SikhKhoj

1) Have you proven that Sau Sakhi is not from the 18th century? The 1734 date might not be right, but to say it is not from the 18th century altogether is wrong. The Sau Sakhi was heavily used by Kavi Santokh Singh during the first half of the 19th century, the Mukatnama was completely copied and just corrupted to add Dasam Granth in Nitnem. Therefore dating the Sau Sakhi to 18th century is not illogical. The Sau Sakhi with Mukatnama must have already been written, circulated and considered worthy to be copied in a epic like the Suraj Parkash, which Kavi Santokh Singh started writing around the 1820s perhaps. Besides that, internal evidence says around 1734 so 1734 might be true, with many latter additions of course. Some Sakhis have been added by latter scribes, the current printed manuscript is by Mathura Das and he added some sakhis of his own as is evident from the text (Sakhi 17), Narain Das (Sakhi 100) but on other places it places itself in Guru Darbar: sahib singh pad sarn tuh, likhai likhari granth ... rahai hajur dasve guru, karai ukat ju vaak gur ratan mal pothi likho, jion gur kino vaak In any case, I am always wary of such internal evidence not only with your but also my sources. But I can not accept that Sau Sakhi is an 19th century writing, nor have you provided a single proof for it being possibly written after 1800. 2) Provide arguments that Gurbilas Patshahi 10 is not from 1751? Keep them short and concise. Early dating of Gurbilas should be good for you as it has lots of DG influences in terms of language. 3) Rehatnama Chaupa Singh's oldest copy is from 1765 why do you forget that? It says only 5 times Japji in morning. You keep ignoring that source. 4) It is rather stupid to ignore 4 sources: 1719 (Naseehatnama) and 1765 (Rehatnama Chaupa) manuscript saying Japji for morning. With one more dated to the 1700-1800 (Sau Sakhi) and Gurbilas Patshahi 10 that has been accepted to be a 1751 writing. 5) Show me a single source saying 5 Banis nitnem for morning from 1700 - 1800 ?

It is possible. Anything is possible. bhoolan andar sab ko, abhul guru kartaar

goneee

This topic is solely on Prem Sumarag. What do you think of my view and especially the last point, which might not be a solid one standing independently but it needs to be taken into consideration. Regarding Prem Sumarag, there is not a single manuscript of the early 18th century, its all hearsay or this scholar claimed this or that. No proof or locations of such manuscripts are provided. Only existing MS are from the 19th century. I do not believe in hearsay, and nor should you. Atleast if you try to be objective. 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. Besides that Prem Sumarag is a Granth dating to the Misl period or after because it mentions Kalals when it mentions other Sikh 'groups'. Kalals were practically unknown and too few in numbers to be mentioned amongst the other groups. Even in the British census they formed about 0.004% of Sikhs in 1881, which is too insignificant. The Kalals only became known after Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, before that there is not a single prominent Kalal Sikh and they have always been numerically insignificant till Misl period. This is my own observation not based on any other scholar.

Regarding Prem Sumarag, there is not a single manuscript of the early 18th century, its all hearsay or this scholar claimed this or that. No proof or locations of such manuscripts are provided. Only existing MS are from the 19th century. I do not believe in hearsay, and nor should you. Atleast if you try to be objective. I agree that Prem Sumarag has some DG references but not as much as you claim. 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. Besides that Prem Sumarag is a Granth dating to the Misl period or after because it mentions Kalals when it mentions other Sikh 'groups'. Kalals were practically unknown and too few in numbers to be mentioned amongst the other groups. Even in the British census they formed about 0.004% of Sikhs in 1881, which is too insignificant. The Kalals only became known after Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, before that there is not a single prominent Kalal Sikh and they have always been numerically insignificant till Misl period. This is my own observation not based on any other scholar.

We're not done discussing Nitnem and the Rehatnamas yet. I had told you that Amrit Sanchaar is a tricky subject and in my study of 14 published and 7 unpublished Granths I yet have to come to a solid conclusion, while Nitnem does seem to be quite similar in all 18th century literature; Japji (and eventually Jaap), Rehraas and Kirtan Sohila. No Chaupai Tav Prasad Swaiyas or even Anand Sahib for that matter (few sources talk of Anand Sahib but none of the Chaupai etc). Conclude the first discussion if you wish to continue.

