JasperS

Why should it be any different? I am assuming both have their driving license being 18-20 and there is no reason a girl should be limited to when she can go out compared to a boy. That's what I want is freedom for her. Not living caged in fear cowering behind men. Yes physically males and females are different. It has to be that way to procreate. But Amrit Sanchar has nothing to do with physical procreation does it? I'm not sure if you have taken amrit or not yet, but I have. And I certainly don't remember anything happening during it which would require a certain genetalia. Those administering it should not have any physical abnormalities only for the reason of being able to sit in bir posture and physically go through the actions. They should be able to verbally recite from memory. They should themselves follow strictly rehet maryada. So far nothing in the above precludes a female does it?! Or are you suggesting women can not maintain strict rehet? Or that women are not physically capable of sitting in bir posture or stirring the amrit, or reciting the banis from memory? Duty as Panj Pyaras is not just limited to AKJ and 3HO. Many Gurdwaras that don't follow any specific jatha or samprada also follow Sikh Rehet Maryada. And I know of several times in both UK and India where amrit sanchars have had women as one of the five (and were not AKJ or 3HO). In India one was in Kashmir, and the other Maharashtra (off the top of my head). In fact those choosing the five should also follow strict rehet maryada, and it does say women can be one of the five in Sikh Rehet Maryada. So they can not strictly follow it while intentionally excluding a qualified woman as a choice. Someone has actually explained to me the reasoning behind taksali thought on this. Please NOTE: I have no idea if this is true or not. It was just someone explained why Taksalis view women in this way and he got it from a katha online: He said it has to do with past karma. In fact Chatanga has already mentioned on here in this thread that women are bound to serving their husband because its their dharma. So the idea is that someone for example born with a disability (or born female) was born that way because of some past sins, and therefore are seen as impure in this life and not suitable to give amrit because presumably they would pass on some of that karmic debt to others as those giving amrit pass on some of their energy. The idea is that women are born as women as a result of past sins. Its also why taksalis see menstruation as spiritually impure. Its another way that past sin manifests now, making every soul born into a female body, paying for their karmic punishment. Basically being born in a female body is a punishment (like wearing a big reg tag saying sinner), and that soul in a female body is seen very much lesser avastha than any male. In fact a disabled male is still considered higher than any female as if he married a female would still be bound to serve him. So the real reason Taksalis etc don't want women administering amrit is that they believe women are tainted spiritually and considered impure because they believe being born into a female body is result of past karams. Again I am not making this claim. It's just what someone has explained to me. If it's wrong then please say so. But if it's true I have to wholeheartedly disagree, along with the wife having to serve the husband. Guru Nanak removed this idea of hierarchy based on birth and said that this human body is a blessing (not this male human body) and pointed out that Waheguru is in every soul. Every human should serve all others. There should be no hierarchy because hierarchy just creates false statuses and builds ego. So in summary, I will not see women as being impure sinners here under punishment. And I will follow gurbani which tells me to see everyone as equal. That includes equality in all seva including Panj Pyaras. That doesn't mean ignoring physical differences or thinking we are the exact same. I am talking about equal treatment. Who goes to buy milk and when, has nothing to do with Amrit Sanchar. Who rapes who has nothing to do with Amrit Sanchar. Who takes what physiological role in procreation has nothing to do with Amrit Sanchar. You are free to follow whatever path you want but I will follow Sikh Rehet Maryada (which I was given at Amrit) and I'll follow Gurbani. This is my last post on this as I agree it's getting repetitive. And by the way you keep saying equal but different, but then you give one less rights than the other, that is not equal in any sense. Equal would be giving women complete control over another equally important seva like Granthi or something and saying all Granthis have to be female if all Panj Pyaras have to be male. But we don't see that. We see males having more rights and having 'reserved' seva for them only but no comparable seva for women that is reserved for only women. So its not equal but different. It's just unequal. Wish you well. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ki Ji Fateh.

