Charitropakhyan Charitar No 19 - The Tale Of Nadira Bano

[Kully]

The 19th Charitrar

I used this Charitrar (thankfully it comes early in the text, even though in my own personal look at the Charitropkhyan, I have not made it this far.) first because I wanted to look at it, as it was clearly troubling not only the members of this forum, but also an admin.

The problem when we look at and use only one source to try and decipher or understand didactic texts, we limit ourselves to the same understanding as the person doing the translation. Their strengths/weakness become our strength/weakness. I had a look at Bindra’s book, which is being widely quoted in the posts on this forum, and I feel sorry for anyone who paid any money for it. Thankfully I didn’t.

Bindra has done a simple translation, a literal translation, and in at least one point in this story he has committed a great error in translating the conversation between husband and wife, as a set of directives from husband to wife. This throws the whole story out, and it was apparent from the following lines that this was a conversation between the husband and wife, with the wife speaking. It absolutely was not a set of directives from a husband to his wife.

Now the problem here is when people who understand the original text, place all their trust on the translated version, especially in English.

Try and read the text in original Gurmukhi and you may learn more.

I have bolded the main text in translation. Smaller text is there to help understand.

The 19th Charitrar - The narration of Nadra Bano

Chaupai

The King had his son returned to prison.
At dawn the son was recalled to hispresence
The Minister again narrated a story
To dispel the doubts of the King (1)

Dohra

There was a woman who lived in Shahjahanabad
Please listen to the act she carried out O King (2)

Chaupai

Her name was Nadra Bano
She was known throughout the world for her unparalleled beauty
Her splendour exceeded all women (this line is missing from Bindra’s work)
No one compared to her beauty (3)

Dohra

The Mughal (her husband) would be at home day and night but would also go to other places (here the inference is that these places were not fit for him to visit)
And kept the company of other females without letting his wife have any suspicions (4)

Here you have to ask, why if the Mughal’s wife is so beautiful, why does the Mughal seek the company of other women? To me it seems like the writer is comparing it to the story behind the CharitroPakhyan. The King in the original story is very powerful, wealthy and also a ruler. But these qualities did not interest the young Queen. In the same way, the wife’s beauty did not interest the Mughal.

The woman finding out her husband has been in the company of other women was very angry
She called a young man, a trader’s son to her house with the purpose of friendship (5)
(here the inference is to an illegal friendship – an affair)

So the wife now knowing about her husband’s infidelity has revenge on her mind. Just like the young Queen had revenge on her mind

One day she explained to the boy, the whole reason
That being scared of her husband, she has put the trader’s son up in her own son’s house (6)

The Mughal’s wife knows she can’t be blatant with her revenge so goes about doing it under the veil of deceit. Again this resonates in the original story with the actions of the young Queen.

(Later at night)

Her husband was asleep, she was awake, and she woke her husband up
She wanted permission to go, to be with the trader’s son (7)

(She said to her husband)

If a woman is awake besides her sleeping husband even on hearing that an enemy
(inference here is to any male other than her husband) has entered the house

Even if he were a close friend of her husband, their bond of love (wife and husband) would be broken (basically saying that the circumstances would be suspicious.) (8)

Arril

(The wife says to her husband: )

“The husband should be fed first and only then his wife should eat
A wife should not go to urinate without asking her husband’s permission
Whatever the husband says should be accepted without hesitation
And his wishes complied without question” (9)

(This is the verse that some think it is an order by men for women, but the actual verse is spoken by the woman, not the man. The wife is saying that she does nothing at all without her husband’s permission, not even basic things like eating or going to the toilet. Feeding yourself and going to the toilet are two of the most basic human daily acts. She is giving the impression to her husband that she is totally under her husband’s control.)


Dohra

(The wife says: )

“Without my beloveds permission I won’t even go to urinate
Not matter what difficulties I may face, I will follow my beloveds’ order” (10)

Hearing the words of his wife the foolish Mughal gave her permission (to leave the house)
Hearing the sweet musical devoted words of his wife, the Mughal was pleased, not realising her deceit (11)

In this conversation the wife played to her husband’s feeling of ahankar-pride by believing himself to have such an obedient wife. The King is totally oblivious to the Queen’s intentions, as he has been drawn in by her words, which the author has used the word “bain” for. Bain means a melody which is used to captivate the human mind. This again mirrors the original story where the King is afflicted by his kaam-lust and moh-attachment for the Queen.

