Jump to content

Can Women Be In The Panj Pyare


Recommended Posts

what i meant was bibiyan are too malesh now, so they are given amrit , as they cant have full rehat as some singhs might be able to do so, do to physical differences thats why kirpan da amrit . not because they cant handle, i never said that .

Thats pretty bold outrageous statement, its like saying all singhs now days are bunch of cry baby fuddus who lack any juice in their balls to do anything but whine all day on internet board. On many level now days amount of cry baby fuddus singhs are far more greater than bibyan who are malesh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 235
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Please listen to this video. The name given to females, that is Kaur, itself proves that they have not been given the authority to become part of the Panj Pyare.   @Soulfinder

Three oldest copies of Chaupa Singh Rahitnama that HW McLeod says existed before 1984 were one in Sikh Reference Library, another one in Guru Nanak Dev University, and the third one at Khalsa College

The SRM maryada does not uphold either view as binding on the Panth. If one wishes to follow the SRM then they should with honest intention, and as yourself who follows the akj rehat, so should you wi

Posted Images

Wow, so now it's not just trying to say women should not be Panj Pyare but also that women should not even be entitled to the 'real' / same amrit as men at all... and I think I even read a bit in there about keski / dastar too and that women should not. So what.... Guru Gobind Singh Ji was sexist? And Sikhi was only for the men... let me guess, women were only kept around to cook langar for the men...

I really can't believe what I am reading here.

Some of you tout GRM as THE RM of Guru Ji... exact words from our Guru... but then, you admit that there were changes. Then you go back and try to say that the parts pertaining to women were the correct untouched parts and the changes 'must' be other parts... as if you want to pick and chose which parts are the original, based on your own beliefs about women.

I am in agreement with Singh123456777... Guru Gibing Singh Ji was not sexist. Barring either gender from necessary functions of what he was teaching as the vital philosophy and spirituality of human life, is suggesting that even our Creator was sexist against women. The Gurus all taught against such foolishness. We have already seen how easy it is to take something as 100% truth, and then discover that changes happened to what we thought was the 100% original words of Guru Gobind Singh Ji... Historical accounts all over the world were conveniently shaped by patriarchal systems, in favour of men, even when women achieved greatness. India was not immune.... no matter what you think. If all Sikhs were told to strive for taking Amrit... I highly doubt there was some diluted 'almost' amrit done with a kirpan to give women a 'sort of almost' amrit which was hierarchically lower than men. The Gurus taught that the SAME divine light is in everyone...

I have been away for awhile as I was in Kashmir, and I was there when the floods happened.... anyway, my question to everyone is... assuming the SGGSJ is taken as our only living Guru.... when we have a 'rule' document like reset maryadas which have been shown to be 'amended' and changed by humans... if there is an obvious disagreement between the RM and SGGSJ, which one are you supposed to follow? Which one wins out? It seems here that most of you would revert to the GRM, even when there is evidence of change from the original, and even though it means going against what is taught in SGGSJ... our only living Guru!

I have shown in previous posts how things which are in DDT's own copy of the GRM on their own website, deliberately take one tuk of a shabad out of context, in order to say that women should view their husband as 'God' while he views her as a loyal servant. The original shabad is talking about husband Lord... and all humans as soul-brides. Its obvious when you read the full shabad. But to take that one tuk and translate it so it says women should view their husbands as God... is wrong.

Also the only argument against women as Panj Pyare was that 'because that's what the GRM says... 'five Singhs" I have shown, that the GRM actually states 'Singhs' for ALL seva. But yet many of you have stated that women are not barred from those other seva... like akhand paths, ragis, granthi, even making kara prashad! The GRM states 'Singhs' for ALL of them. But yet you are trying to say that women are allowed to do those things and have been allowed in even DDT run Gurdwaras.... but in the same breath you keep quoting the GRM where it says 'five SIngh's' as the reason to bar women.... stating it's the infallible direct word of Guru Ji. If that were the case, then ALL seva is for men only. You can't pick and chose which things to bar women from.