If one is filled with lust, they masturbate, or watch porn, or pick up someone at a bar. They don't molest and violate a person who they know is unwilling. The act of violation of a person against their will, is entirely about control and power over that person. Its a well known fact that rapes are highest in societies where there is a definite hierarchy with women in an inferior role or position. "Rape isn't perpetrated only by members of one religion, race, nation or belief system. But rapists are particularly abetted by cultures in which women are second-class citizens, where women's bodies are intensely politicized, where social hierarchies outlandishly privilege certain members and where there's a presumption of male authority and righteousness. Rape is a particularly difficult crime because it's about both power and violence. Rapists use sex organs as the locus of their violence, but rape isn't about sex, at least not in the sense of being motivated by sexual attraction or an uncontrollable sexual urge. Rape is about sex in the sense that rapists not only commit acts of sexual violence, but that the pervasive threat of sexual assault is used to limit women's sovereignty and justify sexual assault itself. The reality is that men are much more likely than women to be victims of violence outside of their own homes, yet I know far more women than men who internalize certain supposed violence-avoidance methods: walk with your keys in your hand, take cabs at night, don't accept drinks from strangers, be careful what you wear, don't walk alone after dark. When women are the victims of rape, there's an immediate assessment of what she did wrong and which of her perceived mistakes made her vulnerable to an assailant. An eleven-year-old girl is gang-raped in Texas by a group of grown men and the problem was that she wore make-up and "provocative" clothing. Women in Egypt are stripped and assaulted and their brightly-colored underwear is evidence of immodesty. Rapists don't rape because they can't "get" sex elsewhere. Rapists don't rape because they're uncontrollably turned on by the sight of some cleavage, or a midriff, or red lipstick, or an ankle. They rape because they're misogynist sadists, and they flourish in places where misogyny is justified as tradition and maleness comes with a presumption of violence." And anyway this has nothing to do with Rehet Maryada.

I think he meant that if he wants to follow a rehet maryada which doesn't allow women equal rights in Sikhi, then he can follow damdami taksal which is known to keep women in subordinate position. I don't think he was suggesting the member is damdami taksal. Thats how I read it anyway.

The fact that you even brought up the word rape, lets me know what type of person you are. The same old reasoning, Oh you think women are equal to men do you, then lets rape her and see how equal she is. Your attitude is part of the problem because . Why does 'being a warrior' have to equate to disrespecting and putting down and disrespecting women? By the way I am well aware of all the coward men out there who prey on women. But just like terrorism, the true damage is not the act but the fear caused by it. The fear which causes one's life to be under restrictions and limitations in the name of safety. I refuse to let my daughter to be a lifelong victim having to be under male rule/control and so called protection, just to protect her from what? more men! LOL. Kind of ironic init? I want her to be the warrior not a lifelong victim! I'm sorry if my caring about the child I was given by Waheguru offends you. But it won't change how I feel. Sorry.

You sound like you are having a hissy fit chatanga. Please act like an adult instead of whining because other males don't agree with your misogynistic attitude. Simply put, placing restrictions on one, and privilege on the other, IS discrimination. Dictionary Definition of the word Discrimination: "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." Limiting females based on nothing but their being 'female' (their sex) is discrimination in ANY definition of the word. You can't see the logic in this. If you say that being born in a female body places certain restrictions and limitations on a soul, then you can't also then say that soul is being seen equally spiritually can you? Because that soul was born into punishment. If all souls are equal, then what body one is born into should not equal a punishment (having less rights) Being thrust into subordinate role because of the body one is born into, is a punishment. To not have equal say or voice in religious matters is punishment. Especially when religious matters ARE spiritual, and it's the spiritual which you say is equal! If all souls are equal, why then would some be born into this lower position physically to have to endure a lower existence while alive, if not for some inequality in their spirit? You have created a paradox! Your ideals are going directly against gurbani. There is nothing in our only Guru, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, which says those souls born into female bodies will have less rights than those born into male bodies. In fact quite the opposite. To give one gender more rights over the other, is creating a hierarchy. And ALL hierarchies are false. This is in Gurbani in plain language! As for my wife, she is probably more consistent with spiritual practice than I am (and I'd hazard a guess probably even you!) I refuse to see her as having less of the divine light, or somehow being punished and not being able to represent the Guru's light for something she had no control over, being born female. I refuse to give my daughter hopelessness as a female. This thinking is NO DIFFERENT than casteism! It just has a different name, and because males have been able to dominate females for so long, it somehow seems ok. But only. its NOT ok. I pray Waheguru to open your eyes! Either that or I pray Waheguru to make you female rest of your times on this earth so you can experience what its like yourself to be told you aren't good enough, over and over again, simply because you don't have the right sexual organs. I SEE the divine light in my wife! I see her as my absolute equal! Nothing you say will change that! Her soul is genderless as is mine. We are together this life because biology dictates in order to have children. But aside from that, we look past our gender. I could easily see her doing seva as one of the Panj Pyaras and would not think twice about taking amrit from a woman like her. Its because I already see that light. No nonsense about light coming down into anyone. It's already there! Stop this crusade to turn Sikhi into another sexist religion.

