WakeUp

JustAnotherSingh Jinwhat do you make of some of these rehets making the statement that no Singh should trust any woman even those close to them such as their own wives? I think it also says bibis can not recite bani in public, in sangat. I think Chaupa singh rehetnama has both. All the copies of so called puratan rehetnamas we have now were adulterated. You can't tell me Guru Ji would approve of the above.

Samurai, veer if it's replication of the first five then why do we allow black males or causcsian males or for that matter why do we allow males from castes which were not represented by the original five? If it was true replication of the original details then we shouldn't allow anyone who was not Punjabi, brown skinned, and from one of the castes that the original were. But somehow we don't think these details are important to replicate while gender is. Why is it only gender which is important? I think what jasper Ji and I both are trying to say is that as long as the soul is high avastha that is what matters to be replicated. These bodies are false and will die in the end but the light inside won't. The very fact you say Mai Bhago was allowed to choose to be a warrior and she not stopped by Guru Ji and in fact she was made a personal body guard. He never told her this is only for the boys go home. That shows Guru Ji does not discriminate. If women choose to give their heads and lead warrior lifestyle then who are we to say they can't represent the original 5? It was Guru Ji who armed women with kirpan same as men. "Jo to praym khaylan ka chaao, sir dhar talee galee mayree aao. " "It maarag pair dhareejai, sir deejai kaan na keejai." If women are prepared to do that then they ARE replicating the original 5. As for being polite by holding doors etc you can do that nobody is stopping you. And women will find it polite. Most women today however also don't think lowly of a male who doesn't. Some will even hold it for you if they walk through first. I think that is all just trivial things and we shouldn't worry about them. Just be polite to everyone male and female alike.

My experiences with negativity regarding equality have been direct in that responses from members like Chatanga, now samurai etc and what they are stating. If my responses are similar to another member then it's pure coincidence. Maybe we just think alike. I have not seen that person you mentioned around here so I can't comment. And my responses are directly responding to posts by member Chatanga tva prasad and samurai how am I supposed to respond? They keep saying the same things over and over too. Is this forum open to anyone? If you don't want the general reputation of the forum being negative towards females then where is the positive? I have not seen any so please show me if you say not all think like that! I have only seen negative things on here sicne I came here.

Did you know that ragmala appears in a composition as part of a Hindi love poem called Maadhav Nal Kaam Kundla which was written by a Sufi Muslim Kavi, Alam?

We can be warrior for a good cause, like upholding the rights of others and fighting injustice and tyranny. Like when we fought for Hindu to be able to practice their own religion and not converted by force. Did it mean we idolize them? Did it mean since we stood up for and fought for them that somehow it makes them lesser than us or deserving of less rights? And now we should fight for right for our sisters mothers and daughters to have their rightful equal status in Sikhi given by our Gurus. Gurus sent our women as masands and we want to keep them locked in kitchen! That would be a warrior with a righteous cause, to fight against this discrimination our Bibis face! But instead you seem to be fighting for the wrong side, to want to uphold discrimination, to put our sisters mothers daughters into lower position and take away their rightful place beside us. Remember the same jot is in all of us including women. Regardless of whether you can lift more or fight better than an average female (you may be better at fighting then I am but you wouldn't discriminate against me for seva would you? So it's not about the amount of muscles is it as any male no matter how large their muscles are they are can easily be selected for Panj Pyaras without resistance?) But Gurbani teaches us despite our differences we should all be treated equally. Shouldn't we fight for something worth fighting for? Be a warrior, nobody is stopping you but take example from our Gurus and fight for what's right and what Gurbani teaches us: ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਹਰਿ ਗਾਇਆ ਹਰਿ ਹਾਰੁ ਉਰਿ ਪਾਇਆ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮਾ ਕੰਠਿ ਧਾਰੇ ॥ Gurmaṯ har gā▫i▫ā har hār ur pā▫i▫ā har nāmā kanṯẖ ḏẖāre. Under Guru's Instruction, they sing the Lord's Name, and wear the garland of the Lord's Name around their necks; they keep the Lord's Name in their throats. ਸਭ ਏਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਸਮਤੁ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖੈ ਸਭੁ ਆਤਮ ਰਾਮੁ ਪਛਾਨ ਜੀਉ ॥ Sabẖ ek ḏarisat samaṯ kar ḏekẖai sabẖ āṯam rām pacẖẖān jī▫o. They look upon all with equality, and recognize the Supreme Soul, the Lord, pervading among all.

