amardeep

Guys give it a rest. They're kids, this is what they do. No reason in putting a guilt trip on him telling him to ask forgiveness from God when he is not even a Sikh!
 
Y2K - Let us know how it goes. I hope you're enjoying India, - it must be quite a cultural shock for you to be living abroad at such an early age. I hope people are friendly and taking good care of you.

“Sovereignty is not something you ask for. It’s something you demand!” - krishnaavatar

"and to teach arth and uthanka of gurbani"

Isn't this the job of the nirmalas also?

I dont know why, but i always have chills when i read Bani of Maharaj where he either mentions the Khalsa, or the word "Singhs". It makes everything so special and gives you a personal relationship with Maharaj as the caring father that nurtures his children.

I haven't read the book but I think he is referencing loads of teekas along the way. Not sure how old they are though.

Kam Singh wrote a book once containing the anthreev arths of raagmala.
http://www.amazon.com/Raagmala-Composition-Kamalpreet-Singh-Pardeshi/dp/1901363988

I dont know why, but i always have chills when i read Bani of Maharaj where he either mentions the Khalsa, or the word "Singhs". It makes everything so special and gives you a personal relationship with Maharaj as the caring father that nurtures his children.

what is the logical explanation for this:



* 4. There is also a reference in it to Rup Dip Bhasha Pingal (stanza 2938/ 8), a work on prosody written by one Jaya Krishna in 1719, i.e. eleven years after the death of the Guru.

Five points casting doubt on the ascribed authorship of Guru Gobind Singh.

* 1. The work is marked by extraordinary effusiveness and discursiveness of style, compaired to the compactness, so characteristic of Guru Gobind Singh's compositions collected in the Dasam Granth. Qualitatively, too, the poetry of Sarabloh Granth does not match that of Guru Gobind Singh's Chandi Charttras and Var Durga Ki dealing with the same topic of wars between the gods and the demons. The profusion of metaphor and superb imagery of the latter compositions are missing here.

* 2. The author of Sarbloh Granth often uses his name, 'Das Gobind' or the phrase 'Das Gobind fatah satgur ki', which is generally contrary to the style of Guru Gobind Singh.

* 3. The Sarbloh Granth contains, quite out of context, an account of the Sikh religion, which also includes a reference to the devolution of guruship on Guru Granth Sahib and Guru Panth (stanzas 3159-66). This would be out of place in a work of Guru Gobind Singh's own composition.

* 4. There is also a reference in it to Rup Dip Bhasha Pingal (stanza 2938/ 8), a work on prosody written by one Jaya Krishna in 1719, i.e. eleven years after the death of the Guru.

* 5. It uses dass Gobind or Fateh Gobind yet mentions Guru Granth Sahib being Guru. This means it is written after Guru Granth Sahib received Gurgaddi

if Guru wrote it then it wouldn't be dass gobind but Gobind Singh. that is if Guru was going to use his own name. But Guru Ji used Nanak as all Gurus had Guru Nanak's jot. So why would Guru Gobind SIngh Ji use something else? If 5th Nanak doesn't have permission to change 1 word from Guru Granth Sahib Ji, then how did 10th Guru get permission to change Nanak to Gobind?


http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Sarbloh_Granth

good links on sarbhloh granth

http://www.sikhawareness.com//index.php?sh...=sarbloh+granth


http://www.sikhawareness.com//index.php?sh...=sarbloh+granth

post by niranjana


and

See this presentation on Kharag Singh by the former member jvalasingh from this forum - it starts at one hour and 12 minutes.
 
 

The whole battle is an epic. It also includes shiva etc. Epic of dimensions. It’s not historical 

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.
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.
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).
 
 
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, 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.
 

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

i can sell it to you guys... give me one samosa and we will work something out

Here is what Gurinder SIngh Mann US has stated regarding the granth:
 
With a poetic composition entitled Sri Gur Sobha ("Praise of the
Guru"), texts singing about the Guru's life come closer to the Janam
Sakhi mode.113 There is no reference to the name of the poet in the text
itself but later sources remember him as Sainapati, a court poet at
Anandpur.114 The narrator begins with the Guru's activity at Paunta
around the time of his victory over the chief of Garhwal, and goes on to
trace the details of the happenings at Anandpur, the Guru's journey to
south India, and his demise in Nanderh. It concludes with a call to return
to Anandpur and revive the dream of Guru Gobind Singh.
I have had the chance to examine four manuscripts of Sri Gur Sobha.
The two of these four carry the date of 1701 (Samat satra sai bhai baras
athavan bit [1758] Bhado sudi pandars bhai rachi katha kar prit), the
third records it as 1741 (Samat satra sai bhai baras athanav bit [1798]
Bhado sudi 15 bhai rachi katha kar prit), and the last one does not
contain the section that refers to the date.115 Both 1701 and 1741 have
been considered and discarded by scholars who seem to be developing a
consensus around 1711.116Although 1711 may seem reasonable to many,
it is important to register that there is no supporting evidence for this date
in the extant manuscripts, and the logic that went into its formulation is
not very convincing.

