Jump to content

Anand Karaj Maryada challenged


paapiman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes i agree such precedence should not be set otherwise we will not have maryada in next 10-15 years if such things keep going on so maryada has to be maintained carefully. I have mentioned this before on this case, it be beneficial for couple if they would have made extra efforts to abide in the teaching of anand karaj rather than wrapping their head around semantics of outer traditions.

All though exceptions are made in case by case cases when it comes to outer external modification of anand karaj lavan ceremony. For example-

Bibi Surinder Kaur taking laavan with photo of Shaheed Bhai Satwant Singh

10919687_423080914526238_344511353_n.thu

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to maryada, the lady is suppose to follow the male, holding his palla in her hand. This signifies that the lady will stay faithful to the husband (faithful follower) and the husband is suppose to take care of his wife.

There is an argument which states that a circle has no beginning or end; no front or back. This point is not completely incorrect, but there is a flaw with this argument. People who have a high school diploma, should be able to comprehend the below.

-  A circle has no front or back, if there is no direction involved.

-  Once a direction is specified (which is the case in Anand Karaj) and the points (bodies) are connected (with a palla), implying that they are moving as a unit, then there is a forward and a backward point. Imagine a car going around in a circle in a specified direction, is the engine at the front, or the trunk?

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited by paapiman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the wife is always supposed to be follower?  Why can't a wife lead her husband down the right path?  

I always thought marriage was equal partnership where both lead each other down the right path.  Both have equal respect toward each other and equal love.  

Not a relationship of master / servant where the wife always has to be 'follower' and 'obey' while the husband is always 'in charge'.

Also what about symbolism that the husband will stay faithful to the wife? 

I know I certainly did not 'symbolize' myself becoming a doormat.... any more than he would!

 

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes will watch out for arguments but in general how can we make sikhawareness more about learning and less about arguing place. Please feel free to leave feedback in the feedback section. Can you invite more gyanis you may know from india or jawadi kala taksal here.

Bro, please have a look.

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/17084-suggestions-for-improvement/

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Handing the palla over by the father is the SAME as giving away the daughter as ''father of the bride''

I think we should understand the reasoning of woman walking whilst holding the palla which symbolises the new bond formed by father giving his daughter away.

This has nothing to do with who is dominant and who is who's admin cut.  (is it about a dog on a leash??)

We need some maryada for pre-marriage knowledge to be hammered in to couples. They MUST understand how sacred the lava are and exactly who's jyot merges into whom?

The couple DO NOT merge their jyot into each other in the ceremony and neither is it about 2 souls become ONE. ......It is about 2 souls or 2 jyots MERGING TOGETHER into the ONE AKAL PURAKH JYOT.

TWO souls circumambulating to enter into the ONE-WAHEGURU..

So don't get it mixed up with ceremonies from other faiths where couples join in matrimony whereby GOD is WITNESS. .....because this is clearly not the case in sikhi.

 

Guru Ram Das ji  composed the four lavan and Guru Arjan Dev ji and Mata Ganga ji were the first to be married with this ceremony.

Guruji set the example himself and today we have clever clogs who think they can tamper with the sacred ceremony because they feel they have more equal right concerns than a Sikh Guru.

Are we Sikhs, if we feel we can correct our Gurus ?

 

 

 

 

Beautiful Beautiful Beautiful Post my brother. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I read somewhere that about 100 years ago, people did not circle around SGGSJ, but instead stayed in front side by side... So is this 'following' / 'leading' thing only in recent history?? They said the lavans were still read but that the couple did not actually circumambulate... they stayed in place in front standing side by side.  It was suggested that circling SGGSJ came to mimic the revolutions around the sacred fire in Hinduism... do we have any proof that the cicrling was done right from Guru JI's time? 

Please Clarify:  Is it as Paapiman stated that the woman is symbolizing she will only ever be a 'follower' while the husband is always 'in charge'?? Because I didn't sign up to be a doormat, or anyone's subordinate, any more than my husband did!  I'm just not the submissive follower type!!  Certainly in some things he will take the lead, but in others I will - depending on our individual talents!  Some things he will get final say, and others I will get final say.  But he doesn't get a free ticket to always be in charge just because he's a male! 

Is Paapiman wrong?

Lucky why does the Father 'give' away his daughter but not his son? Why not the Mother? Does this signify property or ownership?  It has been suggested in Christianity that the Father giving away the bride was to signify that women were never independent and were always under the 'guardianship' of men - passed from guardianship of the father to the husband. Is this the same as Sikhi since you explained it as such??? Are women simply men's property???

