"Dasam" Granth - A Look At The Core Problems

[Kully]

Kully Ji the implication is if Guru Ji really did write this and believed in it, then he hated his Singhnis.

Harkiran Ji, the implications are that you do not understand this text in it's entirety. Let's get round to discussing the text, but before we do that please tell us what sources you have read to understand this text. I know that you have read the complete and most likely other views about it.

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??

I don't think personallly from the little I have read on this text, that it was just about moral stories. I think there is a level beyond that.

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

It can't be because Guru Ji would never write something with that kind of message. It's up ot us to decipher what Guru Ji is trying to tell us.

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

In a one word answer. Yes. The last chapter contains the chaupai with which khande ki pahul is prepared. You have taken pahul yes?

 

[Kully]

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.

I was once a doubter of this text, because of 2 reasons. One I couldn't read Gurmukhi or understand Panjabi on a level required to get any knowledge of this text.

Secondly, I made the mistake of reading Pritpal Singh Bindra's book and took it for an accurate translation of the text, and read it as a literal piece of work. I ended up doubting this was Guru Sahib's work. For some time I was like this until, I managed to get a pdf of Dr Rattan Singh Jaggi's translation in Panjabi, which kind of opened my eyes, because he went into detail a bit more and you could see the essence behind the words.

Since Gurpreet Singh California has come on the scene he has made a real effort to do katha of the charitars, which I have to say are very revealing. On a sad note it is surprising how literal translations of this text do it such a big injustice.

 

[Kully]

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:

Harkiran Ji, you brought FACTS to this discussion but ended up discarding these same FACTS when they weren't working in your favour.

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).

Can you provide any evidence of Guru Sahib doing either of the above?

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...

That in itself means nothing.

Guru Sahib didn't add to GGS to tell Sikhs to take Khande ki pahul either. So should we dismiss that as well?

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!

That is entirely your own observation and unless you have done any survey into whether males use charitropakhyan that way, then it means nothing.

For the first instance I would even go as far as saying that very few people are even aware of Dasam Granth never mind Charitropakhyan as a text.So to say that there are many who want to desperately hold onto it, just seems like sensationalism and nothing more.

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.

See above.

 

[Kully]

But yes I have read the entire Charitropakhyan. I'm sorry, I just can't get any deep nor positive meaning from any of it.

I am in admiration of you for having read the entire Charitropakhyan. It is quite lengthy. I'm a little curious as to why you feel you never got anything deep or positive from the final chapter chapter called "benti chaupai" which is recited as part of Nitnem and Amrit Sinchar.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Harkiran Ji, the implications are that you do not understand this text in it's entirety. Let's get round to discussing the text, but before we do that please tell us what sources you have read to understand this text. I know that you have read the complete and most likely other views about it.




I don't think personallly from the little I have read on this text, that it was just about moral stories. I think there is a level beyond that.




It can't be because Guru Ji would never write something with that kind of message. It's up ot us to decipher what Guru Ji is trying to tell us.



In a one word answer. Yes. The last chapter contains the chaupai with which khande ki pahul is prepared. You have taken pahul yes?

Benti Chaupai does not even flow with the rest of Charitropakhyan. Completely different flow, different storyline, not even related to the charitars which are basically stories told to the Raja by the advisor to teach him the character of women. Benti Chaupai looks like it was just tagged to the end.

I think, you really need to read the full charitropakhyan before you can make any final statements on whether or not you believe it was written by Guru Ji.

I find no other way to interpret something like this (as one example) which is basically saying women are on a lower level than men, and should not even eat until after he eats (nor do anything without his 'permission' as if she is in subjection to him.) Do you think Guru Ji really thought this way???

^^^ The above is horrible!!!!! It is saying women should be as a slave to their husband!! Husband and wife are absolute equals... one soul in two bodies equal. Neither is in 'authority' over the other. The above is a horrible horrible ideal that its pushing! by the way it's charitar 19. I find NO other possible 'hidden' meaning to suggest it isnt somehow denigrating women... it's very obvious that it is!

