Singh123456777 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Could the bits about women being inferior to men have been added the same way? I always thought that (in writing) Guru Nanak Dev Ji had taught full equality. Could it be *possible* that culture crept in and added the bits about women seeing men as God etc?Which Granth would you be talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh123456777 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 My brother Singh123..., I have nothing against you nor paapi or anyone on here. I agree with you. I have always been of the position that many Granths are either fake or interpolated. But the thing is why the double standards? Because you believe in Raagmala, you say the part about Raagmala is added lateron but don't want to hear such an explanation for Guru Har Rai having 8 wives for example (not saying Suraj Parkash mentions 8 wives, I don't remember from my reading anymore, but as an example). If these Granths can be wrong, then Bhai Gurbachan Singh Bhindran who quoted from these books can be wrong too because the books he read from could've been flawed. I am not going off topic because the topic is also about Gurbani vs History.From reading granths I noticed that before the takeover by the British in1849 a lot of stuff wasn't crept in. It started happening when the British took over and wanted to weaken the panth. Before amritdhari Singhs used to have a 3 foot Sri sahib as a kakaar but the British took that away. Secondly I have no problem whatsoever with guru Ji marrying 8 sisters cause the other gurus had more than 1 wife. If this was the sole guru who married more than 1 wife then I would be more skeptical. But I admit that a lot of granths that were written after 1850 had stuff added later on but our major granths such as Sri Guru Granth Sahib or Sri dasam Granth or granths pre British rule were not changed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Which Granth would you be talking about? Speaking in generality... but the Rhetnamas mostly. I had read an article which suggested that initially the Gurus had taught about equality of women and men, was lost in the years after Guru Gobind Singh Ji left this physical world. And that culture, societal norms etc crept back in, to the point where teachings that were at the time 500 years ahead of society, went backwards, back to patriarchal norms as far as the views of roles of women. That initially, and during the 200 years when the Gurus were alive, that women enjoyed same freedoms as Sikh men, but then due to cultural influence, it reverted back to male dominant - female submissive model of society. It would certainly account for the discrepancy between gurbani and actual practice - between gurbani and some rehet mrayadas. Not trying to start fight (I am done stressing over this forum and some peoples views of me as a female - not you btw)... but just trying to understand why the discrepancy between gurbani and practice. And suggesting could it possibly be also the same way these other things were slowly introduced over time to cause controversy etc. that maybe the view of women was also introduced in this way, so that Sikhs would not have this benefit / appeal over Hindus / Muslims etc. at the time (or even in present day). Or was this view always present in which case its hard to find it in Gurbani. (excet for one tuk taken when you switch two words backwards and we wont mention that). All I know is I am trying to understand... and hating that I was born female because of the controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 We do only have one Rehet Maryada. There is only one Rehet Maryada recognized by Akal Takht - the seat of Sikh authority - called Sikh Rehet Maryada.... Problem is some who didn't get their own way, went off on their own and disregard it. And they then try to force their own RM down everyone else's throats as 'THE word of Guru JI" to try and guilt everyone. Exactly. Even though I don't know why you are still here. It's like the Akj'ers who insist on vegetarianism being the only way, when the SRM says only halal is prohibited for Sikhs. And also SrRM has given 100% clairification as to what the 5ks are. Perhaps you will let us know what you believe the 5 ks to be. And whether the group you follow are trying to insist they have the correct maryada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Further back... Sikhkhoj was questioning Whether or not Guru Ji married 8 sisters or if it's a tall tale made up by DDT Giani Gian Singh is Twarikh Guru Khalsa makes this claim as well. I have heard Sant Gurbachan Singh paraphrase this idea of Giani Gian Singhs in his katha but he didn't say what he beleived himslef. Sikh khoj should be able to tell us where Gurbachan Singh said this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 chatanga, 5 K's are kesh, kara, kanga, kachera and kirpan. SRM makes that very clear. I said I tie a dastar for different reason... because any reference to turban is not directed at men only. "let your total awareness be the turban on your head" in Gurbani and 52 Hukams instructs all sikhs to tie a turban. So my reasons are outside of any RM. Also, Khalsa roop... in his image... includes turban. Without