Jump to content
Guest Sukhi1

How many wife's did our guru's really have?

Recommended Posts

BhForce    517
Just now, akaltaksal said:

Also, I didn't state anywhere that I was against your sants or sanstha. If you equate disagreement, disassociation or lack of acceptance with opposition? Then there's something fundamentally wrong with that type of reasoning. 

Well, first I'm not saying they are "my" sants or sanstha. I appreciate and respect widely-respected Sikh figures, just like most Sikhs do. I'm not saying you were disrespectful or used bad language in respect to the above personalities.

Disagreement is basically the same thing as opposition, no? I'm not saying you disrespectfully opposed those Sants, but you did oppose them on this matter. Which is fine. Go ahead and do so.

I'm just making a request: Don't use a username that strongly implies association with those Taksals at the same time that you say you want to "disassociate" with them. If you want to disassociate, go ahead and so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,415
Just now, akaltaksal said:

Do you people want detract from the main discussion and argue about my ID name? Is that seriously that important? 

main topic is simple  - jo bithia so bithia .... bhulan andar sabh ko abhul Guru Kartar ... 

the past is long gone  what's the point of squabbling / MOre importantly who are we to criticise Guru Sahiban when they are the light by which navigate this trap-filled world . Do we really want to do the same as others and try to be on same level as them in terms of their dress, lifestyle etc (gurbani and rehit excepted) Is that the reason we are here ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BhForce    517
8 minutes ago, akaltaksal said:

The word 'Taksal' isn't copyrighted. It's just a word. I'd acknowledge your point if I had used 'DamDami Taksal', But I didn't. I simply just used two rythming Panjabi words. Hun Panjabi boli de aam mamooli shabada outhe vi rakhva haq maronge?

Yeah, and the word "sangat" is just a Punjabi word that means "congregation". But everybody knows that in the context of Sikhs and Gurbani, "sangat" means the Sikh sangat, or sadh sangat. A Muslim coming on here and using a username "SangatLover" and saying that sangat was just a common Punjabi word would be objected to on the basis that the word, in the Sikh context, strongly implies the Sikh sangat, and not being a supporter of this Sangat would make false advertising.

A Muslim coming here with the username "MeccaLover" would not be objected to. Similarly, your using the word "Taksal" implies you are a "Taksal" supporter. If you are not (and you say you are not), just change your username, bro.

And please don't pretend that "Taksal" is "just a word". Just to check I know where you're coming from, do you contend the word "Sikh" is copyrighted or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BhForce    517
7 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

main topic is simple  - jo bithia so bithia .... bhulan andar sabh ko abhul Guru Kartar ... 

the past is long gone  what's the point of squabbling

You seem to be implying that the Gurus should not have married multiple wives, but they did, and we shouldn't squabble about it.

Is this what you meant to imply? That Guru Sahib did something wrong, and we should just overlook it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akaltaksal    51
12 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Well, first I'm not saying they are "my" sants or sanstha. I appreciate and respect widely-respected Sikh figures, just like most Sikhs do. I'm not saying you were disrespectful or used bad language in respect to the above personalities.

Ok, I wasn't assuming you were thinking that anyways but thanks.

 

14 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Disagreement is basically the same thing as opposition, no? I'm not saying you disrespectfully opposed those Sants, but you did oppose them on this matter. Which is fine. Go ahead and do so.

I'm just making a request: Don't use a username that strongly implies association with those Taksals at the same time that you say you want to "disassociate" with them. If you want to disassociate, go ahead and so.

Disagreement and Opposition are two very different things. I could have an opposing view, but I, myself, as a whole person, would not be in opposition to the individual or collective group of individuals expressing that view.

Also, by disassociate, I mean, I'm not of that sanstha or associated with organization. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,415
Just now, BhForce said:

You seem to be implying that the Gurus should not have married multiple wives, but they did, and we shouldn't squabble about it.

