Respect for SGPC maryada

[chatanga1]

You have members continually posting openly shameful comments about the Sikh Rehet Maryada

We haved also had outrageous comments on here by you about other rehat maryadas. I don't agree with Paapimans words but yours are no different. Be the change you wish to see.

This is a deliberate act to degrade the closest attempt we have to a unified panthic rehet maryada, which took over 13 years and over a hundred prominent Sikhs of the time to write. They considered all the historical rhetnamas in making it, and most importantly, they held what Gurbani says above any of them!

The group that made the new rehat maryada involved a lot of Singh Sabha/Akali Dal people, their thinking of what Gurmat is, quite different from the Samprdayes and whenever their was any conflict of opinion, written sources were given prominence over seena-baseena traditions. A lot of Sikh practice has come through Seena-baseena but not all of it is in writing. E.g. what the 5 ks are, are there 5 ks or 3?

It's the only rehet maryada accepted by Akal Takht and even if the person doesn't choose to follow it themselves they should still respect it.

The maryada set by Guru Gobind Singh is that which the Damdami Taksal and Dal Panth follow. The Maryada that is prevalent in the Panth today was created by Sikhs. Follow which one you like but respect each others maryadas in the Panth even if we don't agree with them. Set the ball rolling and start respecting the maryada of Damdami Taksal even if you don't agree with it. Paapiman do likewise. Let's see who has the biggest heart.

[chatanga1]

Why are members scolded for making any negative comments about Damdami Taksals rehet maryada, which is not the accepted rehet maryada by Akal Takht (and puts bibis into inferior position) yet nobody ever scolds members who openly insult the only rehet maryada which is accepted by Akal Takht??? It seriously makes your site look a Damdami Taksal site.
 

Why make negative comments? Why not just accept that for members of the Damdami Taksal their maryada is paramount. Why not just accept Sri Akal Takht Sahib maryada as it is?

[chatanga1]

While open discussion on the various differences in rehet maryadas is fine, and even understanding that some sects deviate from the accepted rehet maryada

 

I wouldnt call the SGPC a sect even though they did deviate from the Panthic maryada when they installed the Sikh Rehat Maryada in Gurdwaras.

ie removing and ending Sri Dasam granth role in the Panth, allowing Sri Akhand Paath without Sri Raagmala.

 

I know you are, but why is Paapiman allowed to continually post "so called SRM" all the time when SRM IS the panthic rehet maryada? 

He is just the mirror image of you. Only with a different axe to grind. I'm surprised you haven't seen it. Repetitive posts about the same bull.

Comparisons should be allowed, but forcing one sect's RM down the throats of others as if it's the accepted 'true' one should be disallowed. It should be recognized and understood that these RMs are in deviation to the panthic rehet maryada.
 

see above. and again it was repetitive.

There should be a rule where at the very least, the basics in Sikhi should be respected and not insulted. 

Absolutely. Didn't you insult Guru Gobind Singh's Granth? Sri Dasam Granth has been an integral part of Sikhi for centuries but yet you cast doubt on it and liking posts that cast doubt on it? Why would you even do that?

[chatanga1]

.  I post sometimes from work which is a Canadian government computer

so you shortchange us, and your country?

[CdnSikhGirl]

Chatanga if you truly believe that DDTs RM is the panthic RM and that it is instruction direct from Guru Gobind Singh Ji  (many of us don't because of its stance on women - unless you change the teaching of Sikhi to have women in an inferior position) then prove to me that our Guru wanted women to see men as Demi Gods over them and how does he justify it? Is being born female a punishment as has been suggested? Did our Gurus advocate a heirarchy with women beneath men to the point that women are to see their husband as a god over them? Because DDTs RM very clearly tells wives to view their husband and serve them as a God over them. ( husbands are not told to view their wives as a god as well - and using Gurbani should not both spouses see God in each other ??)

How do you rectify being born a female then to be born into servitude under men except to say it's a punishment to be born female. Is this what you truly believe Sikhi teaches? Should we  start teaching all young Sikh girls that they were born into servitude beneath men And that their birth is a punishment for something they did in a past life which they don't remember?

Some of us can not rectify this with Gurbani... And can't see our Guru as teaching women they were inferior and in servitude to men. And if this is not Sikh teaching then DDTs RM is not infallible..its subject to human opinion over time same as anything else.  

At least SRM is acknowledged as being panthic decision and not direct words from Gurus mouth. And Guru Ji did give the panth the right.  And therefore we acknowledge it is not perfect but it's closest we have and was based on opinion from many sources. 

If you are claiming DDTs RM IS direct from Guru Ji then please make me see how Guru Ji taught that I am inferior to males and must see them as God over me. What did I do wrong to be born female?

To make he claim that ANY RM is direct from Guru Ji is an awfully bold statement to make...

Edited October 3, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[chatanga1]

Chatanga if you truly believe that DDTs RM is the panthic RM and that it is instruction direct from Guru Gobind Singh Ji  (many of us don't because of its stance on women

Many of us? Let's keep this to you and me. Didn't you go against the maryada of SRM and try to claim that Sri Dasam Granth was not the writing of Guru Gobind Singh? And support those that do? There's a term for people who have done that - heretics.

 then prove to me that our Guru wanted women to see men as Demi Gods over them and how does he justify it?

"prove" to you??? It was proved that Charitropakhyan is the creation of Tenth Guru, have you accepted that?

- unless you change the teaching of Sikhi to have women in an inferior position)

different does not mean inferior. Please either come up with new accusations or just stop. you post the same drivel over and over.

How do you rectify being born a female then to be born into servitude under men except to say it's a punishment to be born female. Is this what you truly believe Sikhi teaches?

And there it is. We are ALL born into servitude. This is our ancient sanskriti. It may not be yours, or the western worlds, but it is our sankriti. You are being very pigheaded about this.

 Should we  start teaching all young Sikh girls that they were born into servitude beneath men And that their birth is a punishment for something they did in a past life which they don't remember?

And this is the result of your pigheadedness. Imbecile questions.

Some of us can not rectify this with Gurbani...

Then you are approaching it from the wrong perspective. What more can I say?

At least SRM is acknowledged as being panthic decision and not direct words from Gurus mouth. And Guru Ji did give the panth the right.  And therefore we acknowledge it is not perfect but it's closest we have and was based on opinion from many sources. 

Guru Ji gave the Panth the right to add and expand, not to divide and reduce. As for being panthic, what if 10,000 clean-shaven Sikhs were to meet tomorrow and claim that kes is no longer necessary? Does that make it Panthic? The SRM has many flaws in it, as it was produced on a scriptural basis. If it was in writing it was in. However the centuries old traditions were done away with because Singh Sabha did not understand them, and they could not be backed up with scriptural evidence.

 

The SRM also says this is the minimum maryada for all Sikhs to follow, but can be expanded upon on a samprdaye or individual basis.

 

I'm guessing that you don't know the story behind the Rehras at Sri HariMandir Sahib?

If you are claiming DDTs RM IS direct from Guru Ji then please make me see how Guru Ji taught that I am inferior to males and must see them as God over me. What did I do wrong to be born female?

Again with the pigheadedness. Who said you did anything wrong? Don't you ever tire of the same questions over and over?

[CdnSikhGirl]

You can call it whatever you want, the 'different but equal' role thing is just trying to smooth over the fact that you believe women are in inferior position to men. 

Are a Master and Slave equal to others with just 'different' roles?  The Master might try and claim so, but switch their roles and see if he still believes that!

You also avoided the question so I will ask again:

 

Do you believe that Guru Gobind Singh Ji directly told women to see men as God above them? 

and

Do you feel this is in agreement with Gurbani? 

and

If this is what you truly believe, then why does nearly EVERY SIkh site online say that in Sikhi women and men are treated equally?  If this is in fact the direct teachings of Guru Gobind SIngh Ji, that women are to see men as Gods in authority above them and are to be obedient, submissive, subservient little slaves to men, then why don't all the Sikh websites come straight out and say it?? Why aren't Sikh schools telling little girls they must grow up to be obedient to men, and that they are beneath men, and commanded by our Gurus to see men as not only above them, but so high above them that they are 'Gods' above them???

---

Wouldn't it make much more sense with teachings in Gurbani for DDT's RM to tell BOTH husband and wife to see God in each other, since Gurbani says

"As Gurmukh, look upon ALL with single eye of equality for in EACH AND EVERY HEART, the divine light is contained"  

That instruction does not say in only men's hearts, it doesn't say see only men with equality... 

