Why Womens/females Dont Have Rights To Give Amrit Or Become Punj Pyaree/pyari

[Lion(LK)King]

I’ll respond to LK since he actually gave a decent reply.

1. I agree with the Guru Khalsa Panth principle. But it’s very difficult to implement. At the moment SGPC makes itself look like the Panth, but clearly is not. It’s very difficult to get every jathebandi to agree to a point, so this might be difficult. But heck, if it worked back in the day, maybe it can work once again.

Apart from printing and publishing the Panth Parvan Sikh Rehit Maryada, the SGPC has NOTHING to do with the maryada. That is a common misconception put in by people not seeking cohesion in Panth.

Read what the maryada says -

What is more, some of the greatest Sikh scholars and savants of all times contributed to it and deliberated on its contents. So this work should take precedence on any sectional beliefs and preferences. In a wider context, the contents of the Reht Maryada should be taken as the final word as to the matters they deal with. That will foster panthic cohesion.

And True, the Maryada has been penned by great scholars and pious people of the Panth. Including the such of Kahn Singh Nabha who has been respected by ALL Jathebandis (AKJ, Akal Thakhat, Taksalis all respect him, as well as Bhai Vir singh and other mahan hastis)

Please read the introduction to the Maryada where it lists name of all the contributors of the maryada.

http://sgpc.net/sikhism/introduction.html

They did not ignore anyone. If someone from the street had something to say they could send letters and have their opinion discussed by the mahan hastis who gathered to creat panthic cohesion.

It worked back in the day because everyone was ready to sit together. It will worka gain once we leave superflous jathebandi labels and think about the PANTHIC and SIKH cause rather than Taksali, Akhand Kirtani, Nanaksari cause.

2. I think you can’t simply ignore the fact that all Guru sahibaan were males. Saying they were above gender is a cop out in the context of this argument. I’m not arguing that Guru ji didn’t preach equality, all I’m saying is we need to understand their view on equality as opposed to what we’ve been taught at school or through the media.

Please reread my post in this matter. I don't wish to repeat myself except to say that to say that the Guru's were all males is just undermining his teachings since Guru never was a body with a man's private part but GURBANI. Wasn't it Bani Guru Guru Hai bani? Arn't we all jyot sarop? Soul-brides? The Guru never was a man. The Guru was bani. Akal.

3. You’re not giving a very good response about women not being part of Khalsa fauj in large numbers, or even present at all. Again, if Guruji felt that it was a place for women to be, he would have instructed them as such. Just like Guru sahib made Sikh women missionaries, he could have given other responsibilities to them as well. Fact is Guru maharaj did not give Gurgadhi to any women, nor were women in the khalsa fauj. These are positions which are better suited for males, just like the seva of Panj Piraey is better suited for males.

No you simply missed my point. You speak of missionaries. Female missionaries too were slightly less than male ones. Does that mean that Guru ji purposly had more male missionaries than females just because of their gender? Just because females were less numbered in the Khalsa Fauj does't mean anything. i have already explained the historical context of this, which you have completly ignore. You have not answered about why Guru ji had bahman cook - would this mean that a Baahmanshould cook meals for Guru ka Langar, and all other should be eating and not cooking? By your logic that is the case.

4. Again, I don’t know the reasoning behind women not being allowed to do kirtan at Darbar sahib. I seriously don’t want to take a stance without knowing the historical reasons for this, if any exist.

I feel I’m repeating myself, and the replies also feel repetitive. I’m not going to keep arguing this with the same argument, so I’ll just leave it at this.

No hard feelings,

Gufateh.

Some of us have simply missed the point of Sikhi, something that is beyond gender and physical body parts. Until we realise that Punj and the Guru's were nothing physical, and were wholly spiritual - bani, there is no point in discussing these issues. Guru never was a man with a males physical body. Guru ke Singhs (Punj) never were human beings with male body parts - they were jyot saroop. They were Bani. They WERE Gurbani. The had the parkash of Parmatma inside themselves :lol:

Bhull Chukk Maaf

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh

[Guest HaRdKaUrWaRrIoRz]

I’ll respond to LK since he actually gave a decent reply.

