Social media and anti-Dasam Granth movement.

[Guest Sukhdev]

12 hours ago, Guest Mehta4life said:

Dhadrianwala, Panthpreet and Dhunda all claim that Charitro pakhiyan katha should not be done in the hazuri of SGGS Ji because they don't believe Dasme Paathshah wrote the Charitro pakhiyan as they want to deny that Dasam Pita was the greatest writer of all times.

I am pretty sure they have their own valid reasons, likely related to lack of proof of authenticity. I am quite sure they do not want to deny anything of our Gurus. If the letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji is the only (and earliest) proof of charitropakhyan being penned by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, then that is not very reliable evidence. In a court of law, it would not stand due to several reasons.

22 hours ago, paapiman said:

Getting spoonfed by Saints/Gurmukhs is completed acceptable in Sikhsim, but getting spoonfed by Heretics/Nindaks, etc, is very very dangerous. They will drag you to hell along with you.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Just as easily I could suggest that trying to pass of adulterated works as that of our Guru, is worse heresy and nindiya than being discerning about material which arrived in a tumultuous time years after Guru Ji left this world, in the third person, mentioned in a single letter by Bhai Mani Singh Ji (the authenticity of which is even in question), in a period when Hindu influence was great and Hindu ideology such as gender bias and casteism, idol worship etc were trying to be inculcated into Sikhi to bring Sikhs back to Hindu fold, and where the ideas in the works in question are actually so close to old Hindu stories that they would win a plagiarism case in a court today, and where the ideas contained in these works go against everything the Gurus tried to do to elevate the status of women to that of equal, by attacking the character of women and making them look generally bad and immoral compared to men. And the damage is apparent. Our Gurus taught that female and male are same status, but some of you on here have posted some very disgusting remarks about females in general (not able to be trusted with secrets, more lustful, lower status than men etc.) These views were held by other religions, for example Laws of Manu says that women are a hinderance to men's spirituality and her only duty on this earth is to treat him as a God and serve him. This is her penance for past karma. Her chance will come later if she is reborn as a male but she will only get to that point by continuously serving her husband and being completely blindly obedient (even if he mistreats her). Our Gurus did not teach this however and women and men both can attain liberation and merge back with Waheguru in THIS lifetime. How could our Gurus say that while depicting women as lower status than men, and as generally more deceitful and immoral?

Think about it, what if someone is passing themselves off as a Gurmukh and you are relying entirely on their words and they actually deceived you in the end? How would you feel then? And don't think it can't happen. There are Granthis who were highly respected convicted of rape, upstanding Sikhs and scholars who were highly respected as knowledgeable, who were after their own selfish goals and stealing from the golak.

 

[chatanga1]

4 hours ago, JasperS said:

I happen to agree with them and guest Sukhdev also as I cant believe how all of the Gurus tried to elevate status of women to equals and charitropakhyan only makes them look bad.

 

CharitroPakhyan does not make women look bad. If it did, then what would you make of the stories that show women in a very positive character, AND those stories that make men look like idiots. No is making any of these latter claims, so how can they make the former? No-one who has read and understood this text will claim any of what you say.

Jasper maybe you should read the attempt made at deciphering this text on this forum? Share your knowledge there on the particular stories?

 

4 hours ago, JasperS said:

You think this is the best writing of all time?

 

There is a certain skill to the text/structure of Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth that is not found anywhere. It is an amazing text for both features. But it's also true that people will also look on texts as per their own intelligence.

There have been people in the past ( and will be in the future) who have said that Guru Granth Sahib is an flat ( fails to inspire) text. But that is only because they don't understand it. Myself for instance could read Shakespeare and find it boring. That doesn't mean it is, it just means I cannot fathom the full or part of the genius in it.

4 hours ago, JasperS said:

 Instead you like stories bashing women as deceitful adulterers.

 

I don't know about liking them, but it certainly not bashing women as an absolute. It's also praising women, and bashing men. It's a didactic text.

 

4 hours ago, JasperS said:

Stories which are graphic and even touching on sexual themes which I would call depraved. If it was only moral stories, then the finger would be pointed equally at both men and women, not just women and there would be no need for such descriptive depravity.

 

There are lines in Guru Granth Sahib that some would also describe as graphic. The point is for you to move past the graphic and see the essence of the text. Guru Sahib has not translated this text for a person to get caught in the graphic-ness of it, but to see the larger hidden picture. Those people who get caught in the graphic are full of vikaar themsleves and are looking for a scape goat to explain it.

 

4 hours ago, JasperS said:

If it was only moral stories, then the finger would be pointed equally at both men and women,

 

It is pointed at both, and that should be enough. Remember in Guru Granth Sahib in 5574 shabads, there are how many shabads along the lines of " so ko manda akhiyan jit jaman raajaan"? Once it appears? Or twice? But that is enough for any Sikh. The fact is that if Guru Sahib had written 403 stories about women and 1, yes, only 1 about men, that one story about men is enough to say that the text is not only about women.

 

4 hours ago, JasperS said:

 There are even a few stories in charitropakhyan that encourage vioelnce against women.

 

No they don't. These are part of a dialogue between 2 people. It is not an UPDESH from Guru Sahib to his Sikhs.

 

4 hours ago, JasperS said:

 I guess you don't read Guru Granth Sahib Ji then?

 

Let's leave Guru Granth Sahib aside for the moment. Have you read Aesop's fables?

[chatanga1]

1 hour ago, Guest Sukhdev said:

I am pretty sure

 

If you are serious about learning and sharing your thoughts on this forum about this text,make yourslef a permanent ID and let's discuss and share. "guests" are those people who don't really wish to learn but pass through fleetingly and throwing random stuff in the mix.

[paapiman]

33 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

There are lines in Guru Granth Sahib that some would also describe as graphic. 

Paaji is right. There is enough explicit sexual imagery in Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee Maharaaj. If one has a problem with Sri Chartiropakhian Sahib jee, then they should have problems with some verses in Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee Maharaaj too.

Please have a look below:

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

38 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

It is pointed at both, and that should be enough. Remember in Guru Granth Sahib in 5574 shabads, there are how many shabads along the lines of " so ko manda akhiyan jit jaman raajaan"? Once it appears? Or twice? But that is enough for any Sikh. The fact is that if Guru Sahib had written 403 stories about women and 1, yes, only 1 about men, that one story about men is enough to say that the text is not only about women.

 

To add to the above:

• No female guru appointed by Sri Satguru jee
• No female Brahamgyani's writings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee, while there are more than 30 male personalities

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

[paapiman]

1 hour ago, Guest Sukhdev said:

I am pretty sure they have their own valid reasons, likely related to lack of proof of authenticity. I am quite sure they do not want to deny anything of our Gurus. If the letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji is the only (and earliest) proof of charitropakhyan being penned by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, then that is not very reliable evidence. In a court of law, it would not stand due to several reasons.

There is enough evidence. Try to refute all the evidence presented in the link below.

http://dailysikhupdates.com/you-will-never-question-dasam-granth-after-seeing-this-video/

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

1 hour ago, Guest Sukhdev said:

I am pretty sure they have their own valid reasons, likely related to lack of proof of authenticity. I am quite sure they do not want to deny anything of our Gurus. If the letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji is the only (and earliest) proof of charitropakhyan being penned by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, then that is not very reliable evidence. In a court of law, it would not stand due to several reasons.

Please have a look at this topic.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[chatanga1]

On 21/06/2016 at 4:42 PM, paapiman said:

What did you tell them in the email? How long has it been since they have not replied?

i told them that the false article written by this creature was not worthy of being on any site, but certainly out of place on a website that is there to help Sikhs in any kind of troubles they have in USA. A gentleman has replied and admitted it does not fit in with the mission of the Sikh Colaition and will take steps to getting it removed.

[JasperS]

5 hours ago, paapiman said:

To add to the above:

• No female guru appointed by Sri Satguru jee
• No female Brahamgyani's writings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee, while there are more than 30 male personalities

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

And why do you think that is paapiman? Do you think women are lower status than men? (spiritually speaking)  Given that majority of the stories in Charitropakhyan make women look immoral (they only make men look gullible victims) and the fact that you thought it was relevant to mention the above I am guessing you think female bodies are lower state than male ones? Why do you think people are born into a male body vice a female one then? Is it a reward to get a male body and a punishment to get a female one? I always thought that any human body was a precious reward according to Gurbani. 

Btw there is one simple reason for the above. In that time period women were still marginalized. Our punjabi culture sees women as lower so we treat them lower.  In that time, when women were seen as inferior to men in general mindset (and even today as I am sure I know how your answer will go) do you seriously think if our Guru came in a female body (because remember the soul is what is real not the body. And Guruship was not passed on so much as the same light was awakened in all 10 - remember in reality there is only one soul / consciousness anyway). But in that time and culture constraints not a single male would have ever listened to anything a female had to say especially if she was put into a position of authority. Even in present day many males still can not fathom listening to a woman. Back then arriving in a female body would have negated the mission, because of the CULTURE and THE MINDSET, not because of the body, so make sure we get that right. Also back then how many women were actually encouraged to write any spiritual works at all? Again most women at that time in Hindu background were told they were not even worthy to look upon the vedas and that their only purpose was to serve their husband as their God. This mindset takes a very very long time to overcome. The same can be said for casteism. Its now been over 500 years and how many Sikhs still cant let go of casteism? Its the same for gender bias. Its a sad reality and we males are the ones to squarely put the blame on!  Its because of us! We did this to women! 

 

[JasperS]

6 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

CharitroPakhyan does not make women look bad. If it did, then what would you make of the stories that show women in a very positive character, AND those stories that make men look like idiots. No is making any of these latter claims, so how can they make the former? No-one who has read and understood this text will claim any of what you say.

Jasper maybe you should read the attempt made at deciphering this text on this forum? Share your knowledge there on the particular stories?

 

 

There is a certain skill to the text/structure of Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth that is not found anywhere. It is an amazing text for both features. But it's also true that people will also look on texts as per their own intelligence.

There have been people in the past ( and will be in the future) who have said that Guru Granth Sahib is an flat ( fails to inspire) text. But that is only because they don't understand it. Myself for instance could read Shakespeare and find it boring. That doesn't mean it is, it just means I cannot fathom the full or part of the genius in it.

 

I don't know about liking them, but it certainly not bashing women as an absolute. It's also praising women, and bashing men. It's a didactic text.

I dont see much praise going on. I see males depicted as gullible victims of evil intentionally adulterous and deceitful immoral women. The sheer number does have an impact. I am very very very sure if it were opposite - if it were males written in bad light for 90% of the tales and only 10% in good light, I am sure (almost positive) you would feel differently. But because it's women who are put into this light you can brush it off, because hey you are male and get to bask in the glory of being male, the gender that is not being bashed. 
 

6 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

There are lines in Guru Granth Sahib that some would also describe as graphic. The point is for you to move past the graphic and see the essence of the text. Guru Sahib has not translated this text for a person to get caught in the graphic-ness of it, but to see the larger hidden picture. Those people who get caught in the graphic are full of vikaar themsleves and are looking for a scape goat to explain it.

If the point is to move beyond the graphic depictions, then why even bother writing them? An author writes material for a reason. What reason would Guru Gobind Singh Ji have for writing descriptive lines about penises and vaginas which have nothing to do with the actual (supposed) moral message, if you can call it that. 

6 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

It is pointed at both, and that should be enough. Remember in Guru Granth Sahib in 5574 shabads, there are how many shabads along the lines of " so ko manda akhiyan jit jaman raajaan"? Once it appears? Or twice? But that is enough for any Sikh. The fact is that if Guru Sahib had written 403 stories about women and 1, yes, only 1 about men, that one story about men is enough to say that the text is not only about women.

No its not pointed at both. The only things men are depicted as are gullible falling for the women's deceit. It is far better to be seen as a hapless victim than it is to be seen as intentionally deceitful and immoral. Intent implies premeditated evil. The men in Charitropakhyan are only seen as falling for their evil trickery.  Case in point, who looks worse, a murder victim or the murderer? Using your reasoning, the victim looks just as bad because they fell for whatever trick the murderer use and ended up dead. However, nobody would ever argue who is the one who should be depicted as evil. 
 

6 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

No they don't. These are part of a dialogue between 2 people. It is not an UPDESH from Guru Sahib to his Sikhs.

Then please explain why certain members on here have posted in the past that women can not be trusted with secrets even by their own husbands? And some members even posted (in the dg section) in the separate analysis posts, posting their conclusions like everyone knows women are like this or that, using examples from that specific tale.  I dont see anyone posting conclusions against men. Oh wait they cant because the only conclusion i all of them so far is that yet another man was deceived by a treacherous evil woman.

But one specific example is charitar #10.  The maid is severely beaten, and acts out (presumably in self defence) but the moral message at the end is that you can capture a womans heart but never let her capture yours. In other words she was made out to be the bad one.  The severe beating, was not rebuked, in fact it was not even mentioned at all in the moral message as if it was nothing of concern.  The message is obvious, beat women all you want but dont ever let them get the upper hand on your if you do (like the maid did in this story who killed them because of the beatings) and It's ok to deceive women but never let them deceive you.  Guru Gobind Singh Ji would never write something like this!
 

6 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

Let's leave Guru Granth Sahib aside for the moment. Have you read Aesop's fables?

cant say as I have

[paapiman]

16 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

i told them that the false article written by this creature was not worthy of being on any site, but certainly out of place on a website that is there to help Sikhs in any kind of troubles they have in USA. A gentleman has replied and admitted it does not fit in with the mission of the Sikh Colaition and will take steps to getting it removed.

Good job brother. Keep it up. It is an excellent decision by Sikh Coalition too. There is no point in creating unnecessary controversies.

Akaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[chatanga1]

17 hours ago, JasperS said:

I dont see much praise going on.

 

Mr Jasper, I can onloy deduce that youu have not completely read the Sri CharitroPakhyan Granth if you claim that. Please take your time to read it and then we can discuss it. Why discuss subjects we only have a fleeting knowledge of?

 

17 hours ago, JasperS said:

If the point is to move beyond the graphic depictions, then why even bother writing them? An author writes material for a reason. What reason would Guru Gobind Singh Ji have for writing descriptive lines about penises and vaginas which have nothing to do with the actual (supposed) moral message, if you can call it that. 

 

Jasper, not only Guru Gobind Singh has written in this style but also Guru Nanak Maharaj in Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

The objective is not to spoon-feed to the Sikh, but to make him use his bibek budhi and do vichar of the Guru's words.

 

17 hours ago, JasperS said:

No its not pointed at both. The only things men are depicted as are gullible falling for the women's deceit. It is far better to be seen as a hapless victim than it is to be seen as intentionally deceitful and immoral. Intent implies premeditated evil. The men in Charitropakhyan are only seen as falling for their evil trickery. 

 

Please see my reply in the first paragraph of this post.

 

17 hours ago, JasperS said:

Then please explain why certain members on here have posted in the past that women can not be trusted with secrets even by their own husbands?

 

I cannot speak for any other members. If they have posted such then they may explain why.

 

17 hours ago, JasperS said:

I dont see much praise going on. I see males depicted as gullible victims of evil intentionally adulterous and deceitful immoral women. The sheer number does have an impact. I am very very very sure if it were opposite - if it were males written in bad light for 90% of the tales and only 10% in good light, I am sure (almost positive) you would feel differently. But because it's women who are put into this light you can brush it off, because hey you are male and get to bask in the glory of being male, the gender that is not being bashed. 
 

If the point is to move beyond the graphic depictions, then why even bother writing them? An author writes material for a reason. What reason would Guru Gobind Singh Ji have for writing descriptive lines about penises and vaginas which have nothing to do with the actual (supposed) moral message, if you can call it that. 

No its not pointed at both. The only things men are depicted as are gullible falling for the women's deceit. It is far better to be seen as a hapless victim than it is to be seen as intentionally deceitful and immoral. Intent implies premeditated evil. The men in Charitropakhyan are only seen as falling for their evil trickery.  Case in point, who looks worse, a murder victim or the murderer? Using your reasoning, the victim looks just as bad because they fell for whatever trick the murderer use and ended up dead. However, nobody would ever argue who is the one who should be depicted as evil. 
 

Then please explain why certain members on here have posted in the past that women can not be trusted with secrets even by their own husbands? And some members even posted (in the dg section) in the separate analysis posts, posting their conclusions like everyone knows women are like this or that, using examples from that specific tale.  I dont see anyone posting conclusions against men. Oh wait they cant because the only conclusion i all of them so far is that yet another man was deceived by a treacherous evil woman.

But one specific example is charitar #10.  The maid is severely beaten, and acts out (presumably in self defence) but the moral message at the end is that you can capture a womans heart but never let her capture yours. In other words she was made out to be the bad one.  The severe beating, was not rebuked, in fact it was not even mentioned at all in the moral message as if it was nothing of concern.  The message is obvious, beat women all you want but dont ever let them get the upper hand on your if you do (like the maid did in this story who killed them because of the beatings) and It's ok to deceive women but never let them deceive you.  Guru Gobind Singh Ji would never write something like this!
 

cant say as I have

 

17 hours ago, JasperS said:

And some members even posted (in the dg section) in the separate analysis posts, posting their conclusions like everyone knows women are like this or that, using examples from that specific tale.  I dont see anyone posting conclusions against men. Oh wait they cant because the only conclusion i all of them so far is that yet another man was deceived by a treacherous evil woman.

 

All that has been done there is a look at the superficial and then allegorical meanings behind the words. SAme way as we look at Gurbani.

 

17 hours ago, JasperS said:

But one specific example is charitar #10.  The maid is severely beaten, and acts out (presumably in self defence) but the moral message at the end is that you can capture a womans heart but never let her capture yours. In other words she was made out to be the bad one.  The severe beating, was not rebuked, in fact it was not even mentioned at all in the moral message as if it was nothing of concern.  The message is obvious, beat women all you want but dont ever let them get the upper hand on your if you do (like the maid did in this story who killed them because of the beatings) and It's ok to deceive women but never let them deceive you.  Guru Gobind Singh Ji would never write something like this!

 

Post your views in that particular topic and we can take another look at it.

 

17 hours ago, JasperS said:

cant say as I have

 

Mr Jasper, I would really recommend that you do take the time to read Aesops's fables. You will see why I recommend this if you do take my advice.

 

[Guest Sukhdev]

On ‎24‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 0:44 PM, paapiman said:

To add to the above:

• No female guru appointed by Sri Satguru jee
• No female Brahamgyani's writings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee, while there are more than 30 male personalities

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

 

Please also note for those who say there is no female Guru:

The poetic utterances of the Gurus were not called "Guru Vak" which is the masculine, but "Guru Bani" which is feminine.

Thus when the fourth Guru, Guru Ram Das says: "Bani Guru, Guru Hai Bani" we understand that our final and everlasting living Guru for all time, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is actually femine not masculine.

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, is worshipped as our only and living Guru for all rest of time, and is feminine, and has been installed as our only and living Guru for longer than the lifespans of all 10 Gurus with male human bodies. The implication is very deep.

Bani Guru, Guru Hai Bani. You have even yourself stated this before. paapiman. Bani IS the Guru. Guru IS the Bani.

When you think in terms of ultimate reality, and how everything is essentially one thing, you see how thought and idea are solid and tangible. You see how the solid and tangible surpass matter. In reality everything is One. And physical gender of male and female are but just the tiniest sparks of the masculine and feminine principles in the Universe. Masculine and feminine principle (not physical gender) is resultant from duality. All souls possess both principles and that too in equal amounts no matter which one they tend to draw on most in their physical life, regardless both energies are available equally to all souls no matter what gender body they inhabit.

Neither principle is above the other in any way shape or form. They are like yin / yang and should be in absolute balance. Yin does not control yang and vice versa. Its like night and day, you can say the sun dominates in the dawn and drives away the night, but once again the night returns and pushes the sun below the horizon. Both night and day rule equally. Both are essential. The world would die if it were either daytime or nighttime exclusively. If it were daytime always, the world would burn, if it were nighttime always, the world would freeze. For life to exist there requires absolute balance. Masculine and feminine principle also exist the same way. It will be through the word/bani (Guru) which is feminine principle which we find our way back to Waheguru.

This is why Waheguru is referred to as Husband Lord, while our souls are all referred to as brides. Again, nothing to do with actual gender in physical terms (remember we all posses both principles), but masculine principle and feminine principle must merge back together in harmony to eradicate duality. (And no this doesnt mean women must defer to men and be submissive. That is not harmony, that is actually the suppression of the feminine.) This is not on only some huge cosmic scale, but in each and every individual soul as well. Aside from the physical gender traits required for procreation, every human must see every human as equal. They must also strive to allow the masculine and feminine principles to be balanced in their own mind, body and soul. For hard core males who hate being called girly, sorry but this does mean tapping into your own emotions, allowing yourself to feel compassion etc. which are traits driven by feminine principle. For women who are too submissive and allow themselves to be walked over by the males in their lives, it means tapping into their assertiveness, and becoming more dominant in their personality. Don't be afraid to tell others what you think or when you are not happy. 

But anyway, it was the Gurus themselves who declared bani to be feminine not masculine in principle. So you can't argue it. The word/bani is feminine principle. And the word/bani is Guru. Guru is the word/bani.

Gurbani says that it is through the word of Guru's shabad, is how the True Lord is found. Meaning, it's through the feminine principle that we will be liberated. Which makes sense because feminine principle stands for compassion, caring, being selfless etc. And remember we are not talking about physical gender. These traits can be found in all humans, including those inhabiting male bodies.

But for so long the feminine has been supressed in this world, and the masculine has been out of control. We need to change this.

 

 

[chatanga1]

On 27/06/2016 at 3:47 PM, Guest Sukhdev said:

The poetic utterances of the Gurus were not called "Guru Vak" which is the masculine, but "Guru Bani" which is feminine.

 

Gurbani is neither male or female.

 

On 27/06/2016 at 3:47 PM, Guest Sukhdev said:

Thus when the fourth Guru, Guru Ram Das says: "Bani Guru, Guru Hai Bani" we understand that our final and everlasting living Guru for all time, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is actually femine not masculine.

 

No we don't. Stop making things up.

 

On 27/06/2016 at 3:47 PM, Guest Sukhdev said:

All souls possess both principles and that too in equal amounts no matter which one they tend to draw on most in their physical life, regardless both energies are available equally to all souls no matter what gender body they inhabit.

 

Neither principle is above the other in any way shape or form. They are like yin / yang and should be in absolute balance. Yin does not control yang and vice versa. Its like night and day, you can say the sun dominates in the dawn and drives away the night, but once again the night returns and pushes the sun below the horizon. Both night and day rule equally. Both are essential. The world would die if it were either daytime or nighttime exclusively. If it were daytime always, the world would burn, if it were nighttime always, the world would freeze. For life to exist there requires absolute balance. Masculine and feminine principle also exist the same way. It will be through the word/bani (Guru) which is feminine principle which we find our way back to Waheguru.

 

So do the Sun contain both heat and coolness in absolute balance? And the Moon ?

As per your " All souls possess both principles and that too in equal amounts no matter which one they tend to draw on most in their physical life"?

 

On 27/06/2016 at 3:47 PM, Guest Sukhdev said:

This is why Waheguru is referred to as Husband Lord, while our souls are all referred to as brides. Again, nothing to do with actual gender in physical terms (remember we all posses both principles), but masculine principle and feminine principle must merge back together in harmony to eradicate duality.

 

Soul brides is not an actual being, it is a metaphor, to help a person understand their life purpose.

 

On 27/06/2016 at 3:47 PM, Guest Sukhdev said:

Aside from the physical gender traits required for procreation, every human must see every human as equal.

 

So you are saying that there is not equality in everything?

 

On 27/06/2016 at 3:47 PM, Guest Sukhdev said:

 Which makes sense because feminine principle stands for compassion, caring, being selfless etc. And remember we are not talking about physical gender. These traits can be found in all humans, including those inhabiting male bodies.

 

These are not exclusively feminine principles. Or Masculine either.

All in all it reads like some propagand piece of western nonsense masquarading as fact.

[JasperS]

1 hour ago, chatanga1 said:

So do the Sun contain both heat and coolness in absolute balance? And the Moon ?

As per your " All souls possess both principles and that too in equal amounts no matter which one they tend to draw on most in their physical life"?

Chatanga1, how do you define cold? If it were lets say only 5C outside would you feel cold? Would you consider that to be cold? How about -20C? But then, would 5C be considered hot? 

If you knew science at all, you'd know that cold and heat are subjective and are actually the same thing. Our sun is quite cold in comparison to other stars just as an example. The moon, experiences different levels of heat cold during lunar day and night.

Guest Sukhdev is correct in his interpretation.  And it's deep philosophical truth which is found in eastern philosophies moreso than western ideologies. 

 

[chatanga1]

1 hour ago, JasperS said:

If you knew science at all, you'd know that cold and heat are subjective and are actually the same thing.

 

Subjective. Exactly what his whole post was. Cold and heat are the same thing. Yet on another subjective matter e.g. compassion, it is a feminine trait.

[JasperS]

7 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Subjective. Exactly what his whole post was. Cold and heat are the same thing. Yet on another subjective matter e.g. compassion, it is a feminine trait.

I don't think thats what he said when I re-read it I think he is getting at the fact that what people say are masculine and feminine are really just human traits and both genders can have these traits. For example compassion as you said, is generally seen as feminine, and is labelled as feminine as compassion is not generally seen as macho or assertive which are generally seen as masculine traits. But what he is saying is that all these traits are available to all humans regardless of what gender they are. For example you can show compassion and woman might be assertive and dominating.  But I am sure you have come across situation where a girl might be assertive and dominating, and while you might consider those to be positive traits in a man, you might look down on that girl as not being feminine. What he was saying in the post above is that all these traits should be balanced and available to all humans so that there is no traits which are seen as one or or the other because souls are genderless. A man can be a man without being competitive, overbearing and dominating, and he can show compassion and caring. A woman can be a woman without being submissive and shy, she can be an assertive leader in society. I think thats all he meant. 

[paapiman]

16 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Subjective. Exactly what his whole post was. Cold and heat are the same thing. Yet on another subjective matter e.g. compassion, it is a feminine trait.

Bro, do you know who this member JasperS is?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[chatanga1]

16 hours ago, JasperS said:

 For example compassion as you said, is generally seen as feminine,

 

I didn't say it. He said it. I was quoting him.

 

6 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Bro, do you know who this member JasperS is?

 

From his posts he is not the kind of person who I would want to know.

[Xylitol]

Historically, men tended to have a greater number of masculine qualities (I'll call them yang) and women tended to have a greater number of feminine qualities (I'll call these yin qualities). Every individual has a mix, men tend to be more yang overall while women tend to be more yin. However, there are a minority of women who are more yang and a minority of men who are more yin. Subtlety is considered a yin quality, one that is useful and essential at times. Both genders have it of course, but women tended to be better at it. This quality can be used for good or for evil. 

As society changes, the nature of our work and schooling change, and men tend to become more feminized while women become more masculinized. While men still may be overall more masculine and women overall more feminine the differences between the genders are much less in the younger generations and much greater  in the older generations. We now see more men than in the past using subtle tactics to harm opponents b/c their workplaces (offices as opposed to factories or farms) and schools create an environment where less obvious tactics may be rewarded while heavily penalizing more straightforward tactics. For example, a co-worker may subtly sabotage another's chances of promotion. So now the natures of the two genders become more similar .This is why young people have such trouble understanding Charitropakhyan. 

Guru ji taught Sikhs how to be saints, and how to be soldiers, and he also had to teach his Sikhs how to live a good life in the world. If we were yogis we wouldn't need guides on how to deal with subtle manipulation tactics from people b/c we wouldn't be around people. But since we live in the world, and since we know how to deal with straightforward attacks (sipahi) he needed to teach us how to deal with subtle attacks. This is what Charitropakhyan does. Most of the stories are about women b/c in those days the subtle attacks would be done mostly by them. The thinking of men tended to be more linear and so they were not readily able to defend against such subtle attacks and this bani teaches how. 

 

[JasperS]

7 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

I didn't say it. He said it. I was quoting him.

 

 

From his posts he is not the kind of person who I would want to know.

I get along with everyone! I am only a bit of a feminist because of my daughter which I believe entitles me to be! Have a young daughter and you will understand. You will no longer feel the desire to keep women "in their place" so to speak. You will only want everything and anything for your little girl! 
 

7 hours ago, paapiman said:

Bro, do you know who this member JasperS is?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 I am 36 years old, living in Ilford UK and work in health sector. Of course Jasper is a short version of my name, which is Jaspreet.

Nice to meet you paapiman.

[chatanga1]

16 hours ago, JasperS said:

 I am only a bit of a feminist because of my daughter which I believe entitles me to be!

 

Only a bit of a feminist? Only because of your daughter? So if you didn't have a daughter you wouldn't feel compelled to make a stand (in your opinion) for women's rights?

 

16 hours ago, JasperS said:

 You will only want everything and anything for your little girl!

 

That sounds so much like attachment (moh) to me. Of course any parent wants the best for their children (sons included) but so say you would want everything and anything seems very unbalanced and not becoming of the conduct of a Sikh.

 

16 hours ago, JasperS said:

Of course Jasper is a short version of my name, which is Jaspreet.

 

Jasper is only two letters and one syllable less, but it makes you feel a little embarrassed on a SIkh forum to use a sikh/gurmat name.

 

16 hours ago, JasperS said:

 I am 36 years old, living in Ilford UK and work in health sector.

 

So you must be educated to work in the health sector, but honestly your intro on this forum has come across as a little weak in terms of education in Sikhi.

 

16 hours ago, JasperS said:

I get along with everyone!

 

And because of that I'm going to get along with you as well. Let's not bring this forum down. Let's all learn from it.

 

[Guest Van]

Is it true that as Bachitar Natak states: all the Guru's were Hindu Kings in their previous from  Sodhi and Bedi dynasties? And that these Hindu Kings did a backroom deal on how + when to divide up the Actual Gurgaddi of our asli (real) Guru Sahiban? Paapiman, JasperS, chatanga1, Sukhdev, Dal101 would love to know all your thoughts?

[Xylitol]

7 hours ago, Guest Van said:

Is it true that as Bachitar Natak states: all the Guru's were Hindu Kings in their previous from  Sodhi and Bedi dynasties?

Bachitar Natak doesn't call the Gurus Hindus, however it does confirm the Guru's lineage is from the ruling strata of society. 

 

Quote

 

And that these Hindu Kings did a backroom deal on how + when to divide up the Actual Gurgaddi of our asli (real) Guru Sahiban? Paapiman, JasperS, chatanga1, Sukhdev, Dal101 would love to know all your thoughts?

 

Nope, absolutely not written in Bachitar Natak.

[chatanga1]

9 hours ago, Guest Van said:

Is it true that as Bachitar Natak states: all the Guru's were Hindu Kings in their previous from  Sodhi and Bedi dynasties? And that these Hindu Kings did a backroom deal on how + when to divide up the Actual Gurgaddi of our asli (real) Guru Sahiban? Paapiman, JasperS, chatanga1, Sukhdev, Dal101 would love to know all your thoughts?

Hello Mrsingh or whatever you are calling yourself these days.