Sant Singh Ji Maskeen On Chaubees Avtar In Dasam Granth
This beautiful elucidation clearly shows how Bachittar natak and Chaubis Avtar in no way contradict Gurmat. Gyani Pinderpal Singh ji also has said in his Kathas that those who endlessly rubbish DG should first properly understand SGGS and then do a thorough study of DG before arriving at any hasty conclusions.
But Sant Maskeen is also saying like why he thinks in his opinion Guru Gobind Singh did not add any of these in Guru Granth Sahib. He gives two reasons
1.Bachitter Natak is autobiography and history.
2.Chaubis Avtaar is translation of Hindu Granths.
Therefore do not qualify to be put in Guru Granth Sahib as Guru Granth Sahib is about Nirankar God only. So people treating DG as Guru and Dhur ki bani have an answer from Sant Maskeen himself who did not say directly what ceratin groups would not like to hear.
Sant Maskeen gives the following reasons these;
1. Bachitter Natak - Guru Gobind Singh wrote his biography becoz he did not want somebody else to write it and in height of emotions elevate him to status of God and make small things seem like miracles. Ram and Krishan, who were ordinary humans, too were elevated to status of God in a same way.
2. Chaubis Avtar- Hindu graths were taught by Brahmans to brahmans only. Guru Gobind Singh in a daring step translated them in simple language for ordinary people so that they could know what was in them and to tell people that the avtars were NOT gods but humans like others but with greater personalities.
And in opinion of Sant Maskeen these writings were for letting people know the truth and did not deserve to be put in Guru Granth Sahin which talks only about God. But he does call them bani.
1.Bachitter Natak is autobiography and history.
2.Chaubis Avtaar is translation of Hindu Granths.
Therefore do not qualify to be put in Guru Granth Sahib as Guru Granth Sahib is about Nirankar God only. So people treating DG as Guru and Dhur ki bani have an answer from Sant Maskeen himself who did not say directly what ceratin groups would not like to hear.
Sant Maskeen gives the following reasons these;
1. Bachitter Natak - Guru Gobind Singh wrote his biography becoz he did not want somebody else to write it and in height of emotions elevate him to status of God and make small things seem like miracles. Ram and Krishan, who were ordinary humans, too were elevated to status of God in a same way.
2. Chaubis Avtar- Hindu graths were taught by Brahmans to brahmans only. Guru Gobind Singh in a daring step translated them in simple language for ordinary people so that they could know what was in them and to tell people that the avtars were NOT gods but humans like others but with greater personalities.
And in opinion of Sant Maskeen these writings were for letting people know the truth and did not deserve to be put in Guru Granth Sahin which talks only about God. But he does call them bani.
raob1 ji
Thanks! And your logic is perfect. This is why I remain baffled as to the new talk now circulating on the forums about a Das Granth. This is a "granth" in which both Aad Grant and the Sodakh-committee-created-and-so-called Dasam Granth, are combined. This can only be a result of a motivation to blend Sikhism into the political waves of saffron samaj so that Sikhism disappears.
And - to be somewhat argumentative-- in general and not with you personally. I think that neither Bacchitar nor Chaubis Avtar are consistent with the teachings of Guru Granth, and in fact think they are very contradictory. There have been historical problems authenticating them, and they have a point-of-view and content that are contrary to Guru Granth. I say this with complete respect for Gyani Maskeen ji.
Many people, including Professor Darshan Singh, at one time considered these books of Bacchitar Natak to be metaphorical translations, and moral teachings by Dasam Pita. They have since reconsidered. Others too have reconsidered for good reason. We only know what Gyani Makeen ji believed when he was alive and we cannot say more than that.
The inclination to smooth over stark differences between the two granths, so that the arguments will go away, is dangerous. Though motives may be genuinely good, when we do this we are turning a deaf ear and a blind eye for the sake of peace in the family to developments that are seriously undermining the unique standing of Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
Last edited by a moderator:
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ch{censored}t=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Charbans%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w
unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> Gyani Maskeen ji has only said that contents of Chaubis Avtar and Bachittar Natak do not Contradict Gurmat and he has given good reason for that. He has not said that they are consistant or complimentary to SGGS. Guruji has very specifically said that neither does he endorse nor does he believe in the stories of Chaubis Avtar. In Bachittar Natak he has specifically forbidden being considered as “Parameshwar” . With such clearcut provisos and a well considered decision not to include it in SGGS, where is the problem?
It can just be considered as a collection of work of art penned in part by Guruji and in part by his distinguished 52 poets.
In fact, Maskeen ji has hinted that DG itself is not complete. Some parts may be missing because there are no answers to some questions which have been raised in it.
unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> Gyani Maskeen ji has only said that contents of Chaubis Avtar and Bachittar Natak do not Contradict Gurmat and he has given good reason for that. He has not said that they are consistant or complimentary to SGGS. Guruji has very specifically said that neither does he endorse nor does he believe in the stories of Chaubis Avtar. In Bachittar Natak he has specifically forbidden being considered as “Parameshwar” . With such clearcut provisos and a well considered decision not to include it in SGGS, where is the problem?It can just be considered as a collection of work of art penned in part by Guruji and in part by his distinguished 52 poets.
In fact, Maskeen ji has hinted that DG itself is not complete. Some parts may be missing because there are no answers to some questions which have been raised in it.
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ch{censored}t=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Charbans%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w
It can just be considered as a collection of work of art penned in part by Guruji and in part by his distinguished 52 poets.
In fact, Maskeen ji has hinted that DG itself is not complete. Some parts may be missing because there are no answers to some questions which have been raised in it.
What sort of a guru leaves unanswered questions to his sikhs? Especially when the purpose of being a Guru is to take his Sikhs from Darkness to Lightness? I have not studied any Hindu scriptures but i think all the answers regarding unanswered questions may be found in Hindu scriptures . Only if Sant Maskeen had asked a learned Brahman from Varanasi or Hardiwar then the sikhs might have got the answers. It is only a thought of mine, as i know almost all sikhs, especially parcharaks, have ZERO knowledge about the vast Hindu scriptures.
Narayanjot ji,
Guru Fateh.
Only Guru Gobind Singh ji knows if any of what is in the book called DG is written by him. No one else does. It is all speculation which is an insult to our Dasam Pita who gave us a lot of things and solidified Sikhi by putting the roof on the 4 walls constructed by our nine Gurus.
So, one who completes the House of Sikhi should be respected in all possible manners of his decision. Speculations on the part of the Sikhs about his writings as if we know more than our Dasam Pita is nothing but ignorance laced with a lot of arrogance on our part.
He gave us the SGGS, our only Guru and our duty is to study, understand and practice what has been given to us byour Dasam Pita. This is the only way we can show our love and respect towards Him, not by second guessing Him in any shape or form.
Tejwant Singh
roabji,
if you have heard Maskeenji carefully, you would have noticed that he has said that Guruji definitely did have the answers but in the compilation of DG, they might have been lost or missed out some how.
Gurufateh.
if you have heard Maskeenji carefully, you would have noticed that he has said that Guruji definitely did have the answers but in the compilation of DG, they might have been lost or missed out some how.
Gurufateh.
Bhul Bhuk Maaf, if we listen to this speech of Maskeen ji a few times, i find it uncomfortable when he is trying to superimpose his own theory by coercing his own speculations as truth... he is mocking at people, who do not quite adhere to his personal theory, which a scholar of Maskeen Ji's caliber and stature should have avoided at all costs...
i, personally, have never experienced such ambiguities in Maskeen Ji speeches, whenever he made discourses on Sri Granth Sahib Ji, out only Guru...
I will try to translate the whole of the speech, so that we all have a better idea...
i, personally, have never experienced such ambiguities in Maskeen Ji speeches, whenever he made discourses on Sri Granth Sahib Ji, out only Guru...
I will try to translate the whole of the speech, so that we all have a better idea...
Guruji did have all the answers. But why did he leave his sikhs unanswered questions? or did not comiple a proper DG after anandpur battles? Some writers claim all his writings were washed away in sirsa river. But he remained idle for about a year at Damdama Sahib, then known as Talwandi Sabo, compiling Guru Granth Sahib. Certainly if he had thought it worth, then he could have easily compiled DG too. And there were compelling reasons for that too. The battles of the Guru were almost over but for the Khalsa it was just the begginning! He would have known and to 'inspire them for the cause of rightous war' he should have given them DG. Strangely a Bhatt swahi talks about Akhand path of Guru Granth Sahib by Guruji at Damdama Sahib, but no mention is made of any other granth. When Guruji dispatched Banda Bahadur to Punjab for the rightous war, he did not give him any Granth that would inspire him or his soldiers! Strange! And Banda Bahadur is demonised by almost everybody who follows DG for the reasons that he was too Hindu-ist!! What an irony!
Some people claim there were beers of DG present at Nanded and handwritten beer at Patna sahib too. I have not looked at that angle though.
Some people claim there were beers of DG present at Nanded and handwritten beer at Patna sahib too. I have not looked at that angle though.
roab1 ji
For the record. There is no record of any of the court poets or scholars of Dasam Pita's lifetime or immediately following his death leaving notes or anecdotal information that mention a Dasam Granth (or to be more precise, a "granth" of his writing). The first mention of a Dasam Patshai Pothi ocurs in 1810, 100 years after the death of Guru Gobind Singh.
By Principal Harbhajan Singh:
Review of Literature shows No Granth with Title Sri Dasam Granth or Dasmi Patshahi Ka Granth( with fixed pattern of Compositions) was seen in Punjab or Delhi area sikh institutions in 18th century. Indian Sources, Persian sources & over 30 Euoropian sources are silent about this Granth. In 18th Century. IN Literature Title ―Dasmi Patshahi Granth‖ was first time reported by Malcolm Since 1810 AD (early 19th century). Then onwards in early 19th century such granths started appearing in Sikh institutions in Punjab initially in hand written Birs and then in print in 19th century.By 1895AD over 32 versions with variable pattern of compositions in hand written birs including six printed versions were available in Punjab. Sodhak committee prepared final standard version since 1897 AD which has been extensively used in literature in 20th century(1900AD-2000AD). This Granth has remained always controversial among scholars and Sikh community and issues of authenticity of its compositions can be traced during Pre Singh sabhaperiod/Singh sabha period and 1947AD onwards.
Also important: When 32 different versions of the pothi emerged in the 19th Century and were compared systematically and in a scholarly way, there were numerous inconsistencies among them, including differences in the hymns that were included.
I have attached a document. Cannot remember if I posted it in the last few weeks.
For the record. There is no record of any of the court poets or scholars of Dasam Pita's lifetime or immediately following his death leaving notes or anecdotal information that mention a Dasam Granth (or to be more precise, a "granth" of his writing). The first mention of a Dasam Patshai Pothi ocurs in 1810, 100 years after the death of Guru Gobind Singh.
By Principal Harbhajan Singh:
Review of Literature shows No Granth with Title Sri Dasam Granth or Dasmi Patshahi Ka Granth( with fixed pattern of Compositions) was seen in Punjab or Delhi area sikh institutions in 18th century. Indian Sources, Persian sources & over 30 Euoropian sources are silent about this Granth. In 18th Century. IN Literature Title ―Dasmi Patshahi Granth‖ was first time reported by Malcolm Since 1810 AD (early 19th century). Then onwards in early 19th century such granths started appearing in Sikh institutions in Punjab initially in hand written Birs and then in print in 19th century.By 1895AD over 32 versions with variable pattern of compositions in hand written birs including six printed versions were available in Punjab. Sodhak committee prepared final standard version since 1897 AD which has been extensively used in literature in 20th century(1900AD-2000AD). This Granth has remained always controversial among scholars and Sikh community and issues of authenticity of its compositions can be traced during Pre Singh sabhaperiod/Singh sabha period and 1947AD onwards.
Also important: When 32 different versions of the pothi emerged in the 19th Century and were compared systematically and in a scholarly way, there were numerous inconsistencies among them, including differences in the hymns that were included.
I have attached a document. Cannot remember if I posted it in the last few weeks.
P/S In my humble opinion, the controversy surrounding the Dasam Granth should not be separated from recent events concerning the Nanakshai Calendar, Ashutosh' s recent admission that he is preaching what Sikh Leadership has sanctioned regarding Bacchitar Natak, and today's report in the Indian press that SGPC is striving to unite the panth by assimilating the views and sentiments of the Sant Samaj.
Sant Samaj is basically a kind of organized union of babas and sants within the Sikh fold, many of who are members of sanatan traditions. Some give parkash to Dasam Granth. And some even give Hindu vedas and the even the Koran parkash with Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
Also my opoinion: We should not believe that religious unity is the goal. The goal is to martial the money and votes that these babas control among the populace, both in India and in the Diaspora. This is what Professor Darshan realized, and this is why he has been branded. Forgive me.
Sant Samaj is basically a kind of organized union of babas and sants within the Sikh fold, many of who are members of sanatan traditions. Some give parkash to Dasam Granth. And some even give Hindu vedas and the even the Koran parkash with Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
Also my opoinion: We should not believe that religious unity is the goal. The goal is to martial the money and votes that these babas control among the populace, both in India and in the Diaspora. This is what Professor Darshan realized, and this is why he has been branded. Forgive me.
What baffles me is the 'importance' given to babas at all the Deras i have visited. I must admit i have not visited many but i have witnessed the pomp and splendour of some very prominent Babas. They treat Guru Granth Sahib as secondary to them. People are too stupid too realise that they are just oridinary beings like them! Followers of DG preach a lot about how various Avtars and Hindu Gods are condemned by DG, but their silence on the royal and special treatment for chosen 'Sants' in Sikhi itself is more than baffling, and most of the time they themselves follow these Sants as another entity of God and seeking miracles from them!! Another irony!
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
