Bansavalinama on Dasam Granth (Translation)

[BhagatSingh]

 

Thanks for the link. It refers to an incident in the Bansavalinama written in 1769. The Bansavalinama is absolutely clear that the Dasam Granth was written by Guru Gobind Singh and the Guru is even quoted as having said that the  two Granths are to be considered of the same light, - as two Brothers!. The question in the granth is not whether all of the banis were written by the Guru or not, but rather how to organize the two granths. Whereas you are saying that only 50 pages or so were by the Guru. These could easily have been incorporated into the Guru Granth. They were kept seperate as one deals with spirtualism and the other is a "khed" - a play of the natural drama that occours in the World. Since they are of two different types, they were kept seperate. The 50 pages you Refer to deal with the same content as the Guru Granth and therefoer they could easily have been ammended to the Guru Granth Sahib alongside the shaloks of Guru Tegh Bahadur

Amardeep
Is this the bit from Bansavalinama? I found this on Manglacharan.com
 

ਸੁਣੋ ਭਾਈ ਸਿਖੋ । ਐਸਾ ਸੰਤ ਬਾਬਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਚੁ ਜਾਨੋ । ਦਸੇ ਮਹਲ ਇਕ ਬਾਬਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਜੀ ਪਛਾਨੋ ।
Listen Sikh Brothers! Recognize Baba Nanak as a true Saint, this is truth. In the ten forms [10 Guru's], recognize Baba Nanak in all of them.

ਦਸਵਾਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ ਗੱਦੀ ਗੁਰਿਆਈ ਦੀ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਦੇ ਹੈ ਗਿਆ ।
The tenth King has given the Guruship to the Granth Sahib.

ਬਿਨਾਂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ ਨ ਜਾਣੇ, ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਹੈਨਿ ਦੁਇ ਸਕੇ ਭਾਈ ।
Without the Granth there is nothing else, the Granth Sahib has it's form in two brothers.
-quote
This last tuk, doesn't seem to be a quote from Guru Gobind Singh ji. It seems that the author is saying this himself, it is his personal view.
 

ਇਕ ਹੈ ਵਡਾ ਇਕ ਛੋਟਾ ਕਹਾਈ ।੨੬੫।
[Recognize] One as larger [brother, which is Adi Granth] and one as smaller [brother, Dasam Granth].

ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸੋਲ੍ਹਾ ਸੈ ਅਠਵੰਜਾ ਸੇ ਗਏ । ਤਬ ਆਦਿ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਜਿ ਜਨਮੁ ਲਏ ।
In 1658 Bikrami the Adi Granth took birth [was created].

ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਜੀ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜਨਮੁ ਹੈ ਧਾਰਾ ।
In the house of Guru Arjan Dev Ji the Granth Sahib took its birth.

ਦਾਇਆ ਸੀ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ, ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ ।੨੬੬।
Bhai Gurdas, with the blessings [of Guru Arjan], was the scribe.
-quote

It doesn't say blessing of Guru Arjun Dev ji in the line. It simply says.
ਦਾਇਆ ਸੀ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ, ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ ।੨੬੬।
The (ਦਾਇਆ ) caretaker, (ਲਿਖਾਰੀ) writer, (ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ) one who "plays" with it, was Bhai Gurdas ji.

Clearly the writer of Guru Granth Sahib is Bhai Gurdas ji.

This next bit is interesting, especially for me, as I am interested in seeing internal evidence of authorship.
 

ਛੋਟਾ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਜੀ, ਜਨਮੇ ਦਸਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ ।
The smaller [brother] Granth, took birth in the Tenth King's house.

ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸਤਾਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਪਚਵੰਜਾ, ਬਹੁਤ ਖਿਡਾਵੇ-ਲਿਖਾਰੇ ਨਾਮ ।
In 1755 Bikrami [it was born], [Guru Ji wrote it] under many names [Das Gobind, Syaam, Ram, Kaal etc].

ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਸੀ ਪਿਆਰਾ । ਹੱਥੀ ਲਿਖਿਆ, ਖਿਡਾਇਆ ।
[Guru Gobind Singh] Sahib had much love for this scripture, He himself hand wrote it.
-quote

Manglacharan is loading up their interpretation onto the gurmukhi. Let me try to unload it and see what the Gurmukhi is stating.

So it say ਛੋਟਾ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਜੀ, ਜਨਮੇ ਦਸਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ ।
The small Granth ji was born from the house of Dasam Pita.

Now this by itself could mean Guru Sahib commissioned Dasam Granth. This is the view I currently hold that Guru Sahib had many poets in his house - Shyam, Ram, Kal, etc. The internal signature of poets points to the "Commission Theory".

Next he says -
ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸਤਾਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਪਚਵੰਜਾ, ਬਹੁਤ ਖਿਡਾਵੇ-ਲਿਖਾਰੇ ਨਾਮ ।
In 1755, there are many (ਖਿਡਾਵੇ-) who "play" with it, many (ਲਿਖਾਰੇ)writers' names.

He says there are "many internal signatures" -> leads to my "Commission Theory".

next -
ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਸੀ ਪਿਆਰਾ । ਹੱਥੀ ਲਿਖਿਆ, ਖਿਡਾਇਆ ।
Guru Sahib was very fond of it. It was hand-written.

1. It doesn't exactly say Guru Sahib wrote it by hand like how it clearly says that Bhai Gurdas ji wrote Guru Granth Sahib by hand.
And even if he did, the internal authors are - Shyam, Ram, Kal, etc. which leads to 2.

2. Bhai Gurdas ji wrote Guru Granth Sahib by hand however the internal authors are - Nanak, Namdev, Kabir, etc. So writing by hand doesn't mean you are the composer of the banis. It could simply mean that you are the scribe.

Something to think about.
 

ਸਿਖਾਂ ਕੀਤੀ ਅਰਦਾਸੁ, ਜੀ ਅਗਲੇ ਨਾਲਿ ਚਾਹੀਏ ਰਲਾਇਆ ।੨੬੭।
Sikhs did a plea [towards Guru Gobind Singh] to merge Adi Granth with Dasam Granth.

ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ, "ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਹੈ ਉਹੁ, ਏਹ ਅਸਾਡੀ ਹੈ ਖੇਡ ।"
[Guru Gobind Singh Ji] said, "Granth Sahib is the Adi, and [Dasam Grath] is my play."

So Guru Sahib gives preference to Guru Granth Sahib.

ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ, "ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਹੈ ਉਹੁ, ਏਹ ਅਸਾਡੀ ਹੈ ਖੇਡ ।"
Guru Sahib says -  That one is Granth Sahib, this one is (ਅਸਾਡੀ ) our (ਖੇਡ)play.
Notice the word - ਅਸਾਡੀ - often implies plural tense.

ਨਾਲ ਨ ਮਿਲਾਇਆ ਆਹਾ ਪਿਆਰਾ, ਕਉਨ ਜਾਣੇ ਭੇਦ ।
The wonderous beloved Guru Gobind Singh did not merge them together, who can understand this secret of Guru Sahib? [of why they were kept separate]

On a side note - Kesar Singh Chibber does not know the secret to why Guru Gobind Singh ji didn't combine them. However centuries later, with Guru's kirpa, I have actually discovered (accidentally stumbled upon is more accurate) the secret myself! I will gladly share the secret in another thread if you are interested. It requires quite a bit of elaboration not suitable for this thread but it's quite a revelation. In this thread I want to focus on the translation of Chibber's work.
 

