Ganda Singh On Guru Gobind Singh Ji

[dalsingh101]

Here is a brief bit of text I want to share with you all. It's from Sainpati's Gursobha edited by Ganda Singh. I've included the original Panjabi text as an attachment. Feel free to correct any translation errors.

On the other hand Guru Gobind Singh was opposed to discrimination between all mankind and differentiation according to [notions of] high and low. They considered all rights to be shared by humans in equal measure. The [exercise of] illegal suppression or fear over anyone was understood to be an assault on a human being’s freedom as well as tyrannical. Whilst any person considers themselves to be lower, smaller, inferior and powerless physically, intellectually and religiously to some other, he remains in fear of them, enduring their ill treatment and oppression (ਅਤਿਆਚਾਰ). They will not even dare to speak up for their legitimate human rights and in physical and mental terms they remain timid under the persecution. Guru Gobind Singh didn’t wish for anyone to remain servile under anyone else and for some time had been trying to remove the notions of fear that were seated in the minds of docile people, teaching them to be fearless and free-spirited.

[dalsingh101]

Bump this.

Anyone disagree with Dr. Singh's interpretation of dasmesh pita's life here - out of interest?

[BhagatSingh]

Do you have Sainapati's original words?

[dalsingh101]

No this was Ganda Singh's interpretation (note thread title). Here it is again:

Neo, attachments almost invariably go missing after a while on this forum, any reason why?

Edited October 24, 2013 by dalsingh101

[dalsingh101]

Go half way down page 12 (internal book numbering), the text starts with:

ਦੂਸਰੇ ਪਾਸੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਮਨੁੱਖਾਂ ਮਨੁੱਖਾਂ ......

It's one of my early translations so it would be wise to check for possible errors.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58125935/Sainpati-s-Sri-Gur-Sobha-Ed-Ganda-Singh

[BhagatSingh]

No this was Ganda Singh's interpretation (note thread title). Here it is again:

Yeah I got that bit. I prefer to see Sainapati's original writings. Things can get distorted in translations.

[dalsingh101]

You're missing the point again.

I was referring to the analysis/opinion of the guy widely considered to be the father of modern historiography.

What do you think of it?

[BhagatSingh]

You're missing the point again.

I was referring to the analysis/opinion of the guy widely considered to be the father of modern historiography.

What do you think of it?

It sounds sugar-coated to me.

What do you think of it?

[dalsingh101]

It appears as if Guru ji had no problem with the occasional disciplinary 'beating' as per Sewa Das, where someone who repeatedly read bani wrong was beaten by Sikhs (who went overboard).

We know as per BN, that Guru ji banned/removed pacifists and cowards who failed to fight against the hill chiefs from Anandpur after the battles.

But overall, it would be interesting to analyse Guru ji's views on oppression and egalitarianism in the way that Ganda Singh attempted. You personally should note that to the vast majority of Sikhs, the vision they have of him is as an emancipator from tyranny, be it in the form of Mogul economics or caste oppression.

Guru ji never hesitated to assert the human rights of those lower in the Hindu varna system. The epitaph 'gareeb niwaas' shouts loudly. He actually helped arm and prepare (physically and psychologically) people at lower ends of the socia strata to fight and overthrow those at the more conservative entrenched end (from which he himself descended!) People who descend from similar backgrounds play this down or engage in obfuscation on this point for obvious reasons.

Guru ji was certainly no conservative to the existing social orders. Be they political or social.

Edited October 27, 2013 by dalsingh101

[BhagatSingh]

Yeah you pretty much nailed the sugar-coated "mojern" viewpoint. I have nothing against it if it helps someone follow Guru sahib and attain Brahmn gyan.

[dalsingh101]

What's your 'non-sugar coated' version then?

You say this stuff but often don't come out with any substantial evidence to support your own view - whatever that is.

I don't think I hold the 'modren' view myself. I try to form opinions based on evidence.

Are you sure you aren't doing this?

People who descend from similar backgrounds play this down or engage in obfuscation on this point for obvious reasons.

[BhagatSingh]

I try to form opinions based on evidence.

But where's the evidence for your statements in the previous post? Let's start with that.

Edited October 29, 2013 by BhagatSingh

[dalsingh101]

Well, lets start with you clarifying your 'sugar coated' statement.

