Sikh Rehat Maryada

[paapiman]

3. Gurdwaras restricting women from having equal participation in religious duties... chaur sahib seva, taking hukam, participating in akhand paaths, kirtan, panj pyares etc. (even though these things have been explicitly clarified in the SIkh Rehet Maryada... which though some disagree with, is still the closest thing we have to panthic unified rehit maryada).

There is currently NO one Sikh Rehat Maryada. The so-called Sikh Rehat Maryada was not accepted by the panth.

How can the orthodox sects of Sikhism accept a maryada which takes out two main Gurbanees from the nitnaym? There are many more issues other than this. Please listen to the scholar below.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[CdnSikhGirl]

WJKK WJKF,

And DDT's GRM is not in line with Gurbani on equality of gender....

When I read SRM it seems closest to the ideals in SGGSJ. We may never have a fully unified RM because DDT won't budge on their views of women. Though I could see SRM having those two banis added... would that be enough? Probably not, because as I said, there are those Singhs who just don't want to even fathom seeing Singhnis as equals.

Anyway, Isn't a Rhetnama supposed to espouse the ideals given in Gurbani?? Or else what's the point?? A Rhetnama is not valid if it doesn't agree with what is written in SGGSJ. We were told highest authority is SGGSJ no matter what. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji IS our only living Guru.... not any man made Rhetnamas.... And not ONE place in SGGSJ does it suggest that anything should be restricted for women. Not one spot. If there is I challenge you to post it.

The SRM took many years to deliberate. Of course on order to get the most people to agree on something, some things have to be compromised. Still, it's the closest thing we have to Unified Panthic RM. Even if some still disagree. Those groups are welcome to follow their own RMs as long as they don't try to shove it down anyone elses throats. By that I mean (in the nicest way) DDT should not be protesting at Darbar Sahib to disallow women from doing kirtan, even when Akal Takht ruled to allow them, especially when SRM is the RM that's 'supposed' to be installed there. DDT is perfectly ok to follow GRM at their own Gurdwaras.

And again... as I said in another thread. Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave full authority on the panth to make decisions. Sikhi is able to evolve. So even if the original rhetnamas said those things about restricting women, there is no reason for Singhs to feel upset about women having equal status now in the present. If the panth decides that women should have equal particiaption now, then what happened way back when should not matter. So even DDT could change this. They do not need to follow one specific and old rhetnama. Guru Gobind SIngh Ji gave the panth authority to change it. So why won't they change their feelings on women?? And for some of them (even on this forum) their feelings about restricting Singhnis into inferior positions, they seem more passionate about that, than they are about stopping drug use in Punjab, etc. Why is that???

Page 1020, Line 15
ਆਪੇ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਨਾਰੀ ॥
Āpe purakẖ āpe hī nārī.
You Yourself are the male, and You Yourself are the female.

Page 20, Line 8
ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਨਿਰੰਤਰੀ ਬੂਝੈ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਸਾਰੁ ॥੪॥
Gẖat gẖat joṯ niranṯrī būjẖai gurmaṯ sār. ||4||
One who sees that Light within each and every heart understands the Essence of the Guru's Teachings. ||4||

Page 93, Line 18
ਰਵਿਦਾਸ ਸਮ ਦਲ ਸਮਝਾਵੈ ਕੋਊ ॥੩॥
Raviḏās sam ḏal samjẖāvai ko▫ū. ||3||
O Ravi Daas, one who understands that the Lord is equally in all, is very rare. ||3||

Page 223, Line 4

ਨਾਰੀ ਪੁਰਖ ਸਬਾਈ ਲੋਇ ॥੩॥
Nārī purakẖ sabā▫ī lo▫e. ||3||
Among all the women and the men, His Light is shining. ||3||

Page 648, Line 5
ਗੁਰ ਸਿਖਾ ਇਕੋ ਪਿਆਰੁ ਗੁਰ ਮਿਤਾ ਪੁਤਾ ਭਾਈਆ ॥
Gur sikẖā iko pi▫ār gur miṯā puṯā bẖā▫ī▫ā.
The Guru loves all of His GurSikhs equally well, like friends, children and siblings.

Page 1061, Line 19
ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਪਉਣੁ ਵਹੈ ਇਕ ਰੰਗੀ ਮਿਲਿ ਪਵਣੈ ਸਭ ਵਜਾਇਦਾ ॥੪॥
Gẖat gẖat pa▫uṇ vahai ik rangī mil pavṇai sabẖ vajā▫iḏā. ||4||
The breath flows equally through the hearts of each and every being. Receiving the breath, all the instruments sing. ||4||

Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

WJKK WJKF,

And DDT's GRM is not in line with Gurbani on equality of gender....

When I read SRM it seems closest to the ideals in SGGSJ. We may never have a fully unified RM because DDT won't budge on their views of women. Though I could see SRM having those two banis added... would that be enough? Probably not, because as I said, there are those Singhs who just don't want to even fathom seeing Singhnis as equals.

If it was ONLY about DDT, I would have thought about it. But all orthodox sects of Sikhism (DDT, Nanaksar, Nihangs, etc) have more or less the same views regarding women. How do you reply to that?

How can we start following sects/cults which started many years after the tenth master?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[paapiman]

WJKK WJKF,

And again... as I said in another thread. Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave full authority on the panth to make decisions. Sikhi is able to evolve. So even if the original rhetnamas said those things about restricting women, there is no reason for Singhs to feel upset about women having equal status now in the present. If the panth decides that women should have equal particiaption now, then what happened way back when should not matter. So even DDT could change this. They do not need to follow one specific and old rhetnama. Guru Gobind SIngh Ji gave the panth authority to change it. So why won't they change their feelings on women?? And for some of them (even on this forum) their feelings about restricting Singhnis into inferior positions, they seem more passionate about that, than they are about stopping drug use in Punjab, etc. Why is that???

I agree that Maharaaj gave full authority to the panth which means that sects which started from that time must be given precedence over other cults/sects which sprang up later. Orthodox sects would include Nanaksar, DDT, Nihangs, Sevapanthi, Udhasi, etc

Whatever happened during the times of Satgurus (which was approved by the Satguru) was perfect. No authority in this world can change that, including the panth. We should all follow that blindly.

First example - Women were allowed to do seva in the langar. No person should restrict them from doing it.

Second example - Women were NEVER allowed to be in Panj Pyaray, even though there were women at that time, who had reached the state of Brahamgyan. No person should change that.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[CdnSikhGirl]

I agree that Maharaaj gave full authority to the panth which means that sects which started from that time must be given precedence over other cults/sects which sprang up later. Orthodox sects would include Nanaksar, DDT, Nihangs, Sevapanthi, Udhasi, etc

Whatever happened during the times of Satgurus (which was approved by the Satguru) was perfect. No authority in this world can change that, including the panth. We should all follow that blindly.

First example - Women were allowed to do seva in the langar. No person should restrict them from doing it.

Second example - Women were NEVER allowed to be in Panj Pyaray, even though there were women at that time, who had reached the state of Brahamgyan. No person should change that.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

We again have to disagree... I will never take Amrit from only Singhs who see me as inferior or not worthy.

Think about it. To say that women can neever be Panj Pyares is the same as saying that women are not as high spiritually as men are.... because it would be saying that women absolutely REQUIRE men for their spiritual progression (because everyone must at some point receive Amrit correct??) while men do not require women at all. I do not believe that I am so beneath men, that I require men for my spiritual progression. I am not against men being Panj when I receive amrit... I am only against the suggestion that I REQUIRE males for my own spiritual progression. Its saying that women are not good enough to do it on their own.

The original Panj Pyares gender did not matter. All souls are the same... genderless. Five souls gave their heads... five Sikhs gave their heads. Gender is transitory. Amrit Sanchar is a matter of spiritual progression... not physical. Therefore physical gender of those giving Amrit does not matter.

Of course they were allowed to do Langar... women relegated to the kitchen and out of sight... that's how its always been! Those Singhs who think that simply because they have the same physical genitalia as the original five Punj Pyares gives them special privilege are missing the point.

Why should men NEVER have any restrictions put on them at all... while women are always restricted from doing some things?? Why do men always have to have privilege over women??

We should ask ourselves just Why does Gurbani NOT support this view??

Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

We again have to disagree... I will never take Amrit from only Singhs who see me as inferior or not worthy.

Singhs never consider women as inferior or not worthy.

Think about it. To say that women can neever be Panj Pyares is the same as saying that women are not as high spiritually as men are.... because it would be saying that women absolutely REQUIRE men for their spiritual progression (because everyone must at some point receive Amrit correct??) while men do not require women at all. I do not believe that I am so beneath men, that I require men for my spiritual progression. I am not against men being Panj when I receive amrit... I am only against the suggestion that I REQUIRE males for my own spiritual progression. Its saying that women are not good enough to do it on their own.

