Equality In Clothing

[paapiman]

5. Women being told what to wear by Singhs who think they can wear anything. If a Singh is telling a Singhni to only ever wear salwar kameez, then he should only ever wear kurta pyjama. end of story. As long as clothing is modest and respectable, both men and women should be free to wear what they want. But I always see Singhs posing on Facebook photos flexing their muscles at the gym with bare arms and sometimes even chest. Yet those same Singhs are first ones to criticize a Singhni for merely wearing a pair of jeans with a modest kurti! If you are going to preach it, then practice what you preach!

I completely agree with you with regards to equality in clothing. Singhs must also dress appropriately and must NOT show their bodies and chest.

Clothing must be modest, covered, clean and NOT TIGHT (which prevents revealing body parts).

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[SikhKhoj]

Am I not on Islamawareness by any chance?

The whole concept of removing parda was because you got to control your eyes and your kaam, not wear a sheet over others' body. Ofcourse some decency needs to be maintained while clothing but you are giving rules as if we're some Sharia.

Edited April 12, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[paapiman]

Am I not on Islamawareness by any chance?

The whole concept of removing parda was because you got to control your eyes and your kaam, not wear a sheet over others' body. Ofcourse some decency needs to be maintained while clothing but you are giving rules as if we're some Sharia.

The rules are in Gurbani. In Gurbani, it clearly states that one should not wear tight clothes.

There is scientific evidence available ( I am sure some paapi people like me know it too) regarding where most of the men look, when they see a woman.

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[Guest]

The rules are in Gurbani. In Gurbani, it clearly states that one should not wear tight clothes.

There is scientific evidence available ( I am sure some paapi people like me know it too) regarding where most of the men look, when they see a woman.

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Gurmat talks about modesty but does not dictates tight clothing or not if it does surrounding that topic then same rule can be applied on tight chola, specific type of kachera's which are too tight where do you stop? How about flashy glasses?

Gurmat isn't sharia rule books like many musilms use.

We should not be too caught up in this topic, let parcharikh do its job just an example- i daily listen to gyani pinderpal singh ji. He is extremely good, explaining maryada/everything in context, in stages with pyaar and nirmata. He is doing extremely good job addressing multilayer points on all levels in one setting.

In the meantime, I take outside distractions as test for our own sikhi SO instead of enforcing others what they should wear or not -if your mind is in inner turmoil or not..take it as test and self improve yourself- let negative thoughts/angry thoughts part of one psychological egoic conditioned not define you or control you.

For eg- if outside flashy dress can easily affect our own inner mind or state of mind in sikhi then problem ultimately lies in ourselves- in our inner jevan- how feeble our inner sikhi/avastha really is. Real Gursikh/Gurmukh state of mind is so dissolved/consumed/stilled in alive shabad jot consciousness that whole world can destroy in front of them in blink of eye they will not even have small wave/ripple in inner state of mind which is absolutely dissolved in absolute unfathomable pure ocean of shabad stillness awareness bliss whatever actions- compassion/right actions-dharam righteousness/fight injustice etc will automatically spontaneously come out of them rather than their center of being-inner most center avastha of gurmukh being affected.

So once again, once you connect to alive shabad jot -intuitive pure cognitive pure awareness, right actions/rights speech/parchar flows out of you automatically, naturally, spontaneously and that has more deeper affect on people as that parchar can connect directly from spirit to other people inner feeling/spirit and changes- modest dressing comes in automatically in people rather than people enforcing it.

[paapiman]

Gurmat talks about modesty but does not dictates tight clothing or not if it does surrounding that topic then same rule can be applied on tight chola, specific type of kachera's which are too tight where do you stop? How about flashy glasses?

Gurmat isn't sharia rule books like many musilms use.

The below tuk clearly instructs SIkhs, not to wear tight clothes. This is one of the arths of this tuk. There might be many more.

