truthseeker546

how much money do you think I should give?

ok

Thanks for all the advice !!! I'll just wear my suit. Can I wear my baseball cap? or does it have to be a religious type head gear? Umm is it OK if I don't prostrate to the Granth or actually take part in the ceremony? would that be seen as offensive? Should I take a gift for the bride and groom? like a toaster or something ? Are there any protocols I'm supposed to follow? I was told I shouldn't speak to the females as people might find that offensive - being a non sikh and all.... Should I congratulate the parents and family? someone else said I should take some Indian sweets?

Hi all, Been busy and away from this forum, my module on Sikhism was complete had no need to return to this forum. I have been invited to a Sikh wedding by a fellow colleague, not really sure what is expected of me. This would be my first Sikh wedding, I did ask my colleague what shall I do/bring/wear. She just said don't worry about it just come as you would to a normal wedding. I'm not sure if she was just being polite as I'm not a Sikh. So any advice ?

So not all 10 Gurus are mentioned in the SGGS, but are in the Dassam Granth. OK thanks. Yes I understand that all 10 are forms of the one God, as are the 24 Avtars. OK, when you say they are the forms of God, is this similar to say the Christians saying Jesus was God. (well son of God but I don't want to get into the trinity on this forum). I mean literally God in human form? If so do Sikhs believe all the 10 Gurus were born as God ?

you say" mostly" political. What's the religious difference between the two?

LOL @ " welcome to India" -

Thanks satkirin, I will read and try to understand your view and then get back to you.

@Paapiman. well it could be my brain, but i've come to a Sikh forum to try and understand. The reason I said I said SIKHISM has a problem of not defining what God is because there are so many interpretations of what you think God is. He is one, he can be many, He can't be born or die, but he was born and died several times. would be suprised if the Gurus had children normally (via sexual intercourse), they didn't have sexual intercourse. etc etc. these are all answers from Sikhs themselves. you can read them on this forum. I ask simpl questions, and some of you guys start arguing amongst yourselves, which is proof that there is no clear cut answer to a lot of these fundamental questions. including defining what or who is God.

I'm not entirely convinced its all cultural, as seen by some many views by Sikhs on this forum. It's also religious interpretation. some Sikhs defiantly have a certain way of looking of the male / female dynamic and it's only equal in name. " Sikh history went through one of roughest war history, we fought so many wars against oppressive mughal Islamic fascism and recent history hindu goi fascism. We hardly any time to self reflect fix minor issues, fix out of balance patriarchy issues. Nevertheless, its much better than fascist men in saudi arabia who oppress their women where their women subjected to slave systematic torture of saudi women to feel power." Not all of Sikh history is filled with wars. Let's not get carried away. Your telling me in the last 500 years, Sikhs have been so occupied in wars they couldn't "minor" issues. And yes I may well be better then Saudi Arabia. The interesting difference between Islam (in Saudi Arabia) and Sikhism (in India) is that women had far more freedom and rights before the rise of Wahabism about 100 years ago. As opposed to Sikhism in India where you have more freedoms in the last 100 years. Both are due to cultural and sometimes radical interpretations of a faith. I know about extreme Islamic interpretations, wanted to see Sikhisms also. Thanks to this forum, I have been seeing a few.

I thought I was doing research by join a Sikh forum and asking about Sikhism. I posted it here because I thought it was against extremism. Pulling out swords over a mike is pretty extreme. but if you don't want to mention groups because it will cause problems on the forum then fine.

So when you say you use the term truth not God, why can't the same interpretation be applied to the 10 gurus. They were true teachers as opposed to Gods? seems like were cherry picking definitions when it suits us, aren't we? ps. just out of interest, what do you mean by theological difference between abhramic version of god and truth.?

Also it has come to my attention from another thread that the last Guru, the living guru, SGGS is considered God. So harming the book can harm God? Is this a view shared by Sikhs?

Oh so it was over a speech, was this between two sects or two different political groups? Who were the two groups involved? and were the main leaders of these two groups involved?

