Mahakaal96

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 everything I have said has been based on & referenced against historical references & sources.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? 

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. 

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 

15 hours ago, chatanga said:

ਜਿਉ ਪੁਰਖੈ ਘਰਿ ਭਗਤੀ ਨਾਰਿ ਹੈ ਅਤਿ ਲੋਚੈ ਭਗਤੀ ਭਾਇ ॥

ਬਹੁ ਰਸ ਸਾਲਣੇ ਸਵਾਰਦੀ ਖਟ ਰਸ ਮੀਠੇ ਪਾਇ ॥.

ਤਿਉ ਬਾਣੀ ਭਗਤ ਸਲਾਹਦੇ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੈ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇ ॥

13 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

And for Chatanga that verse is first of all not an instruction it's saying that a wife (who loves her husband) will do those things which is not exclusive to a wife by the way. A husband who loves his wife will also do all sorts of devotional things for his wife out of love. It's not gender exclusive. In that time however women usually moved to their husbands home. Now we have couples getting apartments together. And my husband cooks and serves me just as much as I do him. Anyway it's only using it as a comparison and is not an instruction for only wives to do this. You are twisting it to suit your agenda. Secondly, it's comparing it to soul bride and husband lord. We are all female soul brides and Akal Purakh the only male husband. So while a cultural pretext was used as a metaphor please understand what metaphor is!!! There are plenty of metaphors in Gurbani using Hindu references but it is not instructing us to do those things!!!! Whether wives serve heir husbands or not is between the spouses. Whether a husband also serves his wife is between them as well. In that time the women moved to the husbands home so it was used as a metaphor. Sure she wanted to make a good impression and in that time women were not really encouraged to be doctors or lawyers or engineers were they??? They loved their husband so wanted to make him happy. It's not a gender exclusive thing though. I can show you many examples of husbands cooking for their wives etc. And they do it to make their wife happy and out of devotion and service to them. You think that's wrong??? You think that can not also fit the metaphor in the same way??? Re read it with the genders switched. A husband giving his wife all kinds of sweets etc to please her and serve her can also be compared to our souls longing to please Waheguru. Same thing. Gurbani was not written as instructions pointed at genders. It was written for all humans. The message from that shabad is the same way you would want to do service to the one you love and make them happy is the same way our soul wants to do service of Waheguru Ji. The takeaway is not the specific metaphor that was used. 

Here is a different example: men who think of women at time of death will return as a prostitute (woman). You don't think that applies to women as well??? That if women think of men (in a sexual way) at time of death they will return as a sex crazed man who can't control his lust and frequents brothels? If we go by the way you want to direct passages at specific genders then women are exempt from an awful lot!!!

Please stop talking rubbish... the pangti Chatanga posted definitely IS gender exclusive... Mahraj has used the word 'naar' which means female as opposed to 'nar'which means male. I've added translations from shabad kosh for you

Just because your husband ain't a real man don't try & force your manmat on the rest of us & more importantly stop trying to twist bani

And you are correct when you say women are exempt from an awful lot... every warning & threat of being sent to hell in SGGS only applies to men... not women!

9 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

The reference they make to Gurbani is about every person is able to obtain Naam.  In the previous ages certain people, which include people of different caste and gender were not allowed to touch or go into religious place or even read religious texts.  The Gurbani provided in Damdami Taksal rehat is saying now people of every background can go into religious places and read the words of Vaheguru, which is Gurbani.    Additionally, this line is from Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, written before Punj Pyare were created.  This means people of all backgrounds even before the Punj Pyare were created were able to obtain Naam from the Guru.  Therefore, saying, a person does not need to be part of the Punj Pyare to receive Naam. So there is no discrimination against anyone regardless who they are from obtaining Naam.  You are illiterate when it comes to reading Gurbani.  When I say you have verbal diarrhea.  It means you are writing from your limited intellect and not going by what Gurbani is saying.  No where in the Gurbani the DamDami Taksal rehat maryada provides, does it say, now the people have the right to take on the role as the Guru.  It clearly says you have full access to the Naam NOW!!!!  Punj Pyare take on the role as the Guru and therefore this Gurbani line does not speak on who can be part of the Punj Pyare. 

ਚਹੁ ਜੁਗਾ ਕਾ ਹੁਣਿ ਨਿਬੇੜਾ ਨਰ ਮਨੁਖਾ ਨੋ ਏਕੁ ਨਿਧਾਨਾ ॥

"To resolve the dispute of the four ages men and women

Have been given the one treasure of Naam." SGGSJ Ang 797

Take your time reading this and ask your husband to fully read into it before you respond to this post.  Ask him to check what the Gurbani line is saying.  Check with other people who are learned in Gurbani and check with Bhai Sahib Singh teeka.  It won't harm you to check.  I can't stop you from having verbal diarrhea, but it's a request to stop and think.

Where in that pangti does it mention 'women'??!

nar & manuka both apply to males, arths according to shabad kosh are attached

I'm done wasting my time on here.

for anyone who wishes to research the topic for themselves the references provided here would be a good start.

Akaal

5 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Again stupidity to the highest level.  Keep going the verbal diarrhea is working out for you and "it".

Show me any Hukamnama or rehitnama by Mahraj, and there's many, where any of the Gurus used a pen name as opposed to their actual name

3 minutes ago, HarkiranKaur said:

Mahakaal96 if you think Sikhi is only for males then what are we supposed to follow? Men like you are the reason pagan matriarchal religions exist. 

More BS

Nowhere have I said 'SIKHI' is only for males but when it comes to the 'KHALSA'.... the 'ARMY' then yes I do believe that mahraj created an ARMY of men.... not a social club where you bring your wives, sisters, children along 

13 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Stupidity to another level.  

So your argument is that Mata Sahib Deva would use a pen name when signing a Hukamnama for the panth... during a time when the panth was in turmoil because mahraj used a pen name when writing gurbani....... And I'm the stupid one??

Show me any Hukamnama or rehitnama by Mahraj, and there's many, where any of the Gurus used a pen name as opposed to their actual name

27 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

"It" can't read punjabi, "it" can only blow air.  Mahakaal is the same but opposite end.  In a previous thread he claimed Buddha dal and hazur sahib gave kirpan Amrit to women and by doing so they are following Chaupa singh rehatname.  When it was pointed out bhai chaupa singh rehatname do not mention giving women kirpan Amrit, he turned into a morph version of harkiran, the "it".  By his own stupidity he took his own argument and gave the sangat here how flawed it is. Since chaupa singh does not say to do kirpan Amrit to women and Buddha dal and hazur sahib  does, then these two groups are not following the so called first rehat of bhai chaupa singh.  When pointed out bhai jeevan singh has written down the account of what happened on 1699, he ran away with his tail between his legs.  An honest man wanting to get the full picture would look up bhai jeevan singh's account.  But he hates women and only wants to use them as his toys. On the other side we have the "it" I say "it" because "it" refuses to accept their are genders in Sikhi.  "It" goes by the name harkiran and  "it" can't read punjabi yet claims to know what is gurmat.  "It" will not answer the question of, if gender or physical characteristics such as deformity does not matter, then why cant men with cut limbs be part of punj pyare?  "It" also refuses to explain sgpc rehat maryada not allowing transgender in punj pyare therefore they have not held up to the "feminist standard of "equality".  Mahakaal and harkiran are the viruses in khalsa panth cut from the same cloth.  They are uneducated and have verbal diarrhea.  

Another fabricator of lies... makes up stuff from posts that has not even been said or remotely implied... has been caught out doing this on other threads.

Your the 1 who ran off like a coward... you asked for evidential proof... which was supplied but failed to produce even one in return.... still waiting for everything you said you would post!

Please provide evidence from Bhai jeevan Singh or anything that is pre 1900.

Hazur Sahib & Budha Dal DO adhere to Bhai Chaupa Singh rehitname by not giving women Khande Di Pahul... the rehitnama explicitly Say 'Khande Di Pahul', commonly known today as 'amrit' is not to be given to women.

Anyone who wants to research Hazur Sahib maryada & the reason behind Kirpan amrit should read  'Sri Hazur Sahib Maryada Parbodh'.

Various references, originals of Mata Sahib Deva hukamname & all claims have been referenced for anyone who can be bothered to research for themselves... or on the other hand you have this wannabe who thinks he knows gurmat inside out who has provided reference to 1 piece of work but provided no original evidence or even a translation of that work. 

Fool writes essay long posts that have almost zero relevance most of the time whilst fabricating stuff out of thin air 

33 minutes ago, Kira said:

So post it here. You're posting translations, not the actual text.

already debunked.

He said Woman should get Amrit. So I guess now you believe woman get Amrit too.