Haha I have been accused of the same. I was here for a brief period when the user they mentioned was being heavily abused for having views similar to yours (and my own) about gender equality. I was accused briefly of also being that same user and now find it funny that anyone who believes in equality is accused of the same (like there must only be one Sikh who thinks women deserve more). I think that member has left because I have not seen them around in a long time but from what I noticed, what she was subjected to on here was horrible. Anyway your arguments are sound. It's the minds of these misogynists who can't open to the fact that its about soul and not the body. By limiting those in female bodies, they are creating a hierarchy and false status that Gurus warned us about. Otherwise, being born female is as you suggested, a punishment. And then you have to qualify why, especially when our Gurus worked to abolish any system which places people in hierarchies based on something they had no control over, their birth. I flat out refuse to see my wife as anything lower than I am, and I flat out refuse to endorse anything which gives her less rights because she is a Kaur.

WakeUp Ji good points! There is no good reason to keep women from this seva at all except for male ego (and I say that as a male myself). There always has to be some hold out, something that men can hold above women's heads to say see we are better. They may say they want to see women have equal opportunity in almost everything but there will always be one thing, and that one thing is usually at the higher end of authority. So for example Bahai's They say they believe women and men are absolute equals and deserve equal opportunity in everything including in the religion. Except that, they don't really. The very highest authority in the Bahai faith, the Universal House of Justice is kept for males only. So while women can lead congregations and be priests etc they can never attain the highest level of authority in the faith. It's same with us. Women can have equality in all the lower things with us, so it looks like almost full equality but what people don't think about is that Panj Pyaras don't just administer Amrit. When panthic decisions need to be taken, they are called upon. This means that women essentially have no authority in these panthic decisions if it's always to be 5 males, and keep in mind sometimes female specific issues do come up, say for example the issue about menstruation and prohibition on seva. If it's five males deciding on something like that, it's kind of already skewed to male decision and opinion. Panj Pyaras also are the ones to give punishment for those going for peshi / bujjar kurehits etc. Again, it's making the statement that no woman is wanted in the highest authority positions in the Sikh faith. It means that essentially highest authority always has to be male. This thinking must change I agree with you. Since Sikhi is about our spiritual journey and we are all on same journey whether male or female, I agree there should be no distinction when it comes to spiritual matters at all. Gender is for this life only. And haha if chatanga has not figured out why males and females are needed to procreate yet then he is missing the point! Here is the reasoning (for him) why males and females are attracted: (insert tab A into slot B, just kidding) 1) genetic abnormalities can occur in an asexual species which is advanced and complicated. New genetic material from another donor is required to keep genetic errors to a minimum and the best way to do that is by two separate genders because it would be too complicated to build a human with capability of both genders (snails can actually act as either gender but comparatively they are far less evolved). In humans those who are born with both traits (male and female genetalia) are largely sterile. 2) In order for the species to survive, individuals must mate. So there are inbuilt propensity to attract the opposite gender. (but not always as we do have homosexuality). 3) Marrying opposite gender is direct result of this biological urge to procreate and further the species. ----- None of this has anything to do with the soul which is genderless. So no, most people won't marry the same gender (some do - and perhaps they are the ones seeing beyond all this nonsense and seeing the true soul!!!) But for those of us attracted to a female, as a male, its because our biology tells us that females can bring us children while a male can not. The soul in side is still genderless for both, and spiritual matters do not rely on what gender someone is temporarily. Otherwise we are punishing half the souls on the planet because they happened to be born with a vagina instead of a penis. lol

@chatanga1 (still don't know your name veer) but It was you who actually tried to say that tuk you posted earlier, was an instruction (guide) to women that they are to serve their husband when it's not. I was trying to make a point that Gurbani doesn't have explicit instruction, rather it contains deeper wisdom and uses a lot of metaphor to contain that wisdom. But anyway mention of kesh in various shabads in metaphorical sense gives us a good idea that it is is important when speaking of spiritual ideas, so we should keep it. In fact Gurbani does make several mentions of the practice of shaving one's head or plucking out one's hairs, and the comparisons are all negative. So that is another clue to keep it.

