Jump to content

Very Interesting Critique Of Sgpc Rehat Maryada By Taksaal


dalsingh101
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 06/10/2016 at 6:36 PM, JasperS said:


And you are saying a husband should not serve his wife on the terms of love respect loyalty etc? And yes, I agree no human should worship another human. That is reserved for Waheguru alone. Point blank, husband and wife serve each other. There is no rule saying women must do so while its optional for men. It goes both ways. And yes that service can be the same type and ways also. Mutual service.  If both spouses see God in each other it works. The wording in the taksal maryada however, makes it sound like women are actually instructed to do that while men are told a different instruction more akin to seeing their wife as a follower. It only works if both see each other as God. Or else you have a hierarchy.

Of course a husband should love, respect and be loyal to his wife. But if you look at the rehatname they always instruct men to be faithful to their wives. The main focus is on men's fidelity. In Gurbani also men are warned off women who are not their wives. Why the imbalance? Or actually we could say it's another case of discrimination, yes? 

 

You have got such a hold up on the word "God" in this. It doesn't mean God in any way. It is more to do with respect and such. What about those marriages where women wear the trousers? Are they going against Gurmat by doing that? Of course they aren't, before you jump to conclusions.

 

On 06/10/2016 at 6:36 PM, JasperS said:

Exactly. Glad you agree! As I said this love respect and honour goes BOTH ways. Not only one. The husband also is to look at their wife as God as well.

 

No the husband is to look at his first God, his mother and father as God, and respect them as such. remember the story of the son who didn't His sewa was not accepted in Guru's court.

 

On 06/10/2016 at 6:36 PM, JasperS said:

Again we agree this is cultural alone. Its not in all cultures, nor is it an imperative.

Yet EVERY Sikh wedding has this done. The woman takes the man's pala. Also if it not imperative, I would suggest you apologise to your poor wife who was forced to hold your pala. If it is not imperative, try and get anyone to perform the wedding without the pala rassam. let's see how far you get. Actually think of it also when your daughter is going to get married.

 

On 06/10/2016 at 6:36 PM, JasperS said:

We actually don't live with my parents, so the whole idea of her being given away to go to MY home is moot.

 

No it is not moot. It's a fact. I'm sure that at your wedding you did "Doli from residence". What does that signify? Your point about houses is moot. Sons should not abandon their parents. It's part of your puttar dharam. Read the sakhi of Rishi Sarwan.

 

On 06/10/2016 at 6:36 PM, JasperS said:

Rather, we both agreed to travel this path together as ONE. Hence the pala linking us.

 

But YOU wore the pala to the Gurdwara. She didn't bring it with her did she?

 

On 06/10/2016 at 6:36 PM, JasperS said:

but if we are supposed to be ONE and recognize that its WAHEGURU in BOTH of us, then there is no male or female.

 

So why did you choose a woman to marry, and not another man? The jyot is the same isn't it? The jyot is also the same is animals, so why didn't you ever consider marrying a cat or a horse? Or a sunflower come to think of it.

On 06/10/2016 at 6:36 PM, JasperS said:

Its also not saying my wife has to serve me either.

 

According to Gurbani a woman should serve her husband with the same intensity and love that a Premi has for Waheguru. It's your call Jaspreet.

 

On 06/10/2016 at 6:36 PM, JasperS said:

I also see her as God. This is what gurbani tells me to do! 

 

Gurbani tells you to see EVERYONE with the same eye. To see everyone as God, but at the end of the day, its your wife who you have adult relations with isn't it? Why not have these with other people as you have to look upon them as equal to your wife?

 

On 06/10/2016 at 6:36 PM, JasperS said:

My wife certainly doesn't want to be my inferior or for me to see her or treat her as lesser than me!

 

You don't have to. You shouldn't do. But this has nothing to do with her respecting you and serving you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Wake Up

All children are to respect and care for their parents. Both spouses are to respect and serve each other. To think or do otherwise is pure ignorance. Culture is not above Gurbani. 