Men will always need WOMEN to take birth. At first, a Sikh would need a WOMAN to give him birth but later on, a woman (and a man) would need FIVE GURSIKH MEN to give her/him a new birth.

One birth by women and another by men. Sounds like equality.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 12, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

Singhs never consider women as inferior or not worthy.

Men will always need WOMEN to take birth. At first, a Sikh would need a WOMAN to give him birth but later on, a woman (and a man) would need FIVE GURSIKH MEN to give her/him a new birth.

One birth by women and another by men. Sounds like equality.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

WWJKK WJKF

Except that in physical birth BOTH men and women are needed. A woman can not make a baby by herself! Similarly, Spiritual rebrith should take BOTH. And if we are following original then why is it not reserved for a Singhni only to put the sugar puffs in the amrit and hold the iron bowl?? That was a woman in the original. And this has not been restricted for women only... Why are Singhs not told they may never put the sugar in the amrit?? (Since we are following the example of the first for all time) Should this duty not be reserved for only a woman? Shoudn't it be stated in GRM that ONLY a Singhni may do this if we are following original example??

(It comes down to men not liking to ever be told they cant do something. They always have to have a one up over women. Its the nature of domination... Rhetnamas were ALL written by humans through human perspective of what they experienced and their own interpretation. These rhetnamas were obviously written by men who didnt consider women as equals, contrary to what is written in Gurbani and what the Gurus taught.)

P.S. - I am taking Amrit in Kashmir... and ALL Gurdwaras in Kashmir do not subscribe to the controversial 'orthodox' rhetnamas. ALL of the Gurdwaras there including the Historical ones follow only SRM. Not a single Gurdwara there uses GRM or any other Rehet Maryada. In fact at the state level, they agreed that ALL gurdwaras there follow only SRM) ...And the Gurdwara where I am taking it has had female Panj Pyares and since the day I am doing it, is being specially planned for me since I will be there only certain time... if I wish I can have females give me amrit... or a mix of both...

Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

Except that in physical birth BOTH men and women are needed. A woman can not make a baby by herself! Similarly, Spiritual rebrith should take BOTH. And if we are following original then why is it not reserved for a Singhni only to put the sugar puffs in the amrit and hold the iron bowl?? That was a woman in the original. And this has not been restricted for women only... Why are Singhs not told they may never put the sugar in the amrit?? (Since we are following the example of the first for all time) Should this duty not be reserved for only a woman? Shoudn't it be stated in GRM that ONLY a Singhni may do this if we are following original example??

Women have given birth to babies WITHOUT male intervention in the past. Foremost example of this is, Shromani Bhagat Baba Kabeer jee Maharaaj. Bhagat jee's mother was a virgin.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 12, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

WJKK WJKF,

Forgive me for saying but you are now grasping... I will follow the SRM because it stands the test of agreeing with SGGSJ. GRM does not. SGGSJ does not anywhere state that women should be restricted or controlled by men in any way or play less of a role in Sikhism than men. In fact it encourages the opposite. It also states that the same light is in both equally. That same light of God is in both genders equally. It also says gender / this body is transitory. A part of the illusion. Only when we can see past these physical shells will we spiritually progress. Unfortunately too many Singhs are stuck in their gender identities (Ego) to get past it and recognize that SAME divine light in all equally.

You can choose to follow RMs that focus instead more on the phsyical shells. I'll follow the RM that sees every soul as equal.

[paapiman]

P.S. - I am taking Amrit in Kashmir... and ALL Gurdwaras in Kashmir do not subscribe to the controversial 'orthodox' rhetnamas. ALL of the Gurdwaras there including the Historical ones follow only SRM. Not a single Gurdwara there uses GRM or any other Rehet Maryada. In fact at the state level, they agreed that ALL gurdwaras there follow only SRM) ...And the Gurdwara where I am taking it has had female Panj Pyares and since the day I am doing it, is being specially planned for me since I will be there only certain time... if I wish I can have females give me amrit... or a mix of both...

Even if all GURUDWARAS in the world start following the so-called SRM, it does not make it the maryada of the panth. There was a time in Sikh history, when some corrupt people in gurughars did not accept parshaad made by so-called low caste people. Would you accept that as a part of maryada?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 12, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

Even if all GURUDWARAS in the world start following the so-called SRM, it does not make it the maryada of the panth. There was a time in Sikh history, when some corrupt people in gurughars did not accept parshaad made by so-called low caste people. Would you accept that as a part of maryada?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

All these superficial things that cause us to elevate some while lowering others. There is no higher or lower status. All are equal. All these status distinctions were removed by the Gurus... caste, gender, colour, creed, etc.