Hearing the words of her husband, the woman left with his permission
The woman was elated and went to the trader’s son with great joy (12)

Even if unlimited difficulties were upon a person
Wise men do not let on their secrets to women. (13)

These two are the finishing lines to the story. Here what is interesting to me, is that the author writes “wise men” rather than just men. If the author wanted to mean that “men” only should keep their secrets from women, he would have written just “men” but instead writes “wise men”. To me this is not as straightforward as written. The “wise “here is referring to “Bibek Buddhi”. Remember this is the Minister (representing Bibek Buddhi) speaking to the King ( representing the 5 vices). Who is the “istriyan” in the shabad? It’s “Maya”. The deeper meaning to this line is that “Bibek Buddhi should keep the 5 vices under control in or to ward off the effect of Maya.”

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

The 19th Charitrar

I used this Charitrar (thankfully it comes early in the text, even though in my own personal look at the Charitropkhyan, I have not made it this far.) first because I wanted to look at it, as it was clearly troubling not only the members of this forum, but also an admin.

The problem when we look at and use only one source to try and decipher or understand didactic texts, we limit ourselves to the same understanding as the person doing the translation. Their strengths/weakness become our strength/weakness. I had a look at Bindra’s book, which is being widely quoted in the posts on this forum, and I feel sorry for anyone who paid any money for it. Thankfully I didn’t.



Bindra has done a simple translation, a literal translation, and in at least one point in this story he has committed a great error in translating the conversation between husband and wife, as a set of directives from husband to wife. This throws the whole story out, and it was apparent from the following lines that this was a conversation between the husband and wife, with the wife speaking. It absolutely was not a set of directives from a husband to his wife.

Now the problem here is when people who understand the original text, place all their trust on the translated version, especially in English.

Try and read the text in original Gurmukhi and you may learn more.



I have bolded the main text in translation. Smaller text is there to help understand.



The 19th Charitrar


The narration of Nadra Bano





Chaupai





The King had his son returned to prison.


At dawn the son was recalled to hispresence


The Minister again narrated a story


To dispel the doubts of the King (1)





Dohra


There was a woman who lived in Shahjahanabad


Please listen to the act she carried out O King (2)





Chaupai





Her name was Nadra Bano


She was known throughout the world for her unparalleled beauty


Her splendour exceeded all women (this line is missing from Bindra’s work)


No one compared to her beauty (3)





Dohra


The Mughal (her husband) would be at home day and night but would also go to other places (here the inference is that these places were not fit for him to visit)

And kept the company of other females without letting his wife have any suspicions (4)

Here you have to ask, why if the Mughal’s wife is so beautiful, why does the Mughal seek the company of other women? To me it seems like the writer is comparing it to the story behind the CharitroPakhyan. The King in the original story is very powerful, wealthy and also a ruler. But these qualities did not interest the young Queen. In the same way, the wife’s beauty did not interest the Mughal.



The woman finding out her husband has been in the company of other women was very angry


She called a young man, a trader’s son to her house with the purpose of friendship (5) (here the inference is to an illegal friendship – an affair)


So the wife now knowing about her husband’s infidelity has revenge on her mind. Just like the young Queen had revenge on her mind

One day she explained to the boy, the whole reason


That being scared of her husband, she has put the trader’s son up in her own son’s house (6)

The Mughal’s wife knows she can’t be blatant with her revenge so goes about doing it under the veil of deceit. Again this resonates in the original story with the actions of the young Queen.





(Later at night)

Her husband was asleep, she was awake, and she woke her husband up


She wanted permission to go, to be with the trader’s son (7)

(She said to her husband)

If a woman is awake besides her sleeping husband even on hearing that an enemy (inference here is to any male other than her husband) has entered the house

Even if he were a close friend of her husband, their bond of love (wife and husband) would be broken (basically saying that the circumstances would be suspicious.) (8)



Arril

(The wife says to her husband: )

“The husband should be fed first and only then his wife should eat


A wife should not go to urinate without asking her husband’s permission


Whatever the husband says should be accepted without hesitation


And his wishes complied without question” (9)



(This is the verse that some think it is an order by men for women, but the actual verse is spoken by the woman, not the man. The wife is saying that she does nothing at all without her husband’s permission, not even basic things like eating or going to the toilet. Feeding yourself and going to the toilet are two of the most basic human daily acts. She is giving the impression to her husband that she is totally under her husband’s control.)


