Natural order

[Guest Charlie Chapathi]

In Christianity there is a concept called the natural order. It states that God is over man, man is over woman and woman over children. It basically sets the man as the head of the house. 

Is there such a concept in Sikhism?

[puzzled 1,526]

Man is the head of the house in sikhi. When we get married and walk around guru granth sahib ji  its the man that leads the way and the woman follows.  All 10 gurus were men  who led the way and guided us.

[Redoptics 152]

3 hours ago, puzzled said:

Man is the head of the house in sikhi. When we get married and walk around guru granth sahib ji  its the man that leads the way and the woman follows.  All 10 gurus were men  who led the way and guided us.

Very misguided, both the man and the woman are at the bottom of a triangle and through Sikhi you both walk the same path to Waheguru,  you tell mia bhago ji that she gets led around by a man.

Edited September 13 by Redoptics

[Guest Charlie Chapathi]

7 hours ago, puzzled said:

Man is the head of the house in sikhi. When we get married and walk around guru granth sahib ji  its the man that leads the way and the woman follows.  All 10 gurus were men  who led the way and guided us.

Is there any sakhi that supports Man as head of the household?

[Guest Sat]

On 9/10/2019 at 3:55 AM, Guest Charlie Chapathi said:

In Christianity there is a concept called the natural order. It states that God is over man, man is over woman and woman over children. It basically sets the man as the head of the house. 

Is there such a concept in Sikhism?

No. Sikhism promotes human beings as One. 

[Guest Sat]

On 9/10/2019 at 3:55 AM, Guest Charlie Chapathi said:

In Christianity there is a concept called the natural order. It states that God is over man, man is over woman and woman over children. It basically sets the man as the head of the house. 

Is there such a concept in Sikhism?

 Sikhism promotes human beings as One

 

[kcmidlands 135]

On 9/13/2019 at 8:27 AM, puzzled said:

Man is the head of the house in sikhi. When we get married and walk around guru granth sahib ji  its the man that leads the way and the woman follows.  All 10 gurus were men  who led the way and guided us.

I remember before i got married i questioned why the man walks in front of the woman at the time of Anand Karaj, the answer i got from many people was it's nothing to do with Sikhi but more to do with culture and out way of thinking. My grandad said something along the lines of " Being in front doesn't always make you superior, look at a horse and cart, the more intelligent one is behind, when we take Guru Sahib somewhere, there is always someone in front clearing the way, that doesn't make them superior to our Guru".

Completely agree with what @Redoptics has said, the Anand Karaj isn't about who's in charge, it's about connecting our souls to waheguru.

 

[Singh1989 141]

No.

[Guest GuestSingh]

On 9/13/2019 at 11:41 AM, Redoptics said:

Very misguided, both the man and the woman are at the bottom of a triangle and through Sikhi you both walk the same path to Waheguru,  you tell mia bhago ji that she gets led around by a man.

think uve misinterpreted his words wiv western thinkin here.

mai bhago ji surrendered n submitted to guru ji. she served them as a bodyguard n also as a sikh as written for us in gurbani. thats gurmat, not manmat which is wat the rest of us do. she chose to follow the truth. so u cnt say she was led around by a man. dnt think it was ur intention but it sounded like u dnt c guru sahibaan as no different to man. they were waheguru in human form.

[Guest GuestSingh]

3 hours ago, kcmidlands said:

I remember before i got married i questioned why the man walks in front of the woman at the time of Anand Karaj, the answer i got from many people was it's nothing to do with Sikhi but more to do with culture and out way of thinking. My grandad said something along the lines of " Being in front doesn't always make you superior, look at a horse and cart, the more intelligent one is behind, when we take Guru Sahib somewhere, there is always someone in front clearing the way, that doesn't make them superior to our Guru".

Completely agree with what @Redoptics has said, the Anand Karaj isn't about who's in charge, it's about connecting our souls to waheguru.

 

thats not the way the sunday/part-time sikhs, liberal extremists, feminists etc. c it. 

they wanna challenge everythin even if it goes against tradition, social norms n rehit maryada i.e. walkin side by side durin lavan which will mean one of em either closer or further away from guru ji. so who decides who goes where? or alternating so bride then groom lead twice. who decides to go first? plus it jus looks odd since she holds the sash from behind. apparently this controls his pace so she does actually have sum control over him but these ppl dnt c that. they also dnt c the father of the bride puttin the sash in his daughters lap as an act of submission to the groom either. all they wanna c n focus on is the groom in walkin in front n her followin him.

fact is theres no such thing as equality. females today jus wanna enjoy wat man has made n wat excuses woman from any hardship/difficulty.

the creator made man n woman different.

man is stronger than woman. n woman submits to man durin procreation (unless ur white/not much of a man).

think that needs to be understood n respected a bit more imo.

a muscular woman who wants to control/dominate in every single way seems not only weird but unnatural too.

[Redoptics 152]

9 hours ago, GuestSingh said:

think uve misinterpreted his words wiv western thinkin here.

mai bhago ji surrendered n submitted to guru ji. she served them as a bodyguard n also as a sikh as written for us in gurbani. thats gurmat, not manmat which is wat the rest of us do. she chose to follow the truth. so u cnt say she was led around by a man. dnt think it was ur intention but it sounded like u dnt c guru sahibaan as no different to man. they were waheguru in human form.

I dont see Guru ji as a 'man' I know they were Waheguru in human form that's why they all call themselves as 'Nanak'.

 

[jkvlondon 4,935]

In sikhi Akal Purakh is in all so all humans are equal in status , we do not have such rules governing us saying women are not to speak or teach guys in congregation  or the'rule of thumb' as our Scriptures teach us to view each other as deserving of love and respect and consider oppression as antigurmat .

[Redoptics 152]

33 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

In sikhi Akal Purakh is in all so all humans are equal in status , we do not have such rules governing us saying women are not to speak or teach guys in congregation  or the'rule of thumb' as our Scriptures teach us to view each other as deserving of love and respect and consider oppression as antigurmat .

People just do not understand anymore, I'm a Male with a female Avatar and they think of me as female just because of ot it, really strange, I was brought up as as everyone is equal.

Edited September 15 by Redoptics

[jkvlondon 4,935]

5 minutes ago, Redoptics said:

People just do not understand anymore, I'm a Male with a female Avatar and they think of me as female just because of ot it, really strange, I was brought up as as everyone is equal.

yep the above rules are Christian/abrahamic  they believe women are inferior in intellect and spirit as they are daughters of Eve i.e. doorways to evil. (muc h like all the other faiths excluding sikhi) . I mean they are advised to chastise their woman if she speaks in congregation (meaning teaching sermons)  or if she speaks up for herself , that they can do so with a stick no thicker than their thumb - barbaric really. People need to grow up and realise that so many sikh BIbian did panthic services without being considered worth writing down even in history books including Guru di Matavan , Guru di Mahalan, Guru di betian , because of male historians' male prejudices coming out of their upbringing. However the sikhs of those times must have known about them and respected them . Our 'history' books have omissions which become apparent when you go to ground level and see the actual places of our history . The people remember .

[Redoptics 152]

2 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

yep the above rules are Christian/abrahamic  they believe women are inferior in intellect and spirit as they are daughters of Eve i.e. doorways to evil. (muc h like all the other faiths excluding sikhi) . I mean they are advised to chastise their woman if she speaks in congregation (meaning teaching sermons)  or if she speaks up for herself , that they can do so with a stick no thicker than their thumb - barbaric really. People need to grow up and realise that so many sikh BIbian did panthic services without being considered worth writing down even in history books including Guru di Matavan , Guru di Mahalan, Guru di betian , because of male historians' male prejudices coming out of their upbringing. However the sikhs of those times must have known about them and respected them . Our 'history' books have omissions which become apparent when you go to ground level and see the actual places of our history . The people remember .

What i do not understand is why people do not follow what their Gurus did, people now only think we have 2 guru nanak dev ji and guru gobind singh ji,  they forget everyone else even though all Gurus are Weheguru