ਸੋ, ਦੋਨੋ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰ ਕਰ ਜਾਨੋ ।
So, recognize both Granth Sahib's as Guru and brothers.

Perhaps it wasn't before, but now its 100% clear that this is the view of the author of Bansavlinama. Not of Guru Gobind Singh, in fact Guru Sahib himself says that he does not consider them the same. "One is the Guru, the other is our play."
 

ਵਡਾ ਹੈ ਟਿਕਾ ਗੁਰੂ, ਗੁਟਕੇ-ਪੋਥੀਆਂ ਪੁਤ੍ਰ ਪੋਤ੍ਰੇ ਕਰਿ ਪਛਾਨੋ ।੨੬੮।
The larger [Adi Granth] received the Tika [Guruship], the smaller gutka-pothian recognize them as sons and grandson.
 

---------------------------------------------------
On page 161 Kesar Singh explains another incident where a Sikh requested to Guru Gobind Singh to put Adi and Dasam Granth together.
--------------------------------------------------

ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸਤਾਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਪਚਵੰਜੇ, ਸਿਖਾਂ ਬਿਨਤੀ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਅਗੇ ਸੀ ਕੀਤੀ ।
In 1755 Bikrami, Sikhs had done a plea in front of Sahib [Guru Gobind Singh].

"ਗਰੀਬ ਨਿਵਾਜ ! ਜੋ ਬਚਨ ਹੋਵੈ ਤਾਂ ਦੋਹਾਂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥਾਂ ਦੀ ਜਿਲਦ ਇਕ ਚਹੀਐ ਕਰਿ ਲੀਤੀ ।"
"Oh protector of the poor!, If you make the commandment, we shall put both Granths in one cover [one Granth]."

ਸਾਹਿਬ ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ: "ਆਦਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਹੈ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ । ਇਹ ਅਸਾਡੀ ਹੈ ਖੇਡ, ਜੁਦਾ ਰਹੇ ਮਨ ਮੰਥ ।"
Sahib [Guru Gobind Singh] said, "Adi Granth is Guru, this [Dasam Granth] is my play, they should remain separate, but recognize them as the same light"

This very last bit is translated incorrectly, completely messed up.
It says -
ਸਾਹਿਬ ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ: "ਆਦਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਹੈ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ । ਇਹ ਅਸਾਡੀ ਹੈ ਖੇਡ, ਜੁਦਾ ਰਹੇ ਮਨ ਮੰਥ ।"
Guru Sahib says - Adi Guru is the Granth. This one (Dasam Granth) is our play. (ਰਹੇ) Let them remain (ਜੁਦਾ ) separate and let the (ਮਨ) mind be (ਮੰਥ ) troubled (over this separation) .

Conclusion -

1. Bansavalinama is not saying that Guru Sahib is the writer of Dasam Granth.
2. Even if Guru Sahib was the "likhari", he maybe a scribe like Bhai Gurdas ji, who is also described as the "likhari".
3. Kesar Singh mentions there are several internal signatures from the poets who were involved in the creation of the Dasam Granth.

So keeping 123 in mind, it would be more accurate to say that Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote Dasam Granth, the same way Maharaja Ranjit Singh ji built the Golden Temple. That is to say, being kings with great wealth, they both commissioned the respective works of art.

Anyway let me know your thoughts. Let me know if I messed up anywhere or if I am missing anything, etc.

[amardeep]

Interesting readings and interpretations. Let me respond in a few hours when im home.

[amardeep]

Thank you very much for bringing up this topic. I've had some issues also with some of the English translations of this text since they seem to be adding more to the text than what it actually says, which often creates internal contradictions.

You do make some good points. I'll post my thoughts below.

So it say ਛੋਟਾ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਜੀ, ਜਨਮੇ ਦਸਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ ।
The small Granth ji was born from the house of Dasam Pita.

Now this by itself could mean Guru Sahib commissioned Dasam Granth. This is the view I currently hold that Guru Sahib had many poets in his house - Shyam, Ram, Kal, etc. The internal signature of poets points to the "Commission Theory".

Next he says -
ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸਤਾਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਪਚਵੰਜਾ, ਬਹੁਤ ਖਿਡਾਵੇ-ਲਿਖਾਰੇ ਨਾਮ ।
In 1755, there are many (ਖਿਡਾਵੇ-) who "play" with it, many (ਲਿਖਾਰੇ)writers' names.

He says there are "many internal signatures" -> leads to my "Commission Theory".

If you look at the way Bhai Kesar Singh mirrors these two examples of the two scriptures being born in two houses, it is evident that one of the main difference is in the number of people present while the saroops were scribed . In the Guru Granth Sahib, there was only one person present (Bhai Gurdas), whereas in the case of the Dasam Granth there were many. Gurbilas Patshahi 10 of Sukha Singh and others state that there were 36 scribes present in the Anandpur Darbar In Pyara Singh Padam's analysis of the Anandpur Dasam Granth Bir from 1696 he notes that in the beginning of the banis or in the margins of the pages it reveals the names of several different scribes - amongst these Bhai Darbari, Darbari Singh Chota, Baba Hardas, Bhai Nihala and Bhai Bala. This is a major difference between the two Granths and I think this is what Bhai Kesar Singh Chibbar is highligting. In that sense, the translation of manglacharan is wrong as it does not have anything to do with the poets/authors, but rather the scribes. Here Bhai Kesar Singh affirms that many scribes were involved in its production mirroring it with the Adi Granth where there was only one scribe involved.

ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਸੀ ਪਿਆਰਾ । ਹੱਥੀ ਲਿਖਿਆ, ਖਿਡਾਇਆ ।
Guru Sahib was very fond of it. It was hand-written.1.

It doesn't exactly say Guru Sahib wrote it by hand like how it clearly says that Bhai Gurdas ji wrote Guru Granth Sahib by hand.

You are right here that the Guru was the scribe but I think the point Bhai Kesar Singh is trying to make is that the Guru wrote handwritten pages of this granth himself. Elsewhere in Bansavalinama he talks about the Guru's hand written pages of the Dasam Granth (i'll scan you the pages in the following post). So yes, this line does'nt talk about authorship but it does talk about the Guru being very fond of it and having scribed it himself (I think ਖਿਡਾਇਆ means he was immersed in it - ie. calligraphy - as the extant handwritten pages are extremely beautiful in terms of the calligraphy alone! Not something that was written quickly quickly).

 

ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ, "ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਹੈ ਉਹੁ, ਏਹ ਅਸਾਡੀ ਹੈ ਖੇਡ ।"
Guru Sahib says -  That one is Granth Sahib, this one is (ਅਸਾਡੀ ) our (ਖੇਡ)play.
Notice the word - ਅਸਾਡੀ - often implies plural tense.

 

Talking in the plural was very common for poets, kings, Godly speech etc. It is seen throughout the Dasam Granth in many places where the speaker is singular:

ਤਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ ਹਮਾਰਾ ਭਯੋ

ਮਦ੍ਰ ਦੇਸ ਹਮ ਕੋ ਲੇ ਆਏ

ਜਬ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਹਮ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਬਨਾਈ (God speaking)

 

You make a good point regarding when Kesar Singh is insterting his own words and views.