No it's not outright instruction, but it does give us a good idea that hair is important. I am glad however (can I ask your real name as you keep using mine?) that you acknowledge what is actual instruction and what is not, and that was my point. Since the passage you quoted earlier is also not instruction for a wife to serve her husband, rather it is using the fact that a loving wife will usually serve her husband (just like any loving human will serve the one they love) as a comparison, which does not preclude the husband also serving the wife. I am not against a loving wife serving her husband. What I am against is forcing the idea that wives MUST serve their husbands while suggesting that husbands do not serve their wives. A loving husband will also put his wife first and serve her. I certainly do. Rather than a skewed system which leaves some people without any responsibility and others without any service, it makes much more sense to have all children (male and female alike) to care for their parents. That way no parents are ever left without care. They should all do this equally as they are all capable adults who love their parents. All husbands and wives should serve each other. That way every spouse will be served and cared for whether they have children or not. This way ALL humans will be accountable to care for someone and not pass the buck to someone else. And all humans will receive the care and service as they should from their loved ones. Nobody is left wanting, and nobody is left idle without accountability. Nobody is left to feel like the bottom of the barrel so to speak while others are elevated to false statuses. It is just a much more fair way to live. One can easily serve both their parents and their spouse without issue. Everyone should do it. The wording in the taksal maryada should be that husband and wife should both look at each other as their faithful spouse and both should look at each other as God and serve the divine within them. Yes I know you keep asking why cant you marry your Mother or sister. I am sure you are smart enough to know why and it has nothing to do with who serves who.

Thanks Bro it seems to be ok now.

This is what I would suggest is possible cause. Sitting reading for long times, or even meditating with bad posture can lead to fatigue, headaches, neck pain, even eye strain etc. Why not take some time every 30 mins or so to walk around for a few minutes, look at other things (depth of field) and do some stretches? Then see if that helps. Then go back to reading Gurbani and / or meditating.

In last few days the forum seems to be lagging very badly. I have had several posts come up as saying I was trying to multiple post even though I only hit submit once, and sometimes I would click submit post and it would look like it was posting then just go back to the editing as if it didn't post (and when checked it did not post). Are you guys having server issues?

Gurbani makes it clear that kesh is important with regards to spirituality (here are a few tuks): Page 344, Line 6 ਰੋਮ ਰੋਮ ਮਹਿ ਬਸਹਿ ਮੁਰਾਰਿ ॥ रोम रोम महि बसहि मुरारि ॥ Rom rom mėh basėh murār. and on each and every hair, the Lord abides. Page 443, Line 7 ਰੋਮੇ ਰੋਮਿ ਰੋਮਿ ਰੋਮੇ ਮੈ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਰਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਏ ਰਾਮ ॥ रोमे रोमि रोमि रोमे मै गुरमुखि रामु धिआए राम ॥ Rome rom rom rome mai gurmukẖ rām ḏẖi▫ā▫e rām. With each and every hair, with each and every hair, as Gurmukh, I meditate on the Lord. Page 941, Line 5 ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਰੋਮਿ ਰੋਮਿ ਹਰਿ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥ गुरमुखि रोमि रोमि हरि धिआवै ॥ Gurmukẖ rom rom har ḏẖi▫āvai. The Gurmukh meditates on the Lord with every hair of the body. Page 966, Line 9 ਨਾਨਕ ਰਵਿਆ ਹਭ ਥਾਇ ਵਣਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਣਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣਿ ਰੋਮਿ ॥੨॥ नानक रविआ हभ थाइ वणि त्रिणि त्रिभवणि रोमि ॥२॥ Nānak ravi▫ā habẖ thā▫e vaṇ ṯariṇ ṯaribẖavaṇ rom. ||2|| O Nanak, He is pervading and permeating all places, the forests and the meadows, the three worlds, and every hair. ||2||