The same people believe Ram Singh was their Guru and Guru Granth Sahib Ji isn't the 11th Master of the Panth. Ok, amazing source. 

 

So basically 2 of your sources say that woman should get amrit. One is a name argument and the other you've failed to provide actual documentation online here. Cool Stuff. Dude wants evidence and uses the very evidence that disproves his stupid arguments. 

 

 

Let me simplify this for you....

Sant Jarnail Singh & Sant Gurbachan Singh would propergate that women be given amrit because this became the norm post 1900's onwards barring Hazur Sahib & Budha Dal.

This was most likely a safeguarding measure taken by the panth in response to people like naamdharis starting to give amrit to women. To safeguard the panth from losing sangat.. mainly females to these man made cults the panth took the step to give women amrit.

The point of contention is... did mahraj in 1699 give khande Di Pahul to women... there seems to be quite a lot of evidence that suggests mahraj didn't. Theres also a lot of compelling evidence that suggests giving women amrit was a safeguarding measure taken by the panth some time around 1900

18 minutes ago, Kira said:

Are you actually being serious? the taksal you keep using to belittle woman say they should get amrit. That same Taksal was started by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. You made the accusation so burden of proof is on you. You keep dragging that Rehitnama around but you've yet to show anyone the actual handwritten Gurmukhi one....I wonder why! Did you even watch Sant Jarnail Singh Ji's speech about this very topic? you seem hellbent on trying to make sure woman SHOULDN'T get amrit. 

I had a good laugh at that statement. Gurbani binds the whole Panth, so does a Hukamnama. Hukamnama from Guru Gobind Singh Ji and other Guru Sahibs are all as binding as Gurbani. Guru Sahib used a different name while writing Gurbani, But suddenly when the mother of the Khalsa does it, I guess it means she wasn't baptised. You dragged a Sant's name into this and tried to make it like he didn't support Amrit for woman...WHEN he did the exact opposite, woman have ALWAYS been allowed to take Amrit so please tell me more about how Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji said woman shouldn't get amrit. 

So once again. Put up or shut up. Post the actual Gurmukhi Rehitnama and then we can talk. There's historical records of LOADS of woman being baptised, Banda Singh Bahadur Ji's wife being one of them. Bibi Harsharan Kaur Ji, literally I could go on. There's  immeasurable Historical evidence for woman taking Amrit and above all just about every Mahapurkh APART from 1 group  is fine with woman having it. 

 

You can't even provide the actual handwritten Rehitnama but are fine taking a translation someone could alter (or even mistranslated). You tried to use Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji's words to further a manmat when his very institute says woman should be given Khanda Da Amrit. So please tell me who's right. Sant Ji or you? 

So until you do, feel free to rant, rave and whine all you want. The sad fact is you're the one in manmat, not great souls like Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji, Sant Jarnail Singh Ji and Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji.

 

Feel free to live in your delusions, I've provided evidence from the successor of Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji (the same knowledge tree), but that's clearly not good enough for you. Good day to you, I hope you intend to inform your mother and sisters that they don't deserve to be trusted or respected and make sure to remind them "no amrit" 

 

what a cretin. 

 

Enjoy rambling with Mrs Feminism over there. I'll enjoy watching 2  muppets argue now. 

I've provided you with the names of the sources;

Bhai Chaupa Singh Rehitnama 1700... originals available at Hazur Sahib & possibly Panjab University... Panjabi version also available online.

Mata Sahib Deva rehitnama already provided.

Sant Gurbachan Singh katha aviavlbe online.

Naamdhari books from 1800's where they claim they were first to give women amrit also available online.

happy researching... let us know how it goes!

last post from me

12 minutes ago, HarkiranKaur said:

Oh great advice... if a Kaur wants to have a better life and be seen as same status as Singh's she should recite sukhmani Sahib and then commit suicide hoping to be reborn as a male? What stupid and dangerous advice!!! You know I actually know someone who tried that!? She was so fed up with how Singh's treat Kaur's and turn noses down at us that she did just that. She recited sukhmani Sahib then downed a bunch of pills hoping to wake Up as a baby boy. great advice!!!!

WOW... you literally have no shame do you??!

Nowhere did I mention suicide & Sant Ji certainly didn't say a woman should recite Sukhmani Sahib then commit suicide so she can be re-born as a man. You should really have some standards and not try to distort so shamelessly.

