Respect for SGPC maryada

[CdnSikhGirl]

If femenism comes in sikhi then it would ruin the spiritual aspects of sikhi like how femenism is corrupting western nations

I am not for feminism (where women would be seen as superior and put men in the inferior position as male chauvenism / patriarchy does now) 

I am for humanism, as Guru Nanak was a Humanist. Where all humans are treated equally despite our differences.  I am for removal of false statuses and heirarchies and giving everyone the same opportunities based only on their merits (ie: what's inside) instead of dictating what people can do based on what's between their legs, or what family (caste) they were born into, or whether their familiy is affluent or not, or whether or not they have loads of money (in fact if someone does have loads of money I would rather see (and if they are Sikhs, expect) them to use their money to do even more for others, rather than use their money to establish a higher status over those same people). 

Example: A male who is Amritdhari but maybe not super strict is asked to be one of Panj Pyaras because there are not many Amritdhari Sikhs in that Sangat, while there is a very dedicated Amritdhari woman who shows her devotion every single day and strives to increase spiritual knowledge continually and more than that, you can tell she has a direct connection - she has much higher sehaj avastha than the male, but she is passed over to do this seva for simply having a vagina.  Does it make sense to you?  So the sangat ends up with a less devoted Sikh preparing and administering Amrit, simply because he has a penis because of some notion that for all time, those doing seva as Panj Pyaras must be the same gender as the original five (while they do not have to be the same caste etc, even though casteism is put on the exact same level as genderism even in Damdami Taksal's own Rehet Maryada which many say are the exact direct words of Guru Gobind SIngh Ji). Does this make sense??

I disagree with pitting either gender against each other.  What I stand for, is seeing both genders on the same level.  They can be 'different' they can have different nuances, and obvious biological functions are different, but those differences should not dictate what the person can and can not do outside of what those specifiic biological functions do.  So outside of making babies, pregnancy and childbirth, women should not be limited based on this biology because their gender does not affect their ability to do these other tasks.  The seva of Panj Pyaras, does not require any part of the male reproductive system.  I know people keep comparing female gender to a disease or disability... but it's not.  The reasoning for disabled is only in the person's ability to phsyically carry out the Amrit Sanchar.  So someone with a missing rib for example... would not and should not be seen as disabled when it comes to Panj Pyara seva because they can still physically sit in the correct posture for prolonged period.  A person in a wheelchair could not sit in the correct posture at all, so that is the reasoning behind it. 

And spiritualy, we are all genderless... our souls have no gender and are formless, like the source from which we come.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[Koi]

Easy Jaikara, Satkiran is not personally responsible for all bad things done by "the white man"

[jaikaara]

Such racists views. Are you a rss bhakt trolling here with some agenda?

Oh is it ? So the truth hurts you too? pointing out to rascist acts committed by whites is rascist !!!!!!

[CdnSikhGirl]

 

Oh is it ? So the truth hurts you too? pointing out to rascist acts committed by whites is rascist !!!!!!

I am not racist at all (married a Punjabi didn't I)..... and I actually have aboriginal north american background.  So neither I nor my family had anything to do with what you were ranting about... in fact your pointing these things out sounds like a child... when a teacher scolds them from something, and the child says "but Johnny did it too" in order to take the heat off himself.  It's not a very becoming trait to try and deflect blame to others.

[jaikaara]

I am not racist at all (married a Punjabi didn't I)..... and I actually have aboriginal north american background.  So neither I nor my family had anything to do with what you were ranting about... in fact your pointing these things out sounds like a child... when a teacher scolds them from something, and the child says "but Johnny did it too" in order to take the heat off himself.  It's not a very becoming trait to try and deflect blame to others.

Ohh ! So you are a teacher !!!!! blame on others ? when you blame Maryada and Indic customs what do you think you are doing ? showering praises ?

[CdnSikhGirl]

Ohh ! So you are a teacher !!!!! blame on others ? when you blame Maryada and Indic customs what do you think you are doing ? showering praises ?

So... it's "Indic" custom then that you are trying to hide under to justify discrimination??  Is discrimination a basic tenet of 'Indic Custom'? If so, then is that a custom worth keeing?

Didn't the Gurus teach against such 'customs'??

p.s. I am not blaming Maryada... I am blaming those who CLAIM to follow certain Maryada but not actually following it.  Those who follow Damdami Taksal's Maryada have to see caste and gender on the same level as DDT's RM says that differences in caste and gender were both eliminated with the creation of the Khalsa.  So any differences that were used to discriminate prior, those 'customs' you speak so findly of, were eliminated because we are all equals and on same level in Khalsa. (Are you even Amritdhari??) 

I follow Sikh Rehet Maryada, and I don't pick and choose bits to follow out of it.  SRM says every human gets equal treatment and anyone can do seva including Panj Pyaras.  DDTs RM, has a contradiction.  Because on the one hand it's saying that women are to see men as God over them, while men are told to see women as 'followers'. This creates a definite heirarchy with males above females....  (this is one questionable statement in the document) because then further down it says differences in gender / caste etc were eliminated with creation of the khalsa. So any differences which caused imbalance / heirarchies were eliminated when Khalsa was created.  So the first statement no longer holds... how can there be a contradiction?  How can women be told to see men as Gods over them, and then told that differences between male / female were eliminated??  One of the two statements were obviously added in or altered along the way to suit someone's agenda... but how can we tell which one? Because our Gurus would never issue us with contradictory instructions right?? So we go to Gurbani as the litmus test.  What does it say about equality?  "As Gurmukh look upon ALL with a single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained" this is only one such example of MANY.  So the litmus test, Gurbani points to the statement about women seeing men as Gods over them as being the one whcih doesn't fit. And it's very very coincidental that the wording is almost identical to the same statement found in Laws of Manu... (so we can easily see where the thought came from - Brahaminical thinking creeping into Sikhi).  Go ahead, look up Laws of Manu and read it and then read Gurmat Rehet Maryada... the lines are so similar it's nearly a copy and paste!  Now it WOULD work, if the original was saying for both spouses husband and wife to see God in each other, as ALL humans were instructed in Gurbani to see the divine light in "each and every heart".  Right??  So I am not dissing the Maryada, but merely suggesting that at some point, some things were changed to inject sexist views of women.  Another example is the idea of sootak or ritual impurity of women to be used as another excuse to limit women from seva (and another excuse to call them inferior to males).  But again, if one actually reads what is written in Gurbani it tells us that the real impurity is not caused by blood , but instead is within one's mind... our actions, our thoughts, our deeds towards others and uses 'sucking the blood of others' as an example... exploitation. It says that one does not become pure by washing the body, but the real purity can only be experienced in the mind in which 'naam' (Waheguru) resides.  Gurbani was never speaking about physical blood making someone impure, it was using allegory - physical references to shift our thinking.  What I am against are these obvious anti-female teachings being perpetuated in Dheras etc. and the youth now (just look at Paapiman) have a disdain and contempt for females to the point they feel they deserve respect from females just for being male and that females are inferior, bad, impure, etc so women should just shut up and obey them and accept that they are the lesser creatures they are.  (ie: embodying the saying... "shut up and make me a sammich woman"). 

What would Guru Nanak Dev Ji say if he were alive today??

 
 

[jaikaara]

So... it's "Indic" custom then that you are trying to hide under to justify discrimination??  Is discrimination a basic tenet of 'Indic Custom'? If so, then is that a custom worth keeing?

Didn't the Gurus teach against such 'customs'??

p.s. I am not blaming Maryada... I am blaming those who CLAIM to follow certain Maryada but not actually following it.  Those who follow Damdami Taksal's Maryada have to see caste and gender on the same level as DDT's RM says that differences in caste and gender were both eliminated with the creation of the Khalsa.  So any differences that were used to discriminate prior, those 'customs' you speak so findly of, were eliminated because we are all equals and on same level in Khalsa. (Are you even Amritdhari??) 