ਜਿਤੁ ਪੈਧੈ ਤਨੁ ਪੀੜੀਐ ਮਨ ਮਹਿ ਚਲਹਿ ਵਿਕਾਰ ॥੧॥

Wearing tight clothes, evil thoughts arise in mind

For eg- if outside flashy dress can easily affect our own inner mind or state of mind in sikhi then problem ultimately lies in ourselves- in our inner jevan- how feeble our inner sikhi/avastha really is. Real Gursikh/Gurmukh state of mind is so dissolved/consumed/stilled in alive shabad jot consciousness that whole world can destroy in front of them in blink of eye they will not even have small wave/ripple in inner state of mind which is absolutely dissolved in absolute unfathomable pure ocean of shabad stillness awareness bliss whatever actions- compassion/right actions-dharam righteousness/fight injustice etc will automatically spontaneously come out of them rather than their center of being-inner most center avastha of gurmukh being affected.

The above mentioned applies to Brahamgyanis, not to vikarees like me. How many Brahamgyanis do you think, are there on this forum?

Satguru jee made some strict rules, so that we can spiritually grow. Like a child, when he is young, needs proper discipline to succeed in schooling. Once, he matures, he is able to move on his own. Rules are very important.

You cannot compare a society where women are dressed modestly (from a male perspective) to a society where you have half naked women roaming around. Obviously, for a jagahasuu, former will help him grow spiritually.

You cannot start a fire and expect that no heat will be produced.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 12, 2015 by paapiman

[Guest]

It's wrong translation, read the whole shabad, its related to overall attachment/pleasure to clothes and food not by simply wearing out of circumstances. Not sure how you got tight clothes translatation from it

ਬਾਬਾ ਹੋਰੁ ਪੈਨਣੁ ਖੁਸੀ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥
बाबा होरु पैनणु खुसी खुआरु ॥
Bābā hor painaṇ kẖusī kẖu▫ār.
O Baba, the pleasures of other clothes are false.

ਜਿਤੁ ਪੈਧੈ ਤਨੁ ਪੀੜੀਐ ਮਨ ਮਹਿ ਚਲਹਿ ਵਿਕਾਰ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
जितु पैधै तनु पीड़ीऐ मन महि चलहि विकार ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Jiṯ paiḏẖai ṯan pīṛī▫ai man mėh cẖalėh vikār. ||1|| rahā▫o.
Wearing them, the body is ruined, and wickedness and corruption enter into the mind. ||1||Pause||

The above mentioned applies to Brahamgyanis, not to vikarees like me. How many Brahamgyanis do you think, are there on this forum?

Satguru jee made some strict rules, so that we can spiritually grow. Like a child, when he is young, needs proper discipline to succeed in schooling. Once, he matures, he is able to move on his own. Rules are very important.

You cannot compare a society where women are dressed modestly (from a male perspective) to a society where you have half naked women roaming around. Obviously, for a jagahasuu, former will help him grow spiritually.

You cannot start a fire and expect that no heat will be produced.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Not saying we are at the level, but its starts from mind-thoughts, thats updesh of gurbani to beginner seekers. If you are too worried about external things at any given time, you are choosing to have senses to go outside rather than taking the senses invert/introvert in shabad with effort.

It's quite simple, one does not need to BE bhramgyani in order to praticise meditation with effort of five senses which leads to spritual transcedence. The fact is sikh youths have become lazy wimps to do any effort on naam simran or anything as they are too busy vilifying others, enforce rules in garb of self righteousness..no different musim talibans.

Stop using cop out statements like vikaares like me, you choose that decision we shouldnt be using cop out methods by being lazy and come up with these self loathing statements- everyone one of us have a choice- each every moment we all have choice either identify with conditioned mind -manmukh and identify with pure intuitive consciousness within all of us-gurmukh.

[paapiman]

It's wrong translation, read the whole shabad, its related to overall attachment/pleasure to clothes and food not by simply wearing out of circumstances. Not sure how you got tight clothes translatation from it

ਬਾਬਾ ਹੋਰੁ ਪੈਨਣੁ ਖੁਸੀ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥

बाबा होरु पैनणु खुसी खुआरु ॥

Bābā hor painaṇ kẖusī kẖu▫ār.