1. Bansavalinama is not saying that Guru Sahib is the writer of Dasam Granth.
2. Even if Guru Sahib was the "likhari", he maybe a scribe like Bhai Gurdas ji, who is also described as the "likhari".
3. Kesar Singh mentions there are several internal signatures from the poets who were involved in the creation of the Dasam Granth.
 

1, No I think in fact he is saying that the Guru wrote it - thats why he says the two granths are like two brothers (and why he then concludes that both are Guru).

Elsewhere in the Bansavalinama's tenth chapter he quotes extensively from the Dasam Granth, all having the heading "Saakh Mahala 10" (see pics in the next post).

2. Likhari can only mean scribe, not author. Author is krit. Kesar Singh says there were many scribes, not many authors.

3. See above.

 

Here are some examples from the tenth chapter wherein Bhai Kesar Singh quotes from various parts of the Dasam Granth (Bachitar Natak, Chaubis Avatar and the smaller Khalsa Mahima compositions). All headed Saakh Mahala 10 ("Evidenced" by the Tenth Master).

 

 

The below pictures I have inserted for you to read so we can discuss it. I will have to read more up on these parts, but they are interesting since they give more info on the Dasam Granth saying many sanchia of the Dasam Granth were also lost in war. One part is interesting however - it says Bhai Mani Singh made a saroop wherein he mixed the bani of Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam Granth and rearranged the banis in cronological order (ie starting from Guru Nanak, then Guru Angad, then Guru Amardas etc). This saroop can be found in New Delhi and when the Patshahi 10 begins, it is verbatim Dasam Granth banis that emerges....This means that the Dasam Granth was considered the writings of Dasam Patshah - otherwise they would'n be in there.

 

On a side note - Kesar Singh Chibber does not know the secret to why Guru Gobind Singh ji didn't combine them. However centuries later, with Guru's kirpa, I have actually discovered (accidentally stumbled upon is more accurate) the secret myself! I will gladly share the secret in another thread if you are interested. It requires quite a bit of elaboration not suitable for this thread but it's quite a revelation. In this thread I want to focus on the translation of Chibber's work.

Very interesting! please make a new topic or write in here...

Edited July 20, 2015 by amardeep

[BhagatSingh]

Dude the pages are cut off from the side. The photos don't show the full verses.

[amardeep]

I can take the photos again later today when im home. My focus was merely on the headings that are tited saakh mahala 10 and sawaya mahala 10 as you can see where the zoom is mostly laid.

[BhagatSingh]

Oh I see.

[BhagatSingh]

Thank you very much for bringing up this topic. I've had some issues also with some of the English translations of this text since they seem to be adding more to the text than what it actually says, which often creates internal contradictions.

Dude if you ever need someone to work with you on translations and stuff, let me know. Dally and I secretly work on translations all the time.

 

You do make some good points. I'll post my thoughts below.

If you look at the way Bhai Kesar Singh mirrors these two examples of the two scriptures being born in two houses, it is evident that one of the main difference is in the number of people present while the saroops were scribed . In the Guru Granth Sahib, there was only one person present (Bhai Gurdas), whereas in the case of the Dasam Granth there were many. Gurbilas Patshahi 10 of Sukha Singh and others state that there were 36 scribes present in the Anandpur Darbar In Pyara Singh Padam's analysis of the Anandpur Dasam Granth Bir from 1696 he notes that in the beginning of the banis or in the margins of the pages it reveals the names of several different scribes - amongst these Bhai Darbari, Darbari Singh Chota, Baba Hardas, Bhai Nihala and Bhai Bala. This is a major difference between the two Granths and I think this is what Bhai Kesar Singh Chibbar is highligting. In that sense, the translation of manglacharan is wrong as it does not have anything to do with the poets/authors, but rather the scribes. Here Bhai Kesar Singh affirms that many scribes were involved in its production mirroring it with the Adi Granth where there was only one scribe involved.
 

Do you have the bits from those texts? I think it would be great to analyze them.

36 scribes? Does it say anywhere that there were 52 poets, bwanja kavi?

You are right here that the Guru was the scribe but I think the point Bhai Kesar Singh is trying to make is that the Guru wrote handwritten pages of this granth himself. Elsewhere in Bansavalinama he talks about the Guru's hand written pages of the Dasam Granth (i'll scan you the pages in the following post).

I'd like to see those.
 

So yes, this line does'nt talk about authorship but it does talk about the Guru being very fond of it and having scribed it himself (I think ਖਿਡਾਇਆ means he was immersed in it - ie. calligraphy - as the extant handwritten pages are extremely beautiful in terms of the calligraphy alone! Not something that was written quickly quickly).

Yea Guru Sahib approved of Dasam Granth that's why he would be a scribe to it. So are you tellin me Guru Sahib is more of a calligrapher or ARIST than a poet? :D Well I am very happy to hear that!

Talking in the plural was very common for poets, kings, Godly speech etc. It is seen throughout the Dasam Granth in many places where the speaker is singular:

ਤਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ ਹਮਾਰਾ ਭਯੋ

ਮਦ੍ਰ ਦੇਸ ਹਮ ਕੋ ਲੇ ਆਏ

ਜਬ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਹਮ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਬਨਾਈ (God speaking)

Yea I guess it could just be that.
I remembered that shabad by Guru Arjun Dev ji- ਜੇ ਤੂ ਮਿਤ੍ਰੁ ਅਸਾਡੜਾ ਹਿਕ ਭੋਰੀ ਨਾ ਵੇਛੋੜਿ ॥
But if Guru Sahib was a scribe and there were 36 others, it could also be plural.

 

2. Likhari can only mean scribe, not author. Author is krit. Kesar Singh says there were many scribes, not many authors.

How do you spell "Krit" in Gurmukhi?
 

 

Here are some examples from the tenth chapter wherein Bhai Kesar Singh quotes from various parts of the Dasam Granth (Bachitar Natak, Chaubis Avatar and the smaller Khalsa Mahima compositions). All headed Saakh Mahala 10 ("Evidenced" by the Tenth Master).

Well just because Guru Gobind Singh ji was the scribe would not warrant "Mehla 10" on any of those. In Guru Granth sahib Mehla tag is only added to those shabads that were either composed by that particular Guru, or were recomposed by that particular Guru.
So there are some shabads that are written by Namdev, etc, where the tag is Mehla 5, Guru Arjun Dev ji. So that means Guru Arjun Dev ji recomposed that shabad, the original composition (meaning, message and words also) belong to Sant Namdev ji.

So putting Mehla 10 title simply for scribing, would be like putting Bhai Gurdas ji's name on all shabdas in Guru Granth Sahib. Wouldn't that be a mistake on Bhai Kesar sahib's part?

The below pictures I have inserted for you to read so we can discuss it. I will have to read more up on these parts, but they are interesting since they give more info on the Dasam Granth saying many sanchia of the Dasam Granth were also lost in war.
 

My dad did a lot of study of Dasam Granth. He used to tell me they lost "Sava Man" of bani while traveling during the chaotic and stormy Sirsa River after the Battle of Anandpur.
 

One part is interesting however - it says Bhai Mani Singh made a saroop wherein he mixed the bani of Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam Granth and rearranged the banis in cronological order (ie starting from Guru Nanak, then Guru Angad, then Guru Amardas etc). This saroop can be found in New Delhi and when the Patshahi 10 begins, it is verbatim Dasam Granth banis that emerges....This means that the Dasam Granth was considered the writings of Dasam Patshah - otherwise they would'n be in there.
 

