Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
paapiman

Sri Charitropakhyan Sahib jee Series - Charitar #22 and 23

Recommended Posts

Warning: Sexually explicit material below. Daas will kindly request sangat, below the age of 25 or people who are greatly affected by Lust, to stay away from this discussion.

Please forgive me for being explicit.
 
Request to Mods/Admins:
 
- Please do not allow Guest posts in this topic
- Please do not tolerate any insults of Gurbani
- Please do delete any off-topic posts
 
 
Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, cool, have been looking at this story and it feels a little strange to be in the place where it is. Reading up on it so far doesn't really seem to me that this story is an accurate representation of an episode from Guru Sahib's life. I think maybe if there was such an incident it would have been noted by more sources. I cannot find a mention in the 3 sources I've looked through so far. Also this text was completed in 1696, so even then it would have taken some weeks to prepare. How were the original orators of the Sanskrit texts to know that this episode had happened in Guru Sahib's life? Was it common knowledge? If it was then it would have found more mentions I feel. At the moment, I am more inclined to feel it was a story used with some existing names. Nothing to do with Guru Sahib at all.

 

Comng back to the theme, it seems like the stories so far have all been about how women were successful in fooling the men, so Guru Sahib has changed the direction of the theme here and turned it around so this time the woman is not successful. Of course to do this, the story needed a "Dharmi Pursh" - a righteous man, which was missing from all the stories so far. The minister could also be telling the King Chitar Sen, look here, look at an story that involves a Dharmi Pursh and how he saved himself by following Dharam. In the end no harm was done, and the woman accepted her misdeeds and promised never to do them again. But that was only because the man in the story was a Dharmi Pursh. Yet you are abandoning your dharam to side with such a person. Looking back at it actually it seems to fit in more than ever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ਯਾਹੀ ਕੈ ਘਰ ਮਾਹਿ ਭਲੀ ਬਿਧਿ ਰਾਖਿਯੋ ॥

‘Alright, I will take you to my house, and keeping you comfortably there,

 

ਨਿਰਨੌ ਕਰਿ ਹੈ ਏਕ ਇਕਾਂਤ ਬੁਲਾਇ ਕੈ ॥

‘I will talk to you in seclusion,

 

These two lines in my opinion should say:

" Take her to her house under and look after her" and

 

"I will make a decision and convey it to you at a more quieter place"

 

meaning here the King does not wish  to punish her in ront of the assembly but wishes to give her a fitting rebuke away from the assembly. basically he does not wish to humiliate her in front of the whole village. "ਇਕਾਂਤ " can mean seclusion but can also mean in a place away from general hustle and bustle of everyday people. The King just about got away from her when they were in a one-to-one situation, I doubt whether he would put himself through that again, by wanting to meet her in seclusion.

 

Now moving to the end of the story the King gives her 20,000 takas. The story mentions this is to be be given every 6 months as " ਛਿਮਾਹੀ " can be taken to mean "ਛਿ" meaning 6 and "ਮਾਹੀ" meaning month. But I'm not too convinced by this, as there doesn't seem like there would be any need for this amount of money. remember the woman is a "dhanwantni" her husband is rich, so money to her is not an issue. i think firstly the "ਛਿਮਾਹੀ" here should mean forgiveness. it's a play on the word "ਛਿਮਾ" meaning forgive, and "ਛਿਮਾਹੀ" to me seems like the KIng is saying "after you have been pardoned". The 20, 000 takas looks to me like the Minister is trying to tell the King Chitar Sen that he could still allow his wife to live a life of luxury in a Royal Household after (hypothetically) he would forgive her.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-reading Charitar 21 again, i can see why the theme has taken the way it did. The King Chitar Sen specifically asks his Minister to narrate a story about wise men

 

ਰੀਝ ਰਾਇ ਐਸੇ ਕਹ੍ਯੋ ਬਚਨ ਮੰਤ੍ਰਿਯਨ ਸੰਗ ॥

Then he asked the Minster to narrate the Chritars

 

ਪੁਰਖ ਤ੍ਰਿਯਨ ਚਤੁਰਨ ਚਰਿਤ ਮੋ ਸੋ ਕਰਹੁ ਪ੍ਰਸੰਗ ॥੨॥

Of the wise men and the women -2

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2017 at 5:14 PM, chatanga1 said:

meaning here the King does not wish  to punish her in ront of the assembly but wishes to give her a fitting rebuke away from the assembly. basically he does not wish to humiliate her in front of the whole village. "ਇਕਾਂਤ " can mean seclusion but can also mean in a place away from general hustle and bustle of everyday people. The King just about got away from her when they were in a one-to-one situation, I doubt whether he would put himself through that again, by wanting to meet her in seclusion.

We can learn a very important lesson from the above. If someone has made a mistake, we should never humiliate the person (by exposing his weakness/misdeed) in front of other people. One must try to discuss these matters in private. Hiding others misdeeds (upto a certain extend) and not laughing at them, must be an integral part of a Sikh's life.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ਵਾ ਕੀ ਕਰ ਦਾਰੀ ਧਰੀ ਪਗਿਯਾ ਲਈ ਉਤਾਰਿ ॥

People pulled his beard and took his turban off

The above translation is wrong. It is not the people who pull the beard. It is the King, who gets hold of the lady's brother, pulls his beard and takes off his turban. He then starts shouting thief thief and beats him unconscious with the stick . The lady's brother is unconscious by the time other people arrive on the scene. In this way, the King has ensured that he cannot explain his side of the story, which is a good tactic. The King has played this Charitar to save himself (from a false allegation) and divert the blame onto the lady's brother.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2017 at 4:49 PM, chatanga1 said:

How were the original orators of the Sanskrit texts to know that this episode had happened in Guru Sahib's life? Was it common knowledge? If it was then it would have found more mentions I feel. At the moment, I am more inclined to feel it was a story used with some existing names. Nothing to do with Guru Sahib at all.

According to Gyani Harbhajan Singh jee Dhudhikey (student of Sant Mohan Singh jee Bhindranwale), the King in these Charitars is Sri Satguru jee (Tenth Master).  Daas's guess is that Sant Mohan Singh would have heard the katha of the Charitars by Sant Baba Gurbachan Singh jee Bhindranwale. If that is the case then, most likely, all the Taksali Vidhwans must be having the same opinion. 

Have you heard of any old school Taksali Vidhwans who believe in the contrary?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/10/2017 at 1:41 PM, paapiman said:

We can learn a very important lesson from the above. If someone has made a mistake, we should never humiliate the person (by exposing his weakness/misdeed) in front of other people.

 

If the person is private indivudal member of the sangat then yes. However in recnt times there has been tankhah annaounced for politicians in public and they have had to do their sewa in public as well.

 

On 02/10/2017 at 3:52 PM, paapiman said:

ਵਾ ਕੀ ਕਰ ਦਾਰੀ ਧਰੀ ਪਗਿਯਾ ਲਈ ਉਤਾਰਿ ॥

People pulled his beard and took his turban off

The above translation is wrong. It is not the people who pull the beard. It is the King, who gets hold of the lady's brother, pulls his beard and takes off his turban. He then starts shouting thief thief and beats him unconscious with the stick . The lady's brother is unconscious by the time other people arrive on the scene. In this way, the King has ensured that he cannot explain his side of the story, which is a good tactic. The King has played this Charitar to save himself (from a false allegation) and divert the blame onto the lady's brother.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

I had noticed that as well when looking at the translation. Well noticed bro.

 

 

On 02/10/2017 at 5:07 PM, paapiman said:

According to Gyani Harbhajan Singh jee Dhudhikey (student of Sant Mohan Singh jee Bhindranwale), the King in these Charitars is Sri Satguru jee (Tenth Master).  Daas's guess is that Sant Mohan Singh would have heard the katha of the Charitars by Sant Baba Gurbachan Singh jee Bhindranwale. If that is the case then, most likely, all the Taksali Vidhwans must be having the same opinion. 

Have you heard of any old school Taksali Vidhwans who believe in the contrary?

 

No, but the thing I don't get is why Guru Sahib wouldn't know that the woman had an ulterior motive, unless it was to provide the Uthanka for the text. But if it was, then what of the main base story of Raja Chittr Sen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

No, but the thing I don't get is why Guru Sahib wouldn't know that the woman had an ulterior motive, unless it was to provide the Uthanka for the text. But if it was, then what of the main base story of Raja Chittr Sen?

It could be a kuatak of Maharaaj. He could have purposely put himself in this situation to teach a moral lesson to his Sikhs. It is similar to Srimaan Baba Mardana jee getting into trouble at times. Sri Satguru jee (First Master) could have always saved him (by showing him the future), but did not do so, even though he was Antarjami. This further led to kautaks of Maharaaj, whereby we all learnt moral lessons from it, people realized their sins, developed love for Waheguru, became better humans, received salvation, etc.

We can still relate the Charitar to the base story as you have already done so, in one of the earlier posts above.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

But if it was, then what of the main base story of Raja Chittr Sen?

I guess you mean that if these Charitars were performed on Sri Satguru jee (Tenth Master), then how is the wise minister (who is from the past) narrating them? This will only be possible if the wise minister knew Sri Satguru jee or heard about his experiences with Anoop Kaur from someone, implying that Raja Chitar Singh was a contemporary of Maharaaj.

Is it possible that these Charitars are fictional (apart from a few ones)? Is it possible that this story of Raja Chitar Singh never took place, but some writer(s) complied a Granth (Charitrokh Granth) for educational purposes? Later, Maharaaj might have added some more real life incidents (Charitars that involve himself, Mughal king (Akbar), King Bhartari, Sassi, Heer, Soni, etc) to it, when he was compiling Sri Charitropakhian Sahib jee. 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2017 at 5:14 PM, chatanga1 said:

Now moving to the end of the story the King gives her 20,000 takas. The story mentions this is to be be given every 6 months as " ਛਿਮਾਹੀ " can be taken to mean "ਛਿ" meaning 6 and "ਮਾਹੀ" meaning month. But I'm not too convinced by this, as there doesn't seem like there would be any need for this amount of money. remember the woman is a "dhanwantni" her husband is rich, so money to her is not an issue. i think firstly the "ਛਿਮਾਹੀ" here should mean forgiveness. it's a play on the word "ਛਿਮਾ" meaning forgive, and "ਛਿਮਾਹੀ" to me seems like the KIng is saying "after you have been pardoned". The 20, 000 takas looks to me like the Minister is trying to tell the King Chitar Sen that he could still allow his wife to live a life of luxury in a Royal Household after (hypothetically) he would forgive her.

Could it be possible that Maharaaj gave her this money so that she could give it to her brother? Remember, her brother suffered for a crime which he did not commit. He got beaten pretty bad by Maharaaj and other people.

It would be kind of surprising if Maharaaj would give her the money, as she is already rich. 

It might be possible that the below line has an alternative interpretation.

ਬੀਸ ਸਹੰਸ ਟਕਾ ਤਿਸੈ ਦਈ ਛਿਮਾਹੀ ਬਾਧਿ ॥੧੨॥

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anything historical in the Charitro pakhyan. Not the indivial charitars, nor is the frame story of the minister and king.

As we have seen in the last many months, - the minister is trying to convey to the king not to kill his son and end his dynasty, by provoking him with different stories relating to governance, culture, morals and ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, amardeep said:

I don't think there is anything historical in the Charitro pakhyan. Not the indivial charitars, nor is the frame story of the minister and king.

What about the Charitars that talk about Akbar, Heer, Soni, Bhartari Raja, etc?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stories might be inspired by historical events that did happen, but they have not been written in their exact historical form. Contrary, there is poetic and dramatization embellishment all around. If I remember correctly, the heer ranjha in the Charitro Pakhyan is also very different from the other versions prevalent in Punjab. The same goes for the Chaubis Avatar where the different translations of each avatar do not correspond to that of the original sanskrit. The Ramayan of Dasam Granth is different from the original Ramayan.

This is not an error that has anything to do with authoorship. The purpose of the Charitro Pakhyan is not to relate history - it is to provoce discussions on governance, warfare, ethics, morals, responsobilities of rulers etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, amardeep said:

I don't think there is anything historical in the Charitro pakhyan. Not the indivial charitars, nor is the frame story of the minister and king.

 

I thought that way as well from the start of the text. Discussing the Anoop Koer stories made me think maybe there was something historical behind Guru Sahib's need to create such a text. But looking at that even it isn't clear that it is. I think if there was such am incident which resulted in such a large (and to some controversial) text there would have been much more written about it in history books.

 

1 hour ago, paapiman said:

What about the Charitars that talk about Akbar, Heer, Soni, Bhartari Raja, etc?

 

When I glanced at these (in Bindra's book) I saw straightaway that these were just names and labels used relating very little to the established stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 1:06 PM, amardeep said:

The same goes for the Chaubis Avatar where the different translations of each avatar do not correspond to that of the original sanskrit. The Ramayan of Dasam Granth is different from the original Ramayan.

Daas heard in katha that events/tales which the followers of Hindu Deities did not pen down, Maharaaj talked about those too.

The All-knowing Sri Satguru jee was providing more historical information, which was missed for whatever reason(s). The detailed tale of Kharag Singh (who defeated Sri Krishan jee many times in the battlefield) is a good example of it.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, paapiman said:

The detailed tale of Kharag Singh (who defeated Sri Krishan jee many times in the battlefield) is a good example of it.

This according to scholars is not a historical event. In Kharags Singhs army there were also Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×