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

[paapiman]

 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?

​Exceptional circumstances cannot be used to justify anti-Gurmat activities.

For example, in some countries, Sikhs cannot wear kirpan in public. That does not mean, we should change the maryada of wearing Kirpan at all times.

If 5 Singhs are not present, then Sikh women can be part of Panj pyaray. Amrit sachaar should still be held, if there are people who desire amrit. Something is better than nothing.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited June 10, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

You have not even commented on the fact that Gurmat Rehet Maryada of DDT does not actually say women can not be in Panj Pyaras.  Nowhere will you find a single line in there saying that women can not.  And if you say it's because of the usage of the word 'Singh' then you also have to explain why it says 'Singh' for 'Ragee Singhs' 'Granthi Singh' etc too. Are you saying women can not do any seva except for working in the kitchen? Ahh but you said in a previous post that they can do these seva!  You have not addressed that the GRM does not say that women can not be part of Panj Pyaras!  So, how exactly is it anti-gurmat?

And if a Bibi can be part of Panj Pyaras in those exceptional circumstances as you said, then why not all the time? Obviously women are capable of doing it then, so it shows that it is possible!  

Also:

Edited June 10, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[SAadmin]

Lets get punjabi gurmukhi orginal text pages on this just so its clear and to probe further if its mistranslation.

[paapiman]

And if a Bibi can be part of Panj Pyaras in those exceptional circumstances as you said, then why not all the time? Obviously women are capable of doing it then, so it shows that it is possible!  

​In exceptional circumstances, Sikhs were even allowed to consume meat and marijuana.

One cannot compare exceptional/dire circumstances to normal conditions. It is very simple to understand.

Bhuk chuk maaf

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

​In exceptional circumstances, Sikhs were even allowed to consume meat and marijuana.

One cannot compare exceptional/dire circumstances to normal conditions. It is very simple to understand.

Bhuk chuk maaf

 

​No its not because you still have not shown me exactly where it says women are not allowed in the DDTs RM?  Show me the line where it says women are not allowed please... and also rectify this statement in DDT's own RM as well:

The above line actually reiterates that gender difference was ELIMINATED with creation of the Khalsa.  We know that obviously physical difference is still there, just like someone's birth family never physically changed, or their skin colour. What was eliminated then? The differences that were used to put some people superior to others.  They were all at the SAME level equal after they became Khalsa!  This is in Damdami Taksals own Rehet Maryada.  So to ignore this line and re-establish superiority and limit some from rights that others have, is actually anti-Gurmat :) 

The use of the word 'Singh' in GRM is to mean both Singh and Singhni... it has to or else that line above makes no sense whatsoever.  Even Gurbani uses the word Singh to mean the whole lion species and not just a male lion.  Like man is used for makind both male and female.  Because ALL seva mentioned in GRM says 'Singh'  (Ragee SInghs, Granthi Singh, Paathi Singhs, etc).

So is it saying that ALL seva is for males only?  Or is it using the term Singh to mean both Singh and SInghni (as Lion is used for Lion / Lioness both)?



 

 

Edited June 10, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[Harjots8963]

Sant Jarnail SIngh Ji the Leader of Damdami Taksaal Said no women in Panj Pyare. Seeing as they were the leader of Damdami Taksal, then that would be the the maryada. Again If you dont't like GRM(WHICH IS FINE)... then read Gurbani Path Darpan Written by the Previous Leader of Damdami Taksal Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji Khalsa.... Sant Jarnail Singh Also Highlighted all the equality for men and women in sikhi in that same video...

[CdnSikhGirl]

Sant Jarnail SIngh Ji the Leader of Damdami Taksaal Said no women in Panj Pyare. Seeing as they were the leader of Damdami Taksal, then that would be the the maryada. Again If you dont't like GRM(WHICH IS FINE)... then read Gurbani Path Darpan Written by the Previous Leader of Damdami Taksal Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji Khalsa.... Sant Jarnail Singh Also Highlighted all the equality for men and women in sikhi in that same video...

My issue is that how can one say two are equal, but then impose restrictions on one that the other does not have? Then they are not being treated equally are they? 

I *humbly* disagree with him.  He was still human, and was subject to the teachings he was passed through other babas, who were not looking at it outside the box of cultural influence regarding women.  

