why can't women be panj pyares?

[Guest]

I had this question/sansa in my mind for a while now, for while i have heard both arguments pro and against bibiya partake in panj pyares di seva

May be from socio-religious context party who are against bibiya doing panj pyares di seva have a point that it was only panj singhs who got up in 1699 gave their sheesh..fine/understandable.

How can they ignore the fact bhramgyan/atma is above both genders, socio-religious circle? All the panj pyares had bhramgyan di daat when they gave their sheesh. So to keep outer intitation in its purest form, panj pyares should be ones that have tasted amrit/atam ras. Then why there is so big tu tu mein mein in the panth that only men are allowed to give amrit.

Humble question to people who are staunch beleivers that men should only partake in the seva of panj pyares;

If five women who have tasted amrit/atam ras and blessed with bhramgyan got together as panj pyares and start giving (guru dikhna) amrit to jaiagaso.

Would you call that outer intiation invalid? if yes on what basis? just because it didnt follow guidelines set up by socio-religious panth?

[Matheen]

Even Deras like Bhorasahib in Hapur which is run by a female Sant insist that only men can do this Seva - I think it goes back to the fact that Guru Ji gave this duty to 5 Singhs.

Also, don't forget that the last thing you want is to arrange an Amrit Sanchar and have a Bibi sevadar turn up and ask to be excused because its the wrong time of the month......

[Guest]

don't forget that the last thing you want is to arrange an Amrit Sanchar and have a Bibi sevadar turn up and ask to be excused because its the wrong time of the month

When it comes to suchumta, that make sense. But japji sahib also warns the mindset adapted by many on suchumta. So we should be careful not reaching extremes, this is what exactly we have done we have reached extremes start banning women who have reached bhramgyan to do this seva.

Anyways lets forget about outer intiation for a moment as it appears its fully tied with socio-religious circle, lets talk about inner intiation which is naam jugti.

Can five women who have tasted amrit/atam ras and blessed with bhramgyan can give naam jugti ? or she is banned from that too regardless of her avastha?

[Matheen]

Can five women who have tasted amrit/atam ras and blessed with bhramgyan can give naam jugti ? or she is banned from that too regardless of her avastha?

Anyone who has reached that level can teach the jugti that got them there, i don't think it's related to whether or not Bibiya can serve as 5 Pyare.

[Guest]

Anyone who has reached that level can teach the jugti that got them there, i don't think it's related to whether or not Bibiya can serve as 5 Pyare.

Yes it does, back in puratan times when panj pyares used to give amrit to jaigaso, jaiagaso were given naam as well jugti along with it by one or more one panj pyares. This is mentioned in suraj parkash granth, chapter of bhai dya singh ji updesh to sikh sangat regarding atam gyan.

[shaheediyan]

I think traditionally the role of Panj Pyare was also of real Sip-haee (rather than symbolic), hence in the tradition of war, men put themselves on the front line and women, children and elders are protected (generally, of course there always exceptions, esp as per Sikh history).

It also stems back to the meaning of Khalsa and 1699. Amrit and Naam Jugti obviously existed before then.

[Niranjana]

Matheen, you're comments concerning "the time of month" are really unnecessary and stink of primative thinking - I am happy to explain further, but I'm sure everyone gets the picture.

Neo, I note the arguments from both sides, however admist them I also question the way the Punj Pyare are made out to be today versus what their original purpose would have been, we should also distinguish between the original Punj from 1699 and the concept of the Punj Pyare for purposes of admistering amrit, maybe this will help clarify the debate.

[Guest]

Neo, I note the arguments from both sides, however admist them I also question the way the Punj Pyare are made out to be today versus what their original purpose would have been, we should also distinguish between the original Punj from 1699 and the concept of the Punj Pyare for purposes of admistering amrit, maybe this will help clarify the debate.

