Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
paapiman

Sri Charitropakhyan Sahib jee Series - Charitar #21

Recommended Posts

Also interesting to read the next to charitars - they are quite short and they show how the Raja despite difficult circumstances manages to subvert the situation so he is once again in power.

Charitar 21 - meeting of the two - exchange of ideas in terms of dharam, social reality, culture etc

Charitar 22 - Woman in power as the raja goes to jail

Charitar 23 - the Raja subverts the situation and takes the upper hand.

Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, amardeep said:

Also I think the line of crawling through her legs is some sort of Indian metaphor. The translation seems wrong and out of place.

Very much possible. Like for example, 

Quote

Naak Katna.

To cut Nose

Meaning:  To disrespect to to shame someone.

Unquote [1]

[1] - http://indian-idioms.blogspot.ca/2012/10/naak-katna.html

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


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

Also I think the line of crawling through her legs is some sort of Indian metaphor. The translation seems wrong and out of place.

Paapiman can  you put up the gurmukhi text please for this line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

Paapiman can  you put up the gurmukhi text please for this line?

ਆਜੁ ਹਮਾਰੇ ਸਾਥ ਮਿਤ੍ਰ ਰੁਚਿ ਸੌ ਰਤਿ ਕਰਿਯੈ ॥

ਹੋ ਨਾਤਰ ਛਾਡੌ ਟਾਂਗ ਤਰੇ ਅਬਿ ਹੋਇ ਨਿਕਰਿਯੈ ॥੨੮॥

ਟਾਂਗ ਤਰੇ ਸੋ ਜਾਇ ਕੇਲ ਕੈ ਜਾਹਿ ਨ ਆਵੈ ॥

ਬੈਠਿ ਨਿਫੂੰਸਕ ਰਹੈ ਰੈਨਿ ਸਿਗਰੀ ਨ ਬਜਾਵੈ ॥

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the above lines are this:

 

(woman saying):

today with me, create friendship and make romance

otherwise you can leave by passing under my legs 28

(Raja saying in response)

Those who pass under the legs are unable to perform intercourse

They pass all night as a eunuch unable to perform.

 

Passing under the legs of someone is equivalent to being their slave, or being worthless , having no status at all. Seeing as this is a Raja, obviously he will be very reluctant to do this, and it seems to me that he is trying to avoid doing this so threatens that anybody who does this loses the power to perform intercourse. This is turn frightens the woman as she will not want to turn the raja into a eunuch for the night as she needs him to perform intercourse.

 

That make any sense?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

The next line makes no sense from the english translation either.

 

"with my hands i will tear you off"...

 

I think it should translated as

 

"I will hold you here (as a aprisoner) all day and night.

Good catch bro.

ਗਹਿ ਆਪਨ ਕਰ ਆਜੁ ਸਗਰ ਤੋ ਕੋ ਨਿਸ ਭੋਰੋ ॥

I will hold you by my hand today for the whole day and night

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm ok so she basicAlly says do what i require (intercourse) or submit/lower yourself to me and i will leave you alone. In rajniti warfare it was often seen that one powerful emperor would assemble his army at the border of his enemy and threathen  with war to have them give up Their throne, land, wealth etc. If the enemy refused to hand over land, the emperor would often say fine then at least pay annual tribute to me and i will leave again not invading  or taking over your land. The mughals did This with the rajputs, maharaja ranjit singh did it with his raakhi subordinates etc.

I see the same pattern here in her speech

Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/08/2017 at 3:05 PM, amardeep said:

Also interesting to read the next to charitars - they are quite short and they show how the Raja despite difficult circumstances manages to subvert the situation so he is once again in power.

 

OK, can we have the next ones @paapiman?

 

On 22/08/2017 at 8:31 PM, amardeep said:

she basicAlly says do what i require (intercourse) or submit/lower yourself to me and i will leave you alone.

 

I think here the move is towards humiliation as wel. He is a King, and to be humiliated like that is a big issue. He is caught between a rock and hard place. He is given the option of losing his dharma or subjecting himself to ridicule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(taken from another topic):

On 15/08/2017 at 11:12 PM, amardeep said:

A way to widen the discussion is also to see whether the early Sikh historians considered the Anoop Kaur charitar as factual history or not..

Look at the years involved. In Guru Sahibs time, Anandpur Sahib was an existing town. The text was completed in 1696. The historic vaisakhi was of 1699. Thats a three year difference.

 

In this story there is the mention of a mantar which seems to be telling us it was to invoke the Devi. So it must have been written at least 3 years assuming that the whole text may have taken upto a month to listen to,  re-worded and scribed.  So was it known for at least 3 years prior to Vasiakhi that Guru Sahib was looking for a mantar to invoke the Devi (personally I don't beleive he was himself, but was doing it at the behest of the Brahmans who felt they could do it).

