Ragmaala Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Is the following allowed : Quote I wasn't aware when I took Amrit how anti-woman Sikhi really is. Guru Gobind Singh considered us deceitful and sluts and wrote at length on it Guru Ram Das also pushes the message in SGGSJ, that men who act according to the orders of women, are considered impure, filthy and foolish And even that passage by Guru Nanak which *seems* positive towards women is not. (SGGSJ Pg 473) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragmaala Posted January 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 This is how extremism in any form can blind you to the facts. Ego indeed is blinding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 7 minutes ago, Ragmaala said: Is the following allowed : Bro, who is this person Bhul chuk maaf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 But this is the message that many of you have been pushing on here for a long time... especially paapiman! I thought you'd be happy that I finally have accepted it! Nothing I wrote there was my own writing... it was all summary of things many of you have said over the last year! There is no conclusion taking them as a whole except that our Gurus looked down upon us. (to be fair I pulled most of them from posts from paapiman). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragmaala Posted January 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, paapiman said: Bro, who is this person Bhul chuk maaf bro you are so naive take a guess who it could be lol your favortite friend of sikhawareness? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 She is being sarcastic and using irony. She belives she is representing the views of you guys. We are not going to delete it since she is only acting out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GurpreetKaur Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Here's the Moderation yea, I am always on YouTube watching kids. Don't judge me lol but it's my meditation lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, amardeep said: She is being sarcastic and using irony. She belives she is representing the views of you guys. We are not going to delete it since she is only acting out. Thank you because in actuality, I copied every single point almost word for word from posts of members (Singhs) on here. And they know who they are. Taken as a whole, I am trying to show that this paints a very negative image of women by our Gurus and Sikhi in general. This is the message of Sikhi that many members on here have been trying to drive into me the last year or more (knowingly or unknowingly). And even another female member is noticing it. In fact I saved the screenshots of the actual posts and the comments by the member who posted it, which show their support of the meaning being negative to women. So I can actually post them all if need be. Hint here's one... Trust me the respective posts for all the points and more which I addressed in Gurpreet Kaur Bhenji's post, I have saved as screenshots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Just now, Satkirin_Kaur said: Taken as a whole, I am trying to show that this paints a very negative image of women by our Gurus and Sikhi in general. This is the message of Sikhi that many members on here have been trying to drive into me the last year or more (knowingly or unknowingly). And even another female member is noticing it. Maybe these types of women were a particularly problem at the time? What you seem to be doing is denying such types existence because you feel it portrays women in general in a particular way. This is more your own issues and culture speaking than anything else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Honestly Satkirin Kaur, I dont think you understand what people are writing to you. You seem to nitpick small things and you dont understand the arguments people use. Nor do they understand you... Thats why I keep reffering to you guys as kids in a kinder garden. Just loads of drama leading no where. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 1 minute ago, dalsingh101 said: Maybe these types of women were a particularly problem at the time? What you seem to be doing is denying such types existence because you feel it portrays women in general in a particular way. This is more your own issues and culture speaking than anything else. If it was meant for only *certain* women, then why would a SANT instruct men to NEVER TRUST ANY WOMAN, EVEN HIS OWN WIFE! Chaua Singh was close to Guru Gobind Singh, then how could he interpret it such if Guru Ji meant only certain women? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GurpreetKaur Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, Satkirin_Kaur said: , I copied every single point almost word for word from posts of members (Singhs) on here. Ooooo.. No don't like it. 1:30 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 The Chaupa Singh Rahitnama has been corrupted over time, - nobody believes it to be 100 % authentic. Stop being a wahabi about Sikh writings taking them all 100% literally. There is a lot of trash in the Chaupa Singh Rahitnama and many Sikh scholars past and present have analysed its various parts. And by the way,- nobody calls him a sant. A majority of Sikhs dont even know who he is. Stop pumping him up in order to strengthen your own argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdsingh80 Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, Satkirin_Kaur said: If it was meant for only *certain* women, then why would a SANT instruct men to NEVER TRUST ANY WOMAN, EVEN HIS OWN WIFE! Chaua Singh was close to Guru Gobind Singh, then how could he interpret it such if Guru Ji meant only certain women? Quote There are five reasons why this rahit-nama has been regarded as hopelessly confused and corrupted. 