I have no doubt that these guys are often mistaken. Bhai Mani Singh ji et al were also mistaken about Baba Banda Singh ji Bahadur.
I am not saying that because I am arrogant, I recognize Bhai Mani Singh ji's contribution and shaheedi and I am grateful to have Bhai Kesar Singh's work.

BUT the fact that these guys are pleading to Guru sahib to mix the bani and the fact that they don't know why Guru Sahib wouldn't mix Guru Granth sahib with Dasam Granth, is actually important here.

Guru Sahib doesn't think it's ok to mix them.  But they think it's ok to mix them. They don't know enough about the situation to know why  Guru Gobind Singh ji refused to mix.

They are clearly mistaken.

And the photos you shared show that. They think Dasam Granth is avtaar leela and Guru Granth Sahib is not.
 

Very interesting! please make a new topic or write in here...

Rather than me having to write the entire A-Z of it, it would be easier for me if you tell me how much you understand so that I can fill in the blanks in your alphabet.

Edited July 21, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[amardeep]

Dude if you ever need someone to work with you on translations and stuff, let me know. Dally and I secretly work on translations all the time.
 

Wonderful. Good to know. But not so secret anymore aye ? :P

 

Do you have the bits from those texts? I think it would be great to analyze them.

36 scribes? Does it say anywhere that there were 52 poets, bwanja kavi?

Which bits? The ones that talk about 36 scribes and 52 poets? Yes they are mentioned in different writings of the 18-19th Century. I'll take some Photos and upload later tonight. Gurbilas Patshahi 10, Suraj Prakash and Gurpad Prem Prakash mention it.

 

 

Yea Guru Sahib approved of Dasam Granth that's why he would be a scribe to it. So are you tellin me Guru Sahib is more of a calligrapher or ARIST than a poet? :D Well I am very happy to hear that!

The Guru was both a calligrapher and a poet.

 

How do you spell "Krit" in Gurmukhi?

ਕ੍ਰਿਤ

Krit probably derives from the root k-r-t - meaning creator (karta) - hence implying an author. There are probably also other Words for an author, but i've only seen krit come up in pothis.

 

Well just because Guru Gobind Singh ji was the scribe would not warrant "Mehla 10" on any of those. In Guru Granth sahib Mehla tag is only added to those shabads that were either composed by that particular Guru, or were recomposed by that particular Guru.
So there are some shabads that are written by Namdev, etc, where the tag is Mehla 5, Guru Arjun Dev ji. So that means Guru Arjun Dev ji recomposed that shabad, the original composition (meaning, message and words also) belong to Sant Namdev ji.

So putting Mehla 10 title simply for scribing, would be like putting Bhai Gurdas ji's name on all shabdas in Guru Granth Sahib. Wouldn't that be a mistake on Bhai Kesar sahib's part?

 I think we are talking past each other here. The way I read the above Bansavalinama quote is that it talks about the differences in the "production" of the two Granths - in one there was one scribe and in the other there were many. It does'nt talk about authorship or pen names as Manglacharan tries to imply..

 

When it says many scribes it just Means those that penned Down the Words. In many of the puratan saroops you can see the Guru penning Down a few pages (khas patre) and then the sorrounding scribes take over the rest. Thats why in many lexica over early Puratan saroops there is most often a column that says "number of khas patre" - often being some 5-8.

 

When Bhai Kesar Singh quotes the Dasam Granth tuks he inserts "Mahala 10" in front - not the name of Ram, Shyam etc. His understanding hence must have been that this was Guru krit.

One also has to look at the historical period - being a scribe was a full time profession. Not all poets were scribes, and not all scribes were poets. That must be why early Sikh litterature seperates between the scribes and the poets of the Anandpur Darbar. 52 poets and 36 scribes. In some cases you had people that were both (Baba Hardas for instance who scribed Guru Granth Sahib saroops and Dasam Granth while also authoring the Prem Ambodh Granth)

BUT the fact that these guys are pleading to Guru sahib to mix the bani and the fact that they don't know why Guru Sahib wouldn't mix Guru Granth sahib with Dasam Granth, is actually important here.

Guru Sahib doesn't think it's ok to mix them.  But they think it's ok to mix them. They don't know enough about the situation to know why  Guru Gobind Singh ji refused to mix.

They are clearly mistaken.

And the photos you shared show that. They think Dasam Granth is avtaar leela and Guru Granth Sahib is not.

 

It could also be that they pleaded to mix the Granths because they saw it as the Gurus word? In this logic - Why would the Sikhs ask Gurbani to be mixed with simple Court poetry?

Regarding Bhai Mani Singh: I think more research is needed on that saroop that has both Granths mixed. I dont think personally it was made for ceremonial gurdwara use. I think it was a part of the santhia lessons he was giving in Amritsar for small circles of people. He maybe changed the order for his students to research linguistic developements in words over time. I dont know, but I think more research is needed before we start making conclusions.

 

In any case it is difficult to see how  the early Sikhs who spend 20+ years with the Guru could have been fooled that this massive Granth of some 1300+ pages was Guru krit... And how all of a sudden 200 years later suddenly the sikhs realize it was'nt his.. It appears that the later generations of Sikhs know more about the Guru than the early generations of Sikhs.. Thats odd

 

Rather than me having to write the entire A-Z of it, it would be easier for me if you tell me how much you understand so that I can fill in the blanks in your alphabet.

 

Im not quite sure what you mean here bro. Understand of what?

Edited July 21, 2015 by amardeep

[BhagatSingh]

Wonderful. Good to know. But not so secret anymore aye ? :P

Well you are one of us so... ;)
 

Which bits? The ones that talk about 36 scribes and 52 poets? Yes they are mentioned in different writings of the 18-19th Century. I'll take some Photos and upload later tonight. Gurbilas Patshahi 10, Suraj Prakash and Gurpad Prem Prakash mention it.

That be great if you got both of those bits. 1. 36 scribes 2. 52 poets

 

The Guru was both a calligrapher and a poet.

Well I am questioning the poet part hence why I put forward my "Commission Theory". My theory is that Guru Gobind Singh ji commissioned these works. Because if he commissioned these works, then it would make sense with a lot of other things I know. And if Guru Sahib commissioned it himself, then it would be easy for Bhai Mani Singh et al to mistake that he wrote it.
 

ਕ੍ਰਿਤ

Krit probably derives from the root k-r-t - meaning creator (karta) - hence implying an author. There are probably also other Words for an author, but i've only seen krit come up in pothis.

I have never seen it come up in Guru Granth sahib or Dasam Granth like that.
The word they use for poet is
ਕਵਿ ਕਲ੍ਯ੍ਯ ਠਕੁਰ ਹਰਦਾਸ ਤਨੇ ਗੁਰ ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਸਰ ਅਭਰ ਭਰੇ ॥੧॥
Kalya the (ਕਵਿ) poet, wrote this shabad.

(Now he is just a court poet whose words are considered sacred. His bani is thus recorded in Guru Granth Sahib.)

 

 I think we are talking past each other here. The way I read the above Bansavalinama quote is that it talks about the differences in the "production" of the two Granths - in one there was one scribe and in the other there were many.

