"Dasam" Granth - A Look At The Core Problems

[Kully]

That is a quite accurate translation. Is that your work? If it is then I commend you on your fantastic attempt.

There are 2 lines missing in verse 4.

They would read:

Thye were rewarded in excess of custom
No discrimination was felt between any (4)

I have looked at Mehma Parkash and would translate the verse 5 as follows:

Calling a scribe of Gurmukhi close to him
And making everyone understand the purpose
I will translate and the Bhai willl record it in Gurmukhi
So please recite the katha to me (5)

The 24 Avtars was told

The 404 characters were told in a new form

The story was told and everyone listened

The True Guru was pleased on listening 8.

I would translate this as :

The 24 Avtars was translated
404 Charitars were given a new form
The Guru translated these and narrated these to everyone
They were very happy with Satguru (8)

So this which is from Mehma Parkash, suggests that the writings were retellings of older stories in Sanskrit, which he had them narrate while the Bhai write them down in Gurmukhi.

The text is saying that Guru Sahib had requested the learned poets to recite the Sanskrit texts, which Guru Sahib himself did "bhakya" of which means to translate texts of other languages into common vernacular. The poets recited Sanskrit, The Guru gave them a new form in Brij, and the Bhai scribed the Guru's words. In the main text it may not be too apparent but the closing verses make it absolutely clear.

Thanks for posting your translation of it, it was a great joy to read and I congratulate you on a very good attempt of translation. It can be a difficult process.

I'll look for the 1973 hukamnama again...

I appreciate that. Thanks Harkiran Ji.

 

[Kully]

And no, I won't be posting which charitar involves the bestiality I was speaking about above. It would be considered inappropriate by ANY standards!!!!

I understand, the subject will not be to many peoples taste, but could I trouble you for the Charitar number so that I may look at it myself?

 

[Kully]

Kabeerr's hymns are 300 pages. some of the hymns entered in sggs are a little bit changed by guru Arjun but the meaning is same. he made most of them look punjabi, otherwise meanings are same

Thanks for the reply, are there any topics on this forum where the writings may have been reproduced ? If not, could I trouble you to possibly put up 1 or 2 verses that are the same/similiar?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

That is a quite accurate translation. Is that your work? If it is then I commend you on your fantastic attempt.

There are 2 lines missing in verse 4.

They would read:

Thye were rewarded in excess of custom
No discrimination was felt between any (4)

I have looked at Mehma Parkash and would translate the verse 5 as follows:

Calling a scribe of Gurmukhi close to him
And making everyone understand the purpose
I will translate and the Bhai willl record it in Gurmukhi
So please recite the katha to me (5)




I would translate this as :

The 24 Avtars was translated
404 Charitars were given a new form
The Guru translated these and narrated these to everyone
They were very happy with Satguru (8)



The text is saying that Guru Sahib had requested the learned poets to recite the Sanskrit texts, which Guru Sahib himself did "bhakya" of which means to translate texts of other languages into common vernacular. The poets recited Sanskrit, The Guru gave them a new form in Brij, and the Bhai scribed the Guru's words. In the main text it may not be too apparent but the closing verses make it absolutely clear.

Thanks for posting your translation of it, it was a great joy to read and I congratulate you on a very good attempt of translation. It can be a difficult process.




I appreciate that. Thanks Harkiran Ji.

That was not my own translation.... just wanted to make that clear. I am still learning Gurmukhi so I have to rely on translations of others.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

The text is saying that Guru Sahib had requested the learned poets to recite the Sanskrit texts, which Guru Sahib himself did "bhakya" of which means to translate texts of other languages into common vernacular.

This is by your own admission evidence that proves Guru Ji did not write these as original works! And as I said, even if he requested them to be translated from sanskrit, it doesnt mean he intended for them to become 'bani' for us! Not at all! We know all the Gurus were against many of the themes which recurr in DG like avatars, idols, empty rituals etc.

Also, as I said, charitar 312 comes straight out saying God regretted creating the female gender. Do you really think Guru Ji would intend for that to be a lesson to his Sikhs, even if he did request these stories to be translated from Sanskrit?? Can you imagine Guru Gobind Singh Ji saying to his Singhnis, that "Waheguru regretted even creating you!" ???

And no I wont post the charitar with the horse. Its gross. Its inappropriate. You can google that if you want to read it.

