Jump to content

Very Interesting Critique Of Sgpc Rehat Maryada By Taksaal


dalsingh101
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 07/11/2016 at 3:12 PM, WakeUp said:

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?

No,  you don't lose your gender (how could you?) but when you take khande ki pahul you are told that your father is guru Ji, and mother is Mata Sahib Kaur Ji, and your birthplace in Anandpur Sahib. So there is a change of family background.

 

 

On 07/11/2016 at 1:36 PM, paapiman said:

Bhram nash? What do you mean by that?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

There are 4 things you lose, kul nash, bharam, nash are the only two i can remember.

 

On 07/11/2016 at 3:12 PM, WakeUp said:

 

Even taksali own maryada says creation of the khalsa eliminates all such differences. Have a look:

IMG_0200.PNG

 

For a start, Amrit is Naam, which is being talked about in the both quotes from Guru Granth Sahib. The "one treasure" is Naam, not khande ki pahul, which has only recently become to be knwon as "amrit". It was historically known as pahul. These quotes are correct when talking about naam amrit, it is for men and women. It fits in with Guru Sahib telling us to recognise the soul as the same within all, that applies to ALL things with life, ie mankind, animals and plants.

 

 

 

On 07/11/2016 at 3:12 PM, WakeUp said:

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).

Which brings me back to my previous question, why did you discriminate against men when choosing a life partner?Why did you partner have to be a woman? Why did you limit it to what gender this partner was, when the same divine light is in all? Including animals and plants?

 

On 07/11/2016 at 3:12 PM, WakeUp said:

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.

These representations are not wholesale. A Sikh (or any other religious person) will always represent their faith and the leader of their faith. But they don't become the leader. In day to day life, we all represent the Guru, but when it comes to adminsitering pahul, only 5 males will represent the Guru.

 

On 07/11/2016 at 3:12 PM, WakeUp said:

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. 

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala's answer is one of the main answers. Even if no woman gave her head on that day, there were countless sinchars carried througout the remainder of that century. You will not find ONE instance of any women being involved. And this was also the time, whe Mata Sahib Deva and Mata Sundri were active in guiding the Panth. There were women warriors like Mata Bhago.

Simply put, that should tell you a hell of a lot.

 

On 07/11/2016 at 3:12 PM, WakeUp said:

Another interesting point is the note 21 which says 'five beloved Sikhs' notice it doesn't say 'Singhs'???

The term Sikh and Singh is synonymous these days. Before SS lehar there was a distinction.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chatanga Ji I do t know why you keep bringing up marriage LOL I already answered. It's reproduction and species preservation which drives attraction. That has nothing to do with Amrit or the soul.

Yes women can administer Amrit. I already have you example of masands prior to 1699. Masands had full authority to administer Amrit by charan pahul. We know there were women masands. It makes no sense to all of a sudden bar women from something which they had Guru given authority prior. 

Also as I said since becoming Khalsa is spiritual and puts everyone on same level as equals it makes no sense to treat some as lesser by limiting what they can do in spiritual sense. 

You may say and want Panj Pyaras always be males but there have been females. If you want to take Amrit from all males the go to taksal. But taksal maryada should not be imposed on rest of the panth because it goes against gurmat principles as laid out in Gurbani. There is nothing in Gurbani saying women have some lower position to men. Also you seem to be trying very hard to tip toe around the fact that male and female both can be living image of the Guru and since Panj Pyaras is essentially representing Guru Ji both genders can do this. It's the jot not the genetalia which matters. Your thinking is typical male mysoginistic thinking. You can't give any good reason except saying women and men are different? Ok physically yes we are but Amrit is not about the physical. It's a spiritual act. If women take same Amrit as men and give their heads symbolically same as men then they can also do seva as Panj Pyaras.   Otherwise give women a separate sanchar which is also considered lower. You can't initiate someone and then tell them they will never really be 'fully' Khalsa. Akal Takht agrees on this. What individual Sikhs do is their own issue. Singhs who are keeping Kaurs in a lower position in Sikhi will be held accountable eventually by higher authority. 

I don't care if mysoginistic Sighs want to go to males for Amrit. But don't stop Kaurs from being able to take Amrit from other Kaurs. I don't care if taksalis stay to themselves and keep their maryada for them only. Even Jarnail singh ji was quoted saying taksal maryada is only for taksalis. But don't force it on rest of panth. Women can choose that way, to avoid associating with taksalis if they feel oppressed. 

