Women, strength, liberation

[dallysingh101]

2 hours ago, puzzled said:

think history was mostly written by kings and the elite who wanted to paint a rosy image of themselves and society around them. there are hardly any sources that actually describe the barbarity the muslims carried out on indians even though they were there for 1000s yrs, and instead they left behind massive structures like the taj for us to remember them by.  same with british cruelty in india.

That's my point. I think the original Sikh style of writing ithihaas was infinitely more honest than the one that later emerged under goray, which is clearly purely whitewashed propaganda.  This is exemplified by Sainapati's Sri Gursobha, and especially Bhangus's work. 

 

Plus if you read contemporary Persian (muslim) sources on Banda Singh, you'll notice they often don't hesitate in mentioning their own barbarity (which they see as normal), so I don't really agree with you there. Stuff like taking families away as slaves, putting Singhs heads on spears on journey to Delhi etc. They don't hide it. 

[puzzled]

1 hour ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

I think that might be allegory or other figurative device. They say to make ppl relate to a story, u write it as if it happened locally. 

Most of dasam granth uses alot of allusions and other figurative devices to make ancient myths more interesting to the  contemporary audience. 

Thats what the dasam granth scholar Dr Harbhajan singh said. (We brought him to do a couple of lectures in CA to stem the anti dasam granth camp)

But who knows? It could be real?

true, but either way even if it wasn't a real person   these kind of sikhs must of existed even back then for guru ji to write about it.   most the characters have hindus names, apart from 2 or 3 which have sikhs female names 

[puzzled]

1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

wrong to assume she was sikh because the use of Kaur as a surname predates khalsa sajna diwas as does Dasam Granth

 woman called Anoop Kaur in Anadpur sahib at the same time as Guru Gobind Singh ji has more chances of being a Sikh woman than hindu tbh ...   

[puzzled]

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

Plus if you read contemporary Persian (muslim) sources on Banda Singh, you'll notice they often don't hesitate in mentioning their own barbarity (which they see as normal), so I don't really agree with you there. Stuff like taking families away as slaves, putting Singhs heads on spears on journey to Delhi etc. They don't hide it. 

thats because they saw it as a holy duty and thats how they often justified it,  they actually glorified the barbarity     like in taimurs diary   he calls it a holy war in the name of allah and slayed as many hindus as he could    he gives a very detailed account of his invasion of india       from what i remember reading he even slaughtered the hindus hiding in the mosque in delhi. 

but i dont think there is any mughal cruelty documented my a common man or hindu poet of the time.  Guru Nanak Dev Jis Babur bani is the only account written by a non muslim. 

[jkvlondon]

1 hour ago, puzzled said:

 woman called Anoop Kaur in Anadpur sahib at the same time as Guru Gobind Singh ji has more chances of being a Sikh woman than hindu tbh ...   

you are aware that many anti-dasam and anti-sikh people have tried to claim this is autobiographical reference because they made the same assumption you did , that Anoop Kaur had tried to seduce Guru ji ... remember this tales are taken from common 'folk cautionary tales that existed prior' and reiterated in Guru ji's stories within story

[Guest Jigsaw_puzzled_singh]

3 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

you are aware that many anti-dasam and anti-sikh people have tried to claim this is autobiographical reference because they made the same assumption you did , that Anoop Kaur had tried to seduce Guru ji ... remember this tales are taken from common 'folk cautionary tales that existed prior' and reiterated in Guru ji's stories within story

…….deleted

 

[Ranjeet01]

Not from me, it is a copy and paste. It does contain some uncomfortable truths:

People don't like hearing women criticised, it elicits a certain distaste, a feeling that it is cruel, wrong and unkind for them to be stripped bare by truth, so we should show mercy.

And yet the truth knows no mercy, so to get it, you must pay such sentimental aversion no mind.

 True cruelty is to show a woman the horrors of her own nature, to cast a mirror and make her aware of her own ugliness.

She cannot handle it, so she must deny it, avoid it, reject it - anything but accept it.

Truth is her enemy, which is why showing her herself is cruel.

 You see, this is where men and women differ.

Man is very much aware of, and accepting to varying degrees, of the demon that lies within, the worst of what he can be, and how it looks when it manifests.

But woman? She lives under the pretence she is innocent and can do no wrong.

 There is no aspect of male nature u can bring to the forefront of his awareness that will break him

Nothing that he must deny and reject to preserve a fragile sanity based on ignorance. He need not live a lie, which is why he is less averse to logic & better suited to seek truth

 Man, unlike woman, does not have a compulsion to feel pretty, and therefore does not possess a need to be perfect.

To be pretty, one must be perfect, to be perfect, one must be blameless & to be blameless, one must be innocent - so you see - it is woman's vanity that undoes her.

 Know that this is woman's crude understanding of what it is to be pretty, for although symmetry is aesthetic, perfection is not beautiful, because artifice is unnatural and that which is unnatural always bears some ugliness.

Beauty transcends rigidity, perfection and aesthetics.

 Beauty transcends rigidity because it can be found as much in chaos as it can in order, it transcends perfection because it enriches more than impressiveness and occurs naturally, and it transcends aesthetics because it is not constrained to the physical.

 The idiots say we condition women to be obsessed with beauty by sexualising them, and yet what I speak of goes beyond sexualisation. The vanity I speak of is deeply, intrinsically & archetypically feminine, going beyond the material and the aesthetic to embody the spiritual.

 Sexualisation is why six packs & biceps are coveted by men - this is vanity of the aesthetic kind

And yet do these men have a need on a deeply emotional level "to feel pretty" and thereby be blamelessly innocent?

No. They accept their role and duties require them to be ugly.

 Man cannot escape his own ugliness, for he is always cast as the villain - for by merit of the duty to bring order, he is the authoritarian, the disciplinarian, the punisher, the prosecutor, the rule maker, the predator, the destroyer, he who brings fear - the one that knocks.

 And so you see, it is only in woman's unending need to feel pretty, and in her aversion to truth, that man is able to seek truth in acceptance of his ugliness. If woman accepted her ugliness and sought truth, men would hide from it to be pretty.

The need for balance conjoins us.

[puzzled]

9 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

you are aware that many anti-dasam and anti-sikh people have tried to claim this is autobiographical reference because they made the same assumption you did , that Anoop Kaur had tried to seduce Guru ji ... remember this tales are taken from common 'folk cautionary tales that existed prior' and reiterated in Guru ji's stories within story

Yes I am aware of that. But it doesnt mean she wasnt sikh!  Anoop kaur is a sikh woman's name.   

[jkvlondon]

2 hours ago, puzzled said:

Yes I am aware of that. But it doesnt mean she wasnt sikh!  Anoop kaur is a sikh woman's name.   

Mata ji of Guru Angad dev ji was hindu but her name was Mata Daya Kaur ji

[jkvlondon]

duplicate