Samurai if you consider your vulgar attitude to be the pinnacle of what Sikhs are supposed to be then I fear we are all doomed. There is no need for language like that! Admins, can you do something about this? This self proclaimed 'warrior' is directly attacking others for no reason, for their beliefs, beliefs which Gurbani actually espouses!

You are making no sense. Pls calm down bro. Even a Khalsa male can be attacked just in different ways. And females can also attack others. It hardly matters now with guns. We need to focus on eliminating hatred and greed and wanting to harm others instead of focusing on who has the larger muscles. Mad for rehet maryada panthic decision women can be Panj Pyaras. Sorry you disagree (if in fact you do since you have not straight out said so) and Sikh rehet maryada is the only one recognized by Akal Takht. Sorry but that's how it is. You can choose to follow Damdami Taksal that's your right just like it's mine to follow Sikh rehet maryada. But you can't go saying your is right. Referencing Gurbani Sikh rehet maryada actually follows it more. Anyway I don't think jasper Ji has meant anything bad.

I can answer that one. ALL Sikhs are to stand up and defend others. If anyone make or female sees anyone raping another or robbing another etc that Sikh has to stand up against that. This is why we need to also teach girls defence and martial arts. I don't think jasper is idolize for his daughter. His having a daughter allows him to see the limits placed on her because she is female and he wants to speak against that. And I agree with him. Feel free to yell at me too. Oh and reason why men rape women? One word. Control. It's about power over another. It actually stems from the idea that women are beneath men and subordinate. This is what We are supposed to be against.

Bhaji have you ever thought people can use the same arguments because they are actually valid? Multiple Singhs on here use the same argument that Jarnail singh said because no woman gave her head that day no woman ever can be part of panj Pyaras. And its always presented the same way. But have you ever thought that these members are the same one? I doubt it. Just because Jasper Ji and I have different view point from the majority on here and because we use the same argument doesn't mean we are another member on here. It's because we feel our arguments are valid and if another member had these same arguments before both of us then they too I feel had valid points that need to be brought up. There are only so many ways to say that something goes against Gurbani. There are only so many ways to say we are equal and all have the divine light. There are only so many ways one can say that sexism is same as casteism. I thought I provided much truth based on Gurbani and gurmat principles to support my case. If I am not the only one presenting these ideas then that is evidence there is merit to them that others have thought the same! Prior to registering I was only ever a guest. I did come here to read for about 1 year. Though I did once use a different guest name posting but I didn't know we had to use same one all the time so once you pointed it out I stuck with this one. It's ok, I think you just can't fathom that multiple people have idea that Sikhi teaches absolute equality and equal opportunity. I didn't expect much else because it seems most on here can not ever have open mind to think so. I appolohize if I have said anything wrong. Bhul chuck maaf.

I have only been on here as a guest before making this account and then you guys made guest make account.

Except we are not talking just Amrit sanchars. Does the one putting the patase get a say in what punishment one receives for bujjar kurehits? And what about when Panj Pyaras are formed for decision to be made on behalf of the panth? There is no patase being added ther is there? So how would a female have any input on these decisions? If it's always males then no females ever have any say in these things. And Chatanga yes the consciousness is what gave their heads. The consciousness is what made the decision to. Which head they had at the time did not matter. I have come to the conclusion that you are just misogynistic and will never change which is a pitty. Yes masands were disbanded but Yiu had asked about women administering Amrit in that time and I gave you real world examples. It makes no sense that Guru Ji then decided to discriminate against women after 1699. And you keep harping on proof in history after 1699. We barely have any written history at all about who took part in Amrit sanchars after 1699! Usually only sanchars with prominent people being initiated were written about and those were mostly military etc. we can't use only those few examples as litmus test for all time! What about Amrit sanchars which took place in villages especially when many singhs would have been away fighting? It makes sense that women would have been the ones administering it in those cases but they weren't high profile so they were not written about. Have an open mind. Your resistance to women as Panj Pyaras seems to be rooted more in your own disgust at the idea than actually looking to see if it is in accordance with Gurbani and gurmat principles. In other words you go looking for the negative where there isn't.