Here is a photo In India. Five females doing seva as Panj Pyaras. And yes it was for sanchar. And no they are not AKJ. So no, hate to bust your bubble but it won't always be (and hasn't always been) only males. Also remember the written history we have usually only deals with notable Amrit sanchars where prominent person took Amrit and were comparably few when thinking of how many sanchars took place. So just because the few writing we have doesn't illustrate any women doing this doesn't mean in the thousands and thousands of other sanchars taking place that were not written about there were likely women, especially in cases where males were scarce because they were away possibly fighting etc. Just because they were not written about doesn't mean it didn't happen. And it's also well known that males tend to leave forgotten female stories out of history anyway. (Just look how many stories about male sants and so few stories written about female sants. It's not because they don't exist. It's because males generally step in limelight all the time to detriment of females.).

It's time we stopped treating fellow equal souls as lesser than us because of what body they are in. In reality they are the same light. And please don't bring up marriage again as if you are too stupid to understand the mechanics of procreation and why males and females have to marry, then I can't explain it to you. 

IMG_0070.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WakeUp Ji good points! There is no good reason to keep women from this seva at all except for male ego (and I say that as a male myself). There always has to be some hold out, something that men can hold above women's heads to say see we are better. They may say they want to see women have equal opportunity in almost everything but there will always be one thing, and that one thing is usually at the higher end of authority. So for example Bahai's They say they believe women and men are absolute equals and deserve equal opportunity in everything including in the religion. Except that, they don't really. The very highest authority in the Bahai faith, the Universal House of Justice is kept for males only. So while women can lead congregations and be priests etc they can never attain the highest level of authority in the faith. It's same with us. Women can have equality in all the lower things with us, so it looks like almost full equality but what people don't think about is that Panj Pyaras don't just administer Amrit. When panthic decisions need to be taken, they are called upon. This means that women essentially have no authority in these panthic decisions if it's always to be 5 males, and keep in mind sometimes female specific issues do come up, say for example the issue about menstruation and prohibition on seva. If it's five males deciding on something like that, it's kind of already skewed to male decision and opinion. Panj Pyaras also are the ones to give punishment for those going for peshi / bujjar kurehits etc.  Again, it's making the statement that no woman is wanted in the highest authority positions in the Sikh faith. It means that essentially highest authority always has to be male. This thinking must change I agree with you. Since Sikhi is about our spiritual journey and we are all on same journey whether male or female, I agree there should be no distinction when it comes to spiritual matters at all. Gender is for this life only. And haha if chatanga has not figured out why males and females are needed to procreate yet then he is missing the point! Here is the reasoning (for him) why males and females are attracted: (insert tab A into slot B, just kidding)  1) genetic abnormalities can occur in an asexual species which is advanced and complicated. New genetic material from another donor is required to keep genetic errors to a minimum and the best way to do that is by two separate genders because it would be too complicated to build a human with capability of both genders (snails can actually act as either gender but comparatively they are far less evolved). In humans those who are born with both traits (male and female genetalia) are largely sterile. 2) In order for the species to survive, individuals must mate. So there are inbuilt propensity to attract the opposite gender. (but not always as we do have homosexuality).  3) Marrying opposite gender is direct result of this biological urge to procreate and further the species. ----- None of this has anything to do with the soul which is genderless. So no, most people won't marry the same gender (some do - and perhaps they are the ones seeing beyond all this nonsense and seeing the true soul!!!) But for those of us attracted to a female, as a male, its because our biology tells us that females can bring us children while a male can not. The soul in side is still genderless for both, and spiritual matters do not rely on what gender someone is temporarily. Otherwise we are punishing half the souls on the planet because they happened to be born with a vagina instead of a penis. lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On November 2, 2016 at 3:09 AM, paapiman said:

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

Your Mahapursh interpret Gurbani far more differently than the rest of the Panth to begin with. Them being the best scholars, is solely an opinion. As for three Granths. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji ( from Jaap to Hikaayats) were all relied on, so don't undermine their research and effort. As for the third Granth, there has been no proper research done regarding it. Not even a standardization. relying On Sarbloh Granth isn't much of an option. What research did they have to include their injunctions in the Panthic Maryada. 

