chatanga1 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 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! You said you still have issues with Dasam Granth. That is accepting of the research done by the Sodhak Committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 * If Brahmgyanis really do get their knowledge from God, then how come we have had brahmgyanis who contradict each other on major issues such as Ragmala, Kakkaar (Bhindranwaley vs Randhir Singh), That really depends on who you see as brahmgyani. you think Randhir Singh was a brahmgyani? Fact is that good, noble souls who meditate, connect to god and fight for justice do exist BUT claiming that they are all knowing and putting your full confidence in every of their words is your own stupidity. exactly. this is how i feel when i see the akj and their stance on Randhir Singh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 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. thats a very broad statement to make. freedoms in what sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted May 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 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. It is stated in Gurbani Path Darpan. Gurbachan had a hand in authoring that book , or would you deny that too? You say Twareekh, Paapi says Gurbchan quoted some Gurbilas. First decide amongst yourselves what source mentions this. If it is Gyan Singh then thats a non issue because such a late source does not even count (written 1.5 century after Guru Gobind Singh) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted May 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 That really depends on who you see as brahmgyani. you think Randhir Singh was a brahmgyani? exactly. this is how i feel when i see the akj and their stance on Randhir Singh. You are foolish for assuming I am an AKJ. Not every anti Taksali is AKJ Randhir Singh was just a normal human being, he had some good points and some bad points just like Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwala. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 You said you still have issues with Dasam Granth. That is accepting of the research done by the Sodhak Committee.My issues with Dassam Granth are not the granth itself, but in how some people wrongly perceive Chitropakyan as being anti-woman. It's not. Its using allegory to speak of the feminine principle *not physical gender* in the Universe. But some use it as a means to justify putting women down and restricting them. Or use it to say that women have loose morals, more kaam etc. It was never meant to make women look this way. Thats what I have issue with... not the writing itself. Just how it was wrongly interpreted by some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) thats a very broad statement to make. freedoms in what sense?Are you saying they didn't? Or that they never should have?What is your personal view on this? Were the Gurus sexist or did they advocate for women equality? We still have not definitively figured this out yet.Sikhi boasts as being the only religion to have full gender equality. Is that a lie? If so, then why is it all over the internet and in virtually ever pamphlet about Sikhi? If its a religion by men for men, and women aren't really welcome (or only welcome with restrictions) then why not come straight out and say so? At least Islam doesnt hide the fact that men are considered 'a degree above women' (from Quran).I am only trying to find out... since this is discussion of history vs gurbani... gurbani over and over states all humans are equal, same divine jot in all of us equally, male and female. But actual practice seems to not agree with Gurbani. So I am just trying to understand why there is a discrepency. Whether it is culture, or whether the Gurus really thought / taught that women were inferior to men.I said that is what I had read... in virtually every book on Sikhi it makes the statement that prior to Sikhi women's situation in India was terible. Women were considered property of men, and had no rights. Then Sikhi came along, and Guru Nanak taught that women and men deserved equal rights and treatment. At least this is what nearly ALL Sikh books boast. And then they say that in the years following 1699, cultural influence saw women's position fall back into one of submissiveness, servile. This was blamed partially on rhetnammas written by those with Brahamin background (Chaupa Singh) and suggested that their personal views were written into their rhetnammas. I am only referring to what I read. I don't know what the truth is... Right now I have no idea if God / the Gurus see me as inferior or not! I am trying to figure that out. And if being born into female body is 'inferior' then is this life a punishment for something I did ina prior life? I thought that Gurbani says that human life at all, is very very rare and is our chance to meet God. If so, then how could I have messed up so badly as to be born a woman (if in fact women are seen as inferior). And if we are inferior, I want to definitely prevent from being born as a woman again!Women once seen as leaders in Sikhi and equals by the Gurus had been transformed back into simple 'housewives/servants'. I don't need to quote a specific book because nearly ALL books on Sikhi make this statement. So I am just trying to understand... are you saying they are all wrong? Were women housewife/servant all along? Then what about the stories of 52 women sent out to lead and teach by Guru Amardas Ji (52 of the 146 were women)? Or was that a lie too?If these are all lies, then someone should work to fix it because lots of women who were not born into Sikh families are being duped into believing Sikhi sees them as equals and that they have equal rights in Sikhi to the men. This is drawing a lot of people into Sikhi. If this is wrong, then someone should change these things starting with Wikipedia etc. At least be honest about it like the Muslims are. If women are seen in Sikhi as inferior to men, and are expected to bow to and worship men as God, are restricted from doing seva that men are not, and are discouraged from taking amrit (and were never meant to from 1699) then these things should be right out there for everyone to read, so that nobody will get the wrong impression of Sikhism. Because right now nearly every resource on Sikhi says the opposite and declares Sikhi as the ONLY gender egalitarian religion in the world.You seem to only want to argue for the sake of arguing. You come off as not being very personable... or maybe it's only towards me, because I am a female (and don't know my place) lol. ?? Edited May 19, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaikaara Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 This bani is more about the foolishness of men..who were in some important positions and got entangled. I wouldnt call it anti woman.The tales told do not curse women..but how those women were successful in fooling men. My issues with Dassam Granth are not the granth itself, but in how some people wrongly perceive Chitropakyan as being anti-woman. It's not. Its using allegory to speak of the feminine principle *not physical gender* in the Universe. But some use it as a means to justify putting women down and restricting them. Or use it to say that women have loose morals, more kaam etc. It was never meant to make women look this way. Thats what I have issue with... not the writing itself. Just how it was wrongly interpreted by some. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 This bani is more about the foolishness of men..who were in some important positions and got entangled. I wouldnt call it anti woman.The tales told do not curse women..but how those women were successful in fooling men.When I read it, the immediate outward message I got was... the women were not in a position of any power, and so they used what means they could in order to get their own voices heard and have their own needs / desires met. And the only tool they had was to fool those who were in power... we see it with kids all the time! A child will try and manipulate parents to get what they want. Some unfortunately are very good at it too! lol You can see it in a rich man who is being held captive when he uses his riches to manipulate his captors into letting him go, you can see it in companies who manipulate politicians to get preferential treatment. etc. In the case of the women, what tool did they have that they could use to manipulate the men? Self explanatory... since men are so easily influenced by that one thing and the women really didn't have anything else to bargain with!It's an unfortunate but very evident trait of humanity. That being, if you aren't the one in power or control, the only way you can get your own needs met or voice heard is to manipulate those who ARE in power. Its either that or shut up and suffer in silence and just accept your plight. And as long as we have any sort of heirarchal system of power on this planet, this will continue to exist.I know some will shoot down my observation on this and try to just say it was stories about loose women. But its ok... I am sure I got the true message in there, while they are only seeing what they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaikaara Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I get your point ..but if you look at the times ..people were likely to get more entangled than today. Also, we need to understand ..the Khalsa then was not some born warrior race ..they were peasants washermen shop keepers ..from all trades ..they were not used to the tactics used to win over the enemy. This bani is like a eye opener for them, that such a thing can happen. The Mughals were known to use women to entice men and get out important information When I read it, the immediate outward message I got was... the women were not in a position of any power, and so they used what means they could in order to get their own voices heard and have their own needs / desires met. And the only tool they had was to fool those who were in power... we see it with kids all the time! A child will try and manipulate parents to get what they want. Some unfortunately are very good at it too! lol You can see it in a rich man who is being held captive when he uses his riches to manipulate his captors into letting him go, you can see it in companies who manipulate politicians to get preferential treatment. etc. In the case of the women, what tool did they have that they could use to manipulate the men? Self explanatory... since men are so easily influenced by that one thing and the women really didn't have anything else to bargain with! It's an unfortunate but very evident trait of humanity. That being, if you aren't the one in power or control, the only way you can get your own needs met or voice heard is to manipulate those who ARE in power. Its either that or shut up and suffer in silence and just accept your plight. And as long as we have any sort of heirarchal system of power on this planet, this will continue to exist. I know some will shoot down my observation on this and try to just say it was stories about loose women. But its ok... I am sure I got the true message in there, while they are only seeing what they want to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted May 19, 2015 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. Good point. Where is the proof? Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 That really depends on who you see as brahmgyani. you think Randhir Singh was a brahmgyani? Most likely, Bhai saab Bhai Randhir Singh jee was not a Brahamgyani but, he was of very high spiritual state. He used to keep doing Kirtan for many hours. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 How do you guys define whether or not someone is a Brahamgyani? How would one know? Could there be many Brahamgyanis among us that don't have the label of Brahamgyani by any specific jatha or sect? Maybe everyday people like ourselves, who don't wish to make themselves look above anyone else... or is there a requisite that a certain sect has to label someone as a Brahamgyani? If the definition is someone who is "spiritually realized" and awakened to the truth, then we may have many more Brahamgyanis than we know of! Yet many may be dismissed because they are not recognized as such by a specific jatha?Just curious because I have read on here comments that say that none of us could ever hope to reach the level of Brahamgyani... however isn't the whole purpose of our life to reach that state? And aren't we told that this life is precious in that it's our chance to do so?Or is the term being used more for people who were educated in a certain jathas beliefs and become a sort of leader in that jatha? (Same question for the term "Sant").What makes one a Brahamgyani, and how would they be recognized if they were just a normal person, not affiliated with any specific sect or jatha? Or would they most likely be dismissed entirely? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted May 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Good point. Where is the proof? Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh Before jumping on the bandwagon, bring all proofs I asked for instead of diverting topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted May 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Most likely, Bhai saab Bhai Randhir Singh jee was not a Brahamgyani but, he was of very high spiritual state. He used to keep doing Kirtan for many hours. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh Is there some kind of 'brahmgyani-meter' you use to determine that? If so please let me know where I could get one. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Is there some kind of 'brahmgyani-meter' you use to determine that? If so please let me know where I could get one. megalol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BhagatSingh Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Is there some kind of 'brahmgyani-meter' you use to determine that? If so please let me know where I could get one. It's only available to Brahmgyanis. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Before jumping on the bandwagon, bring all proofs I asked for instead of diverting topics. Have patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sukrit kaur Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Most likely, Bhai saab Bhai Randhir Singh jee was not a Brahamgyani but, he was of very high spiritual state. He used to keep doing Kirtan for many hours. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh Omg!!! Now anyone can certify who is a brahmgyiani and who is not!!! If anyone has read so many books or has little spiritual knowledge or has followed the scholastic approach ,then it does nt mean that you are smart enough to certify anything.... Waheguru hi budhh bakshe!! Sanak sannad ant nhi paya Bed parreah parr brahmae janam gwaya (Sanak and sannad,sons of brahma,could nt find the lord's limits; Brahma wasted his life away continually reading the vedas.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sukrit kaur Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) How do you guys define whether or not someone is a Brahamgyani? How would one know? Could there be many Brahamgyanis among us that don't have the label of Brahamgyani by any specific jatha or sect? Maybe everyday people like ourselves, who don't wish to make themselves look above anyone else... or is there a requisite that a certain sect has to label someone as a Brahamgyani? If the definition is someone who is "spiritually realized" and awakened to the truth, then we may have many more Brahamgyanis than we know of! Yet many may be dismissed because they are not recognized as such by a specific jatha? Just curious because I have read on here comments that say that none of us could ever hope to reach the level of Brahamgyani... however isn't the whole purpose of our life to reach that state? And aren't we told that this life is precious in that it's our chance to do so? Or is the term being used more for people who were educated in a certain jathas beliefs and become a sort of leader in that jatha? (Same question for the term "Sant"). What makes one a Brahamgyani, and how would they be recognized if they were just a normal person, not affiliated with any specific sect or jatha? Or would they most likely be dismissed entirely? Exactly!!! ^^ Edited May 20, 2015 by sukrit kaur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) Omg!!! Now anyone can certify who is a brahmgyiani and who is not!!! If anyone has read so many books or has little spiritual knowledge or has followed the scholastic approach ,then it does nt mean that you are smart enough to certify anything.... Waheguru hi budhh bakshe!! Sanak sannad ant nhi paya Bed parreah parr brahmae janam gwaya (Sanak and sannad,sons of brahma,could nt find the lord's limits; Brahma wasted his life away continually reading the vedas.) I don't think a Brahamgyani will ever doubt any part of Gurbani. Bhai Saab Bhai Randhir Singh jee did doubt, Sri Raagmala Sahib. Having said that, he was spiritually way way way ahead of me. Do you think, a so-called Sikh who does not believe in Sri Dasam Granth Sahib can reach Brahamgyan? Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh Edited May 20, 2015 by paapiman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Is there some kind of 'brahmgyani-meter' you use to determine that? If so please let me know where I could get one. Read Gurbani and you will find your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Do you think, a so-called Sikh who does not believe in Sri Dasam Granth Sahib can reach Brahamgyan? Waheguru jee kaa KhalsaWaheguru jee kee FatehGoing by the description of a Brahamgyani found in Sukhmani Sahib, one does not even need to be a Sikh to reach that state! See my other post in Questions forum. So no, belief in Dasam Granth is not a requisite of reaching the state of Brahamgyani. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) Alright dude you're way out of line now. I dont know if you're having a bad day or if this is just your generel way of writing. The amount of personal attacks, assumptions and putting words in my mouth so far is complete out of order for any civil discussion. Are you here to do khoj and have new perspectives to things or are you just out to win debates? Dude seriosly get a grip of yourself. I've never claimed to be a scholar, nor have I said any of the things you assume. Try to read what I'm writing instead of adding your own crap negativity into my words. We could easily have done good khoj on this subject but you're way out of line! If khoj for you is about winning then fair enough but im out. Im not gonna waste more time on you. And with your weird negative thinking in mind, you're probably gonna think that im backing out because I have no arguments bla bla bla..... Fair enough, you won if that brings you any glory.... Balle tera. SikhKhoj is a nindak of Gurmukh Brahamgyanis. Edited May 21, 2015 by paapiman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Going by the description of a Brahamgyani found in Sukhmani Sahib, one does not even need to be a Sikh to reach that state! See my other post in Questions forum. So no, belief in Dasam Granth is not a requisite of reaching the state of Brahamgyani. Read the question properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts