Moderation

[dalsingh101]

1 hour 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?

Being close to Guru ji doesn't mean he wasn't capable of having his own opinion. 

 

As for the sant, he has his own opinion as well. The kind of person he is will dictate his followers.He who is sant to one person, isn't necessarily a sant to another. 

 

On a more personal note, if you can't find peace here, and only see female oppression, you'd be a fool to stick around. Seriously. I don't say that lightly. Find something else that doesn't disagree with you as much maybe? Don't drive yourself bonkers every other day - it's not good for you.  

[Singh123456777]

6 hours ago, amardeep said:

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..

You my brother have hit it right on the head. Satkiran is still not gonna listen though so it's all for naught.

[chatanga1]

19 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

On a more personal note, if you can't find peace here, and only see female oppression, you'd be a fool to stick around.

 

Told her as much about a year ago. She had more leeway here than others who have continously disrupted the forum.

[paapiman]

On 1/31/2016 at 3:29 PM, amardeep said:

The Chaupa Singh Rahitnama has been corrupted over time, - nobody believes it to be 100 % authentic.

Is that the view held by Taksaal too?

 

On 1/31/2016 at 3:29 PM, amardeep said:

And by the way,- nobody calls him a sant. 

Bro, no point is getting too much into semantics. "Bhai" title was a highly venerated one; equivalent to that of a Sant. He was a great Gursikh and very close to Sri Satguru jee. He wrote a Rehatnama and was the male nurse of Maharaaj, which are very good indications of his high stature among Sikhs of that time. His name is mentioned by Bhai Saab Bhai Vir Singh jee too.

 

On 1/31/2016 at 3:29 PM, amardeep said:

A majority of Sikhs dont even know who he is. 

Most likely, there are many other prominent personalities too, who are not very famous among Sikhs.

Examples. the adopted sons of Tenth Master, Baba Chandd Baadi jee (Sikh of First master), Baba Sada Nand jee, etc.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Guest German Singh]

4 hours ago, paapiman said:

Is that the view held by Taksaal too?

 

Bro, no point is getting too much into semantics. "Bhai" title was a highly venerated one; equivalent to that of a Sant. He was a great Gursikh and very close to Sri Satguru jee. He wrote a Rehatnama and was the male nurse of Maharaaj, which are very good indications of his high stature among Sikhs of that time. His name is mentioned by Bhai Saab Bhai Vir Singh jee too.

 

Most likely, there are many other prominent personalities too, who are not very famous among Sikhs.

Examples. the adopted sons of Tenth Master, Baba Chandd Baadi jee (Sikh of First master), Baba Sada Nand jee, etc.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Do you personally believe what was written in the Chaupa Singh Rehetnama translation referred to, that men should never trust any woman, and that women are the very embodiment of deceit? How can you explain that this would ever help a successful marriage if the relationship is built on distrust of each other and keeping secrets from each other? Because trust goes both ways. And keeping secrets also goes both ways.

The irony is that what that Rehetnama is suggesting, is for husbands to do the very thing that Chaupa Singh is accusing the wives of:  
Being deceitful and keeping secrets! 

I have read some of your posts on here and think I already know your answers, but I want to know from your own explanation, not something you heard from a scholar who heard from the uncle of a cousin of a sant who heard from a brahamgyani. I want your own explanation and your own opinion.

 

[amardeep]

Paapiman:

"Is that the view held by Taksaal too?"

I dont know the stance of Taksal on the Bhai Chaupa Singh Rahitnama. If they even have one.
In the Bansavalinama of 1769, Bhai Kesar Singh writes that Bhai Chaupa Singh wrote a Rahitnama containing some thousand injunctions. The current day rahitnama does'nt contain that many, hence clear indications it has been altered over time.

Edited February 3, 2016 by amardeep

[Guest XYZ]

I think everyone has not read how Sikhi was diminishing after the British took over. There is lot of stuff that happened by the Hindus and the Mahants. I think every one is blind to think what could have gone wrong to DG. All of you who can not reason with the fact Sikhi was vanishing from this world at one time have lost their sight and mind.

