Amardeep Question #1 Women As Panj Pyaras

[amardeep]

If there is such a ban it is not rooted in Sikhi.

[CdnSikhGirl]

Sachkhand is also a place where Maharaaj's saroop is kept. It is a hygiene protocol in Sikhism that any women (on menses) must not enter that sacred place. People (men or women) must take full body bath before entering such sacred places. Men, who suffer from any involuntary ejection of bodily fluids, must also avoid going into Sachkhand or doing seva of Maharaaj's saroop.

Bhul chuk maaf

 

This is what he just posted in the other thread... so this is NOT a rule in Sikhi??  

[amardeep]

Did he provide any proof? No its not a rule in SIkhi. Might be a rule for certain groups though.

[Singh123456777]

I'm not supposed to enter this thread but I saw how dally posted in it I will only post once as well. 

 

Satkiran for two years you have been asking these same questions over and over. In these two years you could have progressed in your bhagti but did you? No you didn't. You kept on making these trivial threads over and over again. Did it not once occur to you that if you did bhagti the answers would have come to you on their own? That Akaal purkh may have given you the answers? Now your asking Amardeep questions and he is responding but in the end you will not be satisfied because there will still be a doubt in your mind. Amardeep is giving answers which is good and all but what if his answers are wrong(hey Amardeep I'm not saying your right or wrong. I'm just giving an example)? For he too is a man and men make mistakes! That doubt will always be with you. There are people who won't ever conform to your ideology such as paapiman and many others because they are in their ways and you cannot accept the fact that they follow something you don't preach. Then ultimately you will keep on wondering why do they still believe in what they believe in. Maybe they could be right? You show them Amardeep's answers but nobody will actually pay them any heed except people who have your ideology. Then after you will try finding answers to justify your position again and again but the outcome will be the same in the end. You will still have doubts.

I will give you one answer that will lead you to all answers. It will only work if you actually do it. 

Stop wasting time discussing trivial matter such as these and start doing bhagti. Stop wasting time on here and do bhagti and the guru will give you answers. That is the only way you can be without doubt.

 

PS: Don't respond back to this post.

[Lucky]

well said singh. .... This is the most useless and pathetic discussion for anyone.  

[amardeep]

Hopefully the answers will have an effect.

[CdnSikhGirl]

48 minutes ago, amardeep said:

Hopefully the answers will have an effect.

They are clarifying many things. I am realizing it's not Sikhi I am struggling with but only some peoples interpretation of Sikhi. And that I don't have to follow Punjabi culture to be Sikh. and those people are not even majority. Yes certain members view of women hurts... But I know I can't change them. I just hope they doesn't influence anyone else to think like that. Like maybe new members that come here and end up thinking this is how Sikhi sees women. 

From what you have seen so far, in your opinion am I on right track how I have been analyzing meaning from shabads? By looking at full context and getting the deeper (and sometimes metaphorical) meanings? Like the ones so far in this thread you said I have been interpreting them correctly... If so I will just continue what I have been doing... Gurbani should be final authority on things right? And Rehet should agree with Gurbani. 

I am just going to follow Sikhi how I have been following:

I will follow Sikh Rehet Maryada because I believe in panthic decision and furthermore that's the Rehet given to me by Panj Pyaras and accepted by Akal Takht......I'm not going to isolate myself during certain times just because some Sikhs think I am impure (though of course I will always use appropriate hygiene products).........I will show my husband love respect devotion how I feel comfortable doing (and that's not patti Parmeshwar thing as to me it's more important to see God in everyone - including within myself)..... and if anyone thinks that makes me less Sikh in their eyes well they aren't in majority anyway.

certainly though u must be understanding where and how I got to be so frustrated??  You don't need to look very far in the threads recently. And even another female member is now becoming disheartened at what she is reading. 