 

[Kully]

Benti Chaupai does not even flow with the rest of Charitropakhyan. Completely different flow, different storyline,

That is the understanding of one who has read but not understood the text.

I think, you really need to read the full charitropakhyan before you can make any final statements on whether or not you believe it was written by Guru Ji.

I have started on them, and am glad to discuss them as we go along. From your previous statement above I absolutely do not think you understand the setting of the text never mind the actual essence of it.

Here's the proof :

^^^ The above is horrible!!!!! It is saying women should be as a slave to their husband!! Husband and wife are absolute equals... one soul in two bodies equal. Neither is in 'authority' over the other. The above is a horrible horrible ideal that its pushing! by the way it's charitar 19. I find NO other possible 'hidden' meaning to suggest it isnt somehow denigrating women... it's very obvious that it is!

How is that text being represented? From the way YOU have re-represented it I know that you have read the text but most definitely have not understood the setting of the text, and because of that you are unable to comprehend the essence of the text.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

That is the understanding of one who has read but not understood the text.




I have started on them, and am glad to discuss them as we go along. From your previous statement above I absolutely do not think you understand the setting of the text never mind the actual essence of it.

Here's the proof :





How is that text being represented? From the way YOU have re-represented it I know that you have read the text but most definitely have not understood the setting of the text, and because of that you are unable to comprehend the essence of the text.

Then enlighten me! How is a woman having to serve her husband and being subjected to not doing anything without his permission in any way positive?? Or do you believe women actually should be in subjection to men?

because I believe in equality.... SGGSJinstructs us to see ALL with single eye of equality... the above does not see ALL with a single eye of equality. It sees men as leader, in control, and woman as servant, must be obedient, and going by the themes of the stories, tells men to not even trust women at all even their wives because us women all just want to {censored} everything in sight and will do anything including murder to get it!

 

[Kully]

Then enlighten me!

Harkiran ji, I really wish it was that easy. But, I hope you don't find offence in these words, but to me, you have dug yourself into a hole so deep, that you may not be able to climb out of it. You have said that this text is "disgusting" and have tried many attempts to denigrate it where possible. Because of the hole you have dug for yourself, it is not possible for a person like me to enlighten you alone. You have to be prepared to accept the evidence in front of you, and since you have displayed a total reluctance to do that, what can words from me do?

We can discuss any issues but I know that you cannot bring yourself to even contemplating that you have been wrong( or deceived) by your past research in charitropakhyan text.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Harkiran ji, I really wish it was that easy. But, I hope you don't find offence in these words, but to me, you have dug yourself into a hole so deep, that you may not be able to climb out of it. You have said that this text is "disgusting" and have tried many attempts to denigrate it where possible. Because of the hole you have dug for yourself, it is not possible for a person like me to enlighten you alone. You have to be prepared to accept the evidence in front of you, and since you have displayed a total reluctance to do that, what can words from me do?

We can discuss any issues but I know that you cannot bring yourself to even contemplating that you have been wrong( or deceived) by your past research in charitropakhyan text.

I asked you straight out, explain what is positive in the above text. How can subjugating a woman completely under men's control be in any way shape or form positive? And for that matter, how can any sort of deep meaning come out of it? YOU are the one saying there is some deep positive message in it. So what I should subjugate myself to my husband, eat only after he finishes (and I assume that means I must make all the meals too? and clean up after him?).... and not even pee unless he says I can?? Will I get the positive message out of it then?

No I have not dug anything. There is no positive message in this at all! And yes, its horrible (horrible was the actual word I used). I used the word 'disgusting' when referring to the oral sex on a horse story.

edit: Ask yourself if you'd still find the positive out of that if it was switched around and it was making the statement that men should only eat after their wives are finished, and that a man should never do anything without his wife's permission, even going to the washroom. Would you still find a positive message in that? How is the deeper meaning now??

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

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

Ummm... I think you are forgetting the Mool Mantra. BEYOND BIRTH and death. God does NOT take birth in this world in ANY form. Rather our Creator is ALL form cumulatively while existing as FORMLESS.