[dalsingh101]

8 hours ago, Guest XYZ said:

I think everyone has not read how Sikhi was diminishing after the British took over. There is lot of stuff that happened by the Hindus and the Mahants. I think every one is blind to think what could have gone wrong to DG. All of you who can not reason with the fact Sikhi was vanishing from this world at one time have lost their sight and mind.

I think most of us are aware of this line of thinking. Some of us just don't see it as simple as that. Certain people might have been practicing a compromised Sikhi, sure, but what came and replaced it after being colonised was another form of compromised, adulterated 'Sikhism'. 

People cry about perceived Hindu accretions to the faith but are completely clueless to gora manipulations to it. 

[paapiman]

16 hours ago, amardeep said:

Paapiman:

"Is that the view held by Taksaal too?"

I dont know the stance of Taksal on the Bhai Chaupa Singh Rahitnama. If they even have one.
In the Bansavalinama of 1769, Bhai Kesar Singh writes that Bhai Chaupa Singh wrote a Rahitnama containing some thousand injunctions. The current day rahitnama does'nt contain that many, hence clear indications it has been altered over time.

Maybe some were lost. Anyways, will try to talk to a Taksaali scholar about this Rehatnama.

Thanks for the info about Bansavalinama.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

18 hours ago, Guest German Singh said:

. I want your own explanation and your own opinion.

My opinion does not matter much; the words of Saint scholars matter. A Sikh strives to abandon his Manmat and adopt Gurmat.

Become a registered member and we will discuss further.

Gurparsaad, will make a new topic on this Rehatnama.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Guest]

Paapiman,

I think what he was getting at is not the rehetnama itself but the irony of what is being stated in it:

1) Chaupa Singh seems to be condemning women as the very 'embodiment of deceit'.
2) He tells the men to never trust any women, including those close to them (their own wives, mothers, sisters, daughters etc.).
3) A husband who keeps secrets from his own wife, mother, sister, daughter is being deceitful.

Do you not see that irony? That instruction actually makes the men the 'embodiment of deceit'.

Also, any woman reading that rehetnama, will automatically never trust any man who she knows to be following it, even her own husband, because she knows he will never trust her, and will be keeping secrets from her! She knows if he is following that rehetnama, he will be the one who is actually being deceitful!

The question that was posed to you by Guest, has nothing to do with scholars, or sants. If a forum could only operate by posting (parroting) words of who some consider 'sants' then there is no use for actual conversation or dialogue at all.

That guest poster was asking you, as a Singh, how can you ever fathom a successful marriage being built on distrust and deceit? If both the husband and wife are to never trust each other, and both are keeping secrets from each other. Then how do they ever expect to have a loving marriage together? 

I'm not trying to belittle you at all. But if you ever get married, can you think what it would be like if you and your wife keep secrets from each other and you never trust her, and she never trusts you? Can you seriously see that working out? Already the marriage would be built on the very things which will crumble it!

SK (work)

 

[Ragmaala]

9 minutes ago, Guest said:

Paapiman,

I think what he was getting at is not the rehetnama itself but the irony of what is being stated in it:

1) Chaupa Singh seems to be condemning women as the very 'embodiment of deceit'.
2) He tells the men to never trust any women, including those close to them (their own wives, mothers, sisters, daughters etc.).
3) A husband who keeps secrets from his own wife, mother, sister, daughter is being deceitful.

Do you not see that irony? That instruction actually makes the men the 'embodiment of deceit'.

Also, any woman reading that rehetnama, will automatically never trust any man who she knows to be following it, even her own husband, because she knows he will never trust her, and will be keeping secrets from her! She knows if he is following that rehetnama, he will be the one who is actually being deceitful!

The question that was posed to you by Guest, has nothing to do with scholars, or sants. If a forum could only operate by posting (parroting) words of who some consider 'sants' then there is no use for actual conversation or dialogue at all.

That guest poster was asking you, as a Singh, how can you ever fathom a successful marriage being built on distrust and deceit? If both the husband and wife are to never trust each other, and both are keeping secrets from each other. Then how do they ever expect to have a loving marriage together? 