 

As as for the relativity of available evidence, I'd rather trust what I have available now rather than empty claims. That's just logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On November 5, 2016 at 2:08 PM, 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

I didn't say he lied. 

Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji, Gyani Ditt Singh Ji (who have conflicting views with Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji) could be Braham Gyanis in my eyes, in which case, I would be prompted to ask Why would they lie or be wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On November 5, 2016 at 2:08 PM, chatanga1 said:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

There mostly is. Controversy should not leave ambiguity, to an individual. We have well documented Janamsakhis, many of which Dr. Trilochan Singh even noted down. Due to McLeod and a batch of other Scholars, the debate has been left open, when it should have been closed decades ago. And Again, I would state We have fairly enough evidence to make conceive and make out a framework of Our Guru Sahibans, Their Jeevan, Philosophy, and actions. 

 

I would insist reading his and other scholar's works on history and checking their references. 

The Singh Sabha wasn't hellbent on removing anything that seemed like Bahmanvaad or bharam bhulekhe. Also, comparing them pendu Granthis is Incorrect. These people weren't uneducated, many even learned from Nirmalas and Sampardas themselves.  This is evident in their literature. 

I still don't see the rationality in choosing the Sampardas over Singh Sabha either. The Snaatanists arent flawless themselves, They would be in no position to lead or place authority over the Panth. During their influence, Karam kaand, brahmincal rituals, and anti-Gurmat (like caste discrimination, idol worship, etc.) was rampant. Not one Mahant or Nihang spoke out against that or even went as far as lead a lehar against it. Gyani Ditt Singh, Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji, Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha, Dr. Gurmukh Singh, and others had to step in and do Shudai. I would see them more as revivalists than reformists. 

Additionally, they have been more logical and consistent in many places than these Sampardas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On November 5, 2016 at 2:20 PM, chatanga1 said:

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.

 

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.

 

yeah, that's a "What if". 

The Janamsakhis are hagiographical, yes. But that doesn't mean we dismiss it. Do Sampardas not preach hagiographical accounts of the Gurus? Do we need biographies devoid of miracles and anecdotes? As a Sikh, I have no problem accepting miracles and hagiographical accounts.  Many Sakhis in Bhai Mani Singh's Janamsakhi and it's preceding Janamsakhi record Guru Sahib giving instructions on morality, spirituality, and faith. Not entirely miracle.  

As as for the 5ks, Sri Gur Katha is what I would refer to. 

 

As for Panth Prakash and Suraj Prakash, It's not entirely rooted in oral tradition. The author of 'Bhatt te ouhna Di Rachna' suggested and gave clues to how Bhatt and Pandey Vahis were used by these authors , as their accounts were very similar to Rattan Singh Bhangu's, 

 

Suraj Prakash is undeniably partially sourced in some Janamsakhis, Gur Rattan Mal and Malwe Desh Rattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tva prasad said:

if/ when u guys meet a brahmgiani/sant/mahapurak ask them if women r allowed to do the punj pyare seva. If no, ask them the reason.

There are no men or women. Gurbani says Akal Purakh IS the male AND the female. The genders are only temporary and transient. Ultimate reality is ONEness. So say that women are 'not allowed' to do something which males are allowed makes no sense. You are putting limitations on Akal Purakh (in female form). 

Also sants are still human. They will still put their own opinions and based on their own jatha or samparda teachings. For example if you ask a sant from AKJ background they would most definitely say women are 'allowed'. 

I have already shown in Gurbani there is nothing saying to restrict women compared to men and place them on lower status. There is however many shabads telling us to see all equally. Amrit sanchar places all initiates on equal level as all drink from same bata. You can't then say women are some lesser version of Khalsa. Same commitment is made by both males and females. If females made a lesser commitment at time of Amrit then you could justify them having a lower status but you can't.  Not when they take the same Amrit sanchar and make same commitment. They are to be seen equally. Anything else is discrimination. 

I have also shown how Jarnail Sigh Ji's own reason can be disputed because of holding contempt for all women for inaction of some who were present that one day. But his argument has other flaws too like those from castes who did not have someone who gave their head or Caucasians there were no Caucasians who have their head etc. But nobody would think twice about selecting a Singh from one of those castes who were not represented in the original five or a Caucasian Singh. 

And as JasperS Ji said it means if you keep women from this seva that females will never have a say or any authority in big decisions in panth because those decisions are often given to Panj Pyaras. 

Yes women are allowed. Gurbani supports it, Akal Takht supports it, more importantly Waheguru supports it. It's only ego driven Singhs with a male superiority complex who don't support it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of confusion would be cleared up if we sort of compared male and female to tall and short. If you are short.... there are certain activities which you can perform which a tall person may not be good at. Netball, long jump, high shelves just being some examples. However it does not mean that you are bad, of a lower caste, or evil because you are tall or short. 

In the same way - is the male and the female. They simply are able to perform different tasks differently because of their body structure. Each needs the other to complement and to achieve the continuation of the universe. None is superior or inferior. It is our wrongful thinking which makes it so. In sakhiya - both have been blessed with mukti by Waheguru. In Sikhi both genders have been involved in religious ceremonies - although in different ways. For instance after the Amrit was prepared and two birds partook of it - they fought each other to their deaths. That is when Mata Ji was requested to bring the patase and place them in the amrit. Love, tenderness, gentle understanding emanate from the female part of Gods creation. Both genders were involved in the preparation of the Amrit - however in different ways because they represent different functions. Guru Ji wanted his Sikhs to be fierce fighters but sweet amongst themselves too. (Ever seen how women bond together)

However we have to pick on the gifts which Guru Ji gave us - like Murakhs and demand an explanation as to why women were not in the punj peyare. We should be thankful for all the sacrifices which Guru Ji made in order to bless us with the Amrit which the whole world seeks to find. 

Sur nar mum jan Amrit khojdhe so Amrit Gur te paya. 

Here we have the Amrit which everyone is searching for and all we can think about is why women were not involved. Waheguru bless us with understanding and forgive us our ungratefulness. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bal Rehal said:

A lot of confusion would be cleared up if we sort of compared male and female to tall and short. If you are short.... there are certain activities which you can perform which a tall person may not be good at. Netball, long jump, high shelves just being some examples. However it does not mean that you are bad, of a lower caste, or evil because you are tall or short. 

In the same way - is the male and the female. They simply are able to perform different tasks differently because of their body structure. Each needs the other to complement and to achieve the continuation of the universe. None is superior or inferior. It is our wrongful thinking which makes it so. In sakhiya - both have been blessed with mukti by Waheguru. In Sikhi both genders have been involved in religious ceremonies - although in different ways. For instance after the Amrit was prepared and two birds partook of it - they fought each other to their deaths. That is when Mata Ji was requested to bring the patase and place them in the amrit. Love, tenderness, gentle understanding emanate from the female part of Gods creation. Both genders were involved in the preparation of the Amrit - however in different ways because they represent different functions. Guru Ji wanted his Sikhs to be fierce fighters but sweet amongst themselves too. (Ever seen how women bond together)

However we have to pick on the gifts which Guru Ji gave us - like Murakhs and demand an explanation as to why women were not in the punj peyare. We should be thankful for all the sacrifices which Guru Ji made in order to bless us with the Amrit which the whole world seeks to find. 

Sur nar mum jan Amrit khojdhe so Amrit Gur te paya. 

Here we have the Amrit which everyone is searching for and all we can think about is why women were not involved. Waheguru bless us with understanding and forgive us our ungratefulness. 

 

very well said bro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Your Mahapursh interpret Gurbani far more differently than the rest of the Panth to begin with.

What is the rest of the Panth you are referring to? Please name the sampradas (blessed by Sri Satguru jee) who claim that the Taksali arths are wrong. 

People who interpret Gurbani solely based on grammar, doubt parts of Gurbani, change Gurbani, bark against Gurbani, fiddle with maryada, hide evidence, destroy religious artifacts, etc, will definitely have problems with the great Vidya Martands of the Panth.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

I didn't say he lied. 

Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji, Gyani Ditt Singh Ji (who have conflicting views with Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji) could be Braham Gyanis in my eyes, in which case, I would be prompted to ask Why would they lie or be wrong?

Brahamgyan has many levels. Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh jee was indeed a Brahamgyani, but his doubt on Sri Raagmala Sahib jee is a clear indication that he did not reach the highest level.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Gyani Ditt Singh, Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji, Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha, Dr. Gurmukh Singh, and others had to step in and do Shudai. I would see them more as revivalists than reformists. 

Bhai Sahib Bhai Vir Singh jee also played his part and he was a Taksali Vidhwaan. Most likely, there must have been more Sikhs, who were influenced by Sampradas, who helped in the Shudai process too.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bal Rehal said:

A lot of confusion would be cleared up if we sort of compared male and female to tall and short. If you are short.... there are certain activities which you can perform which a tall person may not be good at. Netball, long jump, high shelves just being some examples. However it does not mean that you are bad, of a lower caste, or evil because you are tall or short. 

In the same way - is the male and the female. They simply are able to perform different tasks differently because of their body structure. Each needs the other to complement and to achieve the continuation of the universe. None is superior or inferior. It is our wrongful thinking which makes it so. In sakhiya - both have been blessed with mukti by Waheguru. In Sikhi both genders have been involved in religious ceremonies - although in different ways. For instance after the Amrit was prepared and two birds partook of it - they fought each other to their deaths. That is when Mata Ji was requested to bring the patase and place them in the amrit. Love, tenderness, gentle understanding emanate from the female part of Gods creation. Both genders were involved in the preparation of the Amrit - however in different ways because they represent different functions. Guru Ji wanted his Sikhs to be fierce fighters but sweet amongst themselves too. (Ever seen how women bond together)

However we have to pick on the gifts which Guru Ji gave us - like Murakhs and demand an explanation as to why women were not in the punj peyare. We should be thankful for all the sacrifices which Guru Ji made in order to bless us with the Amrit which the whole world seeks to find. 

Sur nar mum jan Amrit khojdhe so Amrit Gur te paya. 

Here we have the Amrit which everyone is searching for and all we can think about is why women were not involved. Waheguru bless us with understanding and forgive us our ungratefulness. 

 

Wrong. You are essentially still pushing women into position of having no say in panthic decisions as it's Panj Pyaras who are called upon for that. Do you think our Gurus meant for women to have no say on panthic decisions? Remember the SOUL the Jyot inside is the SAME. Gender is only useful for physical things not spiritual. By saying women are unfit for things because of their physical body then you need to justify why that soul was born into that body to begin with since you have just turned gender into either punishment or privilege depending on which you end up with. Spiritual matters have nothing to do with physical gender. And Gurbani very CLEARLY states all are equal. You can't decide to change that. The Gurus gave masands ability to initiate by charan pahul in absence of the Guru. There were women masands. Women gave Amrit prior to 1699. One prominent woman masand was in charge of all Kashmir. There is no reason that women would be all of a sudden unallowed to after 1699. 

Have you noticed all the 'reasons' you guys give are just your own opinions? And they all reek of male superiority ego. Every reason seems to suggest personal opinions of women are lesser, less capable, inferior, unsuitable, not good leaders. Not based on Gurbani and gurmat principles. Remove your own stubborn male ego and see the truth. You won't be emasculated if you support your wife or daughter to have equality. In fact you will feel much better about yourself than treating them as (in your words) "shorter" than you. Women are not as you say 'less suitable' for administering Amrit and making decisions based on Gurbani and gurmat principles. Women can be just as good leaders. We should stop trying to put them into subordinate so called 'roles'. 

Anywau if you believe in discrimination then hang out with your taksalis. But don't try to force taksal maryada down the throats of rest of the panth, who already rules women CAN do seva as Panj Pyaras. It's specifically stated in the Panthic maryada. Panthic maryada passes litmus test of Gurbani. Taksali maryada does not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WakeUp said:

Wrong. You are essentially still pushing women into position of having no say in panthic decisions as it's Panj Pyaras who are called upon for that. Do you think our Gurus meant for women to have no say on panthic decisions? Remember the SOUL the Jyot inside is the SAME. Gender is only useful for physical things not spiritual. By saying women are unfit for things because of their physical body then you need to justify why that soul was born into that body to begin with since you have just turned gender into either punishment or privilege depending on which you end up with. Spiritual matters have nothing to do with physical gender. And Gurbani very CLEARLY states all are equal. You can't decide to change that. The Gurus gave masands ability to initiate by charan pahul in absence of the Guru. There were women masands. Women gave Amrit prior to 1699. One prominent woman masand was in charge of all Kashmir. There is no reason that women would be all of a sudden unallowed to after 1699. 

