonet, a round, convexed bottom and then comes up the side to a point. ‘It becomes curly and smooth, it tends to have more bends and kinks which trap dirt. ‘The cuticles on the hair – which are like layers of tiles on a roof - trap the germs and grease ‘Hair around nostrils and mouth is well-placed to harbour bacteria. She added that people have a habit of over-handling their beards, meaning they can spread bacteria to their mouths. She said: ‘If their hands are dirty, they transfer dirt from their hands on to their face and mouths. ‘If someone eating dairy products it can get stuck in their beard and become a bit rancid. ‘There can be a lot of Stepholococci [a group of bacteria that can cause illness] if someone’s got a cold.’ She has noticed people developing skin conditions due to their facial hair. She said: ‘Some people get skin infections, caused if they have a lot of scale build up or eczema from the bacteria in their beard. ‘If someone has a cold, a runny nose it can trickle down and be trapped in the nose , mustache, beards hair. Food drink can dribble down too.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2991865/Are-beards-unhygienic-Facial-hair-riddled-bacteria-spread-germs-trigger-infections-experts-claim.html#ixzz3zmUJcl5e

9 minutes ago, kdsingh80 said:

Your anti men thinking is just amazing.There may be women that are willing to produce 5 kids but there are hardly any men who would want so many kids and then pay their expenses. men don't have trees where money grow.The society

THIS WAS MY POINT! (sarcasm) Most people can not afford that many children! And spouses will not just stop being close to each other because they have the few kids they can afford / want. I wasn't saying that either men OR women want that many children or can afford them! I was being sarcastic! But having only a few children doesn't mean that the husband and wife will be able to stop being close to one another! Sex is an expression of love between married couple. 

As far men will not stop sex you just portray all men as sex hungry beasts. what if wife go ill after 2-3 year marriage. good men always be with their wife irrespective whether they can have sex with her or not

This was not against the husband OR wife!  See your thinking is that sex=lust/bad, so you think I must be saying that because a husband would not want to stop having sex with his wife it must mean that I think he is a beast? Nope! Because I do NOT equate sex = lust. I equate sex for only physical pleasure outside marriage = lust. I consider sex between husband and wife to be a divine and sacred act that brings them closer and creates a bond. Big difference. Husband and wife who love each other will naturally want to express that love physically by being close. Just because they have their 1 or 2 children, you can't expect that a husband who loves his wife to not want to express that love physically right?? You have to stop thinking of sex as BAD! Misuse of sex is bad... but in setting of marriage it is closest we can get to mimicking 'merging' with another entity. And so, it can be a hugely divine act! Waheguru created sex, and if it were for only procreation, then spouses in love would not have a natural desire to be together, and every single time they coupled she would be pregnant. And then, once pregnant, there would be no more desire for coupling. But we know couples still do it when she is pregnant. Because it's an ACT OF LOVE!  Please stop thinking everything I say is anti-male! It's not!

BTW I am not against using protection

54 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

IMHO using science to prevent menses is as wrong as using science to inject animals with artificial steroids to make them produce more milk and meat.

Gurmat does not approve of family planning be they injections, or coils or condoms etc.

And there you have it!  I guess women (should they get married) our only purpose is to be a breeding machine... pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy.  Since a woman's whole adult life from marriage to menopause would be filled with either pregnancy or breastfeeding, a career would be virtually impossible. (because I mean show me ANY male... Singh or not... who would stop having sex with their wife after one or two kids...  if you think you can Chatanga, you're very very wrong! Sex is a natural part of bonding between husband and wife, in itself can be a divine act. take it away and they may as well not be married. Show me ANY SINGH who would stop relations with his wife as soon as she is pregnant, and will stop having sex with his wife alltogether after they have the kid/s they want!! You will NEVER find one)  I'll leave it up to you to tell all the Sikh women in the world including @GurpreetKaur that they don't need any education because their "place" is stuck home barefoot and pregnant their whole adult lives. (btw Gurpreet bhenji is an engineer, maybe you can tell her she didn't need to get her engineering degree because if she gets married she'll be either pregnant or breast feeding for the next 20 years!)  btw Pregnancy is very very hard on the woman's body! It's not a walk in the park with nausea, swelling, incontinence etc.  and you want all women to perpetually be in this state! To produce so many kids that you can't afford to feed them all... while you get to leave the house all day and leave her to deal with a bunch of squabbling kids. Right... sounds like a great life for women! NOT! 

