"Dasam" Granth - A Look At The Core Problems

[khalsa1469]

ByGaurav Singh
Like so many other issuesthat contemporary Sikhs choose to deal with, the issue Dasam Granth is contrived and, indeed, a "red herring" (in that, it is meant to divert attention). I largely agree with Sardar I. J. Singh's take on things in his article onSikhchic.comand would like to make some further distinctions that may help separate "the wheat from the chaff."

Rather than getting into minutiae, historical or otherwise, it is sometimes more helpful to understand the basis, the fundamentals, the core, theTatof the issue under consideration. In my understanding the fundamentals under concern here are:

1) Who/what is Guru?
2) Who has the right to decide the status of what is and what is not Guru?
3) In light of the above, what is the status of the so-called Dasam Granth?

Sardar I. J. Singh has shed light upon this by exposing, quite simply, the hypocrisy practiced by those who believe in any real relation between Guru Gobind Singh and Hemkunt (as a historical GurAsthan). Of course, if Sikhs give no credence to the Hindu pilgrimages visited by Lehna ji (later became a Sikh, and then, Guru Angad) and Amar ji (later became a Sikh, and then, Guru Amar Das) in the same life which saw them first become Sikhs and then the Guru, then how can a GurSikh deign to validate an alleged previous life of Guru Gobind Singh?

The Gurmat here is that we are engaged with and get our guidance from the Guru, and the actions of Nanak II & III prior to their ascension to the status of the Guru do not have the sanction of (what I term) Guru-authority. So, any validity to an alleged previous life of Nanak X is beyond baffling and, certainly, not Gurmat.

Now back to the core. Who is the Guru?

The Guru existed prior to Guru Nanak and shall always exist, as long as there is existence, since the Guru is Shabad. This fact is also apparent because of the inclusion (within Guru Granth Sahib) of the Bani of Sheikh Farid and Bhagat Kabir, etc. who preceded Guru Nanak Sahib. Here, I shall not address the fact that there are some distinctions made by Guru Nanak I-V in reference to “Bhagat” Bani.

At this time, I should make clear the distinction between Guru and, what I term, Guru-authority. When Guru Nanak sanctioned Guru Angad as the Guru going forward, he himself lived for some time thereafter. No sane person would suggest that the Guru within Guru Nanak suddenly left him and went into Bhai Lehna. When Guru Angad becomes Guru it does not mean that Guru Nanak is not Guru. Guriai is not a zero-sum game. Rather, it is akin to a Jot (en)light(en)ing another Jot.

Therefore, what Guru Nanak passed onto Bhai Lehna was the Guru-authority. Bhai Lehna was, in fact, indistinguishable from Guru Nanak, hence his Ang(ad). What they had in common was the enlightenment from Shabad Guru!

So, at the same time in 1539 CE existed Guru Angad Sahib (Guru-authority) and Guru Nanak. In a smaller sense this could be understood through the concept of Presidency in the United States. Barack Obama is the President, while George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush and Carter are also Presidents. All but Obama, however, are not charged with the authority to make executive decisions for the 50 states in the union.

The difference here is that the de jure authority for Presidents is conferred by the constitution and, loosely speaking, by the people. Whereas, the Guru-authority is conferred upon Guru Nanak by the 1 and this authority is further recognized by the people with the ability to make that distinction – the Sikhs (and I would distinguish them from the “Sikhs”, for instance, Sain Mian Mir was a Sikh of the Shabad Guru, yet not a “Sikh”). The de facto and moral charge of the Guru is given by the people whose commitment is to themselves be transformed by theMatof the Guru.

The transfer of Guru-authority continued 9 more times when it came to Guru Gobind Singh. It was Guru Gobind Singh’s charge, as it was of every Guru-authority before him, to decide what is and what is not Guru(bani). With this established, I shall point out a fact:

Not every word communicated by the Guru-authority, whether spoken or written, is Gurbani or Guru!

For instance, if the Guru (Nanak I-X) asked a mundane question – the address to someone’s home – it is not Gurbani. Only that which the Guru confers with the status of Gurbani is such. This is obvious, yet clearly not understood by many.

There is not a single word of Nanak VI-VIII in what was to become Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji). Of course, in their lifetime each Guru Sahiban spoke and, no doubt, wrote words.

But mere words, no matter how powerful, do not Gurbani make!

Word(s) becomes Shabad Guru, only when it is given such status by the Guru-authority.

But more relevant to our issue, Guru Gobind Singh (who completed the authorship of what was to be Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji) consciously chose to include Guru Tegh Bahadar Sahib’s Bani and also made a conscious decision not to include any of his own Bani within Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

I ask for your patience in looking at further implications and urge the readers to keep their emotional responses and mental discomfort in check as they read on.

Whether one word or the entire so-called Dasam Granth is written by Guru Gobind Singh Sahib himself, it isnotGurbani or Shabad Guru, on its own. The Guru himself decided that by not including a single word of his own within Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

So, are the supporters of the “Dasam” Granth then challenging the Guru by conferring the status of Gurbani to parts of the so-called Dasam Granth? Yes and No!

