Jump to content

Sri Charitropakhyan Sahib jee Series - Charitar #5


paapiman

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Guest seeker said:

Asking to block the truth (or lets say differing opinion), good job Paapi

As far as I know, I haven't demeaned the Charitars for their dirty language or content but alright. Maybe it gives pseudo scholars like Amardeep an ego boost to talk nonsense when no one has the knowledge to question him. Have fun guys, pat each others back for the tremendous research and critical approach you take towards topics pertaining to religion. Reading everything with preconceived notions. Can't see that Bhai Nabha was anti Charitars but directly have to find reasons 'why could he have been anti Charitars?' while no one ever wonders 'why is this 19th century pro Dasam Granth?'. If you have little shame left and are honest with yourselves, you should ignore the cognitive dissonance and actually STUDY instead of interpreting everything in a certain light.

So what do you think the DG is? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a question too, care to answer?

I am not that stupid to believe Missionaries usual stories that the DG was a British invention. I believe the Dasam Granth is mostly writings of court poets of the Guru, some writings might have been supervised by Guru Ji but as evidenced by Chibbers statement were merely a 'play' in the sense that it wasn't serious religious literature on the level of Bani. Interesting to see thatt the same author doesn't record 'Dasam banis' in amrit sanchaar ceremony, perhaps both statements (play & pahul) need to be taken together to form an opinion.

As Rattan Jaggi says the Dasam Granth has no dearth of positive elements but one can't ignore that it has flaws and anti Gurmat things as well, a statement I agree with. DG has influenced a lot of literature no doubt, right from Gur Sobha to others but I don't see it being Guru krit both on a ideological level as well as historically. 

The Pahul part might be tricky, but the Nitnem is crystal clear that Dasam Banis were added into the Nitnem over time. We can go through all sources if you want? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The Pahul part might be tricky, but the Nitnem is crystal clear that Dasam Banis were added into the Nitnem over time. We can go through all sources if you want? 

What's your view on Jaap Sahib specifically being added to nitmen. Forget the others for now. 

 

As regards any question you have to me. I'll tell you flat out: Panjabi/Gurmukhi is a second language to me. It takes me a good while to read and interpret anything to a level that I feel confident about, especially older stuff that might in braj bhasha. So that's why I'm refraining from making conclusive statements at the moment. One thing I will add though, is that I'm not too sure if a 'theological' perspective or framework is appropriate to Sikhi like it may be with say semitic faiths. That's why I'm (right now) a bit wary of that British introduced process of building up a case using a number of sources and trying to build some sort of solid castle. I think it doesn't do well to cover grey areas and paradoxes. I think the mindset of Akal Ustat is better employed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, paapiman said:

@N30 S!NGH@amardeep and other admins - Can you guys please block all guest posts, for the topics related to Sri Charitropakhian Sahib jee?

Admin Sahiban Jeo, I second this. This topic is not about authorship. That has been discussed in another topic. This topic is related to content of Sri CharitroPakhyan Granth only.

Please keep it that way. Benti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Chatanga: Kahan Singh Nabha said Charitars are not by Guru Gobind Singh, so did scholars like Shamsher Singh Ashok. Internal evidence says a guy called Ram and another Shyam wrote it. So we are talking about Charitars what else do you want? Historical proof that these are pen names of Guru Gobind Singh? Any source between 1700 and 1850?

To DalSingh: While Jaap seems to be the only DG Bani that is at times mentioned in older Granths, there exist quite a few where no DG Bani at all is mentioned (Tankhahnama, Mukatnama, Rehatnama Gurbaksh Singh, Koer Singh, and so on). What do YOU think of that? Four sources giving Nitnem only from GGS? 

Ok to your soch for the rest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

What's your view on Jaap Sahib specifically being added to nitmen. Forget the others for now. 

 

By the way, I had raised a point some months ago which was snubbed by Amardeep (while he takes the liberty to proclaim all kind of conspiracy theories and nonsense which he wants us to believe, anyways). But Bhai Gurdas mentions Jap Jaap too when he talks about the nitnem of Guru Nanak Dev's time. What could the 'Jaap' be?

Vaar 6, Pauri 3 mentions the daily routine of Sikhs, he gives Sodar and Sohila but for the morning he says 'Jaap', which we logically translate as Japji (for it would be illogical for him to mention Sodar and Sohila but not the morning prayer, this is an assumption). Here are several lines from the Pauri I mentioned so you see the pattern:

Morning he says: ਸਹਜਿ ਸਮਾਧਿ ਅਗਾਧਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਇਕ ਮਨਿ ਹੋਇ ਗੁਰ ਜਾਪੁ ਜਪੰਦੇ।
By putting their mind in the unfathomable God through deep concentration, they remember Guru, the God by reciting Jaapu (Ji)

For evening he says: ਸੰਝੈ ਸੋਦਰੁ ਗਾਵਣਾ ਮਨ ਮੇਲੀ ਕਰਿ ਮੇਲਿ ਮਿਲੰਦੇ।
They sing the Sodar in the evening and heartily associate with one another.

For night they say: ਰਾਤੀ ਕੀਰਤਿ ਸੋਹਿਲਾ ਕਰਿ ਆਰਤੀ ਪਰਸਾਦ ਵੰਡੰਦੇ।
Having recited the Sohila and made supplication at night they distribute sacred food (prasad).

And its repeated in other Vaars too, such as the 1st Vaar, Pauri 38:

ਸੋਦਰੁ ਆਰਤੀ ਗਾਵੀਐ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵੇਲੇ ਜਾਪੁ ਉਚਾਰਾ।
Sodar and Arati were sung and in the ambrosial hours Jaapu was recited.

I am aware of the fact that some Rehats and books disclude the possibility of Jap Jaap being one thing as they say 'due' (both - such as Desa Singh Rehat if I'm not mistaken) but some could be interpreted in the Jap Jaap way of Bhai Gurdas? I.e. Rehats which don't specify that Jap Jaap are seperate might just refer to Japji as Bhai Gurdas did?

No cognitive dissonance please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways Dal brother, I am leaving as Neo is being partial and does not want to remove me from moderation. You're the only one who hasn't fallen prey to deravadi or jatha soch and possess the discerning intellect which you should use to study ithaas in a more unbiased way. Remember, the first question to pop in your mind about Kahan Nabha being anti CP should be 'what are the arguments' not 'why could he have been anti' (British influence, bla bla bla). That is secondary. Read my post in the Charitropakhyan manuscript thread too, Gyani Gyan Singh talks about such forgery 150 years back - not some missionaries or me claiming.

Have fun on your intellectual journey.

WJKK WJKF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three important teachings from this Charitar:

 
Non-violent conflict resolution - The prince had the power to bring soldiers with him and force the Jogi to free the lady, but he did not do so. He solved the matter in a peaceful manner by convincing the lady by words. 
 
Social Perspective - The Prince agreed to take the lady, along with him. Most likely, it implies that he has agreed to marry her. In those times, if that lady would have gone back to her village, there was a good chance that people would have looked down upon her. Prince showed a big heart in accepting her.
 
Duty of rulers - They are suppose to protect and look after their subjects. The Prince has exactly done that in this Charitar.
 
 
 
Bhul chuk maaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Begin by paying attention to the name of the woman in question --'Sehaj Kala'. Sehaj means intuitive, non-dual state of mind. We are all familiar with Yogic practices involving bodily postures, the yogi does something similar in this Charitar. First he somehow gets hold of Sehaj Kala and then confines her to a specific place with a single opening ( upar haat, haat par ala, ale bhitar thati--from SGGS, the yogic confluence of ida, pingala and sushuma has been described thus), but all this is forced, a result of stubbornness and not really by the blessing of Akal Purakh, so inevitably a more deserving character comes into the picture and Sehaj Kala is herself attracted towards her and escapes with him even as the yogi is doing his usual rituals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jatro said:

Begin by paying attention to the name of the woman in question --'Sehaj Kala'. Sehaj means intuitive, non-dual state of mind. We are all familiar with Yogic practices involving bodily postures, the yogi does something similar in this Charitar. First he somehow gets hold of Sehaj Kala and then confines her to a specific place with a single opening ( upar haat, haat par ala, ale bhitar thati--from SGGS, the yogic confluence of ida, pingala and sushuma has been described thus), but all this is forced, a result of stubbornness and not really by the blessing of Akal Purakh, so inevitably a more deserving character comes into the picture and Sehaj Kala is herself attracted towards her and escapes with him even as the yogi is doing his usual rituals

Interesting. What does the escaping part mean to you, concerning yoga?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

There are similarities in this tale with the original tale.

The Jogi abducts Sehaj Kala in this Charitar. We also know that Raja Chitar Singh's marriage with Chitarmati was kind of a forced marriage, i.e she was won in a war. She did not marry the king according to her own will. Maybe the wise minister is trying to tell Chitar SIngh that the way the Jogi kidnapped Sehaj Kala (and forcefully kept her) is not very much different from own case of marriage with Chitarmati. The King needs to figure out whether or not, Chitarmati is actually happy with him or not. In other words, is she suitable to be a queen or not.

Next, in this tale, the Prince rescues Sehaj Kala from the Jogi. Again, the wise minister might be trying to convey to Chitar Singh that you are suppose to protect and save people, not wage a war (which results in the death of thousands) over a woman, who just happens to look like your wife. The Prince (even though not the King) understood his role and rescued the lady without any bloodshed, while you have not really been a good statesman.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, paapiman said:

The Jogi abducts Sehaj Kala in this Charitar. We also know that Raja Chitar Singh's marriage with Chitarmati was kind of a forced marriage, i.e she was won in a war. She did not marry the king according to her own will. Maybe the wise minister is trying to tell Chitar SIngh that the way the Jogi kidnapped Sehaj Kala (and forcefully kept her) is not very much different from own case of marriage with Chitarmati. The King needs to figure out whether or not, Chitarmati is actually happy with him or not. In other words, is she suitable to be a queen or not.

 

Good point. Also one thing here is that the girl, like the Princess was happy or willing to establish relations with a man of their own age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paapiman said:

There are similarities in this tale with the original tale.

The Jogi abducts Sehaj Kala in this Charitar. We also know that Raja Chitar Singh's marriage with Chitarmati was kind of a forced marriage, i.e she was won in a war. She did not marry the king according to her own will. Maybe the wise minister is trying to tell Chitar SIngh that the way the Jogi kidnapped Sehaj Kala (and forcefully kept her) is not very much different from own case of marriage with Chitarmati. The King needs to figure out whether or not, Chitarmati is actually happy with him or not. In other words, is she suitable to be a queen or not.

Next, in this tale, the Prince rescues Sehaj Kala from the Jogi. Again, the wise minister might be trying to convey to Chitar Singh that you are suppose to protect and save people, not wage a war (which results in the death of thousands) over a woman, who just happens to look like your wife. The Prince (even though not the King) understood his role and rescued the lady without any bloodshed, while you have not really been a good statesman.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Awesome point!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...