amardeep

Sorry for the lateness in response. Still reading up on some things so might make another post to add to this one in the upcoming days.
 
As said earlier, dont refer to anyone unless you are gonna name them. Spelling is different in all Gurmukhi manuscripts so spelling can't really be used as an argument.

It is not a theory - this tiny period of some 3-4 years keeps popping up over and over again in Dasam Granth saroops, rahitname, Sarbloh Granth as well as the writings of the kavis (as refered earlier). So it was a productive period.
Good point in regards to the early mentioning of Khalsa in the hukamname of earlier Gurus. Thats a different topic, but im pretty sure we agree that the meaning of the word 'Khalsa' was slightly different in the period of the earlier Gurus and the meaning it had aquired during the reign of Guru Gobind SIngh. Just as the meaning of the word Khalsa in the Guru Gobind Singh was different to its meaning in later 19th century and even today. The meaning of words change over time - thats a fact. So when Kabeer uses Khalsa, the early Gurus and Guru Gobind Singh - though the word is the same, the meaning is not the same. 
I havent read the mukatnama, but i'll get to the naseehatnama further below as well as osme of the other rehitname.
I have'nt seen any evidence or articles to suggest that Padam was editing stuff - so can't comment on that.
Dont patronize me! As you have seen many times i refrain from discussing a book or document unless i've actually read it. If I had'n read it i'd ask for some time out to read it rather than just start discussing immidiately.
You are contradicting yourself. In other debates you've clearly stated that many of the things we associate with Guru Gobind Singh were already there during the reigns of the earlier Gurus. So why is it a problem all of a sudden to have mid 1690s text talk about the Khalsa as Guru and the Granth as Guru?
Your second point regarding how I talk about the two rehitname is fair and good. I see them close to each other in time even though one talks about the Khalsa and the other does'nt. I am not saying that it means the Khalsa did'n exist, but I am saying the fact that it is not mentioned at all is very unusual and points at its dating before the Khalsa had risen to prominence.. All subsequent post 1700 talks about the Khalsa non-stop. So this in itself is significant - however it does'nt mean that the author was not aware that the khalsa existed. But its position was probably yet to evolve. Which it slowly did in the following year when the Prahlad Rahitnama was created in 1696.
The way I see it: The Prashanuttar was written in 1695 and the arguments have been given earlier in this debate. I dont see any convincing arguments to question the internal dating of this document.
Mcleod's methodological problem in his dating of rahitname was that he set up his own theories, boxes and categories. And then began to place the rehitname in accordance to how they fitted into his own boxes. I see you doing the same. You have a system and theory that japji jaap nitnem must be a later invention/tradition and therefore you reject every rahitnama that mentions these two together because  they dont fit into your system. But maybe its your system thats wrong, and not the dating of the two rahitname.  Since i dont beleive in this system I dont see a reason to reject them out right.
The two internally dated documents of the Prahlad Rai Rahitnama and Prashanuttar Rahitnama both mention japji jaap and both claim to be written within a year of one another - 1695/1696. As the years progress from 1695 onwards more and more focus is laid on the Khalsa in virtually all Sikh writings.
The Thankhahnama 'found' by Jeevan Deol from the 1719 manuscript it interesting.. Firstly because it is a copy of an earlier writing which means that it is much earlier than 1718. When it was originally compiled we do not know since - unlike the Prahlad Rai rahitnama and Prashanuttar - there is no internal dating.
You are good at questioning internal dates-  have you done any research to see if the 1718 is even genuine? It could be a false date as well.. Have you looked into this or do you not do critical analysis to writings/pothis that fit into your system of thought? The internal 1718 date is as much of a claim as the 1695s claims of the early rahitname.
 
