chatanga1

I do know what he mentioned. He said that  ant kaal is death in the mind. You need to slow those claps down a little more. They going too fast for you. 

I knew you were going to hate the fact that the last act on this earth involving your body would be a Hindu rite. You should ask your Guru ghagri whether he can think of a non hindu method.

This is such a great sin, but people have no fear of a sin of this size.

The videos speak for themselves. How are any of the things he is saying good for Sikhi? He says "what is the point of breaking Gods law of nature (sleeping at night) to worship God?
 
People follow HIM, they don't follow what he's saying and seeing if he is right. They are cultists and he has become a cult leader. He could have millions of followers like that arabian cult but it doesn't make it right.

You quoted from a scripture that is not based on spirituality. Sri Charitropakhyan is not a spiritual Granth.
Mental IQ, solving problems etc we learn those when we go to school. Why do we go to school and not sit in a cave doing naam simran instead?

why do sadhus refrain from drinking tea and advise the same as well. my dad has not drunk tea for 4 years now and advised me to stop drinking it as well.

I see. So its used to midly intoxicate, but wouldnt someone who is of satoguni nature prefer to meditate without it then?

Ask me 12 times and I will tell you.

Which Granth  is this line from?

Ghagri imho is even worse than gurbachan narakdhari. Gurbachan never claimed to be part of Sikhi whilst peddling his own faith. 
 
Ghagri on the other hand claims to be preaching true Sikhi whilst he is actually misguiding Sikhs by his distortion of Gurbani and gurmat.

It’s quite ironic. AKJ were supporting him over issues with the Taksal because of the AKJ anti Taksal stance. Now he is criticising something that the AKJ believe in strongly they are condemning him. 
 
I feel sorry for those those blinded by Ghagharis personality and believe anything and everything the fool says. It is simply a cult now.

Irrespective of his personal life, he has brought forward many experiences of Naam abhiyasiye Singhs for the benefit of the sangat.
 
Bhul chuk maaf

Thanks for that. maybe some of these differences could be explored more. I wonder why certain differences started to show themselves as I always thought the main text was unadulterated.

Thanks for the info and link. There is a lot to read there. I had thought the TV serial was based totally on the ancient sources. DO you know of any parts of the TV serial which differ from written sources?
I will comment further on the characters as shown in the TV series but will look up written sources in some time as well. I think that most of us will have seen the serial rather the read the story itself .

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02046.htm
 
 
" That bull among men, Duryodhana, continued to dwell in that, assembly house (of the Pandavas). And with Sakuni, the Kuru prince slowly examined the whole of that mansion, and the Kuru prince beheld in it many celestial designs, which he had never seen before in the city called after the elephant (Hastinapore). And one day king Duryodhana in going round that mansion came upon a crystal surface. And the king, from ignorance, mistaking it for a pool of water, drew up his clothes. And afterwards finding out his mistake the king wandered about the mansion in great sorrow. And sometime after, the king, mistaking a lake of crystal water adorned with lotuses of crystal petals for land, fell into it with all his clothes on. Beholding Duryodhana fallen into the lake, the mighty Bhima laughed aloud as also the menials of the palace. And the servants, at the command of the king, soon brought him dry and handsome clothes. Beholding the plight of Duryodhana, the mighty Bhima and Arjuna and both the twins--all laughed aloud. Being unused to putting up with insults, Duryodhana could not bear that laugh of theirs. Concealing his emotions he even did not cast his looks on them. And beholding the monarch once more draw up his clothes to cross a piece of dry land which he had mistaken for water, they all laughed again. And the king sometime after mistook a closed door made of crystal as open. And as he was about to pass through it his head struck against it, and he stood with his brain reeling. And mistaking as closed another door made of crystal that was really open, the king in attempting to open it with stretched hands, tumbled down. And coming upon another door that was really open, the king thinking it as closed, went away from it. And, O monarch, king Duryodhana beholding that vast wealth in the Rajasuya sacrifice and having become the victim of those numerous errors within the assembly house at last returned, with the leave of the Pandavas, to Hastinapore. "
 
So there was some truth to Duryodhans humiliation at Indrprsth. The serial showed it differently but the theme was there in the ancient texts. Mahabharat is very hard to read on that site. Am going to get some books off net.

That is definitely a plausible translation. I had to research into the "ਨਾਹਿ " part but it is used for husband.
 
Gujjar/Ahir both mean herdsmen/cowherds. I think they are both the same group but have different names according to region.
 
Great stuff. This is reflected in the main story about how the Queen puts all the blame on the Prince knowing that she can get him punished. Just as how the King was very enamoured with the Queen to beleive anything she said, up to the point of killing his own son, the King in this story was also equally unhesitant in giving the gujjar a very harsh punishment.
 
 
"ਐਚਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਯਾ ਕਹ ਤੀਰ ਲਗਾਯੋ ॥" To me it seems that the line says "Saying this the woman's arrow found it's target."
 
I've found on Search gurbani "ਐਚਿ" also seems to mean "pull" so another alternative could be " pulling (her bow) the womans words struck like arrows."
 

This is the Gurmukhi version:
ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥
ਹੇ ਅਹੀਰ ਹੌ ਜਾਤ ਹੌ ਬਹਤ ਨਦੀ ਕੇ ਮਾਹਿ ॥
(She said) ‘Oh, milkman, I am drowning here,
ਜੋ ਹ੍ਯਾਂ ਤੇ ਕਾਢੈ ਮੁਝੈ ਵਹੈ ਹਮਾਰੋ ਨਾਹਿ ॥੧੧॥
‘Who-so-ever, helps me to rescue, will become my husband.’(11)
 
This is what Jaggi translated it as:

 
This is Nara's interpretation of it:
 

 
 

Does it make sense? I can't see the words that would say that the woman would be his wife.
This is what i see tfrom this :
 
ਹੇ ਅਹੀਰ - O Ahir (milkman)
ਹੌ ਜਾਤ ਹੌ - I am going
ਬਹਤ ਨਦੀ - flowing river
ਕੇ ਮਾਹਿ ॥ - inside of
"O Ahir, I am in this flowing river"
 
ਜੋ - you
ਹ੍ਯਾਂ - from here
ਤੇ ਕਾਢੈ ਮੁਝੈ -get me out
ਵਹੈ - flow
ਹਮਾਰੋ - myself
ਨਾਹਿ ॥੧੧॥ - is not
"You get me out of the flow, or I will be finished (die)
 

Could " ਜੋ ਹ੍ਯਾਂ ਤੇ ਕਾਢੈ ਮੁਝੈ ਵਹੈ ਹਮਾਰੋ ਨਾਹਿ ॥੧੧॥ "
 
be " ਜੋਹ  ਯਾਂ ਤੇ ਕਾਢੈ ਮੁਝੈ ਵਹੈ ਹਮਾਰੋ ਨਾਹਿ ॥੧੧॥
 
ਜੋਹ  - look/see
ਯਾਂ ਤੇ - over here
which would give the meaning of :
ਜੋਹ  ਯਾਂ ਤੇ ਕਾਢੈ ਮੁਝੈ ਵਹੈ ਹਮਾਰੋ ਨਾਹਿ ॥੧੧॥  : "Look over here and get me out, otherwise I will be no more" ||
 
 

This is the Gurmukhi version:
ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥
ਹੇ ਅਹੀਰ ਹੌ ਜਾਤ ਹੌ ਬਹਤ ਨਦੀ ਕੇ ਮਾਹਿ ॥
(She said) ‘Oh, milkman, I am drowning here,
ਜੋ ਹ੍ਯਾਂ ਤੇ ਕਾਢੈ ਮੁਝੈ ਵਹੈ ਹਮਾਰੋ ਨਾਹਿ ॥੧੧॥
‘Who-so-ever, helps me to rescue, will become my husband.’(11)
 
This is what Jaggi translated it as:

 
This is Nara's interpretation of it:
 

 
 

That's a good point. He could have rescued her for the sake of rescuing her. But it's important to note that she initiated the act of marriage by promising to be his if he rescued her. Now under any other circumstances would she have made such an offer?
 
I remember reading an similiar story from the Great Mutiny of how an english woman was struggling to cross a river with others to escape but a muslim guy offered to rescue her if she became his wife. She agreed and he took her back to his house only for her to be rescued once the english defeated the mutineers.

The opening Dohra to this charitar tell us that the Prince was called to the King's presence.
The next one tells us that the King's eyes have now been opened but this is the last one which mentions the prince so could it be that either the Prince has not been returned to prison? Or that the charitars being told from henceforth right upto 50 ish where we are now are being told in one day? Or could it be that the Prince is still in jail whilst the King listens to the rest of the charitars?
 
I'm inclined to think that if the King has realised his folly he wouldn't return the Prince to jail as that would be unjust of the King. I'll what Gyani Narain Singh writes in his steek as well.

I'm wrong here to write punishment. The Gujjar had done nothing wrong. Award/reward would be more befitting here than punishment. Up until the presentation of the Gujjar before the King, the poor man had no idea he was going to be executed.

OK so the summary of this charitar is that a King and a woman who lived on opposite banks of the river were greatly in love. They would take it in turns to cross the river to meet their love. One day when it was the womans turn the river was flooding/moving swiftly. She couldn't make it to the other side but got swept downstream. Fearing for her life she shouted out for help and when a Gujjar came she fearing she was going to drown, told him that if he rescues her she will become his bride. He rescues her and then when they are living together she asks him to take her into the town so they can pay respects to the King. He takes her, and they meet the King. She tells the King what happened and that she is now the bride of the Gujjar and can be be the King's wife if the Gujjar is killed. So the King kills the Gujjar and they resume their relationship.
 
The gist of the charitar IMO is that the woman fearing she was going to drown made a very rash promise, which came back to haunt her. She had no intention of being the Gujjar's bride but circumstances drove her to it. This to me reflects in the original story, where the Queen had no intention of being an old mans wife. It was circumstances that drove her to being a old mans wife. She didn't want the old King anymore than the woman wanted the Gujjar. But the decision was not in their hands. That is an important part of this story. For survival people can do anything.
The next part is the killing of the Gujjar, which shows both the King and the woman to be totally ungrateful. He was just a Gujjar who worked everyday for his living, and his death seems very harsh to me. I think this harshness of his punishment is reflected in the Kings change of heart as shown in the next charitar. 
 
It also reflect the framework story. In the original story, the Prince goes to war and defeats the opposing army to win the Queen and bring her to his father. In this story the Gujjar rescues the woman and (unknowingly) brings her to her King. However seeing the end of the Gujjar (i think) makes the King question himself whether he has made the right judgement.

That's a good point. He could have rescued her for the sake of rescuing her. But it's important to note that she initiated the act of marriage by promising to be his if he rescued her. Now under any other circumstances would she have made such an offer?
 
I remember reading an similiar story from the Great Mutiny of how an english woman was struggling to cross a river with others to escape but a muslim guy offered to rescue her if she became his wife. She agreed and he took her back to his house only for her to be rescued once the english defeated the mutineers.