Where and how do you think Dr. Singh has done this?

[dalsingh101]

Let's hear about your non 'mojern' vision.

[BhagatSingh]

Ok lol this is going to go on forever... I am younger so I'll just go ahead.

Let's start:

Well, lets start with you clarifying your 'sugar coated' statement.

Where and how do you think Dr. Singh has done this?

Going over that passage by Ganda Singh, I find I don't really have any issues with it. In the way I understand things, it's fine. it applies quite well in the context of the atyachaar that Mughals were doing.

But I do raise an eyebrow on some of the things you state:

It appears as if Guru ji had no problem with the occasional disciplinary 'beating' as per Sewa Das, where someone who repeatedly read bani wrong was beaten by Sikhs (who went overboard).

Evidence?

This is not mainstream or sugarcoated I'll give you that.

We know as per BN, that Guru ji banned/removed pacifists and cowards who failed to fight against the hill chiefs from Anandpur after the battles.

Evidence?

This isn't either but the following are:

But overall, it would be interesting to analyse Guru ji's views on oppression and egalitarianism in the way that Ganda Singh attempted. You personally should note that to the vast majority of Sikhs, the vision they have of him is as an emancipator from tyranny, be it in the form of Mogul economics or caste oppression.

emancipator from tyranny - yes

specifically mughal atyachaar - yes

caste oppression - no, i am assume it is "Brahmin oppressing others" you are talking about? Well the fact that Brahmins themselves lived in poverty, should rule out any such assertions.

Guru ji never hesitated to assert the human rights of those lower in the Hindu varna system. The epitaph 'gareeb niwaas' shouts loudly.

Everyone from the chaar varna can and does come under "gareeb". Each jati/varna had its own issues.

He actually helped arm and prepare (physically and psychologically) people at lower ends of the socia strata to fight and overthrow those at the more conservative entrenched end (from which he himself descended!) People who descend from similar backgrounds play this down or engage in obfuscation on this point for obvious reasons.

Guru ji was certainly no conservative to the existing social orders. Be they political or social.

A few thougts on this theme of caste and tradition

1. Guru Sahib recruited almost completely from kshatriya clans. The Panj Pyarey all belonged to Kshatriya clans (and they also possessed the kshatriya spirit). He also talks about how caste roles weren't being followed. e.g. the Kshatriya were now involved in trading and other professions. They were becoming Vaishya. We know that the Panj Pyarey were involved in these professions and were not Kshatriya at the time of recruitment. See the Caste hierarchy thread where I elaborate on this.

Reminds me of this scene from 300 ...the Spartan kshatriya tradition.

2. And two, he declared and emphasized his own Suryavanshi kshatriya clan. He traces his lineage back to the first suryavanshi kshatriya/king. Then to Dashrath then Shri Ram to His sons to the Bedi and Sodhi clans to which our Gurus belong to.

3. He performs and encourages all the rituals of the Shakat kshatriyas (those who worship devi) of the time. Which include but are not limited to the following:

A. He performs a yagya to Chandi/Devi at Naina Devi.

B. He worships weapons (being the symbolic form of Devi) and tells his Singhs to do the same (this is why you see/bow to weapons at some (not all) Indian gurudwaras today).

C. He writes or compiles epics of Chandi/ Devi, and not just once...

D. It's because he worships her (Her). If the above doesn't make that clear this should: ਤਹ ਹਮ ਅਧਿਕ ਤਪਸਿਆ ਸਾਧੀ ॥ ਮਹਾਕਾਲ ਕਾਲਿਕਾ ਅਰਾਧੀ ॥੨॥ There I mediated intensely on the great death Kalka (devi) (note: ਅਰਾਧੀ is referring to a female god). It should also become clear at the start of Chaubis Avtaar, where he declares his allegiance to her. Also he says Prithm Bhagauti simar kai, (Guru Sahib says) I meditate on the Primal Bhagauti, and so on.

E. He gave everyone in his army the last name of Singh, which is only carried by kshatriyas of the Shakat religion/tradition. Singh is the vehicle of Devi, and this is why the kshatriyas that worship Devi are known as Singhs. This view is confirmed in Sarbloh Granth, and by my friend Jaikaara, whose ancestors are Shakat, Kshatriya and Rajputs.

