"Dasam" Granth - A Look At The Core Problems | Page 8 | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

"Dasam" Granth - A Look At The Core Problems

Status
Not open for further replies.

Original

Writer
SPNer
Jan 10, 2011
1,053
552
62
London UK
Harkiran Kaur Ji,

Thank you for an accountable text [#135].

I'm afraid I'm a complete novice to the text in question and as such, am trying to soak-in as much as I possible can to rationally deliberate for conclusiveness. No doubt you will appreciate for the sake of accuracy, certainty and bona fide completeness that all evidence be examined thoroughly, using as it were, scholarly approved methodologies.

A humble request on my part would be, is for you to treat me a juror and allow an occasional QA session so I may safely deliberate. Indeed, it may well be the case that after having heard all the evidence and considered relevant disclosures, I'm still in limbo, then the appropriate course to take would be to either believe or disbelieve. A choice deservingly made.

Much obliged
 

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
The only difference in the full use of 'Chairitropakhyan' means ' stories of trickery which were already told'.
That's a lot better but still a little out.


And yes Kully Ji 'Triya Charitar' means women's trickery / deceit.
Again almost correct.


Lets leave meaning of the charitars aside for now.
Now you and I are both on the same platform for this discussion. I had asked you several times to not focus on this for the time being. Thanks.



So until someone shows some actual FACTUAL and RELIABLE evidence then I am bowing out.
Let's look at the evidence before us. That's all we can do, but as for your bowing out for the time being, I welcome that because I feel (nothing personal) that your understanding of Charitropakhyan is wrong, which has been reinforced by the answers you gave to my 3 questions and the non-answer to my fourth question. That doesn't mean that you or I know any more/less than each other, it just means that we know different things.

I will be reproducing my questions and answers in separate posts as it will make them easier to read and respond to.
 

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
My first question was, "what is the meaning of the word "Charitropakhyan"?"

The word is not one but actually two. "Charitro" meaning character and "pakhyan" which means to tell of, or to narrate of etc.

So the title to this text is "To tell of characters", or "narration of characters". It does absolutely have no inference to any gender here.

My second question was "What is the background to this text"?

Harkiran Ji's repsonse that it was "background is the Raja and his advisor talking. The advisor is trying to get him to not fall into the wiles of women, so he begins to tell him many stories showcasing how women are deceitful and immoral and should not be trusted."

This is not correct. The background to the story is:

There was a King who on the loss of his wife who he was deeply attached to, scoured the country to find another just like her. This new queen was young whereas the King was old, and the new queen instead took an attraction to the King's son. The Prince refused her advances, and she told the King that your son has violated me. The King has his son arrested and sentences him to death.The Minister is aware of the situation and begins to tell the King a succession of short stories, in order for him to see the truth.

Now the Minister knows that he can't come straight out and tell the King because if the King can pass death sentence on his own son, then what chance does the Minister have, if he falls foul of the King?

So the Minister is subtly telling the King the truth in these short stories. The stories are a mixture of different topics relating to deceit, lust, confusion, quick wit, thought and reaction. But to disguise the essence of what he says he bases his intention around a varied use of vocabulary, which differs from explicit, to amusing. But the key to them all, is that there is a cloaked meaning in each and every story.

The person reading them will display his/her OWN state of mind/intellect when they read the stories. There will some some who cannot see past the genders, the explicit words/lines/situations used. There will be some who will straightaway see what the Minister was trying to tell the King.


My third question to Harkiran was "what do these characters represent?"

To which she replied:

"The King after being cheated on and left by first wife ({censored word, do not repeat.}), being deceived by a woman (second wife, also {censored word, do not repeat.}) who is hot to trot and wants to {censored word, do not repeat.} his son (the prince) because she was younger than the king (and presumably didnt find the king attractve sexually). The minister is trying to show the King how women cant be trusted and will always follow their sexual desires, even going to lengths like murder and deceit to get their sexual desires met (because the second wife accused the son wrongfully because he wouldnt {censored word, do not repeat.} her). In the end, he is successful because the king stops the execution of his son. The damage to the female gender due to the generalized message now in the minds of anyone who reads this."

