In modern times, women have been conditioned – via systematic, psychological, cultural, emotional and domestic intimidation – to adopt male traits in their attitude, demeanour and behaviour. When this abnormal mentality pervades, it results in catatonic dogma, lack of generosity, questionable moral boundaries, and disenchantment with nature and living things. The only thing then left to differentiate between male and female are coarse voice, hairiness and testicles.
So, when women come into power mimicking, albeit ambivalently, male behaviour, modus operandi, and attitudes, they ought not to be regarded as feminist icons or role models. I do not recall Mrs. Golda Meir, the female Israeli Prime Minister, ever behaving like a man or losing her womanhood during office. By contrast, Mrs. Thatcher, and other women in public positions of absolute power have regularly degraded femininity, replacing it with pseudo-male attitudes and attributes, wrapped in a female guise.
One example of male mimicry is that which has crept into orthodox Sikhs living in the west. Sikh women are donning the turban in order to signify that they are not merely Sikh, but are Khalsa. Their reference point for doing so is a line falsely attributed to Guru Gobind Singhji, the tenth Sikh Guruji. The line indicates that a male Sikh who wears a small loose head covering is indeed not only a Sikh but one who is also ordained into the Khalsa (even if he trims his facial hair). A cult movement has developed around this in which Sikh women are encouraged – and feel emboldened – to wear the turban.
But a few things need to be considered before we respond to this demonstration of so-called equality with jubilance. The line was anonymously written, and corresponds closely to the ethos, themes, intellectual values, slogans and influence found in Hinduism and Islam. Furthermore, it occurs in a text which also details how to participate in bestiality and group sex – both antithetical to Sikh behaviour. Still further, the line and the text from which it is drawn, was composed in the late 1800s, almost a century after the demise of the tenth Guruji to whom it is attributed. Indeed, it differs clearly from the writing style, language, and sentence construction of Guru Granthsahibji which is worshipped in every Gurdwara across the world. Lastly, the line makes reference merely to a head covering, not to a turban specifically.
The movement amongst Sikh women to don the turban is the outcome of a line – barely understood and certainly not in context – that has been appropriated by a group of Sikhs who insist it is a diktat from the tenth Guruji. If the line were to be read in the context of the volume in which it appears, then these Sikhs are condoning – proactively supporting – anti-Sikh behaviours like bestiality, group sex, using subordinates’ wives for sexual gratification, Tantric and mantric meditation, and kundalini yoga. These are all distinctly un-Sikhlike.
In thus donning the turban, Sikh women are mimicking men, denigrating womanhood, and contravening Sikh ethos.
The thing is, Sikh women are brought up to not shirk responsibility. They are not brought up to mimic male behaviour, or to dress as if they were entering hand-to-hand combat.
Hinduism and Islam subdue their womenfolk as if they had the minds and intelligence of pre-pubescent children; while in race-European Christendom, (as opposed to Christianity practiced in other races), womenfolk are desperately trying to mimic male behaviour, as if such behaviour is the sole source of their worth.
How has this come about?
Semitic cultural beliefs, followed by the psychic development of mainland Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire, have all cemented the subjugation of British womanhood.
According to Semitic belief, Eve was created from the rib of Adam, though quite how this happened it is a loss to explain. The notion of a woman coming from a man’s rib is at least better than Hindu beliefs that a woman’s worth is equivalent to that of the sole of a Hindu man’s shoes. Granted, Hinduism does not state explicitly where a woman comes from, but she is valueless nevertheless, apart from any value the man in charge of her life gives her. Indeed, if she bears only daughters she can be killed, and another woman brought to provide her husband with a son.
Only in Sikhism is there a written statement, by the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanakdevji, that man would never exist if it were not for a woman. In a further metaphor-laden statement it is indicated that a woman can birth to a child without semen. Thus, in Sikhism, from the level I read and decipher it, it is clear that without woman-hood nature would cease to exist.
If woman-hood is the core catalyst sustaining life on earth, then why in relative terms is she accorded second-class status in society compared to men?
Male Semitic commentators maintain that Eve, beguiled by a serpent, enticed Adam with the apple. Adam ate the apple and fell from grace. Thus, from my reading, he remained a demigod, but a flawed one.
Semitic belief from this point then begins its fascination with demigods.
In Vedic scriptures demigods are full of wrath, exhibiting the nine negative emotional and mental attributes that restrict inner awakening. Persian, Egyptian, Greek and then Roman cultures mirror these Vedic concepts closely. Their demigods have exactly the same demeanors, attitudes, and vulnerabilities. But these are demigod character traits as narrated by humans.
The question arises: If demigods posses human traits, qualities and fragilities are they really demigods at all? No. They are you. They are the product of the narrator’s desire for admiration and adulation from his peers, as if the narrator himself was a demigod. It is a point often overlooked.
The demigods of the Semitic story are thus a human construction. The storyteller is human and makes things up to fit his own needs and foibles. In the Adam and Eve story, the storyteller justifies his desire and constant need for sex. He places the burden of blame for his own calculating, uncontrollable sexual appetite, on Eve. Eve becomes the first sexual predator of western world consciousness.
Genuine demigods are so because they have transcended the human confinement that restricts personal awakening and growth. A demigod has no concept of aggression, domination, and subjugation. Nor, in the demigod world do concepts such as air, water, food, clothing, sex and toilet exist. Therefore, a demigod cannot be duped into consuming physical food, which in the realm of demigods does not even physically exist, there being no need to eat or drink.
In the domain of the demigod there is also the capacity to merge back into the Akaal – a concept only found in Sikhism, in Guru Granthsahibji.
Creation, regardless how you perceive it, was the result of either an implosion or explosion. From the Akaal separated a particle of Akaal. The following is the first time the concept has been shared publicly, albeit it is written figuratively in the Sikh’s Guru Granthsahibji. For the particle to separate from the Akaal there had to have been duality (though this does not correspond to our sense of type of duality).
The separated particle had no shape, image, or presence in our sense. But as it lost its Akaal state its profile changed. It underwent several monumental stages of metamorphosis, before it coagulated (expanded) into a state that is now accepted as the condition for pre-atom formation. Eventually it expanded to become the molasses we see as the unseen and un-registerable presence, or light to use another word. Thereafter, upon further decay, it turned into what is called the unstruck melody; and upon yet further decay, matter started to form. Eventually, the universe as we know it was formed.
The separated particle, and its attempts to be reabsorbed back into the Akaal is what the story of Adam, Eve, the snake and the apple is all about.
Eve represents the separated particle and thus the primary governing energy of creation; and in relative terms to the main body it is feminine. Adam represents coagulated matter, the lower order brought into existence by Eve (the Akaal particle); and is the male energy to Eve’s female energy. The snake represents unevolved knowledge, thought and will that purports to be guiding wisdom. In older depictions, the snake is twin-bodied but emanates from one root.
The apple represents a combination of false realities. The fibrous part is Maya – nourishing, mesmerising, and enticing. Encased within it is the seed, the pip. One must consciously enter the pip and, via its inner connection, travel through the inside of its branches and make one’s way down to the trunk, and from there into the root system. At that juncture, the nourishing aspect has to be understood, until one becomes minute enough to enter this element. Being so minute, you have presence but no shape. Remember, any given cell structure has seventy thousand working parts. One has to become small enough that the constituent parts of an atom are huge in comparison. One has to become the holding mechanism that gives integrity to the smallest known component, and endeavour to become smaller still. You must become nothing. Your ultimate goal is to become the escaped particle that merges back into the Akaal…and Akaal is everywhere.
If a woman had explained story of Adam, Eve, the serpent, and the apple, then it might have gone something like this: The two-bodied, two-headed serpent, representing change and choice made Eve realise that, having separated from Akaal, she had to negotiate Maya (the road-map) differently. Maya required that Self-matter had to be sustained somehow, and matter had to be used to do so. Thus, consuming that which would sustain the Self-matter became critical to building pathways towards realignment with Akaal.
This possible female perspective contains none of the sexual fantasy elements of the male telling, and instead deals pragmatically with the situation at hand. By recasting the story of Adam and Eve through different frames, we can see how ideas take hold and deny legitimate expression of the placid reality of genders, communities, and races.
Currently in the western world, women who pursue and eventually reach the heights of their profession seldom do so on the merit of their female worldview; rather they do so by mimicking male aggression and male worldview. Simply mimicking narrow male attributes such as dominance, pride, ego, rudeness etc., does not embed a woman’s sense of how to evolve a business or institution. One might as well employ a transvestite and lay claim to gender equality.
There is no such thing as equality. Dignity – yes. Equality – no.
Exactly how a man can claim equality with a woman who gives birth to life is beyond me! It is not, and never has been equality, but dignity, that should be the core of gender identity, racial respect, and self-worth. Equality is an idiocy dreamt up by Anglo-Saxon, or race-European, men sitting around with a drink in hand, passing the time of the day. Just like the idea of lying flat on a bed to deliver a baby was dreamt up by male doctors who knew better than a mother how she needed to contort her body to best counter labour pains and give birth.
Gender and race equality are as dumb as accepting that machines should replace humans at work, rendering them worthless and valueless simply because a handful of greedy industrialists seek ever-increasing profits over their duty of care to their fellow humans.
A female should bring into her profession feminine senses and sensibilities, and she should be promoted according to her ability to balance productivity and results, (where, productivity and profit are different from the narrow, blinkered, Anglo-Saxon male version).