Many Singhs don't bring a pala. For our marriage we used kesri as pala which was brought by gurdwara people. For us there was no symbolism of her becoming my servant or doormat. If you know what the lavaans are saying it has nothing to do with even the physical marriage. There is nothing saying the woman is put into a subordinate role. We also didn't do doli. That is cultural. All those rituals surrounding typical Punjabi Sikh marriage are cultural. Many of them based on Hindu rituals.

True Gursikhs will do anand Karaj and none of that other nonsense. We both wore full bana with dumalas and both carried 3 ft sri sahib. Our pala was kesri. She wore no jewelry, no makeup, we wore simple navy chola with white dumallas. 

chatanga you expect your wife to be subordinate to you and serve you while you get to sit back and enjoy that service? Who will do service of your wife? Oh she has to wait till she has an adult son? So what have you done to deserve free service right away while she has to wait for an adult son? How does she get to be served sooner? Or let's say you don't have any children or only have a girl. Maybe you should hire a domestic help to serve her so she can also be served right away? See how stupid this gets? If you deserve to be served right away in the marriage so should she. To think otherwise shows nothing but ego. 

Why is it so bad to you if spouses serve each other? You afraid to look at your wife on equal terms that it will somehow make you feel lesser? I'll give you a hint. It will actually raise you up if you serve your wife with love, not bring you down!

And bringing animals into it you are just showing your stupidity (not to mention you are grasping at straws to prove your point).  A human can not procreate with same sex or with animals. It has nothing to do with any hierarchy or who is in control or who has to serve who. Women are not attracted to men because they want to become their servants. They are attracted to them because (and men women) because biologically speaking we are wired that way to propagate the species. You are saying if a woman wants to be with a man it somehow means she must want to serve him while putting herself in a lesser position. And that somehow a man wanting a woman means he wants her to serve him while he gets to be the one in command. You have a very skewed views. And very unfair to the woman. 

You are saying Jaspreet should have his wife serve him but since they have a daughter his wife should never be served by anyone? Who should serve his wife if not him? She should never be served with the same love that she serves him? She is not entitled to being served? Why not? Why should she put in that position? What did she do to deserve it?

And why should he refrain from serving the wife he loves? That's just being heartless. And sounds a lot like casteism. 

Have we not gotten past this idea of being born into a hierarchy? Didn't our Gurus teached against it? Sorry chatanga I have to disagree very much with you. 

His is understanding of Gurbani is correct. Yours is not. You have no right to try to force him to put his wife in a subordinate position and ignore Gurbani to instead live out cultural ideas which put his wife in a lesser role. You are actually telling him to treat his wife as lesser. I can't believe you did that. That's not what Gurbani says.

There is nothing telling wives to serve husbands in Gurbani. Rather it says all humans as soul bride should serve only their husband Lord. Human marriage while significant in this life is ultimately meaningless. The same one soul is in both the physical male and the female who are married. Once you realize this you understand that neither can be in a privileged position as both are the same one consciousness. 

You say a wife should serve her husband with the same love that one serves God. Well a wife IS God! Therefore a husband IS required to also serve his wife with love in the same way because he is supposed to serve God and his wife IS God! Yes the husband is God too. They both are! This is Gurbani. And as a couple are required to do service of all humankind. Help poor, do work in community, etc.

Now if you are married, go serve your wife with full humility so you can understand. Try it even for a week and you will see what we mean. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@chatanga1  Guest Ji understands. That once you see God in all, you can't expect some to serve you as some form of entitlement. I feel no entitlement to be served by my wife (while I leave her with nobody to serve her). The question Guest Ji posed needs to be asked. Who is to lovingly serve my wife? 