1. I agree with the Guru Khalsa Panth principle. But it’s very difficult to implement. At the moment SGPC makes itself look like the Panth, but clearly is not. It’s very difficult to get every jathebandi to agree to a point, so this might be difficult. But heck, if it worked back in the day, maybe it can work once again.

2. I think you can’t simply ignore the fact that all Guru sahibaan were males. Saying they were above gender is a cop out in the context of this argument. I’m not arguing that Guru ji didn’t preach equality, all I’m saying is we need to understand their view on equality as opposed to what we’ve been taught at school or through the media.

3. You’re not giving a very good response about women not being part of Khalsa fauj in large numbers, or even present at all. Again, if Guruji felt that it was a place for women to be, he would have instructed them as such. Just like Guru sahib made Sikh women missionaries, he could have given other responsibilities to them as well. Fact is Guru maharaj did not give Gurgadhi to any women, nor were women in the khalsa fauj. These are positions which are better suited for males, just like the seva of Panj Piraey is better suited for males.

4. Again, I don’t know the reasoning behind women not being allowed to do kirtan at Darbar sahib. I seriously don’t want to take a stance without knowing the historical reasons for this, if any exist.

I feel I’m repeating myself, and the replies also feel repetitive. I’m not going to keep arguing this with the same argument, so I’ll just leave it at this.

No hard feelings,

Gufateh.

here we go again, u cant define what guru ji meant by equality first of all, ur not guru. and if these "positions" are better suited for men, is that according to your liking? b/c as i mentioned b4, ur not guru."the seva of Panj Piraey is better suited for males" and why is that? is this again according to you? u're not guru.and as for "Again, if Guruji felt that it was a place for women to be, he would have instructed them as such" women were given encouragement by guru ji but wen they had homai driven men (not all) on their backs , they didnt respond as much (kind of like the issue with the gianees and the bhanjis, if their dads supported them, they wudnt need to ask anyone for help b/c they'd have their rents and guru ji on their side). bro, just in this post alone i've shown u how ur homai is talking, but the rest of the bros seem to know their stuff so as guru ji says, u're not supposed to argue with a moorakh. u just keep stating the same dry stuff and it isnt doing anything for ur cause. i wonder who this guys daughter will be or is, i hope he doesnt turn her off from sikhi and take her from a shernee to a sheep

[Jai Tegang!]

The Sikh Rehit Maryada published by the SGPC overall is well respected. But the entire Panth does not agree with everything within it. Meat, Bibia in Panj Piarey, Nitnem Banis are just some of the issues that the entire Panth does not agree with.

Of course Guruji is beyond this physical body, I never argued against it. But this doesn’t negate that fact that in their human form they were all males.

And yes, we are all soul-brides. But the fact that God made us in two genders can’t be ignored either.

You really do not understanding the gender dimension in the context of this argument. To say gender doesn’t matter ignores the FACT that difference in their roles within the panth existed during Guru maharaj ji’s time.

The reason I didn’t comment on the Brahmin cook is because I’ve heard different versions of that story. Besides, Gangu wasn’t the only cook (if he actually was the cook). If Brahmins were cooks for all Guru sahibaan, and all langars at Anadpur sahib during Guru Gobind Singh ji’s time, and Guruji made it a hukam as such, I wouldn’t object.

I’ll respond to LK since he actually gave a decent reply.

1. I agree with the Guru Khalsa Panth principle. But it’s very difficult to implement. At the moment SGPC makes itself look like the Panth, but clearly is not. It’s very difficult to get every jathebandi to agree to a point, so this might be difficult. But heck, if it worked back in the day, maybe it can work once again.

2. I think you can’t simply ignore the fact that all Guru sahibaan were males. Saying they were above gender is a cop out in the context of this argument. I’m not arguing that Guru ji didn’t preach equality, all I’m saying is we need to understand their view on equality as opposed to what we’ve been taught at school or through the media.

3. You’re not giving a very good response about women not being part of Khalsa fauj in large numbers, or even present at all. Again, if Guruji felt that it was a place for women to be, he would have instructed them as such. Just like Guru sahib made Sikh women missionaries, he could have given other responsibilities to them as well. Fact is Guru maharaj did not give Gurgadhi to any women, nor were women in the khalsa fauj. These are positions which are better suited for males, just like the seva of Panj Piraey is better suited for males.

4. Again, I don’t know the reasoning behind women not being allowed to do kirtan at Darbar sahib. I seriously don’t want to take a stance without knowing the historical reasons for this, if any exist.

I feel I’m repeating myself, and the replies also feel repetitive. I’m not going to keep arguing this with the same argument, so I’ll just leave it at this.

No hard feelings,

Gufateh.

here we go again, u cant define what guru ji meant by equality first of all, ur not guru. and if these "positions" are better suited for men, is that according to your liking? b/c as i mentioned b4, ur not guru."the seva of Panj Piraey is better suited for males" and why is that? is this again according to you? u're not guru.and as for "Again, if Guruji felt that it was a place for women to be, he would have instructed them as such" women were given encouragement by guru ji but wen they had homai driven men (not all) on their backs , they didnt respond as much (kind of like the issue with the gianees and the bhanjis, if their dads supported them, they wudnt need to ask anyone for help b/c they'd have their rents and guru ji on their side). bro, just in this post alone i've shown u how ur homai is talking, but the rest of the bros seem to know their stuff so as guru ji says, u're not supposed to argue with a moorakh. u just keep stating the same dry stuff and it isnt doing anything for ur cause. i wonder who this guys daughter will be or is, i hope he doesnt turn her off from sikhi and take her from a shernee to a sheep

what is with you and nindyia?

i have an amritdhari mother, amritdhari sisters and amritdhari friends who I love dearly.

and yes, they also believe in women not being part of Panj.

btw, once again you've done nindyia of puratan singhs by accusing them of having haumai and not letting women do certain things.

i'm not on some mission to stop women from doing Panj piarey seva because my haumai is taking over me. I do have plenty of haumai, but not for this issue. I'm simply trying to follow Guruji's hukam, just like you're trying to. We have different understanding of certain issues, doesn't mean you accuse the other of having haumai.

[Lionchild]

Times were Changing. Guru Sahib had brought a change. Guru Amardas ji banned sati. Guru Amardas ji made females "missionaries". I'm sure they too ahd their period? OMG that's terrible for you isn't it? Our Gurus were so revolutionary. They broke every norm in the society. Openly told everyone that menstruations were all part of Vahegur's Hukam and is NOT anything dirty. It is not anything to be shy about, because Vaheguru himself made it that way. Anyone daring to mention period as an anti-female subejct is just retarded and has no knowledge of Gurmat

And i'm sure, today, hundreds of years later, we still must bring about change and be revolutionary. We don't want sikhi to fall into useless rituals and rules that have np oart on sikhi.

i say, let women do these events and we males should just swollow our "pride"

[Guest HaRdKaUrWaRrIoRz]

haha ok , we going in circles, jai tegang, u always gona be my bro no matta what, and i wana beat u up jus like u my brother :lol: , u feel more masculine that way and pleased with urself ,w/v, i just believe in the words of our guru, not just interpreting events according to my own manmat. either way i said im not gona argue anymore with u in my last reply, but this thread illustrates something in our kaum...is it only me or is anybody wondering where "dear"(LOL) amrik revenge went? in no way am i relating jai tegang or amrik to the ppl ima mention but dont this remind anybody of what indira did by turning sikhs on sikhs while she laid bak watching the show when our own turned on us? anyway, in the end i love and believe guru ji and i hope jai tegang does too (im kind of skeptical b/c u dont trust the equality issue)and trust that we both want to please Waheguru even tho worldly things are stopping us, we're still one.

[Lion(LK)King]

The Sikh Rehit Maryada published by the SGPC overall is well respected. But the entire Panth does not agree with everything within it. Meat, Bibia in Panj Piarey, Nitnem Banis are just some of the issues that the entire Panth does not agree with.

You know who's problem that is? Theirs.

Panth has made a decision. If these jathabandis who disagree disagree, it is their problem not the Panth's. During the time of the Guru's there were Udasis, and other 'sects' who did not follow the teachings of the Guru. Did the Guru go runnign after them? no.

