Very Interesting Critique Of Sgpc Rehat Maryada By Taksaal

[WakeUp]

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

[samurai]

mate you and jasper keep on going on like a broken record.. and your views regarding women as 5 pyares is silly and backed up by only AKJ's.. and the new 3ho spiritual mindset..

you just don't get it, men and women are different...equal but different but the way you mans are going on is like if a man stands up and pisses then a women can as well...

if you had a bro and sis, and it was late one night and you needed milk asap for whatever reason, would you tell your bro to go to the shops or your sis.. and lets say your sis is 20 and your bro is 18.

[JasperS]

3 hours ago, samurai said:

mate you and jasper keep on going on like a broken record.. and your views regarding women as 5 pyares is silly and backed up by only AKJ's.. and the new 3ho spiritual mindset..

you just don't get it, men and women are different...equal but different but the way you mans are going on is like if a man stands up and pisses then a women can as well...

if you had a bro and sis, and it was late one night and you needed milk asap for whatever reason, would you tell your bro to go to the shops or your sis.. and lets say your sis is 20 and your bro is 18.

Why should it be any different? I am assuming both have their driving license being 18-20 and there is no reason a girl should be limited to when she can go out compared to a boy. That's what I want is freedom for her. Not living caged in fear cowering behind men. 

Yes physically males and females are different. It has to be that way to procreate. But Amrit Sanchar has nothing to do with physical procreation does it? I'm not sure if you have taken amrit or not yet, but I have. And I certainly don't remember anything happening during it which would require a certain genetalia. Those administering it should not have any physical abnormalities only for the reason of being able to sit in bir posture and physically go through the actions. They should be able to verbally recite from memory. They should themselves follow strictly rehet maryada. So far nothing in the above precludes a female does it?! Or are you suggesting women can not maintain strict rehet? Or that women are not physically capable of sitting in bir posture or stirring the amrit, or reciting the banis from memory? 

Duty as Panj Pyaras is not just limited to AKJ and 3HO. Many Gurdwaras that don't follow any specific jatha or samprada also follow Sikh Rehet Maryada. And I know of several times in both UK and India where amrit sanchars have had women as one of the five (and were not AKJ or 3HO). In India one was in Kashmir, and the other Maharashtra (off the top of my head). 

In fact those choosing the five should also follow strict rehet maryada, and it does say women can be one of the five in Sikh Rehet Maryada. So they can not strictly follow it while intentionally excluding a qualified woman as a choice. 

Someone has actually explained to me the reasoning behind taksali thought on this. Please NOTE:  I have no idea if this is true or not. It was just someone explained why Taksalis view women in this way and he got it from a katha online: He said it has to do with past karma. In fact Chatanga has already mentioned on here in this thread that women are bound to serving their husband because its their dharma. So the idea is that someone for example born with a disability (or born female) was born that way because of some past sins, and therefore are seen as impure in this life and not suitable to give amrit because presumably they would pass on some of that karmic debt to others as those giving amrit pass on some of their energy. The idea is that women are born as women as a result of past sins. Its also why taksalis see menstruation as spiritually impure. Its another way that past sin manifests now, making every soul born into a female body, paying for their karmic punishment. Basically being born in a female body is a punishment (like wearing a big reg tag saying sinner), and that soul in a female body is seen very much lesser avastha than any male. In fact a disabled male is still considered higher than any female as if he married a female would still be bound to serve him. So the real reason Taksalis etc don't want women administering amrit is that they believe women are tainted spiritually and considered impure because they believe being born into a female body is result of past karams.

Again I am not making this claim. It's just what someone has explained to me. If it's wrong then please say so. But if it's true I have to wholeheartedly disagree, along with the wife having to serve the husband. Guru Nanak removed this idea of hierarchy based on birth and said that this human body is a blessing (not this male human body) and pointed out that Waheguru is in every soul. Every human should serve all others. There should be no hierarchy because hierarchy just creates false statuses and builds ego. 