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucky why does the Father 'give' away his daughter but not his son? Why not the Mother? Does this signify property or ownership?  It has been suggested in Christianity that the Father giving away the bride was to signify that women were never independent and were always under the 'guardianship' of men - passed from guardianship of the father to the husband. Is this the same as Sikhi since you explained it as such??? Are women simply men's property???

You need to clarify who is property and where is this implied ?

What is a son ?...what is a heir ??  who's heir does the woman's son become ?....what about daughter ??

When would a father give away a son ?  have you seen this ?.... was he gay ??

You said ....... "Father giving away the bride was to signify that women were never independent and were always under the 'guardianship' of men - passed from guardianship of the father to the husband" ...........WHAT makes you think that this is the ONLY reason ?.......what about family ??...what about heritage ???...what about clan trade ???...what about surnames??? ....why don't married wives continue to keep father's surname ?? ......................DO you understand what I'm getting at here ???............you need to see the whole picture.. ..........You need to ask yourself  'where does your own father's surname come from ??' 

I'm sure you have an idea of what the origins of common English names like Potter, Smith, Mason, ...Taylor/tailor are and where they would come from ?.......It's more or less the same principles in every race.

If you can't see this WHOLE layout that makes a family tree which are similar worldwide, no matter what colour or creed, then you won't understand  that ''guardianship'' is not the SOLE reason of why father of the bride exists.

 

****Forgot to add....Yes, there are some races that don't use family names/clan names as identities and these are also the same races where incest exists.(I'm not going to name any of these). These same bunch of people marry and fornicate with brothers, sisters, first cousins, second cousins......

In sikhi, marriage and fornicating with first and second cousins is incest.

 

 

Edited by Lucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Satkirin ever heard of the saying "Two Swords cannot live in One Sheath."

In some houses someone always wants to wear the pants and have the final say and in the past it was generally the male in Asian culture. However in recent times women have become more educated, independent and are not as submissive as they were in the past.

If I was you I would just focus on your own relationship with your husband and see if you can make it the way you want. Your banging your head against a traditional mindset and no matter what you say or how valid your argument someone will always come up with a reason which will not satisfy your viewpoint. Time to let it go... otherwise your just wasting your time and energy trying to convince people who still have that traditional view and don't wish to change or be changed.

Only time will tell how liberal thinking your husband truly is.

Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I read somewhere that about 100 years ago, people did not circle around SGGSJ, but instead stayed in front side by side... So is this 'following' / 'leading' thing only in recent history?? They said the lavans were still read but that the couple did not actually circumambulate... they stayed in place in front standing side by side.  It was suggested that circling SGGSJ came to mimic the revolutions around the sacred fire in Hinduism... do we have any proof that the cicrling was done right from Guru JI's time? 

Please Clarify:  Is it as Paapiman stated that the woman is symbolizing she will only ever be a 'follower' while the husband is always 'in charge'?? Because I didn't sign up to be a doormat, or anyone's subordinate, any more than my husband did!  I'm just not the submissive follower type!!  Certainly in some things he will take the lead, but in others I will - depending on our individual talents!  Some things he will get final say, and others I will get final say.  But he doesn't get a free ticket to always be in charge just because he's a male! 

Is Paapiman wrong?

Lucky why does the Father 'give' away his daughter but not his son? Why not the Mother? Does this signify property or ownership?  It has been suggested in Christianity that the Father giving away the bride was to signify that women were never independent and were always under the 'guardianship' of men - passed from guardianship of the father to the husband. Is this the same as Sikhi since you explained it as such??? Are women simply men's property???

 

 

 

I have no idea about side to side 100 years ago,however what I do know is sikhs did lava around a havan. Read up on that. When did sikhs start doing laava around SatgurSatgur rather than the fire?.

 

CryCrystal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to clarify who is property and where is this implied ?

What is a son ?...what is a heir ??  who's heir does the woman's son become ?....what about daughter ??

When would a father give away a son ?  have you seen this ?.... was he gay ??

You said ....... "Father giving away the bride was to signify that women were never independent and were always under the 'guardianship' of men - passed from guardianship of the father to the husband" ...........WHAT makes you think that this is the ONLY reason ?.......what about family ??...what about heritage ???...what about clan trade ???...what about surnames??? ....why don't married wives continue to keep father's surname ?? ......................DO you understand what I'm getting at here ???............you need to see the whole picture.. ..........You need to ask yourself  'where does your own father's surname come from ??'

I'm sure you have an idea of what the origins of common English names like Potter, Smith, Mason, ...Taylor/tailor are and where they would come from ?.......It's more or less the same principles in every race.

If you can't see this WHOLE layout that makes a family tree which are similar worldwide, no matter what colour or creed, then you won't understand  that ''guardianship'' is not the SOLE reason of why father of the bride exists.