And even if you use the argument that no females stood up that day... the statement (contained in DDTs own RM) that creation of the Khalsa eliminated these differences like caste, gender etc.  rectifies that.  After the Khalsa was created, it would have no longer matter which gender was the original five, because differences used to delineate people were eliminated once the Khalsa was created.  At that point it no longer mattered anymore.  If he truly were following his own reasoning, then he would have also said that the castes which were not represented by the original five, would also not be allowed to be Panj Pyaras either.  Or Colours.. there were no white men or black men who gave their heads that day, so black and white men can never be Panj Pyaras.  Why is it when we look at that line: 

"Differences in caste, creed, colour, gender, rich and poor, all have been eliminated by the creation of the Khalsa"
Why is it that this is heeded only for caste, colour, creed, rich and poor, but gender is so easily ignored?  

If the reasoning *Sant* Jarnail Singh Ji said was true, that it's because no women stood up that day to give their heads, then we would also have to tell men from the castes that did not volunteer their head, or the colours etc as well.  But that is obviously not happening.  Gender is the only issue that is being used.

And their own RM doesn't even say 'women are not allowed to be Panj Pyaras' it's very grey.... 

You guys all know I do not follow DDT thinking at all regarding women.  I follow SRM and fully wholeheartedly believe in the equality taught in SGGSJ.  DDT is not following that equality by ignoring their own RM where it states creation of khalsa removed these differences including gender, and their reasoning for doing it, stems from "passing judgement" on women for all time for what the women that day did or did not do....when Gurbani says only he is a judge who judges himself and not others, and to treat ALL with a single eye of equality.  Nowhere in Gurbani will you find a single phrase that states women should have less rights than men. 

 

 

 

[paapiman]

Sant Jarnail SIngh Ji the Leader of Damdami Taksaal Said no women in Panj Pyare. Seeing as they were the leader of Damdami Taksal, then that would be the the maryada. Again If you dont't like GRM(WHICH IS FINE)... then read Gurbani Path Darpan Written by the Previous Leader of Damdami Taksal Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji Khalsa.... Sant Jarnail Singh Also Highlighted all the equality for men and women in sikhi in that same video...

​Bro, can you please let us know, on which page of Gurbani Path Darpan, does it say that women cannot be part of the Panj Pyaray?

Thanks

[CdnSikhGirl]

Still does not answer the fact that creation of the khalsa ELIMINATED all differences used to delineate humans into hierarchies of superiority... And in DDTs OWN GRM, it says that gender was included in this!!!  

Casteism is looked upon as a huge sin in Sikhi precisely BECAUSE of this statement!! 

Gender is included in the VERY SAME STATEMENT!!  

If something used as a 'differece' in order to delineate people, was ELIMINATED after the creation of the Khalsa, how can that thing then be used to impose restrictions on some? That goes against 'gurmat'! And I am not talking about obvious biological differences, as those (like which caste you were born to) were not eliminated, what was eliminated were the perceived superiority / man made hierarchies because of those things. ELIMINATED.  That means... GONE.  That means after the Khalsa was created there were no more differences to be PRACTICED including GENDER! ALL were at one level.  That means after the creation of the Khalsa, the gender of Panj Pyaras no longer mattered as GENDER difference was ELIMINATED.

Paapiman please respond to this instead of looking for other DDT literature to support your sexist stance. You have been referring to 'Gurmat' and the 'Gurmat Rehet Maryada' as be all and end all in everything... so please respond:

 

[Guest]

Khalsa Jee, I didn't state that Gurbani Path Darpan, says women can't be in the panj pyare, I haven't explored it fully i merely stated that if you don't like GRM then use Gurbani Path Darpan.... my main point is that SantYesSant, not human. SANT. Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale. Said no women in Panj Pyare... being the leader of DAMDAMI taksal one would assume the rehat would mimick that. More importantly it doesn't matter if You don't agree with GRM use whatever maryada you want at the end of the day we are all sikhs... 

 

Joyce Pettigrew once went to go meet the singhs. Sant ji Bhai amrik singh etc. She was asked who did you like the most ??? She said bhai Amrik Singh.... he was saddened. And the singh asked... why didn't you liKe Sant Jarnail Singh Ji the most out of us?? And she stated I don't see him as human he is above that. 

 

AKAAAL.

 

 

[Kuttabanda2]

Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindrawale's reasoning wasn't that women can't do Sevadaar because women didn't stand up when Guru Sahib asked for Sikhs, therefore they should be punished for that.  

