JasperS

I meant we as in my wife and I (and our daughter).

Thanks for pointing us to this!!! @kuttabanda2 how accurate is this translation? Can we be fairly confident? This doesn't contradict Gurbani at all so I believe this is likely closest to what Guru Gobind Singh Ji intended. Here is the text: ----- Quoted from http://www.searchsikhism.com/rehitnama-of-bhai-daya-singh Bhai Daya Singh was the first of the Panj Piaras to offer his head as a sacrifice when Guru Gobind Singh gave a call for the highest sacrifice. He was amongst those Five who received the Amrit baptism of the Khalsa Holy Order. He received the highest illumination from the Guru. His Rehitnama was obviously written after the death of Guru Gobind Singh. It elucidates the basic ideals of the Khalsa, and urges a complete break with Brahmanical faith and Muslim cults, which were exploiting Hindu and Muslim masses with pretensions to occult power. The following is a translation of an authentic version: A Sikh of the Guru should not have any faith in Maths: Brahmanical Monasteries, idols, pilgrimage to holy rivers, gods and goddesses, fasts, Brahmanical ceremonies of image worship (puja and archa), nor should he believe in tantra, mantra and yantra of the Tantric Yoga, nor should he go to Brahmins and Pirs for amulets, talisman, or seeking omens, nor submit to the Hindu sacrament of Gayatri and Tarpand. He is the Khalsa, who has dedicated his body, mind and wealth to the Supreme Being and for the righteous cause. A Sikh should not wear the sacred thread of the Hindus: Janeu. He should not perform the ceremonies of birth and death according to Hindu rites, nor should he perform the ceremony of feeding Brahmins for the salvation of ancestors. He should not perform marriage according to the Vedic or Brahmanical rites. He should perform all ceremonies according to the discipline of the Gurus (Gur-maryada) by offering prayers (Ardasa) before the Lord in the Presence of Adi Guru Granth. A Sikh should render whatever help he can to all who come to him in the time of need. He should visit the Temple of the Guru (Gurdwara) daily, and on the way to the temple, walk with restraint and reverence. If no one offers his daughter in marriage to a devout Sikh young man simply because he is poor, or for some other such reason, he should willingly offer his daughter to such a person. To kill infant daughters, or to give in marriage one’s daughter to a clean-shaven man out of greed is a serious religious offence. When a Sikh offers his daughter in marriage to a devout Sikh, it is like nectar mingling with nectar. When a Sikh (Khalsa) gives his daughter to a clean-shaven non-Sikh, it is like putting nectar into the mouth of a snake. A Sikh should prefer white, yellow, blue, grey colours for turbans or clothes. Note: The red colour used these days by Communists for their flags is called suha rang, which is discouraged because in the Sikh Scriptures it is symbol of unstable, immoral character and materialistic living. The red colour of the rose is appreciated as it symbolizes spiritual radiance. There is no hard and fast rule for people leading a purely worldly life, but religious people generally prefer white, yellow, blue, grey and black. A Sikh should consider all other rich or poor Sikhs his brothers in faith. He who has treachery and insincerity in his heart is doomed to perdition. To accept offerings or amulets from Pirs and followers of Muslim cult leaders like Sakhi Sarwar (Sayyid Ahmed) whose cult indulged in magic and occult feats) is a breach of religious discipline. He who puts on sacred marks of the Hindus on his fore¬head (Tilak), or wears rosary of wooden beads of Vairagl sects, commits a breach of discipline. Whenever any communal or national decision is to be taken, five Sikhs living according to Khalsa Moral Code (Rehit) should take decision on what is right and what is wrong in Moral living: Rehit-bibek. The Gurmatta: Collective Decision of the Assembly of the Sikh divines, should be accepted as