And historical things can't be used to prohibit.... If that were the case then I should not vote because historically, women did not vote. If it were specifically prohibited for women to participate in anything at all.... don't you think Guru Ji would have specifically STATED IT somewhere....???? Anywhere???? And not just as an omission to be intimated. If he really was discriminating against women, and wanted us barred from things and restricted and treated as lower than men, it would have been stated somewhere directly. If it was important as say... not cutting kesh... wouldn't it be stated somewhere? Even in the GRM itself it doesn't specifically say 'no women' it just say's 'The Singhs who are doing this' well, it is not saying ' women can't do this' that is just saying that at the time, it was men who did it when that was written, so it was stated in that way. There is no specific restriction written anywhere in any RM stating that women should be restricted, prohibited, treated less than men.

I really ca't believe what I am reading in here from Singhs too! Who should divert to SGGSJ in ALL things if there is any doubt! Not historical accounts, not heresy, not RM's which have been changed over time... but the ONE UNCHANGED document that we all revere as the only living Guru... SGGSJ. And in there, it plainly states that the SAME DIVINE LIGHT is in ALL humans EQUALLY. That there is only ONE thing in existence in reality... God, and that essentially the DOER in ALL OF US, is ONE IN THE SAME. Therefore, there should be no restriction on any human because of what is between their legs.

This is all I am saying on this...

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats pretty bold outrageous statement, its like saying all singhs now days are bunch of cry baby fuddus who lack any juice in their balls to do anything but whine all day on internet board. On many level now days amount of cry baby fuddus singhs are far more greater than bibyan who are malesh.

this
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Twareekh written by Bhai Chanda Singh Firozpuri, Gohaj Pothi and Das Gur Jot written by Giani Mall Singh prove that women took Amrit in 1699. Bhatt Vahis also prove that Amrit should be given to women and they must be named "Kaur". Twareekh Guru Khalsa Part 10 mentions many women who took Amrit. On page 159, there are two sakhis. On 160, there is a sakhi of Bibi Deep Kaur who was an Amritdhari. Rani Sada Kaur, mother in-law of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, was also Amritdhari. It is written in Guru Prem Padd Parkash that in 1702 Guru Sahib married Mata Sahib Devan and gave her Amrit. She became Mata Sahib Kaur. Sant Attar Singh gave Amrit to women equally. Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji gave Amrit to women and rejected giving Kirpan amrit to women. Read Gurbani Paath Darshan written by him."

Edited by Singh123456777
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Twareekh written by Bhai Chanda Singh Firozpuri, Gohaj Pothi and Das Gur Jot written by Giani Mall Singh prove that women took Amrit in 1699. Bhatt Vahis also prove that Amrit should be given to women and they must be named "Kaur". Twareekh Guru Khalsa Part 10 mentions many women who took Amrit. On page 159, there are two sakhis. On 160, there is a sakhi of Bibi Deep Kaur who was an Amritdhari. Rani Sada Kaur, mother in-law of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, was also Amritdhari. It is written in Guru Prem Padd Parkash that in 1702 Guru Sahib married Mata Sahib Devan and gave her Amrit. She became Mata Sahib Kaur. Sant Attar Singh gave Amrit to women equally. Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji gave Amrit to women and rejected giving Kirpan amrit to women. Read Gurbani Paath Darshan written by him."

is bhai chanda singh the one who was pupil to the pupils of bhai mani singh ji?

