JasperS

And I thought you said Charitropakhyan was not about women but was some deep mystical meaning and not bashing of women? Then why post this and link it to Charitropakhyan unless you do believe Charitropakhyan IS a slam on women.  News flash, we have done these things to women in far greater numbers than they have ever done to us, and that too all throughout history. If you ask me, we are the ones who caused some of them to lash back in this way. Hey they learned how to do it from the best - Us! 

2 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Having read the rest of the post, I find this disbeleivable. It looks like a deliberate attempt to rehash some of the wild rantings of a person best forgotten and present them as some kind of current feeling running through a very young Sikh girl.

And if you are wrong? Keep your disbeliefs to yourself.  Or at least your comments. I don't think this the time to bring up personal conflicts because if you are wrong you (and paapiman) could seriously be causing more damage to the state of mind of the original poster.  

Guest Sharanpreet, please do not feel disheartened. Our Gurus taught that all humans are equal and deserve equal treatment. 

This says it all, this is all you need to know:

5 hours ago, paapiman said:

Gurus love those (could be any gender) who have love/devotion towards them and the ones who apply Gurmat principles in their lives.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Paapiman, is this what you consider to be living Gurmat principles? 

You have said before that even devi/devtay do not want a female body and that female body is considered a downgrade and you even suggested that women are only half humans (compared to men being full humans?) And you argued these points for about 4 pages in one thread! Is this what this 13 year old girl should take away as what is considered gurmat principles? That she is half human, a downgrade to her brother, and that the female body is so disgusting that even the devi/devtay only want male bodies and not females ones? This is what Sharanpreet should embrace as gurmat principles? 

6 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

CharitroPakhyan does not make women look bad. If it did, then what would you make of the stories that show women in a very positive character, AND those stories that make men look like idiots. No is making any of these latter claims, so how can they make the former? No-one who has read and understood this text will claim any of what you say.

Jasper maybe you should read the attempt made at deciphering this text on this forum? Share your knowledge there on the particular stories?

 

 

There is a certain skill to the text/structure of Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth that is not found anywhere. It is an amazing text for both features. But it's also true that people will also look on texts as per their own intelligence.

There have been people in the past ( and will be in the future) who have said that Guru Granth Sahib is an flat ( fails to inspire) text. But that is only because they don't understand it. Myself for instance could read Shakespeare and find it boring. That doesn't mean it is, it just means I cannot fathom the full or part of the genius in it.

 

I don't know about liking them, but it certainly not bashing women as an absolute. It's also praising women, and bashing men. It's a didactic text.

I dont see much praise going on. I see males depicted as gullible victims of evil intentionally adulterous and deceitful immoral women. The sheer number does have an impact. I am very very very sure if it were opposite - if it were males written in bad light for 90% of the tales and only 10% in good light, I am sure (almost positive) you would feel differently. But because it's women who are put into this light you can brush it off, because hey you are male and get to bask in the glory of being male, the gender that is not being bashed. 
 

6 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

There are lines in Guru Granth Sahib that some would also describe as graphic. The point is for you to move past the graphic and see the essence of the text. Guru Sahib has not translated this text for a person to get caught in the graphic-ness of it, but to see the larger hidden picture. Those people who get caught in the graphic are full of vikaar themsleves and are looking for a scape goat to explain it.

If the point is to move beyond the graphic depictions, then why even bother writing them? An author writes material for a reason. What reason would Guru Gobind Singh Ji have for writing descriptive lines about penises and vaginas which have nothing to do with the actual (supposed) moral message, if you can call it that. 

6 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

It is pointed at both, and that should be enough. Remember in Guru Granth Sahib in 5574 shabads, there are how many shabads along the lines of " so ko manda akhiyan jit jaman raajaan"? Once it appears? Or twice? But that is enough for any Sikh. The fact is that if Guru Sahib had written 403 stories about women and 1, yes, only 1 about men, that one story about men is enough to say that the text is not only about women.

No its not pointed at both. The only things men are depicted as are gullible falling for the women's deceit. It is far better to be seen as a hapless victim than it is to be seen as intentionally deceitful and immoral. Intent implies premeditated evil. The men in Charitropakhyan are only seen as falling for their evil trickery.  Case in point, who looks worse, a murder victim or the murderer? Using your reasoning, the victim looks just as bad because they fell for whatever trick the murderer use and ended up dead. However, nobody would ever argue who is the one who should be depicted as evil. 
 