In SGGSJ, any reference to Hindu avatars is purely metaphorical.... as in Shiva and Shakti as metaphors for unmanifest and manifest. So for example Ang 21: Everywhere I look I see the Lord pervading in the union of shiva and shakti, of consciousness and matter. It's not speaking about literal shiva and shakti as Gods or avatars... it's using the reference as a metaphor / allegory to explain that he sees Waheguru in everything and everywhere, through the relationship between consciousness (unmanifest) and matter (manifest) We now know through quantum physics that there is a definite link between conscious observer, and manifest reality - google double slit experiment - the measurement problem. Gurbani was describing that truth, long before modern science - but it was not speaking of literal deities.

I didn't catch that in your post before... if you believe in literal deities as in the Hindu avatars, then why are you not following Hinduism instead?? Guru Nanak Dev Ji said he follows the ONE Lord only. Akal Purakh, Waheguru.

 

[Kully]

I asked you straight out, explain what is positive in the above text.

Harkiran Ji, we can start to discuss the text as I said. But before you start on the content you have to do your groundwork. You are rushing at this totally unprepared.

I don't want to keep posting things here and then re-posting them. Before we start on the content let's prepare ourselves by asking two questions.

1. What is the setting/background to Charitropakhyan?

2, Who are the main characters in the text?

Because you have read the complete text of Charitropakhyan, you already have a head start on me, so I will ask you to respond to the above questions first.

YOU are the one saying there is some deep positive message in it.

Yes, we will come to that in time. Be patient.

No I have not dug anything. There is no positive message in this at all!

Harkiran Ji, remember the hole you are in. This is why you are in that hole. Before even starting to discuss the content you have stated there is no positive. What you really need to say is that although you can't see any positive you are willing to keep an open mind. Because then that will also show that you are willing to learn and also willing to teach. This stance of yours is not what a Sikh should be about.

If you are able to even contemplate that there is a different dimension to this text than you have learnt, then we can discuss the content further.

 

[Kully]

I think you are forgetting the Mool Mantra. BEYOND BIRTH and death. God does NOT take birth in this world in ANY form. Rather our Creator is ALL form cumulatively while existing as FORMLESS.

What kind of a Sikh would forget the Mool Mantar? What you have said above is correct. But I didn't say anything opposite to what you have written. I said that Devi Devte exist and the Guru's recognised that they existed.

It is written throughout GGS and even in Sikh history there are encounters with devi-devtas.

In SGGSJ, any reference to Hindu avatars is purely metaphorical.

Some are metaphorical, some aren't. But I was talking about devi-devte, and you have started to bring avtaras into the equation. We can talk about the avtaras after, if you wish.

I didn't catch that in your post before... if you believe in literal deities as in the Hindu avatars, then why are you not following Hinduism instead??

Are you serious with this question? How are you equating a belief in something existing with faith in that same being?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

The Gurus never acknowledged that devis existed (which can be seen as demi-Gods or lesser deities) nor did avatars, deities. All of them are seen as aspects of Brahma. Like the God of rain, God of flowers etc etc etc. Even many Hindus openly say they don't see them as tangible actual entities that existed, but rather they see them as a symbol that helps them visualize certain aspects of the Creator. The references to these in SGGSJ are in a metaphorical / allegorical sense because the larger audience at the time it was written knew what these symbols stood for and so they would recognize the symbolism in Gurbani. As I said, on Ang 21 there is a line which says "Everywhere I look I see the Lord Pervading in the union of Shiva and Shakti, of consciousness and matter" It is not saying that everywhere he looks he sees Shiva and Shakti (as real entities). He is saying that everywhere he looks he sees Akal Purakh, in union of the unmanifest (formless) / manifest (form) as really ALL form arises out of the formless - and it does so through a relationship between consciousness and matter. We know today that conscious observer can collapse the wave function of electrons, essentially making them behave as particle and not a wave. That line in Gurbani had nothing to do with literal deities Shiva and Shakti. So the Gurus acknowledged that the audience at that time understood the symbolism behind the idea of the deities, but did not believe in the deities themselves. They used them in Gurbani so that people woild understand the ideas using symbolism they already knew.

And you are not the first one who made huge claims that there is a deeper meaning in Charitropakhyan and that the outward story which denigrates women, should be ignored. Trouble is, not one single person who makes this claim will actually share this big deep secret! Also, nobody explains where it says to ignore the outward obvious stories.

Then, we have an equally large group of DG supporters who claim that Charitropakhyan IS moral stories and that they ARE tales about women's wiles. Supposedly because everyone already knows men can do bad things and this was to highlight the bad things women can do. Problem is, all throughout history, women were the ones who were thought of as evil, seductresses, obstacles on the paths of men's spiritual enlightenment... not men! Even in the mindset of Indian culture at that time, being born as a woman was seen as karmic punishment, hence she was lower than the lowest caste. Her whole purpose was to serve her husband (who because he was male, was as a God to her). Women were seen as just being in the way of mens spiritual advancement and so men left their wives to become ascetic (the four stages of life). Women were always seen as treacherous and evil by men. In the time this was 'supposedly' written, this was still largely the view of women. So why would Guru Ji go and write a whole set of stories making women look even worse???!!! I mean sexual immorality was actually ENCOURAGED in men at the time (multiple wives, sex before marriage etc were never seen as bad if a man did it, but if a woman did, she was {censored} etc) So if ANYONE should have been highlighted as immoral and performing wiles to get their sexual desires met, it should have been men as the main characters! If you actually read any of the charitars, notice how even though it takes two to tango, and presumably the men are also cheating etc, but the big 'moral' at the end of each story ALWAYS points finger at the woman, and says things like 'nobody can fathom the wiles of women' So its like the author doesn't think men can do any wrong... but if a woman even uses trickery to save her life from robbers, well, she is the one who is made out to be bad while the robbers (who were certain to rape her anyway) are not even commented on! And you actually think Guru Ji wrote that???

 

[Kully]

The Gurus never acknowledged that devis existed (which can be seen as demi-Gods or lesser deities) nor did avatars, deities.

Yes the Guru's absolutely beleived that the devi devte exist. It's very apparent from Gurbani.

Even many Hindus openly say they don't see them as tangible actual entities that existed, but rather they see them as a symbol that helps them visualize certain aspects of the Creator.

Many Hindus openly say that the Sikh Panth is a part of the wider Hindu Panth. So what?

The references to these in SGGSJ are in a metaphorical / allegorical sense because the larger audience at the time it was written knew what these symbols stood for and so they would recognize the symbolism in Gurbani.

Not all of the references are. Some may be but it is absurd to say that all of them are.

Discussed in another thread: Opinion - Physical Existence Or Only Metaphorical Reference Of Devi, Devtas (Deities) In Gurbani?

We know today that conscious observer can collapse the wave function of electrons, essentially making them behave as particle and not a wave.

That is quite amusing actually. Who cares about science when discussing Gurmat? Gurmat is way above what science is.

And you are not the first one who made huge claims that there is a deeper meaning in Charitropakhyan and that the outward story which denigrates women, should be ignored.

And I daresay I won't be the last,as long as people are able to study it correctly. The outward story is just that. A story.

Trouble is, not one single person who makes this claim will actually share this big deep secret!

Now you are deliberately telling non-truths. I have attempted to share/study this "big secret" with you but all i am getting is wayward replies which are sidelining the study, which gives me the impression that you are actually afraid of discussing this text properly because of your existing beliefs.

I asked you 2 questions in my previous post, and you haven't answered them.

So please don't try and make others out to be in the wrong, when you have the option to learn but are not.

Also, nobody explains where it says to ignore the outward obvious stories.

We can come to this WHEN you have answered the 2 questions I put to you in my previous reply.

Don't keep asking questions, and don't keep avoiding answering because I'm afraid, at the moment it is really making this hard word. Please don't take that in a bad way, I don't mean it personally, and I'm sure that you, as a person who has read the WHOLE text of charitropakhyan will not have a problem answering these questions if you have understood this quite lengthy text that you have read completely.

For someone who has read the whole text I had thought you wold have been very eager to have this discussion.

And you actually think Guru Ji wrote that???

What I think means nothing. Same as what you think means nothing either. All you and I can do is look at the evidence before us.

Now please refer back to post #51.

If you wish to discuss devi-devte start another topic on it. That way we can keep these topics devoted on singular issues rather than have 2 or 3 discussions going on in one topic. That sound better?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Dear Admin Ji, for sake of ease, I cant post each and every FULL shabad in this case or else it would be HUGE posts. I think in this case, the line speaks for itself, and if anyone wants to look up the shabads the page numbers are included.... The purpose was just to show that all of the Gurus made statements about ONE Creator and not numerous deities, and not a discussion about in depth shabads meanings per say.

------

Kully Ji, Since you say our Gurus believed in existence of numerous deities (in other words you are saying they were polytheistic) then please explain why Gurbabni says this over and over???


Page 903, Line 5
ਕਰਿ ਕਰਤਾ ਤੂ ਏਕੋ ਜਾਣੁ ॥੭॥
करि करता तू एको जाणु ॥७॥
Kar karṯā ṯū eko jāṇ. ||7||
Know that there is only One Creator of the creation. ||7||
(Guru Nanak Dev Ji)

Page 1243, Line 2
ਨਾਨਕ ਸਚਾ ਏਕੁ ਹੈ ਅਉਰੁ ਨ ਸਚਾ ਭਾਲਿ ॥੨॥
नानक सचा एकु है अउरु न सचा भालि ॥२॥
Nānak sacẖā ek hai a▫or na sacẖā bẖāl. ||2||
O Nanak, there is only One True Lord; do not bother to search for any other as true. ||2||
(Guru Nanak Dev Ji)

Page 45, Line 11
ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਏਕੁ ਹੈ ਦੂਜਾ ਨਾਹੀ ਕੋਇ ॥
पारब्रहमु प्रभु एकु है दूजा नाही कोइ ॥
Pārbarahm parabẖ ek hai ḏūjā nāhī ko▫e.
There is only the One Supreme Lord God; there is no other at all.
(Guru Arjun Dev Ji)

Page 83, Line 6
ਹਰਿ ਇਕੋ ਕਰਤਾ ਇਕੁ ਇਕੋ ਦੀਬਾਣੁ ਹਰਿ ॥
हरि इको करता इकु इको दीबाणु हरि ॥
Har iko karṯā ik iko ḏībāṇ har.
The Lord alone is the One Creator; there is only the One Court of the Lord.
(Guru Ram Das Ji)

Page 223, Line 3
ਦੂਜਾ ਕਉਣੁ ਕਹਾ ਨਹੀ ਕੋਈ ॥
दूजा कउणु कहा नही कोई ॥
Ḏūjā ka▫uṇ kahā nahī ko▫ī.
Whom should I call the second, when there is only the One?
(Guru Nanak Dev Ji)

Page 427, Line 11
ਅੰਤਰਿ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਏਕੁ ਹੈ ਬਹੁ ਬਿਧਿ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਉਪਾਈ ॥
अंतरि बाहरि एकु है बहु बिधि स्रिसटि उपाई ॥
Anṯar bāhar ek hai baho biḏẖ sarisat upā▫ī.
Inwardly and outwardly, there is only the One Lord. He has created the world, with its many varieties.
(Guru Amar Das Ji)

Page 660, Line 7
ਸਰਬੰ ਸਾਚਾ ਏਕੁ ਹੈ ਦੂਜਾ ਨਾਹੀ ਕੋਇ ॥
सरबं साचा एकु है दूजा नाही कोइ ॥
Sarbaʼn sācẖā ek hai ḏūjā nāhī ko▫e.
In all the world, there is only the One True Lord; there is no other at all.
(Guru Nanak Dev Ji)

Page 684, Line 16
ਬਾਹਰਿ ਭੀਤਰਿ ਏਕੋ ਜਾਨਹੁ ਇਹੁ ਗੁਰ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਬਤਾਈ ॥
बाहरि भीतरि एको जानहु इहु गुर गिआनु बताई ॥
Bāhar bẖīṯar eko jānhu ih gur gi▫ān baṯā▫ī.
Outside and inside, know that there is only the One Lord; the Guru has imparted this wisdom to me.
(Guru Teg Bahadur Ji)


These are just a few... There are MANY MANY more. Right from Mool Mantra onward we are told in Gurbani over and over there is only ONE creator. That Creator is beyond birth and death, and so any idea of deities, avatars, devis whatever you want to call them, are spoken against!

 

[Harry Haller]

Yes the Guru's absolutely beleived that the devi devte exist. It's very apparent from Gurbani.

its not that apparent and completely at odds with the concept of Ek Onkar.

 

[Kully]

Discussed in another thread: Opinion - Physical Existence Or Only Metaphorical Reference Of Devi, Devtas (Deities) In Gurbani?

Thanks Admin Ji, will takie a look at that in the near future.

Kully Ji, Since you say our Gurus believed in existence of numerous deities (in other words you are saying they were polytheistic) then please explain why Gurbabni says this over and over???

Harkiran Ji, why are you getting confused with "acknowledgement" and "worship". Gurbani recognises that these devi devte exist but does Gurbani tell us to worship them?

Do you beleive that the sun and moon exist? Does that mean you worship either of them?

That Creator is beyond birth and death, and so any idea of deities, avatars, devis whatever you want to call them, are spoken against!

Quite right that the devi devte are not acknowledged as worthy of worship but to deny they exist is something different altogether.

its not that apparent and completely at odds with the concept of Ek Onkar.

Harry Ji, it's only at odds with Gurbani if we start to worship these devi devte thinking that we will get mukti from them. Recognising that they exist is not the same.

Here are two lines from Japji Sahib concerning devi devtas:

ਆਖਹਿ ਦਾਨਵ ਆਖਹਿ ਦੇਵ ॥
The demons speak, the demi-gods speak.

and

ਕੇਤੇ ਸਿਧ ਬੁਧ ਨਾਥ ਕੇਤੇ ਕੇਤੇ ਦੇਵੀ ਵੇਸ ॥
So many Siddhas and Buddhas, so many Yogic masters. So many goddesses of various kinds.

ਕੇਤੇ ਦੇਵ ਦਾਨਵ ਮੁਨਿ ਕੇਤੇ ਕੇਤੇ ਰਤਨ ਸਮੁੰਦ ॥
So many demi-gods and demons, so many silent sages. So many oceans of jewels.

 

[Kully]

Harkiran Ji, we can start to discuss the text as I said. But before you start on the content you have to do your groundwork. You are rushing at this totally unprepared.

I don't want to keep posting things here and then re-posting them. Before we start on the content let's prepare ourselves by asking two questions.

1. What is the setting/background to Charitropakhyan?

2, Who are the main characters in the text?

Because you have read the complete text of Charitropakhyan, you already have a head start on me, so I will ask you to respond to the above questions first.

Any response Harkiran Ji?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Here are two lines from Japji Sahib concerning devi devtas:

ਆਖਹਿ ਦਾਨਵ ਆਖਹਿ ਦੇਵ ॥
The demons speak, the demi-gods speak.

and

ਕੇਤੇ ਸਿਧ ਬੁਧ ਨਾਥ ਕੇਤੇ ਕੇਤੇ ਦੇਵੀ ਵੇਸ ॥
So many Siddhas and Buddhas, so many Yogic masters. So many goddesses of various kinds.

ਕੇਤੇ ਦੇਵ ਦਾਨਵ ਮੁਨਿ ਕੇਤੇ ਕੇਤੇ ਰਤਨ ਸਮੁੰਦ ॥
So many demi-gods and demons, so many silent sages. So many oceans of jewels.

I am SOOO glad you brought up that shabad!!!

Here is a perfect example of how a reference to something else is used. Lets say I write a book about a character (lets call that character Larry) and in my book Larry speaks about something (let's say Larry thinks people are really lizards from outer space). Now there may be a whole following of Larry such that they believe Larry actually exists and that people are really lizards from outer space. (And if you get into the physics of thought and creation maybe he does exist on some level, but that level is as an IDEA). Now the concept of Larry exists as an idea, and that idea speaks to people (hence the metaphor) even though Larry does not exist as an actual entity. The followers of Larry are so engrossed in the lizzard people theory - this idea speaks to them - with such importance, yet they don't realize that they are believing in an idea proposed by a fictitious entity created in a book!

Following me so far???

Now, the reference to demons, demi-gods in the case of the shabad above, If you notice the end of the Shabad makes the claim that:

ਨਾਨਕ ਜਾਣੈ ਸਾਚਾ ਸੋਇ ॥
नानक जाणै साचा सोइ ॥
Nānak jāṇai sācẖā so▫e.
O Nanak, the True Lord knows.

ਜੇ ਕੋ ਆਖੈ ਬੋਲੁਵਿਗਾੜੁ ॥
जे को आखै बोलुविगाड़ु ॥
Je ko ākẖai boluvigāṛ.
If anyone presumes to describe God,

ਤਾ ਲਿਖੀਐ ਸਿਰਿ ਗਾਵਾਰਾ ਗਾਵਾਰੁ ॥੨੬॥
ता लिखीऐ सिरि गावारा गावारु ॥२६॥
Ŧā likī▫ai sir gāvārā gāvār. ||26||
he shall be known as the greatest fool of fools! ||26||

So we have all these IDEAS that people created (false images and ideas of God - or aspects of God) to which they attributed grandoise statements about the nature of God and creation. ie The idea of a Krishna or Indra, etc making the statement about the nature of creation. (and if you ask why would people create an idea like a demi-god to attribute these statements to instead of an actual person? Simply to make people believe. These false created Gods and demi-gods etc after all, supported the ideas of casteism, sexism etc which we know go against humanity). So in the very end of the shabad it sums it up by saying that ANYONE (real person, created false gods, characters in stories etc) who claims to be able to describe God (who Gurbani tells us is INDESCRIBABLE) they will be known as the greatest of fools!

Now, I am also really surprised that in Dasam Granth you are so willing to ignore the literal meaning in order to attribute some deeper meaning to the charitars --- but in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, you are so willing to overlook the meaning of the full shabad and instead have taken the literal meanings??

By the way, you can accuse me of the same thing, but I have actually tried numerous times to entertain the idea that the females in the charitars are 'Maya' (as suggested by some) while the males are all humans, but the metaphorical / allegorical method just doesn't pan out for one huge reason: ------- Why would a woman be used as a metaphor for Maya (illusion, deceit, trickery) unless those attributes were already understood to be female attributes anyway? The way metaphor or allegory work is to use symbols that people already know and understand anyway. So to use the female form as a metaphor for Maya, would mean that Guru Ji was already accepting the idea that deceit, trickery and immorality were female traits and not male traits. (Meaning he was indeed denigrating women) The metaphor just doesn't work..... unless Guru Gobind Singh Ji DID think that women were more apt to deceit and trickery and immorality, and not men. Which means the literal meanings in the story would be valid in that case (meaning you can't ignore them). So you have yourself a paradox! You can't say that the females are metaphor for 'Maya' (or some other evil thing) in the stories, unless you also believe that women ARE embodiment of deceit and immorality (because that's how symbolism and metaphor work!!) In which case, the stories DO denigrate women either way!

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Sorry for barging in.

I have a few questions whoever is able to respond, will be grateful.

1. Did any of our Gurus call themselves Patshais?
2. What does Patshah/i mean in SGGS, our only Guru?
3. When Guru Gobind Singh added his Dad's Gurbani to the SGGS, he ended each shabad with Nanak as per norms of SGGS used by the previous Gurus, did he use Nanak anywhere in the so called DG? Why defy the norms as One Jyot?
4. If Guru Gobind Singh ji did not mention anything about his poetry anywhere, are we so arrogant to second guess our 10th Guru?
5. How dare we declare what is written and not by Guru Gobind Singh ji when he himself did not indicate anything of that sort?

Please ponder and respond.

Thanks