JasperS

I'm guessing she doesn't come here anymore? But I found this on Sikh Sangat someone posted it there. At least I think she is the same person?

Something for thought if you are against the cruelty to animals in the meat industry, and this is from india too. https://m.yourstory.com/2017/03/dairy-industry/

If they had such power to remove sexual intimacy from the equation, did they also remove the rather traumatic and painful aspect of birth from the woman as well? Maybe they beamed the baby outside the body so she didn't have to endure labour or pushing. Since a baby has to be born through a sexual organ normally and since some seem to think that the Gurus would never be associated with anything sexually, then do you think the baby was kind of beamed outside the woman's body so she also wouldn't have to sully herself with using her sexual organs to push the baby out? Or did the Mother not matter? For the record since the Gurus taught that marital relations were not only ok but a natural part of marriage, I do not see how they would then consider it to be a nasty thing when it came to themselves. There is no shame or impurity associated with sexual reproduction. Kaam is not sex. Someone can be affected by kaam for gambling for example. And marital sex in right conditions, done between a committed spouse can also exist without kaam. To suggest that the Gurus would not have any relations with their own wives, suggests that there is something inherently impure or nasty about it. But the Gurus never contradicted themselves did they? So then why would they not advocate asceticism? And we know they did not. Guru Nanak spoke against asceticism as a means to find God. And if they thought sexuality was so nasty for themselves, wouldn't they also relieve their wives of the correspondingly nastiness and impurity of the birth, not to mention the physical trauma and pain? This sounds off to me. Not to mention against what is written in gurbani about marriage and birth which are both seen as sacred.

bro there are some Singhs with not too much up there naturally! I'm sure we all know someone!

Some women also just brush their eyebrows and maybe use some sort of hairspray to keep them somewhat shaped but don't pluck them. My wife (amritdhari) uses a brush to keep them looking neat but she doesn't remove them or shape them that way.

I find it very fascinating. While I don't think that DMT would help anyone who doesn't already have spiritual practice and discipline, I think a natural way to increase levels may help someone who already has had some progress in that area. Did you see the movie based on the book?

paapiman, one should not be doing any sargun pooja or visualizing any "body" in relation to Waheguru: 1. Gurbani says Waheguru is formless 2. Gurbani says ALL forms are within Waheguru, therefore 3. Gurbani also says Waheguru is both the male AND the female, in fact 4. Gurbani tells us Waheguru is ALL there is. 5. Gurbani tells us No single part of creation (no single form) can be wholly Waheguru 6. Gurbani tells us EVERY part of creation IS Waheguru not just human male and female, but all the animals, plants, minerals, planets, stars, stardust, every single atom. 7. Further Gurbani says that NO ONE can imagine Waheguru and one who tries will always fail. Therefore if someone is trying to visualize a male human thinking that is Waheguru they are seriously missing the mark. I get it though, you want some privilege over others and think that your body makes you closer to Waheguru. This is very superiority thinking no different than Brahmans thinking those born in low caste make them further away from our Creator while the Brahman gets to enjoy high life ad be treated as being closer to God. You are completely disrespecting all our sisters by doing so. Waheguru is not a body, but IS ALL bodies. Finally, Waheguru is ONEness. You can't have sargun expression without the nirgun it manifests from. sargun or manifest creation survives only through duality. duality includes everything that was split apart. But Waheguru is not the duality but the ONEness. One who tries to put any label or visual on Waheguru has already failed because they are trying to equate only a small tiny part of the creation as the Creator when they (you) are missing that everything you see and experience while here is ALL Waheguru, but Waheguru is even much more than that. There are countless worlds, countless levels of existence beyond this one which also contain countless lifeforms all having different natures of existence (who knows maybe there are multiple genders beyond male and female even), so many and so fantastical that no creature in any part of the creation could ever comprehend and would go insane to try and grasp it. It's enough to marvel at the possibilities from this perspective and trust what is written in gurbani.