1. The extant text is a conflation of at least three different sources. It cannot be the work of a single author. 2. There are doctrinal reasons against accepting the work of a Brahman, particularly as in one of the rahit-nama sections it is stated: Any Gursikh who is a Brahman should receive twice the service [and consideration that other Sikhs receive. He who renders such service] shall earn a double reward (G'hS 24, 60, 151; see also 120, 167, 622, pp. 72, 80-1, 127, 160, 168, 197-8). Any Sikh of today would find this instruction intolerable. 3. The rahit-nama relates, as if it were authentic, the notorious story of how Guru Gobind Singh was persuaded to seek the blessings of Mata Devi (the goddess Durga) by celebrating the traditional fire ritual . The Puranic cosmology introduced near the end presumably falls under the same condemnation (ChS 615-40, 125-30, 196-200). 4. The unctuous references to Chhibbar Brahmans, which occur in two of the narrative portions are plainly intended to serve a family purpose.8 This would not be appreciated by many of the rahit-nama's readers. 5. The language of the rahit-nama has been tentatively held to be later than the usage current during the time of Guru Gobind Singh (PSP 41a). These reasons may explain the unpopularity of the Chaupa Singh Rahit-nama, but they should not conceal its considerable significance. Its length, its detail, its date, and its circumstances as a product of the Chhibbar family make it an extremely valuable document. The details of its rahit-nama contents may be summarized as follows.` https://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-rehat-maryada/chaupa-singh-rahit-nama-sp-715 I guess many of these puratan rehats have so many things which cannot be applied these days. for example Bhai nanad lal said "a Khalsa is one who slays the muslim" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GurpreetKaur Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 8 minutes ago, Satkirin_Kaur said: Trust me the respective posts for all the points and more which I addressed in Gurpreet Kaur Bhenji's post, I have saved as screenshots. Ooo.. I think I am a penguin. Since I love cold weather and snow. Okay, I'll quit and get serious. But lemme go tell mom first that she and I ain't no manukh lol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragmaala Posted January 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 24 minutes ago, amardeep said: She is being sarcastic and using irony. She belives she is representing the views of you guys. We are not going to delete it since she is only acting out. Oh ok good. I thought she was being serious. I am terrible at recognizing Satkirins jokes & sarcasm. They feel so real to me . /s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragmaala Posted January 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 10 minutes ago, GurpreetKaur said: Ooo.. I think I am a penguin. Since I love cold weather and snow. Okay, I'll quit and get serious. But lemme go tell mom first that she and I ain't no manukh lol. lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Bu 8 minutes ago, kdsingh80 said: I guess many of these puratan rehats have so many things which cannot be applied these days. for example Bhai nanad lal said "a Khalsa is one who slays the muslim" But there are so many Singhs on here who stick to certain 'sampardas' simply BECAUSE they follow and agree with the puratan rehetnamas. And they don't dismiss them as being only applicable to a certain society and time. In fact, they are the biggest complainers against Sikh Rehet Maryada simply because it doesn't agree with those puratan ones. 12 minutes ago, amardeep said: The Chaupa Singh Rahitnama has been corrupted over time, - nobody believes it to be 100 % authentic. Stop being a wahabi about Sikh writings taking them all 100% literally. There is a lot of trash in the Chaupa Singh Rahitnama and many Sikh scholars past and present have analysed its various parts. And by the way,- nobody calls him a sant. A majority of Sikhs dont even know who he is. Stop pumping him up in order to strengthen your own argument. If it's not a stretch to think a puratan rehet could have been adulterated or corrputed, then why is it so hard to think the same could happen to dasam granth? And before you say that nobody considers it... maybe you should ask a few members on here. My reply in the other thread was actually all from posts on here and the sentiments expressed by the members who posted. It's not my argument. I had thought Sikhi was positive for women. It's only taking all the posts over the last year or so that I came to realization that it's actually the opposite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragmaala Posted January 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 13 minutes ago, amardeep said: And by the way,- nobody calls him a sant. A majority of Sikhs dont even know who he is. Stop pumping him up in order to strengthen your own argument. you know why she called him sant. Because in a post, I mentioned that Sants are sent down to earth to reform...she somehow linked up the word sant with Bhai Chaupa Singh. This is what she does..she makes unnecessary connections and nitpicks things lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ragmaala said: Oh ok good. I thought she was being serious. I am terrible at recognizing Satkirins jokes & sarcasm. They feel so real to me . /s. My point was to show the picture that you guys have been painting of Sikhi... and I have the posts of individual members saved as screenshots that show what they actually said about each point I covered in that post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Ragmaala said: you know why she called him sant. Because in a post, I mentioned that Sants are sent down to earth to reform...she somehow linked up the word sant with Bhai Chaupa Singh. This is what she does..she makes unnecessary connections and nitpicks things lol No, Paapiman directly called him a Sant. Thats why I said that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 If you guys believe the opposite of what I put in that post then PLEASE by ALL means show me some POSITIVE THINGS about women in Sikhi!!!! Actual references... that don't seem to put us down, that don't say we cant be trusted, that don't say men are in authority over us, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post amardeep Posted January 31, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, Satkirin_Kaur said: Bu But there are so many Singhs on here who stick to certain 'sampardas' simply BECAUSE they follow and agree with the puratan rehetnamas. And they don't dismiss them as being only applicable to a certain society and time. In fact, they are the biggest complainers against Sikh Rehet Maryada simply because it doesn't agree with those puratan ones. If it's not a stretch to think a puratan rehet could have been adulterated or corrputed, then why is it so hard to think the same could happen to dasam granth? And before you say that nobody considers it... maybe you should ask a few members on here. My reply in the other thread was actually all from posts on here and the sentiments expressed by the members who posted. It's not my argument. I had thought Sikhi was positive for women. It's only taking all the posts over the last year or so that I came to realization that it's actually the opposite. I think you are living in your own little world. People have told you over and over again not to put things in their mouths. You connect things that are not connected and then use that as an argument against people. I think its called a straw man in english. You build up a narrative in your own head and then argue with people about why they feel a certain way. But they actually dont feel that way! When people here have respect for samprdayas it is NOT because of the way they view women.. thats YOUR take on it because you seem to center your life on feminism.. So if I tell you im into the samprdayas, then you will find something you dont agree with and make a fuss and drama about me being into the samprdayas due to this one female statement only!! Its bloody weird man and you need to stop it! People here respect the samprdayas because they reflect a pre-colonial disposition of Sikhi with a heavy regard on oral tradition...... NOBODY HAS MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT WOMEN!! yet you keep hammering on and on and on about them....The puratan samprdayas dont even follow the old rahitname, - they have their own oral traditions which they follow. Like I said, - you dont understand what people are writing, nor do they understand what you are writing.. bloody kinder garden man!! When people showed you the tuks of Sri Guru Amar Das on women, they did'n mean to say that The Satguru talks ill of women.. They were saying "if you use this kind of arguments against Sri Dasam Granth then why dont you apply the same logic to the Guru Granth Sahib".. Its a way of showing how illogical you are.. Yet you read it as the guys saying Guru Amar Das looked down on women... And now you're making connections between Rahitanme and Dasam Granth....SERIOSLY??? wtf???? The rehitname for the most part are 2-3 pages long... The Dasam Granth is 1300+ pages long... Stop making weird analogies... I dont know if you have some sort of OCD or something but if you do, please let us know... This is getting really tiring.. Everyone here is tired of having to explain themselves over and over again as well as having to defend themselves of weird allegations you keep making, -putting words in their mouths etc.... Pappiman says weird shit at times, - all of us laugh at it from time to time and consider those views as representing only himself.. Yet you take it and blow it out of proportions and make it sound like pappiman is the sole global ambassador of SIkhi - everything he says is true and law! Give it a rest man.. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post kdsingh80 Posted January 31, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Quote Yet you take it and blow it out of proportions and make it sound like pappiman is the sole global ambassador of SIkhi - everything he says is true and law! Give it a rest man.. LOL LOL 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post GurpreetKaur Posted January 31, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 It was a serious talk but last paragraph cracked me up so bad. Haha 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.