Keep in mind, not everyone has a son. And I did nothing to deserve being served by her from day 1 of our marriage while she has to wait for a son to grow up before she gets to be served. And if a couple never has a son, then the wife is to never be served her whole life but instead is just a servant? You don't see how that perpetuates the unending quest for sons preference over daughters, resulting in female fetuses being aborted for selective gender births? Abortion of female fetuses are just as bad as infanticide. But this pressure to have a son so the wife can actually have someone serve her? The husband has it made, even if he never has a child, because you say its the wife's duty to serve him, so he has a ready made servant from day 1 of his marriage until either he or his spouse dies. But the wife will never have anyone serve her unless she produces a son, and then she must wait until he is an adult before he can serve her.  If both males and females contain the same light, and both are God, then how can one have so much entitlement over the other? Further how can anyone who TRULY sees God in all, feel AY sense of self entitlement over another? 

This thinking only perpetuates preference of male gender over female. And makes the statement that females can only be served (rewarded, respected) if they produce male humans. In other words, it's the males which are valued. And females are only valued for their ability to produce more males. Is this what you think our Gurus taught?  

I am in no way more deserving of my wife's respect than she is of mine. I am so sorry you can't see or experience this for yourself. I could never expect her to serve me without me also serving her. 

Quote

 

According to Gurbani a woman should serve her husband with the same intensity and love that a Premi has for Waheguru. It's your call Jaspreet.

 

Actually the wording does not say "should" at all.

ਜਿਉ ਪੁਰਖੈ ਘਰਿ ਭਗਤੀ ਨਾਰਿ ਹੈ ਅਤਿ ਲੋਚੈ ਭਗਤੀ ਭਾਇ ॥

The devoted wife in her husband's home has a great longing to perform loving devotional service to him.

"Has a longing" It merely points to the fact that a devoted wife will do that due to longing to make him happy. That is a far cry from telling someone they must or should do something.  It also doesn't mean a devoted husband wont also do the same thing. A devoted loving husband will also long to serve his wife (and not feel emasculated for doing so) In no way does it say women are required to do that. It's just using a comparison. You are taking a comparison and turning it into an instruction when its not. It was never meant to be. It seems more to me that you feel like you have an entitlement to be served. I really hope I am wrong. 

A husband should also serve his wife with the same intensity and love that a Premi has for Waheguru because if the husband sees Waheguru in his wife, then there is no other option. He must serve that divine light in his wife with the same love and devotion. 

Anyway, the above can be said to be speaking about wife as in humans are soul bride and husband is one and only God - meaning is serve to put action into words, serve Waheguru and not just admire Waheguru. So don't just admire God with love, but also put that love and devotion into serving God.  In other words a wife (soul bride) will serve her husband (Waheguru) in the husband's home (on God's level) with the same intensity and love that a premi (admirer) would have for Waheguru. Since we are all soul brides and Waheguru is the only husband lord, this message is for us all. Put words and love into action by serving God. 

Gurbani is for all humans. It doesn't speak to different groups of humans in different ways. 

If you think only the eldest son should care for his parents while the others are exempt, and if they actually did refrain from it, then you and they are terrible people. Again I (and others) have asked you, who cares for the parents if they have no son at all? Obviously you think the wife should still be serving the husband so he's all good and taken care of, but who serves the wife out of love and devotion? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JasperS said:

Guest Ji understands.


I couldnt care about guest. I don't read or respond to guest posts. Anyone who wishes to make a point o this board shold make a permanent id if they are serious about what they say.

 

15 minutes ago, JasperS said:

You don't see how that perpetuates the unending quest for sons preference over daughters, resulting in female fetuses being aborted for selective gender births?

What a very perverse way of looking at it. Someone could have asked Guru Sahib why no women could have become Guru, because it would end gender abortions couldn't they?

 

15 minutes ago, JasperS said:

The husband has it made, even if he never has a child, because you say its the wife's duty to serve him, so he has a ready made servant from day 1 of his marriage

He is a servant from the day of his birth to his parents. So I guess the wife has it lucky. Another case of discrimination?

 

16 minutes ago, JasperS said:

 If both males and females contain the same light, and both are God, then how can one have so much entitlement over the other?

You see it as entitlement only. I don't see it as entitlement but as an opportunity to do sewa. Re back to the Anandpur sakhi of the son who didn't serve his parents.

 

16 minutes ago, JasperS said:

"Has a longing" It merely points to the fact that a devoted wife will do that due to longing to make him happy. That is a far cry from telling someone they must or should do something.

Nevertheless it still points somewhere and that is explicit.

 

16 minutes ago, JasperS said:

 It also doesn't mean a devoted husband wont also do the same thing.

Why shouldn't they? Husbands should do the same thing. Primarily to his parents, then his family.

 

17 minutes ago, JasperS said:

If you think only the eldest son should care for his parents while the others are exempt,

I don't think it. the onus has always been on the eldest son. it is our sanskriti. We have started to forget it since living in this "western world of equality nonsense."

 

17 minutes ago, JasperS said:

Again I (and others) have asked you, who cares for the parents if they have no son at all?

Then that is their karma, if they have no sons, they have to get by as best as they can. It's also a good incentive to adopt. So many children in the world live in orphanages etc. This would also be a great sewa in Guru's eyes.

 

18 minutes ago, JasperS said:

Obviously you think the wife should still be serving the husband so he's all good and taken care of, but who serves the wife out of love and devotion?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:


I couldnt care about guest. I don't read or respond to guest posts. Anyone who wishes to make a point o this board shold make a permanent id if they are serious about what they say.

 

What a very perverse way of looking at it. Someone could have asked Guru Sahib why no women could have become Guru, because it would end gender abortions couldn't they?

 

He is a servant from the day of his birth to his parents. So I guess the wife has it lucky. Another case of discrimination?

 

You see it as entitlement only. I don't see it as entitlement but as an opportunity to do sewa. Re back to the Anandpur sakhi of the son who didn't serve his parents.

 

Nevertheless it still points somewhere and that is explicit.

 

Why shouldn't they? Husbands should do the same thing. Primarily to his parents, then his family.

 

I don't think it. the onus has always been on the eldest son. it is our sanskriti. We have started to forget it since living in this "western world of equality nonsense."

 

Then that is their karma, if they have no sons, they have to get by as best as they can. It's also a good incentive to adopt. So many children in the world live in orphanages etc. This would also be a great sewa in Guru's eyes.

 

 

 

Its not explicit and I showed that to you already. Comparing something to the light of the moon for example, doesn't mean anything else can't or doesn't or is not required to have that same soft light. Its just one example. 

Sons and daughters should both care for their parents. It's unfair to place burden on one child, while the others get off from doing anything. And if they don't help care for their parents then they are horrible and unappreciative children. Who cares what older culture dictated.

Sikhi is above culture. 

And husband and wife should both care for each other. There does not need to be some competition as to who gets served first. I really hope you can open your eyes, equality is not nonsense.  A husband should do JUST AS MUCH seva to his wife as she does for him. Otherwise why even get married? If you can't love and serve your wife in the same way she loves and serves you, then you don't deserve to be married. Remember, that parents, children, wife, husband are all the same exact ONE soul! None deserve to have more serving them than others. In your skewed way of thinking women are least deserving of having someone serve them, well only if they manage to birth a male. It's what I said, women being valued (and respected / rewarded) only for their ability to create more males. The woman has to suffer (pain from childbirth) and then devote the son's whole childhood to her serving him, before he is old enough to serve her.  So she must go through a lot of pain and suffering and work before she has anyone serve her.  Meanwhile the husband gets free service from his wife from the time they are married. Doesn't sound right to me. 

This is not what our Gurus taught. 

The Gurus gender did not matter by the way and especially when taken into account of this conversation. The Gurus bodies were inconsequential. They were only in male form because in that culture and time no woman would have ever been taken seriously or listened to by any man. Look at your attitude now in the present! You wont entertain the idea of any female having any authority or equal service even today! What mattered was that the Gurus in male form declared that all humans were equal and required to be treated equal, with emphasis on women being treated equally! Would it have made any sense to have a woman as Guru making the statement to men, to treat women equally? 