Guru Panth has made decisiosn. It's not that Panth's problems if jathebandis' can't swallow their pride. Again I urge you to read the introduction to the maryada. It lists every single Jathebandi (from people from Buddha Dal, to people liek Randhi SIngh anda Akali Kaur Singh...all with completly differen views) that was present. Including Nirmalas, AKJ-ers (Randhi Singh, Akali Kaur Singh etc), Buddha Dal Niahngs. Everyone was invited to come and create Panthi cohesion. Those who didn't attend simply could give two hoots about Panthic Ekta. The Guru Panth Has made a decision, if you and whatever jathebandi you have affiliation with feels they're above the Panth, they are welcome to do so, just like sects back in the day dissed our Gurus

Of course Guruji is beyond this physical body, I never argued against it. But this doesn’t negate that fact that in their human form they were all males.

And yes, we are all soul-brides. But the fact that God made us in two genders can’t be ignored either.

If you believe that Guru was Gurbani, that is a lame arguement that can be negated. If you however still consider that the Guru was a man with a male's physical body, I don't see any reason to carry on speaking to you about this. My Guru was atma. he never was a man with a physical body. My Guru was part of Parmatma. He was jyot he jyot :wub:

You really do not understanding the gender dimension in the context of this argument. To say gender doesn’t matter ignores the FACT that difference in their roles within the panth existed during Guru maharaj ji’s time.

No there were no differences in the Guru's Darbar. The differences that existed were due to the SOCIAL differences. The fact that Mai Bhag Kaur was able to lead 40 Singhs tells us that Guru Sahib were shattering all gender-specified roles. The Fact that he gave every bibi the right to join the Khalsa, and doe verythign else a male can do tells us he was completly breaking the gender roles. Our Guru was not a sexist

The reason I didn’t comment on the Brahmin cook is because I’ve heard different versions of that story. Besides, Gangu wasn’t the only cook (if he actually was the cook). If Brahmins were cooks for all Guru sahibaan, and all langars at Anadpur sahib during Guru Gobind Singh ji’s time, and Guruji made it a hukam as such, I wouldn’t object.

Do you know who cooked langar for the Gurus prior t Dasmesh Pita? It is historically proved thta Gangu was a cook in Guru's langar.

And where has Guru ji done Hukam that only males can be part of Panj? The only rehitnama that is provided is that of Desa Singh who also says that the role of the Khalsa is to protect Cows and Bahmans :lol: - Very reliable reference..

Until we realise that Guru Sahib was beyond gender, and as a matter of fact were NOT males, were NOT human bodies with male's private parts, and were only jyot saroop, bani, Gurbani, there's no point in dicussing this. Once we realise that Guru said was only Bani, Jyot saroop, we will realise that the body is only a corpse no matter which gender. The Jyot or parmatma, the bani can also recide in females, since Guru Sahib did not make any distinction between the two. Historical references tell us why this did not happen back in the day too such a large extent.

Good posts MKLQ Veeray

[mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan]

first of all i would just like to say that i have read many of jai tegang's posts and he is sikh of the guru. A lot of times we, including myself, try to one up the other members in these forums.

Honestly one thing that i have noticed from lion king's, jai tengang's, and hardkaurwarriorz's posts is that you guys all want to see what is best for the panth as a whole, which is awesome.

I just want to bring something else to the table.

krm Drm jugiq bhu krqw krxYhwru n jwnY ] (380-2, Awsw, mÚ 5)

karam Dharam jugat baho kartaa karnaihaar na jaanai.

He may perform all sorts of religious rituals and good actions, but he does not know the Creator Lord, the Doer of all.

aupdysu krY Awip n kmwvY qqu sbdu n pCwnY ] (380-2, Awsw, mÚ 5)

updays karai aap na kamaavai tat sabad na pachhaanai.