final. Note: Notice it doesn't say five Singhs? It says five Sikhs! Note: This commandment or tradition strikes at the root of all dictatorships in religious, cultural and political Institutions. The drawers should be up to knees and not lower than the knees. The kitchen should be plastered with clay and not with cow-dung according to Brahmanical rites. A Sikh should disregard all Hindu-Muslim prejudices or dominant cultural influences of Hindu or Muslim rulers and societies. Ekadasi fasts of the Hindus should not be kept by the Sikhs. The Sikhs should perform marriage rites according to the Sikh Anand-marriage ceremony (Lawan) and not according to Vedic rites. A Sikh should always remain in military preparedness, and keep his horse and weapons with care and alertness. He who employs the Brahmins to perform marriage and death ceremony according to Hindu rites, commits serious breach of discipline of the Khalsa Moral Code and should be given penitentiary punishment. Note: The foregoing Rehitnama is translation of the text found in British Museum. There are some printed versions of the same and now available. But I recently found a Manuscript in which the following additional instructions are recorded, and it indicates that the original text was more comprehensive. The additional points are: There are four types of Sikhs: Those who become Sikhs for commercial motives: Dhande di Sikhl. Those who accept Sikhism formally only to imitate Sikhs for material gains and to exploit Sikhism: Bhekh di Sikhi. Those who become Sikhs for personal or family ambitions, be they religious, social or political: Hirsi Sikh. Sikhs who are dedicated and sincere in faith: Sidqi Sikh. One should not tell a lie; one should not associate (sexually) with women other than one’s legal wife. One should discard lust, anger, egoism, calumny, and violence (himsa) of all types. Himsa means wilfully harming other people. A Sikh should be sweet of speech, and he should never hurt anyone’s feelings. He should remain pure and sincere at heart and never harm anyone. One should pay his tithes for the cause of Guru, and always share his surplus income with the needy and help them in every way. While one lives according to the Commandments of the Guru, he should not be vain or be proud of it. Sikh should not visit a society or place where one forgets God and the great divine Teachers. Such a society should be discreetly avoided. A Sikh should not be a glutton, nor should he waste food. He should neither talk much nor sleep much. He should bring home his earning by honest labour, and help the Sikh devotees and serve them. He should consider God and the Guru as the Supreme Giver. A Sikh should avoid five activities: stealing, coveting or misappropriating other people’s property. coveting other people’s wives. scandalizing others for personal reasons. gambling. drinking wine. A person who has drifted away from Sikhism should be guided to the right path. One should not harm or hurt them if they can still be guided to the right path. A Sikh should be judged not by his material possessions and wealth, but by his life of meditation (Nam Simrin: Remembrance of God), and his moral spiritual life. A Sikh should tie his hair on the top centre of the head. He should wear bigger turban and keep his head covered. He should comb his hair twice; early in the morning and before going to bed. He should shampoo his hair every fourth day. Guru Gobind Singh said, “If anyone from any faith or creed, or from any of the four castes accepts Amrit baptism, they should be treated as my living embodiment: Oh mera sarup hai. ” Sikhs should contemplate the Guru-mantra: Vahi-Guru in the following manner: Inhale your breath and say Vah with it, and when you exhale your breath, say Guru with it. Guru Gobind Singh said, “It is not the outward form or dress that is dear to me, but the moral and spiritual living of Sikh that I admire: rehit pyari moko Sikh piara nahi. ” Source - The Turban and the Sword of the Sikhs by Dr. Trilochan Singh