I think poor Harkiran may have got a little confused over the question.

The 5 characters that are there in the beginning of Charitropakhyan are the ones who need to be assessed and recognised as to what they actually represent.

1. The King. the represents the mind. He is full of the 5 vices. He is totally in lust and attachment (kam and moh) with his first wife. After her separation from him, he becomes inflicted with greed (lobh), in that he MUST have one exactly like her. In dealing with his son, he displays anger (krodh) and arrogance (ahankar) in passing a death sentence without ascertaining the facts, simply because he has the power to do so.

2. The first queen. She is an "apsara". These are beautiful beings which are dancers in Indra-lok, but every now and again some are given periods of banishment from Indor-lok upon which they go to other realms. This apsara came to prithvi-lok and there married the King. As soon as her exile period was over, she leaving the King returned to Indra-lok. The apsara represents "hukam", in living and dying. Just as we all, as per hukam have a time in exile here on earth from our beloved, and then return to our beloved Param-atma, the apsara returned. Her arrival and departure represents Hukam.

3. The 2nd queen. This queen is maya. She is what the King felt he had and lost, and then regained. She is an illusion. The King thinks she is a replica of his first Queen, but she is not.

4. The Son - the son is Dharam. He upholds his duty and refuses the new Queens advances as he feels that she is a mother to him.

5. The minister - the minister is Bibek buddhi. He is uses his bibek budhi (discerning intellect) to weave a story where the King is slowly, but surely released from the clutches of maya, and from the 5 vices.


My fourth question to Harkiran was "what sources have you read to get your information on Charitropakhyan?

She didn't reply but that's not a problem.

I can say that Pritpal Singh Bindra is one source for Harkiran Ji, as she has provided screen shots (which we will look at later) of his translation. As for any others, if Harkiran Ji willing to share then that is fantastic.

I have began to study Bindra's book, but also Dr Jaggi's book, Gyani Narain Singh's teeka and also listened to katha of these stories (which many said cannot be done in sangat). I have found that the english work (Bindra's) is very substandard (one dimensional and poor choice of words for translation) to Jaggi's work which again is substandard to Narain Singh's work. I hope that Harkiran gets round to reading these some time.

The best source to understand this text has come from audio, as the exponent can explain things with a lot more detail in a shorter time and space, that is very hard to find in books.

I will share some videos from youtube. They are not long but it gives a very good explanation of the stories.

To al my fellow forum members, remember that learning is a never-ending process. Keep reading, listening and learning!
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 21, 2012
1,393
1,910
Tell me Kully few things.

Why is Maya represented by a female?

Why is mind / powerful figure portrayed by male?

In order for there to be any allegory or symbolism in a story that ca be understood by readers, there MUST be an established meaning already. That's how allegory works.

Meaning if you are correct (which I think is just wishful thinking and I will get to that in a moment) but, in order to use a female as representing Maya (illusion, trickery, immorality, lust, the veil that separates us from God) then the female gender would already need to be associated to those meanings. Meaning The author would already have an understanding that women are deceitful and immoral.

Why is the 'male' main character associated with 'mind' 'intellect' 'power' ??? Then men would already have to have been seen as intellectual, powerful compared to women who would have been seen as only deceivers and obstacles to men's spirituality.

Guru Ji would never have associated a gender to symbolic meanings, when those meanings would reinforce the old Hindu way of thinking that women were just obstacles to mens spiritual progress, and meant to be kept under mens control and never do anything independently. (In fact the charitars actually say that almost word for word). Even degrading the female gender, just for the purpose of symbolism, would have devastating consequences on actual women... and it has. The outward text cant be ignored. Many 'Singhs' quote it as a reason why women should be under mens control and not in leadership roles. Taksalis LOVE DG (probably more than SGGSJ in some cases, as several I spoke to seem obsessed with it) And they very much DO quote the 'moral' outward stories as reasons why women are kept from most seva and all leadership roles in Taksali gurdwaras (and currently at Darbar Sahib). Even if some of them only take the allegorical meanings that you have quoted above, they still see women as the symbol of maya, therefore they still use it to discriminate against us!