During that time in the Taksal, there was a staunch view of the Panj Pyares being men only because that would "better" represent the first Panj Pyares. In addition, many times, Panj Pyares were required to be Grisht men, for obvious reasons. Another really important detail is that the Panj Pyares had to wear a very very VERY specific Bana, and they took it seriously. Which meant: only Yellow Cholas, Kamarkassas of a specific color only, Hazoorias of a specific color only and no Kadaiy (design), White Kacherras of a specific length, Dastaars could only be Gurmukhi Pagg, Dumallas or Gol Dastars only, Etc. the one Panj Pyare Bana requirement to note here is that the Panj could not wear Pyjamees at all. It was strictly prohibited, especially in Guru Sahib's Hazoori. The problem that would arise with this is that if a women did Seva, she would have to meet these Requirements, and wearing just a Kacherra isn't seen to be modest. Same Jarnail Singh jee just gave a brief explanation of the Bibiya in Panj Pyare thing, as a question was directed at him about the role of women in the Panth.

 

This view is not only held by DamDami Taksal, but also by some Nihangs, Nanaksaris and some factions of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha ( AKJ.org's California faction for one). 

I have an old copy of the Gurmat Rehat Maryada ( un"edited", not the "summarized" one.) 

Interestingly, I don't remember reading any "women should look at their Husbands as god" bull crap in it, as it is present in the "summarized" version.

[Koi]

Okay, let me try take this in another light. 

Satkiran, how should the panth resolve this issue? Call a Sarbat Khalsa maybe? 

[CdnSikhGirl]

I really think if the idea was to punish women as a result of those who were present that day not volunteering their heads, that over 300 years of punishment has been long enough.  Times have changed in the world significantly, and had that day been in today's world, I think you very well would see part of the five being women.  Attitudes don't change over night, and in 1699 women were still very much passive and encouraged to be housewives, Mothers, and servants and that was their role.  Although some women did have courage back then like Mai Bhago, but today you would see that a lot more women would stand up and be courageous.  Women are now in the army, airforce, navy, police, fire fighters, and other dangerous careers alongside men.  I think 300 years of 'punishment' has been enough.  If we were to be punished for inaction of the women that one day (and face it, many men did not volunteer either!) I think the punishment has been long enough... don't you?

I thought that was part of what was looked at in the literally years it took to come up with the Panthic Rehet Maryada.  

These are the facts that we have:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that Guru Ji intended for women to be discriminated (absence of proof does not equal proof of absence)
2. Guru Ji did not ask for male heads that day, so just as easily a woman 'could' have volunteered.
3. It just happened that the first 5 were male. What if there had been 6? Maybe the 6th would have been a female... 
4. There is a huge lack of information on the subsequent amrit sanchars on even that first day, let alone the ones that occurred in the immediate years after it as to who actually participated. How do we know that no women were ever Panj Pyaras if there is not a lot of evidence either way?
5. Gurbani supports that every human are equal, our souls are all actually seen as female and Waheguru Ji the only male
6. Gurbani says that ALL humans should be seen with a single eye of equality. Obvious biology aside, limiting half the human race from doing seva that does not actually require physical gender, is not seeing all with a single eye of equality
7. Making statements that it's men because women give physical birth and men give spiritual birth is pure speculation and does not make sense as souls are beyond gender, so logically spiritual rebirth would not be dependent upon physical gender at all, notwithstanding that physical birth actually requires both male and female to propagate
8. We are told over and over in Gurbani that these bodies are false and only transitory and part of the illusion. Why would an attribute (like maleness) which is part of the illusion be required for rebirth back to true form (formlessness)?
9. Outside of Gurbani which *should* be our highest authority, the actual RMs outside of SRM do not actually come out and say that women are not allowed. It's interpreted as such because of the use of the word 'Singh' however, ALL seva are actually listed as 'Singh' and so either they mean that women can not do any seva at all, or the use of the word Singh is being used like man to denote mankind or both genders, Singh and Singhni. Meaning it's purely circumstantial and subjective based on one's interpretation through cultural goggles
10. Religion is beyond culture
11. Sants are still human. They are *highly* knowledgeable in their own samparda / jatha and what they were passed by the "babas" etc before them. This is why we have 'Sants' who actually make statements that oppose each other from different Jathas. Who is to say which one is correct? 
12. That women should be punished for inaction on the first day when Guru Ji called for a head, was *DDT's Sant* Bhindranwale's opinion.  He is not speaking for Guru Ji. He is speaking from stance of the Jatha to which he belonged
13. Does Sikhi support punishing people for actions of ancestors (or in this case, for people completely unrelated but happen to be the same gender?)  If a bunch of Sikh men today went and did something heinous against Sikhi, should all men then be punished for all time for their actions? In fact, 40 men actually deserted Guru Ji and ONE WOMAN led them ALL back! If the reasoning has been a punishment against women for not volunteering their head that day, I think Mai Bhago's actions should have resolved it! And if we are to punish an entire gender for actions of one or a few, why are men not punished for those 40 men who deserted Guru Ji and had to be led back by a woman?
14. Since Panj Pyara seva is considered probably the highest seva one can do, the one that people revere etc. Its HIGHLY likely this is purely male ego and wanting to just have a *one up* on women and the men do not want to *share* this prestigious seva with women (as men all through time have looked for ways to limit women and put them in subordinate position) Since Panj Pyaras have authority to make decision, they are looked at as leaders, and so women have been kept from this seva because the men in control do not want women to be in leadership positions.  Perhaps also why you dont see many Granthi Singhnis, or Gurdwara Presidents who are Singhnis (though we are starting to see more).  In fact this is the MOST LIKELY reason for keeping women out of Panj Pyaras!!!!
15. The human race can only advance as a whole once we stop trying to limit people based on what body they were born into. Let people's own actions decide what they are able or not able to do.
16. Gurbani supports that one's own actions should be by which they are judged and not by actions of ancestors etc. 
17. Gurbani also says that he is a true judge who judges himself and not others. With all these men speaking for women (regarding dirtiness, menstruation, whether they can do seva at Harmandir Sahib etc where are the actual females? Why is it always males judging females?)
18. Creation of the Khalsa ELIMINATED all differences that had been used to delineate people and give some privileges while others endured limitations. In the case of Caste it is seen as a HUGE sin in Sikhi to judge someone based on caste and limit them. However, it is conveniently forgotten that the very same statement which says Caste was eliminated by creation of the Khalsa, also says Gender! Why has one become a grave sin while the other completely ignored and still practiced? 
 

