"Dasam" Granth - A Look At The Core Problems | Page 7 | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

"Dasam" Granth - A Look At The Core Problems

Status
Not open for further replies.

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 21, 2012
1,393
1,910
Kully Ji respectfully, if you believe that Guru Ji wrote that, then you believe that wives should have to ask their husbands permission to do everything, including answering the call of nature - and let's not forget eating only after her husband is finished and she is done serving him.

The whole story regarding the above? You can read for yourself I'll attach it!! The husband was the one cheating on his wife. When she found out, she decided to cheat on him as well. But his cheating is NEVER condemned at all!!! So Guru Ji believes it's ok for a husband to cheat but the wife's 'wiles' are condemned to the point where he says a wise man never reveals his secrets to his wife and he keeps her under so much control she she has to ask permission to do everything including use the washroom. So HE cheated and is not condemned at all but Guru Ji gives advise how to cheat on a woman while keeping her under his control and she is condemned. Read it for yourself it's charitar 19:

image.jpeg


image.jpeg


image.jpeg


Let's also not forget the charitar number ten where a maid is 'severely' beaten by the trader and his wife. She snaps and kills her abusers. The abuse is not spoken against.... At all!!!! The big moral message doesn't even mention it! Instead the moral message is that the gods can't even understand the wiles of women so what can the 'poor' men do? (The maid is the one made to look bad while the 'poor' man who beat her - is made to capture the reader's sympathy.) if Guru Ji wrote this he also believes in beating of women since he condoned it in the story and since you believe he wrote and believed it, then you too believe it's ok to beat women (and then blame them if they act in self defence)???

image.jpeg


image.jpeg


image.jpeg



What about charitar 312 when it says God regretted creating the female gender??? Do you believe Waheguru regretted creating us or that Guru Ji believed so?

Your answer toIshna Ji that the only reason you don't believe your wife should ask permission to pee is that you are not married scares me. I hope you never do get married because I seriously fear how that girl will be forced into submission / subjugation and never trusted by you. But of course you will just be doing what Guru Ji thought was appropriate for treatment of women right?
 
Last edited:

japjisahib04

Mentor
SPNer
Jan 22, 2005
822
1,292
kuwait
What about charitar 312 when it says God regretted creating the female gender??? Do you believe Waheguru regretted creating us or that Guru Ji believed so?
You forgot the pankti 'ਆਪਿ ਅਭੁਲੁ ਨ ਕਬਹੂ ਭੁਲਾ ॥ ਆਪੇ ਮਿਹਰ ਦਇਆਪਤਿ ਦਾਤਾ ਨਾ ਕਿਸੈ ਕੋ ਬੈਰਾਈ ਹੇ ॥੧੧॥ SGGS.1022 and 'ਭੁਲਣ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਅਭੁਲੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਕਰਤਾਰੁ ॥' SGGS.61.7
 

Ishna

Enthusiast
Writer
SPNer
May 9, 2006
3,248
5,184
OK, it was an unusual question, I thought you were jesting. Thanks for clearing it up.



We will get to what is written in the Charitropakhyan in good time. Let's not rush ourselves into it, but prepare ourselves.



Absolutely it is written there, by Guru Sahib's dictation, and I will be discussing this in due course.




A little rude, as you don't know me, and I you. Let's keep this discussion from falling to such low standards please. Rememeber that comments made on this forum will be read by a large number of people and their experience here should be one of learning, not regretting they came here and were subject to this opinion of yours. We are not enemies. Let's share and discuss like Sikhs.
Sorry mate, but it's a fairly straight forward question - that you're unable to answer it says too much.

I'm not up for spending too much time on mental gymnastics to listen to an argument trying to legitamise having to ask my husband to pee, or moreover, that it would be what Guru Gobind Singh Ji would have believed / wanted his Sikhs to believe.

That so many Sikhs do believe it is too sad.
 

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
I know Kully jee I a was bit rude
Thanks, but that's ok. Recognition of one's actions and the strength to admit to wrongdoing is a great strength. Not everyone has that ability. Let's continue with the discussion.

Kully Ji respectfully,
Harkiran Ji, What is the meaning of the word "charitropakhyan"?

i asked you earlier but you posted some random charitar. We will get round to the charitars after preparing ourselves to read them. Please be courteous and reply to any questions. if you don't know then just say.


