Is It Compulsory For A Amritdhari Singh To Marry An Amritdhari Kaur? | Page 2 | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Is It Compulsory For A Amritdhari Singh To Marry An Amritdhari Kaur?

Mai Harinder Kaur

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Oct 6, 2006
1,755
2,732
67
British Columbia, Canada
The SRM says only ( CHAPTER XI, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article XVIII)[/FONT]:

"
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]q. A baptised ought to get his wife also baptised.."

A simple statement which is very confusing to my already confused mind. It says "ought to" not "must." In English, I think there is a difference in meaning. Also, it assumes that the "baptised" is the male. Of course that is not always the case.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]IMO, the SRM needs some serious revision and clarification. At the same time, I would hate to see Sikhi become a legalistic religion.[/FONT] Of course, the rules will alweays be more strict for the Khalsa than for those who have not yet been blessed with Amrit.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
In the event that one of the pair is not Amritdhari, the Gurmat Rehat Maryada (Damdami) is explicit. They can get married, but cannot have sexual relations.
[/FONT]
 

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jul 4, 2004
7,662
14,277
70
KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
The SRM says only ( CHAPTER XI, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article XVIII)[/FONT]:

"
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]q. A baptised ought to get his wife also baptised.."

A simple statement which is very confusing to my already confused mind. It says "ought to" not "must." In English, I think there is a difference in meaning. Also, it assumes that the "baptised" is the male. Of course that is not always the case.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]IMO, the SRM needs some serious revision and clarification. At the same time, I would hate to see Sikhi become a legalistic religion.[/FONT] Of course, the rules will alweays be more strict for the Khalsa than for those who have not yet been blessed with Amrit.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
In the event that one of the pair is not Amritdhari, the Gurmat Rehat Maryada (Damdami) is explicit. They can get married, but cannot have sexual relations.
[/FONT]
The SRM was drafted by those whose English was obvioulsy a Second Langauge..hence these ambigious words...

1. But take it this way....the MALE is no doubt always mentioned....but the inherent meaning can always be inferred to mean BOTH SEXES. Now a days there is a wee bit too much "liberalism"...too many smarty pants types dissect and surgically operate on word by word..looking for "flaws"....so they object to the Creator-EK Oankaar beign called God..Lord..HE...etc etc. IF the drafters of the SRM were to write "Male" (female as well)...EK Oankaar (also God, He, Lord etc etc) in each instance..the Document will become seven times its size..and soem finicky person will still find fault with soemthing else...becasue its the SPIRIT and not the LETTER thta is important.

2. Secondly the SRM drafters were obvioully PUNJABI ORIGIN..so they operated in a Punjabi Enviornment..their language, their vocabulary, inferences etc are based on PUNJABIAT....and in Punjabi environment many things seem different to one from a Solid Yorkshire background..a German Background or to a RedIndian person ( sorry...Native American !!) Punjabiat is male centric..

3. Take the SGGS as an example..in this context..the ONE and ONLY "MALE" person is The Creator- EK Oankaar !! ALL others are FEMALE/wives/sisters/mothers..whatever.. and Gurbani is GENDERLESS when it delcares..TU Mera PITA (Father) TU Mera MATA (Mother) Tu mera Bharata..Tu mera Rakaah sabhni thaiin....He is Mother/father/Brother/everything in ONE....so SIKH SRM need not worry about "male" female etc vocabulary...

4. The Damdami taksaal Maryada on.."can marry..but no sex.." is akin to what we see in shops..SEE no TOUCH !!
This is a LUDICROUS proposition..whats the POINT of getting married if children are not to be produced ??? Isnt this a Blackmail way of forcing a person to chhak Pahul ??

5. The word "OUGHT" and not "MUST" in the SRM is 100% Correct. Acording to Gurmatt..a perosn cannot eb FORCED into Amrtidharee status..it has got to eb VOLUNTARY !! Thus ought is correct interpretation..of Gurmatt ideals.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Featured post

This shabad is by Guru Nanak Dev ji, and is found on Ang 1331 of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. Some of the key words have been translated for you, but you may have a better translation. Some words...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top