Also its interesting to note these days, people consider panj pyares as any five purushtam maryada singhs together which is quite shame its sad to see how pure concept of panj pyares were devalued/demeaning, not only that people stress on the fact satkar of panj pyares to gurmukh singhs only given when all the panj pyares are together, if they are not together panj pyare satkar shouldnt be given. This is more like a empty ritual, defeats purpose of orginal panj pyares who made scarifices as individuals and blessed with bhramgyan individually by guru maharaj.

[das]

Guru Gobind Singh Ji has prepared Panj Payars by the order of GOD. It was also possible that any female have risen that day to give her sees/head to Guru, but GOD did raise only men. All the Panj Payaras did NOT offer themselves to Guru Gobind Singh Ji, GOD made them offer themselves to Guru Gobind Singh Ji, which means GOD could have risen Bibis to give their sees, but GOD decided NOT. We don't have any answer that why GOD did not raise Bibis.

Secondly, in initial times, one of the Panj Payaras give Naam de Jugti to the person who is taking Amrit. The bottom line is "Naam de Jugti" has to be given by a Brahmgyani (who has already attained GOD). In ancient times, Panj Payaras used to be Brahmgyani or at-least one of them. But these days, we cannot say that. So, my short buddhe is saying that a female Saint/Brahmgyani can give "Naam de Jugti", but a Brahmgyani/Sant female cannot be one of Panj Payaras.

You can confirm this from any true Brahmgyani/Sant either male or female that Bibis cannot be Panj Payaras.

das

[Niranjana]

das,

"Guru Gobind Singh Ji has prepared Panj Payars by the order of GOD"

OK, we can accept Guru's mission have a divine purpose given the hymns in the Dasam Granth.

"It was also possible that any female have risen that day to give her sees/head to Guru, but GOD did raise only men"

OK, fine, this is what happened historically.

"All the Panj Payaras did NOT offer themselves to Guru Gobind Singh Ji, GOD made them offer themselves to Guru Gobind Singh Ji, which means GOD could have risen Bibis to give their sees, but GOD decided NOT."

Using this logic, there are a lot of things that happened during history and more specifically Sikh history that we can now start to pin on God...

"We don't have any answer that why GOD did not raise Bibis"

Fine, however, how does that prevent a woman undertaking the main remit of the Punj Pyare today - i.e. the distribution of Amrit.

"Secondly, in initial times, one of the Panj Payaras give Naam de Jugti to the person who is taking Amrit. The bottom line is "Naam de Jugti" has to be given by a Brahmgyani (who has already attained GOD). In ancient times, Panj Payaras used to be Brahmgyani or at-least one of them. But these days, we cannot say that. So, my short buddhe is saying that a female Saint/Brahmgyani can give "Naam de Jugti", but a Brahmgyani/Sant female cannot be one of Panj Payaras".

This statement raises the following questions:

1. Who qualifies the individual as a Brahmgyani? You seem to indicate that some sort of body was in place to ensure that "at-least one of" the Punj Pyare is a Brahmgyani - who determines this?

2. There is a contradiction in your argument, on one hand you suggest that only a Brahmgyani can impart the "naam", which for the Khalsa Panth in done via the Punj Pyare, on the other hand you concede that a female can be a "Brahmgyani" therefore can impart "naam", in which case what is the big deal if she is part of the Punj Pyare, or are you suggesting that it is within Khalsa maryada to have amrit from the Punj Pyare and then obtain the "naam" elsewhere? Please clarify.

"You can confirm this from any true Brahmgyani/Sant either male or female that Bibis cannot be Panj Payaras."

Who qualifies one as a "true Brahmgyani"?

[akaali]

M

I also question the way the Punj Pyare are made out to be today versus what their original purpose would have been, we should also distinguish between the original Punj from 1699 and the concept of the Punj Pyare for purposes of admistering amrit, maybe this will help clarify the debate.

good point

[tonyhp32]

Surely the women who are allowed to take Amrit should then also be allowed to act as Panj Pyare at some stage. If I can put it plainly then it's a bit like joining an organisation knowing that one will never be allowed to advance to the highest level within that organisation.

