Charitropakhyan etc written by Court Poets (historical)

[dalsingh101]

Sikhkhoj, you're weird mate.

You got a REALLY strange way of debating. 

The way you make points and then start 'hiding' your apparent sources makes you look like you are either talking shite or are weird. 

If you don't want to share sources for discussion, fine; but I'm telling you independently and without animosity - it makes you look weird as hell. 

A suggestion: if you don't want to share a particular source - don't bang on about points derived from it. 

[SikhKhoj]

The link contains almost all stanzas of the sakhi and it includes the portions I am talking about, so there is no doubt about the source. If he wants the source then answer my questions, as simple as that. Or go buy the book.

The link already mentions court poets wrote Charitars. So no question arises on my source.

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[dalsingh101]

The link contains almost all stanzas of the sakhi and it includes the portions I am talking about, so there is no doubt about the source. If he wants the source then answer my questions, as simple as that. Or go buy the book.

The link already mentions court poets wrote Charitars. So no question arises on my source.

Mate, just spread knowledge without all the 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' shite. lol

 

Your theories are just theories. Like everyone elses. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by dalsingh101

[SikhKhoj]

B*nd maar yaar.

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

Mate, just spread knowledge without all the 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' shite. lol

 

Your theories are just theories. Like everyone elses. 

Thanks for confirming DG as Guru Krit is just a theory. I thought it was unquestionable for you Dasam Granthis but its just a theory.

[Crystal]

This is getting childish. Are you playing games 

 

Did you open this topic to debate?? How are we gonna debate it if there is no text for us to discuss

He is a P***U, I said in an earlier post sikhkhoj is doing bhenji bhenji by not listing his sources, trying to withhold it. He is like a kid who doesn't want to share his sweets. 

 

Crystal

 

[SikhKhoj]

B***u you are.

I shared my source, you got the title, page number and heading, what else you need?

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

Anyone can verify it.

No. Only those who have the book can verify it.

Come on, scan the pages for the readers.

The link contains almost all stanzas of the sakhi and it includes the portions I am talking about, so there is no doubt about the source. If he wants the source then answer my questions, as simple as that. Or go buy the book.

ALMOST all stanzas. Why not post the whole sakhi? And why is the fourth stanza cut out? What is the 11th stanza about since its left out?

Mate you are running around in circles. Its gettting way too childish and too weird for me.

 

I dont think you are used to doing research with other people.  Thats why you turn things into competions and bring the levels down for the most parts.. Normally when two people do khoj, they look at the original text, see what it says, look at ways to understand and translate. See how it fits with others etc... Seems like you are not used to this - you see it as a competion - who can bring up the best argument and theory... It does'nt look like you're interested in knowing the truth.. It just looks like you enjoy seeing your posts being published and hearing yourself talk.....

Challo, keep debating with yourself.

[SikhKhoj]

You're not interested in knowing the truth. What happened on the other thread where you blatantly lied and made up fake theories about Prashanuttar and Prehlad Rehatnama? Till I debunked it with your own internal evidence. You just beat around the bush thats why I want my answers before I share the whole sakhi.

[Crystal]

B***u you are.

 

 

dont start that crap again, idiot.

https://youtu.be/nu5OHDSw0sQ

[dalsingh101]

Okay I see. This is becoming about typing up actual text from sources on the forum. 

 

Which can get tedious....lol

[SikhKhoj]

Dally, even though you are pro DG, answer my one question:

Do you honestly believe that there is historical evidence between 1700-1800 to show Guru Ji wrote Charitars or used Shyam as pen name (and Shyam was not a court poet)? Internal evidence says Kab Shyam is the author, so it is important to know who that is. Anyone can easily claim 'oh thats a pen name of Guru Ji' without giving any references

What will happen if I can show more than one source that says Shyam was a court poet? These adamant pro DGs will still not budge one bit because they don't want to question themselves ever.

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

Dalsingh: no, - he can scan it. Takes two seconds with a smartphone.

Sikhkhoj: That debate was running in circles. You were supposed to prove your theory, but you ended up turning it around so I was the one who had to prove why I was right. That does'nt make sense. Your theory of evolution does'nt become true just because I can'nt prove mine. This is where you go wrong. You bring a theory to the table (like in this mahima prakash topic) but instead of you making an argument for it, - you start asking everyone else to argue for their case. It just ends up being a messy conversation with you running around in circles and me blindly going left and right.
 

Edited July 30, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

Amardeep, be honest.
My theory was to explain your initial question 'why the DG became so important'. I said, as compared to the Sarbloh Granth for example, the Dasam Granth has a favor in the form of its dependency for the Nitnem and Amrit sanchaar. It is in this regard that we see a rise in the amount of Dasam Granth compositions mentioned for Nitnem or Amrit Sanchaar over years. That is an UNDISPUTABLE fact because, keeping exact years aside, Naseehatnama, Mukatnama, Chaupa Singh are without doubt 18th century sources while Panth Parkash and Twareekh Sikhan are 19th century sources. Both have a stark contrast; former mention only SGGS as Nitnem and latter only DG as Nitnem/Amrit. You will not find a single book in the 18th century with only DG or 19th century with only SGGS, which proves my theory right.
The only tricky part in my theory is where I said there was NO DG at all, because I admit some of the sources of Japji Jaap can be placed in the 18th century too, but still Japji Jaap is nothing compared to out and out DG Banis mentioned in Panth Parkash for example.

So you have to respectfully agree that my theory is right about 18th century having quite some sourceswith only the SGGS (as compared to the 19th where perhaps just one source with only SGGS banis exist)  while 19th century often had wild sources with only Dasam Granth for Amrit Sanchaar etc or majority Dasam Granth Banis (Panth Parkash, Twareekh Sikhan, ...)

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[dalsingh101]

I think right now is a REALLY good time for each one of us to reflect on why we study Sikh history like we do?

I hope it's more than personal aggrandizement and egocentrism. I hope it's bigger than wanting to get some name from having a paper or book published...

I'd like to think that people on this path are pursuing knowledge in an idealistic way, and are broadminded enough to share knowledge. 

 

Seeing as what we are studying isn't something that is going to make us rich (in a monetary sense that is!), we should get over ourselves...

Edited July 30, 2015 by dalsingh101

[SikhKhoj]

What is sad is that I, being an anti Dasam Granthi, have to post proofs to show that Shyam was not a pen name but a court poet but pro DGs can get away with saying anything. Double standards.

Same with the source. Agreed its just one source but do you guys even have one which clearly says Guru Ji wrote Charitropakhyan?

[amardeep]

No. What we are asking you to is simply to provide the text that you claim backs up your argument. Very simple.

[SikhKhoj]

The link backs up my claim; it mentions poet name and that they wrote the text. There is no such rule that I have to provide you the whole sakhi myself. Anyways,

I ask you to answer two questions before I post the text. Even simpler.

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

All right mate, i'm not patient enough for these teenage games you keep pulling. I've already written three times by now that Rattan Singh Jaggi has left out the fourth stanza from the sakhi as well as ALL lines after the tenth..

Enjoy debating yourself. Im out

[SikhKhoj]

I didn't call you in, so be free to not post in this topic.

If you want the text answer the questions first.

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[dalsingh101]

Thanks for confirming DG as Guru Krit is just a theory. I thought it was unquestionable for you Dasam Granthis but its just a theory.

I should try and explain my position:

To me certainly parts of DG are dasmesh pita's personal krit i.e. Jaap Sahib, Bachitar Natak.

Now going on to your point. I'm talking from a personal perspective of usefulness. To me DG IS invaluable, regardless of whether it was completely krit by pita ji or partially with works that pita ji personally commissioned collated in the granth. Point is, even if Guru ji commissioned poets to translate/adapt existing works - they obviously point at areas of interest and provide an insight into the life and interests of our forefathers. 

The granth completely obliterates the Singh Sabha Abrahamic influences on Sikhi. What do we learn from it?

That Guru ji didn't think older Indic religious texts were of no interest to Sikhs. That translation and the comparative study of literature was encouraged by Guru ji. That they adapted existing mythology (like Chandhi) for utilitarian purposes. That they were acutely aware of and opened up discussion of the more surreptitious and destructive aspects of inter-gender sexual interactions. That weaponry was a key interest. 

 

We could talk about Akaal Ustat for hours alone; how it is the PERFECT antidote to narrow minded, tribal/religious bigotry. 

 

Regardless of the debate you are having, to me it was CLEARLY composed under the shadow of Guru Gobind Singh himself and my own personal exploration of it confirms it usefulness. 

