Jump to content

SIKH WOMEN GATHER AT MAI BHAGO RETREAT


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

If you believe it only says man twice, then do the arth of the whole line and we can see how much you know. 

Read the full arths given for 'nar'... it doesn't just apply to human men. 

Manuka means of human kind/ human jaati

put the 2 together & the message is directed at men of human kind 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HarkiranKaur said:

I said it was using a metaphor from cultural reference from that time. It's NOT an instruction. It's saying the same way that x does this our soul should do y. It's only using a reference. What I mean by not gender exclusive is that it is not saying men shouldn't also serve their wives with devotion. That wasn't the purpose of the passage. It was use a comparison and that comparison happened to be using the one of a wife. However that doesn't mean that Waheguru doesn't expect all humans to serve each other and husbands to also serve their wives with devotion. Gurbani says as Gurmukh look upon ALL with the single eye of equality for in each and every heart (not just male hearts) the divine light resides. so you are manmukh I guess since you can't see that divine light in everyone??  And moresonhow can a husband not see that same divine light in his wife and serve her? If he doesn't, then he is using his gender as false status. Gurbani also says false statuses will bring you to hell. 

Bu the way Gurbani is for all souls which are all feminine. It's not written for just men. 

Your lack of knowledge coupled with your desire to preach is truly alarming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, HarkiranKaur said:

Right back at ya there... in fact your fellow chauvenists on here even think you've gone too far into the women hating. 

Nothing I have said has come from my own manmat... everything I have said has been based on & referenced against historical references & sources. Translations of Gurbani have been backed up by arths given in Shabad Kosh.

Then there's you.... who has provided no references or sources and all your translations of Gurbani are from your own manmat & twisted to suit you

nowhere have I said I hate women... my Guru instructed us to protect women, respect women & to honour them. Just because you want equality, something that God didn't create as he deliberately created men & women to fulfil specific roles. Anyone who doesn't go along with your false views on equality automatically becomes a woman hater?!

Guru Sahib decided to take 10 human forms... each time as a man

Every bhagat whose bani mahraj included in SGGS is a man

5 pyare of Mahraj were all men

Mahraj used gender specific words like nar & naar/naari in Gurbani 

Does that mean Mahraj was a chauvinist as well? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

Taking on the role as Guru does not require one to be male: 

From Damdami Taksal Rehet Maryada straight from vidhia.com please take note of note 22 (which is under the tuk you posed above) note it says he/she becomes the living image of the Guru. Not just 'he'. So either can. 

IMG_0656.PNG.fddb418624dc5d4f6aadd671928d4a52.PNG

First you are unable to read Punjabi and now you can't understand simple English.  For the betterment of the sangat I will go into detail where you are again making mistakes.  Before I go into the foot note.  I checked two different websites with DamDami taksal Rehat Maryada and they had no foot notes in the Rehat.  If anything these are foot notes added by the translator.  As we all know translations can and have been wrong in the past.  Secondly, we have the current Jathedar of DamDami Taksal, Sant Jarnail Singh ji clearly saying women are not to be in Punj Pyare.  Sant ji would not go against DamDami Taksal Rehat Maryada.  Again for the betterment of the sangat, let's go elbow deep into this.  Let's compare what harkiran says to what the foot note says.

Harkiran says: a women who is amritdhari can be in the Punj Pyare because she is the image of the Guru.   

Now let's look at the foot note. The foot note in question has two steps in it.  The first part is referring to:

"One enters the Khalsa fold by taking Amrit"

This part is referring to everyone can take amrit; man and woman.  Here the person who is taking amrit has to accept Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as the Guru and follow the rehat laid out by the Guru.  So now they have taken amrit and they are in the Khalsa fold.  Perfect nothing in this part about women being allowed in Punj Pyare or only soul matters or anything harkiran has asserted to in the past.

The second part:

"becomes a true Khalsa when he/she becomes the living image of the Guru by becoming knowledgeable and spiritually gifted.

The second part is saying a person who has taken Amrit is not automatically the living image of the Guru. Although this is how harkiran wants people to see it.  Harkiran wants people to misinterpret this foot note as once a woman takes amrit she automatically becomes the living image of the Guru.  This can't be further from the truth  There is a stipulation added to when a person becomes the living image of the Guru and true Khalsa.  Here is the stipulation:

  "by becoming knowledgeable and spiritually gifted."

What is this referring too?  The translator really as made this stupid proof.  The translator is referring to people who have become one with gurmat; have/are brahmgyan, they are the living image of the Guru.  This is speaking to atma and Vaheguru becoming one.  Now let's apply this to a woman.  A woman takes amrit and follows Gurmat and attains brahmgyan.  Therefore she becomes one with Akal Purakh as the end result.  Let's go back to the where this foot note originated from:

ਚਹੁ ਜੁਗਾ ਕਾ ਹੁਣਿ ਨਿਬੇੜਾ ਨਰ ਮਨੁਖਾ ਨੋ ਏਕੁ ਨਿਧਾਨਾ ॥

The four ages dispute (this word ਨਿਬੇੜਾ is referring to how each religion in the four ages argued and claimed they are the true path to Akal Purakh or whatever state they claim to be) has now been settled, man and human kind have been given one treasure (Naam). (ਨਿਧਾਨਾ means treasure, but it's not speaking about treasure as gold and diamonds, but the true treasure of Naam). 

If I have not lost you, the foot note is saying anyone can become one with Akal Purakh.  So what does the foot note and the Gurbani line that the foot note is based on have to do with saying women can be in punj pyare?  Absolutely NOTHING!!!!!   Yaaayyyyy mission accomplished......put on your party hats, let out the balloons animals.  But hold up, if a woman can become one with Akal Purakh what is stopping her from becoming part of the Punj Pyare, as she is the living image of the Guru?

Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji called for a head, all five times a man stood up and gave his head only, who belonged to different caste as well.  After these men were given Amrit, the Guru abolished their caste and caste names.  But did he abolish their gender or keep it intact.  Let's see what names they were given.  Daya SINGH, Himmat SINGH, Dharam SINGH,  Mokham SINGH, Sahib SINGH.  What does the Singh, signify?  They are males.  Before they took Amrit they were with caste and man.  After taking Amrit they had no caste and still retrained their male gender.  Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji went from Sri Guru Gobind Rai to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji.  Even the Guru kept his male gender name.  Yaaayyyyy mission accomplished part 2, bring out the party hats again and balloon animals....everyone gets a balloon animal.......make sure harkiran gets a female balloon animal though. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Read the full arths given for 'nar'... it doesn't just apply to human men. 

Manuka means of human kind/ human jaati

put the 2 together & the message is directed at men of human kind 

the four yugs, which or who was saying male of human kind plus males of other species could obtain Naam and now the Guru has resolved the dispute to say male of human kind has access to Naam?

Let me guess you are going to say monkeys in the 4 yugs were claiming they can get Naam, but not anymore.....only the true homosapien, mahakaal96 can get Naam :rofl:rofl :notalk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

the four yugs, which or who was saying male of human kind plus males of other species could obtain Naam and now the Guru has resolved the dispute to say male of human kind has access to Naam?

Let me guess you are going to say monkeys in the 4 yugs were claiming they can get Naam, but not anymore.....only the true homosapien, mahakaal96 can get Naam :rofl:rofl :notalk:

Once again this fool fabricates stuff out of thin air & resorts to childish comments to cover up his inadequacy.

The arths given by shabad kosh for 'nar' says nar can mean man, narsingh (avtar of Vishnu), a unique breed of gods or Narayan.

When you have Nar & Manuka together the message is clearly being directed to that Nar which is of human kind. 

You can try to divert & cover up for your lack of knowledge & fabricate stuff out of thin air all you want... won't work with me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

There are loving husbands too who also cook sweets for their wives. It's not gender exclusive.

 

It's not but there is NO reference in Gurbani about men lovingly serving their wives. Only loving wives serving their husbands. That should tell any one with one brain cell a lot.

 

8 hours ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon said:

This thread is a prime reason why young folks are straying from Sikhi. Ridiculous. 

 

I agree. You get these freak feminists amongst others who just drive people away with their base education and views.

 

5 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

I said it was using a metaphor from cultural reference from that time. It's NOT an instruction.

 

It is a beautiful verse though is it not? The "metaphor" stands out a lot and tells us that there is something beautiful in loving wife serving her husband, just as there is something equally beautiful in a premi of Akaal, lovingly worshipping his name. Next you will say that Akaal should also worship the bhagat.

 

Guru Sahib isn't thick asatkiran. The beauty and truth of the "metaphor" is reflected in the beauty and truth of the bhagat and his creator.

 

As i told you years ago, once you acceot Guru sahiib's intelect over your own you will succeed. Unti, that day, you are set up only for failure.