Trying to defend the reason why women cannot be part of the Panj Pyare by basing it on that fact that no woman stood up that day can then easily be used to imply that no one apart from Jats, Chimbas, Jhiwars, Khatris and Nais should be Panj Pyares.

[amardeep]

I heard it like this:

Women give psychical birth, and men give spiritual birth - pure Equality.

[Xylitol]

"Guru Gobind Singh Ji has prepared Panj Payars by the order of GOD. It was also possible that any female have risen that day to give her sees/head to Guru, but GOD did raise only men. All the Panj Payaras did NOT offer themselves to Guru Gobind Singh Ji, GOD made them offer themselves to Guru Gobind Singh Ji, which means GOD could have risen Bibis to give their sees, but GOD decided NOT. We don't have any answer that why GOD did not raise Bibis."

Agreed. Giani Thakur Singh ji discusses this in one of his kathas. Every one of the original punj were bhagats from a past janam. Each one of them was bhramgiani and acting fully within hukam of waheguru.

"2. There is a contradiction in your argument, on one hand you suggest that only a Brahmgyani can impart the "naam", which for the Khalsa Panth in done via the Punj Pyare, on the other hand you concede that a female can be a "Brahmgyani" therefore can impart "naam", in which case what is the big deal if she is part of the Punj Pyare, or are you suggesting that it is within Khalsa maryada to have amrit from the Punj Pyare and then obtain the "naam" elsewhere? Please clarify."

Naam de Jugti actually does not have to be imparted only by the punj, according to Baba Jagjit Singh ji. An individual Bhramgiani can as well.

Possibly also a mahapursh, maybe.

[shaheediyan]

Xylitol, what's the difference between a Mahapursh and Bhrahmgiani?

Amardeep, please use gurbani to validate your point.

Tonyhp - what are your thoughts on the role of Panj Pyare as soldiers as well as saints? Would you put your daughter, sister or mother on the front line as long as you had breath in your body?

Also, should we not consider the culture of the time, may this have had something to do with men coming forward, or possibly the ratio of men to women at the event, could it have been that there were predominantly men at teh event for a number of socio-political-security-cultural reasons... just some thoughts.

[amardeep]

dont have any, this was the explanation i got when i asked someone this question.... like men cant give birth to babies, same way women cant give spiritual birth.. but each gender have their own birth ceremony

or as they say in punjab "ooh chak dey phatey bruuuah"

[Xylitol]

Mahapursh is a very high avastha Sikh. More powerful than the sant level. Bhramgiani is a mahapursh who's reached an even higher level and become one with God.

[Niranjana]

tonyhp3:

"Trying to defend the reason why women cannot be part of the Panj Pyare by basing it on that fact that no woman stood up that day can then easily be used to imply that no one apart from Jats, Chimbas, Jhiwars, Khatris and Nais should be Panj Pyares."

This is exactly the same argument I had with a Taksali Singh a few years back and his only response to this was I was an idiot, maybe he is right about that, however the statement still holds and he (and others who support this notion) have yet to provide a sensible response, whether I am an idiot or not!

amardeep wrote:

"Women give psychical birth, and men give spiritual birth - pure Equality."

Please do provide a source for this quote - in the meantime, I doubt many women would consider the pain (physical, emotional etc) they have to endure during physical birth comparable to want men have to ensure to give someone "spiritual birth", but then again everyone's understanding of equality is their own, for some, a woman looking and dressing like a man is a sign of equality, for others, the statement "all...are equal, but some are more equal than others" has no apparent contradictions!

Xylitol:

"Giani Thakur Singh ji discusses this in one of his kathas. Every one of the original punj were bhagats from a past janam. Each one of them was bhramgiani and acting fully within hukam of waheguru."

I am familiar with this account, it can be found in Rattan Singh Bhangoo's Panth Prakash. The questions that arise here are:

(a) How did Bhangoo know of this "information"?

( If the Punj Pyare are reincarnations of certain Bhagats, then implication is that these Bhagats were not able to achieve 'mukti' and needed re-birth to receive 'amrit' from the Guru to 'reach sachkhand' - one can find plenty of commentary of this nature in AKJ literature and on Tapoban.org. There are several issues within the statements made - happy to expand if needed, but I'm sure everyone gets the point...