And its not a stretch to say it directly results in aborted female fetuses. You can't deny it.  Preference for sons over daughters results even today here in UK, aborted female fetuses. The Gurus being in male form who happened to say females deserved equal treatment did not cause this desire for sons, but putting sons as preference over daughters for service to parents (because of some idea that daughters should not care for their parents) most definitely DOES contribute DIRECTLY to gender selection abortions. Because girls are seen as burdens who will leave one day. While sons are seen as a future servant.  This thinking is wrong. 

See everyone equally. And everyone should do seva of each other equally. A husband and wife should both serve each other and respect each other equally. ALL children should respect and care for their parents equally.

This is not 'equality nonsense'. Equality is not nonsense. 

You need to wake up from this skewed thinking. Just because something was culture for a long time doesn't make it morally right. 

Oh by the way I cant believe you suggested that we adopt a son that we can't afford, just so my wife can have someone to serve her later in her life. Or that we need to somehow get by, like my serving her is somehow putting me out. I can serve my parents and my wife both equally, and she does the same. I have served my wife as an equal carrier of the divine light since the day we were married (probably even before that). 

You are missing out on so much if you hold to these rigid cultural ideals which are not based on morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

Its not explicit and I showed that to you already. Comparing something to the light of the moon for example, doesn't mean anything else can't or doesn't or is not required to have that same soft light. Its just one example.

 

There is no other way to look at it, so it is explicit enough.

 

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

Sons and daughters should both care for their parents. It's unfair to place burden on one child, while the others get off from doing anything. And if they don't help care for their parents then they are horrible and unappreciative children.

 

Yes children should care for their parents. But the onus to care falls more on the eldest son than others.

 

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

Who cares what older culture dictated.

Sikhi is above culture.


What does SIkhi say about takiing care of yuour parents/husband?

 

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

There does not need to be some competition as to who gets served first.

 

Thank you. Why have you turned it into a competition then? Or are following those who have turned it into a competition?

 

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

If you can't love and serve your wife in the same way she loves and serves you, then you don't deserve to be married. Remember, that parents, children, wife, husband are all the same exact ONE soul!

 

So why didn't you marry your mom then? or come to think of oit your dad? Or cat? Why is your relationship with your wife different from the one with your parents/siblings/children/friends? They are all the same ONE soul!

 

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

The woman has to suffer (pain from childbirth)

 

She will also be the only to experience the child gorwing inside her, feeling it kick etc. Did you ever lay your child on your torso when she was a baby?

 

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

Meanwhile the husband gets free service from his wife from the time they are married. Doesn't sound right to me.

 

Who says the husband doesn;t give anything in return?

 

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

The Gurus gender did not matter by the way and especially when taken into account of this conversation. The Gurus bodies were inconsequential. They were only in male form because in that culture and time no woman would have ever been taken seriously or listened to by any man.

 

The proof  is the pudding Jaspreet! Sikhi is not about talk. If the Guru's could elevate the "low-castes to bhagats" and make them part of SGGS why not females?

 

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

Look at your attitude now in the present! You wont entertain the idea of any female having any authority or equal service even today!

 

Stop being such a drama queen and assuming you know me. I was the one who fought for and succeeded in allowing women to be part of my local Gurdwara committee. I was also the one who got 2 women selected for that committee. So please save your shrieking for someone else.

 

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

This is not 'equality nonsense'. Equality is not nonsense.

 

it is nonsense, because men and women will never be equal in the way you want, even though you are trying very hard to be a coconut. You think Sikhs practiced inequality for 500 or so years and then the west enlightened us?

 

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

You need to wake up from this skewed thinking. Just because something was culture for a long time doesn't make it morally right.

 

It doesn't, but it still happens. Like I said, go to the next family who are having a wedding and tell them you want the boy to have the girl's pala tied to him. Do it for your daughter as well.

 

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

Oh by the way I cant believe you suggested that we adopt a son that we can't afford, just so my wife can have someone to serve her later in her life.

 

I never suggested that. I meant that those people who don't have children can adopt. The pun in that is huge.

Jaspreet I don't even know you, why on earth do you think I would offer you rany adoption advice? Don't you think you are bit ridiculous with this?

 

11 hours ago, JasperS said:

I have served my wife as an equal carrier of the divine light since the day we were married

 

Good, but you have realtions with her that you don't have with anyone else though. Why? They carry the same divine light she does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Wake Up

Chatanga veer Ji I know you said you don't reply to guest posts but I wanted you to know that a man doesn't (or at least shouldn't) marry a woman just to have someone serve him. That's not what marriage is about. It's like you are trying to equate marriage as being for the purpose of the wife serving the husband since you keep rejecting the idea that God is in everyone as a reason to see the wife as an equal.

The reason why men and women marry is simple. Biology. You can't marry your parents or siblings because biologically you can't produce genetically healthy children. You can't marry your cat because biologically you can't have children at all. Nature has built in attraction to opposite gender for this reason. To encourage propagation of species. It has nothing to do with enlisting a servant for the husband. 

My Marrying a female has nothing to do with having someone to serve me. 

Please don't try to equate apples with oranges. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, paapiman said:

Rara Sahib's unbroken lineage, going back to Sri Satguru jee (Tenth Master)

http://www.rarasahib.com/sg.htm

 

DDT's unbroken lineage, going back to Sri Satguru jee (Tenth Master)

Bhul chuk maaf

 

Interesting lineage of Rara Sahib. There are some NIrmale on the list: Baba Khuda SIngh, Baba Bir Singh Naurangabad etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Wake Up

Paapiman ALL Sikhs have unbroken lineage back to Guru Gobind Singh Jee! Who else would their lineage go back to? All jathas and sampardas traced back will reach a point where they share common names in their history. The only way someone would not be traceable back is if they originated outside the Punjabi culture and adopted Sikhi later on. 

In that light there is no proof that taksalis are any more authentic than rest of Sikhs. And no proof that out of all the lineages they are the correct one. In fact none that exist today can make claim that they are the one 'true' lineage and are teaching the true unchanged philosophy as taught by Guru Gobind Singh. All of them have had changes and evolved to their current philosophy. 

If you are speaking about rhetnamas then not a single one we have now has an unbroken lineage (meaning unchanged) since the time of Guru Gobind Singh Jee. Yes even taksali their regret maryada has seen changes even in the last few decades! Just compare the current gurmat rehet maryada with gurbani paath darpan to see what I mean. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

You are aware that's not evidence, right? 

What other evidence are you looking for? Do you think that all these Sampradas are lying and have fabricated their lineages?

So when Sant Jarnail Singh jee Bhindranwale said that our first Jathedar was Srimaan Baba Deep Singh jee. What was he implying?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2016 at 10:17 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

The only thing the SGPC didn't do was concoct a fictitious history and connect a few well known historical personalities to their lineage.

Groups such as AKJ, Missionaries, etc did not begin during the times of the Satgurus and neither do they claim that. It is good that they are being honest about it. 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paapiman said:

Groups such as AKJ, Missionaries, etc did not begin during the times of the Satgurus and neither do they claim that. It is good that they are being honest about it. 

 

Bhul chuk maaf


Just because taksalis make bold claims doesn't make it true.

And as already pointed out, even taksal maryada as it exists now has been altered.  

Bold claims about who can trace back farthest lineage is meaningless when practice and even maryada has been changed throughout time.  What does it matter to say you can trace your group back (proof or not) if the code of conduct you follow has been altered even in recent history? You are no longer following the original are you? So that lineage becomes meaningless.  