 

4 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

A female guru would never have been listened to in that time

 

You have posted this so many times. Yet you have posted your rebuttal to it but not understood it. Did you yourslef not state that women were given post of masands where they led sangats as Guru Sahib's representatives? If the sangats were listening to the women masands why couldn't they listen to a female guru?

 

How could someone as revolutionary as Guru Nanak state "why call her inferior..." and then be afriad of selecting a woman becuase Guru Sahib thought she would not be accepted?

 

Did the Sikhs ignore Mata Sahib Deva/Mata Sundri after Guru Sahib passed away? Or did they accept and obey the hukumnanas given by these two  women?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Once again this fool fabricates stuff out of thin air & resorts to childish comments to cover up his inadequacy.

The arths given by shabad kosh for 'nar' says nar can mean man, narsingh (avtar of Vishnu), a unique breed of gods or Narayan.

When you have Nar & Manuka together the message is clearly being directed to that Nar which is of human kind. 

You can try to divert & cover up for your lack of knowledge & fabricate stuff out of thin air all you want... won't work with me

I asked you to do the arth of the whole line.  You refuse to do it because you do not have the knowledge or skill to do the arth of the whole line. Which makes your understanding good as harkiran who doesn't even know how to speak punjabi. When I said both of you are cut from the same cloth, I meant it and its being proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

I asked you to do the arth of the whole line.  You refuse to do it because you do not have the knowledge or skill to do the arth of the whole line. Which makes your understanding good as harkiran who doesn't even know how to speak punjabi. When I said both of you are cut from the same cloth, I meant it and its being proven.

Yep, because I can provide arths for only 2 words out of the whole line.... after 2 words I miraculously lose the ability to do 3 or 4 words or the whole line.... mahraj only gave me the ability limited to 2 words per line...

You was asked to show where 'women' are mentioned in that line as per the translation you posted..... and as per usual you provide nothing but hot air... tell everyone here, from that line you posted, which Gurmukhi word means women???

you was asked yesterday to provide reference to a hukamnama or rehitnama where mahraj used a pen name rather then their real name, please provide reference to back up your comment?

its been over a week since you said you would provide references & evidence for pre 1900 that women were given Khande Di Pahul in 1699... please provide those references?... I remember you making a comment about 'you better put big boy pants on today' but rather what has happened since  is that your child sized kachera has been getting pulled down & you've been getting exposed for the small & inadequate specimen that you are 

Theres a familiar pattern emerging with you..... speaks a lot of hot air, has no substance, can't back anything up with references, makes bold claims then can't back them up, when asked a question you are unable to answer you come back with a question of your own that is usually fabricated out of thin air to divert the question asked of you in the first place... nice try... but like I said... won't work with me 

Provide answers to all the above questions & provide all the references & evidence to back up all the claims you made... do that & gain some credibility.... until then keep your mouth shut 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Yep, because I can provide arths for only 2 words out of the whole line.... after 2 words I miraculously lose the ability to do 3 or 4 words or the whole line.... mahraj only gave me the ability limited to 2 words per line...

You didn't provide your own arth of the two words.  You went on the internet and looked for arths.  Doing arth of a line of Gurbani means making sense of various words used to come to one message.  Anyone can take a dictionary of any language and look up the definition of one or two words or even find the meaning for each word, but still are unable to find the meaning of the sentence.  As you found out the two words you looked up have several meanings.  So which one does a person use and which meaning doesn't apply here.  This is where you can't do the arth.  You are full of hot air, where I have already done the arth in my own words in English.  You are still confused about the meaning of two words. 

Quote

You was asked to show where 'women' are mentioned in that line as per the translation you posted..... and as per usual you provide nothing but hot air... tell everyone here, from that line you posted, which Gurmukhi word means women???

Just to shut the women hater up.  In a previous post you praised Sant baba Gurbachan Singh ji Khalsa as such:

Quote

Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale... the treasure chest of knowledge & the jewel amongst scholars

I went and found his recording on the arth of ਮਨੁਖਾ and he says this word is referring to women in the Gurbani pankti on ang 797.  Sant ji gives a full explanation and then adds men and women have the right to taking Amrit from the Punj Pyare.  Do you know what the word besharam means?  As you are looking it up, be standing in front of a mirror.

Sant ji recording is on gurmatveechar.com in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji katha.  Go to recording of ang 796 + 797.  Approximately 36 minutes in Sant ji does the interpretation starting from the beginning of the Shabad. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use