For true hallucinogens, the experiences generated would be false (hallucinations of the physical brain) so of course they would be detrimental. But DMT is a little bit more interesting. First of all, it's not actually a drug per say. It's produced in your own brain, and released in small amounts every night when you sleep and is believed to be partly responsible for dream imagery but it gets more interesting. It's released in huge amounts only twice in your life, at birth, and at death. One has to ask why. One doctor who researched it extensively believes it's the 'spirit molecule' and is the link between the physical body and nonphysical world. People who volunteered in his study described experiences which all seemed to suggest a feeling of having the veil of the physical lifted away and they could connect with, and see the truth and not only connect with it, but feel one with it. You can read his book here for free: http://www.organiclab.narod.ru/books/DMT-The-spirit-molecule.pdf Note that I am not in any way suggesting to experiment with it as it is illegal in many areas, and not enough is known about it. But just wanted to mention it's interesting and is believed to be what those who are in deep meditative states who have powerful experiences, this is the chemical they are causing to be produced in the brain by their deep meditation. So it's not just a drug creating fake hallucinogenic imagery but could be a piece of the puzzle as to how our physical body can interact with whats beyond the physical. In any case the research in the book is quite interesting.

I would say that it's a backup in nature. If something happens to the Mother, or if the Father is left alone stranded with a child, the appropriate hormone can be stimulated simply by the infant suckling. I remember a story actually where a man was stranded on an island with his infant and the Mother was lost in the boat wreck, and it was several weeks before they were rescued. To soothe the crying infant the father let it suckle him, and after awhile he actually produced milk, as in real milk which sustained the infant. So we actually do have the proper anatomy and the function is there although dormant. I know that will gross out poor paapiman who seems to view anything female related as disgusting. The way I look at it, if the function and possibility and anatomy are there, then Waheguru obviously put it there for a reason, or else we would have been born without nipples!

So please tell me then brother, are you saying souls which get a female body are lower status than we are? If so, then you have to qualify why. I don't think gurbani says anywhere that being born female is result of any past sin. (I am well aware of the passage where it says that a man who thinks of women (in sexual sense) at death will come back as prostitute, but that is a specific situation where women are exploited, and the one guilty of that exploitation what better punishment than to experience what it's like to be on the receiving end of that same exploitation. Same as a slave owner a fitting punishment would be to experience being a slave. This is not saying being a woman in general is a lower status than males. Just like saying a slave is not in a lower status. It's the ones doing the exploiting who are guilty.) Other than that Gurbani says akal purakh is both the male AND the female. Gurbani also says for US as in all of us who walk the life of a gurmukh, to see all equally. I don't think you are following that. Gender matters only on superficial things. Yes you are correct! This HUMAN body was given and is our chance to merge with the one! Notice it does not say this male human body? It says this human body. The reason why a human body is required is because its only through this developed of consciousness that we can contemplate creation, creator, and our purpose. The animals are unable to do this because of lack of higher reasoning. They can certainly reason as my naughty little moggie will prove, but higher reasoning is not provided more to one gender over the other init? Being of medical background I have perspective on biology, and gender is only required for procreation. (the proof is that some species do exist which procreate asexually, snails for one) And the reason why gender was even needed was that genetically speaking, asexual reproduction is unreliable to prevent errors in the DNA the more complex a species becomes, requiring diversity of genetic material. This does not establish hierarchy though as both genders are equal halves of the same whole, the human species. Just like yin and yang can not be in a hierarchy, they must be in balance, so to the genders. As long as hierarchy exists in any state we will never achieve balance. But proof is in gurbani. If gurbani is telling us that male and female are equal and moreover that we are to TREAT male and female equally (and you can not contest this fact) then how can you argue against gurbani? How can you blatantly ignore what is written in guru granth sahib? How can you still think females are lower status than males? Anyway I wanted to stay out of these conversations so that's my last word on that. It seems all these type of conversations turn into full out argument and it seems this forum is not too open to this subject. So my final comment on this matter, is I agree totally with what Lucky Ji said, the gender of the Gurus was inconsequential. Their body was a vehicle that we could interact with. The gender of that body at that time I imagine had to be male only for cultural reasoning, I mean look at even now, you flat out refuse to see your sisters on equal level with you, so imagine at that time if light of Guru Nanak Dev Ji had come in a female body would any pig headed males have listened? (and I say pig headed in jest, as I know I can be sometimes just ask my wife )

I am sure Chatanga will squirm if/when he reads this. I work in the medical field, so the human body with all it's capabilities and wonders do not phase me at all. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-males-can-lactate/

