Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
amardeep

Dasam Granth and taksal

Recommended Posts

amardeep wrote;

'is the dasam granth classified as Guru in puratan nirmala litterature?'

(I presume nirmala literature in the plural sense as in more than one author)

javanmard wrote;

'It is classified as Guru along with Adi and Sarabloh.'

Come on, you hammer on about scholarship, but making a definitive statement about 300 years of tradition for an entire sampradaya on the evidence of one author is a bit rich, wouldn't you say? I thought scholarship was all about getting the detail accurate rather than sweeping generalisations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of Nirmala institutions and granths wrapped up in sachkhand, small handwritten gutkas are also often kept in there too. The issue of prakash was about whether they consider all three as Guru. Alike the Sevapanthis and Udasis that I've seen....they don't, simple as.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using logic only, one could argue that Dasam Granth and Sarbloh Granth are Guru along with Guru Granth as gurgaddi was passed on to Gurbani, and since all books were written by the Gurus, they must be declared Guru along.

i thought (from reading the posts on this forum) That all 4 sampardayas considered all three to be Guru.. I went to the Hariwelan Nihang camp in Panjab 3 months ago, and they told me that they consider all three to be Guru, and they also did parkash of Dasam Granth. i have some pictures from the Gurdwara and Maharaj. really beatutiful :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the Udasis and Sevapanthis I've met know next to nothing of Sarbloh Granth never mind having it to do prakash of. A fair few Nirmalay have only a vague knowledge of it too. It is a myth to suggest that traditional study among Nirmalay, Udasis, Sevapanthis includes Sarbloh Granth. I've never heard any of the above suggest Sri Dasam Granth is not the bani of Maharaj.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said Dasam Granth, not Sarbloh Granth.

As regards its SPECIFIC status, I can't answer on other people's behalfs (i.e. while it is maharaj's writings whether it is the ishta, etc etc). I reckon this is more a person to person thing...many things in life especially people rarely fit into tick boxes sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Most of the Udasis and Sevapanthis I've met know next to nothing of Sarbloh Granth never mind having it to do prakash of.

really, this is suprising because this debunks the soo called theory pushed by people that sarbloh granth was written by udasi mahant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

Most of the Udasis and Sevapanthis I've met know next to nothing of Sarbloh Granth never mind having it to do prakash of. A fair few Nirmalay have only a vague knowledge of it too. It is a myth to suggest that traditional study among Nirmalay, Udasis, Sevapanthis includes Sarbloh Granth. I've never heard any of the above suggest Sri Dasam Granth is not the bani of Maharaj.

This may be true but to be honest most of them don't even have 20 percent of the knowledge they are supposed to have. Very few Nirmale learn Sanskrit ad live up to the the mission they say is theirs. There has since the 19th century been a great intellectual decadence among the sampradayas. Sarablo Granth is mentioned as part of the literature to be studied by Sant Jagjit Singh Harkowale and is clearly mentioned in a list of studied texts in Gurmat Nirnay Sagar by Tara Singh Narotam. His argument that it was written by an Udasi from Puri makes no sense as there is a substantial number in Persian making clear reference to Imam Mahdi (fta) and this clearly isn't an Udasi feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the list of information in Sant Jagjit Singh's book is the texts he himself studied. Pandit Tara Singh Narotam covers it in a section on all the lesser known literature including texts like Mukti Marg, Prem Sumarag, etc (both also ascribed to Guru Maharaj).

The standard list of study would be Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Sri Dasam Granth, Suraj Prakash, and braj bhasha vedantic stuff like Vichar Sagar, Bhavrasamrit, Saruktavali, etc. This is the essentials. Sarbloh Granth rarely then features for Nirmalay since they then shift their focus to the study of sanskrit (i.e. philsophical works). You'd be surprised at how many still do study sanskrit (I know I was). Its not quite as doom and gloom as it seems, although the most of these are outside of punjab. As Bahadur says, since the 19th century the goalposts have shifted somewhat for those in Punjab (hence what I loosely called 'modern Nirmalay').