Going back to the question of the Bhai Prahlad Rai rahitnama, here are some interesting facts about it which makes me believe it to be amongst the earliest rahitname - as it is devoid of much of the later 'trends' seen in much of the mid 18th century Sikh writings... ... Since we both agree that the Desa Singh Rahitnama was written in the late misl period - where you said the japji jaap started becoming mainstream - it would be fruitful to compare at to this rahitnama along the way - as the Bhai Desa Singh rahitnama exhibit clear influences of the times it was written in (hindu influences, anti-Muslim atmosphere, great focus on warfare etc): The rahitnama
- lacks a strong emphasis on weapons and warfare as is seen in later rahitname that were compiled in great contexts of war
-  lacks Dasam Granth influence in terms of terminology etc. as the Dasam Granth had yet to be mainstreamed amongst the Sikh writers (happened a few decades later progressively and steadily)
- it is more 'pure' and Khalsa-centric: it lacks weird references to Brahmins, worship of "Hindu" Gods, caste system as is seen in later rahitname and their corruptions (again compare with the 'hindu' influences of the Bhai Desa Singh rahitnama)
-  Less hostile towards Turks than later rahitname and their corruptions (again- Desa Singh but also other writings of the 18th century ie gurbilas patshahi 10, bansavalinama etc).
 
So to sum up: there are no proper arguments against the early dating of these two rahitname.
 
 
 
 
Take it easy dude.
This is actually something that has to be done by a Sikh researcher at some point. In biblical studies they've managed to prove that out of the four gospels (which earlier counted as four independent sources) two of them had read the writings of one of the other. This means that today there are only 2 independant sources in the gospels. 3 in one cluster (as they influences each other) and one independant where there is no evidence that the author had ever read the other gospels.
 
Next post will be regardign the Prem Sumarag.

I've heard people say the Guru's did not even have bodies. How then was it possible for Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur to achieve shaheedi if there was no body?

Dasam Guru says:
ਜਬ ਜਬ ਹੋਤ ਅਰਿਸਟ ਅਪਾਰਾ ॥
ਤਬ ਤਬ ਦੇਹ ਧਰਤ ਅਵਤਾਰਾ ॥
ਕਾਲ ਸਭਨ ਕੋ ਪੇਖ ਤਮਾਸਾ ॥
ਅੰਤਹ ਕਾਲ ਕਰਤ ਹੈ ਨਾਸਾ ॥੨॥
 

ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਗੁਰੂ ਥੇ ਬਹੁ ਬਨਵਾਏ। ਜਾਨੌ ਜਿਤਿਕ ਨਾਮ ਦਿਹੁੰ ਗਾਏ। 73 ।

ਪਰਬ ਅਠਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਰਥ ਕੇਰੇ। ਭਾਖਾ ਕਰੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਬਿਨੁ ਦੇਰੇ।

ਤਿਨ ਮੈਂ ਸੇ ਹੈਂ ਦਸ ਪ੍ਰਸਿਧੈਂ। ਆਠ ਲੋਪ ਹੋਏ ਕਿਸਿ ਬਿਧੈਂ। 74 ।

ਜੋ ਪਟਲੇਸ਼੍ਵਰ ਅਬਿ ਬਨਵਾਏ। ਕਰੇ ਅਠਾਰਾਂ ਪੂਰੇ ਸਾਏ।

ਪੁਨ ਗੁਰੁ ਸਰਬ ਲੋਹ ਇਕ ਕਥਾ। ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਸੁਮਾਰਗ ਔਰੈਂ ਤਥਾ। 75 ।

ਨੀਤੀ ਸਾਗਰ ਥਾ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ਾ। ਉਪਨਿਸ਼ਦਾਂ ਕੀਨੀ ਥੀਂ ਭਾਸ਼ਾ।

ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਗੀਤਾ ਔਰ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਖੀ। ਯਹਿ ਸਭਿ ਸੁਨੀ ਵਡਨ ਤੈ ਸਾਖੀ। 76 ।

ਗੁਰੁ ਕੇ ਰਚੇ ਸਿਖ ਬਹੁ ਭਾਨੈਂ। ਸਾਚ ਝੂਠ ਸਭਿ ਗੁਰੁ ਹੀ ਜਾਨੈ।

ਇਤ੍ਯਾਦਿਕ ਬਹੁ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਰਚਾਏ। ਥੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਹਮ ਸੁਨਯੋ ਮਹਾਂਏ। 77 ।
 

I think the 3HO are the only ones at present who do what Guru Nanak did - they travel around and teach spiritual practices (whether naam simran or yoga). In their parchaar they dont focus much on stories and rules.

True that but I read the book when i wasn't active here on the forum (think back in 2013 og 2014). I've tried putting up some books and articles recently but no one comments on them.

I think the 3HO are the only ones at present who do what Guru Nanak did - they travel around and teach spiritual practices (whether naam simran or yoga). In their parchaar they dont focus much on stories and rules.

I talked to a UK Nihang once who said that what Sikhs are doing at present - is good - but in a sense not Gurmat oriented. Most groups doing awareness focus on talking about the Turban, the 5's and the life stories about the Gurus. But this is NOT what the Guru's were doing. When Guru Nanak travelled the world he did not travel around telling people stories about his life and why he wore a turban. He taught them how to meditate and discussed their experiences of bhagti.. This is what Sikhs should focus on when doing parchaar.... There is nothing wrong in what Basics of Sikhi and other are doing, - but we loose the plot if all we do is tell stories and explain concepts.... Its all about the naam

I talked to a UK Nihang once who said that what Sikhs are doing at present - is good - but in a sense not Gurmat oriented. Most groups doing awareness focus on talking about the Turban, the 5's and the life stories about the Gurus. But this is NOT what the Guru's were doing. When Guru Nanak travelled the world he did not travel around telling people stories about his life and why he wore a turban. He taught them how to meditate and discussed their experiences of bhagti.. This is what Sikhs should focus on when doing parchaar.... There is nothing wrong in what Basics of Sikhi and other are doing, - but we loose the plot if all we do is tell stories and explain concepts.... Its all about the naam

I talked to a UK Nihang once who said that what Sikhs are doing at present - is good - but in a sense not Gurmat oriented. Most groups doing awareness focus on talking about the Turban, the 5's and the life stories about the Gurus. But this is NOT what the Guru's were doing. When Guru Nanak travelled the world he did not travel around telling people stories about his life and why he wore a turban. He taught them how to meditate and discussed their experiences of bhagti.. This is what Sikhs should focus on when doing parchaar.... There is nothing wrong in what Basics of Sikhi and other are doing, - but we loose the plot if all we do is tell stories and explain concepts.... Its all about the naam

I talked to a UK Nihang once who said that what Sikhs are doing at present - is good - but in a sense not Gurmat oriented. Most groups doing awareness focus on talking about the Turban, the 5's and the life stories about the Gurus. But this is NOT what the Guru's were doing. When Guru Nanak travelled the world he did not travel around telling people stories about his life and why he wore a turban. He taught them how to meditate and discussed their experiences of bhagti.. This is what Sikhs should focus on when doing parchaar.... There is nothing wrong in what Basics of Sikhi and other are doing, - but we loose the plot if all we do is tell stories and explain concepts.... Its all about the naam

I talked to a UK Nihang once who said that what Sikhs are doing at present - is good - but in a sense not Gurmat oriented. Most groups doing awareness focus on talking about the Turban, the 5's and the life stories about the Gurus. But this is NOT what the Guru's were doing. When Guru Nanak travelled the world he did not travel around telling people stories about his life and why he wore a turban. He taught them how to meditate and discussed their experiences of bhagti.. This is what Sikhs should focus on when doing parchaar.... There is nothing wrong in what Basics of Sikhi and other are doing, - but we loose the plot if all we do is tell stories and explain concepts.... Its all about the naam

I talked to a UK Nihang once who said that what Sikhs are doing at present - is good - but in a sense not Gurmat oriented. Most groups doing awareness focus on talking about the Turban, the 5's and the life stories about the Gurus. But this is NOT what the Guru's were doing. When Guru Nanak travelled the world he did not travel around telling people stories about his life and why he wore a turban. He taught them how to meditate and discussed their experiences of bhagti.. This is what Sikhs should focus on when doing parchaar.... There is nothing wrong in what Basics of Sikhi and other are doing, - but we loose the plot if all we do is tell stories and explain concepts.... Its all about the naam

There is one rehitnama that says to keep them short.

Can't you two just stop commenting on each others posts and stop refering to each other indirectly?? Its like running a kinder garden here!

According to the tradition 48 Sikhs recieved Santhia on that day and Baba Deep Singh and Bhai Mani Singh were made leaders of these "schools" and to continue the parchaar.
It is possible that all of Baba Deep Singh's students were martyred during the many wars however the lineage and vidiya continued through Bhai Mani Singh and his students.
 
Some time back I quoted a 19th century text wherein a parampara lineage was mentioned in the introduction of the manuscript.. This text mentions all the same names as current day taksalis quote. So the linage was not made up in the 1970s as some wish to claim - there is a history and tradition behind it.

There is one rehitnama that says to keep them short.

There is too much drama with you two ruining every single topic. We got many complaints about you and the way you insult her constantly. Either stop it now or I will have you blocked. All topics are ruined by the marriage drama of you two guys.

Satkirin: Check out the Basics of Sikhi videos on learning Punjabi. They are quite good.
 

There is too much drama with you two ruining every single topic. We got many complaints about you and the way you insult her constantly. Either stop it now or I will have you blocked. All topics are ruined by the marriage drama of you two guys.

The problem  is that people have a tendency to stick to and hold on to Basics of SIkhi.. Basics as a project is only meant for people to gain an interest in Sikhi - then once thats done people need to move on... Basics only cover that - basics.. You wont attain deeper knowledge about Sikhi by listening to their lectures because that is not what they are there for.... Basics is there as a bridge to inspire you and take you onto something higher.
Personally I think what they did with the BBC was great. Desperate situations require desperate acts. Now they got mainstream media talking about it.

There is too much drama with you two ruining every single topic. We got many complaints about you and the way you insult her constantly. Either stop it now or I will have you blocked. All topics are ruined by the marriage drama of you two guys.

The problem  is that people have a tendency to stick to and hold on to Basics of SIkhi.. Basics as a project is only meant for people to gain an interest in Sikhi - then once thats done people need to move on... Basics only cover that - basics.. You wont attain deeper knowledge about Sikhi by listening to their lectures because that is not what they are there for.... Basics is there as a bridge to inspire you and take you onto something higher.
Personally I think what they did with the BBC was great. Desperate situations require desperate acts. Now they got mainstream media talking about it.

Interesting questions.
I think it depends on local contexts. I think converts are doing better in the UK now since Basics of Sikhi has emerged. They are doing a fantastic job in making Sikhi accessable to non-Indians and providing the tools that are needed to study Sikhi in the English language.
What is needed in the future are proper tools in examining the depths of Sikhi - the study of braj basha poetics (about 50 percent of the Guru Granth Sahib is written in Braj) as well as Sikh philosophy. Baba Tirath Singh Nirmala from the UK thought of starting some Sikhi Sidanth classes but im not sure what happened to those plans.
Im not sure how easy it is in US and Canada. I think converts in US mainly stick with the 3HO lot and in Canada I think the number of converts is so low that they end up being drowned in Punjabism which scares them away. Im not sure though.

Interesting questions.
I think it depends on local contexts. I think converts are doing better in the UK now since Basics of Sikhi has emerged. They are doing a fantastic job in making Sikhi accessable to non-Indians and providing the tools that are needed to study Sikhi in the English language.
What is needed in the future are proper tools in examining the depths of Sikhi - the study of braj basha poetics (about 50 percent of the Guru Granth Sahib is written in Braj) as well as Sikh philosophy. Baba Tirath Singh Nirmala from the UK thought of starting some Sikhi Sidanth classes but im not sure what happened to those plans.
Im not sure how easy it is in US and Canada. I think converts in US mainly stick with the 3HO lot and in Canada I think the number of converts is so low that they end up being drowned in Punjabism which scares them away. Im not sure though.

I'll find it later tonight.