Sorry mate, but it's a fairly straight forward question - that you're unable to answer it says too much.
"does your wife get your permission to use the toilet"? is a usual question? How many men have you asked this?

It's unusual to me as I've never been asked before but I did reply.
 

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
Your answer toIshna Ji that the only reason you don't believe your wife should ask permission to pee is that you are not married scares me.
Harkiran ji why should you be scared? I'm not married so the question of my wife asking my permission wouldn't even arise.


I hope you never do get married
What a nasty thing to say.

Why is this discussion turning from discussion to personal affrontery? I have never speculated on any of your relationship with your spouses. As for you Harkiran, I did wish you all the best on your topic about your husband joining you soon, and this is what you wish for me. Let's at least be civil please.
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 21, 2012
1,393
1,910
Harkiran ji why should you be scared? I'm not married so the question of my wife asking my permission wouldn't even arise.




What a nasty thing to say.

Why is this discussion turning from discussion to personal affrontery? I have never speculated on any of your relationship with your spouses. As for you Harkiran, I did wish you all the best on your topic about your husband joining you soon, and this is what you wish for me. Let's at least be civil please.
How could I ever condone someone getting married to a man who considers her the embodiment of deceit, keeps secrets from her, requires her permission to do anything including going for a wee?? If you believe in what is written in the charitars then that is what you are condoning in a marriage. And the fact that you won't come out and say anything to the contrary, says much. As Ishna says, you refused to answer, except to say that you aren't married so it does not apply. (That means it will apply when you do get married). How slyly you tried to avoid the question she posed.

Charitropakhyan is women's wiles. Some try to say it means wiles of people in general. But also known as Triya Charitar, Triya being female/feminine, and charitar being trickery / wiles. So Charitropakhyan is the 'Wiles of Women' which corresponds to the stories being in vast majority of cases about women being deceitful and playing tricks to get what they want and hence the common message that men should never trust women.
 

Admin

SPNer
Jun 1, 2004
6,619
5,208
SPN
Admin Note: Dear all, if you think, there are some questions which are un-related to this discussion in hand, you may initiate new threads to deal with those questions... If you are facing issues opening new threads please do not hesitate to ask us. Thank you.
 

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
And the fact that you won't come out and say anything to the contrary, says much
Ok, I hereby declare that I will never require my future wife to ask my permission when she needs to use the toilet.

How slyly you tried to avoid the question she posed.
I apologise. Let's get back to questions about this topic.

Harkiran Ji, What is the meaning of the word "charitropakhyan"?
 

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
Charitropakhyan is women's wiles.
Wrong.

Some try to say it means wiles of people in general.
That is wrong too.


Thanks for answering the questions. I admire and respect that you did.

I have one final question for you Harkiran Ji, and then I will start to add to this discussion. I would like to know exactly what have been your source(s) (i.e. books) of reading for this text.
 

Admin

SPNer
Jun 1, 2004
6,619
5,208
SPN
Wrong.



That is wrong too.


Thanks for answering the questions. I admire and respect that you did.

I have one final question for you Harkiran Ji, and then I will start to add to this discussion. I would like to know exactly what have been your source(s) (i.e. books) of reading for this text.
Kully ji, for the sake of prudence, before delving any further on this discussion, please share your own interpretations of these questions.

Thank you.
 

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
Kully ji, for the sake of prudence, before delving any further on this discussion, please share your own interpretations of these questions.
Admin Ji, please bear with me on this. I promise that the above will be my final question to Harkiran Ji. Further to that I promise that I will share my own interpretations, on her response.
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 21, 2012
1,393
1,910
Up till now, you have been condescending, acting like you are right and everyone else are wrong, and refusing to answer questions yourself. Therefore, I will not answer any more until you answer some of the questions I asked you over the last few pages.
 

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
Up till now, you have been condescending, acting like you are right and everyone else are wrong,
Harkiran Ji and fellow forum members, I apologise profusely if I come across like this.


and refusing to answer questions yourself.
Harkiran Ji, I have answered questions, some of which were a little unrelated to the topic.


Therefore, I will not answer any more until you answer some of the questions I asked you over the last few pages.
Harkiran Ji, I most certainly will answer your questions. However it would be better to answer them and keep in with the flow of discussion. You have presented some questions that I have the answers for, and which I will share. That is a promise from me,
 

Original

Writer
SPNer
Jan 10, 2011
1,053
552
62
London UK
Dear Admin Singh Ji,

I'm obliged to remind you of your commitment to some of the
core values of SPN:
  • offering unbiased...........discussions
Please try n live up to your obligations and marshal the argument to a fruitful conclusion. Dont allow it to become personal and veer off course. There is no legitimate justification for probative value statements [Kully, wife n women, irrelevant] to be made because they will most certainly prejudice the minds of the wider listeners [readers] against the proponent [Kully] to his detriment. You aiding and abetting [let the cat out of the bag Kully] will be deemed an unfair advantage to the opposing party [Harkiran Ji].

Furthermore, Japjisahib has fallen below the required standard of professional etiquette. He must be politely reminded and kindly requested to refrain from personal attacks and derogatory language. Two wrongs don't make a right. Justice cannot be had through unjust means.

And finally, if I may add, arguments can be pleasureable. They can be creative and productive activity that engages the minds and hearts of likeminded communities, the kind you vouch for on your site. Kully Ji has something to share with us all, let us give him the opportunity. And equally, Harkiran Ji has a valid case in point on social justice. But where the former is seeking to legitimise the authenticity of SDGSJ, the latter, is rebutting on principles of its incompatibility the contents with wider belief n value of Sikh faith. In my view, the two should be allowed time n space to argue their case.

I've tried to furnish with goodwill an overview so that an unbiased discussion could develop on part SPN.

Thank you !
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 21, 2012
1,393
1,910
But where the former is seeking to legitimise the authenticity of SDGSJ, the latter, is rebutting on principles of its incompatibility the contents with wider belief n value of Sikh faith.

Thank you !
Original Ji, that may be WHY I am taking up the cause, but my arguments against DG are not BASED on that alone. Yes denigration of women, is incompatible with Sikh belief and values. Our Gurus fought to elevate position of women to that of equal, while this granth seeks to do the exact opposite, with suggestions that Singhs can not trust any woman, even their own wife, and that women need to be controlled and kept under thumb of men because we are 'the embodiment of deceit'.

My arguments against DG authenticity are based upon the "unreliability" of the supposed evidence:

1. The letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji - The letter has been analyzed by scholars and deemed a forgery. That would be enough on its own as this conclusion was arrived at by analysis of the language used in the letter itself - which proved it was written much later. However, in the letter itself, it makes no mention of a 'dasam granth' but does make mention of "303 Chritra Upakhyans" Now the fact that there are 405 in the dasam granth (save for the missing # 325 charitar) makes one question where did the other 102 come from? There are some points to be noted about this letter as originally pointed out by famous scholar Rattan Singh Jaggi ji is his seminal research that was published in the book ‘Dasam Granth da Krititav’ (Authorship of Dasam Granth). The main points are:

"The writing is done with the help of a metallic nib not with a reed pen. Metallic nibs were invented around 1800 AD in England and were first manufactured in Birmingham, England, UK.
The use of dot or Bindi for nasalisation was not used in Gurmukhi till late nineteenth century. No hukamnama, or manuscript ever used a dot for this purpose prior to nineteenth century. But we have this in this letter for instance the last sentence:
ਜੁਆਬ ਪੋਰੀ ਮੇਂ has the dot on the last letter ‘m’. Similarly, in the 14th line from the bottom text ie ਉਨਾ ਵਿਚ ਸਾਹਿਬਾਂ ਦੇ has a dot as part of the ‘kanna bindi’ on the letter ‘b’.
The vowel sign ‘dulaikrey’ has always till late nineteenth century been written is such a way that of the 2 lines drawn under a consonant , the right end of the upper line touches the bottom of the consonant. However, in this letter, it never does so following the practice used during the twentieth century. The two lines of the dulainkrey vowel sign in this letter are identically drawn as in the case of printed Gurmukhi text in modern times.
The shapes of the Gurmukhi letters is very modern that existed after the use of press in the early part of the twentieth century."


2. Chibber's Banasavlinama - completed 71 years after Guru Gobind Singh Ji left this world, Chibber says in this work that he 'wrote what he heard' and that too, without citing sources, and never refers to a 'dasam granth' instead referring to several works which were written by Guru Ji and lost (one thrown into a 'rivulet' and the other lost in battle) The only name he refers to when speaking of these, is 'Samundar Sagar Granth'. Further, Chibber seems wholly unreliable as a source for information as in Banasavlinama he makes errors with regards to numerous dates and events.

3. Mehma Parkash - written another 21 years AFTER Chibber's Banasavlinama. It too, cites absolutely NO sources to back its claims, and even then does not mention a 'dasam granth'. However it mentions a 'Vidya Sagar Granth' and mentions the names of poets who's work is included in it.

So far the three main sources of 'proof' for DG authenticity seem purely circumstantial (and wishful thinking). There is no way to prove that what we have as DG now, was in fact the same works mentioned in both Chibber's account (Sumandar Sagar Granth) and Mehma Parkash (Vidya Sagar Granth). None of those texts make any reference to earlier sources to back their claims. Chibber admits he only wrote 'what he heard' and both Banasavlinama and Mehma Parkash speak of two different 'granths' that Guru Ji supposedly wrote, having two differing names, and no indication except very vague description of contents. Therefore we CAN NOT use the above three documents!
That coupled with the fact that the history of the earliest 4 birs of DG with regards to their origins seem to have a big question mark!

In his 'Panth Parkash' Gyani Gyan Singh has given credence to four Birs, and Mahan Kosh only gives credence to two. The earliest that any of these birs can be traced is to the year 1818, a full 84 years after Bhai Mani Singh Ji was martyred (and now 110 years after Guru Ji left this world).

So Kully Ji and Original Ji, please show me TANGIBLE evidence that proves Guru Ji wrote it! If all you can do is keep referring to the above references, then that is not tangible. That is doing an awful lot of assumption without any actual proof!

Lets leave meaning of the charitars aside for now. And yes Kully Ji 'Triya Charitar' means women's trickery / deceit. The only difference in the full use of 'Chairitropakhyan' means ' stories of trickery which were already told'.

Now since you both like circumstantial evidence so much, Guru Gobind Singh Ji and all previous Gurus elevated women as equals. Gurbani says over and over that as Gurmukh we are to see ALL humans with a single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained. How then, can you fathom that Guru Gobind Singh Ji would write an entire works, aimed at making men distrust women, to the point it drives home the message that men should consider all women as the 'embodiment of deceit' and keep women under their control so much so that it suggests a wife should do NOTHING without her husband's permission (like a slave).

Even if someone tries to say there is a deeper mystical meaning and the outward meaning is not to be taken, it doesn't matter. Media drives the mind and actions. We can see today how all the ISIS and anti Muslim rhetoric causes mass Islamophobia. The result of our brains being pounded over and over with messages of how Muslims are terrorists, and that they can not be trusted. You can see the effect this has had in all western societies. How much distrust of Muslims in general do you think pervade the consciousness of the public right now? Even if that bias is unconscious... its blatantly visible! The same effect happened with Singhs who read Charitropakhyan. The net result of onslaught of stories depicting women as deceivers and unable to be trusted, caused supposed 'Singhs' to undo all the work the previous Gurus had done to elevate women, and women in general are viewed as being lower in moral character, and has resulted in many of these 'Singhs' seeking to exert excess control over their wives and all women in their family (hey Charitropakhyan tells them to!). I am sure you have heard of honor killing in Sikh community - its happened in the UK in several HIGH profile cases I know off hand, and also Australia for starters. (The Australia one he burned his wife to death, and the UK one I know off hand one woman was taken to India under pretense of spending time with the mother in law and killed for not being submissive enough. The only reason the MIL was caught is the brothers wife reported her to police). Have a good look around Punjab in Sikh families and see how far this distrust and excess control of women, even Sikh women, by their husbands, fathers etc actually goes! Would Guru Ji have intended that!!!??? I dont think so!

So until someone shows some actual FACTUAL and RELIABLE evidence then I am bowing out.
 

Original

Writer
SPNer
Jan 10, 2011
1,053
552
62
London UK
Don't ask me Sire! Ask your Conscience ... :)
Thank you Sir ! It is my conscience in accord with perfect virtue that brings about this conscious wonder of respect n reverence for all literatures. And, hence the reason, I'm sitting on the fence with the on going debate.

Many thanks -
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Shabad Vichaar by SPN'ers

Literal translation from Sant Singh Khalsa in black followed by my interpretation in green.

ਕਾਨੜਾ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥ Kaanarraa Mehalaa 5 || Ang 1298

ਕੀਰਤਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੀ ਗਾਉ ਮੇਰੀ ਰਸਨਾਂ ॥ Keerath Prabh Kee Gaao...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top