Admittedly I dont know a lot about Damdami Taksal and only recently discovered they don't follow the Panthic Rehet Maryada and have their own, however the copy on their own website has that clause, that wives are to see their husband as God. It does not tell the husband to also see his wife as God instead it says he sees her as his follower. So their current version of their maryada does indeed say that and it sets a definite hierarchal view of marriage, which sounds a lot like husband worship. What was the original wording or context? I am interested to know. I know that Taksal prohibit women from a lot of seva which also doesnt sit well with me. I guess it doesn't affect me because we are obviously not Taksals. We follow mainstream Panthic Rehet Maryada (Sikh Rehet Maryada) though we also frequent AKJ samagams because of their awesome simran.

Pati Parmeshwar concept has no place in Sikhi. Not unless it goes hand in hand with "Patni Parmeshwari". Seeing God in each other, it goes both ways. ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਹੈ ਸੋਇ ॥Sabẖ mėh joṯ joṯ hai so▫e.The Divine Light is within everyone; You are that Light. If the divine light is within everyone as Gurbani says, then I am no more her pati parmeshwar than my wife is my patni parmeshwari. To expect her to look up to me as something higher than her is unthinkable. But seeing the divine in someone is different than seeing someone AS God. No human should ever be seen AS God. That is left for Waheguru alone.

If I try to TELL her anything, I will get a smack in the face most likely (and I'd deserve it too). If I ASK her to follow me, 99% of the time she would, but not because she feels its her duty to do so. She would do it because she loves and trusts me. BUT and this is a BIG BUT, By the same token, if she asks me to follow her, 99% of the time I'd also do so! Not because I am what some might call whipped, but because I also love her and trust her. So the leading and following is mutual and goes both ways. Sometimes I lead sometimes she leads. We don't keep count (though I'd say its 50/50) And for us, it's not about who is in control. Rather its about both of us having the freedom to express our individual needs and opinions and both of us having equal say and authority. And we have a very very satisfying and loving marriage.

@paapiman Forgive me Paapiman, but, werent you the one who once said on here that Gurmukh wives are expected to see their husbands as God (and even bow to them?). You were in a whole discussion with a girl on here before trying to push that idea. I think that Gurmukh husband and wife should both see the divine in each other as equals which to me agrees fully with Gurbani. How can I ever expect my wife to see me as God, if I would be unable to see the divine in her equally? She would see what - Only the fallible human part of me then! (and in fact, that would actually make her higher than me spiritually if she was capable to see God in me, when I could not see God in her would it not?). This is what I am trying to teach my daughter (now 8) to see God in everyone. The passage I am referring to is in the Taksal maryada. The wording is very sexist. It tells the wives to see their husband as God but it doesnt tell the husbands to see their wives as God, instead it tells husbands to see their wives as a follower which to me sounds a lot like worshipper.

I'm sorry I don't know who that is. Veer ji, Actually I agree with you. Problem is, we won't ever see that happen as each group has their own thinking, each will fight tooth and nail to prove their version of gurmat is true or not. For me, gurbani is highest. If something does not agree with what is written in guru granth sahib ji, then to me there is problem. But on a large scale I dont think we will ever see that. For instance in the taksali maryada I quoted above, where did it come from that woman are to be lower than men and see us as gods? Didn't Guru Nanak Dev Ji teach us we are to see god in each other? But obviously that idea and thinking that man is higher than women came from somewhere? Even if you look close the panthic maryada has some language which on the surface sounds sexist.

Turban is also mentioned in Guru Gobind Singh Ji's 52 Hukams, with no gender specified. There is also a hukamnama sent by him to Kabul (though admittedly many think it is fake) where he listed the kakaars and no gender was specified.

Does discrimination fall into realm of manmat? Equality of all Sikhs is Gurmat. Problem I have with Taksal maryada is telling women their husband is God. I don't think that is in line with Gurmat principles. I am not God to my wife anymore than she is to me. It sounds really sexist to me and against Sikh principles. This is only one example. For that reason I think Sikh Rehet Maryada is following closer according to what our Gurus taught. As kuttabanda2, and Amarjeet already said, Sikh Rehet Maryada was made as a minimum. As long as all others fit within that minimum, they can add whatever they want for their own dhera etc. But there is a fine line when it comes to discrimination is that considered adding to, or taking away?

Actually, fungus are considered living organisms which are much much closer related to animal than plant. They have chitin in their cell walls, plants do not. As food goes, most people consider mushrooms to be vegetables because they cook and eat like a veggie. But they are actually more animal like than plant like. Besides it's as Guru Nanak said "what is meat? what is green vegetables? what leads to sin?" makes us think. Trees actually have very intricate communication networks through their root systems, and plants can feel and react to damaging stimuli (pain?)

I can't believe you guys are labelling this as a controversial topic but paying no attention or concern for the op at all, rather the opposite. As Sikhs I find this shameful. We're not on about suspicion and pointing fingers, aren't we supposed to help? Admins: Might I make a suggestion, perhaps create a sub forum where guests can post (because many even those who have user names) may want to broach a controversial topic and don't want their reputation on rest of site defamed because of their views on a particular subject which is hard to talk about. Like bar guest topics creation on rest of site but create a subforum specifically for controversial topics where people can post anonymously / as a guest. Then it will be contained to one sub forum at least and those who don't want to read those topics don't have to. On a side note, I posted before as a guest and due to suggestion to make an account I did. Now I am being accused of being someone else. So you can't win, and it doesn't really matter anyway in the end. People will still have their agendas and be weary of anyone who disagrees with their agenda. On both sides.

I get along with everyone! I am only a bit of a feminist because of my daughter which I believe entitles me to be! Have a young daughter and you will understand. You will no longer feel the desire to keep women "in their place" so to speak. You will only want everything and anything for your little girl! I am 36 years old, living in Ilford UK and work in health sector. Of course Jasper is a short version of my name, which is Jaspreet. Nice to meet you paapiman.

I don't think thats what he said when I re-read it I think he is getting at the fact that what people say are masculine and feminine are really just human traits and both genders can have these traits. For example compassion as you said, is generally seen as feminine, and is labelled as feminine as compassion is not generally seen as macho or assertive which are generally seen as masculine traits. But what he is saying is that all these traits are available to all humans regardless of what gender they are. For example you can show compassion and woman might be assertive and dominating. But I am sure you have come across situation where a girl might be assertive and dominating, and while you might consider those to be positive traits in a man, you might look down on that girl as not being feminine. What he was saying in the post above is that all these traits should be balanced and available to all humans so that there is no traits which are seen as one or or the other because souls are genderless. A man can be a man without being competitive, overbearing and dominating, and he can show compassion and caring. A woman can be a woman without being submissive and shy, she can be an assertive leader in society. I think thats all he meant.

What if it's not? And there is a young girl out there who might be thinking of doing something stupid? Guest Sukhdev above mentioned in the extreme what can happen what these thoughts start to occur. It would be a huge tragedy and fault on our part if we dismissed this person and then see in the news story of a young girl who commits suicide to escape being a girl. (or rather to escape the limitations and lower position we put on girls). We can't take the chance to cause that.

Chatanga1, how do you define cold? If it were lets say only 5C outside would you feel cold? Would you consider that to be cold? How about -20C? But then, would 5C be considered hot? If you knew science at all, you'd know that cold and heat are subjective and are actually the same thing. Our sun is quite cold in comparison to other stars just as an example. The moon, experiences different levels of heat cold during lunar day and night. Guest Sukhdev is correct in his interpretation. And it's deep philosophical truth which is found in eastern philosophies moreso than western ideologies.

I would say rather it was a combination of repressing women for so long (it was historically perfectly fine for males to have more than one sexual partner while women were to remain virginal and pure), and women watching us be freely sexually deviant for so long caused them to emulate what we had done for so long. In other words, they are using the analogy of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Your suggestion that feminism caused it is skewed. All feminism did was allow women to have the same rights as we do. What we set as the example for those rights is our own fault. However the way you worded it makes me think you are perfectly fine with males having full rights to be sexually deviant while women are kept under men's control. Please will you answer this question Paapiman? Do you think women should be under the full control and authority of men? Or do you think they should be/ are free humans with the same right of personhood and liberty over their own lives as we are? Prior to feminism women's lives were fully controlled and dictated by men. What they did, how they did it, when they did it. And of course, they were given less freedom and less right of personhood and liberty over their own lives, than men gave themselves. Men could do what they wanted, when they wanted while women had to have permission. Women were more like property of their husbands or a servant / slave or treated like an overgrown child. Please say you do not condone that system! It goes against what our Gurus believed! Also, if you say feminism is the cause of sexually deviant behaviour in women, then what caused that behaviour in men? Masculinism? Patriarchalism? Maybe its us we should be the ones who are put into a controlled system so we no longer behave that way since we obviously couldn't keep it in our pants all throughout history! You talk of feminism as if it is bad. But what about our version? The one where we want full control over women? Thats just as bad if not worse! Equality / balance is the only answer! One gender can not be in control or dominating the other at all. Or else we reap what we sew. Because we have done all those exact same things to women, that Charitropakhyan tries to point the finger at women for. Only we did it much worse, and for nearly all of history. You keep focusing on women and trying to lay blame on women being sexually immoral and using charitars to prove your point. Maybe start looking at your own gender for once, and see all the sexual abuse and atrocities we committed all through history against women! Both physical AND mental abuse! Yet you want to focus on a very small amount of women who are only emulating what we did to them all this time? I think we actually deserve everything we get! Guru Nanak Dev Ji said only he is a judge who judges himself. So you should stop this hatred campaign against women and finger pointing for awhile, read the history on your own gender and the atrocities committed by males to females throughout history, and then do some introspection on your own faults. You seem very quick to try and analyze everyone else's faults.

Agreed! And supported by Gurbani.

Woe you really like putting women down huh? There was research that done that proved the reason males have more muscle capacity is because the overall metabolic burden on both male and female bodies are the same. Since women expend so much of that burden on growing an entire human being, it balances out. Yes fine men can be stronger. That doesn't mean men are better, and it certainly doesnt mean men get to be in control of everything. Humans deserve to all be treated equally. I was just pointing out that size doesn't necessarily matter. That someone small can be more agile and use the larger person's size against them. You know the bigger they are the harder they fall. And military is not all ground pounders anymore either. Fine the men want to be the grunts? The privates in the field, let them. The women can command back at base, or operate high tech drones, or even be tank crew, or yes even fighter pilots where actually women are more suited to the g force and being able to track more contacts at once. "Women make better fighter pilots than men because the female body is better suited to handle g-force and less likely to lose consciousness during flight." That coupled with being better at multitasking make women better fighter pilots. But would say men should never be fighter pilots? Same reason you cant say women should never be infantry either. If the person can do the job and is motivated, then let them. But what does this even have to do with harassment? I was just pointing out that MANY females are fighting back, and winning, against their attackers. That somehow makes you mad? Then you have issues.

I dont have a lot of time before I have to head out, but here are a few. And I remember a really great example where a young girl actually fought off multiple male attackers to the point she injured all 4 of them! Most male attackers preying on young women are not trained fighters, so when these girls attack they are not expecting it at all. And to suggest that the black belt master testing her was holding back suggests that she was cheated out of really qualifying for her belt. In other words she was just handed it is what you are saying. Trust me that was not the case! They are not allowed to do that as ITC TaeKwon Do is regulated at the world level. If anyone was found out just giving girls their belts without them actually earning them, the Masters in Korea would shut them down and probably take away that instructors qualifications. Anyway here are a few good examples. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11617129/Female-kickboxer-knocks-out-sex-attacker-who-pounces-as-she-walks-home.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2790060/attacker-left-battered-bruised-trying-grab-young-teenage-girl-martial-arts-expert.html http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10729692/Girl-fights-off-attacker-with-jiu-jitsu-skills

If girls train in martial arts, that old adage of women not being able to defend themselves against men goes away. They learn how to use someone's size against them. I have seen a 14 year old girl go head to head with a black belt taekwon do man (to get her black belt) and she seriously gave him a run for his money. she of course qualified for her belt! But the average adult male without martial arts training, I would hazard a guess she could hold her own against easily! Problem is, nobody fights fair in today's world. It doesn't matter what gender you are when someone brings a gun to the game. By the way the same things that women are being pointed at in Charitropakhyan, men are actually the ones who are more likely to do those things. Using deceit to get women into bed. You dont have to look far to see stories of men promising love to women to sleep with them. (just look at guest Sukhdev's post!) Charitropakhyan depicts mostly women tricking men to get them in bed. However in reality, in real life far more men do these things to women than the other way around. So please when you read those tales, realize you can easily swap the female with a male. It would have made much more sense to use about half the stories as one gender and half the stories as the other gender so that fact would be more apparent. (if the moral was to point out the adultery and deceit and not a specific gender) Both males and females are capable of cheating on their spouse, and of using lies to get someone into bed, but men generally do it more in real life. Its unfair to read Charitropakhyan and think women are the ones who do that and that men are saints when reality is opposite. So when you discuss these things please also look at it from the point of view as if each story also had a male main character doing the exact same things instead of female which is the far more likely if you look at history. I think part of the problem and why maybe only women were written about is that it was actually socially acceptable throughout history for men to sleep with more than one woman while women were expected to remain completely faithful. Men in many cultures had wives and also mistresses and concubines etc on the side. And it was not considered adultery nor really even frowned upon. Here you go:

Well I will agree with you this is wrong. It should be same across the board. You know the yogi bhajan school Miri Piri Academy, both male and female must tie turbans and wear bana. Its mandatory to be student there. I know of some other Sikh schools that are the same way and yes they are punjabi run. Rest of them, maybe try pushing for both male and female to do so if you think girls also should! If you start an online cause I would support it!

Except, its not mandatory for non Amritdhari males to tie turbans either. So you can't say that it is mandatory for males and not for females. In reality its only mandatory for male Amritdharis, and I believe it should be mandatory for Amritdhari females also. It would resolve a lot. What good does it do to force a non Amritdhari male to tie turban, when he is not even making full commitment to Sikhi? If he is going around drinking alcohol in spare time, I'd really rather he did not tie a turban at all actually! That is just living a lie to me! And one of the big things that makes me upset! If this is what you are supporting, keeping these guys in turbans even though they are only doing so for cultural reasons and not for commitment to Sikhi then why even bother? But this is off topic and not appropriate given the subject matter of the original post. We can start a new thread if you like talking about turbans and whether to compel non Amritdhari to tie them or not or if it is even right or appropriate to do so.

I would not be surprised by anything. I wish for peace all around though! Please don't get me wrong! And my daughter is far from teenager yet but I am hopefully helping her learn to defend against things and she is taking martial arts, which I think every young Sikh should do, especially girls! But yes my wife and I will still be weary of anyone she meets! Thats human nature! She is our pride and joy!

These are good points that also need to be resolved. Turbans all around for Amritdhari. And no removal of kesh for anyone! Easy. I actually think if more girls tied dastaars the Singhs would start seeing them more as equals actually! But nobody can force anyone to do anything. Becoming Amritdhari is by choice not by compelling someone. Every Sikh boy I know who cuts his kesh, has not been subject of wrath by anyone. Rather, people felt disappointed and sad. But it was the boys choice!

I am not for these things! I am just stating why its not surprising. You can't make life miserable for a group of people for centuries and then be surprised when they start to lash back at you, even using the very same tactics you used on them! You are correct though. Gurbani says Waheguru is the male and the female. That is all we need to know. Charitropakhyan only serves to CAUSE these rifts and competing. Why pick apart just women in a huge part of dasam granth and then use the odd story from news today as paapiman just did, to justify how Charitropakhyan is valid in todays world (again pointing finger at females) while you ignore and turn blind eye to all the exact very same things that we as men did to women all through history and that too in far greater numbers and severity? Do you think its ok to ignore the fact that men sexually harass women? Why? Because its women who are the ones who have the finger pointed at them in dasam granth and men don't in this context? The reality is far far more males sexually harass females than the other way around. In reality its wrong no matter who does it and to whom they do it! But to try to justify that Charitropakhyan is showing some huge revelation for today that women are all immoral and sexually harassing men, when you dont even mention (conveniently forget) how much men have done this to women all through history shows how much bigot and how much biased and skewed your thinking is! This shows mentality that its ok when men do it to women! Paapiman, males have sexually harassed females in way larger numbers than females have ever done to males and all throughout history! Why not mention that? Am I feminist? maybe! I have a young daughter! That gives me every right to be! I'd like to see Paapiman you have a daughter and then try to raise her telling her the things you have posted on here about females.