29 replies to this topic

[Maha Kharag Singh]

Ive just started to read the book and im finding it a little dificult to digest, anyone care to give a short summary as to what he says in regards to the govindwal pothis, bhanno bir, baba ram rais bir (who was he) and ram rais bir also what is the lahore tradition?

i was also thinking that the level of intellectual discussion has seriously gone down in recent months, shaheediyan and the gang rais some issues and lets discuss!!!!!

[laalsingh]

Isn't this Pashaura Singh same guy who was called on Akal Takhat for punishment?

[shaheediyan]

Laal Singh, I think you are thinking about Piar Singh who wrote the comprehensive 'Gatha Sri Adi Granth and the Controversy'. And in any case, the committee that banned his book to this day have still not answered Piar Singhs questions as to why it was banned.

Maha Kharag Singh, it's a subject which has been researched by some high level scholars, but one which always balances on controversy, somethings that many people are not ready to accept or hear. There are actually quite a few other generally unknown people (previous generation Nihangs etc)who also studied puratan granths and came up with 'discrepanices'

I would recommend you first of all read the various theories on the pothian and become familiar with the evolution of Gurbani upto it's present form before starting a discussion.

I recommend reading Gurinder Singh Manns 'The Making of Sikh Scripture', for a good introduction and one respected theory (backed with evidence).

[amardeep]

I was also wondering why noone cared to give their coments on my prem sumarag granth discussion.

[shaheediyan]

Amardeep, we gave comments on the Prem Sumarg in a previous thread - basically that it represents an evolutionery rehit, one which reflected the changing socio-political environment - mainly the challenges/hardships and later, the power shift (which explained the beginning of a possible judicial system in the granth).

Your discussion was taking a bottom up approach i.e. taking a starting point that the granth is all authentic - and seeking to understand the reason for Guru Gobind Singh Ji giving those instructions.

[Niranjana]

Laal Singh, you are correct Dr Pashaura Singh was summoned by the Akal Thakt for his writings, which he, as a respectable Sikh (contrary to the opinion of many), did dutifully appear for 'peshi'. Many like to insult Dr P Singh as some sort of lax Sikh, forgetting that he is an Amritdhari Sikh and served as a Granthi himself (with considerable qualification I may add - something that seems to be amiss with the majority of the village idiots we find peddling as Granthis and 'Ragis' in most Gurdwaras).

The "issue" with Dr Singh's work is simple and can largely boil down to a theological argument over the status of the Guru and largely reflects several errors in the methods applied by numerous present day Sikhs and writers about the Sikh tradition - namely viewing Sikhism (and for that matter other Indian religious and cultural traditions) through the spectacles of Judeo-Christianity or Islam, hence the numerous fruitless arguments over what constitutes a Guru compared to a Prophet and more to the point here, what consitutes 'Dhur Ki Bani'.

The number one culprit in this respect is the much loved Teja Singh Bhasauria and his one-time disciple Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh, who whilst studying in a largely Christian influenced educational institution, was clearly affected by such methods when approaching their own tradition, particularly with regard to the status of the Guru, of Gurbani and their origins.

Several Sikh Scholars, such as the late S. S. Kohli have made arguments for a more 'Khalsa-centric' approach (although he was not the first to raise this point) to assessing the tradition and I would recommend that the members here familiarise themselves with such notions and re-approach the subject matter.

Dr Singh, whilst in many ways approaches matters from a different angle to S S Kohli (the latter actually being quite critical of the former), the personal issue I have in all of this simply relates to the manner in which Dr Singh has been hounded by the Sikh establishment, including the likes of the Damdami Taksal who to this day spread malicious lies about him not appearing before the Akal Thakt in their bog-standard rant about Hew McLeod - have a listen to the 'katha' sections on their various websites for further information.

[shaheediyan]

Veer Niranjana, what exactly did Akaal Takht find objectionable?

[Niranjana]

Veer Ji Shaheediyan, the issue with the Akal Thakt clearly has an underlying political angle given those raising the matter have an ongoing dispute with Professor Hew McLeod (on which note, I wholly agree with several of the issues raised against McLeod's analysis, however wholly disagree with the Ad Hominem attacks on his person and the inability of several Sikh 'scholars' to address his comments via the appropriate channels).

