amardeep

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

Bhai Nand Lal's ganjnama praises Guru Har Rai as the Gardan-zane sarkashân (decapitator of the heads of tyrants) - clear military terminology.

Bhai Nand Lal's ganjnama praises Guru Har Rai as the Gardan-zane sarkashân (decapitator of the heads of tyrants) - clear military terminology.

Cool. 
 
You ever read this on Macauliffe btw? It's an Irish perspective (a bit academic but interesting nonetheless):
 
https://www.scribd.com/doc/49597872/Max-Arthur-Macauliffe-From-Templeglantine-to-the-Golden-Temple-full 
 

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.

The vast majority of the scheduled castes (83%)  in Punjab either belong to the Chamar or Chuhra castes. Chamar are also listed as Ad Dharmis. Whereas Chuhras are listed as either Balmikis or Mazhabis.
Ad Dharmis are not classed as a separate religion or even as a Hindu sect but as a caste and hence Adharmis can either report their religion as Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist as a scheduled caste person can only belong to these three religions.
Of 1,045,126 Ad Dhamis in Punjab in 2001, 882,738 (85%) returned their religion as Hindu and 133,114 (13%) were Sikhs. Although I don't have the numbers according to district but Ad Dharmis are a Doaba phenomenon and hardly found in Majha or Malwa. Chamars in Doaba tend to list themselves as Ad Dharmis in Doaba and just as Chamars in the rest of Punjab. Of 1,839,082 Chamars in Punjab, 1,309,377 (71%) were Sikhs and 526,863 (29%) were Hindus.  Chamars who are not from Doaba tend to Sikhs rather than Hindus.
The Chuhras who are listed as Balmikis are another phenomenon of Doaba althought Balmikis are also found in all the large cities of Punjab as well. Of 785,464 Balmikis in Punjab, 559,617 (71%)  were reported as Hindus and 223,885 (29%)  were Sikhs.  Of the 2,220, 945 Mazhabis, 2,188,429 (98.5%) were Sikhs and 32,329 (1.5%) were Hindus.
 

Quote
SGGS Ang- 71 

Bhagat Navaie Parkara.
There are nine forms of devotional worship 
 
Baba Tirath Singh Nirmala in his translation of Pundit Gulab Singhs Bhavrasamrit (p42-44) mentions the nine limbs of Bhakti which are referred to in the Sikh tradition as the Nvai Parkar (Nine methods):

1. Sravan - hearing the divine* praises.
2. Kirtan - singing the praised of the divine.
3. Simran - remembrance of the divines name.
4. Padsevena - service and offerings at the divines feet.
5. Archana - worship the divine.
6. Bandana - prostration before the divine.
7. Dasyam - developing feeling or emotion of being the divine's servant.
8. Sakhyam - cultivating the emotional bond of friendship.
9. Atma Nivedana - surrender of the self to the divine.
Unquote (N30SINGH)

Maharaaj has used three types of Vidiya (field of study) for this term - 'ੴ'.
- Kala (drawing)
- Ganat (Math)
- Akhar (language)
Dhan Dhan Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev jee Maharaaj

Last year when I was in India my cousin drove me around on a scooter showing me the beautiful Punjab villages on the road side.. At one time we passed a village and he pointed at it saying that only a decade ago it was a hindu village, but now the people had turned to Sikhi. That was quite interesting to see shifts in religion at local levels.

Cheers man. Delighted to read.
A local uncle told me that many of the Bihari workers in Punjab have also started to convert to Sikhi and take up jobs in the Gurdwaras. Though he says many of them merely see it as a job, their kids are raised as keshdhari Sikhs attending Gurdwara and learning Gurmukhi etc.

Add THE POOR DISCRIMINATED HINDU BIHARIS CONVERT TO SIKHISM IN BIHAR, INDIA
Posted by Amarjit Singh on March 31, 2011 at 16:30 View Blog  It’s a nondescript temple at Halhalia village in Bihar’s Araria district. It doesn’t have an idol; a mound of earth in one corner of the roofless one-room shrine represents Din Bhadri Devi, the local deity. Its walls are bare, but for priest Amlanand Rishidev, there is a more pressing problem than the upkeep of the temple: there is no one to inherit his priesthood. Halhalia village is home to over 100 families of which 28 have converted to Sikhism.So have about a hundred families in several adjoining villages of the district, including Parwanpur, Godbelsara, Bakhri and Maudhabalia. Amlanand, however, isn’t bitter about the “gradual obliteration of faith”. His only son Nirdosh Singh and his family have also converted to Sikhism. The men sport straggly beards, wear saafas and have kirpans slung across their shoulders. The women still wear saris and on special occasions they slip into the traditional salwar-kurta. Pidgin Punjabi can be heard everywhere, even though the womenfolk have never visited Punjab.The first to convert was Gyani Narendra Singh Rishidev, who visited Punjab in 1985 to earn a living and converted to Sikhism a few years later. “We have a natural leaning for this religion. After all, Guru Gobind Singh was born in Patna,” he says. Upon returning to his village, the 38-yearold inspired many of his folk to convert. The lone gurdwara here stands on Narendra’s inherited land.The Rishidevs in Araria belong to the Mushahar caste, the poorest Dalit community known as untouchable rat-eaters. By changing their religion, Dalits believe they get a distinct identity. Narender’s younger brother Sanjay is more vocal about the “inequality” practised in Hindu society.“Upper caste folks still don’t share their meals with us. Even today, many of them abhor us. Our conversion to Sikhism is a cry for human dignity. It denounces discrimination and prejudice on the basis of caste, class and status,” he says. These conversions also make economic sense. Many of these neo-converts have now found regular work at gurdwaras in Punjab. “But this is not why we have embraced Sikhism. In fact, like other devout Sikhs, we also do kar sewa and donate one month of service,” insists Narender.Sanjay’s criticism is not entirely off the mark. These conversions are not aimed at puncturing the reform balloon; they put a question mark on Dalit reforms instead. For instance, though the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts led by its administrator Acharya Kishore Kunal has made significant effortsby introducing a dozen “untouchables” into priesthood, it is unlikely to make real changes on the ground.Even the state Government’s highly touted “slew of welfare measures for the Mahadalits” is yet to percolate beyond symbolic fault-lines. Kunal, a former IPS officer, believes that these conversions suggest “freedom of practising a religion”. “Hinduism is all inclusive. We espouse sangat-pangat (eating and worshipping together) to bridge the social divide. Besides, everyone is free to practise a religion of his choice,” he says.Caste imbalances, discrimination and power play have remained central to Bihar society though the politics of social justice and the politicians preaching it have made significant gains over the years.Notwithstanding the laws banning discrimination, caste violence occurs at regular intervals in the state. Police records suggest that the number of atrocities against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) hasn’t gone down despite Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s claims. It’s the Government’s affirmative action (read job reservation) policy for SCs and STs that has, to an extent, improved their social status and economic conditions.

Satkirin Kaur: Basics of Sikhi is an amazing project. They do loads of good Work to bring people into Sikhi.

Okay no worries.
There are hardly any books of the 18th Century where there are 'no doubt' regarding the dating. Some scholars believe the Gurbilas Patshahi 10 by Kuer Singh to be a 19th Century writing. The writing year of the Sau Sakhi does'nt seem to be established. Pyara Singh has argued for 1734 but much more research is needed. Very few scholars have looked into the Sau Sakhi.
The Bansavalinama claims a 1769 date just as the Tankhahnama claims a 1695. While the latter has been challenged, the former has'nt but im not even sure that many scholars have began critical analysis of it yet.
Yep lets continue Next week.

No worries, this can be a long debate so there is no hurry about the replies.
I have to say, we have to be cautious when using undated manuscripts to support either of our statements. In my opinion we should base our main conclusions on the definitely dated manuscripts and books instead of trying to first date a book which can be far off the truth and then base opinions on that. You have to agree that books that are without doubt dated to the first half of the 18th century hold more value than books we will assume as being from the early 18th century.
But yes we will definitely try to go into the Prem Sumarag but as I am busy as well I’d like to wait for you to first reply regarding my earlier posts whose main points include to debunk Prehlad Rehatnama based on internal evidence, Prashan Uttars dating, an example of 18th century Amrit Sanchaar Banis vs 19th century sources for Amrit Sanchaar with predominantly more DG Banis & last but not least the comparison how a similar document (the Mukatnama) was edited in the 19th century by Santokh Singh to accommodate more DG Banis in the nitnem (as comparable to the earlier version included in Sau Sakhi) thereby again confirming my claim that a trend existed to include more Dasam Bani over the years.

Just to give you a small but clear example of what I mean; Twarikh I Sikhan & Prachin Panth Parkash are both 19th century sources. Both give only Dasam Banis for amrit sanchaar. Compare that to Bansawlinama (18th century) giving only SGGS Banis for sanchaar. 
That is the 'trend' I keep referring to.

1. This is not a competition for your or my sources but we both have a different point of view and support it with historical sources. Therefore it is in that sense that I talk about your sources and mine.
You base your opinion based on the fact 1740s - 1760s literary material being heavily influenced by the Dasam Granth while I do not disagree but say that there is a clear pattern of evolution to first "introduce" (not in a conspiracy theory way) Dasam Granth and over the decades as it became an integral part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar the DG became an inseperable and unquestionable Granth. My theory thereby explaining how a Granth got so widely accepted unlike the Sarbloh for example who is not part of our ceremonies.
2. I am 'mixing' Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar but my initial post in the topic covers both Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. I have to admit that in my research there is much more unanimous evidence for the Nitnem being Japji, regarding the Khande Di Pahul there is a similar trend of mostly SGGS Banis in 18th century vs the 19th century sources altough no two sources say the same.
Koer does not specify Amrit Banis (he says mantars) and nor does Kesar specify the Nitnem as far as I remember. 
I have only found Jaap in undated texts that can not properly be dated. Secondly I have had talks with scholars who say that unless a text says 'Jap Jaap Due' the 'Jap Jaap' can only refer to Japji given than in some manuscripts there is no Aunkar with Jaap while there is with Jap. A somewhat far fetched theory but still worth keeping in mind.
3. It is sad that just to fit in your narrative of '1690s' being a fruitful period for Sikh literature you are seriously considering an internal evidence alone. It is so easy to put a date on a text. Atleast one version of the text says Guru Granth therefore it is dubious, more research needed for the manuscripts. Besides that some Hukumname predating 1695 do mention Khalsa so what is your point, simply because Prashan Uttar does not mention Khalsa it is pre 1699? But on the other hand it does say Guru Granth so what about that? 
Mukatnama and Naseehatnama have no DG terminology either and they're positively dated in the 1710s to 1730s period. These are all weak proofs.
And I am not picking the Guru Granth manuscript, but I do not trust Padam he even edited words in Naseehatnama and changed the order of the verses. Such historians can not be trusted, but sometimes no other printed versions are available therefore we have to base on his version. Even his Daya Singh Rehat is much different from the Daya Singh Rehats I have seen. So as I said, you or me can't comment on Prashan Uttar its dubious and the points you say regarding no mention of Khalsa and no DG words is weak as shown above.
4. Have you even read the Prehlad Rehatnama before coming up with that fantastic theory of yours? Abchal is not the only problem with the Rehatnama, the Rehat says 'guru khalsa maniai, pargat guran ki deh'. On one instance you say Prashan Uttar is 1695 because it does not mention Khalsa, on the other hand you place Prehlad Rehat in 1695 too which clearly says Khalsa is the Body of the Guru (page 67, Rehatnamey Padam). So besides the Desa Singh Rehat I think you can scrap Prehlad Rehat too, agree?
5. Padam has dated Sakhi Rehat Ki to 1735, what is his reasoning? Any scholar can not just paste a date to a document without reasoning. Provide me his reasoning and I'll see if it looks valid or not.
6. I am hesitant about Prem Sumarg because first of all it is very difficult to date. The fact that it does include Jap Jaap but still gives Anand for Amrit leads me to believe (in an un-historian) way that it might be written somewhere during the late Misl kaal, it is not an early 18th century source...
7. The debate is not what Bani to read or what not to read from the SGGS, it is a discussion on the point how the Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar evolved in our literature to give place for more emphasis on Dasam Granth Banis. Assessing the correct Amrit Sanchar Bani will be difficult while the Nitnem is very clear if you are willing to think logically.
8.  You often quoted GS Mann for a baseless theory that irked me. GS Mann has some interesting points as does every historian. I read his opinion on the CHS Rehat and found it quite possible, I myself was stunned between the internal inconsistences and change of language between the Rehat and biography part. Bhai Kahan Singh also argues similarly about the Tankhah part of the Rehat. 
I do not only accept opinions when they agree with my thinking, I have often changed my position on topics so don't worry about that.
9. Do not piss me off by saying that there is no agreement on morning Banis, you can say it about Amrit Sanchar but I gave you clearly dated sources about Nitnel from differing decades in the early years after Guru Gobind Singh Ji. The only discussion that may be in your mind is whether to add Jaap to the Nitnem or not, not a single dated or undated source mentions Swaiye or Chaupai so yeah.
10. I will answer about the historical debate regarding DG soon. You are right, the incident mentioned by Nabha seems to have been hearsay and not a historical fact.
11. Sau Sakhi latter additions are not always spotted but some easy ways are latter dates mentioned, sometimes the name of the person adding the Sakhi was noted and so on. Some incidents have been mentioned that happened much after 1734. Lets not get off topic.
12. Not interested in that xyz stuff man. Have fun doing that.

Cheers mate.
When do you think the Prashanuttar attributed to Bhai Nand Lal was written? Internal date says 1695 and it mentions the jaap sahib.
The Bhai Prahlad Singh rahitnama also mentions jaap sahib.  Sakhi Rahit ki also mentions jaap sahib as nitnem. As does Bhai Desa Singh Rahitnama.
Do you consider alll to be later 18th century, following a pattern/trend of inclusion of nitnem banis? Or do you believe some of the above to be early 18th century?
Also - I just skimmed through the Gurbilas Patshahi 10 of Kuir Singh (1751) and though it only mentions the Japji sahib as part of morning nitnem it does seem to be influnced by the Dasam Granth in other ways. This can be seen in some of the terminology (Sri Asidhuj, Wahiguru ji ki fateh as well as the overall narrative that follows the Bachitar Natak. Also, there are verbatim quotes taken directly from Gursobha. If we say Gursobha was written in the 1740s, it means that someone thought the Bachitar Natak Granth worthy to emulate and follow -  not only in narrative but also terminology... The present understanding is that it was followed and emulated due to being written by the Guru. 
So the influence of the Dasam Granth must have started already in the mid 19th century and not late 19th century.

Lots of material is lost. There was a Granth by Bhai Binod Singh which is not found anymore. There are a few other books though, will post later.

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).
 

I think I clarified the allegory... I was jsut explaining that myself wearing a turban helps me to be aware of Waheguru Ji at all times... by putting the allegory into practice it gives me something to focus on so that I focus on the nonphysical... the real message.

Your reasoning is fair and in line with Sikhi however I doubt the above verse can be used to justify the wearing of turbans.
The injunction to Wear turbans comes from the Rahitname. Not the Guru Granth Sahib

Satkirin:
Does'nt it say the opposite? Instead of wearing a turban, have pure awareness instead.
Like other places the verses says to have humility instead of circumsission.  Basically the Whole tuk talks about internalising outer symbols as Sikhkhoj also wrote.
 
 

Guru's were much more progressive also when it comes to providing sexual stories and moral behind it. When people go to the doctor with their sexual organ problems, doctors talk about it, scan it, trying to find the root cause of physical sexual problem. Same thing applies if people/society have mental issues regarding sexuality diseased with lust so on and so forth Our beloved guru talks about it candidly and provides moral story behind 405 tales of men and women.
Off course you are going to have problem if you see it from juedo christian influenced singh sabha view.... see it from relative context -three gunas context with absolute underpinning-turiya...everything is fine.
 
 

Yes Maharaj said to keep them seperate as they deal with different topics. One is mainly on worldly affairs whereas the other is spiritual. It is like Miri and Piri - two seperate entities yet Sikhs respect and engage in both.
 
The problem here is that the "true genuine banis" (Jaap Sahib, Akal Ustat and others) came to us  THROUGH the Dasam Granth manuscripts. There are no seperate manuscripts that only contain these 3-4 writings. They have come Down to us through the Dasam Granth manuscripts which Again begs the question if these were the only true writings of the Guru, why were they ammeded to writings that were not of the Guru?
 
The doubt about the Charitropakhyan is fairly recent. During the pre-colonial times there are no evidence that anyone had doubts on the Dasam Granth. In fact, British writers of the early 1800s say that the Sikh political leaders kept both Granths on equal terms since they considered both to be Gurbani. The Jaap Sahib of Guru Gobind Singh is as holy and pure as the Japji Sahib of Guru Nanak.
That is not true. The early Sikhs had no problem with this bani, - most likely because they did not interpret it as bani that defames women but saw the higher morale/message of each story.
 
That guy you mention is an idiot. His idiocy can't be used as an argument against the Dasam Granth. He is an idiot on his own accord.
 
Your main problem is that you're mixing history with beliefs. Whether the Guru wrote the Dasam Granth or not - that is a question of HISTORY.. Its not about beliefs "Does one believe the Guru wrote it".  And a clear majority of historical evidence suggests that the Guru did in fact write the entire Dasam Granth and this was also the belief of the early Khalsa. See the video for the many evidence.

Yes Maharaj said to keep them seperate as they deal with different topics. One is mainly on worldly affairs whereas the other is spiritual. It is like Miri and Piri - two seperate entities yet Sikhs respect and engage in both.
 
The problem here is that the "true genuine banis" (Jaap Sahib, Akal Ustat and others) came to us  THROUGH the Dasam Granth manuscripts. There are no seperate manuscripts that only contain these 3-4 writings. They have come Down to us through the Dasam Granth manuscripts which Again begs the question if these were the only true writings of the Guru, why were they ammeded to writings that were not of the Guru?
 
The doubt about the Charitropakhyan is fairly recent. During the pre-colonial times there are no evidence that anyone had doubts on the Dasam Granth. In fact, British writers of the early 1800s say that the Sikh political leaders kept both Granths on equal terms since they considered both to be Gurbani. The Jaap Sahib of Guru Gobind Singh is as holy and pure as the Japji Sahib of Guru Nanak.
That is not true. The early Sikhs had no problem with this bani, - most likely because they did not interpret it as bani that defames women but saw the higher morale/message of each story.
 
That guy you mention is an idiot. His idiocy can't be used as an argument against the Dasam Granth. He is an idiot on his own accord.
 
Your main problem is that you're mixing history with beliefs. Whether the Guru wrote the Dasam Granth or not - that is a question of HISTORY.. Its not about beliefs "Does one believe the Guru wrote it".  And a clear majority of historical evidence suggests that the Guru did in fact write the entire Dasam Granth and this was also the belief of the early Khalsa. See the video for the many evidence.