The only guideline we can be 100% sure of is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. And if any group's maryada follows gurmat principles as laid out in Gurbani, then they are just as valid as any other group who makes bold claims.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Jaspreet, what is SGGS guide on keeping kes?


Gurbani makes it clear that kesh is important with regards to spirituality (here are a few tuks):

Page 344, Line 6
ਰੋਮ ਰੋਮ ਮਹਿ ਬਸਹਿ ਮੁਰਾਰਿ ॥
रोम रोम महि बसहि मुरारि ॥
Rom rom mėh basėh murār.
and on each and every hair, the Lord abides.

Page 443, Line 7
ਰੋਮੇ ਰੋਮਿ ਰੋਮਿ ਰੋਮੇ ਮੈ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਰਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਏ ਰਾਮ ॥
रोमे रोमि रोमि रोमे मै गुरमुखि रामु धिआए राम ॥
Rome rom rom rome mai gurmukẖ rām ḏẖi▫ā▫e rām.
With each and every hair, with each and every hair, as Gurmukh, I meditate on the Lord.

Page 941, Line 5
ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਰੋਮਿ ਰੋਮਿ ਹਰਿ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥
गुरमुखि रोमि रोमि हरि धिआवै ॥
Gurmukẖ rom rom har ḏẖi▫āvai.
The Gurmukh meditates on the Lord with every hair of the body.

Page 966, Line 9
ਨਾਨਕ ਰਵਿਆ ਹਭ ਥਾਇ ਵਣਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਣਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣਿ ਰੋਮਿ ॥੨॥
नानक रविआ हभ थाइ वणि त्रिणि त्रिभवणि रोमि ॥२॥
Nānak ravi▫ā habẖ thā▫e vaṇ ṯariṇ ṯaribẖavaṇ rom. ||2||
O Nanak, He is pervading and permeating all places, the forests and the meadows, the three worlds, and every hair. ||2||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JasperS said:

Gurbani makes it clear that kesh is important with regards to spirituality (here are a few tuks):

Rom rom is not kesh or pertaining to hair.  Good to see that you did a search on the word "hair" in SGGS though.

 

Even to take the above as hair, it still is not instructing Sikhs to keep kes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

Even to take the above as hair, it still is not instructing Sikhs to keep kes.

 

No it's not outright instruction, but it does give us a good idea that hair is important. 

I am glad however (can I ask your real name as you keep using mine?) that you acknowledge what is actual instruction and what is not, and that was my point.

Since the passage you quoted earlier is also not instruction for a wife to serve her husband, rather it is using the fact that a loving wife will usually serve her husband (just like any loving human will serve the one they love) as a comparison, which does not preclude the husband also serving the wife. I am not against a loving wife serving her husband. What I am against is forcing the idea that wives MUST serve their husbands while suggesting that husbands do not serve their wives. A loving husband will also put his wife first and serve her. I certainly do. 

Rather than a skewed system which leaves some people without any responsibility and others without any service, it makes much more sense to have all children (male and female alike) to care for their parents. That way no parents are ever left without care. They should all do this equally as they are all capable adults who love their parents. 

All husbands and wives should serve each other. That way every spouse will be served and cared for whether they have children or not. 

This way ALL humans will be accountable to care for someone and not pass the buck to someone else. And all humans will receive the care and service as they should from their loved ones. Nobody is left wanting, and nobody is left idle without accountability. Nobody is left to feel like the bottom of the barrel so to speak while others are elevated to false statuses. It is just a much more fair way to live.

One can easily serve both their parents and their spouse without issue. Everyone should do it.  The wording in the taksal maryada should be that husband and wife should both look at each other as their faithful spouse and both should look at each other as God and serve the divine within them. 

Yes I know you keep asking why cant you marry your Mother or sister. I am sure you are smart enough to know why and it has nothing to do with who serves who. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chatanga1 said:

Rom rom is not kesh or pertaining to hair.  Good to see that you did a search on the word "hair" in SGGS though.