you are not getting what I am saying!! The soul has NO GENDER!!!!!! You could have been a female last time, I could have been a female last time! We might be next time! Our soul IS THE LIGHT! Gurbani says the divine light is in EVERY person!!!! A taksali giani can say what he wants. I don't believe him because what he says goes against Gurbani. How can female bodies not have that divine light? Female 'sants' indoctrinated in taksali or Dera beliefs will just parrot those same beliefs. Because that's what the sant life is devoting their life to THAT teachings!! Ask a female sant from AKJ what she thinks! Don't rely all on just taksal and dera thinking. The light doesn't 'come into' someone or even five someones. The light is already there in everyone. In fact the awareness behind every entity is the same ONE! The same light is already there! Lets say we act in a play with a bunch of others. Today I play the part of a female and you play the part of a male. (It's our souls playing the play). Tomorrow I play the male and you the female. This happens over and over. Then one day in 1699 something happens and five of us volunteer our heads. They happen to be playing a male at the time. Do you get that it was the soul who volunteered? Not the body! You can't say it was five males who volunteered. It was five actors who happened to be playing the part of a male at the time. Amrit sanchar is a an act of soul not the body. By your thinking above with the light thing if you actually believe it is you are saying women are lower spiritually than men. Is that what you are saying? Why even give them Amrit then? What's the point if they can't progress spiritually to recognize that light within them!? By saying what you just said about the light and females, you are essentially saying the soul itself has gender and that is not in line with Gurbani. So now you're saying females are inferior physically AND spiritually. So just what is Gurbani talking about when it says they are equal? And especially equal carriers of the divine light? Step away from one sided dera ideology for a bit. Listen to others outside of one group. Of course they will perpetuate stories in their own group to further their own ideology. Taksalis are known for being patriarchal. Of course their teaching will be patriarchal. Some of that comes from brahministic thinking. That women need to be born in a male joon first to get anywhere and for now their punishment is to serve men. I believe Chatanga already parroted this earlier. That being born a woman is result of karams and that her duty / punishment this life is to serve her husband. This is brahministic thinking and nothing else. Stop using only taksali examples to support your claims! "As Gurmukh look upon ALL with a single eye of equality, for in EACH and EVERY heart the DIVINE LIGHT is contained" SGGSJ

Wrong. You are essentially still pushing women into position of having no say in panthic decisions as it's Panj Pyaras who are called upon for that. Do you think our Gurus meant for women to have no say on panthic decisions? Remember the SOUL the Jyot inside is the SAME. Gender is only useful for physical things not spiritual. By saying women are unfit for things because of their physical body then you need to justify why that soul was born into that body to begin with since you have just turned gender into either punishment or privilege depending on which you end up with. Spiritual matters have nothing to do with physical gender. And Gurbani very CLEARLY states all are equal. You can't decide to change that. The Gurus gave masands ability to initiate by charan pahul in absence of the Guru. There were women masands. Women gave Amrit prior to 1699. One prominent woman masand was in charge of all Kashmir. There is no reason that women would be all of a sudden unallowed to after 1699. Have you noticed all the 'reasons' you guys give are just your own opinions? And they all reek of male superiority ego. Every reason seems to suggest personal opinions of women are lesser, less capable, inferior, unsuitable, not good leaders. Not based on Gurbani and gurmat principles. Remove your own stubborn male ego and see the truth. You won't be emasculated if you support your wife or daughter to have equality. In fact you will feel much better about yourself than treating them as (in your words) "shorter" than you. Women are not as you say 'less suitable' for administering Amrit and making decisions based on Gurbani and gurmat principles. Women can be just as good leaders. We should stop trying to put them into subordinate so called 'roles'. Anywau if you believe in discrimination then hang out with your taksalis. But don't try to force taksal maryada down the throats of rest of the panth, who already rules women CAN do seva as Panj Pyaras. It's specifically stated in the Panthic maryada. Panthic maryada passes litmus test of Gurbani. Taksali maryada does not.

