Very Interesting Critique Of Sgpc Rehat Maryada By Taksaal

[Kuttabanda2]

On October 28, 2016 at 3:12 PM, paapiman said:

Taksali/Nirmalay scholars also do khoj. Baba Gurbachan Singh jee Bhindranwale did a lot of khoj in his life.

IMHO, Gurmukhs in Sampradas do give due respect to Singh Sabha Lehar. You might also be aware that some saints such as Sant Attar Singh jee, Sant Sundar Singh jee Bhindranwale, etc, actively supported the Singh Sabha Lehar.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindrawale doesn't ever mention Taksal, he never even used that to claim authority. He respected Sri Akal Takhat Sahib Ji. and yes, he had respect for Singh Sabha Lehar as well. and yes, Baba Sundar Singh Ji was a part of It. 

He does Ustat of the Singh Sabha in his books as well. So even in his eyes, they weren't the satanic, "colonial", "British" agents people make them out to be. 

 

[paapiman]

9 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

 He respected Sri Akal Takhat Sahib Ji.

Every Sikh has to respect Sri Akal Takht Sahib jee. That does not mean that we always have to agree with the people (who might be incompetent) in power at that sacred place.

Sant Baba Gurbachan Singh jee Bhindranwale did not agree with the so-called Panthic Maryada.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

Genuine or ? A lot of books appears to be written/attributed to Bhai Mani Singh.

[Kuttabanda2]

18 hours ago, amardeep said:

Genuine or ? A lot of books appears to be written/attributed to Bhai Mani Singh.

Yeah. it's Genuine, from Dr. Anurag Singh's analysis. 

[Kuttabanda2]

On October 30, 2016 at 4:59 AM, paapiman said:

Every Sikh has to respect Sri Akal Takht Sahib jee. That does not mean that we always have to agree with the people (who might be incompetent) in power at that sacred place.

Sant Baba Gurbachan Singh jee Bhindranwale did not agree with the so-called Panthic Maryada.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

How are we to decide who was more competent for Jathedari back then?

 

The so-called Panthic Maryada only needed approval from available evidence, reality, and research. Not a Sampardaic figure. 

[amardeep]

19 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Yeah. it's Genuine, from Dr. Anurag Singh's analysis. 

Have you read it? What do you think about it?

[Kuttabanda2]

14 hours ago, amardeep said:

Have you read it? What do you think about it?

No, I haven't read it in it's entirety, I was able to read the first page and I got to skim through seven more. It's handwritten and in Larrdivaar so it's difficult to decipher at some places. But it's not very foreign to what we've been reading in most steeks. The explanation of the Salok was consistent of what we interpret today, and at some places it looked like the author gave anecdotes, references, or an example from or with metaphors. 

[paapiman]

On 10/31/2016 at 2:08 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

The so-called Panthic Maryada only needed approval from available evidence, reality, and research. Not a Sampardaic figure. 

A Panthic Maryada needs to rely heavily on Gurbani (all three Granths). Baba Gurbachan Singh jee Bhindranwale and Baba Amir Singh jee Sato ki gali wale were among the best (if not the best) scholars, when it came to exegesis of scriptures. Their input was a must in formulating a document for the Panth.

Available evidence and research are relative to the time we live in. A Maryada cannot be solely dependent on that.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[tva prasad]

On ‎25‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 6:59 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

 

why would I care What Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Ji was saying in regards to what he was taught and his individual beliefs? 

he is a brahmgiani WHY would he lie!?!? He is one with god!

 

srimaan baba deep Singh ji was indeed the jathedar of ddt at one stage

[chatanga1]

On 28/10/2016 at 7:02 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

There is hard evidence for numerous practices, and historical events in Sikh History.

There is and there isn't. It just depends on how we take it as individuals. Go right back to the start. There is not evben common consensus over when Guru Nanak Maharaj was born. Many sources are divided between Baiskhi and Kattak.

 

On 28/10/2016 at 7:02 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Just look at Dr. Ganda Singh's reference library, He has a heap of historical sources from numerous areas.

I remember seeing a post on this forum about Ganda Singh and how his writing of history was quite different to events described in historical writings. I haven't read any of his books, so I can't say for sure but like all historians we should still  apply our own critical analysis of it.

I am reading Hari Ram Gupta's "History of the Sikhs" (vol 1) at the moment. He also did a lot of khoj especially of Persian writings and texts, and has pointed out things that even seasoned katha vachiks or historians don't/can't tell you. I don't know how much it differs from Dr Ji's but it is certainly worth a read.

 

On 28/10/2016 at 7:02 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

For example, the author of 'Sakhi Mahala Pehla' relied partially on Sakhis found appended to Puraatan Birs and Pothis written by contemporary Sikhs. We have a very firm and well defined structure/framework of Sikhi, that's irrefutable.

I'm not too sure about that ( but i haven't read it so can't say for sure) about Sakhi Mahala Pehla but the Sakhis esp from Janamsakhis about Guru Sahib's lives are hagiographic and don't really tell us much about the framework of Sikhi.

 

On 28/10/2016 at 7:02 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

As for Oral Tradition, I'm not one to entirely dismiss Oral Tradition. Kavi Santokh Singh, Gyani Gyan singh and Rattan Singh Bhangu didn't only rely on what was passed down orally, they had a bit of textual work to look into, with them as well.

Yes they did, but that work may well have been passed down orally before it came to be written.

 

On 28/10/2016 at 7:02 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

There are certain historical events that we do not have a clear picture of, but they're not overshadowing all that our Scholars have collected and researched over the years.

I agree somehat because as the Panth has evolved we have managed to get things written down and formed some kind of tradition as a result. But scratch under the surface and you will find that those very sources may not contain much about what we have evolved into. Look at the 5 ks for instance. They are mentioned in no particular order or completely until Saroop Singh wrote Guru Kian Sakhian.

 

On 28/10/2016 at 7:02 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

The Singh Sabha came in at 1873 not the 1880s.

The SS was a reaction by Sikh notables to conversion or abandonment of Sikhi for 4 Sikh youths. At that time, the SS reacted by having to go through all the resources/material they could find on Sikhi before reproducing it themselves. At the beginning  of the lehar, I would say that the SS would no better educated than your average pendu Granthi. They had to learn in order to teach. Even by starting in 1873, doesn't really mean much. It was in the 1890s when they really got going.

The reaction was because of the conversions to Christianity, but the brunt of the lehar was aimed at removing any connections to Hindu/Hindus religion. This overzealousness at removing any connections with the Hindus has led to some problems in the Panth. Even today there are fools are say that we have become an completely separate Quam from the HIndus because we have replaced the Bikrami calendar with this fraud Nanakshahi calendar.

 

On 28/10/2016 at 7:02 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

The Singh Sabha didn't need to be an ancient archaic Order of Saints to authenticate their findings and legitimacy in many places. They did Khoj. They're not the English nurtured (Ridiculous and ahistorical assertion), double horned, red skinned, demonic entities the Sampardas have portrayed them as. 

We have a problem of blaming everything on the british. The SS blamed the british for the samprdaies, the samprdaies call the SGPC british offspring etc. Both sides are wrong in this.

The SS lehar had to do their own khoj and quite frankly some of it was very wrong. Some of it was very good. But it has created a lot of problems we see in the Panth today.

 

[chatanga1]

On 31/10/2016 at 6:08 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

How are we to decide who was more competent for Jathedari back then?

When SGPC started was when we had jathedars of Sri Akal Takht. They looked for the person with good leadership qualities who was respected throughout the SS and also a person of qurbani.

No such thing these days. Things going wrong with the Panth but the jathedars do not provide clear leadership or solutions or quite frankly, even admit there are problems.

 

On 31/10/2016 at 6:08 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

The so-called Panthic Maryada only needed approval from available evidence, reality, and research. Not a Sampardaic figure. 

But what if this "evidence" is not uniform? What about when you have 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, saying different things.

I don't beleive that the research gone into the Panthic maryada was even 10% of the research done in Gurmat, that is carried out in the Taksals and Samprdais. Even now you can tell the difference between your average Gyani and a Taksali. Also if you didn't know, most of the paathis who did sewa at Sri Darbar Sahib uto the 1980s were from taksal of Gyani Mohan Singh and Sant Kartar Singh.

Look at the Gurdwaras run by the Samprdiais and compare them with Gurdwaras run by the SGPC/SinghSabha and look at the difference, in terms of Gyan, Sangat, and attendance.

 

[chatanga1]

On 02/11/2016 at 10:09 AM, paapiman said:

Available evidence and research are relative to the time we live in. A Maryada cannot be solely dependent on that.

Absolutely. Spot on.

[WakeUp]

6 hours ago, tva prasad said:

he is a brahmgiani WHY would he lie!?!? He is one with god!

 

srimaan baba deep Singh ji was indeed the jathedar of ddt at one stage

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). 

[tva prasad]

Just now, WakeUp said:

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). 

I am no where near being a brahmgiani. I would be blessed if I can even b the dust of their feet by the end of my life. Have u ever heard giani Thakur Singh ji's katha (he has stayed with alot of brahmgianis e.g sant harnam Singh ji rampurkhera wale, sant gurbachan Singh ji bhinderanwale, sant jarnail Singh ji bhinderanwale, etc.) he tells abt sant jarnail Singh ji bhinderanwale's avastha. U shud seriously read abt his life and listen to giani Thakur Singh ji's katha on him. It is a well known fact that sant g is a brahmgiani. Using ur logic a non-brahmgiani can't call a brahmgiani a braahmgiani. Btw, u can believe whatever u want but the truth will not change.

https://sikhunity.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/sangats-experiences-with-sant-baba-thakur-singh-jee-khalsa-bhindranwale/

At Bhai Sarbjit Singh’s house in USA, Harnam Singh Dhumma asked Baba Ji regarding if Sant Ji is alive or if they were Shaheed in the 84 attack. Baba Ji said “Jo tu samaj da Mahapurakhan nu, oh nahi hai, Im not lying, why would I, Sant Ji is alive, he’s got a duty from the 10th Guru Sahib, Sant Ji is a Brahm Giani,and he will fulfill his duty”.

the above is taken from the website (the bold, underlined bit). try reading the whole thing I admit it is a bit long but worth reading.

ps when gurbani says only a brahmgiani can truly know a brahmgiani. It means that the avastha of a brahmgiani is very hard to define hence a non- brahmgiani can't understand it. Gurbani is not saying that a non-brahmgiani shall not call a brahmgiani a brahmgiani.

[tva prasad]

.

 

[tva prasad]

Just now, WakeUp said:

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".  

please present some reliable evidence to support your argument/ opinion, only then is it worth arguing the above "point".

[WakeUp]

4 hours ago, tva prasad said:

please present some reliable evidence to support your argument/ opinion, only then is it worth arguing the above "point".

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

[tva prasad]

5 hours ago, WakeUp said:

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? 

HE ACTUALLY WAS THERE! In his past life he was bhai maan singh who was present at the vaisakhi day, witnessed the punj pyare being given amrit. he also accompanied guru gobind singh ji to the machhiwara jungle. then he did bhagti after guru ji left his chola. he did bhagti until sant Sunder singh ji's time. he told sant sunder singhji that he was going to leave his current body and incarnate as Jarnail Singh. 

sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/69833-previous-jeevan-sant-jarnail-singh-ji-khalsa/   

HE IS SUCH A GREAT PERSON!!!

https://sikhunity.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/narrated-incidents-on-sant-jarnail-singh-ji-bhindranwales-life/ 

DO U SERIOUSLY THINK HE IS SEXIST!!!????!?!? Read the following: (taken directly from the website)

http://www.panthic.org/articles/2557 

Not an Ordinary 'Sant'

It was noon time. In Sant jee's room in Guru Nanak Nivaas, we (I, Bhai Amreek Singh and Bhai Racchpal Singh) were sitting on an extra manja beside Sant jee's bed. The Sangat was coming in to say Fateh one by one. In those that were coming, most were women and a bit of a crowd had formed. Without warning, Sant jee jumped onto his bed and stood up and was about to hit a very large woman with his teer (arrow). I, in a bit of panic, grabbed his hand and asked "What has happened?" I was of course a bit shocked.