Just because taksalis make bold claims doesn't make it true. And as already pointed out, even taksal maryada as it exists now has been altered. Bold claims about who can trace back farthest lineage is meaningless when practice and even maryada has been changed throughout time. What does it matter to say you can trace your group back (proof or not) if the code of conduct you follow has been altered even in recent history? You are no longer following the original are you? So that lineage becomes meaningless. The only guideline we can be 100% sure of is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. And if any group's maryada follows gurmat principles as laid out in Gurbani, then they are just as valid as any other group who makes bold claims.

Agreed on finding the right Panj Pyaras however, that secret should NEVER have been kept from his wife. She had every right to know if her husband was a cheater. If he had came clean to her himself maybe things would have been much better, but hiding the deed from her, was wrong on so many levels. Obviously he was affected mentally by his misdeed, and the results of it. But the choice to take his life was his alone and had nothing to do with his wife or family. He rightly should have come clean himself and dealt with the aftershock. Just by admitting his wrongs to his wife, she would feel much more like he was able to be trusted again in future. So while I agree the Panj Pyaras should not divulge information, I think it was HUGELY wrong to keep the cheating a secret from his wife. It was HIS duty to tell his wife he screwed up. You keep wanting to drag women name through the mud and use dasam granth as support, but then stories like this you make it sound like keeping the secret from his wife was the right thing to do. Remember it was not her who was cheating, it was him. And to follow what dasam granth says - that being men should keep secrets from women - only leads to disaster. Let's not put blame on the wrong person here. Keeping secrets is wrong, and cheating is wrong. Unfortunately this Singh learned the hard way and could not deal with the consequences of his actions.

I am thinking some of that might be in the translation. We see it all the time where translations of gurbani are done with abrahamic lens where Waheguru is given a masculine identity and seen in similar light to Abrahamic God which is 'He' and 'separate' rather than the divine inherent in all of us. I am thinking that maybe the same thing has happened in translations of rhetnamas too. Would make no sense to have a religion for all, and then direct code of conduct at only half. I have always taken every injunction to be aimed at both even if the language suggests its directed at one vs the other. Since Sikhi sees all as the same one universal conscious soul, then there can't be different instructions. In some cases some things needed to be emphasized, like marrying away a daughter for gains (money, gifts etc). Since boys were not married off for gains like that it was emphasized that daughters could not be married for gains. But it does not mean that its ok to marry off a son for gains either. Similarly, A sikh must marry a daughter to a Sikh - for the reason that girls usually lost their religion in a mixed marriage because they were coerced to follow their husbands religion by his family. It was to protect her Sikhi. However, it doesn't mean that Sikh boys should not be married to Sikh girls. A Sikh should marry a Sikh, period. Exactly.

If they are following Taksali Maryada does that mean they discriminate against Singhnis? I mean are Singhnis discriminated against / barred from seva of SGGSJ during their menses and from seva as Panj Pyaras? Because that should not be allowed. If they are to be tolerant of all Sikhs and not pushing one Maryada, they should allow women equal treatment as per the Panthic Maryada, and I hope they are. Otherwise saying they are tolerant of others is just lip service at least to the Kaurs, and you will likely attract more Kaurs to do seva if you uphold that ideal of equality. And I don't mean just pushing the ladies to the kitchen. A lot of Sikh youth, a lot of young Kaurs want more active roles so I hope this Gurdwara is open to them too on equal grounds. I have heard some bad things from Taksali run Gurdwaras before with regards to treatment of women.

