The reason, bro, is that I'm responding to each individual person's posts, and people probably don't want to read a book in order to know how I responded to them. Neither do lurkers, in my estimation. Just the response to @jkvlondon was 4 laptop screens long, and I had to break up a separate part of that. Having a 10-screen long post would be insane, in my subjective view. Easier to keep arguments apart when the posts are manageable. Bhul chuk muaf.
ਮਿਠਤੁ ਨੀਵੀ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਗੁਣ ਚੰਗਿਆਈਆ ਤਤੁ ॥
Sweetness and humility, O Nanak, are the essence of virtue and goodness.
ਆਸਾ ਵਾਰ (ਮਃ ੧) (੧੪) ਸ. (੧) ੧:੪ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੪੭੦
You started off with a bang and ended with a whimper. What I mean to say is that you made it seem like you were going to say something extremely controversial, and you followed up with something that's really not that controversial. All you said is they should spend more time, not 100%. That's fine, I suppose, but it will vary from family to family. The classic case is the dad who is busy at work, and the kids play with the unmarried and vehla chacha, who is happy to oblige. Again, varies upon the situation.
Yes, it is different. Gurbani stresses on how important the mother/father and child relationship is with multiple references. ("Mera mat pita har raia", and "Tu mera pita tu hai mera mata"). Yet it also shows the importance of ancestors (precedents of our parents):
ਬਾਬਾਣੀਆ ਕਹਾਣੀਆ ਪੁਤ ਸਪੁਤ ਕਰੇਨਿ ॥
The stories of one's ancestors make the children good children.
ਰਾਮਕਲੀ ਵਾਰ¹ (ਮਃ ੩) (੧੦) ਸ. (੩) ੧:੧ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੯੫੧
The word "baba" used here is literally what people call their grandfathers. So while love and time spent with parents attaches us to our (physical and immediate) creators, the same with grandparents grounds us with our ancestors and the link to the past. I think both are important.
As noted above, leaving the joint family is an extreme step and in general is against Gurmat, though I can't know about any family's particular situation.
Agreed. The dadi should not throw a fit demanding that the child sleep with her in order to show her power in the household. Rather, she should offer to let the child sleep with her, in Gursikh piar, as I wrote above.
Stunningly wrong for someone who usually posts good advice. Let me fix that for you:
"Children need to bond with their parents so they can develop correctly, mentally, and physically. The problems are stored for later, and they will want to climb in your bed yet be banned from doing so, unable to have a sense of being loved, unable to travel easily, infantile temper tantrums at school age due to lack of love."
This is called "attachment parenting" and "co-sleeping". Your baby needs motherly contact (best being skin-to-skin), and proximity. Your baby can smell its mother being next to it. Don't deprive her of that. Don't be like the Westerners that cruelly put their children into separate bedrooms while they cry themselves to sleep. Also don't be the people who put their baby in a cage (crib) apart from mommy.
Now, our grandparents didn't call it "co-sleeping", it was just "sleeping". You put the baby next to mother. Where else would you put her? She's not a dog that you keep off to the side. She's a little part torn off of you.
Any unmarried girls reading along, plan to keep that little jiggar da tota right next to you when you have babies. Get an appropriately sized bed for this purpose.
The biggest thing crazy thing that brainwashed Westerners will say about lovingly keeping your child with you is that you'll smother it. This mostly happens to the extremely small number of Western women whose motherly instincts have been extinguished by an artificial society. Otherwise, as mentioned above, God has already put the right instincts into a mother to be able to care for her child, even while sleeping. Being worried that you'll smother your child is like wondering how you could ever push a 5 pound baby out of the birth canal: women have been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years.
Most people are deadly terrified of snakes. You are 28X more likely to die in your bathtub than from a snake. Yet have you ever heard anyone be more terrified of a bathtub than a snake, let alone 28 times as afraid? So get this nonsense about smothering out of your head.
Finally, most mothers should be thankful that the dadi offers (not demands) to take the child off of her so she can "get down to business" with dear hubby . Physical (and non-physical) intimacy between man and wife is extremely important. This (sleeping with dadi) can be occasionally, weekly, every other day, or even daily, depending on the family and mother's desires.
As for whether a dadi can fulfill this role of a mother-substitute after nursing stops, and to what extent, is something that each family will have to decide on their own, based on the child, her desires, dadi's personality, mother's desires, etc., in Gursikh love, not using the children as pawns.
180 degrees wrong. A child that fulfills her social needs in her own family and home will not need to look elsewhere to manmukh neighbors/"friends" or even worse Internet "friends" or possibly predators. Western children are usually lonely and starving for attention, which they get in spades from all the wrong places.