SikhKhoj

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.

- Prashan Uttar: Internal date is a weak proof. - Prehlad Singh: The author blatantly lies when he gives a fake internal date and says it was written in Abchal because the date and Guru Gobind Singhs visit to Abchal don't match (Guru Ji visited that place only years later). Therefore it is a fake Rehat and not a interpolated Rehat. I place it in the second part of the 18th century or later. - Sakhi Rehat Ki: Padam places it in 1735 but gives no reasoning why. I place it later, might give reasons why later. - Desa Singh Rehat: The author mentions that 'at this place once Jassa Singh Kalal used to live'. Jassa Singh died in 1783 thus the Rehat automatically is a post 1780 writing. Ofcourse, the Dasam Granth material was used by many people to emulate because there was a confusion: some thought it was Guru Krit (like Kesar Singh) while others knew it was court poet material. So you will see some texts resembling DG prior to 1775 and even Kesar Singh labeling Dasam Granth tuks as 'Saakh M10' but you will hardly find DG in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar, whereas some 1800s source mention only Dasam Granth Banis for Nitnem or Amrit Sanchar! So we already have Koer Singh (1751) giving Japji, Rehraas and Sohila as Nitnem. Bansawlinama (1769) giving Japji Anand as Amrit Sanchar. Good, continue digging theres a few more early sources. In my other thread I have mentioned another source for nitnem. Read that too.

Historically, early 1700 to 1760s literatue does not include Dasam Granth compositions in Nitnem. Same way Amrit Sanchar with 5 Banis is not corraborated by any autentic source. Guru Kian Sakhian (1790) says 5 Banis but it is a dubious book since there has been no study of its manuscript. Secondly, literature previous to Guru Kian Sakhian tends to mostly give Guru Granth Sahib Banis alone as Amrit Sanchar Banis. Thus we see that Sikh rituals were mostly devoid of Dasam Granth influence in the early years after Guru Gobind Singh. It is mostly post 1775 that we start seeing a surge in the influence of Dasam Granth including in the nitnem and amrit sanchaar. Do not post in this thread if you are unaware of historical Sikh sources and will just rant emotionally due to cognitive dissonance.

From the other thread: 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).

The DG versus Sarbloh issues just reinforces the point I made earlier. Many normal Sikhs still do not know what the Dasam Granth is, but if you tell them that 3 out of 5 Amrit Sanchar Banis are from DG they will not dare to doubt its authenticity. Historically this is a factor that has (and continues to) play in its favor. Sarbloh does not have the advantage that it is used in daily and important Sikh ceremonies. Besides the Khalsa Mero Roop Hai Khaas it is mostly unknown to the Panth. I will let you guys continue the discussion on Bansawlinama and Dasam Granth even though it is futile. Kesar quotes from DG and says 'Saakh M10' thus he is talking about DG or DG compositions.

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).

So Sikhs were clueless for 230 years during earlier 9 Gurus times? Were they dumb and not aware of the nature of the world? Mrsingh your writing style with the '=' is so recognisible. I remember you from SikhSangat. Welcome to SA

So Guru Hargobinds four battles, Guru Har Rais skirmish were fought without bir ras?

Charitropakhyan film has already been made. Watch MIRCH, a Bollywood movie which is based on ancient Indian stories (its not as explicit as the Charitars) Since Charitropakhyan offers mostly old recycled stories, the ancient stories featured in Mirch are actually very similar to the tales in Charitropakhyan because they have the same source.

Bhagat Singh, Kab Raam was not a pen name of Guru Gobind Singh. The argument that Ram, Shyam and Gobind are synonyms and were therefore used as a pen name by Dasam Pita is weak and unfound. Kahan Singh Nabha accepts Ram and Shyam as part of the 52 Poets (see Mahan Kosh). If you look properly you will find information on who Kab Raam was. Secondly, Bansawlinama was written in 1769, about 60 years after Guru Gobind Singh. If we look at the history of previous Mehls, Banis were circulated under the names of M6, M7 and so on during the Guruships of the respective Gurus themselves. This also happened during the earlier Gurus times too, which prompted the Guru to utter the Shabad 'satgur bino hor kachi hai bani'. Now if we keep that in mind, that some Sikhs were fooled by during the Gurus times themselves that can't it happen 60 years after? And one thing is interesting; Bansawlinamas author was aware of the Dasam Granth compositions and even quotes from them but he still does not mention any Dasam Granth Bani in Amrit Sanchar ceremony. What say BhagatSingh? We're going the heretic way haha.

You also seem to have a black and white view of Puratan Sikhs but don't think they weren't gullible or as holy as we think. The famous Sukha Singh, executioner of Massa Rangarh, was ostracized for a while by the Panth because he was thought to have committed female foeticide (or his wife). Sukha Singh Patnas son Charat Singh, according to our history, wrote pages resembling to Dasam Pitas handwriting and sold them for monetary gain. There is a book by Randhir Singh about the historicity of Dasam Granth that contains some valuable info. Not the AKJ Randhir Singh.

The Dasam Granth bir supposedly written by Mani Singh with every SGGS Bani sorted author wise and combined with Dasam Granth has been researched tirelessly by scholars. The Bir is dated 1713 but that has been doubted because the dating was written in different ink and handwriting in one of the corners. The history of the bir is also dubious. There are other 2 things that blow the Mani Singh Birs historicity is that a dohra of Poet Alam is attributed to Guru Gobind Singh & it contains extraneous compositions like Hakikat Rah Mukaam Raje Shivnabh Ki before the Raagmala. The scribe seems to be ignorant of Sikhi by the above mistakes and thus could not have been Bh. Mani Singh.

Good to see that you try to think autonomously Bhagat Singh and do not believe anything just like sheep. There is an 18th century book that confirms that parts of Dasam Granth were commissioned and not written by Guru Gobind Singh. Its good to read these (weird) theories of yours, they often find some support in old sources just like you guessed that Guru Hargobind might have given Khande ki Pahul and... it is mentioned in a puratan source too.

What does my picture show? Sikhs reading 10 different Granths? No. Its all of them reading GGS. Same way in the painting of singh123... it could be two GGS.

Satkirins interpretation (to wear a turban) is echoed by the likes of Prof Sahib Singh and Gyani Harbans Singh. Have other teekakaars interpreted it in other ways?

Almost the same as Prof Sahib Singh (in my initial post) ^

Does this tuk on panna 1084 really mean what some people say (i.e. keeping body intact and keeping kesh)? Some people reject this simply because it was adressed to Muslims but Shabads in GGS are directed towards all of humanity not just the siddhs, yogis, muslims etc so thats not a valid argument in my opinion. The translation fits in if we interpret it in this way, awaiting for other interpretations: Guru Ji is redefining key concepts of Muslims in the shabad. Instead of going on Hajj; purify your heart, instead of praying 5 times a day without changing your personality; embrace 5 virtues etc. According to the Hadith Muslims are told to remove their pubic and armpit hair in order to keep their body clean. Guru Sahib is saying the true Hadith should be to purify the mind (and not the body) and keeping the body intact.

Does this forum allow discussing the authorship of the Dasam Granth?

It is said that the final touches of the Dhaka painting were done by Guru Tegh Bahadur himself. Gurbilas Patshahi 6 (1718), Mehima Parkash (1776) & Suraj Parkash (1843), historical Sikh sources, confirm that several paintings of the Gurus were made during their lifetime.

This author agrees with most of the assertions in my very first post.

No. Hindu attacks on Sikhi started way before partition, remember Arya Samaj?

Why are you comparing the Chariters and porn? And the Charitars are quite descriptive at times.

1) Nothing wrong in asking questions to sangat: ਹੋਇ ਇਕਤ੍ਰ ਮਿਲਹੁ ਮੇਰੇ ਭਾਈ ਦੁਬਿਧਾ ਦੂਰਿ ਕਰਹੁ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਇ ॥ (Guru Granth Sahib) 2) There is a difference in vaad (arguing) and khoj (research): ਖੋਜੀ ਉਪਜੈ ਬਾਦੀ ਬਿਨਸੈ ਹਉ ਬਲਿ ਬਲਿ ਗੁਰ ਕਰਤਾਰਾ ॥ (Guru Granth Sahib)

Paapi, here is what Dabistan (earliest non Sikh source, not free of errors though) has to say: I don't even want to get in a meat debate because hundreds of sources exist which confirm meat eating was not prohibited.

​It indeed is.