Kaurs In Punj Piarey

[Harmeet1]

Cause you come from the US :wub:

Just joking...I agree with that too.

[AvnitK]

hey its not my fault harmeet

ur funny :wub:

[Harmeet1]

:wub:

[AvnitK]

:wub: and I think ur kinda cool with all the sikhi stuff

right

[Harmeet1]

Nice compliments,

Same to you bhenji :wub:

[Mehtab Singh]

They will pay a big part in the on coming khalsa raj.

The Gurmukh pyara who is in your display picture said the same thing :nihungsmile:

[00gurpreet_singh00]

With all this discrimination talk going around these days, I'd like to point something out.

In mool mantar, and all throughout bani, god is referred to as a purkh. 10 gurus all had purkh saroop. Everyone else is called a female. Now does it not make sense for guru roop panj pyarey to have purkh saroop?

If it is discrimination that bibian aren't pout in the panj pyarey, then I guess you are saying that Guru Gobind Singh Jee was discrimination by not putting a brahmgiani like Mai Bhago in panj pyarey. By historical accounts it seems obvious that she was worthy of such an honour, but why did guru sahib not put Mai Bhago in the panj pyarey, why were the panj pyarey always 5 singhs?

All this discrimination talk is going WAY overboard these days. Even with the stuff of bibian not being allowed to do keertan in darbar sahib (by the way, I don't necessarily agree with the ban). If you are going to say its discriminatory that bibian cant do keertan seva in darbar sahib, are you also saying that Guru Sahib was also discriminatory because there is no historical account of a female keertani during guru sahibs times?

Instead of jumping on the discrimination-bandwagon, please try to reason things out. By saying that men and women have different roles, does not in any way mean that someone is someone is discriminating, its just facing the realities that men and women and made different. That doesn't mean one is superior to the other, it is just facing the facts that due to certain differences, mean and women have somewhat different roles.

Another thing I find interesting is that, on one hand you call Sant Jarnail Singh a sant, on the other hand you say he discriminated...aren't sants supposed to be sum-darshee?

[Guest Narinder Singh]

With all this discrimination talk going around these days, I'd like to point something out.

In mool mantar, and all throughout bani, god is referred to as a purkh. 10 gurus all had purkh saroop. Everyone else is called a female. Now does it not make sense for guru roop panj pyarey to have purkh saroop?

If it is discrimination that bibian aren't pout in the panj pyarey, then I guess you are saying that Guru Gobind Singh Jee was discrimination by not putting a brahmgiani like Mai Bhago in panj pyarey. By historical accounts it seems obvious that she was worthy of such an honour, but why did guru sahib not put Mai Bhago in the panj pyarey, why were the panj pyarey always 5 singhs?

All this discrimination talk is going WAY overboard these days. Even with the stuff of bibian not being allowed to do keertan in darbar sahib (by the way, I don't necessarily agree with the ban). If you are going to say its discriminatory that bibian cant do keertan seva in darbar sahib, are you also saying that Guru Sahib was also discriminatory because there is no historical account of a female keertani during guru sahibs times?

Instead of jumping on the discrimination-bandwagon, please try to reason things out. By saying that men and women have different roles, does not in any way mean that someone is someone is discriminating, its just facing the realities that men and women and made different. That doesn't mean one is superior to the other, it is just facing the facts that due to certain differences, mean and women have somewhat different roles.

Another thing I find interesting is that, on one hand you call Sant Jarnail Singh a sant, on the other hand you say he discriminated...aren't sants supposed to be sum-darshee?

Just because something didnt happen (of which you've provided no proof of in the first place), that can never be used as a reason for it not to be allowed.

And right, if you wanna jump on the "men and women have different roles bandwagon" then why did guru sahib give women the same exact kakkars as the men, why did guru sahib even bless women with amrit? A weapon such as the kirpan (or sword) is thought to be masculine tool that one would expect only men to use, why would guru sahib give women a kirpan also?

Fateh.

[sikha]

And right, if you wanna jump on the "men and women have different roles bandwagon" then why did guru sahib give women the same exact kakkars as the men, why did guru sahib even bless women with amrit? A weapon such as the kirpan (or sword) is thought to be masculine tool that one would expect only men to use, why would guru sahib give women a kirpan also?"