The charges brought against Dr P Singh relate fundamentally to a number of his articles whereby he is alledged to have suggested that the written actual text of "Gurbani" has been changed (I believe the book you reference above by G S Mann deals with a similar topic).

Hew McLeod decribes the situation as follows:

On November 22, 1991, the University of Toronto conferred on him the degree of Ph.D. PashauraSingh had earned the degree in Religious Studies with a dissertationentitled "The Text and Meaning of the Adi Granth," and was the firstperson to have graduated at the doctoral level in Sikh Studies from a Canadian university. The following year, in September 1992, he was appointed to a nontenured position in Sikh and Punjabi Studies at theUniversity of Michigan. Meanwhile his Ph.D. dissertation had been photocopied without authorization and copies of it were freely circulated around North America and other parts of the world.

The first article concerning the dissertation appeared on October 2, 1992 in World Sikh News, a Sikh newspaper published from Stockton,California. Numerous articles and letters followed during the lattermonths of 1992 and early in 1993, many of them roundly accusing Pashaura Singh of the most monstrous blasphemy. Soon they were followed by judgment from the Punjab. A group was appointed by the Dharam Parchar Committee of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (the S.G.P.C. and this group issued a statement supporting the accusation of blasphemy.

This statement was subsequently confirmed on November 2 by the S.G.P.C., which notified its decision in a press statement issued by thepresident, Gurcharan Singh Tohra. In view of the seriousness of the matter, the statement declared: "Sikh sangats [congregations] the world over and the gurdwaras [Sikh temples] should boycott and not extend any cooperation, whatsoever, to S. Pashaura Singh." The S.G.P.C. also drew attention to the fact that Pashaura Singh had committed blasphemy in a dissertation written "under the supervision of Dr. McLeod,"who has "been at work for long with a view to creating confusion among the Sikhs throughout the world, regarding authenticity of the holyGurbani embodied in the holy Guru Granth Sahib.

Pashaura Singh was scarcely a person who might be expected to commit blasphemy. A loyal Amrit-dhari Sikh, he had been educated in Gurmat College (a theological institution in Patiala) and was awarded a Gold Medal for his final results in the M.A. He was then employed by a Sikh school in New Delhi as a teacher of Sikh history and religion. Subsequently he took up an appointment as granthi (clergyman) in the Calgary gurdwara and while there completed another M.A. degree from the University of Calgary. This provided him with the means to apply for entry to the University of Toronto, where he wrote the dissertation that has created so much controversy. In this dissertation he applied the routine techniques of textual criticism to the sacred scripture of the Sikhs. This he did with considerable caution and reverence, and the work which he produced seemed to those practiced in the art of textual criticism to be a generally conservative one.

But his treatment was certainly not represented as conservative bythose who had photocopied the dissertation. Accompanied by damning comments the dissertation was circulated widely.

There were two major objections lodged against Pashaura Singh's dissertation, together with one other complaint. This last was PashauraSingh's reference to Guru Arjan as having been "killed," whereas Sikh tradition had always regarded him as being "martyred." It was a complaint easily answered, though not easily communicated to those who had made it. In the draft dissertation Pashaura Singh had actually referred to the Guru as being martyred, but one of his examiners had objected to the term and had required him to substitute a neutral word.

The two major objections were as follows. Firstly, Pashaura Singh had made use of the recently discovered MS 1245 in the library of Guru Nanak Dev University, judging it to be earlier than Guru Arjan's Kartarpur text of 1603-4 C.E. (the text which is traditionally regardedas the substance of the Adi Granth) and treating it as one of the versions used by the Guru when compiling his final copy. Ms 1245 contained the hymns of the Gurus in a form that was very similar to that recorded in the 1603-4 text. Several reasons were advanced for the slightly earlier date which Pashaura Singh thought should be attached to MS 1245, including the Gurmukhi style in which it was written. The difference in age separating the two versions was not very great, Pashaura Singh estimating that MS 1245 would have been copied between 1595and 1604 CE.

Secondly, Pashaura Singh was alleged to have claimed that the wording of the Adi Granth was different from what the Gurus had originally uttered. Most of this aspect of the dispute concerned the wording of the Mul Mantra, the "Basic Credal Statement" with which the scripture begins. The Mul Mantra is believed to be by Guru Nanak and Pashaura Singh was able to show that older versions of the text differed marginally from the version which was recorded under the supervision of Guru Arjan in the Kartarpur manuscript. The variant readings made no difference to the actual meaning of the Mul Mantra. These were variants in spelling and in the extra wording which distinguishes the laterversions. Two earlier texts were used. These were that of the Goindval Pothis and, a little later, that of MS 1245.

[Niranjana]

As I mentioned above, Dr P Singh's analysis, right or wrong, and his subsequent treatment (altogether wrong) both point towards a failing amongst Sikhs on a core 'theological' issue - what is a Guru and what constitutes 'dhur ki bani'.

[Mithr]

Niranjana said:

The number one culprit in this respect is the much loved Teja Singh Bhasauria and his one-time disciple Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh, who whilst studying in a largely Christian influenced educational institution, was clearly affected by such methods when approaching their own tradition, particularly with regard to the status of the Guru, of Gurbani and their origins.

At a point of my life long ago, I used to read Bhai Randhir Singh Jee's books (in Punjabi). From my understanding I did not even see any hint of Christianity in his books. With reference to his books and writings, Niranjana can you explain your assertion that he was "Christian Influanced"? I know that he was associated with Bhasour as most Malwais were. But like most people of Malwa he disassociated with Teja Singh right after he was kicked out of the Panth. If anything I actually found Bhai Randhir SIngh writing against Bhasourias in his books, which only makes it even more ironic when people still out of ignorance try their best to associate this great Mahapursh and freedom fighter with that heretic, and it's even more ignorant that you are calling this great man a "disciple" of Teja Singh Bhasour, when in fact Bhai Randhir Singh was and alway will remain a disciple of Guru Gobind Singh Jee.

If you will Niranjana, please give reference (that is if you have even read any of his books) with regard to your assertion that he was Christian influanced.


I may not be AKJ, but it's only because of reading this Mahapursh's books that I stopped cutting my hair and came into Sikhi, and for that I will ever respect that Pooran Mahapursh.

[fatehsingh]

I also agree that the way the 'panthic' establishments deal with them (i.e. accuse them of being guilty until proven innocent, the desi justice system!) is really saddening in this day and age. This only promotes ignorance and creates distrust towards the said establishments. Let's face it, when you can't even acknowledge the controversey behind the current 'kartarpuri bir' and the claimed existence of a 'damdama bir' that foundation after foundation in the past have raised concerns about, there's something not very right with the picture you're seeing.

From Namdhari perspective, to 'share' something as shaheediyan had been waiting for the day lol, the 'authentic inconsistencies' or 'revisions' of the Granth Sahibs that would throw certain people into sea of doubt are seen as the genius of the Gurus. All are accurate and all are Gurbani. It is a shame that today most of them have been burnt or destroyed partly due to fear of people questioning Gurbani or coming to the conclusion Gurbani isn't a 'revealed text' like the bible.

As such the research of Pashaura Singh and Piar Singh are definitely worth a read. Also read what their critics write about them and weigh the facts yourself. Banning research is never the answer.

Please stick to the topic, any questions regarding my personal faith can be pm'd to me directly.

thx
FS

[shaheediyan]

"That which is not shared, is lost". Professor Surinder Singh

I agree with you Fateh Singh.

How is the Bible (New Testament) a revealed text, when it is agreed that it is a consolidation of recollections of conversations by different people (disciples) nearly all of whom contradict each other. It could of course be argued that the original words of Jesus Christ were revealed - if one authentic source could be agreed.

On the other hand many would could strongly argue that Gurbani and Bhagatbani are "revealed" through the authentic tradition (be it evolution)of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji - and may be this is where the discussion should take the road of discussing the term "dhur ki bani" as veer Niranjana has stated.

In anything that is discussed, it should be noted that only opinions are being stated, as even the strongest theories out there have holes in them.

