Gender Inequality In Sikhi

[Paneet]

WJKK WJKF

can someone pleez tell me when did bibian strt doin the panj pyare seva?

and does gurbani say evrything a male can do a female can do?

srry if i offended ne1

WJKK WJKF

Gurbani has nothing about this.

Why? Gurbani just says: Look heres the path to God. Follow it if you want to reach God. Simple.

Not: Women should do this, Men should do that bla bla etc

YES!!! Thankyou, and well said!!

We talk about equality in Sikhi, ..

Equality is when one and another are exactly the same eg. 1=1

Men and women are not equal and it was Akaal who decided that, if we were equal we would have the same body parts for a start, also our levels of metabolism would be roughly the same...the list goes on....

I don't believe Sikhi preaches equality, what it does however teach is respect....

Men on the whole have been given physical superiority by Akaal, it is our responsibily not to abuse that position but to use it to respect Women.

They are the Princesses we are the Singhs, it is our job to defend them,.

Going to the Panj Piare issue, i also believe it was Akaal's hukham that Panj men stood up, if He wished then Women would have stood up also....this is why the rehitnameh state men as the Panj Piare.....

Well, I don't think equality means the same exactly, but more like the same value. So men and women both have the same value. Not the same bodies, sure men are stronger, but we're still equal in value.

And also, who says women can't defend men!! :lol: I'd put my butt on the line to save another person (well, I hope I would) regardless of gender.

As for the comment on Panj Piare - why do the Panj Piare have such a huge significance in Sikhi? Can't we all be Guruji's beloved ones? The original Panj Piare were the first ones to set the example for the millions of people that followed but they were not the last ones. In fact, many people followed and did exactly what the Five did, and also became Amridhari, and this included women.

And also, Guru Gobind Singh never said: "I want a head of a MAN" - the option of Panj Piare was open also to women. That vaisakhi in 1699, hundreds of people, both men and women, said no to Guru Gobind Singh by not anwering that call, and yet Guruji never closed the doors on them, for the tradition of the Panj Piare continues. By saying women cannot be Panj Piare would be like saying anyone who is a decendant of a person who attended that gathering in 1699 cannot become a Panj Piara simply because their ancestors did not answer the call. Just because no women went up then, doesn't mean Guruji closed the doors on women forever.

Anyways, just had to get that out - it didn't come out so great, but it makes sense in my mind!

[Simarjot]

I know this is an old topic but was doing some research on it and wanted to give some points.

Just because some of the rehet maryadas say 'Singhs' is not meant to discriminate or allow based on gender. It was explained to me by an SGPC Jathedar that it's used more in the same light as the word Khalsa... women and men both take Amrit, but yet the male form of the word Khalsa is used. Same as in Engligh man = mankind (women and men).

Also the panth decided ages ago that Panj Pyare can be either male or female. It's in the SRM:

Ceremony of Baptism or Initiation

Article XXIV

b. At the place where ambrosial baptism is to be administered, the holy Guru Granth Sahib should be installed and ceremonially opened. Also present should be six committed baptised Sikhs, one of whom should sit in attendance of the Guru Granth Sahib and the other five should be there to administer the ambrosial baptism. These six may even include Sikh women. All of them must have taken bath and washed their hair

Panthic decisions are above any jatha or individual.

The argument that no women stood up in the original five is a weak one. Did the Gurus teach us to punish an entire group of people for all time, for the actions or inactions of a few on one day?

Also, Guru Gobind Singh Ji's 52 hukams, written AFTER 1699, which embody all the things he thought were very important, did not mention any restrictions on women at all. In fact the only mention of restrictions of positions of authority in Sikhi state that members of another faith are not permitted. (Panj Pyare can be seen as authority figures since they impart the 'rules' on initiates, and also punishments for those who are being re-baptized). Certainly something as important as discriminating against an entire gender, would have made it into his 52 hukams.... but Guru Ji remains entirely silent on the subject. And to the opposite, he DID say that men and women were to be totally equal. (Yes, we know there are differences in strength generally... however that holds even between men from each other too and Panj Pyare are not selected simply for how much muscle they have. They are selected based on the most spiritually active. Our souls are ALL female btw.)

