• advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
Khalistanisinghni

The modern day "Kaurs"

123 posts in this topic

Faithless cynics have this idea the social structure of society did not allow women to play a leader role in society at the time of the Gurus, hence their was no women Guru's in Sikhi.   Throughout Sikh history there have been women who took the lead in Sikh processions.  Sikh women have been given leader roles by the Gurus.  Sikh women took the leader role for Manji Sahib's.  The faithless cynics argument is baseless.  So why were their only Guru's who took the male form?  Because Akal Purakh made it that way.  As he commands things come into play.  Akal Purakh also asked for heads on 1699.  The people who stood up to this call were all men.  Men only stood up because that's what Akal Purakh hukam (command) was.  No one, but those 5 men would have stood up and given their head that day.  Did not matter if their was a Sant sitting in the sangat on that day.  Only those 5 men were commanded by Akal Purakh to stand up and present themselves to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji.  Bhai Jaita ji (after taking amrit became Bhai Jeevan Singh ji) was sitting in the sangat when the call was made by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji.  If you know the history of Bhai Jaita ji, you would understand the deep meaning of mentioning his name.  Bhai Jaita ji was the one who risked his life and household to bring back Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib ji head to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji.  This Gurmukh was sitting in the sangat, do you not think he would have given his head for the next Guru, when he risked his life for the last Guru?  We can play the "what if" game all day and nothing of value would become of it because we are not following Akal Purakh hukam to accept his decision.    Do you think it was just by chance the five men who stood up, just happened to be from different caste?  What do you take Akal Purakh to be some poker player?....I need 5 heads....Brahma bets 2 men and 3 women, Krishna bets 16000 women, shiva bets on one man?  It was going to be 5 men in the position of Punj Pyare and that was his command.  Jap ji Sahib says look at how many are singing Vaheguru's praises in so many different ways, but only those who follow his command are approved.  The faithless cynics believe they are in control, I want to go left, I go left.  It's all arrogant beliefs. Vaheguru's hukam can't be changed or altered.  Vaheguru hukam is perfect.   

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Khalistanisinghni said:

Ce Harkiran kaur bhenji,

 

SGPC maryada is not the panthic maryada. It has not been accepted. I rather follow the maryada from taksal/dals that can be dated back to the times guru sahib. They don't show women as inferior, they just accept as he plays, they are filled with sant/mahapurkh when SGPC is filled with, nvrm.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave the panth ability to make decisions. That's what's happened in early 20th century and now we have Sikh Rehet Maryada. By dismissing it, you are directly going against Akal Takht. 

By the way read this part of Taksal Maryada. It clearly says differences in gender (among creed caste etc) are all eliminated by creation of Khalsa and that HE/SHE becomes Khalsa by chaking Amrit and becoming living image of the Guru. That means he or SHE can be living image of the Guru. your argument was that the Panj Pyaras represent the Guru and so must be male is flawed because right in Taksal Maryada it says gender difference was eliminated. (Gender itself was obviously not eliminated so then what was being referred to??? Being discriminated was what was eliminated so it's as there is no longer difference when it comes to privileges) Not only that but in line 22 it says he/SHE can be living image representative of the Guru. Not just males.

Right in Taksal Maryada.... what some Taksalis practice is not on line with their own RM.  If differences in gender are in same line as caste and these were all eliminated then how can you practice gender discrimination? Especially when it even clarifies that he or SHE can become living image of the Guru!!!!! 

from Vidhya.com 

IMG_0656.PNG

Edited by HarkiranKaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

So using your logic then no white singh can be one of Panj Pyaras, nor someone not of the same castes or from same area or same heights/ weight etc. Because the physical saroop has to be replicated 100% right? 

But guaranteed you will jump just to gender. Please explain to us why none of the other things matter but gender does? Please also tell us what is meant by sargun saroop. Are the five males we choose looking exactly like the original 5? Should we try to clone in science? If you think having a male genetalia is what sargun saroop means then you don't know anything at all. 

To be in his roop means to don the uniform he gave us including turban. It means to wear our good deeds and practice our Rehet with strict accordance. It means to be a living image of our Guru and set aside ego haume identity and find the light of Akal Purakh in all. It has nothing to do with having a male anatomy dangling down there. 

Try reading Gurbani sometime. GGSJ tells us that Akal Purakh IS the male and the female. It tells us INSTRUCTS us to see ALL equally. It says to base on our deeds and not our physical body. It says every human has the SAME capacity for spiritual advancement without hinderance.

Without realizing maybe, you have turned women into only being valued as a breeding machine and not valued in our own right. Are we only valued for being able to produce male children who can become the leaders in sikhi? Women were never supposed to be leaders or prominent? Just breeding machines here to serve men??? That's how other religions see us. Not how our Guru sees us!!!! 

TBH, your language just proves the brothers correct. What about go ask guru ji? I dare not say what Sant giani jarnail singh ji said was untrue and you are "smarter". So good day.

WJKK WJKF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

bro ,itihassic records say that the crowds at Anandpur were over 35,000 and Dal historians say there were not many women present , would it not be harsh to condemn women on the basis that they were not 5 out 35,000 ? They are not any less Children of Guru Pita ji and often in our history been the sole carers and makers of mahaan gursikhs  e.g. Bhai Taru Singh ji 

bros may consider being less condemning and more encouraging of your lost sisters ...return the favour 

There were over 80,000 Sikhs. Not sure where did you get the 35K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

Do you lose your age, height and various other personal characteristics?

 

I'm a really stupid person, so please explain to me what you lose and what you retain once you become a khalsa.

Yes you lose all those. Because you are a stupid person you will beleive it.

 

6 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

So using your logic then no white singh can be one of Panj Pyaras, nor someone not of the same castes or from same area or same heights/ weight etc. Because the physical saroop has to be replicated 100% right?

 

And on it goes. We are no talking about physical sarop. You have dragged that into it. We are talking about gender.

You won't get away with your nonsense here.

 

 

6 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

Without realizing maybe, you have turned women into only being valued as a breeding machine and not valued in our own right. Are we only valued for being able to produce male children who can become the leaders in sikhi? Women were never supposed to be leaders or prominent? Just breeding machines here to serve men??? That's how other religions see us. Not how our Guru sees us!!!! 

 

 

Other religions do not see us that way. It's really deceitful of you to try and play that card. You talk about Sri Guru Granth Sahib a lot, but yet haven't accepted the core principle of honesty.

 

As I told yo on Sikhawareness, once you do, your life will become a lot better.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chatanga said:

Yes you lose all those. Because you are a stupid person you will beleive it.

 

 

And on it goes. We are no talking about physical sarop. You have dragged that into it. We are talking about gender.

You won't get away with your nonsense here.

 

 

 

Other religions do not see us that way. It's really deceitful of you to try and play that card. You talk about Sri Guru Granth Sahib a lot, but yet haven't accepted the core principle of honesty.

 

As I told yo on Sikhawareness, once you do, your life will become a lot better.

 

 

She is the same person commenting on this video as well ...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Khalistanisinghni said:

There were over 80,000 Sikhs. Not sure where did you get the 35K.

it was the number that were initiated  on that day according to more than one retelling I read including mughal spy account who became Ajmer Singh , I'm sure the ikatt was bigger but I didn't want to put down something I couldn't be sure of .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Khalistanisinghni said:

 

She is the same person commenting on this video as well ...

Yup and I am speaking truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chatanga said:

Yes you lose all those. Because you are a stupid person you will beleive it.

 

 

And on it goes. We are no talking about physical sarop. You have dragged that into it. We are talking about gender.

You won't get away with your nonsense here.

 

 

 

Other religions do not see us that way. It's really deceitful of you to try and play that card. You talk about Sri Guru Granth Sahib a lot, but yet haven't accepted the core principle of honesty.

 

As I told yo on Sikhawareness, once you do, your life will become a lot better.

 

When I said 'us' I meant women not Sikhs. Other religions see women as subordinate and here to just serve men and bear children but never be leaders over men.

Our Gurus never saw us (as in women) in that way and women masands is proof. I don't care to get back into argument with you Chatanga. You have your beliefs and that's your prerogative. I have no beef with you as a person other than the slander you have done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

And what if the woman is the one who has 'already trodden' these footsteps by taking Amrit while the husband has yet to?

 

O twisted one, we are talking lavan and now you want to bring in amrit sinchar to it?

 

6 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

The lavaans have nothing to do with delegating someone in charge over the other.

 

Who said they did? It's you who is throwing this muck around that if the man steps one foot in front of his wife then he is the leader and she is subservient. No-one else here is saying that women are subservient, in Gurmat or otherwise.

 

6 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

In our marriage I had just as much control of him as he had of me. If I wanted him to slow down all I had to do was pull back on the Palla.

 

And if he wanted to drag you round all he had to do was put his back into it!

 

6 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

 

 Remember in who's hand the palla is and around who's neck it is!!!

 

To add to all the stupid things you have repeated on  forums to the point pof making people vomit, this is one of the few that are equally hilarious. You are describing yourself as a noose around your husbands neck. How stupid is that? What do nooses do? They restrict breath until the victim dies. Is that what you really are? You can choose when to end your husbandds life?

You have said some realy stupid things on this forum. I would give up whilst you are  still a joke, rather than give up when you are a mental case.

 

For the benefit of other readers, I would like to point out that the palla is not worn around the neck but over the shoulder. Neither does the female pulling on the palla achieve anything The man still still have total control of the palla. Even if the woman stands stil, all that will happen is the pala will fall from her hands.

 

Something this harkiran creature did a long time ago, when she tried to place her own mat over the Guru's mat.

 

6 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

 My favourite analogy for those who want to make it into some statement of who gets to be in charge... think of the palls like reins and a chariot. The wife is the rider in control holding the reins.

 

And now your husbands a horse. Still his manure will go to mask the stench of manmat coming from you.

 

6 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

 He may have been 'in front' at the marriage but you'll find most times in our day to day life I am or we switch and that's where it matters more because that's our life. I know that bothers you that I have authority in my marriage as an equal.

 

There is no "may" about it. he was at tyhe front, you were behind hijm following in his EVERY footstep. And I couldn't care less about your married life. I feel sorry for your husband though, having to use his tail constantly to swat away all those flies and now there is one massive fly who won't stop buzzing.

 

6 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

 Even for paath we take turns reciting together meaning no one person leads.

 

You haven't even progressed beyond the Panjabi alphabet in the last 20 years, how can you be reading any paath?

 

6 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

By the way there are people who say 100 years ago their great grandparents never even circled SGGSJ they just stayed in front for all 4 lavaans. 

 

By the way, there are people who say that women never took Khande ki pahul 100 years ago. So what?

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HarkiranKaur said:

When I said 'us' I meant women not Sikhs. Other religions see women as subordinate and here to just serve men and bear children but never be leaders over men.

 

I meant women when I posted it.  No other religions say that Gurmat sees women as subordinate. Stop your lying...

 

7 minutes ago, HarkiranKaur said:

Our Gurus never saw us (as in women) in that way and women masands is proof...

 

of what? The greatest proof would have been if a woman was made Guru.

And there it ends heopfully. You haven't got anything to add to this topic so just give this forum and all other forums a break. Work on yourself first. Good luck.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

it was the number that were initiated  on that day according to more than one retelling I read including mughal spy account who became Ajmer Singh , I'm sure the ikatt was bigger but I didn't want to put down something I couldn't be sure of .

Guess i have to work on readings and katha :grin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Khalistanisinghni said:

She is the same person commenting on this video as well ...

 

Have just  had a look at those comments. the usual rubbish. She has said much worse about Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth Sahib. Each and every opportunity she gets, she is in there doing nindya. And for someone who can't even read basic gurmukhi, she tries to set herself up as some bastion of knowledge on Gurmat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

it was the number that were initiated  on that day according to more than one retelling I read including mughal spy account who became Ajmer Singh , I'm sure the ikatt was bigger but I didn't want to put down something I couldn't be sure of .

Different people gave different figures. We shouldnt get bogged down in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chatanga said:

 

Have just  had a look at those comments. the usual rubbish. She has said much worse about Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth Sahib. Each and every opportunity she gets, she is in there doing nindya. And for someone who can't even read basic gurmukhi, she tries to set herself up as some bastion of knowledge on Gurmat.

Nindaks of Maharaj ji's bani and trying to act so smart as to use every opportunity to go against what mahapurkhs say. The bibis are too indulged in this whole idea of equality and sikh panth is therefore lacking great women to look up to. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

it was the number that were initiated  on that day according to more than one retelling I read including mughal spy account who became Ajmer Singh , I'm sure the ikatt was bigger but I didn't want to put down something I couldn't be sure of .

Bhenji, found some beautiful katha on jeevani of Mata sahib Kaur ji by giani thakur singh ji on gurmatveechar.com, do have a look!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Khalistanisinghni said:

 Nindaks of Maharaj ji's bani and trying to act so smart as to use every opportunity to go against what mahapurkhs say. The bibis are too indulged in this whole idea of equality and sikh panth is therefore lacking great women to look up to. 

 

Your idea of great women to look up to? Submissive, considered subordinate beneath Singh's? Women who 'know their place' beneath males and don't complain about their lesser existence? The true nindaks are those who ignore Gurbani about equality and put women down into a lesser role. 

By the way this site has already said numerous times it won't stand for people putting down Sikh Rehet Maryada and SRM makes it abundantly clear that yes women can indeed do seva as Panj pyaras. It's can't get any more explicit than it is. And yes it's also in the Punjabi version.  If you choose to follow a different RM that's up to you but you can't go speaking ill of the panthic Rehet Maryada. If you personally feel better being seen by your brothers as inferior and lesser in their eyes (which make no mistake you are seen as less in their eyes - I mean look you don't even have the physical gender as the Gurus or the original five and you are only privileged if you do, so you must be inferior!)  if that makes you happy by all means.... I will stick with Sikh Rehet Maryada and what Gurbani actually says. 

Edited by HarkiranKaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

Do you lose your age, height and various other personal characteristics?

 

I'm a really stupid person, so please explain to me what you lose and what you retain once you become a khalsa.

sis honestly you should have lost your krodh a long time back it achieves nothing . Your saroop doesn't change beyond looking a part of the khalsa panth , your deh doesn't change but your hirdey should transform immediately to become komal for the cultivating of naam beej .

If others choose to show their stupidity by disrespecting their SIngh by equating him to a horse controlled by reins instead seeing him as their daily sangat and closest friend on the path after Guru ji , we really need to show them that they are becoming what they don't like vile suppressors of  others on the path.

Sikh women should be self-assured by the knowledge that they have been entrusted with the most precious sewa , nurturing,supporting  and getting gursikhs ready . One doesn't arrive at the sanchar without preparation , and that is where a Singhni importance is , like Sheikh Farid's mother nurtured his bhagti we have that immense role . Entrance to the path is a one time deal , but travelling and growing is a constant lifelong thing .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

sis honestly you should have lost your krodh a long time back it achieves nothing . Your saroop doesn't change beyond looking a part of the khalsa panth , your deh doesn't change but your hirdey should transform immediately to become komal for the cultivating of naam beej .

If others choose to show their stupidity by disrespecting their SIngh by equating him to a horse controlled by reins instead seeing him as their daily sangat and closest friend on the path after Guru ji , we really need to show them that they are becoming what they don't like vile suppressors of  others on the path.

Sikh women should be self-assured by the knowledge that they have been entrusted with the most precious sewa , nurturing,supporting  and getting gursikhs ready . One doesn't arrive at the sanchar without preparation , and that is where a Singhni importance is , like Sheikh Farid's mother nurtured his bhagti we have that immense role . Entrance to the path is a one time deal , but travelling and growing is a constant lifelong thing .

Seeing the palla as reins of a horse where the wife is leading her husband is no worse than seeing the palla as a chain leading the wife while the husband is in charge. Neither is in charge over the other. They are ONE. That was my point. I wasn't actually equating it as such but showing how stupid it is to see the husband as being in charge same way. Neither one is in charge or required to be obedient or submissive. They work together as a team and that doesn't mean one leads and one follows. My husband is my absolute soul mate. We journey together as equals. 

And while it's certainly good seva to raise children, to say that women are only meant to raise children and nothing else makes women into valued only for their reproductive tracts and not their own spirituality or ability. And what if a woman can't have children or doesn't want any? She has no value in your eyes??? What r her calling IS to lead in the panth and make a real difference beyond the confines of the house? Not all women are good with kids, cooking and cleaning. It also takes away from the Singh's who actively participate in raising their children. 

Edited by HarkiranKaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HarkiranKaur said:

Seeing the palla as reins of a horse where the wife is leading her husband is no worse than seeing the palla as a chain leading the wife while the husband is in charge. Neither is in charge over the other. They are ONE. That was my point. I wasn't actually equating it as such but showing how stupid it is to see the husband as being in charge same way. Neither one is in charge or required to be obedient or submissive. They work together as a team and that doesn't mean one leads and one follows. My husband is my absolute soul mate. We journey together as equals. 

And while it's certainly good seva to raise children, to say that women are only meant to raise children and nothing else makes women into valued only for their reproductive tracts and not their own spirituality or ability. And what if a woman can't have children or doesn't want any? She has no value in your eyes??? What r her calling IS to lead in the panth and make a real difference beyond the confines of the house?

your point was lost in your eagerness to score a win in your argument ...If you really believe you are ONE then do you need to be upset about who goes first ? You disrespected sikhi by attaching manmat soch to such a pavitar ceremony and really should have stopped well before .

Did I say women are ONLY meant to produce children ? I didn't even say that they have to give birth , you can nurture Gursikhi in your life partner , in your friends, family members, even general society . If you have no spirituality, no jeevan, no karni  how on Earth are you going to do that ? Do you not believe that our packed lives are not already blessed and complete with the jewel of  Gursikhi ? I don't think I need to be in charge of anything to be complete ... 

I refuse to put down others to elevate myself  this is not a sikh attitude 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

your point was lost in your eagerness to score a win in your argument ...If you really believe you are ONE then do you need to be upset about who goes first ? You disrespected sikhi by attaching manmat soch to such a pavitar ceremony and really should have stopped well before .

Did I say women are ONLY meant to produce children ? I didn't even say that they have to give birth , you can nurture Gursikhi in your life partner , in your friends, family members, even general society . If you have no spirituality, no jeevan, no karni  how on Earth are you going to do that ? Do you not believe that our packed lives are not already blessed and complete with the jewel of  Gursikhi ? I don't think I need to be in charge of anything to be complete ... 

I refuse to put down others to elevate myself  this is not a sikh attitude 

 

Men put down women openly in order to elevate themselves. Nobody says anything about that.

also why does women's contribution always have to be subtle and behind the lines? Why can't women be leaders in the panth and lead men? What's so wrong with that? Why do we need to only take the 'nurture' role where we nurture someone else's gifts instead of following our own? Men following theirs steps on women's dreams all the time. You will not say anything against that?

Edited by HarkiranKaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, HarkiranKaur said:

Men put down women openly in order to elevate themselves. Nobody says anything about that.

also why does women's contribution always have to be subtle and behind the lines? Why can't women be leaders in the panth and lead men? What's so wrong with that? Why do we need to only take the 'nurture' role where we nurture someone else's gifts instead of following our own? Men following theirs steps on women's dreams all the time. You will not say anything against that?

Men are the sargun embodiment of Akal Purekh... women are the sargun embodiment of Adh Shakti... which is Akal Purekhs Shakti by which whole of sargun creation manifests itself. When the two come together (shiv-shakti) then creation expands. Adh Shakti has the ability to create but only on the hukam of Akal purekh. When Akal Purekh had a desire to became many from one he first manifested his Shakti (Adh Shakti). His desire to become many from one was manifest by Adh Shakti.

A woman has the ability to create new life when she gives birth but can only do so when a man plants his seed (desire) inside her.

The cosmic play of Akal Purek -Adh Shakti (Shiv-Shakti) has manifested in sargun form in the form of men & women.

You have a lot to learn 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

Seeing the palla as reins of a horse where the wife is leading her husband is no worse than seeing the palla as a chain leading the wife while the husband is in charge.

 

Yet no Sikh male says "I had a chain round my wife as we walked around guru Granth Sahib during the lavan. Yet you.....

 

4 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

 What r her calling IS to lead in the panth and make a real difference beyond the confines of the house?

Sikh women have done that in the past and no doubt will do so in the future. No Sikh male stops their wife from doing these.

 

Another trait of hers. talk abut women in the panj pyare sewa. get nowhere, no it's onto having babies and leadership roles.

 

Don't be fooled by her serpent tongue.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HarkiranKaur said:

Men put down women openly in order to elevate themselves. Nobody says anything about that.

also why does women's contribution always have to be subtle and behind the lines? Why can't women be leaders in the panth and lead men? What's so wrong with that? Why do we need to only take the 'nurture' role where we nurture someone else's gifts instead of following our own? Men following theirs steps on women's dreams all the time. You will not say anything against that?

Openly? Sikh men? Where ? Tell us where and we will say something about it. Otherwise keep you vague statements to yourself.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

Why are you guys entertaining this lost cause.  She was causing a mess at Sikh awareness with her illogical posts.  She has a problem.  She has no true knowledge of Gurbani, Sikh history, or writings.  She flaps her arms around hoping someone will pay attention to her.  She has anger issues and self hate.  Remember the cartoons where the cat holds the ticking bomb hoping it won't explode but it does all the time.  She is the cat.  The bomb will go off and she will self destruct. 

I think her husband should talk to her. Unless he is a weak man and can't do it. She is plain stupid. She probably got kicked out of the Christian faith for the same reasons.  There is zero gender equality in this religion if you ask me. She is a LOST CAUSE. I wonder if she has a daily bath.  Reeks of stench, I mean, bad smell; so do her posts!

Edited by pavitarsk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now