Is this what you meant to imply? That Guru Sahib did something wrong, and we should just overlook it?

no i am implying that us being imperfect creatures with a given mission are being foolish about squabbling about facts of past , we can't change it and if we read Gurbani we know NOTHING unhoni happens all happens with hukham , the sanjog of those females was to be mahal of Guru Sahiban . There was no bad action , no lust , just kirpa and daya. They would have had to be so highly evolved spiritually to be selected as our Dharmic Matavan . For those people who try to lower Guru ji to their level of sochni , you are mistaken in your approach as Guru ji was app Akal Purakh and so above maya's control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akaltaksal    51
8 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Yeah, and the word "sangat" is just a Punjabi word that means "congregation". But everybody knows that in the context of Sikhs and Gurbani, "sangat" means the Sikh sangat, or sadh sangat. A Muslim coming on here and using a username "SangatLover" and saying that sangat was just a common Punjabi word would be objected to on the basis that the word, in the Sikh context, strongly implies the Sikh sangat, and not being a supporter of this Sangat would make false advertising.

A Muslim coming here with the username "MeccaLover" would not be objected to. Similarly, your using the word "Taksal" implies you are a "Taksal" supporter. If you are not (and you say you are not), just change your username, bro.

And please don't pretend that "Taksal" is "just a word". Just to check I know where you're coming from, do you contend the word "Sikh" is copyrighted or not?

You can't compare the words 'Sangat' and 'Taksal' because we know that the word 'Sangat' (Multani and Bahawalpuri dialects to this day still use 'Sangat' to refer to congregation of people)   has a particular context in our common speech. The word 'Taksal' on the other hand, however old it may be, can still be used to mean mint, standardize or coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sukhvirk1976    189
On 10/04/2017 at 11:12 PM, S4NGH said:

Delusional at best. Who are you questioning? Who are you daring to point a finger at? Madness.

Guru sahib is the all knowing all seeing perfect immaculate lord God. There is no difference between God and Guru. Know that as fact if you consider yourself a Sikh. Guru sahib is not a mere mortal. Not an enlightened person. Not someone who had waheguru inside them. They are waheguru themself. Only waheguru knows his own game. What he does, he knows. Us mere mortals can not possibly comprehend them. Whether they had 1 wife or a million. It's completely irrelevant. Do as the perfect SatGuru says, not as he does. You're not to follow in his footsteps. You can't possibly do what they did. But we can do what they asked us to do. We are capable of that. Don't question Guru sahib. And if you must, show a little damn respect. Know who you're speaking about.

This is the most ridiculous response to a most ridiculous question.. Basically if you can't elevate your intellect to provide a reasonable response better to just shut up 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sukhvirk1976    189
On 08/04/2017 at 4:28 PM, Guest Sukhi1 said:

Hi there,

Many sikh's believe that Guru Gobind Singh Ji only had one or two wife's but in matter of fact he had 3! I would like to question the fact how could he have 3 wives when in Guru Granth Sahib Ji it states that we should only have one beloved partner, this was established before Guru Gobind Singh Ji even got married, as he did not write in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, it was completed by our 9th Guru. Guru Gobind Singh Ji's first wife was Mata Jito, his second wife was Mata sundri and his third wife was Mata sahib kaur. At one time Guru ji was living with both Mata sundri and Matta Sahib Kaur in the same house. How is it that the Guru had so many wives? does that not give the wrong impression? Guru gobind Singh Ji had his first son with Mata jito and his other three sons with Mata Sundri and no children with Mata Sahib Kaur. Some people object saying he was a man of God therefore he had powers therefore you cannot question him, but there is a reason behind ever action. Yes he may have been our 10th Guru but there has to be an explanation to why he had 3 wives?. This is not even the first Guru who had more than one wife. Guru Har Rai had 8 WIVES! and they were all sisters! For me that is extremely wrong because that is inbred going on because the children were then half brother and sisters or were they cousins? Yes these were our Guru's but we can still question their actions because not all the Guru's did this, Guru Nanak Dev Ji had only 1 wife. This totally contradicts equality within Sikhi because men and women are said to be equal but yet our Guru's don't show this by having more than 1 wife. Yes, this may be how things worked in the old times but that is not a valid reason as the Guru's new the future such as smoking and drinking alcohol would occur therefore it is forbidden and written in the Guru Granth Sahib Ji therefore they would also know in the future having more than 1 wife at one given time would not be acceptable therefore meaning questions would arise. 

I would like to hear other people's perspectives on this and how you would interpret what our Guru's did and whether or not you know why they did this , if you agree, disagree, if you think we shouldn't question them because they had Waheguru inside them, please let me know.

Whilst you pose a interesting question into Sikh ethics can you please provide some evidence of the implicit assertion that guru har rai Sahib ji had 8 wives.. 

Let me be frank I don't believe your intentions are righteous, neither your question born of khoj so whilst I  and expect no response... Let me ask you to just clarify how deep is your faith in the quest for truth..? Playing in to the hands of and teasing the bigots on here is a bigger 'curse on your own house' .. Check your head Bro and ask yourself whether you have something better within you.. Remind yourself what 'rahim' means 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoulSingh    51
8 hours ago, akaltaksal said:

Yeah, I and many other people, don't believe in your Sants or what they say, for that matter. 

Taksalis probably believe in it. But I don't, because I'm not Taksali (I chose the ID name purely because it rythmes). 

IMO if sant jarnail singh ji and sant gurbachan singh ji say it, it's probably worth listening too; and if the case is true and proper logic is presented I would be willing to change my views... however if there's no evidence then I would say the sikh panth should correct the history collectively 🙏

 

Not what the sarkari santra (🍊) says.. 

Edited by SoulSingh
Grammar
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sukhvirk1976    189
13 minutes ago, SoulSingh said:

IMO if sant jarnail singh ji and sant gurbachan singh ji say it, it's probably worth listening too; and if the case is true and proper logic is presented I would be willing to change my views... however if there's no evidence then I would say the sikh panth should correct the history collectively 🙏

 

Not what the sarkari santra (🍊) says.. 

Sikh panth..  collectively? 

Would you accept Sant jarnail singhs and gurbachan singhs opinion without evidence? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoulSingh    51
11 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Sikh panth..  collectively? 

Would you accept Sant jarnail singhs and gurbachan singhs opinion without evidence? 

Sikh panth collectively- as in try to influence each samparda to agree on the correction

 

as for accepting there opinions, as long as what they say lines up with gurbani directly (or logically), yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kira    1,218

Do people actually think Sant Ji just made it up for the lolz? The Taksal focuses on all the Granths, like every single one in the Sikhism. They drew that information from them, if you want to "correct" them then you may as be the Nazis "correcting" history for the "greater good"

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ipledgeblue    72

what is the argument about? 

in Dasam bani Guru ji talks about shattri culture, and shattri ka poot when we read sampooran Rehraas. Those from warrior culture may require multiple wives. Look at Bhai Mani Singh, he had 2 wives, and some of his sons were shaheed.

This polygamy is not for regular person, but for Singhs who can follow proper rehit and not for dress up amrit dharis with no shastar and just a small kirpaan and eating sabjee and daal.

Edited by ipledgeblue
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/09/2017 at 3:44 AM, jkvlondon said:

err missing a major point here , we call Guru Pita ji Sache Patshah the True king  so what intelligence or nimrata is it to play dress up as a false king? when people do , they remove it before coming into Guru ji's presence why do you think that is?

the law was against wearing a dastar, carrying arms or riding horses if non -muslim ...Guru ji did what came to him and gave us orders how to dress: 5 yard dastar , 2 kirpans minimum and riding on good horses . Guru ji never told us to wear kalgi ever, our sovreignity is in our attitude and righteous conduct . Seriously you are equating showing respect of Guru ji by not mimicking his dress as conforming to 17th century laws ?

 

Why can't a man dress up in rhinestone , diamonds or other kinds of brooches ? Whats the problem ? If I ever got a chance to marry, I would dress up shinier than the bride and infact the bride would pale out in my comparison LOL

I am sure Guru Gobind Singh ji maharaj would find this idea quite ludicrous that his sikhs don't want to wear kalgi because he did.

Maharaj wanted his sikhs to be sovereign, and in likeness of him. He even bowed down to take amrit . He's chela too and a dutiful sikh is his guru . This is pyaar di khel I understand and respect that, but at the same time, if a man wanna dress up and makes him happy, then let us not create a fuss over it. unless he's trying to mimick something that Guru Gobind Singh ji did in his life.

Secondly , all grooms remove kalgi while in front of SGGS. So its not even an issue.

Edited by AjeetSinghPunjabi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum 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...

×