Bhai Amar Sing ,Bhai Jassa Singh,Bhai Ram Singh

i want to see some older sources

also, bana gurbachan singh ji mentiones in gurbani path darpan, that give kirpan amrit to women and child after birth singhs at sometime also used to prepare, karad/kirpan da amrit for everyone , maybe they didnt have khanda with them , but the point is everyone recieves naam and gurmantar .

the source is kard di paul is talked in gurubilas patshahi dasvin written in 1741

bhatt vahi's mentioned charan pahul is important for everyone, yes everyone used to get it.

can someone provide me a reference where it mentioned about maiyan taking amrit and kaur name?

even kard di paul is made in dam dami taksal in 2007 , i am not sure if it is still done

kard di pahul was first ever amrit sanchar in patna sahib , you can ask them

Thats pretty bold outrageous statement, its like saying all singhs now days are bunch of cry baby fuddus who lack any juice in their balls to do anything but whine all day on internet board. On many level now days amount of cry baby fuddus singhs are far more greater than bibyan who are malesh.

also, what i mentioned was men were mainly involved in jagat juth

and maiyan were suchi but now days maiyan are also malesh

you cant be sure of anyone. so amrit is important for everyone.

however. your use of profanity is not welcomed and isnt nice. you dont refrain yourself from using profanity words.

nanak fika boiye tan mann fika hoiye,

Edited by savinderpalsingh
Link to post
Share on other sites

My intention was to show how ridiculous this type of generalisation sweeping statement really are.. Please kindly refrain for stereotyping all women these days as malech.. I think anyone who has mother, sister and wife and daughter would take offence to your sweeping remarks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My intention was to show how ridiculous this type of generalisation sweeping statement really are.. Please kindly refrain for stereotyping all women these days as malech.. I think anyone who has mother, sister and wife and daughter would take offence to your sweeping remarks.

This is why I am seriously considering leaving this forum...

From the beginning it seemed to be a 'boys club'.

The members aside from their personal beliefs that women are 'less than' men, and therefore should have less privileges in Sikhi, but now it appears that you all are are actually LOOKING for reasons, any reason, to put women beneath men. And then in the same breath try to say that it has nothing to do with equality. Hyprocrites.

I personally take offence to a blanket statement saying that women are all lacking in morals, or are of impure desires, while you are all intimating that men are somehow more saintly. Or saying that women are unable to maintain rehet to the same degree as men and therefore don't even deserve the same amrit given to men.

I wonder what ANY of our Gurus would say in response to this... it's really disgraceful!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I am seriously considering leaving this forum...

From the beginning it seemed to be a 'boys club'.

The members aside from their personal beliefs that women are 'less than' men, and therefore should have less privileges in Sikhi, but now it appears that you all are are actually LOOKING for reasons, any reason, to put women beneath men. And then in the same breath try to say that it has nothing to do with equality. Hyprocrites.

I personally take offence to a blanket statement saying that women are all lacking in morals, or are of impure desires, while you are all intimating that men are somehow more saintly. Or saying that women are unable to maintain rehet to the same degree as men and therefore don't even deserve the same amrit given to men.

I wonder what ANY of our Gurus would say in response to this... it's really disgraceful!

Fair point. ...

I wonder what Mata Sahib Kaur Ji, Mata Bhaag Kaur Ji etc. would say....

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I am seriously considering leaving this forum...

From the beginning it seemed to be a 'boys club'.

The members aside from their personal beliefs that women are 'less than' men, and therefore should have less privileges in Sikhi, but now it appears that you all are are actually LOOKING for reasons, any reason, to put women beneath men. And then in the same breath try to say that it has nothing to do with equality. Hyprocrites.

I personally take offence to a blanket statement saying that women are all lacking in morals, or are of impure desires, while you are all intimating that men are somehow more saintly. Or saying that women are unable to maintain rehet to the same degree as men and therefore don't even deserve the same amrit given to men.

I wonder what ANY of our Gurus would say in response to this... it's really disgraceful!

In behalf of some members, we(Sikhawarensss team) are sorry for misogynist, sexist statements..Please be assure this is not popular view on forum certainly not sentiments held by sevadars of this forum about seperate amrit.