So in summary, I will not see women as being impure sinners here under punishment. And I will follow gurbani which tells me to see everyone as equal. That includes equality in all seva including Panj Pyaras. That doesn't mean ignoring physical differences or thinking we are the exact same. I am talking about equal treatment. Who goes to buy milk and when, has nothing to do with Amrit Sanchar. Who rapes who has nothing to do with Amrit Sanchar. Who takes what physiological role in procreation has nothing to do with Amrit Sanchar. You are free to follow whatever path you want but I will follow Sikh Rehet Maryada (which I was given at Amrit) and I'll follow Gurbani. This is my last post on this as I agree it's getting repetitive. And by the way you keep saying equal but different, but then you give one less rights than the other, that is not equal in any sense. Equal would be giving women complete control over another equally important seva like Granthi or something and saying all Granthis have to be female if all Panj Pyaras have to be male.  But we don't see that. We see males having more rights and having 'reserved' seva for them only but no comparable seva for women that is reserved for only women. So its not equal but different. It's just unequal.  

Wish you well. 

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ki Ji Fateh. 

 

[tva prasad]

Just now, JasperS said:

Why should it be any different? I am assuming both have their driving license being 18-20 and there is no reason a girl should be limited to when she can go out compared to a boy. That's what I want is freedom for her. Not living caged in fear cowering behind men. 

So true!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyways, guru g gave women the same warrior spirit as men. Guru g has expected women to fight alongside men. There is no reason left to state for a women to not be able to protect herself.

@samurai - how late late is it? If it's like midnight that's absurd lol.

[samurai]

jasper mate, i literally read your first line then scrolled down to the summary where i also just read the first line. You whole way of thinking in terms of equality if for men and women to do the same physical actions and if a man wan to make a gentlemanly suggestions,ie, ill hold the door for my women then i suppose you will kick off calling this inequality..

IMO men should be expected to lead a warrior life in sikhi where as women 'choose' to lead a warrior life, both need to do bhagti. the equality is in they both have a choice to lead a warrior lifestyle by taking amrit but the sanchaar is a replication of the first 5 panj pyaare. I recall mai bhago mentioned earlier,yes women who fought where those who chose to fight not expected...when mai bhago chiefed up the 40 mukhte and led them to maharaj she didnt round up all the women did she??

oh and going back to my scenario of late night shopping, mate seriously, you got out that one... even then most 'men' i know and in generall including non-sikhs (including the gora master) would easily tell their son to go and do the job.. but again you have twisted this into keeping the women jailed..ffs..i could go on here mate but i cont be writing essays everyother day..this actually seems like one

With your mindset and a lot of pupppu's too, in about 20 years we will see dogs and cats is darbar sahib as they are equal, we are all one type of sh1t and to give these nice pets a sikhi tilt with soocham, they will wear nappies and a rumaal to cover their head.. 

as you wished me well.. i also wish the best for your familys health and wealth but not your mindset..

[WakeUp]

8 hours ago, samurai said:

but the sanchar is a replication of the first 5 panj pyaare

Samurai, veer if it's replication of the first five then why do we allow black males or causcsian males or for that matter why do we allow males from castes which were not represented by the original five? If it was true replication of the original details then we shouldn't allow anyone who was not Punjabi, brown skinned, and from one of the castes that the original were. But somehow we don't think these details are important to replicate while gender is. Why is it only gender which is important? I think what jasper Ji and I both are trying to say is that as long as the soul is high avastha that is what matters to be replicated. These bodies are false and will die in the end but the light inside won't.

The very fact you say Mai Bhago was allowed to choose to be a warrior and she not stopped by Guru Ji and in fact she was made a personal body guard. He never told her this is only for the boys go home. That shows Guru Ji does not discriminate. If women choose to give their heads and lead warrior lifestyle then who are we to say they can't represent the original 5? It was Guru Ji who armed women with kirpan same as men.

"Jo to praym khaylan ka chaao, sir dhar talee galee mayree aao. "

"It maarag pair dhareejai, sir deejai kaan na keejai." 

If women are prepared to do that then they ARE replicating the original 5. 

As for being polite by holding doors etc you can do that nobody is stopping you. And women will find it polite. Most women today however also don't think lowly of a male who doesn't. Some will even hold it for you if they walk through first. I think that is all just trivial things and we shouldn't worry about them. Just be polite to everyone male and female alike. 

[samurai]

10 hours ago, samurai said:

but the sanchar is a replication of the first 5 panj pyaare

Samurai, veer if it's replication of the first five then why do we allow black males or causcsian males or for that matter why do we allow males from castes which were not represented by the original five?