The way I am reading it is that is talks about similarities of production, hence why they are "brothers". The production was a mirror image. If I could do column by column in the forum, I would, but I can't, so I'll do row by row.

ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਜੀ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜਨਮੁ ਹੈ ਧਾਰਾ ।
In Guru Arjun Dev ji's house the Granth Sahib took birth.

ਛੋਟਾ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਜੀ, ਜਨਮੇ ਦਸਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ ।
In Dasam Pita's house the other Granth was born.

ਦਾਇਆ ਸੀ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ, ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ ।੨੬੬।
The scribe  was Bhai Gurdas ji.

ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸਤਾਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਪਚਵੰਜਾ, ਬਹੁਤ ਖਿਡਾਵੇ-ਲਿਖਾਰੇ ਨਾਮ ।
The scribes were many.

 

When it says many scribes it just Means those that penned Down the Words. In many of the puratan saroops you can see the Guru penning Down a few pages (khas patre) and then the sorrounding scribes take over the rest. Thats why in many lexica over early Puratan saroops there is most often a column that says "number of khas patre" - often being some 5-8.

That bit was clear in your last post. That's what I was responding to.

 

When Bhai Kesar Singh quotes the Dasam Granth tuks he inserts "Mahala 10" in front - not the name of Ram, Shyam etc. His understanding hence must have been that this was Guru krit.
 

That's why I am saying he is mistaken. He is ignoring the internal authors, Ram, Shyam, Kaal, etc, and putting Mehla 10 where it does not belong.

 

One also has to look at the historical period - being a scribe was a full time profession. Not all poets were scribes, and not all scribes were poets.

Right because it would be difficult to do all those jobs together.

Being a warrior and king and a guru was also a full time profession. Guru Hari Gobind ji didn't write much poetry, neither did Guru Hari Rai ji. They were both warrior-king and Gurus.
Guru Tegh Bahadur ji gave up warriorhood and kingship to make time for bhagti.

But when it comes to Guru Gobind Singh ji, we say he was a warrior and a king and a guru and a scribe and a calligrapher and a poet and an inventor of instruments and a musician... huh????

My father firmly believed that Guru Sahib wrote Dasam Granth. One day I asked him then about this exactly. He said to me if Guru Gobind Singh wrote all that bani, with all the wars he was fighting, with his young age, he would have been working 24/7, with no sleep in order to do all of that.

That's why I have the doubts that I have. But if my "Commission Theory" is true. Then Guru Gobind Singh ji was exactly like his Grandfather, Guru Hari Gobind ji. They both only lived till 40ish. They were both warrior, king and guru. They both had time left to sleep, chill with family, to listen to kirtan, dhadi etc.

Under that theory, Guru Gobind Singh ji commissioned other people -
1. to write poetry, some of which is collected in Dasam Granth
2. to translate Puranas and other sanskrit texts,
3. to make copies of Puranas and Guru Granth Sahib 
4. spread these texts out to various centers, to spread the knowledge
5. to play music in his court
6. to make instruments like the peacock version of dilruba
7. to make works of art for Guru Sahib's own painting collection
 

It could also be that they pleaded to mix the Granths because they saw it as the Gurus word?  In this logic - Why would the Sikhs ask Gurbani to be mixed with simple Court poetry?

Right. I get that that they think it's by Guru Gobind Singh ji. That's what I am replying to in my post. So when Guru Sahib refused, they didn't understand why. Since they did not understand the reason, they could be very well be mistaken about the authorship as well.

 

In any case it is difficult to see how  the early Sikhs who spend 20+ years with the Guru could have been fooled that this massive Granth of some 1300+ pages was Guru krit...

Well having spent 20+ years with Grru Shaib, they still don't know the contents of teh Granths. They think Dasam Granth about avtar leela and the other isn't. If they can be mistaken about the contents then they could be mistaken about the authors. Those go hand-in-hand.

--

(I could be mistaken about this below, of course. Because I don't actually know. So I am just postulating alternative theories because I have doubts about certain things.)

--

If you are a contemporary of Guru sahib and you  hear that Guru Sahib is working on a granth. Even if Guru Sahib may only be commissioning it, it would appear to you that he maybe composing it himself.

Why?

One possibility -
Because the previous warrior-kings did not commission any granths. The only Guru who did was himself a poet, Guru Arjun. So you think the new Guru might also be like that.
 

Another possibility -
Who would want to pay attention to some random court poets?

This is why Guru Arjun Dev ji added them to the Guru Granth Sahib, to give them the credit and admiration they deserved. They were added to a Granth full of famous people. Guru Nanak Dev ji, Sant Nam Dev ji, Sant Kabir Das ji were all BIG names in people's minds when Guru Arjun Dev ji was compiling the granth.

So a granth full of court poets wasn't going to be popular when it came to 1700s. Just look at the other Granths you mention (e.g. Prem Ambodh Granth). Those aren't popular. I hadn't even heard about that. And I doubt people back then had either.
 

Also think about this -
Suppose.... Just imagine that one day  Bhai Mani Singh ji has doubts of the authorship. He knows Guru Sahib was working on this granth but he doesn't know whether or not he wrote it. So he starts asking around. He then finds and meet the poets who contributed to the granths. When he meets these poets, they are only too happy to attribute their writings to Guru Sahib so that they may get more eyes on them. They know their work might not gain value otherwise. And their internal signatures are already in place, once people start reading.

I mean these poets are clearly gyani folks. Their is tons of spiritual wisdom oozing from their writings, but if you don't read their stuff, you wouldn't even know about them.

Watch how this guy talks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bNF_F076U
 

Just throwing those possibilities out there. Let me know if something sticks.

Why am I thinking of all this?
Because of my doubts about Dasam Granth being the work of a single person.

My doubt primarily stems from this -
1. the many different internal signatures - Ram, Shyam, Kaal, etc - of different banis
2. The difference in belief systems across banis (the different writings appear to be written by different poets from different backgrounds in religion)

Compare this to Guru Granth Sahib
1. there are many different internal signatures - Nanak, Namdev, Kabir
2. The belief system of all contributors is the same, with the exception of Sheikh Farid (whose bani is accompanied by Guru Amar Das ji's commentary) and maaaaybe Mardana (who has very little contributions so it's hard to tell what his belief system is)

 

Regarding Bhai Mani Singh: I think more research is needed on that saroop that has both Granths mixed. I dont think personally it was made for ceremonial gurdwara use. I think it was a part of the santhia lessons he was giving in Amritsar for small circles of people. He maybe changed the order for his students to research linguistic developements in words over time. I dont know, but I think more research is needed before we start making conclusions.

Tell me more about that.

Im not quite sure what you mean here bro. Understand of what?

I want to see how much you already know so I can fill you in on the parts you might not know.

Edited July 21, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[SikhKhoj]

Good to see that you try to think autonomously Bhagat Singh and do not believe anything just like sheep.

There is an 18th century book that confirms that parts of Dasam Granth were commissioned and not written by Guru Gobind Singh.

Its good to read these (weird) theories of yours, they often find some support in old sources just like you guessed that Guru Hargobind might have given Khande ki Pahul and... it is mentioned in a puratan source too.

[BhagatSingh]

Thanks for the support. Much appreciated. Hopefully we get to interact more and gain more knowledge from each other.

 

There is an 18th century book that confirms that parts of Dasam Granth were commissioned and not written by Guru Gobind Singh.
 

Would love to read it.

