Liv

Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaaj! Dhan Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj! "Sach Kaho Sun Leyo Sabhai, Jin Prem Kiyo Tin Hi Prabh Paayo!"

Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaaj! Dhan Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj! "Sach Kaho Sun Leyo Sabhai, Jin Prem Kiyo Tin Hi Prabh Paayo!"

thanks for the kind words but I feel guilty of being praised. I do not deserve to be praised.
praise the puppeteer not the puppet. I m a mere puppet of the great puppeteer. He is so great words fail to describe his greatness.

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

OK Lads, here's something to ponder over.......
Sant is not Brahmgyani.. There is a difference.  I've spent some time absorbing the gurbani and meditating, and seem to notice the distinctions. If someone wants to bring quotes and shabads that may seem otherwise, then we can surely discuss in separate threads.
 
With reference to this particular thread about "Women as Guru" , I would probably say that some of us moorakhs could easily label a 'sant' as a woman sant or a man sant. However, if the moorakh happens to know a brahmgyani and has actually swallowed some of the gyan that emanates from brahmgyani, then they would be unlikely to refer to brahmgyani in any form of dualism. i.e.. man/woman, black/white, christian/muslim
 
Brahmgyani= Has the knowledge of all divine and human things. Lets say that brahmgyani knows both the NATURE and WISDOM of God.
Sant= Is a servant...a Sikh...one who speaks from experience,...also on journey back home.....on journey to full brahmgyan.,..but still in maya and dualism like us.
 
As for the "Guru as women" op of this thread.  All i can say is that if I see a guru and then subconsciously or consciously, group them into man -woman category, then I've already failed to witness a true guru.   Why?.... because, I've foolishly bought dualism into the forefront.
Being a male or a female is just the vehicle of the mind and soul on this human realm.
Are we following the soul or the vehicle? .....Do we judge the mind & soul as guru or the vehicle?... If the vehicle was guru, then it would have made sense to mummify all the gurus body's back then.
Problem is that we are always making judgments and looking via our physical eyes.  We need to learn to use the eyes of the consciousness
 
 
 
 
 

Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaaj! Dhan Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj! "Sach Kaho Sun Leyo Sabhai, Jin Prem Kiyo Tin Hi Prabh Paayo!"

As long as one school of thought does not impose their principles on the other it is all fine. The moment they start behave as modern Sikhs are others are behaving these days then Gian will recede. There is no such hard and fast rule that only meditation will help achieve enlightenment.
Tav Prasaad Sawaiye - Guru Gobindsingh ji says :
ਕਹਾ ਭਯੋ ਜੋ ਦੋਉ ਲੋਚਨ ਮੂੰਦ ਕੈ ਬੈਠਿ ਰਹਿਓ ਬਕ ਧਿਆਨ ਲਗਾਇਓ ॥
Kahaa Bhayo Jo Doau Lochana Mooanda Kai Baitthi Rahiaoa Baka Dhiaana Lagaaeiaoa ॥
कहा भयो जो दोउ लोचन मूंद कै बैठि रहिओ बक धिआन लगाइओ ॥
Of what use it is if one sits and meditates like a crane with his eyes closed.
 

saints r not mere humans. Brahmgiani r also called saints, there is no difference between brahmgiani and vaheguru. Just like a drop of water merges in the ocean and there is no difference at all any more.

Don't insult the Almighty Lord, Waheguru jee, by calling him a mere saint. The Lord can transform countless sinners/criminals into great Saints.
He is not a Saint, but the master of all Saints.
 
Bhul chuk maaf

housewives have plenty to do.