There are no men or women. Gurbani says Akal Purakh IS the male AND the female. The genders are only temporary and transient. Ultimate reality is ONEness. So say that women are 'not allowed' to do something which males are allowed makes no sense. You are putting limitations on Akal Purakh (in female form). Also sants are still human. They will still put their own opinions and based on their own jatha or samparda teachings. For example if you ask a sant from AKJ background they would most definitely say women are 'allowed'. I have already shown in Gurbani there is nothing saying to restrict women compared to men and place them on lower status. There is however many shabads telling us to see all equally. Amrit sanchar places all initiates on equal level as all drink from same bata. You can't then say women are some lesser version of Khalsa. Same commitment is made by both males and females. If females made a lesser commitment at time of Amrit then you could justify them having a lower status but you can't. Not when they take the same Amrit sanchar and make same commitment. They are to be seen equally. Anything else is discrimination. I have also shown how Jarnail Sigh Ji's own reason can be disputed because of holding contempt for all women for inaction of some who were present that one day. But his argument has other flaws too like those from castes who did not have someone who gave their head or Caucasians there were no Caucasians who have their head etc. But nobody would think twice about selecting a Singh from one of those castes who were not represented in the original five or a Caucasian Singh. And as JasperS Ji said it means if you keep women from this seva that females will never have a say or any authority in big decisions in panth because those decisions are often given to Panj Pyaras. Yes women are allowed. Gurbani supports it, Akal Takht supports it, more importantly Waheguru supports it. It's only ego driven Singhs with a male superiority complex who don't support it.

Chatanga Ji I do t know why you keep bringing up marriage LOL I already answered. It's reproduction and species preservation which drives attraction. That has nothing to do with Amrit or the soul. Yes women can administer Amrit. I already have you example of masands prior to 1699. Masands had full authority to administer Amrit by charan pahul. We know there were women masands. It makes no sense to all of a sudden bar women from something which they had Guru given authority prior. Also as I said since becoming Khalsa is spiritual and puts everyone on same level as equals it makes no sense to treat some as lesser by limiting what they can do in spiritual sense. You may say and want Panj Pyaras always be males but there have been females. If you want to take Amrit from all males the go to taksal. But taksal maryada should not be imposed on rest of the panth because it goes against gurmat principles as laid out in Gurbani. There is nothing in Gurbani saying women have some lower position to men. Also you seem to be trying very hard to tip toe around the fact that male and female both can be living image of the Guru and since Panj Pyaras is essentially representing Guru Ji both genders can do this. It's the jot not the genetalia which matters. Your thinking is typical male mysoginistic thinking. You can't give any good reason except saying women and men are different? Ok physically yes we are but Amrit is not about the physical. It's a spiritual act. If women take same Amrit as men and give their heads symbolically same as men then they can also do seva as Panj Pyaras. Otherwise give women a separate sanchar which is also considered lower. You can't initiate someone and then tell them they will never really be 'fully' Khalsa. Akal Takht agrees on this. What individual Sikhs do is their own issue. Singhs who are keeping Kaurs in a lower position in Sikhi will be held accountable eventually by higher authority. I don't care if mysoginistic Sighs want to go to males for Amrit. But don't stop Kaurs from being able to take Amrit from other Kaurs. I don't care if taksalis stay to themselves and keep their maryada for them only. Even Jarnail singh ji was quoted saying taksal maryada is only for taksalis. But don't force it on rest of panth. Women can choose that way, to avoid associating with taksalis if they feel oppressed. Here is a photo In India. Five females doing seva as Panj Pyaras. And yes it was for sanchar. And no they are not AKJ. So no, hate to bust your bubble but it won't always be (and hasn't always been) only males. Also remember the written history we have usually only deals with notable Amrit sanchars where prominent person took Amrit and were comparably few when thinking of how many sanchars took place. So just because the few writing we have doesn't illustrate any women doing this doesn't mean in the thousands and thousands of other sanchars taking place that were not written about there were likely women, especially in cases where males were scarce because they were away possibly fighting etc. Just because they were not written about doesn't mean it didn't happen. And it's also well known that males tend to leave forgotten female stories out of history anyway. (Just look how many stories about male sants and so few stories written about female sants. It's not because they don't exist. It's because males generally step in limelight all the time to detriment of females.). It's time we stopped treating fellow equal souls as lesser than us because of what body they are in. In reality they are the same light. And please don't bring up marriage again as if you are too stupid to understand the mechanics of procreation and why males and females have to marry, then I can't explain it to you.