So how do you rectify that?

And, if you switched roles, would you still *be honest* think the same way??  I highly doubt it... once you were told once or twice to shut up and just obey the opposite sex, you'd feel pretty frustrated pretty quick, and that's how we feel.  This imbalance in feeling can not be how the Gurus wanted it... for men to always have their way and get everything and be seen as Gods while women are seen as servants and must be obedient etc and serve the men as Gods??? Those roles are not exactly fair are they?  That's why I say if this is how its supposed to be, then obviously being born female is karmic punishment... 

----

So someone please explain to me why DDT's RM says for women to see men as God but not for men to see women as God?  

 

[chatanga1]

You also avoided the question so I will ask again:

I didn't avoid it. I answered it with a question. Why have you avoided my question to you? I have asked you it several times on this forum, as well as several questions above. Why have you avoided them?

Edited October 4, 2015 by chatanga1

[CdnSikhGirl]

What question? Do I believe that Waheguru Ji told the Gurus to see women as inferior? Of course not! And the reason they were male was the time / culture. Even today men have a hard time listening to or taking leadership from a woman... Do you think anyone would have listened to a woman back then? Possibly... But more likely they would have laughed at her, told her to get back in the kitchen and went on their way. Even Mai Bhago was discouraged numerous times from fighting... Before she finally went and led those men to battle and all the stories make it seem like the men only followed because she shamed them.. Not that they valued her as an actual leader. (Though I truly believe she was but it's not how she is portrayed the stories are written to make it seem like the men followed her only because they were shamed into it). So can u imagine how far the gurus would have got if they took female body in that time and culture?? 

[CdnSikhGirl]

Now it's your turn... Do you believe Guru Gobind Singh Ji directly instructed women to see men as Gods above them and hence see themselves as inferior?

if you believe DDTs RM (the current version which was written in it current form in late 1980s I believe) anyway if you believe it to be the ineffable and direct and untainted words of Guru Ji then you have to believe the above.  

I want to see you actually outright admit it. Because I think maybe you have just a little doubt that you are scared to admit it just in case you are wrong!!! 

[chatanga1]

What question? Do I believe that Waheguru Ji told the Gurus to see women as inferior? Of course not! And the reason they were male was the time / culture.

So weak. Religion is not subservient to culture where they are at odds. Answer honestly, why no woman was chosen as Guru.

 Even Mai Bhago was discouraged numerous times from fighting...

Was she?

. So can u imagine how far the gurus would have got if they took female body in that time and culture?? 

Yes because the Guru's accepted the current view of that time because females were seen as inferior? What rubbish! Right from the start, who was Baba Nanaks's life-long companion? The Guru's had no time for social conventions. If it was wrong, it was wrong.

This is not the first time you have insulted our Guru's. You insulted Guru Gobind Singh Ji by criticizing his teachings. Now you say the Guru's were too scared to confront social convention. If Guru ship can go to a 5 year old, it can't go to a woman? Plus there were women in the 22 manji system. So dont try and give me that "how far would they get" rubbish.

I want to see you actually outright admit it. Because I think maybe you have just a little doubt that you are scared to admit it just in case you are wrong!!! 

Really? I thought exactly the same when CharitroPakhyan was discussed and your fan club fell flat on it face. Even then you didn't have the courage, or honesty to admit you were wrong. And what even worse is, that you behaved like a parasite on others fallible arguments, yet denied all association with host body when they realised their game was over.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2015 by chatanga1

[Guest]

I knew it... you wont admit that you think Guru Gobind Singh Ji directly told women to view men as God over them.

You are missing one important point... the Gurus did not 'choose' a male human.  The Gurus were genderless... they chose to take a male form.  Our gender is not 'us' we are genderless just like them.  It wasn't about choosing a human to be Guru... male or female.  The Gurus were the soul within the body, not the body.  In that time period, yes a child male would have been seen as having more authority than an adult female.  Just like certain Islamic countries view things even today... in Saudi Arabia for example, a woman's own minor son can end up being her 'guardian' because women are not allowed to have control over their own lives.  So in a culture where women were still seen as being subservient, benath men, if the Gurus had taken form in a female body they would not have had as many followers. 