Yes wives have to do seva of their husbands but their husbands also have to do seva of their wives. That's the whole point of marriage!
@chatanga1  yes it's culture I am glad you agree. And you are not getting the difference between a cultural reference and a direct instruction. Saying that devotees derive the same pleasure as... is not the same as saying wives MUST derive pleasure out of serving the husband or that wives MUST serve the husband. It's also not saying the husband can't serve the wife or derive pleasure out of serving the wife as well. It's using one cultural reference - at that time women were told their husbands were  in authority over them basically their lord. That was cultural and prominent in Hindu ideology, easily seen in Laws according to Manu. That was used as a reference only. Most of the new Sikhs were coming from Hindu background. So it made sense to use those references that they would understand.
But here is the kicker!! it's actually turning the idea of wife serving the husband as a God on its head and saying see how wives were deriving pleasure out of serving the husband as a God? [Instead] devotees derive this same pleasure out of serving God. It's saying instead to derive this pleasure out of serving God only. (Which makes sense because God is the only truth there are no others. God is the same ONE soul behind my wife and myself. So therefore instead of the old way where only one spouse served the other now this new radical way the Gurus taught is service BOTH ways between a husband and wife as equals because both are God!!!!!! 
Not sure about JasperS but in our case my wife did not move to my place. When we married we bought a flat together just us. And the pala? It was her Mother who gave it as her Father is deceased. And her Mother made it clear in no way was she given though as some object. None of us look at it that way. She was never bonded to me to be a servant to be live in house maid to me. My Mother in law made it abundantly clear to never smother out my wifes talents and ambitions and turn her into A personal maid. Or else her family would not accept me. We both work we both make close to same salary which varies between us based on overtime and other things. Some months she has made more than me but do I feel butthurt about it? No! I'm proud of her and keep encouraging her!
I choose too see my wife as God as well as her seeing me as God. We are following Gurbani. Not culture. 
 
@BhagatSingh Ji sorry but what you wrote is a load of crap. Maybe centuries ago when women were indoctrinated into the idea of them being lesser than men their whole lives and then the only way to compete in society was to choose a high status man and live vicariously through him. In todays world women no longer need to base their status off what man they are with. They are actually people with their own statuses now. The old cultural ideas no longer hold and that's a good thing not a bad thing. Let me ask you if you could have a woman who would be satisfied being your equal and you treating her as such would you be happy? Or do you want a subordinate women? If you answer you want a subordinate women then it's more speaking about your inability to see God in her than it is about any perceived statuses of either of you. However making the statement that men have to treat women as lesser than themselves for women to be happy is excuse me - bullshit. No woman all through history ever actually wanted that! That's like saying slaves weren't happy unless being treated as inferior by their masters. That shudras aren't happy unless they are being treated as inferior by high caste. That's all bs because nobody actually wants to be in the lower position. Nobody wants to be  treated as inferior or made to feel lesser. 
I know a Sikh couple in USA she is a doctor making 6 figures and he works in IT as a network administrator supervisor making about 75K. Who has higher status in that couple? When she works far more hours than he does, you can't possibly say it's still her duty to cook and serve him when she gets home late at 8pm while he has been home since 5pm!! Do his extra muscles actually play any part in their marriage when speaking about status and who is in authority? Does the fact that she will carry their child matter (when speaking about authority) when she has paid maternity leave? They are very happily married by the way. He would never dream of trying to treat her as lesser than him! She followed Gurmat principles when choosing a husband meaning status and caste do not matter his job doesn't matter what matters is if he is a good Sikh. And he is. They see each other as God and serve each other as God. Meaning both put each other above themselves. 
I know another similar Sikh couple in Canada where the wife is a successful dentist owning two separate clinics. Her husband is a police officer. Meaning her income is waaaaaay above his. Her education is way above his. Does he care? No they love each other beyond words and treat each other as equals! 
If any couple followed what you suggested above: that women put men above themselves and men put themselves above women, then we have failed as a species and are no better than animals. Because it's in this human body we have the ability to see and serve God in all. Nobody should put themselves above another. A husband should never put himself and his interests and desires above his wife. He should swallow his pride (as I have done) and serve his wife with all humility. 

I have to disagree with you BhagatSingh Ji... about women not being as spiritual or meditating etc. I think it's just that women have not felt the need to speak openly about it as much, or if they did, they were held back from doing so for fear of not being taken seriously in a society that saw women as lower spiritually then men. I think both gender equally have the same capacity for spiritual awareness and awakening.

I think the Gurus being male was more because of society at that time would never have taken women seriously, and women being uplifted to equal status, the ideal had to come from men.

Besides I think there are far more Sants who were female than we will ever know, but since they were not written about like the men, and because women usually do not feel the need to parade around stating to everyone that they are, they were kind of lost in history.

I have talked personally to far more women who have had natural spiritual experiences (without even trying) than men who have.

Anandpuria,
Make a separate thread on that topic. Talk about the references that you have found. Post them up so everyone can see what you are talking about, that way we can be on the same page. Put up images, books, etc whatever you can to make your case as convincing as possible.

I think that will be very beneficial for those like me who are interested in pre-Singh Sabha history.

There is no gender for the Guru. Guru is neither man or woman, people who see only the body of the Guru do not see the Guru.

WJKK WJKF - interesting listen.
However, sadly why do I feel I have never actually met any  persons truly representing Panj Pyare across UK, India or Canada. Breaking it down as in katha above, I truly believe the 5 Pyare are embodiment of such distinguished qualities that are NOT humanly possible to achieve to completion - so why do we get men dressed up representing such distinguished qualities ?
1. Daya  -  merciful, kind, compassionate
2. Dharam -   righteous living
3. Himmat -  courageous 
4. Muhkam - steadfast 
5. Sahib - masterly / lordly
Surely we should be confessing to the qualities not the people trying to represent the qualities. As this is what I feel Japji Sahib refers to.
Bhul Chuk Maaf Mere Waheguru

Which makes sense.
@jaikaara bhaji told me that in the Rajput community, they commonly refer to other Men as Singhs regardless whether they write Singh in their name or not, . And I know from my own experience that in India, Women are referred to as Devi. One example is the modern phrase "Deviyon aur Sajjano", which is used as "Ladies and Gentlemen".

I don't think this is the case.
Khalsa was the army only. They should uphold the core principles passed down by the 10 Gurus and they should be ready to fight in battles at a moment's notice. And so the disciplines for being a warrior, keeping yourself healthy, etc all followed. These disciplines are not required by the general Sikh population.
No he did not intend all Sikh to be in the Khalsa army. Of course he wanted the khalsa army to be as big as possible but he also recognized that many Sikhs would be unfit for the army.
I think words like Sehajdhari and Amritdhari emerged during British Rah to categorize Sikhs.
When these words are understood in the context of Guru Granth Sahib, they mean the same thing. However when understood in the context of public sphere then they are referring to two very different groups of people.
A lot of families gave 'Khande da Amrit' to children after they are born. However we do not call these children Amritdhari.
 
All Sikhs were initiated by their Gurus via Charn Amrit. This was a tradition wide spread in India. So all Sikhs were baptized by Gurus. All Sikhs of 10 Gurus were baptized by the Gurus. Some did it through Charn Amrit , others did through Khande da Amrit.
However unlike previous Gurus, Guru Gobind Singh ji's baptism was for creation of Khalsa army also, so not all Sikhs underwent this special initiation.

Humble Request - Can we please stick to the topic?
 
Bhul chuk maaf

Anyone else get a feeling that Kaalka is really either Crystal or Chatanga?  In fact, Crystal has actually called me transsexual before if anyone remembers...
Anyway water off a duck's back :D Kaalka I told you, perseverance. And though some members have differing opinions than me on some things, turban tying women is NOT one of them. 
Admins, though I am not bothered by such things, and it only shows his immaturity (and it shows his frustration that he was not able to push his point and have everyone agree with him so he just lashed out because he's ticked off) I think that some amount of moderation should ensue because for one there are maybe young people coming here, and two that type of behaviour is most definitely not becoming of a Singh (or Kaur).

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. 

@Lucky
Thank you! It's all God's grace. Whispering of the inner guru.

Yes, your comment on carving out our own path resonates with me.  People often ask me what I have learned from studying all of these different groups.  There may be many different answers but one clear thing is that whatever path we have is unique irrespective of the particular religion we belong to.  Still, I do identify with some paths more than others; maybe from past lives, maybe from current life influences. 
  For now, I actually do study a few different paths and sometimes combine elements to suit my individual needs. I will explain.  I tend to have shorter attention span and chanting out loud for about 20 minutes allows my mind to focus more.   I will then usually start Simran for another 20 minutes repeating one mantra.  I learned some suggestions from a book Bandginama by Sardar Raghbir Bir that I picked up from a local gurudwara.  I find this usually works well.  I also study from other  texts such as the Bhagavad Gita that address previously mentioned questions that I have asked.  Sometimes during the day I will incorporate prayer.    I may say a prayer for the safety of animals I see near a busy road or for personal situations.  

I'm sure that NO ONE is insinuating that a women cannot wear a dastar, are they?

Don't we all brother.
Hallelujah!
 
 

I only listen to Guru Granth Sahib Ji who told me to remember God with every breath of my life. So I don't believe in number