These things all need to be considered.  But, they actually were considered when the SRM was made in the first place.  Its likely another go at it would also take years and the voice of Sikh women is even stronger today than it was back then.  So its very likely you'd end up with majority decision in the same way again.  And then DDT etc would go off and still follow their own RM anyway because they wouldn't be happy.  So it would go nowhere.  ie DDT would not be happy unless THEIR RM is the one enforced on the entire panth, Nihangs would not be happy unless it was THEIR RM that was enforced on the panth... and even just between those two there are disagreements.  Panthic RM is basic RM - all the points that majority follow and agree with. There is nothing stopping people from doing more restrictive practices though.  As long as they dont enforce it on everyone else. 

Just my opinion...  I am taking Amrit from somewhere (soon) that follows Sikh Rehet Maryada and has had females as Panj Pyaras.  They are not AKJ.  They do not follow any jatha, just SRM.  All of Gurdwaras in Kahshmir including the historical ones associated with 6th Guru, follow only SRM. 

 

 

[paapiman]

In addition, many times, Panj Pyares were required to be Grisht men, for obvious reasons.

​Can you please elaborate that?

Correct me if I am wrong, most of the jathedars of DDT, before Srimaan 108 Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindrawale, were celibates.

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

 

9. Outside of Gurbani which *should* be our highest authority, the actual RMs outside of SRM do not actually come out and say that women are not allowed. It's interpreted as such because of the use of the word 'Singh' however, ALL seva are actually listed as 'Singh' and so either they mean that women can not do any seva at all, or the use of the word Singh is being used like man to denote mankind or both genders, Singh and Singhni. Meaning it's purely circumstantial and subjective based on one's interpretation through cultural goggles
10. Religion is beyond culture

 

 

​Considering husband as a demi-God, is part of our religion.

Examples of cultural activities, not allowed in Gurmat: Bhangra, Gidha, wearing sehra, marrying sister-in-law (in case of death of the elder brother), etc.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited June 12, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

Singh means a Lion.

I don't think, "Singhni" is a word in Punjabi. Can someone please confirm it?

The word used by Sikh women is "Kaur" which mean prince. The eldest son of a king used to be refereed as Tikaa saab. All other younger sons were referred to as "Kanwar". The "Kaur" word is derived from the word "Kanwar".

Bhul chuk maaf

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

Singh means a Lion.

I don't think, "Singhni" is a word in Punjabi. Can someone please confirm it?