Thanks it's now open again. Please keep on topic - So from what I recall my last question was : was it only Guru Nanak that was cited in the SGGS as being God or all 10 gurus by name. And someone also quoted as Guru Arjun also in the SGGS as being God. So that begs the question why not the other 8? Guru Angad, Amr Das and Ram Das came before Guru Arjun, surely they should have been mentioned if not all of them. So is it true to say only 2 Gurus were mentioned to be God in the SGGS, the other 8 are interpreted as being God? Also does the SGGS itself mention there are only 10 Gurus or mention all 10 of them?

I understand N30 Singh. since you hear now can you open my other post Gurus and Gods please. I opened the post and it was closed due to other people arguing on it. Yes I understand that for Sikhs its the living Guru, I'm fine with that and I respect that. I would never disrespect any religious book. I'd question it but not disrespect anyone's faith. My questions which you nicely avoided were : Q1 - If Sikhs believe the SGGS is the last living Guru, then does burning it harm the Guru or God? Say if a non Sikh like me has a copy of the SGGS, then say the copy of the SGGS is old and tattered. I put it into the paper recycling basket, the book gets recycled. Is that harmful to God? or disrespectful to Sikhs? Q2 - If a non Sikh country like say France that values freedom of speech, and often goes out of its way to mock religions and religious figures was to burn or disrespect SGGS, what would the Sikh response in the west be ?Would you want to kill the people behind the insult. I'm not going to judge anyone, just understanding something - so no need for political answers.

I recall seeing this on the news, when two opposing Sikh sects starting to fight each other in the golden temple during an anniversary of operation blue star. I didn't quite understand what lead these two groups to literally draw swords in the holiest site in Sikhism. Can anyone tell me. No doubt there must have been posts on this forum during that time, couldn't find any, If there is can someone point post the link here, YouTube link of the event: It is also my understanding that the people that started the flighting were the leaders of each sect? over who should speak first or something like that. Is that true? Thanks

so there isn't any evidence of rape. I don't think "I heard from a gurumukh" counts. So what if a non Sikh burns a copy of SGGS, would Sikhs then torture and kill the person? How would Sikhs react if Charlie Hebdo had burn't a copy of SGGS in protest of freedom of speech? I understand some Sikhs believe the SGGS to be the last guru but for everyone else, it's just another book. Ps. So do I take from this that burning the SGGS, Skihs believe you actually hurt the guru? ie. God ??? maybe off topic but if the answer is yes I'll update this with my Gods and Gurus post when it gets open again.

@ SatKirin - that's great ! you go girls. This is however in Canada, where I'm sure western women liberation has had more of a positive impact than Sikhism per say. You see the same kind of thing in almost all religions on small scales in the west. and like you say in your post - women made history - in 1999 ??? when did Sikh history start and why did it take so long for this to be achieved. why do late for a religion that claims women had equal rights from the beginning. and have women been equal position in places of real authority. The 5 takhts in India for example.

lol at Kdsingh80 - well welcome to the modern world, where people ask questions and don't just blindly accept whatever your personal beliefs are. If your religion is claiming to be fairest religion when it comes to gender, people will put it to the test. If you claim that your religion is for the entire human race, people will question it. Do you really expect someone like me (a non Sikh) to simply believe that God decided to come in the form of 10 Indians in the 14 centenary, back to back not going to different places or times. (that are clear) ... or 24 forms again in all in India. what about the other 6 Billion people on the planet? This is going off topic, the post is about women in Sikhism.