 

Some scholars are of the view that such an incident did take place between Guru Sahib and Anoop Kanwar, and at the moment I am so inclined as well, but not to the extent or detail contained in the charitar, If Guru Nanak could see through the charitar of the Raja of Sri lanka, Guru Sahib would easily have seen through Anoop Kanwar, but maybe felt this was worthy of being the incident to as the basis of a literature masterpeice, designed to to teach and warn Sikhs of interpersonal skills and razorsharp thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2017 at 2:49 PM, chatanga1 said:

  So was it known for at least 3 years prior to Vasiakhi that Guru Sahib was looking for a mantar to invoke the Devi (personally I don't beleive he was himself, but was doing it at the behest of the Brahmans who felt they could do it).

Sri Satguru jee (Tenth Master) did invoke Chandi jee, the power of Almighty Waheguru jee, not Mata Durga/Chandi (the female deities), who are millions in numbers. 

It's like saying that Sri Satguru jee worshiped Ram. Ram will refer to the Almighty Waheguru jee here, not Sri Ram Chander jee (the king of Ayodhya).

It is so simple to understand, but some people do not seem to get it.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the similarities of this tale with the base story is as follows:

Sri Satguru jee in this story goes to learn an incantation from Anoop Kaur. The purpose of the visit was education.

Similarly in the original tale, Chitar Singh sends his son to Chitarmati so that she could educate him, as the king realized that his son had not learned anything from the Brahmin. 

Both these ladies (Anoop Kaur and Chitarmati) played their Charitars, rather than performing the duty/task for which the men had come to them.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another similarity with these tales is the role played by the middleman, under influence.

In the base story, the Brahmin (Priest) was expected to educate the prince. He fails to do so. The reason (which is not explicitly stated) could be fear of the queen or some sort of bribe offered by her. In either case, the priest should have reported this suspicious act of the queen to the king.

In this story, Magan Das is the servant, who becomes greedy and then lures Sri Satguru jee to the house of Anoop Kaur. He became a victim of greed.

Both these individuals, helped the ladies in playing their Charitars.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 10:13 AM, paapiman said:

Another similarity with these tales is the role played by the middleman, under influence.

In the katha below, Gyani Harbhajan Singh jee Dhudhikey narrates a real life incident of a deceptive Vichola (middleman). The sad part of this incident is that the uncle (Mama) plays the Charitar with his own niece. The niece was highly educated, but was tricked into marrying a less educated person and into a less affluent family. It is very important to choose the middlemen wisely.

Please start listening after 20:10 min:

http://www.gurmatveechar.com/audios/Katha/02_Present_Day_Katha/Giani_Harbhajan_Singh_Dhudikey_(Vidyarthi_Sampardai_Bhindra)/Sri_Dasam_Guru_Granth_Sahib_Ji_Katha/16_Charitropakhyan_Katha/Giani.Harbhajan.Singh.Dhudhikey.(Vidyarthi.Sampardai.Bhindra)--444.-.Charitropakhyan.Katha.002.mp3

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/10/2017 at 3:13 PM, paapiman said:

Another similarity with these tales is the role played by the middleman, under influence.

 

Good observation. In some, not all there has been a middle-man, a messenger involved. Usually it has been a "das" or "dasi" - a servant of the person. In some the das/dasi has acted as instructed but in some they have acted for their own interests as well.

 

On 05/10/2017 at 3:13 PM, paapiman said:

In the base story, the Brahmin (Priest) was expected to educate the prince. He fails to do so. The reason (which is not explicitly stated) could be fear of the queen or some sort of bribe offered by her.

 

You may be on to something there.  Maybe it was an instruction from her to do so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Good observation. In some, not all there has been a middle-man, a messenger involved. Usually it has been a "das" or "dasi" - a servant of the person. In some the das/dasi has acted as instructed but in some they have acted for their own interests as well.

 

 

You may be on to something there.  Maybe it was an instruction from her to do so.

 

Also note in the Zafarnama how the Guru scolds Aurangzeb for blindly following his advisors who were misleading him and giving him wrong information about what's going on in punjab.

Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/kama/kama105.htm

 

This "messenger/go-between/middleman" is also mentioned in the Kamasutra. His/her qualities are given as:

 

A messenger should possess the following qualities:

  • Skilfulness
  • Boldness
  • Knowledge of the intention of men by their outward signs
  • Absence of confusion, i.e. no shyness
  • Knowledge of the exact meaning of what others do or say
  • Good manners
  • Knowledge of appropriate times and places for doing different things
  • Ingenuity in business
  • Quick comprehension
  • Quick application of remedies, i.e. quick and ready resources

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2017 at 8:01 AM, chatanga1 said:

 No, quite the opposite, the charitar says she is the wife of a rich man.

According to Niddar's book, she was a virgin widow. Her husband had died before the "Muklawa" was sent.

Now, it makes sense why Maharaaj was sympathetic to her (gave her money at the end), even though she played a heinous Charitar.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

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...