And no you don't lose your gender by taking Amrit (just like your family background doesn't change, caste doesn't change, colour of your skin doesn't change etc) instead what you lose is the discrimination based on such differences, not just gender but all other differences as well. That's why everyone drinks from same bata. Or else you think women should have a separate one? Even taksali own maryada says creation of the khalsa eliminates all such differences. Have a look: It says creation of the Khalsa eliminates differences in caste, creed, colour, gender, rich / poor. We know one doesn't physically eliminate their gender or skin colour etc so what does this sentence mean? What is eliminated? It's the limitations imposed on some and status given to others, it's the discrimination based on differences which is eliminated. Which in practicality terms is the same as if those differences themselves are removed. It's telling us to ignore physical differences and treat every soul the same despite our differences!! (based on their actions and merits and not on differences they have no control over). It even says anyone who enters the Khalsa fold (it actually says "he/she" so it's not interpolation) beocomes the living image of the Guru. That's male and female both. Anyone who becomes living image of the Guru is capable of administering Amrit and passing naam to the initiate. Some think that females can not be the living image of the guru because of their gender when such thinking is wrong. Even taksali maryada outright states he/she both can become living image of the Guru. So yes females can represent the Guru. That living image is the light, not the body. Another interesting point is the note 21 which says 'five beloved Sikhs' notice it doesn't say 'Singhs'??? Other references to 'Singhs' in the general text point to Sikhs in general just like calling humans 'man'. Don't believe it? All seva in the taksali maryada says Singhs not just seva as Panj Pyaras. So this can't be used as an argument either or else you have to say women are restricted from all seva including seva as raagis, Granthi etc as well even aknand paths. Jarnail Singh Jis argument was none of the above anyway. His argument was 'no woman gave her head' which is a flawed argument as Inhave already shown. Simply put he went against both bani AND his own taksali maryada.