Yes:Because of the pervasive ignorance of the reasoning above, on its face – Yes, these “Sikhs” are in a way challenging the Guru’s decision. They are doing so under the garb of Sharda (faith), which is in fact Anni Sharda (blind faith). They claim to do so out of respect for the Guru. I say claim, because they do not respect the Guru sufficiently enough to accept the Guru’s Hukam.

Before I get to the "No", I want to clarify another matter. Just as Guru-authority was passed from Nanak I - X, in 1699 CE Guru Gobind Singh (Nanak X) passed Guru-authority to the Guru Khalsa Panth, when after administering the Khande-ki-Pahul to the Panj Piare he asked them to initiate him into the Panth Khalsa. At that moment, the Guru-authority was passed onto the Guru Khalsa Panth. Hence, by the reasoning presented above, the supporters of the so-called Dasam Granth may not be directly opposing the Guru.

No:Since, in part, the status of Gurbani or Shabad Guru can be conferred only by the Guru-authority, the Guru Khalsa Panth does presumably have the authority to confer the status of Gurbani or Shabad Guru. This is where some complexity arises.

The Guru Khalsa Panth, drafted a widely circulated document, the final draft of which, has henceforth been accepted as the “Sikh Rehit Mariada” and published by several organizations, including the SGPC’s Dharam Parchar Committee. In it are some Banis which are included in the Nitnem – Jaap, Sawaiye, and a carefully chosen portion of Chaupai. No other portion of the writings within the so-called Dasam Granth has been included in the Panthic Rehit, with the exception of portions in the beginning of the formal Ardas and the previously mentioned Bani as a part of Amrit Sanskar, or during administration of the Khande-ki-Pahul (initiation into the Khalsa collective).

The folks, whom I shall refer to as the ominous “they” going forward, who are now forwarding the legitimacy of the so-called Dasam Granth and some of whom are displaying it in parallel with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji are also generally opposed to the Panthic Rehit Mariada. They have two problems and neither of these problems is insubstantial.

If they say they call the writings within the so-called Dasam Granth "Gurbani" because they claim it is, in part or wholly, Guru Gobind Singh’s, then they dismiss the Guru’s own decision and Hukam that only that which is within Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is sanctioned by the Guru-authority as Shabad Guru or Gurbani. These people becomeGuru-dokhi(Detractors of the Guru)!

The other issue is that the Guru Khalsa Panth can and has already made decisions as the Guru-authority. But by disavowing or working actively to undermine the credibility and authority of the Guru Khalsa Panth, they (the blind supporters of the so-called Dasam Granth) becomePanth-dokhi(Detractors of the Panth)!

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

This is of course, ignoring the fact that there exists a whole lot of evidence which can cast serious doubt as to Guru Gobind Singh Ji being the author of the full contents of the so called Dasam Granth.

Personally I can never make assumption that our Guru wrote Charitropakhyan, which demeans women worse than anything I have read. It goes as far as to say at one point, that our Creator, Waheguru, regretted creating the female gender!

---

Some other interesting points are that even though many scholars have based their claim that all of dasam granth was authored by the Guru himself, purely off the letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji, the accuracy of the letter itself was called into question also by numerous scholars. Then there is the fact that saying 'by' does not mean authorship necessarily. What I mean, is that even if the letter is authentic, and even if Bhai Mani Singh Ji truly believed that what he found was authored by the Guru, it could still have been that Guru Gobind Singh Ji had just collected these stories for his own use. As I said, I study all world religions, and because of that, I have numerous papers I have written in my own hand, laying around my place. If I were to die tomorrow, and someone came to my place to gather my things, they might think that I believe in jihad for example, simply because I have papers that I have written on the topic, for my religious thesis. Since all of the Gurus have encouraged study of all world religions of Sikhs (which means learner), then its not a far cry to think the Gurus themselves had personal notes with information from other religions. This is further compounded by the fact that the stories in Caritropakhyan are easily found in Hindu religious texts! It would be a huge coincidence if you are trying to claim that these stories are original works of Guru Gobind Singh and yet they share such resemblance to past Hindu stories, that if presented today would result in a plagiarism case!

But in any case, the actual letter of Bhai Mani Singh Ji has been put into question by scholars. So we have scholars disagreeing with scholars. Certainly that creates enough doubt for a court case! But there is more. There have also been raised the possibility that Chandi Charitar and Bhagauti ki War were translated by different hands. They were analyzed and recognized by anyone having even moderate knowledge of Hindi could tell that they were penned and translated by different individuals. Penmanship and linguistics have been used in high profile murder cases and found to be a very accurate scientific method. I fear however, that even DNA evidence were to present itself in the ink somehow proving that Guru Gobind Singh did not write all of dasam granth, that some would still argue it. Especially if certain babas still held on the belief.

