SikhKhoj

I promise you i'll post it if you answer my questions. Because I know even if I post the Sakhi you will not give a reply on the 'internal signatures' 'pen names' etc.

Chatanga, my post about Prem Parkash was just to show that ancient authors have written about court poets with names of Shyam and Ram amongst others. Therefore the possibility of them writing (some) of the DG compositions, coupled with the fact of Shyam and Ram internal signatures and one more source saying they did write the Charitars becomes a serious issue instead of the usual baseless 'British creation' conspiracy theories Singh Sabha Canada, JS Mann and others spread.

Amardeep: whatever you say, you're not in a position to tell me to do naam simran. First of all you don't know if I do naam simran or not and secondly you should use that energy towards yourself. Admin cut: Kindly refrain from talking about other families.

No Neo, why keep questioning my personal integrity instead of refuting my comments? And that comment on my naam simran is as personal as to when I pointed out that his close relative left the faith, so why does he try to teach me when he himself couldn't teach Sikhi to his family?

Neo, you're one big hypocrite. Personal attacks on me regarding me not doing naam simran or whatever are allowed, but me exposing the hypocrisy of people who make such comments is not allowed?

Amardeep tells me to do some naam simran and do something useful while he himself has not even been able to teach his family about Sikhi while pretending to be a scholar online, and making attacks on my naam simran as if he is some mahapursh.

Not one, there are three historical sources that confirm Shyam was one of the court Poets. And one source even goes on to say that these poets wrote the Charitropakhyan and Chaubis Avtar.

Admin note: Family attacks are not allowed, 2nd formal warning is now given.

Anyways, open minded people reading this topic will benefit and realize that there is not enough evidence for DG being Guru Krit. Nor internal nor external. Simply writing a date of 1696 or saying Mukhvaak Patshahi 10 is not enough lol.

Thanks for the encouraging messages via PM.

Anyone can read the whole Sakhi and see that the Poets wrote Charitropakhyan and Chaubis Avtar (page 411)

You couldn't even prove Dasam Guru used Poet Shyam as pen name, all you have is blind faith

Singh123, where is a single proof showing Guru Ji used pen name Shyam? Not a single.

I don't want to win this debate, I just proved Shyam - court poet - wrote Charitropakhyan etc

Stop being a phuddu. Translate the 11th line if you're so confident.

I am still waiting for a single proof for using Shyam as pen name? or Guru Gobind Singh Maharaaj writing Charitropakhyan?

Answer my questions and I will post the text

I am still waiting for proofs that Ram and Shyam were pen names of Guru Ji. Not a single proof as of yet ?

Stop lying and post translation of

ਦੋਹਰਾ। ਭਾਖਾ ਰਚੀ ਦਿਆਲ ਗੁਰ, ਸਭ ਮਨ ਭਏ ਅਨੰਦ। ਦੁਰਗਮ ਸੁਗਮ ਭਏ ਸਕਲ, ਪੜਿ ਸਿਖਨ ਹੋਇ ਭੰਗ ।੧੧।

if you claim that it says Guru Ji wrote it.

I've named the book. Re read my post.

And didn't your face say you were leaving this topic?

While not many sources exist that write about the author of Charitropakhyan etc the Mahima Parkash statement is invaluable. The book talks about court poets translating these works, Charitropakhyan and Chaubis Avtar being created.

Secondly, it gives the invaluable statement that Shyam was a court poet and not a pen name. This in stark contrast to Dasam Granthis, who when confronted with the internal signatures of Shyam and Raam assume that these were pen names of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Not a single Dasam Granth believer has been able to prove that these signatures belong to Guru Ji besides emotional drama. This topic is about historical aspect not emotional.

Dasam Granth is clear about its author:

ਸੁ ਕਬਿ ਸਯਾਮਿ ਤਾਕੋ ਕਹੈ ਚੌਦਸਵੋ ਅਵਤਾਰ ॥੪॥
The poet Shyam knows him as fourteenth incarnation.4.
(Chaubis Avtar, Dasam Granth)

Who is Kab Shyam? According to Mahima Parkash (1776) he was one of the court poets working on Chaubis Avtar and Charitropakhyan, which is a verifiable fact due to the internal signatures we find (such as the Chaubis Avtar quote given above).

My second proof is the often quoted Sri Gur Partap Suraj Granth, written by Kavi Santokh Singh and completed in 1843. The book mentions about 41 court poets throughout the book with Kab Shyam being one of the court poets. This is the second proof that Guru Ji had a court poet called Shyam, and thus reinforces the fact mentioned in Mahima Parkash.

My third proof is a 19th century book that confirms Raam and Shyam being court poets. That is the Guru Pad Prem Parkash by Bawa Sumer Singh. Although it is a fairly recent book written by 1882 it contains invaluable information regarding certain incidents and I used it extensively during my Sri Gur Sobha research too because it had some good information. Secondly, 1882 is not the period that Dasam Granth was questioned yet, therefore we can not assume that Bawa Sumer Singh was misled by 'Singh Sabha propaganda' or whatever. The major movement against Dasam Granth started quite some years after 1882. I have to say clearly that the book does not say that Shyam wrote the Dasam Granth or Charitropakhyan but it confirms that Raam and Shyam were court poets, which is the third proof that Shyam is not a pen name but a court poet of Guru Ji.

Therefore I have given 3 historical Sikh books, that are quoted in Gurdwaras throughout the world, as references to prove that Shyam was not a pen name but an existing court poet. Therefore Mahima Parkash statement regarding Shyam being one of the authors of Chaubis Avtar and Charitropakhyan can not be ignored.

The Mahan Kosh also accept Ram and Shyam amongst the 52 court poets.

Good good.

Chatanga, do you have the Prem Pad Parkash? I remember you said you did during our discussion about Sainapat when I quoted from the Prem Pad.

I'll be quoting from it next in this discussion, even though it is a fairly recent Granth (1880s).

Okay. Thanks Dally.

I didn't call you in, so be free to not post in this topic.

If you want the text answer the questions first.

The link backs up my claim; it mentions poet name and that they wrote the text. There is no such rule that I have to provide you the whole sakhi myself. Anyways,

I ask you to answer two questions before I post the text. Even simpler.

No but really, scholars have not been able to locate more than a few manuscripts and all have 19th century dates on them (altough one claims to be a copy of an earlier MS of the 18th century but such things are always dubious).

What is sad is that I, being an anti Dasam Granthi, have to post proofs to show that Shyam was not a pen name but a court poet but pro DGs can get away with saying anything. Double standards.

Same with the source. Agreed its just one source but do you guys even have one which clearly says Guru Ji wrote Charitropakhyan?

Better than being desperate and posting false information on Facebook pages (Nand Lal one) - the same information regarding Misls I debunked on this forum. Who is desperate to see his own writings lol.

Great quote. I don't have quotes to describe you though; the more you read, the dumber you become...

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, ...)