Chatanga I told you before already, need for preservation of the species embeds the attraction of one gender for the other. It has nothing to do with the soul. However that has no bearing on Amrit sanchar as there is no sexual or reproductive attraction involved in taking Amrit. The physical body has nothing to do with it aside from being able to physically sit in bir pose and recite the appropriate banis and stir the Amrit. If one is physically able to do that and has high avastha and knowledge in Sikhi then they can administer Amrit by serving in Panj payaras. Regardless of gender as gender doesn't come into it. I don't know why you keep bringing up marriage into an argument of seva. You don't marry the initiates, it's not all males giving Amrit and all females receiving Amrit. Otherwise I could turn your argument back and say how can males give males Amrit then? Your argument is nonsensical! There is no good reason to keep females in a lesser position as that is discrimination! To suggest that a high avastha Khalsa woman has less right to do that seva than a lower avastha male simply because she is female yes that is discrimination. Using the argument 'no woman gave her head that day' is also wrong as I have shown Gurbani speaks against an entire group taking punishment for actions of someone else, everyone will be judged on their own actions only, and Gurbani says everyone must have equal opportunity as carriers of the divine light. It wasn't speaking about only the right to worship Waheguru but in everything. There is no disclaimer saying "but only for worshipping Waheguru and all else women will be considered lesser". When a woman takes Amrit she gives her head the same as any man who takes Amrit. She makes he same commitment and undergoes the same transformation. She is just as much Khalsa as any male. However you suggest that women are not fully khalsa? Saying that ALL Sikhs must strive to take Amrit but then women can never truly fulfill all the roles of an amritdhari is saying they are lesser spiritually and that is what you are saying they are equal in! And to say that souls in a female body must take Amrit from a soul in a male body what you are saying is that souls in one gender are higher avastha than souls in another body. By saying that you are essentially falling into old Hindu paradigm where women are seen to be born into that body as karmic punishment and are lesser than those in male bodies due to some past mistakes. But then you go on to say that their souls are equal. You can't have it both ways. If souls are equal then you can't say souls born into one type of body are better or more privileged then the other. Because that means their souls are NOT equal (and you'd have to qualify why some are born into female body which is lesser than male body and that entails inequality at spiritual level). So either gender is a manifestation or result of spiritual inequality, or if there is spiritual equality the genders deserve equal opportunity in spiritual matters. You can't have it both ways. And besides he never made any reference to one gender being inferior to the other physically as a reason, his only reason in the one speech where he made reference to this was that 'no woman gave her head that day'. This one speech is what vast majority of Singhs hold to (those who don't want to consider their sisters mothers and daughters as equal carriers of the divine light). As I have shown that argument 'no woman gave her head that day' separates souls into gender which they are not as souls are genderless so the bodies did not matter there is no woman or man in ultimate reality on spiritual level. It also holds all women in contempt for those present that day 'not giving their heads' so yes he holds women in contempt (not in general but for that specific inaction) and then decrees punishment for all women for all time by saying because of the inaction of the women that day, all souls in female bodies for all time must bear the consequences of never being able to partake in that seva. His reasoning was never about physical differences. This puts those souls in female bodies on a lower level spiritually because they must rely on souls in male bodies for their progression spiritually. This says outright that males are higher spiritual avastha than females. This very much does speak about the soul and not the body. But then how can you say they are equal spiritually then? And anyway I have shown this thinking is against bani. And I have known of AKJ sanchars in Delhi area with females as Panj Pyaras, multiple instances in Jammu and Kashmir region where no specific jathas are, and they follow Akal Takht's Sikh rehet maryada, including at historical gurdwaras. And I know of one which took place in Mumbai as well. Maybe you don't know but prior to 1699 masands had power to intitiate by charan Amrit in absence of the Guru. There were female masands and they did indeed initiate others and this was a Guru given privilege. It makes no sense that All of a sudden women would be precluded from doing so when the method of giving Amrit changed. The method didn't change in order to make it gender specific. It changed in order to give the panth the ability to continue to intitiate others after gurgaddi was given to SGGSJ and the physical gurus had left this physical abode. The method was changed to instil a sense of rebirth and equality, symbolically giving ones head and sharing Amrit from the same bata as all others. Women and men drink from he same bata and symbolically give their heads the same way. There is no difference. The method (sharing equally from same bata) is the ultimate statement that all members of the khalsa are to see each other as equals in this spiritual journey. To then consider females as lower and incapable of administering Amrit goes against this. So I truly believe his reasoning was just the same taksali reasoning passed down through his predecessors which was very patriarchal in nature. And I (and many others) have to disagree since the reason he gave 'no woman gave her head that day' goes against Gurbani. And in fact is not true as many men and woman took Amrit that day so really even though the first five may have been in male bodies there were still many women who would have taken Amrit and 'gave their heads' that first day. Same as all the other males present who also did not volunteer as one of the first five. Guru Ji never asked for five male heads he asked for five heads and the sangat delivered. Their bodies gender did not matter. Sorry if you can't seen it and somehow keep wanting to bring sex and marriage into this. If Amrit has something to do with opposite genders then males being initiated should be initiated by female Panj Pyaras and females should be initiated by males. Certainly you can see how absurd that is! But having any soul able to do this seva regardless of gender then it shows there is equality in souls and that Amrit sanchar has nothing to do with marriage or attraction which are simply products of species propagation and self preservation. I married a female because two males can not produce a child. Attraction scientifically has been shown to be directly linked to procreation. Amrit sanchar has nothing at all to do with that!