And now, the question.

WHO exactly decided that charitropakhyan characters really stood for those things?

Since it was found long after Guru Ji left this world, and since there is no answer key saying to apply those meanings, who exactly decided that it meant what you say? Since it was found so many years later after Guru Ji was gone, could it be just wishful thinking or imposing their own thoughts of what it meant over the actual meaning???

Case in point, some say that the Genesis Story in the christian Bible is really allegory for birth of mankind - Eve's 'sin' eating of the tree of knowledge was not a literal eve eating an apple but the whole of the human race, becoming more technological advanced as a race, and the birth pains (punishment given by God) right after the order to go forth and multiple are actually speaking of war, greed etc. in the human race. Now, a lot of people would LOVE for it to mean that since then, women as a gender would not be seen as causing all the sin that made us fall from God. However, its just not true. The churches use it literally, and use it as justification why women should be subjected to men, submissive and obedient to their husbands and must NEVER usurp authority over or teach men. You can take ANY story, in ANY holy book and impose whatever meaning you want over it. Some might even like and so believe your version. However, without the author leaving something saying thats how it was to be interpreted, you only have the literal text. So while some Singh at some point said hey I think it means this... there is no proof that the characters and situations mean what you described above. And as I said, in order to have allegory that is at all recognizable, you have to use symbolism people already know. Meaning in order for Maya to be seen as feminine or a woman used to represent Maya, then women would already need to be seen as deceitful, immoral, etc. And our Gurus all of them worked to elevate women, not perpetuate this stereotype men already had about women. Why would Guru Ji use woman, as the symbol of Maya and write a pile of stories depicting women doing treacherous things when he HAD to have known, it would cause deeper contempt towards women in mens minds? Especially equating women with Maya- the thing we are trying to escape!
 
Last edited:

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
Why is Maya represented by a female?
IN order to give this story a central theme, a group of related people/status have been designed. Up until the advent of Gurmat, widows were not allowed to remarry, so if Guru Ji decided to switch the roles then it wouldn't have made sense. Only males were allowed to remarry ( how unfair that is!) but widows, no. So the setting would not have made sense.

Plus the 1st Queen represented Hukam, and we should have an idea of how important hukam is in Gurmat.


Why is mind / powerful figure portrayed by male?
Harkiran Ji, the figure with the greatest power (King) is actually the weakest of them all. He is represented by a male.

But as to the setting of the story it again would keep in with the theme, as only men were Ministers (again that is unfair!)


In order for there to be any allegory or symbolism in a story that ca be understood by readers, there MUST be an established meaning already.
Guru Sahib has given the introduction only. Guru Sahib has given us the background only, and it is upto us to try and see the real story behind the stories. Not to get lost in the ACTUAL stories. We have to develop the symbolism.

That is why this is a difficult text to understand.

And that is precisely why I asked you those set of questions, to give me an idea of what you actually understood about the text.


Meaning if you are correct (which I think is just wishful thinking and I will get to that in a moment) but, in order to use a female as representing Maya (illusion, trickery, immorality, lust, the veil that separates us from God) then the female gender would already need to be associated to those meanings. Meaning The author would already have an understanding that women are deceitful and immoral.
No, I have answered this just above. If you say this then it means that Guru Sahib would also have seen women as "hukam" meaning that they are in harmony with Waheguru, and that men only possessed the 5 vices, dharma and bibek buddhi.

This is absolutely not the case. All humans share all these features, and individually, it's how we deal with them in this life.


Why is the 'male' main character associated with 'mind' 'intellect' 'power' ??? Then men would already have to have been seen as intellectual, powerful compared to women who would have been seen as only deceivers and obstacles to men's spirituality.
No, again, the men would also have to be seen as submerged in the 5 vices as well then.


Taksalis LOVE DG (probably more than SGGSJ in some cases, as several I spoke to seem obsessed with it)
I have only ever met one Taksali, who told me that he had no study of DG as they are not allowed to study DG until their study of SGGS is complete. But it may seem like obsession to you, it may seem like dedication to someone else, so let's try and just keep this topic to ourselves.


And now, the question.

WHO exactly decided that charitropakhyan characters really stood for those things?
Guru Sahib did, in visualising and presenting it. It is a didactic piece of literature and not something that one can learn about in a short space of time.

Since it was found long after Guru Ji left this world,
What was found?
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 21, 2012
1,393
1,910
IN order to give this story a central theme, a group of related people/status have been designed. Up until the advent of Gurmat, widows were not allowed to remarry, so if Guru Ji decided to switch the roles then it wouldn't have made sense. Only males were allowed to remarry ( how unfair that is!) but widows, no. So the setting would not have made sense.

Plus the 1st Queen represented Hukam, and we should have an idea of how important hukam is in Gurmat.




Harkiran Ji, the figure with the greatest power (King) is actually the weakest of them all. He is represented by a male.

But as to the setting of the story it again would keep in with the theme, as only men were Ministers (again that is unfair!)




Guru Sahib has given the introduction only. Guru Sahib has given us the background only, and it is upto us to try and see the real story behind the stories. Not to get lost in the ACTUAL stories. We have to develop the symbolism.

That is why this is a difficult text to understand.

And that is precisely why I asked you those set of questions, to give me an idea of what you actually understood about the text.




No, I have answered this just above. If you say this then it means that Guru Sahib would also have seen women as "hukam" meaning that they are in harmony with Waheguru, and that men only possessed the 5 vices, dharma and bibek buddhi.

This is absolutely not the case. All humans share all these features, and individually, it's how we deal with them in this life.




No, again, the men would also have to be seen as submerged in the 5 vices as well then.




I have only ever met one Taksali, who told me that he had no study of DG as they are not allowed to study DG until their study of SGGS is complete. But it may seem like obsession to you, it may seem like dedication to someone else, so let's try and just keep this topic to ourselves.




Guru Sahib did, in visualising and presenting it. It is a didactic piece of literature and not something that one can learn about in a short space of time.



What was found?
Show me proof that
1) he wrote it (using RELIABLE sources) and
2) prove thats what he meant.

Just because you or someone else thinks it meant that doesnt matter. Thats your opinion of what it means.

Try applying those meanings to the individual charitars and it doesnt work. The charitars end with very specific 'lessons' example is saying that women must never do anything without their husband's permission, not even going to use the washroom. Now what are you trying to say that Maya should never use the washroom without the minds permission? Thats makes no sense.

The main point is that Guru Ji NEVER would have written anything which would have had the consequences that this piece of writing had. No matter what the intentions were. You agreed that this piece of work, uses women to depict the bad things like Maya and men as power and ministers. Sorry I dont see at all how the first wife would be hukam. In fact I dont see how any of these equal what you say they do. Just because someone says so, doesnt make it so. You can't say Guru Ji put these meanings in there, because there is nothing written from Guru Ji saying so! Someone at some point in time, long after Guru Ji was gone, decided that this was what it meant (probably AFTER many people condemned the works as being demeaning to women) and besides, a sizeable amount of Sikhs (even who do believe he did write it) do not give in to the Maya / Mind symbolism theory. They say it was straight out to warn his Singhs about the evils women can do.

This one piece of writing basically undid what ALL of the previous Gurus had done to elevate the status of women. That's the only hard and set in stone fact about this piece of work. And our Guru would NOT have done that - even if the meanings were meant to be only symbolic, he certainly would have known (being Guru) the damage to the female gender this work would cause. I can't see our Guru writing some deep hidden meaning that most won't understand, beneath stories that would most definitely degrade the position of women to nearly what they were prior to Sikhi. If that was indeed the message he wanted to convey, he could have done so in numerous ways which did not condemn female gender to a sub par existence treated as inferior by Singhs. Unless you are saying he just didnt care about females enough to care what would happen.

Anyway, until someone shows me an answer key or some writing that CAN be directly attributed to Guru Ji, that he wrote it, and that he meant it the way you described above, then its all heresay and speculation.

Or else I could say the same about the 'deeper' meaning of the Genesis story I wrote above. If someone asks me I could just say oh God wrote it and God meant it like that. Just because I say so, and think thats what it means, doesnt mean I am correct.
 

Original

Writer
SPNer
Jan 10, 2011
1,053
552
62
London UK
Kully Ji,

So far so good, but with me on the fence, I ask, how conclusive are these two arguments ? They cant both be conclusive because presumably, Gobind Singh either is or isn't a party to the texts in question. But now, with rational interpretations emerging, corresponding to plausible explanations, a question arises, what exactly did Gobind had in mind and what was the objective ?

Many thanks -
 

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
Show me proof that
1) he wrote it (using RELIABLE sources) and
2) prove thats what he meant.
Harkiran, I don't want to keep repeating myself. You have already received an answer to q1.

Re q2, again I'll re-emphasise that it's upto us to read and understand.


Just because you or someone else thinks it meant that doesnt matter. Thats your opinion of what it means.
Well we all have opinions, you and myself included, but all we can do is loook at whats in front of us.


Try applying those meanings to the individual charitars and it doesnt work.
Again that will be down to how you percieve it.

We will move onto the actual stories in time.


The charitars end with very specific 'lessons' example is saying that women must never do anything without their husband's permission, not even going to use the washroom. Now what are you trying to say that Maya should never use the washroom without the minds permission? Thats makes no sense.
Harkiran Ji, what you have written above on reinforces the fact that you don't understand the text. Or maybe you don't have the faculty to understand. Don't take that in a negative way. There are lots of literature I don't understand.

To get an insight I asked you some basic questions about Charitropakhyan, of which you responded very poorly. With the above quote of yours, it is very apparent that you seem to be out of your depth with this. But never shut your mind off to learning.


The main point is that Guru Ji NEVER would have written anything which would have had the consequences that this piece of writing had.
This writing, in all honesty has had no consequences on the Sikh Panth. The fact is that the majority of Sikhs don't even know about DG, nevermind Charitropakhyan. That majority included me up until recently. So any thoughts towards the female gender would already have been there without even knowing about this text.

I haven't changed my feelings/attitude to wards the females after starting to research this text.

I have never in my life even seen a saroop of DG.


You agreed that this piece of work, uses women to depict the bad things like Maya and men as power and ministers.
I agreed? What i said was that the female is not just representing maya but also hukam, and the male is not only representing bibek buddhi/dharam but also the 5 vices.

But this is what is so dangerous about you. There is a saying that half-baked knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge at all. By deliberately omitting half my statement you are trying to make me look like something I am not. Why would you even do that?


Sorry I dont see at all how the first wife would be hukam.
Re-read my explanation above. She came and went according to time. Her departure from prithvi-lok represented hukam.

It's ok if you still don't see, maybe there are certain literature that some of us are not just able to see.

Just because someone says so, doesnt make it so.
Absolutely. it doesn't matter what you or I say. What Guru says is the only thing that matters. And at the moment there is not confusion on Guru says.


Someone at some point in time, long after Guru Ji was gone, decided that this was what it meant (probably AFTER many people condemned the works as being demeaning to women) and besides, a sizeable amount of Sikhs (even who do believe he did write it) do not give in to the Maya / Mind symbolism theory.
Too vague Harkiran Ji, to even worth considering.


They say it was straight out to warn his Singhs about the evils women can do.
So what? they are wrong about it as well.


This one piece of writing basically undid what ALL of the previous Gurus had done to elevate the status of women.
How so?


That's the only hard and set in stone fact about this piece of work.
The only thing that is hard and set in stone is your learning of this text.


And our Guru would NOT have done that - even if the meanings were meant to be only symbolic, he certainly would have known (being Guru) the damage to the female gender this work would cause.
What damage has this done to female gender?


I can't see our Guru writing some deep hidden meaning that most won't understand, beneath stories that would most definitely degrade the position of women to nearly what they were prior to Sikhi. If that was indeed the message he wanted to convey, he could have done so in numerous ways
Who understands Gurbani? Do you understand Japji Sahib ? I don't. I have to look up the panjabi meanings and read up on them and listen to katha of the meanings to help me understand. I need the same help whenever I am looking at any other shabads in SGGS.

Guru Sahib could also have written Gurbani in very simple Panjabi, but no Guru Sahib wanted us to work for this knowledge. Just the same as anyone saying "why is this maths so hard, just give me the degree". Who would do that? Who would even ask that?


Anyway, until someone shows me an answer key or some writing that CAN be directly attributed to Guru Ji, that he wrote it, and that he meant it the way you described above, then its all heresay and speculation.
Harkiran, if you are after something written, then you have already had the source. Mehma Parkash. If you want something that Guru Sahib wrote himself about it, then you will not find it.

Just as when I asked you where did Guru Sahib write "sabh sikhan ko hukam hai, guru maneyo granth". I haven't see it written anywhere, so does that mean that until someone brings it to me, I won't accept SGGS as my Guru? And the same applies to you. Until someone can show you this writing are you prepared to say the same about SGGS?
 
Last edited:

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 21, 2012
1,393
1,910
Mehma Parkash can not be used as a reliable source. It does not even mention a "Dasam Granth" or "Charitropakhyan". And it was written so long after Guru Ji was gone from this world, and makes no references to its own sources for the information its presenting. Anyone could have written that with an agenda, and claimed it was talking about dasam granth. I asked for a RELIABLE (provable) source.

I also asked for proof that the meanings are what you are saying (hoping) they are. You can't provide any, only to say that I must be wrong and you are right, and if I cant see it the way you do then I am the one who is in error. You don't see the error in your own analysis of this? You are trying to claim that Guru Ji meant something, without any proof that's what charitropakhyan means, and you are just assuming what others have told you. In other words, what some of the other members on here refer to as 'parroting'
 

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
Mehma Parkash can not be used as a reliable source. It does not even mention a "Dasam Granth" or "Charitropakhyan".
Now you have totally shown you know very little or nothing of Mehma Parkash chapter concerning this. And to think that you brought it up yourself to try and prove something else. If I were you, I would have are-read of it.

You are coming off extremely weak in terms of research here. If you can't find the actual text, I wil post a link. Do you want me to do that so you can see exactly what it says for yourself?


And it was written so long after Guru Ji was gone from this world,
Indeed it was, but the 1973 letter taht you use as a source was written 200 years after Mehma Parkash.


Anyone could have written that with an agenda
Indeed, people do write with agendas. The thing is, that they are very easy to spot, by anybody who has knowledge.


You can't provide any, only to say that I must be wrong and you are right, and if I cant see it the way you do then I am the one who is in error.
Read again. I didn't say that you were in error. I said that not everyone has the faculty to comprehend literature.

rather than reply re-read the chapter in Mehma Parkash.
 

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
In other words, what some of the other members on here refer to as 'parroting'
Yes, parroting. Now when you brought up the translation of Mehma Parkash were you parroting?

When you have copied and pasted statements from various websites about DG was that parroting?

When you copied and pasted parts of Dalbir Singh missionary's article on DG was that parroting?
 
Last edited:

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 21, 2012
1,393
1,910
Read again. I didn't say that you were in error. I said that not everyone has the faculty to comprehend literature.
Obviously ....since you are not comprehending the outwardly degrading comments about women in Charitropakhyan and instead want to apply some weird mystical meaning to it that in no way is apparent.

And unlike you I was not using 1973 decision by major players in Sikhi like the Akal Takht Jathedar... As a reference. I was pointing out that they already decided that Charitropakhyan was not original work of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. I was refuting your references as not being reliable at all for various reasons (dating, no quoted sources, language, forgery suspect, hearsay and vague reference to 'works' by Guru Ji with no direct link - it's all assumption) meaning the only REAL evidence we DO have that is reliable is that Guru Ji passed guruship to only SGGSJ and no other. And he never made reference to any dasam Granth or Charitropakhyan himself. And we have Gurbani to go by as a litmus test as to whether or not what is written would agree with what is in SGGSJ. With nothing saying the contrary the only thing we can do is read the literal stories and those definitely go waaaay against what all the Gurus taught about equality of male and female.
 
Last edited:

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
Obviously ....since you are not comprehending the outwardly degrading comments about women in Charitropakhyan .
I haven't even begun on the stories yet though have I?

Didn't I say let's acquaint oursleves with information about Charitropakhyan BEFORE we started to look at the stories? You did read that yes? I repeated it often.


and instead want to apply some weird mystical meaning to it that in no way is apparent.
Why would it be weird just because you can't understand it? It would be weird to you, not me.

In the same way there are many shabads in Guru Granth Sahib which have an element or layer of mysticism about them. If you read the shabad as it is, it would have a different meaning, but until you understand the mystical meaning it won't make sense. But that doesn't mean that the Guru or the Shabad are wrong. It means it's the reader who has the shortcomings.


And unlike you I was not using 1973 decision by major players in Sikhi like the Akal Takht Jathedar... As a reference. I was pointing out that they already decided that Charitropakhyan was not original work of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
Where is this letter that was written in reply? Have you seen the original or a copy of the original?


the only thing we can do is read the literal stories...
Yes let's begin to read the literal stories. Bearing in mind how little you could explain of the text up till now, let's see how you look at these stories.


those definitely go waaaay against what all the Gurus taught about equality of male and female.
It all depends on how you look at them. Shall we start with the first story? You can choose. You have at times thrown in parts of different stories into the discussion. Now you can really go to town.

Whichever charitar you wish to discuss put up the original text and then we can look at it.
 

japjisahib04

Mentor
SPNer
Jan 22, 2005
822
1,292
kuwait
The purpose of our life is to be sachiar and guru sahib have enlisted almost six thousands sabds in SGGS which highlights my different mysterious moods and deficiencies and whose objective is to be sachiar. I am wondering are we here to spend too much time on mental gymnastics to listen or decipher straight forward porn or a granth which demean our sisters to legitimise and search into it mystical message to be sachiar. Will that help in anyway to be uplifted or give chance to vulnerable innocents to humiliate womens like Islam to kill innocents for a reward of 72 virgins into heaven.
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 21, 2012
1,393
1,910
The purpose of our life is to be sachiar and guru sahib have enlisted almost six thousands sabds in SGGS which highlights my different mysterious moods and deficiencies and whose objective is to be sachiar. I am wondering are we here to spend too much time on mental gymnastics to listen or decipher straight forward porn or a granth which demean our sisters to legitimise and search into it mystical message to be sachiar. Will that help in anyway to be uplifted or give chance to vulnerable innocents to humiliate womens like Islam to kill innocents for a reward of 72 virgins into heaven.
Brilliantly put Japjisahib04 Ji, all we need to know, is included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. To suggest otherwise, is to suggest that it is somehow incomplete. Or else you are just repeating same ideas, but demeaning women to do it. Doesn't make sense. Besides, I have already shown the supposed historical 'evidence' is not reliable.
 

Admin

SPNer
Jun 1, 2004
6,619
5,208
SPN
This thread is now closed. If you guys have anything more to add to it, please start a new thread while referencing to this thread. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Shabad Vichaar by SPN'ers

Literal translation from Sant Singh Khalsa in black followed by my interpretation in green.

ਕਾਨੜਾ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥ Kaanarraa Mehalaa 5 || Ang 1298

ਕੀਰਤਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੀ ਗਾਉ ਮੇਰੀ ਰਸਨਾਂ ॥ Keerath Prabh Kee Gaao...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top