Its not explicit and I showed that to you already. Comparing something to the light of the moon for example, doesn't mean anything else can't or doesn't or is not required to have that same soft light. Its just one example. Sons and daughters should both care for their parents. It's unfair to place burden on one child, while the others get off from doing anything. And if they don't help care for their parents then they are horrible and unappreciative children. Who cares what older culture dictated. Sikhi is above culture. And husband and wife should both care for each other. There does not need to be some competition as to who gets served first. I really hope you can open your eyes, equality is not nonsense. A husband should do JUST AS MUCH seva to his wife as she does for him. Otherwise why even get married? If you can't love and serve your wife in the same way she loves and serves you, then you don't deserve to be married. Remember, that parents, children, wife, husband are all the same exact ONE soul! None deserve to have more serving them than others. In your skewed way of thinking women are least deserving of having someone serve them, well only if they manage to birth a male. It's what I said, women being valued (and respected / rewarded) only for their ability to create more males. The woman has to suffer (pain from childbirth) and then devote the son's whole childhood to her serving him, before he is old enough to serve her. So she must go through a lot of pain and suffering and work before she has anyone serve her. Meanwhile the husband gets free service from his wife from the time they are married. Doesn't sound right to me. This is not what our Gurus taught. The Gurus gender did not matter by the way and especially when taken into account of this conversation. The Gurus bodies were inconsequential. They were only in male form because in that culture and time no woman would have ever been taken seriously or listened to by any man. Look at your attitude now in the present! You wont entertain the idea of any female having any authority or equal service even today! What mattered was that the Gurus in male form declared that all humans were equal and required to be treated equal, with emphasis on women being treated equally! Would it have made any sense to have a woman as Guru making the statement to men, to treat women equally? And its not a stretch to say it directly results in aborted female fetuses. You can't deny it. Preference for sons over daughters results even today here in UK, aborted female fetuses. The Gurus being in male form who happened to say females deserved equal treatment did not cause this desire for sons, but putting sons as preference over daughters for service to parents (because of some idea that daughters should not care for their parents) most definitely DOES contribute DIRECTLY to gender selection abortions. Because girls are seen as burdens who will leave one day. While sons are seen as a future servant. This thinking is wrong. See everyone equally. And everyone should do seva of each other equally. A husband and wife should both serve each other and respect each other equally. ALL children should respect and care for their parents equally. This is not 'equality nonsense'. Equality is not nonsense. You need to wake up from this skewed thinking. Just because something was culture for a long time doesn't make it morally right. Oh by the way I cant believe you suggested that we adopt a son that we can't afford, just so my wife can have someone to serve her later in her life. Or that we need to somehow get by, like my serving her is somehow putting me out. I can serve my parents and my wife both equally, and she does the same. I have served my wife as an equal carrier of the divine light since the day we were married (probably even before that). You are missing out on so much if you hold to these rigid cultural ideals which are not based on morality.

@chatanga1 Guest Ji understands. That once you see God in all, you can't expect some to serve you as some form of entitlement. I feel no entitlement to be served by my wife (while I leave her with nobody to serve her). The question Guest Ji posed needs to be asked. Who is to lovingly serve my wife? Keep in mind, not everyone has a son. And I did nothing to deserve being served by her from day 1 of our marriage while she has to wait for a son to grow up before she gets to be served. And if a couple never has a son, then the wife is to never be served her whole life but instead is just a servant? You don't see how that perpetuates the unending quest for sons preference over daughters, resulting in female fetuses being aborted for selective gender births? Abortion of female fetuses are just as bad as infanticide. But this pressure to have a son so the wife can actually have someone serve her? The husband has it made, even if he never has a child, because you say its the wife's duty to serve him, so he has a ready made servant from day 1 of his marriage until either he or his spouse dies. But the wife will never have anyone serve her unless she produces a son, and then she must wait until he is an adult before he can serve her. If both males and females contain the same light, and both are God, then how can one have so much entitlement over the other? Further how can anyone who TRULY sees God in all, feel AY sense of self entitlement over another? This thinking only perpetuates preference of male gender over female. And makes the statement that females can only be served (rewarded, respected) if they produce male humans. In other words, it's the males which are valued. And females are only valued for their ability to produce more males. Is this what you think our Gurus taught? I am in no way more deserving of my wife's respect than she is of mine. I am so sorry you can't see or experience this for yourself. I could never expect her to serve me without me also serving her. Actually the wording does not say "should" at all. ਜਿਉ ਪੁਰਖੈ ਘਰਿ ਭਗਤੀ ਨਾਰਿ ਹੈ ਅਤਿ ਲੋਚੈ ਭਗਤੀ ਭਾਇ ॥ The devoted wife in her husband's home has a great longing to perform loving devotional service to him. "Has a longing" It merely points to the fact that a devoted wife will do that due to longing to make him happy. That is a far cry from telling someone they must or should do something. It also doesn't mean a devoted husband wont also do the same thing. A devoted loving husband will also long to serve his wife (and not feel emasculated for doing so) In no way does it say women are required to do that. It's just using a comparison. You are taking a comparison and turning it into an instruction when its not. It was never meant to be. It seems more to me that you feel like you have an entitlement to be served. I really hope I am wrong. A husband should also serve his wife with the same intensity and love that a Premi has for Waheguru because if the husband sees Waheguru in his wife, then there is no other option. He must serve that divine light in his wife with the same love and devotion. Anyway, the above can be said to be speaking about wife as in humans are soul bride and husband is one and only God - meaning is serve to put action into words, serve Waheguru and not just admire Waheguru. So don't just admire God with love, but also put that love and devotion into serving God. In other words a wife (soul bride) will serve her husband (Waheguru) in the husband's home (on God's level) with the same intensity and love that a premi (admirer) would have for Waheguru. Since we are all soul brides and Waheguru is the only husband lord, this message is for us all. Put words and love into action by serving God. Gurbani is for all humans. It doesn't speak to different groups of humans in different ways. If you think only the eldest son should care for his parents while the others are exempt, and if they actually did refrain from it, then you and they are terrible people. Again I (and others) have asked you, who cares for the parents if they have no son at all? Obviously you think the wife should still be serving the husband so he's all good and taken care of, but who serves the wife out of love and devotion?

Guests, just ignore this paapiman. Here is a small sampling of what he thinks of women, quoted from this site over the past year or so. You can see, its hard to take him seriously, who has such skewed views of the female gender and such obvious hatred, which has blinded him to the point that he is misinterpreting Gurbani to support his own misogynistic views. These are actual quotes from this site from this paapiman member (yes, he actually said these things): He believes women are disgusting and impure: He believes men should never listen to a woman's advice: He believes women are downgrades to men: He equates women with lesser beings like animals, plants and insects. (Apparently transgenders are also lumped in there): He believes women are only half human, not full humans. Only men are fully human: He believes women are to see husbands as God, but no mention of the husband seeing his wife as God - which as you can see above, he suggests most men are not high enough avastha to see the divine light in women: How can anyone take what this member says seriously?? For that matter does anyone take him seriously at all?? What he is touting is not Sikhi. Just ignore him and let him spam his hatred. If nobody replies, he will eventually give up. I think he only does it for attention. Admins why do you even allow this to go on? It's no wonder you have no female members! What are Kaurs supposed to think when they come here and read all of the above? If the statements were instead against a different race or skin colour, I am sure you would remove the posts as being racist and bigoted. So why do you allow it when it's against Kaurs?

No I mean a copy of the original in full. Is there anywhere I can get this?

There is no need for them to do that at all. Its the right of the patient to say no to hair removal unless its absolutely necessary for surgical reasons. Delivery is not one of those cases.

What do you all make of this sad story? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1574231/bizarre-moment-prostitute-confronts-old-man-in-the-street-claming-he-owes-her-20-then-he-whacks-her-with-his-walking-stick/ Full video is at the top of the page. He apparently solicited oral sex from her and then didn't pay the agreed upon price to which she then became understandably angry. Sad sad sad. And don't blame it all on the prostitute (who is in a sorry state herself from the looks of it, she seems under the influence of something). Without customers, there would be no prostitutes. But a Sikh?? Just shaking my head.