Dohra

(The wife says: )

“Without my beloveds permission I won’t even go to urinate


Not matter what difficulties I may face, I will follow my beloveds’ order” (10)



Hearing the words of his wife the foolish Mughal gave her permission (to leave the house)


Hearing the sweet musical devoted words of his wife, the Mughal was pleased, not realising her deceit (11)

In this conversation the wife played to her husband’s feeling of ahankar-pride by believing himself to have such an obedient wife. The King is totally oblivious to the Queen’s intentions, as he has been drawn in by her words, which the author has used the word “bain” for. Bain means a melody which is used to captivate the human mind. This again mirrors the original story where the King is afflicted by his kaam-lust and moh-attachment for the Queen.

Hearing the words of her husband, the woman left with his permission


The woman was elated and went to the trader’s son with great joy (12)





Even if unlimited difficulties were upon a person


Wise men do not let on their secrets to women. (13)



These two are the finishing lines to the story. Here what is interesting to me, is that the author writes “wise men” rather than just men. If the author wanted to mean that “men” only should keep their secrets from women, he would have written just “men” but instead writes “wise men”. To me this is not as straightforward as written. The “wise “here is referring to “Bibek Buddhi”. Remember this is the Minister (representing Bibek Buddhi) speaking to the King ( representing the 5 vices). Who is the “istriyan” in the shabad? It’s “Maya”. The deeper meaning to this line is that “Bibek Buddhi should keep the 5 vices under control in or to ward off the effect of Maya.”

Please show us where it is written in DG that the Minister represents Bibek Buddhi and that the King represents the 5 vices.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Also this is the meaning you assume is behind the story. (In your interpretation):

The “wise “here is referring to “Bibek Buddhi”. Remember this is the Minister (representing Bibek Buddhi) speaking to the King ( representing the 5 vices). Who is the “istriyan” in the shabad? It’s “Maya”. The deeper meaning to this line is that “Bibek Buddhi should keep the 5 vices under control in or to ward off the effect of Maya.”


Tell me, is this same message not found already in SGGSJ our ONLY Guru?

Why it would need to be represented again -- especially in this obscure manner?

 

[Admin]

@Kully ji, why not start from Charitar # 1? And then move on, to keep a continuity and also, it would be prudent to post the original text as-is and then your English version word by word and line by line, so that we can understand the methodology & analogy of usage of words used in Original script to your English interpretation.

Something like this:

Original Script: Goes here (DG Page Number)
Punjabi: ਨਮਸਕਾਰ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਖੜਗ ਕੋ ਕਰੋਂ ਸੁ ਹਿਤੁ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇ ॥
Roman: Namasakaar Sree Kharhaga Ko Karoaaʼn Su Hitu Chitu Laaei ॥
Literal: I salute the Glorious SWORD with all my heart’s affection.
Your Interpretation: Goes here.
Moral of the Tale: Goes here.

I am struggling to find the original script of charitropakhan online in pdf format. Please share with us the source for a ready reference.

Thank you

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Regardless of who said what, and whatever connotation you try to put on it, even if it's just using it as symbolism and not literal it's still presenting the idea that requirement of a wife being obedient to her husband is a good thing. Even if it's just used as a comparison it's still suggesting this otherwise the metaphor you are trying to create out of it doesn't work. And suggesting that a wife is subordinate to a husband such that she needs to emphasize to him that she is a good little obedient puppy, is wrong. Using it as metaphor in the way you have suggested still suggests that women are subordinate to men and are expected to 'obey' while men dictate. Guru Ji would never have inferred that as he treated men and women as equals.

 

[Harry Haller]

Even if unlimited difficulties were upon a person
Wise men do not let on their secrets to women. (13)

These two are the finishing lines to the story. Here what is interesting to me, is that the author writes “wise men” rather than just men. If the author wanted to mean that “men” only should keep their secrets from women, he would have written just “men” but instead writes “wise men”. To me this is not as straightforward as written. The “wise “here is referring to “Bibek Buddhi”. Remember this is the Minister (representing Bibek Buddhi) speaking to the King ( representing the 5 vices). Who is the “istriyan” in the shabad? It’s “Maya”. The deeper meaning to this line is that “Bibek Buddhi should keep the 5 vices under control in or to ward off the effect of Maya.”

Wise men do not let on their secrets to anyone, regardless of sex, in any case, Men are quite capable of being nice to other men in order to deceive them.

 

[Harry Haller]

Her name was Nadra Bano
She was known throughout the world for her unparalleled beauty
Her splendour exceeded all women (this line is missing from Bindra’s work)
No one compared to her beauty (3)

To see real beauty, one looks inward, to be dazzled only by physical beauty, is in itself an indication of wisdom, or lack of.

Here you have to ask, why if the Mughal’s wife is so beautiful, why does the Mughal seek the company of other women? To me it seems like the writer is comparing it to the story behind the CharitroPakhyan. The King in the original story is very powerful, wealthy and also a ruler. But these qualities did not interest the young Queen. In the same way, the wife’s beauty did not interest the Mughal.

maybe she is a {censored}, since when did anyone stay with anyone just out of physical looks? In any case who is actually interested in 'beautiful' women? I know I am not, I prefer real women who can hold a conversation, who are known for intelligence or wit, not to say beautiful women cannot, but if a woman's only asset is her beauty, I would probably not be interested. According to pornhub, the most common search term for porn is shown in this link These Are the Most Popular Porn Searches in Every U.S. State, no mention of beauty..., this story only therefore works if the reader is someone who wants a beautiful woman, because only then will he get the hidden message. Also, given that women are equal in Sikhism, forget the content for a while, but what can women learn from this story? How does your explanation cross over to women readers?

Hearing the words of his wife the foolish Mughal gave her permission (to leave the house)

if my wife said this, I would have to be a complete imbecile not to see what was going on, it i, I wonder what Mai Bhago would make of it, I wonder if she would read it and think, blimey, didn't know that!

The deeper meaning to this line is that “Bibek Buddhi should keep the 5 vices under control in or to ward off the effect of Maya.”

that is not a deeper meaning, it is common sense, and it is made in way that is less offensive and easier to understand in the SGGS.

Tell me @Kully ji, given your explanation, do you think there is anything that women can learn from the DG? and if so, what?, How can you learn when it is your sex that is illustrating the wrong facets of life?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Don't forget that emphasizing a woman's beauty as a reason for one to stay with a woman (or conversely, emphasizing surprise at why he would leave such a beautiful thing) only serves to reduce women to objects. So far I have gotten from this story that:

Women are objects owned by men, valued only for their beauty, who are subordinate to their husbands, and where an 'obedient' mindless wife who has no will of her own is the perfect wife that men desire.

(See hubby dearest, I am sooooo obedient to you that means I am the perfect wife... you get the idea)

In order for metaphor to work, there must be an already understood meaning to draw the metaphor from. This means, according to Kully, Guru Gobind Singh Ji thought women were just objects for men's visual pleasure and to serve men. That women should not have a voice of their own or any authority in marriage, and the perfect idea of a wife is a completely obedient mindless subservient puppy without any free will.

 

[Ishna]

And with that, Sikhi truly joins the ranks of the REAL world religions. *cheering*

 

[Kully]

Please show us where it is written in DG that the Minister represents Bibek Buddhi and that the King represents the 5 vices.

It isn't written. From didactic texts, the onus is on the reader to look into it.

Tell me, is this same message not found already in SGGSJ our ONLY Guru?

Why it would need to be represented again -- especially in this obscure manner?

The message found in the angs 2-1430 is the same message that is found in the Mool Mantar. Wy did Guru's write so much when they could have said just read the Mool Mantar?

The way it is represented is to get the reader to think.

why not start from Charitar # 1?

Because Harkiran Ji, and Ishna Ji were quite upset at the thought of a woman needing her husbands' permission to use the toilet.

and also, it would be prudent to post the original text as-is

Apologies, i do not know how to copy the text from the pdf and post it here.
If anyone can tell me that would be a great help.

I am struggling to find the original script of charitropakhan online in pdf format. Please share with us the source for a ready reference.

Vidhia.com

volume 4 + 5.

Regardless of who said what,

Why is it now "regardless"? Isn't that a little dishonest? You wanted to portray it as men deciding when women are allowed to use the toilet, but not having seen it's not the case, you move to "regardless"?

It's not the first time you have done this either. You try and use sources which you feel that support what you are saying and then drop them when it's apparent your knowledge of them wasn't as good as you thought. Isn't that a little fraudulent?

it's still presenting the idea that requirement of a wife being obedient to her husband is a good thing.

And what would be acheived by a disobedient wife? Surely one of the basis' of a good marriage would be to be obedient to each other. But just because the story doens't cover that, you just jump to conclusions?

Harkiran Ji, you are most welcome to look at the link and translate it yourself.

Wise men do not let on their secrets to anyone, regardless of sex, in any case, Men are quite capable of being nice to other men in order to deceive them.

Absolutely, but if you keep it in the context of the story...

In any case who is actually interested in 'beautiful' women?

There are plenty of men. Look at some the world's rich and famous, who have trophy wives.

this story only therefore works if the reader is someone who wants a beautiful woman,

Not at all. The woman's beauty actually makes not difference to the outcome of the story. It's more to do with being content. A man has a beautiful wife but he is so engrossed in that beauty (maya) that he is overwhelmed by the 5 vices.

if my wife said this, I would have to be a complete imbecile not to see what was going on

Good to see that you are understanding that this text is not as narrowly focused as some are making out.

that is not a deeper meaning, it is common sense,

The meaning is apparent, but the way it is worded is more complex.

Tell me @Kully ji, given your explanation, do you think there is anything that women can learn from the DG? and if so, what?,

Too much to answer. I would say that whatever a man can learn from it, a woman can. But it would a person who understands DG to shed more light on it. Not someone like me who hasn't studied it for long.

How can you learn when it is your sex that is illustrating the wrong facets of life?

Well, you can learn from others' mistakes, isn't that obvious?

In order for metaphor to work, there must be an already understood meaning to draw the metaphor from.

Thatis covered in the stories 2-5. But only if you can see it.

This means, according to Kully,

It doens't matter what I think. What the text says is more important. Read the text. try and understand it. If you can't (and there's no harm i that, there are some texts that I have trouble understanding as well), then maybe it's best to say it isn't for you, and refrain from commenting on it.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

It isn't written. From didactic texts, the onus is on the reader to look into it.

Ah so you admit it is only YOUR interpretation. If the onus is on the reader to come up with their own meaning, then how is your meaning any more 'correct' than anyone else's?

And what would be acheived by a disobedient wife? Surely one of the basis' of a good marriage would be to be obedient to each other.

Marriage is a relationship of equals in Sikhi - as you pointed out husband and wife should take each other's wishes into consideration, but not to the point where individual expression and authority over one's own life is taken away. I wouldn't go as far as using the word obedient because that word implies control. Marriage is not about who is in control, rather its about mutual respect and consideration, while still recognizing that each has their own opinions and needs. There is no hierarchy in marriage, rather they are a team who both have equal input. Neither spouse should suppress the other's personality and light. If either spouse is expecting the other to 'obey' they are not being considerate of the other's needs and wants are they? There is a difference between mutual respect / consideration, and virtual slavery.

This story however, does not present any idea of the husband also being obedient to his wife - at all - and it is very obvious, as she is presenting the idea that she doesn't even urinate without his permission (a symbolism complete loss of individual will to his authority) It's illustrating the idea that the husband is in charge and the wife is expected to obey - and this is presented as the epitome of marriage = husband in charge, wife obedient.

On the other side, there is no talk of him requiring her permission to go urinate (or to do anything else).
This is even more apparent in the story, in the fact that he did not feel the need to reinforce to her that he was being super 'obedient' to her, before going out and cheat on her first. (Remember he was the FIRST one to cheat) And he didn't even ask her permission to go out at all, let alone try to deceive her at how obedient he was did he?

The idea presented is that women are subordinate to their husbands. Husbands are in charge and wives obey. This goes against what the Gurus taught about husband and wife being one soul in two bodies they are THAT equal.

But just because the story doens't cover that, you just jump to conclusions?

The meaning myself and others on here drew from that story are outwardly apparent and literal.
However, the story doesn't cover anything about bibek bhuddi or 5 vices or Maya yet you choose to just jump to those conclusions. You did say the onus is on the reader to come up with their own conclusions - yet you shoot down any conclusions that don't agree with your own? If the onus is on the reader, and Guru Sahib did not leave anything in writing as to how we are supposed to interpret it, then your conclusion is no more right than anyone else's!

Also, why would our Guru write something without explaining it, that speaks to different people in such different ways that they can disagree so greatly in what those conclusions are? Especially when some of those conclusions paint females in a very low light? What would he have hoped to accomplish in that (if indeed he wrote it)?

 

[japjisahib04]

It is pity author of DG and charitropakhian was writing about mythology of Durga,Mahakal and how to demean His most beautiful creation the 'FEMALE'( to tell the truth I feel incomplete without my wife, she is source of inspiration to me) and author totally missed to quote martyerdom of Guru Arjan, His father, four children, the most important khandhai baatai dee pahul,

 

[Kully]

Ah so you admit it is only YOUR interpretation.

That was very apparent from the start though wasn't it?

If the onus is on the reader to come up with their own meaning, then how is your meaning any more 'correct' than anyone else's?

When we look at these kind of texts, we will analyse them according to our own buddhi. You haven't analysed these according to your understanding. You have analysed them according to someone else's understanding ie Bindra (and probably no-one else as you aren't revealing what books you have studied about Charitropakhyan). I have analysed them according to MY own understanding and it is apparent that Bindra has done a very poor job with his book.

I'm not saying that everything I do/say it correct, but the fact is that you and an admin here were deeply troubled by a poorly translated part of Charitrpakhyan. When that was analysed properly, we saw a more "correct" understanding of the story.

So in this case, the translation of the story is more "correct" than Bindra's.

Marriage is a relationship of equals in Sikhi - as you pointed out husband and wife should take each other's wishes into consideration, but not to the point where individual expression and authority over one's own life is taken away. I wouldn't go as far as using the word obedient because that word implies control. Marriage is not about who is in control, rather its about mutual respect and consideration, while still recognizing that each has their own opinions and needs. There is no hierarchy in marriage, rather they are a team who both have equal input. Neither spouse should suppress the other's personality and light. If either spouse is expecting the other to 'obey' they are not being considerate of the other's needs and wants are they? There is a difference between mutual respect / consideration, and virtual slavery.

I am with you on this 100%. Very nicely put.

This story however, does not present any idea of the husband also being obedient to his wife

Of course it doesn't! He was cheating on her.

The idea presented is that women are subordinate to their husbands. Husbands are in charge and wives obey.

That is not the idea. It's very apparent that, that is not the idea being presented at all. As we can see from the story the man was in no way, charge of his wife. Please try and understand what you are reading.

The meaning myself and others on here drew from that story are outwardly apparent and literal.

"Others"? Please let them speak for themselves. The intent is not to focus on the "outward" and "apparent" as I have repeatedly said here. It is to look for the inward and hidden meaning. That is very apparent, otherwise the Minister would not have had to narrate these stories as such. He could have blatantly said to the King, what he was trying to say through the stories.

You did say the onus is on the reader to come up with their own conclusions - yet you shoot down any conclusions that don't agree with your own?

The onus is on the reader, but do yo know how bad I would feel if I knew you were arriving at the wrong conclusions, and I said nothing? That is not what forum are about, it's not what discussions are about.

I'm not shooting down any conclusions either. Wrong translations are wrong translations.

If the onus is on the reader, and Guru Sahib did not leave anything in writing as to how we are supposed to interpret it, then your conclusion is no more right than anyone else's!

Here you go again with your "Guru Sahib has not left anything in writing". Once you start saying this you are trading on very dangerous ground. There are some fundamnetal aspects of Sikhi that are not found in Guru's writings anywhere.

Remember that Guru Sahib never left "Sabh sikhan ko hukam hai guru maneyo granth " in writing. Guru Sahib never left the vidhi for Khande ki pahul, nitnem banis or the 5 K's in writing either. Does that mean that we don't accept these as they are?

Also, why would our Guru write something without explaining it, that speaks to different people in such different ways that they can disagree so greatly in what those conclusions are?

Guru Sahib did explain it to the Sikhs, as per Sikh tradition.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

The onus is on the reader, but do yo know how bad I would feel if I knew you were arriving at the wrong conclusions, and I said nothing? That is not what forum are about, it's not what discussions are about.

Says the same person who only two months ago claimed to not know anything about Dasam Granth.

You are being blinded by DDT and others on this. I already said you can NOT ignore the outward literal meaning. The metaphor used to arrive at ANY deeper meaning draws off the literal meanings. In order for metaphor to work at all, there has to be understood symbolism. The understood symbolism is that women are subordinate to husbands and must obey while husbands are in charge. Yes he was cheating, made even more easy by the fact that he as the husband didn't have to obey his wife's wishes or obtain her permission to go out at all. It doesn't change the fact that she felt the need to reiterate how obedient she was - meaning the underlying thought is that women obey, men control. Also it presented the idea that women are valued only for their beauty = objects for men's desire. Since you are using these in the metaphorical deeper meaning that YOU believe (which I do not believe to be true for reasons I already mentioned, Guru Ji would not draw on a literal idea that degrades women, just to create a metaphorical link to some hidden deeper meaning, that already exists in a much less offensive way in SGGSJ) Since you are using these metaphorical meanings to arrive at your deeper meaning, then yes it is degrading women. And Guru Ji would never create some hidden meaning at the expense of a group who were exploited all throughout history and that all the Gurus worked to elevate the position of - women - when using them as the metaphorical scapegoats as it were, would serve to reduce their position and undo all that the Gurus worked towards for equality of gender! Especially when the VERY SAME MESSAGE CAN ALREADY BE FOUND IN SGGSJ!

It would be like me writing a story with some deep hidden spiritual meaning, and using Blacks in North America, as my scapegoats to symbolize crime, drug dealing, prostitution etc. How exactly do you think that would go over??? If all the stories I wrote had a black guy as the bad guy?? How do you think the black guys would feel reading that? I could say all day long that oh I am not picking on black guys, I'm just using the stories to get to a deeper meaning that the mind cant get caught up in Maya and hence crime, and lust (prostitution) drugs etc. But do you think that would matter? My 'book' would quickly be banned for being the racist trash it was! So why is it ok to use women that way??

 

[Kully]

Says the same person who only two months ago claimed to not know anything about Dasam Granth.

Harkiran Ji, you have thrown this at me several times during our discussions. I have responded then and again I respond in the same vein. Why are we repeating things over and over again?

I still know very little about Dasam Granth. Learning about Granths or parts of texts is not a short term process. The learning takes a whole lifetime. You never stop learning.

In these two months I have researched the background to the text, and characters, and upto the 6th story. the only reason I went to the 19th was because it clearly troubled you and Ishna Ji. That in turn troubled me.

You are being blinded by DDT and others on this.

What is DDT?

I am not being blinded by anyone. I have done my own research and translated the 19th story by myself. If I had used someone blindly, then it would be very apparent to see.

I already said you can NOT ignore the outward literal meaning.

The outward literal meaning is just that. It doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Don't get stuck on it. The real essence of the text is looking past the outward literal meaning.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I already said its impossible to ignore it! Just like I can't write a story using blacks as my symbols of everything bad - its wrong to do! And besides that, there are older rhetnamas that took the LITERAL meaning from it, to limit women! Chaupa Singh's Rhetnama for example tells Singhs straight out, in direct language, to never trust ANY woman - it even further says "not even those close you" (as in your own wife)!!!! It then says "Consider all women to be the embodiment of deceit"

This thinking very much DID get into minds of Singhs who read this!!! And they TOOK THE LITERAL MEANING! DDT is Damdami Taksal, who have a decidedly low view of women as impure, and lower spiritual level. And I have had taksal Singhs tell me why women are not allowed to do seva, because of our impurity, and because we are on a lower spiritual level (presumably due to bad karma we were born female - to be in a subordinate position to men. Their Rehet maryada even tells wives at time of marriage to see their husband as a God over her. The Singh, is simply told to see his wife as a faithful follower).

So you dont think this mindset has gotten into Sikhi?? Having that as an outright literal meaning in stories, presumed to be by our Guru is a very very dangerous thing to the place of women in Sikhi!

 

[Harry Haller]

I still know very little about Dasam Granth. Learning about Granths or parts of texts is not a short term process. The learning takes a whole lifetime. You never stop learning.

Are you therefore in any position to correct another persons right to learn in their own way using their own understanding?

You say you know little about the Dasam Granth, yet your writing style and knowledge clearly betray a deeper understanding, you have embraced your own litmus test and now approach your understanding using this, should you not allow others to do the same?

If I am to accept what you say, then the first question that comes to mind is why give roles? Given that at the time many Sikhs were sons of the soil, would this not have confused them? We are talking about a people and culture where women were seen as second class citizens for centuries, in trying to change this, and to give women equality, would this not have confused the common man at the time?

If I were say gay, and a new religion came that welcomes me and made me feel equal, and then I read in manuscripts that all the baddies are gays, I would feel a bit put out, and that is 21st century England, in the battle to change attitudes, this seems strange, it fails my personal litmus test, however it passes yours and I respect that, if you can get me past this point, I would be grateful,

 

[Kully]

I already said its impossible to ignore it!

Harkiran Ji, I will repeat (again) that you don't have to ignore it. What you have to do is not get stuck in it. Look past it.

DDT is Damdami Taksal,

Ok, thanks for that.

DDT is Damdami Taksal, who have a decidedly low view of women as impure, and lower spiritual level.

Do they claim that? I'm not very big on them and don't concern myself with them.

And I have had taksal Singhs tell me why women are not allowed to do seva, because of our impurity, and because we are on a lower spiritual level (presumably due to bad karma we were born female - to be in a subordinate position to men

So what if they say it? It doesn't make it any more true than the Muslims/Christians that claim their religion is the only true religion.

So you dont think this mindset has gotten into Sikhi??

No, because as i gather the DDT is only a fringe group in the Sikh Panth. they are probably like not even 0.1%.

Are you therefore in any position to correct another persons right to learn in their own way using their own understanding?

I can only share what I see and read, but certainly when it comes to aberrations on a scale that change the direction and aim of a concept, then I feel that whatever I have seen and read should be shared.

I will give you two very recent examples form our discussions.

1. It was claimed that as part of a story, women needed their husbands permission to go to the toilet.

2. That the standardization of SGGS came about in the 1940s, where we have the saroop that we see today, regarding the banis and also the pagination.

Harkiran Ji, said that in her research she had always known SGGS to always have 1430 angs. Now I know ffrom my own research that, that was not the case and was only a recent innovation.

Should I stay quiet and let harkiran Ji carry on with this information shortfall, even though I know that there is more info I could share with her? Or should I help her with her research?

You say you know little about the Dasam Granth, yet your writing style and knowledge clearly betray a deeper understanding, you have embraced your own litmus test and now approach your understanding using this, should you not allow others to do the same?

I haven't embraced my own litmus test. The litmus test is the text and what it says. I simply look at it and reveal what I can see. But although some others can't see what i see doesn't mean that it isn't there. It's just that they can't see it.

As for my knowledge of DG, it isn't even close to 1% of what I would like it to be. And SGGS for that matter as well.

We are talking about a people and culture where women were seen as second class citizens for centuries, in trying to change this, and to give women equality, would this not have confused the common man at the time?

No, because taken in it's correct context, there would be no confusion.

If I were say gay, and a new religion came that welcomes me and made me feel equal, and then I read in manuscripts that all the baddies are gays, I would feel a bit put out, and that is 21st century England, in the battle to change attitudes, this seems strange, it fails my personal litmus test, however it passes yours and I respect that, if you can get me past this point, I would be grateful,

OK. Using your "gays" as an example, what if in this text, it said that "heteros", "gays" and "bi's" were all equal and the same? Why would you feel that gays were different?

 

[japjisahib04]

Kully Jee

You have been ignoring my question why author of DG totally missed to quote martyerdom of Guru Arjan, His father, four children, the most important khandhai baatai dee pahul and other heroic wars.

 

[Kully]

You have been ignoring my question why author of DG totally missed to quote martyerdom of Guru Arjan, His father, four children, the most important khandhai baatai dee pahul and other heroic wars.

Where should this info have been recorded in DG?