Amardeep Question #1 Women As Panj Pyaras

[chatanga1]

21 hours ago, amardeep said:

So I dont know when this tradition of banning women started - but it would'n surprise me if it was introduced during British rule.

 

 

Amardeep that's a very wild assumption to say the british somehow managed to stop women from kirtan at Sri HariMandir Sahib.

In this painting, the females may be doing kirtan but it is not is sangat. The females and males are sitting in exclusion which means it more likely that this is a private dwelling rather than a place of worship.

I'm bowing out of this q and a for now...

[CdnSikhGirl]

Absence of Proof is NOT proof of absence....

[amardeep]

Chatanga ji: We know very little about about Mata Sahib Deva and Mata Sundari if we think about the role they had in the early 18th century Khalsa. Compare this to the Shia notion of Fatima and the catcholic notion of Mary who have central roles in their respective faiths. Whether they administrered Amrit - we dont know really know as very little is published about their life.

The Anandpur birh of Dasam Granth from 1696 has a short poem by Kavi Mangal wherein he asks for Mata Sundari's blessings and some financial assistance for his sons upcoming wedding. The fact that a leading poet of the Guru assembly is asking her for finances might indicate that she was in charge of the finanses of Anandpur (of which Muslim sources from 1720s claim was in quite abundance!)... Much information is given in Suraj Prakash Granth but very little has been translated into Punjabi and even less in English. I bought a book in Amritsar about the Matajis which seems to collect all the references to Matajis from different 18th-19th century sources..I plan to translate it into English  and publish it online at some point.....

Challo, if there are no more questions we should probably just lock this topic.

Edited February 7, 2016 by amardeep

[dalsingh101]

Quote

 I bought a book in Amritsar about the Matajis which seems to collect all the references to Matajis from different 18th-19th century sources..I plan to translate it into English  and publish it online at some point.....

Sounds good!

[Guest guest]

On 07/02/2016 at 8:04 PM, amardeep said:

Compare this to the Shia notion of Fatima and the catcholic notion of Mary who have central roles in their respective faiths.

why should we compare sikhi to other faiths?

[Guest guest]

arent there written hukamnamas from Mata Sundri ji?  to Bhai Mani Singh ji?

[Guest guest]

not to be controvertial, but before 1900, did women even take Amrit at all?

[CdnSikhGirl]

40 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

not to be controvertial, but before 1900, did women even take Amrit at all?

Yes, there are accounts of many men AND women who took amrit on the first day in 1699, including witnessed by a spy to the moghul emperor who specifically wrote he witnessed thousands of men AND women that day take baptism by the sword.  Also, there are references to when Mai Bhago took amrit for sure.  So yes women did take amrit.  What are you trying to suggest? That Sikh religion was meant for only males?? 

[Guest guest]

4 hours ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

 What are you trying to suggest? That Sikh religion was meant for only males?? 

uh no im not trying to suggest anything, i'm asking a genuine question out of curiorsity. 

[chatanga1]

On 07/02/2016 at 8:04 PM, amardeep said:

The Anandpur birh of Dasam Granth from 1696 has a short poem by Kavi Mangal wherein he asks for Mata Sundari's blessings and some financial assistance for his sons upcoming wedding. The fact that a leading poet of the Guru assembly is asking her for finances might indicate that she was in charge of the finanses of Anandpur (of which Muslim sources from 1720s claim was in quite abundance!)

 

Yes bro there is not doubt that both Mata Sahibs were leading from the front. But even during this time, there is nothing to suggest that females formed any part of the Panj.

[CdnSikhGirl]

31 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Yes bro there is not doubt that both Mata Sahibs were leading from the front. But even during this time, there is nothing to suggest that females formed any part of the Panj.

There's nothing to suggest they didn't either...

[chatanga1]

Yes there is. No women in Panj Pyarey today or for the last 3 centuries.

[CdnSikhGirl]

6 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

Yes there is. No women in Panj Pyarey today or for the last 3 centuries.

I have personally witnessed women in Panj Pyaras.... and know that it's happened numerous times. So you can't say "today" there are none. There are numerous AKJ who have done so. 3HO does it regularly. And many Gurdwaras that have no affiliation with specific sampardas have had women in this role... and I know specifically of several in recent years in Kashmir.

And as Amarjeet Ji said before, only small percentage of Amrit Sanchars were actually documented as to who was involved, and then too only Amrit Sanchars that involved historically notable Sikhs who were taking Amrit. That leaves a LOT of amrit sanchars with no documentation at all as to who the panj pyaras were. So you can't say "No women" --- all you can say is that in the small percentage of amrit sanchars that WERE documented, there were no women mentioned. And since most historical writing was centered around the military aspect of Sikhi, there is a whole chunk of history missing outside of that. It's very likely with thousands upon thousands of amrit sanchars that happened in last few centuries, with only a very small percentage being written about, and that too the notable ones involving military aspect, the majority of Sikhs would not have even been accurately depicted. How can you say there were no women, when there is so much history not even mentioned??

 

[chatanga1]

7 minutes ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

I have personally witnessed women in Panj Pyaras.... and know that it's happened numerous times.

 

You are 40 years old btw. Actually Sikhi is a lot older that.

 

7 minutes ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

 So you can't say "today" there are none. There are numerous AKJ who have done so. 3HO does it regularly.

 

These are sects, and their maryada or status does not compare with the Samprdayes in the same way.

 

7 minutes ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

And as Amarjeet Ji said before, only small percentage of Amrit Sanchars were actually documented as to who was involved, and then too only Amrit Sanchars that involved historically notable Sikhs who were taking Amrit. That leaves a LOT of amrit sanchars with no documentation at all as to who the panj pyaras were. So you can't say "No women" --- all you can say is that in the small percentage of amrit sanchars that WERE documented, there were no women mentioned.

 

Yes that is correct , a small amount of sinchars were documented and no women were alloweed to do Panj Pyarey sewa.

It's still more than you have got. Remember when you were supporting sikh khoj over the poets writing charitroPakhyan? btw you actually said that sikh khoj had at least one reference so that made his case stronger. Well, actually guess what btw.

 

7 minutes ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

And since most historical writing was centered around the military aspect of Sikhi, there is a whole chunk of history missing outside of that. It's very likely with thousands upon thousands of amrit sanchars that happened in last few centuries, with only a very small percentage being written about, and that too the notable ones involving military aspect, the majority of Sikhs would not have even been accurately depicted. How can you say there were no women, when there is so much history not even mentioned??

 

Actually why worry about history that hasn't been mentioned and concentrate on history that has been mentioned? Which one will be more fruitful?

[CdnSikhGirl]

19 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

 

You are 40 years old btw. Actually Sikhi is a lot older that.

Yes, but you said none today... you were wrong. There are numerous.

These are sects, and their maryada or status does not compare with the Samprdayes in the same way.

This is entirely your personal opinion. Even some Damdami Taksal members hold AKJ in high esteem, looking past their differences. I have heard DDT members actually praise AKJ for their kirtan. And no they don't compare - that's the point!!! - because they have differences! Differences you just stated are perfectly justified. Not all Sikhs are Nihang warriors, or DDT members, then why would you look down upon Sikhs who choose to focus (specialize) more on kirtan and simran (AKJ) for example? Different functions, different RMs as you said...

Yes that is correct , a small amount of sinchars were documented and no women were alloweed to do Panj Pyarey sewa.

Actually, you are just assuming none were 'allowed'. Just because there were none in those documented sanchars, does not mean that women were not allowed. It just means that none were in the ones documented. You can't assume that meant they were not allowed.  Maybe they were allowed, but none who were suitable were present at those specific sanchars that happened to be documented?

Actually why worry about history that hasn't been mentioned and concentrate on history that has been mentioned? Which one will be more fruitful?

Actually its not more fruitful, if majority of Sikh panth has been unwritten. It would be like taking a country and writing rules only on the rich elite which compose maybe 1% of the population. What about what the other 99% did? Did that 1% accurately depict the country as a whole?? Ask USA about the "99% movement".  If the 1% that was written about only encompasses the military aspect of Sikhi or amrit sanchars that involved prominent historical figures, then how can that accurately encompas the other 99% of Sikhs??  Easy answer is it can't! So where can we look for answers?????? Gurbani... what does Gurbani say??? Obviously nothing specific about Amrit Sanchar and Panj Pyara Seva. But its DOES give us idea of how we should treat everyone in general: "As Gurnukh look upon ALL with single eye of equality, for in each and every heart the divine light is contained"  Now, if the SAME divine light is contained in ALL, how can you justify snubbing half of the Sikh souls on this planet, for something transient like gender, when we are told ALL souls are genderless and equal? So Gurbani is clear on equality in general. Does this sound like our Gurus would advocate treating people unequally? Giving some privileges over others for something thats not a permanent trait of our souls?

 

[chatanga1]

14 hours ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

This is entirely your personal opinion.  Differences you just stated are perfectly justified.  Different functions, different RMs as you said...

It is not my opinion. The Guru ordiained Samprdayes cannot be compared to man-made jathas. btw the differences I stated are the differences between the Samprdayes actually.

 

14 hours ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

Actually, you are just assuming none were 'allowed'. Just because there were none in those documented sanchars, does not mean that women were not allowed. It just means that none were in the ones documented. You can't assume that meant they were not allowed.  Maybe they were allowed, but none who were suitable were present at those specific sanchars that happened to be documented?

I am not assuming it. I am basing it on written historical fact. Btw you are the one assuming actually. You cannot prove otherwise. You have nothing at all actually, to support your claim btw.

14 hours ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

Actually its not more fruitful, if majority of Sikh panth has been unwritten.

 

Actually what we have is enough to go btw. You are prepared to overlook this small piece of evidence, even though you were actually prepared to accept ONE piece of evidence from sikh-khoj, which turned out to be false btw.

Why are you so inconsistent with your approach towards history? If there were women involved it would have been written in the same way that the names of the Sikhs running the 22 manjis (which included women btw) names were written.

 

14 hours ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

But its DOES give us idea of how we should treat everyone in general: "As Gurnukh look upon ALL with single eye of equality, for in each and every heart the divine light is contained"  Now, if the SAME divine light is contained in ALL, how can you justify snubbing half of the Sikh souls on this planet, for something transient like gender, when we are told ALL souls are genderless and equal? So Gurbani is clear on equality in general. Does this sound like our Gurus would advocate treating people unequally? Giving some privileges over others for something thats not a permanent trait of our souls?

 

I am snubbing your advocation of women being in the panj pyarey only. I am not snubbing women. but seeing as you have asked these questions many times actually, i will actually refer you back to my answer btw: "Why were there no female Gurus?". "Did the Gurus practice snub half the Sikh souls on this planet, when all souls are genderless and equal?"

 

@GurpreetKaur  You were dragged into the other topic by her holiness, because she thought she could use you as ammunition. I don't know why she looks down on you the way she does.

[CdnSikhGirl]

1 hour ago, chatanga1 said:

It is not my opinion. The Guru ordiained Samprdayes cannot be compared to man-made jathas. btw the differences I stated are the differences between the Samprdayes actually.

 

I am not assuming it. I am basing it on written historical fact. Btw you are the one assuming actually. You cannot prove otherwise. You have nothing at all actually, to support your claim btw.

Only, its not historical Fact. You can't say because something was not written means it did not exist at all. It just means in the examples written about there weren't any women present. It doesn't mean there weren't women present in other examples that were not written about, or that Guru Ji "disallowed" women at all. If scientists used your thinking, we'd still be in the dark ages! Again, everyone knows that absence of proof, is NOT proof of absence! It only means you have not found the proof yet. And you can't base entire existence off 1% example which were specific examples of amrit sanchars of notable people taking amrit and centred on the military aspect of Sikhi. Of course women would not in that day been involved (generally) in military lifestyle. So what about the entire rest of the Sikh population?? There may have been thousands of amrit sanchars of ordinary every day Sikhs, with women acting as Panj Pyaras in many of them, that were never written about because they weren't important enough to write about. And you will just write them off. 

You can't say that a tiny percentage of examples gives us accurate picture of what Guru Ji actually intended. 

Actually what we have is enough to go btw. You are prepared to overlook this small piece of evidence, even though you were actually prepared to accept ONE piece of evidence from sikh-khoj, which turned out to be false btw.

This has nothing to do with Sikh Khoj. And of course I was willing to see what he had... he was not the first one I encountered who offered the idea of court poets authoring it.  And no.... 1% of something is NOT enough evidence to go by.  That's like saying that lifestyle of the 1% rich elite in the USA is enough to go by to figure out the tax system rules for the entire country.  Ask USA about the other '99%'.  

Why are you so inconsistent with your approach towards history? If there were women involved it would have been written in the same way that the names of the Sikhs running the 22 manjis (which included women btw) names were written.

Why would it have been written?? Only very few Amrit Sanchars were even written about, and that too, ones that only involved a prominent person taking Amrit. Why would ordinary amrit sanchars involving people who were not prominent etc be written about? Were they important enough to be written about? The Gurus advocated equality already, so why would an Amrit Sanchar that took place in rural area with non-notable people be written about?? Just because it had a woman you think that it would be made a big deal about? But the Gurus already established equal participation in Sikh religion of females with males... so maybe it was NOT such a big huge thing by then especially when women already had leadership roles in Sikhi by that time? So this was nothing BIG that people thought OMG a woman was involved with this amrit sanchar, so we have to write a book about it!  Amrit Sanchars already have an aire of secrecy / mystery about them, and I doubt unless it was amrit sanchars of notable persons like Amarjeet stated, they would not have been written about at all. So your thinking is flawed in this sense.  You want to use the very few notable amrit sanchars as a base for all time.  Well then, there were no white Singhs in the ones written about, nor black Singhs written about in any of those few...  must mean that Guru Ji disallowed them too huh??

I am snubbing your advocation of women being in the panj pyarey only. I am not snubbing women. but seeing as you have asked these questions many times actually, i will actually refer you back to my answer btw: "Why were there no female Gurus?". "Did the Gurus practice snub half the Sikh souls on this planet, when all souls are genderless and equal?"

That IS snubbing women! And it's Gurbani saying all souls are equal and genderless. And Gurbani is saying to TREAT ALL equally. I already explained my theory (not just my theory others as well) why Gurus were male.  Culture at the time... the message had to be spread by someone who the population would actually acknowledge, and a woman at that time, in Indian culture would not have been. Women in Hinduism were not even allowed to read their own scriptures! So if a woman tried to spread spirituality, she would have just likely been ignored. It was culture / time.  The other reason is that an oppressed group, can never spread message of their equality, they can only demand it by fighting.  However, if someone in the same group as the oppressors gives that same message they will listen. Using slaves as an exmaple. A slave claiming they should be free will NEVER be acknowledged by those who own slaves... but a slave owner saying so, may be listend to.  Especially if they are a leadership figure!  So the fact that MALES were saying women were equal... accomplished WAY MORE!!!! And this theory has been proven in different circumstances to hold a LOT of water!
 

@GurpreetKaur  You were dragged into the other topic by her holiness, because she thought she could use you as ammunition. I don't know why she looks down on you the way she does.

Actually I said she studied to be an egineer. You said women should spend their entire adult lives having babies and breastfeeding... So I said you can be the one to tell her that her education was for nothing if she gets married, because you said family planning is not allowed. (Actually Akal Takht disagrees with you. Birth control is only not allowed for having illicit sex... meaning outside of marriage but within marriage it is allwoed for family planning). So I am supprotive of her career choice and ability to actually follow that dream and not be burdened by pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy etc. without family planning, a woman would be stuck being only a housewife, no need for education etc. That was my point. You can be the one to tell her...

 

[chatanga1]

1 hour ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

 

 

1 hour ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

Only, its not historical Fact. You can't say because something was not written means it did not exist at all. It just means in the examples written about there weren't any women present.

 

Exactly. You actually just PROVED my point. Thank you.The written examples we have btw show there were no women present. Now  btw what have you got? Speculation. Nothing more.

 

 

1 hour ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

You can't say that a tiny percentage of examples gives us accurate picture of what Guru Ji actually intended.

 

Actually I'm not saying that btw, I saying it gives credence to one view.

 

1 hour ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

This has nothing to do with Sikh Khoj.

 

no it doesn't. actually it's about you! You are prepared to actually use one piece of misinformation to prove your point and dismiss any one piece of information which doesn't fit in with your viewpoint. What were your words to Paapiman? Do you remember?

 

1 hour ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

Well then, there were no white Singhs in the ones written about, nor black Singhs written about in any of those few...  must mean that Guru Ji disallowed them too huh??

 

Actually there were no black or white singhs present. btw women were present right from the start.

 

1 hour ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

Amrit Sanchars already have an aire of secrecy / mystery about them, and I doubt unless it was amrit sanchars of notable persons like Amarjeet stated, they would not have been written about at all. So your thinking is flawed in this sense.

 

How lame!. Amrit Sinchars are done in privacy but when have the Panj Pyarey ever been subject to privacy? They come into the Darbar in front of everyone. btw actually your thinking is flawed in this sense. Put it with the other flawed thought in that safe you have and never visit it again.

 

1 hour ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

And it's Gurbani saying all souls are equal and genderless.

 

We are not talking about souls actually. We are talking about bodies btw, so stop trying to change the goalposts.

 

1 hour ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

 Culture at the time... the message had to be spread by someone who the population would actually acknowledge, and a woman at that time, in Indian culture would not have been. Women in Hinduism were not even allowed to read their own scriptures! So if a woman tried to spread spirituality, she would have just likely been ignored. It was culture / time.  The other reason is that an oppressed group, can never spread message of their equality, they can only demand it by fighting. 

 

That is actually so untrue. Like the Guru's cared for that. Why would any woman have been given any position in the manji system then btw

 

 

1 hour ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

You said women should spend their entire adult lives having babies and breastfeeding..

 

On this note of yours I will throw down the gauntlet. You show this forum any place where I have actually said that and I will be gone from this forum forever. If you can't then you do the same. No beating around the bush. Show those exact words and I'm out of here. If not then you go.

 

 

[amardeep]

Btw Bhai Gurdas in his 11th vaar mention a long list of Sikhs during the times of the five first Gurus. All of those he mention are male. Does it mean there were no female Sikhs at the time of the first 5 Gurus? Or more relevant, - females werent allowed to be Sikhs?
 

Edited February 11, 2016 by amardeep

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Chatanga she didn't claim you said those exact words. read the last line she said. That no family planning means the woman will be going through numerous pregnancies because of no birth control. You said family planning was not allowed. She was merely stating the realistic result of no family planning, that being women will have to go through burden of birth after birth after birth if they are married, meaning that they will be either pregnant or breastfeeding their entire adult life from marriage to menopause. Meaning that implication is women gaining an education then is useless because she will not be able to use it (except maybe after menopause).  It doesn't take an engineering degree to change a diaper, vaccum or cook does it?

And by the way: Your argument against women in punj pyares would not hold up in court chatanga. Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. While you are completely ignoring the fact that the opposite might be true, what she is saying is that given the insufficient evidence in writing, there is no way to know at all. And therefore if we don't know based on the examples given (insufficient evidence), we should refer to Guru Granth Sahib for answer. For which I have to agree with her and also Amardeep Veerji.

by the way I am also in Canada and know her. She is a good person. We are both in CAF.

 

[paapiman]

54 minutes ago, amardeep said:

Btw Bhai Gurdas in his 11th vaar mention a long list of Sikhs during the times of the five first Gurus. All of those he mention are male. Does it mean there were no female Sikhs at the time of the first 5 Gurus? Or more relevant, - females werent allowed to be Sikhs?
 

The above is a good point bro. To add to it, no female Saint's verses were included in Gurbani, even though, there have been female Brahamgyani(s) like Mata Meera Bai jee, who uttered bani. Does that mean, Sikhi is discriminating against women? - No, it does not.

@chatanga1 - Paaji, weren't the Manjis given to males only, with the exception Baba Sachan Sach jee's wife? Women were given Pirris. Also, is there any historical example, where a woman was chosen as a leader by Satguru jee himself, to lead Sikh males?    

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[chatanga1]

1 hour ago, Guest said:

Chatanga she didn't claim you said those exact words.

 

Yes she did, if you know how to read actually.

The challenge still stands @CdnSikhGirl.

 

1 hour ago, Guest said:

by the way I am also in Canada and know her. She is a good person. We are both in CAF.

why would I want to know that info anyway. sounds to me that you actually are her.

 

 

[Guest Kanwar S.]

53 minutes ago, paapiman said:

The above is a good point bro. To add to it, no female Saint's verses were included in Gurbani, even though, there have been female Brahamgyani(s) like Mata Meera Bai jee, who uttered bani. Does that mean, Sikhi is discriminating against women? - No, it does not.

@chatanga1 - Paaji, weren't the Manjis given to males only, with the exception Baba Sachan Sach jee's wife? Women were given Pirris. Also, is there any historical example, where a woman was chosen as a leader by Satguru jee himself, to lead Sikh males?  

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

Veeriji

Good example, just because female Saints verses were not included in Gurbani, did not mean there were no female saints or that females were not allowed to become saints. So it's valid point when looking at punj pyares as well. Not everything is written about. It doesn't mean that thing didn't happen or was not allowed.

Regarding your question to member chatanga, Guru Amar Das Ji trained missionaries to spread Sikhism throughout India. Of the 146 missionaries Guru Amar Das trained and sent out, 52 were women. At one time the country of Afghanistan and Kashmir were under the jurisdiction of women masands. These women had complete jurisdiction in decision making, collection of revenues as well as preaching to congregations. So yes there were women appointed by Gurus to leadership roles who were leading Sikh males. Also Mata Sundri Ji was in leadership role after death of Guru Gobind Singh Ji as another example.

Kunwardeep

[CdnSikhGirl]

@chatanga1  Though you didn't use those exact words, you said that family planning is not allowed. If family planning is not allowed what do you THINK the result will be????? Saying that family planning is not allowed is the SAME THING as saying she should just accept that she will be basically a breeding machine going through pregnancy after pregnancy! You can't escape the fact that no family planning (birth control) means that pregnancy is inivitible (unless she has something wrong). So how can she ever pursue a career if she no sooner finishes one pregnancy and breastfeeding and then gets pregnant again? And that continues until she physically can not have babies anymore?? So while you did not say exactly those words, and I never said you said those exact words... I said and please learn extrapolation and paraphrasing.... that by saying family planning is not allowed, you are making the statement that women will be pregnant or breastfeeding their entire adult lives from marriage up to menopause. Because THATS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CANT USE BIRTH CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Please don't get so hung up over exact wording of things... its apparent what you MEANT!  Because the only other option is abstinence. And how many married couples do you think can maintain a loving close relationship if their interaction is totally platonic??? I'd say virtually NONE! Why even be married then?? Do you SERIOUSLY expect after 1 or 2 kids, that a husband and wife married only a few years, will become entirely platonic after they have a couple kids, and never touch each other again??? Be realistic!!!! For that matter, as soon as she becomes Pregnant, then they should abstain right? Even more, only roughly 5 days per cycle is a woman even fertile, so sex outside of those 5 days shold be avoided too right? Since they'd be having sex knowing there won't be a chance of pregnancy. How many married Sikh couples do you think abstain as soon as she is pregnant, or avoid the times of month (majority) when pregnancy can not happen? Also, please show us where Gurbani etc state that married couples can ONLY partake in that act to procreate.  So yes, you never said exact words that women will be pregnancy after pregnancy and breastfeeding their entire adult life. But the IMPLICATION of no family planning (which you DID exactly say) is exactly that! That women are doomed to be only breeding machines and pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy. And a ton of unwanted kids that people can't afford.  Show me ANY Sikh family who wants like 10-12 kids these days!

Gurbani speaks against lust and overindulgence, when it becomes like an addiciton for only physical pleasure.  It degrades what sex is supposed ot be. However, sex is not merely physical pleasure. And between a huband and wife in marriage, is not considered LUST. It's an act and expression of love between two people and in itself can be a divine act as two people literally merge. It's a powerful union that goes way beyond physical. That's why it is reserved for a married couple because doing it for only physical pleasure degrades what it means. A husband and wife can

@Guest Ji... hehe I know who you are I think. You are on opposite side of the country from me (BC) and trade RMS?

[amardeep]

ALSO please do remember that it was the role of these 52 female Manjis to give Charan Pahul Amrit to new converts.