@BhagatSingh Bro, I understand what you are saying and you are still admitting it's a game. Since you are both equal, it's just an illusion this leading and following thing. Think about it, if she makes suggestion to do something, me taking her by the hand is in response to her lead on that thing. I am agreeing with her idea. Similarly I could say hey I'd really like to do this thing sometime, and she could jump on it and make it happen to also make me happy. So in that case is she leading the way based on my suggestion (since you said it would be me leading if she suggested something and I jumped on it and tool her hand). Or is she following my lead as I suggested it? Do you see what I mean, there is no leading or following. It's just two people who love each other and want to make each other happy and sometimes one leads and sometimes the other does. Seeing it as some sort of hierarchy where I have to always be on top, is illusory. It just seems like one big game, but what if I told you, and I am 100% serious and truthful about this, my wife and I, we have surpassed the need to play the game at all! And surpassing the game is the true way to see things. Anyway I am assuming you are taksali since you said 'our maryada' and the taksal maryada cant be called 'our' as in the panth because it can not usurp the authority that Sikh Rehet Maryada has. I don't care what illusory games people play for romance, what I care about is dictating power and authority. Chatanga rightly said above it has nothing to do with authority and hierarchy in the relationship but you said there is hierarchy (but admittedly you said it was only pertaining to romance I guess?) but where I have issue is that marriage is a partnership of equals in reality (as you pointed out) and so one partner should not be told they are subordinate when it comes to every day living and life as a married couple. What I mean is, telling the wife she must obey while telling the husband he gets full control and some higher status is where I have issue. In eyes of Waheguru both are equal and the wife should have as much say and authority as the husband in their marriage. So I guess I am speaking of practical terms. As long as nothing limits either partner and puts them in a disadvantage to the other. Giving decision making to one partner and telling the other to follow and obey is wrong. That's how the wording in taksal maryada makes it sound (and posts by member paapiman seem to confirm that meaning) or else it would say that he should also see her as God. And they should both see each other as their faithful spouse. Its the way its worded makes it sound like the wife has to just do whatever he says because he is in authority over her (like Lord or Master). Thats what I would be scared would be shoved down our throats if taksal were in control and srm was replaced with taksal maryada. By the way I just saw the post about your artwork on here! Brilliant work! Actually that's an underestimate! I can see your passion in your work! I think I have come across some of it before around the net but now I know I know the artist! Cool man! Nice to meet you!

@BhagatSingh Ji, I have to disagree. There is no reason why I have to lead her and she has to follow. As I said, we lead in different areas. Sometimes I lead, sometimes she does. What we looked for in each other was that our "cause" was the same. That being spiritual advancement of both of us and now our daughter. Again, onus is not all on me because she is very knowledgeable and takes the initiative when we do simran etc. most times. She leads in kirtan because she is musical and I am not. I lead in nitnem usually but after the first line, if you are taking turns who is really leading anyway? How can I convince you we don't have a hierarchy! She is not beneath me following me. We are walking this path side by side as it was meant to be! I know most Singhs can't understand this but there is a spiritual link there which we experienced which allows us to live this way without false hierarchies. It's kind of degrading actually to women to say that because that soul ended up in a female body they need to be lead and can't lead on their own? (you'd have to next ask why they ended up in a position where they needed to be lead instead of leading. Like did they mess up last time or something) But obviously many women CAN lead and do it well! (look at the difference in the USA between Hillary and that monkey Trump!) If I were female I am sure I would find it degrading to be told as a woman I had to follow and had people telling me that the only way I would be happy with my husband is if I diverted leadership to him and just followed. It would be pretty degrading don't you think? Especially if I had leadership ability! I'd feel smothered! In our case, we have surpassed this need for someone to be on top. I know you might not understand or be able to feel it. But reading your posts about God and ONEness and the fact we agree on those I feel you ARE capable of understanding this. The dynamic my wife and I have are what was intended in Creation. Perfect balance, not hierarchy! This is how it is actually supposed to be. We have been married 13 years now, have an 8 year old daughter and we are so closely bonded on every level, including spiritual, that nothing can ever break that. I really do hope you can experience it though! You seem to have quite a bit of knowledge of spiritual experience, so I will pray that you can also experience ONEness in your marriage without it threatening any hierarchy or what seems more like perceived false hierarchy. What do you do by the way if your wife has a different cause than yours? Should she give hers up to support yours? Should you both support each other? Or maybe, just maybe you weren't compatible in the first place. Nobody should have to give up their dreams so that someone else can have theirs. There are enough fish in the sea so to speak that everyone can find that person who completes them, and has the same goals in life. I have experienced so much happiness and joy in marriage I wish I could bottle it up and give it out so others could also experience it! LOL (save for a few minor disagreements through the years which is normal.)