6 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

No they don't. These are part of a dialogue between 2 people. It is not an UPDESH from Guru Sahib to his Sikhs.

Then please explain why certain members on here have posted in the past that women can not be trusted with secrets even by their own husbands? And some members even posted (in the dg section) in the separate analysis posts, posting their conclusions like everyone knows women are like this or that, using examples from that specific tale.  I dont see anyone posting conclusions against men. Oh wait they cant because the only conclusion i all of them so far is that yet another man was deceived by a treacherous evil woman.

But one specific example is charitar #10.  The maid is severely beaten, and acts out (presumably in self defence) but the moral message at the end is that you can capture a womans heart but never let her capture yours. In other words she was made out to be the bad one.  The severe beating, was not rebuked, in fact it was not even mentioned at all in the moral message as if it was nothing of concern.  The message is obvious, beat women all you want but dont ever let them get the upper hand on your if you do (like the maid did in this story who killed them because of the beatings) and It's ok to deceive women but never let them deceive you.  Guru Gobind Singh Ji would never write something like this!
 

6 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

Let's leave Guru Granth Sahib aside for the moment. Have you read Aesop's fables?

cant say as I have

5 hours ago, paapiman said:

To add to the above:

• No female guru appointed by Sri Satguru jee
• No female Brahamgyani's writings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee, while there are more than 30 male personalities

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

And why do you think that is paapiman? Do you think women are lower status than men? (spiritually speaking)  Given that majority of the stories in Charitropakhyan make women look immoral (they only make men look gullible victims) and the fact that you thought it was relevant to mention the above I am guessing you think female bodies are lower state than male ones? Why do you think people are born into a male body vice a female one then? Is it a reward to get a male body and a punishment to get a female one? I always thought that any human body was a precious reward according to Gurbani. 

Btw there is one simple reason for the above. In that time period women were still marginalized. Our punjabi culture sees women as lower so we treat them lower.  In that time, when women were seen as inferior to men in general mindset (and even today as I am sure I know how your answer will go) do you seriously think if our Guru came in a female body (because remember the soul is what is real not the body. And Guruship was not passed on so much as the same light was awakened in all 10 - remember in reality there is only one soul / consciousness anyway). But in that time and culture constraints not a single male would have ever listened to anything a female had to say especially if she was put into a position of authority. Even in present day many males still can not fathom listening to a woman. Back then arriving in a female body would have negated the mission, because of the CULTURE and THE MINDSET, not because of the body, so make sure we get that right. Also back then how many women were actually encouraged to write any spiritual works at all? Again most women at that time in Hindu background were told they were not even worthy to look upon the vedas and that their only purpose was to serve their husband as their God. This mindset takes a very very long time to overcome. The same can be said for casteism. Its now been over 500 years and how many Sikhs still cant let go of casteism? Its the same for gender bias. Its a sad reality and we males are the ones to squarely put the blame on!  Its because of us! We did this to women! 

8 hours ago, Guest Mehta4life said:

Dhadrianwala, Panthpreet and Dhunda all claim that Charitro pakhiyan katha should not be done in the hazuri of SGGS Ji because they don't believe Dasme Paathshah wrote the Charitro pakhiyan as they want to deny that Dasam Pita was the greatest writer of all times.

I happen to agree with them and guest Sukhdev also as I cant believe how all of the Gurus tried to elevate status of women to equals and charitropakhyan only makes them look bad. You think this is the best writing of all time? I guess you don't read Guru Granth Sahib Ji then? Instead you like stories bashing women as deceitful adulterers. Stories which are graphic and even touching on sexual themes which I would call depraved. If it was only moral stories, then the finger would be pointed equally at both men and women, not just women and there would be no need for such descriptive depravity. The vast majority of the stories are showing women as intentionally deceitful, adulterers, cheating on husbands and so on. There are even a few stories in charitropakhyan that encourage vioelnce against women. This view of females was prevalent in other religions like Hinduism but not ours. 

18 hours ago, GurpreetKaur said:

But laws are not really set on stone. There is always one person out there who breaks them and we get to know something called "Miracle" to build and increase our faith. Few examples I can think on top of my monkey mind : Virgin Mary, people dying and coming back ( NDE people), suffering from massive injury but still surprising the doctors with healing, breatherians, kid coming back to life just to drink Water, woman falling from an airplane but still survived and so many others  . Under the hypnosis you can see people breaking the Laws. Lucky ji is breaking laws too so I really don't know how "universal" are universal laws to be honest . 

Women can still conceive Without being touched by a man (intrauterine insemination). So if technology can do that why our ancestors (who had the ability to bend time and ability to see what modern scientist still can't see) Can't do that. 

 

 

The question is more why would they? The assumption I am getting here is that sex = bad. Therefore our Gurus would never have anything to do with this gross bass carnal thing. 

This is such wrong thinking.  Sexuality was created by Waheguru. Union between male / female is a beautiful thing when not misused. It's not intercourse that is disgusting. It's the misuse of it for purely physical gratification that is disgusting. It's warping the original meaning of sexuality which can be a highly spiritual act! I can't explain to you how, you have to arrive at that conclusion yourself. In fact, its one of the closest acts we can do under the correct pretence, that mimics the merging of our soul back with waheguru. There is a spiritual merging of energy between husband and wife when this occurs. Once you view intercourse in this way, it no longer seems disgusting, nor something that would have any reason for our Gurus to avoid. Its OUR minds which make sex into something disgusting only. 

So why would our Gurus avoid it? To suggest so, says that sex is inherently bad. All sex. And to suggest that Gurus never engaged in it, says that their wives did not actually share any marital relationship at all if it was purely platonic (why marry them then when they could just as easily have congregated with him as sisters / servants / companions)? It also suggests that since the Gurus had children, that those children were not biologically related to the Gurus. It takes two sets of DNA to create a child. Were the Gurus wives just treated as breeding stock?

10 hours ago, Guest Jaspal SIngh said:

weheguru

Actually in Gurbani God is refered to as lord Husband and our souls are female (men and woman) therefore even spiritually, men are female. As the 5 pyara are a representation of Weheguru (they were given such high regard even Guru Gobind Singh Ji listened to their hukam). This is why they have to be male. This is not a sexist thing as all souls are regarded female.

 

 

 

This is absolutely absurd! You just got finished saying even males are females, so even they could not represent Waheguru then using your logic.

Or else you are saying male humans are a step above female humans in that they can represent Waheguru somehow, meaning somehow a physical male human has something that females don't have? Spiritually speaking. But you just said that even male humans are female souls.

By the way Waheguru is genderless having no form!

You have to realize this is metaphor being used. Do you need a dictionary to learn what metaphor means?

The love between a husband and wife in this lifetime, is used as a metaphor to explain the merging between soul and Waheguru.  The ONLY reason bride / female is used in the METAPHOR to explain that humans are ALL female, is only because in this life, it was traditional (not so any more in present times) that the bride left her family home and joined her husband in his home and marriage and love have been seen as the most powerful human relationship so no wonder it was used as the metaphor. 

Thus the metaphor - that our souls leave this place to join Waheguru. So in that way we are all the brides and Waheguru is husband. But this is only using metaphor to explain the true meaning, something which is difficult to explain in human terms. Without metaphor, there would be no way to explain spirituality at all! 

It is only metaphor and nothing else.  Please learn to understand how metaphor works!
There is in actuality NO gender. And there is no marriage (in human terms). Our souls, and Waheguru do not have gender as ultimate reality is formless.  And in reality, they are ONE and the same anyway! There is no difference in ultimate reality terms. 

So in reality, it is the SOUL representing Waheguru / Guru when acting as Punj Pyaras and NOT the physical body. And since ALL humans have the SAME GENDERLESS soul, and in reality ALL SOULS ARE ONE, then of course ANYONE can do this seva! To say otherwise is absurd! 

To say that human males can represent Waheguru but not human females is saying that somehow human males are higher spiritual level or status, or have something which makes them closer to (or more like) Waheguru than females. This is wrong. All human souls are the same!

You don't even see that by saying that, you ARE very much condemning females to an inferior existence, seen as inferior in eyes of our Creator. Waheguru did not create us to be in hierarchies. That is the whole reason Khalsa was created in first place!  To put EVERYONE on same level. No matter what caste, colour, gender, rich/poor.  

Anyone who takes Amrit all make the exact SAME commitments. ALL give their heads equally. You can't tell some Amritdharis that they are fully Khalsa and have full rights as Khalsa including ability to initiate others, while telling others that even though they took the same Amrit, and gave their head the same, and made same commitments, they will never be truly fully member of Khalsa because they can never have full rights as a member of Khalsa. There is no two different levels of being Amritdhari. Either you are or you are not. There is no male Khalsa and female Khalsa. 