What do you say about the fact that in 1973 an official statement was sanctioned by Jathedar (Commander) Akal Takht, Head Granthi of Darbar Sahib, and two other Granthis (one also from Darbar Sahib) stating that Charitropakhyan was not original work of Guru Gobind Singh and was retelling of Hindu stories? This statement was never retracted or reversed. Other facts, that Guru Gobind Singh never mentioned any of these compositions from dasam granth prior to leaving this world. He did however pass guruship to ONLY Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and told us to bow to NO other as Guru!

Would he not have mentioned something he wished to be a granth for his Sikhs? After he left this world, there are sp{censored} mentions of 'parts' of the contents of dasam granth in various works. Rhetnama Bhai Nand Lal mentions jaap sahib. RehitNama Chaupa Singh Chibber quotes various lines from Bachitar Natak, 33 Swiayey, Chopai Sahib, Jaap Sahib. (Still no mention of Charitropakhyan).

In 1711, Sri Gur Sobha written by Poet Senapat mentioned Conversation of Guru Gobind Singh and Akal Purakh, and written three of its Adhyay on base of Bachitar Natak. In 1741, Parchian Srvadas Kian quoted lines from Rama Avtar, 33 Swaiyey and mentioned Zafarnama with Hikayats. (Still no mention of Charitropakhyan). In 1751, Gurbilas Patshahi 10 – Koyar Singh Kalal, mentioned Guru Gobind Singh composed Bachitar Natak, Krisna Avtar, Bisan Avtar, Akal Ustat, Jaap Sahib, Zafarnama, Hikayats etc. This is first Granth mentioned Guruship of Guru Granth Shahib. (So its now 1751 and this is the first mention of an actual granth).

In 1766, Kesar Singh Chibber mentioned history of Compilation of Dasam Granth by Bhai Mani Singh Khalsa on directions of Mata Sundri, as he was first who wrote history after death of Guru Gobind Singh. (A lot can happen and a lot of history can be distorted in over half a century. Just look today even with our modern methods, how history of events even in our own lifetime can be skewed!)

In 1766, Sri Guru Mahima Parkash – Sarup Chand Bhalla, mentioned about various Banis of Guru Gobind Singh and Compilation of Dasam Granth. (So the history says so far that Guru Ji did write several banis. Bhai Mani Singh compiled these banis into a granth. It was never compiled as such by Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself. This already leaves the possibility of error! How easy would it be to accidentally include something that was not his original works especially if he had kept personal notes as I mentioned before?)

In 1790, Guru Kian Sakhian – Svarup Singh Kashish, mentione Guru Gobind Singh Composed, bachitar Natak, Krishna Avtar, Shastarnaam Mala, 33 Swaiyey etc. In 1797, Gurbilas Patshahi 10 – Sukkha Singh, mentioned compositions of Guru Gobind Singh. In 1812, JB Malcolm, in Sektch of Sikhs mentioned about Dasam Granth as Bani of Guru Gobind Singh. (So a full century later, someone makes assumption that all of the content of the now created dasam granth is all original works of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and with a name like 'Malcom' I am assuming was not even Punjabi.)

Still no mention of where Charitropakhyan came from. The ONLY mention is the letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji, the authenticity of which is called into question by numerous scholars! And that too, only 303 (where were the other 102?) And even if the letter IS authentic, it doesn't mean that Charitropakhyan is, for the reasons I already mentioned! Then we also have the use of poet names such as raam and shyam which coincidentally were also names of poets in Gurus court. If Guru Gobind Singh were to use aliases, why use aliases of poets that could cause confusion like that instead of names which were completely unique?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Quoted From Sikh Coalition
(Page has since been deleted, after constant hounding by the 'Pro Dasam Granth' crowd, individuals I personally ran into on another forum). They are scared of the truth spreading!

History- 18th Century Chhibber’s Story Most of the evidence about the present work called the 'Dasam Granth' is negative. The earliest reference about some writings by the Tenth Master is by Chhibber in his 'Bansavalinama'. Contemporary historians of the period of Guru Gobind Singh like Sainapat, Bhai Nandlal, Chaupa Singh, Sewadas, Koer Singh or Bhai Mani Singh, make no mention of the Dasam Granth or any such writing in the period. This negative evidence is quite significant and strong. For, had there been any compilation like the Dasam Granth, these contemporary chroniclers could never have failed to mention it.

The first reference to some writings by the Tenth Guru is in Chhibber's 'Bansavalinama' written 71 years after the Guru's demise. This volume, as assessed by scholars like Jaggi, Kohli and others, has not been found to be very reliable as to its dates and other particulars. Besides, the author himself says that he is no chronicler, but has based the writing merely on hearsay, and just as a matter of his hobby: "I state what I had heard and what I could recollect." "This hearsay I record just by way of my hobby (shauk)."[1] Thus, Chhibber himself discounts the historical accuracy of his statements, for, he claims to belong only to the third generation of a Brahmin family whose head was a contemporary of the Tenth Master.

