SikhKhoj

Amardeep, be honest. My theory was to explain your initial question 'why the DG became so important'. I said, as compared to the Sarbloh Granth for example, the Dasam Granth has a favor in the form of its dependency for the Nitnem and Amrit sanchaar. It is in this regard that we see a rise in the amount of Dasam Granth compositions mentioned for Nitnem or Amrit Sanchaar over years. That is an UNDISPUTABLE fact because, keeping exact years aside, Naseehatnama, Mukatnama, Chaupa Singh are without doubt 18th century sources while Panth Parkash and Twareekh Sikhan are 19th century sources. Both have a stark contrast; former mention only SGGS as Nitnem and latter only DG as Nitnem/Amrit. You will not find a single book in the 18th century with only DG or 19th century with only SGGS, which proves my theory right. The only tricky part in my theory is where I said there was NO DG at all, because I admit some of the sources of Japji Jaap can be placed in the 18th century too, but still Japji Jaap is nothing compared to out and out DG Banis mentioned in Panth Parkash for example. So you have to respectfully agree that my theory is right about 18th century having quite some sourceswith only the SGGS (as compared to the 19th where perhaps just one source with only SGGS banis exist) while 19th century often had wild sources with only Dasam Granth for Amrit Sanchaar etc or majority Dasam Granth Banis (Panth Parkash, Twareekh Sikhan, ...)

Dally, even though you are pro DG, answer my one question: Do you honestly believe that there is historical evidence between 1700-1800 to show Guru Ji wrote Charitars or used Shyam as pen name (and Shyam was not a court poet)? Internal evidence says Kab Shyam is the author, so it is important to know who that is. Anyone can easily claim 'oh thats a pen name of Guru Ji' without giving any references What will happen if I can show more than one source that says Shyam was a court poet? These adamant pro DGs will still not budge one bit because they don't want to question themselves ever.

You're not interested in knowing the truth. What happened on the other thread where you blatantly lied and made up fake theories about Prashanuttar and Prehlad Rehatnama? Till I debunked it with your own internal evidence. You just beat around the bush thats why I want my answers before I share the whole sakhi.

Don't care man.

B***u you are. I shared my source, you got the title, page number and heading, what else you need?

Thanks for confirming DG as Guru Krit is just a theory. I thought it was unquestionable for you Dasam Granthis but its just a theory.

Not a single 18th century Prem Sumarag manuscript exists. Not a single 18th century Daya Singh Rehatnama manuscript exists. And it is Prehlad Singh Rehat and not Rai as you lie because internal evidence says Singh, thus already pushing a post Khalsa date and rejecting this source as completely unauthentic.

You were cut coming up with theories about Prashan Uttar and Rehatnama Prehlad Singh being 1695 writings till I blasted you completely. Unknown author or not, Naseehatnama is the earliest undisputable source and says Japji Sahib Nitnem. Therefore you have lost. Thanks and get lost now.

B*nd maar yaar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Punjabi_tribes There are many tribes right? Some are big some are small. Why aren't other small sections of Sikh community mentioned like Puri, Rawal, Saini, etc named in the marriage section (for example)? Because they were either less in number or had no prominent personality to be mentioned in a section detailing SIKH CASTE INTERMARRIAGES - it focusses on Sikhs and not all Kalals, or all Brahmins. Only those people of the sect who adhered to Sikhi.

I repeat: I have had first hand access to quite some libraries, I have talked to scholars and read the opinions on the PrS from Surinder Kohli to Randhir Singh to Mcleod. I have knowledge of all the KNOWN manuscripts that have been mentioned in literature. And from these KNOWN manuscripts I tell you there are not that many; less than 7-8 and exclusively from the 19th century. Two manuscripts exist with only the first chapter. More could exist but two are KNOWN.

The link contains almost all stanzas of the sakhi and it includes the portions I am talking about, so there is no doubt about the source. If he wants the source then answer my questions, as simple as that. Or go buy the book. The link already mentions court poets wrote Charitars. So no question arises on my source.