I'm not trying to belittle you at all. But if you ever get married, can you think what it would be like if you and your wife keep secrets from each other and you never trust her, and she never trusts you? Can you seriously see that working out? Already the marriage would be built on the very things which will crumble it!

SK (work)

 

I agree.  wow you sound way more calm. good.

Also, I want to know from Papiman, what kind of information a Gursikh Husband & Woman should withhold from each other , as he said women cannot be trusted with some kind of information ? or does it depend on how much you can trust your wife ? or what kind of relation you have with your wife?

An Ideal relation is one built on full trust and transparency. However, it is possible that some people can be stuck in difficult relations.

This ideal of not trusting your wife does not sit well with me. When that happens, I usually use common sense, and ignore the negative part, and adopt the positivity or gist of message.

 

And  Lets keep it calm guys.

[GurpreetKaur]

6 hours ago, Ragmaala said:

I agree.  wow you sound way more calm. good.

 

I did not realize it was her until I saw sk cuz the post seemed too calm lol

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

Oh don't get me wrong I am currently trying to decide if Sikhi is for me or not. I am still following Sikh Rehet Maryada for now but I can't help but be frustrated at all the misogyny in Sikhi that I never really knew existed. I was hoping praying that Guru Ji did not see us as deceitful and inherently lustful compared to men, and was hoping it was adulteration or tampered (Charitropakhyan not rest). And if it was Guru Ji who wrote it he wrote something that very overtly demeans women (even if you can somehow extract some hidden coded spiritual meaning from it fact remains 278 of charitars openly paint women as deceivers and sluts while only 26 address men as such.) the fact that Guru Ji could think this way of us is causing some very serious doubts in my mind if Sikhi can actually be the 'truth' and whether i could follow a path that sees me as such. And that's just one issue we still have the other issues: unfair limitations on seva, calling women impure because of biological functions, instructing women to worship men as God over them, wives actually bowing to their husbands to show their inferiority. People like chatanga and paapiman saying this is how Our Gurus really wanted women to be treated. And that resisting is going against the gurus. 

There is a lack of women heroines celebrated (there is a petition online right now to have five Sikh women added to Nanakshahi calendar and I assume u will all be against it) but right now not one single Sikh female heroine is celebrated. The Chaar Sahibzaade are celebrated for example but why not Mata Gujri Ji who was martyred same time? Just as one example. 

It just seems like Siki puts men in public sphere they are the ones celebrated and looked up to and get to do the good works and be called Heros etc while Sikh women are shoved into the kitchen and expected to be meek and hidden in shadows behind men. Little boys are taught to be strong leaders while little girls are taught how to cook and clean. It's 

Like men want to rule everything and have women always subordinate and never looked up to as leaders etc. I find it very difficult to swallow because I have never been submissive. To me it feels demeaning. If you as a man can't put yourself in submissive position or can't stomach the thought, that's how I feel. It doesn't mean I don't love my husband or that I don't respect him. I just don't consider him to be in authority over me as we are both adults with free minds. I don't see how his gender means he should always get his way. Luckily my husband doesn't believe in heirarchal marriage at all. But plenty of Singhs do and try to make me feel crappy for not wanting to be a doormat. 

And I feel like I was sold a fraud when I was learning about Sikhi. Every resource and even every Sikh I encountered said women are treated equal in Sikhi. But as I am finding out it's just not true... I used to think it was just some Singhs who thought this way and were interpreting things wrong but you guys have been making me see that our Gurus actually felt this way... Sikhi definitely does favour Singhs and give them preferential treatment. 

And hence the huge inner conflict I am now going through. I just feel like I have to either give up and conform (kill me inner being and just become a robot - I assume that's what is meant by being broken like prisoners and salves etc when they finally give up and just become stoic). Or I might have to give up Sikhi.  Right now I dont really see anything overly positive for women in Sikhi... I asked you guys to post something anything... And not one person has. Maybe because there isn't anything... 

However I've just become apathetic about it now.  I love my husband so I go through the actions. 

[Ragmaala]

Waheguru*

[Guest guest]

Hi Satkirin

I like your posts and i agree the people here are ovelry nasty to you (and im a guy btw).  i can see how they belittle you etc.  i think it is because they are not able to express themselves as well as you, so react with anger. 

I don't agree with you views, but that to me is what makes them interesting.  Also I never consider what it's like for women.  I'm glad to see you and Gurpreet regularly posting.

People who come here should be able to honestly express their minds and doubts, I think?  After all, it is a 'discussion' forum. 

[GurpreetKaur]

If everything was meant to be all rosy and glossy, we would not have people starving and dying, people being burned alive, people being abused. In this play, we all have taken our roles and they suck sometime until you look back and realize I forgot I am just playing my character lol, I know easier said that done but always worth trying. So just play satkirin ji, in the end nothing matter . Lol. That antarjami does not care about right/wrong, good/ bad.

And about giving up sikhi, who am I to give any suggestion lol. My boat is not even in the ocean yet but don't let go of spirituality. In every religion, culture and country you will meet people who agree with you and who don't. Just smile at the one who don't and walk with the one who do. It's that simple.

[CdnSikhGirl]

hiw it feels to be a woman? It sucks... Every turn you feel there is a door stopping you from something just because of what's between your legs! What women want more than anything from men particularly their husbands is for their husband to see them as an equal and not as a subordinate. Because all else comes automatically from that... To be considered subordinate and have less privileges to do seva etc feels like you are seen as less in eyes of tbe Gurus and Waheguru. Like we aren't seen as good enough or are lacking. 

It's one thing to be limited because of your actions in this life which you control but to be limited based on gender which you had no choice over sucks... 

[Guest guest]

so i reread your points and have some thoughts to offer up.

Which rehit maryada are you following, and for what purpose?  To love and draw close to God, to draw close and understand Guru ji, etc.  Then thinking in this light, you can discern with your own heart's wisdom what may and may not be true.  The rehit is there to help people, afterall.  I'm not saying you should discard things as you don't like, but I am saying you could say 'I don't think the Guru would say/support such a thing'.

The advice 'not to trust women' is meant for men.  if a woman wrote a rehitnama for other women, wouldnt it be 'never trust men'?  do you see how it makes sense that way?  because opposite genders are sometimes each others weakness.  actually I think you will find it comes down to 'don't trust in anyone except God'.

Theres no particular praise for men.  I think you are making the mistake (that many young people make) of not understanding when to take things literally and when to take 'the spirit of the letter'.

Charitrophkyan I havent read in entirety, and have only read bits of.  I don't think its 'anti women'.  Very few characters, men or women, behave well, if I recall correctly.  I think those stories where already in the culture, so it is a compendium.  It's a work of literature, like Chaucer's Canterury Tales.  I think its about how people act foolishly under the influence of lust, anger, pride etc its entertainment.

Another mistake that I see in your thinking, and which I made when I was younger, was 'group thinking'.  This means obsessing about what other people say, their opinions.  At that stage, you might see religion as a social phenomena.  But actually, other peoples views don't matter that much.  If you listen to them too much, of course you will get angry.  People all saying all kinds of stuff all the time.  So many people are telling each other 'you're arent real devotees'.  You need to remember that this is a spiritual path, and as far as other people are concerned, learn to 'seperate the wheat from the chaff'.

Adding women to our calender is something I would support, but to be honest,  I (and I think most men) don't notice whether the people being commererated are men or women.  I (we?) don't think in that way.  So I don't think its meant to be offensive or oppresive.  Mata Gujri, as I understood, died from shock, which isnt 'dictionary-definition' shaheedi.   

you say that "little boys are taught to be strong leaders". but are they???

You say men don't want women looked up to as leaders, but I don't think thats true.  I think they want leaders to be looked up as leaders, not particularly bothered if they are male or female.  Wasnt the head of SPGC ten years back a woman?  And arent Badal's daughter in law and Captain Amrinder's wife active politicians in Panjab? Also, I think Mai Bhago is the only warrior aside from the Guru's whose weapons are saved and venerated?

You refer to equality, but I don't think you understand.  By equality it is meant that women are not inferior.  Certainly not on any spiritual level.  It does not mean men and women are the same.  This is a biological fact.  For example, most women are not as strong as most men (there are exceptions!).  Does this mean that God is sexist?  Also, arent you angry that male and female athletes don't compete in the same events, rather than seperately?  But then hardly any women would win anything, right? 

If men had periods I don't think they would be allowed to do seva at that time either.

Also if from Gurus time only women were allowed to do a particular seva, don't you think it would look kind of odd is men today got up in arms and shouted it was sexism and oppression?  because its a *tradition*, not a oppression device.

just my 2 cents

 

 

 

And I feel like I was sold a fraud when I was learning about Sikhi. Every resource and even every Sikh I encountered said women are treated equal in Sikhi. But as I am finding out it's just not true... I used to think it was just some Singhs who thought this way and were interpreting things wrong but you guys have been making me see that our Gurus actually felt this way... Sikhi definitely does favour Singhs and give them preferential treatment. 

And hence the huge inner conflict I am now going through. I just feel like I have to either give up and conform (kill me inner being and just become a robot - I assume that's what is meant by being broken like prisoners and salves etc when they finally give up and just become stoic). Or I might have to give up Sikhi.  Right now I dont really see anything overly positive for women in Sikhi... I asked you guys to post something anything... And not one person has. Maybe because there isn't anything... 

However I've just become apathetic about it now.  I love my husband so I go through the actions. 

[GurpreetKaur]

This is for the men who are so confident that women are not human, ohhh cuz we are angels lol. Okay, seriously worth watching. 

[Singh123456777]

13 minutes ago, GurpreetKaur said:

This is for the men who are so confident that women are not human, ohhh cuz we are angels lol. Okay, seriously worth watching. 

Bhen ji I am disappointed in you. I was expecting some huggies babies :( 

[chatanga1]

On 03/02/2016 at 10:12 PM, amardeep said:

In the Bansavalinama of 1769, Bhai Kesar Singh writes that Bhai Chaupa Singh wrote a Rahitnama containing some thousand injunctions. The current day rahitnama does'nt contain that many, hence clear indications it has been altered over time.

 

Will have a look for this in Panjabi to see how it's written. Unless someone can do a screen shot?

[amardeep]

@Satkirin_Kaur

The longest lasting leader the Sikhs have ever had was a female! Mata Sahib Devi ruled the Sikhs for about 40 years (1708-1747).  This happened before the introduction of 'western values' to the Indian subcontinent meaning that the Sikhs followed a female as leader from within its orthodoxy.... There are many examples to give but people here can't be bothered because you only read what you want to read and otherwise blow Things out of proportions.

When you wrote those sarcastic remarks trying to emulate the views of some people here, - you ended up pissing them off.. This clearly suggests that you did not represent and reflect their view point. Otherwise they would'n be pissed off if what you wrote truly reflected their view points..

Yes there is a clear majority of men being mentioned and portrayed in Sikh literature,- this reflects the literary traditions of the time GLOBALLY. You can't blame this on Sikhi. The fact that Bhai Gurdas writes that females are equal to men in virtue, action and wisdom clearly shows that this is the stance of Sikhi! You might be able to find some tuks you take out of context to say otherwise, but then Again you are just reflecting your own wrong readings of Sikh literature.

Your problem is that you mix everything up, - theory, practice, literature and real life and make connections that are not supposed to be connected.

Lets have a serious discussion you and me, - bring up all the relevant points one at a time, and lets see what Sikhi says on this. The only requirement is that you READ WHAT I WRITE and contemplate it without going into extreme whataboutery (ie. what about this, what about that bla bla)..

Make a new thread and lets go through each question one by one.

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

I will, and I will include sreenshots... but I want factual answers, based on Gurbani etc. And not opinion or answers like "its just tradition".

Im at work and the forum keeps crashing on me, so I can't type much. Usually ic ant even stay logged on. So I'll type whole thing up tonight.

 

 

[chatanga1]

3 hours ago, amardeep said:

@Satkirin_Kaur

Lets have a serious discussion you and me,

 

Amardeep what kind of gyan kharag are you wielding that you feel you can accomplish this mission?

Your funeral buddy.