[amardeep]

13 minutes ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

They are clarifying many things. I am realizing it's not Sikhi I am struggling with but only some peoples interpretation of Sikhi. A

"Know yourself and leave others to themselves. One who knows himself knows God". Bhai Nand Lal Goya, Diwan-e-Goyaa

[CdnSikhGirl]

1 minute ago, amardeep said:

"Know yourself and leave others to themselves. One who knows himself knows God". Bhai Nand Lal Goya, Diwan-e-Goyaa

Eerie.... This is quote from the Oracle at Temple Delphi:

Man Know Thyself, and thou shalt know the all the mysteries of the universe and God. 

 

[amardeep]

Quote

From what you have seen so far, in your opinion am I on right track how I have been analyzing meaning from shabads? By looking at full context and getting the deeper (and sometimes metaphorical) meanings? Like the ones so far in this thread you said I have been interpreting them correctly..

In the examples we've discussed in this topic I think you've been right all along by looking into the wider context of the shabads.

Where I disagree with you however is your extreme focus on 'feminism' which blinds you to such a degree that you are actually willing to reject scripture of Sikhi for the sake of moulding Sikhi to fit into your modernist way of thinking.

In terms of how to reconcile secondary litterature of Sikhi with SIkhism - Kavi Santokh Singh said to apply the foundations of Sikhi (as given in Guru Granth Sahib) when reading texts such as janam-sakhis wherein there is also content that is untrue. This can also apply to the rehitname and other secondary Sikh writings. Kavi Santokh Singh said not to reject the writing, but instead to use discriminitive intelligence to get rid of the interpolations.

[chatanga1]

On 05/02/2016 at 9:29 PM, CdnSikhGirl said:

Is there anything written anywhere that DEFINITIVELY prohibits women from seva as Panj Pyaras (meaning not implied but actual stated)??

 

On 05/02/2016 at 9:34 PM, amardeep said:

As far as I know of, - no there is nothing to suggest that women can't be panj pyare. The reason some groups are against is is due to there not being a tradition of it occouring.

 

I was going to enter this "fray" when the q and a has smapitted, but seeing as it become a free for all.

 

Amardeep, I was a little concerned at this Gyan Kharag that you had armed yourself with. Now I am even more concerned. Sikh religious praxis is not entirely covered by scripted evidence. Even if we go by Gurbani, (Primarily Aad, even using Dasam) there is NO requirement to take Kes, Khande ki Pahul no mention of specific daily prayers etc. These are the pillars of Sikh faith. Even if we go by the next 2 canons (Bhai Gurdas varan and Bhai Nand Lal poetry) there is nothing there to confirm this.

Where there has been an absence of scriptural evidence then non-scriptural praxis has been the guide. This should have be part of your answer. The primary guide to non-written Sikh praxis is the conduct of the Gurus themselves. In the 9 years from 1699 to 1708 there would have been many sinchars, including Guru Sahib being part of the sinchar, but there is not one case, documented or in tradition where any woman has taken part. Even in the next 2 centuries where more and more was (slowly) being written there has never been any one instance of this happening.

That should tell you a lot Amardeep.

Now the question has been worded as "preventing" rather than "supporting" the inclusion of females as Panj Pyare. So although there is nothing in scripture to say females are prevented, there is equally nothing in scripture and praxis to say they can be part of it. Remember that the tradition started without females, so if females were to be part of it, there would most likely be some evidence there in either scripture or praxis to say they could be.

And there isn't.

[Guest guest]

7 minutes ago, amardeep said:

Where I disagree with you however is your extreme focus on 'feminism' which blinds you to such a degree that you are actually willing to reject scripture of Sikhi for the sake of moulding Sikhi to fit into your modernist way of thinking.

I share this view. 

To be fair, you alone are not guilty of it.  But it seems typical that so many people demand that Sikhi is changed to adhere to their own personal wants and prejudices.

We need to respect traditions, so long as they are benign (i.e. not physically harming anyone) even if we do not know the reasons for it, because tradition is how ancient things are transmited to us, that we may have no knowledge of.

Its actually you who are projecting the idea that this is sexism and excluding women.  You don't understand that no one else see's it that way. 

None of the above are new points and I know people have already said them.