Further, two important points have also to be kept in view. First, most Brahmin writers always have a strong, natural and understandable bias to give a Brahminical colour to the Sikh religion and its history, even though all the Sikh Gurus were emphatic to proclaim the independence of their system and the Panth. The Fifth Master wrote: "I keep not the Hindu fast, nor do I observe Muslim month of fast; I serve only Him, who emancipates all; He is my Gosain; He is my Allah; I have found release from the Hindus as from the Turks; I visit not the pilgrim places of Hindus, nor go to Kaaba for Haj; I serve only God, I serve not any other; I worship not the Hindu way, nor say the Muslim prayers; I bow to the one God within my heart; I am neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim; For, my body and life belong to Him, Allah and Ram."[2] Second, Guru Gobind Singh had put the final seal on this complete separateness, by the creation of the Khalsa, the Nash Doctrine (Dharam Nash, Bharam Nash, Karam Nash, Sharam Nash and Janam Nash), and the declaration of Guru Granth Sahib as the sole Ideological Guide and Living Guru of the Sikhs.

Yet, these writings have shown a subtle tendency to reshape and reframe Sikh events, so that these are accepted by the gullible as a part of the Brahminical tradition. Following is what Chhibber records: The Guru got written a Granth (book) called 'Samundar Sagar'. Later he got it thrown in a river." "Later still he composed other writings." "But, during the battles at Anandpur, the leaves of these writings or packets (Sanchian) were scattered to the wind and lost."[3] Chhibber is vague about the contents or nature of these writings. Once he calls it 'Samundar Sagar', at another time 'Avtar Leela'. There is no reference at all to 'Dasam Granth', 'Bachittar Natak', 'Chandi Charitar', 'Chandi di Var', 'Charitropakhyan' or 'Chaubis Avtar', as these are called now. It is clear that it was peace time when the Guru had thrown the Samundar Sagar Granth in the river. Could it ever happen that he would destroy gurbani, his own or that of earlier Gurus, or any thing of value to Sikhs?

Gurbani has always been considered sacred, and been venerated more than even the Guru. Evidently, the writings were such as could conveniently be discarded. The argument applies doubly to the packets that were never completed or compiled, and were allowed to be scattered. Thus, Chhibber's story adds nothing to our knowledge about the Dasam Granth writings, their compilation or loss. Therefore, the negative evidence of all contemporary chroniclers, coupled with the evidence of Chhibber's story, shows that till the end of the 18th century, there was nothing known about any granth of the Tenth Guru, or any writings now regarded as its chapters or contents. In fact, the only granth or compilation mentioned in the literature is 'Vidya Sagar' or 'Samundar Sagar Granth', the contents of which have no relation to the present Dasam Granth. Chhibber’s Story Contradicted Chhibber alleges three facts. First, that the Tenth Master initially created a granth called Samundar Sagar, and had it thrown into a river. Later, some papers (Sanchis) were prepared, but these, too, were scattered to the wind and lost in the time of battles. Second, he records that in 1725 A.D. Bhai Mani Singh compiled a granth combining the bani of Aad Granth and the writings that subsequently came to be called Dasam Granth.[4] For doing this mix-up, and thereby violating the prescribed sequence or method of writing gurbani, a poor Sikh, when he saw the combined granth, cursed Bhai Sahib saying that just as he had disjointed the gurbani and mixed it up, he would also be cut to pieces.[5]

Chhibber never writes chronologically. For example, in a still later couplet no. 389, he writes that in 1698 A.D. Guru Gobind Singh rejected the request of the Sikhs to combine the Aad Granth with his own writings.[6] It is very significant that the entire book of Chhibber is packed with his use and narration of Brahminical practices, and stories of demons, fairies, Hom, Mantras, curses, etc., even though he knows that these are opposed to the doctrines in the Guru Granth Sahib. In short, his Brahminical faith and prejudices are glaringly evident. In addition, the above version of Chhibber, we find, is contradicted both by Gian Singh and Sarup Das Bhalla on all the essential points concerning Dasam Granth writings. Gian Singh never mentions that Samundar Sagar Granth or Sanchis of Avtar Leela stories were prepared, thrown or lost. He also contradicts Chhibber that Sikhs at any time made a request to the Guru to combine his bani with the Aad Granth. All he states is that once Sikhs requested the Guru to compile his own bani, but he categorically declined to do so, saying that such a request should never be made again.[7]

He also contradicts Chhibber's version that Bhai Mani Singh ever combined the two, and later suffered a 'curse' from a poor Sikh for doing so. He only states that in response to a suggestion by some Sikhs, he wrote gurbani in separate words for the purpose of explaining its meaning (teeka), and that the sangat disapproved of it, saying that he would suffer for it. But the sangat conceded that his faith in the Guru will remain unshaken. This satisfied Bhai Sahib. [8] However, he indicates that on the request of Sikhs, he collected the bani of Guru Gobind Singh. [9] 'Mehma Parkash' of Sarup Das Bhalla, a late 18th century or an early 19th century production, materially gives the same impression as does Gian Singh.