You didn't answer how he can go against Gurbani by judging women and keeping them from rightful place as equals when it comes to seva. If women take same Amrit they are Khalsa there is no male or female khalsa. Please explain how he can say women who are amritdhari can not initiate others. Otherwise why take Amrit if they won't be seen as equally amritdhari? Especially when Gurbani says they are equal. Giving Amrit is not a gender dependent function. Outside of taksalis numerous Amrit sanchars have had females do seva as Panj Pyaras. Not just AKJs though they are most well known but Akal takht has made it clear that there is to be no distinction on this and their decision is based on bani. My wife is no less Amritdhari than I am. We have both taken Amrit in the exact same way and we both carry the divine light equally. She is just as capable to do seva as one of Panj Pyaras since only our souls are real, and soul is genderless. His reason was 'no woman gave her head that day' that statement intimates judgement upon all females for what those that day either did or did not do. Judging an entire gender for the actions or lack thereof of a few is wrong as Gurbani says we will all be judged by Waheguru on our own actions only, not the actions of others who happened to be the same gender (or caste etc). That statement also intimates as I said not just judgement but also punishment upon an entire gender for all time, for the reasons above. But this thinking is easy to condemn when you actually read SGGSJ which is higher authority than anyone some might consider a sant. This judgement and condemnation does fall into realm of sexism, which by definition causes one gender to have privilege over the other not directly based on biology (meaning reproductive function aside) to bar females from something just because they are female, even though they physically can carry out the task, yes is sexist by its very definition. So if he is going against Gurbani then I hold reservation as to him being a brahamgiani yes. A brahamgiani can never disagree with bani. Flat out. Stories are stories, and prone to embellishment. So sorry but I don't put much credence in them.

Ok explain these: Page 599, Line 2 ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਏਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੨॥ Gurmukẖ ek ḏarisat kar ḏekẖhu gẖat gẖat joṯ samo▫ī jī▫o. ||2|| As Gurmukh, look upon all with the single eye of equality; in each and every heart, the Divine Light is contained. ||2|| Yet he says that women are not allowed to do seva as Panj Pyaras. Since ALL humans are carriers of the divine light equally, then one can not say females are any less so and should have less opportunities especially in religion. Single eye of equality means in practicality terms, equal opportunity, and ALL includes women. There is no special circumstance in the shabad that insinuates ALL means just all men (and not women) you can look it up. And circumstances are all encompassing. Obviously it's not speaking of individual merits which could limit some like being a criminal etc. It's speaking about being equal carriers of the divine light. So, as long as all other requirements are met like high avastha and being amritdhari, all carriers of the divine light must have equal opportunity. Page 148, Line 8 ਨਾਨਕ ਪਰਖੇ ਆਪ ਕਉ ਤਾ ਪਾਰਖੁ ਜਾਣੁ ॥ Nānak parkẖe āp ka▫o ṯā pārakẖ jāṇ. O Nanak, if someone judges himself, only then is he known as a real judge Yet his reasoning for women not having equal rights in seva as Panj Pyaras, is that 'no woman gave her head that day'. This is a judgement, and not just a judgement but also a sentence. Judging all women for what those present that day did or did not do, and punishing all women for all time by prohibiting them equal treatment in Sikhi. But Gurbani says one can only judge himself and not others. So how can he point finger at women from hundreds of years ago when he wasn't there and then declare punishment to all women because of it? How can a 'brahamgiani' go against Gurbani? There are more. Like Gurbani saying an individual will be held accountable for their own actions, not the actions of others. Therefore it's more evidence that women today should it be punished for what women back then did or did not do. So we'll start with those. If he truly is a Brahamgiani then how can he say things which go against Gurbani and gurmat principles? And keep in mind that many many singhs hold to that one speech from him to limit our sisters and mothers and daughters. His views on that were not some higher knowledge. It was common taksali teaching which was and still is male dominated and very much patriarchal. He was only saying what he was taught through the taksal. ((5

