Sri Gur Sobha By Dr Ganda Singh

[BhagatSingh]

25 minutes ago, amardeep said:

Different dates have been given. The internal date is 1718 while there are some features that is said to date it to later times ie misl and maharaja period.

Examples?

[amardeep]

A few examples I remember on the top of my head is that it mentions six floors on the Baba Atal tower in Amritsar. And apparently the six floors were made during the maharaja period. It also talks about the "Peshawar suba" (peshawar province). Peshawar was not considered an independant province during the Mughal period. Peshawar was part of the Kabul province.. It was only in the Sikh raj that Peshawar became a province (the others being Kashmir, Multan and Lahore).

[BhagatSingh]

How would you know if it wasn't written over a period of time?

[amardeep]

good point.

[BhagatSingh]

1 hour ago, amardeep said:

good point.

Lol I was just asking a question. But Ok, I'll take it.

[amardeep]

17 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Lol I was just asking a question. But Ok, I'll take it.

Haha I have'nt read the book so I would'n know. But considering that some Sikh books and documents of history have been added to over time its not impossible to think that the original was written in 1719 and then some new things and details were added to as the decades progressed.

Edited March 12, 2016 by amardeep

[amardeep]

One thing we have to consider is also that the Baba Atal tower might have bad 6 floors prior to being destroyed by the Afghans in the 1750s. And that Maharaja Ranjit Singh later rebuilt it to look like it did in the past.

[amardeep]

However the peshawar reference appears to be a solid proof of post 1834 origin.

[chatanga1]

On 11/03/2016 at 9:01 PM, amardeep said:

Different dates have been given. The internal date is 1718 while there are some features that is said to date it to later times ie misl and maharaja period.

 

The author Bhagat Singh says that he wrote it based on the katha of Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh during his stay at Nankana Sahib, so the internal date of 1718 seems fine to me.

 

On 11/03/2016 at 9:34 PM, amardeep said:

A few examples I remember on the top of my head is that it mentions six floors on the Baba Atal tower in Amritsar. And apparently the six floors were made during the maharaja period. It also talks about the "Peshawar suba" (peshawar province). Peshawar was not considered an independant province during the Mughal period. Peshawar was part of the Kabul province.. It was only in the Sikh raj that Peshawar became a province (the others being Kashmir, Multan and Lahore).

 

Suba was more a political unit within a state. Panjab had several subas- Lahore, Multan, Sirhind etc. The labelling of Peshawar as a Suba is inaccurate to use on this occasion as it was a political unit under the Moghal rule as well which stretched from north india  up to Kabul before the Sikhs took it.

 

21 hours ago, amardeep said:

Haha I have'nt read the book so I would'n know. But considering that some Sikh books and documents of history have been added to over time its not impossible to think that the original was written in 1719 and then some new things and details were added to as the decades progressed.

 

In the introduction of published version of Gurbilas, there is a note detailing the copies made and the dates they were made of the original. These dates are listed as 1830 and 1840, so it's most likely during this time the scribes added recent events or used recent terminology like Suba. This is not unknown in reproducing texts. In the UK the publishing house that bought the rights to "The Famous Five" changed it's words to reflect modern language and concepts.

 

If anyone does go India and looks for this book make sure they get the right one. I went to Chattar Singhs and asked for it and they gave me Gurbilas 6 written by Kavi Santokh Singh. I never realised there were 2.

[amardeep]

20 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

The author Bhagat Singh says that he wrote it based on the katha of Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh during his stay at Nankana Sahib, so the internal date of 1718 seems fine to me.

 

 

Suba was more a political unit within a state. Panjab had several subas- Lahore, Multan, Sirhind etc. The labelling of Peshawar as a Suba is inaccurate to use on this occasion as it was a political unit under the Moghal rule as well which stretched from north india  up to Kabul before the Sikhs took it.

 

 

In the introduction of published version of Gurbilas, there is a note detailing the copies made and the dates they were made of the original. These dates are listed as 1830 and 1840, so it's most likely during this time the scribes added recent events or used recent terminology like Suba. This is not unknown in reproducing texts. In the UK the publishing house that bought the rights to "The Famous Five" changed it's words to reflect modern language and concepts.

 

If anyone does go India and looks for this book make sure they get the right one. I went to Chattar Singhs and asked for it and they gave me Gurbilas 6 written by Kavi Santokh Singh. I never realised there were 2.

Wasn't the Whole area from the Indus to Kabul refered to as the Kabul suba?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vrl4nHs-ihQ/Ta79FdoTuvI/AAAAAAAAHGA/K10Pnjc16FI/s1600/Mughal%2BEmpire-783900.jpg

 

regarding changing the name to reflect contemporary geographical divisions, - that does make sense. Like when people today say Sikhi originates in Pakistan. and Islam originates in Saudi Arabia. Obviosly these countries did'n exist back then

Edited March 14, 2016 by amardeep

[paapiman]

20 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

If anyone does go India and looks for this book make sure they get the right one. I went to Chattar Singhs and asked for it and they gave me Gurbilas 6 written by Kavi Santokh Singh. I never realised there were 2.

Aren't there more than 2 Gurbilas 6?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

1 hour ago, paapiman said:

Aren't there more than 2 Gurbilas 6?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

There are two different Gurbilas Patshahi 10. One by Kuir Singh and one by Sukha Singh.

