Singh and Singhi

Whoever takes Amrit and bears arms with purpose is a Singh ( Lion). Whoever
doesnt take amrit and shys away from bearing arms is a sheep. It seems like
some individuals with a shallow- cultural intellect believe the word "Singh" in Gurmat only
applies to male GurSikhs. This is equivalent to saying the masculine word Sipahi/Shapahi
can only refer to male. THis type of naive thinking does not seem in accordance to Gurmat.

If we were to take on this shallow thinking we will only isolate Gurmukh women
from the Sikh Dharam. The word "Singh" refers to both male and female.
Take the following rehatnama for example,

ਆਗੇ ਆਵਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੁ ਪਾਵੈ, ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਕੀ ਫਤੇ ਬੁਲਾਵੈ
Bhai DEsa Singh Ji Rehatnama

Does this mean that we only say fateh to Singhs. Its obvious that the word " Singh" in this rehatnama
is referring to anyone who has given their head and taken Amrit, and GUru Sahib is given hukum to say fateh to any Gursikh we see. Here is another example from Gurmat literature of Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir SIngh JI.


ਜੋ ਪੂਰਨ ਧਰਮੀ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ-ਧਾਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਕਾ ਆਗਿਆਕਾਰੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੁਜਾਨ ਹੋਵੈ ਸੋ ਕਰੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਕੇ

ਲੰਗਰ ਦੀ ਸੇਵਾ

If there is complete dharmic Bibekee Singhs who obey Gurus orders the he can do Langar seva.

Thank God that sojhivan Singhs have not taken the word "Singh" literally in the following passage. Can you imagine the taste of GUru Ka langar if women were forbidden from doing langar seva ( Hahaha)


In conversation the word Singhni and Sikhnee is usually referred to female Sikh in Sikhi, but in rehatnamey the words Singh does not have gender bias and refers to both male and female Gursikhs. How can the word Singh have a biased meaning. REhat applies equally to both man and women. For example, when Guru Sahib says man should treat other women as his mother, sister or daughter. The hukum also applies to women; instead, women treat all men as their fathers, brothers, or sons.

Even though rehatnama or Gurmat literature speak in masculine form the meaning and rules apply to both genders. For example , in the West when we refer to God we often say " he". We know God is not female or male as he is above gender. But this has been culturally acceptable to say "he" as a God the same logic applies with the word "Singh". Khalsa and SIngh mean the same thing. Whenever we got adopted from Sri Dasmesh Pita Ji and join the Khalsa family we inherit Guru Gobind SIngh Jis last name of Khalsa and Singh.

Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but if this was the case, why did Guru Ji choose to name men and women by applying Singh and Kaur respectively during 1699?

Good Post Veer Sukhdeep Singh!

I actually agree with you on this one =P

Right on, Bhai Sahib. Finally someone who actually agrees and understands that the word 'Singh' doesn't necessarily only refer to GurSikhs of the male gender.

Unjaan Jeeo,

pyareo, I don't think Sukhdeep Singh meant it the way we generally analyze it.

for example, theres a bibi named Upkaar Kaur, we wouldn't refer to her as Upkaar Singh.

In general conversation, we say stuff like, Singhaa ne ajj Matar Paneer Tyaar Keetaa See

isnt LIMITED TO Singhs only, but also Bibian. Of course bibian have the name Kaur for them and also the word Singhniaan.

Its a general way to talk, pyareo.

Like Sukhdeep Singh jee points out, if we were to take bhai sahibs writing SO LITERALLY, bibian wouldn't have been allowed to do most sevaas.

This is like interpreting gurbani with a narrow mind all over again jeeo.

Forgive any mistakes

Quote

Good Post Veer Sukhdeep Singh!

I actually agree with you on this one =P

i dont....

Unjaan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but if
> this was the case, why did Guru Ji choose to name
> men and women by applying Singh and Kaur
> respectively during 1699?


Where does it say Guru Sahib gave the name Kaur to female, and
SIngh to Male? The rehatnameys say when taking Amrit one should
adopt the last name Singh. There is no mention of the word Kaur in any
rehatnama I have come across. Both Singh and Kaur ( kanwar) are Rajastani
words and Guru Sahib used Singh for those that take Amrit. When a daughter is born she
takes the last name of her father. Same thing when someone takes birth in the Gurus house.

Well done. Piaarey Unjaan Ji, you are missing the point.... look at the Rehatnaamey they are saying everything.

I just want to start by mentioning that I am not a feminist, even though my thoughts on this topic may make it sound like as if I am. This, however, does not mean that certain things should be used using the masculine form, even when using the word as a generalization and including females. Some words are acceptable, whereas other's need more clarification.

I don't agree to this post. My main reason is the same that Unjaan mentioned. Why would females be called "Kaurs" if, when used as a general statement, they are only going to be called "Singhs" when referred to as a part of a group? I've noticed that it seems to be "human" nature to use the masculine words also as a general word when referring to both genders. This seems okay to a certain extent. Whereas in this case, using the word "Singh" as a general word does not seem appropriate.

If Guru Gobind Singh Ji called all females "Kaurs", meaning princess, and all males "Singhs", meaning lion. It does not seem to be appropriate to use either word for the opposite gender. I am not questioning Gurbani. I am a nobody. I have no right to even question anything in Gurbani. Gurbani is that, Gurbani; the absolute truth. Although many interpret it differently, that's a Panthic issue, and not one I'm concerned with as of right now. What I'm saying is that, we, as humans, should not be using this kind of terminology. Although it is appropriate for Gurbani, as many other words, it doesn't seem "right" to be using it generally.

I think calling Bibian "Singhs" defeats the whole purpose of Guru Gobind SIngh Ji distinguishing a male from a female, and hence providing both with names meant to fit each. I don't understand how these two words, then, can be used interchangeably. Some may think that I'm, in a way, "using" what Guru Sahib did, to prove myself right. That's not the case (just to clarify!). This is my understanding, and what I think. I could be completely wrong. And that's okay too; no one's perfect, no one know's everything, hence we all make mistakes.

Vaaheguru Jee Kaa Khalsaa Vaaheguru Jee Kee Fatehh!

From what I've always learned, Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave the name "Kaur" to Singhnia, and "Singh" to Singhs.

We cannot use Gurbani as a means to back this up, in my opinion. In Gurbani, many words are used interchangeably, where a male is called a female and vice versa. For example, Gursikhs are called the Brides, who await their Groom (Guru Sahib). This is obviously not meant literally, just like where Gurbani mentions the word "Singh" but is actually referring to females as well.

I'm talking about in general conversations, verbal or written. In conversations we should be using the words "Singhnia" or "Kaurs", not using the word "Singh" and saying that it includes females as well. That doesn't make sense. It's like saying males are going to be called "Kaurs" when used as a generalizing statement. That's ridiculous!

Vaaheguru Jee Kaa Khalsaa Vaaheguru Jee Kee Fatehh!

Also, Kaur means prince, not princess. Maybe its another way Guru Sahib showed that he does not distinguish between gender.


May we look back on the examples of Mata Bhaag Kaur and Mata Dalaer Kaur, Jathedar of 100 gursikh shaheed bibian, to remind ourselves of this.

Sukhdeep Singh ji, I myself has read from a reliable source in where Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj has said that Sikh women are to take the name 'Kaur'. This practice of the woman having to take her father's 'surname', and then her husband's 'surname' is the practice of the Hindus. Sikhi is beyond castes and last names. This is why the names 'Singh' & 'Kaur' are exempt from any branches of the Indian caste system.
Shiri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji Maharaj has called Singhnian his daughters, and that they are distinct, free from the clutches of the general mythology of the world which favors women to take on the last names of their fathers and husbands. Guru Sahib especially gave the Kaur to Singhnian, and Singh to males.

I absolutely agree with Jaspreet Singh.

SK Ji, Kaur means prince? I've always learned it meant Princess. Anyone clarify this?

Vaaheguru Jee Kaa Khalsaa Vaaheguru Jee Kee Fatehh!

Man proposes God deposes. So, man here, includes both genders. Similarly as said in the first post by Sukhdeep Singh, Singhs include both in those Rehatnamas quoted by him.. But he confuses me, what he conveys in his second post. Kaur was there always.

Gurmukh Pyareo

Daas isn't against the basis "Guroo Sahib Distinguished Bibian From Singhs"

Of course he did, I'm sure Sukhdeep Singh or nobody else is aiming to say, we are the same. We clearly arn't.

Even though we are all suhaagana in a sense, soul brides waiting for our auspicious night.

Our point is, interpreting bhai sahibs writing.

If we say, bhai sahib meant ONLY and ONLY Singhs. We will have bibiaan saying, Oh My God? why? What have we done?

If we say bhai sahib used the word for Singhs as well, we have bibiaan complaining about why he didn't use the name Kaurs or Singhniaam.

Either way, Bibiaan will complain.

So let's make one thing clear. The word Singh can be interpreted as BIBEE OR SINGH in bhai sahibs writing and many other places like rehitnamey as well. It isn't specific to singhs only.

At the same time, bibian indeed are very distinct from Singhs. They enjoy the status of being Kaurs and Guroo sahibs laadllee daughters.

Forgive me for being repetitive, but it seems, that either way, the bibian on the forum will be dissatisfied. Let us indulge deeper into bhai sahibs writings. They ain't mere story books. They are Giaan filled Lamps of light. Read them accordingly. not like any other english novel. We must change our state of mind while reading them and interpreting them.

Excuse any harsh language

Vaheguroojeekaakhalsaa
vaheguroojeekeeefatheh

Moorakh,
Upkaar Singh

Sorry for not being clear in my post. I do acknowledge that the name Kaur has been in vogue since
Vasakhi as Mata Sahib Kaur is a prime example.

What I mean to say is when one takes Amrit one is a Singh
meaning they have status of Singh, and should be seen as a Singh. All rehats referring to Singh apply to both male and female
equally. One is a full SIngh when taking Amrit. They are a lion as the opposite of lion is sheep. Guru Sahib tells to bear arms and be lions ( singhs)

We dont need to change the masculine or feminine language of Rehatnamey by including the word Kaur. Just like in Gurbani we refer to every atma as jeev estree it would not appropriate to say women are jeev estree while men are " jeev banda ". Sikhi is a spiritual nation beyond caste and gender; thus, everyone is a Singh. It makes me sad when I see Gursikh couples treat their daughter as a "princess" instead of a Singh. All Singhs ( male and female Amritdhari people) should be treated
as Singhs from birth. They should learn gatka, recite bani of Dasmi Paatshah, wear dastar, eat from Sarab Loh, bear sarab loh kirpan etc.

"Either way, Bibiaan will complain."


Hahahahah.... I probably will :p


I agree with Sukhdeep Singh that bibian should be encouraged to be strong, rehitvaan, babbar gursikhs from birth, and this I don't see happening. This has everything to do with how we percieve their role. If bibian have indeed been excluded from the references to "singhs" then there is no reason for bibian to tie dastars and keep rehit, to be involved in seva of the panth, or to try to attain the highest goal of a gursikh possible. This 'equality' idea in the west isn't completely bad... Look at all the bibian who have stepped out of their shy, quiet roles and have brought back Guru Sahib's crown to the mainstream.

It is difficult for me to grasp why bibian would be excluded frOm either rehitnaamey or from Bhai Sahib's writing. If we choose to believe that they have indeed been excluded, then we should simply state outright that none of these things have any relevance to bibian, so that bibian can get the idea and stop being such a nuisance.

Yes I agree with Veer Sukhdeep Singh Jee on this too

Even in Bhai Sahib Gurdaas Jee writings we have bachans such as:

ਏਕਾ ਨਾਰੀ ਜਤੀ ਹੋਇ ਪਰ ਨਾਰੀ ਧੀ ਭੈਣ ਵਖਾਣੈ||
and
ਦੇਖਿ ਪਰਾਈਆਂ ਚੰਗੀਆਂ ਮਾਵਾਂ ਭੈਣਾ ਧੀਆਂ ਜਾਣੈ ||

Some people would interpret to mean it is only one-sided, but its clear that it applies vice-versa to both genders. So from this we can conclude that hukams in Gurbani, Rehatnamas, Bhai Sahib writings are not single gender based but apply equally to both. Otherwise Sikh ladies would be excluded from everything which is certainly not the case, although many sexist people would like that to be the case.

Bhai Sahib has also written that if a Bibi Jee had stood up and offered her head on Vasakhi Day 1699 Guru Jee would not have refused. I do not have the exact quote and book reference of this, perhaps Bhai Kulbir Singh Jee can put it up when they free and have come back from India.

Jaskirat Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> ਦੇਖਿ ਪਰਾਈਆਂ ਚੰਗੀਆਂ
> ਮਾਵਾਂ ਭੈਣਾ ਧੀਆਂ
> ਜਾਣੈ ||
>
> Some people would interpret to mean it is only
> one-sided, but its clear that it applies
> vice-versa to both genders. So from this we can
> conclude that hukams in Gurbani, Rehatnamas, Bhai
> Sahib writings are not single gender based but
> apply equally to both. Otherwise Sikh ladies would
> be excluded from everything which is certainly not
> the case, although many sexist people would like
> that to be the case.
>
> Bhai Sahib has also written that if a Bibi Jee had
> stood up and offered her head on Vasakhi Day 1699
> Guru Jee would not have refused. I do not have the
> exact quote and book reference of this, perhaps
> Bhai Kulbir Singh Jee can put it up when they free
> and have come back from India.


Sometimes I have no idea how some Gursikhs can interpret the word "Singh" to mean only male.There
is too much evidence in our history which does not support this thinking. Take the following passages for example,

ਪੰਜਾਂ ਸਿਖ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲ ਕਰਿ ਪਾਹੁਲ ਲੈਣੀ॥ ਗੁਰੂ ਕੇ ਸਿੰਘ ਕਰਨਾ॥
ਰਹਿਤ ਉਪਦੇਸ਼ ਗੁਰਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰ ਰਖਣੇ॥ ਨਾਂਵ ਏਥੇ ਆਇ ਕਰ
ਸਿੰਘ ਰਖਣਾ॥
Meeting 5 SIkhs ( panj Pyaarey) one is to take Amrit and become a Singh
of the GUru. One is to follow the teachings of coduct, recite the Gurus Mantra,
and keep arms. They are too keep the name Singh.
- BHai Chaupa SIngh Ji

ਸਿੰਘਨ ਪੰਥ ਕਬ ਲੁਕ ਛਿਪ ਹੋਯੋ, ਸਿੰਘਨ ਪੰਥੂ ਕਬ ਲੁਕੈ ਲੁਕੌਯੋ।
ਸਿੰਘਨ ਪੰਥ ਜੁੱਧ ਕੋ ਭਇਓ, ਸਿੰਘਨ ਜਨਮ ਸੰਗ ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰਨ ਲਇਓ॥੭॥
ਸਿੰਘਨ ਪਾਹੁਲ ਖੰਡੇ ਕੀ ਦਈ, ਸਿੰਘਨ ਗੁੜਤੀ ਖੰਡੇ ਕੀ ਲਈ।
ਸਿਰ ਪਰ ਚੱਕਰ ਕਰਦੈ ਧਾਰੈ, ਕਦ ਵਹ ਲੁਕੈਂ ਜਿਮ ਸ਼ੇਰ ਨਖ ਵਾਰੈ॥੮॥
ਪੰਥ ਰਚਯੋ ਇਮ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪੂਰੇ, ਜੱਧੇ ਖਾਤਰ ਕਰਨ ਜਰੂਰੇ।
ਬਿਨ ਜੁੱਧੈ ਕਬ ਪਯਤ ਪਤਿਸ਼ਾਹੀ, ਆਦਿ ਜੁੱਧੈ ਬਿਧ ਗੁਰੂ ਉਠਾਈ॥੯॥
The Panth of Singhs was not born in seclusion nor can the panth of Singhs ever be in seclusion.
The panth of Singhs was created for warfare , since their birth ( Amrit Sanchar) Singhs have been born weapons.
The Singhs give initiation through the double-edged sword, and the Singhs recieve Amrit as their first substance.
Singhs openly wear the chakras, and a sword on their head ( dastar) . So how can these ShasterDhari Singhs hide their weapons the way a Lion hide his claws in the jungle.
The True Guru created the panth for the purpose of wear, because without war nobody will offer sovereignty. From the very beginning of Sikhi the Guru came to invoke war.
- Sri GUru Granth Parkaash

It is self evident from these verses that whomever takes Amrit is a Singh, and a Singh bares arms for the purpose of gaining sovereignty from the oppressor. Next we are going to say women should not bare arms as arms are meant only for male Gursikhs.

I think the writings you are referring to of Bhai Sahib is somewhere on the net. I think it is a conversation between two fictional women characters where one women convinces the other women why its important to wear dastar. In this conversation, Bhai Sahib highlights some GUrmat principles like equality, faith, etc. Im not good at searching for things on the internet so sorry I cant help you find it.

WJKK WJKF

I think it' about time there was a thread solely related to interpetations of Bhai Sahib's writings- there is a clear confusion on this within the jatha on many points.

Like I've mentioned before, Gurbani uses many words interchangeably when discussing both genders. This however is not the general way we speak. We don't call a group of Sikhs "Singhs", if there are females present. We can call them a group of Gurmukhs/Gursikhs. Why even bother using a word, whether someone's offended or not? It's a masculine word when used in general conversation. Gurbani is different, and we cannot use that as a means to prove this point.

Also, as I mentioned before, in Gurbani we are all called to be as "jeev instree". This is a general term used in Gurbani, and it's used for both men and women. Likewise, the word Singh, when used in Gurbani, is interchangeable between men and women.

I think the confusion here is that some are talking about the words written in Gurbani, while other's are talking about those same words used in a general conversation. This makes a different, depending on which issue your talking about.

Words such as Singh can be used for both men and women in GURBANI. However, it doesn't make sense to use the word Singh when referring to Bibian.

Vaaheguru Jee Kaa Khalsaa Vaaheguru Jee Kee Fatehh!

I think the confusion here is that some are talking about the words written in Gurbani, while other's are talking about those same words used in a general conversation. This makes a different, depending on which issue your talking about.

Kaur4 is right to say like that as quoted above. We are unnecessarily trying to prove that Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Ji when said Singhs definitely also meant Singhnis as well. The context of the subject discussed by Bhai Sahib in that writing, is not as to mean both genders.

Kaur4 also wanted to be sure whether Kaur means prince or princess. Yes Bhein Ji, it is for prince not princess. Its use is similar to that as a father sometimes calls his daughter as BETA. The beauty of this KAUR word used by GURU GOBIND SINGH SAHIB Ji, is in using it to mean PRINCE not to mean as princess.

Quote

think the confusion here is that some are talking about the words written in Gurbani, while other's are talking about those same words used in a general conversation. This makes a different, depending on which issue your talking about.

Kaur4 is right to say like that as quoted above. We are unnecessarily trying to prove that Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Ji when said Singhs definitely also meant Singhnis as well. The context of the subject discussed by Bhai Sahib in that writing, is not as to mean both genders.

when i said i dont agree with this post in my first post....was b/c i didnt agree with how sukhdeep singh was using gurbani and rehatnama to refer to what Pooran Bram Giani Bhai Randhir Singh Jee was saying.

In gurbani, the shabad par triya roop is used interchanglebly for men and women.
Just like dekh parayeeeaa chungeeeya mava paina teeya jaina is not only meant for singhs but also for bibian

or par triya roop na paykai naytar is not only meant for men but also for women

So as Bhai Sahib MB singh has stated above is correct that what Bhai Randhir Singh has written as qouted by pyassi chatrik in the thread that was closed, cannot be used interchangebly as in gurbani

There was an earlier post by kaur4 bhainji clarifying that she is not a feminist.

Feminism means advocacy for the equality of women, and the end to discrimination against women.

If you are a Sikh, you are a feminist.

Yes, I'm a Feminist, if it means someone wanting to end discrimination against women. However, today, this does not happen to be the case. There are many Feminists out there that have taken advantage of this, and have been outrageously asking for ridiculous things.

One instance that I can remember from the top of my head is from the past year. A group of Feminists "announced" in a University that if men were allowed to walk around without shirts on, then they should also be allowed to expose themselves publicly. I'm not sure of all the complete details, but it was something like that. Now, this group of Feminists took advantage of "Feminism" and took it to the next level, ridiculing themselves publicly, along with all other Feminists.

Now that's not appropriate.

I was a Feminist until this group started to take advantage and taking this to an entire new level. Feminism isn't exactly what it first started out to be. THey don't have the same purpose, although they are linked. Feminists today seem to take everything to the extremes, and that doesn't go in accordance with Sikhi.

Vaaheguru Jee Kaa Khalsaa Vaaheguru Jee Kee Fatehh!

bhai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> think the confusion here is that some are talking
> about the words written in Gurbani, while other's
> are talking about those same words used in a
> general conversation. This makes a different,
> depending on which issue your talking about.
>
> Kaur4 is right to say like that as quoted above.
> We are unnecessarily trying to prove that Bhai
> Sahib Randhir Singh Ji when said Singhs definitely
> also meant Singhnis as well. The context of the
> subject discussed by Bhai Sahib in that writing,
> is not as to mean both genders.
>
>
>
> when i said i dont agree with this post in my
> first post....was b/c i didnt agree with how
> sukhdeep singh was using gurbani and rehatnama to
> refer to what Pooran Bram Giani Bhai Randhir Singh
> Jee was saying.
>
> In gurbani, the shabad par triya roop is used
> interchanglebly for men and women.
> Just like dekh parayeeeaa chungeeeya mava paina
> teeya jaina is not only meant for singhs but also
> for bibian
>
> or par triya roop na paykai naytar is not only
> meant for men but also for women
>
> So as Bhai Sahib MB singh has stated above is
> correct that what Bhai Randhir Singh has written
> as qouted by pyassi chatrik in the thread that was
> closed, cannot be used interchangebly as in
> gurbani



Singho, If this is the case can you explain to me the follow quote of Bhai Randhir Singh Ji

" ਜੋ ਪੂਰਨ ਧਰਮੀ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ-ਧਾਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਕਾ ਆਗਿਆਕਾਰੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੁਜਾਨ ਹੋਵੈ ਸੋ ਕਰੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਕੇ

ਲੰਗਰ ਦੀ ਸੇਵਾ "

If there is complete dharmic Bibekee Singhs who obey Gurus orders the he can do Langar seva.


Go to any Smagam or Akhand Kirtan program and you will see BIbia doing Langar seva. God forbid only Singhs can do langar seva! hahaa

Sant ji on this discussion

[www.youtube.com]

Regarding feminism, I think what kaurs4 jee might be trying to say is that the feminists of today have gone away from the textbook definition of feminism which simmal tree jee has shared with us, and have now-a-days turned into female supremacists, i.e. women are better than men, and generally hating men which is not right either. Or that we should say "humankind", "person-hole cover", "person overboard" etc etc.

It doesn't make sense to me, that in one section of their writings Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Jee would use the word "Singh" or "Singhs" to mean both male Singhs and female Kaurs and in another section for "Singh" to mean only male "Singh" and not female "Kaur. Challo. I don't know.

The video of Baba Bhindravale was refreshing to watch, it's hard to argue with them. Even within the different Jathas there is debate on this, so without turning this into a debate from the closed thread which has been done before so many times online we should just like Bhai Kulbir Singh Jee says agree to disagree on this one regarding the Panj Pyare, but other things please feel free to discuss.

I didn't say that people don't talk like. From the lines Sukhdeep Singh veerji has posted, it's clear that Bhai Sahib sometimes used the word "Singh" to refer to both gender. What I've been saying is that this doesn't seem right, and most seem to agree. In general conversation it's not right. In Gurbani, however, such words can be used because it's written by Guru Sahib, and everything written isn't to be taken in the literal sense.

Vaaheguru Jee Kaa Khalsaa Vaaheguru Jee Kee Fatehh!