[fatehsingh]

The 'evolution' theory of Granth Sahibs (Adi and Dasam) is not something Namdharis subscribe to. You are entitled to your opinion ofcourse.

From what little I know about christianity, they believe the present form of the bible is how God intended it to be and is undoutably the true word of God, hence my conclusion of it being a considered by its followers a revealed text.

So in other words they reject the older and obsolete versions of the text and the latest and greatest is the most reliable and hence the bible has 'evolved'.

On the other hand the different versions of the Granth Sahibs are, by Namdharis atleast, all considered Gurbani equally. Same way as how Bhai Banno's Bir wasn't rejected or destroyed but just set aside as 'Another Version' but no less or more an 'Adi Granth Sahib' than the Kartarpuri Bir.

Case in point, the tuk 'Mithr Piare Nu Haal Faqira/Murida/Gariba Da Kehna'. All three are considered accurate and are Gurbani. Even though you will only hear Namdharis recite 'Haal Faqira Da'.

[shaheediyan]

Re the Bible, I was speaking from our persepective, not Christians, who will of course consider it revealed.

It's fine that you consider all versions as bani, but evolution is a seperate issue and does not encroach on your aforementioned consideration.

I am talking about the progression of Gurbani through collection and addition - stemming from the historical account of Guru Nanak Dev Ji passing his pothi onto to Guru Angad Dev Ji.

Of course this is where the Harsahai Pothi theory kicks in and later the Goindval Pothis, Kartarpuri Bir and MS1245.

I have read that before the compilation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, later Adi Granths were made by Guru Tegh Bahadur, who added his own shabd (contrary to common belief that Guru Gobind Singh Ji added them) and these Granths can be seen today with 9th Guru Ji's nishaan.

The evolution I speak of refers to the addition of bani, deletion of bani, change in raag format, removal of raag timing formats (as per Goindval Pothis) etc.

[Niranjana]

Mithr:

"If anything I actually found Bhai Randhir SIngh writing against Bhasourias in his books, which only makes it even more ironic when people still out of ignorance try their best to associate this great Mahapursh and freedom fighter with that heretic, and it's even more ignorant that you are calling this great man a "disciple" of Teja Singh Bhasour, when in fact Bhai Randhir Singh was and alway will remain a disciple of Guru Gobind Singh Jee"

Mithr,

It is not my place to judge Bhai Sahib and his accolades, I am simply referring to facts that Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh was disciple of Teja Singh Bhasauria and whilst he may have broken off ties with him, it is evident that many other ideas of Teja Singh continue to live on within Bhai Sahib's thoughts and views.

"If you will Niranjana, please give reference (that is if you have even read any of his books) with regard to your assertion that he was Christian influanced"

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the point. I am NOT accusing Bhai Sahib of being a Christian missionary (which is what your reaction seems to be implying), my reference relates to the methodology applied by "Semetic" traditions when analysing or explaning their scriptures and customs - these stem from a particular worldview which is not necessarily consistent with that arising in India, and hence (as much as many Bhausauria types here with hate to admit), Sikhism.

Bhai Sahib along with many others of his generation were educated in Christian schools, it is only natural for them to adopt such means - I myself am educated at a Grammar School, there are many things I believed during my teens and early 20's with regard to my then understanding of Sikhism which was clearly influenced by my educational upbringing - needless to say, I can look back and smile at the situation.


To answer your question, yes I have read Bhai Sahib's books and those of Bhai Rama Singh too - I would ask that you kindly reconsider my initial comment and to what end I am making it:

"who whilst studying in a largely Christian influenced educational institution, was clearly affected by such methods when approaching their own tradition, particularly with regard to the status of the Guru, of Gurbani and their origins"

"I may not be AKJ, but it's only because of reading this Mahapursh's books that I stopped cutting my hair and came into Sikhi, and for that I will ever respect that Pooran Mahapursh"

That is very commendable, however I can't see the relevance here, "Sant Baba" Maan Singh (that great Baba with the sex slaves) also administered Amrit to many people, doesn't necessarily change things with regard to his sex slaves. Let's leave the emotions aside for a moment.


Fateh Singh and Shaheediyan seem to have followed this discussion appropriately with their exchange which I look forward to reading more of...