O Baba, the pleasures of other clothes are false.

ਜਿਤੁ ਪੈਧੈ ਤਨੁ ਪੀੜੀਐ ਮਨ ਮਹਿ ਚਲਹਿ ਵਿਕਾਰ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

जितु पैधै तनु पीड़ीऐ मन महि चलहि विकार ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥

Jiṯ paiḏẖai ṯan pīṛī▫ai man mėh cẖalėh vikār. ||1|| rahā▫o.

Wearing them, the body is ruined, and wickedness and corruption enter into the mind. ||1||Pause||

I heard it in katha by the famous, Gyani Kulwant Singh jee Habri. Even, I believed earlier that if a person gets evil thoughts by looking at a woman, it is his fault. But Gyani jee fixed my thinking. The woman is to blame too, if she is intentionally exposing her body. He was the one who mentioned above the fire analogy. I am pretty sure, you consider yourself lower in Gurmat knowledge than Gyani jee.

Also, I believe that Maskeen Sahib also mentioned about it in his katha. He meant (I am not 100% sure about this) that if a person's clothing causes a vikar in the mind of the other person, the person wearing the clothes is also a doshi. It makes sense to me, especially if the person is intentionally dressing provocatively.

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 12, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

It's wrong translation, read the whole shabad, its related to overall attachment/pleasure to clothes and food not by simply wearing out of circumstances. Not sure how you got tight clothes translatation from it

ਬਾਬਾ ਹੋਰੁ ਪੈਨਣੁ ਖੁਸੀ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥

बाबा होरु पैनणु खुसी खुआरु ॥

Bābā hor painaṇ kẖusī kẖu▫ār.

O Baba, the pleasures of other clothes are false.

ਜਿਤੁ ਪੈਧੈ ਤਨੁ ਪੀੜੀਐ ਮਨ ਮਹਿ ਚਲਹਿ ਵਿਕਾਰ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

जितु पैधै तनु पीड़ीऐ मन महि चलहि विकार ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥

Jiṯ paiḏẖai ṯan pīṛī▫ai man mėh cẖalėh vikār. ||1|| rahā▫o.

Wearing them, the body is ruined, and wickedness and corruption enter into the mind. ||1||Pause||

Not saying we are at the level, but its starts from mind-thoughts, thats updesh of gurbani to beginner seekers. If you are too worried about external things at any given time, you are choosing to have senses to go outside rather than taking the senses invert/introvert in shabad with effort.

It's quite simple, one does not need to BE bhramgyani in order to praticise meditation with effort of five senses which leads to spritual transcedence. The fact is sikh youths have become lazy wimps to do any effort on naam simran or anything as they are too busy vilifying others, enforce rules in garb of self righteousness..no different musim talibans.

Stop using cop out statements like vikaares like me, you choose that decision we shouldnt be using cop out methods by being lazy and come up with these self loathing statements- everyone one of us have a choice- each every moment we all have choice either identify with conditioned mind -manmukh and identify with pure intuitive consciousness within all of us-gurmukh.

Evidence to show where men stare at, when they look at women.

http://guardianlv.com/2013/10/study-confirms-that-men-stare-at-womens-breasts/

You tell me brother, if a woman is dressed in loose clothes (no sexual body parts revealed), what are the chances that a man will keep staring at her as compared to a woman who has tight clothes on. I think, we all know the answer.

Again, I am talking from the perspective of a jagayasu (low level one).

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 12, 2015 by paapiman

[Guest]

You tell me brother, if a woman is dressed in loose clothes (no sexual body parts revealed), what are the chances that a man will keep staring at her as compared to a woman who has tight clothes on. I think, we all know the answer.

Again, I am talking from the perspective of a jagayasu (low level one).

Thats a same argument sharia panthi mulllahs do when they cover their women with burqa..so let me get this straight- instead of people controlling their own willy, they would rather enforce woman on how they dress. Unbelievable..root cause is not external... root cause is always starts with one thoughts/mind- sensory- five senses-panj birthiya going external and whole gurbani updesh to bring them introvert instead of dictating how outside world should look like.