 

[Guest guest]

just to clarify, the above comment to addressed to Satkirin, not Amandeep

[chatanga1]

3 hours ago, Lucky said:

well said singh. .... This is the most useless and pathetic discussion for anyone.  

Not the first one over the last year.

16 hours ago, Singh123456777 said:

I will give you one answer that will lead you to all answers. It will only work if you actually do it. 

Stop wasting time discussing trivial matter such as these and start doing bhagti. Stop wasting time on here and do bhagti and the guru will give you answers. That is the only way you can be without doubt.

And this is the true result. Wasting time in repeating questions, and then other wasting their time in asnwering off-repeated questions is just a waste of time. A person could be reading bani, doing naam simran, doing sewa, learning Panjabi etc.

 

[amardeep]

1 minute ago, chatanga1 said:

 

 

I was going to enter this "fray" when the q and a has smapitted, but seeing as it become a free for all.

 

Amardeep, I was a little concerned at this Gyan Kharag that you had armed yourself with. Now I am even more concerned. Sikh religious praxis is not entirely covered by scripted evidence. Even if we go by Gurbani, (Primarily Aad, even using Dasam) there is NO requirement to take Kes, Khande ki Pahul no mention of specific daily prayers etc. These are the pillars of Sikh faith. Even if we go by the next 2 canons (Bhai Gurdas varan and Bhai Nand Lal poetry) there is nothing there to confirm this.

Where there has been an absence of scriptural evidence then non-scriptural praxis has been the guide. This should have be part of your answer. The primary guide to non-written Sikh praxis is the conduct of the Gurus themselves. In the 9 years from 1699 to 1708 there would have been many sinchars, including Guru Sahib being part of the sinchar, but there is not one case, documented or in tradition where any woman has taken part. Even in the next 2 centuries where more and more was (slowly) being written there has never been any one instance of this happening.

That should tell you a lot Amardeep.

Now the question has been worded as "preventing" rather than "supporting" the inclusion of females as Panj Pyare. So although there is nothing in scripture to say females are prevented, there is equally nothing in scripture and praxis to say they can be part of it. Remember that the tradition started without females, so if females were to be part of it, there would most likely be some evidence there in either scripture or praxis to say they could be.

And there isn't.

Chatanga: I agree with you to the most part. However, in terms of female panj pyare I dont think there is any explicit ban on this in Sikhi, - there is only a norm and a tradition of it being men. I gave one reasoning of norm above. The fact that it is a norm however does'nt mean that it is a rule. These are two different things.

99% of panj pyares of history are not known in literature. Only a few have been mentioned and often in relation to them having baptised famous persona of Sikh history (such as the names of the panj pyare who baptised misl sardards, famous saints etc). 99% of the names of panj pyare havent been mentioned at all.

A majority of written Sikh history covers military history. Since military was mostly dominated by males it also means that a majority of the females of the panth have been left undecribed. It is a shame that there have been such little focus on writing the social history of the Sikhs wherein would have been included many more layers of Sikhi. However, given the turbulent times of 18-19th century Punjab it is understandable that the Sikh writers mostly wrote about military history which automaticaly includes writing a history of male leaders. So even if there were female panj pyare they would probably not have been mentioned.

Im not here to please Satkirin, nor am I here to blindly excuse omissions in history. A majority of Sikh institutions present and past have been corrupted by the caste system. Should we accept this just because its been a part of the praxis for centuries? I disagree.

[chatanga1]

1 minute ago, amardeep said:

Chatanga: I agree with you to the most part. However, in terms of female panj pyare I dont think there is any explicit ban on this in Sikhi, - there is only a norm and a tradition of it being men. I gave one reasoning of norm above. The fact that it is a norm however does'nt mean that it is a rule. These are two different things.

Norms over religious praxis are as good as law imo. That's like saying the traditions started by the Guru's has some kind of shortage in them.

4 minutes ago, amardeep said:

. A majority of Sikh institutions present and past have been corrupted by the caste system. Should we accept this just because its been a part of the praxis for centuries? I disagree.

I disagree because in this case we have so much scriptural evidence to tell us thats its wrong.

[amardeep]

5 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

Norms over religious praxis are as good as law imo. That's like saying the traditions started by the Guru's has some kind of shortage in them.

I disagree because in this case we have so much scriptural evidence to tell us thats its wrong.

And do you have any scriptural evidence that suggests only men are allowed to posses some positions? If so, then we can juxtapose the ban on female panj pyare onto this scriptural evidence. If we dont have any scriptural evidence to make analogies onto, then I find it hard to say there is an explicit Sikh ban on female panj pyare.

Sikh history shows that we've had local female community leaders (from the time of Guru Amardas when he appointed females to lead the Afghan Sikh sangats), we have female political leaders (Mata Sahib Devi 1708-1747) including leading females in charge of Sikh politics and economy  (the misl era) and Maharanis wielding power (Late 1840s).

I dont see any ban in Sikh history stating that there are certain positions females can't have- apart from that one of panj pyare which seems to more of a norm than a rule.

Edited February 7, 2016 by amardeep

[CdnSikhGirl]

 

You say there is no scriptural evidence to allow women maybe not about Panj pyaras directly but we can see how the Gurus thought about equality in general.

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

Now that IS in scripture as are many other similar passages...  if you read the above and yet pass over a high avastha female for seva in panj pyaras, simply because she is not male are you really upholding the above??? To see the divine light in all? To see all (not just males) with single eye of equality?  So even though scripture doesn't speak about specific seva (such as Panj pyaras) it does answer question of how we should treat everyone in any situation.m in general. And that is with single eye of equality. I think it very much does pertain! And that's only one example from Gurbani as that same message appears many many times in different shabads. 

Page 93, Line 18
ਰਵਿਦਾਸ ਸਮ ਦਲ ਸਮਝਾਵੈ ਕੋਊ ||੩||
Raviḏās sam ḏal samjẖāvai ko▫ū. ||3||
O Ravi Daas, one who understands that the Lord is equally in all, is very rare. ||3||

Page 648, Line 5
ਗੁਰ ਸਿਖਾ ਇਕੋ ਪਿਆਰੁ ਗੁਰ ਮਿਤਾ ਪੁਤਾ ਭਾਈਆ ॥
Gur sikẖā iko pi▫ār gur miṯā puṯā bẖā▫ī▫ā.
The Guru loves all of His GurSikhs equally well, like friends, children and siblings.

Page 1302, Line 2
ਊਚ ਨੀਚ ਸਭ ਪੇਖਿ ਸਮਾਨੋ ਮੁਖਿ ਬਕਨੋ ਮਨਿ ਮਾਨ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Ūcẖ nīcẖ sabẖ pekẖ samāno mukẖ bakno man mān. ||1|| rahā▫o.
They look upon all equally, the high and the low; they speak of Him with their mouths, and honor Him in their minds. ||1||Pause||
Guru Arjan Dev   -  view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok

[amardeep]

Next question Satkirin.

[CdnSikhGirl]

And that first tuk I posted here is the full shabad and its speaking of serving the Guru... This can be seen as close to specific seva as we might find in Gurbani no? Early on it says day and night serve at the Gurus feet and it tells us there is no other than the Lord so by servin all and seeing all equally we are actually seeing the Lord because really there is no other. I think this can be applied to seva as Panj pyaras...

ਸੋਰਠਿ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥
सोरठि महला १ ॥
Soraṯẖ mėhlā 1.
Sorat'h, First Mehl:

ਸਰਬ ਜੀਆ ਸਿਰਿ ਲੇਖੁ ਧੁਰਾਹੂ ਬਿਨੁ ਲੇਖੈ ਨਹੀ ਕੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥
सरब जीआ सिरि लेखु धुराहू बिनु लेखै नही कोई जीउ ॥
Sarab jī▫ā sir lekẖ ḏẖurāhū bin lekẖai nahī ko▫ī jī▫o.
Destiny, pre-ordained by the Lord, looms over the heads of all beings; no one is without this pre-ordained destiny.

ਆਪਿ ਅਲੇਖੁ ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖੈ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਚਲਾਏ ਸੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੧॥
आपि अलेखु कुदरति करि देखै हुकमि चलाए सोई जीउ ॥१॥
Āp alekẖ kuḏraṯ kar ḏekẖai hukam cẖalā▫e so▫ī jī▫o. ||1||
Only He Himself is beyond destiny; creating the creation by His creative power, He beholds it, and causes His Command to be followed. ||1||

ਮਨ ਰੇ ਰਾਮ ਜਪਹੁ ਸੁਖੁ ਹੋਈ ॥
मन रे राम जपहु सुखु होई ॥
Man re rām japahu sukẖ ho▫ī.
O mind, chant the Name of the Lord, and be at peace.

ਅਹਿਨਿਸਿ ਗੁਰ ਕੇ ਚਰਨ ਸਰੇਵਹੁ ਹਰਿ ਦਾਤਾ ਭੁਗਤਾ ਸੋਈ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
अहिनिसि गुर के चरन सरेवहु हरि दाता भुगता सोई ॥ रहाउ ॥
Ahinis gur ke cẖaran sarevhu har ḏāṯā bẖugṯā so▫ī. Rahā▫o.
Day and night, serve at the Guru's feet; the Lord is the Giver, and the Enjoyer. ||Pause||

ਜੋ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਸੋ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਦੂਜਾ ਕੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥
जो अंतरि सो बाहरि देखहु अवरु न दूजा कोई जीउ ॥
Jo anṯar so bāhar ḏekẖhu avar na ḏūjā ko▫ī jī▫o.
He is within - see Him outside as well; there is no one, other than Him.

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਏਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੨॥
गुरमुखि एक द्रिसटि करि देखहु घटि घटि जोति समोई जीउ ॥२॥
Gurmukẖ ek ḏarisat kar ḏekẖhu gẖat gẖat joṯ samo▫ī jī▫o. ||2||
As Gurmukh, look upon all with the single eye of equality; in each and every heart, the Divine Light is contained. ||2||

ਚਲਤੌ ਠਾਕਿ ਰਖਹੁ ਘਰਿ ਅਪਨੈ ਗੁਰ ਮਿਲਿਐ ਇਹ ਮਤਿ ਹੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥
चलतौ ठाकि रखहु घरि अपनै गुर मिलिऐ इह मति होई जीउ ॥
Cẖalṯou ṯẖāk rakẖahu gẖar apnai gur mili▫ai ih maṯ ho▫ī jī▫o.
Restrain your fickle mind, and keep it steady within its own home; meeting the Guru, this understanding is obtained.

ਦੇਖਿ ਅਦ੍ਰਿਸਟੁ ਰਹਉ ਬਿਸਮਾਦੀ ਦੁਖੁ ਬਿਸਰੈ ਸੁਖੁ ਹੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੩॥
देखि अद्रिसटु रहउ बिसमादी दुखु बिसरै सुखु होई जीउ ॥३॥
Ḏekẖ aḏrist raha▫o bismāḏī ḏukẖ bisrai sukẖ ho▫ī jī▫o. ||3||
Seeing the unseen Lord, you shall be amazed and delighted; forgetting your pain, you shall be at peace. ||3||

ਪੀਵਹੁ ਅਪਿਉ ਪਰਮ ਸੁਖੁ ਪਾਈਐ ਨਿਜ ਘਰਿ ਵਾਸਾ ਹੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥
पीवहु अपिउ परम सुखु पाईऐ निज घरि वासा होई जीउ ॥
Pīvhu api▫o param sukẖ pā▫ī▫ai nij gẖar vāsā ho▫ī jī▫o.
Drinking in the ambrosial nectar, you shall attain the highest bliss, and dwell within the home of your own self.

ਜਨਮ ਮਰਣ ਭਵ ਭੰਜਨੁ ਗਾਈਐ ਪੁਨਰਪਿ ਜਨਮੁ ਨ ਹੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੪॥
जनम मरण भव भंजनु गाईऐ पुनरपि जनमु न होई जीउ ॥४॥
Janam maraṇ bẖav bẖanjan gā▫ī▫ai punrap janam na ho▫ī jī▫o. ||4||
So sing the Praises of the Lord, the Destroyer of the fear of birth and death, and you shall not be reincarnated again. ||4||

ਤਤੁ ਨਿਰੰਜਨੁ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਬਾਈ ਸੋਹੰ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਕੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥
ततु निरंजनु जोति सबाई सोहं भेदु न कोई जीउ ॥
Ŧaṯ niranjan joṯ sabā▫ī sohaʼn bẖeḏ na ko▫ī jī▫o.
The essence, the immaculate Lord, the Light of all - I am He and He is me - there is no difference between us.

ਅਪਰੰਪਰ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰੁ ਮਿਲਿਆ ਸੋਈ ਜੀਉ ॥੫॥੧੧॥
अपर्मपर पारब्रहमु परमेसरु नानक गुरु मिलिआ सोई जीउ ॥५॥११॥
Aprampar pārbarahm parmesar Nānak gur mili▫ā so▫ī jī▫o. ||5||11||
The Infinite Transcendent Lord, the Supreme Lord God - Nanak has met with Him, the Guru. ||5||11||

[CdnSikhGirl]

It's ok those were the questions I had. If u want to lock the thread now it's ok. And thanks again. 

[amardeep]

You had many more in that sarcastic comment you wrote about why is it that females are only seen in relation to men, The Guru Amardas verse on female leadership, Charitropakhyan etc.

[CdnSikhGirl]

2 minutes ago, amardeep said:

You had many more in that sarcastic comment you wrote about why is it that females are only seen in relation to men, The Guru Amardas verse on female leadership, Charitropakhyan etc.

I know in Gurbani she doesn't refer to female gender human but of soul bride and that God is only true male. I was echoing what some members on here had posted before to justify their positions. Not that I believed it... But the above questions did frustrate me (u can even see how chatanga jumped in).

As for the shabad mentioning men acting according to women's will being impure and filthy yes one member did try to apply that to all women and all men. But in context it's not speaking about men and women in general. Actually it's not even speaking about the acts themselves (which seems to be reference to prostitution... A minority) ... And then it says even then ALL happens according to Gods will anyway so it's all Gods play and only those who's grace is given to will escape it. It's not saying men can't ever consult women. However the frustration is that some Singhs think it does and try to push that agenda.

[amardeep]

21 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

Those images are awesome Singh. Any background on the 2nd one? 

Unfortunately no :/ Apart from it being 19th century.

[chatanga1]

2 hours ago, amardeep said:

And do you have any scriptural evidence that suggests only men are allowed to posses some positions?

 

No. Like I said earlier not all concerning Gurmat is in written form

 

2 hours ago, amardeep said:

Sikh history shows that we've had local female community leaders (from the time of Guru Amardas when he appointed females to lead the Afghan Sikh sangats), we have female political leaders (Mata Sahib Devi 1708-1747) including leading females in charge of Sikh politics and economy  (the misl era) and Maharanis wielding power (Late 1840s).

I dont see any ban in Sikh history stating that there are certain positions females can't have- apart from that one of panj pyare which seems to more of a norm than a rule.

Yes Bro. Sikh history shows. Females being sikh preachers or holding leading positions in the Panth has never been disputed. The Gurus included females to be parcharaks. But show any ONE instance in history where any female took part in Panj Sewa. Even during the leadership of Mata Sahib Deva, is there any instance, written or oral, that she took part in this sewa? Remember that Mata Sahib Deva was considered of the foremost personalaties of the Sikh Panth during her time. And Mata Sundari was with her for many of these years as well. Yet we have no such instance of Mata JI performing this sewa.

That tells me a lot.

If you have anything new to add on this topic then go for it. Otherwise continue your q and a with the enlightened one.