He teaches, but does not practice what he preaches; he does not realize the essential reality of the Word of the Shabad.

nWgw AwieAw nWgo jwsI ijau hsqI Kwku CwnY ]3] (380-3, Awsw, mÚ 5)

naaNgaa aa-i-aa naaNgo jaasee ji-o hastee khaak chhaanai. ||3||

Naked he came, and naked he shall depart; he is like an elephant, throwing dust on himself. ||3||

sMq sjn sunhu siB mIqw JUTw eyhu pswrw ] (380-3, Awsw, mÚ 5)

sant sajan sunhu sabh meetaa jhoothaa ayhu pasaaraa.

O Saints, and friends, listen to me: all this world is false.

myrI myrI kir kir fUby Kip Kip muey gvwrw ] (380-4, Awsw, mÚ 5)

mayree mayree kar kar doobay khap khap mu-ay gavaaraa.

Continually claiming, "Mine, mine", the mortals are drowned; the fools waste away and die.

gur imil nwnk nwmu iDAwieAw swic nwim insqwrw ]4]1]38] (380-4, Awsw, mÚ 5)

gur mil naanak naam Dhi-aa-i-aa saach naam nistaaraa. ||4||1||38||

Meeting the Guru, O Nanak, I meditate on the Naam, the Name of the Lord; through the True Name, I am emancipated. ||4||1||38||

We always tell non-sikhs that sikhi si against ritualism. When does something become a ritual? Maybe when we do things without doing vichaar on it?

Panj Pyaare represent sri guru gobind singh ji, the khalsa. the amrit ceremony is not a ritual but it is an initiation. a commitment one makes to guru sahib.

now to blindly accept that only men should do this without any gurmat vichaar, isn't that blind ritualism, which is against sikhi?

sikhi says religion is not supposed to be a bondage, guru sahib says that karam dharam was all just a big bandhan or bondage. true religion is the religion of liberation. isn't arguing about all men panj pyaare a bondage to blind ritualism?

peace.

[mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan]

also friends,

let's look at other faiths which had female "devtis", etc. Hinduism has many women devtis, sheraan waali mata, vaishno devi, etc. Did any of these women do anything for women's rights? No.

If we look att all women's rights movements in the world they have been led by women. Have any been led by men, no.

Wouldn't it be amazing if a man led the push for women's rights? Yes, Sri Guru nanak Dev ji did. From a sikh viewpoint as lion king pointed out, guru is baani, but for non-sikhs where this answer is not good enough well here...Sikhi actually had a MAN step up for women! How revolutionary is that?!

The muslims have prophet mohammad, christians have Jesus, Jews have Moses, Buddhists have Buddha. Did any of these people fight for women's rights, No.

Our gurus were human in form but our guru is Baani or the word of God. Gurbaani says that the water is restrainied by the pitcher and the mind is restrained by spiritual wisdom, without the true guru, there is no spiritual wisdom. Well waht spiritual wisdom did guru sahib give thsi world:

ਭੰਡਿ ਜੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਨਿੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਮੰਗਣੁ ਵੀਆਹੁ ॥

ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਦੋਸਤੀ ਭੰਡਹੁ ਚਲੈ ਰਾਹੁ ॥

ਭੰਡੁ ਮੁਆ ਭੰਡੁ ਭਾਲੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਬੰਧਾਨੁ ॥

ਸੋ ਕਿਉ ਮੰਦਾ ਆਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਜੰਮਹਿ ਰਾਜਾਨ ॥

ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੀ ਭੰਡੁ ਊਪਜੈ ਭੰਡੈ ਬਾਝੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥

How powerful is that?

Aurangzeb asked sri guru Teg bahadur ji to perform a miracle to show that he was a holy man. Guru sahib said he doesn't need to do magic tricks to preserve his honor, as his honor was preserved by God. God is the bestower of honor not mortal kings. Now, did we need to have women gurus to show the world sikhi's stand on women? Are we questioning our guru sahib? Are we, like aurangzeb asking for something to prove guru sahib's stance? well if we do need women gurus to believe the guru's giaan about women then look no further as gurgaddi was bestowed upon guru granth and guru panth khalsa, which has women. :lol: sikhi has all the answers no matter from what angle we look at it.

Many prophets have roamed this earth, but only guru sahib uttered the above mentioned words in the defense of women and we really need to think very hard about them.