I follow Sikh Rehet Maryada, and I don't pick and choose bits to follow out of it.  SRM says every human gets equal treatment and anyone can do seva including Panj Pyaras.  DDTs RM, has a contradiction.  Because on the one hand it's saying that women are to see men as God over them, while men are told to see women as 'followers'. This creates a definite heirarchy with males above females....  (this is one questionable statement in the document) because then further down it says differences in gender / caste etc were eliminated with creation of the khalsa. So any differences which caused imbalance / heirarchies were eliminated when Khalsa was created.  So the first statement no longer holds... how can there be a contradiction?  How can women be told to see men as Gods over them, and then told that differences between male / female were eliminated??  One of the two statements were obviously added in or altered along the way to suit someone's agenda... but how can we tell which one? Because our Gurus would never issue us with contradictory instructions right?? So we go to Gurbani as the litmus test.  What does it say about equality?  "As Gurmukh look upon ALL with a single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained" this is only one such example of MANY.  So the litmus test, Gurbani points to the statement about women seeing men as Gods over them as being the one whcih doesn't fit. And it's very very coincidental that the wording is almost identical to the same statement found in Laws of Manu... (so we can easily see where the thought came from - Brahaminical thinking creeping into Sikhi).  Go ahead, look up Laws of Manu and read it and then read Gurmat Rehet Maryada... the lines are so similar it's nearly a copy and paste!  Now it WOULD work, if the original was saying for both spouses husband and wife to see God in each other, as ALL humans were instructed in Gurbani to see the divine light in "each and every heart".  Right??  So I am not dissing the Maryada, but merely suggesting that at some point, some things were changed to inject sexist views of women.  Another example is the idea of sootak or ritual impurity of women to be used as another excuse to limit women from seva (and another excuse to call them inferior to males).  But again, if one actually reads what is written in Gurbani it tells us that the real impurity is not caused by blood , but instead is within one's mind... our actions, our thoughts, our deeds towards others and uses 'sucking the blood of others' as an example... exploitation. It says that one does not become pure by washing the body, but the real purity can only be experienced in the mind in which 'naam' (Waheguru) resides.  Gurbani was never speaking about physical blood making someone impure, it was using allegory - physical references to shift our thinking.  What I am against are these obvious anti-female teachings being perpetuated in Dheras etc. and the youth now (just look at Paapiman) have a disdain and contempt for females to the point they feel they deserve respect from females just for being male and that females are inferior, bad, impure, etc so women should just shut up and obey them and accept that they are the lesser creatures they are.  (ie: embodying the saying... "shut up and make me a sammich woman"). 

What would Guru Nanak Dev Ji say if he were alive today??

 
 

there was this woman i forgot her name ...who used to write so much of trash and the other is you...stop justifying your hatred filled attitude behind Sikhi...you have no idea what you want.

[CdnSikhGirl]

there was this woman i forgot her name ...who used to write so much of trash and the other is you...stop justifying your hatred filled attitude behind Sikhi...you have no idea what you want.

How can anything I wrote be considered hatred?  Hatred is condemning women to a second class existence in Sikhi...

[das]

Recently, I was listening to one spiritual discourse and a story was mentioned there, which perfectly applies here for both parties:

Once there was a person who had the very strong habit of eating mango pickles very day. In order to break his habit, a doctor told him to stop eating mango pickles as it is bad for him. He followed the advice and stopped eating mango pickles. He even went a step further by educating people about the bad effects of mango pickles. e.g If he would go for lunch somewhere, he will first ask the host if there is any mango pickle in the offered bowl as mango pickle is bad for health. Then during the lunch he would continuously talk about the bad effects of mango pickle. After completing his lunch, he would very strongly recommend other person to stop eating mango pickle.