My view of women can be in be in panj pyares if we see khalsa genderless. I beleive women can be in panj pyare seva as englightenment does not have gender(panj pyares were enlightened ones), its just from traditional historical perspective- panj pyare seva in five main takth of sikhism is usually reserved to only males as per tradition. This should not be seen as sexism or anything like that it just different duties roles of panj takth (thrones) of sikhism.

Not long ago i made this thread dedicated to sikh female parcharikhs(preachers) and sikh female saints:

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/70272-thread-dedicated-to-sikh-woman-parcharikhssants/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Satkirin

So let me get this straight. You come here and start criticizing men then when someone criticizes women you start playing victim.

Some of your statements

there are other groups who want to further limit women
They will not allow women to participate
Usually the men are the ones who never see an issue
there are restrictions placed on women that men never have to worry about
A man would never understand the feeling
it's men who are dictating that tradition
It feels like it's somehow stating that women "require" men just to advance spiritually
It's usually men who downplay the seriousness of women's plight
I think many men try to look too much into it.

This is why I am seriously considering leaving this forum...

From the beginning it seemed to be a 'boys club'.

The members aside from their personal beliefs that women are 'less than' men, and therefore should have less privileges in Sikhi, but now it appears that you all are are actually LOOKING for reasons, any reason, to put women beneath men. And then in the same breath try to say that it has nothing to do with equality. Hyprocrites.

It seems to me, that you guys are actively looking for reasons to put women into lower roles than men. You are approaching everything with the mindset to find something.... anything to use as justfication. Is this not ego (male ego)? Is this not a case of "I am more deserving than any female, just because I happened to be born a male" because this is really what it sounds like. It's gone beyond hanging up the 'boys club no girls allowed' sign, and gone to researching medical books for any hint of a suggestion that girls really have cooties to use as justification to ban them from your blanket fort.

So you can criticize men all you want but when a man utters some criticism... you just start crying and start playing the victim card, non-stop.

The hypocrisy is real.

In behalf of some members, we(Sikhawarensss team) are sorry for misogynist, sexist statements.

Are you also going to apologize for her misandrist, sexist statements now?

I thought this forum allowed Free Speech? When you entered the forum you stepped in knowing people were going to be critical of each other. So why all this crying and apologizing all of a sudden?

Edited by BhagatSingh
Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is my statements are ALL entirely in response to posts that were suggesting women 'shouldn't be allowed to do this' or 'women have loose morals' or 'women should have less privelages in sikhi' or 'women shouldn't even be given the same Amrit as men' or 'women can't possibly maintain rehet to the same degree as men' etc. My posts are all defensive against such above remarks and merely calling out the men for it. And yes it's been from day one....

Show me one post even where any of you say that sikh men and women should be treated equally, or that in the face of inequalities even in this modern world that sikh guys should stand up for the equality taught by the gurus about every human and that Singhs should be supportive of the equal status given to Kaurs in Sikhi. There isn't even one. I've just done searches for the terms 'women' 'bibian' etc and in every single thread are comments suggesting women shouldn't be treated equal, women shouldn't be given same privelages in sikhi, women are all loose morals, they can't maintain rehet, even one now saying merely giving birth to a child means a woman breaks rehet.

I have never posted anywhere suggesting men should be treated less than women.., not once. I merely keep pointing out the men who keep saying these things about Sikh girls who are supposed to be their sisters. And you are trying to call this sexist against men? Never did I say or suggest men should be treated as less than women or that men have less capability to maintain rehet or suggest men are all loose morals etc. So you are taking that even merely suggesting that men and women should be treated equally in Sikhi is some kind of sexist remark against men???? Really???? That just proves my point!

That's the big difference. I'm promoting equality between gender as taught in Gurbani... Same divine light in everyone... And you are trying to suggest that if I try to defend against inequality touted by 'some males' on this forum, then you are saying I am being sexist. Huge difference!

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is from 2009! :blink:

Anyway, men and women are equal but different.

