Was khanda amrit given to women in during 1699 or recently ?

[SAadmin]

Was khanda da amrit was given to women in during 1699/puratan time or just recently after tat khalsa came in their modified sikhi?

- Please Discuss, along with the sources?

Some believe namdharis were one who first gave khanda da amrit to women? and some beleive it was nirmale who first gave khanda da amrit to women?

This is what its been discussed on sikhsangat, since i m still doing khoj, here are some of my posts after talking to gurmukhs who have done sangat of old gurmukhs:

There are three layers of one amrit ceremony- one intiation(outer intiation- khanda batta) amrit, second most important is naam amrit, then third amrit is bhramgyan amrit attained by kaamiya of naam amrit.

No one is denying that sikh women didnt had naam amrit or attained bhramgyan amrit at the end, off course they had naam amrit along with rehats , otherwise they be nirguraie falls into category of guru maharaj ji tuk- gurmantar hin prani kokar, shokar...

i think point here discussed by sikha that there is no puratan resources mentioning that women had khanda batta da amrit (outer intiation) whereas male intiation is mentioned all over in 1699 and afterwards.. No one is disputing that they didnt had any amrit at all. They might have just had - naam amri along naam jugti/vidhi via kirpan amrit or naam amrit alone by mahapurshs in panj pyares seva. This is what we are trying to khoj.

All i m saying, historical fact of women taking khanda da amrit - still yet to be discovered.

Currently, womens are intiated by khanda da amrit. I dont think its invalid tradition. However one cannot claim thats its coming - seena-basina from guru's time without doing khoj and one cannot push khanda da amrit is must for women right now because this tradition came in after tat khalsa modified sikhi to suit their own agenda.

To explain you better: (going from bottom to top):

Bhramgyan amrit- should be aim for all sikhs but in this topic women.

Naam amrit- women must take gurmantar from panj pyares or mukhi in panj pyares (refer to historical event - bhai dya singh ji giving naam/naam jugti to the sangat mentioned in suraj parkash under atamgyan katha)

Khanda da amrit- According to historical accounts before tat khalsa there is no accounts for sikh women intiated via khanda da amrit.

I am still doing khoj to explore further if women were intiated via kirpan amrit or they were just given gurmantar without any outer intiation.

so since i m still doing khoj you cannot accuse me of promoting anything nor you can put words in my mouths. I am still discovering.

QUOTE(Gurbar Akaal @ Aug 9 2007, 08:13 AM)

Namastang, maybe you can begin with WHY women were not given Khandeh Da Amrit, and why many men do not take Khandeh Da Amrit in puratan sampardas?

Only one theory i can think i dont know how true is that because i m still discovering - khanda da amrit as sikha said back then was serious stuff, only were given to khalsa warriors/armed forces to dals to defend the dharam, according to nirmale accounts coming from bhai dya singh ji they were also given khanda da amrit intially because of their dual mode- sant and sipahi - bhai sahib singh bedi, bhai sobha singh ji coming from bhai dya singh ji samparda, however if you look at sants from bhai dharam singh ji samparda since they were fully sadhu/virkarat they took naam amrit from their vidya gurdev some in form of panj pyares, some only by mukhi as i mentioned mukhi in panj pyares giving naam/naam jugti to sangat (atam gyan katha under sooraj parkash granth). i still need to confirm this by tirath singh nirmala...this is what i have heard.

Here are posts of member- sikha who have wrote:

Now we are moving into a much deeper discussion. There are hardly any evidences to suggest that women took amrit in 1699 or even the centuries after. The names "Mai Bhago Kaur", Mata Sahib kaur and mata sundri kaur does not exist in any of the old granths written on sikhism. our holy Matas have never signed their hukamnammas with "Kaur" nor is Mai Bhago adressed as kaur in any of our old books, which suggest that women did NOT take amrit back in 1699, nor are there any historical sources mentioning women taking amrit.

this has nothing to do with inequality, because we have to look at what the main purpose of the khalsa really was.

The purpose of the Khalsa was to function as an army of God, as disciplined knights of Maharaj that were to uproot tyranni and establish peace. taking amrit back then meant that you would have to join the armed forces of Maharaj, and become a living martyr as there was a price on the head of every sikh. taking amrit back then was a serious thing, not as today where they hand out amrit to everyone, because when you took the saroop of Maharaj, then the mughals would hunt you down and kill you..

The men joined the forces, and the women stayed at home and took care of the children and brought them up to become great wariors for the sikh panth.

a wise singh once said "A man has to become a man by taking amrit, while women are born women"..

equality does NOT mean that everything has to be the same. there were no female Guru's but this does NOT mean that we do not have equality in sikhism or that the holy Gurus were hypocrites.

even among Nihangs, Nirmalas and others who have a lineage going back to maharaj(even naamdharis agree on this), then women did not take amrit back then. it only started happening after Singh Sabha..

i apologise for my english, as im not living in a english speaking country.

Did any of the Bhagats recieve Khande di pahul? no, but they were still mukht. Bhai Gurdass mentions muslims having merged with God, did any of these recieve Amrit from the Gurus ? no.

the inition of Khande di pahul is a initiation into a warrior elite, which is also why Guru Maharaj added the sword and the sipahi to make them warriors.... the fact that most "Khalsa's" of today are men with fat bellies and have a lousi health condition, that they know nothing about chivalry and how to swing a sword or use a gun shows that the panth have completed forgotten the purpose of creating the khalsa, and have put Khande di amrit initiation down to the level of christian baptism, which is not respected at all by most christians.

some rehatnamas written many many years after 1708 seem to indicate that the Charan di pahul from panj pyare were still active during the period after 1708 which might suggest that initiation into the "Sant" aspect of religion was charan di pahul, and initiation into the warrior elite sant sipahi was the Khande di pahul which at the time was only allowed for men.

Bhai Nand Lal, Bhai Khaneya, Mata Sahib Devi, Mata Sundari,.. none of them took amrit from Khande, but they have porbably taken Charan di pahul amrit from Maharaj and lived the lives of Sant..

[Xylitol]

All Sikh of the Guru took Amrit. Bhai Gurdass Ji mentions that those wihout Amrit are the lowest of the low etc. He goes on at some length deriding those who have not accepted the Guru's initiation. They are also called nigura.

there are other reasons why the surname is sometimes not written in granths. For eg., The common explanation that more than one Sikh with the same name existed, so a sikh such as Bhai Nand Lal ji didn't have Singh behind his last name in GRANTHS cannot be refuted.

[Xylitol]

...btw, I was mainly respoding to one of the posts within your post.

[harkamal]

check this logic... when to two singh take amrit they gurbhai's right? so when a guy and a girl take amrit there gurbhai and gurbhain....so how the hell can a gurbhai and gurbhain get married...thats unethical...naw puratan sikh women did take amrit...it just doesnt make sense...the hazur sahib maryada is how the whole panth did it back in the day

[amardeep]

the hazur sahib maryada is how the whole panth did it back in the day

what is the proof for this? anyone can claim that their maryada is hundreds of years old.

[harkamal]

ok fine....but how can 2 amrit couple marry when threr guru bhai and guru bhain?

[amardeep]

well, according to sikhi the entire human rice is one brotherhood of brothers and sisters, so whats your point?

[Xylitol]

Daya Singh Samprada and Damdami Taksaal both have an unbroken lineage going back to the Guru's time. Both state that Amrit is for both men and women.

[chatanga]

look at it from the point of view of the Guru. Would Guru Gobind Singh have denied the bibian Amrit?

In the times of Guru Nanak , Guru Ji raised the woman from subservient to equal. Bani says that woman cannot be inferior to man. So would amrit have to be given on gender or not?

Guru Ji also said the no man is inferior to another. So if all were welcome to partake of amrit, none were denied. We can all agree on this yeah? So is it possibly the same for the bibian?

Im not too sure about the Hazur Sahib maryada being the true maryada. If you think about it, even idols appeared at Harimandar Sahib over time, so a place far so away from the centre of Sikhi could easily have had non-sikh practices gradually introduced.

[SAadmin]

I understand where you coming from chatanga, i honestly also think from point of view guru, guru would never denied amrit to women. However what i find boggling is, how come there is not even credible puratan source which talks about this amrit given to women by dasam patsah. I find it bit strange..why is that? does it mean our puratan history writers were sexist to an extend? not that i am implying that but just exploring what causes them not to write amrit given to women by sri guru gobind singh ji, they defaniately amrit given to men but not women.

[drawrof]

why is amrit the main focus guys?

I know people who do all sorts after amrit, was that their 'ticket' to heaven?.......comeon it must be deeper than that

[harkamal]

Do you even know why idols showed up at amritsar....those hindu gods spoke to the pandits and told them they want to be taken to the place of Guru Ram Das Sachapatshah...thats why they were there...

[chatanga]

why didnt they go themselves harkamal?

[Kam1825]

Now Chatanga that is funny?

[shaheediyan]

Few things I would like to add here:

1 - Satguru bestowed Guruship/Patshahi on the Guru Granth, Panth/Khalsa. Then surely the institution of Gurmatta and Panthic decisions of yesteryear hold some ground?

2 - Maybe historically pin-pointing the start of the name Kaur will shed light on this issue... as far as I know, there are no 18th c references... maybe late 18th c?

3 - What was the purpose of Khande de Pahul? Do all historical sources post Dasam Patshah - both 18th and 19th c not talk of the institution of the Khalsa (in reference to 1699>) as an army? If so and if this true, then does it not make sense that Sikhs would not put their mothers, sisters and daughters on the front line - this may answer N3Os point of there be no historic references? There are always exceptions to the rule of course, and that lack of reference doesn't mean it never happened. Maybe not in Satguru's time, but certainly may have happened a few decades afterwards.

4 - Another interesting point is the mention of Singhnian in the panthic ardaas, how old is this tradition? Some historic references mention shastardhari Nihangni/Singhni's, would they not have been given same treament as Singhs i.e. Khande de Pahul.

The same way Khande de Pahul was meant for those who submitted their head to Guru and died while living - thus becoming fearless - and today we see many people take amrit without possibly understanding the sacrificial tradition and reality of living to administer justice, could it not be that sometime during the 18th c, some brave bibiyan earnt their right to amrit (through wanting to take on a soldierly role), and as has become with all men, it also became a tradition for all women to take amrit?

In which case, the real question or mystery is not that of women partaking in amrit, which they have every right to do, but rather, should "all PEOPLE" have the right to Khanda amrit, without actually living the role associated with the essence of the Khanda?

Interesting discussion, but we are where we are, and the Sikh tradition has evolved to place more emphasis on the spiritual side (argueably - some would say more emphasis on the ritual side) and pretty much negate the martial side completely.

Preserving that which we hold true, at root, always has been and always will be an individual effort. Blessed are those circimstances when a collective truely believes in one truth.

[amardeep]

It would be nice to have some input from great scholars such as Javanmard and tsingh on this

[SAadmin]

I actually found references of amrit given to women on sikhsangat after searching the forum:

Twareekh written by Bhai Chanda Singh Firozpuri, Gohaj Pothi and Das Gur Jot written by Giani Mall Singh prove that women took Amrit in 1699. Bhatt Vahis also prove that Amrit should be given to women and they must be named "Kaur". Twareekh Guru Khalsa Part 10 mentions many women who took Amrit. On page 159, there are two sakhis. On 160, there is a sakhi of Bibi Deep Kaur who was an Amritdhari. Rani Sada Kaur, mother in-law of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, was also Amritdhari. It is written in Guru Prem Padd Parkash that in 1702 Guru Sahib married Mata Sahib Devan and gave her Amrit. She became Mata Sahib Kaur. Sant Attar Singh gave Amrit to women equally. Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji gave Amrit to women and rejected giving Kirpan amrit to women. Read Gurbani Paath Darshan written by him.

[drawrof]

Twareekh written by Bhai Chanda Singh Firozpuri, Gohaj Pothi and Das Gur Jot written by Giani Mall Singh prove that women took Amrit in 1699

could I get dates on these?

[chatanga]

if as some bibian should be given kirpan di pahul, duz anyone know who started this? Did guru Ji?

[SAadmin]

Twareekh written by Bhai Chanda Singh Firozpuri, Gohaj Pothi and Das Gur Jot written by Giani Mall Singh prove that women took Amrit in 1699

could I get dates on these?

I got this from member -bijla singh on sikhsangat, unfortunately no dates were provided.

[gsingh00]

I'm assuming that those books provide references to other works since Giani Mall Singh is currently Granthi at Darbar Sahib and is very well read on Sikh history.

[drawrof]

gsingh00,

you're probably right. I would want to see what the earlier sources are. The bhatt vahi's I believe are very credible, so I'd like to see what is being missed out.

[Anandpuria]

There is reference in Param Sumarg Rahitnama for giving Khande di pahul to females. However, the downside is that it says that the initiate female should append 'Devi' to her name and not 'Kaut'. In fact, even when Baba Ram Singh Namdhari gave Khande di Pahul to females at village Siarh in Malwa in 1858 no name Kaur was given to the females. Baba Ram Singh wrote letters to several of these females from exile in Burma and their names are without 'Kaur in the letters published by Ganda Singh in 'Kookian Di Vithiya'.

The name Kaur to accompany Khande di Pahul for the first time was in 1898 when Singh Sabha Bhasaur held amtit Sanchar for females. Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha was very close to Bhasaur and was main adviser of Macauliff. It was at his suggestion that he modified discussion on Mata Sahib Devan in Macauliff's Sikh religion to say that she was baptised by Guruji and given name Sahib Kaur and married her. This was a lie because in her hukamnamas written partly in her own hand her name is Sahib Devi. Even Bhai Vir Singh in his novel Sundari was writing her name as Sahib Devan.

[dalsingh101]

However, the downside is that it says that the initiate female should append 'Devi' to her name and not 'Kaut'.

Brother, how do you see that as a downside?

[savinderpalsingh]

bhai chaupa singhs rehatnama restricts khande baate da amrit for maiyan, the one who gives is tankhaiya mentioned in page 409

kard di paul is mentioned in gurubilas patshahi dasvin written in 1741

Twareekh written by Bhai Chanda Singh Firozpuri, Gohaj Pothi and Das Gur Jot written by Giani Mall Singh prove that women took Amrit in 1699

could I get dates on these?

is bhai chanda singh the one who was pupil to the pupils of bhai mani singh ji?

Bhai mani singh ji
|
Bhai Amar Sing ,Bhai Jassa Singh,Bhai Ram Singh
|

Chanda singh

one more thing i came accross was as guru sahib says while amritsanchar is "you are brothers and sister"

So, in older discussions someone said "that women didnt take amrit cause of brother sister thing"

but everyone was initiated with kirpan or karad di pahul first so they became sikh, if they stood good in rehat they would be given khade di pahul

karad di pahul was practiced on all 5 takhats and Dam damit taksalor kirpan di pahul

even bidichand dal practiced it.

it kind of sounds absurd about the"brother sister argument"

but guru said says, 2 body's 1 soul

so how do you become 1 soul if you were brother and sister spiritual before wedding
some posters said, women only took karad di pahul or kirpan di pahul to recieve naam and gurmatar

along with some other men too we could call it "chula"

taking khande di pahul meant giving your head completely to guru sahib, and pratakh in rehat .

which due to physical issues women cudnt as they have to take amrit again after birth.

any old references on this?

Edited November 17, 2014 by savinderpalsingh