Jump to content

SIKH WOMEN GATHER AT MAI BHAGO RETREAT


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

It is related because the statement was made that in order to be Panj Pyaras you have to be image of the Guru. Which both genders can as you pointed out both can take Amrit and both can become one with Akal Purakh.

There was a stipulation added to when a person becomes the image of the Guru.  Not by taking amrit alone does a man or woman become the image of the Guru.  The foot note made the stipulation crystal clear.  Learn how to read English. 

Quote

I wish you'd realize gender is transient and makes no statement as to ones spiritual state and it's the light within that initiates as that light is as you pointed out one with Akal Purakh. 

In a previous post I asked you why can't Sikhs male or female with cut off limb's be in Punj Pyare.  You said these people can't sit in the bir asan position among other reasons.  If as you say, being image of the living Guru is the only requirement, then can't a person with a limb cut off be the living image of the Guru?  Your reasoning is faulty and you can't admit when you don't understand the topic of Punj Pyare.

Quote

Tell me how a pen-s is required in any of this??  

That's always on your mind, the male sex organ.  Go to a doctor and get yourself checked out 

 

Quote

Of course in that time everything was male dominated. India is STILL male dominated. A female guru would never have been listened to in that time and possibly even now as most males look down on females as you said something to protect something to own something lower in existence than the almighty male form. By the way we all start out female in the womb and any human given testosterone will take on the all mighty male traits. Surgery can fix the rest if the male form is so important. 

Women in the Khalsa Panth during the Guru's time took leadership roles.  You say this fact yourself and now you are going against this very fact?  honesty is considered highest in Sikhi. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Mr-Super man here wants to exploit Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji's rehitnama lets have a look from further back in history. Gurmat Sudhakar was written in 1899 by Bhai Kahn Singh Ji. He was born in 1861, firstly observe we have a person from prior to 1900. Secondly he translates and writes about Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji's rehitnama. What a shock...the line about not giving woman amrit....not there. Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji's rehitnama...that speaks about giving amrit to SIKHS. So If Mr Super man is right here, only men can be Sikhs.  A translation that predates the one that Mr Super man is screeching about has now been shown to contain no such verse. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kira said:

Since Mr-Super man here wants to exploit Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji's rehitnama lets have a look from further back in history. Gurmat Sudhakar was written in 1899 by Bhai Kahn Singh Ji. He was born in 1861, firstly observe we have a person from prior to 1900. Secondly he translates and writes about Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji's rehitnama. What a shock...the line about not giving woman amrit....not there. Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji's rehitnama...that speaks about giving amrit to SIKHS. So If Mr Super man is right here, only men can be Sikhs.  A translation that predates the one that Mr Super man is screeching about has now been shown to contain no such verse. 

He was trying to exploit Gurbani as well.  I believe he is an imposter acting to be a Sikh, so Sikhs get a bad name.  He took a Mcleod translations and Mcleod is known for misrepresenting Sikhs written history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

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. 

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

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. 

 

In a previous post I've already said that the likes of Sant Gurbachan Singh & Sant Jarnail Singh propergating that women take amrit is understandable as by the time they came on the scene the practice of giving amrit to women had already become a common practice EXCEPT for at Hazur Sahib & Budha Dal (who say the follow unchanged maryada from time of mahraj).

Sant Gurbachan Singh was born around 1903, Sant Jarnail Singh around 1947... by that point the practice of giving amrit to women had become common practice.... although Naamdharis vehemently say & write in their books that they were the first to start doing this around 1850s... why would they make such claims if sikhs were already doing this.

2 hours ago, Kira said:

Since Mr-Super man here wants to exploit Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji's rehitnama lets have a look from further back in history. Gurmat Sudhakar was written in 1899 by Bhai Kahn Singh Ji. He was born in 1861, firstly observe we have a person from prior to 1900. Secondly he translates and writes about Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji's rehitnama. What a shock...the line about not giving woman amrit....not there. Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji's rehitnama...that speaks about giving amrit to SIKHS. So If Mr Super man is right here, only men can be Sikhs.  A translation that predates the one that Mr Super man is screeching about has now been shown to contain no such verse. 

 

 

 

 

That was written 1 year prior to 1900... great! Originals of Bhai Chaupa Singhs rehitnama are available at Hazur Sahib.

the best source that explains Hazur Sahib maryada is Sri Hazur Sahib Maryada Parbodh & was written by mahapursh Baba Joginder Singh Ji

Bottom line it all comes down to is you have 1 of the 5 takhts... Hazur Sahib & Budha Dal claiming they follow a maryada that is the maryada direct from mahrajs time against a maryada that on the balance of evidence seems to have been changed around 1900s due to various reasons. 