One of main updesh in japji sahib teeka by sant gyani gurbachan singh bhindranwale is to purify inner birthiya-panj birthiya-five senses by taking it introvert with effort with shabad and then shabad will draw five senses birthiya invert, purify it and make it bhramakar birthi -pure congnitive consciousness which only see vahiguru in all.

It's total wrong approach. Not even one sikh parcharikh goes on this type witch haunt preaching only.

[CdnSikhGirl]

It's wrong translation, read the whole shabad, its related to overall attachment/pleasure to clothes and food not by simply wearing out of circumstances. Not sure how you got tight clothes translatation from it

I have noticed that he tends to take one liners to suit his needs (and insists that is ok to do) while ignoring the context of the shabad as a whole. If we do that, we could find one liners to suit any need and support any argument in SGGSJ. You have to read the full shabad to get it's context and meaning.

[CdnSikhGirl]

Evidence to show where men stare at, when they look at women.

http://guardianlv.com/2013/10/study-confirms-that-men-stare-at-womens-breasts/

You tell me brother, if a woman is dressed in loose clothes (no sexual body parts revealed), what are the chances that a man will keep staring at her as compared to a woman who has tight clothes on. I think, we all know the answer.

Again, I am talking from the perspective of a jagayasu (low level one).

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

I am really starting to think with your viewpoints, that you are a Muslim in disguise on here.

This is exactly how Muslims speak. Instead of Muslim men controlling their gaze, they force the women to cover up in tents. By the way women also look at men in the same way, and a LOT of Muslim guys who try to enforce this dress code on women are the first ones at the gym taking pics of their shirtless bodies flexing their muscles and think it's perfectly ok for them. Or wearing those skinny jeans etc. Ill say it again. If a Singh thinks Singhnis should only wear salwar kameez, then he should only be wearing kurta pyjamas esle he's a hypocrite.

Your other posts on here sound very Taliban too.. like your statement about women being given 'some' rights so they should be happy and not want full equality. That's the same argument Muslims use... saying that Muhammad gave women 'some' rights because they were treated badly before that. Nobody argues that women are oppressed and discriminated in Islamic majority countries.

Where are you getting this attitude? DDT? Your family? (You did say your Mother actually bowed to your Dad so its no wonder you grew up thinking we are so low). Oh but you say you respect women...

Muslims lock women in their homes, control their movements, dictate what they can wear, what they can do... all because they say they 'respect' women. I'd rather not have that kind of respect.

[paapiman]

I have noticed that he tends to take one liners to suit his needs (and insists that is ok to do) while ignoring the context of the shabad as a whole. If we do that, we could find one liners to suit any need and support any argument in SGGSJ. You have to read the full shabad to get it's context and meaning.

Please talk to Gyani Kulwant Singh jee Habri about it as I heard the above mentioned arth in his katha. Most likely, he has more Gurmat knowledge than you.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 13, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

I am really starting to think with your viewpoints, that you are a Muslim in disguise on here.

This is exactly how Muslims speak. Instead of Muslim men controlling their gaze, they force the women to cover up in tents. By the way women also look at men in the same way, and a LOT of Muslim guys who try to enforce this dress code on women are the first ones at the gym taking pics of their shirtless bodies flexing their muscles and think it's perfectly ok for them. Or wearing those skinny jeans etc. Ill say it again. If a Singh thinks Singhnis should only wear salwar kameez, then he should only be wearing kurta pyjamas esle he's a hypocrite.

Sister, I am talking from the perspective of a male. Did you actually read the first post on this topic or have you just started hating me? I completely agree that men must also dress appropriately with covered and loose clothing. They must not show their muscles, chest, etc. But I have no idea (in details) what women look at when they see men, as I am straight. I cannot talk in details about those matters. I am affected by half-naked women not half-naked men.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 13, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

Stop using cop out statements like vikaares like me, you choose that decision we shouldnt be using cop out methods by being lazy and come up with these self loathing statements- everyone one of us have a choice- each every moment we all have choice either identify with conditioned mind -manmukh and identify with pure intuitive consciousness within all of us-gurmukh.