 

****Forgot to add....Yes, there are some races that don't use family names/clan names as identities and these are also the same races where incest exists.(I'm not going to name any of these). These same bunch of people marry and fornicate with brothers, sisters, first cousins, second cousins......

In sikhi, marriage and fornicating with first and second cousins is incest.

 

 

In Sikhi, surnames are supposed to be not used anyway!!! The whole point of males keeping Singh and females keeping Kaur is so that a girl never has to assume someone else's identity! She has her own....or is this information wrong?? Because that's how all the Sikh websites and books explain it! ......So if a girl has last name 'Kaur' and the son 'Singh' then how does this even affect lineage or heritage? 

The daughter is still their daughter, the son is still their son after marriage.  They have just agreed to begin a life together, joining both families. 

Nobody loses a child, although both families GAIN one! 

Or am I missing something here?  Am I supposed to ignore my Mother now that I married a Sikh guy? (My Dad passed years ago).  Because that's not happening!  I still fully identify with where I came from, even though I also now have inhereted a new family as well.  I didn't all of a sudden morph into some different person!  And I had already changed my surname to Kaur prior to marriage.

As for heirs, sons and daughters both inherit from their own parents! Not the in-laws! If say my husband passed on, the way I understand it is that legally I would receive his inheritance and vice versa. 

And you said Guardianship is not the 'sole' reason... so you are acknowledging that women are under 'guardianship' of men... like little children needing to be ruled over by males??  I thought this was more an Islamic thinking and not Sikhi!  I'm sorry but even though I am married, I am NOBODY'S property and neither one of us have any authority over the other. Certainly we both talk out issues, and we both can make suggestions, but neither one of us can (or should) demand anything of the other.  Simailarly both of us are cognizant of each other's needs and will compromise and both of us respect each other mutually. That's what I thought marriage was about... not the man ordering the woman around and always getting his way while the woman submissively 'follows'.  Is this really what having the male in front in the lavans is symbolizing? Because if I had known this view prior, I'd probably have challenged it too just like the couple in the linked article!

I always thought the lavans were supposed to be both husband and wife moving AS ONE around SGGSJ, ie one soul in two bodies.  To have them side by side puts one further away from Guru Ji, then who is seen as superior??  I thought that the symbolism was simply an allegory for soul bride going to husband lord (using the phsyical marriage as a metaphor), and has nothing to do with actual physical marriage or rules for indicating who will be the doormat in the marriage and who gets to be in control all the time.  In fact, the actual lavans if you read them, don't even really correspond to physical marriage... they are entirely describing the merging of the soul to Waheguru. 

So did I participate in something unknowingly making a statement that I will be submissive, obedient, only ever a follower with no mind of my own and no chance to ever lead or be an equal (ie a doormat)??? Because if so, I was seriously duped!!!  And so was my husband because he also believes marriage is a 50/50 equal relationship!!! He doesn't want to lord it over me, any more than I want to be lorded over!  And vice versa. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a physical marriage is a balance of two energies, feminine & masculine traits.

Masculine traits: assertive, dominant, leadership, caretaker,

Feminine traits: homely, submissive, family planning & raising.

A masculine man + feminine woman = Perfect

A feminine man + feminine woman = wife not satisfied

A masculine man + masculine woman =  Problems, clash of two Type A personalities

A feminine man + masculine woman = might work, but wife might lose respect for husband.

So,in the end, a man needs to be a man and a leader . It has nothing to do with a religion or culture. That is just how the biology & evolution works. Even though women have become more independent but they are less happy because of increased stress of jobs plus raising a family, and burnt out in general. And more men are becoming feminine these days losing their leadership qualities.

In the end, every couple is unique, take the positives , ignore what you don't like, move on, let go, cant fight everyone, do not over-analyze things, avoid arguments & move on with life.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a physical marriage is a balance of two energies, feminine & masculine traits.

Masculine traits: assertive, dominant, leadership, caretaker,

Feminine traits: homely, submissive, family planning & raising.

A masculine man + feminine woman = Perfect

A feminine man + feminine woman = wife not satisfied

A masculine man + masculine woman =  Problems, clash of two Type A personalities

A feminine man + masculine woman = might work, but wife might lose respect for husband.

So,in the end, a man needs to be a man and a leader . It has nothing to do with a religion or culture. That is just how the biology & evolution works. Even though women have become more independent but they are less happy because of increased stress of jobs plus raising a family, and burnt out in general. And more men are becoming feminine these days losing their leadership qualities.

In the end, every couple is unique, take the positives , ignore what you don't like, move on, let go, cant fight everyone, do not over-analyze things, avoid arguments & move on with life.