There is no need to do that in a debate. I pointed out the source and backed up my claims. Do your homework and lets see what you can do to 'debunk' this claim. Besides that our discussion on Nitnem has not even concluded yet. The present discussion already is very long, each reply being on so many points so lets not complicate it further. Terminate on the Nitnem. You accept Naseehatnama as an early source, lets put the 1719 aside for a bit. Then how do you explain no Jaap in Nitnem? I could be adamant and try to put the Guru Gobind Singh-Nand Lal angle to vouch for its authenticity, but I don't because as said earlier I base on manuscript evidence. The conversation might have taken place but the earliest Ms is 1719. And how will you explain people corrupting sources to justify DG in Nitnem? See Mukatnama of Sau Sakhi and compare it to Mukatnama of Suraj Parkash. Japji in 18th century becomes Japji Jaap TavPrasad in 1843.

1. From my 4 sources you can't discard Naseehatnama and Bansawlinama on any account, the dates have been accepted and undisputed. You have given not a single reason to doubt the credible 1719 dating of the manuscript. The interesting thing is the 1719 date despite it being a conversation between Nand Lal and Guru Gobind Singh. This shows that 1719 is the real date of that manuscript, which might have had even earlier recensions, a fact we might never be able to verify due to lack of earlier manuscripts. The difference between you and me is that you place Nand Lal and Guru Gobind Singh convo based on internal evidence or just because Nand Lal is attached to it, while Naseehatnama is also attached to Nand Lal and I still do not push for an early 1700s date for example. I base on facts, existing manuscripts. Since I find no pre 1719 Naseehatnama manuscript I have not even pushed for an earlier date, because I am not desperate to link it to the Guru period. 2. You quoted 4 sources and Desa Singh Rehat has been rejected due to some solid internal evidence mentioning a historical figure who died in 1783, thus placing the Desa Rehat anywhere after 1780. The Prehlad Rehatnama is highly unauthentic due to its internal date of 1695 contradicting its content which reflect a post 1699 mentality; Guru Maneo Granth, Guru Khalsa, Prehlad 'Singh', Guru Gobind Singh in Nanded. Besides that the Rehat has been rejected by people like Padam who generally held traditional views, by Kahan Singh Nabha who held Singh Sabha views and McLeod who comes from another stream of writers. This shows alot. 3. Even if we assume I only got 2 sources right and you got 2 undated ones, the main question that comes forth is; where are the sources with 5 or 7 Nitnem Banis? There are NO sources for that from the 18th century AT ALL, whether authentic or unauthentic.

Main tera theka laya? I made a claim and its supported by evidences. Translate it yourself if you're interested in it. The question is not about the purpose or the things you're asking, he is explaining the ceremony and tells what Banis were recited. No source is completely flawless so do not even go there, we have to construct history by taking coherent pieces from several historical sources.

Respect of loh or the sword is not limited to the Dasam Granth, it is part of other traditions too (Rajputs). Do you think warriors of Guru Hargobind disrespected Loh or Swords? It is an object of respect, the name kirpa-aan itself is a reflection of the immense spiritual and worldly meaning behind it. Where does Dasam Granth mention the word Khalsa? Where does Dasam Granth give Rehat for the Khalsa? Where does Dasam Granth mention the Kakaars? Stop propagating the myth 'DG for Khalsa' because DG doesn't even mention Khalsa. The idea of Khalsa Raj is not from the Dasam Granth. Don't bring Sarbloh Granth in here. Therefore we can conclude the Naseehatnama has not a single influence from the Dasam Granth, nor in Nitnem nor in terminology.