How do you know he is a brahamgiani? Gurbani says only a Brahamgiani can know a brahamgiani? Are you a Brahamgiani? Does making sacrifices for the panth automatically make you a brahamgiani and one with god? I agree he made sacrifices for the panth, but that is a separate thing from spirituality. Only he knows truly on that front. On some principles he spoke on, he went against what is written in Gurbani. Other 'sants' held different views in things and they can't all be right can they? If they were all truly one with god they would have no disagreement in anything. Yet they all taught what they learned through their own Deras and infused their own opinions which were very much still human and fallible. For example he said that women can not serve as Panj Pyaras, stating that no woman gave her head that day. This goes against several gurmat principles like a true judge only judges himself and not others (holding women in contempt for that day what they might or might not have done), holding all women for all time responsible to bear the punishment (when Gurbani says each person is to be punished or rewarded for their own actions only and not those of someone else), and finally not treating all humans as equal when Gurbani instructs straight out in plain language as gurmukh to see all with a single eye of equality (single eye of equality means giving everyone same opportunity as equal bearers of the divine light). He also upheld some other taksal specific things which other Sants (not taksal) have disagreed with. His views were inculcated through his taksali teachings only and not necessarily from being as you say "one with god". This is why Sikh Rehet Maryada used multiple sources and mostly relied on Gurbani and decided women as equal bearers of the divine light and equally capable to reach high avastha / jeevan mukti, have all right to serve as Panj Pyaras. This decision was agreeded upon by numerous scholars from all Backgrounds based on gurmat principles so how can he go against that? Dont me wrong bro I respect him and what he did for the panth. But I don't have to agree with everything he said and I would not go as far to label someone a brahamgiani when I don't consider myself to be one (meaning I am not qualified to decide if someone else is or not).

Why would these so called samprada consider women lower than men and give them less rights in Sikhi? Especially when Gurbani says nothing about limiting women. The so called puratan rehetnamas all put women down basically telling them to shut up, consider husbands as God and do what their told. Also they are told they can't do most seva, are seen as dirty because of periods. Our Gurus taught none of that so if these groups were started BY our Guru why would they deviate so much from Guru teachings and treat women as so low? This I am against. And this makes me realize they could not be started from our Guru.

Time can not be the base reality, because even within this reality the passing of time changes depending on the location of the observer. Time is only change or a measurement of change. Ultimate reality is oneness which is unchanging yet contains all change, time is just a perception like reading a story within a book vice looking at the closed book on the table. Yes base reality is energy but that energy is conscious or else there would be no creation. Creation requires contemplation / creativity. If time is a base reality of all then it would be hard wired and would be the same everywhere. But we know it's affected by gravity. So God is not 'time' rather God creates time. Actually according to science gravity is more of a base truth than time simply because time is affected by gravity and not the other way around. Gravity is affected by density. (Higgs Bosun - the God particle) but all of those things still exist within creation and are not unchanging. So therefore even though God is within them and they are within God they in an of themselves are not God.

This conversation reminds me of something: From the Emerald Tablet of Hermes 1) Tis true without lying, certain & most true. 2) That wch is below is like that wch is above & that wch is above is like yt wch is below to do ye miracles of one only thing. 3) And as all things have been & arose from one by ye mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation. 4) The Sun is its father, the moon its mother, 5) the wind hath carried it in its belly, the earth its nourse. 6) The father of all perfection in ye whole world is here. 7) Its force or power is entire if it be converted into earth. 7a) Seperate thou ye earth from ye fire, ye subtile from the gross sweetly wth great indoustry. 8) It ascends from ye earth to ye heaven & again it desends to ye earth and receives ye force of things superior & inferior. 9) By this means you shall have ye glory of ye whole world & thereby all obscurity shall fly from you. 10) Its force is above all force. for it vanquishes every subtile thing & penetrates every solid thing. 11a) So was ye world created. 12) From this are & do come admirable adaptaions whereof ye means (Or process) is here in this. 13) Hence I am called Hermes Trismegist, having the three parts of ye philosophy of ye whole world. 14) That wch I have said of ye operation of ye Sun is accomplished & ended.

Haha I know you are joking because time even changes based upon location of the observer. Centre of a black hole and time will almost be stopped compared to outside the event horizon. So time is not something tangible across existence: it's part of the illusion. Ultimate truth is oneness - changeless.

Prove it with something other than hear say.