Charitropakhyan etc written by Court Poets (historical)

[SikhKhoj]

Historical proof from the 18th century.

I'll be typing it out and posting it soon.

 

[dalsingh101]

I love this!

 

It's like a theatrical teaser.....

 

"Coming soon to a place near you!"

 

"The untold truth about charitriopakyaan!"

 

"Be amazed, and in awe!"

 

lol

[SAadmin]

I am not sure if many know but its well known fact that charitropakhyan stories are from panc tantar text written by rishi mounis, reason we call it work of sri guru gobind singh ji because maharaj has narrated it and it has maharaj approval or seal.

[paapiman]

I am not sure if many know but its well known fact that charitropakhyan stories are from panj tantar text written by rishi mounis, reason we call it work of sri guru gobind singh ji because maharaj has narrated it and it has maharaj approval or seal.

Great point bro. Any work approved by Satguru jee, should be respected, as one would respect Gurbani.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited July 29, 2015 by paapiman

[dalsingh101]

 

I am not sure if many know but its well known fact that charitropakhyan stories are from panj tantar text written by rishi mounis, reason we call it work of sri guru gobind singh ji because maharaj has narrated it and it has maharaj approval or seal.

We've discussed it before, but I'll say it again:

 

When we compare and analyse the original texts with the Dasam Granth compositions and pay attention to the subtle (and not so subtle)  differences, we might be in a better position of understand the motives of generating such texts. 

 

Do Hindus still read these 'panj tantar' texts? How are they used today? How were they used in the past? 

[SikhKhoj]

I am not sure if many know but its well known fact that charitropakhyan stories are from panc tantar text written by rishi mounis, reason we call it work of sri guru gobind singh ji because maharaj has narrated it and it has maharaj approval or seal.

There is a difference between written by Guru Gobind Singh and approved by Guru Gobind Singh. In case I refer to Charitropakhyan as court poetry it does not close the possibility that it might have been approved by the Guru?

[SikhKhoj]

 

 

We've discussed it before, but I'll say it again:

 

When we compare and analyse the original texts with the Dasam Granth compositions and pay attention to the subtle (and not so subtle)  differences, we might be in a better position of understand the motives of generating such texts. 

 

Do Hindus still read these 'panj tantar' texts? How are they used today? How were they used in the past? 

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

Here you go

Edited July 29, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

 

The author(s) of the Charitars and 24 Avtar – a historical perspective

By: Gurdaat Khoji

'Mahima Parkash' which was completed in 1776 A.D.[1] by Sarup Das Bhalla, a descendant of Guru Amar Das, gives us some invaluable proof regarding the authorship of a major part of the present day Dasam Granth: the Charitropakhyan & the Chaubis Avtaar.

The interesting Sakhi in question comes in the Mehima Parkash under the heading: “ਆਗੈ  ਸਾਖੀ  ਸਤਿਗੁਰ  ਜੀ  ਨੇ  ਬੇਦ  ਬਿਦਯਾ  ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼  ਕਰਣ  ਕੀ  ਅਰੁ  ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ  ਨਾਟਕ  ਕੀ  ਬਾਨੀ  ਕੀ  ਸੰਗਿਆ  ਕੀ  ਨਿਰੂਪਨ ਹੋਇ  ਗੀ”[2].

The author starts by mentioning the fact that religious scriptures (Purans) were assembled and Pandits were called from Benaras. Stanza 5 tells us that Gurmukhi scribes were ordered to collaborate with the Pandits. Amongst the poets who came to the Gurus court were Nanua Bairagi, Shyam Kab, Brahm Bhaat,  Nihchal Fakeer and many more (6^th stanza in the Sakhi). This is the evidence from the 18^th century that talks about a physical person Shyam, who was a Poet and came to the Guru’s court. Compare this to the assertation that Poet Shyam was a pen name of Guru Gobind Singh, which is not supported by historical sources. The text goes on further and says in the 8^th stanza that these poets wrote the Chaubis Avtar and Charitropakhyan. The Guru was pleased when he heard these and later on in stanza 12 it says that the Pandits were sent back home with various gifts.

 

---

[1] Nabha, Kahan Singh (1926). Mahan Kosh (page 2803)

[2] Bhalla, Sarup Das (1776), Mahima Parkash (page 411)

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[Singh123456777]

Sikhkoj have you read mahima parkash yourself?

[SikhKhoj]

Can we talk facts please instead of 'have you read' 'give the translation' etc? I can't type out the whole Sakhi so I have summarized it above with the heading of the Sakhi, relevant page number and so on. (I have the whole Sakhi/granth and wrote the above myself so don't even know why you're asking that)

Edited July 29, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[CdnSikhGirl]

 

The author(s) of the Charitars and 24 Avtar – a historical perspective

By: Gurdaat Khoji

'Mahima Parkash' which was completed in 1776 A.D.[1] by Sarup Das Bhalla, a descendant of Guru Amar Das, gives us some invaluable proof regarding the authorship of a major part of the present day Dasam Granth: the Charitropakhyan & the Chaubis Avtaar.

The interesting Sakhi in question comes in the Mehima Parkash under the heading: “ਆਗੈ  ਸਾਖੀ  ਸਤਿਗੁਰ  ਜੀ  ਨੇ  ਬੇਦ  ਬਿਦਯਾ  ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼  ਕਰਣ  ਕੀ  ਅਰੁ  ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ  ਨਾਟਕ  ਕੀ  ਬਾਨੀ  ਕੀ  ਸੰਗਿਆ  ਕੀ  ਨਿਰੂਪਨ ਹੋਇ  ਗੀ”[2].

The author starts by mentioning the fact that religious scriptures (Purans) were assembled and Pandits were called from Benaras. Stanza 5 tells us that Gurmukhi scribes were ordered to collaborate with the Pandits. Amongst the poets who came to the Gurus court were Nanua Bairagi, Shyam Kab, Brahm Bhaat,  Nihchal Fakeer and many more (6^th stanza in the Sakhi). This is the evidence from the 18^th century that talks about a physical person Shyam, who was a Poet and came to the Guru’s court. Compare this to the assertation that Poet Shyam was a pen name of Guru Gobind Singh, which is not supported by historical sources. The text goes on further and says in the 8^th stanza that these poets wrote the Chaubis Avtar and Charitropakhyan. The Guru was pleased when he heard these and later on in stanza 12 it says that the Pandits were sent back home with various gifts.

 

---

[1] Nabha, Kahan Singh (1926). Mahan Kosh (page 2803)

[2] Bhalla, Sarup Das (1776), Mahima Parkash (page 411)

 

This is a far cry from saying the Guru wrote it as moral lessons... 

Also, "pleased with" the work of other poets, is a LOT different than intending something to be Gurbani for his Sikhs.... 

Someone can be pleased with many things... but it doesn't mean they intend to use those things as the culmination of their life's works and lessons intended to be as the word of God... also evident in the fact that he himself stated to keep it separate from SGGSJ.  

[SikhKhoj]

The argument that Raam or Shyam is a pen name of Guru Gobind Singh Maharaaj will be rebutted with more sources in the coming time. I am awaiting for pro Dasam Granthis to come up with some history rather than emotional drama about 'moral lessons' and other fancy things these people invent out of nowhere. If Guru Gobind Singh diverted from the tradition to use Nanak, it would have been mentioned. The Guru taking up pen name Shyam or Raam must be somewhere in history, starting in 1696 to the early 1800s... after which the Dasam Granth was shoved in our panth on major scale by altering the Nitnem and Amrit Sanchaar to accommodate Dasam Granth into it.

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[paapiman]

Quote 

 The Guru was pleased when he heard these and later on in stanza 12 it says that the Pandits were sent back home with various gifts.

Unquote 

Thanks Sikhkhoj -- the above statement is more than enough for Sikhs to worship the banis of Sri Charitropkhyan Sahib jee and Sri Chaubis Avtaar Sahib jee as Gurbani.

Bhul chuk maaf

[CdnSikhGirl]

Paapiman:

Being pleased with something is NOT the same as intending it to be bani.  The Guru's own actions tell us otherwise... He purposely kept it separate from SGGSJ even though he could have easily included it AND he bewtowed Guruship on Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ONLY.  If he had intended court poet's work to become bani, than he certainly would have included it as such.  

 

 

[paapiman]

If Guru Gobind Singh diverted from the tradition to use Nanak, it would have been mentioned. 

There are Shabads in SSGGSJ, where "Nanak" word is not used. Maharaaj can do whatever he likes. He is not bound by any laws.

One can also question, why sixth, seventh and eights masters did not utter Gurbani. Were they any different, from the other masters?

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited July 30, 2015 by paapiman

[SAadmin]

As i said earlier, there is no way treh charitar can be separated from rest of amrit sanchar banis as there is stanza in chaupi sahib (same chaupi sahib recited in amrit sanchar), which explicitly  points to 405 charitar. So you cannot separate charitropakhyan from khalsa intiation tradition, this composition is interlinked with one of amrit sanchar bani (chaupi sahib) since 1699. So if you wish to reject charitropakhyan you are indirectly rejecting chaupai sahib composition, and if thats case - sign a declaration ..I am sorry people cannot have it both ways.

[SikhKhoj]

Why beat around the bush and start crying about Amrit Sanchar and Nitnem dependency on DG? We are already discussing that fact in another topic.
This is a reply to the people who claim that DG controversy is new and Puratan Sikhs always accepted DG as Guru Krit.

The 1776 source proves that already in the 18th century, parts if not the whole of Dasam Granth was attributed to court poets and not Guru Ji.

Besides that the internal proof of Raam and Shyam writing DG is corroborated by this source which confirms the existence of a poet called Shyam in the court of Guru Ji.

[SikhKhoj]

Quote 

 The Guru was pleased when he heard these and later on in stanza 12 it says that the Pandits were sent back home with various gifts.

Unquote 

Thanks Sikhkhoj -- the above statement is more than enough for Sikhs to worship the banis of Sri Charitropkhyan Sahib jee and Sri Chaubis Avtaar Sahib jee as Gurbani.

Bhul chuk maaf

Thanks for admitting that Guru Gobind Singh did not write Charitropakhyan.

[paapiman]

Thanks for admitting that Guru Gobind Singh did not write Charitropakhyan.

Daas did not say that.

Any work - whether written or approved by Maharaaj, is to be worshiped and followed.

Bhul chuk maaf

[SikhKhoj]

Daas did not say that.

Any work - whether written or approved by Maharaaj, is to be worshiped and followed.

Bhul chuk maaf

Guru did not say that.

Approved and worship is not same

[paapiman]

Guru did not say that.

Approved and worship is not same

Depends on shardha and prem.

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

Guru did not say that.

Approved and worship is not same

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਾ ਕਥਨੀ ਸਾਰੁ ॥

Says Nanak, that speech alone is excellent,

ਮਾਨਿ ਲੇਤੁ ਜਿਸੁ ਸਿਰਜਨਹਾਰੁ ॥੪॥੯੪॥੧੬੩॥

which is approved by the Creator Lord. ||4||94||163||

 

Dhan Guru Nanak.....tu heen Nirankaar

[paapiman]

Guru did not say that.

Approved and worship is not same

ਹੋਰੁ ਕਿਤੈ ਭਗਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਵਈ ਬਿਨੁ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕੇ ਉਪਦੇਸ ॥੧॥

There is no other way to perform devotional worship, except through the Teachings of the True Guru. ||1||

[Ragmaala]

Reject Charitropakhyan --> Reject Dohra --> Reject Chaupai --> Reject concept of Panj Bania --> Reject Amrit --> Reject Initiation into Khalsa --> Reject being a Sikh !!!

wah wah !