Now we are moving into a much deeper discussion. There are hardly any evidences to suggest that women took amrit in 1699 or even the centuries after. The names "Mai Bhago Kaur", Mata Sahib kaur and mata sundri kaur does not exist in any of the old granths written on sikhism. our holy Matas have never signed their hukamnammas with "Kaur" nor is Mai Bhago adressed as kaur in any of our old books, which suggest that women did NOT take amrit back in 1699, nor are there any historical sources mentioning women taking amrit.

this has nothing to do with inequality, because we have to look at what the main purpose of the khalsa really was.

The purpose of the Khalsa was to function as an army of God, as disciplined knights of Maharaj that were to uproot tyranni and establish peace. taking amrit back then meant that you would have to join the armed forces of Maharaj, and become a living martyr as there was a price on the head of every sikh. taking amrit back then was a serious thing, not as today where they hand out amrit to everyone, because when you took the saroop of Maharaj, then the mughals would hunt you down and kill you..

The men joined the forces, and the women stayed at home and took care of the children and brought them up to become great wariors for the sikh panth.

a wise singh once said "A man has to become a man by taking amrit, while women are born women"..

equality does NOT mean that everything has to be the same. there were no female Guru's but this does NOT mean that we do not have equality in sikhism or that the holy Gurus were hypocrites.

even among Nihangs, Nirmalas and others who have a lineage going back to maharaj(even naamdharis agree on this), then women did not take amrit back then. it only started happening after Singh Sabha..

i apologise for my english, as im not living in a english speaking country.

[N30S1NGH]

And right, if you wanna jump on the "men and women have different roles bandwagon" then why did guru sahib give women the same exact kakkars as the men, why did guru sahib even bless women with amrit? A weapon such as the kirpan (or sword) is thought to be masculine tool that one would expect only men to use, why would guru sahib give women a kirpan also?"

Now we are moving into a much deeper discussion. There are hardly any evidences to suggest that women took amrit in 1699 or even the centuries after. The names "Mai Bhago Kaur", Mata Sahib kaur and mata sundri kaur does not exist in any of the old granths written on sikhism. our holy Matas have never signed their hukamnammas with "Kaur" nor is Mai Bhago adressed as kaur in any of our old books, which suggest that women did NOT take amrit back in 1699, nor are there any historical sources mentioning women taking amrit.

this has nothing to do with inequality, because we have to look at what the main purpose of the khalsa really was.

The purpose of the Khalsa was to function as an army of God, as disciplined knights of Maharaj that were to uproot tyranni and establish peace. taking amrit back then meant that you would have to join the armed forces of Maharaj, and become a living martyr as there was a price on the head of every sikh. taking amrit back then was a serious thing, not as today where they hand out amrit to everyone, because when you took the saroop of Maharaj, then the mughals would hunt you down and kill you..

The men joined the forces, and the women stayed at home and took care of the children and brought them up to become great wariors for the sikh panth.

a wise singh once said "A man has to become a man by taking amrit, while women are born women"..

equality does NOT mean that everything has to be the same. there were no female Guru's but this does NOT mean that we do not have equality in sikhism or that the holy Gurus were hypocrites.

even among Nihangs, Nirmalas and others who have a lineage going back to maharaj(even naamdharis agree on this), then women did not take amrit back then. it only started happening after Singh Sabha..

i apologise for my english, as im not living in a english speaking country.

great post yaar problem is these days youths want to chill 4-5 hrs on the internet, go to samagams, read rehit namas on sikhitothemax, maryada on sgpc and create imaginary sikhi in their brain and think they know essence of sikhi, they see the reality when history before tat khalsa comes in fully contradicting their mindset, then instead of doing khoj then they starting brushing all the historical claims as - bhraminvaad, rss waad, nang waad- blah blah.

Real scholar of sikhi is who doesnt think sikhi as one dimension dharam, or black and white notions. Real scholar of sikhi should be fully without bias- try not to cover up , edit granths.

I say its about time to get all the scholars together, get all the contoversial issues on the table in academia, try to find reasoning behind it by broden your horizon instead of running away like goats, screaming out of lungs- bhraminvaad, rss, congreessi, sanatan waad and all the other ridicolous other labels.

ps: I am not supporting the claim that women were not intiated via khanda amrit in 1699, nor i m denying it. my point of this post is to become unbias khoji instead of brushing things aside that challenges your mindset and try to cover up.