 

yes because its 5 pyareh, not pyaria...

and mai bhago was the body guard of maharaj..ok

now just asnwer the f'kin question.. why did mai bhago not rally up the women to replace the 40 mukhte who initially bounced from the battle field..

asmuch effort you and jasper are about protecting the rights of women for equality in regards to amrit sanchaar etc, i hope you show up to the next battle we have against pakis grooming our sikh 'FEMALE' adolescents..sorry wake up, i cont remember where you from, if its us or canada then i apologise, carry on walking in bubble land but i know jasper is from london, your support will be much appreciated.. http://www.sasorg.co.uk/. volunteer to help out...

[chatanga1]

On 12/11/2016 at 10:20 PM, JasperS said:

If one is filled with lust, they masturbate, or watch porn, or pick up someone at a bar. They don't molest and violate a person who they know is unwilling. The act of violation of a person against their will, is entirely about control and power over that person. Its a well known fact that rapes are highest in societies where there is a definite hierarchy with women in an inferior role or position. 

 

Taken from :

http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2014/09/03/the-myth-that-rape-is-about-power/

 The opening paragraphs:

The original source of the idea that sexual assault is about violence and power instead of sex or lust doesn’t come from a scientist or an academic study.² It comes from a feminist writer named Susan Brownmiller who invented the theory pretty much from scratch for her 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape.

According to Brownmiller, rape is “a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” There is some validity to the idea that the consequence of widespread rape and sexual assault is a ubiquitous power imbalance between men and women in society, and that in that sense even men who never sexually assault women might be said to benefit from rape, but the contention that men consciously engage in rape for the purpose of control (to the exclusion of sexual gratification) never made much sense at all.

In a sane world, Brownmiller’s theory would have been very short lived. This is because an actual scientist stepped in with a direct rebuttal just four years later, in 1979. The book was called The Evolution of Human Sexuality and it was written by the anthropologist Donald Symons. It is no coincidence that Symons wrote from a scientific rather than a political perspective, and his book was widely heralded by some of the greatest social scientists of the 20^th century, including Richard Posner, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Steven Pinker.³Symons’ thesis was very simple and aligned with common sense: he saw rape as being primarily about the satisfaction of sexual lust.

 

 

 

[chatanga1]

On 14/11/2016 at 2:01 AM, WakeUp said:

 If my responses are similar to another member then it's pure coincidence. Maybe we just think alike.

 

Guri Ji, either you had been feeding her this nonsense, or she had been feeding it to you. You both have word for word, idea for idea arguments. Use of punctutation. It's too much of a coincidence to say that you don't know her.

 

On 12/11/2016 at 10:06 PM, JasperS said:

I think he meant that if he wants to follow a rehet maryada which doesn't allow women equal rights in Sikhi, then he can follow damdami taksal which is known to keep women in subordinate position. I don't think he was suggesting the member is damdami taksal. Thats how I read it anyway.

 

Jaspreet, Guri Ji said it in a condescending tone, meaning that those who want to keep women down can follow the Taskal.

 

On 14/11/2016 at 2:01 AM, WakeUp said:

 And my responses are directly responding to posts by member Chatanga tva prasad and samurai how am I supposed to respond? They keep saying the same things over and over too. Is this forum open to anyone? If you don't want the general reputation of the forum being negative towards females then where is the positive? I have not seen any so please show me if you say not all think like that! I have only seen negative things on here sicne I came here. 

 

You keep saying the same things over and over. You haven't even said them for the first or the hundreth time. No-one on this forum is against women> It's when you try to make them out to be, then there is a response. If it's negative to you, it tells us more about you than anything else.

[chatanga1]

 

16 hours ago, tva prasad said:

 Guru g has expected women to fight alongside men.

This is not borne out by history. There have only ever been a handful of names of women coming up through history.

 

Look at the Vadda Ghalughara. The Singhs formed a ring around the women and children to protect them. If the women were warriors then it would never have been written as such, and maybe the ghallughara may not have been as severe.

 

12 hours ago, samurai said:

jasper mate, i literally read your first line then scrolled down to the summary where i also just read the first line.

 

Yes I did the same for his essay. Nothing new to begin with, or end. The filling: all the same.

