chatanga1

Again, in this charitar, I see how a person getting into a difficult situation manouvered to avoid getting caught. The man underneath the bed is hearing or feeling some pushes on the bed, and asks the woman what it was. She replies that she was beating her husband with a shoe. This should also here bringing to the mans attention that beating someone with a shoe is a humiliating thing in Indian culture, and that if she can be like this with her husband what can she be like with any other man?
Plus with him being a Qazi, an esteemed member of the upper Islamic society, he would have had a great deal of respect from people. He could in some respects be a King/ruler. See where I'm going with this?
 
It says at the end, that the man was left scratching his head. I think here it is telling us that the man was left bewildered at what was going on and also the excuse that the woman gave.

Have you mentioned “brahmanical” here or has your posted been hacked?

What is brahmanic concept of Sikhism? 

Why? I asked you some questions on this topic last week, to which you haven't responded. Why are you so eager to draw up your own conclusion?
Let's discuss some things a little further.
 
Good start. But let me add a little more to that. Where was Harnam Singh quoting from when he said this? The SGPC's very OWN record of it.
 
I asked you where these two traditions started from? You didn't answer. Maybe you would like to now?
 
 
Sure. There has to be some sort of accuracy doesn't there? So what if one's narrative is inaccurate? Should we not discuss why?
 
 
I have a  lot of respect for Kiranjot Kaur. But she has not quite grasped the whole situation here. Amrik Chandigarhia does not preach the maryada of Sri Akal Takht Sahib. He does not have any respect or belief in Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth Sahib.
Why is it that Amrik Chandigarhia can speak against sarovars, but yet hold his tongue against the heinous act of darshan rogi in starting a new form of khande pahul ceremony?
Why is it that Ranjit Dhadriwala has also held his tongue on this yet been very vocal on other matters of less consequence? darshan rogi recorded a telephone call with dhadriwala some years ago and it is on youtube. Look at the language used for dhadri in that video. Yet dhadri can criticise Kanwar Grewal for going to the Ram Rahim birthday party, but remains mute on darshan rogi. Maybe you can share your thoughts on that?
 
 
Thanks for sharing this photo @angy15. Can you please tell us what is written on point 5?

Then according to you Amrit sanchar must be made up since its clearly not explicitly stated in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. 
They broke the arrogance of Pandit Ji and as a result he realised he barely knows anything about his own text. I asked you to provide a historical source of your version of the Sakhi, preferably dated back before the time of Singh Sabha. Even in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji certain miracles are mentioned, Waheguru brought a cow back to life for Bhagat Naamdev Ji, the entire story is recorded in there.
No offence but Science isn't your Guru. If Guru Gobind Singh Ji appeared and said to you the world is flat, and we have no other planets in our solar system. Would you believe him? or would you believe science? Miracles haven't decreased, they're just less frequent as Kalyug goes on as no one has any spiritual ability at all, if any. Very few folk do. Science is great for explaining physical stuff, but Science also says God isn't real and out to prove it. 
Brahmins offering water wasn't a miracle, that was a ritual. Now you're trying to muddle the two, firstly let's go back to my original question, the one you conveniently ignored. 
^ would you agree this happened as Bhai Sahib noted it down, or are you going to accuse him as well of exaggerating or outright lying? 
Except one Ideology has no actual leg to stand on. Before you start accusing me of being a Taksali, I'm not. I've learnt from a whole host of sikhs with different beliefs and systems. Ideologies would be people like Udasis, Nirmalas, Nihangs etc. Missionaries aren't any of these because its all been conceived in the last 20 or so years. They have no actual lineage in sikh history and outright hate doubt anything that makes them uneasy. I have no problem with people like Udasis, Nihangs etc, I don't agree with them fully fyi but I do respect them because unlike missionaries they've studied contemporary sikh sources and actually formulated knowledge from them even if its not what I believe. 

But not all Hindus claim that Sikhs are a sect of Hindus. So should we not say anything at all ?

I had asked you before, what was "brahmanical" about Sikhism. 
 
Your words certainly do not back up your claim.
 
 
So you sat in 1 diwan and didn't hear anything wrong spoken so that should make every other diwan ok?
Have you not heard of his diwan when he talks about amrit vela? His quip of "ਰੱਬ ਦੇ ਨਿਜਮਾ ਨੂੰ ਤੋੜ ਕੇ ਰੱਬ ਨੂੰ ਕਿਵੇਂ ਖੁਸ਼ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ "? He was saying that nature has provided night for man to rest and so man should rest at night. He should not be getting up early in the morning because God has set nature for man to rest at night, so how can anyone go against what God has set and still please God?"
What is dhadri doing speaking rubbish like this?
And there is sarovars, bhoras, reincarnation etc. Have you heard the rubbish he has been saying about them?
 
 
 
 

Well those specific viewpoints are becoming mainstream now but that mentality has existed in sikhs as a parasite for a long time.
The specific viewpoints are only extensions of the deep-rooted, parasitic metality.
 
In Guru Granth Sahib Gurus encourage us to focus our attention on God.
They say to bring that element in to our rituals and practices.
 
But what this parasitic mentality thinks is that we should not do those rituals at all.
And this mentality will eat up our rituals.
Newer generations who are fed on a diet of this parasite will eat us up if we are not careful to remove it.

I'd like to say, when we translate we often have to use the most approximate words from the culture we are translating to. This is no straightforward thing, and subtle (but very significant!) nuances or semantic shifts commonly occur in this process. From what I've grasped of CP thus far, I'd say it is definitely not about stimulating sexual desires. The fact that a few of the chariters that we've covered thus far on the forum don't actually involve sexual desires is significant too. 
Okay, we can make the point that certain writings may stimulate sexual desires, even though it wasn't the intent of the writers - like, to use really crude examples, someone writing about an aberrant rape or paedophilia, to highlight the disgusting nature of the act, which is then used by deviants for arousal purposes, which was the opposite intention of the writers. 

I don't know if I've got the definition wrong but I always thought 'erotica' meant stuff that was designed to turn someone on. I don't see much of that in CP myself. It's more like warnings and illustrations of gullible and stupid behaviour?

The more I think of the feature of testicles in this story, I think it has to do with the importance of them to a man. They are his life and wellbeing. From them will sprout further generations. So they are to be protected. I feel that this is also something to connect with A king. That his lineage should continue and he would hope to sire a son to carry on the throne/rule.
I think the threat here to the testicles represents in a way (not at all overtly) a threat to the rule of the King, and the ending is also important as well. The Pathan killed the woman and then killed himself. Why did he need to kill himself?
But the main feature of the story revolves around the chugli done by the slave. That is the lesson to be learnt here. Why couldn't the pathan just ask his own wife?

Kindle edition at £25 ??? Eff that.

ਸੁਨਿ ਰਾਕਸ ਕੀ ਬਾਤ ਕੋ ਦੇਵੀ ਉੱਤਰ ਦੀਨ ॥
Hearing the words of the demon, the goddess replied thus:,
 
ਰਾਕਸ ਆਏ ਰੋਹਲੇ ਤਰਵਾਰੀ ਬਖਤਰ ਸਜੇ ॥
The demons came in great rage, decorated with swords and armour.
and also another form of writing the same word:
 
ਓਹੀ ਸੀਹੁ ਮੰਗਾਇਆ ਰਾਖਸ ਭੱਖਣਾ ॥
She sent for that lion, who was she devourer of demons.
 
ਦੁਰਗਾ ਸਭੇ ਸੰਘਾਰੇ ਰਾਖਸ ਖੜਗ ਲੈ ॥੧੫॥
Durga, holding her sword, killed all the demons.15.
 
Sri Dasam Granth Sahib
 
I guess it can be spelt both ways although the first alternative has many occurences in Sri Dasam Granth Sahib whereas the 2nd alternative only has 5.
 

An amendment from me :
ਏਕ ਗੁਲਾਮ ਖਰੀਦ ਕਰਿ ਰਾਖਸਿ ਗ੍ਰਿਹ ਮਹਿ ਆਨਿ ॥੧॥
A slave was bought and kept in the house.
The word for kept (IMO) is ਰਾਖਸਿ whereas "devil" or "demon" would be spelt " ਰਾਕਸ਼ਸ਼ "
 

 
The line 24 in Nara's translation gives a very different meaning to Bindra's.

Its good that you can read some Hindi. The best bet really would be India or if you know any scholars from there, ask them. They could help you find one.

Yes bro, thanks I have amended it.
In this Charitar, we see a woman who we can deduce is young, because she is able to give birth to children, whilst her husband is old, in fact too old to perform intercourse. Where have we seen this before? IN the original background story. In this Charitar the young woman is concerned that her old husband is unable to sire children and having children is a very  natural desire for a woman. In the actual story the woman uses the clove from the Peer but actually gets impregnated by another male, and gives credit to the Peer and his clove, whereas the actual reality is that the clove did nothing. Both the Peer and his clove were just a smokescreen to hide the impregnation by the other man.
 
From this Charitar I see two things. One the root story is repeated in the marriage alliance. Here it feels like the Minister is saying to the King, you are an old man, would you have been able to take care of the Queen's natural desire to carry and give birth to  children? The other thing I see is the pretence of obtaining a lucky/magical charm and giving it credit whereas the reality is hugely different.

Only for those who can read HIndi. Out of interest is there anyone here who can?
 
Coming back to the Charitar. Look at the name of the woman. " ਦਿਲਜਾਨ " meaning the knower of hearts (also the knower of secrets). But the husband (or others) do not know why she is so aggressive. This aggression has some cause somewhere. This is also a way of the Minister telling the King to think about why your own wife was so aggressive in her actions and why you were aggressive in your own thought and action in sentencing your son to death. The Minister doesn't give any reason but hints to the King thatit is important to find out why someone would act in such a way.

Translation from Gyani Ishar Singh :

I don't think it is anything to do with premature ejaculation. It is more to do with the old age and ill-health of the husband.
I see it as :
ਹੋ ਚੜਤ ਖਲਤ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਗਿਰਤ ਬਾਇ ਮੁਖਿ ਅਤਿ ਥਕੈ ॥੨॥
As he attempted to perform intercourse, he would fall being wheezy and breathless. (2)
 
If you look at Nara's translation he says the husband was very old and unable to perform "yog" - union with a woman. There is no mention of ejaculation. Now if you want to father a child, premature ejaculation has no bearing on that ability. Without sounding coarse, once the man has penetrated the woman, if it takes 10 seconds or 10 mins it is the same semen going in.
 

A very short Charitar.

For all sangat in canada dhadrianwale is coming on june 8-10 at dixie gurduara. I hope most of us on here realize that dhadrianwale is against gurmat and we should do something like protest his arrival. 

For marriage to the Princes. See how the story of MahaBharat is also played out in a Royal household, as is Ramayan, as is CharitroPakhyan?
 

Will do.
 
This is the first work by Bhai Vir Singh that I will be reading extensively. So for me it's a new thing. Will be looking at some of the translations and comparing them with others and wil share anything I find interesting.

Yes it looks like this to me. To dwell, or to live in.
 
Ok, here it is. I haven't read it myself yet though Dal.