It has nothing to do with some Divine ordained order where women must be subservient to men - that's rubbish and a self serving lie that men create to keep women under their control... that's male Ego thinking -  putting themselves on a pedistal over women - having to feel better than someone else and having to have control over someone else.

The litmus test on this?  Gurbani.... Gurbani can never disagree with the Gurus.  And Gurbani says as Gurmukh (and the Gurus would have followed their own instruction) see ALL with a single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained. It doesn't say in all men's hearts... it says ALL.  Women are part of that ALL. It says see ALL with a single eye of equality.  It doesn't say see men as above women, and limit women from things.  It doesn't say men must be the leaders and women must 'obey' and ' follow'. It says see ALL with a single eye of equality... thats just one of about 60 verses in various shabads that I can pull up to back this.  In contrast, there is not a single shabad which says women must be subservient beneath men or only obey and follow men. 

However, Gurmat Rehet Maryada definitely puts women in an inferior position beneath men with that instruction to not only see men as superior, but so much superior that they are to be seen and served as God over women.  This is anti-Gurmat.

 

[Guest]

That was me SAtkirin (at work)

[chatanga1]

I knew it... you wont admit that you think Guru Gobind Singh Ji directly told women to view men as God over them.

I knew that you were too coward to admit you were wrong about CharitroPakhyan and certainly nobody worthy of me admitting anything to, after insulting Guru Sahib.

You are missing one important point... the Gurus did not 'choose' a male human.  The Gurus were genderless... they chose to take a male form. 

unbelievably lame.

Our gender is not 'us' we are genderless just like them.

 

So did you recently get married to a man/woman/ladyboy/eunuch ? Please reveal.

 

[chatanga1]

 So in a culture where women were still seen as being subservient, benath men, if the Gurus had taken form in a female body they would not have had as many followers.

what a disgusting creature you are. again you have insulted the Gurus. time and time again you insult them. Guru Sahib overlooked women as possible Gurus because they were afraid of not getting enough followers? 18 years of research? not even 18 minutes.

[Singh123456777]

  2 hours ago,  Guest said:

You are missing one important point... the Gurus did not 'choose' a male human.  The Gurus were genderless... they chose to take a male form. 

So then why didn't they choose to take a female form? Why did every single guru choose to be male? You point is invalid satkiran.

[CdnSikhGirl]

what a disgusting creature you are. again you have insulted the Gurus. time and time again you insult them. Guru Sahib overlooked women as possible Gurus because they were afraid of not getting enough followers? 18 years of research? not even 18 minutes.

And what you think the reason is that Gurus saw women as incapable? Inferior?? You are the disgusting creature reversing what they Gurus actually taught about women! This thinking of putting women into inferior position... is against Gurbani.  You are insulting the female gender to suggest that the reason the Gurus did not choose to be in female form is because females are inferior! 

Edited October 5, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[CdnSikhGirl]

THIS IS WHY there were no female Gurus at that time... or Gurus from so-called Low Castes... The Gurus were all from High Caste families...So why do you not question the issue of caste now?  

Quoted:

"The Sikh Gurus came at a time when women and so-called lower castes were oppressed. One might wonder why were the Gurus born into so-called high caste Kshatriya families.

Gurbani speaks strongly against castes and stresses the equality of genders. Imagine if our Gurus were born into so-called lower castes, or if any of the Gurus were women. Would this message have such a strong impact? Would anyone bother listening to a “lower caste” preaching against caste? Would anyone bother to care about a woman preaching gender equality? But no! Here we had men of “higher” castes spreading the message of gender equality and condemning the caste system. This was a shock for the rotten society of those times and was a massive revolution in itself, and thus it took India by storm and hit the minds of everyone like a thunderbolt.

People were like “these men are spreading the notion that genders are equal…” “These high caste Kshatriyas are spreading the message that caste has no value is meaningless.”  This had a profound effect on the psyche of all classes (castes) of Indians. The so-called lower castes who had been suppressed saw hope, and the fanatical higher castes also woke up to reality. The men that were oppressing women got a jolt when they saw these men speak out against the idea of considering women as inferior or impure. High castes spoke against castes. Men spoke in favour of respecting women. This was something totally new and unheard of. The message of gender equality and equality of all mankind might not have had such a profound impact if our Gurus were women or from so-called lower castes. The world was not evolved in the literal sense of equality to the stage that a female Spiritual Leader could hold up at the time."