For the Udasis I've met or read about, quite a few have a great degree of learning, most sanskrit but they go for the big stuff. Sevapanthis are more along the lines of Satowaligali Dera's study list. Obviously Sant Surjit Singh pushes things a bit further for the sevapanthis. The study of Mokh Panth Prakash by Pandit Gulab Singh has died out among gyanis and samprdas which is a shame for its incredibly sophisticated grounding in the vedantic perspective on all other systems of thought including jains and buddhists. I'm surprised other people are surprised by this position on Sarbloh Granth, since as we all know, there are only a few original birs of it around. Neo, it doesn't necessarily debunk that theory, it just means it hasn't been considered particularly important enough for it to be a part of standard teaching in recent times. My own personal opinion is that if it were once to have been considered the same status as Adi Guru Granth Sahib then it would have been more prominent in Udasi and Sevapanthi memory, despite the ravages of the last century, but as I say, thats my opnion.

Also note that this real focus on history as a way of mapping the last 300 years both ideologically and factually is quite different to the outlook of the majority within the samprdas. Traditions they have were given by the Guru, but their focus remains the adhyatmic elements or anything that ties into it. This critical evalution of written history is generally not there. History often serves as the testimony to ideological or mystical elements. Likewise the sangat approaches them as mystics, not as historians. Again this is one element in the shift of goalposts, from the village intellectual mystic to the village saint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amardeep,

The authorship of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and the Sri Dasam Granth Sahib is not disputed by the vast majority of Sikhs, be they Sampradha based or mainstream, those who challenge the authencity of the Sri Guru and the Sri Dasam Granth Sahibs tend to be "Bhasaurias" of one kind or the other, i.e. AKJ, Tapoban, IOSS, Kala Afghana etc etc.

The vast majority of the mainstream Panth and those who align themselves with Sampradhas accept the authencity of these works without question, the issue of whether the Sri Dasam Granth should be treated as the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (i.e. for daily parkash etc) is the only issue in practice, however those who have copies of the Sri Dasam Granth at their homes, tend to do just this.

As per the Sri Sarabloh Granth/Parkash, this is something that needs more clarity. Pandit Tara Singh Narotam's views are clear on the subject and the common critique of his analysis can be found on this forum, however this has yet to achieve credence amongst the wider scholarly community, nonetheless to ascribe the works to Bhai Sukha Singh or to "scrupulous elements" is a little far fetched, since the writing style, albeit different from the quality in the Dasam Granth is still highly commendable and in of itself as a text, the Sri Sarabloh Granth is remarkable - Gurbani or not.

Nonetheless, the more common tale of the Udasi finding the text in the 18th century and it then coming into the possession of the Nihangs is something that throws up a whole load of questions, mainly that if the Nihangs are, as they claim, a direct lineage from Guru Gobind Singh with full intact parampara etc etc, then why did such a critical item such as the Sri Sarabloh Granth, nay Sarabloh Gur Darbar, have to come into their possession via secondary means?

tsingh - great post and as always, very informative, good to have your contributions return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amardeep wrote:

"Is it is Gurbani, would it not have the status of Guru then?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In view of its unclear origins, linguistic differences and relative obscurity, what would you suggest? Moreso, given the various points made above and on other similar threads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if one is to say all of the bani of the gurus are to considered Guru Sach are the Sri Sarbloh and Sri Dasam Granth then what about bani such as the mukat marg granth and the prem sumarg granth which are said to have been written by guru gobind singh ji. The Pentees Akhree by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, the Karnee Nama and Rattan mala by Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji?

They were all written or said by the gurus then why should they not be considered guru?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

excellent discussion going on guys, from this discussion we ponder upon very fine issue in the panth which if sri dasam granth sahib/sarbloh granth is gurbani which i dont have any doubts then how much they are not given guru status? therefore parkash in all the gurdwaras.

Only explanation we can give is to why sri guru granth sahib is given an status of guru but not other granths mukvak by sri guru gobind singh ji is historical one which is:

source- Gurmat Rehit Maryada by Sant gurbachan singh ji bhindranwale

sri guru gobind singh himself gave gurgaddi to sri guru granth sahib ji at hazoor sahib with panj bhramgyani sikhs:

- Baba Gurbkash Singh Ji Shaheed

- Baba Deep Singh Ji Shaheed

- Bhai Dharam Singh Ji

- Bhai Heer Singh Ji (sevadar of guru sahib who used to write dairy of guru sahib)

- Bhai Santok Singh Ji (sevadar of hazoor sahib)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an interesting question kam ji. The Guru Granth Sahib say that Gurbani is Guru, and not the book, The Word is the Guru, and not the book (a simple form of idolatry), and the Dasam Granth is clearly the work of Guru Gobind Singh and since he himself several times throughout many of the chapters (Rama avatar, Bichater Natak etc) say that The words are not his, but the Lords, then WHY is it not considered the eternal Guru? This is Dhur Ki Bani, not mere words.

I must admit that i am a bit chocked. i myself have no knowledge whatsoever on the history etc on the four sampardayas, but i always thought they considered all three Granths to be Guru, but now i see its only the Nihangs that do this.

But im glad that Taksal refers to Dasam Granth as Guru :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference i think is going to come down to the type of bani you have in the granths. In the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji you have shaant ras gurbani with the majority of it focusing on the nirgun aspect of God while the Sri Dasam and Sri Sarbloh focus on alot of translations, historical work and work on morality. the bani in itself is considered to be of the warrior essence.

Personally i believe all of these works to be of the Guru but if we respect the word of the Guru to be bani then we must remember that the Guru recited the Dohra - " Agiya Bhae Akal Ki Tabai Chaliyo Panth, Sabh Sikhan Ko Hukam Hai Guru Maniyo Granth"

The usual custom of the 5 paisas and the nareal were used when passing the jot to the next guru. As we all know the Sri Dasam Granth was not in a complete form at the time in 1708 as the Vidya sagar granh was lost in the evacuation of Anandpur. Bhai Mani Singh Ji compiled it after the passing of the guruship to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Now the Sarbloh Granth is another story as from what i have heard and from listening to the katha by Baba Santa Singh Ji, it was areound in 1708 and was created at the Sarbloh Bunga which is now known as Baba Nidhan Singhs Gurdwara in Nander. But again there is this history about the Udasi finding the scripture. Surely the singhs such as Baba Deep Singh Ji et al would have created copies of this like they did with the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji had the work been compiled at the Sarbloh Bunga when Guru Ji were supposed to have written it?

Also I though Sikhi was about having one guru such as is read in Bhai Gurdas Di Varan about the dangers of duality. The Guru is the respected Shabad Guru and at the time it was compiled as the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and was as far as historical fact presents itself the only granth fully present when Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji merged back into the divine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amardeep, kam,

From what I have noted, most respected scholars (modern era and historical) agree upon, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (inclusive of Raagmala) and the Sri Dasam Granth Sahib (inclusive of Charitropakhyan) being Gurbani and both the works of our Gurus.

As alluded above, whether a Gurdwara has parkash of both Granths simultaneously is really a non-issue, but the fact remains that where the Sri Dasam Granth Sahib is kept (be it a Gurdwara, Dera or personal home), it is typically treated with the same respect as the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, attesting to its appropriate reverence.

For these two scriptures, "Bani hai Guru, Guru hai Bani" would seem to apply without any significant opposition.

Other texts such as, Sri Sarabloh Parkash, Prem Sumarg, Sau Sakhi etc, there remains sustained doubt over authorship and hence the application of the above 'tuk' is harder to apply conclusively.

The involvement of a degree of sampradha and jatha politics is also at play with regard to these texts which is evident from who aligns themselves with which writings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on Page 62 in Mcleods Sikhs of the Khalsa, it says that it was Kesar Singh Chibar that declared the Dasam Granth Guru in 1769 and from then and onwards it was considered the Guru and given equal respect as that of the Guru Granth Sahib..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2007 at 10:03 AM, tSingh said:

Most of the Udasis and Sevapanthis I've met know next to nothing of Sarbloh Granth never mind having it to do prakash of. A fair few Nirmalay have only a vague knowledge of it too. It is a myth to suggest that traditional study among Nirmalay, Udasis, Sevapanthis includes Sarbloh Granth. I've never heard any of the above suggest Sri Dasam Granth is not the bani of Maharaj.

Bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...