mrsingh

I will post it, if you answer the following questions:
1) Do you have any source from the 1700 - 1800 period that says Guru Gobind Singh wrote Charitropakhyan or Chaubis Avtar? I am not talking about Vidya Sagar, this that Granth. I want the specific names Charitars or Avtars or Bachitar Natak.

2) Do you have any historical proof that Shyam was Guru's pen name and not a court poet?

http://punjabipedia.org/topic.aspx?txt=ਬਵੰਜਾ/ਬਾਵਨ ਕਵੀ
All references you need are there. Stanza 6 mentions poet names and stanza 8 says they wrote Charitropakhyan.

Thanks brother.

Request to cyber sangat - Let's keep this topic, primarily based on historical sources.
Thanks
Bhul chuk maaf

Admin cut. So many books say 'Patshahi 10' you believe in all of them?
Stop posting in this topic, you're not even trying to prove the historicity because you know you can't. Amardeep atleast tries to discuss from a historical perspective even though he is still held back by preconceived notions.

Court poets did it according to Mehma Parkash (1776). Internal proof regarding Kab Shyam is also very solid because Kab Shyam was a court poet according to Mehma Parkash as well. I got one more proof regarding Kab Shyam being a court poet and not a pen name but I'll wait for all you Dasam Granthis to post some sources.

Neo, I am seeing that you're changing your liberal colors once we start talking about Dasam Granth?
The topic title says HISTORICAL perspective. Why are you guys running left right? The topic is about the Charitars and other material being written by court poets or the Guru, not whether the Guru made it compulsory in Nitnem or whatever.

Stick to the topic, this rule also applies to you admin.

I humbly ask every single Dasam Granthi on this forum to provide proof for:
1) Guru Gobind Singh writing Charitropakhyan. Preferably from 1700-1800.
2) Guru Gobind Singh using Shyam as a pen name.
Neo, Dally, Amardeepu, Singh123, Chatangeh, etc
 
Chatanga, you got the Guru Prem Pad Parkash right? I will be using it for one of my next posts with some evidence so better keep it at hand if you got it.

Look you need to change this attitude where you first ask for proof, then for scans, then for a translation. Whats next? Asking to send you the book by post or what?
I gave book name, author and page number, I even typed out the Sakhi heading for you, what else do you need?

I have just started? I am not done yet brother. And even in the extreme case that I had only 1 perspective, you don't even have one puratan proof that Guru Gobind Singh wrote Charitars himself?

So you admit Guru Gobind Singh did not write Charitars but court poets did?

I have never voiced my concerns about Dasam Granth in regards to its 'obscene language' or Charitropakhyans 'dirty stories' or whatever. I am not a feminist either. I am just saying that Charitropakhyan is not Guru Krit, nor are the Chaubis Avtar etc from a historical perspective.

Paapiman, can you please tell me in your own words and understanding, summarize what are the teachings to take away from charitropakhyan??? What exactly did you learn from those stories??
 

Actually for the first 4 or so years I followed Sikhi I had no idea what DG or the Charitropakhyan was.  And it never came up at the Gurdwara either... 
It wasn't until I encountered a Singh online who told me in no uncertain terms that women were to sit quietly and learn at the Gurdwara and let the men do all the seva (aside from the kitchen of course) because women were the root of all immorality in the world, and told me that everything in the dasam granth was coming true... and as a woman I should learn to be submissive and follow men's leadership.  At the time I had no idea what Dasam Granth even was.  He explained to me this and women's inherent impurity were why women were barred from seva of SGGSJ in historical gurdwaras (not true... I have seen women do seva in historical gurdwaras including kirtan and chaur sahib seva and taking hukam etc - just not at darbar sahib)  At the time I didn't even know what Damdami Taksal was... I thought all Sikhs were the same.  And I had been taught that women were equal to men in Sikhi and that no religious duty or seva was reserved for men only.
So its obvious that whether or not the intention was to affect men's minds and poison them against women, in groups that hold DG on high authority that seems to be the case.  
And your claims that it also shows men in bad light are wrong... in nearly ALL stories, the woman is shown as immoral, deceiver... and the man is shown as gullible victim. Therefore it paints the picture that women are inherently evil and men are just their victims.  In groups like DDT (at least some of them), there exists a deep rooted disdain for women... thinking of them as impure, immoral, deceivers, temptresses... and that deep rooted feeling is directly attributable to DG.  
THAT'S why I find it hard to believe our Guru Ji would write that himself.  Because I highly doubt he thought of all women in this way or ever intended for this deep rooted negativity towards women, or the tendency to restrict us and dictate and control us and make us feel inferior to men.  I highly doubt that would have ever been his intention.  
Paapiman is a great one as an example how this deep rooted disdain towards women manifests... just ask him how women should bow to men, men have higher 'status' than women, women should have less rights to do seva etc.  
This deep rooted disdain of women, does not seem to exist outside of the few groups who worship DG.  So you can't ignore there is a correlation...