 

Even to take the above as hair, it still is not instructing Sikhs to keep kes.

WJKK WJKF 

Veer Jee's Is the literal meaning of Rom Rom from Sanskrit or Persian meaning body parts (ie all inclusive of every cell that makes up a human universe) ?

As recently I came across some Bullah Shah Poetry where Rom Rom is also mentioned.

Growing hair is a significance of allowing to be rather than objectified for myself (having weekly trips to waxing parlours was painful and now I feel liberated. And will not be going back !) Apart from the objectification, a greater mystic, earthly, grounding element exits to growing hair across many cultures from native Americans, indigenous Australians, Japanese, Egyptian and many more. There's a real truth to the feeling - I cant quantify it - only having known the 2 different phases of having cut hair and now not cutting hair - I experience a level of completeness and acceptance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, chatanga1 said:

Even to take the above as hair, it still is not instructing Sikhs to keep kes.

how will u do rom rom jap if u have no hair? Anyway hair has many spiritual benefits as well. God does everything 4 a purpose so hair must have purpose too, right? All the first 10 sikh gurus had kes, there must b a reason behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turban is also mentioned in Gurbani, and indirectly kangha and wearing modest clothing which can be suggestion for kachhas. Nothing is really directly mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib as it's not a do this do that rule book. It contains deep Metaphysical content to help us realize god but nothing is step by step instructions. There are spiritual reasons for hair. I remember reading an article about North American natives and why they kept theirs so it also seems to be that this knowledge is found in other cultures history as well. Besides it's supposed to be there. If you cut it, it grows back. Follow natural way the body is supposed to be. That's enough proof right there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tina Kaur Bains said:

Veer Jee's Is the literal meaning of Rom Rom from Sanskrit or Persian meaning body parts (ie all inclusive of every cell that makes up a human universe) ?

Yes, rom rom is the very fibre of our being.

 

2 hours ago, tva prasad said:

how will u do rom rom jap if u have no hair?

See above.

 

2 hours ago, tva prasad said:

 Anyway hair has many spiritual benefits as well. God does everything 4 a purpose so hair must have purpose too, right? All the first 10 sikh gurus had kes, there must b a reason behind it.

We are not discussing the benefits of hair, but whether Guru Granth Sahib instructs Sikhs to keep their hair.

 

8 minutes ago, WakeUp said:

Turban is also mentioned in Gurbani,

Welcome Wake up. Brahma Vishnu and Mahesh are also mentioned. So are prostitutes.

 

8 minutes ago, WakeUp said:

 Nothing is really directly mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib as it's not a do this do that rule book.

Jaspreet sems to think that Guru Granth Sahib is a 100% guide though. Here we are floundering on the basic concept of keeping kes.

 

8 minutes ago, WakeUp said:

Follow natural way the body is supposed to be. That's enough proof right there. 

Natural body? You were born with no clothes on yes? Are you wearing any clothes as you are reading this right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chatanga veer g this link is 4 u:

https://www.allaboutsikhs.com/youth/the-dastar-of-the-

Just now, WakeUp said:

Turban is also mentioned in Gurbani, and indirectly kangha and wearing modest clothing which can be suggestion for kachhas. Nothing is really directly mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib as it's not a do this do that rule book. It contains deep Metaphysical content to help us realize god but nothing is step by step instructions. There are spiritual reasons for hair. I remember reading an article about North American natives and why they kept theirs so it also seems to be that this knowledge is found in other cultures history as well. Besides it's supposed to be there. If you cut it, it grows back. Follow natural way the body is supposed to be. That's enough proof right there. 

well said

Just now, chatanga1 said:

Natural body? You were born with no clothes on yes? Are you wearing any clothes as you are reading this right now?

that's not the same bro.

Just now, chatanga1 said:

Brahma Vishnu and Mahesh are also mentioned. So are prostitutes.

The point is what does gurbani say abt Brahma, Vishnu and prostitute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...