Bansavalinama on Dasam Granth (Translation)

[SikhKhoj]

I am only focussing on Nitnem and Amrit Sanchaar without DG historically in the 18th century. I have 4 dated books about Nitnem without DG (and many more than I don't need to disclose, 4 dated proofs are enough to start with) compared to Amardeeps 4-5 unauthentic, undated books (Prashan Uttar, Rehatnama Prehlad, etc).

I went the Nitnem and Amrit way because Amardeep was wondering why a whole Granth was accepted by the Panth foolishly if it wasn't by the Guru. The answer is; first there was a confusion because it was commissioned by the Guru in Darbar but not Guru Krit and secondly because over time people started adding Dasam Banis to Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar as is proven beyond doubt by history.

You can add your viewpoint to the topic too, here it is. People are already getting butthurt because their preconceived notions are being proven wrong.

[SikhKhoj]

On a side note - Kesar Singh Chibber does not know the secret to why Guru Gobind Singh ji didn't combine them. However centuries later, with Guru's kirpa, I have actually discovered (accidentally stumbled upon is more accurate) the secret myself! I will gladly share the secret in another thread if you are interested. It requires quite a bit of elaboration not suitable for this thread but it's quite a revelation. In this thread I want to focus on the translation of Chibber's work.

BhagatSingh, care to elaborate on this in a seperate topic? 

[BhagatSingh]

BhagatSingh, care to elaborate on this in a seperate topic? 

Sure. Once I complete translation of Patanjali's Yog Sutr.

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/16838-yog-sutr-of-patanjali-gurmukhi-and-translation-by-bhagat-singh/

Edited July 25, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[SikhKhoj]

Next he says -
ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸਤਾਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਪਚਵੰਜਾ, ਬਹੁਤ ਖਿਡਾਵੇ-ਲਿਖਾਰੇ ਨਾਮ ।
In 1755, there are many (ਖਿਡਾਵੇ-) who "play" with it, many (ਲਿਖਾਰੇ)writers' names.

You seem to have translated Khidava in the sense that 'khedna' (play) is used in todays Punjabi. But 'playing' does not fit in the translation...

How can we fit either nurse, nurture, caretaker in the above context (for khidava)

Agree with the rest of your initial post, the 'recognize as brothers' part is definitely not Mukhvaak but the authors own comments.

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

Dalsingh and Bhagatsingh:
 

Since you are normally working on translations, let me know your thoughts on the below text. Particularly the two lines:
Lai Aya Diti kard....

Japu ate Anandu....

 

When you're reading the full text, also have the following in mind and let me know your thoughts:
 

Where is Bhai Kesarr Singh's main focus on the story?

 

[BhagatSingh]

You seem to have translated Khidava in the sense that 'khedna' (play) is used in todays Punjabi. But 'playing' does not fit in the translation...

How can we fit either nurse, nurture, caretaker in the above context (for khidava)

Agree with the rest of your initial post, the 'recognize as brothers' part is definitely not Mukhvaak but the authors own comments.

It is a metaphor. He is using the word play in a more broad sense.

Caretaker/ਦਾਇਆ ਬੱਚੇ ਨੂੰ ਖਿਡਾਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ  -  ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਨੂੰ ਖਿਡਾਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ
That's why he calls Bhai Gurdas ji  ਦਾਇਆ

ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸੋਲ੍ਹਾ ਸੈ ਅਠਵੰਜਾ ਸੇ ਗਏ । ਤਬ ਆਦਿ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਜਿ ਜਨਮੁ ਲਏ ।
Another key word is ਜਨਮ ਲਏ . A book is like a child being born. As the book grows up, as it is being written, it is being played with by the author.

ਦਾਇਆ ਸੀ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ, ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ ।੨੬੬।
The (ਦਾਇਆ ) caretaker, (ਲਿਖਾਰੀ) writer, (ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ) one who "plays" with it, was Bhai Gurdas ji.

ਦਾਇਆ ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ  all mean the same thing.

[BhagatSingh]

Dalsingh and Bhagatsingh:
 

Since you are normally working on translations, let me know your thoughts on the below text. Particularly the two lines:
Lai Aya Diti kard....

Japu ate Anandu....

 

When you're reading the full text, also have the following in mind and let me know your thoughts:
 

Where is Bhai Kesarr Singh's main focus on the story?

 

Ok I can definitely translate this. I think you'll have to message Dally manually, if you want to get him involved because he wasn't notified from your post. (neither was I, btw)

ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਕਟੋਰਾਂ ਜਲ ਦਾ ਸੁਚੇਤ ਕਰਿ ਲੈ ਆਉ | ਲੈ ਆਇਆ ਦਿਤੀ ਕਰਦ ਕਹਿਆ ਹਿਲਾਉ |
(Guru Sahib) said bring a container filled with water. Once they brought the container, (guru sahib) gave them a knife and said to swirl (the water)

ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੁ | ਤਾਂ ਦੀਵਾਨ ਸਾਹਬ ਚੰਦ ਹਥ ਜੋੜ ਖਲੋਤਾ ਵਿਚ ਦਰਬਾਰ |
Then (Guru Sahib) recited the "Jap" and "Anand" (the prayers) out loud. (Upon seeing this) Then Diwan Sahib Chand, who was standing in the court, with his hands folded,

ਕਹਿਆ ਗਰੀਬ ਨਿਵਾਜ਼ ਵਿਚ ਮਿੱਠਾ ਪਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਬਣੇ ਸੁਆਦ  |  ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਲੈ ਆਉ ਧਰਮ ਚੰਦ ਪਤਾਸੇ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦ |
requested "O Gareebniwaz (Guru Sahib), if there was sweetness then it would be tasty" . Then (Guru Sahib) said "Dharam Chand bring the Patashay Parshad (sugar chips).

ਪਤਾਸੇ ਪਵਾਏ ਅਤੇ ਕਰਦ ਹਿਲਾਈ | ਨਾਉ ਧਰਿਆ ਪਾਹੁਲ | ਇਹ ਪਾਹੁ ਲਗਾਈ |
(Guru Sahib) got the Patashay added to the bowl of water, and swirled the knife around. He called this "Pahul" (Pahul is water that is enchanted by mantr recitation).    

ਇਹ ਪਾਹੁ ਲਗਾਈ  - not sure about this.
Could be - He attached them to the pahul.  (ਪਾਹੁ - to bring close)
Could be - He made this a tradition. (ਪਾਹੁ - to solidify - solidified the ceremony into a tradition)

Edited August 4, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[amardeep]

Ok I can definitely translate this. I think you'll have to message Dally manually, if you want to get him involved because he wasn't notified from your post. (neither was I, btw)

ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਕਟੋਰਾਂ ਜਲ ਦਾ ਸੁਚੇਤ ਕਰਿ ਲੈ ਆਉ | ਲੈ ਆਇਆ ਦਿਤੀ ਕਰਦ ਕਹਿਆ ਹਿਲਾਉ |
(Guru Sahib) said bring a container filled with water. Once they brought the container, (guru sahib) gave them a knife and said to swirl (the water)

ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੁ | ਤਾਂ ਦੀਵਾਨ ਸਾਹਬ ਚੰਦ ਹਥ ਜੋੜ ਖਲੋਤਾ ਵਿਚ ਦਰਬਾਰ |
Then (Guru Sahib) recited the "Jap" and "Anand" (the prayers) out loud. (Upon seeing this) Then Diwan Sahib Chand, who was standing in the court, with his hands folded,

ਕਹਿਆ ਗਰੀਬ ਨਿਵਾਜ਼ ਵਿਚ ਮਿੱਠਾ ਪਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਬਣੇ ਸੁਆਦ  |  ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਲੈ ਆਉ ਧਰਮ ਚੰਦ ਪਤਾਸੇ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦ |
requested "O Gareebniwaz (Guru Sahib), if there was sweetness then it would be tasty" . Then (Guru Sahib) said "Dharam Chand bring the Patashay Parshad (sugar chips).

ਪਤਾਸੇ ਪਵਾਏ ਅਤੇ ਕਰਦ ਹਿਲਾਈ | ਨਾਉ ਧਰਿਆ ਪਾਹੁਲ | ਇਹ ਪਾਹੁ ਲਗਾਈ |
(Guru Sahib) got the Patashay added to the bowl of water, and swirled the knife around. He called this "Pahul" (Pahul is water that is enchanted by mantr recitation).    

ਇਹ ਪਾਹੁ ਲਗਾਈ  - not sure about this.
Could be - He attached them to the pahul.  (ਪਾਹੁ - to bring close)
Could be - He made this a tradition. (ਪਾਹੁ - to solidify - solidified the ceremony into a tradition)

Cheers bro

The Japu ate anandu line seem to give different translations according to different people. I've asked a few people their views - those lines seem to be a bit tricky.

The way I and a few of the others read the text: The focus of the story is NOT for the author to present the narrative of the Khalsa creation. The author probably assumes the reader knows the details of what happened. His main focus is to show how his ancestors were central to the story that people were already familiar with.  The Guru commands various Chibbars to provide certain Things. Amongst the duties given to the Chibbars is to recite the Japji Sahib and the Anand Sahib.

So in essence, the Chibbar sakhi does'nt have anyhing to do with which banis were read in the Khalsa creation but rather with what banis the Chibbars were given to recite. As such, the sakhi can't be used as a description of the Vaisakhi events at all. All they can serve as historical evidence is to show how Bhai Kesar Singh was trying to pump up his own ancestors (by telling lies about their role on the day).

 

In short he has all the details wrong meaning the account in itself is unreliable.

 

Edited August 4, 2015 by amardeep

[dalsingh101]

ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ (then they spoke [GGS ji]) 'ਕਟੋਰਾਂ ਜਲ ਦਾ ਸੁਚੇਤ ਕਰਿ ਲੈ ਆੳ' ('bring a clean bowl of water')

ਲੈ ਆੲਅਿਾ (it was brought), ਦਿਤੀ ਕਰਦ (he gave a knife), ਕਹਿਆ, ਹਿਲਾਉ (he said 'stir it' [with the knife].

[chatanga1]

It doesn't say blessing of Guru Arjun Dev ji in the line. It simply says.

ਦਾਇਆ ਸੀ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ, ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ ।੨੬੬।
The (ਦਾਇਆ ) caretaker, (ਲਿਖਾਰੀ) writer, (ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ) one who "plays" with it, was Bhai Gurdas ji.

Clearly the writer of Guru Granth Sahib is Bhai Gurdas ji.


Next he says -
ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸਤਾਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਪਚਵੰਜਾ, ਬਹੁਤ ਖਿਡਾਵੇ-ਲਿਖਾਰੇ ਨਾਮ ।
In 1755, there are many (ਖਿਡਾਵੇ-) who "play" with it, many (ਲਿਖਾਰੇ)writers' names.


next -
ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਸੀ ਪਿਆਰਾ । ਹੱਥੀ ਲਿਖਿਆ, ਖਿਡਾਇਆ ।
Guru Sahib was very fond of it. It was hand-written.

 

1. Bansavalinama is not saying that Guru Sahib is the writer of Dasam Granth.

2. Even if Guru Sahib was the "likhari", he maybe a scribe like Bhai Gurdas ji, who is also described as the "likhari".

Bhagat Singh Ji, can you tell me whether the word "likhare" mean writer? It is a male word, opposed to likhari (female) meaning writer.

Could "likhare" mean "wrote" as well, or  "written on one's behest"?

The word likhare as "writer" seems a little out of place to me.

I have bolded the "likhari"  in its female form in the lines quoted in your post.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Amongst the duties given to the Chibbars is to recite the Japji Sahib and the Anand Sahib.

Nonsense. Guru Sahib himself is saying the prayers.

ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ, ਕਟੋਰਾਂ ਜਲ ਦਾ ਸੁਚੇਤ ਕਰਿ ਲੈ ਆਉ ; ਲੈ ਆਇਆ , ਦਿਤੀ ਕਰਦ,  ਕਹਿਆ ਹਿਲਾਉ .  ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੁ ; (now he talks about another key individual) ਤਾਂ ਦੀਵਾਨ ਸਾਹਬ ਚੰਦ ਹਥ ਜੋੜ ਖਲੋਤਾ ਵਿਚ ਦਰਬਾਰ |

1. There is only one being whom Bhai Sahib is not using the name of, throughout the story - Guru Gobind singh ji.
2. And there is only one being who is being referred to in the first three sentences - Guru Gobind singh ji.
3. Only the Guru can enchant water. Back when they did Charan pahul, the procedure was the same, but instead of swirling knife, they swirled the water around Guru's feet, while he recited the prayers. So here it is Guru Gobind Singh ji reciting the prayers to enchant the water.

After commanding the sikhs to bring in the bowl of water. He tells them to bring a knife and to stir it. Then Guru sahib recites Jap and Anand.

 

All they can serve as historical evidence is to show how Bhai Kesar Singh was trying to pump up his own ancestors (by telling lies about their role on the day).

And are you saying Sahib Chand and Dharam Chand are Chibbar? I seriously doubt it. I don't think Bhai Sahib is pumping up his clan at all. The Panj Pyare do not belong to his clan.
Chand is a Kshatriya name. Chibbar are Brahmin. The Panj Pyare were all Kshatriya not Brahmins. Furthermore the Panj Pyare came from different Kshatriya clans. They did not come from Brahmin clans.

So it would not make any sense to claim Bhai Sahib is lying in order to pump up his own clans... to which none of the Panj Pyarey belong to.

I would say Bhai Sahib is narrating the event as (he thinks? recalls?) it happened.

Edited August 4, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat Singh Ji, can you tell me whether the word "likhare" mean writer? It is a male word, opposed to likhari (female) meaning writer.

Could "likhare" mean "wrote" as well, or  "written on one's behest"?

The word likhare as "writer" seems a little out of place to me.

I have bolded the "likhari"  in its female form in the lines quoted in your post.

 

Chatanga bhaji, good point/question.
It got me thinking.

I could be wrong but here are my thoughts.

Plural
The plural of ਲਿਖਾਰੀ in modern punjabi is ਲਿਖਾਰੀਆਂ
The verb format would be "Likhavay"  ਲਿਖਾਵੇ, similar to ਖਿਡਾਵੇ.  Btw Bhai Sahib could have easily just used that.

ਲਿਖਾਰੇ is not exact but it is close. So one might think it's a verb.

The plural of ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ is ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰੇ.
Similarly I think the plural of ਲਿਖਾਰੀ, here is ਲਿਖਾਰੇ. Old punjabi does not always match modern punjabi.

Rhythm of the Story
2. There's a rhythm to the story that is broken if you take ਲਿਖਾਰੇ as a verb.

I would still translate it the same way as I did before.
Because this
ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸਤਾਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਪਚਵੰਜਾ, ਬਹੁਤ ਖਿਡਾਵੇ ਲਿਖਾਰੇ ਨਾਮ ।  (multiple scribes)

is a mirror of  this -
ਦਾਇਆ ਸੀ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ, ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ ।੨੬੬। (one scribe)

ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਜੀ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜਨਮੁ ਹੈ ਧਾਰਾ ।
In Guru Arjun Dev ji's house the Granth Sahib took birth.

ਛੋਟਾ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਜੀ, ਜਨਮੇ ਦਸਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ ।
In Dasam Pita's house the other Granth was born.

ਦਾਇਆ ਸੀ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ, ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ ।੨੬੬।
The scribe  was Bhai Gurdas ji.

ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸਤਾਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਪਚਵੰਜਾ, ਬਹੁਤ ਖਿਡਾਵੇ ਲਿਖਾਰੇ ਨਾਮ ।
The scribes were many.

Manglacharan's Hyphen
3. The hyphen that manglacharan adds "ਖਿਡਾਵੇ-ਲਿਖਾਰੇ" would make sense. "ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰੇ-ਲਿਖਾਰੇ"

ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸਤਾਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਪਚਵੰਜਾ, ਬਹੁਤ ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰੇ ਲਿਖਾਰੇ ਨਾਮ ।
However using the word ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰੇ here breaks the rhythm of the poem. That's why it's not used.


Forget the Hyphen, it's misleading
4. Though personally, I think the hyphen that manglacharan adds is completely misleading. The hidden sentence structure in the poem could be this -

ਬਹੁਤ ਖਿਡਾਵੇ  (ਬਹੁਤ) ਲਿਖਾਰੇ ਨਾਮ ।

This is similar to e.g. Bhagat Kabir ji's - ਸੋਈ ਰਾਮੁ ਸਭੈ ਕਹਹਿ ਸੋਈ ਕਉਤਕਹਾਰ ॥੧੯੦॥
Hidden structure -
ਸੋਈ ਰਾਮੁ ਸਭੈ ਕਹਹਿ,  ਸੋਈ (ਰਾਮੁ) ਕਉਤਕਹਾਰ (ਕਹਹਿ)
 

Edited August 4, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[amardeep]

Nonsense. Guru Sahib himself is saying the prayers.

ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ, ਕਟੋਰਾਂ ਜਲ ਦਾ ਸੁਚੇਤ ਕਰਿ ਲੈ ਆਉ ; ਲੈ ਆਇਆ , ਦਿਤੀ ਕਰਦ,  ਕਹਿਆ ਹਿਲਾਉ .  ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੁ ; (now he talks about another key individual) ਤਾਂ ਦੀਵਾਨ ਸਾਹਬ ਚੰਦ ਹਥ ਜੋੜ ਖਲੋਤਾ ਵਿਚ ਦਰਬਾਰ |

1. There is only one being whom Bhai Sahib is not using the name of, throughout the story - Guru Gobind singh ji.
2. And there is only one being who is being referred to in the first three sentences - Guru Gobind singh ji.
3. Only the Guru can enchant water. Back when they did Charan pahul, the procedure was the same, but instead of swirling knife, they swirled the water around Guru's feet, while he recited the prayers. So here it is Guru Gobind Singh ji reciting the prayers to enchant the water.

After commanding the sikhs to bring in the bowl of water. He tells them to bring a knife and to stir it. Then Guru sahib recites Jap and Anand.

The lines indicate different orders given by the Guru "kar la ao". It then mentions a bowl, a dagger etc. Then he says "jap ate anand rasni kar uchaar". The kar is given earlier also as a command - so it appears that the Guru is giving a command to recite the two banis.

Regarding your 3rd point - this is a doctrincal statement you are making. Lets keep doctrinal statements aside and only discuss what the text is saying. Likewise the text mentions nothing about the panj pyare episode of calling for heads.., so lets leave them out also as they are not mentioned in the text at all... The panj pyare are not central to the Khalsa creation story.. His ancestors are.. The sakhi only mentions the devi episode (with his ancestors having prominent roles ) and afterwards it mentions the above screenshot and then goes on to say that Bhai Chaupa Singh was the first to recieve amrit. .It has all details wrong from start to end.

And are you saying Sahib Chand and Dharam Chand are Chibbar? I seriously doubt it. I don't think Bhai Sahib is pumping up his clan at all. The Panj Pyare do not belong to his clan.
Chand is a Kshatriya name. Chibbar are Brahmin. The Panj Pyare were all Kshatriya not Brahmins. Furthermore the Panj Pyare came from different Kshatriya clans. They did not come from Brahmin clans.

So it would not make any sense to claim Bhai Sahib is lying in order to pump up his own clans... to which none of the Panj Pyarey belong to.

I would say Bhai Sahib is narrating the event as (he thinks? recalls?) it happened.

Bhai Sahib keeps mentioning his ancestors through out the many pages of the book and shows the readers how central they were in Guru history.

His ancestor Dharam Chand was the toshkhania of Guru Gobind Singh and Bhai Sahibs own father Gurbaksh Singh had served Mata Sundari and Mata Sahib Devi in Delhi. Dharm Chand's brother Sahib Chand was Guru Gobind Singh's Diwan, and their father Durga Mal had been the Diwan of Guru Har Rai, Guru Har Krishan and Guru Tegh Bahadur. He likewise says Bhai Mati Das and Bhai Sati Das were part of his family by being the nephews of Durga Mal.

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2015 by amardeep

[BhagatSingh]

ਲਿਖਾਰ
I couldn't find this word in the dictionary (srigranth.org, shabad kosh), etc but I found an interesting usage for this verb on google.

ਬੰਦੇ ਦਾ ਸਿੰਗਾਰ ਨਾਲ ਬਹੁਤ ਪਿਆਰ ਹੈ| ਅਸਲ ਵਿੱਚ ਹਿਸਾਬ ਸਿਰ ਤੇ ਸੌਕ ਨਾਲ ਲਾਇਆ ਸਿੰਗਾਰ ਬੰਦੇ ਦੀ ਸਖਸੀਅਤ ਨੂੰ ਲਿਖਾਰ ਕੇ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵਸ਼ਾਲੀ ਬਣਾਉਦਾ ਹੈ| ਪੁਸ਼ਾਕ ਤੇ ਗਹਿਣੇ ਸਿੰਗਾਰ ਦੇ ਵੱਡੇ ਸਾਧਨ ਹਨ|

Edit: I asked my mum, she says this is a typo. The word here should be ਨਿਖਾਰ. And she agreed ਲਿਖਾਰੇ is plural of ਲਿਖਾਰੀ.

Edited August 4, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[BhagatSingh]

The lines indicate different orders given by the Guru "kar la ao". It then mentions a bowl, a dagger etc. Then he says "jap ate anand rasni kar uchaar". The kar is given earlier also as a command - so it appears that the Guru is giving a command to recite the two banis.

Bro you are pronouncing it and thus reading it incorrectly.

The sihari matters.

ਕਰ/kar - is a command "do this", and if that was the word used then I would agree with you. However the word that is actually used is ਕਰਿ/kare  -  ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੁ   - Guru Sahib is doing it. Guru Sahib is (ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੁ) chanting with his tongue, Jap and Anand. (Here ਕਰਿ is ਕਰਿਹ)

And earlier when he said,  ਕਰਿ ਲੈ ਆਉ - So ਲੈ ਆਉ is the command. (Here ਕਰਿ is ਕਰ ਕੇ, so ਕਰ ਕੇ ਲੈ ਆਉ)

Regarding your 3rd point - this is a doctrincal statement you are making. Lets keep doctrinal statements aside and only discuss what the text is saying.

Not so much. It is a by definition.
Pahul is water that is enchanted by mantr recitation. - definition
And Pahul from an initiator, comes from initiator's own mantr recitation. - definition of initiation through Pahul

If you (sikh) are doing the pahul (mantr recitation over water), then you are not being initiated. You are initiating.

This is consistent with my translation.

Likewise the text mentions nothing about the panj pyare episode of calling for heads.., so lets leave them out also as they are not mentioned in the text at all... The panj pyare are not central to the Khalsa creation story.. His ancestors are.. The sakhi only mentions the devi episode (with his ancestors having prominent roles ) and afterwards it mentions the above screenshot and then goes on to say that Bhai Chaupa Singh was the first to recieve amrit. .It has all details wrong from start to end.

Bhai Sahib keeps mentioning his ancestors through out the many pages of the book and shows the readers how central they were in Guru history.

Ok now I understand what you were talking about.

Several questions -
1. Is it possible to post the whole story on Vaisakhi?

2. What is the Devi episode?

3. How do you know Bhai Sahib's ancestors were not involved in the story in the way he says they were?

His ancestor Dharam Chand was the toshkhania of Guru Gobind Singh and Bhai Sahibs own father Gurbaksh Singh had served Mata Sundari and Mata Sahib Devi in Delhi. Dharm Chand's brother Sahib Chand was Guru Gobind Singh's Diwan, and their father Durga Mal had been the Diwan of Guru Har Rai, Guru Har Krishan and Guru Tegh Bahadur. He likewise says Bhai Mati Das and Bhai Sati Das were part of his family by being the nephews of Durga Mal.

4. Source?

5. toshkhania - gurmukhi spelling?

6. I know Bhai Mati Das ji and Bhai Sati Das ji are Brahmins. However Durga Mal sounds like a Kshatriya name (like Tyaag Mal). So how does Bhai Sahib trace his ancestory to Dharam Chand and Sahib Chand who are not Brahmins?

 

Edited August 4, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[Singh123456777]

Firstly i asked a kathakar about the tuks you posted and it means that there were many scribes not many authors. I would have commented many days before but I was doing my own koj on these tuks. I have concluded that there were many scribes like bhai gurdas when guru Ji was reciting like how guru Arjan dev Ji was when he was reciting to bhai gurdas Ji.

 

Secondy the panj pyare were not all khatris. So Bhagat Singh you are mistaken.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Firstly i asked a kathakar about the tuks you posted and it means that there were many scribes not many authors. I would have commented many days before but I was doing my own koj on these tuks. I have concluded that there were many scribes like bhai gurdas when guru Ji was reciting like how guru Arjan dev Ji was when he was reciting to bhai gurdas Ji.

 

Secondy the panj pyare were not all khatris. So Bhagat Singh you are mistaken.

 

Yes about first point you reached the same conclusion that was clarified immediately by Amardeep. My initial misunderstanding came from Manglacharan's faulty translation. It makes sense, as the two episodes mirror each other. It is talking about scribes.

Second point, what evidence leads you to conclude they weren't all khatris?

Edited August 5, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[Guest]

Prior to becoming Khalsa our Panj Piare were known to be from families that were:

Hindu Labana (salt carriers) from Lahore, Pakistan

Hindu Gujjar (shepherds) from Hastinapur, Uttar Pradesh

Muslim Nai (barbers) from Bidar, Karnataka

Hindu Dhobi (washermen) from Dwarka Nagar, Gujarat

Hindu Jheer (water carriers) from Jagannath Puri, Orissa

in their various previous old family professions & tribes prior to becoming Khalsa.

So none of our Panj Piare was a Khatri in reality.

But our Panj Piare were wrongly stated as Khatri just Guru Nanak Dev Ji's parents were Khatri

Similarly, Guru ki Mahal were automatically wrongly stated as Khatri too.

Despite their various different backgrounds of Guru ki mahal like Mata Gujjar Kaur Ji (for example).

[amardeep]

I'll get back to your post later tonight. Here are some quick responses to your questions.

 

. Is it possible to post the whole story on Vaisakhi?

Yes i'll scan you the pages later tonight

2. What is the Devi episode?

In short many of the Puratan grantsh say that the Guru - prior to the creation of the Khalsa - had summoned Brahmins from across India to manifest the devi. It has been debated intensely here on the forum, a quick search should cast light on the Whole devi episode.

How do you know Bhai Sahib's ancestors were not involved in the story in the way he says they were?

Apart from the Bansavalinama no other sources place them in central leading roles on the day. In his version there are no panj pyare, no Mata Sahib Devi, no calling for heads etc.

 

4. Source?

It's mentioned throughout the book. The above written was from J S Grewal's summary analysis of the book

 

5. toshkhania - gurmukhi spelling?

I'll type the correct speling in later. It Means a treasurer from what I remember. The one responsible for finances.
 

6. I know Bhai Mati Das ji and Bhai Sati Das ji are Brahmins. However Durga Mal sounds like a Kshatriya name (like Tyaag Mal). So how does Bhai Sahib trace his ancestory to Dharam Chand and Sahib Chand who are not Brahmins?

 Im not too familiar with caste names so can't say. Hopefully others here can contribute.

 

 

 

 

[chatanga1]

Similarly I think the plural of ਲਿਖਾਰੀ, here is ਲਿਖਾਰੇ. Old punjabi does not always match modern punjabi.

The word "likhare" seems Persian in origin to me. In my Panjabi dictionary the word Likhaan-har comes up as scribe. Could "Likhare" be short for "likhan-haar"?

[chatanga1]

Second point, what evidence leads you to conclude they weren't all khatris?

Didn't think this was disputed. But would be interested to know why you think this.

[BhagatSingh]

The word "likhare" seems Persian in origin to me. In my Panjabi dictionary the word Likhaan-har comes up as scribe. Could "Likhare" be short for "likhan-haar"?

I think so too. The plural of Likhan-haar is Likhan-haaray. So if you compress that, it becomes Likharay.
 

Didn't think this was disputed. But would be interested to know why you think this.

Ram and Chand are kshatriya names.

salt carriers

shepherds

barbers

washermen

water carriers

1. These are only professions you are talking about. ie what you do for a living.

2. What you are saying is not even fully true. According to Amardeep, Dharam Chand was guru sahib's treasurer and Sahib Chand was his diwan. I reckon the others were also employed under Dasam Pita.

3. Clans are different from professions. You can be a water carrier from a kshatriya clan. Clan = your ancestors, profession = what you do to survive

But our Panj Piare were wrongly stated as Khatri just Guru Nanak Dev Ji's parents were Khatri

Similarly, Guru ki Mahal were automatically wrongly stated as Khatri too.

Guru Nanak Dev ji's clan was a kshatriya clan (Bedi clan), however his profession was 'merchant'.
That's an example of how your clan and your profession can be entirely different and unrelated.

Guru Gobind Singh ji's clan was a kshatriya clan (Sodhi clan) and his profession was 'king'.
That's an example of how your clan and your profession can be congruent.

Mata Gurji ji was probably khatri as well. Afaik Guru Sahibs married within same or similar clans.

[amardeep]

Here is a scan from the Gurbilas Patshahi 10 by Kuir Singh on the caste of the Panj pyare

[amardeep]

Bro you are pronouncing it and thus reading it incorrectly.

The sihari matters.

ਕਰ/kar - is a command "do this", and if that was the word used then I would agree with you. However the word that is actually used is ਕਰਿ/kare  -  ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੁ   - Guru Sahib is doing it. Guru Sahib is (ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੁ) chanting with his tongue, Jap and Anand. (Here ਕਰਿ is ਕਰਿਹ)

And earlier when he said,  ਕਰਿ ਲੈ ਆਉ - So ਲੈ ਆਉ is the command. (Here ਕਰਿ is ਕਰ ਕੇ, so ਕਰ ਕੇ ਲੈ ਆਉ)

But if it was the Guru performing an action in the past, would'n it say "japu ate anandu rasni keeta uchaar." Just as in the other verbs of an action taking place they are given in past tense (Bachan keeta, kard ditee etc).

Like I've said, I asked a few people, they seem to disagree whether it is the Guru who recites or the Guru commanding to recite. What do other readers here think?

Regarding sihari etc I think we should be carefull in applying a relatively modern forms of spellings and grammar to these old texts. They were written long before Punjabi grammar was standardised.

I'll scan the sakhi for you now, hang on

Edited August 5, 2015 by amardeep

[amardeep]