[Singh123456777]

Bhagat kabir Ji was of low caste and some many people followed him back then so you point is invalid again.

[CdnSikhGirl]

So you think it's because women are inferior too?? Wow this whole site is full of guys with superiority complexes LOL

[Ragmaala]

So you think it's because women are inferior too?? Wow this whole site is full of guys with superiority complexes LOL

Sorry to say, but you have been so blinded by your internal rage that you twist everything said to mean against you and women.  You call me chauvinistic, but you yourself are a blind feminist.

Satkrin says, "But if nobody says anything or tries to show them the truth, they will go on believing this drivel! And its only us women who will say anything (since men obviously benefit from women being seen as inferior) so women have to be the ones to challenge this thinking. "

And on top of this , you have the typical white savior syndrome, where you feel the need to gather up the Brown Singhnis and revolt against the Sikh men.

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

 

Sorry to say, but you have been so blinded by your internal rage that you twist everything said to mean against you and women.  You call me chauvinistic, but you yourself are a blind feminist.

And on top of this , you have the typical white savior syndrome, where you feel the need to gather up the Brown Singhnis and revolt against the Sikh men.

 

Only the ones who have this thinking (and spread it) that the Gurus were male because men are somehow better or superior to women.  You have to admit, making the statement (in an equality discussion) "why do you think all the Gurus were male" HIGHLY suggestive that he believes the reason is because men are superior / women inferior or at the very least that he thinks women should not / can not be leaders. I gave the reason... 

Think about it, would the slave drivers in the American South have ever listened to a black slave claiming that blacks should be free?  The message of equality MUST come from the same group as the slave drivers for them to listen.  In that time in India, even during the 200 years span of the Guru's times... women were still treated like dirt.  Less valuable than cattle (and probably seen as more expendable too) So The Gurus being male, and making the statement that male / female are equal meant WAY more than if a woman had claimed so.  Do you think a woman who was about to be tossed on her husband's funeral pyre forcibly, do you think if she had claimed that women should have equal rights to men, do you really think any male would have listened?? The message HAD to come from males!  This was several hundred years ago, and even today many of you are still wanting to throw women under the bus, see us as inferior, want us to be 'obedient' to you and only follow... and God forbid you ever had to follow female leader because that would be seen as somehow emasculating.  But you never put yourself in the position of women... what it feels like to be bossed around, told you are "less than", seen as less capable, told you are 'HOMELY' etc.  And even worse... to the extreme as in DDT's RM, told to see males as GODS over you (and serve them as such).  In your version of Sikhi, I don't know why women don't just all want to go and end it all.  I'd rather be a beggar man on the street than a woman - at least the beggar man would be free and not a servant to the opposite sex, while women in your version of Sikhi are worthless and virtual servants to men.  It's not even worth living that life.

DDT's RM doesn't agree with Gurbani... Gurbani can NEVER contradict the Gurus.  Gurbani says to see ALL and treat ALL equally.  In fact DDT's OWN RM contradicts ITSELF!

This is Brahminical thinking that crept in plain and simple... Hinduized Sikhi.  In fact it's straight out of the Laws of Manu.  I fear if we allow this thinking to continue, in only a few generations, Sikhi will turn into another sect of Hinduism.

  Don't believe me then look for yourself... I'll attach the screenshot... so according to DDTs RM, once one takes Amrit, all distinctions causing false hierarchies are eliminated.  Including gender... so if you have taken Amrit, and see a Bibi who has taken Amrit, even if you follow DDT's RM, there can be no more thinking of male being higher status than female.  There can be no more thinking that as a male you have more privilege than females, or that the Gurus were male because somehow being male is better.

This is from vidhia.com from Gurmat Rehet Maryada... for all of you who say this is THE exact words of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, now will you look at men / women on same level?  It's right there in black and white telling you to!  