The word used by Sikh women is "Kaur" which mean prince. The eldest son of a king used to be refereed as Tikaa saab. All other younger sons were referred to as "Kanwar". The "Kaur" word is derived from the word "Kanwar".

Bhul chuk maaf

 

​Yes you are correct Singh means Lion The lion species is not only male :) 

And your precious DDT GRM uses the term Singhni.  

 

[paapiman]

​Yes you are correct Singh means Lion The lion species is not only male :) 

But, Sikh women are not given the surname "Singh". They are Kaurs, which means princes. Some Hindu women (Rajpoot women) use the surname Singh, but not SIkh women.

 

And your precious DDT GRM uses the term Singhni.  

​Thanks for the information. It did not show up on a Punjabi dictionary.

Bhul chuk maaf.

Edited June 12, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

Considering husband as God (or demi) is not compatible with Sikhi unless the husband also sees his wife as God.  

Because Gurbani tells us to see the same divine light in EVERYONE. 

Gurbani says to see ALL with SINGLE eye of equality. There is no hierarchy with one above another. This also applies to husband and wife. Women were not created to be inferior to men.  Seeing husband as God was a concept from smritis which Hindu women follow. Not Sikhs. 

That Gurbani tuk you keep quoting is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT! If we could take single tuks and use them however we wanted out of context then you can literally find a tuk that would allow everything including idol worship, intoxicants, etc. Tuks are meant to be taken IN CONTEXT of the shabad.  Even if you take that one line, it does not say see husband as Lord, it still says see transcendent lord as husband.

Gurbani speaks to all souls, which are feminine. There is only one true male... Waheguru Ji.  

Gurbani also says that NONE other than God deserve to be seen as God.  NONE other have the virtues of God.  

DDTs OWN ORIGINAL RM before this new edited version does not even contain this line! Meaning that 1) DDTs RM like all others has been subject to CHANGE over time, meaning its impossible to say it's the direct word of Guru Ji and 2) that sexist statement was added only recently, when someone went looking for a tuk to twist and support his sexist stance. 

Talk to Kuttabanda2 as he got a copy of the original DDT RM by Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh Khalsa, and that line (and any others that seem to separate male and female and make sexist remarks against women) are not included in it!!!!  They are only found in this recent version which has been edited!

Finally, I know MANY MANY Sikh families here and abroad and not a SINGLE ONE follow this man is above woman and has to be seen as God thing. I have asked a good many now... and they ALL say it's a Hindu practice, NOT SIKH!  

 

[paapiman]

 

Talk to Kuttabanda2 as he got a copy of the original DDT RM by Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh Khalsa, and that line (and any others that seem to separate male and female and make sexist remarks against women) are not included in it!!!!  They are only found in this recent version which has been edited!
 

​There is reference to husband being treated like God's form in Gurbani Path Darpan, which was written by Srimaan 108 Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindrawale.

 

Finally, I know MANY MANY Sikh families here and abroad and not a SINGLE ONE follow this man is above woman and has to be seen as God thing. I have asked a good many now... and they ALL say it's a Hindu practice, NOT SIKH!  

 

​Not every person's opinion can be taken seriously.

Bhul chuk maaf

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

​There is reference to husband being treated like God's form in Gurbani Path Darpan, which was written by Srimaan 108 Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindrawale.

​Not every person's opinion can be taken seriously.

Bhul chuk maaf

 

Okay so that also include's  Gyani Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindrawale's opinion.

Even DDT members on here have said that even in DDTs own context it means that BOTH husband and wife are to treat each other good (as in the old saying being treated like a God... not actually seen as one)... not that husband should be seen as an actual God over her.  No spouse is above the other.  Neither is in authority over the other.  Both should be treated like a God by each other... otherwise why are they married?

Would a husband really marry someone he would not also treat as a God likewise?  How could a man marry a woman who he sees as inferior to him and treats like a servant?  Two people marry to share a loving life together as a couple. If he wants to be treated as a God by a servant, then he can easily hire a live in maid!  (that would also alleviate the wife having to do all the housework and cooking too!)  There problem solved!

Your idea of marriage is not a loving equally giving relationship.  It sounds more like a business transaction with the husband as boss and the wife is employee. Think about that for a moment... I know you said you do not want to be married, but if you do... would you rather have a wife who thinks of you as a God over her and is subservient and submissive, but fears you and doesn't feel loved by you, and in return she really doesn't love you either... she just fears you and obeys because she thinks she is suppsoed to and because the marriage was arranged.