This is seriously unbelievable. First of all, a Sikh should NEVER do anything for ANY worldly desires. To be frank, this sounds like Hindu superstition. Sikhs don't pray for worldly things or do rituals for worldly desires.  Or perhaps dhera concocted stories to create control in the members.

And a Sikh is to recite naam with every breath. Remember Waheguru with every beat of your heart every day. One will find Waheguru much easier by ACTION of selfless service.  Do seva for others, and remember Waheguru with every breath while doing so. There is no need to count jaaps, sit in certain way, like ritual and superstition.  

I don't know where you are getting your idea of Sikhi Paapiman, but you seriously need to reevaluate what Sikhi is and what it is NOT. 

And a person would never go mad doing this.  Either it was for show, or something else unrelated happened or its a concocted story.

I am really starting to wonder about what is being touted as Sikhi as of late! 

Here is a really good (free) e-book on the subject, with actual techniques etc. and what to expect during various stages and different types of OBEs: 

http://www.universallawstoday.com/ebooks/Spirit-Quest.pdf

9 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

The minister is trying to get the King to look at his OWN conduct when faced with a difficult situation. The woman kept a level head, and used her intellect and confidence to survive the occasion. The King on the other hand did neither.

But she was still a whore! 

56 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

On the flip side, let's not for one minute imagine all Sikh girls are angels either. You want to come to England and se what rep some ofthem have made for themselves....

So there is good and bad in both male and females. 

I'm just saying the above was just petty and stupid. 

Where do you think I am located?? I'm in Ilford.  And I could say the same there are just as many Singhs who have made bad names for themselves as well including in crime and such. But we would never think to take away rights of all Sikh males because some are just messed up would we? So why even bring up that some Sikh women are messed up? Yes kicking out the Singhnis from the nagar kirtan was petty and stupid no matter what your stance on women as panj pyareh which is entirely different topic. But the issue is unless we start treating women as absolute equals when it comes to treatment in Sikhee, then even the smallest things we might want to keep for ourselves like keeping women from seva as panj pyareh (which is not small by any definition of the word), then it just snowballs because we already see them as lesser than us in our minds. Unless we see women as our equals, then we always have a reason to impose just one more thing on them (because we feel entitled to do so), and then just one more thing and so on, and soon they are standing on a platform way below us which is against what our Gurus taught no? And then soon, the attitude becomes just as you posted above 'Keep them b1tches under control!' and we have decisions being made like this where girls are kicked out of a nagar kirtan simply for being girls. The entire attitude has to change.

2 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

What an own goal...

 

What's the rationale behind it? 'Keep them b1tches under control!' or something? 

People go on about how Sikhi gives women equality and this petty, unnecessary crap happens.

I think we have discovered in the last while on this forum even, that women are not treated equal in Sikhee, and most members don't think they should they be. As paapiman likes to say women are given optimum rights in Sikhee (but those optimum rights for women are always less than optimum rights for us)

We first need to decide does Sikh religion in fact treat women as equals or not, before we can decide if what happens is unnecessary crap.  In regards to the nagar kirtan, I think the mindset was that females can't accompany the palki sahib at all, only men can. Girls are not welcome anywhere near our Guru. They are to shut up remain in sidelines, and let males do all the leading and prominent roles. As a father of a young daughter I personally find the whole thing disgusting. 
 

Because they were female. 

1 hour ago, fromherkingsareborn said:

 

 

 

Hi, I've never been on this forum before, so I didn't really know what goes on here, so don't worry about me testing anyone. Though, JasperS, I'm quite surprised to hear that there seems to be a lack of support for female equality in this forum :(

I genuinely need some sort of an answer because this issue has been bothering me for a while. 

Paapiman and Rock, I understand where you both are coming from, but I plan to go once more alone to find out a bit more before going again with my uncle and brother who know the 'president' of the gurdwara - lol I'm sure they'd be surprised to see me pop up for the third time haha

I just don't know what to do really 

I think you will find the main thoughts on here are that women should not be treated badly, but they definitely do not deserve equal rights and treatment to men.  The majority on here are happy with cultural status quo where women occupy a lesser role and private home life, out of leadership and public sphere especially in Sikhee. They want the leadership roles kept to males and want women to be submissive. At least that's what most have been posting on here a lot and because of it I think there aren't any females posting here anymore that I can see.

Apparently not as much a stronghold as once thought.  The way we are headed is back to Hindu ideology of women straight from laws of manu. I feel really upset for my daughter and what she will be facing when she is older. 

1 hour ago, Rock said:

Its not weird its being careful. I would never allow my sister or daughter to go to Gurdwaras alone & seek justice for women rights. Call me old-fashioned I dont care.

My troll senses are tingling from the op. I think someone just wanted to test this forum about women rights.

Well, if they were testing how this forum thinks with regards to women, they should have a look around. I don't think there are any females left posting here! Where did they all go? Gurpreet Kaur, CdnSikhgirl, sukrit kaur, they all seemed to have stopped posting. Thats says something. This place isn't really known for being supportive of women having equal rights in Sikhee. The OP might have better luck on some other forums. I don't know if I am allowed to post names or not for other forums that more female friendly. 

And Rock, you are right, I wouldn't allow my daughter to go alone either. I'd go with her and give that granthi a lesson on what our Gurus taught about equality. 

Bhen Jee you may have come to the wrong forum to ask for help as a female.  I think most of the Singhs here (myself not included) however might be on same page as that Granthi who sloughed you off for being female. 

Please note I never said to stop posting paapiman veerji. What I said was please allow discussion without becoming angry if someone happens to disagree. No two humans will ever agree on everything. Just because someone disagrees with you on a topic or even disagrees with the interpretation in the video you post, is not a reason to ignore them or say you won't respond anymore. Healthy discussion is how we progress and learn from each other.  Just please don't be so one minded that you can't see other's point of view on things. Also it would be nice if when you post those links, also provide a description of what the video is about, and your own thoughts on it instead of just posting the link.  That opens up discussion. We are all here to learn from each other right? I am not saying posting links is bad I am just saying you should also participate in discussion on what you post, and also be open to other's viewpoints. That's all. 

Who organizes this Nagar Kirtan? One Rehet Maryada should not be forced upon everyone. I understand they were flag bearers anyway and so it doesnt even matter, but even if they WERE there as Panj Pyaras, Sikh Rehet Maryada does allow it, and I surmise a good deal of those present that day would be following Sikh Rehet Maryada and not The Rehet Maryada of Taksali or Nihung etc. All should be allowed to be represented if this was an event for the greater Sikh community there.

If this was purely a Taksali event then ok, they can do what they want since its their event. But if this event was for the greater Sikh community then they have to be inclusive of the whole community.

It seems from the video as if the idea of girls being anywhere near Guru Granth Sahib was seen in disgust. At the end of the video, they moved them somewhere way ahead, away from Guru Granth Sahib in between two trucks. The message was clear girls are not welcome.  It was a disgraceful act either way. And this is the hatred we are brewing towards women.

2 hours ago, Koi said:

Why can it not be physical as well? I.e. why can't Gurbani turn poison in to amrit? 

Because reciting Gurbani with intent to turn poison into amrit would (as in physical posion like cyanide or something) would be like trying to practice black magic or something. At very least it would definitely be ritual which our Gurus got us away from.  Sikhi is pragmatic. Its not about superstitions and supernatural.  The spiritual aspect is inherent in humans but trying to mess with nature is going against his hukam. Cyanide was made a poison for a reason. No human reciting Gurbani over it will ever change that fact. 

But if you feel it can, then please grab a video camera, put some poison in a cup and recite some gurbani and then drink it on video.  That will clear all of our doubts I am sure!

Sometimes I think we are going backward back to Hindu fold with all these superstitious claims. 

There have been numerous times when he would post something and then discussion would start and if someone posted something which disagreed with what he said, he would ask for the topic to be locked or said he will ignore any more responses. What kind of discussion is that? I'm not going to surf through finding them now but one off the top of my head is the post about poison. Someone chellenged his thinking saying it was metaphorical and he got upset saying he would not longer respond to them. That doesn't really help healthy discussion. There were other times when someone challenged the original post and he got irate and asked for it to be locked, and it was. This makes the statement that discussion is not allowed if the viewpoints go against the narrow viewpoints of this forum. It's just my opinion. 

So are you saying discussion on those topics are not allowed? If that's the case why not create a specific subforum for just posting links like that and then make it so no replies are allowed?  The forum is a discussion forum, so it shouldn't be too far out to think that discussion on topics posted should be encouraged? If its not then why not contain the links to one sub forum created for that purpose? 

I had the bad example of being near a supposed sant near Ludhiana once.  His body odour was horrendous. Like stinky underarm sweat smell and no deoderant. Am I to take it from this, that he was not really a sant? 

Human bodies smell. Period. If you are healthy, the more your stool will smell too and it is a good thing not a bad thing. Means you are processing your food well. Please dont get caught up in superstitions.