Bansavalinama The References To Brahmans In Bansavalinama

Discussion in 'Sikh Literature' started by Kully, Oct 20, 2016.

  1. Kully

    Kully SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    25
    Given how the previous topic on Bansawalinama turned out, I am not going to post anymore of this work after this post. I am going to post up my translation on “Chibber being a Brahman” which was quoted by Harkiran Ji in her post. It’s a shame that the topic was closed, but it really got out of hand. I am going to post my translations of the verses that Harkiran Ji used but make what you want of them.



    Please please do not post off topic as it will serve no purpose whatsoever.
     
    chibber 9.JPG


    -- “Brahmin’s form is superior” Bansawalinama. 14, 630



    Let’s take this verse from #628



    Kesar Singh Chibber is a fool, to look at he is very handsome

    To look at he is very pure, but inside he is very filthy (628)



    To look at he is a freshly minted coin, but inside he is base and empty

    To look at he is gleaming silver, but inside he is very filthy (629)



    To look at he is a wise person, but inside he is very ignorant

    He looks fine sitting in an assembly, but his mind is full of vikaars

    His body is a high Brahman caste, but he has no knowledge or learning ability

    To look at he looks like a wise soul, but his mind is full of vikaars (630)

    chibber 10.JPG

    And then on to:



    -- According to his will, one may remove Janju [Hindu holy thread] or wear it. Ibid, 10, 492



    This is actually verse 493 we should be looking at which reads:

    “The four varnas have come into the Guru’s Panth.

    If one discards his Janju, he should not be told to wear it.

    If one wears a Janju he should not be told to lose it (493)



    This verse is about people having the right to practise their religion, freedom of religion. how do we know? Read the verses from 890 and you will see what Chibber is talking about.




    chibber 11.JPG


    And lastly:



    -- The Brahmin who is a Sikh, accord him high respect and honour. Ibid, 10, 354




    Sending fruits and hukumnamas to various countries

    Do not accept the authority of the masands and minas, A Sikh should follow the rehit of the Guru

    Those who are Brahman Sikhs, give them great respect and honour (354)



    Chibber goes on to say why in the next verse…
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2016
  2. Loading...


  3. Harkiran Kaur

    Harkiran Kaur

    Leader

    Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Chhiber's self proclamation of being 'unworthy' of the Brahmin label doesn't excuse that he is still perpetuating that Brahmin form are superior (which he admits to). He is perpetuating casteism (even if he doesn't consider himself to be worthy of the label Brahmin). He does however, admit to being of Brahmin background - so even if he thinks himself unworthy, daily he would receive blessings just for being of Brahmin caste and he is condoning the idea that Brahmin form is superior, which he directly gets to benefit from.


    Now please answer the questions I asked before:


    Does Sikhi believe in casteism, such that Sikhs consider Brahmin form to be superior?

    Can one be both a Brahmin and a Sikh?

    Did Guru Nanak Dev Ji reject the sacred thread? And why?

    .
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2016
  4. Kully

    Kully SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    25
    No.

    these questions have nothing to do with this topic. Start a new topic on these questions and we can look at them there.

    Everybody has been politely requested not to post off topic here.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  5. Aman Singh

    Aman Singh Admin SPNer

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    6,440
    Likes Received:
    5,131
    @Kully ji, what kind of responses, according to you, would be on-topic? I am asking because almost all responses to your topics lately are deemed off-topic by you... or in other words, you only want responses which condone to your assertions... or these are off-topic. :emoji_thinking:
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  6. Harkiran Kaur

    Harkiran Kaur

    Leader

    Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Ummm the topic title is "The references to Brahmins in Banasavalinama" and the quotes you translated are the three quotes I posed to you --- the same three quotes which directly lead to those three questions which I (once again) have posed to you.

    How exactly are they not related? Is it because you don't wish to answer them?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2016
  7. Kully

    Kully SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    25
    This topic was in a response to what you said about Chibber portraying his Brahman superiority and giving 3 examples of where you thought he had.