it, Sikh women are difficult to distinguish from Hindu women. Also, they tend to cut hairs, and plait (braid) which is not allowed. And they usually end up bareheaded most of the time because a chunni is impossible to keep on your head when doing anything physical. I also don't follow any group at all. Just SRM. I don't associate as part of any jatha or taksal etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Satkirin, Guru ji did have more than a wife but those were special cases such as not having a child with the previous wife and she herself suggested/agreed for a second marriage. Or when one wife died. But claiming that Guru Har Rai married 8 sisters at the age of 11 is plain absurd. prove that there were special cases as such where Guru ji didn't have a child and Mata suggested or agreed for another marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 chatanga, 5 K's are kesh, kara, kanga, kachera and kirpan. ok and the veggie thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 I never said disregard Dasam Granth... at all. I did mention there are some who think that certain parts of it are not attributed to Guru Ji, on the one hand you dedicate yourself to the SRM which many Sikhs had a hand in formulating, yet you dismiss the gruop of Sikhs that did khoj of Dasam Granth for 12 years in the 1890s and declared the DG as we know it today as being the krit of Guru Ji? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 It says as long as its not meat killed the Muslim way (I assume because of the way they kill the animal being inhumane) and saying prayers over the animal as it suffers. I would also lump kosher in there too... so both halal and kosher for the same reasons. Having said that I am vegetarian *mostly* I do eat dairy and eggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 I also don't follow any group at all. Just SRM. I don't associate as part of any jatha or taksal etc. you parrot that so much yet "like" any post that the akj would approve of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Having said that I am vegetarian *mostly* I do eat dairy and eggs. great. when you go to your 2nd akj smagam tell them. and your reasons as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 on the one hand you dedicate yourself to the SRM which many Sikhs had a hand in formulating, yet you dismiss the gruop of Sikhs that did khoj of Dasam Granth for 12 years in the 1890s and declared the DG as we know it today as being the krit of Guru Ji? Where did I say I dismiss anything?? lol. I only dismiss discrimination of anyone.... whether its for caste, or gender, or colour, etc. Outside of that I am fine with everyone! Big happy brotherhood lets hug and kiss and makeup! I am only against forcing any human into a lower position than any other human simply based on biology, or birth. Because I truly believe (and know) that's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 You did the same? Remember? course he doesnt he's an akj'er. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 What is the proof that those Granths on the paintings are Guru Granth and Dasam Granth? It could be two Guru Granth Sahib birs as is done now during some akhand paaths too. a really weak argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 you parrot that so much yet "like" any post that the akj would approve of. Only when it's about discrimination / equality. I have only a few choices... I can not follow DDT Nihang etc. because they choose to see me as inferior for simply being female. So i have no choice... You have a choice and can follow whoeevr you want. My choices are limited. Because I believe in equality and equal opportunity for everyone, I can only follow the choices that have that freedom. Otherwise, I would be forced to consider myself as inferior, lesser, subordinate, servile, to my brothers. That equates to God like men better... God must hate women, or being born into this body must be a punishment. And then life sucks as a woman. It becomes all about pleasing men, making their life worth living, while I suffer inside. And I cant do that. So yes I support AKJs stance on women and men being equal and deserving equal opportunity in Sikhi. If DDT changed their stance, and said that women and men should both have equal opportunity in Sikh including all seva (including Panj Pyares) then I would support them too! Outside of the male / female debate... I support DDT on a lot of things! But I still can't follow them or their GRM for the above reasons. But if DDT / Nihangs etc changed their views of women, I'd be fully supportive. And yes I disagree with vegetarianism being forced. It very clearly does say 'the muslim way' I know lots of Sikhs who eat meat. I would have no problem telling that to anyone - including my AKJ friends. They have issue with me eating eggs... but we still get along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 When marriage is said to be ONE soul in TWO bodies, then why would Gurus have more than one wife? And... isn't having multiple wives degrading to the wives? The one soul in two bodies is not man and woman. If we were to take it that simply, your pathetic argument would be ammunition for gays to use and insist on same sex marriages. The