amardeep Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Waheguru ji ka Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh. i've noticed that the rehitnama of Bhai Nand Lal wherein the three forms of the Guru is mentioned is dated to 1695, ie 12 years prior to Guru Gobind Singh Maharaj leaving for the heavens... I was therefore wondering what scholars say about this rehitnamas authencity. Kahn Nabha rejects it due to the date given, but what do others say? Mcleod in his Sikhs of the Khalsa say the language is to poor to be writtein by the prominent Bhai Nand Lal Goya 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kam1825 Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Those who have faith believe and those who are skeptic do not. I think the whole point end there. The same goes with the Issues on the Raagmala, Dasam Sarbloh, Prem Sumarg, Mukat Marg, Sau Sakhis, Bhai Gurdas Di Vaaran, Bhai Gurdas Di Kabitt, etc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa! Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! I don't see a problem with the date. All 3 forms can exist at the same time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 yeah I also belive that all three things can exist at the same time. Do you know what various scholars have said regarding this rehitnama+ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 What Granth is Guru Gobind Singh Maharaj talking about in 1695 as he had not compiled the Damdami Bir yet.. The Damdami Bir included the bani of Guru Tegh Bahadur but this was written 10 years later, so what Granth is Maharaj talking about here? Is it the Dasam Granth maybe? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kam1825 Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 the granth being spoken about like all the dasam banis is the same granth. According to the Bansavlimnama Guru Gobind Singh Ji had created a large amount of bani which was called the vidya sagar granth. however alot was lost in the evacuation of Anandpur Sahib 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbreakable Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 .. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted April 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 yaar.. go to www.sikhiwiki.com and do a few searches... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Some scholars claim that there are 2 Nand Lals. Irrelevant, it an historical document which is in line with Gurmat, so one can either choose to learn and benefit from it (as it represents sikh thought from at least the 18th/19thc), or do an historical autopsy on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithr Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Hi, sorry, who is Bhai nand lal? What is Vidya Sagar Granth? please could somebody give a detailed insight into this? The Vidya Sagar was a collection of Granths that Guru Jee had written or had translated. This included a translation of Mahabharat, Ramayan various other Indic Granths into the language for the common man. Most was drowned in the river. Chandi Di Vaar for example is a translation of Markhandya Puraan, and Krishna Avtar is a translation of parts of Sri Mad Bhagwatam. Similarly, if all of Vidya Sagar was not drowned today we would have had the Mahabharat and Ramayan written by Dasam Patishah in the Khalsa perpective. What a great loss is was. Maybe in the future these Granths can be found if additional copies were written. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kam1825 Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Its not a loss, The Guru knew what the hukam was and showed no attachment to this vast collection! All is i the will of God. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Well said Kam. Guru Ji left us exactly what we needed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted April 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 shaheediyan: Just because it does'nt contradict Gurbani that does'nt make it authentic in any way. It might be in line with Gurmat per se, but the question was wheter this rehitnama was infact written by Bhai Nand Lal Goya or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 I'm not debating it's authenticy (I am far from qualified to do so, and we only have scholars 'opinions' to go by), I simply stated that it is a historical rehitnama (18th c - regardless of who the author is) and it clearly shows a conversation being had between 10th Master and Bhai Nand Lal (whichever one if in fact there were two). Like Kam said, believing or not is a matter of personal opinion. Most rehitnamai/historical texts outside of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, Bhai Gurdas Ji ki Vaaran and Bhai Nand Lal Ji's ghazals - are subjected to people's test and opinion today.... including the above, which would have been considered canonical by all in the past. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 could the date 1695 be cos of the difference in bikarmi era and christian era as there are a few yeras duifference in them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 Ok, just has a quick look into the Prashan-Uttar (question and answer). This is termed a proto-rehit (pre-1699) by Mceod. He sees no reason why the date should cause any doubt as the work does not mention Khalsa and predominantly focuses on Sikh doctrine, which could and would have been developing before 1699 and before Dasam Patshahs ascension i.e. the 3 forms. If anything, Mcleod places a much higher probability of authenticy on this work than the other 2 also attributed to Bhai Nand Lal Goya (Tanakha-nama and Rehit - which are early-mid 1700's work none the less, thus representing the Khalsa attitudes and ravaaj of the time). It is the former that have received comments on difference of 'articulation' when compared to the ghazals, and not Prashan-Uttar, which is a remarkably well delivered philosophical work - and not really comparable to ghazals as it is a question and answer session. IMHO, this work is most likely a recorded authentic discussion by either Bhai Nand Lal Goya or an eye witness account of this discussion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.