The panth was also given gurgaddi & authority in the form of Punj Pyare... so if the panth did decide to alter maryada in 1900 then there's nothing wrong with that as long as the WHOLE panth decided to do so together... but that hasn't happened... 1 of our 5 takhats & a historical institution that goes back to the time of mahraj both follow the same maryada as each other but different to the rest of the panth... Sants from both sides saying different things... which side is right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mahakaal96 said:

 

That was written 1 year prior to 1900... great! Originals of Bhai Chaupa Singhs rehitnama are available at Hazur Sahib.

Bottom line it all comes down to is you have 1 of the 5 takhts... Hazur Sahib & Budha Dal claiming they follow a maryada that is the maryada direct from mahrajs time against a maryada that on the balance of evidence seems to have been changed around 1900s due to various reasons. 

The panth was also given gurgaddi & authority in the form of Punj Pyare... so if the panth did decide to alter maryada in 1900 then there's nothing wrong with that as long as the WHOLE panth decided to do so together... but that hasn't happened... 1 of our 5 takhats & a historical institution that goes back to the time of mahraj both follow the same maryada as each other but different to the rest of the panth... which side is right? 

Then post them here. The Gurmukhi ones, if they exist then find them and bring them to the discussion. OH wait. You cant. You decide to post translation done by wait for it....someone who already knee deep in controversy.  

 

Bhai Kahn singh was born in 1861, he was just shy of 40 years when he wrote the text. So please tell me how a 40 year old man wouldn't know the maryada and why he wouldn't mention it, he spent years doing the research The book was published on that date. The translation you use has been done by someone who already wrote controversial articles about Sikhism. I've posted a translation predating his and that verse isn't there. So please. There goes the rehitnama proofs. Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji rehitnama says Sikhs should be baptised, I guess only men can be sikhs.  Nice to see you're grasping at straws now.

 

You've now gone off and said that Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji wasn't a brahmgyani who knew the true maryada. Because of when he was born! lmao. So now according to you he didn't do his own research and that you (Mr Super Man) are far more knowledgeable than him.

 

The Naamdhari also made claims that Ram Singh was their Guru. I guess now you believe that? Its a well known fact that there were portions of Punjab and other states that did discriminate against woman receiving amrit purely for gender reason. Naamdhari could easily release propoganda and say "we believe woman should all be baptised" to shed those parties in a negative light.  All your proof comes from dubious sources, Bhai Chaupa Singh's rehitnama (which has multiple translations floating, one from the 19th century which excludes your favourite line,not to mention the taksal also use it to justify man and woman getting amrit), the Naamdhari (who already make ridiculous claims) and the use of the word Dev

 

You already lied about Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji's arths, now you're insulting him by saying he missed something in his own research? A "treasure amongst scholars" decided not to tell people the true Maryada? On top of that you've said he decided to up and change Guru Gobind Singh Ji's order not to give woman Amrit . Wow. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kira said:

Then post them here. The Gurmukhi ones, if they exist then find them and bring them to the discussion. OH wait. You cant. You decide to post translation done by wait for it....someone who already knee deep in controversy.  

 

Bhai Kahn singh was born in 1861, he was just shy of 40 years when he wrote the text. So please tell me how a 40 year old man wouldn't know the maryada and why he wouldn't mention it, he spent years doing the research The book was published on that date. The translation you use has been done by someone who already wrote controversial articles about Sikhism. I've posted a translation predating his and that verse isn't there. So please. There goes the rehitnama proofs. Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji rehitnama says Sikhs should be baptised, I guess only men can be sikhs.  Nice to see you're grasping at straws now.

 

You've now gone off and said that Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji wasn't a brahmgyani who knew the true maryada. Because of when he was born! lmao. So now according to you he didn't do his own research and that you (Mr Super Man) are far more knowledgeable than him.

 

The Naamdhari also made claims that Ram Singh was their Guru. I guess now you believe that? Its a well known fact that there were portions of Punjab and other states that did discriminate against woman receiving amrit purely for gender reason. Naamdhari could easily release propoganda and say "we believe woman should all be baptised" to shed those parties in a negative light.  All your proof comes from dubious sources, Bhai Chaupa Singh's rehitnama (which has multiple translations floating, one from the 19th century which excludes your favourite line,not to mention the taksal also use it to justify man and woman getting amrit), the Naamdhari (who already make ridiculous claims) and the use of the word Dev

 

You already lied about Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji's arths, now you're insulting him by saying he missed something in his own research? A "treasure amongst scholars" decided not to tell people the true Maryada? On top of that you've said he decided to up and change Guru Gobind Singh Ji's order not to give woman Amrit . Wow. 

