Charitropakhyan Charitropakhyan - Written By Guru Gobind Singh Ji?

[Tejwant Singh]

If one does not search and contemplate then how we all will be able to find what is right or wrong. anyone who reads dasam granth tries to analyze it if he has any brain or mind for it. those who have not even seen dg are calling others arrogant. get into dg and find out and contemplate in your mind who is arrogant and who is a saint. here i am the one answering dg and i have two persons with two different views about what i said. i am sure you have not seen or understood dg. read it and them blame someone else if you can put up some effort and argument
next subject is sggs and banis in it. if you read it seriously, you will find a certain rightam to it and certain belief in it and one line of thought. Guru Gobind singh has one stanza in sggs page 1429 in saloks and that fits in that ritham and rime. that is why he put it there. many people brought their potery to put in sggs and many of them were rejected because their poetry did not rime with sggs . so is guru Gobind singh's own bani

Swarn ji,

Guru Fateh.

Is your above post directed towards someone in particular?

 

[Kully]

i am sure you have not seen or understood dg.

Sir, i certainly haven't read or understood it to a level that I wish I had, so that is why I would trouble you for some answers, you already having travelled that difficult terrain.

I do find it odd that Hindus would use vachitar natak as any basis for a serial to prove that the Sikhs are Hindus. I find it even odder that any Sikh would feel threatened by this. Going back in our history the majority of Sikhs were Hindus, as were the majority of Muslims. We won't become any more Hindu because the author of vachitar natak has said that the Guru's descended from Hindu royal houses any more than the Muslims will become Hindus by saying some years back their ancestors were Hindus.

 

[Kully]

If one does not search and contemplate then how we all will be able to find what is right or wrong.

As the topic concerning "faults" in DG has been closed, maybe it would be more appropriate to look at the charitars in this topic, as it is specifically a Charitropakhyan topic.

The other topic was closed just as we were about to look at some charitars. Harkiran Ji had already shared some screenshots of some of the text. Let's have alook at it in a little more detail.

Harkiran Ji, would you like to share the complete story of the text you had shared and we can have a look at it?

 

[Admin]

Dear all, it would be a good idea to start new threads for every charitar in this section, rather than bumping old discussions. Individual threads on a selected charitar would invite for a more focused discussion.

Thank you

 

[Kully]

Thanks Amdin Ji, will wait for Harkiran Ji to select a charitar and open a thread on that.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Kully Ji I find it really funny that only 2 months ago you claimed to not know much about Dasam Granth or Charitropakhyan when discussion with Swarn Bains Ji, but now only two months later you are making claims that those of us who disagree with guru Ji being author, are wrong with interpretation (that includes Swarn Bains Ji who you alluded to knowing less than only two months ago). Re-read this thread...it seems you came here with an agenda that started several months ago with Swarn Bains Ji.

How does one become an expert in interpretation on Charitropakhyan in only 2 months?

And anyway a good point was made in the other thread, if there is a hidden meaning behind Charitropakhyan which equals meanings and ideas in SGGSJ then why the need to present them at all? If there are new ideas not found in SGGSJ then you are suggesting SGGSJ is somehow not our complete Guru. But if it's the same ideas found in SGGSJ why the need to present it again... And that too using a method that degrades women (outwardly) especially if Guru Ji did not think of women as lowly? Certainly there would have been a better way to present those ideas without denigrating women? (That is if you believe in those hidden ideas you presented) but why present them at all if SGGSJ contains all the knowledge we need as Sikhs? Are you saying that SGGSJ is somehow incomplete? And one can not simply ignore the outward meanings presented in the charitars. If you want proof look at some things those like Chaupa Singh said about women!

 

[Kully]

Kully Ji I find it really funny that only 2 months ago you claimed to not know much about Dasam Granth or Charitropakhyan when discussion with Swarn Bains Ji,

Why do you find it funny? I find your study and analysis of Charitropakhyan very basic and disappointing based on the answers you gave and the answer you wouldn't give. But I didn't find it funny at all.

but now only two months later you are making claims that those of us who disagree with guru Ji being author, are wrong with interpretation

Yes, I find it quite a shame that in two months I was able to give you more information about Charitropakhyan than you were able to give after how many months of study?

I mean you have read the WHOLE text, I have only got round to the beginning of the text.

How does one become an expert in interpretation on Charitropakhyan in only 2 months?

An expert? Who is using the label "expert"? don't claim to be. You claim to know everything about DG.

If there are new ideas not found in SGGSJ then you are suggesting SGGSJ is somehow not our complete Guru.

Is SGGS a "complete" Guru?

But if it's the same ideas found in SGGSJ why the need to present it again...

The same ideas are repeated over and over again in SGGS. In DG some of these ideas are given more substance in an entirely different setting.

And that too using a method that degrades women (outwardly) especially if Guru Ji did not think of women as lowly?

It doesn't degrade women though. If you had understood the text you had read, you would know why. But seeing as you couldn't fathom the background to the text, why not re-look at the text again? What are you afraid of?

Certainly there would have been a better way to present those ideas

SGGS has also used certain words of female person to present ideas. Are you saying that there are better ways to present those ideas?

but why present them at all if SGGSJ contains all the knowledge we need as Sikhs?

So if SGGS contains all the knowledge why do you "beleive" in certain parts of DG? Are you not saying that SGGS is insufficient in knowledge by also taking knowledge from parts of DG?

Are you saying that SGGSJ is somehow incomplete?

See above response.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Why do you find it funny? I find your study and analysis of Charitropakhyan very basic and disappointing based on the answers you gave and the answer you wouldn't give. But I didn't find it funny at all.

No you just have an agenda and find anything anyone else tells you as wrong.

Yes, I find it quite a shame that in two months I was able to give you more information about Charitropakhyan than you were able to give after how many months of study?

Your information is wishful thinking and opinion only

An expert? Who is using the label "expert"? don't claim to be. You claim to know everything about DG.

I never made that claim. However the outward literal meaning is very very apparent without needing to study it, anyone can tell you its demeaning to women.

Is SGGS a "complete" Guru?

Guru Gobind Singh Ji passed guruship to SGGSJ ONLY and further he told us to NOT HAVE any other Guru - even Taksalis who hold DG in high esteem their own Rehet Maryada says straight out to NOT BOW to any other as Guru! If you do not consider SGGSJ as your only Guru then you are going directly against what Guru Gobind Singh Ji instructed!

The same ideas are repeated over and over again in SGGS. In DG some of these ideas are given more substance in an entirely different setting.

I'll ask again, since all the knowledge we need is already contained in SGGSJ and Guru Gobind Singh Ji HIMSELF told us to consider NO OTHER as Guru then why exactly do we need the same ideas, presented in an entirely different setting ( that setting being derragatory and demeaning to women)??????

It doesn't degrade women though. If you had understood the text you had read, you would know why. But seeing as you couldn't fathom the background to the text, why not re-look at the text again? What are you afraid of?

I have read it and many charitars I have read numerous times. You claimed two months ago to not know anything and now because you read some document describing some big hidden meaning (yes I also read the analysis article which explains those hidden meanings but I don't agree with it). Now since you read presumably some article you are now parroting it back acting like what you read is right? Without going into any hidden meanings which are disputed the outward literal text very much degrades women! And you know why!!!!

SGGS has also used certain words of female person to present ideas. Are you saying that there are better ways to present those ideas?

The metaphors in SGGSJ are straight forward. Soul bride to husband lord concept even though it says God is both genders and is the actor behind every character. Marriage was used as a metaphor because it's the closest relationship we have where two can unite as one. The metaphor analogy does not hold in relation to Charitropakhyan as if you try to say female is all humans then are we begging Waheguru to put his p---s inside us? Or are we murdering our babies to appease a second God of some sort and then killing God too when he finds out? You can't apply it to very descriptive stories. A metaphor doesn't go that deeply and other lines in the shabads come out and say what the context is of the shabad so you KNOW what the context is unlike charitropakhyan which instead says things like men should never trust women etc.

So if SGGS contains all the knowledge why do you "beleive" in certain parts of DG? Are you not saying that SGGS is insufficient in knowledge by also taking knowledge from parts of DG?

Certain shabads I have to because I am bound by Rehet Maryada. Let's just go that far. There have been many scholars who came to conclusion only about 50 pages of DG can be attributed to Guru Gobind Singh Ji and because of SRM I am bound to respect them. However I don't believe they are necessary for us as SGGSJ has everything we need to know, is our ONLY Guru and Guru Gobind Singj Ji himself told us to consider no other (not even his own writing) as Guru.

 

[Kully]

I never made that claim.

You were the one who claimed that DG was full of karamkand and full of hinduism etc. Like only you had understood and everyone else in the panth were wrong for 300 years.

Why didn't you respond to the quotes I put from DG asking you if Hindus could have written that?

Guru Gobind Singh Ji passed guruship to SGGSJ ONLY

Prove it.

I'll ask again, since all the knowledge we need is already contained in SGGSJ

So if all knowledge is SGGS why follow any rehat maryada outside of SGGS?

Does SGGS ask you take khande ki pahul?

I have read it and many charitars I have read numerous times.

Well in that case, you have just been parroting the reading. Without understanding it is of little use.

I'll ask you another question about the text.

What do the names that we are given in the introductory stories (2-5) mean?

You claimed two months ago to not know anything and now because you read some document describing some big hidden meaning

Yes, it's called reading and understanding. It took me 2 months to read up 4, yes 4 different versions of the introduction to Charitropakhyan. And even then it was apparent what Guru Sahib was looking to do.

What have you read? i asked you this and you refused to answer.

What are you afraid of?

Now since you read presumably some article you are now parroting it back acting like what you read is right?

Where did your "1973 hukumnama" lies come from? An article on sikiwiki.

You falsely portrayed it as a hukumnama.

You haven't been able to show us the letter, even though you have placed your full faith in it.

I don't even think it exists!

The metaphors in SGGSJ are straight forward.

Ok. So when Guru Nanak talks about womens breasts and nipples, what is that a metaphor for?

Certain shabads I have to because I am bound by Rehet Maryada.

This flummoxes me.

So you are certainly untrue to yourself! Because you don't have the belief in your heart but outwardly profess because you are bound to! What a lie you are living then!

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

You know what I'm done its obvious you are only here with an agenda and want to push your own opinion. Your interpretation is just that your opinion. And the whole Panth for 300 years? Haha you were the one who said barely any Sikhs even know about DG lol. I showed how none of the references you are using are reliable sources. So onus is on you to prove to us that Guru Gobind Singh Ji did write that woman hating piece of text. You can't. All you can do is keep referring to the same unreliable sources as if they are true. (Saying we have to use what we have) but I disagree we should not just blindly accept any writing that surfaces as being true. We need to look at circumstances, history of the sources, whether the so called evidence is just circumstantial or not, the language and inflexions used, other evidence like pen names etc.) I have brought all of the above into it, while you keep going back to one source... Mehma Prakash and that too blindly accepting that one source.

I am not interested in arguing with someone who thinks they know everything and has an agenda.

And if you think We should not see SGGSJ as our only Guru then that is where I am done interacting with you.

 

[japjisahib04]

Ok. So when Guru Nanak talks about womens breasts and nipples, what is that a metaphor for?

Kully Jee
I can see your desperation to prove DG is authored by Guru Gobind Singh, but please do not stoop so low to compare female attributes with the stories of immoral sex and homosex. Gurbani is for self introsepection and is addressed as a first person to myself.

 

[Ishna]

I reiterate Admin Singh Ji's post #24. A more fruitful discussion may be had by discussing the charitras individually. Threads that continue to descend into 1:1 back-and-forth personally at each other aren't helping anyone learn.

Thread closed.