Khushwaqt Rai estimated that there were about 2 lakh Khalsa Sikhs in the early 19th century. But I do not think it included the Sahajdharis?

Have you ever read a manuscript in Panjab ? I have spent 2 years in libraries of Panjab so don't come and teach me you internet scholar. I have first hand read manuscripts and quoted extensively about such manuscripts on this forum, sometimes with and sometimes without references. Its not by sitting in Denmark that you will know about manuscripts ;) I know about the most prominent libraries and the Prem Sumarags they house and only less than 10 manuscript locations are known. I challenge you to show more ?

If you're so desperate to read the Sakhi then answer the question. I made the claim and gave the references. Anyone can verify it. I agreed to post the Sakhi, which I don't have too btw, if you answer the question.

Naseehatnama has oldest MS from 1719 and it says Japji. Gurbilas is from 1751-1764 and says Japji Rehatnama Chaupa Singh has oldest MS from 1765 and it says 5 Japji in morning. Sau Sakhi is from the 18th century and it says Japji. Completely fake Rehats like Prehlad you quoted say Japji Jaap. Why do you run with your tail between your legs now? I want to see you defending Prehlad Rehat and your CRAP theory that Prehlad Rehat was written in same year as Prashanuttar and it shows a positive evolution lol

I have my sources. Naseehatnama, Gurbilas, Rehatnama Chaupa & Sau Sakhi, out of which 2 are indisputed (Naseehat and Chaupa). You have got no undisputed source, so it is your job to find an indisputable source with Japji Jaap I challenge any other Dasam Granthi on this forum to prove Chaupai and Tav Prasad in Nitnem in ANY 18th century source?

Paapi veere, why so sensible ajkal?

I need my answers first.

I am not saying Kalals did not exist, I am saying that if there were no Kalal Sikhs then why was there need to discuss them in SIKH caste intermarriages? It is not a Granth about Punjabi people but Sikh people, and therefore it would be logical to include only prominent Sikh castes or varnas when mentioning about intercaste marriages instead of naming each and every caste in his Granth.

I told you there aren't. There are not even many Prem Sumarag manuscripts to begin with, less than 10 in any case. 2 chapter 1 alone in comparison to 6-8 complete PrS is somewhat significant.

Seems like you learnt a new word, 'burden of proof'. Anyways forget that I'm posting anything if you do not answer my question. Answer my question first. I have given the page number and book title, it is your job to get it. If it is not there I'll leave this forum forever okay? Have never lied regarding sources, ever.

It is not little evidence because the total number of Prem Sumarag manuscripts does not exceed 7-8 as far as I know. Well is there even one famous Sikh Kalal pre Jassa Singh?

* Mcleod says 2 manuscripts. * Brahmin Sikhs were few? Maybe, but they were overrepresented in famous personalities. All Bhatts were Brahmins. Most prominent warriors of Guru Hargobind: Bhai Piraga was Brahmin, Mati Das, Sati Das, Chaupa Singh, Gurbaksh Singh Chibber were all Brahmins. Kirpa Singh Dutt was a Brahmin. So my theory makes sense; either numerically important or either important contribution in terms of sacrifices or sidak (as proven above). * Why would you detail daily routine in epilogue and then repeat in chapter 6 with same things (wake up, shower, meditate, work ...) * Sadly Mcleod could not confirm his theory because independent 1st Chapter Granths exist but no Granth is found without the first chapter

I will post it, if you answer the following questions: 1) Do you have any source from the 1700 - 1800 period that says Guru Gobind Singh wrote Charitropakhyan or Chaubis Avtar? I am not talking about Vidya Sagar, this that Granth. I want the specific names Charitars or Avtars or Bachitar Natak. 2) Do you have any historical proof that Shyam was Guru's pen name and not a court poet?