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.

The earliest Punjab census reports from the 1880s estimate some 1,5 million Sikhs in the British and native principalities.

Khushwaqt Rai estimated that there were about 2 lakh Khalsa Sikhs in the early 19th century. But I do not think it included the Sahajdharis?
    

It was mainly 'high-caste' Hindus that were anti-Khalsa for obvious vested interest reasons. The later, widespread generalised anti-Sikh stance from Hindus became normalised under colonialism. 
And it is silly to suggest that the Moghuls were some pushover for the Khalsa; they pushed Singhs hard; if you don't have correct knowledge look up Bhangu's Panth Prakash and read for yourself. 

Singh1234..., what is the identity of the King in Charitars 21-23? Is it Guru Gobind Singh as claimed by Padam and the likes or not?

It seems incredible to me SikhKhoj Paji that these people keep a straight face claiming to be Sikhs whilst asserting that Dhan Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj was the King of Anandpur mentioned in those charitars 21,22 and 23. I would like to see even a single person on this site defend Padam's point but I am pretty confident nobody will have the himmat to denigrate Dhan Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj openly. 

I am beginning my rebuttal to the Charitropakhyan being authored by Guru Gobind Singh from a historical perspective. Anyone with historical proofs (1695-1825 AD) saying (1) Guru Gobind Singh wrote Charitropakhyan (2) used the pen names Kab Shyam and Kab Raam is invited to the topic.

Now that everyone is talking about Charitars can you guys give your opinions about Charitars 21, 22 and 23. Pyara Padam says its about Guru Gobind Singh (the King) while others disagree. Pro Dasam Granthis are so divided on basic issues. Is the King in the tale Guru Gobind Singh or not? Give proofs.

Try looking outside of the small percentage of the Panth that are jathas, or sects and you will find many who are skeptical... for very good reasons.
Also, if DG is supposed to be a Universal Granth for ALL Sikhs, then why would such a large section be devoted to a message intended only for male leaders / kings? Why would that stuff not have been kept separate and specified who the intended audience were?  If on the other hand it was intended for everyone, all sikhs, then how do you explain the moral story that a Singhni is supposed to take from sexually explicit tales of women deceiving men with sex?  If DG was meant for all Sikhs, then Singhnis should also be warned about sexually deviant males.... 
And the moral points could easily have been said without using sexually explicit descriptions... if the intention was to impart moral messages, then there was not the need to use language so descriptive that for the vast majority of men, they would likely read it and be aroused...
But then you will use the common argument that one must be very highly spiritual advanced to understand it and not be affected by lust... but that makes no sense, because
1) someone that highly spiritually advanced would likely not need such a moral message as they would have surpassed kaam already, and
2) if one needs to be highly advanced spiritually to even understand it, then obviously DG was not meant to be read by the vast majority of Sikhs and hence, it could not have been a universal message for all Sikhs
3) Even more to the point, suggesting that it was only meant for (male) Kings and Leaders... 

So from your own description, how can DG be for ALL Sikhs?  And if it's not for ALL Sikhs, then how can it be revered as equal to SGGSJ, which IS UNIVERSAL message for ALL Sikhs??  See the contradiction here?  And it's these contradictions which cause many to look at Charitropakhyan with skepticism... because Gurbani is supposed to be universal with a message for ALL Sikhs.  

Nobody is disputing authentic banis (Jaap Sahib, Tav Prasad Savaiye etc) from Guru Gobind Singh Ji which are contained in DG at all... and that too even though he chose to keep them separate from SGGSJ.  
 
 

Have you reached this state? How can you speak for them? You are basically steering people and dictating what they are to believe even if their own experience surpasses it. 

Ragmaala Ji, I think the point he was trying to make is that if these were in fact supposed to be moral stories, then the moral message could have easily been conveyed without the explicit sexual details.  The stories could have been written much more G Rated, while still conveying the moral message.  And perhaps it would have reached more people that way since one wouldn't be embarrassed to read more G rated version of the stories in front of their daughters etc.  
My problem isn't even with the fact that they are sexually explicit... my issue is the fact that the finger seems to be pointed squarely at women for the majority of immoral acts, or at least that's how it comes across. Maybe it's because I could never find myself ever stooping so low as to desecrate my body (an act that can never be taken back) just to influence someone etc. - I truly do not believe that the majority of immorality rests on the fault of women... yes there are some stories that  show men in a bad light as well, however since the majority of stories depict women in this light, it certainly suggests that women share the majority of the immorality in the world.. at least that's how charitropakhyan comes across.