Because at that time, this granth was not known as Dasam Granth. In this book it is refered to as Bachitar Natak mainly, which was the common name for it in those times. This Granth only became widely known as Dasam Granth in the 1890s.
Bansavalinama Bansawalinama In Regards To Dasam Granth
- Thread starter Kully
- Start date
- Replies 44
- Reads 17K
- Status
Because at that time, this granth was not known as Dasam Granth. In this book it is refered to as Bachitar Natak mainly, which was the common name for it in those times. This Granth only became widely known as Dasam Granth in the 1890s.
- Jul 20, 2012
- 1,393
- 1,921
And you can prove it is the same granth how?
Just like numerous scholars claim only certain parts are from Guru Gobind Singh Ji (including scholars from 1800s) so the references could have been referring to those, while other parts like Charitropakhyan were added later on. Their opinions must also be taken into consideration using your own criteria. Then anyone can write whatever the heck they want and we have to consider everything in front of us right?
Wrong. When there is a good chance we are being presented something which was fabricated in order to bring Sikhi back to Hindu fold, we must decide if the sources we are using to support that ends, are reliable and truthful or not or else we will fall for the trickery and become victims. That being a book which seems to support Hindu Brahminical beliefs, can not be used as a reliable source to support a granth which is filled with Hindu Brahminical ideals like worshipping Hindu Deities, and treatment of women in accordance with philosophy of laws of manu etc. as being from our Guru, when these things go against gurmat principles.
In deciding whether or not an author is reliable we must decide if firstly their beliefs are in accordance with Sikh values, and not Hindu values. Otherwise anything they write can be considered bias.
I am not posting any more since you won't answer my questions which are VERY pertinent to chhiber being considered a reliable source.
The point is, you can't take someone who has known brahminical beliefs (such as casteism and belief in Hindu sacred thread) in a time when Hindu agents were known to be trying to abolish Sikhi, and use that person as an 'expert' to suggest a granth (which coincidentally contains a ton of hindu brahminical content) is writing of our Guru, especially when that content goes against gurmat principles as espoused in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
There are many Sikh scholars who place doubt on authors such as Chhiber. Here is one such opinion:
Sohan Singh Seetal - “Writing of Kesar Singh Chhiber is totally influenced by the Hindu credo. Mannu Simriti’s influence is especially strong on his intellect. Contrary to Guru Gobind Singh’s dictum, ‘regard mankind as one egalitarian race’, he believes Brahmin caste to be superior to others. Just, because he belongs to Brahmin caste, he claims himself to be superior.”
Oh but it gets much worse!!!
Also shedding doubt on what chhiber mentions:
Quoted from Sardar Baldev Singh Ji
"Sixty-one years after the death of Guru Gobind Singh, Kesar Singh Chibber in his Bansavalinama (Punjabi) (1769) mentions Bachittar Natak. He quotes from chapter 6 of the Bachittar Natak he had, a different version of Apni Katha (autobiography) which is found in chapter 6 of the current version of Bachittar Natak. His version does not have the first five stanzas of the current version and he does not call it Apni Katha [20].
About four decades later, John Malcolm mentions in his Sketch of the Sikhs published in 1812 that “Vichitra Natac” is a part of “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” [21]. And he quotes the translation of first four stanzas of the current Apni Katha starting with: “I now declare my own history and the multifarious austerities which I have performed [22].” This shows that Chibber’s Bachittar Natak is different from Maclolm’s Vachitra Natac.
However, Malcolm makes no mention of the other contents of “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth”. It seems that Kesar Singh Chibber was not aware of “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” otherwise he would have mentioned it in Bansavalinama. On the other hand Malcolm had access to the spurious “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” which was being compiled under the name of Guru Gobind Singh. Its contents were slowly introduced to the Sikh community under a well-planned scheme in the nineteenth century through Udasis and Nirmalas who were the mahants and pujaris (priests) of Gurdwaras and Dharamsalas. And there were 32 different versions of “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” floating in Punjab in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. It is only after the “Sodhak Committee” report of 1897 that the modern version “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” edited from the 32 different versions was published under the title of Dasam Granth [23]."
So its obvious that whatever Chhiber was referring to was different content than what is contained in current so called dasam granth. He continues on:
"Although, Kesar Singh Chibber does not say who authored the Bachittar Natak he had or from where he got it, but he has left enough fingerprints that make a compelling suggestion/case that Bachittar Natak is the work of the same mindset that produced Puranic literature. Like Puranas, Bachittar Natak is also full of Brahmanical ceremonies, formalities, beliefs, unbelievable and chimerical tales and lies.
In his analysis of Bansavalinama, commenting on Chibber’s views about Guru Gobind Singh, Khalsa and Khalsa rule, Surjit Hans says: That the Khatris are rivals to the Gurus and the Muslims as their persecutors had no place in Sikhism. The low-castes are inherently disqualified. Thus, the Sikh rule should have been brought into existence to uphold Brahmins and Brahminism. According to Chibber, Guru Gobind Singh created the Panth to escape personal responsibility for the destruction of Turks. Guru Gobind Singh fell short of King Bikramajit when he failed to sacrifice his own person before the Goddess [38].
Hans is quite right as in the narrative of chapter 10 (charan 10) of Bansavalinama Guru Gobind Singh is a minor player; the creation of Khalsa seems to be a Brahman affair. Chibber talks about the prominent role his ancestors played in the Sikh movement and it was Cibber’s ancestors who suggested to Guru Gobind Singh how to prepare the holy water for Khande Dee pahul. [???!!!] There is long dialogue between Guru Gobind Singh and various Brahmans who were brought from different parts of India to make Goddess Kali/Kalka appear. The Goddess also intervenes in the dialogue occasionally, at one place telling Guru Gobind Singh that I crown you as my son and I give you the mandate to protect the dharama and destroy the demons. Here is a small excerpt from that dialogue:
I am crowning you as my son. I have created you to promulgate a panth. Go there to spread dharama and to stop people from straying from the path of dharama. Kalka said, “Do what I say. Do not fight among yourself. You create your panth to destroy those demons.
Then Chibber makes Guru Gobind Singh attest to this mandate from Goddess Kalka.
ieh kwrin pRB moih pTwieE [ qb mY jgiq jnmu Dir AwieE [
It is for this reason that god sent me. Then I took birth to come to the world.
Bansavalinama, chapter 10, p 134."
So how can we take Chhiber as a reliable source when his Brahminical Hindu influence is blatantly obvious and makes such bold statements about Guru Gobind Singh Ji? Chhiber suggests his OWN family lineage are the ones who suggested the idea of creation of the Khalsa to Guru Gobind Singh Ji, and describes it through Brahminical lens!
It needs to be pointed out here that the Brahmans used the word dharama for Brahmanism (Varana Ashrama Dhrama) and the word daint (demon) for Muslims.
He goes on telling chimerical anecdotes one after another for example: Emperor Aurangzeb metamorphosed into a parrot and flew to Mecca to fetch a berry in order impress Guru Gobind Singh with his spiritual prowess. But he could not do that as Guru Gobind Singh also appeared there under the berry tree with slingshot in his hand.
Aurangzeb metamorphosed into a parrot and flew to Mecca. Guru Gobind Singh followed him with slingshot in hand. Whenever the parrot approached the tree to pluck a berry, Guru Gobind Singh shot a mud ball at him. Thus he did not allow the parrot to pluck the berry by aiming shots at the parrot’s legs.
Further, Chibber makes a bizare claim that Prophet Mohammad’s ancestors were Brahmans and his father King Amritpal was a great scholar of Hindu scriptures. After killing his father, Mohammad started his own religion. He learned the philosophy Atharavan Veda and separated Quranic elements from the Puranas and wrote the Quran in Arabic. He asked for Shiva’s favor for the safekeeping of Quran. Shiva split the trunk of a Pipal tree in order to make a cavity for hiding the Quran.
Muslims practice the religion of deception and that is what Mohammad did too. He killed his father to usurp his kingdom. This way he became the ruler of all Arab lands. … He fought for six years and in due course of time King Amritpal died. His father taught him four Vedas, eighteen Puranas, nine systems of grammar and six schools of Hindu philosophy. … He learned the philosophy of Atharvan Veda. Skillfully, he separated the
Quranic element from Puranas. … Shiva ordered the Pipal tree to split. The Pipal tree obeyed the command and Quran was placed inside it for safekeeping.
Bansavalinama, chapter 10, pp. 167-169.
So we now have chhiber, who has a known brahmin background, making claims on both Sikhi and Islam as being related to / having Brahminical origins!?
And you still think we can trust Chhiber as being a reliable source?
You still have not answered about the quotes I posted earlier regarding supremacy of Brahmins, and wearing Hindu sacred threads.
Last edited:
The information there is enough to know what Chibber is talking about.
List some of Chibbers brahmanical beliefs, and we can take a look a them.
List DG brahmanical beliefs, and we can take a look a them.
I haven't refused to post. You have refused to answer my question whether there is anything you wish to change abut my translations. I have asked you 3 or 4 times now but you keep moving onto something else. Now you have copied and pasted another mini-essay which helps us take this discussion forward in what way?
Why are you not keeping the discussion moving in a structured way?
The Hindus were not in a postion to abolish anything.
As for Chibbers brahmanical beleifs, like I said we can take a look at them.
Who is Sohan Singh Seetal?
Please produce both scripts and let's look at them.
I am waiting for your response to my translations and whether you feel they need to be changed. Or whether you agree. Please give a response to this and we can move it on.
If you don't want to answer it's upto you, but at least for the purpose of discussion say that you don't want to answer rather than adding more and more to the topic in a way that doesn't do it any justice. Yes?
..lol..you run'in or what ? A simple yeah nay re Dasam Granth Sahib Ji also a Guru ?
..you hav'n a laugh aren't ya ! academia and spirituality ? incompatible -
..its not textual evidence, but "oral" pronouncements that underpins Sikh Faith.
Yay.
They are, but when looking at history then we can use academia.
Agree 100% but there are some textual proofs that give certain beliefs more acceptance.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
Kullyji,
Are you saying that the DG is also a living Guru like the SGGS?
Are you saying that the DG is also a living Guru like the SGGS?
- Jul 20, 2012
- 1,393
- 1,921
I am sure he falls in the camp of those who say any Bani is Guru and they consider dasam granth to be Bani therefore they consider it also to be Guru dasam Granth. In fact many call it that.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
I see, Where does the Sarbloh Granth fit in all this, this also allegedly contains writings of the tenth Guru, Kullyji, just to get some overview what are your opinions on the SG?
No.
I'll speak for myself thank you very much.
Have no knowledge of SG.
Harkiran Ji, seeing as you have nothing to add to my translations of the passages concerning DG. let's move the discussion on. It would have been good to see what you felt that passages were telling us.
Ok. let's look at these lines. @Admin Singh @Harry Haller please guide us into keeping the future posts concerning the above to these only until we have exhausted our opinions on it.
Harkiran Ji, just as I have done with my own translations, I will request that you post the page concerning the original text, and then your interpretations of it, with any further notes to help us understand in brackets.
Riders n Runners @ SPN - a very good morning !
Kully Ji, I want to thank you on two counts:
Proof is in the pudding; look here:
To me you've said, '...dasam granth sahib ji is guru' [#25, above] and to H you've said, '...dasam granth sahib ji is not a living guru like SGGSJ' [#29]. If that'd be correct then it follows that this guru, by definition, is from another planet because the Sikh Guru is the "living" shabad guru, alive n kicking 24/7 on planet Earth and alive n kicking beyond time n space and is infinitely "alive".
If I may conclude, which I've maintained from the very outset, that whilst SGGSJ is the "living" guru of the Sikh Panth, anything and everything contributing to further Sikh faith and practice will be regarded and treated as "incidental" and not "actual". This would mean, Dasam Granth Sahib Ji is incidental to SGGSJ the "GURU" of the Sikh Faith.
Thank you -
Kully Ji, I want to thank you on two counts:
- Like me, you'd like to convince jo public that pigs fly, and
- those who don't believe pigs can fly are benighted for that very reason.
Proof is in the pudding; look here:
To me you've said, '...dasam granth sahib ji is guru' [#25, above] and to H you've said, '...dasam granth sahib ji is not a living guru like SGGSJ' [#29]. If that'd be correct then it follows that this guru, by definition, is from another planet because the Sikh Guru is the "living" shabad guru, alive n kicking 24/7 on planet Earth and alive n kicking beyond time n space and is infinitely "alive".
If I may conclude, which I've maintained from the very outset, that whilst SGGSJ is the "living" guru of the Sikh Panth, anything and everything contributing to further Sikh faith and practice will be regarded and treated as "incidental" and not "actual". This would mean, Dasam Granth Sahib Ji is incidental to SGGSJ the "GURU" of the Sikh Faith.
Thank you -
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
difficult, I am just happy to see the discussion focus on non sexual matters, you say you have no agenda, and that this is just a simple discussion, but it isn't, your trying to prove that the DG is written in its entirety by the tenth master, and as such, deviation will occur, as long we as go down new roads, and not the same one that we keep going down, then it stays.
Could you clarify, as Originalji as asked, the position on DG being a Guru?
Harry Ji, all I am doing is lookng at the textual evidence before me, and analysing that. I am not trying to prove anything.
Yes but that would be better off in another topic as I wish to keep this to Bansawalinama.
What textual evidence?
Post # 1,5 and 7 Sir.
Can you tell us what did you do at this moment, 30 days ago, in complete detail?
If I needed to yes, but seeing as it's got nothing to do with Bansawalinama, I won't. Let's stick to discussing this topic please.
This is absolutely related to the topic. You said 'textual evidence' in Bansavalinama. Let us first discuss Bansavlinama as a textual evidence. My question emerges from your response. Please let us know: what did you do at this moment, 30 days ago, in complete detail?
No, because I beleive it has nothing to do with this topic.I'll say again let's keepit to Bansawalinama. Let's look at the text and discuss that only. That is what this topic is about.
Yes by looking at the text and seeing what info it gives us.
It's not a hearsay. It's first hand information that Chibber obtained from eye-witness accounts.
We could easily say that anything written after 1708 is based on hearsay if we used this.
Then how could we justify :
Asking Sikhs to take pahul, keeping kes, using fateh as greetings etc. None of these are in SGGS but we do them. Are they all based on hearsay?
OK, so if we use your method and apply this to the earliest mention of Guru Gobind Singh giving Guru Granth Sahib gurgaddi, that was over 15000 days later. Does that make it hearsay or invalidate SGGS gurgaddi as well?
1751-1708*365= 15695.
Please Sir, let's stick to the text in Bansawalinama and proceed from there. When Harikiran Ji provides the original text and her interpretation of it, we can follow that up.
Read post # 9 please Sir.
- Status
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