I refuse to engage with such bare face liers & fabricators of complete rubbish... this coupled with the <banned word filter activated> above who said the Jathedar of Hazur Sahib is a chumche to Badal.... Badal... the CM of Panjab... who has no jurisdiction over Nanded...

the disgraceful level of deceit, lies & low level intellect on this forum gives an indication of why our panth is screwed. 

6 minutes ago, Kira said:

Paste links then. Show me the original. Until you do all you've done is waffle on and on about cr@p you can't prove. Show us all the originals, until you can keep lecturing us on how woman are bad, how woman shouldn't be trusted. I wonder how your mother must feel. If you love the 

 

The same Bani (Sukhmani Sahib) can do anything. So yes it can do that, Sant Jarnail Singh Ji said woman should be taking Khanda Di Pahul...and he's the predecessor of him. what garbage lol. You're using Sant Ji's words, taking them out of context WHEN the exact same Taksal said woman should be receiving Amrit. What a massive hypocrite you are. The same people have said woman should take Amrit but your so lost in your own stupidity that you'll call them liars on that instance but when it comes to taking someone out of context and saying it has a anti-woman spin to it, they're purer than snow???

 

Guru Gobind Singh Ji used the pen-name of Shyam..will you argue that Guru Gobind Singh Ji didn't write Dasam Bani now, because of a name? 

 

The same Taksal you're using to bash woman said Woman get Amrit just the same as men. Cry more that you've been debunked by the very people you're trying to use as proof.

How about you provide some evidence that pre-dates 1900 that proves women were given amrit & given the name Kaur?!

Searching for Sant Gurbachan Singhs Ji Katha on Sukhmani Sahib is not difficult... even the most simple of simpletons can do it. What you want is for me to give you a link & provide exact minute & seconds that Sant Ji says that... well I could do that but I won't... too many people these days want instant gratification of the research, hardwork & dedication of others. I've told you where the source is... guess you'll just have to listen to the WHOLE katha... but your a gursikh so that shouldn't be too much bother 

Mahraj using a pen name poetically whilst writing Gurbani is completely different to signing a Hukamnama that is binding on the whole panth! 

52 minutes ago, Kira said:

The same Jathedars are most likely chamchi or Badal. Yawn Yawn, all I hear is someone who has no proof and all you've done is posted stuff that you want to believe. Put the real Gurmukh text here, handwritten and then we can discuss this.

 

I had a nice laugh at the bolded. Because someone says they had darshan of Dasam Pita suddenly they do...the same people  sacrifice goats for blood, please let me know how that goes.

 

Damdami Taksal give Amrit to woman...just about everyone does except one..so I guess that one is right. You're nothing more than a woman hater my friend. All you do is give Feminazis more and more ammo to attack Sikhi...please keep it up. 

 

 

I think your mistaken... all the chumche are in Panjab... not Nanded.

Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale... the treasure chest of knowledge & the jewel amongst scholars says in Sri Sukhmani Sahib Katha that if a woman recites Sukhmani Sahib with the desire to be reborn as a male then her wish will be fulfilled... wonder why Sant Ji said that??!

Originals of Bhai Chaupa Singh rehitnama are available at Hazur Sahib & also Panjab University have a copy I believe.

Someone chooses to follow maryada of Hazur Sahib/Budha Dal & adhere to rehitname written by people of the stature of Bhai Chaupa Singh automatically become woman haters... lol.... what's next... I'm RSS??

There's also written proof where naamdharis claim to be the first to give women khanda da amrit... these articles are from around 1850.

Its not a matter of what I WANT to beilieve but rather a case of wanting to believe in that which Mahraj gave us as maryada & not man made maryada that was created whilst our country was under the control of foreigners.

What I do have is pictures of handwritten rehitname by Mata Sahib Deva Ji... IF mata had taken amrit then why didn't she use Kaur in her name instead of Devi??!

7 minutes ago, Kira said:

You're the reason why Feminazis are rising. Not a single Mahapurkh in the past century refused to give Khanda Di Pahul to woman, I guess all of them have been disobeying Guru Sahib. The name argument that Dasam Nindaks use to discredit Dasam Pita's Bani is now being applied to the Mother of the Khalsa...oh the irony.

It's funny that places such as Hazur Sahib & Buddha Dal.. who don't give women Khande Di Pahul & call Mata Ji 'Mata Sahib Deva' & don't believe she took amrit & became a Kaur are the most ardent & devoted followers of Dasam Pitas Granth & to this day have Prakash of Dasam Granth...

No mahapurekh from Hazur Sahib (where the jathedar has daily darshan of Dasam pita) or Buddha Dal has given women Khanda da amrit ever.. let alone the last 100 years

29 minutes ago, HarkiranKaur said:

You are forgetting some prominent Sikh women who took Amrit in 1699. Not to mention the spy to the Mughal emperor who was present wrote in his book (in Persian) that many thousands of men AND women took baptism by the sword that day. As a Mughal he had NO personal reason to specify women. There is another translation of Chaupa singh rhetnama that says anyone who does NOT give Amrit to women.... so two different translations. Also what do you think about Chaupa Singh's comments that women are the embodiment of deceit??? That you aren't to trust even your own wife??? Chaupa singh was known Brahmin background and realistically every Rehetnama has been adulterated. 

I'm not forgetting anything... your spreading complete lies... please provide names of these women who took khande Di pahul in 1699 & also provide reference to the spy who wrote in his book that women took amrit that day. Bhai Chaupa Singh (Shaheed) was the the nephew of Shaheed Bhai mati das Ji (also a Brahmin)... so you can try to malign Bhai Sahibs rehitname as much as you like just because he was from a Brahmin background but it won't work here... and if you want to play that game then what is your background??

originals of Bhai Chaupa singhs jis rehitnama are available... there's a reason puratan unadultered places like Hazur Sahib & Buddha Dal don't give women Khanda da amrit. 

You keep on about Akal Takhat maryada but please tell me the last time a woman was even allowed to perform kirtan inside Harimandir Sahib? 

GURU NEVER CREATED KAURS... the whole thing about giving women amrit & calling them KAURS only started post 1900 in response to naamdharis who first started giving amrit to women around 1850... there's written historical proof about this... talk to any old mahapurekhs from Taksal or from Nihangs or any Sants & in private they will admit this is true. 

Theres handwritten hukamname of Mata Sahib Deva Ji where Mata has not used the word Kaur with her name but used 'Devi' instead.

The oldest & very first rehitname that was prepared by Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji in 1700 on the command of Dasam Pita himself in atleast 2 places clearly says women are not to be given khanda Di pahul.

Do some research & you will find that the word 'Kaur' actually means PRINCE & not PRINCESS... mahankosh even says so!!!

Guru Sahib afforded women respect... there's no doubting that... but equality is a modern day invention started around 1900s.... how can there be equality when the divine will of God deliberately made the two genders distinct & ordained each to fulfill certain roles?! 

Anyone who keeps barking on about Akal Takhat maryada can keep barking... the bottom line is that maryada is man made & despite what you may think at the end of the day the Akal Takhat is completely corrupted & has been for almost 100 years.

This whole topic is a joke. All you feminist bandari's and their chumche supporters please explain the following;

Why were all 10 Gurus men? In some instances such as 8th Guru & 10th Guru the gurgaddi was passed to a male child but still no women?

Why are all the Bhagats with bani in SGGS men?

Why were all the Panj Pyare men?

Why has every major religion in the world always started by a man?

Anyone who thinks they are going to walk into our panth & change our traditions is having a laugh... you nindaks of the Gurus maryada are going to end up in one place & one place only... you know where it is.

Old Rehitname clearly say women are not to be given Khande bata Di pahul. There's no written historical evidence that any women were give Khande Di pahul in 1699.

feminist bandaris and their chumche men... here's an idea... take your views, opinions & changes you want to Hazur Sahib or Budha Dal.... will be good to see how many minutes it's takes before a A WOMAN from there gives you a slap in the face before kicking you out onto your backside.

Listen to Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwales katha of Sukhmani Sahib. Sant Ji clearly says any woman who reads Sukhmani Sahib with the desire to be reborn as a man her desire will be fulfilled. 

Just because Guru Sahib afforded women 'respect' that doesn't mean they are completely equal... how can they be when men & women were created to be different??

And all you chumche, pathetic excuse for men... mahraj told us to respect women, protect women & to honour them... we wasn't told to place women on our heads & give them the same tasks men have been assigned to do.

1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Are you saying that on Sikhi men and women have different strengths that compliment each other?

That would mean Akal Purakh has created a balance.

This would make sense as it is line with Sikhi. 

Yes, that's how it is, the whole cosmos is designed perfectly. 

Akal Purekh created Brahma & gave him the ability to create within what Akal Purekh had already created (maya)

Akal Purekh created Vishnu & gave him the duty to preserve what Brahma creates within that which is already created & preserved by him

Akal Purekh created Shiva & gave him the duty to destroy what Brahma created & what Vishnu has been preserving.

As you can see they all have different roles, attributes & duties that they have been assigned... but what is the one thing that makes them all equal?... it's the fact that Akal Purekh created them all that makes them equal but not the same.

Apply this to the whole of creation...including men & women 

18 minutes ago, HarkiranKaur said:

You guys can call me loser all you want. Water off a ducks back. Nothing I have said is wrong. Male and female are equal in sikhi and whether you personally believe it or not does not matter. And nothing I said goes against Sikh Rehet Maryada. 

The Gurus gave sikh women equality in terms of respect... they were not given complete gender equality which blurs the lines of which role(s) & attributes each gender has been created to fulfill.

Sikh women and men are equal too the point that both were created by Akal Purekh.... that's as far as it goes. The roles & duties for each are seperate & distinct. 

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 

3 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? You assume that the husband is the one who already is on spiritual path and that the woman requires to be led on to the spiritual path. 

The lavaans have nothing to do with delegating someone in charge over the other. If you think that then you are mistaken. The husband and wife as ONE are embarking on a NEW journey as ONE together. You can't assume that the husband was already pious while she needs to be led to spiritual path. She could be the more spiritually advanced of the two and in that case she would be the leader in their spiritual journey regardless of who's home they live or who walks in front. 

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. Remember in who's hand the palla is and around who's neck it is!!! 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. (Since you want to make it into something it's not). It actually has nothing to do with who gets to be 'in charge' and it has nothing to do with human marriage even. It's symbolic for soul journey back to Waheguru and the couple as ONE making that journey. It's all about who is in the centre. Guru Ji is at front not us. If you are after some hierarchy let marriage where you get to order your wife around (not sure if you are married because you never said so) but if that's what you want then there are plenty of other paths. 

For our marriage, my husband and I put Guru Granth Sahib Ji as the one 'in charge' and leading and neither one of us. We treat each other equally. 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. But our life is beautiful and we work together as a team with SGGSJ at centre stage. Even for paath we take turns reciting together meaning no one person leads. It's beautiful. 

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. 

Tell me why all 10 Gurus were men? tell me why all 15 Bhagats with gurbani in SGGS are all men? Tell me why all panj pyare were men?

Most of the Gurus had more then 1 wife & in some cases had several wives... tell me how many wives had more then 1 husband? 

Tell me why all the the founders of all the major religions of the world were men? 

The truth is, men & women are equal in that they were both created by God but that's where the equality stops. They were created by God but created to fulfil different roles & duties....

13 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

You are the one who made the claim of women not being given amrit at all first then changed your position to women were given kirpan amrit.  So it is on you to provide sufficient evidence for your claims.  Clearly you didn't understand the humpty dumpty example provided for your simplistic arrogant mind.  If I was to provide your evidence, I would be spoon feeding the clown college illiterate child by providing his own "evidence".  Man O man you are Donald Trumps replica.  And to further show how illiterate you are, you claimed kirpan amrit is given to women, the translated document you provide says nothing about women being given kirpan amrit.  If the translated document is gospel this would make Buddha Dal and Hazur Sahib wrong on women getting kirpan amrit.  As a result your original claim of Hazur Sahib and Buddha dal having the Guru given maryada is wrong.  Also do you see how the author of your translated document doesn't even write down the 5 Bani were recited to make the amrit.  Again Hazur Sahib and Buddha dal maryada will be wrong because they recite the 5 Banis to prepare amrit.   My initial assessment was correct, you are a child. 

If Khande da Amrit was for only the fauj, then the Guru's have been fighting wars since Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib ji.  Khande Da Amrit would have been initially given by the Sixth Guru, you illiterate arrogant little boy. 

Well do your homework little boy and find sources to make sense of it all.  I know what is going on here, but I won't spoon feed the illiterate arrogant little child, so he can go and troll other forums and Sikhs with his illiterate beliefs.  Time to put on big boy pants today.  You can't push me around little boy. 

If you had done your research, you would know other Gursikhs who gave their life to the Guru wrote an account of what happened on 1699.  This account is different than the English translated document you provided.  Again no spoon feeding for you little boy.

Yawn..... still just hot air & childish remarks but still no ACTUAL facts or evidence....