I think you are seriously missing the mark. I don't think Lucky Ji meant that we have to walk around blind. We need to see to navigate. But we need to see beyond this illusion of Maya. If one arrives to Gurdwara in a red car and another in a blue car does it really matter? The point is they both were going to the same destination and neither should have limitations placed or be put into status hierarchies because of what vehicle they happen to drive to get there. The body is just a vehicle and we are the passenger inside it and the passengers are all the same. In the case of the Gurus, it was the light inside that we follow, the vehicle tat they happened to arrive in, is inconsequential and ceased to exist even in their case. (or are you trying to say a male body is some higher status than a female one? Because Gurbani tells us otherwise and without getting into details because I fear from recent events this forum is not open about these topics but you know its true) The light is the only permanence. If you can't see it, then it's your own issue. My comment to Lucky Ji stands.

In absolute concurrence with the above! Gurus were not the body, they were the jyot within.

Ahh but, but what is a soul? Is not Waheguru the soul behind every entity? Paapiman can you please describe for us the nature of nirgun / sargun, while justifying existence of separate souls? All is ultimately one, is it not? Is the manifest separate from the unmanifest? Who is the I AM behind every single entity?

Actually that was my point. I was trying to get him to think it out and come to that realization himself. Truthful living is not the same as telling the truth. So what you wrote above is exactly the point I was trying to make. It's not possible for a human to always speak the truth 100% of the time (in relative terms).I was just hoping everyone would read the scenario and come to that conclusion themselves thats why I worded it that way. So 100% in agreement with you!

But, alas you've already opened the door and the gun is in your face. If you tell the truth and the gunman goes to look for your brother, by the time you call police he would be dead. What do you do?

This is a tricky question. Guru Nanak said truth is higher than anything but higher than that is truthful living. So what is truthful living? Can someone tell the truth 100% of the time? Lets say you answer the door, and someone holding a gun asks for your brother (who is in the house) because they are going to kill him while saying they have no problem with you. Do you tell the truth and your brother gets shot? Or do you lie and save his life? Some would say well your brother is obligated to be a warrior and fight being he is a Sikh, but in this case with the gun drawn its already a lost battle. What do you do? (without trying to find loopholes in the scenario in order to try avoiding answering). And if you lie to save his life, is that considered a sin? Is truthful living the same thing as always telling to truth?

The only warnings I saw were that you thought WakeUp Ji was another member. What if you were wrong? And isn't a forum based on debate? Debates do tend to go in circles as everyone wants to try and sway each other to their points. To the same end, certain other users are guilty of that themselves just on the other side of the coin. Why is their view allowed to be stated over and over while the less popular one shunned? As for trolling I dont think he was trolling. He was just passionate about the subject. But it wasn't the only subject he was also discussing nature of reality with member bhagat singh and looked to me like he had a deep knowledge of vedic and sikh philosophy both. Could you maybe have made a mistake and are just seeing through anger? If you want a good example of trolling, I can name another member who has posted numerous derogatory posts about females (not go get back on that subject) but his posts were truly derogatory in some cases (after coming across a couple I did a search and found a bunch of threads he started with aims to just make females look bad in some sense.) And I don't think I have ever seen any warning to that member ( I won't mention name but if you don't know who I am talking about you can PM me). Why the double standard? I just think a forum should be public and anyone should be allowed to post as long as it's not derogatory or in a g-rated forum, sexually explicit, or promoting hate etc. Member WakeUp did none of that. No matter who they are (and forums by nature are anonymous, none of us are obligated to give our real life identities are we?) I just don't think he was doing anything wrong, nor anything that would be considered trolling. I don't think he was a she though as he mentioned a wife a couple of times. (Unless its a lesbian relationship??) But going in circles, is not as far as I can tell something considered against any forum rules and nearly all members are guilty of that because we all want to push our own views in hopes to convince others. If no debate was allowed, forums would be kind of boring don't you think? Anyway I hope he stays around regardless of being told he's unwelcome and that you can see maybe you were wrong. That's all.

Except, it's not really practical (or legal) to carry round a 3 foot sri sahib! But I agree that kirpans should be sharpened. I was just pointing out that often times, you won't get close enough to someone. You can't count count on a gun misfiring. More often it will fire properly. Not so much an issue here in UK but in america is a huge issue since everyone carry guns.

