Use of the term 'Singh' to denote both Singh and SInghni?

[CdnSikhGirl]

It has been explained to me by a Gyani that the Gurmat Rehet Maryada actually does not have anything specifically barring women from any seva, Panj Pyaras included.  It is the interpretation that has barred women, and not the wording in the actual GRM.

It has been established on here and other sites that Damdami Taksal allow women to do every seva except for Panj Pyaras correct?  

And the argument that women are 'not allowed' to be Panj Pyaras and that it's against Gurmat, is based on the wording in GRM saying 'Five Singhs'.  However if we look further into GRM, it actually uses the term 'Singh' for every single seva!  (Granthi Singh, Ragee Singh, Pathi Singh, etc.):

So which is truth?

1) Women are barred from ALL seva by Damdami Taksal; or
2) The use of the term 'Singh' is used in the same light as 'Man' is used for mankind - that is to say both genders inclusive. 

If the first is true, that means that women are not welcome to do any seva (except maybe cook for the men.... how typical). Yet, many of you said that DDT Gurdwaras you have been to do not bar women from akhand paaths, kirtan etc.  So are they going against their own 'Gurmat'? It also would not make sense that Singh is used to mean 'males' only, while limiting women from nearly all seva - because in Gurmat Rehet Maryada itself it has this very line:

So, Damdami Taksal themselves point out that gender was eliminated with creation of the Khalsa.  Of course we know gender physically was not eliminated, just like one's brith family (caste) has not physically changed either.  What have been eliminated are the man made differences attributed to people because of these things. Perceptions, illusions, used to purposely limit and control, and restrict people.  To create a man made heirarchy.  That was what was eliminated.  And Damdami Taksal agrees... even on the gender issue!  So they would be hypocrites if they told women on the one hand that gender perceptions used to limit them were removed with creation of the khalsa, but then told them 'Nope sorry men only' when it comes to seva.  So the Gurmat Rehet Maryada would have a HUGE discrepancy... or does it?!

Humans in all languages tend to use one gender to refer to the whole species, male and female inclusive.  We say the Lion species... but mean both Lion and Lioness.  We say Geese to mean both Goose and Gander, we say Man to mean mankind, both man and woman. In the same way Singh is used to mean both Singh and Singhni. This is further supported by Gurbani:

Page 735, Line 6
ਬਕਰੀ ਸਿੰਘੁ ਇਕਤੈ ਥਾਇ ਰਾਖੇ ਮਨ ਹਰਿ ਜਪਿ ਭ੍ਰਮੁ ਭਉ ਦੂਰਿ ਕੀਜੈ ॥੩॥
Bakrī singẖ ikṯai thā▫e rākẖe man har jap bẖaram bẖa▫o ḏūr kījai. ||3||
The sheep and the lions are kept in one place; O mortal, meditate on the Lord, and your doubts and fears shall be removed. ||3|| 

In the above, the term "Singh" is not used to denote male Lions only... but instead the Lion species both genders.  

Page 809, Line 19
ਸਿੰਘੁ ਬਿਲਾਈ ਹੋਇ ਗਇਓ ਤ੍ਰਿਣੁ ਮੇਰੁ ਦਿਖੀਤਾ ॥
Singẖ bilā▫ī ho▫e ga▫i▫o ṯariṇ mer ḏikẖīṯā.
The lion becomes a cat, and the mountain looks like a blade of grass.

 Again we see that the term "Singh" is being used to speak of the lion species... not of only a male lion. 

There are many more references as such in Gurbani.  

So, in conclusion, the term Singh in the Gurmat Rehet Maryada MUST mean inclusive of both gender... Singh and Singhi, or else there is a huge discrepancy because its pointed out in GRM itself that perceived inequalities, man made differences in caste, colour, creed - and it even specifies gender - were eliminated by creation of the Khalsa. When one becomes Khalsa, they become on equal level with all other Khalsa.  We also know that many DDT run Gurdwaras have women doing seva for akhand paaths, kirtan etc. (because several of you have posted on this forum that you have witnessed it with your own eyes). Paapiman you also specifically stated you have no problem with women doing seva other than Panj Pyaras.  

This means that 'Singh' in Gurmat Rehet Maryada whenever its listed pertaining to seva must mean BOTH genders.  And since the section for Amrit Sanchar and selection of Panj Pyaras, also uses the exact same terminology without any further descriptors, the use of the term 'Singh' there must also mean inclusive of both genders.  This is further supported by the fact that there is actually no specific statement barring women from participation as one of the Panj Pyaras. I dare you to try to find it because you won't. There is not even one single line in Gurmat Rehet Maryada that comes out and says women can't perform ANY specific seva, that includes being one of the Panj Pyaras!  

So (paapiman) to say that having women do any of this seva is against Gurmat is dead wrong.  There is nothing in even GRM that says women are prohibited from anything at all.  And the use of the term "Singh" is as the same as "Man" is used for mankind - it means both genders.  If it did not, there would be specific prohibitions against women written in GRM but there isn't.

So women being barred from anything is not Gurmat.  It's how "males" have been interpreting it to use it as a means to denigrate Sikh women and rob them of equal status that Gurus gave them.  When Sikh Rehet Maryada was written, this came up and that's why it was specifically written in there that women were allowed to be Panj Pyaras. Because it's so 'grey' in the GRM and other RMs and because they needed it in Black and white so it would not be abused / misinterpreted to rob Sikh women of their rightful place... BESIDE Sikh men (not beneath).  

----

All of the above was from a well known Gyani who came to our Gurdwara for several weeks. 
PS -  was surprised as he was trained by DDT and I FULLY expected my questions to be not taken seriously. I expected him to look down his nose at me like Paapiman does  But I was highly surprised!  He also said that you have to remember this RM was written for a 'school' which comprised males. So the terminology was written to encompass the male students who did all of the seva.  It doesn't mean that women were not allowed, nor were they ever meant to be disallowed.  There just weren't any women students when it was written. Now that women fully participate, that terminology is understood to mean both Singh and Singhni.  Apparently there are girls in DDT now too.  He did acknowledge that its being wrongly construed to mean only men can do seva.  But they forget that it was written when only men were part of this sect.  Being a Gyani and DDT, he also did not put down SRM either!  He said it was best attempt to get the truth on to one document.  He obviously agrees with the 7 banis... but he disagrees with the interpretation of GRM being taught because when you actually read it, there is no actual restriction on women, even for being one of the Panj Pyaras.  

So yes, GRM does respect women, but many DDT members / Sants / Babas / do not.  (well except that worship husband as God bit - it should read that both should see each other as God) Its how these babas interpret it, and not GRM itself which is disrespecting women.  They are using the fact that women are not specifically mentioned, to justify denigrating them. I didn't see it before, but since it was pointed out its hard to ignore!  GRM actually does not prohibit women from ANY seva, Panj Pyaras included!

By the way Paapiman have you ever eaten at a restaurant? ;) 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[Orochimaru]

Satkirat watch this video and u will find ur answer 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JDVmJYmbNbY

Here is the answer

[CdnSikhGirl]

Satkirat watch this video and u will find ur answer 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JDVmJYmbNbY

Here is the answer

​You do know I do not speak Punjabi right? 

Second, I know about his reasoning... his reason is that its to punish all women for all time for the inaction of the woman present that day.  Many forums and even scholars have showed why that argument is very very weak.  First of all, to hold anyone responsible for what someone did or did not do hundreds of years ago is asinine. For the same reason that the men of today can ride on the coat tails of the men who gave their heads that day. Think about it. Did you give your head that day?  So why should you have any more right to do this seva than a woman? Neither were present that day!  Secondly, creation of Khalsa got rid of ALL inequality perceptions of caste, creed, colour, and even GENDER.  GRM even acknowledges this.  So it doesn't matter what gender the first five were.   Actually they were beyond gender alltogether.  It was the LIGHT in them which volunteered. Not their physical gender.  Their *forgive me for saying* but their penis did not volunteer... it was five souls, five sikhs,.... gender did not matter.   Sant Ji is welcome to his opinion... he was still human.  And he was still subject to the teaching he was passed down, which in all likelihood was obscured by cultural influence which put women beneath men. 

 

[Guest]

Sorry i did not know u didnt speak punjabi, these words from sant  ji are not mere thoughts these are his knowledge brahm knowledge given from god about this issue , it is best to follow an engligthened beings bachan because they are practically one with god and r gursikhs who met god and guru ji meaning then have better understanding of gurbani then me and you

[CdnSikhGirl]

Sorry, there is no good reason to discriminate based on gender.  There is no good reason to hold women accountable for all time and punish them just because that specific day women did not volunteer.  Its not right.  None of us here today were there that day, so one shouldn't be privileged simply because he was born with a penis. Gurbani agrees with this.  And Amrit Sanchar does not require the penis to perform.  

It goes beyond the simple act of preparing Amrit.  Its Panj Pyaras who make decisions for the sangat, meaning no women = women have no say in decision making.  Also dishing out punishment for fallen.  Why should it be all males who dish out punishment? For females, it should be females who do so to prevent bias.  Decision making should encompass the WHOLE community not just half of Sikhs. 

It also makes the statement that women are spiritually inferior to men. Because ALL sikhs are supposed to take Amrit and if women are entirely dependent on men to take it, that means men are more spiritually advanced than women. That is telling Sikh women that Waheguru views us as inferior to men spiritually.  

Brindanwle may have been influential, but he was not immune from cultural influence and teaching of past babas.  
I also have seen beyond the physical reality myself.  I have seen and experienced oneness.  That gave me certain insight into equality.  So you can speak for yourself about spiritual understanding, but don't assume others are at the same level as you.  I dont pretend to be brahamgyani, but I have seen things which have given me understanding. And from those experiences I KNOW that gender is no issue.  It's only an illusory transitory thing.  So it has no aspect on Amrit.  

 

Edited June 8, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[ibrute]

Hello Satkirin Jee, I don't know why you are stuck on men vs women approach in all issues. You are creating duality in your mind that's just wrong. What the video is saying is true.  I can't explain it but when you attain higher spiritual stages you will know that why Singhs should be in panj pyaare. I don't know why you think that women are lower in sikhi and be defensive about it. Women are mother of khalsa, who is bigger mother or son.  I make it very easy for you go to your nearest gurudwara and ask Guru granth sahib and take hukamnama. Guru sahib will answer, try yourself.

[Singh123456777]

Every topic Satkiran brings up it's always the same. 

[Crystal]

Every topic Satkiran brings up it's always the same. 

 

I agree, observing her posts she always turns it into men vs women/feminism/women's rights. 

 

Give it a rest honey bee.

 

Crystal

[CdnSikhGirl]

Hello Satkirin Jee, I don't know why you are stuck on men vs women approach in all issues. You are creating duality in your mind that's just wrong. What the video is saying is true.  I can't explain it but when you attain higher spiritual stages you will know that why Singhs should be in panj pyaare. I don't know why you think that women are lower in sikhi and be defensive about it. Women are mother of khalsa, who is bigger mother or son.  I make it very easy for you go to your nearest gurudwara and ask Guru granth sahib and take hukamnama. Guru sahib will answer, try yourself.

​Again someone thinking they are higher spiritual stage than me... without knowing my history and the things I have experienced.  Since I was very young I have been experiencing things that can only be explained as spiritual. And they happened without trying or doing anything. I have seen things that gave me without ANY doubt, understanding that this reality IS illusion and reality is not this physical world we live in.  Through these experiences, some of which I described in the meditation forum before, I came to understand that everything is one.  There is a reason why Gurbani doesn't focus on male vs female.  There is a reason why it says look upon ALL with single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained.  It doesn't say that light is only in male hearts.  It doesnt say look upon only males with single eye of equality. Gurbni says these physical bodies are false, and I have actually seen this truth!  

You say I am the one creating duality.... however, by saying one gender can do something and the other is 'not allowed' then you are the one creating duality because in reality there is no duality.  All are ONE.  ALL are the same... Its human thinking that is creating this divide between male / female.  The DDT own rehet maryada staes that creation of the Khalsa ELIMINATED differences used to create hierarchies and limit people...including GENDER.  So even if you use the argument that orginal five were male, as soon as Khalsa was created it eliminated the perceived differences which were used to pit male against female, and so after that point gender no longer mattered. If Amrit Sanchar were a mere reenactment of the original then only the castes of the first five would be 'allowed' to to be Panj pyaras as well But there is no limitation to based on caste is there? And that statement which says caste was eliminated with creation of Khalsa, also stated gender (and is actually in the DDT Gurmat Rehet Maryada itself):

   

So to say gender difference was eliminated by creation of the Khalsa, and then to say women have less rights in Sikhi than men is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Our true nature is that of pure light.  I have seen it with my own *eyes* in the nonphysical.  When you see things from this perspective, physical attributes no longer matter.  Physical strength is often used as a reason to put females lower than males.  However no two males are the exact same strength either.  And the Gurus had Khalsa women also take up arms and learn martial arts.  It was the first time women were given weapons and expected to defend themselves.  In general terms, males might have more brute strength, but through my own training in Tae Kwon Do, I learned that a females agility can easily bring down the largest of men, by using their own weight and strength against them.  Its not about who has *more* of what, but how you use what you have.  When you see that beyond these physical temporary shells, all is just pure light, the same pure light, it no longer matters which gender are doing what because really there is no gender. Gender is part of the illusion only and its only there for procreation.  Physical procreation has nothing to do with Amrit Sanchar.  

Males and Females both have two arms and two hands with which to stir the armit, they both have two legs and two feet with which to kneel in warrior pose, both genders have a mouth and tongue which which to utter the proper prayers.  Gender does not even come into it.  I don't know how I can show you this, without pulling you out of this reality and show you first hand from the perspective I have seen.  And only you can get there, I can't take you there.  I can tell you how through simran, through meditation, anyone who has actually experienced reality once dasam dwar has been opened, would not ever wish to pit male against female anymore.  

Limiting one gender, giving them less rights than the other, that is what is creating duality. That is the very thing that we are trying to escape!  

And you also forget, this interpretation of males only is only held by certain sects, not mainstream Sikhi for Sikh Rehet Maryada (which was created even with members from these sects present) says:

 

And the original post was to show that even DDT's GRM doesn't come straight out and say that women can not do this seva.  There is not a single line in DDTs rehet maryada that says women are "not allowed" - so to say its against 'Gurmat' then GRM itself should be re-written to impose limitations on women directly. Or else, its just a grey area as shown in my OP. 

 

Edited June 8, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[Singh123456777]

[Singh123456777]

The four stages of beating a dead horse lol

[sukrit kaur]

These images really made me to LOL..hahaaa

But I think she is not beating a dead horse .The point from where she is coming needs to be discussed.

BTW very funny images..Beating Dead horse!..hahaaa

[sukrit kaur]

 

​Again someone thinking they are higher spiritual stage than me... without knowing my history and the things I have experienced.  Since I was very young I have been experiencing things that can only be explained as spiritual. And they happened without trying or doing anything. I have seen things that gave me without ANY doubt, understanding that this reality IS illusion and reality is not this physical world we live in.  Through these experiences, some of which I described in the meditation forum before, I came to understand that everything is one.

Pen Jee,Do as much Simran as you can...May waheguru Ji bless you more and more each day.May you always keep walking on this path.May waheguru JI always hold ur hand on this entire journey.Whatever you were blessed with,is something very much precious.Don't let anything interrupt your bhagti..

WJKKWJKF!!

[chatanga1]

It has been explained to me ...

​why are you still here? didn't you make a big fuss about leaving this forum?  some last post rubbish or something?

[amardeep]

I agree that women should be allowed to serve as panj pyare.

 

One argument I was given once is that equality is fulfilled when only men are allowed to give amrit.. In life, only women can give birth to babies. Men can't. Instead, men are given the opportunity to provide spiritual rebirth (amrit), - this provides full equality in terms of the spiritual and temporal.

[Guest]

I agree that women should be allowed to serve as panj pyare.

 

One argument I was given once is that equality is fulfilled when only men are allowed to give amrit.. In life, only women can give birth to babies. Men can't. Instead, men are given the opportunity to provide spiritual rebirth (amrit), - this provides full equality in terms of the spiritual and temporal.

I also agree, females should be able to be Panj Pyaras.​

Men can not give actual birth, but its not like we don't participate in bringing a child into the world.  It's kind of a 50/50 thing you know LOL.  Yes one of us has to go through the morning sickness, destroyed body, physical pain to actually birth the child, but why are we holding that over women as if it's something we are jealous about (so we need something that's "men only" to compensate for)? I don't understand that thinking. What are we trying to compensate for by telling women they can't be part of Amrit Sanchars? Are we really that jealous of women giving birth? Instead why not be more active in the birthing process of our children right beside our wives since half of its genetic makeup is from us too!

Also, I want to point out that spiritual rebrith has nothing to do with gender at all, since our souls are genderless. Why would rebirth into our true form which is genderless require male genetalia? I think her points are valid. It's the stubborness in us, and cultural influence which has always dictated that men are superior to women, that makes us want to hold something over women, just to be one up on them, some primal feeling inside of us that feels good by telling someone else they are not allowed to do something that we are.  I get that feeling better than someone else makes us feel superior and good, but this is only fakeness. Isn't this what we are supposed to be ridding ourselves of?

To whoever mentioned duality, THIS thinking is duality. Not allowing women to be panj pyaras along side of us. That would be encouraging oneness. Giving some people more rights than others based on fake things is duality, not allowing everyone the same rights. 

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

Except, being one of the Panj Pyaras does not require physical pain on the threshold of higher than the human body is supposed to be able to handle!  Nor does it require trashing your bod, going through morning sickness, swollen feet and legs, unable to hold your urine, etc.

Why do men think giving birth is this big huge warm fuzzy gift that they hold over us like it's an advantage?  Never mind the fact that the baby is half the mother and ALSO HALF THE FATHER!  A mother can not create a baby on her own you know (in case some of you do not know biology!)  It also does not take five Mothers to birth one child!

If you are using physical birth as reasoning, the man puts half the genetic material for the child... who cares who actually pops out the kid - the child is BOTH equally the mother and father.  So then using that analogy, spiritual rebirth should also be 50/50 male and female (if gender were truly required).  Unless of course you were somehow birthing all male souls.  But wait... all souls are actually referred to in Gurbani as female!  So it doesn't make sense. 

Instead of being stubborn and running and saying 'it is just because it is' the guys on here should really analyze WHY.  But none of them ever attempt to answer why.  Because if they looked to Gurbani they would not have any support for their argument.

[Singh123456777]

In my opinion the bibi should put the patasa in the bata just as how the male sperm contributes to making a child.

[Singh123456777]

One argument I was given once is that equality is fulfilled when only men are allowed to give amrit.. In life, only women can give birth to babies. Men can't. Instead, men are given the opportunity to provide spiritual rebirth (amrit), - this provides full equality in terms of the spiritual and temporal.

I wrote this same exact thing couple of months ago.

[amardeep]

When I write an example,  discuss the ideas behind the example instead of the exampe itself. If I say "I run as fast as a lion" it does'nt mean that Im saying I have four legs and a tale. Likewise - as women give physical birth, men give spiritual birth. equality. Dont start discussing why one is harder than the other. Thats not the point i was making.

 

But like I said - I do believe women can be part of the panj pyare - I dont see any reason why they shouldn'nt

Edited June 8, 2015 by amardeep

[CdnSikhGirl]

In my opinion the bibi should put the patasa in the bata just as how the male sperm contributes to making a child.

​Would that position give her a say in decision making when Panj Pyaras are called on to make a decision? Would she get say in it? (the same way a Father has a say in decision making for a child) Also, when dishing out punishment for 'fallen'? (the same way a Father gets a say in deciding punishment for a bad child)??
If she gets a say in those, and also wears full bana same as the 5, and participates in Nagar Kirtans etc so that all 6 walk together then fine... but it would still be skewed as in human reproduction it doesnt take 5 women to birth one child)
Anyway, I have only ever seen the 5 walk in nagar Kirtans etc. not 6, And I have never heard of the one who puts the patasa in the armit having any say in decisions, or when coming up with punishment for fallen. 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[ibrute]

Look my intention is not to rattle you, though I stand on what I said. Did you do what I said. Ask Guru sahib, only Maharaj can remove doubts, no forum can do that for you. Since you are already attuned to spiritual experiences as you said since childhood, there should be no problem in asking Guru Granth sahib Maharaj about it. Also please enlighten the forum what Hukamnama Guru sahib gave you.

Also I never said I have any higher spiritual experience than you, or any at all. Read correctly.

[Harjots8963]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA-a5t8oJfU

Please View Satkirin Ji

End of arguments?

[CdnSikhGirl]

Yes I have seen his video... and he supports that AKJ, and others allow women in Panj Pyaras.  He says if you wish to take Amrit from somewhere that allows women, then take Amrit from them, and if you don't then take it from one of the groups that don't.  Easy, simple... and perhaps why its good to keep several different sects since one can follow what they truly believe. 

My original post was not to get back into this argument as I know that anywhere that follows SRM allows women, and I will choose to take amrit from one of those who allow (and have had) women Panj Pyaras.

But my point was in response to Paapiman's statement that it's ouright 'against gurmat' for women to be in Panj.  He was speaking as if it's against Gurmat for the whole panth. Which it isn't.  And in fact, DDT's own RM doesn't actually say anywhere in it, that women are outright 'not allowed'.  It does say 'Five Singhs' but then, it also says 'Ragee Singhs', 'Granthi Singh', the 'Singhs' preparing karah prashad etc. too, ...so either they are intimating that women can not do any seva at all, or they are using the term 'Singh' as descriptor for both Singh and Singhni (in the same light that Lion is used for both Lion and Lioness, the whole species of Lion).  The usage of the term Singh to denote the whole Lion species is supported in Gurbani as I have shown.

Because some on here have stated that DDT does in fact allow women to be Granthi, do kirtan, participate in akhand paaths etc. So if their own RM says 'Singh' for these seva but they allow women, then they can not use the same argument to bar women from Panj Pyaras.  I was just pointing out that it's not actually 'against gurmat' but it's a grey area since it's not stated either way in DDT's own RM.  So it's wrong for Paapiman to make the bold statement that it's 'against gurmat'.  Especially since DDT's RM itself actually says that creation of the Khalsa ELIMINATED all differences including caste, colour, creed, rich, poor, and GENDER.  
 

If there are no differences anymore (of course there are physical differences in people's skin colour, whether or not they have money, their biological family of birth (caste) and gender have not actually changed... what was eliminated were the perceived sense of superiority, hierarchies... no one is above another any longer. The differences are the perceived sense of superiority over other humans... that was what was eliminated as everyone who takes Amrit drinks from the same bata... they are all equal after that point.)  We tend to heed this message when it comes to caste, colour, etc but gender is always forgotten so easily and put back into a hierarchy of superiority.  If these differences were supposed to be eliminated when people take Amrit, then how can a Bibi who is Khalsa be treated any less than a male who is Khalsa? And how can that ever possibly be seen as being "against gurmat"? 

When one takes Amrit, they are full khalsa. And they are all equal. That means they can perform ALL religious duties of Khalsa.  (This includes acting as Panj Pyaras, decision making as panj pyaras, deciding punishment for 'fallen' who retake amrit etc.)  We have seen above that even gender differences were eliminated when one becomes Khalsa.  To say that a Bibi can not perform ALL religious duties of Khalsa, is the same as saying she somehow was never fully Khalsa to begin with.  DDT's own RM the GRM, as it's written is actually a big grey area. It's being interpreted to exclude Singhnis.  But interpretation is subjective.  Let's say there is a Sangat in a remote area, that have limited Amritdhari members, lets say they have 3 males and two females who are Amritdhari.  Does that mean the rest of the Sangat can never take Amrit?  Even though there are five Khalsa members there who are perfectly capable of administering it?  In my local Sangat we have limited Amritdhari members.  And the closest area to us with a sizeable Sikh population is a 2 hour flight (costing hundreds of dollars) away.  Of the 6 Amritdhari members in our sangat, 3 are women.  So then, should we never hold an Amrit Sanchar?

 

 

 

 

 

[SikhKhoj]

Thank god we haven't got the 'Women should take kirpan da amrit' brigade yet, adding another dimension altogether to this discussion haha