Have you noticed all the 'reasons' you guys give are just your own opinions? And they all reek of male superiority ego. Every reason seems to suggest personal opinions of women are lesser, less capable, inferior, unsuitable, not good leaders. Not based on Gurbani and gurmat principles. Remove your own stubborn male ego and see the truth. You won't be emasculated if you support your wife or daughter to have equality. In fact you will feel much better about yourself than treating them as (in your words) "shorter" than you. Women are not as you say 'less suitable' for administering Amrit and making decisions based on Gurbani and gurmat principles. Women can be just as good leaders. We should stop trying to put them into subordinate so called 'roles'. 

Anywau if you believe in discrimination then hang out with your taksalis. But don't try to force taksal maryada down the throats of rest of the panth, who already rules women CAN do seva as Panj Pyaras. It's specifically stated in the Panthic maryada. Panthic maryada passes litmus test of Gurbani. Taksali maryada does not. 

even female sant has said women shouldn't do the punj pyare seva. It is not about gender discrimination or capability. It is about the jot. Giani Thakur Singh ji said that before the punj pyare prepare amrit there is a light that comes out of sggs ji and goes into the 5 pyare. There was an experiment done with women but the light didn't come out and go into them. I think that is y sant jarnail Singh ji bhinderanwale said that if a women were to give their head that day they would b doing this seva today. There is always something deep behind what brahmgiani says. I hope I made my point clear about discrimination not being part of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tva prasad said:

even female sant has said women shouldn't do the punj pyare seva. It is not about gender discrimination or capability. It is about the jot. Giani Thakur Singh ji said that before the punj pyare prepare amrit there is a light that comes out of sggs ji and goes into the 5 pyare. There was an experiment done with women but the light didn't come out and go into them. I think that is y sant jarnail Singh ji bhinderanwale said that if a women were to give their head that day they would b doing this seva today. There is always something deep behind what brahmgiani says. I hope I made my point clear about discrimination not being part of this.

you are not getting what I am saying!! The soul has NO GENDER!!!!!! You could have been a female last time, I could have been a female last time! We might be next time! Our soul IS THE LIGHT! Gurbani says the divine light is in EVERY person!!!! A taksali giani can say what he wants. I don't believe him because what he says goes against Gurbani. How can female bodies not have that divine light? Female 'sants' indoctrinated in taksali or Dera beliefs will just parrot those same beliefs. Because that's what the sant life is devoting their life to THAT teachings!!

Ask a female sant from AKJ what she thinks! Don't rely all on just taksal and dera thinking. The light doesn't 'come into' someone or even five someones. The light is already there in everyone. In fact the awareness behind every entity is the same ONE! The same light is already there!

Lets say we act in a play with a bunch of others. Today I play the part of a female and you play the part of a male. (It's our souls playing the play). Tomorrow I play the male and you the female. This happens over and over. Then one day in 1699 something happens and five of us volunteer our heads. They happen to be playing a male at the time. Do you get that it was the soul who volunteered? Not the body! You can't say it was five males who volunteered. It was five actors who happened to be playing the part of a male at the time. Amrit sanchar is a an act of soul not the body. By your thinking above with the light thing if you actually believe it is you are saying women are lower spiritually than men. Is that what you are saying? Why even give them Amrit then? What's the point if they can't progress spiritually to recognize that light within them!? By saying what you just said about the light and females, you are essentially saying the soul itself has gender and that is not in line with Gurbani. 

So now you're saying females are inferior physically AND spiritually. So just what is Gurbani talking about when it says they are equal? And especially equal carriers of the divine light? Step away from one sided dera ideology for a bit. Listen to others outside of one group. Of course they will perpetuate stories in their own group to further their own ideology. Taksalis are known for being patriarchal. Of course their teaching will be patriarchal. Some of that comes from brahministic thinking. That women need to be born in a  male joon first to get anywhere and for now their punishment is to serve men. I believe Chatanga already parroted this earlier. That being born a woman is result of karams and that her duty / punishment this life is to serve her husband. This is brahministic thinking and nothing else. Stop using only taksali examples to support your claims!  

"As Gurmukh look upon ALL with a single eye of equality, for in EACH and EVERY heart the DIVINE LIGHT is contained" SGGSJ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On November 9, 2016 at 4:53 AM, paapiman said:

What is the rest of the Panth you are referring to? Please name the sampradas (blessed by Sri Satguru jee) who claim that the Taksali arths are wrong. 