1. Wrong, both Prehlad and Prashanuttar claim 1752 Bk as writing date. Prashan Uttar was written near the end of Samvat 1752 so it rejects your false theory 2. Naseehatnama is indeed interesting because it does not claim an internal date and it is the manuscript that is dated 1719 despite being a conversation between Guru Gobind Singh and Nand Lal. There is a big difference between an internal and manuscript date. Naseehatnama might even have been written earlier but I do not even go that way with possible explanations with far fetched theories like you do, I say this manuscript of 1719 exists and thats it. I quote from it as no historian has questioned its authenticity. If an historian has, then let me know? Compare that to Prehlad Rehat which has been blasted by everyone including Kahan Singh Nabha, Mcleod and Padam. Those are all hypothetical things, Rehats project the minds of the writers not Sikhi. An anti Muslim sentiment does not place it in early or late 18th century; Khalsa was suffering way more from Muslim opression in 1700-1750 as compared to 1750-1800. Again, lack of Dasam Granth influence does not mean it was written early on, the Bijay Mukat does not mention Dasam Granth even once in its entire text and yet is a 19th century writing. On the other hand, the evidence AGAINST Prehlads early dating: 1. It says Guru sat in Abchal Nagar. Guru did not visit Abchal Nagar anywhere before 1700s. 2. Uses name Prehlad Singh 3. Guru Granth is mentioned 'Guru Maneo Granth' 4. Guru Panth, Guru Khalsa is mentioned. This is a latter trend. 5. Rehat for the Khalsa is mentioned 'rehat bayaiye khalse'

Just because a DG Saroop, Rehitnama and Sarbloh Granth mention the period of 1690s does not mean it was effectively written then, and just to prove your theory of productive period you overemphasise any Granth attributed to that time period. Scholars who have studied the Rehatnamas agree that most if not all Rehats can be put after Guru Gobind Singhs period. Your only source of the Rehatnamas is the book by Padam, so please read the preface wherein he says on page 43 that the Rehatnamas attributed to the likes of Nand Lal were not by him but written later & attributed to learned Sikhs to make them appear more 'authentic'. I stay coherent in my approach; I never claimed Mukatnama and Naseehatnama were written during Gurus period as the internal evidence CLAIMS for both cases; I place the Naseehatnama in 1719 and Mukatnama somewhere in the 18th century. You instead approach a non academical way and keep pushing for the internal dates. Show me one instance where I have done such? Naseehatnama claims to be a conversation between Guru Gobind Singh and Nand Lal, if I wanted to be foolish like you I could say ‘oh look it was a recorded dialogue between Guru and his Sikh therefore it is authentic’, but NO I refer to an existing manuscript which has a reliable date as it is not desperate to gain authenticity (1719 is not the Guru period). Show me historians or researchers who have questioned the 1719 date? If not then you have to accept that date because you keep beating around the bush. I have personal links with historians so I do know that Padam was up to mischief. Where is the manuscript of Guru Kian Sakhian? I have personally read the MS770 (includes Naseehatnama) and I have found some text that has been altered in Padams book. I did not take pictures but you can go and access to manuscript, especially the verses on page 59 have been altered or words changed. But that is another discussion, you have no access to manuscripts and your only source are written sources therefore you do not know about this. I am not contradicting myself. I am saying that no new innovations were introduced by the latter Gurus, as some historians wrongly claim. Ofcourse I am not dumb to claim Khande di Pahul predates 1699 or Guru Gobind Singh? But I say; it was preceded by the Charan Pahul. Therefore Khande di Pahul in essence was not a diversion of the earlier Gurus tradition, it was just updated with time. So stop taking my statements on other threads out of context. There is no evidence that Granth was referred to as Guru Granth pre 1708. In fact historians agree that earlier writings say ‘Granth Jee’. You again oversaw my main point that was about how you contradict yourself royally; no Khalsa in Prashan Uttar means 1695 but Rehatnama Prehlad can mention Khalsa and still be placed in 1695. No bigger contradiction is possible. Now resorting to lies to fit in your narrative that 1695 Prashan Uttar does not mention Khalsa and next year it does to show an evolution in the Rehatnama Prehlad you say Prehlad was written in 1696. Let me expose you: PREHLAD REHAT : samvat satrah sai bhaye, barkh bavanja nihaar (1752 Bk - 1695 AD) PRASHAN UTTAR: samvat satra sahas so bavan, maghar sudi naumi sukh davan (1752 Bk - 1695 AD) Prashan Uttar claims to be written in Magh 1752 which corresponds with December 1695. The Bikrami year 1752 ended just 3 months after (Poh, Magh, Phaggan), so don't think your illogical theory you is plausible. A document (Prashan Uttar) mentions no Khalsa and suddenly another one, Prehlad Rehat mentions Guru Khalsa, Guru Granth and what not. Radical change if we even consider your illogical theory. Your theories are so far fetched, Prehlad Rehat claims its written in Abchal Nagar which is a place the Guru did not visit till 12-13 years after, then you come up with a formidable theory: "the Word Abchal Nagar is mentioned in the Guru Granth Sahib and describes a peacefull steady place/city.". How does the one thing negate the other? The Rehatnama is talking about a physical place called Abchal Nagar, it says Prehlad SINGH (which was not common amongst Sikhs pre 1699), Rehat for Khalsa (Rehat Bataiye Khalse), Guru Khalsa, lena dena Khalse Ka, Sab Sikhan Ko Hukam Hai Guru Maneo Granth clearly show that the Rehat was written post 1708. It is true that there is no strong internal evidence against the Prashan Uttar besides the fact that it says Guru Granth in Bindras book. But simply an absence of Khalsa does not make it a 1695 writing.

