Jump to content
TheeTurbanator

Guru Granth Sahib Ji on Sex outside marriage

Recommended Posts

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa. Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

Often times I hear people say "SGGSJ doesnt say (insert topic) so it must be ok", and in the case of pre-marital sexual relations a dear friend of mine has made the same argument. My friend (non khalsa) argues that Bani specifically condemns rape, adultery, and polygamy, however isnt against sex outside of marriage, provided that both are not married to anyone, and have given consent. My friend likes to disregard anything outside SGGSJ. 

He brings up tuks from Gurbani that specifically mention "others wives" to support the argument that its specifically about adultery, however I would argue, the English translation is very shallow, and in the context of Bani, "others wives" is also talking about anyone who isnt your wife, and isnt limited to adultery, but also anyone who isnt married. 

Example 1: 

Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 274

ਪਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਅ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਪੇਖੈ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ॥

Par Thria Roop N Paekhai Naethr ||

ਪਰ means other

ਤ੍ਰਿਅ means wife
 

Example 2: 

Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1013


ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਤਜਿ ਕਰਿ ਕਾਮਿ ਵਿਆਪਿਆ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇਆ ਪਰ ਨਾਰੀ ॥


Abandoning his own wife, he is engrossed in sexual desire; his thoughts are on the wives of others.

 

Context: 

Its not just talking just about adultery, the English translations are limiting, generally the concept is to not covet another wife, in the context of Bani, doesn't mean you can have sexual relations with women who are not married. Our rehat and history make it clear that one cannot have any sexual relations outside of marriage. There is a specific reason the Guru had 10 forms over 200 years, it was to show Sikhs how to live and practically apply Bani, otherwise the SGGSJ would have been all compiled by Guru Nanak and there would be no long history of the Guru in his many forms. 

 

The SGGSJ isnt a rule book, and isnt going to specifically ban everything that we know is immoral. Where in SGGS Ji does it say that Sri Guru Har Rai Sahib Ji was the 7th Guru Sahib after Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji? Why would a primary Sikh text not name him?  In terms of Gurbani, when taken into context, and even compared to rehat and our history, its clear that sexual relations outside of marriage are discouraged. 

 

Do you agree with my argument? These are just a few tuks I decided to bring up, if anyone has any more, please feel free to share! 

Edited by TheeTurbanator
edited to fix formatting issues and typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TheeTurbanator said:

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa. Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

What a wonderful post, bro. I'm quite happy to see that you think this way. If you don't mind, could you answer:

1) Were you an atheist before? If not, did you used to think the same way your friend, and other people on the board, like @Kira did?

2) Does your friend speak Punjabi? Not limited to saying "enough" when getting langar. But really speak the language? If he did, perhaps he wouldn't be so confused as to what a "par nari" is. Also, can he read Punjabi? Or is he getting his "gian" from the English translations?

55 minutes ago, TheeTurbanator said:

My friend (non khalsa) argues that Bani specifically condemns rape, adultery, and polygamy,

And what tuks does he proffer to state that Gurbani condemns rape specifically? Understand that I'm not saying that Gurbani promotes or allows rape. I'm just interested in what he presents to say that Bani bans rape, specifically. The discussion on those tuks would also bring up interesting points which I believe would not be in accord with your friend's thought process.

Also quite interesting that he managed to find a ban on polygamy, and not on fornication. What does he present to say that polygamy is banned?

So he's saying that you can screw as many girls as you like, and discard them, but you can't enter into a socially binding contract (marriage) with them. That's his idea of "dharam".

1 hour ago, TheeTurbanator said:

He brings up tuks from Gurbani that specifically mention "others wives" to support the argument that its specifically about adultery, however I would argue, the English translation is very shallow, and in the context of Bani, "others wives" is also talking about anyone who isnt your wife, and isnt limited to adultery, but also anyone who isnt married.

Agree with you. This is yet another case where the English "translations" are going to create major problems for us where some people are going to be come "lakeer de fakeer" based on erroneous translations.

"par nari" does not mean "others' wives". It means "a woman not your wife".

If not, Gurbani loses it real import:

Quote

 

ਅਖੀ ਸੂਤਕੁ ਵੇਖਣਾ ਪਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਅ ਪਰ ਧਨ ਰੂਪੁ ॥

Akhee Soothak Vaekhana Par Thria Par Dhhan Roop ||

The impurity of the eyes is to gaze upon the beauty of another man's wife, and his wealth.

ਅਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਕੀਰਤਨ ਗੁਟਕਾ: ਪੰਨਾ ੧੦੩੪ ਪੰ. ੨੭ 
Raag Asa Guru Nanak Dev

 

The atrocious English translation above says you become impure by perving on another's wife. Question: Do you not get impure by perving on your neighbor's unmarried daughter?

Puratan Singhs understood the term to be "a woman not your wife". Consider rehitnama Bhai Nand Lal:

Quote

 

ਪਰ ਬੇਟੀ ਕੋ ਬੇਟੀ ਜਾਨੈ ॥

Par Baettee Ko Baettee Janai ||

ਪਰ ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਕੋ ਮਾਤ ਬਖਾਨੈ ॥

Par Eisathree Ko Math Bakhanai ||

ਅਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਕੀਰਤਨ ਗੁਟਕਾ: ਪੰਨਾ ੧੦੧੬ ਪੰ. ੭੧ 
Shabad: Ran Mai Jaa-e Naa Kabhoo Bhaajay 
Amrit Keertan Rehat Nama

 

OK, so according to your friend, you're supposed to call another's wife a "mother" or "daughter". But if she's unmarried, then sky's the limit? That renders the tuk basically meaningless.

The Sikh dharam envisions an atmosphere of purity in regards to relations with women. Your friend's mode of thinking leads to constant sexual desire and tension towards unmarried women, which is exactly what Harvey Weinstein (and many others) were doing towards unmarried actresses in the whole MeToo thing.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheeTurbanator said:

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa. Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

Often times I hear people say "SGGSJ doesnt say (insert topic) so it must be ok", and in the case of pre-marital sexual relations a dear friend of mine has made the same argument. My friend (non khalsa) argues that Bani specifically condemns rape, adultery, and polygamy, however isnt against sex outside of marriage, provided that both are not married to anyone, and have given consent. My friend likes to disregard anything outside SGGSJ. 

He brings up tuks from Gurbani that specifically mention "others wives" to support the argument that its specifically about adultery, however I would argue, the English translation is very shallow, and in the context of Bani, "others wives" is also talking about anyone who isnt your wife, and isnt limited to adultery, but also anyone who isnt married. 

Example 1: 

Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 274

ਪਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਅ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਪੇਖੈ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ॥

Par Thria Roop N Paekhai Naethr ||

ਪਰ means other

ਤ੍ਰਿਅ means wife
 

Example 2: 

Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1013


ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਤਜਿ ਕਰਿ ਕਾਮਿ ਵਿਆਪਿਆ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇਆ ਪਰ ਨਾਰੀ ॥


Abandoning his own wife, he is engrossed in sexual desire; his thoughts are on the wives of others.

 

Context: 

Its not just talking just about adultery, the English translations are limiting, generally the concept is to not covet another wife, in the context of Bani, doesn't mean you can have sexual relations with women who are not married. Our rehat and history make it clear that one cannot have any sexual relations outside of marriage. There is a specific reason the Guru had 10 forms over 200 years, it was to show Sikhs how to live and practically apply Bani, otherwise the SGGSJ would have been all compiled by Guru Nanak and there would be no long history of the Guru in his many forms. 

 

The SGGSJ isnt a rule book, and isnt going to specifically ban everything that we know is immoral. Where in SGGS Ji does it say that Sri Guru Har Rai Sahib Ji was the 7th Guru Sahib after Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji? Why would a primary Sikh text not name him?  In terms of Gurbani, when taken into context, and even compared to rehat and our history, its clear that sexual relations outside of marriage are discouraged. 

 

Do you agree with my argument? These are just a few tuks I decided to bring up, if anyone has any more, please feel free to share! 

tria is short for istri which is equivalent to naari  so any woman/girl  other than your wife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, BhForce said:

1) Were you an atheist before? If not, did you used to think the same way your friend, and other people on the board, like @Kira did?

 

I definitely wasn't Dharmic "before" as in pre-2014, when I started to rediscover Sikhi, and Vaisakhi 2017 when I received initiation into the Khalsa Panth. 

I talked more about this in my other posts (on Reddit), but I was basically your average western Punjabi kid who doesn't care about "Sikh-ism" (abrehamic, watered down Sikhi) and frequently enjoys playing sports and video games. 

I didnt really care about "Sikhi-ism" or "God" (abrehamic version) until I started basics of Sikhi videos and got "radicalized" (interesting in the real Sikhi). 

If you frequently read my views on the internet or talk to me in real life, you will defiantly notice that I question every aspect of Sikhi and try to bring it back to the authentic primary sources, however I dont go as far as "missionaries", although I have been called one before by some Nihangs, but then got called a "radical" by progressive liberal SJW Sikhs.

I disagree with a lot of ideas that were artificaly inserted into the Sikh psyche by the Singh Sahaba, and their creation of modern day "Sikhism", however I do acknoledge that they had noble intentions, but went a bit to far. With that being said, I dont give the "Puratan" rehats a pass either, and view some of their stuff as very cultural based (no red, cant be friends with muslims, etc), and do see a "hindu" influence in some stuff they do. However, I do value the universal "Dharmic" framework over the Singh Sabah Abrahamic knockoff of modern day "Sikhism". Overall, I like to take a balanced approach and gradually develop my views inline with Gurmat. 

I definitely do think similar to my friend, however I also take history and rehat into account, but weigh the value of the SGGSJ as way more. The SGGSJ is a great tool. however its easy to misrepresent it and take it out of context if you dont look at the 200 year history of the Guru who himself showed how to apply the teachings of the Guru.  

 

50 minutes ago, BhForce said:

2) Does your friend speak Punjabi? Not limited to saying "enough" when getting langar. But really speak the language? If he did, perhaps he wouldn't be so confused as to what a "par nari" is. Also, can he read Punjabi? Or is he getting his "gian" from the English translations?

2 hours ago, TheeTurbanator said:

My friend is an ex-Muslim "Sikh" who doesn't follow the Singh Sahab school of though and knows how to fluently read and write not only gurmukhi, but the ancient version in SGGSJ. Hes a decent guy, and there are only a few subjects we disagree on (such as him thinking Muslims/Hindus can be "Sikh" as per SGGSJ). Hes actually he;ping me do my commentary on Anand Sahib, chill guy. 

50 minutes ago, BhForce said:

And what tuks does he proffer to state that Gurbani condemns rape specifically?

Im not sure exactly what he uses, but there are very convincing and straightforward arguments one can make. 

50 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Also quite interesting that he managed to find a ban on polygamy, and not on fornication. What does he present to say that polygamy is banned?

 

Im not sure exactly what he uses, but I guess he would  bring up the "having one wife he is celibate" line. 

 

50 minutes ago, BhForce said:

So he's saying that you can screw as many girls as you like, and discard them, but you can't enter into a socially binding contract (marriage) with them. That's his idea of "dharam".

2 hours ago, TheeTurbanator said:

I dont want to misrepresent his views, but hes basically saying that adultery, and polygamy is bad, but its ok to have sexual relations in the context of a long term relation that isnt married. and that for Khalsa, the no pre-marital rule is clear, however for non-khalsa it doesn't apply, just like the 5 ks dont apply. 

 

50 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Consider rehitnama Bhai Nand Lal:

As I said before, he doesn't regard anything outside SGGSJ, he only focuses on it. He also uses Bhai Nanad Lal Ji as an example to say its ok for Sikhs for to receive Khand Di Phaul (not to be confused with Amrit which is only obtained by Bani, and cannot just be drank in simple terms). 

Edited by TheeTurbanator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mod removed my link, thanks a lot mods, you really make stuff easy! 

Edited by TheeTurbanator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheeTurbanator said:

[LINK REMOVED]

Please do not post links from other websites, especially if they're specifically targeting an individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is his response to my post: 

 

Quote

 

"There's nothing wrong with the English translation. Let's have a look at the Gurbani you quoted:

ਪਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਅ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਪੇਖੈ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ॥

ਤ੍ਰਿਅ (tria) means woman, so the more accurate translation of this tuk would be: "whose eyes do not gaze upon the beauty of others' women" - which serves the purpose of deterring cheating while encouraging monogamy.

ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਤਜਿ ਕਰਿ ਕਾਮਿ ਵਿਆਪਿਆ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇਆ ਪਰ ਨਾਰੀ ॥

Once again, ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ means woman and ਪਰ ਨਾਰੀ means others' women. No mention of the necessity of marriage. The tuk is once again discouraging excessive lust that manifests itself as forsaking the needs of your own partner to chase after other's women, which leads to homewrecking

Our rehat and history is neither immutable, nor infallible. Our current rehat, which is contradictory and often conflates Sikh and Khalsa for political reasons, forbids Sikh women from marrying non-Sikh men, whereas it merely discourages Sikh men from marrying non-Sikh women. Due to historical uncertainity with respect to Guru Gobind Singh Ji's marriage(s), the current rehat doesn't even forbid polygamy for Sikh men - it merely discourages it. Moreover the possibility of same-sex Anand Karaj is explicitly denounced by the Akaal Takht. Hell, administrating Khande di pahul amrit to women is itself a recent innovation that would've been unheard of in Puratan times wherein Khalsa was mostly conceived as a brotherhood, a fraternity. What do we do then? I could easily pull out out-of-context Gurbani tuks to justify all of these regressive ideals that were the norm in our history. Hence, it's important to look at the spirit, not letter of Gurbani.

 

Indeed, SGGSJ is not a rule book, so how can it possibly ban anything? SGGSJ does however contain some absolute moral edicts; it strongly condemns deceit in particular, hence adultery and stealing are explicitly denounced. Why are premarital relationships not denounced? Because there's nothing about premarital (sexual) relations in and of itselfthat's immoral. It only becomes "immoral" when a) it starts to negatively impact others (i.e. through deceit) and b) it leads to the perpetuation of excessive lust whereby you're constantly thinking about how to get laid with a different person every other day. When it comes to the relationship between rehat and spirituality, it's important to take a top-down approach instead of blindly appealing to tradition and out-of-context tuks. Hence, even if I personally think something like polygamy is explicitly discouraged, I couldn't possibly argue for an absolute rule that would "forbid" it under all circumstances."

 

 

 

Edited by TheeTurbanator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheeTurbanator said:

My friend is an ex-Muslim "Sikh"

Bro, not taking p!ss here, but you certainly have some interesting friends. Most people have trouble finding sangat.

You say he doesn't follow Singh Sabha but he sounds quite missionary-fied, or like a Dhandrianwala follower. Either way, if that's what he believes, let him, it's his jeevan.

Although, he could probs use a talking to from a salotar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MrDoaba said:

Either way, if that's what he believes, let him, it's his jeevan.

But when someone spreads false parchaar and misrepresents Bani, then thats a serious issue that we as a community need to have a discussion on. 

 

5 minutes ago, MrDoaba said:

Bro, not taking p!ss here, but you certainly have some interesting friends. Most people have trouble finding sangat.

 

As I said before, I like to get out of my intellectual echo chamber and seek new ideas and diverse people. Ive ended up learning a lot, and its better to have a friendly debate with a friend, rather than get grilled by a person of another religion/dharma in public.  

Quote

Although, he could probs use a talking to from a salotar.

 

I would prefer we have an intellectually stimulating discussion rather than resorting to such measures...  

Edited by TheeTurbanator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheeTurbanator said:

But when someone spreads false parchaar and misrepresents Bani, then thats a serious issue that we as a community need to have a discussion on. 

Tell him to make an account here. I would like to talk to this pakhandi baba. Sounds like the type who would promote mouth-to-mouth Simran, no offence to him.

6 minutes ago, TheeTurbanator said:

As I said before, I like to get out of my intellectual echo chamber and seek new ideas and diverse people. Ive ended up learning a lot, and its better to have a friendly debate with a friend, rather than get grilled by a person of another religion/dharma in public. 

True. I hope you no longer hold the same opinions about Sikh Sangat as you once did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MrDoaba said:

Tell him to make an account here. I would like to talk to this pakhandi baba. Sounds like the type who would promote mouth-to-mouth Simran, no offence to him.

15 minutes ago, TheeTurbanator said:

He doesn't like this place, for reasons I have stated before. No offence to anyone here, but to outside this place, Sikh Sangat has a reputation of being a very "conservative" forum, and this is not my personal opinion. 

 

Also, I disagree with your theoretical description of him, hes not like that. 

If you wanna talk to him, you can create an account on r/Sikh. 

5 minutes ago, MrDoaba said:

True. I hope you no longer hold the same opinions about Sikh Sangat as you once did.

I think you need to go back and read my comment from last time, that wasn't my opinion, that was a friend of mine (Naamdhari supporter) who said it, I even said in my comment that it wasn't my personal opinion. 

As for my personal opinion on this forum, Its still too early for me to comment on things, however I didnt like the fact that a mod removed a link that I posted (to a form that I moderate) and claimed I was "targeting" someone, or even the fact that you got warned for some stupid reason and I called out that person but received no response. 

Edited by TheeTurbanator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hazard a guess the contributors to SGGS Ji assumed -- to co-opt an American phrase -- that some truths are self-evident. I would think an examination of the spirit of the discourse in SGGS Ji can be extrapolated to other less defined areas of human conduct that aren't as explicitly defined in scripture. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sikhi doesn’t have “cardinal sins” that’s a Christian concept. Bujjar Kurait translates to high prohibition. The only true “sin” is to forget the One and get lost in duality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×