 

3 hours ago, WakeUp said:

Samurai, veer if it's replication of the first five then why do we allow black males or causcsian males or for that matter why do we allow males from castes which were not represented by the original five?

Because its the 5 Singhs that represent the Guru physically. Caste or colour, region etc are not important. Gender is. been discussed here mahny times., Do a search rather than repeat the same arguments over and over.

 

3 hours ago, WakeUp said:

The very fact you say Mai Bhago was allowed to choose to be a warrior and she not stopped by Guru Ji and in fact she was made a personal body guard. He never told her this is only for the boys go home. That shows Guru Ji does not discriminate. If women choose to give their heads and lead warrior lifestyle then who are we to say they can't represent the original 5? It was Guru Ji who armed women with kirpan same as men.

 

Mai Bhago had a high avastha. Like the other Singhs she took to wearing a kachera only. Guru Sahib forbade her to wear a kachera only and to keep her body covered. This injunction was never given to any male Sikh. Isn't this discrimination against females?

[JasperS]

Samurai I am very much against grooming. And the fact that males are doing this just shows me males are even less deserving of some higher position in society. Women are not the ones doing these heinous things init? Yes I will help out as much as I can. I'll take a look at the site. Thanks. 

Chatanga, we will have to disagree. Gender does not matter. You have never given a solid reason why it does other than just saying it does. Until and unless you can prove why colour, caste, race etc somehow don't matter but gender does, in practical terms as it pertains to amrit sanchar, then it remains as only opinion. Which everyone is entitled to. As I said when I took amrit I never witnessed anything which the panj did would have required male genetalia. Everything they did, a female could do. Can woman sit in bir posture? Can women recite banis from heart? Can women maintain strict rehet? Can women physically stir and prepare the amrit? Can women be of high avastha? If so, then there is no question. Show me how male physical anatomy even comes into it? It doesn't. So either are are saying it's a strict reproduction of the original, in which case you have to prohibit blacks, causcasians, castes which were not represented in the original 5 etc. Or it's not an exact reproduction of the original and any Sikh of high avastha can represent the Guru.  You are free to follow your own path. I'll follow mine. 

Also the thread title was critique of Sikh Rehet Maryada by Taksals. Sikh Rehet Maryada allows full equal participation in Sikhi for females. Taksali maryada does not. So it's not difficult to conclude that anyone who doesn't think women deserve equal respect than they can follow taksali maryada instead. Obviously WakeUp and myself believe in equality (and I think Tva Prasad too) so yes we look down on taksali maryada in that way (same as they are allowed to look down on Sikh Rehet Maryada) and we are allowed to point out their flaws and use gurbani to support it. You guys have certainly spoke about SGPC, Akal Takht, and other groups like AKJ in condescending tone. So please don't be teapot calling the kettle black. 

Anyway I already said I was done in this thread. Let's be adults. We can agree to disagree.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh Ji 

[tva prasad]

@WakeUp and @JasperS I admire ur ability of treating women equally. this is very important thing in sikhi which some fail to understand. sikh women aren't any women they r saint-soldiers. they drank the same amrit as the singhs they have the same power. it is a sikh's dharm to b able to protect him or herself. IF A SIKH CANNOT PROTECT THEMSELVES HOW CAN THEY PROTECT OTHERS? HOW CAN THEY PROTECT THEIR DHARAM? SORRY FOR CAPITAL LETTERS. 

[samurai]

 

21 minutes ago, JasperS said:

And the fact that males are doing this just shows me males are even less deserving of some higher position in society

this is like the old bhudiya who say "i wish you have a son" to pregnant women..as i witness in a gurdwara..you are both as bad as each other..both in extreme, 

[Bal Rehal]

On 14/11/2016 at 11:13 PM, JasperS said:

Someone has actually explained to me the reasoning behind taksali thought on this. Please NOTE:  I have no idea if this is true or not. It was just someone explained why Taksalis view women in this way and he got it from a katha online: He said it has to do with past karma. In fact Chatanga has already mentioned on here in this thread that women are bound to serving their husband because its their dharma. So the idea is that someone for example born with a disability (or born female) was born that way because of some past sins, and therefore are seen as impure in this life and not suitable to give amrit because presumably they would pass on some of that karmic debt to others as those giving amrit pass on some of their energy. The idea is that women are born as women as a result of past sins. Its also why taksalis see menstruation as spiritually impure. Its another way that past sin manifests now, making every soul born into a female body, paying for their karmic punishment. Basically being born in a female body is a punishment (like wearing a big reg tag saying sinner), and that soul in a female body is seen very much lesser avastha than any male. In fact a disabled male is still considered higher than any female as if he married a female would still be bound to serve him. So the real reason Taksalis etc don't want women administering amrit is that they believe women are tainted spiritually and considered impure because they believe being born into a female body is result of past karams.

