dallysingh101

Dasmesh pita on Singhs retaliating for rape by enemy army (Translation of Suraj Prakash text)

32 posts in this topic

Original text from Suraj Prakash Granth. Translated in 2011. 

 

 

ਮਮ ਸਿਖ ਤੁਰਕਣਿ ਸੰਗ ਨ ਕਰੈ।

ਏਕ ਬਾਰ ਹੀ ਭੋਗੈ ਕੋਇ।

ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਸੋ ਤਤਛਿਨ ਹੋਇ।

ਜੋ ਨਰ ਹਿੰਦੁ ਧਰਮ ਕੋ ਧਰੈ।

ਬਚੈ ਤੁਰਕਣੀ ਤੇ ਸੋ ਤਰੈ।

ਜੋ ਪਰ ਨਾਰਿ ਭੋਗ ਪਛੁਤਾਵੈ।

ਕੁਛ ਪ੍ਰਾਸ਼ਚਿਤ ਅਘ ਹਿਤ ਕਰਿਵਾਵ ॥15॥

ਕੈ ਗੁਰ ਸਿੱਖਨ ਤੇ ਬਖਸ਼ਾਵੈ।

ਸੋ ਸਿਖ ਅਘ ਤੇ ਬਖਸ਼ਯੋ ਜਾਵੈ।

ਜੋ ਤੁਰਕਨਿ ਸਿਖ ਭੋਗਹਿ ਜਾਇ।

ਸੋ ਨਹਿਂ ਬਖਸ਼ਯੋ ਜਾਇ ਕਦਾਇ ॥16॥

ਪਾਕੋ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਹ੍ਵ੍ਵੈ ਸੋਇ।

ਪ੍ਰਥਮ ਅਜਾਨ ਜਿ ਭੂਲੈ ਕੋਇ।

ਮਿਲਿ ਤੁਰਕਨਿ ਸੰਗ ਸਿਖ ਬਨ ਜਾਇ।

ਸੋ ਭੀ ਛੂਟ ਜਾਇ ਗੁਰ ਧਯਾਇ ॥17॥

ਪੁਨ ਸਿੰਘਨਿ ਬੂਝੇ ਗੁਨ ਖਾਨੀ।

ਬ੍ਰਿੰਦ ਤੁਰਕ ਭੋਗੈਂ ਹਿੰਦਵਾਨੀ।

ਸਿਖ ਬਦਲਾ ਲੇ ਭਲਾ ਜਨਾਏ।

ਕਯੋਂ ਗੁਰ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬਰਜ ਹਟਾਏ? ॥18॥

ਸੁਨਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਬੋਲੇ ਤਿਸ ਬੇਰੇ।

ਹਮ ਲੇ ਜਾਨੋ ਪੰਥ ਉਚੇਰੇ।

ਨਹੀਂ ਅਧੋਗਤਿ ਬਿਖੈ ਪੁਚਾਵੈਂ।

ਯਾਂ ਤੇ ਕਲਮਲ ਕਰਨ ਹਟਾਵੈਂ ॥19॥

ਪੰਥ ਭੂਤਨਾ ਕੋ ਹੈ ਜੋਈ।

ਲਿਯੇ ਸੰਭਾਲ ਮੁਹੰਮਦ ਸੋਈ।

ਨਹਿਂ ਨੀਚਨ ਕੀ ਰੀਤਿ ਅਛੇਰੀ।

ਪਿਖਿ ਅਪਮਾਨ ਕਰਹਿਂ ਸਭਿ ਬੇਰੀ ॥20॥

 

Translation:

 

 

A Sikh of mine should not have (physical) relations with a Turkni. If one has (such) sex even on a single occasion, he will become a Muslim at that very instant. The man who adopts the Hindu faith should be wary of Turknis, remaining aloof from them. That man who regrets having sexual relationships with a woman that was not his own and performs some penance for his sin, (15) the Guru will be benevolent towards that Sikh, and he will be pardoned for his sin. The Sikh who enjoys a Turkni will never be forgiven. (16) That person will become a thorough Muslim. If someone has previously had physical relationships with a Turkni in ignorance, and later becomes a Sikh, they will also be pardoned by the Guru. (17)

Then the Singhs comprehended the character of the Khans. Turks hordes were ravishing Indian women. If the Sikhs took revenge [by raping in retaliation] it should be recognised as good. Why does the Guru’s instruction (note: ਗੁਰ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ implies a written code of conduct i.e. a rahitnama) prevent them [from doing this]? (18)

Listen to what the Guru said on this matter:

I have recognised this [Khalsa] path as an exalted one. Without base degradation assimilated within.That is why I prevent you from committing [such] sins. (19) That path which adopts Mohhamad, is one of demons.The ways of those lowly ones are not good.Observe how they commit outrages at every opportunity. (20)

Edited by dallysingh101
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

That path which adopts Mohhamad, is one of demons.The ways of those lowly ones are not good.Observe how they commit outrages at every opportunity. (20)

Some SJWs should really read this especially the, "all religions are equal", Pakhandis.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Some SJWs should really read this especially the, "all religions are equal", Pakhandis.

Remember the text was written over a century after the event. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

ਜੋ ਨਰ ਹਿੰਦੁ ਧਰਮ ਕੋ ਧਰੈ।

Note: "Hindu Dharma" here does not mean the Sanatana Dharma. One has to keep in mind that the term Hindu back then applied to every non-Moslem and not necessary to a follower of the set of Indian traditions, known as Hinduism. Just like Englishmen, Scotts and Welsh are called British. It was later, when the British came and dictionaries were written and the meaning of the word Hindu was standardized.

 

1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

SJWs

Brother, please enlighten me, who are SJWs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 5akaalsingh said:

Brother, please enlighten me, who are SJWs?

SJWs are an extreme group of the Regressive Left who wish to bow to all sorts of cultural and religious immorality.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

Remember the text was written over a century after the event. 

Still, even if you ignore the entire theological arguments on why mating with Muslims is a bad idea; on a purely genetic and scientific route the idea of mating with them is also ridiculous, Muslims are the most inbred group there is in the world, this is permanent damage to their gene pool. (Compare that with Punjabis who are the second most interbred with different ethnicity groups, and the only group more interbred are Hispanics).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jasdeepsingh2k125 said:

Hindu is used for hindus in guru granth sahib ji

Screenshot_2017-01-30-02-06-01.png

This is an anglophonic translation. Every verse needs to be contextualized separately for relative understanding of the matter. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

Original text from SPG:

 

 