Lastly,... to say that women are absolutely dependent completely upon men for their spiritual advancement (if indeed they require men to take Amrit), then that kind of goes against the whole idea of even taking Amrit, which put everyone... all the initiates on equal level, by even sharing amrit from the same bowl. This exclusion of women... nay outright discrimination.... which can not be found in any writing (except certain Jathas I won't mention), yet writing exists to the opposite, and yet the idea still clings... its not just stating a restriction... it goes much deeper. To say one gender's spiritual progress is entirely dependent on the other gender... then it's stating that gender is lacking spiritually compared to the other gender. It's basically making a statement that men are higher spiritually than women. That leads on to questions of why... why would someone be born female over male? Is it supposed to be a punishment for someone to be born female?? Because that's what it suggests, and that sounds vert Brahministical - very similar to the casteism that the Gurus were so against! They instead taught that ANYONE can merge with the creator in THIS lifetime, and gives the tools to do so. They never said only men can... They never said that women require men if they ever hope to.

This exclusion, this discrimination, is male ego... in a male dominated world. I believe Guru Ji will be disappointed with us for not letting go of this ego. This me vs you... I'm a man and I deserve more than you because you're only a woman... etc. We have to get past this... how silly does it sound to tell a woman "Your whole gender should be punished for the rest of time, because a few women over 500 years ago, either did not hear or were not quick to volunteer for whatever reasons.... but the reason doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that you weren't to be born yet for another 500 years... but you are still to be punished for their inaction." Doesn't that sound ridiculous??? Doesn't it sound like exactly what our Gurus were AGAINST???

[Ranjeet01]

There is no gender inequality in Sikhi, plenty of women have done Kirtan in the gurdwaras.

In the case of punj pyare, has there been any women that have stepped up and offered?

If it is in the SRM, there is no problem, job done.

[savinderpalsingh]

the translation is wrong !!

the punjabi version of SGPC Rehat states

the 2nd line about which states bibiyan can be there referes to sewadars in amritsanchar

its in reference that there should be atleast 5 singh's for amrit which is prooven in 3rd line of SGPC RM

that is the reason why there are not female panj pyaare in Historical gurudwara's or takhats

but yes female sewadars can accompany , but panj pyaare would be singhs only

and finaly sant jarnail singh ji's reply

[savinderpalsingh]

i think i know who you are , penji , if you go back to other forums i gave you a reply on everything

also, regarding about leadership how and in what way you may want to think

what is panth ?
the whole sikh population including (DDT/ Nihangs / Nirmala's/ Udasi's/Sewapanthi's /and other 4 takhats etc)

no one follows sgpc except the ones associated with harmandir sahib

SGPC maryada is not panthic in anyway, its questionable in many way, and has been changed manyways

Can you present the documents that states SGPC Rehat Maryada received the stamp as the final Rehat Maryada for all Sikhs? The Sikhs involved in making the big decision of whether to accept the SGPC Rehat were all broken up. Many Sikhs walked out on this decision and many expressed their view that thiis can never be the final Rehat Maryada for the Sikhs. The final decision that came out of this meeting was that this matter of Rehat Maryada will be taken up again at a later date. This later date never came and today many cunning Sikhs want rest of the Khalsa Panth to believe this is the final and only Rehat Maryada for Sikhs.

thanks to your "SGPC"

i think in a few years they may change it so we can wear chocolate Kachere and have carry catapaults instead of the Kirpan.

and there have been female leaders in past , with panj pyaare as singhs

the older women like mai bhago / mata sahib kaur ji / mata jito + many other general influential women in past never felt being underpowered ,

so your whole perception of male dominated version is wrong

the 2nd line about which states bibiyan can be there referes to sewadars in amritsanchar
its in reference that there should be atleast 5 singh's for amrit which is prooven in 3rd line of SGPC RM

that is the reason why there are not female panj pyaare in Historical gurudwara's or takhats

but yes female sewadars can accompany , but panj pyaare would be singhs only

its not used in context , its exactly what it means, a singh ,

khalsa was used because there is no word as khalsi

since in gurmukhi we have words as "singhniyan, bibiyan, matawan, bhenaa" the the context concept goes out the window.

it what exactly it means , singh - no context

the translation is wrong , simple as that

anyone who follows guru will never question rehat or his hukam , the ones who fall in love

never question and always love each and everything their beloved does. whether it makes sense or not .

[savinderpalsingh]

veerji with all due respect , i am with jarnail singh ji on this topic and many bhramgiani's agree too , i wont go on research based on tat gian, i know what guru says .

but rehat is rehat

no one is above it, no one is below it

panj pyaare mean panj singh .

it may seem like i am talking in ego. but its clear in gurmukhi and i wont change my opinion on it

even puratan rehats agree on it .

also

a biography of a bhramgiani's mahapurash sant

i forgot his name that mahapursh lived in nanded , hazur sahib

when he was a little kid, he insisted on taking amrit.