Secondly, please don't just say something is against Gurmat. Show actual reference in Gurbani where it actually says this! I have never seen anything! Also, Sikh Rehet Maryada does not say anything either!  And any rehetnama etc around at the time of the Gurus would not have said anything at all on the subject because birth control was not available then.  So inclusion in any RM is only recent (at least as recent as when birth control became available).   btw the Gurus KNEW sex was a normal part of human existence. They also knew that completely refraining is near impossible for ANY human as avoiding it actually creates lust! Moderation in a marriage prevents lust. And by the way, sex between husband and wife as an expression of love is not the same as lust.  

I believe Akal Takht cleared this a few years ago: Birth control to prevent pregnancy so you can have illicit sex outside marriage is not allowed. Birth control as family planning between husband and wife IS allowed. Look around you, most Sikh families have 1 or 2 kids... maybe a 3rd if they can afford it.  If no birth control were used at all, most families would have  LOT more than that!  And you'd never see any Sikh women outside the house let alone having careers. 

And yes, prevention of cycles is perfectly safe!!! Its been proven! Why go through a cycle if you don't plan on having children anyway? Lots of woman have pain etc during that time, and this stops it. You are saying they should just endure the pain? You should not even be commenting on it being a male. You will NEVER EVER know the burden placed on women. Waheguru gave us science.... hey getting older and having heart problems etc is natural too...  should we stop giving people high blood pressure medications etc too? 

Just to let you know, yes its perfectly safe to wear menstrual cups for 12 hours. And its perfectly hygienic (being invented by a doctor!!!) 

Do what you want... none of it affects me anyway as nearly my entire adult life I have been on hormonal meds which stops cycles all together. Not for birth control (although they are birth control) but simply because being military and being at sea for long periods, its more convenient not to even have a cycle! Unless you are planning for a baby why even bother with menstruation at all!!??? So for me it never would have been an issue. I have not had a cycle since my teens and I am 40! There, there's the solution to rid women of all this uncleanliness!  Go on hormonal birth control unless actively planning for a baby! Then the SInghs won't think we are so unclean! 

What I am talking about is your (and several others views here) about uncleanliness etc are not actual "rules" in Sikhi (they are attitudes and opinion mostly from the Singhs) so they should not be touted as actual RULES when they are not. And Gurbani speaks against idea that menstruation is anything bad anyway.

You can try telling someone they are "not allowed" to do something and weather you are telling them they are "impure" or "unclean" doesn't matter because the issue is you are still excluding them for YOUR perceived ideas of what uncleanliness is! You want to talk smell??? The far worst smell I have smelled at the Gurdwara were men with body odour! Or how about people wear so much perfume or cologne they give you a headache? How about people with bad breath? 

Here is something member Sukrit Kaur said last time this subject came up: The Gurus were married... SGGSJ is NO different than the human Gurus right? Do you think the Gurus told their wives to stay away from them during this time?? Certainly they KNEW about menstruation since they also had children with their wives! And something so important as menstruation being a taboo for being around the Gurus / SGGSJ which IS GURU, certainly they would have written this somewhere in Gurbani!?? But the only things in Gurbani are actually speaking AGAINST such nonsense.  

I know I can't change your mind.. all you think is "gross" about women natural body functions and Singhs keep using it as a reason to discriminate such that some of the Bibis are starting to think they are gross themselves because they hear it so much from you guys! It's really sad!  Live how you want... but I think you are missing the point.  Waheguru Ji doesn't care about all this.  You can wash all you want, and will still be covered by MILLIONS of bacteria!!! Virtually EVERY human has eyelash mites, tiny particles of skin fall off constantly. And beards??? Beards were tested and found to be bacteria farms!!! And you are worried about a Bibi who might be menstruating and using proper hygiene products?? LOL

1 hour ago, Lucky said:

Like lots of bells/tambourine/shainey sounds....occurring at quite a fair and constant frequency?

 

I don't know what a shainey is... but yes like bells thousands all being rung at once and continuously... Only other thing I can compare it to is maybe a bunch of wine glasses with people running their fingers around them all at the same time. You know that high pitched resonance that happens when someone runs a wet finger around a crystal wine glass? Like that but many at once. Or bells.... its like the resonance of the bells more than the striking sound. Sound of a tibetan singing bowl is close too... (actually I have one of those here).  So it's like pure resonance I am hearing and not something being struck or shaken....if that makes sense. 

40 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

not to be controvertial, but before 1900, did women even take Amrit at all?

Yes, there are accounts of many men AND women who took amrit on the first day in 1699, including witnessed by a spy to the moghul emperor who specifically wrote he witnessed thousands of men AND women that day take baptism by the sword.  Also, there are references to when Mai Bhago took amrit for sure.  So yes women did take amrit.  What are you trying to suggest? That Sikh religion was meant for only males?? 

We all visit astral plane every time we sleep... and we all have opportunity to visit there while in 'awake' state.