Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Charlie Chapathi

Natural order

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Redoptics
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Redoptics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Guest Jigsaw_Puzzled_Singh
      Everything, and I mean absolutely EVERY LITTLE THING, the white man has was stolen from brown and black people. EVERYTHING...including medicine. Appropriate it...steal it...call it what you want but the fact is that white people have throughout history right up to the present day, steal what brown and black people have and then call it their own. In a few posts on this thread I have mentioned how white people stole eastern philosophy and then claimed it as their own (and called it western philosophy) even through the original practitioners of that philosophy made it abundantly clear that the white northern european was a barbarian incapable of intellectual thought but really it runs far more deeper than that. White people have always been about TAKING, TAKING and TAKING. They habitually take and then claim as their own. They are habitual thieves. Here's some more examples: The cure to smallpox was actually invented by a black slave, Onesimus. Here's the story of how the white man stole it from him and claimed it as their own: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/blog/onesimus-smallpox-boston-cotton-mather   Picasso stole his 'art' from ancient African art and claimed it as his (western intellectalisms) own:   Now you know me....You know I could go on and on here. The point is that white people...ALL WHITE PEOPLE....are not only thieves but they are also habitual liars. They LIE. And they teach their children to LIE. They lie because they cannot handle the truth. Not only do they lie about true history but they also lie day to day when it comes to getting jobs, their qualifications etc. You see the priviledge they have created for themselves enables them to lie. They're not held accountable the way we are.  What we're seeing now from white people though is a desperate attempt to preserve their priviledge. Their lies are being exposed and history is fast catching up with them. For example, not only are the Chinese and Indians now at the forefront of medical advances the Chinese are giving white people payback in the sense that a hundred odd years ago the white man deliberately pushed opium on the Chinese masses and now the Chinese are paying back that favour by flooding the white man with opiods. At the end of the day thieves always get their comeuppance.
    • India in it's current political format is. But it definitely exists as a geographical entity or even as some civilisational entity and is far more connected than what Pakistan is. The strands that keep it together are more indigenous.  Islam and not being India is what makes Pakistan.  
    • I’m here bro u getting  from me?? y the other clown call me yogi worship do Sikhs worship yogi? if I have question about Gurbani instead of if giving me the right anwser You guys twisting with yogi radaswami 
    • The comparison is wrong as others have said.  Also Gurbani says there is only one Guru who is Akal Purakh himself.  Maybe read Gurbani and your mind will not travel into atheist thinking.    
    • Thank you for leaving this forum
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use