jaikaara

of what i have experienced personally, if you read the bani with a pleasant mind you wont feel the sudden anger rising..anger arises when u have something bothering you and a feeling that it is not right...the bir ras then takes control...so if u have something bothering u inside first read japji sahib and then chandi di vaar , then followed by sukhmani sahib . Chatka a nariyal if you are ok with it after the ardas.

I had taken guidence from some good nihang singhs and i enjoy reading Chandi di vaar and Uggardanti...i very much love the composition of the Uggardanti too .

so dont have second thoughts ..dont fear the bani ..the bani is to remove the fear .

Sadaa Jai Bhagouti !

the thing is our guys there dint try , just as our guys are not trying here.

u know even if i come up with this , they will give me a 100 reasons to pull me down.

recently there was an ad in the newspaper which showed a sikh doing his salutation to the idol of jesus, in a way they were trying to show .

i decide to protest and spoke to different people , the reaction was " if the sikh did that volutarily how does it matter ? "

the newspaper dint mind showing sikhs and hindus bowing to jesus BUT think what could have happened if they showed a sulleh ?

if the fear of showing a sulleh doing the same thing stopped them then the same fear should have invoked in the mind of the publisher but it did not

Punjabi has Prakrit words bhaisahab..Stuti is prounounced as Ustat ..the jorhh akshar cannot be pronouced smoothly by Punjabis nor goes Gurmukhi have jorhh akshars as much .

Arre mazaa aa giiya ...Tarkhanistan....waah ji ..Lage raho...

now if they were shop keepers i wouldnt blame them for not being fighters how many of us would even want to go on holidays closing our businesses ?

bhaaa ji the probs Guru Maharaj faced was also faced by other heroes of history

for example Rana Pratap, he had no support from his rajput clan, he was assisted by the Bhils

Chchatrpati Shivaji, his fellow Marathas were serving the mughals ,he was helped by local tribals known as Mavlas

Read the lives of freedom fighters even the Gadari babbe, they were all deserted and had traitors from their own who betrayed them.

I was wondering if we can have joint simran sessions maybe fortnightly or monthly which if successful can get weekly too...we have N30 bhaa ji , Sat bhaa ji and some others who are experienced...we can decide on how much time each one can give..this will benefit all of us ..help us become true shishyas...Please share your thoughts on this ..
 
Siri Akaal Sahaai

I came across a good pakistani serial on youtube by the name of dhoop kinare. it was broadcasted in 1987 , one can study what a modern country it had been in those times, the hair style , the saris worn,the malls, the language besides light hearted humor. take a look :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERadFRErO4c

http://tribune.com.pk/story/162164/religious-insensitivity-sikhs-allege-meat-was-cooked-in-gurdwara/

Home Pakistan Business World Sports Life & Style Multimedia Opinion Magazine Blogs Urdu News Sindh Punjab Balochistan KP & FATA Jammu & Kashmir Gilgit Baltistan Religious insensitivity: Sikhs allege meat was cooked in Gurdwara By Abdul Manan Published: May 5, 2011 Share this article Print this page Email Community accuses Evacuee Trust Property Board of dumping the issue.
LAHORE: The Sikh community has alleged that meat, prohibited in their religion, was cooked at Gurdwara Panja Sahib in Hassanabdal, one of the holiest places in Sikhism.
The community has accused the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB), the custodian of their religious places, of trying to dump the issue rather than taking steps against those responsible.
“We demand that an FIR be lodged and the culprits who cooked meat in our Gurdwara be penalised,” community leader Sardar Bishon Singh told The Express Tribune. “Meat, eggs and tobacco are prohibited in Sikhism like pork is in Islam,” he said.
“The caretaker, along with local Muslim staff, cooked meat in Gurdwara Panja Sahib on Sunday,” said a member of Gurdwara Panja Sahib Sewadar Society Sardar Pretam Singh. “It is unfortunate for Sikhs that custodians of their religious places, who are almost all Muslims, have been involved in violation of their faith,” said Bishon Singh.
Pretam Singh added that he caught one staff member red-handed with meat in the Gurdwara’s kitchen. “When I complained to the caretaker of the Gurdwara, Memrooz Khan, he rebuffed my plea,” he said.
ETPB’s additional secretary and deputy administrator then conducted an inquiry and transferred all staff from the Gurdwara. “We demanded that all employees involved in the act should at least be suspended, but ETPB refused to do so,” Rajan Singh said.
Sardar Bishon Singh said that anyone who desecrates a religious place should be tried under section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code, he added.
ETPB’s Deputy Administrator Faraz Abbas told The Express Tribune that he was not sure whether anyone cooked meat at the Gurdwara, but on complaints by the community, all staff has been transferred and new people have been appointed.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 5th, 2011.