 

Based on that argument then you must be of the opinion that Hazur Sahib & Budha Dal follow their own made up maryada? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Based on that argument then you must be of the opinion that Hazur Sahib & Budha Dal follow their own made up maryada? 

I believe its been corrupted over time. Sant Ji made it clear woman and man are equal, and they were purtan Brahmgyanis, If anyone followed Guru Sahib's own marayda to the point its them. Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji's hukamnama also contradicts Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji's one. So I'm of the mind that the one floating around has been corrupted. Until the Gurmukhi one is unearthed, its all just smoke and mirrors. The same Rehitnama has various translations some of which dont even contain that verse. 

 

Based on the translation you provided do you believe that.

1) woman should never be trusted, this includes woman in your own family (as stated).

2) Woman should not be allowed to read from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

3) Regard woman as being the very form of deceit.

4) Never trust a woman.

 

Based on that description I guess if you had been a Sikh receiving the Hukamnamas from the mother of the Khalsa you wouldn't trust them, because she's a woman. Would you think she's deceitful? that she shouldn't be trusted? Would you say all that as Mata Gujri too? Mata Kivi? Mai Bhago? Bibi Bhani?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/03/2017 at 9:44 PM, Kira said:

I believe its been corrupted over time. Sant Ji made it clear woman and man are equal, and they were purtan Brahmgyanis, If anyone followed Guru Sahib's own marayda to the point its them. Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji's hukamnama also contradicts Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji's one. So I'm of the mind that the one floating around has been corrupted. Until the Gurmukhi one is unearthed, its all just smoke and mirrors. The same Rehitnama has various translations some of which dont even contain that verse. 

 

Based on the translation you provided do you believe that.

1) woman should never be trusted, this includes woman in your own family (as stated).

2) Woman should not be allowed to read from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

3) Regard woman as being the very form of deceit.

4) Never trust a woman.

 

Based on that description I guess if you had been a Sikh receiving the Hukamnamas from the mother of the Khalsa you wouldn't trust them, because she's a woman. Would you think she's deceitful? that she shouldn't be trusted? Would you say all that as Mata Gujri too? Mata Kivi? Mai Bhago? Bibi Bhani?

Sant Ji also says that women can't be in Punj Pyare.. so not complete equality there.

Also it should be clarified that Hazur Sahib, Budha Dal & Bhai Chaupa Singhs rehitnama do not say women should not be given amrit, they all say women should not be given 'Khande Ki Pahul' (which today is commonly called amrit) 

Bhai Chaupa singhs rehitname also warns against keeping sangat with certain types of men so it's not just women who are targeted.

On 28/03/2017 at 9:44 PM, Kira said:

Based on the translation you provided do you believe that.

1) woman should never be trusted, this includes woman in your own family (as stated).

2) Woman should not be allowed to read from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

3) Regard woman as being the very form of deceit.

4) Never trust a woman.

 

Based on that description I guess if you had been a Sikh receiving the Hukamnamas from the mother of the Khalsa you wouldn't trust them, because she's a woman. Would you think she's deceitful? that she shouldn't be trusted? Would you say all that as Mata Gujri too? Mata Kivi? Mai Bhago? Bibi Bhani?

I don't think this logic is applicable... this is the same logic anti Dasam Granth people use to denounce Dasam Bani, in particular Sri Charitropakhyan bani.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Sant Ji also says that women can't be in Punj Pyare.. so not complete equality there.

There's a reason for that. Don't turn that around, Woman can give physical birth. Men cant. Men can give Spiritual birth while woman cant. Equality is there.The rehitnama says Khanda da Amrit, now you're lying through your teeth.

Quote

I don't think this logic is applicable... this is the same logic anti Dasam Granth people use to denounce Dasam Bani, in particular Sri Charitropakhyan bani.

The Rehitnama says all woman are the body of deceit. You believe it so you must believe Mata Gujri was a deceitful woman. Stop flipping this into a Dasam Bani thing, that's a completely different line altogether since Charitropakhyan contains stories about MAN and WOMAN. The bani explores how important womans roles are in society and how important men are too.

So once again, if you believe that Rehitnama you also believe that all of the Guru Sahib's Mahaals were deceitful woman and shouldn't be trusted. If you don't believe that then you believe this rehitnama is wrong. So which is it? if you think that the Rehitnama is right then you also believe that all the woman that married Guru Sahib's physical forms were deceitful beings. Is that what you believe about them? its a Yes or No answer. If you don't then you don't believe this rehitnama is completely legit, if you do then God help you for insulting the very woman who helped build up sikh institutes and gave their own lives for Sikhi.

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