SikhKhoj

You seem to have translated Khidava in the sense that 'khedna' (play) is used in todays Punjabi. But 'playing' does not fit in the translation... How can we fit either nurse, nurture, caretaker in the above context (for khidava) Agree with the rest of your initial post, the 'recognize as brothers' part is definitely not Mukhvaak but the authors own comments.

People who believe in Dasam Granth invent all kind of fairy tales to justify Dasam Granth; 1) Oh but this Granth is for the Khalsa while GGS is for humanity If DG is intended for the Khalsa, why doesn't it mention the word Khalsa even once? 2) Oh the internal evidence says someone called Shyam wrote a huge part... That means Guru Ji used that as pen name If that is true then why do historical sources say that Shyam was a court poet and not a pen name? 3) Charitars were written to control Kaam So Sikhs fell prey to kaam from 1469 to 1696? GGS was not enough to give them guidance?

It is always like that. When I give no source, you guys are so adamant and make the point 'why did no one question DG for 200 years'. Now I've already given one source with two statements: 1) Shyam was a court poet. Not a pen name of Guru Ji. 2) He is named amongst the authors who wrote compositions like the Charitropakhyan and Chaubis Avtar. 3) Besides the above external historical reference we find countless references to Shyam himself in the Dasam Granth: ਸੁ ਕਬਿ ਸਯਾਮਿ ਤਾਕੋ ਕਹੈ ਚੌਦਸਵੋ ਅਵਤਾਰ ॥੪॥ The poet Shyam knows him as fourteenth incarnation.4. (Chaubis Avtar) Please note how the reference to Shyam occurs in Chaubis Avtar for example and the historical text also says Shyam was (amongst others) wrote the Chaubis Avtar and Charitropakhyan. 4) You guys are saying that there is only 1 source saying Charitars were by the court poets, but I challenge you: find me even one source saying 5 Banis Nitnem from 1700-1800. You want me to believe Chaupai is Bani without A SINGLE source but ignore my source, shame on you. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

First decide Ragmaala, is DG by Guru or by court poets? You're so confused.

A comparison. Dally, does this make sense? CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 6 Besides the inconsistencies and slightly differing banis (particularly no DG in Nitnem of Chapter 6) it is interesting to observe why the author would mention about ishnaan in detail twice and again write about the nitnem? Perhaps the chapter 1 being independent is a possibility. Chap 1 has a similar language though but seems to be more of a 'complete rehatnama' (albeit less detailed than the prem sumarg) in itself

Guru did not say that. Approved and worship is not same

couldn't help but lol

Just wondering if the manuscripts tally with the currently published Vaaran.

Thanks for admitting that Guru Gobind Singh did not write Charitropakhyan.

Why beat around the bush and start crying about Amrit Sanchar and Nitnem dependency on DG? We are already discussing that fact in another topic. This is a reply to the people who claim that DG controversy is new and Puratan Sikhs always accepted DG as Guru Krit. The 1776 source proves that already in the 18th century, parts if not the whole of Dasam Granth was attributed to court poets and not Guru Ji. Besides that the internal proof of Raam and Shyam writing DG is corroborated by this source which confirms the existence of a poet called Shyam in the court of Guru Ji.

This is an important though: Mcleod has a strong opinion that the first chapter might have been appended later to the Prem Sumarag, a view I share because several manuscripts with only 1 Chapter of Prem Sumarag exist. Besides that the Nitnem is repeated once in Chapter 1 and then in Chapter 6, the Nitnem in Chapter 6 does not specify which bani to do in morning but it says 'read from the Granth Pothi (SGGS)'. Therefore the main Prem Sumarag text does not mention the DG as much, the Bachitar Natak evening Nitnem is only there in Chapter 1 and not Chapter 6. Why would the Rehat author write about Nitnem in detail in chap 1 (from ishnaan to banis) and again nitnem details (somewhat different to the one in chap 1, but again from ishnaan to banis) in chapter 6? For me it is even more interesting because Chapter 1 says to read Bachitar Natak while the 6th chapter only tells you to read from the Granth Pothi (GGS).

What Miri aspects are there during Guru Amar Das and Guru Ram Daas time? I have read that Sikhs complained about oppressive Muslims during Guru Amar Das times and the Guru told them to keep forgiving them and living like that, tolerating it till the end i.e. no resistance. This seem in stark contrast to Guru Nanak and Guru Angad (and ofcourse the latter Gurus) and therefore I do not believe in this Sakhi (which I read in some recent book).

The argument that Raam or Shyam is a pen name of Guru Gobind Singh Maharaaj will be rebutted with more sources in the coming time. I am awaiting for pro Dasam Granthis to come up with some history rather than emotional drama about 'moral lessons' and other fancy things these people invent out of nowhere. If Guru Gobind Singh diverted from the tradition to use Nanak, it would have been mentioned. The Guru taking up pen name Shyam or Raam must be somewhere in history, starting in 1696 to the early 1800s... after which the Dasam Granth was shoved in our panth on major scale by altering the Nitnem and Amrit Sanchaar to accommodate Dasam Granth into it.