Edited July 21, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[CdnSikhGirl]

This is the first post I have seen that is openly discussing the authorship of dasam granth, instead of the usual undying belief of 'sheeple' that believe simply what they were told without queston, that it was 100% authored by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.  Thank you for having an open mind and the curiosity to get to the bottom of it.

[amardeep]

"There is an 18th century book that confirms that parts of Dasam Granth were commissioned and not written by Guru Gobind Singh."

Interesting. Which book is that?

[amardeep]

BhagatSingh:

Here is two quotes from Suraj Prakash and Gurbilas Patshahi 10. To read more, see Pyara Singh Padams Darbari Rattan page 44 which you can find on Punjab Digital Library.

I'll respond to your post later today.

[BhagatSingh]

Perfect! Thanks a lot!

[amardeep]

Well I am questioning the poet part hence why I put forward my "Commission Theory". My theory is that Guru Gobind Singh ji commissioned these works. Because if he commissioned these works, then it would make sense with a lot of other things I know. And if Guru Sahib commissioned it himself, then it would be easy for Bhai Mani Singh et al to mistake that he wrote it.

The Guru was both a patron and a writer himself. Nothing unusual about this though, - many rulers likewise wrote their own litterature as well as being patrons of others. See the writings of Dara Shikoh for instance who translated much and also paid others to translate.

Im not sure why it would be easy for others to mistake it as Maharajs writings, if he only commisioned it. Though Maharaja Ranjit Singh patroned the Golden Temple, no one actually mistook it as him being the actual constructor and builder.

I have never seen it come up in Guru Granth sahib or Dasam Granth like that.
The word they use for poet is
ਕਵਿ ਕਲ੍ਯ੍ਯ ਠਕੁਰ ਹਰਦਾਸ ਤਨੇ ਗੁਰ ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਸਰ ਅਭਰ ਭਰੇ ॥੧॥
Kalya the (ਕਵਿ) poet, wrote this shabad.

(Now he is just a court poet whose words are considered sacred. His bani is thus recorded in Guru Granth Sahib.)

Rules and guidelines are standardized in poetry (of whatever language) and I think (not sure) that different words are used depending on where in the text they are used. I've only seen the word krit being used in the beginning of a book, - never along the pen name of the poet (where you have kavi in your example). I'll have to check up on how it is used in braj basha. Lekhak, kavi, krit and sometimes even without any title in front of the pen name - i think they were all used but there is probably a logic to where and when they are used.

 

The way I am reading it is that is talks about similarities of production, hence why they are "brothers". The production was a mirror image. If I could do column by column in the forum, I would, but I can't, so I'll do row by row.

ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਜੀ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜਨਮੁ ਹੈ ਧਾਰਾ ।
In Guru Arjun Dev ji's house the Granth Sahib took birth.

ਛੋਟਾ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਜੀ, ਜਨਮੇ ਦਸਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ ।
In Dasam Pita's house the other Granth was born.

ਦਾਇਆ ਸੀ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ, ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਖਿਡਾਵਣਹਾਰਾ ।੨੬੬।
The scribe  was Bhai Gurdas ji.

ਸੰਮਤੁ ਸਤਾਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਪਚਵੰਜਾ, ਬਹੁਤ ਖਿਡਾਵੇ-ਲਿਖਾਰੇ ਨਾਮ ।
The scribes were many.

So I take it we both agree that the above verses deal with the number of scribes, and not with the number of authors nor the number of pen names (as manglacharan says).

That's why I am saying he is mistaken. He is ignoring the internal authors, Ram, Shyam, Kaal, etc, and putting Mehla 10 where it does not belong.

But how do you know he is ignoring it? The fact that Bhai Sahib quotes extensively from different parts of the Dasam Granth surely implies that he had read and studied large parts of the Dasam Granth and therefore came across the Ram, Shyam and Kaal pen names. Yet he still wrote "Saakh Mahala 10" in the headings. In the previous chapters he writes the raag and the mahala (ie. Raag Gauri Mahala 5). There is no change, only continuity. So how do you know he is ignoring them?

Right because it would be difficult to do all those jobs together.

Being a warrior and king and a guru was also a full time profession. Guru Hari Gobind ji didn't write much poetry, neither did Guru Hari Rai ji. They were both warrior-king and Gurus.
Guru Tegh Bahadur ji gave up warriorhood and kingship to make time for bhagti.

But when it comes to Guru Gobind Singh ji, we say he was a warrior and a king and a guru and a scribe and a calligrapher and a poet and an inventor of instruments and a musician... huh????

My father firmly believed that Guru Sahib wrote Dasam Granth. One day I asked him then about this exactly. He said to me if Guru Gobind Singh wrote all that bani, with all the wars he was fighting, with his young age, he would have been working 24/7, with no sleep in order to do all of that.

That's why I have the doubts that I have. But if my "Commission Theory" is true. Then Guru Gobind Singh ji was exactly like his Grandfather, Guru Hari Gobind ji. They both only lived till 40ish. They were both warrior, king and guru. They both had time left to sleep, chill with family, to listen to kirtan, dhadi etc.

Under that theory, Guru Gobind Singh ji commissioned other people -
1. to write poetry, some of which is collected in Dasam Granth
2. to translate Puranas and other sanskrit texts,
3. to make copies of Puranas and Guru Granth Sahib 
4. spread these texts out to various centers, to spread the knowledge
5. to play music in his court
6. to make instruments like the peacock version of dilruba
7. to make works of art for Guru Sahib's own painting collection

Difficult - yes. Impossible - no.

Your examples with the other Gurus are fine but I dont think we can assume that the reason 6th and 7th patshah did'n compose any bani was due to them being busy being kings. I think there were greater things at play.

We know from history that the Guru from an early age had a thorough education in the art of war and poetry as well as learning the languages of Punjabi, Persian, Sanskrit, Hindi and Braj Basha. This also included a thorough study of the litterature of these languages (especially Persian and Sanskrit).

The largest parts of the Dasam Granth are the Charitro Pakhyan, Bachitar Natak and Chaubis Avatar. Combined, these probably make up some 80% of the entire Granth. However, going by the internal datings, these were also composed over a period of 10-12 years. Some of the larger chapters of the Chaubis avatar were composed as early as the late 1680s and then completed some 10 years later. Likewise the Charitro Pakhyan was composed in 1696 while the Bachitar Natak was probably completed soon thereafter. Over a period of 10-12 years it is not impossible to compose some 800 pages of bani.

When I was doing my research on the kavi darbar last year I noticed how some years seem to have been more productive than others. The period 1695-1698 seem to have been a very active period in the Anandpur Darbar where large chapters of the Mahabharat were completed. Translating the Mahabharat is a massive undertaking in itself! Likewise, there were no major battles in the years 1694-1698. This gave the Guru and his poets the time needed to engage in their arts and devote "full time". 

Suraj Prakash is 8-9 times the size of the Dasam Granth and that was composed over the same period of time (10-12 years). So it is not impossible. Likewise with the music. Being a calligrapher could have developed along learning prosody.

Right. I get that that they think it's by Guru Gobind Singh ji. That's what I am replying to in my post. So when Guru Sahib refused, they didn't understand why. Since they did not understand the reason, they could be very well be mistaken about the authorship as well.