    Looking a those 3 examples it is evident about the context in which has talked about the Brahman form. There is no way in those 3 examples that he has made himself special just by being a Brahman.

    There may be other passages in the book where he may have called for some kind of Brahman special or exra recognition but it is not in the examples you provided. If you have any other passages, not one-liners though as you can see how easily people can take them out of context, and how others can easily be duped by them, then please share them and we can look at them together.
     
  8. Harry Haller

    Harry Haller SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,521
    Likes Received:
    8,072
    ok, assume I am an idiot, because I am struggling to see what we are actually debating here, what are we actually debating here?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  9. Harkiran Kaur

    Harkiran Kaur

    Leader

    Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Re-read my second last post. I commented on the full verses. Though Chhiber claims himself to not be "worthy" of the brahmin label, he still affords superiority to the brahmin form. That is still casteism. And even though he says he himself doesn't deserve the label, he admits he is of brahmin background (meaning he was privy to being treated as a brahmin his whole life, thus thoroughly getting to enjoy the superior Brahmin form).

    Now I will ask one more time as they are VERY much on topic, pertaining to the three translations you started this post with!

    Does Sikhi believe in casteism, seeing Brahmins as superior?

    Can one be both a Brahmin and a Sikh?

    Did Guru Nanak reject the sacred thread? Why?


    The three above are VERY pertinent to this topic to 1) determine whether Chhiber is presenting Hindu mat as Sikh principles 2) Whether Chhiber is biased towards Hindu Brahmin principles (believing in casteism, Hindu rights such as sacred threads, among other things like worship of Hindu deities) These things all add up to tell us if Chhiber can be used as a reliable source of information on anything pertaining to our Gurus. Especially when that information pops up decades and decades after Guru Gobind Singh Ji left his physical body. If we did not determine these things, and just blindly accepted any piece of literature thrown at us, that means anyone could write anything and we'd have to take it as truth. Surely you can see just how dangerous that is??????
    If you can't then I don't know what else to say.

    Anyway if you won't answer those questions, then that's where I bow out ...once again. You are good at forcing your views on others, and asking others to answer your questions but you never answer any that others have, while you just dismiss ours while acting all condescending.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Harry Haller

    Harry Haller SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,521
    Likes Received:
    8,072
    Kullyji can you please succinctly clarify what it is you are asking us to debate, you have provided references to Brahmans, to what end? what is your point?

    I will try very hard to try and keep this thread open but that depends on the participants, but let us give it another go, if this goes the same way as the others, I see no point in debating the DG after this one, unless there is a bit more clarity regarding agenda
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Kully

    Kully SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    25
    I have bold and underlined the 3 quotes to which the rest of the post is a reply.
     
    Thatthe 3 quotes posted by Harkiran Ji, were out of context and not assuming any kind of brahman superiority. That's what this topic is about only. If anyone else can find any passages of Brahman superiority claims in this book please share them and we can take a look a them together.
     
  12. Harry Haller

    Harry Haller SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,521
    Likes Received:
    8,072
    ah ok, your saying they do not refer to Brahman superiority, and Harkiranji is saying they do, and has posed questions and in return, can you please then reply to her post so we can move on?

    Her point, I believe is that the quotes you have provided confirm Brahman superiority in Sikhism, are you saying they do not? what is your personal position, let us move forward and discuss, and please leave moderation and personalities out of it, they are three simple questions, please answer them
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Kully

    Kully SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    25
    No Harry Ji. The topic is about these 3 lines from Bansawalinama only. If there are any other lines in Bansawalinama about Brahman superiority then those can be shared and discussed as well.

    Any other questions concerning Brahmans and Janjus etc can be discussed in another new topic. I have said all I wanted to say about these quotes from Bansawalinama, firstly how they were presented and finally what the text actually says.

    The forum members are asked to make of them what they want.
     
  14. Original

    Original Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,053
    Likes Received:
    549
    ..silence is no solution ! If you have something to say, say it; bearing in mind of course, both conventional and legislative rules are adhered to !
    ..it was closed because you refused to be questioned and interrogated. Any reader will tell you that the want to read most or all of subject to hand, is with purpose and with an analytical or critical approach. In part, this would mean, "interrogating" the text, and being physical with it, asking critical questions as you read and digest.
    ...what you failed to demonstrate here in support of your writing is that the varn [caste, brahmin] is a system of belief [Hindu], within which the writer [chibber] was born. And, that what chibber is attempting to articulate here is an account of his "self analysis". In other words "introspection". Moreover, the perspective from within which chibber writes is crucial in order to get the drift of his writings. Such inferences and references ought to be borne out so your audience remain on course.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Harry Haller

    Harry Haller SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,521
    Likes Received:
    8,072
    You asked me to try my best to keep this thread open, and now you have said all you wanted to say, Have you ever heard the story of the boy that cried wolf?
     
  16. Harkiran Kaur

    Harkiran Kaur

    Leader

    Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Those three quotes directly lead to those three questions as we are trying to determine if Chhiber is any kind of reliable authority on Sikhi.

    The first quote regarding Brahmin form being superior. Even though Chhiber states he doesn't feel worthy of the title, he still acknowledges that Brahmin form is superior. That begs the first question I asked. Is what Chhiber saying compatible with Sikhi? Does Sikhi believe in casteism and consider Brahmin form superior to others?
    --The answer is simple. All the Gurus rejected casteism vehemently and considered all humans as equals. No form is superior over another. So what Chhiber is saying is actually against Sikh philosophy. But certainly you can see that Chhiber being born into a Brahmin caste is suppprting the idea of the Brahmin form being superior... a position he personally gets to benefit from... is a severely biased position even if he thinks himself not worthy. And he is trying to pass this ideology off as Sikhi.

    The second quote asking us to revere the Brahmin who is a Sikh. This begs the question can one be both a Brahmin and a Sikh at the same time? Also the answer is easy.
    -- If it had said revere the one who renounces his caste and becomes Sikh then it would be ok and compatible with Sikh ideology. But how can one revere a Brahmin who IS a Sikh? When one takes Amrit and becomes Fully baptized Sikh, one must renounce ANY idea of caste, superiority, etc and is reborn into a new family where ALL initiates are equal. If one becomes Sikh they have to abide by the maryada which says a Sikh must "owe no allegiance to any other religion". Hindu / Brahminism is another religion, its not Sikhi. So no, one cannot be both a Brahmin and a Sikh. But here we have Chhiber again suggesting that Brahmins hold some special superior place within Sikhi, a position he would personally benefit from.

    The third quote regarding Hindu sacred threads may be worn. Again a question was drawn directly from this. Did Guru Nanak Dev Ji reject the sacred thread and why?
    -- Again the answer is easy. Guru Nanak Dev Ji did not take the sacred thread and rejected it... why? The sacred thread promotes casteism and Brahmin superiority. So why is Chhiber saying it's ok for a Sikh to wear it?

    So from the above we can easily see that Chhiber's writings are influenced by his Brahmin background, such that he is actually trying to inculcate Brahminical ideas into Sikhi. So then, how can we use him as a reliable source or expert witness as to the authenticity of Dasam Granth, especially when Dasam Granth itself contains a huge Brahminical influence speaking of Hindu Gods as real entities, denigratIng women in the same light as Laws of Manu. Etc. ?? In a court of law today, I'm sure @Original ji can verify this, that an obviously biased potential juror will be disqualified, because their ultimate decision will be influenced by their bias.

    So the three questions I asked in direct response to the three quotes from Chhiber work tell us much about his own personal ideology and it's obvious that he views Sikhi through Brahminical lens.


