Bachittar Natak Insight On Dasam Granth (bachitar Natak) | Dr Karminder Singh

[Sikhi 24/7]

Insight on Dasam Granth (Bachitar Natak) by Dr Karminder Singh in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Feb 2017

 

[Kully]

I have watched some of this video. I didn't watch it all as there were some important points I wanted to share here before progressing through more of the video. I shall do so, as I offer my viewpoints on some of the points DKS makes.

Firstly I would like to start with the fact that DKS states in this video that Sikhs, or more specifically the Dal Panth, were living in jungles for 70 years in which time the custodians of the Gurdwaras subverted the thrust of Gurmat by introducing Dasam Granth to the Sikhs. He states that because of this 70 year absence the Udasis/.Nirmalas were able to accomplish this. ( I will address that point later).

However if we take a close look at this, we can see that it is simply not accurate. The Dal Panth were never far from Amritsar throughout the 70 years, and throughout several periods were in control of the institutions there.

We know from history that the Dal Panth were there in control of Amritsar for periods in every single decade from 1708 to 1770. In some cases of these decades the Sikhs were there for several years. Every now and then anti-Sikh pogroms occured which drove the Dal Pannth into the jungles/mountains but they were never in those jungles/mountains for decades.

It is a poor assertion that the control of what was happening in Amritsar was outside the control of Sikhs for 70 years.

Furthermore this also brings up the point that several people claim the Dasam Granth was introduced to the Sikhs in the 1800s. (which is false) but those who accept DKS views in this video are part of that section of intellectuals who believe that DG was introduced to Sikhs in the 1800s. So if these same intellectuals wish to claim that Dasam Granth was introduced after the 1800s then DKS has produced a video which is based on a false premise from the outset.

Here are some years that come up in history that show the Sikhs to be in control of Sri Darbar Sahib and Amritsar:

Banda Bahadurs army was in control of Amritsar for some of the time of his wars- 1712-1716.

Bhai Mani Singh settled the dispute between Tatt Khalsa and Bandai Khalsa in Amritsar in 1721.

In 1726, the Sikhs were in agrowing position of strength so much, that they were able to plunder the Govt treasuries passing close to Amritsar.

IN 1731 the Lahore Suba began a pogrom against Sikhs which resulted in the Dal Panth leaving Amritsar until 1733 ( a period of less than 2 years) when there was non-stop fighting between the state and the Sikhs.

In 1733 seeing as the Sikhs could not be subdued a nawwabgi was offered and again the Sikhs returned to Sri Darbar Sahib to take control.

In 1734 Nawab Kapur Singh gave further organisation to the Sikhs at Sri Darbar Sahib and the Sikh Panth started to again meet here every Diwali and Vaisakhi to discuss strategy etc.

In the begining of 1735 Zakriya Khan drove the Sikhs out of Amritsar but they had returned to take over Sri Darbar sahib again before the Diwali of that year.

IN 1736, the Lahore govt again attacked the Sikhs in Amritsar but were severely beaten leaving the whole of Amritsar under Sikh control.

IN 1739, Nadir invaded and on his return through Panjab a few months later he advised Zakria to uproot the SIkhs. Zakria led a massive army agains the Sikhs in Amritsar and took Sri Darbar Sahib under moghal control.

The Sikhs then regained control of Sri Darbar Sahib in 1745, where they celebrated Diwali.


And there is more....

Just from the above it is clear that the Sikhs may not have been in direct control of their prime institutions for some months and years, but it is absolutely untrue to claim there was some 70 years absence.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Gurfateh All Jios.

Here is the reply to the points raised by Kully Poster above.

I have watched some of this video. I didn't watch it all as there were some important points I wanted to share here before progressing through more of the video. I shall do so, as I offer my viewpoints on some of the points DKS makes.

Making “important” points without watching a video in full has many pitfalls – one of which is that we comment without getting the full picture.

Firstly I would like to start with the fact that DKS states in this video that Sikhs, or more specifically the Dal Panth, were living in jungles for 70 years in which time the custodians of the Gurdwaras subverted the thrust of Gurmat by introducing Dasam Granth to the Sikhs. He states that because of this 70 year absence the Udasis/.Nirmalas were able to accomplish this. ( I will address that point later).

This is an established historical fact. Historian Dr Harjinder Singh Dilgeer establishes the sources of this historical narrative.

However if we take a close look at this, we can see that it is simply not accurate. The Dal Panth were never far from Amritsar throughout the 70 years, and throughout several periods were in control of the institutions there.

At 7:42 of the video Dr Karminder mentions that Sikhs who lived permanently in the Jungles of Punjab, the Hills of Jammu and Kashmir and the deserts of Rajasthan did come out on occasion of need.

They came out to the towns in disguise to get provisions. And they risked their lives to take a dip in the sarowar at Darbar Sahib Amritsar as per their faith.

But the Darbar Sahib, let alone “Amritsar” was never in the control of these authentic Sikhs at any point.

Coming out of the jungles to take a dip is very different from being in control of Sikh institutions, the Sikh psyche and Sikh literature. All of these were in the control of the fake and pro-government Sikhs.

We know from history that the Dal Panth were there in control of Amritsar for periods in every single decade from 1708 to 1770. In some cases of these decades the Sikhs were there for several years. Every now and then anti-Sikh pogroms occured which drove the Dal Pannth into the jungles/mountains but they were never in those jungles/mountains for decades.

It is a poor assertion that the control of what was happening in Amritsar was outside the control of Sikhs for 70 years.

What is of poor assertion therefore is the suggestion that Sikhs who were fighting for their survival with a heavy price tag on their heads were in control of “Amritsar” and more importantly Sikh literature, Sikh history writing and the Gurdwaras.

In any case most of the Sikh literature that was produced at that time was NOT produced in Amritsar – but in places outside Punjab, notably Benares and Patna. The former was the centre for vedic thought and the latter has been in the hands of Nirmalas from then till now.

Furthermore this also brings up the point that several people claim the Dasam Granth was introduced to the Sikhs in the 1800s. (which is false) but those who accept DKS views in this video are part of that section of intellectuals who believe that DG was introduced to Sikhs in the 1800s. So if these same intellectuals wish to claim that Dasam Granth was introduced after the 1800s then DKS has produced a video which is based on a false premise from the outset.

The premise is correct and valid. There is no mention of the DG (or by any of its eight other names) in Sikh literature prior to 1800s.

Furthermore, the Bachittar Natak (and lots of other so called puratan granths like the Sarab Loh etc) were not produced in the Punjab. The BN is largely a translation of markandey puran, shiv puran and bhagvat puran. These purans had their centres in Benares. The Nirmalas who originated from Benares sat in Benares and translated them into Brij and Punjabi and took them back to Punjab.

Not only did authentic Sikhs not have control of “Amritsar” but having control would have had no effect on the adulterated literature that was being concocted in Benares and other centres of vedic thought.

Here are some years that come up in history that show the Sikhs to be in control of Sri Darbar Sahib and Amritsar:

Banda Bahadurs army was in control of Amritsar for some of the time of his wars- 1712-1716.

If you watched the entire video you would know that the story of adulteration begins after the Banda Singh Bahadur period.

Bhai Mani Singh settled the dispute between Tatt Khalsa and Bandai Khalsa in Amritsar in 1721.

Settling a dispute and Sikhs being in “control of Amritsar” are two different things.

In 1726, the Sikhs were in agrowing position of strength so much, that they were able to plunder the Govt treasuries passing close to Amritsar.

Sikhs came out of the Jungles/hills/deserts periodically to loot their essential needs. The need to loot itself suggests that they were NOT in control of Amritsar. If Sikhs were the ruling forces of Amritsar, what was the need to loot? They would have been in control of the treasury.

IN 1731 the Lahore Suba began a pogrom against Sikhs which resulted in the Dal Panth leaving Amritsar until 1733 ( a period of less than 2 years) when there was non-stop fighting between the state and the Sikhs.

In 1733 seeing as the Sikhs could not be subdued a nawwabgi was offered and again the Sikhs returned to Sri Darbar Sahib to take control.

In 1734 Nawab Kapur Singh gave further organisation to the Sikhs at Sri Darbar Sahib and the Sikh Panth started to again meet here every Diwali and Vaisakhi to discuss strategy etc.

All of these meetings were with the express permission of the Rulers and the Nirmala controllers of Darbar Sahib.

The Nirmalas who controlled Darbar Sahib consented because they got handsome Charawas from the Sikhs. The Rulers of Amritsar consented because they got huge sums as taxes.

Bhai Mani Singh’s shaheede resulted from non-payment of such a tax to the rulers of Amritsar. That year at least the rulers decided to go one step ahead and conduct a genocide of the Sikhs who would be attending and since the Sikhs came to know, they did not come to Darbar Sahib in large numbers. Hence no Charawa and no taxes.

If Authentic Sikhs were in control of Amrtisar, what was the need for persmission, taxes and Bhai ji’s shaheedee?

In the begining of 1735 Zakriya Khan drove the Sikhs out of Amritsar but they had returned to take over Sri Darbar sahib again before the Diwali of that year.


IN 1736, the Lahore govt again attacked the Sikhs in Amritsar but were severely beaten leaving the whole of Amritsar under Sikh control.


IN 1739, Nadir invaded and on his return through Panjab a few months later he advised Zakria to uproot the SIkhs. Zakria led a massive army agains the Sikhs in Amritsar and took Sri Darbar Sahib under moghal control.


The Sikhs then regained control of Sri Darbar Sahib in 1745, where they celebrated Diwali.

And there is more....

Yes , there is more. The Sikhs came out of their refuge places almost daily because they loved their faith and their gurdwaras. That is NOT the issue in the video. The issues are

1) Who had control of the gurdwaras, their maryada, their practices etc.

2) Who had control of Sikh literature, Sikh History and Sikh psyche.

Just from the above it is clear that the Sikhs may not have been in direct control of their prime institutions for some months and years, but it is absolutely untrue to claim there was some 70 years absence.

The absence is longer than 70 years. Authentic Sikhs were physically absent for that 70 years. Even when they did regain rights to be in their gurdwaras without restrictions, the gurdwaras remained in the control of the fake Sikhs for another century and more.

If Sikhs were in control, then what was the need for the Gurdwara Reform Movement in 1925? We say this in our ardas daily. Mahant Narain Das (and many more) were only kicked out of the Grudwaras in 1926 onwards.

Sikhs have not totally freed themselves from the shackles of the Nirmalas, Udasis, mahants, Sants etc. Now we may have physical control of our gurdwaras, but the Sikh psyche, sikh literature, sikh history etc that exists is still the one that was concocted and adulterated by the fake Sikhs.

I would urge you to watch the entire video (and others who have strived to put Sikh history into proper perspective).

What the video provides is a holistic story of a 70-meter wide fabric. A sprinkling of needle holes of incidents here and there does not alter the fabric in any discerning way.

 

[Kully]

Gurfateh All Jios.

Here is the reply to the points raised by Kully Poster above.

Ik Oankar to all Jios here, and respected Gyani Ji.

Making “important” points without watching a video in full has many pitfalls – one of which is that we comment without getting the full picture.

Making important points on parts of a video can have pitfalls. But when the entire video is full of pitfalls then where can one start?

It's much easier to address one aspect rather than discuss many and take the argument from here to there.

This is an established historical fact. Historian Dr Harjinder Singh Dilgeer establishes the sources of this historical narrative.

This is not an established fact just because Dilgeer saays it is. Dilgeer, like DKS cannot overwrite history just because he doesn't agree with an aspect of Gurmat. Dilgeer is also the same "historian" that claims that Guru Nanak hid for 3 days in some bushes in the River Bein to plan his next move.

Respected Gyani Ji, are these really the kind of people you want to take "gyan" from?

At 7:42 of the video Dr Karminder mentions that Sikhs who lived permanently in the Jungles of Punjab, the Hills of Jammu and Kashmir and the deserts of Rajasthan did come out on occasion of need.

"On occasion of need?" What better need could there have been to protect the future of Sikhi from these Nirmalas and Udasis who were subverting the message of Gurmat?

The Sikhs could plan, and execute Massa Ranghar with his army of soldiers in Darbar Sahib but could not oust the pacifist Nirmalas and Udasis and save Gurmat?

What a poor excuse for "occasion of need."

But the Darbar Sahib, let alone “Amritsar” was never in the control of these authentic Sikhs at any point.

So in your opinion (and DKS) Diwan Darbara Singh, Bhai Mani Singh, Nawab Kapur Singh were all non-authentic Sikhs? That's a very bold statement to make respected Gyani Ji. Who would you then count as authentic if these Sikihs aren't?

What is of poor assertion therefore is the suggestion that Sikhs who were fighting for their survival with a heavy price tag on their heads were in control of “Amritsar” and more importantly Sikh literature, Sikh history writing and the Gurdwaras.

What is of poor assertion is claiming that the whole of these 70 years were spent with a proce on their heads.

I would suggest that respected Gyani Ji, yourself and DKS should research again the activity of the Sikhs in this period, and their relationship with the Lahore Darbar.

Ask yourself did the Sikhs have a price on their heads when there the Lahore Darbar gave a Nawabgi?

Was there a price on the heads of Sikhs when they enlisted in Adina beg's army?

Was there a price on their heads when they co-operated with the Lahore Army to fight the afghans?

In any case most of the Sikh literature that was produced at that time was NOT produced in Amritsar – but in places outside Punjab, notably Benares and Patna. The former was the centre for vedic thought and the latter has been in the hands of Nirmalas from then till now.

Most of the Sikh literature? Ok, what was produced in Benaras and Patna?

The premise is correct and valid. There is no mention of the DG (or by any of its eight other names) in Sikh literature prior to 1800s.

The premise is wholly false. DKS tries to assert that the Sikhs were hiding in jungles for survival for 70 years when there is so much proof that they were very active in central and southern Panjab. Throughtout all of the decades for this period not one decade had an whole absence of Siksh from Amritsar.

There is no mention of the DG (or by any of its eight other names) in Sikh literature prior to 1800s.

Respected Gyani Ji, thanks very much for confirming that DKS has lied at least once in his video. DKS says that DG was introduced to the Siksh while the Dal was hiding in the jungles for 70 years. Now you say the DG only has an history AFTER 1800s.

These purans had their centres in Benares.

Respected Gyani Ji, the Purans had their centres in Benaras? So the material and content of these texts were only known in Benaras? You really believe that could be the case?

Not only did authentic Sikhs not have control of “Amritsar” but having control would have had no effect on the adulterated literature that was being concocted in Benares and other centres of vedic thought.

But the Sikhs had control of Amritsar, so no-one could just turn up from Benaras and introduce anything to the Sikhs could they? I mean are you seriously saying that anyone could just come into your house and change things around?

If you watched the entire video you would know that the story of adulteration begins after the Banda Singh Bahadur period.

Yes because after Banda Bahadur, there was no more Bhai Mani Singh or other Sikhs of his standing were there?

Settling a dispute and Sikhs being in “control of Amritsar” are two different things.

Where was this duspute settled Gyani Ji?

And how?

Sikhs came out of the Jungles/hills/deserts periodically to loot their essential needs. The need to loot itself suggests that they were NOT in control of Amritsar. If Sikhs were the ruling forces of Amritsar, what was the need to loot? They would have been in control of the treasury.

The fact that the Sikhs looted the treasuru so close to Amritsar city itself shows that they were not in any weak position. In fact it shows the opposite that they did not fear the govt and would strike anywhere they could.

All of these meetings were with the express permission of the Rulers and the Nirmala controllers of Darbar Sahib.

The Nirmalas who controlled Darbar Sahib consented because they got handsome Charawas from the Sikhs. The Rulers of Amritsar consented because they got huge sums as taxes.

Ok. Give any proof you have of this.

Bhai Mani Singh’s shaheede resulted from non-payment of such a tax to the rulers of Amritsar. That year at least the rulers decided to go one step ahead and conduct a genocide of the Sikhs who would be attending and since the Sikhs came to know, they did not come to Darbar Sahib in large numbers. Hence no Charawa and no taxes.

If Authentic Sikhs were in control of Amrtisar, what was the need for persmission, taxes and Bhai ji’s shaheedee?

So again you doubt Bhai Mani Singh as an authentic Sikh.

Where was Bhai Mani Singh at this time period?

And what did the authentic Sikhs do after hearing about Bhai Mani Singh's shaheedi?

Yes , there is more. The Sikhs came out of their refuge places almost daily because they loved their faith and their gurdwaras. That is NOT the issue in the video. The issues are

1) Who had control of the gurdwaras, their maryada, their practices etc.

2) Who had control of Sikh literature, Sikh History and Sikh psyche.

Answers:

1) The Sikhs

2)The Sikhs.

The absence is longer than 70 years. Authentic Sikhs were physically absent for that 70 years. Even when they did regain rights to be in their gurdwaras without restrictions, the gurdwaras remained in the control of the fake Sikhs for another century and more.

Respected gyani Ji, I suggest that you and DKS read Sikh history seriously of either of you beleive that the "authentic" Sikhs were absent from Amritsar for over 7 years. History tells a very different picture to the information DKS is presenting.

I would urge you to watch the entire video (and others who have strived to put Sikh history into proper perspective).

All in good time. My intention was to sit down through the whole video, but the information presented in the video is false from the more or less the start, so it's much easier to discuss in snippets rather than the whole thing.

What the video provides is a holistic story of a 70-meter wide fabric. A sprinkling of needle holes of incidents here and there does not alter the fabric in any discerning way.

"A sprinkling of holes of incidents?" These are historical facts which DKS would have us not believe. Yet your good self wants us to beleive that people wrote DG in Benaras and took it to Amritsar and introduced it to the Sikhs when there is zero evidence of this happening?

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Respected jios,
There are "facts" and there are Facts. If Dr HS Dilgeer can be dismissed with the flick of a finger.."just because dilgeer says so..." then the same can be said of anyone else.
The Best proof of the events during those 70 years is what is before our eyes in the 7 decades from 1940++...are Authentic SIKHS in charge of our Takhats and SGPC since 1940 ? If 1984 Ops Bluestar cna happen why cant Sikhs take control of their Takhats and SGPC and run them as per Authentic Sikhi of SGGS. WE are all aware thet indeed "Sikhs" control our Takhats, SGPC and Historical Gurdwars, and yet we also know deep down that whats being practised in them is NOT as per SGGS. Just one example is Gurbilas Patshai CHhevin and SGPC published History of Sikhs and yesterdays decision by the SGPC to celebrate the Gurpurab of Guru ramdass by throwing of 6000KG of FRESH FLOWERS on the town of Amrisar. What happened to Paatee toreh Malannee..pati pati JEEO ?? Is Authentic Sikhi in CONTROL of our Institutions ? Is it Authentic Sikhi that resulted in Maafeenamah to Ram Rahim ? The subsequent CIRCUS going on about this Rapist Baba in the SGPC and Takhats "authentic Sikhi" ? This PRESENT SCENARIO is the best answer of the doubts raised on the 70 year control by anti-Sikhs+Non-Sikhs.

 

[Kully]

There are "facts" and there are Facts.

Ik Oankar respected Gyani Ji. Facts are facts. What we make of them is upto us. There is no denying the fact that Sikhs were not living in jungles for a uninterrupted duration of 70 years as is claimed by Doctor Karminder Singh. The historical facts speak for themselves.

If Dr HS Dilgeer can be dismissed with the flick of a finger.."just because dilgeer says so..." then the same can be said of anyone else.

There are doctors and then there are doctors. "Doctor" Karminder Singh. "Doctor" HS Dilgeer. I'm really surprised that these doctors are unable to see the information in front of them to make a qualified judgement. I don't know about Dr Dilgeer, but Dr Karminder Singh has definitely overlooked the history if that time.

His purpose is clear. It is to deny the Dasam Granth as part of Gurmat. I have no problem with him doing that, or your respected self, Gyani Ji, but at least try not to base it on false premises. DKS has made this video on his own personal beliefs. He has tried to mould history to fit in with his own beliefs. He will never succeed by this method.

I'm rather surprised that someone as intelligent as yourself would just accept DKS's views as fact without researching it yourself.

The Best proof of the events during those 70 years is what is before our eyes in the 7 decades from 1940++

No. The best proof is the history and all information pertaining to that time. Why do you want to use the circumstances of 2 centuries later to try and prove something ?

yesterdays decision by the SGPC to celebrate the Gurpurab of Guru ramdass by throwing of 6000KG of FRESH FLOWERS on the town of Amrisar. What happened to Paatee toreh Malannee..pati pati JEEO ??

Respected Gyani Ji, The SGPC as we both know are hardly worth their name, or our time. I agree with you thats gestures like these are useless. Lets keep this to DKS's video and the false information presented in it.

Is Authentic Sikhi in CONTROL of our Institutions ? Is it Authentic Sikhi that resulted in Maafeenamah to Ram Rahim ? The subsequent CIRCUS going on about this Rapist Baba in the SGPC and Takhats "authentic Sikhi" ?

Make another topic on this Gyani Ji, it has nothing to do with this topic.

This PRESENT SCENARIO is the best answer of the doubts raised on the 70 year control by anti-Sikhs+Non-Sikhs.

No, it isn't. Thats just a personal opinion. The best answer to DKS's false information concerning the Sikhs and their times in the jungle is the historical facts, some of which I presented above.

I will be looking at little more into the activity of Sikhs around Amritsar from the period 1750 to 1780 and sharing anything I found. Although that will be for the benefit of the cyber-sangat for info purposes only. It is clear than from the info posted from 1720 to 1750 that DKS's asserion of an uninterrupted 70 year jungle dwelling is false.


Then I shall be watching some more of this video to see what else DKS presents and share any views accordingly.

 

[Kully]

Ik onkar Doctor Karminder Singh



Further to this video of yours I would like to address the point where you claim that Dasam Granth is a ploy by the Udasis and Nirmalas to take Sikhi back towards Hinduism.



Now I am sharing my thoughts here on the proviso that your initial base is correct. However since that has been disproved and neither has our esteemed forum member Gyani Jarnail Singh Arshi responded I’m sure that you will all appreciate where I am going with this.



I want to ask why it would be if the Sikhs or Singhs were away from their main religious headquarters for 7 centuries, why the Udasis and Nirmalas (hereafter UandN) would try to subvert Gurmat with a granth that supports Gurmat thinking?



Why would the UandN present a Granth alongside SGGS if they wanted to subvert the message of Gurmat?



Why not just present the new Granth and remove SGGS? Wouldn’t this make more sense if the UandN had an agenda to destroy Gurmat? They had 7 decades of freedom at Amritsar (according to DKS) but the best they could come up with, was a granth that was in sync with SGGS? Remember 7 DECADES of freedom to do what they wanted!



Why couldn’t the UandN present a new granth based on SGGS in terms of “Raag” and “Mahala” but re-written to destroy Gurmat and present this granth as the actual Granth of the Sikhs?



Surely that would have been a more better ploy wouldn’t it? If after 7 decades of being in control the UandN foisted a granth on the Sikhs which was accepted then why go the long way Doctor Karminder Singh Ji?



On a side note, there are many scholars, esteemed scholars like yourself and our resident Gyani Jarnail Singh Arshi, who never tire of claiming that there was no mention of any Dasam Granth before 1800s and that it was written after the 1800s. How does that fit in with what you are trying to claim here Doctor Karminder Singh Ji?

 

[Kully]

To add to the above post, if the intention of Dasam Granth was to subvert Gurmat and merge it into Hinduism why would it contain these kinds of verses:

ਖੰਡਾ ਪ੍ਰਥਮਿ ਮਨਾਇਕੈ ਜਿਨ ਸਭ ਸੈਸਾਰ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥

ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਮਹੇਸ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਦਾ ਖੇਲੁ ਬਣਾਇਆ ॥

ਸਿੰਧੁ ਪਰਬਤ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਬਿਨੁ ਥੰਮਾ ਗਗਨ ਰਹਾਇਆ ॥

ਸਿਰਜੇ ਦਾਨੋ ਦੇਵਤੇ ਤਿਨ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਬਾਦੁ ਰਚਾਇਆ ॥

ਤੈ ਹੀ ਦੁਰਗਾ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੈ ਦੈਤਾ ਦਾ ਨਾਸ ਕਰਾਇਆ ॥

ਤੈਥੋ ਹੀ ਬਲੁ ਰਾਮ ਲੈ ਨਾਲ ਬਾਣਾ ਰਾਵਣੁ ਘਾਇਆ ॥

ਤੈਥੋ ਹੀ ਬਲੁ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਲੈ ਕੰਸ ਕੇਸੀ ਪਕੜਿ ਗਿਰਾਇਆ ॥

ਬਡੇ ਬਡੇ ਮੁਨਿ ਦੇਵਤੇ ਕਈ ਜੁਗ ਤਿਨੀ ਤਨ ਤਾਇਆ ॥

ਕਿਨੈ ਤੇਰਾ ਅੰਤ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ॥੨॥

or :

ਅਨਹਦ ਰੂਪ ਅਨਾਹਦ ਬਾਨੀ ॥
He is Limitless Entity and hath infinite celestial strain.

ਚਰਨ ਸਰਨਿ ਜਿਹ ਬਸਤ ਭਵਾਨੀ ॥
The goddess Durga takes refuge at His Feet and abides there.

ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਅੰਤੁ ਨਹੀ ਪਾਇਓ ॥
Brahma and Vishnu Could not know His end.

ਨੇਤਿ ਨੇਤਿ ਮੁਖਚਾਰ ਬਤਾਇਓ ॥੫॥
The four-headed god Brahma described Him ad ‘Neti Neti’ (Not this, Not this).5.

ਕੋਟਿ ਇੰਦ੍ਰ ਉਪਇੰਦ੍ਰ ਬਨਾਏ ॥
He hath created millions of Indras and Upindras (smaller Indras).

ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਰੁਦ੍ਰ ਉਪਾਇ ਖਪਾਏ ॥
He hath created and destroyed Brahmas and Rudras (Shivas).

ਲੋਕ ਚਤ੍ਰਦਸ ਖੇਲ ਰਚਾਇਓ ॥
He hath created the play of fourteen worlds.

ਬਹੁਰਿ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਬੀਚ ਮਿਲਾਇਓ ॥੬॥
And then Himself merges it within His Self.6.


Would the above verses and so many more similiar verses in Dasam Granth be helping to achieve what the UandN (supposedly) wanted?

See Doctor Karminder Singh JI, respected Gyani Jarnail Singh Ji, if you wanted to create something to help you achieve a purpose surely that creation would actually be a tool, if and only if, it actually reinforced your agenda.

It's very clear what DKS' agenda is with his above video.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I want to ask why it would be if the Sikhs or Singhs were away from their main religious headquarters for 7 centuries, why the Udasis and Nirmalas (hereafter UandN) would try to subvert Gurmat with a granth that supports Gurmat thinking?

I fail to see how Gurmat thinking includes telling Singhs never to trust any women, even their own wives. I fail to see how Gurmat thinking includes seeing female gender as being the cause of immorality and that Akal Purakh regretted even creating the female gender at all.
I fail to see how suggesting alcohol and drugs enhance sexual pleasure can ever be Gurmat thinking. Or telling stories about beastiality. Or encouraging beating of women.
There is no way that charitropakhyan can ever be in line with ‘Gurmat thinking’. Period.

 

[Kully]

I fail

You start with the truth. YOU fail. What do you fail in? Understanding the whole essence of CharitroPakhyan. That has always been evident from our previous discussions. You weren't even aware of the meaning of "CharitroPakhyan."

I fail

You failed in understanding the central theme and characters to this text.

I fail

You failed in understanding that the names, environment and actions were all subterfuge, yet got caught up in them and mistook them for the purpose of the text.


Hence why you have expanded after "I fail" and come up with these:

I fail to see how Gurmat thinking includes telling Singhs never to trust any women, even their own wives.

Gurmat thinking does not do this and neither does CharitroPakhyan. I know it SAYS it in the text but that is all part of the theme running throughout the text. The Minister is trying to convey an ever so subtle message.

I fail to see how Gurmat thinking includes seeing female gender as being the cause of immorality and that Akal Purakh regretted even creating the female gender at all.

See above.

I fail to see how suggesting alcohol and drugs enhance sexual pleasure can ever be Gurmat thinking.

Rather than take random parts of the text and present them falsely as being instructive, read the whole charitar and then try and understand why it is written.This is not an instructive text, like some kind of manual. It is a didactic text.

Or quit while you're behind and give up. You have been parroting (tota-ratan) the same lines without understanding them on here for around 2 years now.

Still I will give you a heads up on this part, lest you repeat it and show your lack of understanding further on it. A man is thinking of a scheme to get out of the predicament he is in, and comes up with this idea of intoxicating his captor, which then will give him the opportunity to leave. So he requests the provision of drugs and alcohol knowing that they will have an effect on the captor to the point where his escape will not be a problem.

This also makes a point, reinforcing what SGGS says about alcohol, "madness enters the mind and good thinking departs," and this message should also be picked up by Sikhs to avoid alcohol/intoxicating substances.

Or telling stories about beastiality.

There are no stories about bestiality. You sent me a PM some time ago explaining the Charitar, (after I had asked you numerous times to) and in that there was no mention of any kind of sexual interaction between humans and animals. You know this and so do I, but it seems like compulsive behaviour on your part just to throw in the same old lines to try and disrupt the learning process on this great forum. Remeber why we are here; "think, learn, share."

If time permits I will have a look at that charitar and post it up here so everyone can see that there is no inference of bestiality.

Or encouraging beating of women.

Didn't we go through this before? Didn't I show you that it was a woman who delivered the beating to another woman out of rage and jealousy?

Couldn't someone else say that women are allowed to beat others because of it? Would that make it correct?

Why would you AGAIN repeat the same ? Was the charitar encouraging the beating of women/anyone?

Can you not SEE that the beating of the woman is nowhere encouraged?

There is no way that charitropakhyan can ever be in line with ‘Gurmat thinking’.

And this again is where you fail. Look at the above lines you have posted. In the 1 or 2 years we have been discussing CharitroPakhyan, you have shown yourself to have a one track mind, one that doesn't seem to be open to learning, or even when you are struggling to learn, you cannot open your mind to other possibilities.

I don't say these things in a bad way, I just think that you have some issues on CharitroPakhyan on a male-female struggle basis. If after this time, you still are entrenched in that thought process, then maybe this is not a text for you to concern yourself with further, unless it is on the basis of learning. Do you think you are upto that? If you are, i will look to share more with you.

 

[Harry Haller]

In the 1 or 2 years we have been discussing CharitroPakhyan, you have shown yourself to have a one track mind, one that doesn't seem to be open to learning, or even when you are struggling to learn, you cannot open your mind to other possibilities.

and it applies equally to you!

 

[Kully]

Of course it does. That's what we all are here for.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

I have not responded because i dont beleive in repeating the same over and over again. The Video by Dr KSD is transparent and clear enough to leave no doubts (if one listens with an open mind and is not on single track to nagpur). Spners can read, listen and come to their own conclusions.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Guru Fateh Kully ji,

You seem quite a bit upset and condescending, to put it lightly, towards others with whom you want to have an interaction and learn from especially with Harkiran Kaur ji.
Why do your words sound that you are always upset at the people you are interacting with for some reason when people do not agree with you?

Harkiran Kaur ji does not need me to defend her. She is capable of doing that herself. She and I have had our disagreements but we always treated each other with respect. The latter is missing in your posts towards her and others.
Why is that you reckon?

Talking about the subject of the thread, I can rebut each and every point of yours about the so-called DG but I refuse to rehash it again. You may find my views about DG in many threads and then ask me any questions you may have which I will gladly respond to.

Having said that, I am a bit intrigued by your Sikh greeting

Ik onkar Doctor Karminder Singh

Please share where and how this all started because "Ik onkar" simply means, One Source.
How does it fit in a greeting?

Thanks.

Tejwant Singh

 

[Kully]

I have not responded because i dont beleive in repeating the same over and over again.

Ik Onkar respected Gyani Ji. Sikhs "repeat" the same over and over every day. We do the same actions, read the same bani, have the same thoughts...

Personally I felt that you were unable to respond because the history that we have shows that DKS has tried to mislead others, and in my honest opinion, yourself.

The Video by Dr KSD is transparent and clear enough to leave no doubts .

Or maybe you are allowing yourself to be mislead? The video is transparent in its absence of historical facts. The only doubts it leaves to readers who have done a bit of research into this time period will be be that of DKS intentions in making this video.

I, personally, don't really care whether some people beleive in DG or not, whether they read it or not. No-one is forced to do anything. But what I absolutely abhor are lies told by people to mislead others.

I was hoping that DKS would have at some point come back to his post. If you are in touch with him maybe you could pass on my regards?

You seem quite a bit upset

Respected Tejwant Singh Ji, I'm not.

The latter is missing in your posts towards her and others.

Maybe that's your perception. I apologise profusely if it comes across that way. Maybe you could re-read my posts towards others, and notice where I have written "respected" before their names.

Talking about the subject of the thread, I can rebut each and every point of yours about the so-called DG but I refuse to rehash it again.

Refuse to rehash it again? Please oblige me. After all, we are all here to learn share and grow. Why wouldnt you want to help another Sikh? You seem a little upset and angry with me, that I have in some way dared to question DKS video.

What is your opinion of this video? You can certainly share that on this thread. The video is under discussion. Do you think that DKS has given accurate info in the video?

Having said that, I am a bit intrigued by your Sikh greeting

And I yours....

Guru Fateh Kully ji,

Please share where and how this all started.

Please share where and how this all started because "Ik onkar" simply means, One Source.
How does it fit in a greeting?

A greeting can be any word or group of words can't it? What better than to greet another Sikh with the first words of our holy Guru?

Unless "Guru fateh" is in SGGS?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Kully Ji, you have admitted that outwardly in the text charitropakhyan does indeed come down hard on the female gender. You say it’s meaningless and that some deeper meaning exists behind it all and that the reader is supposed to ignore the blatant disrespect of the female gender in the outward literal text.

Now let’s go to the time period and the audience. The general populous of Sikhs. The average farmer or trade worker. Upon reading that text how many do you think would glean any of this so called deeper meaning as opposed to the literal text? I fully understand metaphor and how it’s used in Gurbani in SGGSJ because the shabad itself explains the metaphor usually in the rahao line you understand what the meaning conveyed is. And nowhere in Gurbani is ANY human painted in bad light for something they have no control over (what body they are born into, gender, disability etc). So to have a text which supposedly has some hidden deeper meaning but outwardly uses the female gender to achieve this, while not caring that vast majority who would read it would take that message about females literally, does not agree with Gurbani or what our Gurus taught.

Gurbani straight out says that our ACTIONS alone we are judged on, not by our gender or disability or social status etc. Yet charitropakhyan outwardly paints female gender as immoral and deceitful. You’d feel differently if the whole thing were painting men in that light.

Yes you have it right that the king is trying to make him aware of what his wife has done. However there is no deep spiritual meaning there. The overall message is to make him aware how deceitful women can be. This in no way has anything to do with Gurbani. And it’s grasping st straws to somehow say there is a deeper meaning there and that the characters are somehow metaphors for mind etc. It’s a huge stretch and wishful thinking. SGGSJ doesn’t hide the truth. It uses metaphors yes but only because some things which are beyond this world can only be described using terms FROM this world. However the supposed deeper meaning in charitropakhyan in no way needs over 800 pages describing the female gender as deceitful and immoral in order to get a message of relationship between mind ego etc across. SGGJ already does it beautifully without condemning an entire gender!

And last point is that a metaphor uses references which people already understood in a societal and cultural context. If you are saying the female gender is outwardly in the text being used as the metaphor for deceit / illusion as you claimed before then you are automatically saying that in real life women are seen in this way. Because that’s how metaphors work. You can’t take an arbritrary thing and just say it means something as a metaphor. It has to be understood as that theme you are trying to get across. Therefore on this case even if the entire thing is a way to describe ego / mind / soul relationship then you are still saying that in real life it’s understood that females are seen as deceitful and immoral because you are using them to convert that message in the form of a metaphor.

You know very well the charitar about beastiality and it’s disgusting so I won’t post it again or the reference to it. Guru Ji would not need to use such a disgusting example to prove a point of deceit and trickery even if that were the intent.

 

[Kully]

Kully Ji, you have admitted that outwardly in the text charitropakhyan does indeed come down hard on the female gender.

Harkian Ji, I have not said anything about the female gender in a good or bad light. It's your good self who has been saying this all along.

You say it’s meaningless and that some deeper meaning exists behind it all and that the reader is supposed to ignore the blatant disrespect of the female gender in the outward literal text.

It's apparent to those who understand it. Let me make it a little different from you. Have you heard the story of the "Hare and the Tortoise"? I'm sure you have as its very famous around the the world. Now do you think the author of that was trying to make out that all "Hares" were like that Hare in the story? And that all tortoises were like that tortoise in the story?

To read that and say that all hares/tortoises are such and such, would mean that a person understood what from the story?

Now let’s go to the time period and the audience. The general populous of Sikhs. The average farmer or trade worker. Upon reading that text how many do you think would glean any of this so called deeper meaning as opposed to the literal text?

The average farmer or worker in those days acheived far more than was expected of them! They fought against strong powerful armies and succeeded in defeating them! Give them more credit. People in those days gave a lot more time to study as well. I want to say the same to you, but at the same time, i have to ask whether it is worth your time? This post of yours is exactly the same thing you have said from around 2 years ago, when I first joined. There has not been 1 mm of advancement.

I fully understand metaphor and how it’s used in Gurbani in SGGSJ because the shabad itself explains the metaphor usually in the rahao line you understand what the meaning conveyed is.

Ok, so why are you totally in the dark here? CharitroPakhyan is not gurbani in a spiritual plane but it is an incredible work of literature to those who can understand exactly what Guru Sahib to saying.

So to have a text which supposedly has some hidden deeper meaning but outwardly uses the female gender to achieve this,

Well the theme of CharitroPakhyan is based around the 5 chor, so what better characters to use than humans? And not only does it use the female gender but also the male gender. You know this. I have posted this many times. Yet you turn around and post the same thing over and over.

Gurbani straight out says that our ACTIONS alone we are judged on, not by our gender or disability or social status etc. Yet charitropakhyan outwardly paints female gender as immoral and deceitful. You’d feel differently if the whole thing were painting men in that light.

Again the same thing over and over. Men are not painted as angels! And in some of the charitars the the female characters display bravery and sharp intellect!

Open your mind and look beyond male-female conflict. You have centred this around that only.

Yes you have it right that the king is trying to make him aware of what his wife has done.

NO! The King is unaware of what the Queen has done. The Minister is trying to tell the King in an ever so subtle way.

However there is no deep spiritual meaning there.

It's not a spiritual text anyh more than the "hare and the tortoise" is a manual for animal understanding. Please try and understand this.

The overall message is to make him aware how deceitful women can be.

Was the overall message of the Hare and the Tortoise to make us understand that Hares were horrible creatures whilst Tortoises were examples of good behaviour?

This in no way has anything to do with Gurbani.

Of course it doesn't! It has more to do with mankind, just as the Hare and the Tortoise has nothing to do with animals.

And it’s grasping st straws to somehow say there is a deeper meaning there and that the characters are somehow metaphors for mind etc.

Like I said many times here, world literature will not have one line of thought. People with different intellect will take different things from it.

Look at this shabad fromSGGS:

ਮਃ ੩ ॥
Third Mehla:

ਮਨੁ ਕੁੰਚਰੁ ਪੀਲਕੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਕੁੰਡਾ ਜਹ ਖਿੰਚੇ ਤਹ ਜਾਇ ॥
ਮਨ (ਮਾਨੋ) ਹਾਥੀ ਹੈ; (ਜੇ) ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ (ਇਸ ਦਾ) ਮਹਾਵਤ (ਬਣੇ, ਤੇ) ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਮਤਿ (ਇਸ ਦੇ ਸਿਰ ਤੇ) ਕੁੰਡਾ ਹੋਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਇਹ ਮਨ ਓਧਰ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਧਰ ਗੁਰੂ ਤੋਰਦਾ ਹੈ ।
The mind is the elephant, the Guru is the elephant-driver, and knowledge is the whip. Wherever the Guru drives the mind, it goes.

ਨਾਨਕ ਹਸਤੀ ਕੁੰਡੇ ਬਾਹਰਾ ਫਿਰਿ ਫਿਰਿ ਉਝੜਿ ਪਾਇ ॥੨॥
ਪਰ, ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! ਕੁੰਡੇ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨਾ ਹਾਥੀ ਮੁੜ ਮੁੜ ਕੁਰਾਹੇ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ ।੨।
O Nanak, without the whip, the elephant wanders into the wilderness, again and again. ||2|

Guru Sahib is describing the mind as an elephant. He also says that it needs to be whipped to stop it going into the wilderness.

Can you not see the similarity here with the shabad and Charitars in terms of the message?

The shabad above is talking about the mind as an elephant and CharitroPakhyan is talking about the 5 chor as characters of man/woman.

It’s a huge stretch and wishful thinking. SGGSJ doesn’t hide the truth. It uses metaphors yes but only because some things which are beyond this world can only be described using terms FROM this world.

Only because you can't see it, because of the wallyou have put up around it.

Remeber you were the one who thought that "a woman needed her husbands permission to urinate"?

It took a huge stretch from me to expand your mind on that. I'm sure you can do it yourself as well.

If you are saying the female gender is outwardly in the text being used as the metaphor for deceit / illusion as you claimed before then you are automatically saying that in real life women are seen in this way. .

But I'm not saying that though. I'm saying the woman represents "Maya". But why in the text are there charitars where the woman is the heroine if what you think is true?

Was the writer of the "Hare and the Tortoise" writing with an agenda against Hares and a pro-tortoise one?

Think about it.

You know very well the charitar about beastiality and it’s disgusting so I won’t post it again or the reference to it. Guru Ji would not need to use such a disgusting example to prove a point of deceit and trickery even if that were the intent.

Yes and again you are wrong. A man with an ailment goes to someone who he thinks can cure him. The hakim advises him to put his tongue into a mare's vagina and that will cure him. Is there any suggestion that there is some kind of sexual intonation in this act? In olden days animals urine was a source of medicine. This is most likely why this has been used.

People go to doctors every day with problems related to their genitalia. Do you think that these interactions are of a sexual nature? I'm beginning to think that this is a very sordid picture you have painted for yourself here thinking that this charitar is about beastiality.

It's precisely because of what you have written here, that I am convinced that your understanding of this text does not proceed beyond the literal text.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I have nonidea how you think thrusting a tongue into a mares vagina is anything BUT beastiality.

And you obviously didn’t understand the story of the tortoise and the hare since yes the author very much DID play on the UNDERSTANDING that hares are generally fast and tortoises are generally slow. And even in the story they fit those descriptions. So using a tortoise to represent the ‘slow’ was not something arbtitrary. There was an understanding as was using a hare to represent the ‘fast’. In the end the tortoise didn’t win because he was fast. The metaphor still applied. The tortoise only won because of the hares assumption that he had won the race and by living the glory lost sight of where in race the tortoise was... and so didn’t notice he had passed him. This has nothing to do with charitropakhyan.

Saying women represent ‘Maya’ must mean there is an understood meaning that women are illusory or deceitful (as Maya is deceitful) therefore it’s still saying that in real life that women as a gender can not be trusted (just as Maya as an illusion can’t be trusted) if indeed that is the supposed metaphor. Just like your tortoise can always be understood to be slow. Women are understood in that case to be deceitful and men should not trust women as a result. This is especially MORESO since you are trying to use it as a metaphor meaning that same thing when speaking about Maya.

So yes regardless if it’s only outward or even if as you say there is a so called deeper meaning regarding Maya... it’s STILL throwing the female gender under the bus. Let’s look at it this way if I rewrote the entire thing and changed the male for the female characters and vice versa, would you still understand the so called deeper meaning? If I used males to reoresent Maya you’d be ok with that? Or is there some understanding that women / the female gender is deceitful just as Maya is that makes you understand the metaphor??

Harkian Ji, I have not said anything about the female gender in a good or bad light. It's your good self who has been saying this all along.





It's apparent to those who understand it. Let me make it a little different from you. Have you heard the story of the "Hare and the Tortoise"? I'm sure you have as its very famous around the the world. Now do you think the author of that was trying to make out that all "Hares" were like that Hare in the story? And that all tortoises were like that tortoise in the story?

To read that and say that all hares/tortoises are such and such, would mean that a person understood what from the story?




The average farmer or worker in those days acheived far more than was expected of them! They fought against strong powerful armies and succeeded in defeating them! Give them more credit. People in those days gave a lot more time to study as well. I want to say the same to you, but at the same time, i have to ask whether it is worth your time? This post of yours is exactly the same thing you have said from around 2 years ago, when I first joined. There has not been 1 mm of advancement.




Ok, so why are you totally in the dark here? CharitroPakhyan is not gurbani in a spiritual plane but it is an incredible work of literature to those who can understand exactly what Guru Sahib to saying.




Well the theme of CharitroPakhyan is based around the 5 chor, so what better characters to use than humans? And not only does it use the female gender but also the male gender. You know this. I have posted this many times. Yet you turn around and post the same thing over and over.




Again the same thing over and over. Men are not painted as angels! And in some of the charitars the the female characters display bravery and sharp intellect!

Open your mind and look beyond male-female conflict. You have centred this around that only.




NO! The King is unaware of what the Queen has done. The Minister is trying to tell the King in an ever so subtle way.




It's not a spiritual text anyh more than the "hare and the tortoise" is a manual for animal understanding. Please try and understand this.




Was the overall message of the Hare and the Tortoise to make us understand that Hares were horrible creatures whilst Tortoises were examples of good behaviour?



Of course it doesn't! It has more to do with mankind, just as the Hare and the Tortoise has nothing to do with animals.




Like I said many times here, world literature will not have one line of thought. People with different intellect will take different things from it.

Look at this shabad fromSGGS:

ਮਃ ੩ ॥
Third Mehla:

ਮਨੁ ਕੁੰਚਰੁ ਪੀਲਕੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਕੁੰਡਾ ਜਹ ਖਿੰਚੇ ਤਹ ਜਾਇ ॥
ਮਨ (ਮਾਨੋ) ਹਾਥੀ ਹੈ; (ਜੇ) ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ (ਇਸ ਦਾ) ਮਹਾਵਤ (ਬਣੇ, ਤੇ) ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਮਤਿ (ਇਸ ਦੇ ਸਿਰ ਤੇ) ਕੁੰਡਾ ਹੋਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਇਹ ਮਨ ਓਧਰ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਧਰ ਗੁਰੂ ਤੋਰਦਾ ਹੈ ।
The mind is the elephant, the Guru is the elephant-driver, and knowledge is the whip. Wherever the Guru drives the mind, it goes.

ਨਾਨਕ ਹਸਤੀ ਕੁੰਡੇ ਬਾਹਰਾ ਫਿਰਿ ਫਿਰਿ ਉਝੜਿ ਪਾਇ ॥੨॥
ਪਰ, ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! ਕੁੰਡੇ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨਾ ਹਾਥੀ ਮੁੜ ਮੁੜ ਕੁਰਾਹੇ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ ।੨।
O Nanak, without the whip, the elephant wanders into the wilderness, again and again. ||2|

Guru Sahib is describing the mind as an elephant. He also says that it needs to be whipped to stop it going into the wilderness.

Can you not see the similarity here with the shabad and Charitars in terms of the message?

The shabad above is talking about the mind as an elephant and CharitroPakhyan is talking about the 5 chor as characters of man/woman.




Only because you can't see it, because of the wallyou have put up around it.

Remeber you were the one who thought that "a woman needed her husbands permission to urinate"?

It took a huge stretch from me to expand your mind on that. I'm sure you can do it yourself as well.




But I'm not saying that though. I'm saying the woman represents "Maya". But why in the text are there charitars where the woman is the heroine if what you think is true?

Was the writer of the "Hare and the Tortoise" writing with an agenda against Hares and a pro-tortoise one?

Think about it.






Yes and again you are wrong. A man with an ailment goes to someone who he thinks can cure him. The hakim advises him to put his tongue into a mare's vagina and that will cure him. Is there any suggestion that there is some kind of sexual intonation in this act? In olden days animals urine was a source of medicine. This is most likely why this has been used.

People go to doctors every day with problems related to their genitalia. Do you think that these interactions are of a sexual nature? I'm beginning to think that this is a very sordid picture you have painted for yourself here thinking that this charitar is about beastiality.

It's precisely because of what you have written here, that I am convinced that your understanding of this text does not proceed beyond the literal text.

a how

 

[Kully]

I have nonidea how you think thrusting a tongue into a mares vagina is anything BUT beastiality

Ok, so according to you whenever a man goes to the doctor to have his prostate checked there is sexiual activity between the two? You do know that this check involves one pushing two fingers into the others {censored}? Is this sexual activity? Or is it to do with health.

And you obviously didn’t understand the story of the tortoise and the hare since yes the author very much DID play on the UNDERSTANDING that hares are generally fast and tortoises are generally slow. And even in the story they fit those descriptions.

Please no!

There was an understanding as was using a hare to represent the ‘fast’. In the end the tortoise didn’t win because he was fast.

PLEASE NO!!!

The tortoise only won because of the hares assumption that he had won the race and by living the glory lost sight of where in race the tortoise was... and so didn’t notice he had passed him.

NO!!!!

I can't beleive that that is all you have gleaned from this story. Now I can understand why something like CharitroPakhyan is way beyond you.

The hare and the tortoise and their speed/race is not the core understanding. It was about arrogance. The hare was much quicker than the tortoise and so felt he was superior. It was his arrogance that was his undoing. Nature gave him an attribute that the tortoise wasn't given. The slow tortoise could never beat a hare in a race, but the hare's actions plotted his own defeat. His arrogance came from his natural ability to run fast.

Sincerely Harkiran Ji, I will repeat sincerely, from my heart, please walk away from this text and all topics concerning CharitroPakhyan. You have shown yourself as unable to glean the core message from short english language stories, what chance have you got with something as intrinsic as Charitropakhyan?

Saying women represent ‘Maya’ must mean there is an understood meaning that women are illusory or deceitful

Didn't you repeat this earlier? Doesn't this statement of yours then mean that all men all full of the 5 chor?

Let’s look at it this way if I rewrote the entire thing and changed the male for the female characters and vice versa, would you still understand the so called deeper meaning?

YES!!!! YES!!!! because man and woman here are only representatives. Just like the tortoise and the hare.

You must really really think that hares and tortoises race each other in real life.

If I used males to reoresent Maya you’d be ok with that?

Absolutely.

Or is there some understanding that women / the female gender is deceitful just as Maya is that makes you understand the metaphor??

No.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Kully Ji

You obviously have no idea how metaphors work. There MUST be an understanding of the meanings of the metaphors. You said it yourself it was UNDERSTOOD that in normal condition the tortoise could NEVER win in a race with a hare. It’s UNDERSTOOD that the hare is much faster. Without that understanding you could never see how the hares ego caused him to lose.

In the case of seeing women as Maya in random stories which have nothing to do with the supposed deeper meaning, there MUST be an understanding to grasp what the metaphor is. Or else nobody would be able to put two and two together that was any deeper meaning at all.

You and I both know that women have been seen throughout history as temptresses and obstacles to men’s spiritual advancement. This is Brahminical thinking not Sikhi but anyway... for Guru Ji to use women in this way to get a spiritual point across is just insane since it basically reinforces that stereotype that women are not trustworthy allies of men and can never be trusted. It also paints a picture outwardly of women being the ones who are driven by lust and greed to get what they want and hence use their wiles to achieve it. Even if there is a metaphor in there to make this work as ‘maya’ hen it’s still reinforcing those understood traits of women. And Guru Ji would never do that to females. All the Gurus stayed plainly that a person is judged on their character and deeds and not their gender or social statuses etc. Gurbani makes this clear. There are no gender stereotypes. There are no messages telling men to distrust women or women to distrust men.

Now we KNOW this Brahminical mindset thinking actually made it into the Chaupa Singh rehetnama... it says outright in plain language that Singhs are never to trust any woman EVEN THEIR OWN WIFE (those close to them) and never share their secrets. This SAME message coincidentally is in one of the charitars that a man who shares his secrets with his wife will be ruined. Does this sound like Sikhi to you? Creating distrust between spouses??? Who cares about any supposed deeper meaning when outwardly the text does this?! Especially when GURBANI in our ONLY Guru SGGSJ says the SAME message you claim is hidden in charitropakhyan, only it does so WITHOUT using obscene stories which serve to deepen the distrust of the female gender by males and paint women as being generally immoral and deceitful. Why would Guru Ji feel the need to REWRITE the same message which is already PERFECTLY written and contained in Gurbani, in such a lewd way as to damage the image of an entire gender??? He wouldn’t! The SAME exact message can be found in SGGSJ already and can be easily understood!! Or are you actually saying SGGSJ is not ‘complete’?

You are the one who has been continually disputing Gurgaddi of SGGSJ on here in the past...

Ok, so according to you whenever a man goes to the doctor to have his prostate checked there is sexiual activity between the two? You do know that this check involves one pushing two fingers into the others {censored}? Is this sexual activity? Or is it to do with health.




Please no!




PLEASE NO!!!





NO!!!!

I can't beleive that that is all you have gleaned from this story. Now I can understand why something like CharitroPakhyan is way beyond you.

The hare and the tortoise and their speed/race is not the core understanding. It was about arrogance. The hare was much quicker than the tortoise and so felt he was superior. It was his arrogance that was his undoing. Nature gave him an attribute that the tortoise wasn't given. The slow tortoise could never beat a hare in a race, but the hare's actions plotted his own defeat. His arrogance came from his natural ability to run fast.

Sincerely Harkiran Ji, I will repeat sincerely, from my heart, please walk away from this text and all topics concerning CharitroPakhyan. You have shown yourself as unable to glean the core message from short english language stories, what chance have you got with something as intrinsic as Charitropakhyan?






Didn't you repeat this earlier? Doesn't this statement of yours then mean that all men all full of the 5 chor?




YES!!!! YES!!!! because man and woman here are only representatives. Just like the tortoise and the hare.

You must really really think that hares and tortoises race each other in real life.



Absolutely.



No.

ly