 

 

This is not true... women do not need to always be submissive and obedient! Would you want to be? Ask yourself that same question... would you want to always have to divert to someone else's wishes while your own go unnoticed, where you are expected to just obey and the other person always gets their way?  Even if you have leadership qualities? There are MANY MANY women who are great leaders - just look at Mai Bhago, she LED the men into battle.  

Leadership ability is NOT a 'masculine' trait.  It's simply the ability to develop / guide others, it's a trait in general that ANYONE can possess - and more than that anyone can LEARN through leadership courses etc. Are you saying women are not able / should not guide and develop others?

How outdated to say women must be submissive, obedient little servants... not to mention very degrading to women, and the reason why women have been seen as inferior for so long by so many males. 

And btw sharing leadership in a relationship between both spouses most definitely does NOT mean the man is feminine LOL.  And I am definitely NOT HOMELY!  You describe men's supposed 'traits' above as being the good traits while your view of women is that we are 'homely', 'submissive'??  Who in their right mind would want to be a woman if that's all we are allowed to be?? LMAO!!! NOT ME!

And maybe women wouldn't get so burned out if the men also helped with changing diapers, cooking dinner and cleaning the house!  If both parents work, then BOTH can share the domestic chores!  Many women get burned out because the husbands come home from work sit on their butts and expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter while the woman also worked all day and now has the equvalent of another full time job playing servant to the man! LOL.  Or maybe hire a servant!!! Lots of people in India do that anyway!

And btw family planning is equally shared. 

Men have just had everything their own way and have kept women supressed for too long... its high time they were knocked off their thrones and start treating their wives as an equal instead of a live in servant with benefits.

tw do you know what Homley means?? Plain, Nondescript, Domestic, Lacking any inidivduality or notable features... you think women should be domestic robots?? LOL good luck!

 

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am talking about dynamics in a physical marriage, not external circumstances or world in general.

A man loves it when her wife pampers her, shows affection, cooks for her, takes care of him & his family, treats him like a King, & often does not mind few rebukes or suggestions of his wife either, since they have a good thing going. Sometimes, a man needs a little nudge from Shakti as well, if it is wise.

I am not a woman, but hearing or listening to most females, women love it when their husband is a rock for them upon whom they can depend upon during their emotional times, when their man is a leader & makes simple decisions for them like what to eat and what not, women get tingles when their man is assertive both in general life and in bed. For example, in love life, man usually initiates, women are usually shy which is seen as a good quality.

In the example of Mata Bhago Ji, Singhs were showing feminine qualities displaying sense of vulnerability, and ran away. Thus, Mata Ji feeling the need of time, took up arms and showed leadership qualities. There is nothing wrong with smacking men in head when they depart away from their duties.

Feminine quality is a good quality when Females show it, but it becomes negative when a Man becomes extremely feminine.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am talking about dynamics in a physical marriage, not external circumstances or world in general.

A man loves it when her wife pampers her, shows affection, cooks for her, takes care of him & his family, treats him like a King, & often does not mind few rebukes or suggestions of his wife either, since they have a good thing going. Sometimes, a man needs a little nudge from Shakti as well, if it is wise.

I am not a woman, but hearing or listening to most females, women love it when their husband is a rock for them upon whom they can depend upon during their emotional times, when their man is a leader & makes simple decisions for them like what to eat and what not, women get tingles when their man is assertive both in general life and in bed. For example, in love life, man usually initiates, women are usually shy which is seen as a good quality.

In the example of Mata Bhago Ji, Singhs were showing feminine qualities displaying sense of vulnerability, and ran away. Thus, Mata Ji feeling the need of time, took up arms and showed leadership qualities. There is nothing wrong with smacking men in head when they depart away from their duties.

Feminine quality is a good quality when Females show it, but it becomes negative when a Man becomes extremely feminine.

 

 

HAHAHA you tink women all cower and run away??? You think women WANT men telling them what to do, what to eat, etc?? You are seriously mistaken!!! If that were the case we'd be born without brains, we'd be like the stepford wives... robots that just obey on command. 

Doesn't it make MORE sense that BOTH partners are a rock when the OTHER needs it?? For example, if my husband is going through a tough time emotionally (yes men DO have emotions), then I can be a rock for him.  Similarly if I have an issue he can be mine.  That's what I thought love was... being there for EACH OTHER.  Not the woman is a perpetual obedient servant to be ordered around and never given say! LOL.  Btw I am perfectly capable of deciding what I want to eat!  And I definitely don't get the 'tingles' from someone ordering me around and being assertive, treating me like a child LOL.  What kind of world you think you are in??? 

 

 

Edited by Satkirin_Kaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...