This line of thinking seems to stem from the Hindu faith which consider women to be of a lower status than men. In fact women are treated so differently - they eat last, stay secluded during their menses and do not even cook food during that time. Look at Dropadi in Ramayan. Duryodan had her pulled out of her secluded place just to shame her by pulling out her sari in front of everyone. This was in revenge for her having laughed at him when he mistook the floor for water and got his feet wet. 

Guru nanak Dev Ji has abolished this treatment of women - by demanded that they be respected as they give birth to kings. No where has Guru Ji said that women are so because of their past sins. Some past books contain some material like saying if you eat the jhooth of someone you are reborn as a woman. If there was any truth in this it would be in the SGGS. If there was any importance in not being born as a woman and as a man, then Guru Ji would have warned us not to sin as we would be born as women. However this is not the case. 

Guru Ji said rehet peyari muji sikh peyara nahi....

This means that whoever stays in the rehet... will be the peyara of Guru Ji.

Everything we get in this life, we have to earn it. Everything we have at the moment is the result of our past karmas. 

Vin karma kich paiye nahi. 

Everything we have has been given to us by God. Dhadha dhataa ek hai.

Therefore taking the above in account, if there were some women who kept the rehet - strictly and were pleasing to Guru Ji - then there is no one to stop them from becoming the punj peyare. However Sikhi is a practical religion. Therefore empty debates do not produce any results. Live in the rehet and according to your karams and your kamai - Waheguru will give you some work to do i.e. administer Amrit as one of the punj peyare. 

The end question is - Who has worked to earn this seva ?

[paapiman]

5 minutes ago, Bal Rehal said:

Duryodan had her pulled out of her secluded place just to shame her by pulling out her sari in front of everyone. This was in revenge for her having laughed at him when he mistook the floor for water and got his feet wet. 

There was more to it bro. She made fun of Dhritrashtar (father of Duryodhan) jee's blindness.

Anyway, what Duryodhan did in revenge was absolutely shameful and unmanly.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[chatanga1]

12 hours ago, JasperS said:

Samurai I am very much against grooming. And the fact that males are doing this just shows me males are even less deserving of some higher position in society. Women are not the ones doing these heinous things init? Yes I will help out as much as I can. I'll take a look at the site. Thanks.

Jaspreet there have been many cases where female teachers have groomed young men in their classrooms. Even the daughter of poor Malkit Singh the singer, groomed a boy. I don't know what kind of a world you live in, by try reading the news. there are many stories like this.

 

12 hours ago, JasperS said:

Chatanga, we will have to disagree.

 

Ok. i have no problem with that. But like I said earlier, next time you are in Amritsar, go to Sri Akal takht Sahib and ask them the last time a woman served as part of the Panj, in their monthly sinchaars carried out there, under the aegis of SRM. You will be pleasantly surprised. Oh, and let us know here as well.

 

12 hours ago, JasperS said:

Anyway I already said I was done in this thread. Let's be adults. We can agree to disagree.

 

yes Jaspreet, we have both pretty much re-said all that has been said on this topic for the last 5 years. Let's look at something else.

[Crystal]

12 hours ago, tva prasad said:

@WakeUp and @JasperS I admire ur ability of treating women equally. this is very important thing in sikhi which some fail to understand. sikh women aren't any women they r saint-soldiers. they drank the same amrit as the singhs they have the same power. it is a sikh's dharm to b able to protect him or herself. IF A SIKH CANNOT PROTECT THEMSELVES HOW CAN THEY PROTECT OTHERS? HOW CAN THEY PROTECT THEIR DHARAM? SORRY FOR CAPITAL LETTERS. 