...

N. He sends some of his sikhs to study the vedas and puranas and to immerse themselves in tradition.

, etc

I think that sums up point 3. All these things are rather traditional. He is following a more traditional approach than you think. Obviously Guru Sahib was his own creative person. That comes into play with some of the decisions he makes and things he does. But I would argue he is rooted in this Shakat kshatriya tradition.

Edited October 30, 2013 by BhagatSingh

[dalsingh101]

^^

Some interesting notions. Let me reflect on them for a bit before I respond.

[Singh123456777]

Ok lol this is going to go on forever... I am younger so I'll just go ahead.

Let's start:

Going over that passage by Ganda Singh, I find I don't really have any issues with it. In the way I understand things, it's fine. it applies quite well in the context of the atyachaar that Mughals were doing.

But I do raise an eyebrow on some of the things you state:

Evidence?

This is not mainstream or sugarcoated I'll give you that.

Evidence?

This isn't either but the following are:

emancipator from tyranny - yes

specifically mughal atyachaar - yes

caste oppression - no, i am assume it is "Brahmin oppressing others" you are talking about? Well the fact that Brahmins themselves lived in poverty, should rule out any such assertions.

Everyone from the chaar varna can and does come under "gareeb". Each jati/varna had its own issues.

A few thougts on this theme of caste and tradition

1. Guru Sahib recruited almost completely from kshatriya clans. The Panj Pyarey all belonged to Kshatriya clans (and they also possessed the kshatriya spirit). He also talks about how caste roles weren't being followed. e.g. the Kshatriya were now involved in trading and other professions. They were becoming Vaishya. We know that the Panj Pyarey were involved in these professions and were not Kshatriya at the time of recruitment. See the Caste hierarchy thread where I elaborate on this.

Reminds me of this scene from 300 ...the Spartan kshatriya tradition.

2. And two, he declared and emphasized his own Suryavanshi kshatriya clan. He traces his lineage back to the first suryavanshi kshatriya/king. Then to Dashrath then Shri Ram to His sons to the Bedi and Sodhi clans to which our Gurus belong to.

3. He performs and encourages all the rituals of the Shakat kshatriyas (those who worship devi) of the time. Which include but are not limited to the following:

A. He performs a yagya to Chandi/Devi at Naina Devi.

B. He worships weapons (being the symbolic form of Devi) and tells his Singhs to do the same (this is why you see/bow to weapons at some (not all) Indian gurudwaras today).

C. He writes or compiles epics of Chandi/ Devi, and not just once...

D. It's because he worships her (Her). If the above doesn't make that clear this should: ਤਹ ਹਮ ਅਧਿਕ ਤਪਸਿਆ ਸਾਧੀ ॥ ਮਹਾਕਾਲ ਕਾਲਿਕਾ ਅਰਾਧੀ ॥੨॥ There I mediated intensely on the great death Kalka (devi) (note: ਅਰਾਧੀ is referring to a female god). It should also become clear at the start of Chaubis Avtaar, where he declares his allegiance to her. Also he says Prithm Bhagauti simar kai, (Guru Sahib says) I meditate on the Primal Bhagauti, and so on.

E. He gave everyone in his army the last name of Singh, which is only carried by kshatriyas of the Shakat religion/tradition. Singh is the vehicle of Devi, and this is why the kshatriyas that worship Devi are known as Singhs. This view is confirmed in Sarbloh Granth, and by my friend Jaikaara, whose ancestors are Shakat, Kshatriya and Rajputs.

...

N. He sends some of his sikhs to study the vedas and puranas and to immerse themselves in tradition.

, etc

I think that sums up point 3. All these things are rather traditional. He is following a more traditional approach than you think. Obviously Guru Sahib was his own creative person. That comes into play with some of the decisions he makes and things he does. But I would argue he is rooted in this Shakat kshatriya tradition.

Are you trying to say guru ji worshiped a Devi?

[chatanga1]

A few thougts on this theme of caste and tradition

1. Guru Sahib recruited almost completely from kshatriya clans. The Panj Pyarey all belonged to Kshatriya clans (and they also possessed the kshatriya spirit). He also talks about how caste roles weren't being followed. e.g. the Kshatriya were now involved in trading and other professions. They were becoming Vaishya. We know that the Panj Pyarey were involved in these professions and were not Kshatriya at the time of recruitment. See the Caste hierarchy thread where I elaborate on this.

2. And two, he declared and emphasized his own Suryavanshi kshatriya clan. He traces his lineage back to the first suryavanshi kshatriya/king. Then to Dashrath then Shri Ram to His sons to the Bedi and Sodhi clans to which our Gurus belong to.

3. He performs and encourages all the rituals of the Shakat kshatriyas (those who worship devi) of the time. Which include but are not limited to the following:

A. He performs a yagya to Chandi/Devi at Naina Devi.

B. He worships weapons (being the symbolic form of Devi) and tells his Singhs to do the same (this is why you see/bow to weapons at some (not all) Indian gurudwaras today).

C. He writes or compiles epics of Chandi/ Devi, and not just once...

D. It's because he worships her (Her). If the above doesn't make that clear this should: ਤਹ ਹਮ ਅਧਿਕ ਤਪਸਿਆ ਸਾਧੀ ॥ ਮਹਾਕਾਲ ਕਾਲਿਕਾ ਅਰਾਧੀ ॥੨॥ There I mediated intensely on the great death Kalka (devi) (note: ਅਰਾਧੀ is referring to a female god). It should also become clear at the start of Chaubis Avtaar, where he declares his allegiance to her. Also he says Prithm Bhagauti simar kai, (Guru Sahib says) I meditate on the Primal Bhagauti, and so on.

E. He gave everyone in his army the last name of Singh, which is only carried by kshatriyas of the Shakat religion/tradition. Singh is the vehicle of Devi, and this is why the kshatriyas that worship Devi are known as Singhs. This view is confirmed in Sarbloh Granth, and by my friend Jaikaara, whose ancestors are Shakat, Kshatriya and Rajputs.

...

N. He sends some of his sikhs to study the vedas and puranas and to immerse themselves in tradition.

, etc

I think that sums up point 3. All these things are rather traditional. He is following a more traditional approach than you think. Obviously Guru Sahib was his own creative person. That comes into play with some of the decisions he makes and things he does. But I would argue he is rooted in this Shakat kshatriya tradition.

where are you getting your info from ?

1. washermen/dhobi, barbers/nai are not from khashatriya clans. they are shudras. i cant remember the other pyarey's castes, but there was one khatri. He is the only one who you can say was of khashatriya clan.

i wont bother with anymore, seeing as your first point was so weak.

Are you trying to say guru ji worshiped a Devi?

i think thats what he is trying to say.

Edited October 31, 2013 by chatanga1

[dalsingh101]

I've known you for a while now, and I know you are intelligent and talented, but straight up - your laziness in familiarising yourself with important Sikh source material shows - and makes it feel like one is talking to an amateur sometimes. It's a bit tiring bro.

Be better than that dude.

I said: It appears as if Guru ji had no problem with the occasional disciplinary 'beating' as per Sewa Das, where someone who repeatedly read bani wrong was beaten by Sikhs (who went overboard).

You replied: Evidence? This is not mainstream or sugarcoated I'll give you that.

Do you think I made it up or something?

Check out sakhis 39 and 40 here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55483136/Episodes-From-Lives-of-the-Gurus-English-translation-of-Sewa-Das-s-parchian

Dally: We know as per BN, that Guru ji banned/removed pacifists and cowards who failed to fight against the hill chiefs from Anandpur after the battles.

Bhagat: Evidence? This isn't either but the following are:

ਜੁਧ ਜੀਤ ਆਏ ਜਬੈ ਟਿਕੈ ਨ ਤਿਨ ਪੁਰ ਪਾਂਵ ॥

When I returned after victory, I did not remain at Paonta.



ਕਾਹਲੂਰ ਮੈਂ ਬਾਂਧਿਯੋ ਆਨ ਆਨੰਦਪੁਰ ਗਾਂਵ ॥੩੬॥


I came to Kahlur and established the village Anandpur.36.



ਜੇ ਜੇ ਨਰ ਤਹ ਨ ਭਿਰੇ ਦੀਨੇ ਨਗਰ ਨਿਕਾਰ ॥


Those, who did not join the forces, were turned out from the town.



ਜੇ ਤਿਹ ਠਉਰ ਭਲੇ ਭਿਰੇ ਤਿਨੈ ਕਰੀ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਪਾਰ ॥੩੭॥

And those who fought bravely were patronized by me 37.

Your other points are flimsy but require more attention to unpack. I have to find various references but I have an exam on Tuesday, so I don't know if I can do it before then.

In the meanwhile try and familiarise yourself with Sikh source material better!

Edited October 31, 2013 by dalsingh101

[Singh123456777]

Bhagat singh is probably some santanist who thinks anything with bhagouti or Chandi etc has to be about Hindu stuff.Also the you said and wrote the tuk from bachitar natak wrong.Sant baba nihal singh gave a good explanation on it.

[Singh123456777]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GJo9-2nvmSI

Watch the full video.

[Singh123456777]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sVnGu_KzWGI

Watch the full video as well.

[BhagatSingh]

where are you getting your info from ?

1. washermen/dhobi, barbers/nai are not from khashatriya clans. they are shudras. i cant remember the other pyarey's castes, but there was one khatri. He is the only one who you can say was of khashatriya clan.

i wont bother with anymore, seeing as your first point was so weak.

Chatanga then just focus on this point for the moment.

What was happening to warriors back then was that during times of peace they would be out of work. Being householders with large families to take care of, they carried a huge responsibility. But during peacetime no one really needs warriors and so they were not paid. In order to continue to make a living they took up another profession. Many of them took the professions you mention, but most of them got involved in trade and business. Ie the profession of the Vaishya. As time progressed many of them didn't return to being a warrior. And they stayed with their new profession.

And Guru sahib describes this in Bachittar Natak, this he says is what happened with the Bedi and Sodhi clans and says that this was happening to other clans as well.

ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥

दोहरा ॥

DOHRA

ਬਿਪ੍ਰ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਬੈਸਨ ਕਰਮ ॥

बिप्र करत भए सूद्र ब्रिति छत्री बैसन करम ॥

The Brahmins acted like Shudras and Kshatriyas like Vaishyas.

ਬੈਸ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਛਤ੍ਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਸੁ ਦਿਜ ਕੋ ਧਰਮ ॥੨॥

बैस करत भए छत्रि ब्रिति सूद्र सु दिज को धरम ॥२॥

The Vaishyas started ruling like Kshatriyas and Shudras performed the priestly duties of Brahmins.2.

Anyways coming back to Panj Pyarey, they were all Kshatriya. Their ancestors had taken up other professions to continue to make a living during times of peace.

Dharam Das' ancestors turned to farming.

Himmat Chand Kahar's ancestors turned to trading.

Mohkam Chand's ancestors turned to cloth printing.

Daya Ram's ancestors also turned to trade.

Sahib Chand's ancestors became barbers.

Das, Chand and Ram are all Kshatriya clans.

Edited November 1, 2013 by BhagatSingh

[BhagatSingh]

Singh123456777

Are you trying to say guru ji worshiped a Devi?

Hmm i think the best way to describe it would be if Waheguru is a male half then Devi is the other female half. Often times we just say Waheguru to mean both male and female, or neither male and female, one who is beyond masculine and feminine. In Dasam Granth the masculine and the feminine have been talked about at length separately, and as a whole. So Guru Sahib worships Waheguru but also expands on it. He starts with Waheguru in Jaap Sahib, as a whole. Then in Akal ustat there is a split. And so on. He describes various qualities and such other writings, largely through stories.

Does that make sense?

Edited November 1, 2013 by BhagatSingh

[Singh123456777]

Waheguru is the male and female.ਸੁੰਦਰੁ ਸੁਘੜੁ ਚਤੁਰੁ ਜੀਅ ਦਾਤਾ ॥

सुंदरु सुघड़ु चतुरु जीअ दाता ॥

Sunḏar sugẖaṛ cẖaṯur jī▫a ḏāṯā.

He is Beautiful, All-knowing, the most Clever, the Giver of life.

ਭਾਈ ਪੂਤੁ ਪਿਤਾ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਮਾਤਾ ॥੩॥

भाई पूतु पिता प्रभु माता ॥३॥

Bẖā▫ī pūṯ piṯā parabẖ māṯā. ||3||

God is my Brother, Son, Father and Mother. ||3||

Here waheguru is both male and female.