Bro, I am a vikaree banda, what do you want me to call myself? a sant? - There is no ninda or ustat in it. A vikaree is a vikaree as a dog is a dog.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[Guest]

Bro, I am a vikaree banda, what do you want me to call myself? a sant? - There is no ninda or ustat in it. A vikaree is a vikaree as a dog is a dog.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

So how do you plan on changing that? Sikhi is about deep self reflection, correcting the wrong, improving and moving on.

[CdnSikhGirl]

I heard it in katha by the famous, Gyani Kulwant Singh jee Habri. Even, I believed earlier that if a person gets evil thoughts by looking at a woman, it is his fault. But Gyani jee fixed my thinking. The woman is to blame too, if she is intentionally exposing her body. He was the one who mentioned above the fire analogy. I am pretty sure, you consider yourself lower in Gurmat knowledge than Gyani jee.

Also, I believe that Maskeen Sahib also mentioned about it in his katha. He meant (I am not 100% sure about this) that if a person's clothing causes a vikar in the mind of the other person, the person wearing the clothes is also a doshi. It makes sense to me, especially if the person is intentionally dressing provocatively.

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

That works two ways. If a woman has those thoughts because a man wears a muscle shirt or tight jeans, using that line of thinking, should he not also cover? (and yes to answer your question, women are also affected by men dressing provocatively) Those men are also INTENTIONALLY dressing like that for attention... from both women AND other men... (Look at these muscles, see how much I work out? Look how my body is so tight and toned... etc.) You can't apply it to only women. If you think women should only wear loose clothing like salwar kameez, then I hope you don't wear western clothing either... and only wear chola (with pyjami) or kurta pyjama.

I wear western clothes. But I always wear loose fitting kurtis with jeans, so even though I do wear jeans for the practicality of it. Salwar can be difficult to do some active things. But I always wear longer kurtis so I am still modest. Never sleeveless, At least 5-6" short sleeves, but usually 3/4 or full sleeves as I sunburn easily and it protects me. I never wear anything with cleavage, or kurtis that are snug to my body. Yet, this would still not make some Singhs happy. I have had some say so... however, those same Singhs were wearing jeans at the time they said it!

Page 148, Line 8

ਨਾਨਕ ਪਰਖੇ ਆਪ ਕਉ ਤਾ ਪਾਰਖੁ ਜਾਣੁ ॥

Nānak parkẖe āp ka▫o ṯā pārakẖ jāṇ.

O Nanak, if someone judges himself, only then is he known as a real judge.

I do not hate you... I am just trying to hopefully nudge you to use the brain given to you by Waheguru Ji and actually read and interpret Gurbani for yourself instead of being a sheeple and following what others say. Follow whatever Rehetnama you want to you... but only concern yourself with the rules that apply to you, and don't try to force others to follow your way of thinking. Sikhi is all about your OWN journey, don't concern yourself with trying to limit others or affect how they interpret it. The basics in all of the Rehetnamas are the same... the 4 Bujjar Kurehits are the same. All else is interpretation by different human minds. It's THEIR interpretation of Gurbani. Why not read Gurbani yourself and raelly reflect on what it says. And do with an open mind, rid yourself of any preconceived notions of inequalities, and then read what SGGSJ says with an open mind and you will see. It's very likely those early Rehetnamas were written by those who had preconceived notions due to society, and so they interpreted things a certain way based on those preconceived notions (like women's position in society). Instead of blindly following one specific interpretation, read SGGSJ yourself and then decide what you think. Do those preconceived notions still hold in today's society? Were they even meant to be written in stone forever? Or did Guru Gobind Singh Ji give the panth ability to evolve Sikhi over time? After all, it took 200 years for it to evolve to the point where we no longer required a human Guru. Guru Gobind Singh Ji recognized that Sikhs then, had the ability to think for themselves and apply what was written in Gurbani. What one interpretation was for the early times just after Guru Ji left his physical body, can not hold true now, and that's why authority was given to the panth. And not everyone will agree... that's the problem. Majory vote wins, but those who still disagree go off on their own with their own interpretation, and call everyone else wrong. From what I read about SRM, it took years to arrive at the version we have now. And there WERE representatives from every sect who participated. Not everyone will agree 100% - it's very difficult to get unanymous votes in ANY group on ANY topic!! But still SRM was revolutionary and many did agree... enough agreed that it was put into effect. It closest represents interpretation of Gurbani for TODAY'S society. And its the closest thing we have to unified panthic decision.

Getting back to colour of clothes... the context of red in Gurbani is stating to not be that person wearing red (metaphor for Hindus) it uses other comparisons too. If you take again the full shabad its not saying dont wear red clothes. It's saying don't be like those Hindus who wear all red and do these useless rituals etc. (because that's how they were recognized was the all red dress). I think there is similar verses about green because of Muslims. The colour red itself in Gurbani is mentioned as being colour of God as well. Yes colour can affect people... but red may affect me different than it does you.

As for dressing modestly, I do it because mostly for comfort. To be honest I dont really think about what men are thinking. I am not dressing to impress them, similarly, I am not dressing to unimpress them. It really doesn't matter to me one way or another. I expect them to control their own kaam. Just like I do when I see a guy in a muscle shirt flexing his muscles.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Edited April 13, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

That works two ways. If a woman has those thoughts because a man wears a muscle shirt or tight jeans, using that line of thinking, should he not also cover? (and yes to answer your question, women are also affected by men dressing provocatively) Those men are also INTENTIONALLY dressing like that for attention... from both women AND other men... (Look at these muscles, see how much I work out? Look how my body is so tight and toned... etc.) You can't apply it to only women. If you think women should only wear loose clothing like salwar kameez, then I hope you don't wear western clothing either... and only wear chola (with pyjami) or kurta pyjama.

I never said women should only wear salwaar kameez. I said loose clothes, which could mean - loose jeans/pants and shirts/t-shirts. Men must also cover themselves with loose clothes and not expose their bodies. Even, they will be guilty if they cause vikaars in the minds of females. I never denied that.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 13, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

So how do you plan on changing that? Sikhi is about deep self reflection, correcting the wrong, improving and moving on.

Bro, what do you suggest? Remember I am just a low-level jagayasu.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[paapiman]

I have noticed that he tends to take one liners to suit his needs (and insists that is ok to do) while ignoring the context of the shabad as a whole. If we do that, we could find one liners to suit any need and support any argument in SGGSJ. You have to read the full shabad to get it's context and meaning.

Can you please provide examples of single Gurbani tuks which can be used to justify any anti-Gurmat activities? I am curious to know.

Many Gurbani tuks can stand alone on their own without context and uthanka. Like for example, the below tuk only has three words in it, but can stand alone.

Awdysu iqsY Awdysu ]

If you take the context and uthanka into picture, then too it makes sense. It might have many more arths.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 13, 2015 by paapiman

[Guest]

Bro, what do you suggest? Remember I am just a low-level jagayasu.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Create a seperate thread. No one is high or low in this world its only ONE Ikoankar thats it..don't worry about it..stop self-loathing yourself.

[CdnSikhGirl]

Can you please provide examples of single Gurbani tuks which can be used to justify any anti-Gurmat activities? I am curious to know.

Many Gurbani tuks can stand alone on their own without context and uthanka. Like for example, the below tuk only has three words in it, but can stand alone.

Awdysu iqsY Awdysu ]

If you take the context and uthanka into picture, then too it makes sense. It might have many more arths.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Using your logic, then one could say that:

Page 26, Line 16

ਜੇ ਲਖ ਇਸਤਰੀਆ ਭੋਗ ਕਰਹਿ ਨਵ ਖੰਡ ਰਾਜੁ ਕਮਾਹਿ ॥

Je lakẖ isṯarī▫ā bẖog karahi nav kẖand rāj kamāhi.

You may enjoy the pleasures of hundreds of thousands of women, and rule the nine continents of the world.

Soooo I guess, you are allowed to enjoy the pleasures of not just one woman, but thousands!!!

And don't say that you can twist the other tuk around to suit your meaning, but not this one. There is no codex telling us that only some tuks can stand alone (the ones which ironically suit your needs at the time). 3HO does this ALL the time, trying to take one liners to justify kundalini yoga as being part of Sikhi. They take one line saying something to the effect of "they perform kundalini yoga" and they ignore the rest of the shabad where it says ultimately, that yoga did not bring them to God.

What's against Gurmat??? Wives viewing their husbands as God is against Gurmat! Otherwise how would you ever explain how if the SAME ONE divine light is in all EQUALLY, then why would the husband not also view his wife as God? The SAME divine light is in both EQUALLY after all! (This is mentioned in MANY shabads!!!!!) How could God in ANY form be beneath God in ANY other form in some sort of heirarchy, especially when it says divine light in all EQUALLY? God is ONE... so how can you justify women prostrating to men, when God is in both equally?? Your translation does not make sense. And then, when you view the full shabad, it becomes apparent that the meaning was that we are to view God as our Husband Lord and not have attachment to our physical spouse (to the point that we'd kill ourselves if our spouse died).

How could a tuk have opposite meanings and both be true? It would contradict itself. The full shabad is telling wives don't become so attached to your husbands that you kill yourself over their death. Instead view only God as your Husband Lord. It would be self defeating if it also meant to view your physical husband as God!! That is exact opposite of what the full shabad is saying.

I am only asking you to use your brain!

[paapiman]

Using your logic, then one could say that:

Page 26, Line 16

ਜੇ ਲਖ ਇਸਤਰੀਆ ਭੋਗ ਕਰਹਿ ਨਵ ਖੰਡ ਰਾਜੁ ਕਮਾਹਿ ॥

Je lakẖ isṯarī▫ā bẖog karahi nav kẖand rāj kamāhi.

You may enjoy the pleasures of hundreds of thousands of women, and rule the nine continents of the world.

Soooo I guess, you are allowed to enjoy the pleasures of not just one woman, but thousands!!!

And don't say that you can twist the other tuk around to suit your meaning, but not this one. There is no codex telling us that only some tuks can stand alone (the ones which ironically suit your needs at the time). 3HO does this ALL the time, trying to take one liners to justify kundalini yoga as being part of Sikhi. They take one line saying something to the effect of "they perform kundalini yoga" and they ignore the rest of the shabad where it says ultimately, that yoga did not bring them to God.

What's against Gurmat??? Wives viewing their husbands as God is against Gurmat! Otherwise how would you ever explain how if the SAME ONE divine light is in all EQUALLY, then why would the husband not also view his wife as God? The SAME divine light is in both EQUALLY after all! (This is mentioned in MANY shabads!!!!!) How could God in ANY form be beneath God in ANY other form in some sort of heirarchy, especially when it says divine light in all EQUALLY? God is ONE... so how can you justify women prostrating to men, when God is in both equally?? Your translation does not make sense. And then, when you view the full shabad, it becomes apparent that the meaning was that we are to view God as our Husband Lord and not have attachment to our physical spouse (to the point that we'd kill ourselves if our spouse died).

How could a tuk have opposite meanings and both be true? It would contradict itself. The full shabad is telling wives don't become so attached to your husbands that you kill yourself over their death. Instead view only God as your Husband Lord. It would be self defeating if it also meant to view your physical husband as God!! That is exact opposite of what the full shabad is saying.

I am only asking you to use your brain!

But the above tuk has 'ਜੇ ' in it, which means if. For example, does the following statement in English make sense.

"If you are late to work and you do not perform"

Any person who has basic English skills will know that it is an incomplete sentence. It is different from the below tuk.

Awdysu iqsY Awdysu ]

Also, I have said many Gurbani tuks can stand alone. I did not say all of them, but I am open to the possibility that they can stand alone.