ਮਮ ਸਿਖ ਤੁਰਕਣਿ ਸੰਗ ਨ ਕਰੈ।

ਏਕ ਬਾਰ ਹੀ ਭੋਗੈ ਕੋਇ।

ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਸੋ ਤਤਛਿਨ ਹੋਇ।

ਜੋ ਨਰ ਹਿੰਦੁ ਧਰਮ ਕੋ ਧਰੈ।

ਬਚੈ ਤੁਰਕਣੀ ਤੇ ਸੋ ਤਰੈ।

ਜੋ ਪਰ ਨਾਰਿ ਭੋਗ ਪਛੁਤਾਵੈ।

ਕੁਛ ਪ੍ਰਾਸ਼ਚਿਤ ਅਘ ਹਿਤ ਕਰਿਵਾਵ ॥15॥

ਕੈ ਗੁਰ ਸਿੱਖਨ ਤੇ ਬਖਸ਼ਾਵੈ।

ਸੋ ਸਿਖ ਅਘ ਤੇ ਬਖਸ਼ਯੋ ਜਾਵੈ।

ਜੋ ਤੁਰਕਨਿ ਸਿਖ ਭੋਗਹਿ ਜਾਇ।

ਸੋ ਨਹਿਂ ਬਖਸ਼ਯੋ ਜਾਇ ਕਦਾਇ ॥16॥

ਪਾਕੋ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਹ੍ਵ੍ਵੈ ਸੋਇ।

ਪ੍ਰਥਮ ਅਜਾਨ ਜਿ ਭੂਲੈ ਕੋਇ।

ਮਿਲਿ ਤੁਰਕਨਿ ਸੰਗ ਸਿਖ ਬਨ ਜਾਇ।

ਸੋ ਭੀ ਛੂਟ ਜਾਇ ਗੁਰ ਧਯਾਇ ॥17॥

ਪੁਨ ਸਿੰਘਨਿ ਬੂਝੇ ਗੁਨ ਖਾਨੀ।

ਬ੍ਰਿੰਦ ਤੁਰਕ ਭੋਗੈਂ ਹਿੰਦਵਾਨੀ।

ਸਿਖ ਬਦਲਾ ਲੇ ਭਲਾ ਜਨਾਏ।

ਕਯੋਂ ਗੁਰ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬਰਜ ਹਟਾਏ? ॥18॥

ਸੁਨਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਬੋਲੇ ਤਿਸ ਬੇਰੇ।

ਹਮ ਲੇ ਜਾਨੋ ਪੰਥ ਉਚੇਰੇ।

ਨਹੀਂ ਅਧੋਗਤਿ ਬਿਖੈ ਪੁਚਾਵੈਂ।

ਯਾਂ ਤੇ ਕਲਮਲ ਕਰਨ ਹਟਾਵੈਂ ॥19॥

ਪੰਥ ਭੂਤਨਾ ਕੋ ਹੈ ਜੋਈ।

ਲਿਯੇ ਸੰਭਾਲ ਮੁਹੰਮਦ ਸੋਈ।

ਨਹਿਂ ਨੀਚਨ ਕੀ ਰੀਤਿ ਅਛੇਰੀ।

ਪਿਖਿ ਅਪਮਾਨ ਕਰਹਿਂ ਸਭਿ ਬੇਰੀ ॥20॥

 

Translation:

 

 

A Sikh of mine should not have (physical) relations with a Turkni. If one has (such) sex even on a single occasion, he will become a Muslim at that very instant. The man who adopts the Hindu faith should be wary of Turknis, remaining aloof from them. That man who regrets having sexual relationships with a woman that was not his own and performs some penance for his sin, (15) the Guru will be benevolent towards that Sikh, and he will be pardoned for his sin. The Sikh who enjoys a Turkni will never be forgiven. (16) That person will become a thorough Muslim. If someone has previously had physical relationships with a Turkni in ignorance, and later becomes a Sikh, they will also be pardoned by the Guru. (17)

Then the Singhs comprehended the character of the Khans. Turks hordes were ravishing Indian women. If the Sikhs took revenge [by raping in retaliation] it should be recognised as good. Why does the Guru’s instruction (note: ਗੁਰ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ implies a written code of conduct i.e. a rahitnama) prevent them [from doing this]? (18)

Listen to what the Guru said on this matter:

I have recognised this [Khalsa] path as an exalted one. Without base degradation assimilated within.That is why I prevent you from committing [such] sins. (19) That path which adopts Mohhamad, is one of demons.The ways of those lowly ones are not good.Observe how they commit outrages at every opportunity. (20)

I thought this was from the Sau-Saakhi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2017 at 11:26 PM, 13Mirch said:

I thought this was from the Sau-Saakhi. 

It's in both. And almost verbatim too, so either one was used for the original source of the other - or they both used a common source. However, I notice the last sentence in the Sau Sakhi version, which condones caste doesn't appear to be in the Suraj Prakash version. 