© The Guru Granth Sahib has bani from more than 5 Bhagats, not to mention that there were several other Bhagats (the writings of whom are not contained with the Guru Granth Sahib), what happened to the other Bhagats - who did they 're-incarnate' as to 'receive Amrit from the true Guru'?

"Naam de Jugti actually does not have to be imparted only by the punj, according to Baba Jagjit Singh ji. An individual Bhramgiani can as well.

Possibly also a mahapursh, maybe."

This is in total contradiction to the Sikh Rehit Maryada and the Maryada of most Khalsa Sampradhas/Jathas - in fact, the latter use this line of attack to argue against say Nirmalas and Udasis (amongst whom the "isth dev" will impart 'naam' to the neophyte) being some sort of 'pakhandis'.

Given your avatar of Baba Thakur Singh (at the time of writing), presumably you have some affiliation with the DDT. In view of your comment above, perhaps you can explain what you see the purpose of the Amrit Sanchar being, if not to initiate the neophyte and impart 'naam' - or is it simply a case of 'signing up to an army'?

Shaheediyan:

"what are your thoughts on the role of Panj Pyare as soldiers as well as saints? Would you put your daughter, sister or mother on the front line as long as you had breath in your body?"

The Punj Pyare serve to impart 'naam', every Khalsa Sikh, a member of the Punj or otherwise, is expected to live up to the "sant-siphai" ideal, how does this exclude women from the role?

"Also, should we not consider the culture of the time, may this have had something to do with men coming forward, or possibly the ratio of men to women at the event, could it have been that there were predominantly men at teh event for a number of socio-political-security-cultural reasons... just some thoughts."

I would concur, however most people here are keen to pin it on God.

[shaheediyan]

"The Punj Pyare serve to impart 'naam', every Khalsa Sikh, a member of the Punj or otherwise, is expected to live up to the "sant-siphai" ideal, how does this exclude women from the role?"

I agree, but in my personal opinion, the Panj Pyare also served a more military and scio-political role, I am in no way saying that a woman cannot serve in this role, just that it was and too a large extent still is, normal for men to lead in these roles, particularly putting one's life on the line. This is not a sexist statement, but one which favours the security of women in most cultures.

As I said it's not a hard and fast rule, some women are destined for rule and war rather than motherhood and social/household care/responsibility.

I suppose this also links into the arguement concerngin disabled people not being able to be Panj Pyare.... again, could this be to do with the good physical condition needed of a soldier?

[Niranjana]

"I suppose this also links into the arguement concerngin disabled people not being able to be Panj Pyare.... again, could this be to do with the good physical condition needed of a soldier?"

This is fair enough, however again opens up another can of worms - "fat singhs!"

Sorry if this offends anyone, however most amrit sanchars I've been to or seen photos of, whether the "SGPC-variety" or Nihang Dals and particularly Baba Deras, it is more common than not to see the Punj Pyare with 'buddha bellies', this is before we assess to want extent any of them would qualify for the "physical condition of a soldier", which is a little more than not having a belly.

[shaheediyan]

Lol, agreed.

This whole Siphai arguement towards women and the disabled doesn't hold much ground when the physical condition of men is no longer questioned!

[Guest]

Issue of so called gyanis /sant sipahi having fat bellies all comes from masale/oily types food aka rajoguni food people make in gurdwara langars these days. Back in the time, satoguni food was made in langar.

[shaheediyan]

Yes, in addition to them not actually knowing what being a sipahi involves i.e. exercise and some martial training at the very least.

[Kam1825]

i prefer to be called chubby, my mum tells me i'm just big boned! LOL

[Xylitol]

The Naam that I'm talking about is not the activation of Gurmantr at the Amrit Sanchaar. I'm discussing Naam dhan, that very high stage where one is given the gift of God's Naam that happens much after receiving Khanday Batte da Amrit and Gurmantr. sorry, should have been more clear.