Just because there are many Singhs still brought up and taught to believe women are lower than them and that they have male privilege, doesn't make it right.

For centuries many men thought women should throw themselves on their dead husbands funeral pyres too... they too were wrong!

[paapiman]

WJKK WJKF,

Forgive me for saying but you are now grasping... I will follow the SRM because it stands the test of agreeing with SGGSJ. GRM does not. SGGSJ does not anywhere state that women should be restricted or controlled by men in any way or play less of a role in Sikhism than men. In fact it encourages the opposite. It also states that the same light is in both equally. That same light of God is in both genders equally. It also says gender / this body is transitory. A part of the illusion. Only when we can see past these physical shells will we spiritually progress. Unfortunately too many Singhs are stuck in their gender identities (Ego) to get past it and recognize that SAME divine light in all equally.

Let me ask you a question. How come the so-called SRM does not mention about Sampat paath? Sampat paath was taught to the Singhs by tenth master himself. How come, it is missing in the so-called SRM? How can the panth accept an incomplete document?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[CdnSikhGirl]

SRM contains the basic that was agreed upon. It doesn't mean that you cant do extra beyond that. Its not telling you not to!

Also... following on your comment....How can the Panth accept a discriminatory document that puts mother sisters daughters as inferior?

Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

SRM does not bar anyone from that! It's the absolute basic that should be followed. It doesn't mean that extra things are not allowed. If u want to do then do it!

How can the Panth accept a discriminatory document that puts mother sisters daughters as inferior?

Why did Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh jee Maharaaj NOT allow women in Panj Pyaray, even though some women had reached Brahamgyan? On the other hand, women were given rights to do seva in langar by Satguru jee himself.

Follow Satguru jee OR follow so-called SRM? Choice is yours.

Panth cannot accept anything which goes against the hukam of Satguru jee.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[CdnSikhGirl]

Why did Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh jee Maharaaj NOT allow women in Panj Pyaray, even though some women had reached Brahamgyan? On the other hand, women were given rights to do seva in langar by Satguru jee himself.

Follow Satguru jee OR follow so-called SRM? Choice is yours.

Panth cannot accept anything which goes against the hukam of Satguru jee.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

How do we know he did 'not allow' women???

All we know is that in oral history, it was passed down that there were no women. Maybe none ever volunteered?? Maybe those women did not want to do that seva?

And here we are again back to the menial task of cooking for women... hahahah seems cooking, serving men and cleaning and having babies is all we are good for.

It doesn't mean he did not allow them. Did you hear him personally say that no women could??? Did anyone for that matter? Is it written anywhere by Guru Ji that he specifically SAID women were not allowed??? I challenge you to show me!

He DID however, write his 52 hukams AFTER 1699, in which he contained all the important points... yet if this was such an important thing to him to discriminate against women... then why did he not include a statement restricting women???

Absence of proof is NOT proof of absence!!!

Just because we have no evidence that it DID happen, is NOT proof that it was not ALLOWED to happen!! It very well COULD have happened! There COULD have been women as Panj Pyares. Do we even know much about the Panj Pyares after the first day? Who were they etc? How do we know for sure none ever had women? History could have been written to say 'five Sikhs' in which case we'd never know. Or men who had something against women, could have chosen to not specifically state women participated. We will never know. But absence of proof is not proof of absence. The only way wed know for sure is if SGGSJ says something about restricting women (which it doesn't) or if Guru Ji had written to restrict women in his 52 Hukams (which he didn't). I think that leaves it pretty open ended! ALl else is speculation... by MEN!

Further he said "Whenever and wherever five baptised Sikhs come together, the Guru would be present" not five sikh men...

And once again... Panth was given authority to make decisions... so SRM is valid!

Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

How do we know he did 'not allow' women???

All we know is that in oral history, it was passed down that there were no women. Maybe none ever volunteered?? Maybe those women did not want to do that seva?

And here we are again back to the menial task of cooking for women... hahahah seems cooking, serving men and cleaning and having babies is all we are good for.

It doesn't mean he did not allow them. Did you hear him personally say that no women could??? Did anyone for that matter? Is it written anywhere by Guru Ji that he specifically SAID women were not allowed??? I challenge you to show me!

He DID however, write his 52 hukams AFTER 1699, in which he contained all the important points... yet if this was such an important thing to him to discriminate against women... then why did he not include a statement restricting women???

Absence of proof is NOT proof of absence!!!

Just because we have no evidence that it DID happen, is NOT proof that it was not ALLOWED to happen!! It very well COULD have happened! There COULD have been women as Panj Pyares. Do we even know much about the Panj Pyares after the first day? Who were they etc? How do we know for sure none ever had women? History could have been written to say 'five Sikhs' in which case we'd never know. Or men who had something against women, could have chosen to not specifically state women participated. We will never know. But absence of proof is not proof of absence. The only way wed know for sure is if SGGSJ says something about restricting women (which it doesn't) or if Guru Ji had written to restrict women in his 52 Hukams (which he didn't). I think that leaves it pretty open ended! ALl else is speculation... by MEN!

Further he said "Whenever and wherever five baptised Sikhs come together, the Guru would be present" not five sikh men...

And once again... Panth was given authority to make decisions... so SRM is valid!

So according to you, all the Sikh historians,gursikhs,scholars, etc of that time forgot to mention about such a revolutionary event while they mentioned about women doing seva in langar, listening to katha, kirtan, etc, which were in a sense, less revolutionary.

I challenge you to find any source of information (you will never find it) which says that women were in Punj Pyaray during tenth master's time. At Hajoor Sahib, women do not even qualify for khande da amrit.

We can keep debating about this for a long time, but I don't think there will be a conclusion. Let's go to the main source.

There is a clear tuk in Gurbani which states that a woman should look upon her husband as a Lord.

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਉ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥

Says Nanak, she who looks upon her husband as Lord

ਧੰਨੁ ਸਤੀ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਰਵਾਨਿਆ ॥੪॥੩੦॥੯੯॥

is the blessed 'satee'; she is received with honor in the Court of the Lord. ||4||30||99||

I know there is a deeper meaning to it, but you cannot nullify the akhree arth of it as Gurbani is all truth. If you do not believe in this akhree arth, then you should not believe in akhree arths of all Gurbani tuks as many tuks have deeper meanings to it.

I challenge you to find a tuk in Gurbani which instructs a man to look upon his wife as a Goddess.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 12, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

Glad you brought up that misinterpreted tuk! It does NOT say to look at her husband as God!!! If you read the full shabad in context you'd know it was speaking against practice of sati by Hindu women. Instead it says to view GOD as your husband, (husband lord) that is the true sati by living through the grief instead of killing herself.

You can't take one liners and twist to suit your need! The full shabad itself gives the context.

Please don't tell me u expect your wife to look at you as God??? Please don't say this...

Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[CdnSikhGirl]

Here it is by the way... Wishful thinking that a guy would think it's telling him women should look to him as God... Lol

ਜਲੈ ਨ ਪਾਈਐ ਰਾਮ ਸਨੇਹੀ ॥

जलै न पाईऐ राम सनेही ॥

Jalai na pā▫ī▫ai rām sanehī.

By burning oneself, the Beloved Lord is not obtained.

ਕਿਰਤਿ ਸੰਜੋਗਿ ਸਤੀ ਉਠਿ ਹੋਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

किरति संजोगि सती उठि होई ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥

Kiraṯ sanjog saṯī uṯẖ ho▫ī. ||1|| rahā▫o.

Only by the actions of destiny does she rise up and burn herself, as a 'satee'. ||1||Pause||

ਦੇਖਾ ਦੇਖੀ ਮਨਹਠਿ ਜਲਿ ਜਾਈਐ ॥

देखा देखी मनहठि जलि जाईऐ ॥

Ḏekẖā ḏekẖī manhaṯẖ jal jā▫ī▫ai.

Imitating what she sees, with her stubborn mind-set, she goes into the fire.

ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਸੰਗੁ ਨ ਪਾਵੈ ਬਹੁ ਜੋਨਿ ਭਵਾਈਐ ॥੨॥

प्रिअ संगु न पावै बहु जोनि भवाईऐ ॥२॥

Pari▫a sang na pāvai baho jon bẖavā▫ī▫ai. ||2||

She does not obtain the Company of her Beloved Lord, and she wanders through countless incarnations. ||2||

ਸੀਲ ਸੰਜਮਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਆਗਿਆ ਮਾਨੈ ॥

सील संजमि प्रिअ आगिआ मानै ॥

Sīl sanjam pari▫a āgi▫ā mānai.

