paapiman

No they can't!!

Or else one says "they do yoga" taken alone it seems as if yoga is condoned. 3HO does this all the time!!! But reading the full shabad it becomes apparent that it later says all these things (including the yoga) did not get them to God.

Anyway late here I have to sleep.

WJKK WJKF

Yes they can. I just found one.

eyih iB dwiq qyrI dwqwr ]

This tuk can stand alone and can also be linked to the previous tuk. If it stands alone, then it means that all gifts to all beings have been given by the Lord.

I think you know the common arth of it.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

So if people actually believe that then is being born a woman a punishment? Did your mom think maybe she did something wrong in a past life to be born as s female where she was put into such subordinate position?

Sister, I think you are getting emotional. A son respects his mother, the same way the wife respects her husband. To talk about subordination does not make sense.

We are only supposed to Matha tek SGGSJ only!!!

We can matha tek anyone as long as we do it with the right intention. The intention is the key. Is it giving respect or worship? When we matha tek to SSGGSJ, we do it with the intention that he is the incarnation of God. When we do it to our mothers, the intention changes.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Either way it's using sati as a metaphor for working through challenges in life without giving up and taking easy way out. Instead we have to deal with them and live on while putting trust in God as our Husband Lord.... ALL of us male and female as we are ALL soul brides.

There is no way reading the context of the shabad to suggest that it's telling women to treat their husbands as a God lol

I think many Gurbani tuks can stand alone too without uthanka or context.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

I will look to my husband as my equal and he will look to me as his equal. And we will both be Gursikhs. There is no hierarchy in marriage. He is not above me and I am not above him. Gurbani tells us the divine light is in ALL equally

Look above I posted the shabad

Also, just for your info, there are Sikh women out there who consider their husbands as lords or believe in the concept of Pativarta dharam. My mother is one such example. She used to bow to my father (like one does to Gursikhs, parents, etc) when she was young.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

She surrenders to her husband lords will (God) that her physical husband died and she must live on and not burn herself on his funeral pyre. She lives through the grief and putting her trust in God as her 'husband lord'

In a larger context it's telling all of us men and women to not give up when there is a challenge but to go on in spite of it while putting trust in God to whom we are ALL soul brides.

Sati does not only refer to the practice of women being thrown into fire. There are different types of Sati. The foremost Sati is a lady who will die, on hearing the death of her husband. Example of this, was the wife of Bhagat Jaidev jee Maharaaj. I think the lowest level is a woman who does not commit adultery.

Similarly, there are different levels for a Jati, which pertains to males.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Glad you brought up that misinterpreted tuk! It does NOT say to look at her husband as God!!! If you read the full shabad in context you'd know it was speaking against practice of sati by Hindu women. Instead it says to view GOD as your husband, (husband lord) that is the true sati by living through the grief instead of killing herself.

You can't take one liners and twist to suit your need! The full shabad itself gives the context.

Please don't tell me u expect your wife to look at you as God??? Please don't say this...

Haha.. nah sister, I don't expect my wife to look upon me as God as I am a big sinner. I will respect her a lot, in case I get married (hopefully I don't get married). But I expect you to look upon your husband as a demi-god atleast, especially if he is a Gursikh.

I will try to find out the uthanka for that shabad. More research is needed here on my part.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Sure! I care about my Mom, my brothers sisters etc. But I could never achieve that one soul in two bodies connection. If you want the same relationship with your spouse that you have with your Mom or sister then fine! I want that deeper one soul in two bodies connection, or else why even marry someone? I can love and care about my Mom etc.

The relationship with the spouse will be that of a female friend, which is not possible for a Singh with any other woman. So it will be different from the relationship with one's mother or sister.

Also, for procreation, at times the sexual act will have to be performed many times before the wife gets pregnant. This type of physical closeness is not possible in any other sort of relationship.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

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

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

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

How do we know he did 'not allow' women???

All we know is that in oral history, it was passed down that there were no women. Maybe none ever volunteered?? Maybe those women did not want to do that seva?

And here we are again back to the menial task of cooking for women... hahahah seems cooking, serving men and cleaning and having babies is all we are good for.

It doesn't mean he did not allow them. Did you hear him personally say that no women could??? Did anyone for that matter? Is it written anywhere by Guru Ji that he specifically SAID women were not allowed??? I challenge you to show me!

He DID however, write his 52 hukams AFTER 1699, in which he contained all the important points... yet if this was such an important thing to him to discriminate against women... then why did he not include a statement restricting women???

Absence of proof is NOT proof of absence!!!

Just because we have no evidence that it DID happen, is NOT proof that it was not ALLOWED to happen!! It very well COULD have happened! There COULD have been women as Panj Pyares. Do we even know much about the Panj Pyares after the first day? Who were they etc? How do we know for sure none ever had women? History could have been written to say 'five Sikhs' in which case we'd never know. Or men who had something against women, could have chosen to not specifically state women participated. We will never know. But absence of proof is not proof of absence. The only way wed know for sure is if SGGSJ says something about restricting women (which it doesn't) or if Guru Ji had written to restrict women in his 52 Hukams (which he didn't). I think that leaves it pretty open ended! ALl else is speculation... by MEN!

Further he said "Whenever and wherever five baptised Sikhs come together, the Guru would be present" not five sikh men...

And once again... Panth was given authority to make decisions... so SRM is valid!

So according to you, all the Sikh historians,gursikhs,scholars, etc of that time forgot to mention about such a revolutionary event while they mentioned about women doing seva in langar, listening to katha, kirtan, etc, which were in a sense, less revolutionary.

I challenge you to find any source of information (you will never find it) which says that women were in Punj Pyaray during tenth master's time. At Hajoor Sahib, women do not even qualify for khande da amrit.

We can keep debating about this for a long time, but I don't think there will be a conclusion. Let's go to the main source.

There is a clear tuk in Gurbani which states that a woman should look upon her husband as a Lord.

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥

Says Nanak, she who looks upon her husband as Lord

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 know there is a deeper meaning to it, but you cannot nullify the akhree arth of it as Gurbani is all truth. If you do not believe in this akhree arth, then you should not believe in akhree arths of all Gurbani tuks as many tuks have deeper meanings to it.

I challenge you to find a tuk in Gurbani which instructs a man to look upon his wife as a Goddess.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

SRM does not bar anyone from that! It's the absolute basic that should be followed. It doesn't mean that extra things are not allowed. If u want to do then do it!

How can the Panth accept a discriminatory document that puts mother sisters daughters as inferior?

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

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

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

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

In India due to old religious traditions and cultural influences many people believe strongly that sex is dirty. People have projected their personal biases to float the belief that Guru Nanak's sons were not born through sex. This belief is anti-gurmat and has no historical support. The Guru says very clearly:

ਜੈਸੇ ਮਾਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਬਿਨੁ ਬਾਲੁ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥

Without a mother or father there is no child; (SGGS 872)

Why would Guru contradict his own statement and have a child without a father? God is in all creation and all births happen in God's hukam (will). The Guru is the champion of hukam. He gave us the message to always live in Hukam. Why would Guru break God's hukam?

The tuk in Gurbani, related to father and mother is meant for us. Singh saab, please do not apply that tuk to guru saheb himself. Satguru jee is the incarnation of GOD. If modern science can create babies without male intervention, why cannot GOD do it?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

WJKK WJKF,

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

Let me ask you a question. How come the so-called SRM does not mention about Sampat paath? Sampat paath was taught to the Singhs by tenth master himself. How come, it is missing in the so-called SRM? How can the panth accept an incomplete document?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

P.S. - I am taking Amrit in Kashmir... and ALL Gurdwaras in Kashmir do not subscribe to the controversial 'orthodox' rhetnamas. ALL of the Gurdwaras there including the Historical ones follow only SRM. Not a single Gurdwara there uses GRM or any other Rehet Maryada. In fact at the state level, they agreed that ALL gurdwaras there follow only SRM) ...And the Gurdwara where I am taking it has had female Panj Pyares and since the day I am doing it, is being specially planned for me since I will be there only certain time... if I wish I can have females give me amrit... or a mix of both...

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

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Except that in physical birth BOTH men and women are needed. A woman can not make a baby by herself! Similarly, Spiritual rebrith should take BOTH. And if we are following original then why is it not reserved for a Singhni only to put the sugar puffs in the amrit and hold the iron bowl?? That was a woman in the original. And this has not been restricted for women only... Why are Singhs not told they may never put the sugar in the amrit?? (Since we are following the example of the first for all time) Should this duty not be reserved for only a woman? Shoudn't it be stated in GRM that ONLY a Singhni may do this if we are following original example??

Women have given birth to babies WITHOUT male intervention in the past. Foremost example of this is, Shromani Bhagat Baba Kabeer jee Maharaaj. Bhagat jee's mother was a virgin.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

We again have to disagree... I will never take Amrit from only Singhs who see me as inferior or not worthy.

Singhs never consider women as inferior or not worthy.

Think about it. To say that women can neever be Panj Pyares is the same as saying that women are not as high spiritually as men are.... because it would be saying that women absolutely REQUIRE men for their spiritual progression (because everyone must at some point receive Amrit correct??) while men do not require women at all. I do not believe that I am so beneath men, that I require men for my spiritual progression. I am not against men being Panj when I receive amrit... I am only against the suggestion that I REQUIRE males for my own spiritual progression. Its saying that women are not good enough to do it on their own.