He spoke in anger and said "You know what she was saying? She was asking for a son!"

There was no need to say much more. We told the Singh at the door to stop the flow of sangat for a while.

But this is clear, we usually hear about traditional 'Sants' giving children and women come to them to ask for boys. This is a pity for the entire society and this was and continues to be a very big problem in the Sikh world. Sant Bhindranvale was not only away from such practices, he was strongly against them.

 

if u don't sant g is a brahmgiani it is totally ur choice. btw did u read the info on the link i gave u in my previous post or m i just wasting my precious time?

1.  
2.  

[WakeUp]

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. 

 

[chatanga1]

On 06/11/2016 at 4:25 AM, WakeUp said:

 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.

Why can't they all be right? The Guru's held different views, where they not one with god?

This is an argument  that radha swamis use to pretend they only follow upto the first 5 Gurus. If Guru Nanak didn't take up a sword why did 6th Guru etc...

 

On 06/11/2016 at 4:25 AM, WakeUp said:

 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),

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale never held women in contempt. That is a very wrong and stupid word to use from someone as educated as yourself. How could Jarnail Singh hold women in contempt when his predecessors (real or imagined) rescued women from tyrants. Please don't ever make the mistake of writing that again.

 

On 06/11/2016 at 4:25 AM, WakeUp said:

 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).

We have been trhough this many times before. This line is only saying that all human beings have the same right to worship and access to Waheguru. That no humna is above or lower than any by coincidence of thier birth into whatever religion, caste, colour, gender, etc.

 

Animals and plants have the same jyot in them that humans do, why aren't you looking at animals and plants as your equals?

If you say you do, then are you eating humans the same way as you are eating plants/animals?

If all humans are equal, would you ever consider your sister for marriage? if not, why not she has the same jyot that any other girl has?

If we are all of the same jyout,m why not consider another man to marry? Or a dog? Or a flower? They ALL hold the same jyot that you and I hold.

 

On 06/11/2016 at 4:25 AM, WakeUp said:

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?

Even if one relies on gurbani, he still has to make his /her own interpretation of it. These people who got together to formulate the SRM (in my opinion) were not trained or educated in Gurmat compared to any Sikhs from the samprdais. These people were those who fought for a social change in the Sikh society and got it. But just as Jarnail Singh making a qurbani doesnt make him the be all and end all, these Sikhs who fought for and brought about social change in Sikh society were not the be all and end all of Gurmat education and philsophy. They were good people but unfortunaetly only understand Gurmat to their own shallow level of understanding.

 

Like I said, compare any Gyani from thre SGPC against a Taksali, or Nirmala, and you will see the difference in Gyan.

 

[chatanga1]

7 hours ago, WakeUp said:

 If women take same Amrit they are Khalsa there is no male or female khalsa.

You do NOT lose your gender by taking amrit. Kul nash bhram nash yes, but ling nash? No.

Otherwise if there are no male or female, there is nothing to stop you marrying another man is there?

 

7 hours ago, WakeUp said:

 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.

Gurbani says all humans are equal in spirituality alone, not gender. how many times do you need to ask this question and get the same reply?

Next time yu are in Amritsar, go to Sri Akal Takht Sahib and ask just how many women have participated in the monthly sinchars carried out.

 

7 hours ago, WakeUp said:

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.

 

Bingo! So you married a woman. Why ? Your brother or cousin brother carried the same divine light she does. So does your next door neighbour. So does the nextdoor neighbours dog/cat. Why did you discriminate against any of these others?

Are their souls not real? Does your wife have the only real soul in this world, apart from yours? Why are you punishing these other poor souls?

[tva prasad]

Just now, chatanga1 said:

They were good people but unfortunaetly only understand Gurmat to their own shallow level of understanding.

wat exactly do u mean by this & who r u referring to???

[WakeUp]

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! 

[paapiman]

3 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

You do NOT lose your gender by taking amrit. Kul nash bhram nash yes, but ling nash? No.

Bhram nash? What do you mean by that?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[WakeUp]

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.