Yes, there are differences, but those differences should never put men and women into a hierarchal system with one above the other. Neither gender should enjoy more privileges than the other. Neither should be 'in charge' of the other or 'in authority' over the other. And especially in Sikhi where we believe that the same divine light is in everyone equally.... God in either male or female form, should not be put at a disadvantage. Nobody should any restrictions placed on them based purely on their gender (any seva). As long as that person is physically capable of doing it, they should be given the chance.

Yes, I even believe that people we might consider to be disabled, should also be given the chance to be panj pyares... if they are physically capable of maintaining the correct posture etc. Because 'disability' is not a black and white definition. One person may be more challenged by something while another isn't. We can't put our own definition of disability. We can't label someone because they have different challenges. So my definition of someone who is 'disabled' could be different than your own. Who should have the say which one is correct when selecting panj pyares? I think the term 'disability' in the correct spirit of the term when speaking of restrictions, means those who can't physically perform the ceremony without making adjustments to it because then the ceremony has been changed. But someone with a bad shoulder may be perfectly capable of carrying out the entire ceremony as it was meant...

As for panj pyares and women. When I look at someone, I don't immediately judge them based on their gender, rather their actions. I don't think 'hey this person can't do this because they are guy' or 'this person shouldn't be allowed to do this because they are a girl' etc. I think instead 'if they are fully capable of doing this, and have desire to do so, then they should be given the opportunity to do it' I don't even consider gender etc. I think this is in the true spirit of what our Gurus taught. Not, let's restrict women from doing doing this, simply because they were born women. I don't think the Gurus taught men to look for any minute little detail to find reasons to restrict their Mothers. their sisters, their daughters, and instead taught to uplift and support them so that they could stand as independent equals beside their Singhs.

The fact that some members on here consider the mere suggestion that women and men should have the same rights and privileges, to be sexist against men, says a lot.

Also I have seen N30's post on another forum about women Sants (and on here) It's a beautiful post and we need more like it! However, I have seen quite a few members speak against that post though, saying that women have never been 'officially' recognized as Sants, so therefore they are not really etc. It's was really disheartening to see those negative responses...

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is not whether men and women are equal or not. We in this day and age all agree and believe they are equal except anatomically. We also believe they must have equal access to participate in rituals as equals.

My question is historical. Why names Mata Sundari ji and Mata Sahib Devi ji exists without second part of name and is not Kaur in letters or hukamnamas they wrote to Sikhs during 1720's, long after Guruji passed away in 1708 and even long after 1699 when they are supposed to have taken Khande di Pahul. In histrical sources for 1700 to 1750 period, it is hard to find a female with a Kaur despite their husbands being Singhs. Only three possibilities come to my mind:

1. The wives of Singhs did not get Khande di Pahul.

2. The Sikh females did get Khandey di Pahul but it was not ordained by Guruji for baptised females to add Kaur to their name. We do not find any suggestion in details of 1699 Baisakhi in historical sources that they should be baptised identically except asking Kaur to be added to their name.

3. The female Sikhs were given only Charan Pahul or Kirpan da Amrit.

I would like us to stay away from the easy escapist options declaring without any evidence 'Guru ji said this or Guru ji couldn't have said that based on our twentieth or 21st century notions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is not whether men and women are equal or not. We in this day and age all agree and believe they are equal except anatomically. We also believe they must have equal access to participate in rituals as equals.

My question is historical. Why names Mata Sundari ji and Mata Sahib Devi ji exists without second part of name and is not Kaur in letters or hukamnamas they wrote to Sikhs during 1720's, long after Guruji passed away in 1708 and even long after 1699 when they are supposed to have taken Khande di Pahul. In histrical sources for 1700 to 1750 period, it is hard to find a female with a Kaur despite their husbands being Singhs. Only three possibilities come to my mind:

1. The wives of Singhs did not get Khande di Pahul.

2. The Sikh females did get Khandey di Pahul but it was not ordained by Guruji for baptised females to add Kaur to their name. We do not find any suggestion in details of 1699 Baisakhi in historical sources that they should be baptised identically except asking Kaur to be added to their name.

