Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
paapiman

Sri Charitropakhyan Sahib jee Series - Charitar #10

Recommended Posts

Warning: Sexually explicit material below. Daas will kindly request sangat, below the age of 25 or people who are greatly affected by Lust, to stay away from this discussion.

Please forgive me for being explicit.
 
Request to Mods/Admins:
 
- Please do not allow Guest posts in this topic
- Please do not tolerate any insults of Gurbani
- Please do delete any off-topic posts
 
 
 
Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow gee another story pointing finger at (apparently) the woman. 

However, we know even today when people are subjected to violence, it affects their mental state. There have been women who were abused by their boyfriend / husband etc. and eventually after so much abuse just snapped and killed the husband.  And they were acquitted in trial.  What is worse, years and years of abuse and violent outburst causing someone physical harm, purposely, or snapping under mental state and killing someone (accidentally) it's usually rage and they don't intend to kill.  Someone who was beaten, it's usually not the first time.  The story even says it was severe beating. 
However the writer doesn't even focus on the beating but then proceeds to write the story painting the maid as the aggressor and the one who is bad and doesn't even address the beating. This is why I have such trouble believing Guru Gobind Singh Ji wrote these... why would our Gurus wrote about physical violence in a way that almost condones it? And then point the finger at the victim because of what happens as a result?  Its like women being raped and being blamed for poking out the rapists eye in order to escape, while ignoring the rape itself, or even worse blaming her for the rape too! 

It's evident because the last few lines... instruct men to allow the woman's heart to be captured but never let her capture your heart (in other words the message is never trust a woman).  The big final message of this charitar is never trust a woman (never let her capture your heart??!!!)  What??!! Seriously??!!! You have to be kidding me!!!!  We have a woman (maid) being beaten up by the Trader (and/or) his wife. And the final big lesson of this is don't trust women??? 

p.s. I dont care who calls me guru nindak.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

wow gee another story pointing finger at (apparently) the woman. 

However, we know even today when people are subjected to violence, it affects their mental state. There have been women who were abused by their boyfriend / husband etc. and eventually after so much abuse just snapped and killed the husband.  And they were acquitted in trial.  What is worse, years and years of abuse and violent outburst causing someone physical harm, purposely, or snapping under mental state and killing someone (accidentally) it's usually rage and they don't intend to kill.  Someone who was beaten, it's usually not the first time.  The story even says it was severe beating. 
However the writer doesn't even focus on the beating but then proceeds to write the story painting the maid as the aggressor and the one who is bad and doesn't even address the beating. This is why I have such trouble believing Guru Gobind Singh Ji wrote these... why would our Gurus wrote about physical violence in a way that almost condones it? And then point the finger at the victim because of what happens as a result?  Its like women being raped and being blamed for poking out the rapists eye in order to escape, while ignoring the rape itself, or even worse blaming her for the rape too! 

It's evident because the last few lines... instruct men to allow the woman's heart to be captured but never let her capture your heart (in other words the message is never trust a woman).  The big final message of this charitar is never trust a woman (never let her capture your heart??!!!)  What??!! Seriously??!!! You have to be kidding me!!!!  We have a woman (maid) being beaten up by the Trader (and/or) his wife. And the final big lesson of this is don't trust women??? 

p.s. I dont care who calls me guru nindak.  

You're proper useless at analysing texts. I've seen 15 year olds do infinitely more sophisticated analyses for GCSE papers than you. lol

If you read the subtlety behind the text, did you notice there is a warning of abusing domestic staff within? It seems like the trader's wife beat the maid, not a man? The resentment from this led to the whole scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

You're proper useless at analysing texts. I've seen 15 year olds do infinitely more sophisticated analyses for GCSE papers than you. lol

If you read the subtlety behind the text, did you notice there is a warning of abusing domestic staff within? It seems like the trader's wife beat the maid, not a man? The resentment from this led to the whole scenario. 

Yes, but look at what the last line says:

The womans heart may be captured, but never let her steal your heart. Providing her myriads of victuals (basic necessities only) just keep her satisfied. The Gods such as... can't copy and paste you can read it... none could fathom the charitars of women.

This last bit is the moral message is it not?

And it doesnt say whether she was beaten by the wife or the trader himself. (Its quite possible it was both) Just says that she was beaten severely.  And yes everything happened BECAUSE of that. But then, the warning at the end is don't trust women. (its pointing the finger at the maid) Even the Gods can't fathom the charitars of women.  Don't let women steal your heart.  Why wouldn't it say instead don't hurt people, don't beat up your maid? etc?  Don't try to water it down. It's saying women can't be trusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

Yes, but look at what the last line says:

The womans heart may be captured, but never let her steal your heart. Providing her myriads of victuals just keep her satisfied. The Gods such as... can't copy and paste you can read it... none could fathom the charitars of women.

This last bit is the moral message is it not?

And it doesnt say whether she was beaten by the wife or the trader himself. (Its quite possible it was both) Just says that she was beaten severely.  And yes everything happened BECAUSE of that. But then, the warning at the end is don't trust women. Even the Gods can't fathom the charitars of women.  Don't let women steal your heart.  Why wouldn't it say instead don't hurt people, don't beat up your maid? etc? 

It's meant to be engaging and entertaining and requires a person to use their own brain. Like the whole series is designed to make the moron king use his brain to think, rather than his dick. 

That bit you are crying about is probably just the old way of saying the oft-repeated saying: 'Men are from mars and women are from venus'.  Men and women being mystified by each others psychology is no new thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't no one put up the original text? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On an esoteric level, notice that the maid's name is chitarkala - 

ਚਿੱਤਰ ਕਲਾ
      art of painting, pictorial art, graphic art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

It's meant to be engaging and entertaining and requires a person to use their own brain. Like the whole series is designed to make the moron king use his brain to think, rather than his dick. 

That bit you are crying about is probably just the old way of saying the oft-repeated saying: 'Men are from mars and women are from venus'.  Men and women being mystified by each others psychology is no new thing. 

Except charitar does not mean 'difference in psychology' it means deception, trick, charm. Its saying even the Gods can't fathom the deceptions of women, trickery of women. That's the end statement of it.  It's emphasizing the trickery the maid used to have them killed, instead of emphasizing the violence against her which caused it.  When you put emphasis on something, it means that is the important message to take away. Like the rahao lines in Gurbani.  What is emphasized in rahaho line in a shabad, puts the rest of the shabad's message into context. Similarly, these lines at the end emphasize the message is the trickery the maid used to have them killed and not her being severely beaten, which aside from the first few lines is not mentioned again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

Except charitar does not mean 'difference in psychology' it means deception, trick, charm. Its saying even the Gods can't fathom the deceptions of women, trickery of women. That's the end statement of it.  It's emphasizing the trickery the maid used to have them killed, instead of emphasizing the violence against her which caused it.  When you put emphasis on something, it means that is the important message to take away. Like the rahao lines in Gurbani.  What is emphasized in rahaho line in a shabad, puts the rest of the shabad's message into context. Similarly, these lines at the end emphasize the message is the trickery the maid used to have them killed and not her being severely beaten, which aside from the first few lines is not mentioned again.

 

That's your shallow interpretation. Like I said, I've seen 15 year olds analyse texts (for school projects no less) with infinitely more depth than you seem to be able to. Cool, if that's not a strong point of yours, at least recognise that. 

The texts are multi-faceted - they're not just about slagging off women. Men look like gullible, dumb-ass dickheads in all of these too. 

Be serious! On the eve of taking on the most powerful empire of the time - you think think Guru ji was obsessing over devious b1tches?

These texts seem too much for you to grasp, but don't be disheartened, plenty of closet-homo men seem similarly incapable of drawing out useful lessons from them as well, projecting their fear or dislike of women onto them. That's no fault of the work. It's more their own baggage. Try looking at it without your white, western, victimhood baggage?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me, I am perfectly capable of deriving deeper meanings from Gurbani.  ANd I have posted some on here talking of hypocrisy etc  But I just don't see it in this. These are written in a very direct format and then the message is emphasized at the end.  If it were meant to be an allegory for some deeper meaning it would not end with the message "don't trust women" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least learn the original language before jumping to conclusions.

 

And that goes for the rest of us too. 

 

Solely relying on interpretations is a fool's game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

Well, at least learn the original language before jumping to conclusions.

 

And that goes for the rest of us too. 

 

Solely relying on interpretations is a fool's game. 

Please get the original and then post an accurate english translation if you think the above is wrong... if there is a different meaning in the original, then I will eat my words.  But in the English version above that paapiman posted, it is just a straight forward message about not trusting women (again).  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

Please get the original and then post an accurate english translation if you think the above is wrong... if there is a different meaning in the original, then I will eat my words.  But in the English version above that paapiman posted, it is just a straight forward message about not trusting women (again).  

 

This isn't a one night affair, these things require years of studying. Even if I translate it, I could be wrong too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

This isn't a one night affair, these things require years of studying. Even if I translate it, I could be wrong too. 

I'm giving you benefit of the doubt. I understand its not a quick thing. But I'd like to see your translation rom original... you know I would LOVE to see some other meaning from these!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

Trust me, I am perfectly capable of deriving deeper meanings from Gurbani. 

Ok let's test it.

6 hours ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

Except charitar does not mean 'difference in psychology' it means deception, trick, charm.

Wrong. My dearest  is incapable of deriving basic literal meanings leave aside deeper meanings.

 

But her inadequacies aside, @paapiman add Jaggi's panjabi translation to the mix.

Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

@chatanga1 stop doing nindiya of her. She has not even been interacting with you anymore I think she said she blocked you. And rest of us are getting tired of reading your same old thing all the time. Post something constructive for once. 

Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Guest said:

@chatanga1 stop doing nindiya of her. She has not even been interacting with you anymore I think she said she blocked you. And rest of us are getting tired of reading your same old thing all the time. Post something constructive for once. 

Chatanga paaji is way more valuable to this forum and has way more knowledge of Sikhism than some

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 hours ago, paapiman said:

Chatanga paaji is way more valuable to this forum and has way more knowledge of Sikhism, than some

 

Bhul chuk maaf

All I have seen him do is complain.  At least she is interested in spirituality instead of following coat tails of babas.  You guys have a seriously distorted view of what sikhism is then.  It seems more like hinduism.  Asceticism, celibacy, idol worship, women hatred? What kind of sikhism is this? Its not what I grew up round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Chatanga paaji is way more valuable to this forum and has way more knowledge of Sikhism, than xxxxx?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Who is xxxxx?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mods please remove my real name.  (well former real name) as its all fun and games on a forum where everyone hides behind aliases but I am sure none of you would want to actually damage someones real life.  If you do, then there is something wrong with you. You can nindiya my alias all you want, but please leave me real name out of this! Some please tell Paapiman to edit his post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...