I am beginning my rebuttal to the Charitropakhyan being authored by Guru Gobind Singh from a historical perspective. Anyone with historical proofs (1695-1825 AD) saying (1) Guru Gobind Singh wrote Charitropakhyan (2) used the pen names Kab Shyam and Kab Raam is invited to the topic.

Can we talk facts please instead of 'have you read' 'give the translation' etc? I can't type out the whole Sakhi so I have summarized it above with the heading of the Sakhi, relevant page number and so on. (I have the whole Sakhi/granth and wrote the above myself so don't even know why you're asking that)

Not that I know of. You read it in some book or saw it in some near contemporary painting? But it is possible given the (5th), 6th, 9th and 10th Gurus did.

The author(s) of the Charitars and 24 Avtar – a historical perspective By: Gurdaat Khoji 'Mahima Parkash' which was completed in 1776 A.D.[1] by Sarup Das Bhalla, a descendant of Guru Amar Das, gives us some invaluable proof regarding the authorship of a major part of the present day Dasam Granth: the Charitropakhyan & the Chaubis Avtaar. The interesting Sakhi in question comes in the Mehima Parkash under the heading: “ਆਗੈ ਸਾਖੀ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਬੇਦ ਬਿਦਯਾ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ ਕਰਣ ਕੀ ਅਰੁ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਕੀ ਬਾਨੀ ਕੀ ਸੰਗਿਆ ਕੀ ਨਿਰੂਪਨ ਹੋਇ ਗੀ”[2]. The author starts by mentioning the fact that religious scriptures (Purans) were assembled and Pandits were called from Benaras. Stanza 5 tells us that Gurmukhi scribes were ordered to collaborate with the Pandits. Amongst the poets who came to the Gurus court were Nanua Bairagi, Shyam Kab, Brahm Bhaat, Nihchal Fakeer and many more (6th stanza in the Sakhi). This is the evidence from the 18th century that talks about a physical person Shyam, who was a Poet and came to the Guru’s court. Compare this to the assertation that Poet Shyam was a pen name of Guru Gobind Singh, which is not supported by historical sources. The text goes on further and says in the 8th stanza that these poets wrote the Chaubis Avtar and Charitropakhyan. The Guru was pleased when he heard these and later on in stanza 12 it says that the Pandits were sent back home with various gifts. [1] Nabha, Kahan Singh (1926). Mahan Kosh (page 2803) [2] Bhalla, Sarup Das (1776), Mahima Parkash (page 411)

Here you go

Besides Guru Hargobind Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Ji who killed lions on their own, our beloved Guru Ke Singh like Bhai Roshan Singh and Gen Hari Singh Nalwa (bare handed) too killed lions single handedly.

1. Sikh Kalals were not huge in number even in the 1800s. According to a British census they accounted for less than half a percent of the Sikh population, which is insignificant. 2. The absence of any prominent Kalal Sikhs from 1469-1708 shows that the caste was underrepresented amongst Sikhs and, keeping the 1881 census in view too, did not have much converts to Sikhi. 3. The fact that Jassa Singh himself was from a Hindu background should also be taken in the above context (i.e. not Sikhs since generations like the others). 4. The passage I am referring to is the following: Whenever this is necessary, let it be done as follows: Khatri can marry Brahman. Arora can marry Khatri. Suniar can marry Arora. Sud can marry Arora. Kamboh can marry Kaith. Kamboh can marry Suniar. Jat can marry Kamboh. Chhimba, Dhobi, and Kamboh can intermarry Kalals can also intermarry with any of this latter group. 5. Lets see some of the other groups mentioned regarding SIKH marriage Rehat: Khatri: Gurus were from Khatri background Brahmin: Bhatts from this background, Chibbers, Bhai Mati Das, Bhai Sati Das, Bhai Piraga etc Jat: do I even need to explain? and so on, each caste mentioned is prominent because many famous Sikhs were related to it OR they constituted a major part of our qaum, but the same cannot be said for Kalals; there is no prominent Sikh Kalal pre Jassa Singh nor were they numerically significant (even till 1881 or now for that matter) to even be mentioned amongst the various groups of Sikh intermarriages. 6. Name me any prominent Kalal Sikh prior to Jassa Singh ?

There is a difference between written by Guru Gobind Singh and approved by Guru Gobind Singh. In case I refer to Charitropakhyan as court poetry it does not close the possibility that it might have been approved by the Guru?

Historical proof from the 18th century. I'll be typing it out and posting it soon.

Ego. Need to work on that.

Thanks, haven't read it in detail so didn't notice that. Good one.