You haven't even got one source ;) But let me blast your lies for a final time. And yes be grateful that I am even talking to you properly with references, you don't even deserve that because you are incapable of comprehending things in a rational manner. 'Prashan Uttar doesn't mention Khalsa so it is early, 1695' vs 'Prehlad Rehat mentions Khalsa, so its shows an evolution, 1695 is again accepted'.

You're not willing to learn and adapt that is the issue. You quote Sarbloh Granth while every single proper historian rejects the theory that Guru Ji wrote it, right from the old times with Pandit Tara Narotam blasting it. Is it worth wasting my time on you? You change colors like a chameleon, first you say 'believe Prashan Uttar is early 1695 because it has no Khalsa and then you contradict your own statement when pointed out that Rehatnama Prehlad mentions Khalsa so it is okay in that case'.

Apni research kar te sources labh, dujia di khoj te nirpar na ho

I have an eyewitness source that gurgadi was given to GGS. ?, create another topic and then I'll give you details, after making tall claims to help in getting granths translated etc.

If you are honest with yourself you have to admit that you posted one hell of a weak reply; no proper counter arguments, no proofs just beating around the bush. Have lost interest as you're not even trying to fight back with sources in favor of DG but I'll reply in some days.

Stop polluting my topic by the way, the only person who can even try to defend DG based on history on this forum is Amardeep so let him try.

Yes, been in contact with him since more than 6 years.

Remember Bhasaur?

1. I have not said things like porn or gand da tokra, thats what I meant by 'distasteful posts' in the other topic. Learn to read before assuming things: "You will not see a single distasteful post from me against the Dasam Granth, I try to remain objective in my study and keep the past baggage, assumptions, blind faith aside" 2. I have quoted so many sources that give only Guru Granth Sahib sources for nitnem from the 18th century and you have still your head up your bund. Take it out and read the sources I mentioned. 3. Extremely limited or not, whatever material we possess is in favor of GGS Banis as Nitnem. The only sources that talk about Japji Jaap are dubious as I debunked them, still waiting a rebuttal. And not a single source exists giving 5/7 Banis as Nitnem besides so called oral tradition. 4. Namdharis have been debunked with historical sources, try to do the same to me ;)

Yeah Gurdas or Bhai Gurdas. Tu amb lene? You make no sense, talk sources or don't waste my time.

Was it Jagjit Singh? We sent some money years back, sadly our project did not take off.

Add Guru Tegh Bahadur to the list of falcon carrying Gurus as per (near) contemporary paintings. ^

Now that everyone is talking about Charitars can you guys give your opinions about Charitars 21, 22 and 23. Pyara Padam says its about Guru Gobind Singh (the King) while others disagree. Pro Dasam Granthis are so divided on basic issues. Is the King in the tale Guru Gobind Singh or not? Give proofs.