I agree with you, that's why most of the people who have taken amrit shouldn't have. why? khalsa is meant to be dharamyudhis most of our khalsa have never been in a scrap, they don't know the reality of fighting, being attacked, how to defend yourself, what to do when the situation arises  . So let's be honest, most people don't know how to react in a confrontation or attack, they freeze. What is the point of wearing a kirpan or sword when you don't know how to use it? seems more of a ritual.

[JasperS]

1 hour ago, Crystal said:

I agree with you, that's why most of the people who have taken amrit shouldn't have. why? khalsa is meant to be dharamyudhis most of our khalsa have never been in a scrap, they don't know the reality of fighting, being attacked, how to defend yourself, what to do when the situation arises  . So let's be honest, most people don't know how to react in a confrontation or attack, they freeze. What is the point of wearing a kirpan or sword when you don't know how to use it? seems more of a ritual.

Further to that why wear a symbolic kirpan, by that I mean most kirpans worn now are not even sharp. So they would not even be a practical weapon. And how would knowing how to use a kirpan save anyone in a country like the USA where 80% of the population carry a gun? 

The reality is most people are not faced with the possibility of fighting day to day in life. The world has changed.

I would suggest great career paths for a Sikh would be policing, or the military, or on a smaller scale security guard. For the rest of us (I'm in medical field), I suggest at least taking self defence classes or martial arts training to at least have confidence to know what to do if confronted. But sadly in this day and age with guns everywhere what can we do? 

 

[JustAnotherSingh]

@chatanga1 - are there any sources specifically that state Mai Bhago never participated in Amrit sanchar?

i have always personally thought that there wasn't a specific reason women are not  currently allowed to be Panj, that it was just a holdout from the 18th/19th century mindset where women weren't even permitted to take Khande di pahul.

[Crystal]

3 hours ago, JasperS said:

Further to that why wear a symbolic kirpan, by that I mean most kirpans worn now are not even sharp. So they would not even be a practical weapon. And how would knowing how to use a kirpan save anyone in a country like the USA where 80% of the population carry a gun? 

The reality is most people are not faced with the possibility of fighting day to day in life. The world has changed.

I would suggest great career paths for a Sikh would be policing, or the military, or on a smaller scale security guard. For the rest of us (I'm in medical field), I suggest at least taking self defence classes or martial arts training to at least have confidence to know what to do if confronted. But sadly in this day and age with guns everywhere what can we do? 

 

We are only to blame for carrying blunt kirpans and not knowing how to defend yourself. 

If I was a situation and I had to pick between drawing a gun from holster or going for a knife and you have a distance of two metres from your attacker....I'd go for the knife all day. drawing a gun, cocking it back, taking safety off then firing. taking a knife out and stabbing violently  and repeatedly.

Blades have many advantages over guns, stealth, less noise,being able to cut multiple directions, switching hands and it seems personal rather than pumping lead into someone. 

 

People talk about guns over blades. Here in the UK who realistically has access to a gun??? & who has experience having a gun pulled on them?

I disagree, fights happen all the time. Wrong place wrong time? walking past a group of west ham fans wearing a millwall t-shirt. Attacks don't have to be personal, many random attacks happen on the street.

 

[chatanga1]

2 hours ago, JustAnotherSingh said:

@chatanga1 - are there any sources specifically that state Mai Bhago never participated in Amrit sanchar?

 Not to my knowledge.

[Kuttabanda2]

On November 12, 2016 at 11:52 AM, chatanga1 said:

It's funny because that is exactly what I'm getting from you and your "misogynist" label for anyone who sees differently.

 

I don't say it. I have never said it. Another thing you share with my darling. The ability to put words in others mouths.

 

 

No I didn't know you were refering to these but thanks for telling me. it's made things a little clearer. Some of these people were scholars. They are not the same as samprdaic gyanis. Some of these scholars applied a British lense to analysing Sikh praxis and literature. You are right these scholars are not pendu gyanis, but scholars are not the same as Gyanis.

 

 

It doesn't, but the grounding is there before they even begin to look at both Granths. THis means they are able to give a wider and more detailed katha of Gurbani, rather the linear translations you find being told today.

 

They were in the beginnning, but as time went on, there became a strong emphasis on anything that was shared with Hinduism ie. lighting dhoof and deeve/jyot and narial.

 

 

I have no opinion on Sri gur Katha. If you look up the topic "debunking Sri Gur Katha" on this forum, you will see that I stressed the need to look at the granth and then form opinions rather than go with the approach of "debunking" it from the outset.

Let's discuss Sri Gur Katha further. If you have the granth, scan a few pages, post them on one of the existing topics of this granth and we can look at them.

 

Niranjan Singh Arifi on the other hand scares me. He is a "low-caste" Sikh who has sought to re-write history and claim the supreme status for low-castes only. Some of his writing is extremely biased and has no basis historically. He makes up a lot of things as well. He has tried to make out that Baba Bir Singh Naurangabadi was the same Bir Singh (a mazhabi) who offered his head to test a gun for Guru Gobind Singh Ji, in the sakhi of Bhai Dalla.

"some of these people were scholars". 

Actually, they were all scholars. Regardless of one's opinion towards their beliefs and assertions. And I would say they're Gyanis as well. 

what's the definition of a 'Gyani' according to you?

Could you clarify this "British praxis" and lense you speak of? How would you say they applied it? And How do you define it? 

 

Also, the ground you speak of, How are we to determine it's necessary and needed? How are we to conclude this is what the Gurus meant? Or if this "wider scope" is accurate and well grounded? What's the veracity of this ground work?  

 

I'll scan the Granth and post it along with Malwe Desh Rattan's excerpts within this month. 

 

in regards to Arifi's claims, I don't recall him making such claims. Do you know where he made that assertion? 

 

 

No academic is inerrant. People are bound to form conjectures and claims that can be poorly substantiated. Unless it's frequent, we shouldn't cast doubt upon all of their work. I have no doubt that Arifi was biased, but he wasn't dubious. 

Secondly, Your fear of Arifi shouldn't cloud your judgement of Sri Gur Katha. As he wasn't the only one who came across it or studied it in the first place. Five academics so far have studied the manuscript(s) and have written about it. 

[Kuttabanda2]

On November 12, 2016 at 11:54 AM, chatanga1 said:

We also, as Sikhs use faith to navigate through this world. More than logic I would say.

Faith is necessary for a person of any spiritual or religious tradition. However, when it comes to analyzing a faith/or religion, we need the application of logic to some extant, as well. Depriving ourselves of rationality, critical thinking, and reasoning (which isn't fundamentally subjective) is detrimental and counter-productive for the intellectual, societal, and overall evolution of humanity.

[samurai]

3 hours ago, Crystal said:

We are only to blame for carrying blunt kirpans and not knowing how to defend yourself. 

If I was a situation and I had to pick between drawing a gun from holster or going for a knife and you have a distance of two metres from your attacker....I'd go for the knife all day. drawing a gun, cocking it back, taking safety off then firing. taking a knife out and stabbing violently  and repeatedly.

Blades have many advantages over guns, stealth, less noise,being able to cut multiple directions, switching hands and it seems personal rather than pumping lead into someone. 

 

People talk about guns over blades. Here in the UK who realistically has access to a gun??? & who has experience having a gun pulled on them?

It depends on the shooter, most do not know how to shoot and the 'kick' mis fires the aim which is why i agree to what you are saying in the knife is more lethal..

its just an excuse for some not to train and contemplate taking a life in self defense (what the khalsa is really about)...

9 hours ago, Bal Rehal said:

Therefore taking the above in account, if there were some women who kept the rehet - strictly and were pleasing to Guru Ji - then there is no one to stop them from becoming the punj peyare. However Sikhi is a practical religion. Therefore empty debates do not produce any results. Live in the rehet and according to your karams and your kamai - Waheguru will give you some work to do i.e. administer Amrit to the punj peyare.

i thought the panj pyare administer the amrit..? 

Didnt maharaj say contemplate dharm yudh?? and if you did, what would you do to prepare?? spar with women?

and still no answer to my 'fooking' question about mai bhago not rallying her fellow women..wake up seems to have bounced on his bed..

@tva prasad dont worry mate im very much kool, when i do say such things its in my natural state im not getting hyped but at the same time im not going to pretend im in peace and connected to the flower in my front garden either...for one who meditates, i can just say to you that i do not'loose' energy from such expressions...just remember as much talk is done to get liberation via 'dyaan', one also gets liberation via 'shaheedi'..this lok/karmbhoomi has many passages out..

[Crystal]