The sakhi says the SIkhs came to the Guru and asked for joining the Granths together. And then the answer was given. It does'nt say the SIkhs were told no, and then the same Sikhs came and asked again. Since they were never officially merged together it means the Sikhs understood to keep them seperate (apart from that one saroop in delhi of Bhai Mani Singh)

Well having spent 20+ years with Grru Shaib, they still don't know the contents of teh Granths. They think Dasam Granth about avtar leela and the other isn't. If they can be mistaken about the contents then they could be mistaken about the authors. Those go hand-in-hand

I dont think its fair to see they did'n know the content of the Granths. There is nothing wrong in saying that the Dasam Granth has a much greater focus on Avatar lila than the Guru Granth Sahib considering the wide scope of the Chaubis Avatar as well as the 3 Chandi banis and the other Mahabharat translations. Sure, its not all about avatar lila, but even the Anti-Dasam Granthis say that Dasam Granth is a "hindu scripture" due to the Chaubis Avatar. It is an exaguration. I would'n say Bhai Sahib did'n know what it was about since he obviosly studied it as is evidenced by his quoting of it.

Your theories are interesting - try and look more into them in light of what puratan ithias says and see if you can find any evidence to back them up. Would be interesting to see.

Suppose.... Just imagine that one day  Bhai Mani Singh ji has doubts of the authorship. He knows Guru Sahib was working on this granth but he doesn't know whether or not he wrote it. So he starts asking around. He then finds and meet the poets who contributed to the granths. When he meets these poets, they are only too happy to attribute their writings to Guru Sahib so that they may get more eyes on them. They know their work might not gain value otherwise. And their internal signatures are already in place, once people start reading.

Its good to imagine - the problem however is that we are not talking about a random devout sikh who came to the court once a year during Vaisakhi. We are talking about Bhai Mani Singh who tradition records as a court poet himself, a scribe, resident in Anandpur as well as a darbari. He spent years and years with the Guru. It is very unlikely that he would take large granths such as Bachitar Natak and Charitro Pakhyan and say they were guru krit just because people say so , if he had never stumbled across them during his residence in Anandpur. Imagine if I come to you 10 years after your best friend has passed away and say "here is a 800 page granth that your friend was actually working on. You might not know and you've probably never seen it before.. but true story".. Thats very unlikely no?

The earliest reference to "Vada Granth" i've come across is in a 1692 saroop of Guru Granth Sahib.. I dont know if it was scribed in Anandpur or else where. Interesting though that it uses the same terminology as Bhai Kesar Singh Chibbar some 70 years later. Would be interesting to see if there is any reference to the Dasam Granth being called Chota Granth already in the 1690s.

1. the many different internal signatures - Ram, Shyam, Kaal, etc - of different banis
2. The difference in belief systems across banis (the different writings appear to be written by different poets from different backgrounds in religion)

To be honest i've never really looked into the arguments used for the different pen names. What do Pro-Dasam Granthi scholars give as reasoning?

Can you provide some examples of what you consider to be differences in belief systems?

Tell me more about that.

I can't as I dont know more than it.. It was just a theory and conjecture. It's something to look further into *wink wink you do it* ;)

I want to see how much you already know so I can fill you in on the parts you might not know.

Take it from scracth, start from A and end with Z so others can also read along and learn from your research.

 

[SikhKhoj]

One part is interesting however - it says Bhai Mani Singh made a saroop wherein he mixed the bani of Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam Granth and rearranged the banis in cronological order (ie starting from Guru Nanak, then Guru Angad, then Guru Amardas etc). This saroop can be found in New Delhi and when the Patshahi 10 begins, it is verbatim Dasam Granth banis that emerges....This means that the Dasam Granth was considered the writings of Dasam Patshah - otherwise they would'n be in there.

 

 

Regarding Bhai Mani Singh: I think more research is needed on that saroop that has both Granths mixed. I dont think personally it was made for ceremonial gurdwara use. I think it was a part of the santhia lessons he was giving in Amritsar for small circles of people. He maybe changed the order for his students to research linguistic developements in words over time. I dont know, but I think more research is needed before we start making conclusions.

 

The Dasam Granth bir supposedly written by Mani Singh with every SGGS Bani sorted author wise and combined with Dasam Granth has been researched tirelessly by scholars.

The Bir is dated 1713 but that has been doubted because the dating was written in different ink and handwriting in one of the corners. The history of the bir is also dubious.

There are other 2 things that blow the Mani Singh Birs historicity is that a dohra of Poet Alam is attributed to Guru Gobind Singh & it contains extraneous compositions like Hakikat Rah Mukaam Raje Shivnabh Ki before the Raagmala.

The scribe seems to be ignorant of Sikhi by the above mistakes and thus could not have been Bh. Mani Singh.

Edited July 21, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

 

 

The Dasam Granth bir supposedly written by Mani Singh with every SGGS Bani sorted author wise and combined with Dasam Granth has been researched tirelessly by scholars.

The Bir is dated 1713 but that has been doubted because the dating was written in different ink and handwriting in one of the corners. The history of the bir is also dubious.

There are other 2 things that blow the Mani Singh Birs historicity is that a dohra of Poet Alam is attributed to Guru Gobind Singh & it contains extraneous compositions like Hakikat Rah Mukaam Raje Shivnabh Ki before the Raagmala.

The scribe seems to be ignorant of Sikhi by the above mistakes and thus could not have been Bh. Mani Singh.

Okay thats interesting to know. Where can I read more about this saroop? Pyara Singh Padam has very little on it in his Dasam Granth Darshan.

[SikhKhoj]

You also seem to have a black and white view of Puratan Sikhs but don't think they weren't gullible or as holy as we think. The famous Sukha Singh, executioner of Massa Rangarh, was ostracized for a while by the Panth because he was thought to have committed female foeticide (or his wife).

Sukha Singh Patnas son Charat Singh, according to our history, wrote pages resembling to Dasam Pitas handwriting and sold them for monetary gain.

 

There is a book by Randhir Singh about the historicity of Dasam Granth that contains some valuable info. Not the AKJ Randhir Singh.

[SikhKhoj]

Bhagat Singh, Kab Raam was not a pen name of Guru Gobind Singh. The argument that Ram, Shyam and Gobind are synonyms and were therefore used as a pen name by Dasam Pita is weak and unfound. Kahan Singh Nabha accepts Ram and Shyam as part of the 52 Poets (see Mahan Kosh). If you look properly you will find information on who Kab Raam was.

Secondly, Bansawlinama was written in 1769, about 60 years after Guru Gobind Singh. If we look at the history of previous Mehls, Banis were circulated under the names of M6, M7 and so on during the Guruships of the respective Gurus themselves. This also happened during the earlier Gurus times too, which prompted the Guru to utter the Shabad 'satgur bino hor kachi hai bani'. Now if we keep that in mind, that some Sikhs were fooled by during the Gurus times themselves that can't it happen 60 years after?

And one thing is interesting; Bansawlinamas author was aware of the Dasam Granth compositions and even quotes from them but he still does not mention any Dasam Granth Bani in Amrit Sanchar ceremony. What say BhagatSingh? We're going the heretic way haha.

[amardeep]

Bhagat Singh, Kab Raam was not a pen name of Guru Gobind Singh. The argument that Ram, Shyam and Gobind are synonyms and were therefore used as a pen name by Dasam Pita is weak and unfound. Kahan Singh Nabha accepts Ram and Shyam as part of the 52 Poets (see Mahan Kosh). If you look properly you will find information on who Kab Raam was.

Secondly, Bansawlinama was written in 1769, about 60 years after Guru Gobind Singh. If we look at the history of previous Mehls, Banis were circulated under the names of M6, M7 and so on during the Guruships of the respective Gurus themselves. This also happened during the earlier Gurus times too, which prompted the Guru to utter the Shabad 'satgur bino hor kachi hai bani'. Now if we keep that in mind, that some Sikhs were fooled by during the Gurus times themselves that can't it happen 60 years after?

And one thing is interesting; Bansawlinamas author was aware of the Dasam Granth compositions and even quotes from them but he still does not mention any Dasam Granth Bani in Amrit Sanchar ceremony. What say BhagatSingh? We're going the heretic way haha.

Would'n you say there is a huge difference between passing off a few individual shabads in the name of the Gurus (as in the earlier cases), and then a whole Granth the size of Guru Granth Sahib itself? You can easily fool people with saying "these few shabads are written by your Guru" - but to bring a Whole scripture of that size where neither yourself, your parents or grandparents have ever heard of it being Guru krit before - how does that work? Seems very unlikely.

 Regarding the banis recited at Amrit Sanchar - thats a whole other topic, lets leave that out for now , to keep the conversation focused.

I dont have the book of Bhai Randhir Singh - is it possible for you to scan the pages on the Bhai Mani Singh Delhi bir?

 

Edited July 22, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

Would'n you say there is a huge difference between passing off a few individual shabads in the name of the Gurus (as in the earlier cases), and then a whole Granth the size of Guru Granth Sahib itself? You can easily fool people with saying "these few shabads are written by your Guru" - but to bring a Whole scripture of that size where neither yourself, your parents or grandparents have ever heard of it being Guru krit before - how does that work? Seems very unlikely.

 Regarding the banis recited at Amrit Sanchar - thats a whole other topic, lets leave that out for now , to keep the conversation focused.

I dont have the book of Bhai Randhir Singh - is it possible for you to scan the pages on the Bhai Mani Singh Delhi bir?

 

There are people who claim Sarbloh was written by Guru Gobind Singh (albeit in a previous incarnation). There used to be people who seriously believed the Sau Sakhi was written by Guru Gobind Singh about a century back (Kahan Singh Nabha talks about this). There are who ascribe many granths to Guru Gobind such as the Puranmasi Katha, Prem Sumarg, etc

Truth is that we are gullible as a community in general, just associate anything with the Gurus and you will have fools ready to pay millions for it or worship it. Anything with the title Pt 10 was seriously considered as a Dasam Pita Bani just because of the heading - and mind you, I personally know dozens of people who still think that way. This fact was severely misused by our enemies and corrupt people, read the Naveen Panth Parkash to read how the son of Sukha Singh Patna (Granthi) actually imitated Guru Gobind Singhs handwriting and sold the writings for lots of money.

But since most of the compositions seem to have been composed in the Gur Darbar the Dasam Granth seems to have had more general authenticity over the years. But that is one evolution, it is in this aspect that you can not deny the Amrit Sanchar proofs from within Bansawlinama. You say 'thats another topic' but the title says 'Bansawlinama on DG' and since Amrit Sanchar has no DG banis it is very important to notice a trend and actually understand why and how DG became so popular.

If people like Kesar Singh believed in the 1760s that DG was by Guru Gobind Singh they also on the other hand showed Amrit Sanchar had no Dasam Banis. The Mukatnama from around the same time equally gives no DG Bani in the Nitnem. Theres a dozen sources confirming about the Nitnem. (don't quote unauthentic Rehats such as the so called 1695 Nand Lal rehat for Jap Jaap - Pyara Padam himself published them and said they're all later writings and not of Nand Lal or the respected others)

DG gained more importance in the late 18th and early 19th century because that is when things such as DG Banis started appearing in the nitnem, and DG Banis were added to Pahul. Even if we accept the flawed source of Guru Kian Sakhian for 5 Banis (including DG) it means no source prior to 1790 mentions those Banis. Even the Prem Sumarg that is so admired on this forum does not give Dasam Banis for Amrit Sanchar, which leads me to accept that it might have been written somewhere before the 1780s.

DG did not gain prominence because it was Dasam Krit but because it was made part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. And that is how our community got fooled by having our main ceremonies depend on the Dasam Granth - and even today people still do not dare to question DG because our main ceremonies depend on it. So it is a complicated issue and needs full assessment. You can't just say Kesar Singh accepts DG banis as Dasam Guru Krit and leave out the fact that despite existence of DG there was  no DG in Amrit Sanchar which shows a evolution to include more DG (this is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact you can establish by reading and taking notes of all manuscripts and you will notice the evolution yourself).

 

Edited July 22, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

Very interesting points you raise. Can you make a new topic for the "rise of the status of Dasam Granth" as I feel we are getting a bit off track here. But would be interesting to see how much a role Dasam Granth/Dasam bani plays in the earlist post 1708 litterature.

I'll respond to your arguments in the new topic.

 

There are people who claim Sarbloh was written by Guru Gobind Singh (albeit in a previous incarnation).

The above is a good example of how you can't just impose a Whole scripture onto the panth if ones parents or ancestors did'n even know of it. The Sarbloh Granth is still widely a Nihang scripture and can't really be found outside Dere or Gurdware of Nihangs. So in case this scripture is actually Guru krit,  the Nihangs have NEVER been able to mainstream it within the larger panth. But the Dasam Granth became mainstream and unquestioned all uptill the colonial period... Which is my case - you can't just come with a foreign scripture and say "hey this is your Guru's" and then people will just adopt it. The Sarbloh Granth is a good example of this.

But your points are very good - please make a new thread and lets continue the evolution discussion there.

 

If people have acces to writings of scholars that other's dont - please scan the pages for sangat to see so we are doing khoj from the same platform and understanding.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

The above is a good example of how you can't just impose a Whole scripture onto the panth if ones parents or ancestors did'n even know of it. The Sarbloh Granth is still widely a Nihang scripture and can't really be found outside Dere or Gurdware of Nihangs. So in case this scripture is actually Guru krit,  the Nihangs have NEVER been able to mainstream it within the larger panth. But the Dasam Granth became mainstream and unquestioned all uptill the colonial period... Which is my case - you can't just come with a foreign scripture and say "hey this is your Guru's" and then people will just adopt it. The Sarbloh Granth is a good example of this.

The DG versus Sarbloh issues just reinforces the point I made earlier. Many normal Sikhs still do not know what the Dasam Granth is, but if you tell them that 3 out of 5 Amrit Sanchar Banis are from DG they will not dare to doubt its authenticity. Historically this is a factor that has (and continues to) play in its favor. Sarbloh does not have the advantage that it is used in daily and important Sikh ceremonies. Besides the Khalsa Mero Roop Hai Khaas it is mostly unknown to the Panth.

I will let you guys continue the discussion on Bansawlinama and Dasam Granth even though it is futile. Kesar quotes from DG and says 'Saakh M10' thus he is talking about DG or DG compositions.

[BhagatSingh]

Sikhkhoj, it's better to start a new topic. Remember to stick to a few points and argue those few points fully (with evidence you have) before going to the next. If you mention everything at once, it will be harder to follow. That's been my experience of your posts in this thread.

Edited July 23, 2015 by BhagatSingh