On that note, are there any good places to acquire a kirpan which is actually sharp / designed to be used practically? The only ones I know of which are genuinely sharpened and balanced are the ones by a 3HO member Jot Singh Khalsa, and they seem to have mixed reviews. The blades in order to be properly balanced and sharp were made with steel instead of sarbloh and that is a point of contention among many of those who have seen them in person. (sorry to be off topic but saw the opportunity to ask).

What is the date? Was this a pic from your family?

I'm not getting into the subject but, I just want to say that this sets a very bad example as a forum, to tell someone they are not welcome no matter who you think they are in real life. I mean I was accused of being the same person for awhile. But regardless of that fact, I think you are giving a bad message if only certain view points are welcome on this forum. I have the same view points as he does, and now wondering should I now be fearful that you will tell me to leave next? In any case just by how I was already accused of being this person already, you could easily be wrong. And if so, you just told a member they were unwelcome because they posted their own views. And even if they did turn out to be that member you keep mentioning, I searched for the name satkiran and not much came up for actual posts just a lot of mention from others in posts, but what did see, I did not notice anything derogatory or inappropriate for a forum. So why is this person so unwelcome? Anyway I am not trying to be your next target. Anyway I just wanted to say this sets a bad example as a public forum which should be for all viewpoints. Sorry if said anything wrong. WakeUp not everyone feels this way and I hope you stick around bro.

How does excommunication fit into this? Obviously we have sins which go beyond being forgiven if someone is excommunicated. Is excommunication even part of Sikhi? If so, then not all sins are forgiven. We have an example of excommunication: In 1661, his eldest son and celebrated scholar Ram Rai (son of Guru Har Rai Sahib) was sent to the court of Emperor Aurangzeb for rendering explanation of certain hymns misunderstood by the Mughal Durbar. Instead of doing justice to the theme as contained in a Shabad, he avoided facing a debate and replaced while quoting from Guru Granth Sahib only one word. When Guru Har Rai Sahib learnt about this, he asked his son not to show his face and also instructed the Sikhs not to have any worldly terms with him and his people.

Further to that why wear a symbolic kirpan, by that I mean most kirpans worn now are not even sharp. So they would not even be a practical weapon. And how would knowing how to use a kirpan save anyone in a country like the USA where 80% of the population carry a gun? The reality is most people are not faced with the possibility of fighting day to day in life. The world has changed. I would suggest great career paths for a Sikh would be policing, or the military, or on a smaller scale security guard. For the rest of us (I'm in medical field), I suggest at least taking self defence classes or martial arts training to at least have confidence to know what to do if confronted. But sadly in this day and age with guns everywhere what can we do?

Samurai I am very much against grooming. And the fact that males are doing this just shows me males are even less deserving of some higher position in society. Women are not the ones doing these heinous things init? Yes I will help out as much as I can. I'll take a look at the site. Thanks. Chatanga, we will have to disagree. Gender does not matter. You have never given a solid reason why it does other than just saying it does. Until and unless you can prove why colour, caste, race etc somehow don't matter but gender does, in practical terms as it pertains to amrit sanchar, then it remains as only opinion. Which everyone is entitled to. As I said when I took amrit I never witnessed anything which the panj did would have required male genetalia. Everything they did, a female could do. Can woman sit in bir posture? Can women recite banis from heart? Can women maintain strict rehet? Can women physically stir and prepare the amrit? Can women be of high avastha? If so, then there is no question. Show me how male physical anatomy even comes into it? It doesn't. So either are are saying it's a strict reproduction of the original, in which case you have to prohibit blacks, causcasians, castes which were not represented in the original 5 etc. Or it's not an exact reproduction of the original and any Sikh of high avastha can represent the Guru. You are free to follow your own path. I'll follow mine. Also the thread title was critique of Sikh Rehet Maryada by Taksals. Sikh Rehet Maryada allows full equal participation in Sikhi for females. Taksali maryada does not. So it's not difficult to conclude that anyone who doesn't think women deserve equal respect than they can follow taksali maryada instead. Obviously WakeUp and myself believe in equality (and I think Tva Prasad too) so yes we look down on taksali maryada in that way (same as they are allowed to look down on Sikh Rehet Maryada) and we are allowed to point out their flaws and use gurbani to support it. You guys have certainly spoke about SGPC, Akal Takht, and other groups like AKJ in condescending tone. So please don't be teapot calling the kettle black. Anyway I already said I was done in this thread. Let's be adults. We can agree to disagree. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh Ji