 

[Kully]

I am still learning Gurmukhi so I have to rely on translations of others.

Oh. I thought you were quite versed in Gurmukhi. You do sound like a person who is quite versed in Gurmukhi, but not to worry, theres always something to learn.

This is by your own admission evidence that proves Guru Ji did not write these as original works!

Harkiran Ji, I don't really feel comfortable with these words "This is by your own admission" as it seems to relegate our learning to some kind of contest.

But concerning original works, nobody has ever claimed these works were original. It's very apparent where the stories came from (and even more so after Mehma Parkash) but the format in which they were presented, the "Charitropakhyan" is absolutely original. please don't get confused over this.

And as I said, even if he requested them to be translated from sanskrit, it doesnt mean he intended for them to become 'bani' for us

The word "bani" means word(s). It can pertain to spoken or written. Guru Sahib spoke these words that were recorded as Charitropakhyan. So Charitropakhyan can certainly be considered bani, as can other compositions in DG.

Not at all! We know all the Gurus were against many of the themes which recurr in DG like avatars, idols, empty rituals etc.

You know more than DG than I do, as I am a relative newcomer to this text. Where specifically would I find any one instance of the themes you have mentioned above in the DG?

GGS also talks about these same themes so why do you feel would it be out of place for them to be mentioned in DG?

 

[Kully]

And no I wont post the charitar with the horse. Its gross. Its inappropriate. You can google that if you want to read it.

Harkiran Ji, I don't want you to post the charitar here, just the number which will save me a great deal of time looking for it.

If you don't want to post it here then feel free to PM me with it.

Please could you also tell me the site where I could read up more about what happened with the Sikh Coalition? Again if you feel you don't want to post it here then PM me with it.

Thanks.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Oh. I thought you were quite versed in Gurmukhi. You do sound like a person who is quite versed in Gurmukhi, but not to worry, theres always something to learn.




Harkiran Ji, I don't really feel comfortable with these words "This is by your own admission" as it seems to relegate our learning to some kind of contest.

But concerning original works, nobody has ever claimed these works were original. It's very apparent where the stories came from (and even more so after Mehma Parkash) but the format in which they were presented, the "Charitropakhyan" is absolutely original. please don't get confused over this.




The word "bani" means word(s). It can pertain to spoken or written. Guru Sahib spoke these words that were recorded as Charitropakhyan. So Charitropakhyan can certainly be considered bani, as can other compositions in DG.



You know more than DG than I do, as I am a relative newcomer to this text. Where specifically would I find any one instance of the themes you have mentioned above in the DG?

GGS also talks about these same themes so why do you feel would it be out of place for them to be mentioned in DG?

My point was that considering something that someone might have spoken as being something they believe in, is dangerous.

Basically in the case of Charitropakhyan, the themes are:

- Women are deceitful and immoral and should never be trusted (not even your own wife)
- Women will stop at nothing not even murder to have their sexual desires met
- Women in Charitropakhyan have been depicted killing even their babies for the sake of having sex with a male who wasnt their husband
- Women have been depicted as blabbing husbands secrets such that he was destroyed (and the moral was never share secrets with a woman, not even your wife)
- Abuse of women is condoned (Charitar 10 as one example) where the 'severe beatings' were not spoken against at all, or even mentioned in the 'moral' at the end. The maid who was beaten however (and then it generalizes all women) was made to look bad and all blame is placed upon 'the woman'
- Over and over it says never to trust women, its ok to capture a womans heart but never let her capture yours (in other words, allow her to fall in love with you, but never surrender your own love to her - you can pretend though! What was that about deceit??)
- There are stories of women having sex with one guy while making another watch
- There are stories of women threatening to ruin the 'raja' by yelling thief if he didn't 'put his you know what in her vagina' (and it uses the explicit language too)
- There is a story of a woman convincing two robbers (in her home) to have sex with her (instead of harming her) and then she poisons them (when she made them food) One would think she was smart in how she escaped certain death (they would have raped her anyway) but by earning their trust she was able to escape... the 'moral' at the end still makes her out to be the bad one.
- In charitar 312, it comes straight out and says God regretted creating the female gender.

The above is just a small sampling... In 404 charitars, there is not one single story which makes men out to be the deceitful, immoral ones. In every story (even the ones that SEEM to depict a woman of strength and courage, STILL in the arril put the woman as the bad one!!!) 372 stories DIRECTLY depict 'woman' as deceiver, lustful, who will stop at nothing to get a man in bed, a few 'kinda sorta' make men look bad I think maybe about 24 or so... but by bad I mean, as in the example of the robbers... robbery is bad right? But the moral still makes some statement about the WOMAN'S character and it's NEVER good.

To say this is BANI (we know Gurbani has two meanings... it could simply mean words - but nearly everyone takes it to mean actual teachings from our Guru - things which our Guru meant us to read and learn from. IN the case of Charitropakhyan, a psychologist actually read it, and came to the conclusion that the ONLY 'learning' that men can possibly get from these horrible stories, is a newfound CONTEMPT towards ALL females!! Charitropakhyan at least, does real actual psychological damage with regards to male and female relations! We have not even touched on the other themes. In SGGSJ idols, etc are referred to as a reference point. In DG, avatars are main characters.

Its no wonder that the group who treats women the lowest in the Sikh community (giving women the least roles in Sikhi while reserving all the leadership, prominent seva etc for males only - and even going so far as to instruct a new bride she must see and serve her husband as a God over her), this group also holds DG the highest! Coincidence???

 

[Kully]

Basically in the case of Charitropakhyan, the themes are:

Now that we have established (for the time being, unless any further information becomes available) that the text was authored by Guru Gobind Singh let's take a look at it.

I have been looking on the net and have found 2 sources, one in English (Pritpal Singh Bindra) and another in Panjabi (Dr Rattan Singh Jaggi). Have you had a look through these at all?

IN the case of Charitropakhyan, a psychologist actually read it

I would take that with a pinch of salt. Being a psychologist would hold no merit in my mind in such discussions.

In SGGSJ idols, etc are referred to as a reference point. In DG, avatars are main characters.

When you say "main characters", in what context do you feel these characters are being portrayed?

Let's say I were to write a book/text about Peter Sutcliffe. He would be the main character, as the book/text is about him. But being the main character in a factual study of his life wouldn't necessarily mean that I am writing in praise of him, would it? If I wrote Sutcliffe was a good/kind man etc, then that changes the direction of the book/text in a eulogy. But if I wrote factually about what he did, then would that be classed as a eulogy? No, but he is still the main character in the book.

 

[Kully]

Basically in the case of Charitropakhyan, the themes are:

You have listed some quotes from the text. Can you for future ease of reference please add a charitar number, to anything you quote as it makes it much easier to look at.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Oh please don't put words in my mouth. I want to make two things very clear:

1. I was stating that IF Mehma Parkash is accurate then it only states that Guru Ji translated it from older Sanskrit sources. That is an huge difference from Being the author! For example if I translate a book from say Rissian into English, do you think I can claim to be the author of that book in English??? I would be charged with plagiarism. The stories were NOT original works authored by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Please don't put words on my mouth (like you are doing to Guru Ji).

2. Now let's look at historical accuracy of Mehma Parkash.

"Bhai Vir Singh's collection at Dehra Dun, was first discovered by Akali Kaur Singh (1886-1953). None of the manuscripts bears the name of its author, nor the date of its compilation, though it is commonly believed to be the work of Bava Kripal Das (or Singh) Bhalla written in 1798 Bk/AD 1741"

So it was written many years AFTER Guru Gobind Singh Ji left this world??? Exactly how accurate do you think something can be written that long after? Even in today's world where we have video and Internet and photos etc and we have a hard time piecing together accurate retellings of events even 25-30 years ago!!!
What makes Mehma Parkash such an accurate authority on the subject in your eyes??? And if you are going to say oral history passed down, then all you have to do is remember the game as a child where Ina circle one person starts and whispers a 'secret' to the next and they whisper to the next and so on. No matter how hard they try to tell the same story that was passed to them, the details of the story always end up completely different by the time it reaches back to the first person! It happens because every story teller tells the story in their own way, in their own language etc. Each person remembers details differently.

The only way this document can be taken as an authority on the subject is if other historical documents corroborate it. But I was simply
Pointing out that even in the case of Mehma Parkash it's not saying That Charitropakhyan is Guru Jis original works. In other words he did NOT author it! Please look up meaning of authored.

And since you seem so keen on this piece of disgusting work being his own beliefs then please explain to us all what he means when he says that:

God regretted creating the female gender.

Also please explain what Guru Ji meant when he said women can never be trusted (not even your own wife) and when Guru Ji condones severe beating of a maid and goes even further to lay the blame on her making her into the bad one when she snaps and kills those who beat her.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

When you say "main characters", in what context do you feel these characters are being portrayed?

Let's say I were to write a book/text about Peter Sutcliffe. He would be the main character, as the book/text is about him. But being the main character in a factual study of his life wouldn't necessarily mean that I am writing in praise of him, would it? If I wrote Sutcliffe was a good/kind man etc, then that changes the direction of the book/text in a eulogy. But if I wrote factually about what he did, then would that be classed as a eulogy? No, but he is still the main character in the book.

The difference is our Gurus only blieived in the ONE Akal Purakh, Waheguru and NOT Hindu Avatars. How can you write factually about something that there are no facts of? Its one thing to use an avatar as a metaphor (for example SGGSJ uses Shiva and Shakti to represent unmanifest formless and manifest form) but in case of Dasam Granth avatars are being spoken of as actual characters as if they existed. Since we know the Gurus only believed in the ONE - then how could he write a factual story about deities he didn't believe even existed??

To write a factual story about an entity Hindu Avatar as a main character, whether its good or bad, doesnt matter. It still means you believe in that avatar as a real tangible being. Or else the whole thing is fiction! And why would a Guru who like all other Gurus told us to believe only in the ONE Akal Purakh and not idols or avatars, and not be polytheistic, why would he all of a sudden change that and have us believing in Hindu avatars? You see, even if you try to say it WAS fiction, doesnt even matter! Many Hindus believe the idols and avatars are only 'aspects' of the one creator Braham which they use to help them visualize their Creator. But doesn't SGGSJ tell us over and over that God is FORMLESS and can NOT BE FATHOMED??? Meaning how can we create images (as in avatars) and call them God? That is NOT THE SIKH WAY!

Most of Dasam Granth to me, feels like a huge attempt by some Hindu groups in the 1800's to allow Hindu ideology to creep into Sikhi, so that ultimately, Sikhs will come 'back' to Hindu fold... or at the very least, so that Hindus can make bold claims that Sikhi is really just an offshoot of Hinduism. (claiming see! They believe in the same things we do!!) And I am not the only one to make this observation! Many of the themes are so similar you can see it easily! Women degradation (woman as deceiver, evil, obstacle to men's spiritual journey - the temptress who draws out mens weakness - kaam), explicit sexuality (kama sutra etc), idols, avatars, all of this is dripping in Hindu ideology! And the main groups who believe in DG as Guru Ji's bani.... they also see women as inferior, tell girls at time of marriage to see their husband as a God over her (laws of manu), restrict women from the most religious seva (panj pyaras, granthi, raagi, etc). because they see women as spiritually lower (in addition to physically lower). Of course they also use the fact of all male Gurus, the fact that all of their 'Sants' and 'Babas' are male... etc as justification too.
The husband btw at time of marriage is told to see his wife simply as his faithful follower. So they set the VERY same hierarchy as Hinduism: Man = God over woman. Womans purpose is to serve her husband as if he were her God. Man however, doesn't have to ever serve his wife. And she is expected to 'obey' and be submissive. This is what two main groups I know teach... and this thinking comes straight from DG!

I had a 'Singh' tell me once, that women needed to be controlled by men, because we are inherently wrought with deceit and treachery - and he used DG as justification. So we need to be dominated and controlled by men so they can 'save us' LOL.

 

[Kully]

Oh please don't put words in my mouth.

Harkiran Ji, I wouldn't dream of it. You were the one who brought a translation of Mehma Parkash here to look at, which at the time, you felt vindicated your stance towards DG. Since that was corrected you have shifted to historicity and content.

I would suggest that you take a balanced view of these texts that we are discussing, having no desire to them correct or incorrect. Once you plant your feet firmly in either camp you lose the essence of discussion.

That's what we are doing yes? Discussing things.

1. I was stating that IF Mehma Parkash is accurate then it only states that Guru Ji translated it from older Sanskrit sources. That is an huge difference from Being the author! For example if I translate a book from say Rissian into English, do you think I can claim to be the author of that book in English??? I would be charged with plagiarism. The stories were NOT original works authored by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

The SOURCE material are older sanskrit and folk tales from around the world, but the text of Charitropakhyan is totally Guru Ji's own words. Let me refer back to the Peter Sutcliffe example. Let's there were books about Sutcliffe in French, German, and Russian, which I read and I wrote a book on Peter Sutcliffe based on these previously written texts. Who would be the author of my book? Would it be the French, German and Russian writer, or would it have been me, who used these 3 books as source material and then wrote a book based on it?

You are using the "translation" aspect of this episode as Guru Sahib writing the Sanskrit or other texts word for word. That is not the case. Some of these stories are reputed to be tales from around the world.There was NO sanskrit Charitropakhyan. The Charitropakhyan that Guru Sahib wrote was the first of its kind as a complete text.

2. Now let's look at historical accuracy of Mehma Parkash.

The general consensus is that Mehma Parkash was written in 1776. Only those who wish to denigrate it (or other texts) come up with stories like it was written much later. In YOUR OWN well researched article you have stated that this text was written in 1766 ( i think) but I put that down to a typo as it shold have been 1776. Now the text that you used hasn't helped your corner too much, you start to question the dates, therefore nullifying your own work.

In my eyes that is intellectual fraud. Sorry if I sound blunt.

The only way this document can be taken as an authority on the subject is if other historical documents corroborate it. But I was simply
Pointing out that even in the case of Mehma Parkash it's not saying That Charitropakhyan is Guru Jis original works. In other words he did NOT author it! Please look up meaning of authored.

Why is this the ONLY way? It should be taken on it's own merits/demerits only. Do you not think the writer of Mehma Parkash would have been quaking in his boots thinking "I hope someone mentions this text in one of their own texts soon otherwise all my hard work and enterprise will amount to zero"?

And since you seem so keen on this piece of disgusting work being his own beliefs then please explain to us all what he means when he says that:

Harkiran Ji, why are you running from pillar to post to pillar? Let's go through these things with a clear cool head and discuss them them one at a time. You are moving about all over the place with this that it gets hard to keep the discussion going.

Let's approach it in a more befitting manner.

 

[Kully]

Since we know the Gurus only believed in the ONE - then how could he write a factual story about deities he didn't believe even existed??

The Guru's have never denied that any of these devi devte existed. it is repeated quite often through Guru Granth Sahib.

Most of Dasam Granth to me, feels like a huge attempt by some Hindu groups in the 1800's to allow Hindu ideology to creep into Sikhi, so that ultimately, Sikhs will come 'back' to Hindu fold...

How would Hindu group in the 1800s attempt to woo Sikhs back to Hinduism with lines like this from DG?

ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਉਬਾਰ ਨ ਸਕਿ ਹੈ ਜਾ ਕਰ ਨਾਮ ਰਟੈ ਹੈ ॥ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸ਼ਨ ਰੁਦ੍ਰ ਸੂਰਹ ਸਸਿ ਤੇ ਬਸਿ ਕਾਲ ਸਭੈ ਹੈ ॥

or

ਪਾਂਇ ਗਹੇ ਜਬ ਤੇ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਤਬ ਤੇ ਕੋਊ ਆਂਖ ਤਰੇ ਨਹੀ ਆਨਯੋ ॥ ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਅਨੇਕ ਕਹੈਂ ਮਤ ਏਕ ਨ ਮਾਨਯੋ ॥

Please quote line/page number from where quoted, so that non-Punjabi readers can study it themselves...

Searchgurbani page 1349 for the first line and 642 for the 2nd line.

Look it up in Panjabi if possible to see how well the translators have done.

 

[Kully]

I had a 'Singh' tell me once, that women needed to be controlled by men, because we are inherently wrought with deceit and treachery - and he used DG as justification.

I had a Muslim tell me that only muslims are loved by allah and islam is the true deen. and he used the quran as justification.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Kully Ji the implication is if Guru Ji really did write this and believed in it, then he hated his Singhnis. To say that we are full of deceit and treachery and will stop at nothing to get a man in bed.

If Guru Ji really were just crating moral stories then where are the equally damning stories about men being deceitful and treacherous to get women into bed??

Charitropakhyan is nothing but a writing designed to make men hate women and make women look like complete evil sex maniacs!

You believe this is written by Guru Ji in your heart??

 

[Harry Haller]

If I may put a point forward, purely playing devil's advocate, the DG is in the main, a Nihang lauded manuscript. It seems to be for fighters, for battle hardened men, and I use the word men because on the whole, warriors were men. Firstly, as Sikhism was still attracting Hindu's and Hindu fighters, is it not possible that in those circumstances what started off as a Guru written mansuscript, became, because of the need of the time, a text aimed in the whole, at fighting, single, religious Hindu men. Maybe it was never mean't to be a Granth Sahib, maybe it was the Nihang's own personal Granth Sahib, as lets face it, those guys live different lives, they are not householders, they are not businessmen, they do not live normal lives, they are the forces that have kept Sikhism going through the sword, who knows, maybe the tenth master did give them their own manuscript that was then added to, however, what I do know is that if someone wishes to treat a manuscript with respect, and it contains words of our tenth master, regretfully side by side with lets just say possibly not his words, than I have no problem with that. The Guru Granth Sahib is the Guru Granth Sahib, and that is absolute in my opinion.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Harry Ji though I respect your opinion, The fact remains that Charitropakhyan denigrates women. That is whole meaning behind it as every single arril states something to the effect that women are evil, deceitful, immoral. The entire message of Charitropakhyan is hey Men don't ever trust women even those closest to you like your wife.

Now do you think it's logical that Guru Ji would have two differing opinions of women, one for rest of us and one for Nihangs? The message was not that 'certain' women are like that or that 'certain' men can be like that. The message driven over and over for 404 stories is that women (in general) are immoral and deceitful and men (in general) should never trust women because as the charitars say 'even God can't comprehend the deceit and trickery of women'

In my heart of hearts I KNOW Guru Ji would never think this way of women (in general... Speaking of the gender) we all know there are immoral men and women. But this piece of work denigrates only women and it points finger at women in general.

 

[Harry Haller]

Harry Ji though I respect your opinion, The fact remains that Charitropakhyan denigrates women. That is whole meaning behind it as every single arril states something to the effect that women are evil, deceitful, immoral. The entire message of Charitropakhyan is hey Men don't ever trust women even those closest to you like your wife.

Now do you think it's logical that Guru Ji would have two differing opinions of women, one for rest of us and one for Nihangs? The message was not that 'certain' women are like that or that 'certain' men can be like that. The message driven over and over for 404 stories is that women (in general) are immoral and deceitful and men (in general) should never trust women because as the charitars say 'even God can't comprehend the deceit and trickery of women'

In my heart of hearts I KNOW Guru Ji would never think this way of women (in general... Speaking of the gender) we all know there are immoral men and women. But this piece of work denigrates only women and it points finger at women in general.

I agree with everything you write, but in an effort to explain how this came about, is it possible what started out as a good idea became corrupted and hijacked over the years. Out of curiosity is there any body that actually believes there were written by the tenth master? most sensible opinions seems to be acceptance of existence rather than actual study and lauding.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I agree with everything you write, but in an effort to explain how this came about, is it possible what started out as a good idea became corrupted and hijacked over the years. Out of curiosity is there any body that actually believes there were written by the tenth master? most sensible opinions seems to be acceptance of existence rather than actual study and lauding.

Well if you read above, I posed that question by looking at all the references that mention writing from Guru Gobind Singh Ji. As far as I can see, the only actual FACTS that we have are:

1) Guru Gobind SIngh Ji himself passed Guruship to SGGSJ ONLY - and instructed his Sikhs to consider NO OTHER granth or writing on equal level to it (Have no other Guru).
2) If Guru Gobind Singh Ji had wanted to include his own writing, he very easily could have added it to SGGSJ and/or left ACTUAL INSTRUCTIONS to consider any of his writing on equal level to SGGSJ. He did neither...

But yes, MANY want to desperately hold on to charitropakhyan as being from Guru ji. You see, it will give them actual fuel / justification to see women as inferior and use it to treat us as being on some lower level with less privileges than themselves. Its their own mind which thinks like that but of course they are grasping at the desperate hope that Guru Ji actually would justify treating women as lower!

ANY SINGH who actually respects women and believes we deserve equal treatment in society, the family, and the faith, would NEVER actually want that some writing attributed to our Guru, where the ONLY purpose is to cause contempt and distrust in men, towards women. Any Singh who actually CARES about his Mother, sister, daughter, will NEVER want something that depicts them in such a horrible way, attributed to our Guru.