    From sikhiwikki:

    When Nanak had attained the age of nine years, his father determined to have him invested with the Janoy or janeu, or sacrificial thread of the Hindus as was the common custom of the people in India. Until a boy is so invested, he is deemed almost an outcaste. When the members and relations of the family, and all the neighbours, secular and religious, had assembled, and all preliminary rites had been duly performed, Hardial, the family priest, proceeded to put the sacred thread on Nanak's neck. Young Nanak caught the thread with his hand, and asked the priest what he was doing, and what advantage it was to put a thread of that description on him. The priest then explained that the Janoy was the basis of the Hindu religion, that without it a man would only be a Sudar. Guru Nanakrefused to wear the thread.

    The main reasons give for these rejection are:

    • The thread is a sign of discrimination. Low castes are not allowed to wear the janoy.
    • It bring no virtue or enhancement to the wearer. It can break easily. It does not have any strength and does not give the wearer any strength.
    • It gets filthy very easily; It can be burnt and lost
    • It falsely gives the Brahmin a position of spiritual guide - which he really does not deserve. It is a custom created by the Brahmin to exercise and create a empty ritual which only he can perform. It creates this unnecessary "priestly" class.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2016
  17. Original

    Original Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,053
    Likes Received:
    549
    ..technically speaking yes, but reality check would reveal otherwise.

    Rules of Natural Justice would invalidate the decision if there were signs of any bias on part the decision maker. However, prejudices, biases, discrimination, etc are organically related [human genome] and cannot therefore be completely eliminated.

    If Chibber comes across as bias towards his own caste that'll be to his genetic constitution and not social or religious.

    As regards his writings, we should weigh his account [evidence] under the following headings:
    validity, reliability, comprehensiveness and coherence.

    It was in this regard that I'd found your [HKJ] and KJ's argument inconclusive.

    Harkiran Kaur Ji, you're a spiritual being, let go of these human traits and take your place amongst the spiritualists. You have so much to offer -

    Take care
     
  18. Harkiran Kaur

    Harkiran Kaur

    Leader

    Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    1,901

    This is ultimately a spiritual debate. Since dasam Granth aims to inculcate Hindu Brahminical ideas into Sikhi which actually change the entire philosophy of Sikhi right from having ONE Creator to many deities, to seeing and denigrating the female gender as some lower form spiritually and otherwise... actually it makes the female gender look like an obstacle to men's spiritual progress. Much of what it says is in line with Laws of Manu (don't trust women, women are immoral and deceitful, exercise strict control and domination over women, women must see men as God, even that God regretted Creating females etc). These ideas are being passed off as Sikhi because of wrongly thinking that Guru Gobind Singh Ji wrote them. This affects the spiritual paths of many. Just think in Hindu past how many souls in female form were kept from progress held back because they were told they needed to be born in a male joon before they can progress and the only way they could attain a male joon was a life of being a slave to men.

    What about worshipping deities? Kully Ji in earlier posts, has already acknowledged belief in multiple deities as having actually existed, and believes they are Sikh teachings because of dasam granth.

    Why it's important to see if Chhiber is biased is because believed by many scholars that dasam Granth is an attempt to bring Sikhi back to Hindu fold by inculcating Hindu Brahminical ideals into Sikhi. If Chhiber who wrote his book around the same time that this could have happened, shows bias toward Brahminical ideals then obviously he would write to support anything having Brahminical ideals, whether it was true or not! In other words his book could have been part of this attempt to bring Sikhs back to Hindu fold.

    So that's why we need to understand chhibers intent.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. swarn bains

    swarn bains Poet SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    130
    Harkirn jee. s s a. i have a few questions for you.
    You are an intellectual. how much time you are spending exploring sikhi.
    as long as you keep answering kully ja he will keep on engaging you. You already know; except few pages by guru Gobind singh dasam granth is garbage. so you should not get yourself dragged into it. thats all
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Original

    Original Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,053
    Likes Received:
    549
    Thank you Swarn Ji, much appreciated !