3. The female Sikhs were given only Charan Pahul or Kirpan da Amrit.

I would like us to stay away from the easy escapist options declaring without any evidence 'Guru ji said this or Guru ji couldn't have said that based on our twentieth or 21st century notions.

so far , i have read only half of chaupa singhs rehatnama , some points i dont understand because of the translations for those words are not available.

so far in half it is written

given charan pahul of guru sahibs manji's pawa recite japji and jap sahib

singh must not eat jhoot of bibi

maybe this weekend i will try to talk to local santhaya wale bhai sab so he can translate points which i coudnt

many of the points are in line with 52 hukams,

will update if i find something interesting

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, S. Kartar Singh Khalsa, Jatha Bhindran (Mehta) quoted Bhayee Chaupa Singh, “Jo Sikh, Sikhani Noo Khande Dee Pahul Na Deve, So Tankhahiya” (The Sikh, who does not give ‘Khande Dee Pahul’ to Sikhani (Sikh-woman), is a culprit). (See: ‘Khalsa Jeevan and Gurmat Rahat Maryada’ written by Sant Kartar Singh Khalsa, Jatha Bhindran (Mehta), page 180, edition 1977).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, S. Kartar Singh Khalsa, Jatha Bhindran (Mehta) quoted Bhayee Chaupa Singh, “Jo Sikh, Sikhani Noo Khande Dee Pahul Na Deve, So Tankhahiya” (The Sikh, who does not give ‘Khande Dee Pahul’ to Sikhani (Sikh-woman), is a culprit). (See: ‘Khalsa Jeevan and Gurmat Rahat Maryada’ written by Sant Kartar Singh Khalsa, Jatha Bhindran (Mehta), page 180, edition 1977).

The oldest manuscripts of Chaupa Singh have the sentence "Jo sikh, sikhni noo khande di pahul deve so tankhahyia". An oldest copy was lying in Sikh Reference Library. Fortunately it was copied before blue star. It has the sentence "Jo sikh, sikhni nu khande di pahul deve so tankhahia". It is available in print to verify.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Three oldest copies of Chaupa Singh Rahitnama that HW McLeod says existed before 1984 were one in Sikh Reference Library, another one in Guru Nanak Dev University, and the third one at Khalsa College Amritsar. He copied the one at Sikh reference Library before Blue Star in 1982. he compared his copy notes meticulously with the. other two at Khalsa College and Guru Nanak University. They all seemrd to be copy of a single source. he later found that the source was a copythat ued to be at Damdama Sahib. Ultimately he published his book Chaupa Singh Rahitnama by crefully comparing and using the texts from the three sources. He is not alive today however, he had deposited all his notes and papers on this with Guru Nank Dev University. Incidently, All the three versions have the same sentence "Jo Sikhni nu Khande di Pahul deve so tankhahia".

The only variant version in print is that published by Piara Singh Padam that has the same sentence with added word 'na' in it making it, "Jo Sikhni nu Khande di Pahul na deve so Tankhahia". Padam hasn't given any satisfactory source reference helping the reader to confirm it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
On 2/6/2010 at 9:00 AM, amardeep said:

I dont see a problem in women doing panj pyare di sewa.. I have never heard any good arguments to why they should'n be considered as panj pyare except "this is tradition"..

Please listen to this video. The name given to females, that is Kaur, itself proves that they have not been given the authority to become part of the Panj Pyare.

 

@Soulfinder

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paapiman said:

Please listen to this video. The name given to females, that is Kaur, itself proves that they have not been given the authority to become part of the Panj Pyare.

 

@Soulfinder

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Veer ji here is the mp4 of the track plus 2 more mp4s one by Sant Jarnail Singh Ji on the issue (listen at 33 seconds) and finally Basics of Sikhi Bhai Jugraj Singh on the subject.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...