Bhalla, a non-Brahmin, contradics all the three assertions of Chhibber, namely, the preparation or loss of any granth like Samundar Sagar or Sanchis of other writings, the request of Sikhs to the Guru to add his bani to the Aad Granth,or any combined compilation by Bhai Mani Singh, and the curse by a poor Sikh. On the other hand, Bhalla gives the story that the Guru got prepared a granth, since lost, called Vidya Sagar, which constituted translations of Sanskrit literature.[10] He does not say that the Sikhs ever requested the Guru to include his bani in the Aad Granth, nor that Bhai Sahib ever produced any such compilation. These being the realities, there is little doubt that Chhibber's version is not only unworthy of reliance, but is clearly the result of a prejudiced twist to facts as they really were. For, it is unthinkable that Bhai Sahib would ever combine the two, as alleged by Chhibber and as now sought to be supported by the presence of the Delhi and Sangrur birs, when he knew full well that the Guru had clearly frowned upon such an idea. Had Bhai Sahib prepared any bir, it would be the authentic version, and there could never have been the possibility of such widely variant versions of the granth, as actually exist now. For, every bir would have been a copy of it. Nor is there any reason for the complete disappearance of it. Because, we find, that the Delhi bir, which has no history, is certainly not Bhai Sahib's production.

For the reasons and facts given above there is little doubt that the story of Chhibber stands belied, and that the version that Bhai Mani Singh compiled the Dasam Granth, is a distortion that has no historical, ideological or factual basis or possibility.

References
1. Chhibber, Kesar Singh: 'Bansavalinama', p. 1
2. Guru Granth Sahib: p. 1136
3. Chhibber, Kesar Singh: op. cit., p. 135
4. Ibid, p. 136
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Gian Singh: 'Panth Prakash', p. 320
8. Ibid, pp. 688-689
9. Ibid, p. 321
10. Bhalla, Sarupdas: 'Mehma Parkash', p. 794
11. Jaggi, Rattan Singh: 'Dasam Granth da Karitartav', pp. 38-45

 

[Kully]

The Guru existed prior to Guru Nanak and shall always exist, as long as there is existence, since the Guru is Shabad. This fact is also apparent because of the inclusion (within Guru Granth Sahib) of the Bani of Sheikh Farid and Bhagat Kabir, etc. who preceded Guru Nanak Sahib.

A very interesting article and I like the explanation of what is Gurbani. Its put forward in a very clear way. I will come back to some other parts of it, but wanted to start with the above quote.

The Bani of these two named Bhagats is not to be found in any other writings of these Bhagats(as is the case with Bhagat Ravidas) Surely if these two Bhagats had already written these before the advent of Guru Nanak , they would have included them in their own books/granths?

 

[Kully]

The folks, whom I shall refer to as the ominous “they” going forward, who are now forwarding the legitimacy of the so-called Dasam Granth and some of whom are displaying it in parallel with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji are also generally opposed to the Panthic Rehit Mariada. They have two problems and neither of these problems is insubstantial.

It is unreasonable to hold these people as the instigators of parallel parkash, as it has been ongoing for centuries, or shortly after Guru sahib jyoti-jyot samai. They are simply upholding the practice that has been prevalent in the Panth for a very long time. For some reason the Panth or Guru Authority decided in that time that it was required.

 

[swarn bains]

Most of the bhagats have their bani written in their language and is available to the public in their language although guru Nanak collected some of it when he visited that town and added in his pothi and later added in SGGS. I have kabeers bani with me, and some of it is available in SGGS as well.. Fareed's bani was purchased by baba Nanak for rs 50 from the imam of Delhi in whole and it is not avail;able anywhere else but some of the stanzas are used in Pakistan.

 

[Kully]

I have kabeers bani with me, and some of it is available in SGGS as well..

Excellent. Can you share these writings with us and the place where they are written in Guru Granth Sahib. Thanks in advance!

Fareed's bani was purchased by baba Nanak for rs 50 from the imam of Delhi in whole and it is not avail;able anywhere else

rs 50 would have been a hell of a lot of money in those days. It seems strange that an imam of all people would have Fareed's writings many decades after Fareed's passing, and that too in Delhi.

By not available do you mean it's not avaialble anywhere except Guru Granth Sahib?

 

[Kully]

n 1766, Sri Guru Mahima Parkash – Sarup Chand Bhalla, mentioned about various Banis of Guru Gobind Singh and Compilation of Dasam Granth. (So the history says so far that Guru Ji did write several banis. Bhai Mani Singh compiled these banis into a granth. It was never compiled as such by Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself. This already leaves the possibility of error! How easy would it be to accidentally include something that was not his original works especially if he had kept personal notes as I mentioned before?)

You are absolutely correct about the possibility of error. Scribes can/could make errors, however lookiing at the scale of errors, it would be more plausible to say that scribes made spelling mistakes and /or missed words/sentences out. However it's extremely unlikely that a scribe could have copied in a complete text which went unnoticed.

When copying was undertaken, as far as I know, the leaves once completed were checked for errors before work commenced on the next leaf.

Still no mention of where Charitropakhyan came from.

Harkiran Ji, you have written a wonderful article on the history of DG and I am amazed at your research into DG, a granth which I only heard of less than 2 years ago. Most other young Sikhs I have asked have never heard of this granth, but have heard of banis from it, because of nitnem and kirtan etc.

However on this one point, I can help you into your research as I read an article on the internet from "Mehma Parkash" where the author has clearly explained the whole event behind the writing of the Charitropakhyan series.

Quoted From Sikh Coalition
(Page has since been deleted, after constant hounding by the 'Pro Dasam Granth' crowd, individuals I personally ran into on another forum). They are scared of the truth spreading!

That is so sad that some people have nothing better to do than hound others who's views are different. Please tell me more about what this group did.

 

[swarn bains]

Fareed learned everything in Delhi from his guru or murshad Bakhtiar kaki in Delhi, that is why his bani was in Delhi, the priests are never godly so the imam sold it to Nanak. I think i put it before but i cannot see it so i ask you sir if you ever read dasam granth or part of it in its original form not the translation?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

You are absolutely correct about the possibility of error. Scribes can/could make errors, however lookiing at the scale of errors, it would be more plausible to say that scribes made spelling mistakes and /or missed words/sentences out. However it's extremely unlikely that a scribe could have copied in a complete text which went unnoticed.

When copying was undertaken, as far as I know, the leaves once completed were checked for errors before work commenced on the next leaf.



Harkiran Ji, you have written a wonderful article on the history of DG and I am amazed at your research into DG, a granth which I only heard of less than 2 years ago. Most other young Sikhs I have asked have never heard of this granth, but have heard of banis from it, because of nitnem and kirtan etc.

However on this one point, I can help you into your research as I read an article on the internet from "Mehma Parkash" where the author has clearly explained the whole event behind the writing of the Charitropakhyan series.



That is so sad that some people have nothing better to do than hound others who's views are different. Please tell me more about what this group did.

I have heard about Mehma Parkash (and mentioned it in my first post above- read again!)... According to Mehma Parkash, it was court poets who wrote Charitropakhyan... which also corresponds to the names used Ram and Shyam and is in agreement with Akal Takht on the issue (see my post above). This also means that even though court poets wrote it, doesn't necessarily mean that Guru Ji agreed with what they wrote.

Case in point. Our Gurus encouraged us to learn, including other belief systems (though not follow them) and as a result, I have in my possession (even in my own handwriting) documents which explain beliefs of several different religions (especially Islam just because of the recent Islamophobia and various new age religions like Wicca just because of curiosity etc). They were written by me, for my own research. Though I don't follow nor believe in the ideas contained in those documents. If I weren't careful and had these laying about when I leave this world, someone could think I believed those ideas I wrote about and include them in a compiled book of "my writing"!!

Also, what I meant about error is that... in the highly likely case that Guru Ji held the writings of the court poets for personal research and reading, we can never know if he actually agreed with the ideas presented within the stories in Charitropakhyan. We CAN go by his example, and other writings which suggest he viewed his Singhnis as every bit equal as his Singhs (look at his actions with Mai Bhago as an example) and there is no indication that he ever thought of women as being immoral and deceitful in general - though that is what Charitropakhyan depicts ...VERY clearly at that! Nearly EVERY story depicts a woman, deceiving a man, to have her sexual desires met. I am fairly certain there exists no proof that Guru Gobind Singh Ji thought of women in this way. So what I meant by error was that by including writings of court poets and presenting them as being something that Guru Ji not only agreed with ....but trying to present it AS HIS WORK, is an error! A huge one at that!

*** The article I posted in my second post above (the first post was my own research) The second post was originally on the website for Sikh Coalition... which is supposed to keep a non biased view - including regarding interpretations of things such as this. However some individuals from another forum (I won't name names for sake of not wanting to start wars) started hounding Sikh Coalition to remove the article because they consider it blaspheme to question ANY bani of our Gurus, and they consider all of DG as gurbani blindly and without question... so to them, anyone who does research into a history which could put doubt in people's minds as to the origin of the works contained in DG, they consider to be a 'Guru Nindak' (in their words). To keep the peace, Sikh Coalition removed the article and it can no longer be found on their site. However, others have copied it prior to it being removed.

 

[Kully]

Fareed learned everything in Delhi from his guru or murshad Bakhtiar kaki in Delhi, that is why his bani was in Delhi, the priests are never godly so the imam sold it to Nanak. I think i put it before but i cannot see it so i ask you sir if you ever read dasam granth or part of it in its original form not the translation?

Thanks for the info Swarn Ji, I would be very grateful as well if you could share the Kabir hymns.

 

[Kully]

Harkiran Ji, you mentioned Mehma Parkash in your first post but didn't say anything about Charitropakhyan text. At the end of your first post you wrote :

Still no mention of where Charitropakhyan came from. The ONLY mention is the letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji,

So I thought that your only mention of Charitropakhyan was from Bhai Mani Singh's letter.

I have heard about Mehma Parkash (and mentioned it in my first post above- read again!).

Heard about Mehma Parkash? I thought you had read it.

According to Mehma Parkash, it was court poets who wrote Charitropakhyan...

I fear I may have seen and read a differing text of Mehma Parkash. But the text I have seen is quite explicit that Guru Gobind Singh authored the text. How about I try and locate the text and we can go through it on here? It's only a short text.

I'm assuming that you haven't seen the text in Mehma Parkash (based on what you say above) but would like to extend an invitation to you to do likewise.

 

[Kully]

Case in point. Our Gurus encouraged us to learn, including other belief systems (though not follow them) and as a result, I have in my possession (even in my own handwriting) documents which explain beliefs of several different religions (especially Islam just because of the recent Islamophobia and various new age religions like Wicca just because of curiosity etc). They were written by me, for my own research. Though I don't follow nor believe in the ideas contained in those documents. If I weren't careful and had these laying about when I leave this world, someone could think I believed those ideas I wrote about and include them in a compiled book of "my writing"!!

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but those writings "written by you" would still be your writings. Whether you beleive in these writings or not, would be clear from how you wrote them.

 

[Kully]

So what I meant by error was that by including writings of court poets and presenting them as being something that Guru Ji not only agreed with ....but trying to present it AS HIS WORK, is an error! A huge one at that!

There are margins of error, and then there are margins of error. As I said before in those days, the leading Sikhs Bhai Mani Singh etc, would have been under no illusion what belonged to the Guru and what didn't. I can't see someone of Bhai Mani Singh stature including writings that he was not entirely sure about. The mind boggles at that suggestion. But even assuming this, there were so many other Sikhs who would have pointed it out, if such an unlikely mistake had been made.

 

[Kully]

We CAN go by his example, and other writings which suggest he viewed his Singhnis as every bit equal as his Singhs (look at his actions with Mai Bhago as an example)

Were there any other Singhnis that we can use as an example other than Mai Bhago?

there is no indication that he ever thought of women as being immoral and deceitful in general - though that is what Charitropakhyan depicts ...VERY clearly at that! Nearly EVERY story depicts a woman, deceiving a man, to have her sexual desires met.

Charitropakhyan is (to me) a very complicated text. I didn't see the depiction of "women being immoral and deceitful in general" when I have looked at the text. There is so much more to it than sexual encounters. And if we look at it from your perspective, let's say the women are as you say, but what does that make the men? Does it make them any better than the women in the stories? I would definitely say it doesn't. But then can Guru Ji really be thinking that of his Singhs? I doubt it. Maybe we can take a look at this text as well?

I'm assuming you have actually seen and read the text(and not heard about it like the Mehma Parkash) ?

 

[Kully]

However some individuals from another forum (I won't name names for sake of not wanting to start wars) started hounding Sikh Coalition to remove the article because they consider it blaspheme to question ANY bani of our Gurus, To keep the peace, Sikh Coalition removed the article and it can no longer be found on their site. However, others have copied it prior to it being removed.

You are right in not naming individuals as it would start unneccesary arguments. I would appreciate if you could tell me the the forum though, via PM if you wish to keep it private, as I would like to see why these people went to such unsavoury lengths to to force people's opinions.

Have Sikh Coalition confirmed on their website/newsletters that they removed it to keep the peace?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I have not read the actual text of Mehma Parkash, just summary of it. But yes I have read the entire Charitropakhyan. I'm sorry, I just can't get any deep nor positive meaning from any of it. There is one charitar, where a servant girl (maid) is beaten so severely she ends up snapping and killing the trader and his wife who were the ones who beat her. In the end the big moral message speaks ill of women (blaming the maid) and not even speaking about the 'severe' beatings at all. I think it was charitar #10. There is no positive message in that. And further, it makes the statement that abuse of women is ok, but oh never let them know your secrets or never let them capture your heart. Beat them all you want though!
There are charitars speaking of bestiality! The vast majority speak of women deceiving men for sex. You said it makes the men look bad too? What's worse do you think in the eyes of God? Being seen as gullible victim or an intentional deceiver who can't control their lust? It follows from the same old view in other religions that women is only a detractor to men's spiritual progress and women are inherently born of evil. The stories can be found in older Hindu texts anyway which proves they werent original works of Guru Ji. Then there is the 'pen names' Ram and Shyam which coincidentally were court poets?? It should be called what it is... reproduction of older Hindu texts by court poets, which may or may not have been in Guru Gobind Singh Ji's possesion - but definitely are not his original works, nor an indication that he ever intended them to be some sort of moral lessons for us. Otherwise, what should Singhs go beating women now, or distrusting their wives because these stories pound the same theme in their head over and over? Or how about sex with horses? How about taking drugs to become intoxicated and having sex? If these were moral messages, where are the equally damning stories about men deceiving women for sex (which happens FAR FAR ore often in the REAL world - especially in teenage years!) There is not one single story that depicts men as deceiving women for sex!

Did you know that later on in the charitars, it comes straight out and says "God regretted even creating the female gender" !!!?? Really??!! You think Guru Gobind Singh Ji WROTE THIS??? What is the deep 'positive' message in that? I don't think you can interpret in any other way.... Sorry... I can't agree with you!

And my comparison to my own writings is that if I were to die right now, someone could easily publish those and make claims that they were my teaching to people that I believed in. But that would be a huge error as I do not believe in the things I wrote down about for example Islam, on the treatment of women.

Akal Takht as I said issued an official statement in 1973 that charitropakhyan was NOT original works of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. This was based on research from numerous scholars and backed by several granthis including the head granthi at Darbar sahib.

 

[Kully]

I have not read the actual text of Mehma Parkash, just summary of it.

Oh. Not to worry, share the summary anyway. There may be something in it that will help this discussion.

But yes I have read the entire Charitropakhyan. I'm sorry, I just can't get any deep nor positive meaning from any of it.

I am in admiration of you for having read the entire Charitropakhyan. It is quite lengthy. I'm a little curious as to why you feel you never got anything deep or positive from the final chapter chapter called "benti chaupai" which is recited as part of Nitnem and Amrit Sinchar.

There are charitars speaking of bestiality!

There are many writings of religion that include themes that would make us cringe inc bestiality so I wouldn't see it as an issue in it's own right. However you have read the entire Charitropakhyan and I am just a beginner to it. Can you provide the charitar number so I may take a look at it please?

What's worse do you think in the eyes of God? Being seen as gullible victim or an intentional deceiver who can't control their lust?

I'm not sure either are worse in the eyes of God, as both have shortcomings. But thats a subjective matter, one that I will certainly think a lot more about in the future. Thanks for the prompt!

It should be called what it is... reproduction of older Hindu texts by court poets, which may or may not have been in Guru Gobind Singh Ji's possesion - but definitely are not his original works,

I think it's better that we look at Mehma Parkash to answer this, rather than to jump to conclusions of our own.

Akal Takht as I said issued an official statement in 1973 that charitropakhyan was NOT original works of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. This was based on research from numerous scholars and backed by several granthis including the head granthi at Darbar sahib.

As of 2006 Akal Takht issued a sandesh saying that those people who doubted the Dasam Granth as it is, were to be tackled. This would include the Charitropakhyan text. However if you have a link to the 1973 statement I would be very grateful.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Here is one part of Mehna Prakash translated to English:

Dohra:

To reveal the knowledge of the Vedas was the desire of the merciful mind

A grand Gathering of scholars was to be called and it was explained 1.

Chaupai:

The merciful true Guru gave the command

Search for the learned scholars

Whoever has acquired the knowledge

Bring them with their Puranas here 2.

The Sikhs went to various countries

Bringing the scholars and their Puranas

FromBenaras and all places of knowledge

The scholars of outstanding knowledge 3.

They all gathered in the court

And the True Guru treated them with courtesy/respect

Line missing from text

Line missing from text

...Calling a writer of Gurmukhi script close

And revealed to them the purpose

Speak the verses and this Bhai will write in Gurmukhi

O Holy men explain to me the story 5.

Dohra:

The poets Nannua Bairagi, Shyam Brahm Bhat were present

Along with Nichal Fakir, a man of great intellect. 6.

Chaupai:

There is no place where your names are not known

Explain all the essences of your texts

The four Vedas and ten Puranas

And the six shastras and the simartis 7.

The 24 Avtars was told

The 404 characters were told in a new form

The story was told and everyone listened

The True Guru was pleased on listening 8.

The story was all told in Sanskrit

And collected in the Ocean of Knowledge (Vidya Granth)

The Ocean of Knowledge was completed

There was no end to this glory9.

The True Guru spoke from his holy mouth

I have created (spoken) these words for the ease of the reader

Reading Sanskrit the mind makes mistakes (struggles)

Read my words with affection 10.



----

So this which is from Mehma Parkash, suggests that the writings were retellings of older stories in Sanskrit, which he had them narrate while the Bhai write them down in Gurmukhi. They were not original stories written by Guru Gibind Singh Ji. It also does not mean these were ever meant for anything more than study. Especially since he have Gurgaddi to SGGSJ, he had every opportunity to add other writings he thought was important.

As I said, he may have had them in his possession, but it doesn't mean it was ever meant to be 'Gurbani' for his Sikhs. If it was, then he certainly hated women to depict us in such a low light. And if it's merely moral lessons as many like to say, then where are the moral lessons for his Singhnis to tell us how deceitful and immoral men can be? Charitropakhyan reeks of ideology from The likes of Laws of Manu as far as women are concerned. If you think being gullible and falling for trickery looks bad on the victim in Wahegurus eyes then u are warped. The worst anyone can say is should have been more careful. But to be seen as deliberately deceitful to have your lustful desires met is simply on a whole different level!!!!


I'll look for the 1973 hukamnama again... But it was signed by three granthis, one was head granthi at Darbar sahib at the time, second was also a granthi at Darbar sahib and third was a granthi from outside.

Btw charitar number 312. "Nobody can know the depths of women's deceit / mind. God (Brahma) even regretted creating them."

And no, I won't be posting which charitar involves the bestiality I was speaking about above. It would be considered inappropriate by ANY standards!!!!

 

[swarn bains]

Kabeerr's hymns are 300 pages. some of the hymns entered in sggs are a little bit changed by guru Arjun but the meaning is same. he made most of them look punjabi, otherwise meanings are same