Oh but then how do you rectify the 'seeing the God in the husband bit'... unless ....the Husband is also supposed to see his wife as God, which DOES then work with Gurbani because Gurbani says we are supposed to see God in each other. But then why did they word it for only the wife to see and serve her husband as God but tell the husband to see his wife as a follower? BIG Contradiction!!!!  If this truly IS direct words from Guru Ji, then there can be NO contradiction.  How can you rectify this?

The ONLY way that line about seeing husband as God can work and agree with Gurbani and the below instruction in the very same RM, is if BOTH husband and wife see God in each other. So somewhere along the lines, the wording must have been changed or altered to make women look subordinate to their husbands... using wording that is so similar to Brahminical mindset in Laws of Manu that it's eerie! In fact it's almost word for word.

But...Differences in caste, creed, colour, GENDER, rich and poor all have been ELIMINATED by the creation of the Khalsa.  I know next thing you will say is gender was not elimiated because there are still males and females.  Well same with rich and poor... the poor person doesn't automatically become rich when he takes Amrit. Someone's caste background / family is not mysteriously changed either.  So what can it be referring to?  The DIFFERENCES which are used to put some people at advantages and others at disadvantages. The DIFFERENCES which were used to create false heirarchies, to denote one person as having higher status than another. That's what it's referring to.  As Khalsa we are supposed to see and treat everyone equally. And gender is most definitely listed there.... and this is IN DDT'S RM!!!!  

Chatanga1 do you still believe that Guru Gobind Singh Ji directly told women to view men as Gods over them?? Raagmala, do you still believe women were created to serve men and be 'HOMELY' and 'Submissive' to male authority?? Paapiman, still think men deserve more respect from women, than women deserve from men? If the answer is yes for any of you, then you are all hypocrites not even following the RM that you consider to be the exact words of Guru Ji himself.  

At least SRM does not pose such a contradiction.  It actually follows the above instruction that all differences creating man made statuses are eliminated with creation of the Khalsa, and hence all humans male and female alike are treated equally in SRM in all spheres including all seva.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[chatanga1]

You are insulting the female gender to suggest that the reason the Gurus did not choose to be in female form is because females are inferior! 

dont twist my words you conniving person. Their is no reason why the Gurus never chose a woman. Women were represented in almost everything but when it came to the physical representation it was always male. The Panj Pyarey represent Guru Ji in physical form, why is why they will always be male.

THIS IS WHY there were no female Gurus at that time... or Gurus from so-called Low Castes... The Gurus were all from High Caste families...So why do you not question the issue of caste now? 

Bhagat kabir Ji was of low caste and some many people followed him back then so you point is invalid again.

So you think it's because women are inferior too?? Wow this whole site is full of guys with superiority complexes LOL

So you tried to bring caste into it? Glad you have seen the sense in that.

[chatanga1]

 

Sorry to say, but you have been so blinded by your internal rage that you twist everything said to mean against you and women.  You call me chauvinistic, but you yourself are a blind feminist.

And on top of this , you have the typical white savior syndrome, where you feel the need to gather up the Brown Singhnis and revolt against the Sikh men.

 

So true.This white saviour syndrome, makes them think they are the only source of knowledge and theirs is the only culture that matters.

[CdnSikhGirl]

dont twist my words you conniving person. Their is no reason why the Gurus never chose a woman. Women were represented in almost everything but when it came to the physical representation it was always male. The Panj Pyarey represent Guru Ji in physical form, why is why they will always be male.

So you tried to bring caste into it? Glad you have seen the sense in that.

Yup I did bring caste into it? know why?  because DDT's RM actually puts caste and gender in the same category.... see the attached image above screenshot from vidhia.com. 
 

Also, if Panj Pyaras have to be 'same' as the Guru to represent Guru.. is it only gender which defines our Gurus?  Then anyone who does seva as Panj Pyaras should also be same caste, have the same name, look the same etc. too?  Otherwise the only thing similar is their gender... Since even DDTs own RM puts gender on the SAME LEVEL as caste / rich / poor etc.  Then it has to be treated the SAME as those things. Since we would never think of barring someone from Panj Pyara seva for being a low caste, then why is it ok to bar someone based on their gender?  The Guru was the light within the body... not the physical body itself.  If a Bibi espouses the same qualities, then of course she can represent the Guru as one of Panj Pyaras.