[Fool]

FANTASTIC POST BHAI SAHIB 'mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan'

I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH WOMEN BEING IN THE PANJ SIMPLY WOMAN N MEN CAN BOTH HVE GREAT JEEVENS.. ITS THE JEEVEN OF THE PANJ THAT COUNT NOT THEIR SEXUAL GENDER

apprently in hollan i think it was not qquite sure a women was in the panj or something for a amritsanchar

[Guest HaRdKaUrWaRrIoRz]

also friends,

let's look at other faiths which had female "devtis", etc. Hinduism has many women devtis, sheraan waali mata, vaishno devi, etc. Did any of these women do anything for women's rights? No.

If we look att all women's rights movements in the world they have been led by women. Have any been led by men, no.

Wouldn't it be amazing if a man led the push for women's rights? Yes, Sri Guru nanak Dev ji did. From a sikh viewpoint as lion king pointed out, guru is baani, but for non-sikhs where this answer is not good enough well here...Sikhi actually had a MAN step up for women! How revolutionary is that?!

The muslims have prophet mohammad, christians have Jesus, Jews have Moses, Buddhists have Buddha. Did any of these people fight for women's rights, No.

Our gurus were human in form but our guru is Baani or the word of God. Gurbaani says that the water is restrainied by the pitcher and the mind is restrained by spiritual wisdom, without the true guru, there is no spiritual wisdom. Well waht spiritual wisdom did guru sahib give thsi world:

ਭੰਡਿ ਜੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਨਿੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਮੰਗਣੁ ਵੀਆਹੁ ॥

ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਦੋਸਤੀ ਭੰਡਹੁ ਚਲੈ ਰਾਹੁ ॥

ਭੰਡੁ ਮੁਆ ਭੰਡੁ ਭਾਲੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਬੰਧਾਨੁ ॥

ਸੋ ਕਿਉ ਮੰਦਾ ਆਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਜੰਮਹਿ ਰਾਜਾਨ ॥

ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੀ ਭੰਡੁ ਊਪਜੈ ਭੰਡੈ ਬਾਝੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥

How powerful is that?

Aurangzeb asked sri guru Teg bahadur ji to perform a miracle to show that he was a holy man. Guru sahib said he doesn't need to do magic tricks to preserve his honor, as his honor was preserved by God. God is the bestower of honor not mortal kings. Now, did we need to have women gurus to show the world sikhi's stand on women? Are we questioning our guru sahib? Are we, like aurangzeb asking for something to prove guru sahib's stance? well if we do need women gurus to believe the guru's giaan about women then look no further as gurgaddi was bestowed upon guru granth and guru panth khalsa, which has women. :lol: sikhi has all the answers no matter from what angle we look at it.

Many prophets have roamed this earth, but only guru sahib uttered the above mentioned words in the defense of women and we really need to think very hard about them.

thats exactly my point! u made a good point when u said that we need to discuss these issues so that they dont become ritual, i just had to point out the apparent role of dear (LOL !!!! I CRACK MYSELF UP) amrik revenge in this, anyway i think that the only way u can call urself a believer of sikhi is if u believe what Guru ji says, if one believes that the teachings of Guru ji are soemthing other than what they preached then we are in a sense calling our Guru ji a hypocrite. . all answers can be obtained from Guru Granth Sahib ji, nowhere does Guru ji say that women cant preform teh same seva men can. straight up-if u belive in your Guru, you agree with their words. this is why in my previous posts i was insisting that jai tegang stop twisting the teachings of our Gurus b/c it steers ppl away from the path...most ppl posting on here are guys so maybe some might not understand why..its like this: think of a relationship to a parent, it's a type of love that cant be experienced in any other worldly relationship we have...we know that if we obey them they'll be happy, give us more things and, most importantly, provide us with unconditional love. but lets say u have a sibling who is of the same age, you work sooo hard to please ur parent, and you yearn for their love but in return that parent gives the other sibling more priveliges-is that the type of parenting our mata, pita Guru Gobind Singh ji provides us? i didnt think so. it is so ludricous to think that our father/mother would have any differences when Guru ji themselves enlightened us as to what equality is..as i said before this is all common sense....