 

It's a highly relevant text for modern life. Regardless of the authorship debate. 

[SikhKhoj]

Okay. Thanks Dally.

[SikhKhoj]

Chatanga, do you have the Prem Pad Parkash? I remember you said you did during our discussion about Sainapat when I quoted from the Prem Pad.

I'll be quoting from it next in this discussion, even though it is a fairly recent Granth (1880s).

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[CdnSikhGirl]

Some people have certain points of views and twist everything they can to reinforce them. I don't think that bloke you encountered was any sort of 'exemplar' of typical Sikh thinking myself. He was probably a typical chauvinist as exists in all cultures. 

You totally negate other perspectives of the work other than your subjective 'negative portrayal of women' theory. I personally find the work very useful. If you live in the real world, you can find microcosms of what CP contains all around you. 

 

It's about people using people. It's about power and lust. It's about deception. Selfishness. Blindness. Across genders. I think it is brilliant to open people's eyes up to hidden dynamics that DO take place. Just because it may suggest some women do x, y and z - it's a big leap to extrapolate that it is suggesting that all women do this!

As for people misappropriating the contents: sadly that pretty much happens with all religious texts. 

 

I think you are approaching it with a deeply ingrained white, feminist perspective that you have become encultured with growing up. 

I tried to send this as a private message so it wouldn't cause the thread to go off topic but for some reason you can't receive messages??

I am not a feminist...feminism strives to only look at female issues...I am an equalist. I just believe everyone should have the same opportunities without discrimination (and this is written in Gurbani). I am as much for men's rights as women's.  (But I don't consider it to be a 'right' of men to automatically have more opportunity or be given more privileges than women). That's all... and I know most Singhs are not bad people and do not think so lowly of Singhnis... 

However for this guy I was talking about, he confirmed to me his beliefs on women came from what he learned from DDT and it was DG that he used to back his claims of how women are 'immoral' and the cause of all the evil in the world.  And when someone tells me that because of my gender I have to shut up and sit quietly and let the men do all the teaching and leadership roles in religion, because having a vagina somehow makes me immoral and deceitful and impure, yes I get angry and frustrated. He actually told me that women doing any seva of SGGSJ or even kirtan would "desecrate" SGGSJ.  He kept spouting how everything in DG was coming true and that women are all just deviants and that men are much more spiritual and women need to just sit there, shut up and listen to the men because the men are so much more 'holy'.  And then he used Darbar Sahib to justify his position, saying that if women were just as spiritual and 'pious' as the men in Sikhi, then why are they barred from seva at Darbar Sahib... he confirmed to me that this line of thinking about women in groups like DDT comes directly from reading Charitropakhyan, claiming it's revelations on how women (he doesn't say "some" women) are immoral and deceitful and so men should all be weary of women and always keep them under control.  He tacked on the menstruation argument as just another justification of how "impure" we are.  Thats why I became so interested in reading DG as prior to this I didn't even know what it was... this was a few years ago now... and when I read it, the misogynistic mindset immediately stood out, because if it was meant to impart moral lessons, it surely would have shown both male and female in bad light equally... but the scale is tipped hugely on the side of showing women in a bad light, and men as the hapless victim.  

If you want to verify what I wrote above about that guy, feel free to contact him.  He won't deny it.  Tejbir Singh on Facebook in New York.  Right now his profile pic is Guru Arjun Dev Ji, and his cover photo is Harmandir Sahib.  I have since blocked him but the way he put me (and all Singhnis) down, has made me really analyze if Guru Gobind Singh Ji could write (highly doubtful) or even endorse such a work that would cause such disdain towards women in general among Singhs.  He is also not the only Singh I have encountered who had such negative feelings about women.  Paapiman is another... it's easy to see his comments on here about how men are 'higher status' than women, that women should bow to men out of respect of their higher status, that women are required to see their husband as a 'demi god' and serve them as such... (ie: must be obedient, as the husband is in authority and control over her).  And we can see that Paapiman is staunchly DDT follower and believer in DG.  

Of all the Singhs I know who are not associated with one of the so called 'orthodox' sects, not one has this view of women, and vast majority of them do not consider all of DG to be authentic (though, as I have said before, nobody contests authentic bani in DG like jaap sahib, tav prasad savaiye etc)

I think what Sikh Khoj has to say is pertinent and should be taken seriously... he has obviously done a lot of historical research, and the other side of the argument I always only see 'because Baba said so' etc. with no actual references.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[mrsingh]

 

Quote

paapiman, singh123456777, Harjot8963, Raagmala and chatanga1 Ji can all of you kindly clarify whether you believe the 404 Tiya charitars (excluding Sri Benti Chaupai Sahib) to be the original personally-devised (unplagiarised) work of Dhan Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj themself or if you believe that the 404 charitars are in fact translations of earlier historic Hindu sexual erotica stories?

Unquote

Paapi = It does not matter to Sikhs, whether it was written by Satguru jee or approved by Satguru jee

Mr = But Paapi Ji you claim to be a non-Sikh so who are you to decide what should be worshipped on par with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj?

 

mrsingh if you are afraid of kaam vale tuks then take out all kaam vale tuks in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji cause there are a lot of them. Mrsingh if you are afraid of Hindu stories then you should take out all the Hindu stories in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Mr = Singh123 Ji everything within Maharaj (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj) is beyond question. What is being questioned is why some like your good self insist on raising the work of some Hindu sexual erotica storytellers to the same level as our blessed Guru Sahib?

 

What I learned (from the 404 charitars) was the wiles of men, women, the good values of men and women etc.

Mr = Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj more than sufficiently equips Gursikhs on how to deal with the above brother.

 

We will not allow the Slander of our Dashmesh Pita Jis Bani.

Mr = Harjot Paji what bigger slander can there be of Dashmesh Pita than Sikhs alleging earlier historic Hindu sexual erotica works are Dashmesh Pita's own stories and that furthermore these stories should be placed on par for worship with Guru Sahib!

 

Same as bhagat banis, bhatt banis right? as they are not Guru krit(vak their rachna) either?

Mr = N30 Paji, Bhagat Bani's and Bhatt Bani's we all bow down to unhesitatingly as Sikhs and acknowledge as our Guru Sahib (Shabad Bani). However Paji, when you yourself admit that these 404 charitars are earlier historical Hindu sexual erotica stories why should the majority of the Panth (that do not accept that Guru Sahib created these sexual erotica stories) be forced to bow down to the very same?

 

Do you any proof

Mr = I think the proof is in the pudding Chatanga Paji ... whereby Sardar Kartar Singh Jhabbar and various Akali Singh Sabha Lehar jatha's bravely reclaimed our Panth's Gurdwara's from the Hindu Mahants and their prostitutes (backed by the British) and throwing out Triya Charitar in the process (that the Hindu Mahants always placed parallel to Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj).

 

 

Mr Singh Ji, "if i admit" ??? Admit what? I don't need to admit anything, because some of the bani in Dasam Granth has the source already quoted such "Chandi Charitrar being the translation of Sri Markendya Puran".

Mr = Well Paji it's good that you are honest enough to concede that not all of the contents are original Gurbani of Dashmesh Pita.The problem is other brothers like Paapiman, Harjot8963 and Raagmala seem unwilling to even concede what you have admitted are simply translations of earlier Hindu works. By all means listen and learn from the said Hindu works translated into Brij Bhasha if that is one's thing but as long as our brothers could have the decency to admit that most Sikhs will have a problem placing the works of ordinary Hindu storytellers on par with Dhan Dhan Sri Guri Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj or indeed alongside authentic Dasam Bani. Do you not feel Paji, that if the Panth could agree a distilled version of what is authentic Dasam Bani, we would all be stronger as a consequence?

 

I beleive them to be both. the work of Guru Sahib, based on translations of earlier stories.

Mr = Thank you for clarifying your position. Presumably you do not accept Padam's allegation of charitars 21,22 and 23 being autobiographical in relation to the identity of the King of Anandpur Sahib?

 

Not court poets but Guru maharaj have translated it from original text.

Mr = In other words Paji (writers other than Guru Sahib) wrote the sexual erotica of the 404 Charitars originally ...

 

To me certainly parts of DG are dasmesh pita's personal krit i.e. Bachitar Natak.

Mr = Dal Singh Paji could you possibly kindly re-examine Chapter 4 of Bachittar Natak below and tell us if you still feel the same way subsequently?

Edited July 31, 2015 by mrsingh