Show me proof that
1) he wrote it (using RELIABLE sources) and
2) prove thats what he meant.
Harkiran, I don't want to keep repeating myself. You have already received an answer to q1.
Re q2, again I'll re-emphasise that it's upto us to read and understand.
Just because you or someone else thinks it meant that doesnt matter. Thats your opinion of what it means.
Well we all have opinions, you and myself included, but all we can do is loook at whats in front of us.
Try applying those meanings to the individual charitars and it doesnt work.
Again that will be down to how you percieve it.
We will move onto the actual stories in time.
The charitars end with very specific 'lessons' example is saying that women must never do anything without their husband's permission, not even going to use the washroom. Now what are you trying to say that Maya should never use the washroom without the minds permission? Thats makes no sense.
Harkiran Ji, what you have written above on reinforces the fact that you don't understand the text. Or maybe you don't have the faculty to understand. Don't take that in a negative way. There are lots of literature I don't understand.
To get an insight I asked you some basic questions about Charitropakhyan, of which you responded very poorly. With the above quote of yours, it is very apparent that you seem to be out of your depth with this. But never shut your mind off to learning.
The main point is that Guru Ji NEVER would have written anything which would have had the consequences that this piece of writing had.
This writing, in all honesty has had no consequences on the Sikh Panth. The fact is that the majority of Sikhs don't even know about DG, nevermind Charitropakhyan. That majority included me up until recently. So any thoughts towards the female gender would already have been there without even knowing about this text.
I haven't changed my feelings/attitude to wards the females after starting to research this text.
I have never in my life even seen a saroop of DG.
You agreed that this piece of work, uses women to depict the bad things like Maya and men as power and ministers.
I agreed? What i said was that the female is not just representing maya but also hukam, and the male is not only representing bibek buddhi/dharam but also the 5 vices.
But this is what is so dangerous about you. There is a saying that half-baked knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge at all. By deliberately omitting half my statement you are trying to make me look like something I am not. Why would you even do that?
Sorry I dont see at all how the first wife would be hukam.
Re-read my explanation above. She came and went according to time. Her departure from prithvi-lok represented hukam.
It's ok if you still don't see, maybe there are certain literature that some of us are not just able to see.
Just because someone says so, doesnt make it so.
Absolutely. it doesn't matter what you or I say. What Guru says is the only thing that matters. And at the moment there is not confusion on Guru says.
Someone at some point in time, long after Guru Ji was gone, decided that this was what it meant (probably AFTER many people condemned the works as being demeaning to women) and besides, a sizeable amount of Sikhs (even who do believe he did write it) do not give in to the Maya / Mind symbolism theory.
Too vague Harkiran Ji, to even worth considering.
They say it was straight out to warn his Singhs about the evils women can do.
So what? they are wrong about it as well.
This one piece of writing basically undid what ALL of the previous Gurus had done to elevate the status of women.
How so?
That's the only hard and set in stone fact about this piece of work.
The only thing that is hard and set in stone is your learning of this text.
And our Guru would NOT have done that - even if the meanings were meant to be only symbolic, he certainly would have known (being Guru) the damage to the female gender this work would cause.
What damage has this done to female gender?
I can't see our Guru writing some deep hidden meaning that most won't understand, beneath stories that would most definitely degrade the position of women to nearly what they were prior to Sikhi. If that was indeed the message he wanted to convey, he could have done so in numerous ways
Who understands Gurbani? Do you understand Japji Sahib ? I don't. I have to look up the panjabi meanings and read up on them and listen to katha of the meanings to help me understand. I need the same help whenever I am looking at any other shabads in SGGS.
Guru Sahib could also have written Gurbani in very simple Panjabi, but no Guru Sahib wanted us to work for this knowledge. Just the same as anyone saying "why is this maths so hard, just give me the degree". Who would do that? Who would even ask that?
Anyway, until someone shows me an answer key or some writing that CAN be directly attributed to Guru Ji, that he wrote it, and that he meant it the way you described above, then its all heresay and speculation.
Harkiran, if you are after something written, then you have already had the source. Mehma Parkash. If you want something that Guru Sahib wrote himself about it, then you will not find it.
Just as when I asked you where did Guru Sahib write "sabh sikhan ko hukam hai, guru maneyo granth". I haven't see it written anywhere, so does that mean that until someone brings it to me, I won't accept SGGS as my Guru? And the same applies to you. Until someone can show you this writing are you prepared to say the same about SGGS?