one soul in two bodies is Waheguru and the human in this gurbani tuk. why is having more than one wife degrading? they don't become commodities just because you say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 When you marry someone, its not a business transaction. Its to become that person's one and only. Unless you view marriage as a business transaction. I don't. I want that deep spiritual connection to my husband and to be honest, if there was another women it would be impossible to quell jealousy. How do you divvy up time how can a husband look at one wife and say I love you, while not also saying it to the others, and then you have 'share' this love which I believe is meant for two people... unless the women also have multiple husbands to share their love with. Just watch an episode on TLC of Sister wives. They cant avoid the jealousy and he can barely spread his time among them. It just creates a bad situation. And turns marriage from two people who are in a loving partnership to help each other towards the same spiritual goal, and turns it into simply a means to get children. I cant see how there would be love there among multiple spouses. I just cant. The wives would all start competing amongst each other to be #1 etc. It would be horrible... I cant imagine having multiple husbands either... Because none would be my soul mate... theyd all be men I obviously liked but Id never be able to feel closer to one over the other without causing jealousy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) The one soul in two bodies is not man and woman. If we were to take it that simply, your pathetic argument would be ammunition for gays to use and insist on same sex marriages. The one soul in two bodies is Waheguru and the human in this gurbani tuk. Yes I know... same as the tuk about seeing the transcendent lord as husband... its not speaking about physical wife and physical husband. Its not telling wives to see their physical husbands as God, its telling all of us (soul brides) to see Waheguru as Husband Lord. ...why do you just want to argue anyway?? Edited May 18, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted May 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 If Gyan Singh is your oldest source then thats a shame because it was written only in 1880. But make up your minds, did Gurbachan Singh quote Twareekh or some Gurbilas Mani Singh? Because now Chatanga is claiming Gurbachan based his claim on Gyan Singhs book. Does Suraj Parkash mention this fact too? I need references please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted May 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 a really weak argument. Based on what parameter? And saying its a SGGS and DG is as weak though because there is no clear indication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted May 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 prove that there were special cases as such where Guru ji didn't have a child and Mata suggested or agreed for another marriage. Basic knowledge. Get some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Based on what parameter? And saying its a SGGS and DG is as weak though because there is no clear indication. based on the parameter of reasoning. Saroops were few and far between in those periods. It took years to copy a saroop and have it verified for accuracy. Only when printing came into effect did we get the abundance of saroops we now have. Most places of worship at that time were Dharamsala, not Gurdwaras. But yet we are seeing two here side by side ? For what purpose would there be two? If a handful of people were listening to it? Yet there are albeit limited sources that say wherever Aad Guru was parkash Dasam Guru was as well. So on the likelihood of it which would you say is a more reasonable assertion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Basic knowledge. Get some. So you can't prove it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 If Gyan Singh is your oldest source then thats a shame because it was written only in 1880. But make up your minds, did Gurbachan Singh quote Twareekh or some Gurbilas Mani Singh? Because now Chatanga is claiming Gurbachan based his claim on Gyan Singhs book. Does Suraj Parkash mention this fact too? I need references please. I never said anything about oldest sources or newest sources so please be careful of the words you choose. "Chatanga is claiming"... what? I said I heard in his katha talk of it. I never said he he based on Gyani Ji's assertion. I said, and I made it crystal clear the first time, that according to Sant Gurbachan Singh, Giani Gian Singh wrote in Twarikh Guru Khalsa that Guru Ji had 8 wives. Now Gurbachan Singh didn't say whether this was to be accepted. He said further that some scholars believed that Guru Ji had 4 wives and each wife brought a maid with them. Gurbachan Singh never said either of the two were fact, he said (and i repeat it for a third time for your malicious mind) that ACCORDING to these scholars... Just because you paraphrase someone it doesn't mean you believe it yourself. You know this and I know you know this but seem intent on making very derisive statements. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts