Charitropakhyan etc written by Court Poets (historical)

[Ragmaala]

 

Guru Ji were pleased with Banis of the Bhagats & Bhatts, thus they were included in SGGS.

 

Next one would say, being pleased is not same as bani, this is the same mindset that led people to start changing alankar and taking the bhatt swaiye & bhagat bani out in the past in 1950s. Thats when the major Sants of that time got together, and put an end to it.

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Ragmaala

[SikhKhoj]

First decide Ragmaala, is DG by Guru or by court poets? You're so confused.

[Singh123456777]

Sikhkoj you only have one source! ONE SOURCE and you think that every other source is wrong. Ever source we will bring you will say "I debunked this I debunked that I'm the debunker" and now you have Satkiran and mrsingh defending your every word.

Good job for your koj sikhkoj we should give you a cookie.

[Guest taksali]

This is an insult to Dasam Pita. Guru Gobind Singh must have spent 10years writing Charitropakhyan stories to guide us about evil women mostly and now these heretics are rejecting it because Guru Sahib called himself Shyam when writing the 405 charitars

[SikhKhoj]

It is always like that. When I give no source, you guys are so adamant and make the point 'why did no one question DG for 200 years'. Now I've already given one source with two statements:

1) Shyam was a court poet. Not a pen name of Guru Ji.

2) He is named amongst the authors who wrote compositions like the Charitropakhyan and Chaubis Avtar.

3) Besides the above external historical reference we find countless references to Shyam himself in the Dasam Granth:

ਸੁ ਕਬਿ ਸਯਾਮਿ ਤਾਕੋ ਕਹੈ ਚੌਦਸਵੋ ਅਵਤਾਰ ॥੪॥
The poet Shyam knows him as fourteenth incarnation.4.
(Chaubis Avtar)

Please note how the reference to Shyam occurs in Chaubis Avtar for example and the historical text also says Shyam was (amongst others) wrote the Chaubis Avtar and Charitropakhyan.

4) You guys are saying that there is only 1 source saying Charitars were by the court poets, but I challenge you: find me even one source saying 5 Banis Nitnem from 1700-1800. You want me to believe Chaupai is Bani without A SINGLE source but ignore my source, shame on you. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[CdnSikhGirl]

 

Guru Ji were pleased with Banis of the Bhagats & Bhatts, thus they were included in SGGS.

 

Next one would say, being pleased is not same as bani, this is the same mindset that led people to start changing alankar and taking the bhatt swaiye & bhagat bani out in the past in 1950s. Thats when the major Sants of that time got together, and put an end to it.

 

 

Okay, so now that the usual "Guru Ji WROTE this" crowd has admitted that court poets could have wrote it and NOT Guru Gobind Singh Ji... that's a HUGE step in thnking already Sikh Khoj! 

Ragmaala, Thank you for pointing out that Guru Ji was pleased with banis of bhagats AND INCLUDED THEM IN SGGSJ.... that's the key... that they WERE included in SGGSJ shows they were intended to be bani. 

Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself specifically CHOSE NOT to include Charitropakyan in SGGSJ (he easily could have if he wanted)! And he himself bestowed the title of Guru on SGGSJ ONLY! And told us NOT TO WORSHIP ANY OTHER AS GURU! This was Guru Gobind Singh Ji's own instruction.

And DG was compiled AFTER Guru Gobind Singh Ji's left his physical body, there's no evidence that he ever intended for some of these to ever be seen by us! 

"Pleased with" is not the same as "worship this as words of God"

A parent can be pleased with their child's artwork and put it on the fridge and give the child a treat, but I doubt they would ever intend to use it as an example of fine arts in a museum or art school.  Similarly, Guru Ji could have been pleased with the effort that was put into it, and gave the poets gifts, but never intended for their works to become 'bani' for his Sikhs. 

 

 

 

 

[SikhKhoj]

People who believe in Dasam Granth invent all kind of fairy tales to justify Dasam Granth;

1) Oh but this Granth is for the Khalsa while GGS is for humanity

If DG is intended for the Khalsa, why doesn't it mention the word Khalsa even once?

2) Oh the internal evidence says someone called Shyam wrote a huge part... That means Guru Ji used that as pen name

If that is true then why do historical sources say that Shyam was a court poet and not a pen name?

3) Charitars were written to control Kaam

So Sikhs fell prey to kaam from 1469 to 1696? GGS was not enough to give them guidance?

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[CdnSikhGirl]

This is an insult to Dasam Pita. Guru Gobind Singh must have spent 10years writing Charitropakhyan stories to guide us about evil women mostly and now these heretics are rejecting it because Guru Sahib called himself Shyam when writing the 405 charitars

If that were the case, thn why did he not even spend one tenth that time to write stories to guide us about evil men?  Did Guru Ji only care about his Singhs and not his Singhnis? Why no stories to warn his Singhnis about evil men? Or Was Guru Ji suggesting that women are the ones who are inherently 'evil' (your word not mine)?

Also, there is mounting evidence to show Shyam was a court poet, and not a pen name of Guru Ji. The stories were retelling of older Hindu stories. And if Guru Ji did intend for this to be 'bani' for his Sikhs, then why did he not choose to include it in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (or just tell his Sikhs to read the original in Hindu scriptures)??

Why did he bestow Guruship on SGGSJ ONLY?  If he even intended for Charitropakhyan to be compiled in a granth at all, then why was it only done so years after he left his physical body? Why did he not do it himself prior to leaving this world? Why is there no evidence prior to Bansavalinama??

What if what you have been taught is a not the whole truth? What if there was an agenda??? These questions you should be asking yourself. 

Waheguru Ji gave us these brains for a reason... blindly following every word a Baba / Sant says is dangerous.   We were meant to 'seek' the truth on our own!

[chatanga1]

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.

If it was a text by Rishis then it would be in Sanskrit as was the Books of knowledge. So Guru Sahib would have translated these for the common man to understand,as with most of the Dasam Granth (Chaubees Avtar, Cahndi Charitar) and this would have been the first time that the lower varnas would have access to them.

[amardeep]

Can you scan in the text from the Mahima Prakash so we can acces the original text instead of someones reading of it.

Edited July 30, 2015 by amardeep

[chatanga1]

 

'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.

I haven't read this account but it seems like that should be read further to increase our understanding. But i want to ask why you think this particular account is absolute fact, as we know from 18th century literature, that information presented was not true in it's entirety. 

 

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.

History tells us that in Guru Ji's Darbar the Pandits refused to teach Sanskrit to the lower Varnas. Then also there is the sakhi of the Nirmalas who went to Kashi but were denied knowledge because of their Varna. How credible do you think it is for the top Pandits from cities of accredited learning to assemble at Anandpur Sahib at Guru Sahib's invitation?

 

[chatanga1]

Historical proof from the 18th century.

You have presented textual proof. A text with it written in.  It doesn't mean it will be true/proof, as its claims still have to be verified.

[chatanga1]

There is a difference between written by Guru Gobind Singh and approved by Guru Gobind Singh.

 

But we have the example of Bhai Gurdas Vaaran before this.

[chatanga1]

 

The text goes on further and says in the 8^th stanza that these poets wrote the Chaubis Avtar and Charitropakhyan.

Isn't there a letter from Bhai Mani Singh telling Mata Sundri that he has located the Krishan Avtar and CharitarPakhyan? Bhai Mani Singh was tasked with the job of collecting Guru Sahib's writings. Isn't there a possibility that he would have known that these weren't Guru Ji's works?

[Guest Ajnala]

Every word of Charitrophakyan is personally written by Guru Gobind Singh Jee as some of the earlier charitars are even autobiographical like Professor Piara Singh Padam said

[chatanga1]

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

I agree.It doesn't have to be given the status of Gurbani for it to be read by and used as knowledge by the Sikh. Guru Arjan Sahib didn't include Bhai Gurdas' Vaaran in Guru Granth Sahib, but that doesn't mean that we cannot read, respect, understand and follow them.

Edited July 30, 2015 by chatanga1

[chatanga1]

Can you scan in the text from the Mahima Prakash so we can acces the original text instead of someones reading of it.

Amardeep you can read it here :

http://punjabipedia.org/topic.aspx?txt=ਬਵੰਜਾ/ਬਾਵਨ ਕਵੀ

But i dont know if it's the original.

Edited July 30, 2015 by chatanga1

[SAadmin]

If it was a text by Rishis then it would be in Sanskrit as was the Books of knowledge. So Guru Sahib would have translated these for the common man to understand,as with most of the Dasam Granth (Chaubees Avtar, Cahndi Charitar) and this would have been the first time that the lower varnas would have access to them.

Yes off course translations would have been done by sri guru gobind singh ji.

[Harjots8963]

This is the time my friends...

Where we go to 8 Minutes and 30 Seconds. And Be Happy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbt8bTx-c10

[chatanga1]

People who believe in Dasam Granth invent all kind of fairy tales to justify Dasam Granth;

1) Oh but this Granth is for the Khalsa while GGS is for humanity

Chatanga: Do they? I haven't heard it myself but if someone think this they are mistaken.

2) Oh the internal evidence says someone called Shyam wrote a huge part... That means Guru Ji used that as pen name

If that is true then why do historical sources say that Shyam was a court poet and not a pen name?

Chatanga: So far it's one historical source, that comes from a period of textual inaccuracy, so why should this be bleieved over the rest. Isn't it more of a case of using one liners to "prove" something a la AKJ with the Keski being kakkar because its in a text of a bhatt?

3) Charitars were written to control Kaam

So Sikhs fell prey to kaam from 1469 to 1696? GGS was not enough to give them guidance?

Chatanga: Well there is the sakhi of Bhai Joga Singh.

[Harjots8963]

 

[SAadmin]

Historical debates aside, I am thinking there must be real deep rooted cultural tribal /idealogical reasons why treh charitar is not accepted as sri guru gobind singh ji work off course now we have new age feminism crap on top of it who reject it based on usual sexism hue and cry.

[Harjots8963]

You CANNOT separate Chaupai Sahib and Sri Charitropakhyan 

From Chaupai Sahib...

Also 

From Chaupai Sahib

"The Granth where the fallacies of kings, ministers, and women are described"...

^ To the people who claim that Sri Charitropakhyan is sexist.... 

[Singh123456777]

If that were the case, thn why did he not even spend one tenth that time to write stories to guide us about evil men?  Did Guru Ji only care about his Singhs and not his Singhnis? Why no stories to warn his Singhnis about evil men? Or Was Guru Ji suggesting that women are the ones who are inherently 'evil' (your word not mine)?

Also, there is mounting evidence to show Shyam was a court poet, and not a pen name of Guru Ji. The stories were retelling of older Hindu stories. And if Guru Ji did intend for this to be 'bani' for his Sikhs, then why did he not choose to include it in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (or just tell his Sikhs to read the original in Hindu scriptures)??

Why did he bestow Guruship on SGGSJ ONLY?  If he even intended for Charitropakhyan to be compiled in a granth at all, then why was it only done so years after he left his physical body? Why did he not do it himself prior to leaving this world? Why is there no evidence prior to Bansavalinama??

What if what you have been taught is a not the whole truth? What if there was an agenda??? These questions you should be asking yourself. 

Waheguru Ji gave us these brains for a reason... blindly following every word a Baba / Sant says is dangerous.   We were meant to 'seek' the truth on our own!

Let me write in capitals so you might actually understand. THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES OF EVIL MEN AS WELL AS EVIL WOMEN. STOP WITH THIS BULLSHIT THAT YOU KEEP SPREADING WITHOUT GIVING ANY ANY ANY ANY SOURCES.

Before sikhkoj talked about Shyam did you ever hear his name before? No you didn't cause you are just trying to follow whatever sikhkoj is saying against dasam Granth.

We have told you before the reason why guru Ji did not add his bani in sggsj. 

 

Just stop. YOU do your own research   Instead of jumping on sikh koj's bandwagon.

[dalsingh101]

Historical debates aside, I am thinking there must be real deep rooted cultural tribal /idealogical reasons why treh charitar is not accepted as sri guru gobind singh ji work off course now we have new age feminism crap on top of it who reject it based on usual sexism hue and cry.

It's white feminism.

 

Because they've been majorly suppressed by white men (like a lot of people have....), and Abrahamic faiths - which blame the whole fall of mankind (no less) as the result of some women's weakness (Eve and apple), they have become allergic to seeing ANYTHING written about women that doesn't represent them as perfect, angelic, wholesome, victims.

Like women are incapable of seduction, or have never used their wiles to get what they want. Like women are incapable of strong feelings of lust.....

Having brought Euro-white men to their knees, they think they can now expand their shit onto other communities - and they DON'T LIKE Charitriopakyaan, because it smashes open an element of male and female interpersonal dynamics that they don't feel is flattering. What they don't get is that the work highlights men's weaknesses and gullibility as much as women's.

 

Our own phudhoos hatred of it probably stems from deeply internalised Victorian 'morality' that they've imbibed from Europeans. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by dalsingh101