Sadh sangat ji any of you from Canada have heard about Mata Baljit Kaur Canada waale ? She conducts yoga and gurbani camps

ANY idea what is the nihang way of worshipping Shastars ? I belive dushera is when nihangs and other hindus too worship their Shastars.

je main pretend karda ta main aap kyun kehya ke main Hindu parwaro cho haiga..? je nahi vi dasda ta ki fark paina si...

btw when you mean clan ?what is your definition? and who do you represent ? 

http://www.interestingarticles.com/metaphysical/equality-and-caste-among-eighteenthcentury-sikhs-682.html

Equality and Caste among Eighteenth-Century Sikhs

The ideal of equality associated with the Sikh movement is generally believed to have been re-inforced by Guru Gobind Singh for the Khalsa, instituted as an egalitarian order in 1699. Therefore, the eighteenth century has an added importance for the study of caste among the Sikhs. A number of scholars have touched upon the subject of caste from different perspectives, but none of them has written exclusively on the issue of caste among the eighteenth-century Sikhs. The paper analyses contemporary evidence for the conception of equality among the Khalsa and the pull of their caste background.
The Persian sources give some indication of the social background and occupations of the Sikhs. The importance of Jat Masands is emphasized in the Dabistan. According to Kamwar Khan, the people who gathered around Banda belonged to ‘base and lowly castes’, like sweepers, tanners, and banjaras. According to Khafi Khan, the followers of Banda came largely from ‘the lower castes of Hindus’, including the Jats. Ghulam Ali Khan says that the leaders of the Sikhs were mostly from the lower classes, such as carpenters, shoe-makers, and Jats. Many of them were yogurt-sellers, confectioners, fodder-vendors, grain-sellers, barbers, and washermen.
According to Muhammad Shafi Warid, Muslims too were enrolled among the Sikhs after the death of Wazir Khan, and they were told to take their meals together ‘so that the distinction in honour between the lowly and the well born was entirely removed and all achieved mutual unison, acting together’. Indeed, a sweeper sat with a raja of great status, and ‘they felt no hostility to each other’. The author of the Tashrih al-Aqwam observed that ‘any one from any caste (qaum), whether Brahman or sweeper’ could join the Sikh faith, and that the Sikhs allowed no distinction among them in eating and drinking. They did not recognize any difference between one another. Any Sikh could hold a position of power. Warid says that a lowly sweeper or cobbler (chamar), more impure than whom there was no caste (qaum) in Hindustan, could attend on Banda and be appointed to govern his own town; the moment he stepped into the territory, or town, or village, all the gentry and notables went out to receive him, and stood before him with folded hands. The early Persian writers, on the whole, emphasize the plebian background of the Sikhs, their egalitarian ethos, and social nobility.
The most radical of the early Sikh writers on the issue of caste is the author of the Prem Sumarag. The Khalsa order, for him, was meant to be casteless. As he puts it, the baran (varna) of the entire Khalsa was pure (pawittar). If anyone asks a member of the Khalsa for his jati, he should reply, ‘I am a Sodhi Khatri’. If there is only one caste of the Khalsa, there could be no hierarchy. Indeed, he states explicitly that ‘there is no difference amongst the Khalsa of Sri Akal Purkh: all belong to one baran’.
In the varnashrama ideal jatis were linked with occupations, and occupations were regarded as hereditary. It is important, therefore, to note that the author of the Prem Sumarag imposes only one restriction, and that too is ethical: the Khalsa of Akal Purkh should pursue an honest occupation (dharam di kirt). However, he goes on to add that a Khalsa should not take up personal service (chakari). If a Khalsa takes up personal service, it should be soldiering (sipahgari). A Singh soldier should not indulge in plunder in a battle and never think of appropriating the property of another. A Khalsa should not take up petty shop-keeping. It is preferable to work at home as a craftsman, and manufacture articles for sale in the bazar. The most preferable occupation is trade in horses (saudagari). Next to it is agriculture. On the whole, thus, there is preference for trade, agriculture and craft over personal service. The only chakari allowed is soldiering. There is emphasis on honest pursuit, but there is no reference to hereditary calling. In fact, preference implies choice.
As the progeny of Akal Purkh, the Khalsa share the same faith. They should never hesitate to eat with one another. However, if a Chuhra, a Chamar, a Sansi, a Dhanak or a Kalal who actually distils liquor wishes to offer food to the Khalsa, he should provide rations in kind, or cash, and ask a Khalsa of another jati to cook the food. But they all belonged to Akal Purkh and followed the same path; all those who say, ‘I am (the Khalsa) of Sri Guru Akal Purkh’ should be seen as equal. They should all eat together, and they should never bother about the (Brahmanical) norms of chauka. All articles of food and drink are gifts from God and, therefore, all equally pure. The most strongly recommended article of food is meat. It is the great food (maha prasad). A Khalsa must eat meat every day. A Khalsa should not eat alone; if there is no one to share his meal at the time of eating, he should set apart a meal for a visitor, whether a Sikh, a Hindu or a Muslim.
In matters of matrimony, the author of the Prem Sumarag is prepared to compromise a little more. For the marriage of a son, a Khalsa should have no consideration (of caste or jati), but in the case of a daughter, the first preference should be a Sikh boy of the same caste. But then, within the caste no further distinctions should be made. Furthermore, if a boy from the same caste or jati is not found for any reason, a daughter may also be married to a young man of another caste or jati. No consideration should be given to the caste or jati of the girl’s mother. The one who entertains the idea of the high and the low is punished in the divine court. Eventually, with the passage of time, all shall belong to one baran. The author clearly visualizes marriage between boys and girls of different castes and jatis. A Sikh boy’s marriage with a slave girl or a Muslim girl is also envisaged.
The Rahitnama associated with Chaupa Singh upholds the ideal of equality as much as the norms of varnasharam dharma. The Sikhs of the Guru from all the four barans share the same faith and follow the same ethical principles, but each baran has its own social norms and practices. The Khatris are servants (sewaks) of the Brahmans and not equal to them. In serving others, a Khalsa should give greater consideration to Brahman Sikhs. A Sikh of the Guru should make a distinction between dhan (what is eaten) and kudhan (what is not eaten), and also between suitable place (thav) and unsuitable place (kuthav). He should not infringe the customary practices (maryada). There is great emphasis on honest occupation (dharam di kirt) for all members of the Khalsa order. There is no suggestion of a hereditary occupation. A Khalsa should disregard the differences of wealth. It is commendable to forge matrimonial ties with a poor Sikh: it pleases the Guru. Thus, the differences of background are disregarded in matters religious and political, but not all the traditional practices of commensality and connubium. The Khalsa are more equal in religious and political matters than in social matters.
In the Tankhahnama, Guru Gobind Singh says, ‘I shall make one baran of all the four barans, and they will all recite (the name of) Vaheguru’. Sainapat, a poet at the Guru’s court, gives no thought to caste or jati, but he does notice the reluctance of Khatris and Brahmans to accept the new norms of the Khalsa in matters affecting their traditional practices. Koer Singh, a kalal, gives the names and jatis of the five Sikhs who offered their heads to Guru Gobind Singh at Anandpur on the Baisakhi day. Three of them were Shudras in the traditional social order: a Chheepa, a Nai, and a Jhiwar. People criticize Guru Gobind Singh for abolishing all distinctions between the four castes. The Shudra, the Vaish, the Khatri, and the Brahman eat together at one place. The Rajput Rajas of the hills refused to become members of the Khalsa because their kula dharam did not permit them to eat with the four castes. Among the Khalsa, all the twelve jats and seven sanats were rolled into one. Guru Gobind Singh decided to give rulership to the Khalsa.
Kesar Singh, a Chhibber Brahman, looks upon the Khalsa as the home (ghar) of Akal Purkh and all their sins are washed away. Three of the five Sikhs who responded to Guru Gobind Singh’s call for sacrifice were Shudras. Though all the four barans had taken refuge in the Panth of the Guru, rulership was given to the Shudras. However, Chhibber invokes the authority of Guru Gobind Singh in favour of the sacred mark and the saved thread for the higher castes, and marriage within the caste. But if a Sikh wishes that the conjugal knot should be tied between his son and the daughter of his Sikh sewak, he should not delay the matter; he could seek forgiveness afterwards. On the question of commensality, Chhibber keeps the touchable Sikhs strictly out. He refers in fact to an incident in which a Mazhabi Sikh, who had posed as a Jat and shared food with Sandhu zamindars, was hanged by Kahn Singh Trehan and his action was appreciated by all the Sikhs. It may be added that the four categories of Sikhs (didari, mukte, murid and mayiki) mentioned in the Bansavalinama, and in the Chaupa Singh Rahit-Nama, have no bearing on caste or social differentiation.
Sarup Das Bhalla states that the Sikhs who used to come to Anandpur for the darshan of Guru Gobind Singh from different ‘countries’ belonged to all the four castes. There was a common langar for them all. Guru Gobind Singh adopted the outward appearance of the Khalsa to become one of them. The sacred thread was replaced by the sword belt. The Khalsa became sovereign without possessing any territory. In the Guru Kian Sakhian there is no general statement about the kind of people who joined the Khalsa but the individual cases are mentioned. Bhai Jaita, who brought the head of Guru Tegh Bahadur from Delhi to Anandpur, was an outcaste; he was declared to be the Guru’s son (Guru ka beta), and he was baptized as Jiwan Singh to became a commandant, and he died fighting in the battle of Chamkaur. Among the five Sikhs who offered their heads to the Guru, one was a Khatri, another a Chheepa, the third a Nai, the fourth a Jat, and the fifth a Mehra (Jhiwar).
Sukha Singh makes the explicit statement that Guru Gobind Singh transformed men into gods, and created the third Panth, the Guru Khalsa. The sacred thread was replaced by the sword. The fools began to say that he had indiscriminately baptized men from all the four barans and asked them to eat together. The practice of the earlier Gurus was discarded, and there was no Veda, no Pandit, and nothing else of the kind now. The Hill Rajas reported to the Mughal emperor that Guru Gobind Singh had created the Khalsa to destroy the mlechh and to establish the rule of the Khalsa over all the lands where the sun rose and set.
According to Bhai Daya Singh, baptism of the double-edged sword was meant for all the four barans. The Khalsa were incarnation of Akal Purkh. A Sikh should marry his daughter to the son of a Sikh. To give one’s daughter to a non-Singh was like handing over a goat to the butcher. The Bedis, Bhallas, and Sodhis should observe the rahit of the Khalsa and worship in accordance with the Sikh dharam (to deserve respect). The Guru-Khalsa is the manifest form of Akal Purkh. Both the Panth and the Granth are to be recognized as the Guru. Bhekh and baran are not dear to the Guru; what is dear to the Guru is the actual conduct in life. A Sikh baptized by the pahul of the double-edged sword should not meet a Brahman or a Sarwaria. According to Bhai Desa Singh, the first article of rahit was to take pahul and become pre-eminent. Men of all the four barans should be encouraged and induced to take pahul of the doubled-edged sword. A Sikh should pursue an occupation that did not infringe dharam, like theft and dacoity. Agriculture, trade, and craft are commendable. Any other honest occupation that one liked could be adopted. However, marriage within the caste is recommended.
The early European observers talk of both Hindus and Muslims becoming Sikhs. According to John Griffiths, the Sikhs received proselytes from all castes of Hindus and they initiated Muslims too. This was the view taken by Forster who adds that the number of Muslim converts to Sikhism was rather small. In ethnic and occupational terms the European writers tended to equate the Khalsa with the Jats. Polier thought that the Sikhs were generally cultivators of land, especially Jatts. John Griffiths saw similarities between the Sikhs and the Jats of Sind and Haryana. Thus, the Singhs among Sikhs, and the Jatts among Singhs appeared to be preponderant.
The early European writers have a few other comments to offer on the relevance of caste for the egalitarian Sikh social order. George Forster thought that there was no difference between Sikhs and Hindus so far as the patterns of matrimony and commensality were concerned. The only item of food that was shared by all alike was the prasad (sacred food). In the Military Memoirs of George Thomas, the Sikhs are stated to allow ‘foreigners of every description’ to join their standard, to sit in their company, and to shave their beards, but they did not consent to intermarriages. The only exception in this matter were the Jat Sikhs who presumably would intermarry with non-Sikh or non-Singh Jats. Nor did the Sikhs eat or drink from the hands of an alien, except from Brahmans for whom they professed the highest veneration. It may be noted that the author is not talking of relations of the Sikhs among themselves but with outsiders.
John Malcolm saw a close link between Guru Gobind Singh’s political purpose and his attitude towards caste distinctions. Converts were admitted from all ‘tribes’ and the rules by which the Hindus had been so long chained were broken. The old institutions of Brahmanical order were subverted. Guru Gobind Singh adopted all the religious usages of Guru Nanak, and declared that all the four castes would be made one. He opened the dazzling prospect of earthly glory to men of the lowest ‘tribe’. He rewarded the sweepers by high rank and employment for bringing away the corpse (actually head) of Guru Tegh Bahadur from Delhi. Several men of this tribe became Sikhs. Known as ‘Ran-Rata’ (Ranghreta) Singhs, they showed remarkable valour, and attained great reputation. The Brahman who entered the Khalsa order had no higher claims to eminence than the lowest Shudra who swept his house. The honourable title of ‘Singh’ raised every Sikh to the rank of a Rajput. It was Guru Gobind Singh’s object to make all Sikhs equal in civil rights. However, due to the deep-rooted prejudices of the Hindus, some distinctions of the background of Sikhs were still kept up, ‘particularly those relating to intermarriage’.
The Sikh converts continued to observe the ‘civil usages and customs’ of their ‘tribes’ only so long as they did not infringe the tenets of Guru Nanak and the institutions of Guru Gobind Singh. The higher caste of Hindus, that is, the Brahman and Khatri Sikhs, continued to intermarry ‘with converts of their own tribes, but not with Hindus of the caste they have abandoned’. This was not true of the Jat and Gujjar Sikhs who preserved an intimate intercourse with their original ‘tribes’ for both intermarriage and commensality. Malcolm refers only to the marriage between the Sikh House of Patiala and the Jat House of Bharatpur. The Muslim converts to the Sikh faith intermarried among themselves. At the time of the meeting of the Sarbat Khalsa, the Jat Sikhs and others ate together.
It seems, on the whole, that the plebian background of the Khalsa and the operation of the idea of equality are reflected in the rise of Jats, Tarkhans and Kalals to political power in the eighteenth century. There were no Khatri, Rajput or Brahman rulers among the Sikhs. There is no doubt whatever that the lower castes were dominant in the order of the Khalsa. In 1881, there were more than 1,125,000 Jats and more than 145,000 Chamars and Chuhras, with about the same number of Tarkhans, Nais and Kalals, among the Singhs. The Aroras, Khatris and Banias, together, accounted for less than 80,000 Sikhs. The preponderance of Jats, the outcastes, and the service performing groups is evident from these figures.
However, there is no indication in contemporary literature that any hierarchy of caste or class was propounded or upheld. On the contrary, the ideal of equality is espoused and recognized by nearly all the contemporary writers. In the sphere of religion and politics no distinction on the basis of caste is made by any Sikh writer. The older patterns of matrimony appear to have continued, but largely within the Sikh social order and not in relation to non-Sikhs. In matters of commensality, only the erstwhile untouchables were excluded from interdinning. We do not know the social background of all the Sikh writers, but the known Brahman writers are rather conservative and somewhat reactionary in their social stance and the known Jat and Kalal writers are relatively egalitarian. There probably was an on-going tension between the new ideology and the social background.

Author's Profile Komal Chaudhary enjoys writing articles for InterestingArticles.com. View the Komal Chaudhary Author Profile
Read more: http://www.interestingarticles.com/metaphysical/equality-and-caste-among-eighteenthcentury-sikhs-682.html#ixzz2ucR4jWXK

I recently purchased this book, very in depth study from historical point of view is presented by the author. It is a must buy for people interested in history & anthropology.  
 
Sangat in India can purchase online : https://www.amazon.in/Afghan-Hindus-Sikhs-Inderjeet-Singh/dp/9385854380 
Sangat abroad can purchase online: https://www.amazon.com/Afghan-Hindus-Sikhs-Inderjeet-Singh-ebook/dp/B07QWYDVY4
 
Interview of the Author Inderjeet Singh http://www.sikhnet.com/news/interview-author-book-afghan-hindus-sikhs

no it does not .

From wikipedia

Sanatan Singh Sabha is the original Singh Sabha formed in 1873 by Sikhs in Amritsar [1] The Sanatan Sikhs regard Classical Sikhism as Sikhs to be a wider denomination of Sanatan Dharma by one who practices karma and bhakti [of God] in any way for the achievement of Moksha, or spiritual liberation.

As a purely political reaction to the formation of the Sanatan Singh Sabha, a second Singh Sabha was formed and named the Tat Khalsa ('True' Khalsa) by The Governing British Administration based at Lahore in 1879 [also called Lahore Singh Sabha]. The British Raj utilized the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhs to apply their ‘divide and rule’ policy which sought to negate Sanatan Sikhism in the name of ‘reform’ whereas Sanatan Sikhism is predominantly inclusive, the Tat Khalsa is not.

While Max Arthur McAuliffe achieved the position of Deputy Commissioner in Punjab in 1882, Macauliffe wrote the popular Tat Khalsa text. ‘It is admitted that a knowledge of the religions of the people of India is a desideratum for the British officials who administer its affairs and indirectly for the people who are governed by them so that mutual sympathy may be produced. It seems, at any rate politic to place before the Sikh soldiery their Guru’s prophecies in favor of the English and the texts of their sacred writings which foster their loyalty.’ ‘The Sikh Religion’,1909, M.A. Macauliffe, Preface xxii

From the above quote, it is clear that one of the main objectives for Macauliffe was to inculcate loyalty within Sikhs for the British Raj. At the time, the Sanatan Sikh Raj had been displaced by the British Raj, and as such, Sanatan Sikhs, especially the Akali Nihangs, were naturally very hostile towards the British. [2]

bhul chul muaaf karni but i feel for Sikhi to survive singh sabhia views will have to be done away with. Singh sabha is getting more more islamised, Sikhi was never so narrow.

I request all of you sangat to ask yorself this question tomorrow our children will have this question " Papaji maryada kaunsi mannde ho tusi ? 1699 waari ke ohde baad waari ? "

Haan ji , we have some people in India who did similar things and rescue girls. In fact all of these if they come together it would be a strong global network. 

Open Secrets: India’s Intelligence Unveiled. by Muloy Krishna dhar and First Raaj of the Sikhs by harish dhillon

there use to be a gora sikh by the id called Star darcy , i had managed to speak to him once after he had abondoned sikhi and opted to be a bahai .

he had a major issue with language he was based in canada and finally decided to move on since none of the local Gurdwaras had taken interest in his plight.

He had grown his kes for 3 years ! i was very disheartened, but i knew this punjabiyat will take us nowhere..we will be those koop-manduks(frog in the well) for whom the world is not more than the length and breadth of their pinds in punjab.

People blame 3ho and other off shoots but see their prachaar, there too have been some unfortunate cases but still they are growing many fold

i personally feel that just like there are some degrees which are not achieved just by doing study for hours for eg. say if you study for 8 hours a day it still doesn't guarantee that you would be a doctor. Similarly numbers of Jaap cannot guarantee that you would be a sidh. It is still considered as a abhyas. 
The Kathakaars give those examples since they want to inspire the sangat to be engrossed in Naam. Someone who does Jaap abhyaas would be lost in meditation and would lose the count. Naam Ras gives you peace and tranquil, you stop worrying about things happening around. Who will count for you ? The Jaap is nirantar inside...you will want to lose count. 
Siddhis come and are a blessing of Akaal. However i personally feel that energy will only reside in that body that can hold it. There are peoople who may start seeing things and predicting future but then along with these capabilities comes haume, arrogance. This arrogance kills abhyas with time. 
 
So rather than focussing on magic , i personally want to request you to focus on abhyaas. Let Parmatma be the decision maker, He always is , but as for now we feel we would do so and so and we would become so and so. 
 
My 2 cents bro, Waheguru Ang Sang Sahaai.  

The 'Husband' spoken about is Akaal...

I have fought with depression and anxiety listening to his bachans. See, my take is do not give space to a person so much that he would take advantage of the situation. In that lady's case why did her husband and she not take the stand that she will not go alone. When the lady was called to his room alone , in the first place there was no need to go . The moment she heard what he said , she must have been in a shock but instead of confronting after a long time wherein facts get distorted action should have taken then and there. 
Power corrupts, nobody is above. Even the puraatan Rishis have lost control if you have come across the stories. Kamm is more powerful than anything else. A man can deny money but denying a woman is difficult. 
So, take whats useful to you and leave the rest. If you have the power to take action yourself then its a different thing. 
 

Maya has its play .. ,,to be beyond it is just not possible for all..if we read about Rishis like Vishwamitra they too were enticed ..so at times we need to let go and concentrate on the gyaan...and tis will stop if we stope hero-fiing people and making them mahapurush ..touch their feet ...and do sewa as if they were Akaal themselves..

A Kathakar and a Raagi are to be taken as professionals and respected accordingly do not boost their ego and arrogance by going an rolling in their feet ..haume creates issues..so stop boosting the haume

Vaat is Vayu or gas , Pitt is related to heat or acidity and Kuff is cough related to cold.