The appearance of the date of 1701 within the invocation of Sri Gur
Sobha needs to be taken into serious consideration. Its presence at the
opening of the text could imply that the poet began writing it in 1701 and
continued to work on the text until late in 1708. This dating, mode, and
lengthy period of composition explain the detailed nature of its narrative,
and bring into focus its importance as a first-hand account of the events
that may have even been recited before and corrected by the Guru
himself, if one accepts references to this effect in another source
 
Notes
 
113. Ganda Singh’s edition of Sainapati’s Sri Gur Sobha is considered
the standard edition. For an important interpretation of this text, see Anne
Murphy, "History in the Sikh Past," History and Theory 46 (October
2007), 345-365.

114. Reference to Sainapti does appear in Guru Ratanmal, 80. Although
the name of Sri Gur Sobha is not mentioned, the description below may
point to it:
Sainapati kavita kahe gurdarsan te par,
Kare bhali va buri nit Satiguru lai savar (Guru Ratanmal, 80).

115. A manuscript of the complete text of Sri Gur Sobha is available in a
private collection in the Punjab, and some chapters of the text appear in
large anthologies presently available at Balbir Singh Sahitya Kendar,
Dehradun, Bhasha Vibhag, Patiala, and Sahitt Academy, Ludhiana.
116. Sainapati, Sri Gur Sobha, 5-6.
117. To support this date Ganda Singh invokes Sumer Singh’s Sri Guru-
Pad Prem Prakash [1882]. See Sri Gur Sobha, 5, 64. The explanation is
that since the dates indicated by the words athavan (1701), and athanav
(1741) do not fit, this must be a scribal error with the correct word being
athasath (1711). For the text of Guru-Pad Prem Prakash, see Achhar
Singh Kahlon’s edition (Patiala: Punjabi University, 2000).
118. See note 114. My reading of the closing sections of Sri Gur Sobha
points to their being composed soon after the Guru’s death in Nanderh. It
is hard to imagine a poet of Sainapati’s sensitivity to history singing
about reviving Anandpur after Sirhind had fallen and Banda Singh had
created the semblance of a center at Mukhlispur. I see Sainapati calling
the Sikhs to gather at Mukhlispur and

The Gurus were grishti householders with everything it implies.
These ideas of using mantars were probably poetic devices used to make the Gurus resemble the Avatars of the Puranas etc.

The Sarkuvatali Granth has been translated by Kamalpreet Singh Pardeshi Nirmala from the UK. He is currently translating the Chanakya Niti from the Guru darbaar.

Malcolm sketch of the Sikhs from 1812 also gives some info on the internal structure of Sikh government 

They deal more with history than setup and governance. Though they do give a few hints here and there 

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.

I find your views interesting.  Stay and explain rather than leave when asked to explain. 

It is a good question Das - especially considering that Guru Maharaj had more than a 100 scholars and poets present who could have written such a full commentary. I think the answer is in keeping the Khalsa strong and vital possesing the arths through oral lineages. Thats why the katha was given orally instead of in a book form.. Many 19th (and maybe also 18th century - im not sure) talks about the key role of Bhai Mani Singh as an investigator of arths and how he was given them orally by the Guru and then passed onto his students..
Paapiman: It has been published, im not sure if you can find it online. The published version is called something like "Puratan Teeka"... I've read the arth on mool mantar, - it goes into depth about Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva etc. etc.. its quite deep...

book here

http://news.ukpha.org/2012/12/review-sikh-heritage-ethos-relics/

dalsingh: I agree. I find it a bit hard to believe myself, but considering how much heritage is kept in private families I would'n be surprised that some must have held on to these things. A book has recently been puslished, basing each chapter on private family collections (collection of Pir Budhu Shahs descendants etc.) which reveal things we were not aware of. I recently found out a friend of mine has an old pothi at home which contains a handwritten Sikhan Di Bhagatmala etc.- very rare stuff that has just been liying around. Even my friend's dad did'n know what the pothi contained but they have just held on to it for generations.

There are political dimensions also to the Vidiya Sagar Granth,. if it turns out it does'nt contain any of the Dasam Granth compositions this would mean that the compositions are in fact not the works of the poets, which is a theory of many anti-dasam granthi.. the lack of the banis in the VSG would be a strong argument that they are indeed the writings of Dasam Patshah

They are spread all over the libraries and archives in Punjab and Delhi - Sikh reference library, Basha Vibhaag Library, Punjab University Patiala etc...

I have talked to two scholars who both say they have seen two copies of the Vidiya Sagar Granth in Punjab at private families. The Vidiya Sagar Granth is the sum of all the scholarly work done at Ananadpur and is said to have weighted more than 320 kilos. One of the two scholars has had the fortune to examined them, and he says one of the manuscripts is most likely a much later copy while the first manuscript is from the Anandpur period having a few pages handwritten by the Guru himself. The original Vidiya Sagar Granth probably got lost in the river, while other copies were made prior to that of which at least two have survived till today.

Giani Gian Singh in his Twarikh Gur Khalsa also mentions that many of the writings of Anandpur have survived and he then mentions many of them (most i've listed above) but he does'nt mention the Vidiya sagar though which he also belives got lost

According to these two scholars i've refered above, british writings from early 1900s also mention the existence of the vidiya sagar granth which they examined