Or would you rather have a wife who actually loves you and feels happy in the marriage because she knows you see her as your equal? If you treat someone as lower than you, then they will never feel appreciated and loved and hence, they will never truly be happy. Are women in your opinion, never supposed to be truly happy?  Again, if women are to be seen as inferior or lower to men, then you have to explain why.  Is being born female seen then as a punishment for past karma? Is this why she is to forever be in shackles beneath men and subservient? Except... this explanation goes against gurbani saying that every human are equal.

Hint: women wish the same things as men... to not be put in an inferior position.

A slave, no matter how well they are treated by their master, will never truly be happy until they have their freedom and are seen as on par to their master.

 

 

[paapiman]

Okay so that also include's  Gyani Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindrawale's opinion.

​Srimaan 108 Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindrawale was a Gurmukh Brahamgyani, not an ordinary person like me.

Bhul chuk maaf

[Harjots8963]

Satkirin Jee whatever your opinions are please stop in a sense trying to show Sant Jarnail Singh Ji and Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji as simple humans. They are brahmgianis

[CdnSikhGirl]

But they were still following opinion they were passed by those before them.  They were not outside of cultural influence and influence of the jatha they learned under.  We can not take their word as the ineffible word of Guru Ji. Because it's not.  Like I said, there are Sants from different Jathas and they disagree with each other on things. So onbviously they all can not be correct!

And if it is somehow the ineffible word of Guru Ji himself that women are lowly compared to men and have to be subordinate and servile to men... then please answer why Gurbani says the opposite? Why does Gurbani say to see ALL with single eye of equality, and that the same divine light is in all of us equally. And also that Waheguru Ji IS the male AND the female.  If God IS ALL. Then how can any single form of Waheguru have less status than another?  It is precisely this reason that I could never kill an animal. I even hate if I accidentally kill an insect.

Also, you did not answer... if the stance of DDT is that women are lower status than men, and men are to be seen as God over women. And that women are to be punished for all time for not giving their heads that one day, then please answer this one question:

Does DDT believe that being born as a female, is a punishment (for past karma or somthing)??
Should I (and all women) hang our heads our whole lives as if being punished to be born in this body? Is marriage supposed to be our prison and our husband is supposed to be our warden while we are the inmates bound by his rules?

Because nothing else would explain why someone would by simple virtue of their birth be seen as lower than someone else. There would be no other explanation as to why some are born into a proveleged position as a male, and some are born into underpriveleged position as female and bound to be servile and obedient to males their whole lives. The only explanation that would make sense is if being born a woman is a punishment.

Especially since Sikhi puts so much emphasis that casteism is a grave sin. Sikhi is staunchly against holding a person's birth against them to limit them. In the same statement that says caste difference was removed by khalsa, also specifies gender... 

Would that not make it anti-gurmat  to treat females as less than males? Paapiman for someone who always quotes the term 'anti gurmat' so much how can you ignore this very line in DDT's own Gurmat Rehet Maryada???



And I looked the original version of GRM up as well in Gurbani Path Darpan, and its still there as well, though the wording is used as 'male and female' rather than gender. So it reads that "differences in caste, creed, colour, male and female, rich and poor all have been eliminated by the creation of the khalsa."

This means that limiting someone based on ANY of the above is ANTI GURMAT.  Why are you ignoring this Paapiman?  How can differences in gender be eliminated (differences used to delineate people and pit one above another), yet women be commanded to see husband as God which very much speaks to the opposite! And gurbani agrees with the above statement, that the same divine light is in all equally and that ALL are to be seen with single eye of equality.  Of course it does say that as 'Gurmukh' this is how one sees all. So maybe those who do not see male and female with single eye of equality are really 'manmukh' then?

 

 

[Kuttabanda2]

​Can you please elaborate that?

Correct me if I am wrong, most of the jathedars of DDT, before Srimaan 108 Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindrawale, were celibates.

Bhul chuk maaf

The Panj Pyares had to have been Grisht at one time in their life, as it shows that they have and uphold their family responsibilities. 

that's what I have heard of as requirements from some Singhs.

 

 

Most of the Jathedars of that time either had to live in very hard times ( wars, invasions, fighting for Raj, need for rapid Parchar, etc.) that there was little or no time for family lives, or it was out of their choice of living, it's not compulsory. I don't believe it's a requirement to be celibate for Jathedar's position as Sant Baba Ram Singh Khalsa Bhindrawale isn't celibate himself.