Charitropakhyan Charitar No 19 - The Tale Of Nadira Bano

[Harry Haller]

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.

Why? what is so important about what you have seen and read? What if people have no interest in your opinions? Having read only only a small part of the DG, by your own admission, how can you know what is an aberration and what is not. Maybe if you had read all the DG, you could have a point, but until then, you are just an opinion in a sea of opinions, not fact.

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?

I am sure if she needs your help, she will ask for it.

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.

Yes, we are all different, what makes sense to you may not make sense to another, when people can't see what I can see, I accept it, I don't waste my time forcing them to see it, why would you do that, again, given your limited study of the DG?

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.

then why are you wasting our time with your observations? not even 1% does not really qualify you as being able to debate the subject. Are you being deliberately modest because that statement does not make any sense to me given your writings. In which case the question does beg as to what you hope to achieve, you do not come across as a learner, you come across as someone very learned indeed.

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

then clearly it has not been taken in its correct context for some time, and I would say again, how can you know anything about the correct context given your knowledge as stated above.

 

[Kully]

Why? what is so important about what you have seen and read?

It's important when people are taking it wrong, and then spreading their wrong information about it.

What if people have no interest in your opinions?

My opinions are subject to discussion as are others. People can dismiss them as they see fit.

Having read only only a small part of the DG, by your own admission, how can you know what is an aberration and what is not.

You don't need to read the whole of DG to understand when part of it is being portrayed wrongly.

Maybe if you had read all the DG, you could have a point, but until then, you are just an opinion in a sea of opinions, not fact.

Begging your pardon, but who here has read all of DG? I would say few or none, but there are many discussions on it every day. Same goes for SGGS. I haven't read all of SGGS. Have you read all of SGGS Harry?

I am sure if she needs your help, she will ask for it.

Discussion is not about soliciting or offering help.

when people can't see what I can see, I accept it, I don't waste my time forcing them to see it,

If others can't see what I see, then that is not a problem. The problem is when they spread false information. Then I feel must add to it, so that people are not misled. People who have trouble with certain texts, should just accept that they don't understand it, and not discuss it. When people of low understanding discuss texts like they are experts, it only adds to the confusion. The case of Bindra's book is a prime example. How many people must have read that and thought that this cannot be Guru's writings? Why should we allow that disinformation to continue? After all, we are Sikhs and we strive for truth over falsity.

then why are you wasting our time with your observations? not even 1% does not really qualify you as being able to debate the subject.

Is 1% more than 0.99%?

then clearly it has not been taken in its correct context for some time

It has in the correct circles. But during the last 90 or so years, people of low intellect and no understanding of Charitropakhyan have sought to undermine it, and because of this there is more and more of it being spread in a incorrect context for some time.

 

[Harry Haller]

I would ask that we continue the discussion, however, please grace your posts with the humility of one who only understands <1% if the subject matter. Proselytizing is against TOS, proselytizing when one only knows 1% of the subject matter is doubly against TOS, I find your writings and your information a good read, come here to share and discuss, not to pick bones. however, I once again find myself seeing the same points on a few threads, can we please now stick to this thread for any of your DG input, so that we are not all running around saying the same things on multiple threads, so this is now, 'your' thread, let us continue.

All non topic related content of any post will be deleted, please let us try and stick to the topic and debate this in a modest and respectful manner.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I'll say it again. When someone has read less than 1%of something and that too, only recently, they do not have any right to tell anyone else they are wrong on its interpretation. Especially when that interpretation is 'up to the individual, since of course the author left nothing to tell the reader to arrive at that interpretation.

Kully Ji you never answered the question Japji and I asked you (and I think Harry Ji did too) why would Guru Gobind Singh Ji feel the need to hide ideas behind offensive text at all, ideas that were already presented in SGGSJ? What would be the point? Can some people only get the point of things when they read pornographic stories that degrade women? Is SGGSJ not good enough for some people that he needed to write this?

And why would he ever think it was acceptable to so, in a way that openly degrades the female gender while using stories that were from other sources, and then not even give credit for those stories? (Everything in SGGSJ gives credit). As Harry Ji pointed out about the example with gays. It doesn't make sense to tell women right from Guru Nanak Dev Jis time that women and men are equal, and then for Guru Gobind Singh Ji to throw women under the bus as the 'baddies' (as harry Ji calls them) are all women.

Now you tried to say it makes all the characters look bad but the big moral message was about how that fool allowed his wife to go out and she deceived him. It did NOT condemn his cheating at all! Message is clear Men Do whatever you want (even cheat) but never reveal your secrets to the women, but always keep your women under your strict control and don't trust them, lest they deceive you!

 

[Harry Haller]

Now you tried to say it makes all the characters look bad but the big moral message was about how that fool allowed his wife to go out and she deceived him. It did NOT condemn his cheating at all! Message is clear Men Do whatever you want (even cheat) but never reveal your secrets to the women, but always keep your women under your strict control and don't trust them, lest they deceive you!

Its not often I see eye to eye with Harkiranji, but this point is a crucial facet of why this possibly could not be the writings of the tenth master, if Harkiranji, with her education, intelligence and experience around the world is able to 'misunderstand' the true meaning, what hope for the farm worker, the leather maker, the blacksmith, the cook of that time?

You may say HKji has an agenda, but no more than yours, hers is that the Guru she idolises is being given authorship of manuscripts that makes several points in a very base fashion.That there is no true message, and they are merely court stories that have somehow been mixed in with some of his writings.

We need to get past this point before we proceed in my view as otherwise it will keep cropping up.

 

[Harry Haller]

Message is clear Men Do whatever you want (even cheat) but never reveal your secrets to the women, but always keep your women under your strict control and don't trust them, lest they deceive you!

Well the message is not that clear, there are many that view the stories as metaphors, like our friend Kullyji, we must try and remember the crux of the argument, to my knowledge Kullyji has shown no disrespect for women, nor lauded the more obvious meanings behind such stories. The point of degrading women and having that lauded is not an issue here other than the fact that it is hard to concede authorship to the same hand that wrote in the SGGS. If I may take some pressure of the argument and clarify, Kullyji has a complete respect for women as equal, he sees the DG as using metaphors, and in no way disrespectful to women as a species, just making use of the widely accepted facets of women of the time. Am I correct Kullyji?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

just making use of the widely accepted facets of women of the time. Am I correct Kullyji?

All the more reason to NOT use them because it would only serve to reinforce those widely accepted facets! The gurus were trying to kill those preconceived notions about women that other religions held. Women were seen as deceives, evil, obstacles to men's spiritual paths. Why would our Guru use those stereotypes to illustrate his metaphorical meaning, when using those stereotypes would only reinforce them in his Sikhs minds? It would be counter productive to what he was trying to do to remove those stereotypes. Unless, he actually did think of women in that way!

The message was clear because the mans cheating was not condemned. The man never had to ask for permission to go out, nor feel the need to tell his wife how obedient he was. And we all know in that time women were seen as subordinate to men in prevailing Hindu thought. This is no different. The husband doesn't have to ask permission to do anything. She is the one expected to be obedient to him as his subordinate. The moral message at the end speaks only about how foolish he was for allowing her to deceive him. It does not mention his cheating at all. It does not mention how he should also demonstrate he is trustworthy to his wife. It's only one way. He is allowed even encouraged to deceive and cheat, and do whatever he wants without requiring her permission, while she is condemned for it even though she only did so in response to his cheating on her first! That's how it's made clear!

 

[japjisahib04]

Where should this info have been recorded in DG

As per your own version DG is meant for warrior part then instead of recording heroic achievements and martyredom, contents of alleged DG is mainly focused on mythology of Durga, Mahakal, othere hindus deities and God regretting creating women when SGGS says bhulan andhar sabh ku ABHUL GURU KARTAR.

 

[Harry Haller]

All the more reason to NOT use them because it would only serve to reinforce those widely accepted facets! The gurus were trying to kill those preconceived notions about women that other religions held. Women were seen as deceives, evil, obstacles to men's spiritual paths. Why would our Guru use those stereotypes to illustrate his metaphorical meaning, when using those stereotypes would only reinforce them in his Sikhs minds? It would be counter productive to what he was trying to do to remove those stereotypes. Unless, he actually did think of women in that way!

The message was clear because the mans cheating was not condemned. The man never had to ask for permission to go out, nor feel the need to tell his wife how obedient he was. And we all know in that time women were seen as subordinate to men in prevailing Hindu thought. This is no different. The husband doesn't have to ask permission to do anything. She is the one expected to be obedient to him as his subordinate. The moral message at the end speaks only about how foolish he was for allowing her to deceive him. It does not mention his cheating at all. It does not mention how he should also demonstrate he is trustworthy to his wife. It's only one way. He is allowed even encouraged to deceive and cheat, and do whatever he wants without requiring her permission, while she is condemned for it even though she only did so in response to his cheating on her first! That's how it's made clear!

Neither sex comes out of this particularly well, and the less said about the horse, probably the better, but just bear with me here, Harkiranji, what if I were take away your point regarding women, and focus instead on creation per se. No member of creation seems to come out of this well, one might say the DG is not just highlighting the potential base nature of women, but indeed of us all. I would very much like to move the issue from women to all of creation.We are all creation, it is not just for women to be aghast at how they are portrayed but for men also.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Neither sex comes out of this particularly well, and the less said about the horse, probably the better, but just bear with me here, Harkiranji, what if I were take away your point regarding women, and focus instead on creation per se. No member of creation seems to come out of this well, one might say the DG is not just highlighting the potential base nature of women, but indeed of us all. I would very much like to move the issue from women to all of creation.We are all creation, it is not just for women to be aghast at how they are portrayed but for men also.

How would say men are portrayed in this? If women are portrayed as deceivers, immoral etc and only to be objects for mens desire and to be controlled, and the only messages are speaking about the evils the woman has done in the story how exactly are the men portrayed? The only message I see it saying about men, is that men are gullible for falling for the women's deceit (hey men get control of your women!). Now tell me what would you rather be seen as? Gullible victim, or intentionally evil and deceitful?

 

[Harry Haller]

How would say men are portrayed in this?

badly, as lust ridden idiots, to be honest there seem to be a shortage of goodies, it would appear we are all baddies, the story being debated here is not just potentially a disrespect to women, it is a potential disrespect to all humanity.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

badly, as lust ridden idiots, to be honest there seem to be a shortage of goodies, it would appear we are all baddies, the story being debated here is not just potentially a disrespect to women, it is a potential disrespect to all humanity.

The difference however is that the husband's misdeeds go unnoticed. They are not mentioned in the big moral message at the end where it says 'that fool' allowed his wife to deceive him. Why does it not mention that he deceived her first? Why does it feel the need to emphasize that a wife should be obedient to her husband (but not the other way around)? So while he might be a lust ridden idiot (and the first to do adultery), the author did not feel the need to condemn his actions, only hers were condemned. That message alone says a LOT! That's its ok for men to do whatever they want, hey they are the ones in control, while the woman is supposed to be controlled by her man, and if a woman deceives the man (regardless of whether or not he ever deceived her), the issue is that he is a 'fool' because he allowed her enough freedom such that she could deceive him. There is no mention of mutual deceit, nor of mutual respect or consideration. It speaks only about male control over female submission and obedience. He is allowed to deceive her because he is in authority over her. She is not allowed to deceive him because as subordinate she is expected to obey, and by allowing her to deceive him (by giving her too much trust and freedom) he was made the fool. The message is clear, even in the metaphorical sense.

The metaphorical comparison Kully is using, is that the mind is giving too much freedom, control and influence to to Maya and is being deceived by it. For that comparison to work, the woman in the story must represent Maya... and for the end message to work, the literal wording must be that women need to be controlled by men and not given too much freedom lest they deceive their men. It doesn't work if you also try to condemn the man (mind) for deceiving his wife (maya).

 

[Harry Haller]

ok fair enough, the slight against womankind is bigger, ok, so that's where we are, Kullyji, we await your response

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Kully Ji what do you say about this?

Regardless, these misogynist teachings are further promoted by the Dasam Granth scholar Nihang Dharm Singh who himself does katha of these Charitars. He says that women should stay at home because if they go outside they'll do these "Charitars". His view is that Gurbani was written for males only and thus women shouldn't be going outside because their husbands will come back from the Gurdwara and give them "sikhya"; i.e there is no reason for a woman to leave her house because her husband will provide her everything. He says the entire purpose of a woman is to serve her husband.

Damdami Taksaal (avid promoters of the Dasam Granth) further implement this by not allowing women into their headquarters at Chowk Mehta and are completely barred from doing any seva. Section 3.11.4 of Damdami Taksaal's Code of Conduct states, A Singh must look upon his wife as his faithful Singhni and a Singhni should look upon her husband as Parmeshwar(God).

So you re in disagreement with a well known DG scholar who does kathas on this...Are you going to say he is wrong (since you have it all figured out after only 2 months)?

He says the literal meanings ARE the point and that the point is to warn men about women (and as I said, its about controlling women) He goes as far as to suggest that Sikhi and Gurbani is only for men, and that women's purpose is only to serve her husband. This is the exact view I get from the charitar above. That the obedience of the woman is emphasized (he controls, she obeys) That he can do whatever he wants without requiring her permission, even commit adultery, and his actions are not condemned. But he is called a fool for trusting his wife (not having enough control over her). Then it reiterates that wise men never divulge any secrets to their women. Divulging secrets to someone, exposes a weakness that they can use against you. So its part and parcel of the message NEVER trust women, even (especially) your own wife. Women are to be controlled and serve you (and of course pretty little ornaments to look at). So its apparent even to a DG scholar, that the point of the charitars is to warn men about women. ----- Where he and I differ is that I could never associate such hateful writing to my Guru!!!

 

[ravneet_sb]

Sat Sri Akaal,

Guru Bani's is not about physical, its about mind and manifestation of program in senses and physical being.

There is no Physical Male and Female.

But one Mind which contains both.

Information that is store in Mind forms perception through senses and body acts.

So "PURAKH" is complete "MIND" that is complete and "MALE" and "FEMALE" are incomplete.

So one can understand like a "SERVER" that contains "ALL SOFTWARES" is complete referred as "PURAN" or "SAMPURAN" or "PURAKH"

but users can not access or possess the complete "SERVER" system have limitation of hardware or processor, but can definetly think of "SERVER" and "Vastness" and complete self by submitting "ONE" self to "ONE" and accepting the cause of "NATURE" and connecting to vast spread "SERVERS" all belongs to "NATURE" and is different caused by "NATURE"

Now the learning of "GURU's BANI" is universal and to explain this vastness to different intelligence in different forms, foe eg

One cannot reveal body science to cobbler/ butcher/ ets in a technical language, but one can explain it by relating to there skills, so GURU's Message of Higher Awareness has reached masses and people with varied developed intellect.

It is difficult to get the intellect of mass awakened, through higher learning languages.

Software Professionals can understand that source language is

"ONE" Machine Langauge

"0" and "1" which again connects to "ONE" as "0" and "1" are not two but through a single source as a "SIGNAL" with response and no response.

But to make machine language to Scientific Communities C++/ JAVA/COBOL were developed.

Further a simplified versions to give a broad reach DOT net etc were developed. understood by more nos of humans

Further development WORD PRESS brings more simplicity for masses.

So is happening in "TRUE NATURE"s" awareness for masses.


Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

 

[Kully]

I asked you (and I think Harry Ji did too) why would Guru Gobind Singh Ji feel the need to hide ideas behind offensive text at all

As i have repeated many times before, the onus is on the reader to sift the knowledge from the base material. Those with base instinct will get caught up in the base material. Those with Bibek Buddhi will look beyond that to see the essence.

You have asked this question several times already, I hope that this will finally suffice.

ideas that were already presented in SGGSJ?

The ideas were presented in SGGS, but in DG we have a development of those ideas, into actual scenarios.

Now you tried to say it makes all the characters look bad but the big moral message was about how that fool allowed his wife to go out and she deceived him.

The bigger fool was the husband who had everything (the beautiful wife) but was not content with her. Her deceit was just a reaction to his deceit.

It did NOT condemn his cheating at all!

The story didn't condemn her cheating either. The story is not about approval or condemnation of either deceit.

Message is clear

The message is clear. That the man's deceit was the cause of his own downfall. Whta he expected from his wife, he was not wanting to give. It created an imbalance in the relationship which the man caused. It's very clear.

if Harkiranji, with her education, intelligence and experience around the world is able to 'misunderstand' the true meaning, what hope for the farm worker, the leather maker, the blacksmith, the cook of that time?

Bibek Buddhi cannot be harnessed or developed totally by sitting in classroom. If it did we wouldn't have any of the problems we see in the world today.

Harkiran Ji, for instance did not know that SGGS current form of 1430, is only a recent thing. Similarly there will be many aspects of Sikhi which I am not aware of but she will be. But I would be mortified if someone said "kully knows more than a common villager". We all learn and know different things form our personal researcg into Sikhi.

Harkiran Ji, if it's not an intrusion, how long have you been studying Sikhi for?

You may say HKji has an agenda,

No Sir, I may not! I do not think that Harkiran Ji has any agenda. I think (only from responses given) that she does not understand this text, the way it was meant to be understood. I think that she has read Bindra's book and has placed too much faith in it.

Am I correct Kullyji?

Absolutely. No Sikh would disrespect women. For the Guru to do that, it's even more unthinkable.

All the more reason to NOT use them because it would only serve to reinforce those widely accepted facets!

The idea of the Charitropakhyan is to get OVER those facets by showing the reader the harm caused. Not showing the reader to re-enact the same stories.

As per your own version DG is meant for warrior part then instead of recording heroic achievements and martyredom,

It is, but I wanted to know where you thought these parts of history should be recorded in DG? Any chapter in particular?

Neither sex comes out of this particularly well,

No, they don't and it the man that caused the downfall.

one might say the DG is not just highlighting the potential base nature of women, but indeed of us all.

Not highlighting for us to commit the same mistakes, but for us to learn from, so we don't make those mistakes.

How would say men are portrayed in this?

The way the man is portrayed to me, is not personal. I can read the story, see what he did and learn from it.

The only message I see it saying about men, is that men are gullible for falling for the women's deceit

Yes, and that is exactly why I beleive that you do not understand what Charitropakhyan is about.

The only message I see it saying about men, is that men are gullible for falling for the women's deceit (hey men get control of your women!).

If that is the only message you see from Charitropakhyan then maybe it would be better if you try to avoid any discussion on it. Try to gear yourself towards learning about it first. And try reading more than Bindra's book.

badly, as lust ridden idiots, to be honest there seem to be a shortage of goodies, it would appear we are all baddies, the story being debated here is not just potentially a disrespect to women, it is a potential disrespect to all humanity.

Like I said, the intention is not to disrespect either gender, but to learn from the mistakes made.

The difference however is that the husband's misdeeds go unnoticed.

Well, they didn't did they?

Why does it not mention that he deceived her first?

It does.

The metaphorical comparison Kully is using, is that the mind is giving too much freedom, control and influence to to Maya and is being deceived by it.

No, the metaphorical comparison is that the Man is afflicted by Kam and Lobh, (2 of the 5 vices) because he already has a wife who he is not content with. His abandonment of his dharma means causes all kinds of trouble for him.

If the man had been content with his wife, and not seeking the company of other women, he would be fine.

so that's where we are, Kullyji, we await your response

And I do apologise for the wait, I haven't been very well over the last week.

Kully Ji what do you say about this?

As for Dharam Singh, I do not know about him, and as for the Taksal, I do not care about what they do/think.

a well known DG scholar

Everybody can claim to be a scholar can't they Harkiran Ji?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

As i have repeated many times before, the onus is on the reader to sift the knowledge from the base material. Those with base instinct will get caught up in the base material. Those with Bibek Buddhi will look beyond that to see the essence.

Ahh so it was never meant for the regular everyday Sikhs then? Those who were farmers and simple since they would not understand? Who was it for then? And why present something that only few would understand while the rest would use against women? Certainly if the meaning was hidden then Guru Ji would have known it would be used to limit and discriminate against women by the majority who would not have he bibek budhi to understand it?

The ideas were presented in SGGS, but in DG we have a development of those ideas, into actual scenarios.

So you are saying that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is incomplete then? Since we need something to go into more details using scenarios? Scenarios that place females in a bad light?

The bigger fool was the husband who had everything (the beautiful wife) but was not content with her. Her deceit was just a reaction to his deceit.

This we agree on. Then why does the Charitar condemn HER and not him? It calls him a fool for allowing her to deceive him but it does not even mention that he cheated on her and deceived her first. Only HER actions were condemned. Then it goes on to say that wise men never share secrets with women. Sharing a secret with someone gives them ammo to use against you. That means it condines the husband keeping secrets from her (allowong him to cheat) but it condemns her for responding to his cheating by calling him a fool for allowing her to deceive him.

The story didn't condemn her cheating either. The story is not about approval or condemnation of either deceit.

Actually it does condemn her actions. It calls him a fool for allowing her to deceive him. The message was about control of her to the point that her obedience was emphasized. He was called a fool for trusting her and being deceived. If his deception was also condemned then it should say she was a fool for allowing him to deceive her and cheat. It does not. The message is clear that women are to be controlled while men do the controlling and men don't you allow your women to get out of hand - don't trust them because they will deceive you. The fact that it emohasizes wise MEN don't divulge secrets to women (and not the other way around) makes it clear that women are not encouraged to keep secrets from men, but men are encouraged to keep secrets from women.

The message is clear. That the man's deceit was the cause of his own downfall. Whta he expected from his wife, he was not wanting to give. It created an imbalance in the relationship which the man caused. It's very clear.

What's clear is his trusting of his wife caused it. He trusted her and she deceived him. That's what is being condemned.

 

[Kully]

Ahh so it was never meant for the regular everyday Sikhs then?

I don't know what an everyday regular Sikh is.

Those who were farmers and simple since they would not understand?

Why would farmers be simple, or unable to understand?

Who was it for then?

Humanity.

And why present something that only few would understand while the rest would use against women?

We can say the same thing about SGGS. Who understands all of SGGS? I don't. Do you? But that doesn't put me off learning about SGGS, and in the same way only a few understanding Charotropakhyan doesn't mean anything. The onus is on us to present oursleves to be able to learn.

Certainly if the meaning was hidden then Guru Ji would have known it would be used to limit and discriminate against women by the majority who would not have he bibek budhi to understand it?

No, because anyone who used their Bibek Buddhi would understand it properly.

So you are saying that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is incomplete then?

Just becuase DG expands on some of aspects of SGGS, why should that measure anything pertaining to whether SGGS is complete?

You wear a turban and keep your kes, from your profile photo. SGGS doesn't require this, so have you yourself exceeded the complete teachings of SGGS, thereby making SGGS incomplete by doing so?

Since we need something to go into more details using scenarios?

We listen to, read and discuss Gurbani. Why do we do that? And are we not exceeding the completeness of SGGS by discussing the shabads in greater detail?

Scenarios that place females in a bad light?

Only according to your own intellect.

Then why does the Charitar condemn HER and not him?

That is for you to work out. If a person read that charitiar and blamed the woman, then we would know they haven't fathomed the whole story but just one part of it. Any person who reads the charitar and sees that the man is totally responsible for the situation, then we know that they have understood it to greater detail.

It calls him a fool for allowing her to deceive him but it does not even mention that he cheated on her and deceived her first.

That is for the reader to work out. Guru Sahib is not spoon feeding you the details here.

Then it goes on to say that wise men never share secrets with women.

That is not a conclusion to the story. That is a hint to the King from the Minister about the greater play in motion.

Actually it does condemn her actions.

Actually it doesn't. It condems the man (correctly) for being responsible for the situation.

He was called a fool for trusting her and being deceived.

He was a fool for more than that, and that is what the essence of the charitar is.

The fact that it emohasizes wise MEN don't divulge secrets to women

This line has been discussed in the opening paragraph. Please don't repeat the same points over and over. It adds nothing to the discussion. You repeat yourself. I repeat myself to you. Isn't it a little silly to carry on a discussion this way?

What's clear is his trusting of his wife caused it.

To you. To me, the charitar shows how the man dug a hole for himself. He abandoned his own dharma, and lead his wife to abandon hers.


Personally I don't think there's anything left to discuss on this charitar. You are leading me around in a circle, with the same arguments. The reason why I chose this charitar was yours and Ishna Ji's horror at men having control over womens toilet use. The charitar cleared that up, so anything else you take from this is a bonus.

You were talking about another charitar in which a woman was beaten. What is the number of that charitar? You left me to find this charitar, even though I asked you to tell me the number. Give me head start with the next one.I will take a look at it, and share it with the forum.
 

Harkiran Ji, if it's not an intrusion, how long have you been studying Sikhi for?

I'm interested in how long you have been studying SIkhi for Harkiran ji. If you don't me to know, tell me.

 

[japjisahib04]

It is, but I wanted to know where you thought these parts of history should be recorded in DG? Any chapter in particular?

Kully Jee
Please write why in (so called) DG the credit to original author of Charitophykhan is not given and like SGGS where clarification was required in Bhagatan dee baani guru sahib added his own sabad and since these stories are creating many confusions(like the most revered Sant Dharam Singh is belitting the potential of women), why no clarification is added. Also please tell me in which part of DG the most important ceremony of Khandhai Baati dee pahul or sacrifices of Guru Arjan Dev Jee, four sahib zadeh and sacrifices of Bhai Sati Dass, Bhai Mati Dass, Bhai Dayala Jee or Guru Teh Bahadur jee is mentioned.

Please don't accuse Dharam Singh for lack of bhibekhk budhi.

 

[Kully]

Please write why in (so called) DG the credit to original author of Charitophykhan is not given

Because there was no text such as Charitropakhyan in existence already. I have made this clear many times here. The stories themsleves are folk tales from around the world, so who is to be credited?

Why are you posting these questions over and over when they have already been discussed?

since these stories are creating many confusions(like the most revered Sant Dharam Singh is belitting the potential of women), why no clarification is added.

Because it wasn't needed. In SGGS where Guru Sahib has added to Bhagats bani a clarification has been given, but there is no such clarification given or needed in DG, which actually further goes to prove that DG is the work of Guru Sahib.

Also please tell me in which part of DG the most important ceremony of Khandhai Baati dee pahul

It isn't mentioned as thre writing and jild for DG was completed in 1696. Just in case you weren't aware, pahul ceremony was in 1699.

or sacrifices of Guru Arjan Dev Jee

Guru Arjan's shaheedi is not mentioned in DG.

four sahib zadeh

Guru Sahib has written about the 4 sahibzadas in DG.

and sacrifices of Bhai Sati Dass, Bhai Mati Dass, Bhai Dayala Jee or Guru Teh Bahadur jee is mentioned.

The Sikh shaheeds are not mentioned but Guru Tegh Bahadur's shaheedi is mentioned. In fact this is one place where Guru Sahibs shaheedi is presented as such, whereas the Moghal/Hindu sources all say he was executed as a rebel. In fact Hindus go as far as to say that it was the Brahmans Sati Dass, Mati Dass and Diala, who were Hind di Chadar, not Guru Sahib.

But we can easily refute that as we have the evidence in DG, can't we?

Please don't accuse Dharam Singh for lack of bhibekhk budhi.

Sounds like you already have.