People who interpret Gurbani solely based on grammar, doubt parts of Gurbani, change Gurbani, bark against Gurbani, fiddle with maryada, hide evidence, destroy religious artifacts, etc, will definitely have problems with the great Vidya Martands of the Panth.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

When I say "your Brahmgyanis/mahapurakhs" I mean your Sampardas. By "rest of the Panth" I'm referring to AKJ, Singh Sabha, etc.

"Those people" didn't do anything of that sort. Their interpretation  makes more sense than Sampardas, their vein of reasoning is more consistent and logical. 

Tuhadeya da Ki? Eik Tukk Nu chakk Ke Das Das Arth Kadd Dinne aa, Jithe Bishram te Bhaavic Arth aam takhsheelta  anusar penda hee nahi, outhe tokk Dinne aa. 

if you believe in Taksal and Sampardaic intpertretation of Gurbani, good, but don't walk around with a sense of superiority. 

Te Raagmale Di Gal Tu Naa hee karre, Bhala va. 

I believe Gyani Gurbachan Singh Ji was a great Gurmukh too, But his belief in Raagmala indicates to me he didn't reach "the highest level". 

Bhai Vir Singh isn't Taksali, by the way. He just Believed in Raagmala.

 

I do occasionally listen to their Katha and read parts of their teekas, but I also appreciate Singh Sabha works. Professor Sahib Singh for example is an amazing scholar in my opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@WakeUp - Women r no where near being inferior to men. I personally believe it is sad how society treats them. They endure the pain of child birth and r then treated like house maids serving the husband and also doing work. I believe them to b an equal in every aspect. They r the carriers of the divine jot (akal purak). How many sants- have u heard say the women should b part of the punj pyare? R there any historical records from guru gobind Singh ji's time?

women r not physically inferior either as many people say they r the "weaker sex" it is just not true. So women endure the pain of child birth, they work like housemaids and go to work (without husband helping (in some cases)) and then don't get equal rights and get called weak and inferior to men. When they do have the same divine jot. Anyways, women r/ shud b part of the amrit sanchar (they shud b the ones putting patase).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/11/2016 at 10:17 AM, tva prasad said:

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

The SS. They started off with good intentions of strenghening the Panth through education.

 

 

On 07/11/2016 at 0:35 PM, WakeUp said:

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.

Too convenient and far too stretched historically.

 

On 08/11/2016 at 10:58 PM, WakeUp said:

 

Yes women can administer Amrit. I already have you example of masands prior to 1699. Masands had full authority to administer Amrit by charan pahul. We know there were women masands. It makes no sense to all of a sudden bar women from something which they had Guru given authority prior. 

 

IMG_0070.JPG

 

But the Masands were disbanded. After that came the Panj Pyare. All male. Always male. No matter what false reasoning you employ.

And this picture is from a Nagar kirtan. Nice attempt to try and pass it off as as Khande ki pahul sinchar.

 

On 08/11/2016 at 11:41 PM, JasperS said:

There is no good reason to keep women from this seva at all except for male ego (and I say that as a male myself).

Jaspreet, if you think this is down to male ego, then you are very wrong. Ego has nothing to do with this at all. Do you think Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala was egoistic in that video?

 

On 09/11/2016 at 7:38 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Your Mahapursh interpret Gurbani far more differently than the rest of the Panth to begin with. Them being the best scholars, is solely an opinion.

 

Our "mahapursh" interpret Gurbani is a far wider scope than the rest of the Panth. And it is not an opinion. It is based on understanding. You can listen to a PHD holder, and see the difference from a nursery teacher. The SGPC or missionary donkeys, they are not a patch on Samprdaic Gyanis when it comes to Gyan. You can do 2 years and learn 25 shabads at the missionary college and become a gyani. In the Taksal you have to get vidya in something 9 Granths before you even start learning from Guru Granth Sahib. You can reach for the stars, or scrabble around in the dirt.

 

On 09/11/2016 at 8:02 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

The Singh Sabha wasn't hellbent on removing anything that seemed like Bahmanvaad or bharam bhulekhe. Also, comparing them pendu Granthis is Incorrect. These people weren't uneducated, many even learned from Nirmalas and Sampardas themselves.  This is evident in their literature. 