 

1.jpg2.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some notes from when the piece was originally translated a few years ago:

Quote


The sakhi from SPG is very interesting. We can trace it's movement and development a bit. It starts of as the small sakhi in dasmesh pita's contemporary Sewa Das's 'Parchian', in the form of the Sakhi of the brother who came wailing into Guru ji's darbar after having been captured by sullay and forcibly had his kesh cut, and was fed Muslim meat and circumcised (ouch!) etc. Then he is reassured that he hasn't been made a sullah because he refrained from willingly having sex with a sulli etc. etc. In parchian the Sakhi is pretty short. It next seems to appear in the infamous 'Sau Sakhi' around the middle of the 1800s. Here it's significantly elaborated upon and extra dialog appears which give more detail about why physical relations with a 'Turkni' are so seriously prohibited, with the passage where Singhs ask about retaliating to sullah balathkaars in kind.

 

Then it appears in Suraj Prakash Granth which was also apparently composed by the mid 1800s by the famous Santokh Singh but really became known amongst the Sikh masses after Bhai Vir Singh published his annotated edition between 1927-35.

 

Judging by Attar Singh's English translation of Sau Sakhi (published in 1873), the texts in the Sau Sakhi and SPG appear to be identical or verbatim.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2017 at 0:40 PM, dallysingh101 said:

It's in both. And almost verbatim too, so either one was used for the original source of the other - or they both used a common source. However, I notice the last sentence in the Sau Sakhi version, which condones caste doesn't appear to be in the Suraj Prakash version. 

 

1.jpg2.jpg

The last sentence vis-a-vis Guru and Shasters (Hindu precepts and not weaponry) seems to be an injunction of the author or an addition to the original text. Seems to be quite out of place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/01/2017 at 5:14 PM, Preeet said:

Was the bold supposed to be a question from the Sikh? Since the period confused me.

The person translating has made a huge mistake.  It should have been fixed immediately.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

The person translating has made a huge mistake.  It should have been fixed immediately.  

What do you think it should be then? The whole point of posting the thing is for people to comment and feedback on it. 

Try not using it to do your cry-baby thing btw.

 

Here's the original text:

 

ਬ੍ਰਿੰਦ ਤੁਰਕ ਭੋਗੈਂ ਹਿੰਦਵਾਨੀ।

ਸਿਖ ਬਦਲਾ ਲੇ ਭਲਾ ਜਨਾਏ।

ਕਯੋਂ ਗੁਰ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬਰਜ ਹਟਾਏ? ॥18॥

 

Quote

The last sentence vis-a-vis Guru and Shasters (Hindu precepts and not weaponry) seems to be an injunction of the author or an addition to the original text. Seems to be quite out of place. 

My thoughts exactly. It's like some appended thing that promotes caste, worked in at the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

What do you think it should be then? The whole point of posting the thing is for people to comment and feedback on it. 

Try not using it to do your cry-baby thing btw.

 

Here's the original text:

 

ਬ੍ਰਿੰਦ ਤੁਰਕ ਭੋਗੈਂ ਹਿੰਦਵਾਨੀ।

ਸਿਖ ਬਦਲਾ ਲੇ ਭਲਾ ਜਨਾਏ।

ਕਯੋਂ ਗੁਰ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬਰਜ ਹਟਾਏ? ॥18॥

 

My thoughts exactly. It's like some appended thing that promotes caste, worked in at the end. 

Why don't you answer poster Preet's question.  Just in case you skipped over her question here it is: 

Quote

 

      On ‎29‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 7:48 AM, dallysingh101 said:

Then the Singhs comprehended the character of the Khans. Turks hordes were ravishing Indian women. If the Sikhs took revenge [by raping in retaliation] it should be recognised as good. Why does the Guru’s instruction (note: ਗੁਰ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ implies a written code of conduct i.e. a rahitnama) prevent them [from doing this]? (18)

Listen to what the Guru said on this matter:

I have recognised this [Khalsa] path as an exalted one. Without base degradation assimilated within.That is why I prevent you from committing [such] sins. (19) That path which adopts Mohhamad, is one of demons.The ways of those lowly ones are not good.Observe how they commit outrages at every opportunity. (20)

 

Was the bold supposed to be a question from the Sikh? Since the period confused me.

Edited by Akalifauj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me heretic but i don't believe this text to be written by dashmesh pita. 

Calling muhammadan faith demonic and specifically excluding muslim women from adultery are the reasons why i believe its not work of guru gobind singh ji. 

Why would guru ji specifically mention muslim women? So sex with hindu women is ok? Sex outside marriage is immoral be it with hindu, sikh or muslim women.  Also the author seems combines sikh and hindu as one

I can't believe it. 

This text doesn't pass universality values of guru gobind singh ji

Edited by AjeetSinghPunjabi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

Call me heretic but i don't believe this text to be written by dashmesh pita. 

Calling muhammadan faith demonic and specifically excluding muslim women from adultery are the reasons why i believe its not work of guru gobind singh ji. 

Why would guru ji specifically mention muslim women? So sex with hindu women is ok? Sex outside marriage is immoral be it with hindu, sikh or muslim women.  Also the author seems combines sikh and hindu as one

I can't believe it. 

This text doesn't pass universality values of guru gobind singh ji

You are correct that this piece of literature isn't written by Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, (none of the rehatnamas are), and that this is written by Bhai Santokh Singh. This; however, is correct in Gurmat standards that Muhammad still was a pakhandi baba; that is something Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji directly stated: 

"ਮਹਾਦੀਨ ਤਬ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਅਰਬ ਦੇਸ ਕੋ ਕੀਨੋ ਰਾਜਾ ॥੨੬॥
Then I created Muhammed, who was made the master of Arabia.26.

ਤਿਨ ਭੀ ਝਕ ਪੰਥ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਲਿੰਗ ਬਿਨਾ ਕੀਨੇ ਸਭ ਰਾਜਾ ॥
He started a religion and circumcised all the kings.

ਸਭ ਤੇ ਅਪਨਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਯੋ ॥ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਨ ਦ੍ਰਿੜਾਯੋ ॥੨੭॥
ਸਭ ਅਪਨੀ ਅਪਨੀ ਉਰਝਾਨਾ ॥ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕਾਹੂ ਨ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥
He caused all to utter his name and did not give True Name of the Lord with firmness to anyone.27. Everyone placed his own interest first and foremost and did not comprehend the Supreme God."
(Guru Gobind Singh, Bachitar Naatak – DG, p. 135-136)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/01/2017 at 3:48 PM, dallysingh101 said:

 

ਬ੍ਰਿੰਦ ਤੁਰਕ ਭੋਗੈਂ ਹਿੰਦਵਾਨੀ।

ਸਿਖ ਬਦਲਾ ਲੇ ਭਲਾ ਜਨਾਏ।

ਕਯੋਂ ਗੁਰ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬਰਜ ਹਟਾਏ? ॥18॥

Here I would take shaastar to mean "law".

 

On 31/01/2017 at 11:40 PM, dallysingh101 said:

It's in both. And almost verbatim too, so either one was used for the original source of the other - or they both used a common source. However, I notice the last sentence in the Sau Sakhi version, which condones caste doesn't appear to be in the Suraj Prakash version. 

 

1.jpg

 

Is this online ? I have never jeard of it being translated into english before.

 

9 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

My thoughts exactly. It's like some appended thing that promotes caste, worked in at the end. 

It is translated to read that, but it is a poor translation of it.

What do you feel about this text looking at the translation 5 years on Dal?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

What do you think it should be then? The whole point of posting the thing is for people to comment and feedback on it. 

Try not using it to do your cry-baby thing btw.

 

Here's the original text:

 

ਬ੍ਰਿੰਦ ਤੁਰਕ ਭੋਗੈਂ ਹਿੰਦਵਾਨੀ।

ਸਿਖ ਬਦਲਾ ਲੇ ਭਲਾ ਜਨਾਏ।

ਕਯੋਂ ਗੁਰ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬਰਜ ਹਟਾਏ? ॥18॥

 

My thoughts exactly. It's like some appended thing that promotes caste, worked in at the end. 

I believe the translation-cum-transliteration was first produced during the tenure of the Amritsar Singh Sabha. To quote Mandair on this point:

  'The Amritsar Singh-Sabha (Sanataan) was set up and backed by conservative Sikhs belonging to the Khatri Caste, many of whom were descendants of early Sikh Gurus. They included men such as Baba Khem Singh Bedi, a direct descendant of Guru Nanak, Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, Avtar Singh Vahira and Giani Gian Singh, a noted Sikh scholar of the time. The conservation of this Amritsar based group stemmed from the fact that they saw the Sikh Panth as one among the myriad streams constituting "Sanataan Dharma," the so-called eternal tradition that identifies its source of authority as the Veda. These self-styled 'Sanataan Sikhs' can be traced to those groups that refused to take Khalsa initiation on the grounds that the "Khande-Ka-Pahul" ceremony polluted their ritual boundaries and threatened their Caste status which they regarded as primary.  Though they resented the democratic tendency within the Khalsa groups, they continued to co-exist within the broader Sikh Panth even as they remained aloof from the mainstream Khalsa practices.'

Mandair, 'Sikhism: A Guide for the Perplexed,' pg. 83.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

You are correct that this piece of literature isn't written by Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, (none of the rehatnamas are), and that this is written by Bhai Santokh Singh. This; however, is correct in Gurmat standards that Muhammad still was a pakhandi baba; that is something Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji directly stated: 

"ਮਹਾਦੀਨ ਤਬ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਅਰਬ ਦੇਸ ਕੋ ਕੀਨੋ ਰਾਜਾ ॥੨੬॥
Then I created Muhammed, who was made the master of Arabia.26.

ਤਿਨ ਭੀ ਝਕ ਪੰਥ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਲਿੰਗ ਬਿਨਾ ਕੀਨੇ ਸਭ ਰਾਜਾ ॥
He started a religion and circumcised all the kings.

ਸਭ ਤੇ ਅਪਨਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਯੋ ॥ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਨ ਦ੍ਰਿੜਾਯੋ ॥੨੭॥
ਸਭ ਅਪਨੀ ਅਪਨੀ ਉਰਝਾਨਾ ॥ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕਾਹੂ ਨ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥
He caused all to utter his name and did not give True Name of the Lord with firmness to anyone.27. Everyone placed his own interest first and foremost and did not comprehend the Supreme God."
(Guru Gobind Singh, Bachitar Naatak – DG, p. 135-136)

It is believed that Kavi Santokh Singh utilized an unadulterated version of the Sau Saakhi to compose his Suraj Prakash. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 13Mirch said:

I believe the translation-cum-transliteration was first produced during the tenure of the Amritsar Singh Sabha. To quote Mandair on this point:

  'The Amritsar Singh-Sabha (Sanataan) was set up and backed by conservative Sikhs belonging to the Khatri Caste, many of whom were descendants of early Sikh Gurus. They included men such as Baba Khem Singh Bedi, a direct descendant of Guru Nanak, Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, Avtar Singh Vahira and Giani Gian Singh, a noted Sikh scholar of the time. The conservation of this Amritsar based group stemmed from the fact that they saw the Sikh Panth as one among the myriad streams constituting "Sanataan Dharma," the so-called eternal tradition that identifies its source of authority as the Veda. These self-styled 'Sanataan Sikhs' can be traced to those groups that refused to take Khalsa initiation on the grounds that the "Khande-Ka-Pahul" ceremony polluted their ritual boundaries and threatened their Caste status which they regarded as primary.  Though they resented the democratic tendency within the Khalsa groups, they continued to co-exist within the broader Sikh Panth even as they remained aloof from the mainstream Khalsa practices.'

Mandair, 'Sikhism: A Guide for the Perplexed,' pg. 83.

 

 

but badla in this sense could mean simply chatka of the turk ... as often was the response to beadbhi of many kinds at this time period no mucking about . Guru pita cannot on one hand say pariyaan maat dhi bakhne and then tell go take badla of same nature against innocent women.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, 13Mirch said:

It is believed that Kavi Santokh Singh utilized an unadulterated version of the Sau Saakhi to compose his Suraj Prakash. 

Not even arguing about that topic, the main topic which I stood on was Muhammad was a Pakhandi Baba, which he is and should not remotely be appreciated by Sikhs in any sense whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's Piara Singh Padam's text of the sakhi for those interested. He basically translated the original text Sau Sakhi text into modern Panjabi:

sau sakhi psp.jpg

Edited by dallysingh101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

If the Sikhs took revenge [by raping in retaliation] it should be recognised as good.

Was the bold supposed to be a question from the Sikh? Since the period confused me.

but badla in this sense could mean simply chatka of the turk ... as often was the response to beadbhi of many kinds at this time period no mucking about . Guru pita cannot on one hand say pariyaan maat dhi bakhne and then tell go take badla of same nature against innocent women.

 

The bit in square brackets is my inference, translators can use this to keep the flow of text/ideas going. People who've learnt English to any sort of decent degree should know this. But people are asking good questions. Yes, I think the posted bit above (minus the portion in the square brackets) is supposed to be a question from Singhs. 

Looking at the text now, I see that the nature of this badla that Singhs are talking about is not explicitly specified. What is clear is that (according to the text) Singhs were not expected to retaliate in any lowly way for the abuse of females by the enemy. It explicitly mentions that the Sikh path was considered to be morally higher one that the enemies faith, and that Singhs should restrain themselves from acting like the enemy. In this context I think Guru jee explicitly forbidding retaliating against females of the enemies is the clear idea. Plus we know from early Persian texts (Jangnama I think) that Singhs did actually abide by that dictate in the early days of the Khalsa.

That all being said. Please remember that the original text was compiled well over a century after the events. Until we find this a Sau Sakhi or Panj Sau Sakhi that can irrefutably be dated back closer to Guru ji's time, valid critical historiography will  ask the question of whether this actually represents an actual discussion or not. 

Quote

 

 'The Amritsar Singh-Sabha (Sanataan) was set up and backed by conservative Sikhs belonging to the Khatri Caste, many of whom were descendants of early Sikh Gurus. They included men such as Baba Khem Singh Bedi, a direct descendant of Guru Nanak, Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, Avtar Singh Vahira and Giani Gian Singh, a noted Sikh scholar of the time. The conservation of this Amritsar based group stemmed from the fact that they saw the Sikh Panth as one among the myriad streams constituting "Sanataan Dharma," the so-called eternal tradition that identifies its source of authority as the Veda. These self-styled 'Sanataan Sikhs' can be traced to those groups that refused to take Khalsa initiation on the grounds that the "Khande-Ka-Pahul" ceremony polluted their ritual boundaries and threatened their Caste status which they regarded as primary.  Though they resented the democratic tendency within the Khalsa groups, they continued to co-exist within the broader Sikh Panth even as they remained aloof from the mainstream Khalsa practices.'

Mandair, 'Sikhism: A Guide for the Perplexed,' pg. 83.

 

Interesting. Have you read the whole book? What did you think of it? I'd like to see Mandair's evidence for this though - "These self-styled 'Sanataan Sikhs' can be traced to those groups that refused to take Khalsa initiation on the grounds that the "Khande-Ka-Pahul" ceremony polluted their ritual boundaries and threatened their Caste status which they regarded as primary." Some of those people listed above weren't Khatris, so his point seems a bit dubious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is this online ? I have never jeard of it being translated into english before.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/73649680/Sau-Sakhi-English-Translation-by-Attar-Singh-1873

Was done a long time ago, in reaction to the Kuka revolt (and use of the work) I believe?

Quote

What do you feel about this text looking at the translation 5 years on Dal?

Mate, I so miss the days when I had the time and energy to do stuff like this. I wish I was a rich man who could devote more time to these things instead of chasing money to live, but chalo. Waheguru's will. 

The most I'd say to your question is that I think the translation is a reasonable one. 

Another thing I will say is that unless we are constantly engaged in translating/reading old texts it becomes very easy to forget the meaning of archaic vocabulary you've previously encountered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Guru Nanak Dev Ji WAS  Waheguru as there is no difference between God and his servants. The reason Guru Nanak Dev Ji never said it out loud was because the last time people started down that path it ended with their teachings being distorted and warped. If that doesn't convince you then just read Gurbani  ਜੋਤਿ ਰੂਪਿ ਹਰਿ ਆਪਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਕਹਾਯਉ ॥ ਗੁਰੁ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਏਕੋ ਜਾਣੁ ॥ <- that literally says that the Guru and the Lord are one. Why do you think Gurbani is full of that same message, again and again and again. Fun fact that was written by Guru Arjun Dev Ji, Do you want a translation of it too? Know that the Guru and the Transcendent Lord are One.  Sukhamani Sahib has an entire Astpadhi dedicated to brahmgyanis (the beings aware of God and enlightened) and Guru Sahib flat out says they're God.  Water has in its 3 forms is given different names but at the end of the day it's always going to be H2O. God has limitless forms, but he exists in Sargun and Nirgun forms as well. Nirgun is the original form but Sargun is also God but God with characteristics and attribution. Humans are unable to comprehend anything unless they see it so God entered the world as Guru Nanak Dev Ji.  You're free to quote any Sant or Mahapurkh and they will say that exact thing. Guru Nanak Dev Ji was God.  This concept is ingrained within Gurmukhi itself, Feel free to quote any text written from the time of the Gurus to about 100 years after and its all there. You're telling other people to take the SGGSJ as a whole but you're unsure about the highlighted verse. Are you sure you're a Sikh? So are the banis by the other authors less important? Guru Arjun Dev Ji complied the Adi Bir and he included it all within it. Including the verses calling the Gurus God. He put it in there as it's the truth. Will you now say that you suddenly knew better than him? the stale argument that because Guru Sahib never said it outright so it's not true is truly grasping for straws. Bhai Gurdas Ji flat out calls Guru Nanak Dev Ji God, so is he wrong? the "random person's book" you refused to read is a noted brahmgyani, Gurbani as a whole says Guru=God.  Ask yourself this, Guru Nanak Dev Ji was the most humble being that ever walked the Earth. He wouldn't utter a statement such as that, no humble person would.     Makes me think as I was in the same boat as this user about 2ish years ago. Thank god I snapped out of it.
    • I just posted explicit lines and you keep rambling that I can't post any, do you not believe every line from Gurbani is the same? Are you autistic or something? "ਵਾਹੁ ਵਾਹੁ ਬਾਣੀ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਹੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਜੇਵਡੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥ 
      वाहु वाहु बाणी निरंकार है तिसु जेवडु अवरु न कोइ ॥ 
      vāhu vāhu baṇī nirankār hai ṯis jevad avar na ko▫e. 
      Waaho! Waaho! is the Bani, the Word, of the Formless Lord. There is no other as great as He is. " (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Ang 515), this was written by Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Amar Das Ji and even still if you are going to play dumb, this is my last response to you to on this site.
    • Correct interruption and context is the key. Anyone can quote lines of gurbani to fit in with their narrative or agenda but taking the whole SGGS ji in context and verses of gurbani in correct understanding will make you realise what is being said. Guru's true role in liberating people is teaching them about God and how to get to God ie  their role is being a spiritual teacher and you being the student (sikh) is to learn how to get there. Guru is not God nor did any of them claim they was God. Lets stop going around in circles and agree that this is fact because I know you wouldn't be able to produce a verse anywhere that states that a Guru in gurbani says he is God.
    • I don't understand I thought you said they were on Instagram?... 
    • I noticed there's alot of racist violent blacks around in the UK that been targeting innocent asian citizens for decades now.  Alot of the  have this chip on their shoulder thinking the world owes them a living or a racist mentality thinking asians are weak, easy to bully and will take and tolerant any disrespect shown to them without any physical readdress.