I think there is only one Gurbilas Patshahi 6. The one by Kavi Santokh Singh must be his large volumes on Guru Har Gobind Sahib. The chapters on Guru Nanak, Guru Har Gobind and Guru Gobind Singh are the largest volumes in the 11 volume total.

I think these 3 Gurus combined make up about 7 out of 11 volumes in total. And the remaining 7 Sri Satgurus are covered in 4 volumes only.

[paapiman]

37 minutes ago, amardeep said:

There are two different Gurbilas Patshahi 10. One by Kuir Singh and one by Sukha Singh.

I think there is only one Gurbilas Patshahi 6. The one by Kavi Santokh Singh must be his large volumes on Guru Har Gobind Sahib. The chapters on Guru Nanak, Guru Har Gobind and Guru Gobind Singh are the largest volumes in the 11 volume total.

I think these 3 Gurus combined make up about 7 out of 11 volumes in total. And the remaining 7 Sri Satgurus are covered in 4 volumes only.

Thanks paaji.

How many Bansavalinamas are there? There is one by Gyani Kesar Singh jee Chibber.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

Just one that i've heard of.

[chatanga1]

8 hours ago, amardeep said:

 The one by Kavi Santokh Singh must be his large volumes on Guru Har Gobind Sahib. The chapters on Guru Nanak, Guru Har Gobind and Guru Gobind Singh are the largest volumes in the 11 volume total.

Corrrect with 3 r's. The chapter of Sri Guru Har Gobind from Suraj Parkash Granth has been published as Gurbilas Patshahi 6.

[chatanga1]

Has anyone read the Sakhi of Kaulan in Gurbilas 6?

[amardeep]

13 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

Has anyone read the Sakhi of Kaulan in Gurbilas 6?

Nope. Does it differ from the commonly popular known one?

[chatanga1]

I was listening to a video of the Sangh Sabha Canada Nindak tola about this granth and they said some very unsavoury things about Mata Kaula. I have the granth with me now, but wanted to know if anyone had read it.

I'm thinking of maybe translating this one chapter/episode in english if time permits. Would love to see the whole granth translated into english soon.

[amardeep]

"Translation of several other classics like Mehma Parkash, Gurbilas Patshahi 6, Gurbilas Patshahi 10, Bachittar Natak etc will be taken up in due course depending on the availability of funds."

http://sikhinstitute.org/res.htm

 

[dalsingh101]

1 minute ago, amardeep said:

"Translation of several other classics like Mehma Parkash, Gurbilas Patshahi 6, Gurbilas Patshahi 10, Bachittar Natak etc will be taken up in due course depending on the availability of funds."

http://sikhinstitute.org/res.htm

 

IOSS has done some good service with translations esp. Bhangu's Panth Prakash and Sainapati's Gursobha. 

[paapiman]

32 minutes ago, amardeep said:

"Translation of several other classics like Mehma Parkash, Gurbilas Patshahi 6, Gurbilas Patshahi 10, Bachittar Natak etc will be taken up in due course depending on the availability of funds."

http://sikhinstitute.org/res.htm

 

What a shame that these books (except Sri Bachittar Natak Sahib) have not been translated yet and we are in 2016.

Bro, what do you think, how much funds are required to translate some books?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[dalsingh101]

13 minutes ago, paapiman said:

What a shame that these books (except Sri Bachittar Natak Sahib) have not been translated yet and we are in 2016.

Bro, what do you think, how much funds are required to translate some books?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

I think we should see it the other way around. It's such a good time for interested people because SO MANY works that weren't translated when I was kid, are now available. 

 

Onward and forward. 

 

The question of what exactly the loads super rich Sikhs spend their money on funding is another matter. Better to focus on progress though. 

[chatanga1]

2 hours ago, amardeep said:

"Translation of several other classics like Mehma Parkash, Gurbilas Patshahi 6, Gurbilas Patshahi 10, Bachittar Natak etc will be taken up in due course depending on the availability of funds."

http://sikhinstitute.org/res.htm

 

 

Should we concerned that IOSS is refering to Bachittar Natak as such and not as Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth?

They do not believe in Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth and have written a lot against it.

[dalsingh101]

17 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Should we concerned that IOSS is refering to Bachittar Natak as such and not as Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth?

They do not believe in Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth and have written a lot against it.

Let them have their opinion. All the debate and controversy around the Dasam Granth makes it even more interesting and relevant in my opinion. 

Retards looking to be spoon fed knowledge are in danger - yes, and they always will be in one way or another. But people who take the time to study the debate and issues - an act which forces attention to the text of DG itself, get A LOT out of it in my opinion.  

The most powerful writings are the ones that stir things up and force reflection and development. DG is a resounding success at doing this. 

In the end of the day, translators are just one aspect of interacting with a text. No one should solely rely on translations if they are serious about a study of something. They should be tools. 

Like we do here, when we post translations and the original texts and analyse! 

[dalsingh101]

I should have added this to the above:

 

Look at Pritpal Singh Bindra as an example. He did a translation of sorts of Charitrio Pakyaan, and even though he personally doesn't appear to believe that such works could come from dasmesh pita (presumably due to some prudishness on his part?), his translation is still highly useful. 

If I'm not wrong, we are all using it to help us study the charitars on this very forum itself.   (I think that is what Paapiman is posting in the Charitar threads?)

 

Addition:

Actually it is Rattan Singh Jaggi's commentary Paapiman is posting, but again, seeing as Prof. Jaggi didn't believe in CP  being Guru krit for a long while, my point still stands.