Now, do you see anything bad in his behavior. Think about why the doctor asked him to stop eating mango pickle in the fist place: Because the doctor wanted to break the habit of his Mind by giving him the reason why he should not eat mango pickle. In other words, the doctor wanted him to go beyond the taste of tongue. But the person is still continuously talking about the mango pickle and thus the habit is still there in his Mind, it just changed the form. In other words, even he has left eating mango pickle, but his mind is still in the mango pickle, thinking about it. So, the person is not able to go beyond the mango pickle, he missed the real thing.

Sameway, we do say and teach that we don't differentiate between man vs women; but we're continuously engaged in discussions about Man vs Women. Aren't we acting like the person who stopped eating pickle but still his Mind is attached to it? Isn't Mind playing games?

It would be better to remember the aim of all these things (pickle or man-vs-women) is to break the unnecessary habits of mind so that it could go beyond itself. But you're still interested in playing the mind games, then you've (me included) not understood the real purpose.

Edited October 7, 2015 by das

[CdnSikhGirl]

Recently, I was listening to one spiritual discourse and a story was mentioned there, which perfectly applies here for both parties:

Once there was a person who had the very strong habit of eating mango pickles very day. In order to break his habit, a doctor told him to stop eating mango pickles as it is bad for him. He followed the advice and stopped eating mango pickles. He even went a step further by educating people about the bad effects of mango pickles. e.g If he would go for lunch somewhere, he will first ask the host if there is any mango pickle in the offered bowl as mango pickle is bad for health. Then during the lunch he would continuously talk about the bad effects of mango pickle. After completing his lunch, he would very strongly recommend other person to stop eating mango pickle.

Now, do you see anything bad in his behavior. Think about why the doctor asked him to stop eating mango pickle in the fist place: Because the doctor wanted to break the habit of his Mind by giving him the reason why he should not eat mango pickle. In other words, the doctor wanted him to go beyond the taste of tongue. But the person is still continuously talking about the mango pickle and thus the habit is still there in his Mind, it just changed the form. In other words, even he has left eating mango pickle, but his mind is still in the mango pickle, thinking about it. So, the person is not able to go beyond the mango pickle, he missed the real thing.

Sameway, we do say and teach that we don't differentiate between man vs women; but we're continuously exchanged in discussion about Man vs Women. Aren't we acting like the person who stopped eating pickle but still his Mind is attached to it? Isn't Mind playing games?

This works all well and good if nobody actually stopped women from seva... otherwise, it's well beyond just mind... at least for the women being told 'sorry ladies men only'

 

[chatanga1]

There are those who are attracted to same sex and I don't discriminate against them at all.  If they want to do seva, then they should be allowed. 

I'm not talking about sewa and you know it. I'm talking about marriage. Why did you marry a man and not a eunuch? The eunuch has the same same that your husband has. So why?

And outside of who has to carry and deliver a baby, once the baby is born, the tasks can be shared equally with Mother and Father and any tasks beyond childbirth, are not gender driven.

So you husband knows he may be breastfeeding in the future?

I keep bringing caste and wealth into it because your precious DDT Rehet Maryada brings them all into it together in the SAME sentence!!!!  It equates caste, wealth, and gender on the same level.  When Khalsa was created these things were eliminated!

It doesn't equate it with the losing gender. Men stay men, and women stay women after taking Amrit.

Since you believe Taksal's RM is THE RM of Guru Ji right from his mouth, then you can not ignore it! 

No we can't ignore it, but we can at least take it in the context it's meant to be.

You can't claim caste is wrong to discriminate on or wealth but then discriminate based on gender

 So again I will ask why weren't there any women Gurus? Or the writings ot any women included in Guru Granth Sahib?

[chatanga1]

satkirin ,

at hazoor sahib nanded, only hazoori singh can go inside and do sewa, no other man or woman can go inside. So do you think that is discrimination towards common men and women ?

absolutely! 

18 wasted years.

[chatanga1]

 

ALL Maryadas are man made... The closest we have to actual words from Guru Gobind Singh Ji are his 52 hukams and even some people doubt that. So no Maryadas should take precedent over what Gurbani instructs because that IS direct words from our Gurus (and others). You can hold man made Maryadas and traditions over SGGSJ but I never will.  If something seems to disagree with Gurbani then it can't be correct. 

you claim to have taken amrit. where in Guru Granth Sahib does it say to take Khande ki pahul and how to take it?

 

 If something seems to disagree with Gurbani then it can't be correct. 

What do you know about Gurbani? The garbage you spout for someone who claims to have done 18 years of study, is really poor. I mean really really poor. You can't read Gurbani and understand it, unless someone spoon feeds you in english, and you give it all this.

[chatanga1]

As I said, if a low caste or female at that time were to come and proclaim they were a Guru and teach about the equality of low caste and women, nobody would have listened.  It had to be the group that at that time was considered to be in authority and have the control, which were higher caste males. 

So Bhagats Kabir, Ravidas, Dhanna, Namdev were all high castes? As you have said...you don't know what you are saying. It is no absolute rule that you have to be high caste or rich for someone to take notice of you. You are trying to say it is, but you are wrong.

 

Okay so reference Maryada, why don't we all just follow Guru Ji's 52 Hukams then since it's the one that's actually linked to Guru Ji? 

HUkams to sangat are different from samprdayac maryada. Of course you knew this with your 18 years of study.

If we allow any different group to create new RMs whenever they want, and use 'tradition' and 'maryada' as excuse, then we can also encourage any group to be discriminated. 

for the samprdayes Gurus themselves set the maryada. But i agree in a sense. It should never have been allowed for the akj or the bhasaurs groups to

Eliminated is a strong word... and since we know it can not be speaking about actual gender itself, or actual caste itself or rich/poor because these things don't mysteriously change when one takes amrit,... what was eliminated were the false statuses and hierarchies that were being enforced because of these differences.

Exactly. So how can a female represent a male?

After all, Guru Ji's direct words were that even gender difference was eliminated and this was in the very same sentence in the same RM. 

Gender difference was not eliminated in the physical sense, as you have been told many times. It is only eliminated on a spritiual level. You are taking the RM the wrong way and coming up with the stupidity you have often done on this forum.

 And I am sick of people comparing being a woman to a disability.... a woman is a fully capable person. 

I am sick of you saying you are sick. Nowhere on this forum has anyone made the comparison you claim. Please stop posting lies.

[chatanga1]

 the historical Gurdwara I took amrit at in Srinagar Kashmir, has had women act as Panj Pyaras.   

you took amrit? did the 5 pyare read part of the CharitroPakhyan Granth required for you to take amrit?

I wonder how that must have felt.

[SAadmin]

you took amrit? did the 5 pyare read part of the CharitroPakhyan Granth required for you to take amrit?

I wonder how that must have felt.

Especially chaupai sahib - 405 charitar line. They must have?

[CdnSikhGirl]

 

 So again I will ask why weren't there any women Gurus? Or the writings ot any women included in Guru Granth Sahib?

What exactly are you trying to suggest here? That women are dirt beneath men's feet? That the Gurus disregarded women and considered us as inferior?

Now I have answered you MULTIPLE times and you seem to ignore each and every time and keep claiming I never answered... so here we go again:

I already told you why the Gurus needed to be male (and high caste) in order to spread teaching of equality. A woman claiming that women should be treated equally, would never have been listened to by males.  Same as a low caste Guru claiming that low caste deserved equality would never have been listened to by high caste people.  But here we had Gurus who were male claiming that women deserved equal treatment.  They were higher caste and so the higer castes actually listened to their message about equality regardless of caste. Simply, the message of equality MUST come from the ones doing the oppressing in order to be actually listened to (at least without a revolt).  It had nothing at all to do with women being seen as inferior in the eyes of the Gurus. Otherwise, Gurbani would not be telling us all to see everyone with a single eye of equality would it?

"As Gurmukh, look upon ALL with a single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained" 

Now as for context in DDT's RM.  Just like a poor person does not become rich when they take amrit, and a person's family background (caste) do not mysteriourly dissappear when someone takes Amrit, no their gender does not magically change.  It also mentions skin colour...obviously their skin does not change does it?? What was eliminated then? The idea that these differences should be used to delineate people into false statuses and heirarchies where some are discriminated and given less privileges compared to others. That's what was elimiated.  So no matter what their differences are, they were to be TREATED equally.  Do you understand??  And Gurmat Rehet Maryada puts caste, rich/poor, colour, creed, and gender in the exact same sentence, thus equating them on the same level. Meaning that these differences being used to limit some and give others superiority were all wrong...

"Differences in caste, creed, colour, gender, rich and poor all have been eliminated by the creation of the Khalsa"  Gurmat Rehet Maryada
 

Now to breast feeding... there is such a thing as a bottle, and women can easily store breastmilk that husbands can then use to feed the child, so that both parents can take turns feeding the baby through the night.  Some people don't breast feed at all. But even if a Mother exclusivly does breastfeed, that's what 6 months after the birth?  So that means she should never be in a position of authority for her whole life and men should rule everything? Because she took a few months to breastfeed a child??  LMAO!!

And to your last questions:  Yes I took Amrit and the Panj Pyaras actually stated outright that women can be Panj Pyaras :) And further to that they actually posed a challenge directly to the women present that day by stating they WANT to see at least some of the women present that day reach that level and participate in Amrit Sanchars as Panj Pyaras! It was awesome!!!

And question to you: How can a non-Indian represent an Indian? (Yet you are not against a caucasian Singh doing seva as Panj Pyaras)  How about a black person how can they represent a person with brown skin? Or how about someone from a different caste, how can they represent one of the Panj Pyaras if they were not from one of the same castes as the original five Panj Pyaras??

 

Edited October 7, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[chatanga1]

Here is why the gender issue should not hold up with Panj Pyaras:  The gender they had was not their only trait.

Gender is not a trait.

Here is why the gender issue should not hold up with Panj Pyaras:  The gender they had was not their only trait. They also came from different castes so if we are aiming to reproduce the original group, then maybe only the five original castes represented should be allowed to do this seva? Why are any caste now allowed?  But I know what you will say next... that castism (discrimination based on caste) is shunned in Sikhism... and you would be correct.  But genderism (discriminating based on gender) is also shunned in Sikhism - in the very same Rehet Maryada that majority of you on this site hold as the actual words of Guru Ji, in the very same line!!!!!

No. The Khalsa jaat supersedes all castes, but it does not supersede gender. you will still be a woman, and your husband will still be whatever he is. But neither of you will be the caste you were born into. If you dont understand that, it's not our fault, you wasted 18 years barking up some imaginary tree.

 Instead of holding on to your own preconceived notions of women not being worthy, or not being able to represent the original five simply because their gender is not the same, then all those who caste are not the same should also not be allowed to do this seva - or else you are a hypocrite.

No we are not hypocrits. We just know what we are talking about.

  And maybe we should go further and limit this seva to only those who are from the same localities? And have the same names? Oh but this is absurd you say?  So what makes gender so different that it's ok to discriminate based on gender but not ok to discriminate based on caste?  Especially when the Rehet Maryada you refer to says they are both on the same level, and the idea of discrimination using either was eliminated???

When you take Amrit you are told that now Guru Sahib is your spiritual father and Mata Sahib Deva is you spiritual mother, and that you are a member of the Khalsa family. You are also told that your birthplace is Sri Anandpur Sahib, so this localities nonsense you have tried to use is ridiculous.

And you are NOT told that you are no longer a man or a woman.

 

Another thing, is men cannot take amrit with pjama on, whereas women can't take it without pjama off. Isn't that discrimination?

And where is the idea that the first grooup of anything always has to be represented by like people for all time - where has this idea come from anyway?

The Panj Pyarey do NOT represent the orginaly Panj Pyarey. The Panj Pyarey ALWAYS represent Guru Gobind Singh.

18 years ? seriously?

[chatanga1]

What exactly are you trying to suggest here? That women are dirt beneath men's feet? That the Gurus disregarded women and considered us as inferior?
Now I have answered you MULTIPLE times and you seem to ignore each and every time and keep claiming I never answered... so here we go again:

No, I havent claimed women as inferior or dirt. your own perverted mind did that. I have asked you that multiple times on the basis of you claiming that there is no gender difference in Sikhism. Yet you repeat the same diarrhea over and over again.

[chatanga1]

I already told you why the Gurus needed to be male (and high caste) in order to spread teaching of equality.

and you have been told that this is not and absolute. They didn't NEED to be. 

again, Bhagats Kabir, Ravidas, Dhanna, Namdev... they were all high castes yes?

[chatanga1]

Now to breast feeding... there is such a thing as a bottle, and women can easily store breastmilk that husbands can then use to feed the child, so that both parents can take turns feeding the baby through the night.  Some people don't breast feed at all. But even if a Mother exclusivly does breastfeed, that's what 6 months after the birth?  So that means she should never be in a position of authority for her whole life and men should rule everything? Because she took a few months to breastfeed a child??  LMAO!!

No, because only the woman will be able to make this decision. Not a man. So thats discrimination right?

 

[chatanga1]

"As Gurmukh, look upon ALL with a single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained" 


"Differences in caste, creed, colour, gender, rich and poor all have been eliminated by the creation of the Khalsa"  Gurmat Rehet Maryada

So why did you marry a man then? Why did you discriminate against those people who don't have perfectly formed male genitalia?

[chatanga1]

Especially chaupai sahib - 405 charitar line. They must have?

She couldn't have taken it then, Surely she wouldnt compromise her (misguided) ideals?

[CdnSikhGirl]

I have never heard that a woman 'cant' take Amrit with pyjama off. In fact I don't see the issue... lots of women wear shorts and kachera is the same between male and female, so why would female legs be any different than male legs? I think if pyjama is required to be off then everyone should.  Though when I took it, some of the older men kept theirs on.  Not sure why.  But if I was required to take my salwar off, I would not have an issue with it as kachera on their own are plenty modest especially with a long kurta.

Even representing Guru Gobind Singh JI, our souls are genderless are they not??? Is it the soul or the physical body we are representing?  Gurbani says these bodies are only shells and meaningless and turn to ash.  It's the soul inside which is real.  So why can't one soul represent another soul?  These differences have been eliminated and its not me it's DDTs own RM which says so!!!! Not the physical differences as someone's caste is not mysteriously gone... someone's skin colour doesn't change, someone's affluence or rich/poor status don't change.  You are the one not understanding... it's not the physical things themselves which have been eliminated but HOW WE TREAT OTHERS BASED ON THESE THINGS which was eliminated.

A black man will always be a black man right? Guru Gobind Singh was not black... so with your thinking a black man should not be able to do seva as Panj Pyaras?  Or a caucasian man? So I ask again, why is gender so different from skin colour, or caste, etc?  You argue that caste is 'actually' eliminated with creation of Khalsa... no it isn't.  What is eliminated is our association of caste as a means to discriminate. Our biological family doesn't magically change with Amrit.  If an Amritdhari Sikh takes a DNA test, guest what? They will still match their biological family!!!

 

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

Also Chatnga1: You asked..... How can a female represent Guru Gobind Singh Ji??

Please re-read this screenshot of Damdami Taksal's Gurmat Rehet Maryada for your answer!!! Particularly the note 22 it refers to (also in the screenshot).
This is DDT'S OWN COPY OF THEIR OWN GRM - which YOU claim is DIRECT words of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.  So please read that line again... differences in caste, creed, colour, GENDER, rich and poor all have been ELIMINATED by the creation of the Khalsa. (22)  Then please read note 22 included beloe it and you will have your answer to your above question!