I still don't see the rationality in choosing the Sampardas over Singh Sabha either. The Snaatanists arent flawless themselves, They would be in no position to lead or place authority over the Panth. During their influence, Karam kaand, brahmincal rituals, and anti-Gurmat (like caste discrimination, idol worship, etc.) was rampant. Not one Mahant or Nihang spoke out against that or even went as far as lead a lehar against it. Gyani Ditt Singh, Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji, Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha, Dr. Gurmukh Singh, and others had to step in and do Shudai. I would see them more as revivalists than reformists. 

Additionally, they have been more logical and consistent in many places than these Sampardas. 

The SS wanted a distinct identity for the Sikhs (the Singh /Khalsa identity) which is why they started to dismiss anything connected with Hinduism as and where they could. To them anything that Sikhs shared with Hinduism was anathema. The level of Gyan amongst SGPC gyanis is very poor, very pendu compared to samprdaic gyanis. There's no contest.

 

The rationality is depending on an individuals own level of intellect. The Saprdais offer a level of education that the SGPC or pendu granthis cannot match.

LOgic has no place in Sikhi.

 

On 09/11/2016 at 8:22 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

As as for the 5ks, Sri Gur Katha is what I would refer to.

Even that is not free of doubt. Personally I havent read it myself. I would love to read it, but there are already topics on here about Sri Gur Katha. If you want to , visit one and add your opinions.

 

On 09/11/2016 at 9:35 AM, WakeUp said:

And as JasperS Ji said it means if you keep women from this seva that females will never have a say or any authority in big decisions in panth because those decisions are often given to Panj Pyaras. 

Yes women are allowed. Gurbani supports it, Akal Takht supports it, more importantly Waheguru supports it. It's only ego driven Singhs with a male superiority complex who don't support it. 

No they are not. We had a woman head of the SGPC who in her capacity would have made major decisions affecting the Panth.

Like I said earlier, go to Sri Akal Takht sahib and ask them how many of their sinchars involved women. The proof will be in the pudding.

 

6 hours ago, WakeUp said:

 Do you get that it was the soul who volunteered? Not the body! You can't say it was five males who volunteered. It was five actors who happened to be playing the part of a male at the time. Amrit sanchar is a an act of soul not the body.

It was NOT the soul that volunteered. It was the body, thaat gave it's head for amrit. We don't give our soul to take amrit, we give our head, therefore the act is completely physical. Guru Sahib asked for heads at Vasisakhi, not for souls. Guru Sahib took the heads of the 5 sikhs, not their souls. Taking Pahul is completely a physical act.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tva prasad said:

@WakeUp - Women r no where near being inferior to men. I personally believe it is sad how society treats them. They endure the pain of child birth and r then treated like house maids serving the husband and also doing work. I believe them to b an equal in every aspect. They r the carriers of the divine jot (akal purak). How many sants- have u heard say the women should b part of the punj pyare? R there any historical records from guru gobind Singh ji's time?

women r not physically inferior either as many people say they r the "weaker sex" it is just not true. So women endure the pain of child birth, they work like housemaids and go to work (without husband helping (in some cases)) and then don't get equal rights and get called weak and inferior to men. When they do have the same divine jot. Anyways, women r/ shud b part of the amrit sanchar (they shud b the ones putting patase).

Except we are not talking just Amrit sanchars. Does the one putting the patase get a say in what punishment one receives for bujjar kurehits? And what about when Panj Pyaras are formed for decision to be made on behalf of the panth? There is no patase being added ther is there? So how would a female have any input on these decisions? If it's always males then no females ever have any say in these things. 

And Chatanga yes the consciousness is what gave their heads. The consciousness is what made the decision to. Which head they had at the time did not matter. I have come to the conclusion that you are just misogynistic and will never change which is a pitty. Yes masands were disbanded but Yiu had asked about women administering Amrit in that time and I gave you real world examples. It makes no sense that Guru Ji then decided to discriminate against women after 1699. And you keep harping on proof in history after 1699. We barely have any written history at all about who took part in Amrit sanchars after 1699! Usually only sanchars with prominent people being initiated were written about and those were mostly military etc. we can't use only those few examples as litmus test for all time! What about Amrit sanchars which took place in villages especially when many singhs would have been away fighting? It makes sense that women would have been the ones administering it in those cases but they weren't high profile so they were not written about. Have an open mind. Your resistance to women as Panj Pyaras seems to be rooted more in your own disgust at the idea than actually looking to see if it is in accordance with Gurbani and gurmat principles. In other words you go looking for the negative where there isn't. 

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...