    HKJ, the soul is formless, shapeless, timeless, genderless, castless, matter-less; rise above therefore and home-in on the "shabad guru surat dhun chela" [943 SGGSJ], the true you, the true Sikh [khalsa, state of pure consciousness]. Chibber n the gang cannot move the goalpost, definitely not of a Khalsa who rises above these dualistic characteristics of physical existence.

    Sikhi is shabad [unstruck sound, anhad shabad], shabad is guru, guru is God and, God as you know is sound [waheguru satnam]. All religions, whether they'd be Islam, Christainity, Buddhists or Hinduism are no more than paths to that "one" destination [God]. Does it matter if Chibber n the gang are throwing spanner into the works ? I don't think so because ultimately they'll all merge into the one, meaning, Khalsa [pure consciousness] where the soul is to be seated.

    It was on account this I said, "let go" because your spiritual prowess will lift more souls than satisfy the few wannabe intellects

    Kully and the gang can argue until the cows arrive to be milked, their arguments serve to satisfy intellectual voids, not spiritual realms. Spirituality begins where intellect surrenders.

    Many thanks !
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Kully

    Kully SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    25
    I have been through more of this book and found another 2 references to Brahmans. One is a quote from DG, and the other reference is the same “Uttam jama Brahman ka”, where Chibber is saying that although he is born in the high caste of Brahman, known for its learning and knowledge, he is absolutely devoid of knowledge.



    Chibber goes further on this and says that it was down to the Guru’s kirpa only that he has been able to write this book. Nowhere in the book has Chibber stated that he is proud of being a Brahman. He profusely states that he is a Sikh and has no other Guru except the Guru. He also repeatedly tells others to accept the Guru and follow the Guru’s teachings.

    It is complete nonsense to say that Chibber had some kind of Brahman agenda in writing this book, or that he had any kind of pride of being a Brahman. There is no suggestion of either at all in this book. Time and time again he says that his only refuge is at the Guru’s feet.

    It feels that some people have seized on Chibber’s being of Brahman caste to try and negate the valuable history that we find in his book. Can’t argue with the information being presented? Then try and discredit the person presenting the info.
     
    Swaran Ji, what is wrong with discussion? These things should be discussed. It's how we can learn and share our information. No-one is forced to reply.
     
    I agree that there is a distinction between spirituality and intellectual study.

    But intellectual study involves studying and analysing. It doesn't, or should not involve spreading of wrong or false information.
     
    I presented a quote from DG which you never responded to. However this one is one that Sikh read every day as part of their Nitnem.

    What would a Brahman (or any other Hindu) wish to achieve by writing this:

    ਸ੍ਵੈਯਾ ॥
    ਪਾਂਇ ਗਹੇ ਜਬ ਤੇ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਤਬ ਤੇ ਕੋਊ ਆਂਖ ਤਰੇ ਨਹੀ ਆਨਯੋ ॥ ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਅਨੇਕ ਕਹੈਂ ਮਤ ਏਕ ਨ ਮਾਨਯੋ ॥

    O God ! the day when I caught hold of your feet, I do not bring anyone else under my sight; none other is liked by me now; the Puranas and the Quran try to know Thee by the names of Ram and Rahim and talk about you through several stories, but I do not accept them.

    ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬੇਦ ਸਭੈ ਬਹੁ ਭੇਦ ਕਹੈ ਹਮ ਏਕ ਨ ਜਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਅਸਿਪਾਨ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਤੁਮਰੀ ਕਰਿ ਮੈ ਨ ਕਹਯੋ ਸਭ ਤੋਹਿ ਬਖਾਨਯੋ ॥੮੬੩॥

    The Simritis, Shastras and Vedas describe several mysteries of yours, but I do not agree with any of them. O sword-wielder God! This all has been described by Thy Grace, what power can I have to write all this?.863.

    DG page 642 (on searchgurbani)
     

Share This Page