amardeep

Naah let them be. Its good to have a healthy open debate about these things.

This is a joke. You are manipulating texts for the sake of winning debates! As other people have said: Go do something useful such as naam simran instead of manipulating the writings of your ancestors. You are a utter joke.. This is actually the first time in an online debate that im actually pissed off!! How dare you!!
 
The readers have seen your true colors now!
 
Im out. My benti to all readers is to boycut this fool! He aint worth the time. Go seek some mental help!

All right mate, i'm not patient enough for these teenage games you keep pulling. I've already written three times by now that Rattan Singh Jaggi has left out the fourth stanza from the sakhi as well as ALL lines after the tenth..
Enjoy debating yourself. Im out

You are playing too many games!!... Like Dalsing said - acting like a new movie is coming out and you're presenting the trailer format in small litle bits. Just post your new 19th Century source in one go and lets get the debate going!
The presence of a poets named Shyam and Ram mentioned as "Guru ke pyare" by Bawa Sumer singh is well known . Yet this did'n mean he rejected the Dasam Granth as Guru krit. What was the Guru going to do - reject people in the darbar because of their names? Many poets had the same or similiar names - there were most likely two Bhai Nand Lals as well as two poets named Gurdas, Chand and Chandan,
Here is the 11th line - which Rattan Singh Jaggi most probably left out on purpose - clearly stating the Guru composed writings himself. I very much suspect that the reason you did'n want to scan either is because of the 11th verse!
 
ਦੋਹਰਾ। ਭਾਖਾ ਰਚੀ ਦਿਆਲ ਗੁਰ, ਸਭ ਮਨ ਭਏ ਅਨੰਦ। ਦੁਰਗਮ ਸੁਗਮ ਭਏ ਸਕਲ, ਪੜਿ ਸਿਖਨ ਹੋਇ ਭੰਗ ।੧੧।
So are you playing games because you are bored or what? Scan the Whole sakhi and lets get the discussion going! There are  too many games being played here!  You are seriosly being a Little kid for no reason, - you knew about the 11th verse yet you purposefully kept the debate going around in circles for no reason. The fourth part is also missing from the page.  Scan the sakhi and lets proceed to see what the sakhi says about the Poet's writings and the Guru's rachna. I dont trust that Rattan Singh Jaggi article at all after this serious omission!
 

All right mate, i'm not patient enough for these teenage games you keep pulling. I've already written three times by now that Rattan Singh Jaggi has left out the fourth stanza from the sakhi as well as ALL lines after the tenth..
Enjoy debating yourself. Im out

Naah let them be. Its good to have a healthy open debate about these things.

The earliest Punjab census reports from the 1880s estimate some 1,5 million Sikhs in the British and native principalities.

The funny thing is, - I've met people from all over the world who engage in Ithiasik research and manuscript analysis. What they all have in common is that the more they read, the more humble they tend to become.. With Sikhkhoj it seems that the more books he reads, the more arrogant he becomes.
 
ਸ੍ਵੈਯਾ
ਇਹ ਵੇਦ ਕੋ ਗ੍ਯਾਨ ਸੁਜਾਨਨ ਕੇ ਅਭਿਮਾਨ ਮਦਾਦਿ ਵਿਕਾਰ ਵਿਨਾਸੇ ।
[Reading and understanding] scriptural knowledge the intelligent ones destroy their ego and evil tendencies.
 
ਪੁਨ ਕੇਚਿਤ ਨੀਚਨ ਕੋ ਵਹੁ ਬੋਧ ਮਦੈ ਅਭਿਮਾਨ ਵਿਕਾਰ ਨਿਵਾਸੇ ।
However reading those same scriptures the foolish ones only enshrine ego and [other] vices within their heart.

 
ਦੋਹਰਾ ।
ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਕਰਿ ਮਤ ਹਤ ਸੁਜਨ ਖਲ ਕੋ ਮਦ ਉਪਜੰਤ ।
Reading scriptural knowledge, the intelligent one eliminates his ego, whereas the fool [only] increases his ego.

ਜ੍ਯੋਂ ਦ੍ਰਿਗ ਭਾਨੁ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਉਲੂ ਅੰਧ ਕਰੰਤ ।27।
Just like the rising of the sun illuminates [the world], it also can blind the owl.

Dude, for someone who is supposed to be a knowledge loving scholar you really come across as someone who is totally incapable of getting ANY sort of grip on his ego. 
 
 

Sikhkhoj, you're weird mate.
You got a REALLY strange way of debating. 
The way you make points and then start 'hiding' your apparent sources makes you look like you are either talking shite or are weird. 
If you don't want to share sources for discussion, fine; but I'm telling you independently and without animosity - it makes you look weird as hell. 
A suggestion: if you don't want to share a particular source - don't bang on about points derived from it. 

This is really starting to get odd.
So you create a topic, - make a claim that this particular granth supports you.. But before you are going to engage further, you start making demands before things can proceed? What??????
Just scan it and lets proceed... Give people the opportunity to see what the sakhi says

This is getting childish. Are you playing games or are you being for real? So you say that this sakhi backs up your view, yet you aint gonna post it. Instead you post some english article that summaries it. We need the real deal otherwise there is no point. Its like you saying "This granth in this archive in India backs up my claim.. Now go find it and we shall discuss it afterwards".
 
Did you open this topic to debate?? How are we gonna debate it if there is no text for us to discuss? I dont think all readers have the book so do them a favour and scan the pages or insert the lines like Bhagat Singh and I did in the Bansavalinama thread.

Okay cool and if we place the below 18th century writings on your list we get a mix match of documents - a majority of the documents coming from the second half of the 18th century.. The ONLY source you got from the first half of the 18th century is an unddated, anonymous 2 page writing made by a scam phony.. !!.There is NO EVOLUTION... just a big mess of post 1750 sources with 50% of the sources contradicting the other 50 % 
Sakhi Rahit ki
Prem Sumarag
Prahlad Rai rahitnama
Desa Singh Rahitnama
Prashanuttar
Daya Singh rahitnama (mentions Jaap, Chaupai and Sawaiye at different places for the Amrit ritual)
 
There is NO evolution as people can see hence your theory is wrong!! What you got is various parallel nitnems running side by side - basically same as what we got today with different Sikhs doing different nitnem banis and different lenghts of individual banis. 
I take it the debate is over since your theory was wrong!!
Thanks for the debate..

This is getting childish. Are you playing games or are you being for real? So you say that this sakhi backs up your view, yet you aint gonna post it. Instead you post some english article that summaries it. We need the real deal otherwise there is no point. Its like you saying "This granth in this archive in India backs up my claim.. Now go find it and we shall discuss it afterwards".
 
Did you open this topic to debate?? How are we gonna debate it if there is no text for us to discuss? I dont think all readers have the book so do them a favour and scan the pages or insert the lines like Bhagat Singh and I did in the Bansavalinama thread.

That's like arguing that prior to Bhai Lalo, there were no tarkhans in Panjab or that they were numerically tiny because there was no famous tarkhan before. Just because people don't come to prominence, it doesn't mean they were not a regular feature of society. 

Mate the burden is on you. You say this granth backs up your view point, so bring it. Lets see what it says.  This topic is about the Mahima Prakash - not about other writings of 18th century.
Cheers for posting. Im looking forward to reading the sakhi.

It does'nt print the whole sakhi. For some reason the fourth verse has been omitted and it ends at the tenth line. We need the whole sakhi if we are to discuss it's insights to the Chaubis Avatar and Charitro Pakhyan.
 
I dont really understand.. You should be thrilled to debate this topic since the sakhi is in your favour?

What do you mean whatever? I'll repeat.
 
Sikhkhoj:
You are the one who claim that the Mahima Prakash is in your favour. Therefore it is your responsobility to provide the text so we can all use it as a point of departure.
The same way Bhagat Singh provided the text from the Bansavalinama and I scannde pages from it to back up my points as we went along. Since this topic is about a specific sakhi in a specific book, the least you can do is to provide proper context for the discussion to took place.

Or did you expect a one way communication where you just post a source and says "this backs up my claim" lets discuss! with no one having the book? You actually want to sit and discuss a sakhi from a book where you dont even know if anyone has the book ?? Come on.. Lets do this the right way. You have the book, take picture with your phone and upload. Takes less than two minutes.

Mate the burden is on you. You say this granth backs up your view point, so bring it. Lets see what it says.  This topic is about the Mahima Prakash - not about other writings of 18th century.
Cheers for posting. Im looking forward to reading the sakhi.

It does'nt print the whole sakhi. For some reason the fourth verse has been omitted and it ends at the tenth line. We need the whole sakhi if we are to discuss it's insights to the Chaubis Avatar and Charitro Pakhyan.
 
I dont really understand.. You should be thrilled to debate this topic since the sakhi is in your favour?

What do you mean whatever? I'll repeat.
 
Sikhkhoj:
You are the one who claim that the Mahima Prakash is in your favour. Therefore it is your responsobility to provide the text so we can all use it as a point of departure.
The same way Bhagat Singh provided the text from the Bansavalinama and I scannde pages from it to back up my points as we went along. Since this topic is about a specific sakhi in a specific book, the least you can do is to provide proper context for the discussion to took place.

Or did you expect a one way communication where you just post a source and says "this backs up my claim" lets discuss! with no one having the book? You actually want to sit and discuss a sakhi from a book where you dont even know if anyone has the book ?? Come on.. Lets do this the right way. You have the book, take picture with your phone and upload. Takes less than two minutes.

Naah let them be. Its good to have a healthy open debate about these things.

Sikhkhoj:
You are the one who claim that the Mahima Prakash is in your favour. Therefore it is your responsobility to provide the text so we can all use it as a point of departure.
The same way Bhagat Singh provided the text from the Bansavalinama and I scannde pages from it to back up my points as we went along. Since this topic is about a specific sakhi in a specific book, the least you can do is to provide proper context for the discussion to took place.

Or did you expect a one way communication where you just post a source and says "this backs up my claim" lets discuss! with no one having the book? You actually want to sit and discuss a sakhi from a book where you dont even know if anyone has the book ?? Come on.. Lets do this the right way. You have the book, take picture with your phone and upload. Takes less than two minutes.

Sikhkhoj:
You are the one who claim that the Mahima Prakash is in your favour. Therefore it is your responsobility to provide the text so we can all use it as a point of departure.
The same way Bhagat Singh provided the text from the Bansavalinama and I scannde pages from it to back up my points as we went along. Since this topic is about a specific sakhi in a specific book, the least you can do is to provide proper context for the discussion to took place.

Or did you expect a one way communication where you just post a source and says "this backs up my claim" lets discuss! with no one having the book? You actually want to sit and discuss a sakhi from a book where you dont even know if anyone has the book ?? Come on.. Lets do this the right way. You have the book, take picture with your phone and upload. Takes less than two minutes.