SikhKhoj

My theory says 19th century has more DG in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar and 18th century has either sources with no DG AT ALL or merely Japji Jaap. Disprove me? Even if you count my 4 and your 4 sources as 18th century we still have half of the sources that only have SGGS Nitnem.

What was my theory? Quote me. And then say what is weak about it. I say less DG or no DG in 18th century - which is 100% true as half of the sources mention Japji alone and half mention Japji Jaap while 19th century sources are full of DG including Tavprasad etc. Therefore my initial theory is 100% correct to prove how DG became an inseperable part by adding more and more DG Banis to the Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar as compared to 18th century

I repeat: Go on that site.

http://punjabipedia.org/topic.aspx?txt=ਬਵੰਜਾ/ਬਾਵਨ ਕਵੀ All references you need are there. Stanza 6 mentions poet names and stanza 8 says they wrote Charitropakhyan.

Thanks brother.

Admin cut. So many books say 'Patshahi 10' you believe in all of them? Stop posting in this topic, you're not even trying to prove the historicity because you know you can't. Amardeep atleast tries to discuss from a historical perspective even though he is still held back by preconceived notions.

Whatever

1. Prove Sau Sakhi is NOT from the 18th century. Mukatnama was re-used in 1820-1840 therefore it existed prior to that. The latest date is end 18th century. So you can't discard Mukatnama as a 18th century source. 2. Why do you run after lying about Prashan Uttar and Rehatnama Prehlad? You made up such a laughable theory which made no sense. The so called internal date of Prashan Uttar is end 1752 Bikrami, so how could Prehlad write a Rehatnama which was totally different in same year to Prashan Uttar? 3. 5 Japji or 1 Japji does not matter, end of the day it says Japji. Since you're from Denmark I'd ask you to stop being a flueknepper. Therefore 1765 source says Japji Sahib as Nitnem. 4. The text you quote about Gurbilas Koer Singh does nowhere quote a 1800s source, It only argues the Gurbilas might be of 1751, 1754 and 1762. Don't know where you get the 1800s from? 5. You don't need an author name to have an "authentic" text. The manuscript date is undisputed by all scholars, if not then prove any scholar who has doubted the Naseehatnama? Ofcourse the Naseehatnama was most probably not written by Nand Lal but it still is an early source because the MS date is undisputed and has been checked by nearly all historians. 6. So we're still left with 3 solid sources (Naseehatnama, Gurbilas and Chaupa Rehat) and one weaker source which can be placed anywhere in the 18th century (Mukatnama) 7. My biggest question you've not answered yet; where is even ONE source giving Chaupai and Tavprasad as Nitnem from 1700-1800? 8. Lets even say ALL my sources are weak, it still proves my theory right that 18th century has mostly Japji as Nitnem with perhaps some Japji Jaap as compared to the 19th century. You still haven't been able to debunk my theory? I said over years more Nitnem was added to DG (18th c vs 19th c). If you want to prove me wrong you have to post 18th century sources with 2-3 DG Banis and not just be content with Japji Jaap in the fake rehats you posted.

Court poets did it according to Mehma Parkash (1776). Internal proof regarding Kab Shyam is also very solid because Kab Shyam was a court poet according to Mehma Parkash as well. I got one more proof regarding Kab Shyam being a court poet and not a pen name but I'll wait for all you Dasam Granthis to post some sources.

Neo, I am seeing that you're changing your liberal colors once we start talking about Dasam Granth? The topic title says HISTORICAL perspective. Why are you guys running left right? The topic is about the Charitars and other material being written by court poets or the Guru, not whether the Guru made it compulsory in Nitnem or whatever. Stick to the topic, this rule also applies to you admin.

I humbly ask every single Dasam Granthi on this forum to provide proof for: 1) Guru Gobind Singh writing Charitropakhyan. Preferably from 1700-1800. 2) Guru Gobind Singh using Shyam as a pen name. Neo, Dally, Amardeepu, Singh123, Chatangeh, etc Chatanga, you got the Guru Prem Pad Parkash right? I will be using it for one of my next posts with some evidence so better keep it at hand if you got it.

Look you need to change this attitude where you first ask for proof, then for scans, then for a translation. Whats next? Asking to send you the book by post or what? I gave book name, author and page number, I even typed out the Sakhi heading for you, what else do you need?

I have just started? I am not done yet brother. And even in the extreme case that I had only 1 perspective, you don't even have one puratan proof that Guru Gobind Singh wrote Charitars himself?

So you admit Guru Gobind Singh did not write Charitars but court poets did?

Singh1234..., what is the identity of the King in Charitars 21-23? Is it Guru Gobind Singh as claimed by Padam and the likes or not?

I have never voiced my concerns about Dasam Granth in regards to its 'obscene language' or Charitropakhyans 'dirty stories' or whatever. I am not a feminist either. I am just saying that Charitropakhyan is not Guru Krit, nor are the Chaubis Avtar etc from a historical perspective.

This is the text from Mahima Parkash (Thanks to Chatanga): http://punjabipedia.org/topic.aspx?txt=ਬਵੰਜਾ/ਬਾਵਨ ਕਵੀ Anyone interested can read the first 10 stanzas of the Sakhi there and confirm if it matches with what I said in my initial post

British Translation is from 1809-1815 period. I don't know how many Kalals but you are missing my point. The author is talking about inter-caste marriage within Sikh Panth, why the hell would he mention Kalals if they're NEITHER represented by numbers in the Panth NOR by prominent figures. You have to admit that all other castes/varn mentioned are quite prominent both in number and/or representation amongst famous Sikh personalities. But in Kalals we see a lack in both, the most prominent and first Kalal being Jassa Singh, who himself was born to non Sikh parents.

Then do it, because I have a feeling that the first chapter somewhat contradicts the sixth chapter, and even if it doesn't do so explicitly, what was the need to give the daily routine so detailed twice in a same work (right from waking up to sleeping)?

I have faith, not blind faith. I believe Guru Nanak turned Mecca, and no the real Kaaba & not your mind or whatever crap missionaries invent. I believe in Naam Simran.

Haha true that. How do you rate Grewal as a historian minus the Jatt theories? And have you read the book by Trilochan Singh against Mcleods writings?

Dally what say about the chapter 1 (vs chapter 6) etc

Really got irritated when Mcleod talked about several manuscripts of Chaupa Rehat and then concludes that the one with the hom ceremony is more authentic and the others without hom ceremony aren't because they appear to have 'omitted' the passage. He never even goes near the possibility that 1 ms might've been corrupted while 3-4 others do not even mention that incident, but he kept insisting the hom one was more authentic just because it was controversial.

The list is from a book by Dilgeer, himself a pseudo historian.

Dhan Dhan Sri Prem Sumarag Granth Jee Maharaaj