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

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

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Khalsa jee, please read below the sakhi of Jin Datt. It is from a non-Sikh website but it should be an eye opener.

http://www.jainworld...irtues/ch16.asp

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

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

WJKK WJKF,

And again... as I said in another thread. Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave full authority on the panth to make decisions. Sikhi is able to evolve. So even if the original rhetnamas said those things about restricting women, there is no reason for Singhs to feel upset about women having equal status now in the present. If the panth decides that women should have equal particiaption now, then what happened way back when should not matter. So even DDT could change this. They do not need to follow one specific and old rhetnama. Guru Gobind SIngh Ji gave the panth authority to change it. So why won't they change their feelings on women?? And for some of them (even on this forum) their feelings about restricting Singhnis into inferior positions, they seem more passionate about that, than they are about stopping drug use in Punjab, etc. Why is that???

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

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

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

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

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

WJKK WJKF,

And DDT's GRM is not in line with Gurbani on equality of gender....

When I read SRM it seems closest to the ideals in SGGSJ. We may never have a fully unified RM because DDT won't budge on their views of women. Though I could see SRM having those two banis added... would that be enough? Probably not, because as I said, there are those Singhs who just don't want to even fathom seeing Singhnis as equals.

If it was ONLY about DDT, I would have thought about it. But all orthodox sects of Sikhism (DDT, Nanaksar, Nihangs, etc) have more or less the same views regarding women. How do you reply to that?

How can we start following sects/cults which started many years after the tenth master?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

You are aware that there is more one Splinter group or faction of DamDami Taksal, right? And they might have differences and opinions that may contradict each other.

If the GRM uses the word 'Singh' it doesn't mean it's Sexist, I'm pretty sure the original author didn't intentionally mean only one gender.

some Shudh and Gurvaak Rehatnamas and use words that typically denote masculinity, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Rehatnama is only speaking to Male Khalsas.

Good points Singh Saab.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

WJKK WJKF,

Sorry I got a bit carried away

No problem. Humans like me always make mistakes.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

No but you can eat plenty of things that will keep you healthy without having them taste good. Eating for pleasure is also discouraged... but we all do it. We all add masala to our curries, we all add sugar to our kheer. Pleasure is not bad. It's addiction to pleasure that is bad. I don't know why you think pleasure itself is a sin. God created pleasure as a gift... one that should be appreciated. But not taken for granted and abused.

Like our drug analogy. Sex between spouse if there was no pleasure at all, you'd be hard pressed to have any children. And the spouses would not be close as a family. The medicine, is that sex brings husband and wife together as one... and strengthens their bond. Abuse of sex however creates addiction to the mere physical pleasure of it, instead of the closeness and bonding between spouses. There is a huge difference.

We can agree to disagree....

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

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

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

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

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

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

3. Gurdwaras restricting women from having equal participation in religious duties... chaur sahib seva, taking hukam, participating in akhand paaths, kirtan, panj pyares etc. (even though these things have been explicitly clarified in the SIkh Rehet Maryada... which though some disagree with, is still the closest thing we have to panthic unified rehit maryada).

There is currently NO one Sikh Rehat Maryada. The so-called Sikh Rehat Maryada was not accepted by the panth.

How can the orthodox sects of Sikhism accept a maryada which takes out two main Gurbanees from the nitnaym? There are many more issues other than this. Please listen to the scholar below.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Eating pizza is a sin

We should eat leafs to sustain!!

Bro, I don't think we will be able to sustain a healthy body by eating leaves only.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

5. Women being told what to wear by Singhs who think they can wear anything. If a Singh is telling a Singhni to only ever wear salwar kameez, then he should only ever wear kurta pyjama. end of story. As long as clothing is modest and respectable, both men and women should be free to wear what they want. But I always see Singhs posing on Facebook photos flexing their muscles at the gym with bare arms and sometimes even chest. Yet those same Singhs are first ones to criticize a Singhni for merely wearing a pair of jeans with a modest kurti! If you are going to preach it, then practice what you preach!

I completely agree with you with regards to equality in clothing. Singhs must also dress appropriately and must NOT show their bodies and chest.

Clothing must be modest, covered, clean and NOT TIGHT (which prevents revealing body parts).

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

The sakhi is pasted below.

*Srimaan Sant Baba Nand Singh jee Maharaaj once told some women that there is no need for them to come to him. It would be enough for them to serve their husbands.* [1]

[1] - Sri Nanaksar Stairs to God

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh