guy Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh Could the sangat please give their views on the issue of divorce within Sikhi whether this is for a Amritdhari or non-Amritdhari Sikh. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 sure.. divorcing is allowed either its a amrit-dhari or non-amrit-dhari.. if it doesnt work out.. there is nothin you can do.. just do ardas.. and divorce.. solve the problems infront of guru granth sahib ji.. but i see many non-amrit dharis gettin divorced compare to amrit-dhari ones.. but its not forbidden i know that for sure... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 fateh well - in an ideal world everyone has a loving marraige - they love their kids and theres a peaceful house - but in most cases that is not true it is encouraged that you do work at your marraige - and not break up over minor disputes like kids do nowadays u take laavan in the anand karaj ceremony for a reason - to live in a certain way and treat ur partner well - but in some cases there may be like wife beating (balwinder safri ) and divorce can be done - sikhi is not a one way religion in where people have no way out... if in certain cases if it is in ur best interests then you should apply for divorce... also - widows are able to marry again from my knowledge fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy Posted April 28, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 Waheguru Thanks for the replies guys, your thoughts have helped a great deal and cleared up many questions dass had on this subject (and thats all it was a question!!!!!!). Waheguru 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherni-E-Punjab Posted July 13, 2003 Report Share Posted July 13, 2003 okkk..hmm here i go again i have heard before that verse..i believe comes from sikhi readings marriages are settled in heaven, but celebrated on earth ( thought there was no hell or heaven in sikhi :roll: ) ..-well i aint even sure if this verse is from sikhi..someone willing to clarify?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted July 13, 2003 Report Share Posted July 13, 2003 heaven probably means sach khand....and we are IN hell as we speak bhainjee...our life is hell, we're trying to get outta it, that's the thing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherni-E-Punjab Posted July 13, 2003 Report Share Posted July 13, 2003 heheheh yeah..jsb...thanks for the information ..that is weird though....cuz you know all religions are kind of path ways to god ..and we say ek onkar....right but chrisitianity people say ..hell is like burning for some 900 ( guessing on the number) years.... wonder whoz right and whoz wrong...guess will have to live it and find out fateh! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAadmin Posted July 13, 2003 Report Share Posted July 13, 2003 heheheh yeah..jsb...thanks for the information ..that is weird though....cuz you know all religions are kind of path ways to god ..and we say ek onkar....right but chrisitianity people say ..hell is like burning for some 900 ( guessing on the number) years.... wonder whoz right and whoz wrong...guess will have to live it and find out fateh! I suggest you should read the book called "Death and After" by surinder singh kohli. Its brillantly written you can read some chapters on here: http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...opic.php?t=1013 And you are right about hell after death...it takes 1 solar year to travel through jaam marg that whole 1 year will be hell for paapi's and after 1 year Dharamraj decides whether the person goes through rebirthing concept or not but you actually go through hell before rebirths of 8.4 reincarnations. They both seem hell to me. One hell is better than other. But you cant choice jack after death on your own. Dharamraj will give you choice and choices are very limited.. Questions like would you like to burn in fire or eaten by demons??? very very limitedd choices....grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :twisted: :twisted: Very very limited... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2003 Report Share Posted July 13, 2003 Gurfateh There are no restrictions on Sikhs getting a divorce if the situation arises, however, most of the problems that could arise is because we are still affected by the 5 vices. I found the following quote of Guru Ji, which illustrates that Sikhi is aware that these problems may occur, but places emphasis on overcoming them by the mutual unconditional love and respect they have for their children. ‘Should brass, gold or iron be broken, The smith in fire fuses it together. Should the husband with the wife have break of relations, Through progeny are their bonds forged again. The ruler when making a demand, By a levy is placated. The hungry by food are satisfied. With rain and inundating rivers is famine lifted. In love, through sweet speech comes reunion. Denial of religious scriptures with truthfulness is healed. The dead to the world by righteousness are tied. These in the world be the means of reconciliation. The stubborn fool by a blow on the face alone will be set right. Thus does Nanak affirm: At the Court Divine comes recognition by Divine laudation.’ (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, pg. 143) The Guru acknowledges that a marriage can become broken. However, there is a positive approach to such situations. Through their children the couple can find love again. Through love can they overcome difficulties. Bhul Chuk Dee Khima Gurfateh Gurpreet 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K4ur Posted July 14, 2003 Report Share Posted July 14, 2003 u know thats really informative Gurpreet Ji....! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r k Posted July 14, 2003 Report Share Posted July 14, 2003 ive heard that sachkhand can be a physical place where true singhs and shaheeds go - its like 24/7 anand mannn like the keertan in sach khand is so beautiful, its the type of situation where like.... all of these feelings combined - the feelings when you take amrit (which i cant describe yet but ive heard of), the feelings of sitting side by side with guru gobind singh, the feelings of getting guru jees darshan, the feelings of PURE ANAND when you meet with your sajan <vaheguru>, the feelings that you feel when you're sitting there listening to keertan and theres tears streaming down your face, the feelings you would get dying for guru jee, the feelings you would get of being in the sangat of shaheeds, the feelings you get when you sit in sangat and there is krazy simran going on - imagine having THATTTT ALLLLL TOGETHER 24/7 - because i've heard thats what sach khand is ... but im underestimating it - its even more amazing, sooooooooo much more amazing.. but anyway thats off topic ------------- Divorce is acceptable in Sikhi under most conditions, in punjabi culture its seen as a really bad thing but Sikhi isn't like that.. If there are circumstances in which the couple is totally not getting along no matter how hard they try and no matter how many people theyve asked help for and no matter how much ardaas theyve done to guru jee, then maybe they werent meant to be together... But its tru that they shouldnt get married over stupid little fights like kids do nowadays... Marriage, in front of Guru Jee especially, is not a game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shere khalsa da Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 in all my life i havnt ever heard of a singh and singhni gettin divorced, lets face it divorce is for monay who adopt the western approach/style to living :hearme: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaNaDiAn_jAtTi Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 I don't agree with that situation.... Times have changed and I for one don't believe that divorce is a western concept only.... Back in the day, in the pinds, if a woman was being abused by her husband she had no place to go, her family would have nothin with her... That is a sad sad situation....and I wouldn't want anyone to go through that....by saying that divorce is just for the westerners, ur saying that once an individual is married to someone they must live with them forever no matter what the situation...and that's wrong... Marriage is a partnership and when that fails...I believe it's right to seperate rather than suffering for the rest of your life.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shere khalsa da Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 yeah but we aint chattin bout any old panjabi from the pind are we, we chattin bout divorce in sikhism, and wen i say sikhi i mean it, not monay/the panjabi culture of today gettin divorced 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nogroup singh Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 Following details will save us a lots of time. it has all the data to prove the cause of divorces and broken marriages... Please read it: ARRANGED MARRIAGES - GOOD OR BAD? http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/arranged+marriage...9.10.15.50.html This article(((originally in Scientific America)) IT REappeared in a discussion thread ?.I cut it out and am posting it below?THE FACTS FOR MARRIAGE?.AS THE RESULT OF ?LOVE??.SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES? Running the Numbers Several recent studies suggest that the number of marriages in the United States and other Western countries is in a continual decline. A December 1999 article in Scientific American reports that 67 percent of American women aged 35 to 44 were legally married in 1998. From 1890 to 1940 this number averaged 81 percent, punctuated by an increase due to the wartime marriages associated with the baby boom. Numbers have been dropping ever since, a trend that is echoed in many other Western countries, most notably Canada, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Hungary. The author, Rodger Doyle, suggests that living together is replacing marriage and that women's economic independence, the availability of family-planning measures, and the increase in higher education have all contributed to both the postponement of marriage and to divorce. The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago confirms that many couples are choosing cohabitation over wedding bells. "The Emerging 21st-Century American Family," released November 24, 1999, was extrapolated from data from the General Social Survey (GSS), a broad study of American life which NORC has been conducting since 1972. For the 1998 survey, GSS researchers interviewed 2,832 randomly selected people 18 and over and found that the most common household arrangement, at 32 percent, consisted of unmarried people and no children. In 1972 the most common arrangement was married couples with children, at 45 percent, while in 1998 only 26 percent of the respondents lived in such households. The report also projected that. Such arrangements are further complicated by the fact that working mothers and dual-career marriages have become much more common: in 1972, only 33 percent of parents both held jobs, while in 1998, 67 percent of both parents worked. "Within marriage the changes have been profound as more and more women have entered the labor force and gender roles have become more homogenous between husbands and wives," said Tom W. Smith, the director of the GSS and author of the report. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe are codirectors of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. In June 1999, they published a study called "The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America," which found that the national marriage rate has dropped 43 percent over the last four decades. Their research suggests that many American teenagers have lost faith in their ability to find a lifelong partner. In an article from the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, Whitehead describes a "new mating regime." The pattern consists of a series of relationships, some of which are short "hookups," while others are longer and include cohabitation and children. Romance and marriage take a secondary role and occur later in life if at all. Breakups are common, and relationship revenge has become a popular theme, spawning the creation of "dump books," catty greeting cards, and stalker films. While she notes that this pattern is most common among the never-married, high school educated young and African Americans, couples of all ages are participating. This is generating a range of questions about the processes of parenting, as well as the importance of personal fulfillment versus the long-term value of commitment. "The new mating regime imposes myriad social costs," Whitehead writes. "Some fall upon a public system that increasingly must protect women from their violent partners and care for abused, neglected, and abandoned children. The social costs include an expanded family-court system, stepped-up child-support enforcement efforts, increased mediation and conflict-resolution services in the schools, and more. It's a sign of the times that in West Virginia, fourth-grade Girl Scouts can now earn a merit badge in domestic-violence prevention." Hedging Matrimonial Bets Politicians, counselors, educators, and clergy have all taken notice of these troubles and are proposing a variety of solutions. Maggie Gallagher, director of the Marriage Project at the Institute for American Values, wrote about a number of pro-marriage activists in last year's November 8 issue of the National Review: Mike McManus founded the national Marriage Savers organization, which aims to cut the divorce rate by training married couples to serve as mentors in churches; Diane Sollee directs the Coalition for Marriage, Family, and Couples Education, which provides practical courses on marriage skills; Katherine Spaht, a family lawyer in Louisiana, helped to draw up the nation's first covenant marriage--a stronger legal commitment than allowed by standard, no-fault divorce laws; Oklahoma governor Frank Keating has made reducing the divorce rate an explicit goal--he called for a summit of state leaders to draft a "Strategic Plan to Honor Marriage and Reduce Divorce." The federal government has also gotten in on the act; a law to reduce the "marriage penalty," which forces some spouses to pay more taxes than they might as singles, is making its way through Congress. Gallagher praises the involvement of state and local politicians in shoring up marriage."The increasing privatization of marriage is a key legal and cultural factor contributing to our current marriage crisis," she writes. "Marriage is a public, legal commitment, not merely a private, impassioned lover's vow. Marriage is an institution like private property--which is not created by government, but which, in order to thrive, must be recognized and protected by it." courtship vs dating 2 http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/dating+vs.+arrang...com/court2.html ... skip the first two paragraphs and read the rest?it describes history of LOVE MARRIAGE The relevant part starts off: There was a Harvard research paper on the subject of parents arranging the marriage of their children. It was discovered that making love and romance, the basis of marriage was a Roman contribution to Western civilization I discovered that for thousands of years, in all parts of the world that the principles of family ties, religion, station of birth, wealth and education were the founding factors in marriage, and not love and physical attraction. This researcher dug up the fact that 100 years ago in Japan marrying for love was a capital crime. The Japanese wisely reasoned that family, its name and inheritance, were far too important to be left to something as shaky as love and romance· Moreover, this researcher, much to her surprise, found that, ************************************************************************** in general, marriages arranged by the parents were just as happy and often more successful than marriages left to romance and falling in love. This is because the love that brings a couple together is not the love that keeps them together. **************************************************************************** There is no doubt that romantic songs, poems, plays, novels and movies have popularized the notion of romantic love being the basis for marriage. The plots of such plays as Romeo and Juliet have done as much as anything else to break down parental authority in marriage and idealize romantic love as the basis for marriage· Thus Shakespeare, and not the Bible, has become the accepted standard. The ideal of romantic love, the attitude that "I do not love him any more" is a real and legitimate excuse for divorce. Some have even gone so far as to change the marriage vows to "As long as we both shall love " instead of "As long as we both shall live. " Romantic love and physical attraction, while they are important, are not sound foundations to build a life and family upon. You might want to read this article as well : This article is written by a Reverened from a Christian persepective?.read the three areas where dating fails?. The views expressed are all in line with Sikh thought?How ironic?as we give up our traditions more and more individuals in the west adapt them?(((The same think is happening with cigarette smoking?.increasing in India?..decreasing in the West. ))) Dating vs Courtship - Laying a solid foundation for ... ... ... http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/arranged+marriage...s/datingbw.html Okay assume that you do find your soulmate via dating what do the statistics say after marriage? http://www.co.midland.mi.us/foc/stat.htm *50% of marriages end in divorce within 10 years. FACTS ABOUT MARITAL DISTRESS AND DIVORCE http://www.smartmarriages.com/7.html ARTICLE BELOW?. Facts About Marital Distress and Divorce Scott M. Stanley & Howard J. Markman University of Denver and PREP, Inc. Web: http://members.aol.com/prepinc (303) 759-9931 Younger people in the U.S. who are marrying for the first time face roughly a 40-50% chance of divorcing in their lifetime under current trends (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992, p. 5). Of first marriages that end in divorce, many end in the first 3 to 5 years. (As one example, for first marriages ending in divorce among women aged 25 to 29, the median length of marriage before divorce in 1990 was 3.4 years; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992, p. 4). Adults and children are at increased risk for mental and physical problems due to marital distress (e.g., Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994; Coie et al. 1993; Coyne, Kahn, & Gotlib, 1987; Cowan & Cowan, 1992; Fincham, Grych, & Osborne, 1993). Mismanaged conflict and negative interaction in marriage predicts both marital distress and negative effects for children (e.g., Gottman, 1994; Markman & Hahlweg, 1993; Clements, Stanley, & Markman, 1997; Cowan & Cowan, 1992; and Grych & Fincham, 1990). Marital problems are associated with decreased work productivity, especially for men (e.g., Forthofer, Markman, Cox, Stanley, & Kessler, 1996). A variety of studies suggest that the seeds of marital distress and divorce are there for many couples when they say, "I Do." These studies show that premarital (or early marital) variables can predict which couples will do well and which will not with accuracies of 80% up to 94% (e.g., Clements, Stanley, & Markman, 1997; Fowers, Montel, & Olson, 1996; Gottman, 1994; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Kelly & Conley, 1987; and Rogge & Bradbury, in press). Many more couples live together prior to marriage than in the past--recent estimates are in the range of 60+% (Stanley & Markman, 1997; Bumpass & Sweet, 1991). These couples are less likely to stay married, probably mostly due to the fact that they are less conservative about marriage and divorce in the first place. Money is the one thing that people say they argue about most in marriage, followed by children (Stanley & Markman, 1997). But, there is a lot of reason to believe that what couples argue about is not as important as how they argue (Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 1994). Married men and women in all age groups are less likely to be limited in activity (a general health indice) due to illness than single, separated, divorced, or widowed individuals (National Center for Health Statistics, 1997). Children living with a single parent or adult report a higher prevalence of activity limitation and higher rates of disability. They are also more likely to be in fair or poor health and more likely to have been hospitalized (National Center for Health Statistics, 1997). The "triple threat" of marital conflict, divorce, and out-of-wedlock births has led to a generation of U.S. children at great risk for poverty, health problems, alienation, and antisocial behavior. Students saying 'I do' to arranged marriage ... in most of the world, arranged marriages are the norm. "We're the oddballs," said Rebecca Manning, a professor of India studies and religion studies at Indiana ... http://www.ksc-equinox.com/52-23/lifestyle...%20marriage.htm One survey of urban professionals living in India suggests that many agree with that assessment. More than half of the survey's respondents said they wanted their families to choose their mates "because elders know best." Another 20 percent said because they were guaranteed someone of similar social standing, and about 10 percent said they liked knowing they could count on family support during times of trouble. But do arranged marriages work? The same survey of urban professionals suggests they do indeed. Of those surveyed, 81 percent had arranged marriages, and of that group, 94 percent rated their unions "very successful." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shere khalsa da Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 nogroup singh bhaji, why, why, why :down: that post u jus posted is a whole days worth of reading, thats no good :? my eyes strained after two hours of reading it, thats how long it was :roll: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nogroup singh Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 Well if you are willing to read 10 pages of discussion in which most of the people give their own personal opinion I have no problem with it. But in my post I have nothing of mine and it has facts with data to support it so that's the purpose to have it. I believe in real facts and evidences to prove things so others can learn and teach ..... 8) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K4ur Posted July 17, 2003 Report Share Posted July 17, 2003 i like da sound of Sachkand!!!!!! Lolzzzzzz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gursj Posted July 26, 2003 Report Share Posted July 26, 2003 SSA Just wondering if there is a paath for ulte lawa phere ......if we are not sure about our commitments than why make any.. may be the wise people over here will have an answer.. wjkk wjkf 0 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.