Found in Persian literature....from the scholar Ghulam Mohyiuddin, an emissary to the mughal emperor, who observed the first amrit sanchar first hand, vaisakhi 1699: "Though orthodox men have opposed him, about twenty thousand men and women have taken baptism of steel at his hand on the first day.The Guru has also told the gathering: I'll call myself Gobind Singh only if I can make the meek sparrows pounce upon the hawks and tear them; only if one combatant of my force equals a lakh and a quarter of the enemy." I would like to see the original word that is in Persian which was used for " baptism" - I think the Persian word could have been " wafadari " or " beyet" which are polysemous, it can mean - allegiance or oath depending on context. Also what does Baptism of steel mean. hows this different from any normal baptism, to me may mean more towards an oath - oath of steel seems more Persian type wording to me. I may be wrong but it's an interesting question. at N30 singh . Yes I know women were involved in "some" public jobs, such as the masnad - and in every religion some women - normally related to some central figure are venerated. However my question was more to do with have women in Sikhism been given equality since the 10 gurus. I've already asked about why there were no female gurus, (and yet we have female avtars in the 24 avtars) and even a young child of 5 to be a guru but no women - this is simply explained as leela from God. No other explanation. Moving forward you have certain figures who wrote the Rahit namas - how many females wrote these or all of them are men? umm how many head granthis have there been in the golden temple that were female. In fact I know in Christianity recently women have been allowed to become priests/bishops - don't think we'll ever see a female pope any time soon. But what about Sikhism, I haven't heard of women even now in recent times being the head of Gudwarars or the main religious authoritative figures. why is this when Sikhism claims to be more towards women and male equality than other faiths. I know females in Sikhism can be granthis, but this is not really an authoritative role as being head granthi or being the chairman of the SPGC or how many female Jathedars have there been of the Akal takht? I know Jagir Kaur was the first female to be elected as president of the SGPC however this is very very recently in 2004. And she was the chief of the committee since 1999. So am I right in saying Sikhism didn't have these women in these prominent roles until after western women movements had taken root?

Again, this question has been answered. Did you read all the posts on this topic properly? Yes I did. It didn't make sense the first time, nor the second. The quotes provided were very clear for a normal person to understand. You have full rights to disagree to it. I guess I'm not normal. By normal if you mean someone who accepts a certain narrative without questioning it.

First of all thanks Paapiman for the link. So Sikhism has to Bhai Gurdas, one at the time of the 6th guru and one at the 10th Guru. Umm as for Satkirin post. As a non sikh I question all aspects of Sikhi to get a better idea. Not to offend but to improve my own knowledge. Out of all the people posting here, I like her posts the most as it seems she thinking about various things and not just accepting the status quo. To give an example of other posts that are not thought out: I find the following arguments so dumb I’ve stopped addressing them; “We are god but we are not pure like god cause we still have vikaars” If we are all God but not pure like him – either God can be impure or we are not like God. Two statements are contradictory. Anyone can see that, “Also, Islam does not believe in incarnation of God. If you believe, Satguru jee is not an incarnation of God, you are following the Muslim ideology.” I don’t even know how to respond to this. Just ignore. Keeping in mind I don’t want to go off topic – the statement about God being all of us is confusing for me, as is a formless God being in human or Hindu deity form. Let’s take this view that God is all of us. Not in us or inspires us but IS all of us. Having different projections of his true self. What does this actually mean? When two armies are fighting each other that mean God is at war with himself? Or when a man and a woman make love, that’s actually God “enjoying” himself. That theology has its own set of problems. As does God having 10 or 24 forms. I think Sikhism fundamentally has a problem of not defining what God is, thus the contradictions and differences of opinion. PS If any admin is reading this, in particular n30 S!ngh – can you open my last post – Gurus and Gods. I had lots of questions but due a discussion that went off topic (not by me!) the thread was closed. Tried PM-ing N30 but there was error that stated I couldn't. Please open that thread for me. Thanks

This is interesting for someone looking from outside the faith. I studied women in religion at University. Comparing different religions on how they theologically and historically have viewed and treated women. Although I never looked into Sikhism, I can say like most religions, there is a big difference between opposing views on women. Also there is a contradiction between what the a religions founders says to what historical narratives tell us. The brutal truth is apart from a view pockets of certain cultures, women liberation didn't happen until secular western movements bought it to the worlds attention. As for Sikhism in particular, in the 400 year history after the 10 gurus, has a female Sikh ever taken a position of authority, either in the main golden temple or say any of the 5 main takhts. Also I have read in a few places women didn't take amrit until much later in Sikhi, some people have rejected this view - however historical evidence points towards the former rather then the later. Anyone have any proofs on this matter? Also, I understand this maybe a cultural aspect as opposed to Sikism, but as the vast majority of Sikhs are Indians, the culture expects the women to be a housewife, servile to the husband. Certain quotes like that of " your husbands are your lords" don't really help. So apart from the lip service that most religions tend to spew out " that we are all equal" - historically is sikhism any different from any other religion?

so when a Human being does something wrong / evil. That's in fact a part of God that is doing so ?