With pure conduct and self-restraint, she surrenders to her Husband Lord's Will;

ਤਿਸੁ ਨਾਰੀ ਕਉ ਦੁਖੁ ਨ ਜਮਾਨੈ ॥੩॥

तिसु नारी कउ दुखु न जमानै ॥३॥

Ŧis nārī ka▫o ḏukẖ na jamānai. ||3||

that woman shall not suffer pain at the hands of the Messenger of Death. ||3||

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,

ਧੰਨੁ ਸਤੀ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਰਵਾਨਿਆ ॥੪॥੩੦॥੯੯॥

धंनु सती दरगह परवानिआ ॥४॥३०॥९९॥ Ḏẖan saṯī ḏargėh parvāni▫ā. ||4||30||99||

is the blessed 'satee'; she is received with honor in the Court of the Lord. ||4||30||99||

She surrenders to her husband lords will (God) that her physical husband died and she must live on and not burn herself on his funeral pyre. She lives through the grief and putting her trust in God as her 'husband lord'

In a larger context it's telling all of us men and women to not give up when there is a challenge but to go on in spite of it while putting trust in God to whom we are ALL soul brides.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

Glad you brought up that misinterpreted tuk! It does NOT say to look at her husband as God!!! If you read the full shabad in context you'd know it was speaking against practice of sati by Hindu women. Instead it says to view GOD as your husband, (husband lord) that is the true sati by living through the grief instead of killing herself.

You can't take one liners and twist to suit your need! The full shabad itself gives the context.

Please don't tell me u expect your wife to look at you as God??? Please don't say this...

Haha.. nah sister, I don't expect my wife to look upon me as God as I am a big sinner. I will respect her a lot, in case I get married (hopefully I don't get married). But I expect you to look upon your husband as a demi-god atleast, especially if he is a Gursikh.

I will try to find out the uthanka for that shabad. More research is needed here on my part.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[CdnSikhGirl]

I will look to my husband as my equal and he will look to me as his equal. And we will both be Gursikhs. There is no hierarchy in marriage. He is not above me and I am not above him. Gurbani tells us the divine light is in ALL equally

Look above I posted the shabad

Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

She surrenders to her husband lords will (God) that her physical husband died and she must live on and not burn herself on his funeral pyre. She lives through the grief and putting her trust in God as her 'husband lord'

In a larger context it's telling all of us men and women to not give up when there is a challenge but to go on in spite of it while putting trust in God to whom we are ALL soul brides.

Sati does not only refer to the practice of women being thrown into fire. There are different types of Sati. The foremost Sati is a lady who will die, on hearing the death of her husband. Example of this, was the wife of Bhagat Jaidev jee Maharaaj. I think the lowest level is a woman who does not commit adultery.

Similarly, there are different levels for a Jati, which pertains to males.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[paapiman]

I will look to my husband as my equal and he will look to me as his equal. And we will both be Gursikhs. There is no hierarchy in marriage. He is not above me and I am not above him. Gurbani tells us the divine light is in ALL equally

Look above I posted the shabad

Also, just for your info, there are Sikh women out there who consider their husbands as lords or believe in the concept of Pativarta dharam. My mother is one such example. She used to bow to my father (like one does to Gursikhs, parents, etc) when she was young.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[CdnSikhGirl]

Either way it's using sati as a metaphor for working through challenges in life without giving up and taking easy way out. Instead we have to deal with them and live on while putting trust in God as our Husband Lord.... ALL of us male and female as we are ALL soul brides.

There is no way reading the context of the shabad to suggest that it's telling women to treat their husbands as a God lol

[paapiman]

Either way it's using sati as a metaphor for working through challenges in life without giving up and taking easy way out. Instead we have to deal with them and live on while putting trust in God as our Husband Lord.... ALL of us male and female as we are ALL soul brides.

There is no way reading the context of the shabad to suggest that it's telling women to treat their husbands as a God lol

I think many Gurbani tuks can stand alone too without uthanka or context.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[CdnSikhGirl]

Also, just for your info, there are Sikh women out there who consider their husbands as lords or believe in the concept of Pativarta dharam. My mother is one such example. She used to bow to my father (like one does to Gursikhs, parents, etc) when she was young.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

So if people actually believe that then is being born a woman a punishment? Did your mom think maybe she did something wrong in a past life to be born as s female where she was put into such subordinate position?

Gurbani only tells that it's difficult to attain this human life... And that we can ALL merge back with God not just men. So that makes no sense. Gurbani also as I have already quoted says divine light is in ALL both genders equally!!! How do u reconcile that if your Mom bowed to your dad?

We are only supposed to Matha tek SGGSJ only!!!