however as usual his parents denied

the kid went to jungle and kept crying alone and praying to waheguru

Then 5 Singhs panj pyaare came from sky and gave him amrit

same thing happened again when he wanted a farla

why did 5 singhs came , why not bibiyan in them? because that was devine order

i am not discriminating against women in Sikhism

neither i am brainwashed , but rehat must be upheld

and sgpc ? sorry its not panthic maryada in any case

[savinderpalsingh]

neither i am from Taksal neither i am from nihangs or any other samparda
i follow puratan maryada , and thats enough

i dont need guru sahibs explanations on the simple maryada, now a days its become a joke , on any topic. people post quotes

sorry but i will heed to maryada

jarnail singh ji also said so

the people or women who have shrada dont question on maryada , only nastik do

[Simarjot]

This one line alone dispells any thougts of the GRM upheld by Damdami Taksal as most definitely NOT being the true RM passed bu Guru Ji as it most definitely espouses inequality of gender:

A Singh must look upon his wife as his faithful Singhni. In the same manner, a Singhni should look upon her husband as Parmeshwar(God).

This is straight from Gurmat Rehet Maryada. This is your beloved Taksalis and the rehet you want so badly for everyone to follow!

We already know from SGGSJ, that ALL humans are absolute equals. We ALL possess the exact same divine light equally. Even more, these physical bodies, and these identities we associate with we are told they are false. The above line from GRM is in stark CONTRADICTION to Gurbani.

So tell me when Guru Gobind Singh Ji taught these concepts how he could ever say that a Singhni must look upon her husband as [God] while the husband is to look at his Singhni as a 'faithful' follower?

In keeping with Guru Sahib's teachings, should not the wording be that "a Singhni should look upon her husband as her faithful Singh?"

So the thinking of Taksalis is not confined to simply Panj Pyare seva. It's the outright thoughts of women being seen as less than men.

[savinderpalsingh]

there is a lot of depth to that sentence, kindly research more of old kathas you will find the deep meaning

from bhai randhir singh ji's book

he went to meet a bhramgiani singhnie,that singhnie never let anyone else come near, only bhair randhir singh ji met her.

she was very faithful to her husband. just like that sentence you posted .

and her husband died.

he was everything for her . after he died . this materialistic world died for her too

she lost everything .

then after that she attained true gian and merged with akal purakh , the same way budha did after he lost will , after trying every single thing

i am not saying this is the cause , but there is very deep meaning to it. which you can find in damdami taksal puratan katha

or katha by giani inderjit singh ji raqbe wale

hari singh randhawa ji

and many other puratan mahapurakhs

stop looking at things they are , i thought you were bhramgiani. and low life murakh as me didnt understood .

so bhramgiani ji , kindly update your knowledge

bhul chuk maff

[Simarjot]

It is you who needs to update your knowledge. If the intent was to state that both mane and women should see their spouse as everything in life, then why would only instruct women to see their husbands as God, and not the other way around?

Your logic makes no sense.

Also, I never claimed to be bhramgiani, you claimed that. I only said I have done as Guru Ji instructed and have become a lifeling seeker. I read SGGSJ regularly, and contemplate dedeper meaning in Gurbani, not any RM which are created by humans, can be amended and change over time... yes ALL of them! I have studied Sikh philosophy for nearly 40 years. I do naam simran and paath daily.

I just pointed a huge flaw in GRM, and again you become all defensive and try to say there is very deep meaning to it, but do not back it up. Your quoted story above, has no basis because we are told to NOT have attachments. In the story you referenced, that bhramgiani singhnie it sounds like was attached to her husband (if she thought so much of him that nothing else mattered.) We are instructed to love our spouse but not to fall into attachment. But yet, the GRM instructs women to do just that! To become attached to their husbands as if he were God and she is something else lower. But the husbands are not instructed in GRM to do the same? Husbands are not to view their Singhnis as God, but instead to view them as a faithful follower. This is in direct contradiction to SGGSJ:

ਧਨ ਪਿਰੁ ਏਹਿ ਨ ਆਖੀਅਨਿ ਬਹਨਿ ਇਕਠੇ ਹੋਇ ॥
Ḏẖan pir ehi na ākẖī▫an bahan ikṯẖe ho▫e.
They are not said to be husband and wife, who merely sit together.
ਏਕ ਜੋਤਿ ਦੁਇ ਮੂਰਤੀ ਧਨ ਪਿਰੁ ਕਹੀਐ ਸੋਇ ॥੩॥ एक जोति दुइ मूरती धन पिरु कहीऐ सोइ ॥३॥
Ėk joṯ ḏu▫e mūrṯī ḏẖan pir kahī▫ai so▫e. ||3||
They alone are called husband and wife, who have one light in two bodies. ||3||

SGGSJ considers a wife and husband equal to the point that they are really ONE soul residing in two bodies.