Do you have any more examples?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 13, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

But the above tuk has 'ਜੇ ' in it, which means if. For example, does the following statement in English make sense.

"If you are late to work and you do not perform"

Any person who has basic English skills will know that it is an incomplete sentence. It is different from the below tuk.

Awdysu iqsY Awdysu ]

Also, I have said many Gurbani tuks can stand alone. I did not say all of them.

Do you have any more examples?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

I have shown however that the one you tried to make stand alone actually says the opposite of what's its saying when taken in context. How do you reconcile the meanings being opposite? Is the full shabad wrong then? It also goes against other shabads like the one that contain this:

Page 599, Line 2

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਏਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੨॥

Gurmukẖ ek ḏarisat kar ḏekẖhu gẖat gẖat joṯ samo▫ī jī▫o. ||2||

As Gurmukh, look upon all with the single eye of equality; in each and every heart, the Divine Light is contained. ||2||

How can a Gurmukh view ALL with the single eye of equality if he expects his wife to prostrate him as a God? He is not viewing her as his equal then is he??

So that tuk you keep trying to say is telling women to be inferior to their husbands and view them as God (above them), it doesnt hold water to not only the shabad it's contain within, but also many other shabads that are saying the opposite. So no, your tuk can not stand alone as the meaning you wish to use it as. It CAN however stand alone with the meaning "view the trancendent Lord as their husband" meaning since that still agrees with context of the shabad its in, and also the rest of Gurbani.

[paapiman]

I have shown however that the one you tried to make stand alone actually says the opposite of what's its saying when taken in context. How do you reconcile the meanings being opposite? Is the full shabad wrong then? It also goes against other shabads like the one that contain this:

Page 599, Line 2

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਏਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੨॥

Gurmukẖ ek ḏarisat kar ḏekẖhu gẖat gẖat joṯ samo▫ī jī▫o. ||2||

As Gurmukh, look upon all with the single eye of equality; in each and every heart, the Divine Light is contained. ||2||

How can a Gurmukh view ALL with the single eye of equality if he expects his wife to prostrate him as a God? He is not viewing her as his equal then is he??

So that tuk you keep trying to say is telling women to be inferior to their husbands and view them as God (above them), it doesnt hold water to not only the shabad it's contain within, but also many other shabads that are saying the opposite. So no, your tuk can not stand alone as the meaning you wish to use it as. It CAN however stand alone with the meaning "view the trancendent Lord as their husband" meaning since that still agrees with context of the shabad its in, and also the rest of Gurbani.

The following two arths are not opposite to each other, according to me.

This is a teaching for a woman.

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥

कहु नानक जिनि प्रिउ परमेसरु करि जानिआ ॥

Kaho Nānak jin pari▫o parmesar kar jāni▫ā.

Says Nanak, she who looks upon the husband as a lord

Or

This is a teaching for all mankind

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥

कहु नानक जिनि प्रिउ परमेसरु करि जानिआ ॥

Kaho Nānak jin pari▫o parmesar kar jāni▫ā.

Says Nanak, she who looks upon the Transcendent Lord as her Husband,

It is very similar to the following tuk. It can have two arths - One is a blessing to a son by his mother and the other, a blessing by God to all humans. They don't contradict each other.

ਪੂਤਾ ਮਾਤਾ ਕੀ ਆਸੀਸ ॥

In fact, this is the beauty of Gurbani. It is able to talk to so many people with different levels, through the same verse.

Do you have any more examples of tuks which cannot stand alone?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 13, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

How can a Gurmukh view ALL with the single eye of equality if he expects his wife to prostrate him as a God? He is not viewing her as his equal then is he??

Sister, a Gurmukh male will never expect his wife to bow to him, but a Gurmukh female will do so, out of respect for her husband. It is similar to a Gurmukh female will not expect her son/daughter to bow to her, but her children will bow to her, out of respect.

It is pretty simple to understand.

Have you heard of the time travel sakhi, of a Gurmukh woman during the times of third master?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh